• 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
There's no crying. I didn't offer you a dilemma, I made a statement. If we abandon our principles to uphold the rights and liberties of the individual, we become like other despots whom had once ruled over their people. Not by the rights of their people, but by that which was defined to be right by the State. It's simply a true statement. And there was no Godwin appeal either. That was hyperbole on your part. I merely said that we'd be like other despots; which would be true. Despots do not rule by the rights of their people. You're trying to apply more significant meaning in order to make a dismissive statement.

As I said, hyperbole and distortion. Come back if you want to argue your "rights for safety" ideal honestly instead of resorting to intellectually dishonest measures such as hyperbole and appeal to emotion.
 
It's true! It's true!

Except, you wrote "no better" not "like". Either way a comparison, the former more ridiculous.

Backpedal all you want, I'm done until someone brings substance.
 
ecofarm said:
It's true! It's true!

Except, you wrote "no better" not "like". Either way a comparison, the former more ridiculous.

Backpedal all you want, I'm done until someone brings substance.
Click to expand...

It's not a backpedal. There is no significant difference between those two. We would not be better than any other system aligned against the rights of the individual if we were to engage in behavior and policy which is aligned against the rights of the individual. Once you've made the decision to engage in tyranny, you're on the same playing field as other tyrants.

The fact remains, you haven't been able to back up your use of hyperbole and dishonesty. Nor have you successfully defended your "rights for safety" argument. And now you're running away. You didn't add anything substantial other than your own conjecture. Well at least we know the type of arguments we can expect in the future. Maybe they'll get better and have actual substance in the future. Maybe.
 
Absolutely.
While torture may be wrong, so is not doing everything you can do to, say, stop a nuke from going of in NYC. Tortuing one or two or twenty to save millions is a trade every Presdient better be willing to make - else he isn't fit for office.
 
Ikari said:
It's not a backpedal. There is no significant difference between those two.
Click to expand...

"Like" is a similie, "no better than" is an equivalence (or worse). I'm not reading the rest.
 
NO!!!

It's in our constitution. We do not torture. If you take an oath to defend that constitution, and then break that oath, you have committed a crime! I want the waterboarders charged with treason. In combating our enemy, we should not sink to their level.
 
Paschendale said:
NO!!!
It's in our constitution. We do not torture.
Click to expand...
It is?
I searched the text and did not find the word torture.

In combating our enemy, we should not sink to their level.
Click to expand...
Given the choice, you'd let a US city take a nuke, rather than torture someone?
 
ecofarm said:
"Like" is a similie, "no better than" is an equivalence (or worse). I'm not reading the rest.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect you to. I explained clearly the context in which I was using the words. But I don't expect that you would consider it. It's easier to use hyperbole and distortion than to read one's post and actually engage on an intellectual level.
 
It's in our constitution. We do not torture.
Click to expand...
All kinds of constitutional rights are violated upon conviction of a serious crime. It's a matter of weighing the criminal's right to do it again (given no reaction) and the public's right to see the criminal suffers reprocussions. Raped and murdered a few dozen? Guess what? Right to liberty - gone. Demand absolute constitutional rights for everyone under all circumstances if you must, but that's anarchy.

The US (and other countries) kill people (capital punishment) for FAR lesser crimes than the (three) mass murdering terrorists that it waterboarded. Go call for the heads of every individual executioner in the US before you worry too much about three cases of waterboarding that saved thousands of lives.

Defend our constitution! Try all capital punishment state officials (and the guy who pulled the switch) for treason because they violated someone's constitutional right to life - that's plainly reasonable. And also charge anyone who arrested anyone ever, that's right to liberty and freedom of assembly violated. Treason. Arresting someone is treason because the right to freedom of assembly is in the consitution. Got it.

Spare me your rhetoric, as you've obviously no clue regarding how law works (balancing individual rights against each other) or the oath. You got some kind of oath I can lecture you about?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Absolutely.
While torture may be wrong, so is not doing everything you can do to, say, stop a nuke from going of in NYC. Tortuing one or two or twenty to save millions is a trade every Presdient better be willing to make - else he isn't fit for office.
Click to expand...

But this is false dichotomy. If we don't torture terrorists, a nuke goes off in NYC. I would say more to the point that some generalized system of torture is not a good thing. When you make the false dichotomy you assume that we have a terrorist who is in possession of key information and under duress will give us the truthful information necessary to prevent the attack. But it's a lot of assumptions to get to the point in which the nuke or torture dilemma becomes valid. If we operate under some generalized terms of torture, how many times will it be useful vs. not. How many times will you end up torturing an innocent vs. the terrorist with pertinent information?

Because of the uncertainties involved, torture is rarely an effective and justified method of information extraction.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
No. Any country who normally would not torture first in an encounter would still not as we've not demonstrated a mentality to wilfully and repeatedly initiate torture in conflict. Any country who would torture first would likely have done so regardless of our actions in this war. What few possabilities fall in the gray fall on both sides as there may be some that are irrational and think we will torture so they do it, but there could also be ones that believe that if they torture we will and thus refrain.

