• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Hutaree militia be waterboarded?

Should the Hutaree militia be waterboarded

  • I am for waterboarding Al Quaeda and Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 7 19.4%
  • I am for waterboarding Al Quaeda terrorists but not Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • I am for waterboarding Hutaree terrorists but not Al Quaeda terrorists

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • I am against waterboarding Al Quaeda and Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 24 66.7%

  • Total voters
    36
These are all valid points, but they focus on practicality and not the ethics of it, which is what my point was based on. The point is, can we really say that torture is NEVER ethically/legally justified? Because that's the idea I am getting from Catz.

In my opinion, there are scenarios in which torture might be justified. They are rare, and if an agent of the government engages in that act, he/she should immediately submit himself to government authorities to be scrutinized for criminal behavior. That agent should then be investigated for wrong-doing and his actions upheld or punished.

This is exactly the standard that is used in an officer-involved shooting/use of force, fwiw. It's a well-tested method of handling acts by law enforcement that may be an ethical violation.

We do not want, as a country, our government at the highest levels to be setting a precedent where torture is used as a standard MO. And yet, that's exactly where we have found ourselves.

In other words, I want the agents of our government and elected officials to be EXTREMELY WORRIED about unjustified acts of torture, and their criminal culpability in such acts, to the point that they would ONLY utilize these tactics in the most dire of circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I'm genuinely curious as to what you would do in such a situation. Suppose we captured a terrorist cell leader and on his laptop were communique giving the go ahead for an attack some time in the near future, but he refused to talk. What would you do?

IF and when that situation occurs, it is a special circumstance that would require special permission from the highest levels. It is NOT something that should be done routinely.

And sadly, it WAS done, routinely, with certain prisoners who did not have that sort of actionable information.

Some died...and they were merely suspects, NOT CONVICTED TERRORISTS.
 
IF and when that situation occurs, it is a special circumstance that would require special permission from the highest levels. It is NOT something that should be done routinely.

I don't think anyone wants the government to make torturing people a matter of routine. Most people just think it should be an option.

And sadly, it WAS done, routinely, with certain prisoners who did not have that sort of actionable information.

Some died...and they were merely suspects, NOT CONVICTED TERRORISTS.

That's regrettable, and it should be mitigated as much as possible, but collateral damage is inherent to warfare. Innocent people get killed by predator drones all the time.
 
I don't think anyone wants the government to make torturing people a matter of routine. Most people just think it should be an option.

IT should be an option that occurs once in a century. Not 30 or 40 times in the last 10 years.
 
Proof please? And how do you define "torture"? I don't consider waterboarding torture since it does not cause permanent physical harm.

What do you mean proof? Prove it's ethical. Prove that violating the base rights of any human is in any way shape or form a high moral act. Can't? That's right you can't. Because you'll be able to come up with legal justifications, and I said that it can at times be legally justified. But infringing upon the base of life, liberty, and property is never ethical, it's never moral; it's always a bad act.

And for torture, I count things which are torturous, such as waterboarding. No one of any amount of intellectual honesty would ever claim that waterboarding isn't torture.
 
IT should be an option that occurs once in a century. Not 30 or 40 times in the last 10 years.

Why are you placing an arbitrary time frame and frequency on its usage? If it can be justified under certain circumstances, then it should be an option in those circumstances all of the time. The only question becomes, what are the circumstances under which it is justifiable. We also have to define "torture", so we know when it is occurring.
 
Why are you placing an arbitrary time frame and frequency on its usage?

I'm suggesting not on a timeframe, but that it should be so rare that it is the exception, not the rule, because the circumstances in which it would be justified are extremely unlikely to occur.

We also have to define "torture", so we know when it is occurring.

This was already done, following WWII. Maybe we should start following international law, as we used to do.
 
I'm suggesting not on a timeframe, but that it should be so rare that it is the exception, not the rule, because the circumstances in which it would be justified are extremely unlikely to occur.



This was already done, following WWII. Maybe we should start following international law, as we used to do.

What specific provision of the Geneva Conventions are we violating?
 
What was the penalty for use of waterboarding after WWII?

Unlawful combatants are not afforded the same consideration as lawful ones.

Can you show me the specific provision to which you are referring or not?
 
Unlawful combatants are not afforded the same consideration as lawful ones.

Can you show me the specific provision to which you are referring or not?

Allied troops were waterboarded during WWII and Axis troops were prosecuted for it as a war crime. War crimes cannot be committed against unlawful combatants.

Regardless, the Geneva Convention is a "low ball" document intended to include countries that are less ethically elevated than the United States. Our own Constitution affords due process to aliens, and that should include unlawful combatants. According to the theory, we're "better" than the Geneva Convention.
 
Last edited:
Allied troops were waterboarded during WWII and Axis troops were prosecuted for it as a war crime. War crimes cannot be committed against unlawful combatants.

Can you show me the specific provision to which you are referring? It shouldn't be that hard to find.

Regardless, the Geneva Convention is a "low ball" document intended to include countries that are less ethically elevated than the United States. Our own Constitution affords due process to aliens, and that should include unlawful combatants. According to the theory, we're "better" than the Geneva Convention.

Your characterizations of the laws of war as "low ball" is just asinine. The Geneva Conventions are "the supreme law of the land" according to Article VI of the Constitution. No where in the Fourth or Fifth Amendments are combatants (lawful or unlawful) mentioned or even implied. They are entitled to a "competent tribunal", not Constitutional due process.
 
Back
Top Bottom