• 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!

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member?

  • Total voters
    60
Felicity said:
You do recognize that Gitmo will remain open.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Obama, in Reversal of Campaign Pledge, May Use Military Commissions
Click to expand...

Which is unfortunate.

The reality of dealing with terrorists runs smack into naive idealism.
Click to expand...

A slight correction here. *Not terrorists, but *detainees. Particularly those who have been released and proven NOT to be terrorists.

You cannot assume that every detainee in Gitmo is a terrorist, given the past history of Gitmo. That would be naive.
 
Lightdemon said:
Which is unfortunate.



A slight correction here. *Not terrorists, but *detainees. Particularly those who have been released and proven NOT to be terrorists.

You cannot assume that every detainee in Gitmo is a terrorist, given the past history of Gitmo. That would be naive.
Click to expand...
It's the result of terrorism and terrorists. The US had to protect itself in very sketchy circumstances. 3000+ civilians just living their regular lives were murdered on our soil. No--it wasn't a "perfect" response, and some individuals erred, but it was the best we could do under the circumstances--and we have been safe partially because of it.

Hind sight is 20/20.
 
The mental stability of a detainee should still be important, however, because they are the ones providing you with the information. If their mental processes is compromised, how do you know if the information they give you is accurate? On top of the fact that they might be lying to you?

The problem is the assumption that the torture will provide useful information, which can be useless, harmless, or harmful, to completing our task. It is not a guarantee that it will be successful, nor does it mean that torture will be a step toward success.
Click to expand...

No form of interrogation is guaranteed to be successful. Whether it's asking them nicely or subjecting them to "torture", all information obtained during an interrogation requires corroboration. If the possibility of receiving false or misleading information were sufficient cause to disallow an interrogation technique then no technique would be acceptable.
 
Felicity said:
It's the result of terrorism and terrorists. The US had to protect itself in very sketchy circumstances. 3000+ civilians just living their regular lives were murdered on our soil. No--it wasn't a "perfect" response, and some individuals erred, but it was the best we could do under the circumstances--and we have been safe partially because of it.
Click to expand...

Which is absolutely fine.

In the other thread, where the OP asked if torture is ever Moral, I said no. But that doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.

Would I torture someone if it would save my family? Hell yea, I would! But that doesn't make it the moral thing to do. The immorality here is excusable under the circumstances. The whole thing that frustrates me is that people like Celticlord seems to think that just because it's justifiable makes it not immoral. This is how the terrorists win.
 
Ethereal said:
No form of interrogation is guaranteed to be successful. Whether it's asking them nicely or subjecting them to "torture", all information obtained during an interrogation requires corroboration. If the possibility of receiving false or misleading information were sufficient cause to disallow an interrogation technique then no technique would be acceptable.
Click to expand...

True, but which one is more likely to give you accurate information though? A broken mind? Or one that still functions?
 
Lightdemon said:
Which is absolutely fine.

In the other thread, where the OP asked if torture is ever Moral, I said no. But that doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.

Would I torture someone if it would save my family? Hell yea, I would! But that doesn't make it the moral thing to do. The immorality here is excusable under the circumstances. The whole thing that frustrates me is that people like Celticlord seems to think that just because it's justifiable makes it not immoral. This is how the terrorists win.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be morally neutral if it is justified? Isn't that what "justified" means?

No--it wouldn't make a bad act good, but it can make a normally bad act, morally reasonable, and thus just.
 
Felicity said:
Wouldn't it be morally neutral if it is justified? Isn't that what "justified" means?

No--it wouldn't make a bad act good, but it can make a normally bad act, morally reasonable, and thus just.
Click to expand...

I can accept neutral, even reasonable. But it can never be an act of good.
 
I probably would but I would go about it in having the scumbags own family kidnapped and use them as a bargaining chip since most of the time my family would has already been killed and the thug is just lying to me.
 
Lightdemon said:
True, but which one is more likely to give you accurate information though? A broken mind? Or one that still functions?
Click to expand...

1. This question assumes the functional mind is actually willing to give you any information; in such a case "torture" would be completely unnecessary, therefore your dichotomy is contextually irrelevant.

2. What difference does it make? Regardless of how the information is obtained it will need to be corroborated. If our intelligence experts are willing to pay the opportunity costs associated with bad intel then I'm inclined to trust their judgment.

It's like having a toolbox. Sometimes a task requires needle-nosed pliers. Other times it requires a Phillips head screwdriver. Which means if you take away a plumber’s plunger, don't expect him to unclog your toilet.
 
Lightdemon said:
The whole thing that frustrates me is that people like Celticlord seems to think that just because it's justifiable makes it not immoral. This is how the terrorists win.
Click to expand...

And what frustrates me is that people like you will prattle about the immorality of things and then proceed to pile rationalization upon rationalization about why they would do that which they claim is immoral.

If you cannot defend it as good, you should not do it. If you want to declaim torture as immoral, do not say that you would. If you are willing to torture, do not pontificate about its putative immorality. Such hypocrisy is what gives terrorists their victory.

If you want to condemn torture as immoral, then do so and with a vengeance. Don't corrode your stance with hypocritical justifications and self-serving rationalizations.
 
celticlord said:
And what frustrates me is that people like you will prattle about the immorality of things and then proceed to pile rationalization upon rationalization about why they would do that which they claim is immoral.

If you cannot defend it as good, you should not do it. If you want to declaim torture as immoral, do not say that you would. If you are willing to torture, do not pontificate about its putative immorality. Such hypocrisy is what gives terrorists their victory.

If you want to condemn torture as immoral, then do so and with a vengeance. Don't corrode your stance with hypocritical justifications and self-serving rationalizations.
Click to expand...

And as I've told you before, I'm not two dimensional like you. I don't see things as black and white, as not much in the world ever is.
 
Lightdemon said:
And as I've told you before, I'm not two dimensional like you. I don't see things as black and white, as not much in the world ever is.
Click to expand...

Shades of grey are the result of sloppy thinking; thus they are contemptible.
 
Ethereal said:
1. This question assumes the functional mind is actually willing to give you any information; in such a case "torture" would be completely unnecessary, therefore your dichotomy is contextually irrelevant.

2. What difference does it make? Regardless of how the information is obtained it will need to be corroborated. If our intelligence experts are willing to pay the opportunity costs associated with bad intel then I'm inclined to trust their judgment.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the broken mind, even if they want to give you the information you asked for, may not be as accurate as it were when their mind was whole.

In other words, the information obtained through torture has been depreciated regardless of whether the victim is lying or not lying.
 
celticlord said:
I do not. Sorry that you choose to.
Click to expand...

Sigh...I don't view the world just in 2 dimensions, so my world isn't contemptible like you suggested.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand such simple things?
 
Lightdemon said:
Sigh...I don't view the world just in 2 dimensions, so my world isn't contemptible like you suggested.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand such simple things?
Click to expand...

Why is it so difficult to grasp that there can be right, and there can be wrong, and there can be no third alternative?
 
Lightdemon said:
The difference is that the broken mind, even if they want to give you the information you asked for, may not be as accurate as it were when their mind was whole.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not. The point is this: When the mind was previously "whole" it was completely unwilling to forfeit any information, otherwise "torture" would've been unnecessary; so, as previously stated, such a dichotomy is contextually irrelevant.

In other words, the information obtained through torture has been depreciated regardless of whether the victim is lying or not lying.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting they will somehow forget or neglect crucial pieces of information because they are under duress? I don't see this as being likely and even though it is a possibility - not a guarantee - it's a price our intelligence operatives were willing to pay, therefore I am inclined to trust their expertise on the matter over uninformed speculation.
 
celticlord said:
Shades of grey are the result of sloppy thinking; thus they are contemptible.
Click to expand...

Shades of gray are the reality of the world. Black or white thinking is absolutist, narrow-minded, shows no ability to think in an expansive way, and rarely if ever applies.
 
celticlord said:
Why is it so difficult to grasp that there can be right, and there can be wrong, and there can be no third alternative?
Click to expand...

The fact that what you think is right, may not be right to others proves you wrong.
 
celticlord said:
No it does not. It merely means you are not me.
Click to expand...

Which shows that "right" is relative, not absolute. Not black or white, a shade of gray. Proves you wrong.
 
One does not even have to say that there is no absolute right or wrong to realise that there is a relativist or grey area involved. One can say that those things are universals that have to be refracted through the human mind and given shape in a complex material world. This is why I warned Celticlord about simplistic reasoning over morality and pointed him towards Shakespeare.

I still feel there are few things that can show the complexity of morals, while still maintaining there is meaning to such things, and yet their importance than the tragedies and histories of Shakespeare.

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who wisely said, if you would study gov't and humanity read Shakespeare.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom