A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Maybe. Do you think it is a coincidence? Or maybe some coerced confessions in Gitmo, Afghanistan, or in a clandestine prison in Eastern Europe produced information that saved lives. I find that highly likely.

spanky. You just let Ty get away with saying no terrorists hit us between WTC I and 9/11. I know sandy Berger threw away lots of the evidence, but I still seem to recall a few embassies, a ship and maybe a barracks to name just a few things.

[Spanky]

Ty you stated: "None of those "assumptions" are faulty

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know you hate dealing with logic and logical arguments but which one of these assumptions did you think was faulty?

1) Al Qaeda can only pull off effective terrorist acts to kill innocent people if certain information stays secret.
2) Al Qaeda operatives have varying levels of access to such information
3) We have captured and continue to capture Al Qaeda operatives
4) Many captured operatives won't want to give to our interrogators this pertinent information.
5) Not always, but in many cases pain and the threat of pain can induce people to do things they are reluctant to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It seems to me then that if all these are true, then you have to conclude that the use of torture will save innocent lives. Especially if you add six and seven.

6) in some circumstances torture is more effective than other forms of interrogation.
7) We are reasonably doubtful we can get the same information without expending a significant amount of additional resources or can get the information as quickly with other means.

However, the whole argument falls apart if either of the following two arguments is valid:

A) Torture does not work, or is not an effective means for procuring relevant information. If that were true then there would be absolutely no reason to use torture. However if that statement were true that begs the question of:

1) Why the Gestapo was able to break up resistance rings every time they captured an operative?
2) Why did these groups change their tactics as the war went on to make sure that every operative only was familiar with a limited number of operatives and no one was ever told any one else’s true name?
3) Why did the KGB have the reputation of always getting information out of captured operatives?
4) Why were the North Vietnamese able to get so much classified information from captured pilots and why did John McCain say that it was too much to expect any of these down pilots not to divulge classified information.

B) If torture does work, but there are better means of getting the information. If there are better means to get this information then there would be absolutely no reason to use torture. But if this were true then:

1) Why have I never heard of another non torture technique that is as effective as torture? People keep saying they are out there but how come no one can identify one?
2) I have heard of other “non torture” techniques that have worked, but in all these cases the promoter of the certain technique was promoting a technique that really was torture, they just were not calling it such (for example water boarding, sleep deprivation etc). Has someone heard different?

It would be great if either of those argument were valid, but it seems to me they are unsupportable if you can't answer those questions I posed.

If both these arguments fail, then it seems to me that the argument against torture comes down to the idea that it is always immoral, no matter how utilitarian its use may be. But if torture is always immoral, then why has no one told me that it would be immoral to use torture in the ticking time bomb case (especially if the torture is used on the person that set the bomb). If torture is not immoral in that case, then clearly there are exceptions to the rule that torture is always wrong.

Do you believe that torture is immoral even in the ticking time bomb scenario?

Can you answer these questions?

If not, are these questions loaded or unreasonable? Why are they not valid questions? At a certain point in time I thought torture was always,wrong, but I changed my mind when faced with the above reasoning. Do you really think the above summary really that off base?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
spanky. You just let Ty get away with saying no terrorists hit us between WTC I and 9/11. I know sandy Berger threw away lots of the evidence, but I still seem to recall a few embassies, a ship and maybe a barracks to name just a few things.

I appreciate what you are saying but I think I alleged that no attacks had occurred on US soil since 9-11. He responded by saying that no attacks had occurred on US soil prior to 9-11 besides the WTC 1. I think he is correct, is he not? I believe that all these attacks before and after WTC 1 and before 9-11 were on foreign soil. Am I wrong?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I appreciate what you are saying but I think I alleged that no attacks had occurred on US soil since 9-11. He responded by saying that no attacks had occurred on US soil prior to 9-11 besides the WTC 1. I think he is correct, is he not? I believe that all these attacks before and after WTC 1 and before 9-11 were on foreign soil. Am I wrong?

technically an Embassy is our "soil," but I guess we can let him get away with what he said.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys stick to issues with the attention of three years olds. You asked me to support my statement and I did. I was not making any argument there.

You said the CIA used torture during the Cold War "a lot." I asked you to explain what you meant by this, and to offer some support. You responded by saying it was "very common." And you liken me to a three-year old? Right.

Abu Ghraib was a prison gone bad. That would have happened regardless of the US position on torture. In fact, I think it happened even though they had rules against torture.

You can believe that if you like. I note that while you profess to say that torture is OK under certain circumstances (only), you get a lot more excited about defending the use of torture in those circumstances than you do about the harm that the use of torture does in other circumstances (e.g., Abu Ghraib). When confronted with this, you plead ignorance or disapproval. And yet the use of torture in Abu Ghraib is the predictable result of the game you play, which is to justify it in unrealistic circumstances (the ticking bomb) but never to worry about how to keep it rare.

Well the absolute can apply to domestic affairs. But in foreign affairs all bets are off. But we should definitely err on the side of disclosure.

Is there a principle lurking in there, somewhere?

The arguments for a democracy using prisons can be used the same way but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use prisons.

No, they can't.

In our society the protection of rights trumps the goal of separating the guilty from the innocent. Guilty people are often let go because we want to insure that rights are protected. In addition, our system doesn't prioritize separating the guilty from the innocent because we focus so much on not lumping the innocent with the guilty. Many guilty people are let go because our system wants to err on the side of not imprisoning the innocent. So our domestic system, and rightly so, does not prioritize separating the guilty from the innocent. The guilty are often lumped in with the innocent.

So when you are prioritizing separating the innocent from the guilty our domestic legal system is not really a good model to follow.

You're the one who brought up.

I don't worry at all about being killed in a terrorist attack. It is not self preservation. But I do worry about more innocent lives being lost. I put a strong value in this government protecting the lives of the innocent. It is a value decision. The value of saving innocent lives conflicts with the value of promoting rights for captured terrorists. I place the value of avoiding another 9-11 above the rights of these detainees. You don't.

Of course I do. The difference between us is the value I place on the core principles and values of our system of government. You are ready to piss them away. I am not.

The use of torture is most often wrong and evil.

I am astonished to hear you say this.

But not in all cases.

Ah, there's the Spanky I know.

I believe that is the core of our disagreement. Just like killing someone or taking away their liberties is wrong in most cases, torturing a captive is wrong in most cases. But sometimes killing is a moral imperative. In other words, it is immoral not to kill. It is the same with torture. In the scenario where a terrorist is holding information that could save the lives of innocent people and the only way to get that information is through torture, and then torture is a moral imperative. I don't see how you can not acknowledge that in some cases torture is not only moral but a moral imperative.

As I said before, I think torture is wrong first because we ought not be torturing, not because people ought not be tortured. This concept is still foreign to you, apparently.

Where did Jesus preach that jailing people was OK? Where did he preach that killing in the name of self defense was OK? Where did Jesus preach that governments should give their citizens rights of free speech, religion, assembly, etc? Where did Jesus preach that torture is wrong? If Jesus did not say something was OK, does that make it wrong? Come on Ty - this is the sort of argument Taxwonk would make. You can do better than this.

I don't like to come here and argue about what the Bible suggests because I think it's presumptious to start from that basis. So I'm sorry I started this. My point was: I think torture is evil and wrong.

You are not acknowledging my argument for morality. You are saying torture is always immoral.

I thing I've said more than once that sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

I didn't miss your point. I never said that the guilty SHOULD be tortured. EVER. My point was that the guilty COULD be tortured if they are holding information that could save innocent lives and they refuse to give up such information.

Truly a distinction without a difference. Why does this paragraph matter?

Tellingly, I asked you a hard question, and you deleted it without answering it. What are the limits on your utilitarianism? When would you not use torture even though it would save innocent lives? All this talk about guilt and innocence leads me to believe that you're hiding behind the notion that AQ is a bunch of bad guys to avoid the moral consequences of what you argue.

Maybe. Do you think it is a coincidence? Or maybe some coerced confessions in Gitmo, Afghanistan, or in a clandestine prison in Eastern Europe produced information that saved lives. I find that highly likely.

Wishful thinking on your part. We weren't attacked in America after WTC I, sans torture. (I saw Hank's post, which elides the point that terrorists have been very active in other places after WTC II, just as they were after WTC I -- pointing to the fact that this facile comparison is, well, stupid.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
technically an Embassy is our "soil," but I guess we can let him get away with what he said.

Thanks, Hank. Merry Yule, etc.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ty you stated: "None of those "assumptions" are faulty

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know you hate dealing with logic and logical arguments but which one of these assumptions did you think was faulty?

1) Al Qaeda can only pull off effective terrorist acts to kill innocent people if certain information stays secret.
2) Al Qaeda operatives have varying levels of access to such information
3) We have captured and continue to capture Al Qaeda operatives
4) Many captured operatives won't want to give to our interrogators this pertinent information.
5) Not always, but in many cases pain and the threat of pain can induce people to do things they are reluctant to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It seems to me then that if all these are true, then you have to conclude that the use of torture will save innocent lives. Especially if you add six and seven.

6) in some circumstances torture is more effective than other forms of interrogation.
7) We are reasonably doubtful we can get the same information without expending a significant amount of additional resources or can get the information as quickly with other means.

Even if (1) - (6) are right, the argument falls apart on the realization that a prohibition on torture is part of a commitment of human rights and other principles that serve us well. So, I disagree with (7).

However, the whole argument falls apart if either of the following two arguments is valid:

A) Torture does not work, or is not an effective means for procuring relevant information. If that were true then there would be absolutely no reason to use torture. However if that statement were true that begs the question of:

1) Why the Gestapo was able to break up resistance rings every time they captured an operative?
2) Why did these groups change their tactics as the war went on to make sure that every operative only was familiar with a limited number of operatives and no one was ever told any one else’s true name?
3) Why did the KGB have the reputation of always getting information out of captured operatives?
4) Why were the North Vietnamese able to get so much classified information from captured pilots and why did John McCain say that it was too much to expect any of these down pilots not to divulge classified information.

I think everyone agrees that torture sometimes works, if by "works" one means permits one to recover information.

That said, you should know that the FBI's interrogation techniques differ from the CIA's, and depend on flipping the source's sympathies. Read The Looming Tower. There's something to it.

B) If torture does work, but there are better means of getting the information. If there are better means to get this information then there would be absolutely no reason to use torture. But if this were true then:

1) Why have I never heard of another non torture technique that is as effective as torture? People keep saying they are out there but how come no one can identify one?

Because it's not a "technique." And because you haven't read enough.

2) I have heard of other “non torture” techniques that have worked, but in all these cases the promoter of the certain technique was promoting a technique that really was torture, they just were not calling it such (for example water boarding, sleep deprivation etc). Has someone heard different?

(2) isn't an argument. It's about torture under another name.

Do you believe that torture is immoral even in the ticking time bomb scenario?

I've answered this before. You have a lot of gall, ignoring my questions instead of answering them and then asking me questions you've asked me before.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No, Taxwonk didn't say that at all.

He said that torture would make us "less decent." Period, Full Stop. I read that as Adder did -- that a policy permitting torture would make us less decent than we are now or should be.

That is entirely consistent with Taxwonk's argument that torture is immoral under all circumstances, and thus should not be state policy, although in some very rare circumstances that immoral act may be justified or necessary.

[This has the benefit of being a brief, clear distillation of many lengthy posts. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.)

I think this kind of misreading has fueled much of the argument between the two of you.

S_A_M

P.S. The position I enunciated as Taxwonk's above is basically my own position too.

That is why I want to prevent the adoption of torture as official policy and/or the widespread practice of torture by US officials, even though I'd expect that you can sometimes obtain useful or important information that way.

Going beyond the basic immorality of torturing even the guilty, the risk of false positives (i.e. torturing innocents) is far too great, I think. While the consequences are not usually as final as those from executing the innocent (the basis for my opposition to the death penalty), I think the effects are lifelong, and can't be fixed or properly compensated.

Thank you. I was beginning to think that I was suddenly speaking in tongues.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You said the CIA used torture during the Cold War "a lot." I asked you to explain what you meant by this, and to offer some support. You responded by saying it was "very common." And you liken me to a three-year old? Right.

Yes. You asked for me to give you some evidence to back up my statement. You may think the evidence I came up with is lacking, or is not well substantiated, but to then claim that the evidence I gave you was used to support an argument you created and assinged to me is beyond absurd.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You can believe that if you like. I note that while you profess to say that torture is OK under certain circumstances (only), you get a lot more excited about defending the use of torture in those circumstances than you do about the harm that the use of torture does in other circumstances (e.g., Abu Ghraib). When confronted with this, you plead ignorance or disapproval. And yet the use of torture in Abu Ghraib is the predictable result of the game you play, which is to justify it in unrealistic circumstances (the ticking bomb) but never to worry about how to keep it rare.

I will defend the use of torture when it is used properly. But why should I have to defend, or be expected to defend the use of torture when it is used improperly? The use of torture in this circumstance was used for purely sadistic games. What has that got to do with the proper use of torture? Do you defend the practice of locking up criminals? If you think it is OK to lock up criminals does that mean you automatically support what happened at Abu Ghraib? If a man kidnaps a six year old girl and locks her up in a dungeon, does that mean that anyone that is for locking up criminals supports that activity? Or that their support of locking up criminals led to that activity?

The sanctioning of the use of torture in certain circumstances did not lead to Abu Ghraib. In fact, all use of torture was specifically forbidden at Abu Ghraib.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is there a principle lurking in there, somewhere?

Absolutely. Can't you not see it?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, they can't.

It clearly can. The argument that torture is always wrong is similar to the argument that killing is always wrong. You ask most people if killing is wrong and they will say yes. If you ask them if killing in self defense is wrong most will say no. Some will say killing is always wrong. Those people that say killing is always wrong (like Gandhi) draw an absolute that most of us don't draw. If you ask people if torture is always wrong most people will say yes. If you ask them if torturing a captured terrorist is wrong if that is the only way they will give up information that will save innocent lives, most people will say that in that case torture is not wrong. There is a minority of people (including many on this board) that will say torture is always wrong, regardless if it will save innocent lives.

For you to say that your position is moral and has values and the if someone doesn't agree with your position they are supporting an immoral position, that is no different from someone who believes that killing is always wrong and saying the same thing when someone defends killing in self defense.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're the one who brought up.

You said that some of us don't believe that our domestic system of separating the innocent from the guilty should be used with captured terrorists, and inferred there was something wrong with that position. I simply pointed out that our domestic legal system does not prioritize separating the guilty from the innocent. Our domestic system prioritizes protecting people’s rights, and preventing the guilty from being convicted. So if you want a system that prioritizes separating the guilty from the innocent our domestic legal system is not the system to use as a template.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course I do. The difference between us is the value I place on the core principles and values of our system of government. You are ready to piss them away. I am not.

Well you may see that not giving a detained terrorist the same rights as a convicted criminal in our domestic justice system as pissing away the core values of our system. I see it as assigning rights to a captured foreign national terrorist who was operating clandestinely and trying to kill US citizens when affording such rights will probably cost innocent American lives, as pissing away the core principles and values of our system of government.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am astonished to hear you say this.

Of course, because you constantly assign positions and beliefs to me that I have never professed. If you had really read what I have been writing this would not be a surprise at all. You have assumed that because I have said that in certain limited circumstances torture is a moral imperative you think that I think torture should just be used all the time and it a great thing. That is just like someone assuming that if one believes that killing in self defense is OK, then that person believes that killing is a good thing and should be done all the time. You assign positions to me that I don't take and then argue against them.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't like to come here and argue about what the Bible suggests because I think it's presumptuous to start from that basis. So I'm sorry I started this.

I agree. As Shakespeare said, the devil can cite scripture for his purposes.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My point was: I think torture is evil and wrong.

I don't think there is anyone that doesn't understand that this is your position.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I thing I've said more than once that sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

In this case I believe that the lesser of two evils is a kind of a dodge. Moral imperatives can often be classified as the lesser of two evils. Depriving someone of their liberty is seen as evil. But if you don't lock a child molester up, who you know if you don't lock them up will molest a child again, then most people agree you should lock them. Locking them up is a moral imperative. You could view locking them up as the lesser of two evils, but I view locking an innocent person up as immoral, and I view not locking up a person that is guilty of child molesting as immoral.

I believe that most people who study and discuss epistemology would agree that there is no such thing as an immoral imperative (hi SAM). Morality concerns what actions ones should or should not take, and whether such actions are just or unjust. One should always act morally. By definition, if an act is imperative, it must be just and moral. That is why the idea that in order to do the right thing you must do an immoral act is, I think, is an absurd position. An immoral imperative is an oxymoron.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Truly a distinction without a difference. Why does this paragraph matter?

Are you kidding? A distinction without a difference? You can't see the difference between the guilty SHOULD be tortured and the guilty COULD be tortured. If the guilty should be tortured, we should torture every criminal that is ever locked up. However, the guilty COULD be tortured is a whole different ball of wax.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Tellingly, I asked you a hard question, and you deleted it without answering it. What are the limits on your utilitarianism? When would you not use torture even though it would save innocent lives? All this talk about guilt and innocence leads me to believe that you're hiding behind the notion that AQ is a bunch of bad guys to avoid the moral consequences of what you argue.

No you are the one that avoids the hard questions. I have placed a hypothetical that you would not answer and then you stick me with one and expect me to answer it. But I will do what you refuse to do. I believe that morality is not relative in that what is wrong in Zambia is also wrong in Ohio. Morality is consistent. However, I think moral absolutes are very rare. In other words, killing is wrong. Killing is often wrong, but rarely so. Torture is wrong, and is almost always wrong. But in some very limited cases torturing the guilty is OK, even necessary. There exceptoins to every rule, and exceptions to the exceptions and exceptions to those exceptoins. The UMC is infinitely complicated but universally consistent.

The times when torturing the innocent is moral is an extremely rare occurrence, but sometimes it might be a moral imperative. If the only way to save a plane load of children was to torture an innocent child, then I would say you would have to torture the innocent child.

However, I can't imagine this scenario ever arising.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Wishful thinking on your part. We weren't attacked in America after WTC I, sans torture.

You lost me here. Are you saying that we did not torture after WTC 1? Are you saying we were not attacked after WTC 1 (you can't be saying that because obviously we had WTC II)? If we did not have torture after WTC 1, maybe if we did we wouldn't have had WTC II? If we did torture after WTC 1, maybe we would have had WTC II plus more stuff or been hit earlier?

What do you think you know and what are you claiming the results are of what you think you know?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop (I saw Hank's post, which elides the point that terrorists have been very active in other places after WTC II, just as they were after WTC I -- pointing to the fact that this facile comparison is, well, stupid.)

What comparison? I said there hasn't been an effective attack on US soil since WTC II, even though there was a huge upsurge in support for Al Qaeda after WTC II in both monetary and human resource terms, and they have said they are going to hit us, yet they haven't. They have hit a lot of other people but haven't been able to hit us (and I don't think it is from a lack of trying). You don't think some of the credit for that can't be assigned to the current administration and its policies? You think it is just luck?

Come on Ty. I know you hate the current administration but you have to give credit where credit is due.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky

I will defend the use of torture when it is used properly. But why should I defend the use of torture when it is used improperly. Or why should I have to defend, or be expected to defend the use of torture when it is used improperly? The use of torture in this circumstance was used for purely for sadistic games. What has the got to do with the proper use of torture? Do you defend the practice of locking up criminals? If you think it is OK to lock up criminals does that mean you automatically support what happened at Abu Ghraib? If a man kidnaps a six year old girl and locks her up in a dungeon, does that mean that anyone that is for locking up criminals supports that activity? Or that their support of locking up criminals led to that activity?

2. to follow Ty's logic we should ban fellatio because Clinton molested a 17 year old intern.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Even if (1) - (6) are right, the argument falls apart on the realization that a prohibition on torture is part of a commitment of human rights and other principles that serve us well. So, I disagree with (7).

Actually, like I say later that is a moral argument not a utilitarian argument. For torture to be OK you have to pass both the utilitarian hurdle and the moral hurdle. If you don't pass both hurdles then game over. So it seems here you are saying torture passes the first hurdle but not the second.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think everyone agrees that torture sometimes works, if by "works" one means permits one to recover information.

That said, you should know that the FBI's interrogation techniques differ from the CIA's, and depend on flipping the source's sympathies. Read The Looming Tower. There's something to it.

I read the Looming Tower, but if you notice in my assumption I discussed getting information from people who don't want to give it up. What if they don't flip? Maybe my reading comprehension was off, but it seems to me most don't flip. How do you get the information from those that don't flip (those that refuse to give it up)? Maybe I didn't read it carefully but I don't remember a method (since you don't like the word technique) that was effective at getting people to talk who didn't want to reveal the information. It has been alleged that the KGB operated at 100% efficiency, from the reading of the Looming tower, it was my impression we were operating at about 20%, even with the flipping method. So even if the KGB was at 50% they were still way ahead of us.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because it's not a "technique." And because you haven't read enough.

That is possible but I doubt it. You often make this claim that people take positions contrary to yours because they have not "read enough" or not “read the right things". What is interesting is that these assertions are not usually backed by specific examples of what you read and what the other person missed. They are just nebulous assertions of if you read blank, you would think different. Instead of telling the other poster to read something (in my experience you are the only poster that uses this tactic) why don't you explain what you have read and how what you read supports your position or does not support the other poster's position. I believe this tactic would be more useful for everyone involved and much less pretentious.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(2) isn't an argument. It's about torture under another name.

