Would you call for prosecution if someone used torture to save your life?

MrVicchio said:

I Piss on nothing sir, I reject your false claims that a terrorists rights supersede my right to live, or the lives of other American's to live free from terrorist attacks.
no, they put life, because you must have life to have liberty to enjoy happiness. See how that works?

Son, you would let Americans die rather then break the knee cap of a Kalid Sheik Mohammad. That makes you a terrorist enabler. I would break his ****ing knee cap and ensure AMERICANS live safe and free.

That puts me way ahead of you, and the rest of the people here that would rather sit idly by and allow the deaths of innocent people. I care about their rights more then I do some scum bag. People like you lose wars, and get people killed.

Click to expand...

That puts you in the same category as all the nazis who were tried at Nuremburg after WWII. That's some company you keep, V. Birds of a feather and all that.

Have you been to war, V? Or is your POV strictly from the sidelines?

MrVicchio said:

Let's say... next month there is a big news story of a terrorist attack stopped in the finals stages, like it was gonna go down that Monday before. You learn not only was it going to happen, but that your place of business, the flight you were on... whatever, was the target. You'd be DEAD right now if it had not been stopped.

A few months go by, and it comes out that the information to stop that attack was obtained through water boarding or worse.

Would you demand the "torturers" be tried for their "crimes"?

I mean this in all seriousness.

Click to expand...

Cummon, now, first things first.

I'm still working on the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

MrVicchio said:

I Piss on nothing sir, I reject your false claims that a terrorists rights supersede my right to live, or the lives of other American's to live free from terrorist attacks.
no, they put life, because you must have life to have liberty to enjoy happiness. See how that works?

Son, you would let Americans die rather then break the knee cap of a Kalid Sheik Mohammad. That makes you a terrorist enabler. I would break his ****ing knee cap and ensure AMERICANS live safe and free.

That puts me way ahead of you, and the rest of the people here that would rather sit idly by and allow the deaths of innocent people. I care about their rights more then I do some scum bag. People like you lose wars, and get people killed.

Click to expand...

Supporting civil rights and being opposed to torture makes me a terrorist enabler? :rofl

Yeah whatever Machiavelli, keep on preaching that the ends justify your immoral means. Given the terrorists created by the blowback from policies you support, you're the terrorist enabler. And you're doing exactly what Osama wants.

TheStripey1 said:

And celticlord, your enemies believe the same of you.

Click to expand...

Of course they do. And the winner will be the one with the detectable heart beat when the smoke clears.

TheStripey1 said:

IF you choose to lower yourself to their level by engaging in acts of torture, how are you any better than they? The answer is you are not. You are the same.

Click to expand...

I've never pretended to be any "better" than they. There's no lowering to be done, because I was never "higher" in the first place.

I'm not some bigot who goes around preaching his own superiority. I'm just the stubborn SOB who prefers winning to losing, and living to dying.

I like my life. I like the society I live in. Despite its many imperfections and the perverse and persistent existence of the Anti-Republicans, I even like the structure of our government. I can give long winded and high-minded rationalizations on why that structure is sound and why it works and why it is to be recommended. This is the society and the government that I choose for myself. It is, for me, the very best mankind has to offer.

If another wants to decry it as the very worst, and that his way is the only correct and proper mode of human existence, I will argue with him, and if he gets violent about it, I will kill him. But I will never be so presumptuous as to believe his view was somehow morally degraded to my own.

celticlord said:

Of course they do. And the winner will be the one with the detectable heart beat when the smoke clears.


I've never pretended to be any "better" than they. There's no lowering to be done, because I was never "higher" in the first place.

I'm not some bigot who goes around preaching his own superiority. I'm just the stubborn SOB who prefers winning to losing, and living to dying.

I like my life. I like the society I live in. Despite its many imperfections and the perverse and persistent existence of the Anti-Republicans, I even like the structure of our government. I can give long winded and high-minded rationalizations on why that structure is sound and why it works and why it is to be recommended. This is the society and the government that I choose for myself. It is, for me, the very best mankind has to offer.

If another wants to decry it as the very worst, and that his way is the only correct and proper mode of human existence, I will argue with him, and if he gets violent about it, I will kill him. But I will never be so presumptuous as to believe his view was somehow morally degraded to my own.

Click to expand...

Our own country's principles USED to be against torture until bush et al perverted them. We used to have a higher standard than our enemies, now thanks to chickenhawks we no longer have that moral high ground. By torturing prisoners, our nation has been lowered to the same sorry level as nazi germany, pol pot, north korea and any of the other myriad of despicable dictatorships.

What you would choose to do in the face of danger has absolutely no bearing on what our country should do. None whatsoever. And were you to kill someone because you think you've been wronged somehow, then you will be arrested and tried in a court of law and it will be up to a jury of your peers to decide whether or not you again walk free.

Either we are a country of laws or we are not. I like to think we are.

How about you?

TheStripey1 said:

Our own country's principles USED to be against torture until bush et al perverted them. We used to have a higher standard than our enemies, now thanks to chickenhawks we no longer have that moral high ground. By torturing prisoners, our nation has been lowered to the same sorry level as nazi germany, pol pot, north korea and any of the other myriad of despicable dictatorships.

Click to expand...

You need to study this nation's history. Start with the Trail of Tears and Manifest Destiny, work your way through Jim Crow and Plessy v Ferguson, spend some quality of time on Sacco and Vanzetti, then wander into WWII, with Manzanar and other internment camps, the firebombing of Dresden, the use of napalm on Tokyo, the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the torture of Nazi prisoners at places like Schwabesch Hall, then to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and the blacklists of the McCarthy era, the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, the use of Agent Orange.....right on up to the present day.

The moral high ground you fatuously claim for yourself not only does not exist, it never existed at any time in America. (unless you want to count Wilson's stroke demented and virulently racist brain).

TheStripey1 said:

What you would choose to do in the face of danger has absolutely no bearing on what our country should do. None whatsoever. And were you to kill someone because you think you've been wronged somehow, then you will be arrested and tried in a court of law and it will be up to a jury of your peers to decide whether or not you again walk free.

Click to expand...

This is a red herring. We're not discussing the proper civic response to presumed slight, but the morality of response to clear and present danger.

TheStripey1 said:

Either we are a country of laws or we are not. I like to think we are.

Click to expand...

Another red herring (see above).

However, lest you facetiously accuse me of dodging the question (it irrelevancy notwithstanding), we are not a country of laws (although some might argue we are a country of lawyers), but we are a country with a government predicated on a principle endorsing the rule of law rather than the rule of men. A principle the Anti-Republicans with their torture witch hunts are doing their level damndest to destroy.

I don't think you know what red herring means. An "either or" cannot be a red herring, it can be a false dichotomy tho.

The fact that torture is against the law is VERY to the point, a red herring is an attempted diversion.

The constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, let alone international law. So any soldier who violates his oath to uphold the constitution should be prosecuted; because they have a duty to disobey such orders.

Lachean said:

I don't think you know what red herring means. An "either or" cannot be a red herring, it can be a false dichotomy tho.

The fact that torture is against the law is VERY to the point, a red herring is an attempted diversion.

The constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, let alone international law. So any soldier who violates his oath to uphold the constitution should be prosecuted; because they have a duty to disobey such orders.

Click to expand...

An either/or can easily be a red herring when both propositions are irrelevant to the discussion.

As for the Constitution....also irrelevant. Torture is not punishment.

These aren't criminals sentenced to hard time for their wicked ways, these are unlawful combatants being interrogated for the secrets they possess. There is no punishment, and thus the 8th Amendment has no relevancy to this discussion.

TheStripey1 said:

Ever been in combat? I have.

Click to expand...

Congrats for you. I was a Marine infantryman, served seven months in Iraq, extrapolate from that what you will. Either way, it's not terribly important.

That means I have faced my mortality and guess what, eth, I didn't forsake either my convictions or my principles.

Click to expand...

That's because you weren't presented with a choice. If you had to weigh your own life against the temporary comfort of a terrorist we both know which one you would pick. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

Torture is wrong plain and simple. Those that do it, those that authorize it and those who support it are wrong as well.

Click to expand...

So, under no circumstances would you torture anyone...ever? Think about that before you answer...not a single, solitary scenario in the vast expanses of your wildest imagination could you morally justify torture? Is that what you're saying?

Glinda said:

Of course. My morals and ethics do not change with the wind. Nor do the morals and ethics of my family members - they'd all say the same thing. Guess I was just raised better than you. *shrug*

Click to expand...

What about people who do not share your family's lofty ideals of proper and honorable combat? Will they also become causalities of your naiveté?

Are you babbling because you like the look of your words on the screen, or do you have some kind of point to make here?

Click to expand...

I figured that as along as you were going to babble about "the grand scheme of things" I'd follow suite and talk nonsense too.

And you know this because.....? Maybe you haven't noticed, sir, but you and I are NOTHING alike. To assume that I would react in a given situation exactly as you would react is the height of absurdity.

Click to expand...

Of course we're not alike. You have a naive and fantastical view of the world; a world where holding your head high is more important than protecting the innocent. You allow your pride and vanity to endanger the lives of the innocent in order to maintain some illusory feeling of moral superiority. Your moral code is nothing more than a Michael Bay movie.

I, on the other hand, realize that one does not sacrifice their morality simply because they return unjust violence with righteous violence. I understand that warfare evolves and those who fail to adapt will perish. I understand that it is better to be alive than dead. Hollywood hasn't turned my mind into mush, so I understand that being "moral" and self-righteous won't stop nukes from being detonated in our cities.

Oh no. I'm quite aware of my mortality. I'm just not willing to torture others to preserve it. You see, I have morals and ethics and principles that do not change, regardless of the situation. And before you make any more stupid assumptions, I've looked down the barrel of a gun - convenience store robbery - the supposed fear of death you insist justifies any action didn't turn me into a puddle of blubbering crybaby.

Click to expand...

My moral code is well intact. I deny the categorical immorality of torture, therefore, I believe torture is moral under certain circumstances. Where you fail is in assuming your moral code somehow constitutes the end-all be-all of moral analysis.

Heh. Whatever you say, Col. Jessep.

Click to expand...

There's more than a bit of truth to what Jessup said. Only someone who is incapable of thinking for themselves would watch that movie and mindlessly cheer on Tom Cruise.

Black or white. That's pretty much all I see, here. MrV's question, is very narrowly construed. It reminds me of the "ticking clock" scenario, a fallacy in and of itself, but let's play this out, because there is a good point, here.

My answer would be this. He should be prosecuted for torturing the terrorist if it is against the law to do so. AND that does not change the fact that it is OK with me if he did it. See? Shades of gray, folks. Y'all are talking about two higher ideals here: life/liberty and morals. Problem is, most of you are suggesting that these are separate issues. I say they are not; these issues can be combined and used in the same conclusion. Watch this:

If I knew with 100% certainty that torturing a terrorist would save the lives of many, I would do it, and then turn myself in a plead guilty and expect prosecution. Morals and life/liberty all combined in one answer. I would be both right and wrong to have done that.

There is no correct answer, here, folks, simply because this is not black or white, as evidenced by your entire discussion.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Black or white. That's pretty much all I see, here. MrV's question, is very narrowly construed. It reminds me of the "ticking clock" scenario, a fallacy in and of itself, but let's play this out, because there is a good point, here.

My answer would be this. He should be prosecuted for torturing the terrorist if it is against the law to do so. AND that does not change the fact that it is OK with me if he did it. See? Shades of gray, folks. Y'all are talking about two higher ideals here: life/liberty and morals. Problem is, most of you are suggesting that these are separate issues. I say they are not; these issues can be combined and used in the same conclusion. Watch this:

If I knew with 100% certainty that torturing a terrorist would save the lives of many, I would do it, and then turn myself in a plead guilty and expect prosecution. Morals and life/liberty all combined in one answer. I would be both right and wrong to have done that.

There is no correct answer, here, folks, simply because this is not black or white, as evidenced by your entire discussion.

Click to expand...

These are cogent points (aside from your obvious dig at my hypothetical), but I believe his question was limited to what you would do specifically, i.e. would you actively advocate your rescuer's prosecution?

Ethereal said:

These are cogent points (aside from your obvious dig at my hypothetical), but I believe his question was limited to what you would do specifically, i.e. would you actively advocate your rescuer's prosecution?

Click to expand...

Truthfully, I only scanned the last page or so, so any dig at your hypothetical was completely unintentional...sorry about that.

Would I actively advocate the rescuer's prosecution? Hmmm...best answer I can give is, that I wouldn't actively advocate it, but I would agree with it and wouldn't try to stop it.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Truthfully, I only scanned the last page or so, so any dig at your hypothetical was completely unintentional...sorry about that.

Click to expand...

Quite alright. It's well within your rights to dig at anything I say; I just figured I'd keep you on your toes (like all good debaters...:mrgreen. Not to mention that any attacks on my hypothetical will seem tame after the cavity search I endured from Wessexman.

Would I actively advocate the rescuer's prosecution? Hmmm...best answer I can give is, that I wouldn't actively advocate it, but I would agree with it and wouldn't try to stop it.

Click to expand...

But would you go so far as to say you would be inwardly desirous of his acquittal? I know you would agree with his prosecution as a matter of principle, but where would your heart lie?

Ethereal said:

Quite alright. It's well within your rights to dig at anything I say; I just figured I'd keep you on your toes (like all good debaters...:mrgreen. Not to mention that any attacks on my hypothetical will seem tame after the cavity search I endured from Wessexman.

Click to expand...

Eh, you need to watch ME debate Wessexman.

But would you go so far as to say you would be inwardly desirous of his acquittal? I know you would agree with his prosecution as a matter of principle, but where would your heart lie?

Click to expand...

This seems to be a different question than the OP. Now, you've added a third component to the life/liberty, morals/principles diad: emotion. Honestly, I would say that I would, inwardly, be desirous of his acquittal from a purely emotional position.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Eh, you need to watch ME debate Wessexman.

Click to expand...

I have a hammer and nails at home.

This seems to be a different question than the OP. Now, you've added a third component to the life/liberty, morals/principles diad: emotion. Honestly, I would say that I would, inwardly, be desirous of his acquittal from a purely emotional position.

Click to expand...

*Sigh*

(That was a sigh of relief, by the way, at finally being able to have a logical and constructive dialogue)

Fair enough, but isn't there some moral value inherent to that emotion? Relying solely upon emotion is almost always bad, but that doesn't mean it cannot inform upon a logically sound and comprehensive moral perspective. Basically, where does that emotion come from? What causes you to be inwardly desirous of his acquittal?

Ethereal said:

I have a hammer and nails at home.

Click to expand...

:rofl

*Sigh*

(That was a sigh of relief, by the way, at finally being able to have a logical and constructive dialogue)

Fair enough, but isn't there some moral value inherent to that emotion?

Click to expand...

Sure. I would imagine feeling guilty about being desirous of his acquittal. It would certainly cause a conflict of conscience. The conflict would be my thankfulness over being saved, verses my morals around torture. Ultimately it is a personal vs. global issue. I see the abortion issue similarly.

Relying solely upon emotion is almost always bad, but that doesn't mean it cannot inform upon a logically sound and comprehensive moral perspective.

Click to expand...

It can inform, but it must be teased out from the purely personal in order to be used logically. If the emotion is based on just the personal, the logic of the global is not being considered.

Basically, where does that emotion come from? What causes you to be inwardly desirous of his acquittal?

Click to expand...

The innate desire to survive.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Black or white. That's pretty much all I see, here. MrV's question, is very narrowly construed. It reminds me of the "ticking clock" scenario, a fallacy in and of itself, but let's play this out, because there is a good point, here.

Click to expand...

The question is a specious attempt to manipulate perceptions in such a way that answers to the hypothetical question could then be applied to real life scenarious so as to justify them, and/or to try to achieve some sort of rhetorical oneupmanship through the concession of a principle -- even if that principle has nothing to do with what is transpiring in real life.


"Would you abort your baby if it were really the alien from the Sigourney Weaver movie about to eat it's way out?".

CaptainCourtesy said:

Black or white. That's pretty much all I see, here. MrV's question, is very narrowly construed. It reminds me of the "ticking clock" scenario, a fallacy in and of itself, but let's play this out, because there is a good point, here.

Click to expand...

There are several fallacies running through this entire debate. The biggest one seems to be that the law is somehow an articulation of moral values and moral codes, when it is nothing of the sort. Mere legality does not make an act moral, and mere illegality does not make an act immoral.

Take your response: that you would torture and then submit to prosecution. This is not a single response but two, one of which acknowledges that torture is the right thing to do within a particular set of circumstances--i.e., it's moral--and the other of which acknowledges an interpretation of the law that makes the act, moral or immoral, illegal.

The disturbing quality of the "torture is immoral" adherents is their determination to impose their morality not just on others, but on the law itself. If anything has the power to destroy the rule of law, it is the imposition of morality.

TheStripey1 said:

That puts you in the same category as all the nazis who were tried at Nuremburg after WWII. That's some company you keep, V. Birds of a feather and all that.

Have you been to war, V? Or is your POV strictly from the sidelines?

Click to expand...

I served ten years in teh Navy as an AG. I have no, not been in actual combat, been close, was in Kosovo (3 months doing turns in the Adriatic bring ho-ho's to the Kosovo's! as we liked to say). My father flew Phantom II's.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Truthfully, I only scanned the last page or so, so any dig at your hypothetical was completely unintentional...sorry about that.

Would I actively advocate the rescuer's prosecution? Hmmm...best answer I can give is, that I wouldn't actively advocate it, but I would agree with it and wouldn't try to stop it.

Click to expand...

Let me ask you an additional question CC, would said prosecution that you neither supported nor hindered, not ensure that the next time other people might die because those who COULD save lives, were afraid of being thrown in jail? Isn't your position a bit selfish?

MrVicchio said:

Let's say... next month there is a big news story of a terrorist attack stopped in the finals stages, like it was gonna go down that Monday before. You learn not only was it going to happen, but that your place of business, the flight you were on... whatever, was the target. You'd be DEAD right now if it had not been stopped.

A few months go by, and it comes out that the information to stop that attack was obtained through water boarding or worse.

Would you demand the "torturers" be tried for their "crimes"?

I mean this in all seriousness.

Click to expand...

I would say that the techniques used need to be investigated and if those in charge broke the rules to which they are bound, charges should be brought up. I'm not a fan of the "ends justify the means" sorts of arguments because you justify all sorts of treason and tyranny with it. Our Republic is one built upon law and restriction of government and we need to adhere best we can. Maybe those people just get chucked out of office, but never thrown in jail because a jury of peers may never convict them. Who knows.

But the breakdown of all these arguments is that you want to justify in general a practice by using extreme and improbable events as the arguments. There's a bomb and a terrorist knows.....terrorists have your family.....you were saved because of torture. But even if those work themselves out, how many people were tortured which didn't yield information, how many were innocents? You want me to say that I should try to excuse abuses of power based on outcome, but I don't agree. If someone wishes to sacrifice their political career and engage in activity which violates the law and the constraints of power laid upon the government, maybe that will happen. Maybe that person would be considered a hero by some. But that person could no longer hold political office; that's for damned sure. I may give private citizens more leeway when it comes to certain forms of law, but the government does not get that luxury. They must necessarily be held in check at all times else we risk losing the Republic.

And thus there is a better hypothetical which is right up the alley all these others come from.

Would you sacrifice the Republic in order to use torture techniques for the inconceivably small increase in "safety" or "precaution" it could offer against terrorist attack?

MrVicchio said:

Let me ask you an additional question CC, would said prosecution that you neither supported nor hindered, not ensure that the next time other people might die because those who COULD save lives, were afraid of being thrown in jail? Isn't your position a bit selfish?

Click to expand...

Your question assumes that those are the only people who could save lives and that their methods are the only way. Your questions are becoming more and more narrow...attempting to aim me towards the answer you want.

Why don't you just say what you are getting at. If it is that torture is OK because it saves lives, sorry I don't agree; it's not that simple. See, I'll echo what I said to Ethereal. There are 3 issues here. Torture as morality. Torture as legality. Torture as a personal emotion/response/justification. My response to these issues is, TO ME torture is ALWAYS immoral. TO ME torture is ALWAYS illegal. TO ME torture might be justified at times. There is no contradiction, here. Though it may be justified, that does not negate it's morality and it's legality, or the consequences of either.

And the justification of behavior based on extreme circumstances, which is what you are doing is using the exception to prove the rule. Completely fallacious. You are asking a moral question, not a definitive one, though you are trying to make it one. It is not.

MrVicchio said:

Let me ask you an additional question CC, would said prosecution that you neither supported nor hindered, not ensure that the next time other people might die because those who COULD save lives, were afraid of being thrown in jail? Isn't your position a bit selfish?

Click to expand...

Mr V, you keep asking questions yet you yourself are shying away from answering some after people have answered yours. Why should people continue to respond to your repeated pushing of the hypothetical if you won't respond to ones presented back for you after an answer.

If you had/have a daughter and she was raped but the man was not found guilty or just didn't have enough evidence to bring him to trial and a vigilante heard about it and, having a dislike for rapists, when to his home and killed him. Would you call for the vigilantes prosecution? And, if the answer is no, do you suggest than that vigilante killings of people who are not found guilty should be legalized or something condoned by the government?

And, if you would or if you'd be neutral in regards to the prosecution, would that prosecution ensure that next time other people might be raped because those who would stop the rapists were being thrown in jail?

TheStripey1 said:

IMO, there is no difference between a nazi who tortures their captives and an american who tortures theirs. None whatsoever.

Click to expand...

So a question for you.

Is a man that steals some food from the grochery store to feed his starving family the same as a man that embezzles millions of dollars from a charity that funds cancer research for children?

Is a man that walks in to find his daughter being raped and kills the man no different than a person who drives around in a van with a sniper rifle shooting innocent people as they drive?

Is a man that lies and tells his wife that her ass doesn't look fat in that dress no different than a man who lies to folk about the quality of his investment information in a class he charged them $4,000 to attend?

You seem to believe that there is an absolute here, that context and extent means zero. I want to see if you're consistant or if you pick and choose when your morality is absolute or not.