• 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
MaggieD said:
Life is not fair. Ya'll expect that, because we're the United States of America, we can make no mistakes. We make 'em. But we try as hard as any other nation on earth not to.

Headache this morning? ;-)
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that we don't make mistakes. I'm just looking to not grieviously infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. If you're going to throw people in jail and label them terrorists so you can torture them....we should maybe do a little something something to see if they really were terrorists.
 
SE102 said:
Yeah but since it does we don't have to torture so many people, see...
Click to expand...

We don't need to torture so many people anyway. I'm not going to accept one infringement of rights to avoid another.
 
Ikari said:
We don't need to torture so many people anyway. I'm not going to accept one infringement of rights to avoid another.
Click to expand...

It's at this point a philosophical issue, if some computer scours through my data searching for hot patterns or whatever I dont really care. :shrug: No human sees it. I hope. :lol:
 
Ikari said:
They're terrorists because we've decided to call them that. But people are calling for a general torture policy which is not a good or decent or high ground thing. Especially considering our lack of care when hucking people into jail. We say they're terrorists so that we don't have to think of a human component. But man of those we call terrorists probably never were before.
Click to expand...

The fallback position is that they're innocent? Why do we always believe the worst of our government? That is Conspiracy Theorism at its finest.

We make mistakes. But we try as hard as any other nation on earth not to.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
The fallback position is that they're innocent? Why do we always believe the worst of our government? That is Conspiracy Theorism at its finest.

Click to expand...

Because the government has always been the party who had to prove its case. The individual is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Is this a new concept? If the government wants to throw someone in jail, they need to show that the individual did something worthy of being thrown in jail over. Otherwise, you're just randomly throwing people in jail. This is of great importance especially since folk like yourself are arguing in favor of torture. Essentially what you're saying is that people who are in GITMO must be there because they're a terrorist and thus can be tortured. But that statement is not based on any fact, there is no proof, no case has been presented. It's dangerous to allow government so much freedom. And we know there are plenty of innocent people in GITMO. The real question should be, how many actual terrorists are there?
 
SE102 said:
It's at this point a philosophical issue, if some computer scours through my data searching for hot patterns or whatever I dont really care. :shrug: No human sees it. I hope. :lol:
Click to expand...

This is very much related to the "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about" excuse for expansion of government power against the rights and liberties of the People. The computer doesn't scour through your data. Someone has to program it to do so. And if that someone is government agent, then they need to get a warrant. There can be no allowance for arbitrary surveillance and recording of data, even though the government does do it. It should be resisted at all points.
 
Hrrm. I was under the impression it was basically a massive cluster of computers and hardrives that just looked for proper patterns in internet postage and communication to identify possible threats. The job doesnt seem humanly possible.
 
SE102 said:
So.... who knows what.... since we've only waterboarded a few... what type of torture are we using on the rest. Apparently CPwill has seen torture 'work' but hell, for all we know this thread threatens his livelihood if he were to divulge more :roll:
Click to expand...

:shrug: the IP's did it; generally they would hang an AQI guy from the cieling by his arms and use whips to peel the skin off of his back.

one night about 50 or so IP's showed up outside the FOB and told us we needed to come with them on a raid. we had some questions about the intel they were working on, and in the course of the conversation it came out that they had basically caught a guy working on a VBIED, and had beaten him until he had given up a couple of locations. so, we went to the compound they had brought up. Inside we found a a full sized-dump truck IED. the walls had been weakened at key points to funnel the explosion into particularly sized shrapnel, and the back had been filled with shape charges made out of 50-gallon drums. combined with that were a couple of suicide-motorcycles. turned out the plan was to detonate the nuke at the ECP next to the FOB, collapsing the wall and the COC (where I worked), and then zip in the morotcycles to target the reaction and ensure that the command element (of which I was a part) was taken out. I'm a 0351 by trade, so I figured out the net explosive weight of what they were planning to hit us with - it was about 8 times the size of the explosion that took down the federal building in oklahoma city. had they pulled that attack off, a good 1/3rd of the Company would probably have been toast.

I had a beautiful woman and a wonderful baby boy waiting on me to get back. I'm very glad they whipped that punk until he squeaked. it saved alot of lives.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Because the government has always been the party who had to prove its case. The individual is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Is this a new concept? If the government wants to throw someone in jail, they need to show that the individual did something worthy of being thrown in jail over. Otherwise, you're just randomly throwing people in jail.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but POWs (far more protected than terrorists) aren't given trials to prove they're POWs. They're thrown in the slammer for the duration.

This is of great importance especially since folk like yourself are arguing in favor of torture. Essentially what you're saying is that people who are in GITMO must be there because they're a terrorist and thus can be tortured. But that statement is not based on any fact, there is no proof, no case has been presented. It's dangerous to allow government so much freedom. And we know there are plenty of innocent people in GITMO. The real question should be, how many actual terrorists are there?
Click to expand...

I am not in favor of torture. I do not believe that waterboarding rises to that level. Our own soldiers in SERE training are subjected to far more unpleasant experiences than we've subjected Gitmo detainees. To call waterboarding torture is to denigrate the real thing. McCain was tortured. A POW caught in his soldier uniform and tortured. The North Vietnamese tortured American POWs mercilessly. A few lived to tell of it. Three years at the Hanoi Hilton brought healthy young men from 200# to 120# as their captives gave them just enough food so their own bodies wouldn't digest themselves. Do not denigrate those experiences by calling waterboarding torture.
 
SE102 said:
Hrrm. I was under the impression it was basically a massive cluster of computers and hardrives that just looked for proper patterns in internet postage and communication to identify possible threats. The job doesnt seem humanly possible.
Click to expand...

the trick with that becomes that any search criteria can be entered in.
 
Zyphlin said:
If a man comes at me with a gun, and I have a gun, I may choose not to draw it out of principle but I am stupidly putting myself at a disadvantage. If however I am protecting my family and choose to act in such a manner not only am I being foolish but I am being irresponsible as I'm willfully putting myself at a disadvantage which needlessly further endangers those I am supposed to be protecting.
Click to expand...

Very true, and sensible. You may remember this little gem from a few years ago:

The Difference Between Liberals, Conservatives and Texans

Situational Issue:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

----------------------------
Liberal Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
This is all so confusing!
I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

--------------------------
Conservative Answer:

BANG!

---------------------------
Texan's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... (sounds of reloading).
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.
Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
I'm not going to accept one infringement of rights to avoid another.
Click to expand...

That's irrational. The basis of our law and judicial system is the infrinment of some rights to protect others. A simple example: restricting protest to certain zones and only when authorized by the city - this restricts the right to free speech and demonstration in order to preserve public safety.

Again, the above quote is irrational.
 
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.
 
Also irrational.

Ya'll have fun now.
 
disneydude said:
I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice our values and integrity to win a war.
Click to expand...

good thing the guys back in WWII didn't think that way or we would all be speaking German or Japanese. :shrug:


It's easy to sit back and talk about not sacrificing values when there are those who are willing to do whatever is necessary to protect them for you.
 
ecofarm said:
That's irrational. The basis of our law and judicial system is the infrinment of some rights to protect others. A simple example: restricting protest to certain zones and only when authorized by the city - this restricts the right to free speech and demonstration in order to preserve public safety.

Again, the above quote is irrational.
Click to expand...

It's horrible that the are "free speech zones". If you don't know the fundamental reason why it's wrong to restrict protest to government appointed areas, then you're beyond irrational and into the blind zone. What's irrational is to accept government expansion against our rights without so much as a peep of protest. I'll never understand the irrationality of giving up rights for "safety".
 
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...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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...

"Abandoning" and "no better", that's two illegitimate black/white arguments in one sentence. Impressive.

We don't abandon, we allow for grey-area in a real world.

Just because the US waterboards three people since 9/11 and gets info that saves thousands of lives does not make it equivalent to Nazis. Spare me your thinly veiled Godwin.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
"Abandoning" and "no better", that's two illegitimate black/white arguments in one sentence. Impressive.
Click to expand...

Almost as impressive as your ability to not add anything substantial. Almost
 
Pointing out two false dicotomies followed by a Godwin is just my duty. There was not even anything else in the post. Lack of substance?

You're welcome.
 
Last edited:
Do you also take the time to point out your hyperbole and distortions; or is this just a one way street?
 
ecofarm said:
"Abandoning" and "no better", that's two illegitimate black/white arguments in one sentence. Impressive.

We don't abandon, we allow for grey-area in a real world.

Just because the US waterboards three people since 9/11 and gets info that saves thousands of lives does not make it equivalent to Nazis. Spare me your thinly veiled Godwin.
Click to expand...

There is no "Gray Area" when it comes to values, ethics and integrity.
 
Ikari said:
Do you also take the time to point out your hyperbole and distortions; or is this just a one way street?
Click to expand...

I always try to point out my bias or rhetoric (or dogmatism, or ideologiness), I'm self aware and like to prove it; however, the topic at hand is...

You put forth that one was perfect in their principles or the principles were abandoned. False dichotomy.

You put forth that one was perfect in their principles or they were "no better than any other despot". We didn't need th "in history", as no one would have countered with fictional despots. Anyway, false dichotomy AND Godwin.

Impressively enough, you managed these two FDs and a GW in a single sentence. Of that, one should be proud, at least in some way. Gratz.


Then you complain about me lacking substance. Either debate letgitimately and with intellectual honesty or at least don't cry too much when people call you on it. Further, don't call the kettle black when called on it; my posts at least are actually productive or useful in some way, false dichotomies and Godwins are not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom