• 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!

Final insult of Qaeda clowns

The fact that it may be occasionally justifiable does not thereby transform torture into a moral, ethical or civilised thing to do.

I personally would never suggest torture is a moral, ethical, or civilized thing to do based on my own moral, ethical, and societal views. The REASONS one is doing torture? Sure, those could be. But not the act itself.

However...just as I do not believe someone who has lied once is correct to be classified as a liar, I don't feel that someone who has performed an immoral act is automatically worthy of being classified as immoral. Just as I said with Liars, I'd dare anyone to show me someone who has never once in their life performed an immoral act of some fashion.

However to defend the use of such tactics however, one does have to inhabit that world of grey and leave behind that trippy, dippy realm of moral absolutism that says that what our side does is, by definition, morally incomparable and incontestably superior with what the enemy does. We are white, the enemy is black. That Bush-like moral infantilism doesn't work any more. In this world of grey relativism we can stare our enemies right in the eye because we are in the same moral no man's land.

Except you are using this strange hybrid of absolutism and relativism, where you seem to have disdain, disgust, and an attacking attitude towards one particular side because you believe subjectively that they should be held to a higher or different standard (or maybe you just sympathize less with them so you're more prone to attack them) while at the same time are using an absolutist mindset to come to your conclussion by taking a ridiculous small comparable sample size and using it to justify suggesting a equal relationship.
 
Its a shame that instead of protesting mightily when briefed on the use of EITs, the democrats in attendance all asked if there wasnt MORE they could be doing to get information.

You personally may be opposed to waterboarding terrorists as a means to extract data. You personally may believe it is torture. The courts disagree with you and both parties politicians agreed to its use.
"The Courts" do not disagree with me. Some US court decisions may do, but that's a marginal consideration on a global scale. I'm fairly uninterested in what your politicians and courts decide to classify as torture, although your president has banned the practice. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Third and Fourth Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture are more relevant and clearly outlaw torture. We're not just talking about waterboarding here, btw.

I am curious...the scenario is familiar...I wonder as to your response. A terrorist group has slaughtered thousands. They have plans to slaughter many more thousands. Would you A-Use any interrogation techniques available to save lives or B-allow the thousands to be slaughtered?
This is not what we are talking about. We are discussing whether confessions to crimes extracted under torture should be admissible in court. I'm arguing not.
 
Except you are using this strange hybrid of absolutism and relativism, where you seem to have disdain, disgust, and an attacking attitude towards one particular side because you believe subjectively that they should be held to a higher or different standard
I'm not holding them to a higher standard. They (you, we, the West) are claiming a position of moral superiority over the enemy and yet are behaving in morally comparable (NB, I said 'comparable', not 'equivalent') ways to these 'barbarians', by using torture, by bombings that, while not targetting civilians, indiscriminately kill and maim non-combatants. If you wish to claim the moral high ground then you are holding yourself to a higher standard of behaviour and must be judged upon whether you demonstrate that moral superiority.
 
Back
Top Bottom