• 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!

Is Torture Ever Moral?

Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Truth Detector said:
These are indeed the facts, and the reasons they will never do anything is because their intent has NOTHING to do with morality or what is right, but rather their effort to prosecute their political enemies in the court of public opinion by a willing media who never concerns itself with honest journalism for purely partisan political purposes.

This entire debate, contrary to the desperate efforts of the Liberal Left, is a disingenuous partisan political effort, nothing more.
Click to expand...


Is that you Nixon?

Republicans are the ones who see the world in black & white....Friends & Enemies ,. We Democrats realize you can have political opponents who are not your mortal ENEMY. You Repubs just need to grow up & get out of the schoolyard!
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Devil505 said:
Is that you Nixon?
Republicans are the ones who see the world in black & white...
Click to expand...
So are people that see torture as 'always wrong'.
 
Tucker Case said:
Over the last week, because of all the torture threads, I have come to the conclusion that Torture can be moral and it can be immoral.

I have also come to the conclusion that the 8th amendment places a limitation on the Federal government so that it may not torture anyone. I don't feel that the bill of rights exists as something that "grants" rights to Americans, I believe it exists to place limitations on our government so that it may not take away certain rights from people, all people, be they citizen or not.

The US government is engaging in cruel and unusual punishment in order to gather intel. This method has been prohibited to it by the 8th amendment which clearly states that the government cannot do this. IMO, that means that the Government is taking on powers that it cannot legally possess.

The morality of the reasoning behind the methods are irrelevant when the government uses powers that has been denied in order to practice those methods.

At the same time, detainment without trial during times of war and public danger is something that the bill of rights allows the government to do. Therefore, I feel that these prisoners should be detained until the public danger passes without being granted a trial, but they should not be subjected to any cruel or unusual punishments (i.e. "enhanced" interrogation).

But then again, I'm an admitted anti-federalist, so these beliefs would be consistent with that worldview.
Click to expand...

This is the first sane argument favoring a prohibition of torture that I have read. Thank you.
 
Tucker Case said:
Over the last week, because of all the torture threads, I have come to the conclusion that Torture can be moral and it can be immoral.

I have also come to the conclusion that the 8th amendment places a limitation on the Federal government so that it may not torture anyone. I don't feel that the bill of rights exists as something that "grants" rights to Americans, I believe it exists to place limitations on our government so that it may not take away certain rights from people, all people, be they citizen or not.

The US government is engaging in cruel and unusual punishment in order to gather intel. This method has been prohibited to it by the 8th amendment which clearly states that the government cannot do this. IMO, that means that the Government is taking on powers that it cannot legally possess.
Click to expand...
EXCEPT that the 8th amendment refers to punishment for criminal acts, after a conviction. That's something different that torture used to gain information from a capturee, which means that your argument here doesnt apply.
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Goobieman said:
So are people that see torture as 'always wrong'.
Click to expand...

Paint me a picture where torture is moral.....or eating babies or tripping blind people ....or stealing purses from old ladies.
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Devil505 said:
Paint me a picture where torture is moral.....or eating babies or tripping blind people ....or stealing purses from old ladies.
Click to expand...
Why do I need to do any of those things?
The only way you can state that "torture is always wrong" is if you see things in black and white.
Its YOUR characterization, not mine.
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Goobieman said:
Why do I need to do any of those things?
The only way you can state that "torture is always wrong" is if you see things in black and white.
Its YOUR characterization, not mine.
Click to expand...

SOME things ARE black & white. (torture=bad, Repubs=Dumb,etc)

Most things are not. I never said NOTHING is B&W.
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Devil505 said:
SOME things ARE black & white. (torture=bad, Repubs=Dumb,etc)
Click to expand...
Oh I see - there's there's nothing wrong with seeing the world in black and white -- when YOU think so.
:roll:
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Devil505 said:
Paint me a picture where torture is moral.....
Click to expand...
When holding a terrorist and needing to find out intel about terrorists, and the terrorist won't open up when the interrogator says "pretty please with sugar on it", then the cattle prod becomes a most moral instrument.

Devil505 said:
or eating babies
Click to expand...
Stranded in a lifeboat far at sea. (There is actual historical precedent for this--the sinking of the whaling ship Essex in 1820)

Devil505 said:
or tripping blind people
Click to expand...
This one's too easy: to keep said blind person from walking into a dangerous situation.

Devil505 said:
or stealing purses from old ladies.
Click to expand...
If the old lady is some rich b***h like Leona Helmsley and the thief is a homeless teen mother desperate to feed her child, I would not consider that to be immoral.
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

celticlord said:
When holding a terrorist and needing to find out intel about terrorists, and the terrorist won't open up when the interrogator says "pretty please with sugar on it", then the cattle prod becomes a most moral instrument.
Click to expand...
When is torture moral?
When it saves the life of a million innocent people - including the babies I was saving for supper. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Devil505 said:
Is that you Nixon?
Click to expand...

How trite.

Devil505 said:
Republicans are the ones who see the world in black & white....Friends & Enemies ,. We Democrats realize you can have political opponents who are not your mortal ENEMY.
Click to expand...

What about this debate involves political opponents? Last time I looked this was about the feigned outrage of Liberals that we would use enhanced interrogation methods that do not meet the true definition of torture on ADMITTED terrorists who plotted or carried our attempts to murder our citizen’s post 9-11.

I am hardly surprised to see that you cannot follow the thread topic long enough to remember what you type from one thread to the next.

Devil505 said:
You Repubs just need to grow up & get out of the schoolyard!
Click to expand...

Based on your post, this comment is best described as profound irony.
 
Quote: Originally Posted by Tucker Case
......I have also come to the conclusion that the 8th amendment places a limitation on the Federal government so that it may not torture anyone. I don't feel that the bill of rights exists as something that "grants" rights to Americans, I believe it exists to place limitations on our government so that it may not take away certain rights from people, all people, be they citizen or not.

The US government is engaging in cruel and unusual punishment in order to gather intel. This method has been prohibited to it by the 8th amendment which clearly states that the government cannot do this. IMO, that means that the Government is taking on powers that it cannot legally possess.

celticlord said:
This is the first sane argument favoring a prohibition of torture that I have read. Thank you.
Click to expand...

The 8th Amendment does not apply to non-uniformed enemy combatants captured while fighting our troops in foreign lands.

I would love to see anyone with a modicum of Constitutional Law authority assert this.

As for the cruel and inhuman punishment argument; that is another attempt to apply Constitutional rights to non-citizens and terrorists who do not represent any authority and are captured in foreign lands while engaged in fighting the legitimate authority.

It is as specious as suggesting that the Geneva Conventions somehow apply to these terrorists; but it does not.

It is just as specious as the argument that attempts to redefine what constitutes "torture" which is SEVERE physical and mental pain.

The notion that the Constitution applies in this case is naive.

Does everyone here forget why we kept these people in Gitmo and other facilities NOT in the USA?

There are TWO primary reasons; why don't the ones making these desperate arguments of morality take a stab at them?
 
Goobieman said:
EXCEPT that the 8th amendment refers to punishment for criminal acts, after a conviction. That's something different that torture used to gain information from a capturee, which means that your argument here doesnt apply.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything about "after conviction" in the following:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Click to expand...

It just says "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted".

What I don't see is any reference to "criminal acts" or "convictions". In fact, the conviction argument gets tossed immediately because bail is decided prior to any conviction.

Is there any evidence that this limitation was meant to be in response to criminal acts only, or can I take the words in the amendment at face value?
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Goobieman said:
Oh I see - there's there's nothing wrong with seeing the world in black and white -- when YOU think so.
:roll:
Click to expand...
"Seeing the world in B & W " means that you see it "Exclusively" in B & W.....which is a sure sign of ignorance.
 
Tucker Case said:
I don't see anything about "after conviction" in the following:

It just says "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted".

What I don't see is any reference to "criminal acts" or "convictions". In fact, the conviction argument gets tossed immediately because bail is decided prior to any conviction.

Is there any evidence that this limitation was meant to be in response to criminal acts only, or can I take the words in the amendment at face value?
Click to expand...

We are not talking about criminal acts; we are talking about CONFESSED terrorists being picked up fighting troops in foreign countries.

There is a VAST difference between Constitutional rights of US citizens for criminal acts on US Soil and what this debate entails.

As I stated in another response, do you know why we kept these people in Gitmo and other facilities NOT in the USA?

There are TWO primary reasons; what do you think they are?
 
Tucker Case said:
I don't see anything about "after conviction" in the following: It just says "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted".
Click to expand...
What, exactly, do you suppose the government would punish someone for, except a crime, after conviction? Isn't that the only time the govenrment CAN punish someone (see amendment VI)?

Seems to me all the legal references to and court citations of the 8th amendment protection against C+U punishment are in the context of punishment after conviction. Do you have one that is not?
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Devil505 said:
"Seeing the world in B & W " means that you see it "Exclusively" in B & W.....which is a sure sign of ignorance.
Click to expand...
Ah. Backpedalling and equivocation.
Sure sign of someone that shot himself in the foot.
 
Tucker Case said:
I don't see anything about "after conviction" in the following:



It just says "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted".

What I don't see is any reference to "criminal acts" or "convictions". In fact, the conviction argument gets tossed immediately because bail is decided prior to any conviction.

Is there any evidence that this limitation was meant to be in response to criminal acts only, or can I take the words in the amendment at face value?
Click to expand...

Do you have any case law citations to enlarge the discussion?
 
Truth Detector said:
We are not talking about criminal acts; we are talking about CONFESSED terrorists being picked up fighting troops in foreign countries.

There is a VAST difference between Constitutional rights of US citizens for criminal acts on US Soil and what this debate entails.

As I stated in another response, do you know why we kept these people in Gitmo and other facilities NOT in the USA?

There are TWO primary reasons; what do you think they are?
Click to expand...

TD, I submit that you might accomplish more by expounding on the substance of your reasoning for this.
 
Truth Detector said:
...that is another attempt to apply Constitutional rights to non-citizens and terrorists who do not represent any authority and are captured in foreign lands while engaged in fighting the legitimate authority.
Click to expand...

There are no "constitutional rights", TD. The rights exist independent of the constitution, the constitution only exist as a definition of the US governments powers and authorities. The bill of rights does not grant rights, it prevents the government from infringing upon certain rights.

The preamble to the bill of rights declares just that.

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will worst ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Click to expand...

I bolded the part that pertains to my argument. The bill of rights grants nothing to anyone, citizen or non-citizen.


It is as specious as suggesting that the Geneva Conventions somehow apply to these terrorists; but it does not.
Click to expand...

The Geneva conventions only apply to lawful combatants.

It is just as specious as the argument that attempts to redefine what constitutes "torture" which is SEVERE physical and mental pain.
Click to expand...

"Cruel and unusual" is not limited to the definition of torture.


Does everyone here forget why we kept these people in Gitmo and other facilities NOT in the USA?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. If the US govenremnt's power is limited, it is limited everywhere.

There are TWO primary reasons; why don't the ones making these desperate arguments of morality take a stab at them?
Click to expand...

But I'm not making an argument about morality, TD. In fact, I would argue that waterboarding terrorists to save US lives is primarily moral, IMO.

I'm basing my entire argument on the words, uninterpreted and taken at face value, that are in the constitution, specifically the bill of rights.
 
Truth Detector said:
We are not talking about criminal acts; we are talking about CONFESSED terrorists being picked up fighting troops in foreign countries.
Click to expand...

If you really believe that I have some seaside property in Arizona for sale. :doh

The vast majority of those prisoners were picked up simply because a nice reward was offered. No proof was required. As long as you had a gun you could bring in your neighbor.

If they were all such bad boys why did dubya let so many go? And puh-leeze don't say because the Dems "made him do it". :lol:

Oh yeah, they kept them in other countries because then they could have anything done to them without any Americans raising a fuss. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Goobieman said:
Ah. Backpedalling and equivocation.
Sure sign of someone that shot himself in the foot.
Click to expand...

Do you put any thought into the words you string together or do you just select them at random?:confused:
 
Re: Torture is not moral, but enhanced interrogation is a moral imperative

Devil505 said:
Do you put any thought into the words you string together or do you just select them at random?:confused:
Click to expand...
As someone else said:
Based on your post, this comment is best described as profound irony.
 
celticlord said:
Do you have any case law citations to enlarge the discussion?
Click to expand...

So far, this whole argument is brand new, and I admittedly have nothing besides my own thoughts to support it. The whole argument is based on me taking the words at what I believe is face-value and not interpreting them in any way. I think reinterpretations are the folly of judicial activism. If the words are taken at face value, then there can be no room for inventive interpretations.




I'd like to add that, as I've stated many many times on this site, I'm an anti-federalist. So my reading of the bill of rights, which was put in place to appease anti-federalists, is going to be a face-value reading with little to no interpretation, as that is the way that limits federal authority the most. Since the anti-federalists basically lost, the federal government has expanded ever since due to "interpretations" of the bill of rights. Personally, I think the wording is clear. It was created to restrict the federal government. The many "interpretations" that have occurred since are simply ways to bypass these restrictions and increase federal power.

I'd also like to add that I'm often very odd in my world view. Not many people share it. It makes it very difficult to find supporting arguments by other people in favor of what I believe. I usually am forced to rely on my own arguments because of this. I am willing to admit error when it is shown to me that my approach was flawed, though. As may be the case in this instance, as this is a recent epiphany for me and the argument is quite fresh. Often times when I come up with something new it is total crap, but still very worthy of exploring to it's final conclusion.
 
Tucker Case said:
So far, this whole argument is brand new, and I admittedly have nothing besides my own thoughts to support it. The whole argument is based on me taking the words at what I believe is face-value and not interpreting them in any way. I think reinterpretations are the folly of judicial activism. If the words are taken at face value, then there can be no room for inventive interpretations.
Click to expand...
Note: Earlier, I referenced Amenedment 6. I meant to also reference Amendment 5

I don't believe the argument that the protection against cruel and unusual punushment applying only to actions taken by the government against a person after he is convicted is much of an interpretation - and certainly not an activist one - given that the only time the governement HAS the power to punish - the forcible removal of life, liberty, or property - is after "due process of law". See amendment V and VI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom