• 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
Viktyr Korimir said:
The Jack Bauer interrogation scenario makes for good fiction, but it never occurs in real life. If terrorists had a nuclear weapon in New York City, we wouldn't find out about it or capture the conspirators until after it had been detonated.
Click to expand...

it doesn't need to be a nuke. just planes about to fly into Heathrow.
 
Jerry said:
I'm willing to become that despot if it means protecting my children. I'll make that sacrifice, no problem.
Click to expand...

exactly. if you are a threat to my kids... :shrug: stand by. I have a very good imagination.
 
Orion said:
This basically sums up my belief.

The ends justifies the means if you're a country like China, or the former USSR, but the U.S. is supposed to stand for more. The issue of whether or not something like waterboarding is "torture" is not as important as the U.S. betraying its own supposed values.
Click to expand...

In WWII, US soldiers generally didn't take Japanese prisoners because they learned that many time the Japanese soldier would blow himself up along with the Marine taking him prisoner. Eventually, the Marines would just shoot prisoners, and they certainly shot any Japanese soldier that looked dead in the head just to make sure. That is reality. Those were US soldiers doing that because they had to. They did not fall victim to some idea that we are Americans and that stands for something. Nope, they just shot the enemy dead. I am glad they did that took, probably saved my grandfathers life a time and time again.
 
SE102 said:
Why do you engage in wordly allegiances?
Click to expand...

You called me a Kiwi... just clarifying.

States do it as well.
Click to expand...

Yep...

I don't mean to insult you, I was being condescending. :wave:
Click to expand...

Being condescending is being insultive...

People have been pardoned from murder in courts over cultural considerations. Does it justify it? No. To a Muslim who believes and has for thousands of years that the book emits the spirit of god and is an extension and manifestation of him in the physical universe. Well. Id expect you to get killed and sort-of stand by and say "Wasn't me dood"
Click to expand...

Burning a book, any book, does not justify murder or killing to sane people. I assert that terrorists and such are not sane though...

Never said terrorists were particularly reasonable.
Click to expand...

Or sane...

You don't
Click to expand...

Whew!

Hmm... so what are we doing with that big ol military?
Click to expand...

Using it where we think that it is needed...

Me too -_- how to escape this...
Click to expand...

It seems as if you faded from your original assertions...
 
cpwill said:
maggie is right; that you would say that indcates you have precisely zero idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Some of us have values that remain steadfast. When your values and ethics fluctuate with the wind, then your values, ethics and integrity are not very strong.
We are either a country that has values or we aren't.
 
Jerry said:
Well, since I'm going to loose my values and integrity when I loose my life, at least I'll have my life if I choose to adopt my enemey's tactics, and so that's the way I'll go.
Click to expand...

And I would say that only a coward forfeits his values to save his life. It is a disservice to the courageous men and women who serve this country to infer that the values that they are fighting for....aren't really that important after all.
 
No one is forfeiting any values or fluctuating in the wind.

The values remain the same, we just aren't absolutists like you. There's no fluctuation, just the usual balancing of rights vs. other rights and needs that most people execute every day. It seems you are incapable of balancing these, so you run to black/white arguments.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
No one is forfeiting any values or fluctuating in the wind.

The values remain the same, we just aren't absolutists like you. There's no fluctuation, just the usual balancing of rights vs. other rights and needs that most people execute every day. It seems you are incapable of balancing these, so you run to black/white arguments.
Click to expand...

Sounds like BS and "Justification" to me. If you are changing your values depending on the threat faced, then you absolutely are flucuating.

There are some areas that are absolutely black and white. Ethics/Values/Integrity are not areas that are gray. Sorry.
 
disneydude said:
Sounds like BS and "Justification" to me. If you are changing your values depending on the threat faced, then you absolutely are flucuating.
Click to expand...

At the beginning of World War II, the Allies were absolutely against wholesale bombing of civilian populations. As the war dragged on, we started doing it.

Those who argued that the Allied leaders who approved it should have been tried for war crimes themselves were generally marginlized, ignored, and laughed at. Still are to this day.
 
disneydude said:
Sounds like BS and "Justification" to me. If you are changing your values depending on the threat faced, then you absolutely are flucuating.

There are some areas that are absolutely black and white. Ethics/Values/Integrity are not areas that are gray. Sorry.
Click to expand...

In the world of politics, it is gray. However much we wish it to be otherwise, actors routinely act in contrary to ethics, values, and morality. Sorry to pop your bubble.
 
Fiddytree said:
In the world of politics, it is gray. However much we wish it to be otherwise, actors routinely act in contrary to ethics, values, and morality. Sorry to pop your bubble.
Click to expand...

You aren't "popping my bubble" or telling me anything that I don't know. It doesn't mean that I have to have any level of respect for anyone in the world of politics whose values and ethics flucuate. I've been around the block....and as a result I have seen enough to know that ethics/values are not gray areas...or at least for people that I respect. I find it unconscionable, however, to ask the men/women of our military to put their lives on the line to fight for American values/ethics and then flucuate and change those values like they are meaningless.
 
ecofarm said:
The values remain the same, we just aren't absolutists like you. There's no fluctuation, just the usual balancing of rights...
Click to expand...

I don't know, is it just me or is this several instances of self refutation in one sentence?
 
Harshaw said:
At the beginning of World War II, the Allies were absolutely against wholesale bombing of civilian populations. As the war dragged on, we started doing it.
Those who argued that the Allied leaders who approved it should have been tried for war crimes themselves were generally marginlized, ignored, and laughed at. Still are to this day.
Click to expand...
Same goes for torpedoing defenseless merchant vessels w/o warning.
In fact, part of the reason Doenitz was not executed for war crimes is because we did it too.
 
megaprogman said:
Amnesty International wants Bush prosecuted for his roll in waterboarding. One of the defenses of Bush I have come across is that torture is when used to defend innocent lives. I will admit, it is an interesting question for me to explore.

What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

The rights of illegal combatants most of whom are from other countries therefore the constitution and Geneva convention does not apply to and I could care less about. The lives and safety of my fellow countrymen and those in the military who the constitution as well as the Geneva convention applies too and whom I actually care about? Why would it be that hard of a choice to make. If a guy broke into your home and threatened your family and you had a gun. Are you going to put a bullet in his head or let them to continue to harm your family because you do not want to infringe on the rights of people threatening your family?

Amnesty International can go suck a dick, **** them. I suppose if it was Gore that won the presidency, had the balls to go retaliate against the Taliban for a terrorist attack committed against us and had simulated water drowning perform(NOT TORTURE) on terrorists for information then you would be saying Amnesty international can go suck a dick and **** them.
 
disneydude said:
And I would say that only a coward forfeits his values to save his life. It is a disservice to the courageous men and women who serve this country to infer that the values that they are fighting for....aren't really that important after all.
Click to expand...

Ok, you would say that.

.......and?
 
disneydude said:
Sounds like BS and "Justification" to me. If you are changing your values depending on the threat faced, then you absolutely are flucuating.

There are some areas that are absolutely black and white. Ethics/Values/Integrity are not areas that are gray. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Sometimes all you get are bad choices to select from.
 
I am absolutely positively against torture for any reason whatsoever, and while I could make mine a human rights argument, my main objection has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any such thing.

I'll repeat that, for the hacks in the audience -- the main reason I will never condone torture has nothing to do with the rights of terrorists, or enemy combatants, or criminals, or whatever the buzz-term of the day is.

My argument is that there are some things that are so base / inhumane / evil that you simply should not do them in the name of any person / thing / cause. If you do, you dramatically reduce or eliminate the value of that which you are attempting to protect / promote.

I do not love mere existence enough to permit someone else to sell my humanity up the river in exchange for my life.
 
Would it be effective to torture the children of captives?

I think that I would break much more quickly if it was a question of my child being tortured than me being tortured.

So, let's torture the children of terrorists and terrorist suspects.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Would it be effective to torture the children of captives?

I think that I would break much more quickly if it was a question of my child being tortured than me being tortured.

So, let's torture the children of terrorists and terrorist suspects.
Click to expand...


As long as we make sure to do so in that shining beacon on the hill everybody talks about.........
 
The fact that we are sitting around talking about this...shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
 
disneydude said:
The fact that we are sitting around talking about this...shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
Click to expand...

How far we've fallen as a nation?? We've never been more humane in warfare in the history of our country. In the history of our world. We do everything humanely possible to spare civilians lives, at the expense, I might add, of our own troops.

Please don't equate those who believe that waterboarding is not torture with those who chop off heads, use tasers on private parts, break arms and legs, cut off fingers and toes, hang people upside down, hang 'em by hands tied behind their backs. It's just not the same.

How far we've fallen as a nation is shown by how our politicians use war as a tool to garner votes.
 
disneydude said:
The fact that we are sitting around talking about this...shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessarily fair. Americans are a diverse bunch, no matter what issue you put out there you're gonna get someone on the other side.
 
disneydude said:
The fact that we are sitting around talking about this...shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
Click to expand...
Yes -- that ANY consideration is given to the idea that we should NOT turture someone to stop a catastiphic attack on the US does indeed indeed indicate that we, as a nation, have fallen.
 
disneydude said:
The fact that we are sitting around talking about this...shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
Click to expand...
Goobieman said:
Yes -- that ANY consideration is given to the idea that we should NOT turture someone to stop a catastiphic attack on the US does indeed indeed indicate that we, as a nation, have fallen.
Click to expand...
Actually, the idea that we as a nation should mindlessly proceed in either direction simply shows how alienated the extremes of both left and right have become from reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom