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

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
The ticking time bomb scenario is used when someone makes the sweeping comment that Torture is always wrong or the use of torture is never justified. You just need one exception to disprove such absolutist statements, and the ticking timebomb scenario is the one exception almost no one can argue with.

But the general argument for the use of torture in the war on terror is grounded on the following assumptions. Which one of these assumptions do you think is wrong

1) Al Queda can only pull off effective terroist acts to kill innocent people if certain information stays secret.
2) Al Queda operatives have varying levels of access to such information
3) We have captured and continue to capture Al Queda 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.

You left off two additional required assumptions to make your argument work: 6) torture is more effective than other means of interrogation, and 7) we can't get the information that we need without torture.

Without at least one of those, you have not made a case for torture. Instead you have only made a case for interrogation, which no one would argue with.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Haven't you heard? Torture never works. People just tell you things you want to hear. All the valuable information that the Nazis and Soviets obtained was through offering their prisoners ice cream.

You do understand that you are using two losing regimes as the backbone of your argument, right?

I'm not saying the fact that they used torture was the reason they failed, but it provides a nice tinge of irony to your smugness.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Since the prison guards have been chided for disrespecting the Koran, I doubt they have obtained all the information they could if they were allowed to takes the gloves off.

The other nice thing, is that Iraq is acting like flypaper for Al Queda operatives. We are constantly capturing them. We capture them, wisk them of to Gitmo or someother CIA camp in eastern Europe and extract the information.

You are frighteningly naive.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
6) We are not very good at determining who is an al Qaeda operative.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well. We should get better at that.

This is the root of my problem with how Iraqi detention and Gitmo and black sites are being handled. How are we supposed to get better at identifying covert operatives (i.e. AlQaeda)? Torture every 12-80 year old male in Iraq? If we are toturing people trying to get them to admit that they belong to al Qaeda, don't you think that a lot of people will admit they are, in order to get the torture to stop? Then we wind up with hundreds (or thousands) or false positive admissions of al Qaeda connections who we "need" to keep torturing because they might just be hard to break. Where does that stop?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I've said this before, and I'm sure I'll wind up having to say it again. When you presume to tell other people what they believe or think, you sound both arrogant and rather unintelligent.

Am I wrong? Do you believe in a UMC or not?

Originally posted by taxwonk Furthermore, if morality is an absolute, then measuring hundreds of people against one is still immoral.
.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Originally posted by taxwonk Finally, something you repeatedly fail to grasp is that is that it is one thing for an individual to make a value judgment; it is another for a state to adopt torture as a policy.

One thing is different than another. Wow. There's is a news flash. You have a tendency to state the obvious and then presume that your obvious statement is some deep insight. If you agree torture is moral in some circumstances then shouldn't you try and form state policy to conform to that morality? If you believe like I do that in certain circumstances torture is not only moral but a moral imperative shouldn't the state policy be structured in such a way that the person that implements the moral imperative should not be punished?

[sgtclub]

I guess now its a matter of what "honest" is:

• WASHINGTON — For months, he called it an honest mistake.
  
  But on Friday, Sandy Berger (search) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in federal court. Berger, who served as President Clinton's national security adviser, is acknowledging that it wasn't an honest mistake and that he intentionally took and destroyed copies of classified documents from the National Archives (search) and cut them up with scissors.
  
  Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium (search) celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him the documents were missing.
  
  "Guilty, your honor," Berger responded when asked how he pleaded.
  

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
You left off two additional required assumptions to make your argument work: 6) torture is more effective than other means of interrogation, and 7) we can't get the information that we need without torture.

Without at least one of those, you have not made a case for torture. Instead you have only made a case for interrogation, which no one would argue with.

Wow adder, a logical response to my post. You are making the other liberals look bad.

So does this mean you agree with points one through five?

I agree somewhat with your number six but I would change it to 6) in some circumstances torture is more ettective than other forms of interrogation.

In the cases where other interrogation techniques work, you don't use it, but in any case where other forms of interrogation do not work and torture does, you should use it. But as four and five state:

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 that there is going to be very limited times when other forms of interrogation without torture work. If there is a truth serum, then by all means lets use it, but as far as I know there is no effective truth serum. Remember, torture is any time you inflict pain to get the information you want. So sleep deprivation, waterboarding etc. are all forms of toture. The rule should be to inflict as little pain as possible to get the information, but in the end do what ever is necessary to get the information. The most effective interrogatoin techniques I have heard about involved the use of torture. Of course the people that have used them claim that the techniques they use do not employ torture (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, starvation, extended isolation etc.) but I think those are just milder forms of torture. The main technique that doesn't use torture that seems to get people to cough up information is the threat of the use of torture. But if you threaten to use torture, and it doesn't work, then what do you do?

I would change number seven to be:

7) We are reasonably doubtul we can get the same information without expending a siginficant amount of additional resources or can get the information as quickly with other means.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
You do understand that you are using two losing regimes as the backbone of your argument, right?

I'm not saying the fact that they used torture was the reason they failed, but it provides a nice tinge of irony to your smugness.

I use these examples because they provide well known incontrovertible evidence that torture can and does work. It seems to me that the people that are employing the irony and smugness are the ones that are assuming torture doesn't work. I found the smugness and the use of irony that is grounded in that assumption especially ripe.

As I said, I respect the opinion of people that admit torture can and often does work, but that it is still wrong to employ it (Sidd's position for example). And the fact that the Soviet and the Nazis used torture helps support their position. But the fact that it is well known and pretty much incontrovertible that the Soviets, North Vietnamese, North Koreans and Nazis all used torture effectively best demonstrates the absurdity of the argument that torture never works. It is the self deluded position that torture never works, and then the smugness and condescension heaped on those that disagree with that position that I find wanting of ridicule and derision.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I guess now its a matter of what "honest" is:

Berger said that after spending hours at the archives on Oct. 2, he took a walk outside past a construction fence to leave four classified copies of the millennium document beneath a trailer. He later explained that he needed to return to the building for several additional hours of work and was worried that guards would see the documents bulging in his suit

WaPo

At least it wasn't clinton worried about bulging in his suit . . .

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
This is the root of my problem with how Iraqi detention and Gitmo and black sites are being handled. How are we supposed to get better at identifying covert operatives (i.e. AlQaeda)? Torture every 12-80 year old male in Iraq? If we are toturing people trying to get them to admit that they belong to al Qaeda, don't you think that a lot of people will admit they are, in order to get the torture to stop? Then we wind up with hundreds (or thousands) or false positive admissions of al Qaeda connections who we "need" to keep torturing because they might just be hard to break. Where does that stop?

I don't think any of us know what is really happening at these detention cites. We only know bits and pieces that have leaked out and there is no way to know if these situations are typical. So to assume they are screwing up, is not an assumption I think is supportable. In addition, I am not an expert on interrogation., but I am pretty confident the people working at Gitmo and these other cites know a lot more than me.

The only thing I am fairly sure of is that sometimes torture is the only effective way to get information out of prisoners, and in this war, that information is often the key to winning it (unlike most other war we have been involved in). So banning torture is not a prudent move. It is a naive PC motivated move, just like Pelosi's attmepted ban on profiling, that will put people lives at risk (to quote Colonel Jessup).

I agree with Sidd that it is bad to torture Iraqi nationals in Iraq. Because once they are released that gets out and makes us look bad. But if we capture someone in Iraq the is not from Iraq and is working undercover, we wisk them off and do what is necessary to get what information we can get out of them.

If they are an Iraqi national, then they should not be wisked off unless we are failry certain they are part of Al Queda. Of course, mistakes will be made but our best effort here is what is needed. But if they are part of Al Queda and are working clandestinely, a one way ticket to Gitmo or wherever.

If you are captured as a Spy during war your life is forfeit. You have given up all right to any rights (and I believe that is what the Geneva convention says). These undercover terrorists that are out to kill innocent civilians, in my book, should receive less consideration than spies.

Once they are captured, at that point their life should serve one purpose. To be used by the US to fight the war on terror.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Am I wrong? Do you believe in a UMC or not?

I believe in absolutes. I also believe that people, being fallible, cannot live according to absolutes. More importantly, I was objecting to your putting words in my mouth. If you want to know how I feel about a subject, ask me.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It really isn't difficult. If it is moral to toture someone to make them reveal the location of a bomb that will kill thousands of people, then, under a universal moral code, it should be just as moral to torture someone to get them to admit to beating up a kid in the locker room. If you want to draw a line between the two, then you are being relativist.

One thing is different than another. Wow. There's is a news flash. You have a tendency to state the obvious and then presume that your obvious statement is some deep insight. If you agree torture is moral in some circumstances then shouldn't you try and form state policy to conform to that morality? If you believe like I do that in certain circumstances torture is not only moral but a moral imperative shouldn't the state policy be structured in such a way that the person that implements the moral imperative should not be punished?

