McCain introduces Enemy Belligerent Act

[Berzerker]

And equating not torturing murderers with giving them the freedom to murder is a much better proposition, really?

WTH? Thats gibberish (no quote again?). You said it was anti-freedom to torture a would be murderer. And you've been running away from it ever since. I dont blame you, but pretending you never said it aint exactly honest.

I guess when someone is clutching at straws, crying strawman while building one is par the course.

You've invented an argument I cant even translate and you've identified me as the source (without a quote), I'd call that a strawman.

Err, no? Please explain how asserting that it's wrong to torture a potential murderer is asserting that he has the freedom to commit murder. 'cause the wonderful logic just isn't clear to me.

You said torturing the murderer was anti-freedom.

You don't stop a murderer by torturing him.

You might if the murder has yet to occur and he has information that'll prevent the murder, Why do I need to spell that out for you? After all this BS you still dont even understand the scenario damnit!

There is no justification for that.

Then there is no justification for self defense

Do you also support the stopping of thefts through mutilation?

No, why would I? Do you support trying to stop thefts at all?

Nope, not the same thing for reasons that I've already given you. Guess those are too inconvenient to deal with, huh?

I didn't say they were the same, I said the moral justification for torturing the murderer derives from the victim's right to self defense. If you say I cant defend my kid from a murderer then you're also saying my kid has no right of self defense.

Proof of what? 'cause I don't think you even understand what proof means, at this rate.

Proof of this strawman you've accused me of using. Jesus H Christ, pay attention. Boring as hell Aelf

 

[Fayadi]

Ah-ha. Then your attitude seems to be more of the 'it's OK, as long as I win' and 'a man's got to do what a man's got to do' type.

So, you believe in physical punishments and the like. I really hope you are never caught and convicted for some crime, as, according to your views, they can do anything to you.

I really hope that none of your relatives/friends will be beheaded by terrorists (to understand the true nature of terrrorism). And of course we shouldn't really punish evil.

 

[Silurian]

Berzerker@

Under want circumstances do you think it would be justified for an enemy to torture US Citizens

 

[aelf]

I like how the libertarians are coming out of the woodwork

WTH? Thats gibberish (no quote again?). You said it was anti-freedom to torture a would be murderer. And you've been running away from it ever since. I dont blame you, but pretending you never said it aint exactly honest.

What the hell are you on about? I did say it was anti-freedom to torture a would-be murderer. You got an argument against that which has not been debunked?

You've invented an argument I cant even translate and you've identified me as the source (without a quote), I'd call that a strawman.

You said that murder is not a freedom and therefore it is not anti-freedom to torture a murderer to stop him from committing murder. Isn't that what you said?

Whatever your exact position is, whether you think torture is not wrong to stop an act that is not a freedom, or whether you think it is justified to stop someone else's freedom to live from being impinged on (the latter which is a much more independently strong argument because the former gives no plausible answers as to why torture is necessary at all--why not just arrest him and give him a sentence after a fair trial, as civilised people do?), it's still wrong because you are impinging on the would-be murderer's freedom.

Here, read this:

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

You said torturing the murderer was anti-freedom.

YES

You might if the murder has yet to occur and he has information that'll prevent the murder, Why do I need to spell that out for you? After all this BS you still dont even understand the scenario damnit!

I do. I'm saying too bad. Hang tough. I don't even buy the self-defense argument. Unless he's about to stab some kid's eye out, you can't try to kill or immobilise him through excessive force. Self-defense only works in cases where a threat is credible and immediate (and that means about to happen in the next second or minute).

Then there is no justification for self defense

/facepalm

No, why would I? Do you support trying to stop thefts at all?

I didn't say they were the same, I said the moral justification for torturing the murderer derives from the victim's right to self defense. If you say I cant defend my kid from a murderer then you're also saying my kid has no right of self defense.

PRECISELY WHAT I SAID YOU WERE ARGUING AND YOU SAID I "INVENTED A STRAWMAN"

Proof of this strawman you've accused me of using. Jesus H Christ, pay attention. Boring as hell Aelf

 

[Formaldehyde]

I really hope that none of your relatives/friends will be beheaded by terrorists (to understand the true nature of terrrorism).

After all, that happens so frequently that there is a real danger of it actually happening to someone you personally know.

And of course we shouldn't really punish evil.

You mean like people who torture others contrary to US and international law?

 

[Fayadi]

After all, that happens so frequently that there is a real danger of it actually happening to someone you personally know.


You mean like people who torture others contrary to US and international law?

Torturing terrorists is only wrong if they target only military/government targets without harming civilian. It is only wrong if they did not behead people by their nationality and post them on internet. If they want the opposing team to abide by the rule, why don't they start doing so first.

Like in World War 1 , the incidence of cruel treatment towards POW is low as every nations abide by the rule.

So if Osama Bin Laden were to announce something on tv tomorrow "Stop torturing our comrades. We will abide by the rules of engagement. We will only attack government and military targets. We will not torture your soldier. We won't target anymore civilian.". Then YES it is wrong to torture.

 

[Berzerker]

Berzerker@

Under want circumstances do you think it would be justified for an enemy to torture US Citizens

When they're perpetrating an attack that will kill innocent people

I like how the libertarians are coming out of the woodwork

And the left is making no sense as usual

What the hell are you on about? I did say it was anti-freedom to torture a would-be murderer. You got an argument against that which has not been debunked?

I know you said it, you just didn't defend it when I asked you to explain why murder is a freedom. And you still haven't explained that gem of wisdom.

You said that murder is not a freedom and therefore it is not anti-freedom to torture a murderer to stop him from committing murder. Isn't that what you said?

Yes, and you said it was anti-freedom to torture the murderer to save the lives of his victims. So I'll ask again: why is murder a freedom?

Whatever your exact position is, whether you think torture is not wrong to stop an act that is not a freedom, or whether you think it is justified to stop someone else's freedom to live from being impinged on (the latter which is a much more independently strong argument because the former gives no plausible answers as to why torture is necessary at all--why not just arrest him and give him a sentence after a fair trial, as civilised people do?), it's still wrong because you are impinging on the would-be murderer's freedom.

Water boarding a murderer to save the lives of his victims is justified. Thats my position... You said torturing that murderer is anti-freedom. Why is murder a freedom? You never explained this, and I need a translation for all that.

Here, read this:

Okay, now what?

I do. I'm saying too bad. Hang tough. I don't even buy the self-defense argument. Unless he's about to stab some kid's eye out, you can't try to kill or immobilise him through excessive force. Self-defense only works in cases where a threat is credible and immediate (and that means about to happen in the next second or minute).

In my scenario the credibility of the threat is given. You have the man who will murder your kid in the future. "Immediate" or not, it will happen if you dont stop it. Your moral authority to stop the murderer stems from the moral authority of the victim to defend themselves. So your argument comes down to this: its okay to kill the bastard in "self-defense" if the murder is seconds away from happening, but if its an hour away, you cant even water board him. You've lost sight of any morality with that nonsense.

PRECISELY WHAT I SAID YOU WERE ARGUING AND YOU SAID I "INVENTED A STRAWMAN"

Where is this precision? You have a helluva time making your own arguments much less speaking for me. So use a quote the next time...

 

[Karalysia]

Only the State has the right to take people's lives.

 

[Berzerker]

Only the State has the right to take people's lives.

So now we cant even kill in self defense? Would it be moral then if we just let murderers kill us?

According to the Declaration of Independence, the state obtains its moral authority from the consent of the governed - thats us, not the state. And our state does not agree with you, we can kill in self defense.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Torturing terrorists is only wrong if they target only military/government targets without harming civilian.

And what about the fact that the vast majority of the so-called "terrorists" the US has tortured and even murdered have been completely innocent civilians?

Do you think the US troops, CIA personnel, and others who committed those atrocities should be tortured as well? Or do you hold Muslim war criminals to a different standard than you do US war criminals?

 

[Takhisis]

I really hope that none of your relatives/friends will be beheaded by terrorists (to understand the true nature of terrrorism). And of course we shouldn't really punish evil.

'to understand the true nature of terrorism'... Pffft. What is it that makes a terrorist different from any other criminal and empowers you to do all sorts of things that shouldn't be done?
Let's hope that these two from the ofshoot thread help you a bit...

Both.

The moral reason: If you betray the values you fight for while fighting, you have lost the battle beforehand.

The practical reason: There never is a torture or x-thousand people will die scenario in real life. Not even torture or x-thousand people might die.

If we have sufficient information to determine that someone could be justifiably tortured, then we don't need to torture them for information

Torturing terrorists is only wrong if they target only military/government targets without harming civilian. It is only wrong if they did not behead people by their nationality and post them on internet. If they want the opposing team to abide by the rule, why don't they start doing so first.

Like in World War 1 , the incidence of cruel treatment towards POW is low as every nations abide by the rule.

So if Osama Bin Laden were to announce something on tv tomorrow "Stop torturing our comrades. We will abide by the rules of engagement. We will only attack government and military targets. We will not torture your soldier. We won't target anymore civilian.". Then YES it is wrong to torture.

Sorry, what? Read from the Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

• Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
• Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
• Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
• Article 11
  • Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
  • No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
• Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

 

[Millman]

So the real question is how much confidence do you have in someone to follow the rules? Increase accountablity and limit government power?

 

[Karalysia]

So now we cant even kill in self defense? Would it be moral then if we just let murderers kill us?

According to the Declaration of Independence, the state obtains its moral authority from the consent of the governed - thats us, not the state. And our state does not agree with you, we can kill in self defense.

Without the State people exist in a state of nature. Without the State, without the power of the State to keep people in line, then society begins to break down, and where there is no society there is no morality. Hence morality derives from the stability provided by the state.