The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

What's your position on torture

  • Never, under any circumstances

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Never, with exceptions of direst nature

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • Allowed, but never accepted publicly.

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Allowed in the name of national security

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Total voters
    7
Professur

Professur

Well-Known Member
Nope, not a Star Trek thread, but one relating directly with the topic of waterboarding and it's ilk. Now keep your venom to yourselves. I presume everyone's seen the movie "The Rock". Remember the scene where Mason surrenders at the prison, and he and the general argue about the justification of what their doing, using quotes from past leaders and heros? That's what I want to see here ..... with attributions.

I want to see one paragraph from yourself stating your position on torture and what you think it's place is with respect to your nation, Canucks, foreigners, feel free. After that, post to the poll, and then all I want is quotes either defending your position, or opposing (not attacking) the previous poster.

If you can't do it civilly, stay out of it.
 
War is ugly. We don't want to know what is being done on our behalf. However, under the right circumstances, it is a necessary evil.
 
Wouldn't the question be better if it asked, what do you think of using legal torture versus illegal torture.
My position on torture is, if it were legal, I'm okay with it. If it is not legal, then those who authorize its use should be investigated, and brought up on charges.

America is a country of laws and the first order of business is to maintain those laws without exception. If the president authorizes the use of illegal torture, he must do so with the understanding he is not above the law and faces the possibility of prosecution. Even if the use of illegal torture is used in the defense of the country.
 
i don't really care if it is legal, illegal, gray area, whatever, when, in a practical sense...

torture nets out in a negative way for whomever sanctions it. the US has likely made more, and more hardcore, enemies as a result of torturing, while extracting information of marginal value. the US has acted exactly like the "bad guys" (e.g. saddam) that it has gone on an at least superficially moral crusades against. most of the rest of the world understands this hypocrisy. this again nets out as a loss for the US.

don't need no quotes. no need to rely on hokey scripture. the business case for torture sucks.
 
2minkey said:
torture nets out in a negative way for whomever sanctions it. the US has likely made more, and more hardcore, enemies as a result of torturing, while extracting information of marginal value. the US has acted exactly like the "bad guys" (e.g. saddam) that it has gone on an at least superficially moral crusades against. most of the rest of the world understands this hypocrisy. this again nets out as a loss for the US.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but the problem that created the issue is that the U.S. signed treaties and outlawed the use of torture. We have been the leader of human rights, upholding the law and refusing to use torture since the Revolutionary War and now are viewed as the worlds biggest hypocrites. All this adds fuel to the fire of what America purports to be and who we really are thereby giving greater credibilty to our enemies. The question of whether we gained even a modicum of worthwhile information is still up to debate and even it there was, the bigger question should be, was it worth it.
If evidence presented thus far is any indication, the answer is no and until an investigation reveals something of substance, the only claim to fame of success by those suspected of performing torture was destroyed in an effort to avoid prosecution. That alone should set off enough warning bells to wake the entire world.
 
i think we're mostly saying the same thing here, except that i don't feel like legality even need be involved to form a coherent position against torture. in a sense, why bother? it's damned easy to manipulate the formalities of law, so why slide down that greasy chute when there's plenty o' other stuff to fill the slop bucket?
 
sure. but, fortunately, real leadership decisions are not bound by the arbitrary and less than fully representative option list of some dude posting an intarwebs poll.

see, it's really helpful to capture the full range of potential responses before you field a survey. otherwise, you're just reproducing your own predispositions through the options you lay out.

here's an idea. screw the existing poll options. let the thread play out. allow the primary contributors - those that actually type something of substance - to each suggest options for a new poll, and then see how folks vote.
 
Here's another post without a vote. I kind of agree with Frank. I think we're a bit too squeamish about it but if you're going to say as a society that it's wrong you can't do any of it, even behind closed doors.
 
There's torture and then there's pressure. Pain vs. discomfort. While torture plays well on shows like "24", the situations depicted in such a show are so far from how actual events play out that they may as well be discounted immediately.

If you capture someone(s) suspected in nefarious ends(guilt by association), you may not know the details or even the existence of a plot in play. You begin by basic questioning techniques, good cop/bad cop, honey/stick (pick an analogy you like). You're unlikely to want to ramp-up the pressure unless something comes up that raises a flag. As far as you know..there's no deadline...and therefore, no need to push the speed at which you gain the information. No need for torture at all.
You'll get better results from helping the target get his family safe, give him money/immunity/reduced sentence/release for turning on his pals, than any other method you care to devise. Turn him into a willing ally and you'll get 100% or a close facsimile thereof. If you assume that he knows more than he's telling, and you assume that it's time-sensitive..you're assuming an awful lot to condone torture.

A twist on this is someone you've captured, who is stupid enough to have given you some information about a plot (through the first method) and then promptly shuts up before giving you enough details to stop the plot. You have to break through the wall the person put up to get the last information. Bring out the gimp…time to go medieval on his ass. Problem: Any information gained through torture is suspect...people will say anything you want to hear to stop the pain. This gem of a find (someone who reveals a time-sensitive plot you didn’t know about) is indeed rare…so rare you’re unlikely to ever run into such a chance unless you’re sitting in a movie theatre.

The 'time is of the essence' scenario loved by movies/television/dramatic novels means that you already know the details of the plot. and most likely the players as well. If you know the details enough to have captured someone involved, you don't need to use torture...why bother? At best, you'll get a few more details which may not even aid you in stopping the plot. That you know a plot is in play means that you already have enough information to stop it.

The only argument left for using torture is to punish the perp or to get your jollies..both equally despicable, illegal and inexcusable.
 
The acceptability of torture depends on the standards of the body that does the torture.

If you want your country to lay like a pig in the filth and mud with other countries that also torture, then one would answer "yes" and justify that reason (i.e., "for national security" is always a winner).

If you hold yourself and your country above the rest as a shining ideal for others to follow, then you would vote "no" and there would be no justification for it.

The answer is certainly not black and white. The Spanish Inquisition believed that the truth could be obtained with torture, yet the vast majority of the condemned who confessed had committed no transgression against Catholicism. Did they obtain confessions? Absolutely. Were those confessions the truth? No, in the vast majority of cases they were not.
 
Of course, we do need to define & distinguish the term "torture". There are levels that are unacceptable.

Even that statement is called into question, given the right circumstances.
Say you catch the guy who has raped & mutilated your 8 year old niece. He has her buried somewhere & she'll die of suffocation if you don't save her. Ask nicely or rip his scrotum off?
 
If the poll is speaking to the subject of waterboarding then I say "torture" in the name of national security is always acceptable.

If the poll is speaking to the subject of connecting battery cables to genitals, breaking bones indiscriminately, slow decapitation, etc. then I am against it EXCEPT that I am all for using the same tactics used by the enemy against our own people.

A question to all:

If the word was put out that all homicide bombers body parts would be collected, wrapped in a pig skin, and buried in unhallowed ground in an undisclosed place; would that be mass torture of an entire people?

After all this would cause them severe mental discomfort.

A further question:

If the word was put out that all terrorists killed in the commission of their acts bodies would be collected, their heart cut out of their body and replaced with the heart of a pig, and their body buried in unhallowed ground in an undisclosed place; would that be mass torture of an entire people?

Again, this would cause them severe mental discomfort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top