As a net, I think it would not put them in any more danger.
Click to expand...

Early days yet I'm afraid, the next major clash where US soldiers are captured will show what the consequences of torturing suspects are.

Zyphlin said:
I'd have no problem with us then keeping people captured on the battle field in lower conditions then we'd normally keep them to show that if you're going to treat our people poorly when you capture them you are condeming your own to similar, if not quite as gruesome, of a fate.
Click to expand...

Turning the situation around shows what I'm trying to explain - that taking such steps as torture puts your own personell at future risk.

Zyphlin said:
-- And as I said. "Good guys" when you're looking at black and white don't shoot people, bomb people, kill people. But we do. The "Good guy" lines moves when the "bad guys" ramp up.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but what I mean is that there are a variety of other options within the legal bounds of warfare that can be used. There are dangers of sinking to the level of those you are fighting against - and I see no need to limit the military response of your own people when dealing with enemy combatants.
 
Ikari said:
But this is false dichotomy. If we don't torture terrorists, a nuke goes off in NYC.
Click to expand...
Its not a false dichotomy, it folllows from a situational given.
The statement is not made in the context of tortuing all terrorist everywhere on the chance thatthey might know about such a thing, but specific terrorists in a specific situation where they do.
 
megaprogman said:
One of my biggest obstacles is that I have trouble finding a universal standard. We prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding in WW2 for example and if (big if, but lets go with it for the sake of argument) we had lost in Iraq or Afghanistan, would they have the right to prosecute us?
Click to expand...

really, mega? americans don't commit crimes, we make the laws. so of course we shouldn't be prosecuted, but screw the japs, they deserved to be prosecuted.
 
But this is false dichotomy. If we don't torture terrorists, a nuke goes off in NYC.
Click to expand...

It's not a false dichotomy, it's just a "dichotomy" created by the specific context of a hypothetical scenario. A million possibilities have been discarded to prove a point and the crux is presented. Anyway, the torture is not 100% guaranteed (I don't see where his statement guarantees success), so there is at least a third option (try and fail); it's a matter of the moral obligation to try to save the lives.

The only actual dichotomy is "try or do not try", and it is a true dichotomy. Either you try torture or you don't, under terrible extreme circumstances. I believe "don't try it" is the immoral choice, given the hypothetical.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
really, mega? americans don't commit crimes, we make the laws. so of course we shouldn't be prosecuted, but screw the japs, they deserved to be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

The Japanese waterboarded (and otherwise tortured) bona fide prisoners of war -- men captured in uniform bravely and openly serving their country. Terrorists are not such combatants. The neither deserve nor receive protection under the Geneva Convention.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry. Don't know about you, but my values don't change with my mood or the blowing of the wind.
Click to expand...

:rofl

----------------

Edit: Thought I'd add to this. Soldiers do things in the battlefield that break their hearts. That they must learn to live with long after the battle's done. They do them because they have to....to survive, to protect their comrades, to go home alive. It's not a question of values changing with your mood or the blowing of the wind.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
NO!!!

It's in our constitution. We do not torture.
Click to expand...

perhaps you could cite the relevant artilcle and section? i can't seem to find it....

I want the waterboarders charged with treason.
Click to expand...

well both your anger and disconnect from reality here definitely mark you as part of the moveon.org-strident-left

In combating our enemy, we should not sink to their level.
Click to expand...

and how many children are you willing to kill for your belief that we shouldn't waterboard?
 
disneydude said:
Sorry. Don't know about you, but my values don't change with my mood or the blowing of the wind.
Click to expand...

maggie is right; that you would say that indcates you have precisely zero idea what you are talking about.
 
disneydude said:
When you adopt the tactics of your enemies to beat your enemies....yes, you might win the battle, but at what cost? I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice our values and integrity to win a war.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
Nor should we. If we abandon our principles to uphold the rights and liberties of the individual, we become no better than any other despot in history.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to become that despot if it means protecting my children. I'll make that sacrifice, no problem.
 
Goobieman said:
Absolutely.
While torture may be wrong, so is not doing everything you can do to, say, stop a nuke from going of in NYC. Tortuing one or two or twenty to save millions is a trade every Presdient better be willing to make - else he isn't fit for office.
Click to expand...

I can't see myself looking on a nuk'd city thinking "well at least I still have my integrity".

I'd rather have the city.
 
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.
 
Jerry said:
I can't see myself looking on a nuk'd city thinking "well at least I still have my integrity".
Click to expand...
Safe to say that if, as President, you came on TV and said "I could have saved NY, but decided letting the city go was better than torturing someone to save it", those here supporting a plenary against torture would be the first to scream for your head.
Unless you were a Democrat, of course.

I'd rather have the city.
Click to expand...
Its the only rational choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom