Moral Justification for Torture

[ShadowMarth]

I got into a lengthy debate with a couple friends recently, about whether you can justify torture by saying it is saving lives. My friend decided to take it onto Facebook in an attempt that people should reinforce his opinions. Nevertheless, I'm posting the full text of our exchanges here. I would appreciate if people could offer further perspective or opinions in this debate, but I will moderate this thread closely to keep it on track.

I will continue to update this post as the Facebook replies continue.It is color-coded for your convenience.
Tim
Chris
Clint
Sheffey
Russell (ShadowMarth)
(Notes I made that were not part of the original text)

Ok, so I was flamed by my friends when we were talking and the subject of torture came up. They believe in a little thing called "human rights" and I on the other hand am for torture.

Heres my thought process behind this and if you can't respect my views than do not expect me to respect yours.

This subject comes up mostly when dealing with captured terrorists and US attempts to get information out of them. Now, they know where their forces are and where they are going to be attacking but our attempts to get them to tells us by using please and thank yous are going on deaf ears. There are American lives at stake and if this information is not gotten out of this terrorist then lives are gonna be lost. Something must be done to get this person to talk and if not torture, what then?

Now lets switch the perspective. You are an American or some other country's soldier and you have been captured by muslim extremists/ terrorists. They will not hesitate to start cutting stuff off to get you to talk. They will not hesitate to try out some very creative way of getting you to tell where your forces are hidden and where the American weapons are.

Ok, now lets go over seas back to America. We have caught a serial murderer and have him in custody. The only problem is his newest victim is locked up somewhere and will die of starvation if they are not rescued. Now, we have asked to murderer nicely but he/she refuses to tell us where the victim is. An innocent life is at stake. Should torture not be used to get this person to divulge their information?

I think so. I think that if they do not want to accept the fact we are letting them live and give us the information we seek then we should make them give it to us. They owe us. We take prisoners and that alone is more than they would do for us.
The world is a harsh place and sometimes we must torture the wicked to save the innocent and good.

That is why I believe torture to be acceptable.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


I don't have to respect a view that is blatantly ignorant. You just use that as an excuse not to respect my more logical stance. Human rights is a big deal. Naturally, you completely ignored the major logical argument I used when we were talking about it, so I see no reason not to nail you on it here. You are saying, quite clearly, that it is OK for us to forget about human rights in this scenario because they don't care about human rights. Now, this suggests, also quite clearly, that you say we should bomb urban centers in Iraq just because some of them MAY be terrorists. And with our military capabilities, we could do it very effectively too.

Naturally, this is because they have done, and are actively trying to do the same to us. They kill Americans indiscriminately, because they disagree with our government, and some members of our populace's ideals. Not because they believe every last American is purely evil, but because they believe that SOME of us are. So naturally, if human rights don't apply when they break the rules, we should start bombing urban centers in Iraq immediately.

The previous logical argument forces you into one of two remaining admonitions:
1) Torture is wrong, because Human Rights matter
or
2) We should immediately begin killing all peoples who vaguely resemble terrorists by nationality, religion, or race.

Unfortunately issues of Morality cannot often be compromised on.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


"this suggests, also quite clearly, that you say we should bomb urban centers in Iraq just because some of them MAY be terrorists."

Um no... Torture and killing are two separate things.
Torture to save lives and killings innocents to kill terrorists are two separate things. For hating Bush so much you sure do love the "fuzzy logic."
I'm saying its ok to torture someone if it is the only way to get information out of them that saves lives. They are lucky to be alive, in return for taking them as prisoners instead of just shooting them, they owe us information. If they don't give it to us willingly we will force it out of them.
It sounds like you think we shouldn't take lives either. Just go over there with roses and balloons. War is dirty, if you get into one sometimes you have to get dirty. Killing is dirty work. Torture is dirty work. But if it means saving innocent lives then sometimes you gotta get dirty.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


Ok, so sense has fallen on deaf ears, how about law?

What you've put forth is not only entirely amoral, it goes against national law. (The act of torture is protected against by the United Nations Convention Against Torture)
The UN does allow for the limitation, or even upheaval of various human rights, but the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population, and the threat must be to the very existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary measure. However, certain rights have been considered so important that they are non-derogable. There exist four common non-derogable rights. These are the right to life, the right to be free from slavery or servitude, the right to be free from retroactive application of penal laws, and the right to be free from torture and other inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Such United Nations Charter obligations are binding on all states and cannot be modified by treaty.


None of the examples or concepts you have cited or mentioned (both here and in the original argument that birthed this farce of a post in the first place) fall into line with the requirements put forth by the UN, and even if they did, torture would still not be an acceptable act.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


No, they are both human rights issues, at the base of it. I'm not even sure you took more than a cursory glance at my post, since you completely ignore the issues within it (again). Your "view" is just altered semantics to make you feel better. Just as you call it torturing to save lives and killing innocents to kill terrorists, it could just as easily be called killing possible terrorists to save lives. Torture victims are not "lucky to be alive" by ANY stretch of the imagination. The whole point of torture is to make them feel as if they would rather BE dead, so that they'll give up information in exchange for relief from the perpetual pain! You might, perhaps, argue that they are still better off than being dead. Well, if they escape, or we let them go, that's not exactly a good alternative for either us, or the victims. Either they are psychologically damaged ghosts of who they once were suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (among other probable issues), or they just come to hate us even more, and are motivated even further to strike blindly against us.


War is dirty, yes. But we don't have to sacrifice our morality for it. We still fight, and kill, though we are only supposed to do so when it seems absolutely necessary (something recently overlooked), but we don't treat prisoners of war any worse than we treat our own criminals. If we don't try to be more moral than our enemies, then things can escalate rather quickly. They begin using torture, so we begin using torture. They begin attacking civilians, we begin attacking civilians. They use chemical or nuclear weapons, we respond in kind, and before you know it whole countries disappear from the map. While comparing obeying the Geneva Convention to "roses and balloons" is obvious hyperbole, this is potentially a severe understatement of the alternative.


While we're at it, lets go into the specifics of the Geneva Convention which you're so keen on defying. First, I'll note that the United States ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention on December 8, 1949. This means that it is law here, and cannot be disputed. Not even those keen on torturing can deny this, they attempt to get around it by arguing the definition of torture. I think it best you have the proper material here, if you are even to make the slightest attempt at proper debate, even if that is a stretch for you. In this spirit, here is a link to the full text of the Geneva Convention. I will refer to parts of it directly, and you should refer to this for any questions about it.


Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War


The relevant guidelines set within it here are for "Prisoners of War", or PoWs. Now, before you start arguing the definition of PoW, we luckily have quite a definitive one, once more, because those keen on torturing decided to argue that the terrorists were not classified as PoWs, but as "unlawful combatants". However, the Geneva Convention was quite clear about this in Article 4. It states that all people are in one of two categories, when it comes to prisoners: Prisoners of War, or Civilians, both of which are covered by careful guidelines for their treatment. It is made excruciatingly clear that there is absolutely no middle ground. All people fall into one of these two categories, and as such there is no group of people for which torture can be declared legal. It even goes so far as to say that no person can give up the rights they have under it voluntarily; they must be protected under it no matter what (Article 7). For a specific judgment on this, see the one made by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Judgment of the ICTY in the Case of Delalicet al: Applicable Law Part B Paragraph 271).


Now that it has been clearly defined that there is absolutely no legal ground for breaking the Geneva Convention's guidelines, we can get to what it actually says about the treatment of Prisoners of War. The more relevant ones, at least, as it says quite a lot. Article 13 states that PoWs must at all times be humanely treated, and that any act causing death or serious injury is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the Convention. It explicitly mentions that physical mutilation, medical and scientific experimentation, acts of violence, or of intimidation are prohibited. Article 15 states that the power detaining the prisoners is required to provide health care free of charge if it is necessary.


Article 16 states that all PoWs are to be treated alike, disregarding race, nationality, religious belief, political opinion, or any other distinction. Article 17 states clearly that PoWs are required only to give their surname, first name, rank, and date of birth. If he willfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of privileges, but he is still completely and unequivocally covered by the Convention. No information may be forced or coerced from him in any manner. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on him to secure from them information of any kind whatsoever.


For a more precise definition of torture, there is the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), which we are also party to, Article 1 of which defines it as the following:
"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."


Article 2 of this document also states quite clearly that there is absolutely no exception which justifies torture, even outside of a declared war. Furthermore, it states that an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as justification of torture.


Of course, perhaps some historical perspective on why these documents came about would help. Most of them were crafted in direct response to the acts committed during World War Two by the Germans, however the United Nations Convention Against Torture is much newer, having come into force in June 1987. You must certainly know the history of the Holocaust, and so it's quite clear what can happen when war is allowed to become immoral. Hitler could have justified all of his arrests just as Stalin did in Soviet Russia later, and so all people must be protected, or people will always find a justification.


However, people have been fighting for human rights long before this, and there are plenty of very compelling legal documents that have been drawn up for this purpose. For instance, there is a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). It states the following:


"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."


Those are articles 1-9. There are 21 more where those came from, all quite important as well. Going back much further in history, you have the English Bill of Rights (The Avalon Project : English Bill of Rights 1689). It sets precedents for many later documents. One of its primary tenets is that all peoples are free from cruel and unusual punishments. Another such document is the French Declaration of teh Rights of Man and the Citizen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen).


Finally, I think it is appropriate to include the United States Bill of Rights. Despite its notoriety, it is quite obviously only one of the more recent examples of the collective desire of a civilization for the universal enforcement of human rights. However, since it is part of our history specifically, it should hold special significance.
Amendment VIII
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."


I think I've shown pretty clearly why my position is a sound one, with factual evidence, precedent going back hundreds of years, and historical examples of what can happen if it is not followed. Of course, when you think about it, this all has the same basis as the Golden Rule. An earlier yet historical precedent. We must do to others as we wish they would do to us in the same situation. It is a wise rule, because it recognizes that the alternative can result in easy justification of virtually any crime. A popular statement comes to mind, and I've never agreed with it as clearly as I do now. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


LOL, get any sleep last night Russ?

They use torture. We use torture to get information. They kill civilians. We don't kill civilians. I don't see how using torture and killing innocents can be compared...

Thats like saying England has lights so we'll have lights... They drive on the left side of the road so we'll drive on the left side of the road. Those two aren't related!!!

We don't use torture because they do. We use torture to save save lives. Just because they do it doesn't mean we'll do it. It coincidental that they use it and them killing civilians won't make us do it. That would be ridiculous.

Also I have no problem admitting the laws set fourth by both our country and the world say it is unacceptable. This was about whether or not I believe it is ok to torture someone, not whether the rest of the world did. Also this isn't just about over in the middle east, this is about torture everywhere.


If someone I loved was going to die and someone held the information on how to find them and save them and they refused to give it willingly then I would not hesitate to make them tell me.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


Meh. Suppose that arguing with a mud-brick wall isn't going to fly, then. I'll leave you to your ignorant double-standards.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


Once again, you do absolutely nothing but play to emotion. And once again, you definitely did nothing but reply, you didn't read my post whatsoever. No facts, no evidence, not even a cursory attempt to defend your stance by any logical means. I would comment that you are just taking a stance and saying it's right, but then again you completely changed your stance when it was convenient. However, unlike when you blatantly do this in real life arguments, all your statements are right here for us to see. Your first statement, "We don't use torture because they do", is in direct conflict with paragraphs 4 and 5 of your first post.


Also, you have just said that several documents are wrong. I thought you might say that, since it is essentially the only road left to you in this one-sided "debate", regardless of how ridiculous it is, and as such I addressed such an argument. Of course, that's assuming you actually read it, once again. To list the ones I wrote in my post, there's the full text of the Geneva Convention. You are also denying the VIII Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. Also, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You also suggest we violate the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. All of which are irrefutable law both here, and for the last two, in most of the world. And those are just the ones which are actual law here, I stated several other historical precedents as well.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


This is more of a note on my Ethical stance on torture. I am not going to argue against the fact that torture goes against treaties and American law.
Ethics and law are not bound. If that that were the case then executions and abortion would be illegal.
I read all your posts and the part in my first note where I said that the terrorists do it so why shouldn't we was just another log I was throwing in the fire.
The basic idea was: We don't do it because they do but they do so why should we feel so bad about doing it ourselves?
I draw on emotions because that is why I feel the way I do about this subject. Like I already said this was where I stood on the subject of torture, not whether I thought it was legal or not. It is illegal. Goes against treaties and laws. Americans shouldn't be doing it but they are in an attempt to get information that saves American lives in the long run and I don't hate them for it. That was the entire point.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


"The basic idea was: We don't do it because they do but they do so why should we feel so bad about doing it ourselves?"

You're avoiding the issue. If we just go ahead and "do do it because they do it", things could, and most likely would lead to compounding **** for both sides. I'd like to re-post something Russell said earlier that apparently went in one ear and out the other:

"If we don't try to be more moral than our enemies, then things can escalate rather quickly. They begin using torture, so we begin using torture. They begin attacking civilians, we begin attacking civilians. They use chemical or nuclear weapons, we respond in kind, and before you know it whole countries disappear from the map."

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


Simple. By doing it, you invalidate ALL the human rights claims made by all those documents. After all, there's no solid rule for ethics, as you said with your abortion and execution debate. However, those are not covered in any of the documents I mentioned, but torture is. Let me simplify it. All you are doing is attempting to justify torture by saying it is saving lives. Well, if you start justifying one breach of human rights which is agreed upon by all, you can justify ALL the others. Stalin justified all his arrests by saying it was for the good of the people. Hitler justified the Holocaust as being for the good of Germany. George Bush justified the massive breaches of international privacy law in the guise of protecting American lives. All these are exactly the same as your example, since they are all covered under the same laws and documents. Your own personal code of ethics does not enter into it.

There can be no exceptions in human rights, regardless of the reason.


Addressing your examples of abortion and execution, they are hotly debated. That is because there is a stark difference between them and issues like torture. The Geneva Convention is just a legal manifestation of the Golden Rule, really, while the debate about whether abortion is ethical is one about the sanctity of life, which is a very different one, tied much more closely to religion and personal belief. Execution is a similar matter.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________

"There can be no exceptions in human rights, regardless of the reason."

You're saying that if you do one thing someone else does then you will be obligated to do everything else they do. A line can be drawn. I draw it right after torture.
This isn't about what laws and documents say. This is whether I think torture to be ethical or not. I think it is. There is no arguing or changing that. There is no papers you can link me to that says "Tim does not find torture ethical." And if there is, its another Tim, not me. This is my opinion!
You can argue it all day and night but just as my belief in a God is not shared by you and no matters how much I preach about it and link you to scripture and proof of a God, you can not change my belief that torture is ethical as long as it is to save lives and not out of sick pleasure.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________

Not obligated, but if you break one, it leaves a way to justify virtually anything. You have to be completely steadfast about these issues, or you're no better than those that commit mass murder. Wondered how long it would take for you to bring religion into it. Simply put, that's extraordinarily low. You're trying to bait me into saying something negative about religion, to give you more favor with any invisible audience you perceive, but the current debate is unrelated to religion. This is not a matter of opinion. The choice is clear as I have made it, between allowing countless atrocities and war crimes, or obeying the established definition of Human Rights, meaning inalienable rights that all beings have and must not under any circumstances be broken.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


