Our Enemies

[jeemie]

Doesn't the Geneva Convention list out those activities that are considered torture, and isn't waterboarding one of them?

I thought it was.

[Legacy User]

Whether or not there is a moral justification for torture comes down to the actual intention of those who carried out the act in real time.

IF the torturer/authorizer of the act is doing so because they believe said act would lead to a result which is a benefit to humanity at large, then it would satisfy moral justification. i.e. Gain some information about future terror acts, etc. which could protect innocents. In that scenario you would satisfy in my opinion what is considered morally justified: legitimate and for the greater good

IF, however, the intention was not those things but rather some form of revenge or distaste or frank barbarism than it would not be morally justified. Not legitimate and not for the greater good.

Important to also point out that whether or not the results proved to be valid or invalid (i.e. good/bad/reliable intel) after the fact or upon retrospective review is not particularly relevant. It all goes back to the true intention of those committing the act. Based on the basic premises of our legal system and overall adherence to moral law in general, I'd favor that it was morally justified.

[Legacy User]

Whether or not there is a moral justification for torture comes down to the actual intention of those who carried out the act in real time.

IF the torturer/authorizer of the act is doing so because they believe said act would lead to a result which is a benefit to humanity at large, then it would satisfy moral justification. i.e. Gain some information about future terror acts, etc. which could protect innocents. In that scenario you would satisfy in my opinion what is considered morally justified: legitimate and for the greater good

IF, however, the intention was not those things but rather some form of revenge or distaste or frank barbarism than it would not be morally justified. Not legitimate and not for the greater good.

Important to also point out that whether or not the results proved to be valid or invalid (i.e. good/bad/reliable intel) after the fact or upon retrospective review is not particularly relevant. It all goes back to the true intention of those committing the act. Based on the basic premises of our legal system and overall adherence to moral law in general, I'd favor that it was morally justified.

Thanks for posting, Perk.

A couple of considerations. Suppose someone merely believes the end for the sake of which they torture is good, but are mistaken. Should we add that the belief in benefit had better be a true belief?

Also, are we comfortable treating human beings as a mere means to end? Torturing someone secures for us a desired end. This makes the person tortured a mere means to what we want; no different than using a tool. But I wonder that humans, even terrible ones, have the same status as tools. Is it okay to use them as a mere means or might something about being human make it wrong to use another as a mere means, even if the end sought is good?

Your position sounds utilitarian: if no other means will secure the lives of others, then torture for the general good. The consequence of action (promotion of the general welfare) is what makes the action good. But then does end justify whatever as long as we promote the general good?

[Legacy User]

I cant think of any situation where I would find torture acceptable.

The Good rise above and not only welcome but seek the burden
of greatness

[955876]

I cant think of any situation where I would find torture acceptable.

I can...

Those idiot jihadist who lop the heads off reporters and aid workers. I think they should be captured and tortured.

But that's just me. I get that some here are kinder and gentler and believe that raping,murdering, pillaging thug jihadist have rights etc.

Not me.

These people do this no matter what we do. Even if we kiss their cocksucking asses they will continue.

Do people really think these idiots are going to change if we provide them due process?

[Legacy User]

I cant think of any situation where I would find torture acceptable.

I can...

Those idiot jihadist who lop the heads off reporters and aid workers. I think they should be captured and tortured.

But that's just me. I get that some here are kinder and gentler and believe that raping,murdering, pillaging thug jihadist have rights etc.

Not me.

These people do this no matter what we do. Even if we kiss their cocksucking asses they will continue.

Do people really think these idiots are going to change if we provide them due process?

First off, I owe you a very big apology for my over caffeinated freak out on you, one that you by no means are obligated to accept. But I offer it and I do apologize.

Second, I do not believe it is an issue of being kind or gentle. It is a question of morality. And the question does not concern whether these people are irrational, misguided, thugs and scumbags. The question is merely whether it is ever morally acceptable to torture a human being. Again, I would protest the irrationality of condemning some on the grounds that they do such despicable things and then turning around and doing those very things. How can we condone ourselves doing the very thing we condemn?

If these folks are caught on a battle field, by all means, kill them. I think the issue is the moral permissibility of detaining and torturing a human being for information. No one feels sorry for these people. They've long since left the land of reason. And as Locke says, once you leave the land of reason, you're an animal, not a human. And you may need to be put down. But torture? IDK.

[955876]

There is no battlefield Lit when a non-combatant aide worker or reporter is captured and later beheaded.

That's not a combat casualty.

That's flat out cold blooded murder for the sake of fucked-up ideological bullshit.

You don't see westerners capturing Muslims in London and cutting their fucking heads off do you?

I get the morality thing you bring up.

That's between those involved and their maker should they believe.

A bullet to the head or life in prison isn't enough IMO for the worst of the worst.

We can agree to disagree here. I don't need to change your mind nor will mine be swayed.

I'm of the opinion that if we don't move out in front of this issue we will find ourselves severely behind it.

And no matter how passive we are with these fucks they will not relent from jihad. So if we have to up our interrogation techniques then so be it.

I suppose we could "morally" drone strike the fuck out of an entire grid square. Hey if it works so be it. But then women & children come into play.

I'll torture the cold blooded scum first.
My son is 13. I don't want him involved in this mess 6 years from now.

[Legacy User]

Killing in the interest of self defense and political expediency is different from detaining and torturing. I'm not suggesting that we ought not kill these people.

[Legacy User]

A few thoughts.

I thought Ferguson was a justified shooting. It blows my mind that there is video of the kid strong arming a clerk and doubt that 5 minutes later he attacked the cop. But the cop just shot him. That wasn't death by chokehold in NY. That was death due to obesity with the struggle of resisting arrest a contributing factor.

At the same time, stop n frisk, paramilitary units in nearly every municipality, and the idea that cops should empty there clip at the first sign of personal danger are completely against our principals and contradicts all the hate us for our freedom nonsense,

Waterboarding is torture. We executed Japenese Officers during WW2 under the grounds waterboarding was torture. In any case, it's really sad that it is really nothing but internal politics. We have been using rendition for decades, it's a fact that both Slovakia and Egypt, among others, have tortured spies and terrorists on are behalf. Anything that happened in Cuba, could have happened faster, cheaper, and with no question of legality in eastern Europe, but then we wouldn't have yet another wedge issue to generate the fear vote.

I'm fine with rendition, but I'm absolutely against EITs. Delta Force has been active in many hostage situations since the 90's. Blackwater was contracted to provide security post Katrina. Posse Comitatus doesn't really exist anymore. Bumfuk, USA now has a SWAT team. Stop N Frisk and the NSA make East Germany seem like mind your own business neighbors. The Patriot Act and EIT's is the slippery slope to American citizens being tortured-as long as it doesn't leave a mark.

[swissvale72]

Whether or not there is a moral justification for torture comes down to the actual intention of those who carried out the act in real time.

IF the torturer/authorizer of the act is doing so because they believe said act would lead to a result which is a benefit to humanity at large, then it would satisfy moral justification. i.e. Gain some information about future terror acts, etc. which could protect innocents. In that scenario you would satisfy in my opinion what is considered morally justified: legitimate and for the greater good

IF, however, the intention was not those things but rather some form of revenge or distaste or frank barbarism than it would not be morally justified. Not legitimate and not for the greater good.

Important to also point out that whether or not the results proved to be valid or invalid (i.e. good/bad/reliable intel) after the fact or upon retrospective review is not particularly relevant. It all goes back to the true intention of those committing the act. Based on the basic premises of our legal system and overall adherence to moral law in general, I'd favor that it was morally justified.

Thanks for posting, Perk.

A couple of considerations. Suppose someone merely believes the end for the sake of which they torture is good, but are mistaken. Should we add that the belief in benefit had better be a true belief?

Also, are we comfortable treating human beings as a mere means to end? Torturing someone secures for us a desired end. This makes the person tortured a mere means to what we want; no different than using a tool. But I wonder that humans, even terrible ones, have the same status as tools. Is it okay to use them as a mere means or might something about being human make it wrong to use another as a mere means, even if the end sought is good?

Your position sounds utilitarian: if no other means will secure the lives of others, then torture for the general good. The consequence of action (promotion of the general welfare) is what makes the action good. But then does end justify whatever as long as we promote the general good?

Answers to #2 and #3, Lit, are Yes and Yes. Gotta say, you're demonstrating your mumbo-jumbo cred big-time on this OP. Here's the standard. Is the mother-fucker that we're about to interrogate in an enhanced manner in cahoots with other mother-fuckers that have a demonstrated wanton disregard for innocent human life? If yes...then it's morally just to water board, rectally feed, hang by the thumbs from the ceiling for hours on end, or any other of a myriad of approaches. It comes under the umbrella of.... FTMF (Fuck Those Mother-Fuckers!)

Bring me into your Mumbo-Jumbo class at the university, Lit. I'll offer your students a FTMF seminar.

[Legacy User]

Ha ha. I admire your confidence, Swiss.

But you offered a conditional statement without articulating why the consequent (then) follows from the condition (if). You may very well be right. But an argument you have yet to provide. I'm afraid these are very much mumbo jumbo waters.

[Legacy User]

I don't think I'd look at it as a "true belief" as much as I would what the current society considers "reasonable/rational". Delusions are a form of true belief but fall short in that they are held only by a minority. Certain things can occur in society that are considered rational/reasonable but later found to be completely wrong. Medicine a great example here. Let's say you were looking at 15th Century bloodletting for whatever malady fell under the Rx algorithm "bloodletting". Non-sterile techniques no doubt inducing staph sepsis in some, not only not helping their migraine, but accelerating an untimely painful demise. If the provider was a known Charlatan; torture. If the provider was consistent with the reasonable practice of the time; healer.

Torture in and of itself seems to be a moving target. Some reference to a giver and some to a receiver. Giver seeking some gain, pain and suffering of some sort for the receiver. It can be a form of sexual gratification for some. Adrian Peterson? Raised in the South hard nosed disciplinarian or jackass rent-a-dad for multiple women and multiple kids who annoy him when he has to spend 15 minutes with them and can't control his anger? Who knows? But one thing is for sure you/we can't look at the pics of that kid and think that whatever that was is "reasonable", so see you later/never AP.

You also have to make sure we are looking at U.S. torture in the appropriate light. It is a temporary inconvenience in the big scheme of things. Pain and suffering are subjective. Betterment of the human/American condition is less so. The intention is not to kill. I've not read anything to the contrary (not to say in an individual case a receiver could expire unexpectedly). The beheadings/shootings are an entirely different discussion: murder. So yes I'm saying that if the intention was for the greater good (seems to be), and that society in general would consider it reasonable, then it is morally justified.

[Legacy User]

There is no battlefield Lit when a non-combatant aide worker or reporter is captured and later beheaded.

That's not a combat casualty.

That's flat out cold blooded murder for the sake of fucked-up ideological bullshit.

You don't see westerners capturing Muslims in London and cutting their fucking heads off do you?

I get the morality thing you bring up.

That's between those involved and their maker should they believe.

A bullet to the head or life in prison isn't enough IMO for the worst of the worst.

We can agree to disagree here. I don't need to change your mind nor will mine be swayed.

I'm of the opinion that if we don't move out in front of this issue we will find ourselves severely behind it.

And no matter how passive we are with these fucks they will not relent from jihad. So if we have to up our interrogation techniques then so be it.

I suppose we could "morally" drone strike the fuck out of an entire grid square. Hey if it works so be it. But then women & children come into play.

I'll torture the cold blooded scum first.
My son is 13. I don't want him involved in this mess 6 years from now.

Yep. I wonder how many folks siding with the terrorists were in the military or fly an American flag. Morals? Let's define morals. It's funny to preach morals when Americans have strayed away from "morals." But let's be moral to the scum of the earth....ridiculous. And define "torture." Water boarding? I will take it over chopping my head off. Peace be with you all.

[Legacy User]

Detaining an innocent person is kidnapping.

Detaining a suspected guilty person is an arrest.

Detaining a convicted person is an imprisonment.

That's not relativism, those are moral distinctions with a difference. Intent and purpose matter. The fact that the act is the same in different contexts does not make it relativism.

This is why we don't convict people for accidental homicide.

Relativism is that Islamic radicals see Westerners as infidels worthy of slaughter, and Western modern standards frowns on slaughter of innocents, and that both viewpoints are equally valid.

All this moral flagellation over the treatment of KSM. We killed McVeigh, which is far more serious than waterboarding, and I don't see the usual suspects getting their panties in a bunch.

By the way, both of them need to go.

Then there is the morality of making the report public. It serves no purpose other than political for DiFi. It puts people we hired to do a job in danger. It gives moral authority to revenge for the enemy. Even if you oppose waterboarding, making this report public is a travesty. The dirty laundry doesn't need an international airing.

All of you on a moral crusade against waterboarding, I want you to get up and condemn the Nobel Peace Prize winner for vaporizing innocent civilians. You should because morally that's a lot worse. And you should also condemn people like Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the bunch, who had no problems with what the CIA was doing in 2002 and who reflected the wishes of the American people at the time. KSM was right that America would get squeamish and turn. The more animal you are the more you can smell weakness.

[swissvale72]

Detaining an innocent person is kidnapping.

Detaining a suspected guilty person is an arrest.

Detaining a convicted person is an imprisonment.

That's not relativism, those are moral distinctions with a difference. Intent and purpose matter. The fact that the act is the same in different contexts does not make it relativism.

This is why we don't convict people for accidental homicide.

Relativism is that Islamic radicals see Westerners as infidels worthy of slaughter, and Western modern standards frowns on slaughter of innocents, and that both viewpoints are equally valid.

All this moral flagellation over the treatment of KSM. We killed McVeigh, which is far more serious than waterboarding, and I don't see the usual suspects getting their panties in a bunch.

By the way, both of them need to go.

Then there is the morality of making the report public. It serves no purpose other than political for DiFi. It puts people we hired to do a job in danger. It gives moral authority to revenge for the enemy. Even if you oppose waterboarding, making this report public is a travesty. The dirty laundry doesn't need an international airing.

All of you on a moral crusade against waterboarding, I want you to get up and condemn the Nobel Peace Prize winner for vaporizing innocent civilians. You should because morally that's a lot worse. And you should also condemn people like Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the bunch, who had no problems with what the CIA was doing in 2002 and who reflected the wishes of the American people at the time. KSM was right that America would get squeamish and turn. The more animal you are the more you can smell weakness.

Absolutely correct.

[Legacy User]

I cant think of any situation where I would find torture acceptable.

I can...

Those idiot jihadist who lop the heads off reporters and aid workers. I think they should be captured and tortured..

Do people really think these idiots are going to change if we provide them due process?

If it were up to me theyd get the same treatment bin laden got.
killing in wartime/self defense is acceptable

torture is worse due to the defenselessness of the prisoner regardless
of their heinous barbarism

[Legacy User]

I see this issue in a completely different way.

The United States participation in torture is not a concept first advanced by Bush the younger.

No, it was Clinton who authorized "extraordinary rendition", or "irregular rendition" which is the government sponsored abducting and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another to nations known to practice torture, called "torture by proxy."

Extraordinary rendition remains a violation of international law and due process. In July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights condemned the government of Poland for participating in CIA extraordinary rendition, ordering Poland to pay restitution to men who had been abducted, taken to a CIA black site in Poland, and tortured

From 2001 to 2005 CIA officers captured an estimated 150 people and transported them around the world. A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated 100 people had been kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory, and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centers ("black sites") used by the CIA, some located in Europe. According to the separate European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects would face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. A large majority of the European Union Parliament endorsed the report's conclusion that many member states tolerated illegal actions by the CIA, and criticized several European governments and intelligence agencies for their unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation.

The US has used rendition increasingly as a tool in the US-led "war on terror" to deal with foreign defendants, ignoring the normal extradition processes in international law. Hundreds of documents retrieved from Libyan foreign ministry offices in Tripoli following the 2011 Libyan civil war show that the CIA and the United Kingdom's MI6 rendered suspects to Libyan authorities knowing they would be tortured. The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by Clinton in 1995 and it is ongoing.

So there is really no need for any of this. Obama's executive order on rendition actually continues to allow for rendition, the CIA black sites continue to operate. One cannot vote for a major party without voting for torture. Gitmo is nothing more then a wedge issue. The politics of fear.

My fear is the obvious next step. Under what circumstance do you favor EIT's on American citizens?

How about a kidnapping when the health of the child is at serious risk?

[Legacy User]

Clem rules

[Legacy User]

I don't think I'd look at it as a "true belief" as much as I would what the current society considers "reasonable/rational". Delusions are a form of true belief but fall short in that they are held only by a minority. Certain things can occur in society that are considered rational/reasonable but later found to be completely wrong. Medicine a great example here. Let's say you were looking at 15th Century bloodletting for whatever malady fell under the Rx algorithm "bloodletting". Non-sterile techniques no doubt inducing staph sepsis in some, not only not helping their migraine, but accelerating an untimely painful demise. If the provider was a known Charlatan; torture. If the provider was consistent with the reasonable practice of the time; healer.

Torture in and of itself seems to be a moving target. Some reference to a giver and some to a receiver. Giver seeking some gain, pain and suffering of some sort for the receiver. It can be a form of sexual gratification for some. Adrian Peterson? Raised in the South hard nosed disciplinarian or jackass rent-a-dad for multiple women and multiple kids who annoy him when he has to spend 15 minutes with them and can't control his anger? Who knows? But one thing is for sure you/we can't look at the pics of that kid and think that whatever that was is "reasonable", so see you later/never AP.

You also have to make sure we are looking at U.S. torture in the appropriate light. It is a temporary inconvenience in the big scheme of things. Pain and suffering are subjective. Betterment of the human/American condition is less so. The intention is not to kill. I've not read anything to the contrary (not to say in an individual case a receiver could expire unexpectedly). The beheadings/shootings are an entirely different discussion: murder. So yes I'm saying that if the intention was for the greater good (seems to be), and that society in general would consider it reasonable, then it is morally justified.

This post seems somewhat at ease with relativity. And perhaps there are no objective moral standards after all.

[Legacy User]

I support and endorse any and all tactics necessary to de-nazify any culture who would love nothing more then to rape and behead my family in a public setting to satisfy simple beliefs.

IMO the price of freedom isn't free and why the men and woman in the military who sleep on dirt floors with Kevlar helmets in 140 degree heat deserve so much respect so I can sleep comfortably in my bed at night safe from those who only want to see me suffer.

I'd much rather have a rag shoved in my mouth with water dumped over my head than be on the business end of a 500 LB bunker buster that I have no chance to survive. And the torture only hurts because you fight back. Each one of them have an opportunity to simply stand trial if they jus do what their captors ask.

I say fuck fuck the Geneva convention as it pertains to terrorism and institute military tribunals where I empower those who are brave enough to stand up for my freedom to decide on a rocky hilltop in northern Iraq if you're guilty of crimes against humanity and if you deserve a 40 cal shell casing through the base if your skull

[Legacy User]

I support and endorse any and all tactics necessary to de-nazify any culture who would love nothing more then to rape and behead my family in a public setting to satisfy simple beliefs.

IMO the price of freedom isn't free and why the men and woman in the military who sleep on dirt floors with Kevlar helmets in 140 degree heat deserve so much respect so I can sleep comfortably in my bed at night safe from those who only want to see me suffer.

I'd much rather have a rag shoved in my mouth with water dumped over my head than be on the business end of a 500 LB bunker buster that I have no chance to survive. And the torture only hurts because you fight back. Each one of them have an opportunity to simply stand trial if they jus do what their captors ask.

I say fuck fuck the Geneva convention as it pertains to terrorism and institute military tribunals where I empower those who are brave enough to stand up for my freedom to decide on a rocky hilltop in northern Iraq if you're guilty of crimes against humanity and if you deserve a 40 cal shell casing through the base if your skull

So the moral justification for torture is what, now?

[R_S]

Kinda puts it in perspective when one of these terrorist group slaughters 132 Pakistani children, and the senate is worrying about waterboarding and fucking sleep deprivation.

[Legacy User]

Kinda puts it in perspective when one of these terrorist group slaughters 132 Pakistani children, and the senate is worrying about waterboarding and fucking sleep deprivation.

I don't know to say that waterboarding even constitutes torture. What should the standard be? In any case, the horrific, incomprehensible murder of so many kids is about the actions of terrorists. It doesn't concern our conduct. Interrogation methods do. That's why we're worried about it: it is about our own behavior.

People keep saying murder is worse than torture. Supposing murder is much worse, that doesn't mean torture is right. But perhaps it is right. I've just never heard a convincing argument.

Perk is the only one who has put forward a justification, one that sounds utilitarian. But as Clem pointed out, are we comfortable wit the notion the general welfare justifies anything to secure it? But why is the general welfare the principle of goodness?

[Legacy User]

How we used to deal with these situations, quickly and effectively:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/fam ... -saboteurs

By today's standards this is complete overkill, pun intended.

Yet we won that war in three in a half years, fighting two serious enemies on two global fronts.

Nice to see George Clooney taking a stand for freedom, but there is nothing else Sony could have done given the tort environment in the US. Maybe people shouldn't be able to sue private parties for a third party's act of war or terrorism.

[Legacy User]

I support and endorse any and all tactics necessary to de-nazify any culture who would love nothing more then to rape and behead my family in a public setting to satisfy simple beliefs.

IMO the price of freedom isn't free and why the men and woman in the military who sleep on dirt floors with Kevlar helmets in 140 degree heat deserve so much respect so I can sleep comfortably in my bed at night safe from those who only want to see me suffer.

I'd much rather have a rag shoved in my mouth with water dumped over my head than be on the business end of a 500 LB bunker buster that I have no chance to survive. And the torture only hurts because you fight back. Each one of them have an opportunity to simply stand trial if they jus do what their captors ask.

I say fuck fuck the Geneva convention as it pertains to terrorism and institute military tribunals where I empower those who are brave enough to stand up for my freedom to decide on a rocky hilltop in northern Iraq if you're guilty of crimes against humanity and if you deserve a 40 cal shell casing through the base if your skull

So the moral justification for torture is what, now?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

[Legacy User]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Why do these things justify torturing others, even those who would infringe on your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness?

[Legacy User]

When terrorists respond to the terror report by blowing up a mall, all of you utopians on your high horse will continue to pontificate about how patriotic Feinstein was for releasing this and putting us in danger.

At a certain point, not seeing the bigger moral picture makes you part of the problem.

Lit, how come you can't condemn the drone attacks? Vaporization of non-perps OK, but waterboarding KSM not?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... oy-murdock

Too much time in the ivory tower.

[Legacy User]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Why do these things justify torturing others, even those who would infringe on your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness?

Can you define freedom for me with special attention to what threatens it?

[Legacy User]

When terrorists respond to the terror report by blowing up a mall, all of you utopians on your high horse will continue to pontificate about how patriotic Feinstein was for releasing this and putting us in danger.

At a certain point, not seeing the bigger moral picture makes you part of the problem.

Lit, how come you can't condemn the drone attacks? Vaporization of non-perps OK, but waterboarding KSM not?

Too much time in the ivory tower.

The next time you attribute something with justification to me will be the first.

I want you to point out where I ever condemned torture in this thread or approved of dropping bombs from flying remote control airplanes that kill innocent bystanders. Point it out.

I have yet to see you supply a middle term that connects a conclusion to a major premise with necessity even once. All I have done is ask for an argument that justifies torture since I have never seen a good one. And all you have done in response is stamp your feet.

Tell me Dan, what is the bigger moral picture? Indeed, what is the basis of morality in general? An a priori principle? human nature/function? the general welfare? Do you wish to propose a sentimentalist argument? a utilitarian argument? Perhaps you prefer eudaemonism? Or is deontology? Or maybe you are inclined toward a Hobbesian or Lockean ethics based on natural right? Please, school me on ethics.

You care so much about the good, surely you have a well thought out position on this and aren't just emoting because my asking a simple question rubs you the wrong way.

[Legacy User]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Why do these things justify torturing others, even those who would infringe on your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness?

Can you define freedom for me with special attention to what threatens it?

IC, you are the one that holds the position, not me. Are you asking me to clarify your own position for you?

Do you mean freedom in terms of the will or freedom in terms of a political right?