So apparently the whole "it doesn't work" argument for torture is dead wrong

[Chucara]

Here our kids call that high school except they don't want answers. They do it just for laughs.

Well.. In your schools they shoot people too, so I wouldn't take that as an indication.

[BlueCross]

I agree with Brugdor, I think it should be US policy to torture anyone entering the US (and a random sampling kidnapped from other countries) so we can prevent protential terrorist attacks.

Obviously kidding, but if you think torture is fine, then you wouldn't have any problems with US citizens being suspected of terrorism in other countries being tortured? Or do you want torture to be a sentance? Oh right.. terrorists don't get trials.

Basically, to avoid terrorism you want to become terrorists?

And I absolutely don't agree with you BlueCross that waterboarding isn't torture. I agree that it is less atrocious than say, pulling out fingernails, but it's still a pretty horrid psychological intrusion on the subject, especially considering that some of the US prisoners were subjected to waterboarding over 150 times combined with sleep deprivation.

I suggest anyone who thinks waterboarding isn't torture to have someone do it onto themselves. Preferably by someone they fear or is hostile towards them. It's basically the equivalent of someone holding your head in the toilet until they get answers.

Trust me, I know what torture is.  Try wearing a catheter for seven days.

We just have different definitions of torture.  Unless it is causing physical damage or 'permanent psychological damage' (whatever that is), then in my mind, it isn't torture. 

If harsh (non corporeal) interrogation is torture to you, then we have just have different definitions.  Also note that just because we have different definitions of torture, that doesn't necessarily mean we disagree on what should or should not be allowed when interrogating prisoners.

Gray areas:
Deprivation of food and water for extended periods.  Probably torture.
'Harsh' interrogation (bright lights, yelling,  no physical contact).  Probably not.
Sleep deprivation.  Very gray (to me).
Dunking witches in ponds while they are tied to a teeter-totter like apparatus.  Not torture but definitely violating some rights.
Drug administration.  Ewww... very tough call.  Seems like torture but what if drug is 'harmless'.  But is any drug harmless?


Note that just because someone's rights are violated doesn't make it torture.
However, torture is almost undoubtedly violating some rights.

(/-end rambling)

[Night Owl]

And I still don't see how my question is unfair. Again, if you believe it then you should be able to answer that any amount of American lives is worth us not crossing that line. The problem is no one wants to say that because they don't truly believe it.

That's not true. It's just impossible to answer unless one already believes that torture saves lives. Which many people (including me) don't believe. I believe in the long run, it costs more than it saves. Thus, the net lives saved is negative.

One more time - Your question assumes beyond all doubt that torture saves lives. Thus, your question is unfair (and flawed) because you really don't know that for a fact, and the person answering may not believe it saves lives.

Again, it's like saying "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Do you understand now?

[Brugdor]

And I still don't see how my question is unfair. Again, if you believe it then you should be able to answer that any amount of American lives is worth us not crossing that line. The problem is no one wants to say that because they don't truly believe it.

That's not true. It's just impossible to answer unless one already believes that torture saves lives. Which many people (including me) don't believe. I believe in the long run, it costs more than it saves. Thus, the net lives saved is negative.

One more time - Your question assumes beyond all doubt that torture saves lives. Thus, your question is unfair (and flawed) because you really don't know that for a fact, and the person answering may not believe it saves lives.

Again, it's like saying "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Do you understand now?

I understood your point when you first made it. It's just invalid because, according to these memos, torture has saved lives. Thus my question to the anti-torture crowd is completely valid. Had we not tortured this one guy he wouldn't have given up that info and American lives would have been lost. So how many lives lost is worth being able to say, "Well at least we didn't torture anyone"?

Also, it's going to be interesting to see if more of these memos are released like Cheney and others are wanting them to be. If even more evidence is there that torture was working then Cheney might very well know of it and want that information released to prove his point.

And what's with the wife beating question? Wouldn't anyone that hadn't beat their wife say, "I never beat my wife"?

[BlueCross]

Had we not tortured this one guy he wouldn't have given up that info and American lives would have been lost.

Once again, you presume too much.

[Swash]

So torture's a case of "if it saves more lives than it destroys, it's alright" huh?

[Night Owl]

I understood your point when you first made it. It's just invalid because, according to these memos, torture has saved lives.

To start, you're posting an op-ed opinion to a piece of the memo (which is, in itself, opinion... Personally, I'm not real interested in what the people doing the torturing - the CIA - thought it did.) You are passing it off as undisputable fact. That's ridiculous.

Not to change the subject, but man, you are *quick* to accept this memo as fact (and not opinion), and ignore, for example, the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community regarding climate change. On that topic, you cling to the minority view.

Nothing wrong with that, mind you - I don't want to talk about climate change in and of itself. I'm just pointing out that it seems the writings you take as fact are very much influenced by your (obviously right leaning) political beliefs.

Thus my question to the anti-torture crowd is completely valid. Had we not tortured this one guy he wouldn't have given up that info and American lives would have been lost.

You have no possible way of knowing if this is fact. Neither does the writer of the memo. (Nobody does).

And what's with the wife beating question? Wouldn't anyone that hadn't beat their wife say, "I never beat my wife"?

Because that's technically not answering the question. The point is, you are asking a question where the answer you want is already known.

[Celest]

Well just to weigh in on this.. the issue with torture, outside of the whole moral question about it.. is that it significantly weakens our stances and abilities on the international stage.

