I think this has all been a very clever way of asking, "how dogmatic are you?" using torture as the dummy.
So. Torture.
- Thread starter Queen Michael
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I know you already provided an edit, but because this discussion is of a VERY serious matter, I feel that it's necessary for me to make several things very clear before I respond to the hypothetical. Torture doesn't work. We typically use it on people who haven't been found 100% guilty of being terrorists. Even if they are, there's no guarantee that they actually know anything. They'll say anything to make the pain stop, even if they don't know anything, which will yield inaccurate information, which could then harm American soldiers. Plenty of communists tried this, particularly in China. As a result innocent people died. This led to a nation wide witch hunt involving MILLIONS. You could falsely accuse people you didn't like and ruin their lives, or sell out friends and family, even though both of the individuals were innocent. Furthermore, even if someone knows intel, there's no guarantee that they will tell you the truth. Simply put, not only is torture monstrous, it doesn't work, making it completely worthless. Even that war hawk nut job John McCain agrees with that (he would know, he's been tortured).Queen Michael said:
OT: But, under your hypothetical, would I support it? Hell no. Because you've just given the government the right to torture without a trial by jury. Who gets tortured in this scenario? Is it just some foreigner? Well that makes it okay then, right? It's a foreign combatant. It's only monstrous if they do it to us. But what if the terrorist is an American citizen? Is it still okay? Do they get a trial? Have they been proven guilty? But what if there isn't enough time for a trial, and we need that intel NOW, even though we don't know if they're a terrorist. Is it okay to go ahead and torture them anyway, even though citizens are guaranteed legal protection under the constitution? Is it okay to torture other threats to the state? What constitutes a terrorist, and what constitutes a threat to the state? We've just tortured these other guys, without trial, who are American citizens. So there's a legal precedent. Can we do this to anyone who displeases the government, and who doesn't have popular support? Snowdens a traitor, right? Some people have called him a terrorist, can we torture him?
If you think this I'm being to dramatic, or that the law will save you, then Lindsey Graham would like to have a word with you:
(He's talking about American citizens)
Actually, no. The information obtained by torture failed to provide anything useful. The real intel that allowed for his assassination came from police work-style investigation work. The CIA admitted as much in their report.Gorfias said:
Fox12 said:
And the Death Penalty is not a general deterrent to murder. I've heard this sort of thing before.davidmc1158 said:
You know how I know that is horse feathers? Because I'm a fairly normal person. If they tortured me (or John McCain) I'd talk and so did he.
As for the Bin Laden search, "outgoing secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confirmedagain that enhanced interrogation techniques aided the effort to find bin Laden.
`Some of it came from ... interrogation tactics that were used," he said. '"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/04/jonah-goldberg-torture-helped-get-bin-laden/1891403/
How is it a loaded scenario toward one choice? You act like it's impossible for intelligence to know when a detainee has the sort of information immediately important to something that's about to happen. There's nothing absurd about that scenario, that's kind of a thing that defines intelligence.Laser Priest said:
People who protect a country have to battle tough moral questions throughout their careers and trust that what they're doing is for the greater good, not to beat back a hypothetical scenario (or, in your case, flip the board because you don't like how it's set up).
Repeating from above, there's nothing absurd about this scenario. Something isn't absurd because you don't like it, and all you've done is gone to the absurd to try to show why it should be disregarded.MarsAtlas said:
It's rather simple: a detainee is a part of a ring planning an attack, so he's known to have time-sensitive information and won't give it up. If it's a question of torture or not torture in order to get the intel and stop a major attack, do you support it?
The OP does frame it to where torture is the only option, because that's the point of the moral. Evidently some people don't get that and feel it's trying to game everyone into accepting it as a viable option, and that must rattle some sabers. The least people can do is say no and for reasons why: they would allow innocent people to die so as to not degrade their principle of respecting humanity. Good, if that's your position, at least admit it, whatever it is, don't sit there and lob criticism at the scenario because you feel trapped with it. Imagine how the CIA felt after 9/11.
Here's a fun little tidbit about how we really screwed up on torture, from the Wikipedia page on the CIA report [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture#Innocent_people_imprisoned_by_the_CIA]:
Oh yeah, and one of those innocent captives died in our custody. We tortured an innocent man to death. Good thing we're the good guys, huh?
That's exactly right. You'd tell them precisely what they wanted to hear, even if you didn't actually know it. McCain says that he gave his torturers the names of the starting lineup of the Green Bay Packers (though he thought they were the Steelers at the time). How useful do you think that was to his captors? How useful would that be to us?Gorfias said:
I keep reading he loves to say that, but all over the internet are stories of him giving his captors good, solid military information in exchange for preferential treatment. Example: http://www.bartcop.com/mccain-contrived-hero.htmThe Rogue Wolf said:
Not that I blame him. The guy was mangled. But I want to make a point: Torture works. Sure, you get a lot of disinformation. But, as you can see recreated in films for instance, like, "The Lives of Others", the torturers need to sift through that information to get what they want.
Sure. Torture works, eventually. A lot of things would work eventually. Is it worth the cost?Gorfias said:
I support the concept of the Geneva Convention. I just don't think we'll be facing any military that follows it.The Rogue Wolf said:
A certain amount of brutality makes brutes of us. I don't support permanent physical harm to terrorists to get them to talk. But the larger net we cast describing interrogations it is going to get to the point where you can't even scowl at one. As information becomes more vital in combating asymmetrical warfare, radically binding our hands would be suicidal and immoral.