No, the point of using religion was to show this is an argument of personal opinion and ethics and not one of law. You are trying to argue my views. You can not ague my views, they are mine, you can only share your own. Quit arguing.
You believe we should hold ourselves to some higher standard then the terrorists.
I feel even with torture, we are above them morally. This is my opinion.
If you think that torture makes us no better than them then maybe killing makes us no better than them. Maybe we should quit killing all together, just turtle up and hope they don't attack us again.
Until you can learn empathy and put yourself in the shoes of the people who are living in constant fear of attack, you don't know what you would do in a situation where torturing an enemy is the only way to save lives.
But this may need repeating... This is only my opinion, you are allowed your own.


Ps, I wasn't thinking about that when I posted the religion part so I will delete, for you.


(At this point he deleted the post he made before this one. His reasons are idiotic, he's covering it up, however I had expected this of him and as such have been keeping the full text in a file on my computer)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

Tim, you have to understand, it is not just an opinion. It is a conscious choice that has extremely real consequences. You cannot continue trying to hide behind hyperbole, just as you did with your "balloons and roses" statement. Nor can you try to hid behind your skewed idea of "empathy" again. We are under the constant threat of attack. Yet do you live in constant fear? That is why you are now justifying torture, yet another change in your reasoning. The people who attack us in such a manner want to bait us into becoming the devils they see us as. And you would allow that to happen.

Furthermore, you began this argument, and then you escalated it by bringing it to this public arena, searching for support you did not find. If you saw it as only a matter of opinion that could not be supported, you wouldn't have done that. Further, even opinions need justification. You cannot pretend you didn't start it this time.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


I do not live in constant fear. Soldiers do. The ones in the heat of things go days with out breaks in the adrenaline rush. It was them I sympathize for.
I have not lost anything, you just have a different opinion and you think that your opinion is fact.
And the whole point of this was to post the reasons for why I think the way I do for you and Chris to read. You did. You know why I feel the way I do about this yet you keep coming and trying to tell me I'm wrong because documents say it is. This is opinion. Try as you might you can't win because this isn't an argument, this is two separate opinions.


I didn't want to argue, I wanted to organize my thoughts for you and Chris so you guys wouldn't think I thought what I thought just because I'm cold. I understand why you guys feel the way you do on this subject and I was hoping yo guys would return the respect but all you've done is tell me I'm wrong and pointed me to documents that say what I believe is bullcrap.
You are no better than those Christian extremists who stand on street corners and hold signs and yell at gays how they are going to go to hell. If you want to be respected and get others to hear what you have to say at least try to understand where they come from with their views.

[Mormon]

Do I even need to read this nonsense? All you ever do in arguments is swear everything you say is much more logical and you can't believe they have no logic.

It's stupidly arrogant and often times very ironic. So I'm not sure I want to read through this.

[arthur_is_tight]

I would agree with Mormon you should kinda shorten this huge debate lists the reasons why it is a positive thing for our army and our country to do and list the things why it isn't which is what you all did but in a book like fashion(meaning this debate can be made into a book), but anyway after reading like the first 4 paragraphs and seeing the fifth paragraph that you typed I would have to say I had enough information to make a decision

I would have to say that I have some agreements with both sides and the side that Chris made he said that everyone has a 4 rights and I can agree with that we didn't make the people that means we don't have the to hurt them or take their lives. And I would have to agree with Tim he said that when we capture them we can just shoot them on the spot, but when we capture them we take them in and we let them live( even though that isn't entirely true if it where a serial killer we would take him into the electric chair in some countries and death beds in others)and it is their duty to not their captors but to the USA if they are American to tell us where they had put their last victim even if they had killed their victim they could at least say where they put him to let the family to have a funeral for the victim.

But then I agree with you Russell we can't just kill them or torture them in telling where they are hiding because they can lie and we can't really find out because if there really are terrorists in that place then the person that goes in can be killed, But nowadays the Marines and the FBI have found new ways in getting information out of the captured

Now you see my points of views!!!
this was a very long post I think my longest lol, but I hope I helped you out Russell

[ShadowMarth]

Wow, hit the character limit... Continued here. Also, I removed Mormon's post. It was just straight flaming. Read and post intelligently or don't post at all, because I'll delete it anyway. Also, Arthur, thanks for taking it seriously. I'm fairly surprised.

Tim
Chris
Clint
Sheffey
Russell (ShadowMarth)
(Notes I made that were not part of the original text)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________



"And the whole point of this was to post the reasons for why I think the way I do for you and Chris to read"

This, if I may be so frank, is an outright lie. If your goals were to simply show us what you think without rebuttal in the middle of a sentence, or if you just wanted time to organize your thoughts, this would have been resolved in private messages, emails, IM, or something similar. This, however, is not the case. You wanted to bring this argument that you felt so high and mighty about drug out into the public eye. To make us seem like the right-wing 'bad guys' and that you were some righeous crusader of the light.

And don't even try to say otherwise. It's plain as day at the top of the bloody page. You can't just plug your ears and act like it didn't happen here.


"Ok, so I was flamed by my friends when we were talking and the subject of torture came up. They believe in a little thing called "human rights" and I on the other hand am for torture."

This is an indirect comment. You did not address the friends in question, and, hell, you didn't even acknowledge that they might read this anywhere in the note. This post was to show everyone you know that might end up reading this literary abortion how you're better than the two charlatans that oppressed you earlier. You want others on the internet to come and agree with you, so you could throw it in our faces later.


Lets also look at the term 'flaming,' while we're at it. Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between people.(usually on the internet, but that doesn't apply here.) It is a deroggatory term, insinuating that we deliberately crawled up your ass with a blowtorch for suggesting what you did, reguardless of what you said. (which, I remind you, wasn't much, but again, that's another argument for another day. I won't address it here.) When your common internet user sees 'flaming' it often calls to mind simple, narrowminded Trolls haunting message boards or chatrooms. Insinuating that we were 'flaming' you about this is a pretty heavy insult.


"You are no better than those Christian extremists who stand on street corners and hold signs and yell at gays how they are going to go to hell. If you want to be respected and get others to hear what you have to say at least try to understand where they come from with their views."

You say that if you want others to respect your views, that they must first respect theirs. This, Tim, is a double-edged sword, and if you're going to wield it, you have to be careful not to cut yourself. By posting this for all the world to see, and painting the two of us in such a light as you did instead of keeping this a private matter, you have disrespected us. You may not have realized it at the time, but this is the case, and it is one of the more childish things I've seen you pull.


Also, for the record, we didn't bring religion into this, I would respect it if you did the same. That is an entirely separate situation, much like the original root of this. You did remove the original reference, but that doesn't change what you said, and you continue with the theme in later posts anyway. I'd rather not be compared to the ignorant Bible-beaters that you speak of, who simply use Jesus as an excuse to be a bigot.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


Stirring the pot. So is it moral to use torture to save lives when there is an eminent threat to people (and say there is evidence to prove that the threat is actually eminent, not just that interrogators believe the threat is eminent)? Why or why not? Furthermore, is it moral to use torture to save lives only when it's say an eminent threat to a city (large scale), or an individual (small scale)? Why or why not for each case? Finally, is it possible that while torture is immoral, is it actually immoral NOT to torture in one of these eminent situations, and those situations only? Why or why not?


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


"You are no better than those Christian extremists who stand on street corners and hold signs and yell at gays how they are going to go to hell."

I would tend to disagree. Those people try and force their beliefs on the public, whereas Chris and Russell are responding to a single incident, and have commented many times on the lack of privacy that they would have preferred.