It kills our credability and ability to go after future tyrants and people who use fear and hatred to maintain control.

So if you are going to ask 'how many lives are worth it', you should be willing to consider 'future lives' saved with the crediblity you maintain by not conducting it vs the 'theoretical' lives saved(since there is nothing to say what would have happened) by conducting it.

That is a two way street, afterall.

[Swash]

I just had a brilliant idea.  I can kill a million people and it'll be ok because I'm saving lives!

Some of those million people would be murderers themselves, so they'll never have the chance to kill.  Others would give birth to murderers, or inspire people to kill through petty neglect.  Every person I kill could potentially save hundreds of lives!  AND they wouldn't be emotionally scarred afterwards the way tortured people are.

[Doombot]

There's something else I think about when I wonder about torture.

It's not the debate of how many lives are saved (if at all). I wonder what effect this will have on us morally.

When torture becomes more accepted, what does that say about us as a society? How will this effect us?

Will this be a taint that'll make us crueler in the future? What's the difference between a run of the mill suspected domestic murderer and a suspected member of a sect. Should we torture domestic criminals as well? Are the lives that we "save" by torturing regular criminals no less important. Where will it stop?

I used to reluctantly agree with the whole "Well... if a terrorist knew where a nuclear bomb was... would you considered torture?" argument.

Now I'm of the mindset: It'll probably cost more lives in the meantime (to torture) and I'd rather live in a society where I have a small chance of dying in a terrorist strike than to support a government that tortures with debatable results.

[Brugdor]

I just had a brilliant idea.  I can kill a million people and it'll be ok because I'm saving lives!

Some of those million people would be murderers themselves, so they'll never have the chance to kill.  Others would give birth to murderers, or inspire people to kill through petty neglect.  Every person I kill could potentially save hundreds of lives!  AND they wouldn't be emotionally scarred afterwards the way tortured people are.

Ah, started working for Planned Parenthood have you?

[Brugdor]

There's something else I think about when I wonder about torture.

It's not the debate of how many lives are saved (if at all). I wonder what effect this will have on us morally.

When torture becomes more accepted, what does that say about us as a society? How will this effect us?

Will this be a taint that'll make us crueler in the future? What's the difference between a run of the mill suspected domestic murderer and a suspected member of a sect. Should we torture domestic criminals as well? Are the lives that we "save" by torturing regular criminals no less important. Where will it stop?

I used to reluctantly agree with the whole "Well... if a terrorist knew where a nuclear bomb was... would you considered torture?" argument.

Now I'm of the mindset: It'll probably cost more lives in the meantime (to torture) and I'd rather live in a society where I have a small chance of dying in a terrorist strike than to support a government that tortures with debatable results.

Well the difference here is I think we are talking about a handful of men who have actually been tortured during all this. I don't like that it has to be done but then it wouldn't have to be done if they would just talk. They know all they have to do is spill the beans and no torture is necessary. Now if they spill the beans and then are tortured as was allegedly the case in an earlier link, I have a big problem with that. Provided there isn't more to the story that would justify it anyway.

As for the moral argument, I understand where you are coming from. However we live in a country where innocent lives are taken every day in partial birth abortions. This is done in a way that's so horrific, if it was proposed as a means of putting a man condemned of murder to death, it would be laughed out of our court system. So my question would be, what morality?

[BlueCross]

There's something else I think about when I wonder about torture.

It's not the debate of how many lives are saved (if at all). I wonder what effect this will have on us morally.

When torture becomes more accepted, what does that say about us as a society? How will this effect us?

Will this be a taint that'll make us crueler in the future? What's the difference between a run of the mill suspected domestic murderer and a suspected member of a sect. Should we torture domestic criminals as well? Are the lives that we "save" by torturing regular criminals no less important. Where will it stop?

I used to reluctantly agree with the whole "Well... if a terrorist knew where a nuclear bomb was... would you considered torture?" argument.

Now I'm of the mindset: It'll probably cost more lives in the meantime (to torture) and I'd rather live in a society where I have a small chance of dying in a terrorist strike than to support a government that tortures with debatable results.

Well the difference here is I think we are talking about a handful of men who have actually been tortured during all this. I don't like that it has to be done but then it wouldn't have to be done if they would just talk. They know all they have to do is spill the beans and no torture is necessary. Now if they spill the beans and then are tortured as was allegedly the case in an earlier link, I have a big problem with that. Provided there isn't more to the story that would justify it anyway.

As for the moral argument, I understand where you are coming from. However we live in a country where innocent lives are taken every day in partial birth abortions. This is done in a way that's so horrific, if it was proposed as a means of putting a man condemned of murder to death, it would be laughed out of our court system. So my question would be, what morality?

I see; so you are arguing since something else is horribly wrong, it is OK for you to do something horribly wrong.

Nice.

[Brugdor]

I see; so you are arguing since something else is horribly wrong, it is OK for you to do something horribly wrong.

Nice.

Is that somehow worse than arguing that it's ok to do this horribly wrong thing to an innocent baby during birth but not ok to do it to a known terrorist?

[BlueCross]

I see; so you are arguing since something else is horribly wrong, it is OK for you to do something horribly wrong.

Nice.

Is that somehow worse than arguing that it's ok to do this horribly wrong thing to an innocent baby during birth but not ok to do it to a known terrorist?

Your brain is completely fucked up, but you know that, right?  Well... maybe you don't.

(/end ad hominem)