The man who supported "advanced interrogation techniques," and who worked with the CIA, claims that torture helped get intel? You mean, one of the people responsible? That's a surprise right there. Of course, we know the government would never lie to us, so his claims must be true. Just like how the NSA spying program helped stop over 40 terrorist attacks. Except that it didn't, because the government... Lied to us. Oh.Gorfias said:
No, torture is an in effective means to gather information, and it's always been an in effective means to gather information. It's useful for intimidation, control, and propaganda, but certainly not intel. Especially when it yields faulty or false intel, which results in wasted resources and time, if we're lucky. It can result in casualties if we're not. The method is actually counter productive, and should be dismissed on logical grounds.
But, you know what? Even if it worked, I'd still be against it. Even if it was essential to capturing bin laden (it wasn't) I'd STILL be against it. It's a violation of human rights. The moment America routinely employs such techniques is the day it's not even worth defending anymore.
Imagine if the CIA's caught a leprechaun that has been irrefutably proven to be a leprechaun. And for some reason convenient to this hypothetical scenario, they know for sure that taking his lucky charms will produce the breakfast needed to stop 9/11-scale munchies scheduled for the very next day. This is the only way they can get that breakfast.
Do you support taking his lucky charms?
***
There, I fixed the OP to a slightly more plausible scenario.
Please keep the discussion civil.
Do you support taking his lucky charms?
***
There, I fixed the OP to a slightly more plausible scenario.
Please keep the discussion civil.
Yes and no. If you're just torturing some poor fucker and expect to get a full intel dump, then yes, it's effectively close to totally useless. As part of a comprehensive interrogation system? That's a provisional 'no' but then there's the huge question of whether there are equally effective systems that don't use torture - basically one of the two major arguments within the intel and security communities that concern torture (the other is the moral and ethical dimension).Fox12 said:
BTW, 'ineffective' is a single word.
Oh yeah, as I said way back earlier in the thread, torture has a lot of applications that can basically be put under the heading of 'evil shit'. Dozens of authoritarian regimes have terrorised their own citiizens using such methods.
I could be trite and quote Nietzsche on fighting monsters but if the West is going to have a "Fight against Barbarism" circle jerk then it behooves them not to act as barbarians themselves, otherwise what is the fucking point? Sure, power... shit and giggles... being the biggest kid on the block... piss poor excuses to the poor bastards who end up at the sharp end of things. If we want/expect to people to serve their countries (or do so ourselves) then we must ensure that our countries are worth the sacrifices that may be demanded.
Ya, go ahead, torture him.
Also, this thread is hilarious, and I'm glad you made it. You can come up with any contrived ethical dilemma you want and people will gladly consider it, but the moment you bring torture into it, suddenly everyone's up in arms over the unrealistic premise, and how it'll never happen in real life, and it's so bent toward a particular viewpoint.
Anyway, I'm not saying I advocate any particular act of torture, and perhaps there never will be a particular scenario where it's worthwhile, but it feels very strongly like people use the defense of it not working in order to avoid confronting the ethical dilemma entirely. Supporting torture is taboo, so how convenient that we can simply dismiss one of the main axioms in the argument for it.
Perhaps it doesn't help that the idea that torture never works feels like a blanket statement that's both unprovable and somewhat hard to believe. Why doesn't torture ever work?
Also, this thread is hilarious, and I'm glad you made it. You can come up with any contrived ethical dilemma you want and people will gladly consider it, but the moment you bring torture into it, suddenly everyone's up in arms over the unrealistic premise, and how it'll never happen in real life, and it's so bent toward a particular viewpoint.
Anyway, I'm not saying I advocate any particular act of torture, and perhaps there never will be a particular scenario where it's worthwhile, but it feels very strongly like people use the defense of it not working in order to avoid confronting the ethical dilemma entirely. Supporting torture is taboo, so how convenient that we can simply dismiss one of the main axioms in the argument for it.
Perhaps it doesn't help that the idea that torture never works feels like a blanket statement that's both unprovable and somewhat hard to believe. Why doesn't torture ever work?
Oh yes, that's definitely more plausible.chikusho said:
Anyway, it doesn't matter how plausible a hypothetical scenario is, because it's hypothetical. If you don't like debating hypothetical scenarios unless they're within a certain degree of probability, then don't post in threads that are about them.
Also, what the hell does "9/11-scale munchies" mean?
No thank you, OP. Don't really care for torture on an ethical basis, as I'm pretty god damned sure most, if not all, decent and rational-
Oh, in this specific scenario?
Fuck yes. Go full Jack Bauer on his/her ass.
Also,
Perusing this thread is like reading a "how-to" guide on arbitrary moral grandstanding.
I'd wager that if this subject wasn't currently making the rounds in media then people here would be a lot more tolerant or, more likely, apathetic.
Oh, in this specific scenario?
Fuck yes. Go full Jack Bauer on his/her ass.
Also,
Exactly what I was thinking.Olas said:
Perusing this thread is like reading a "how-to" guide on arbitrary moral grandstanding.
I'd wager that if this subject wasn't currently making the rounds in media then people here would be a lot more tolerant or, more likely, apathetic.
And I bet you personally would oppose the death penalty even if it could be conclusively proven to be a deterrent. Why I think that, see below...Kaulen Fuhs said:
This is very common. There appears to be a large number of people, often very elite and in positions of power, that are against a thing, and then say, "and it doesn't even work anyway!" so as to find a way to lessen political repercussions when a ruling elite thumb their noses at substantial percentages of the population.Fox12 said:
My concern: with that attitude, the day will come when you can't even scowl at a terrorist without it being called torture, and we will completely lose the ability to defend our very lives. That's something I'm not willing to let happen.