"I read all your posts and the part in my first note where I said that the terrorists do it so why shouldn't we was just another log I was throwing in the fire."

"I didn't want to argue"

So not only did you just admit that one of your first statements was something you made up to get people heated, but then you got angry when people did get heated.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________

It would be easy to respond to you, Clint, with blanket statement copy pasta from above, but I'll go ahead and hit each point.

1) No. We as a people are no better than those threatening us if we allow and propagate the use of torture or other such alleviations of human rights.

2) No. While some human rights may be lessened, or completely done away with in situations of national security, but torture is a non-derogable human right. The act of torture is immoral, regardless of scale.

3) Again, no. Resorting to torturous methods is cruel and unusual, regardless of situation. There are other ways of obtaining the information we would need in all the situations you've described.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________

"This is opinion. Try as you might you can't win because this isn't an argument, this is two separate opinions."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that opinions are infallible, because they're just opinions. Ok, time for me to pull a Tim and compare you to a group of people largely hated by the public...

...Racists! Just because they have an opinion does not make it right. Opinions can be wrong. We don't have to respect their opinion just because its an opinion, just like you're not having your opinion respected.

[Mormon]

Flaming?

It's exactly what you do in every argument you're ever in, to the T.

"But my way is so much more logical"

"You can't understand logic"

Sorry but I'd really like to read an argument where the two combatants don't sound conceited and are actually respectful of each other's opinions.

[Razion]

I must admit, I didn't read everything word for word but I did go through the most of it. I agree with you on the points about the Geneva Convention. (I printed it a few years ago but sadly forgot most of it.)

Firstly, I'm going to agree with Arthur. Torturing someone does not ensure credible information. To me, Tim's argument sounds like he is pushing it pretty much as the only way to go. I think he could be neglecting the fact that army intel these years are very advanced and probably more capable of giving more accurate information.

Moving on to the topic of why someone would want to torture a captive. This has a lot to do with the framing of a situation and the willpower of the individual in my opinion. After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Both sides believe in what they fight for and are fully aware of what they are getting themselves into. With that conviction and the intelligence armies have, torture doesn't sound like a valid method of obtaining information.

Virtue is usually assumed to lie with either one side or the other. However, a good portion of the time, it really is in a grey area. You can't really say if someone is completely right or completely wrong.

._. I hope I made just a little bit of sense.

[ShadowMarth]

Wow, thanks Razion. That was actually useful, and put some new thoughts into circulation. I don't think the debate is going to last much longer, because Tim's arguments are breaking down in a genuinely hilarious manner. Also, I'm not annoyed that you didn't read it all, because most of the important stuff is covered in the first half anyway, and in fact the debate is still raging, and I haven't updated this version in about 20 replies...

[Mormon]

Firstly, I'm going to agree with Arthur. Torturing someone does not ensure credible information.

Nonsense. Torture them for the info while making sure they know that if the info is wrong they will be sent through much more pain than what they are currently suffering. Works like a charm.

[Razion]

Thanks! XD

True, you torture someone, you probably will get information. But what if that person doesn't have the entire picture? Most of the time, the people down below don't know what's truly going on higher up. And if someone higher up is caught, the rest are bound to know that their plans are in danger and might change their strategy altogether.

[Mormon]

Well it's not like we question every common soldier what the entire picture is. Bits and pieces of information is all we can hope to get, and then put the big picture together. And most often, when we capture someone, we make it look like they died in whatever battle/shooting it was they were involved in. Half the time the opposition doesn't know we have them.

The terrorist forces are small and the people who join them know what they're getting into. They hate us with a bloody passion and would do anything to see the U.S. go down. They torture our people/kill them outright while we just ask them nicely what they're doing. That's the stupid way to play war.

As far as I'm concerned, their lives were forfeit when they joined the terrorist organizations.