1. Here's a news flash. With you, stating the obvious is often necessary, because it clearly plumb eludes you a great deal of the time.

2. I don't agree that torture is moral in some cases. I do believe that sometimes people need to act in an immoral way. State, on the other hand, should most definitely not be afforded the same latitude.

3. History has shown that when a person acts immorally for the greater good, if the act truly is for the greater good, as perceived by the society as a whole, then those people are generally not punished.

4. The main reason I am opposed to the notion of the state having the power to be flexible about its moral standards is that people like you, whose judgment I have no faith at all in, are the ones who get to choose when the state will be flexible about things like torture.

5. I think you're an ass, but don't take #4 too much to heart. There isn't a person alive I would trust to make the decision for the country when it is and isn't okay to torture someone.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I guess now its a matter of what "honest" is:

• WASHINGTON — For months, he called it an honest mistake.
  
  But on Friday, Sandy Berger (search) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in federal court. Berger, who served as President Clinton's national security adviser, is acknowledging that it wasn't an honest mistake and that he intentionally took and destroyed copies of classified documents from the National Archives (search) and cut them up with scissors.
  
  Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium (search) celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him the documents were missing.
  
  "Guilty, your honor," Berger responded when asked how he pleaded.
  

I'm not defending Sandy Berger, but if you're expecting us to take a plea bargain too seriously, you're way out on a limb.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I use these examples because they provide well known incontrovertible evidence that torture can and does work. It seems to me that the people that are employing the irony and smugness are the ones that are assuming torture doesn't work. I found the smugness and the use of irony that is grounded in that assumption especially ripe.

As I said, I respect the opinion of people that admit torture can and often does work, but that it is still wrong to employ it (Sidd's position for example). And the fact that the Soviet and the Nazis used torture helps support their position. But the fact that it is well known and pretty much incontrovertible that the Soviets, North Vietnamese, North Koreans and Nazis all used torture effectively best demonstrates the absurdity of the argument that torture never works. It is the self deluded position that torture never works, and then the smugness and condescension heaped on those that disagree with that position that I find wanting of ridicule and derision.

That explains their overwhelming victories in their respective wars then, right?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
You are frighteningly naive.

And what information are you privy to that I am not, that tells you that:

1) Al Queda operatives are not moving to Iraq and being captured

2) That the interrogators at Gitmos have employed every possible means at their disposal to extract every ounce of relevent information out of the detainees there.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think any of us know what is really happening at these detention cites. We only know bits and pieces that have leaked out and there is no way to know if these situations are typical. So to assume they are screwing up, is not an assumption I think is supportable. In addition, I am not an expert on interrogation., but I am pretty confident the people working at Gitmo and these other cites know a lot more than me.

The only thing I am fairly sure of is that sometimes torture is the only effective way to get information out of prisoners, and in this war, that information is often the key to winning it (unlike most other war we have been involved in). So banning torture is not a prudent move. It is a naive PC motivated move, just like Pelosi's attmepted ban on profiling, that will put people lives at risk (to quote Colonel Jessup).

I agree with Sidd that it is bad to torture Iraqi nationals in Iraq. Because once they are released that gets out and makes us look bad. But if we capture someone in Iraq the is not from Iraq and is working undercover, we wisk them off and do what is necessary to get what information we can get out of them.

If they are an Iraqi national, then they should not be wisked off unless we are failry certain they are part of Al Queda. Of course, mistakes will be made but our best effort here is what is needed. But if they are part of Al Queda and are working clandestinely, a one way ticket to Gitmo or wherever.

If you are captured as a Spy during war your life is forfeit. You have given up all right to any rights (and I believe that is what the Geneva convention says). These undercover terrorists that are out to kill innocent civilians, in my book, should receive less consideration than spies.

Once they are captured, at that point their life should serve one purpose. To be used by the US to fight the war on terror.

S--I think you are avoiding my point because you don't have a good answer. To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with your position AS IT REGARDS BONA FIDE spies and Al Qaeda operatives/members.

My point is there is a significant problem with identification and the (suspected, but unproven, though likely) use of "torture" (however defined) on ordinary Iraqis to determine who may, in fact, be a spy or Al Qaeda. You don't even posit that there is a reasonable disinction to be made other than, perhaps, that Iraqi nationals in Iraq are presumed not spies/al Qaeda and all others are presumed to be. I think this is too blunt an instrument, given the gravity of the result for all involved.