• 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!

Does defense justify torture?

Does defense justify torture?


  • Total voters
    49
You do?
So, why do you oppose tortuing a person (or a few people) to save, say, a million?

Because when you purchase the lives of a million humans with behavior which at the very bottom of the depths of inhumanity, you take a piece of their humanity with you.
 
Such over-the-top absolutism is asinine. You're saying you'd choose death -- or the death of a loved one -- over making a morally suspect choice in every single instance.

It is not, to me, morally suspect. It's ****ing evil.

So yeah, I'd make that choice every single time.
 
Because when you purchase the lives of a million humans with behavior which at the very bottom of the depths of inhumanity, you take a piece of their humanity with you.
And yet you agree that when faced with two choices that are wrong, you take the one that causes the least harm.
Reconcile these positions.

Oh.... "taking a piece of their humanity with you" is a significacntly better choice then making the choice to simply let them die.

We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
(Thanks, MSgt)
 
Last edited:
I do not, for a picosecond, believe that these are the only individuals our government has tortured, and that's not even getting into the people we've handed over to be tortured by someone else.

Nevertheless, a numerical argument is asinine.

One person tortured is one too many.

Well, the way things work in this country is that you may believe anything you like, but proof and evidence makes the case. Isn't it annoying how we can demand that people provide proof before condemning each other but inist that we need nothing but rumer to assume the evils of our Nazi like nation?

It's asinine to drag your country through the global mud just to cling to assumptions, theories, and maybes. But let's be real. Two World Wars and a Cold War wasn't won because we had perfect manners. But we do have the moral high ground to insist on rules and regulations during our interrogations. Your moral superiority and self-righteous stance doesn't belong in national defense. You can afford such things. Your leaders have greater responsibilities. We have always handed prisoners over to to thers for interrogations. Even our military has handed the captured over for information (Belgians were useful in Somalia).

My only problem with waterboarding is that people like you know about it.
 
Last edited:
It is not, to me, morally suspect. It's ****ing evil.

So yeah, I'd make that choice every single time.

Right. OK.

So, your daughter's about to be hacked to death; there's a guy in front of you whom you KNOW can tell you where she is, though he refuses, and you're not going to beat the guy to get the information from him? Or, more germane to the point, you're going to worry about water being poured over his face, with no chance of any physical harm coming to him?

Instead, you're going to stand there and think "I'm a human, not an animal, and I guess my daughter will have to be hacked to death"?

I'm pretty sure most independent observers would say "what kind of a father ARE you???"

So no, I don't believe you. But if you would, then God help you.
 
Oh.... "taking a piece of their humanity with you" is a significacntly better choice then making the choice to simply let them die.

I vehemently disagree, in the strongest terms possible.

We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
(Thanks, MSgt)

There's a significant difference between war and torture.
 
It works. Back in the eighties, a KGB agent was taken by a clan of gangsters in Lebanon. The next morning, the clan leader found a box in front of his door. Opening the box, he recognized the ear of a favorite nephew. The KGB agent was released before noon.
So let's make it policy and do it all the time. Let's save some lives people.
 
Because when you purchase the lives of a million humans with behavior which at the very bottom of the depths of inhumanity, you take a piece of their humanity with you.

This is such philosophical pc garbage and it smacks the American history right in the face. I suppose dropping two atomic bombs on civilian cities turned us into raving killers and oppressors too. We send our people off to war to murder and to slaughter. They return not damaged and beyond redemption. They don't return to a civilization that can't be human anymore. They simply pick up where they left off and march forward. They have children and they complete their lives without losing their "humanity." But three waterboarding is supposed to have destroyed "a piece of our humanity" and sentenced us to hell? Give uys a break. Your moral high ground is for the classroom.
 
Well, the way things work in this country is that you may believe anything you like, but proof and evidence makes the case. Isn't it annoying how we can demand that people provide proof before condemning each other but inist that we need nothing but rumer to assume the evils of our Nazi like nation?

Last I checked, I was opining in a thread about whether something is right or wrong. What exactly do you expect me to prove?

It's asinine to drag your country through the global mud just to cling to assumptions, theories, and maybes.

I did no such thing. If you're commenting on the actions of others when responding to me, don't. I'm not talking about anything other than my opinion on torture.

Your moral superiority and self-righteous stance doesn't belong in national defense. You can afford such things. Your leaders have greater responsibilities.

I do not want any sanctioned authority torturing others in my name any more than I want any sanctioned authority executing prisoners in my name.

My leaders fall flat on their faces time after time after time after time with their "greater responsibilities." My leaders consist of men and women who are prepared to do all sorts of tasteless, immoral things in order to attain power. My leaders, by and large, are walking bags of toe jam. They are not fit to shine my shoes.

I do not want that kind of person to have the authority to decide whether or not someone is tortured or executed.

My only problem with waterboarding is that people like you know about it.

I'd like to see if you have the balls to be explicit about what you mean, or if you're a coward who will hide behind innuendo.

Let's find out, shall we?
 
You skipped this:
And yet you agree that when faced with two choices that are wrong, you take the one that causes the least harm.
Reconcile these positions.

I vehemently disagree, in the strongest terms possible
Really.
Make the argument that it is better to let 1 million die than to let those 1 million survuve with blood on their hands.

There's a significant difference between war and torture.
Not in terms of doing terrible things so that the people in your side might live.
 
Last edited:
It is not, to me, morally suspect. It's ****ing evil.

So yeah, I'd make that choice every single time.

No...you'd make this choice in theory. In practical application you would be as human as the rest of us. If your family (or citizens) ever had to relie upon you to be more than a preacher of ethics, you would then be in a position beyond your theory.

But none of this matters. Torture is illegal and waterboarding was banned publicly by even President Bush. So what's the gripe anymore? Because three religious terrorists and murderers were waterboarded? Move on.
 
Last edited:
This is such philosophical pc garbage and it smacks the American history right in the face. I suppose dropping two atomic bombs on civilian cities turned us into raving killers and oppressors too. We send our people off to war to murder and to slaughter. They return not damaged and beyond redemption. They don't return to a civilization that can't be human anymore. They simply pick up where they left off and march forward. They have children and they complete their lives without losing their "humanity." But three waterboarding is supposed to have destroyed "a piece of our humanity" and sentenced us to hell? Give uys a break. Your moral high ground is for the classroom.

There is a significant difference between just war and torture. The two aren't anywhere near being the same thing.

If someone invades your country, or that of an ally, you have a duty to repel that invasion. If you kill people in the process, that's what happens. It's no different than if someone breaks into my house or my neighbor's house.

The power to torture individuals is ripe and ready for abuse, and I do not want my leaders to have it.
 
No...you'd make this choice in theory. In practical application you would be as human as the rest of us. If your family (or citizens) ever had to relie upon you to be more than a preacher of ethics, you would then be in a position beyond your theory.

I don't want to be the person with that authority, and I don't want any person in that position to have that authority.
 
I don't want to be the person with that authority, and I don't want any person in that position to have that authority.

Objecting to torture (of three people since 9/11) on the basis of anti-authority is about as Don Quixote as it gets.
 
Last edited:
I do not want any sanctioned authority torturing others in my name any more than I want any sanctioned authority executing prisoners in my name.

Well, good news..... They don't have the aurthority. So what's the gripe?

I'd like to see if you have the balls to be explicit about what you mean, or if you're a coward who will hide behind innuendo.

Let's find out, shall we?

Explicit? What I stated was pretty obvious, but I'll dumb it down. What I mean is that you are a citizen who needs protected. You do not need to know all the details. Andf the more details you know the harder it is to fight an enemy without morals and without Western laws of war. Only a nation without enemies has the luxury to remain clean.
 
Objecting to torture (of three people since 9/11) on the basis of anti-authority is about as Don Quixote as it gets.

It's not just based on a simple hatred of authority, which you'd know if you'd actually read anything I've posted in this thread.
 
I don't want to be the person with that authority, and I don't want any person in that position to have that authority.

It's not a question of "authority"; it's a question of being in a position where you have to make a choice.

You say you'd let your daughter be hacked to death rather than beat the guy who can tell you where she is. That has nothing to with authority, but everything to do with choice, and like I said, I simply don't believe you.
 
Well, good news..... They don't have the aurthority. So what's the gripe?

No gripe, I'm responding to the subject of this thread.

Explicit? What I stated was pretty obvious, but I'll dumb it down. What I mean is that you are a citizen who needs protected. You do not need to know all the details. Andf the more details you know the harder it is to fight an enemy without morals and without Western laws of war. Only a nation without enemies has the luxury to remain clean.

Tell you what.

When you can respond to someone with whom you disagree without implying that they're stupid or weak, come back and see me.

If you're going to insult me, have the testicular fortitude to come right out and do it and take the points for it.
 
You say you'd let your daughter be hacked to death rather than beat the guy who can tell you where she is. That has nothing to with authority, but everything to do with choice, and like I said, I simply don't believe you.

I'd rather let both of my kids be hacked to death rather than let the government have the power to torture the guy who can tell where they are.

I don't give a **** if you believe me. Believe whatever you want.
 
There is a significant difference between just war and torture.

Of course there's a difference, but that's not the point. Many people view the dropping of atomic bombs on civilian cities as unjust and criminal. Surely you aren't suggesting that waterboarding three religious terrorists is worse than slaughtering tens of thousands of Japanese civilians. Yet, you write that we lose our humanity from the latter? Make sense of this.

If someone invades your country, or that of an ally, you have a duty to repel that invasion. If you kill people in the process, that's what happens. It's no different than if someone breaks into my house or my neighbor's house.

But how much repelling did two Japanese civilian cities need?

The power to torture individuals is ripe and ready for abuse, and I do not want my leaders to have it.

You state it is "ripe and ready," despite it being officially illegal. Again, they have the same "power" they've always had. Want it or not, it is what it is.
 
I'd rather let both of my kids be hacked to death rather than let the government have the power to torture the guy who can tell where they are.

I don't give a **** if you believe me. Believe whatever you want.

No, you're changing the subject. This is about the choice that you personally would make, which was your claim. That's what I've been addressing all along.

If you need to change the subject to avoid taking it head on, then I think it makes my point. Not so morally absolute after all.
 
I already did. You simply refuse to accept it, as is your right.
No, you stated an opinion. You didnt present anything that leads to a sound conclusion.

You also skipped this AGAIN:
And yet you agree that when faced with two choices that are wrong, you take the one that causes the least harm.
Reconcile these positions.
 
Of course there's a difference, but that's not the point. Many people view the dropping of atomic bombs on civilian cities as unjust and criminal. Surely you aren't suggesting that waterboarding three religious terrorists is worse than slaughtering tens of thousands of Japanese civilians. Yet, you write that we lose our humanity from the latter? Make sense of this.

I actually didn't say any such thing, liar.

I think the fact that the United States of America dropped atomic bombs on civilian population centers is a black mark on our "moral authority" that will never, ever go away.

At any rate, I don't care if the people we torture are terrorists or Girl Scouts, it's evil no matter who you do it to.

You state it is "ripe and ready," despite it being officially illegal. Again, they have the same "power" they've always had. Want it or not, it is what it is.

I never said it's legal. Will you stop putting words in my mouth, please?

At any rate, I want my government to stop torturing people, and I want those who tortured to be punished alongside those who ordered or authorized or ignored the torture.
 
Tell you what.

When you can respond to someone with whom you disagree without implying that they're stupid or weak, come back and see me.

If you're going to insult me, have the testicular fortitude to come right out and do it and take the points for it.

I'm not sure how you were insulted. But surely you can have a discussion without tattle telling over your sensibilities. You simply should not know what all goes on above your head. You are allowed your self-righteous tones, but government and military cannot have this classroom luxury. No government does. The problem comes when the average citizen gets it in his head that the imperfections of his government equals the depravities of Nazi Germany. You wrote of differences. Here's one too.
 
Back
Top Bottom