Well whatever you want to call it, but some members of the military (and other experts) has claimed that torture doesn't work and that they have found methods that do not incorporate torture that are very effective. However, the tactics they claim they have found that work much better than torture, are actually methods that use torture. These claims help perpetuate the myth that torture does not work.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I've answered this before. You have a lot of gall, ignoring my questions instead of answering them and then asking me questions you've asked me before.

What questions have I not answer?

I thought I had read what you wrote pretty thoroughly. Maybe I didn't. I think you said that in this situation that torture is the lesser of two evils. Am I wrong? But it seems to me that that answer doesn't really answer the question of whether or not it is moral or immoral? Especially since SAM and Tax wonk have taken the position that sometimes you should take immoral actions, in other words there are such things as immoral imperatives. You have not disputed that assertion, so it is perfectly possible that you could consider choosing the lesser of two evils as either moral or immoral.

I also find it interesting that you find it so "galling" that I have asked a question again that you claim you answered. Is it really so difficult to answer the questions again? Am I really asking you to do something that is so taxing or onerous? It is just three words: It is moral, or it is immoral. Why is it such a burden to answer it twice? There has been a lot of text flying back and forth, why is it so outrageous that I may have missed your prior response?

It seems to me, if you had answered it before you would have repeated have repeated your answer, and then pointed out that I had exhibited poor reading skills by missing your response. But the fact that you complain about me asking it, and then don't answer this simple question while complaining, seems to indicate to me that this contrived outrage is just another tactic to dodge the question.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Thank you. I was beginning to think that I was suddenly speaking in tongues.

I know people who claim to speak in tongues. If they posted here, trust me, I would not respond to anything they posted. These are scary people who should be shunned and we would all be better off if these people never had any influence on governmental policy in this country. At least that is my opinion.

I waas under the impression that the main thrust of your argument is that in certain very limited circumstances the use of torture is OK (whether or not you want to call it moral) but putting permission for torture into actual policy that would attempt to cover that limited circumstance would be a recipe for disaster. Our Government, if you put into policy that torture was permitted, even in very limited circumstances, would drive a Super Carrier, and fifteen Supertankers, through that loophole. Their prior and current conduct demonstrates that is exactly what will happen if you create the opportunity.

You give them an inch, they will take three thousand miles and we will have abuses all over the place. So the only way to prevent a ton of abuses is to have a strict blanket policy against torture. The cost may be some innocent lives (although odds are that it wouldn't cost lives, and if lives were lost it would be minimal) but the inevitable result would be verging on catastrophic with untold abuses. Without officially allowing torture we get Abu Ghraib, can you imagine what we would get if we officially allowed torture? We simply can't trust them with such a dangerous weapon.

These abuses would set precedents which would lead to a general atmosphere of erosion of civil liberties that would end up negatively affecting our entire civil liberty system to everyone's detriment.

Did I get it wrong?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That one is not hard to defend at all. I think that I understand the point and agree with it completely.

See my post above. If you want further explanation, I'll discuss it.

I think part of the problem might be that you use/understand/mean the terms "moral" and "immoral" differently than he does.

S_A_M

You may be right. The key is the definition of moral. And it is pretty important to have an agreed upon definition of moral if you are going to be discussing if something is right, or wrong, just, or unjust.

Did you see my comments about an immoral imperative? I see that as an oxymoron. If you should do something to serve justice, in my understanding of the terminology that means it has to be moral.

How do you see it?

If the act of torturing the terrorist to save the innocent people is immoral but you should do it, does that mean it is immoral but just? Immoral but the right thing to do?

How does moral differ from Just and Right (as in acting in the right and not in the wrong)?

If the act of torturing the terrorist is not right, unjust and immoral, then how do you differentiate that act, which you should do, from torturing an innocent child for fun, which you should definitely not do? What makes one something you should do and the other something you shouldn't do?

I don't know how to say this without sounding presumptuous or pretentious, but Taxwonk I would also be interested in hearing what you have to say about this.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2. to follow Ty's logic we should ban fellatio because Clinton molested a 17 year old intern.

I think many jurisdictions have attempted to do this but without much success. At leat that is my understanding that they have not had much success. I haven't scene any specific evidence supporting my assumption.

[Spanky]

The neighbors Black Lab was mauled by a Moutain Lion. They thought it was a bobcat, but the Vet declared that it must have been a Mountain Lion.

I guess I shouldn't be nervous because no one had been eaten yet, I would just hate to become the first human Christmas dinner for a local feline.