Originally posted by knightwestMhmmm. Yes. Yes, I hear what you're saying.
I just think you don't get to be in that position if you are genuinely thick.
However...
Raygun, Bush jr...
I dunno... it looks to me like there are more roads, beside intelligence, which lead to Rome (or Washington... take your pick).
Originally posted by shavixmirThe fact is however, shav, you are even thicker than they are/were.
Mhmmm. Yes. Yes, I hear what you're saying.
However...
Raygun, Bush jr...
I dunno... it looks to me like there are more roads, beside intelligence, which lead to Rome (or Washington... take your pick).
Originally posted by shavixmirOf course, but even if W was thick as a brick, he is surrounded by extraordinarily intelligent people, both in the public eye and behind the scenes.
Mhmmm. Yes. Yes, I hear what you're saying.
However...
Raygun, Bush jr...
I dunno... it looks to me like there are more roads, beside intelligence, which lead to Rome (or Washington... take your pick).
You might not like their politics, but that does not make them stupid.
I think it's important to look at Bush not just as an individual, but the whole machinery operating in the White House.
Originally posted by knightwestI have to agree with you on that one.
Of course, but even if W was thick as a brick, he is surrounded by extraordinarily intelligent people, both in the public eye and behind the scenes.
You might not like their politics, but that does not make them stupid.
I think it's important to look at Bush not just as an individual, but the whole machinery operating in the White House.
Although I seriously doubt Rice, Cheney or Ramsbottom are exceedingly intelligent (although I would presume they have brains behind them somewhere).
Originally posted by spruce112358I agree; your definition is better.
That definition is much too broad. It would imply that everyone in the world is 'tortured' virtually every day.
A better definition would have to involve the status of the victim -- he must be imprisoned. He must not be trying to harm his captors or escape.
Under those conditions, if he is placed under physiological discomfort when the captor has ...[text shortened]... ans to avoid such, that to me is where torture starts. 'Mental' torture is harder to define.
Originally posted by smw6869
What essential liberty are we giving up?
The liberty that comes from living in a society whose government is prohibited from ever using torture. The more you empower your government to use torture and surveillance at its discretion, the more you disempower yourself. I don't trust the government to use torture wisely. I don't trust anyone who would use torture to be the kind of person or institution who would use it wisely.
"A little temporary safety".....Put yourself on the front line dude.
The problem is that the government can always claim that these threats justify its actions, and if we allow them to do so, they'll be able to justify anything. The only way to prevent that is to make sure that the government's policies and actions are known to the people, and subject to their political review.
You take Ben's words out of context. He was talking about fighting for you freedom against England, instead of putting up with British bull crap and being safe. This had nothing to do with torture. Washington's army was very good at torturing the British.
Franklin was fond of quoting himself, and understood that his quotes were meant to relay wisdom far beyond their immediate context. The fact that we perceive a threat does not make it okay for us to turn our own moral judgments over to the government and hope they'll look out for us.
Originally posted by hamltnblueAnd what if the person being questioned/tortured happens to know NOTHING at all? Just what "actionable intel do you expect to get from such a person? If you torture JUST ONE person who turns out to be innocent of the crimes of which he is charged, you are sub-human amd should forfeit your right to breathe the air of decent civilized men. & those with a boner for inflicting pain on others really need to lean into it, and take one for the team.
Most are. But ask yourself a question to test it. If your mother or closest relative were buried alive with enough air for 2 days, and you were given a chance to save her/him, would you allow a person that knew where she was to be dunked in water? How about stacked naked? Or kept awake for extended periods of time?
How proud your Mother would be of you ...[text shortened]... might save that brother who might be killed the next day if vital information is not received.
McCain says tirture isn't effective; others claim it does glean vital info. Like always it boils down do "who do you trust"--or better still, "who do you MISTRUST least?" McCain was there, so I believe him. You believe the cowboy artful-dodger if you like.
Bush says "we don't torture."
I say "I don't trust Buish."
As for soldiers being "family", I'm not convinced. I watched Band of Brothers and all that, but I have no facts to support an assertion that all soldiers look at their fellows as brothers. And if they do, Pat Tillman's brothers must have been a lot like Joseph's (see Genesis, OT, KJV)
Originally posted by hamltnblueI can't speak for what I'd do in such an emotional and desperate situation. I might very well say go ahead and torture the guy. I might torture him myself. I might even get some enjoyment out of it.
Most are. But ask yourself a question to test it. If your mother or closest relative were buried alive with enough air for 2 days, and you were given a chance to save her/him, would you allow a person that knew where she was to be dunked in water? How about stacked naked? Or kept awake for extended periods of time?
How proud your Mother would be of you might save that brother who might be killed the next day if vital information is not received.
The trouble is that we can't say, as a matter of law, that you can use torture when you personally judge that there's a really good reason to do it. A law that says that effectively allows all torture, because then anybody who wants to use it will decide they have a good reason. The law is only meaningful if it is broadly applicable.
So yeah, I might employ torture if I saw a desperate personal need. I'm human. But if I did, then to sustain the public trust and rule of law, I'd have to be prosecuted and punished, because otherwise the law ceases to have meaning.
Originally posted by darthmixI do not believe in gross physical torture, a person will say anything under those conditions, but should'n we come up with some way to extract information from prisoners in order to help save our soldiers ?
Originally posted by smw6869
[b]What essential liberty are we giving up?
The liberty that comes from living in a society whose government is prohibited from ever using torture. The more you empower your government to use torture and surveillance at its discretion, the more you disempower yourself. I don't trust the government to use torture w ...[text shortened]... o turn our own moral judgments over to the government and hope they'll look out for us.[/b]
I don't know what that would be, some kind of truth pill? I don't know.
I suspect you would not go along with this either because the gov't could use it on it's own citizens. Maybe we should not Take prisoners, like so many countries have done. Would this be ok with you, if we just shot all enemy soldiers and took no prisoners?
G.
I'm definitely on board with developing effective means of prisoner interrogation; I just think that in developing those means we have to be respectful of some basic standard of human dignity, and mindful of the dangers of a government that has the power to interrogate via any means and beyond the review of its citizens. At the very least we must know precisely what measures our government is using, so that we as a society can determine whether they reflect our values.
You say that subjecting a prisoner to extreme physical pain is not an effective means of obtaining useful information. You're right. But is that your only objection to it? Would you advocate, say, taking a jackhammer to a prisoner's kneecaps if you thought it would produce useful information? This is a prisoner who has not been convicted of any crime, has no legal representation, no means of questioning his imprisonment before any independant judicial body. Would you do it? Would say that our government should be able to do it? I wouldn't.
Originally posted by PinkFloydPF..Fill me in please. I missed the part in the thread where torture of 'criminals' was being discussed. Which police departments are accused of using torture? Thanks.
If you torture JUST ONE person who turns out to be innocent of the crimes of which he is charged,
Originally posted by darthmixI thought that i made it clear that i don't agree with physical torture. Would you agree that maybe we should kill all enemy soldiers and Not take any prisoners?
I'm definitely on board with developing effective means of prisoner interrogation; I just think that in developing those means we have to be respectful of some basic standard of human dignity, and mindful of the dangers of a government that has the power to interrogate via any means and beyond the review of its citizens. At the very least we must know preci ...[text shortened]... al body. Would you do it? Would say that our government should be able to do it? I wouldn't.