Torture vs Drones

[GoodSarmatian]

I know. I just used brownish as a short-hand for 'not us'.
If they started bombing Canadians or Australians there'd be a hell of a lot more outrage.

 

[kochman]

I know. I just used brownish as a short-hand for 'not us'.
If they started bombing Canadians or Australians there'd be a hell of a lot more outrage.

What about... and I'm not using this to get under your skin (if I remember correctly, you are from Yugo)... when we were bombing in the former Yugoslavia?

That's "us", no?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

For me it's 'us' (although my parents are from YUgoland, I tend to identify as a German with a weird name), for others maybe not.
I's just that most peope -either consciously or subconsciously- care more about people of their own culture (however you might define it) and the dividing lines between cultures are shifting and subjective. I believe countries like Poland and the Chzech Republic are seen as closer to 'us' since they joined the EU, while most former Yugocountries are still 'the other' to some degree.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's to CEASE A LIFE!!!!

That's not the problem.

"Without a trial" is.

True murderers do deserve the death penalty. They stole the right to live from another human being. To let them live is to let them off better than the victim's, which is obviously unjust.

Of course, the threat of innocents being executed is a valid argument against it, and in most cases I'd agree with that caution. But you should ABSOLUTELY not kill without trial.

Torture is just unjustifiable.

 

[Borachio]

So no killing without a trial. Not even in self-defence?

 

[Agent327]

I mean, read every word I put in my sentence... "direct" in this case.

Oh, I read every word. Doing that again here: family is supposed to not be affected directly by the knowledge that a member has been tortured? Not to mention direct partners.

Intel gained via torture was also used.

But it wasn't the primary cause of locating him, now was it?

True murderers do deserve the death penalty. They stole the right to live from another human being. To let them live is to let them off better than the victim's, which is obviously unjust.

You are assuming that the death penalty is universally accepted: it most certainly isn't.

Of course, the threat of innocents being executed is a valid argument against it, and in most cases I'd agree with that caution. But you should ABSOLUTELY not kill without trial.

Torture is just unjustifiable.

Besides being illegal, obviously. As is killing without trial - even in war; there are rules about these cases. Rules that someone having studied law at Harvard should be thoroughly aware of.

 

[kochman]

Oh, I read every word. Doing that again here: family is supposed to not be affected directly by the knowledge that a member has been tortured? Not to mention direct partners.

There's no replying to this... because it doesn't make sense.
I guarantee you those people are just as effected by death of the person in question...

But it wasn't the primary cause of locating him, now was it?

Can't be sure... can you?
Anyway, it's hardly the discussion here...

The point is, torture is wrong... drone missile assassinations are wrong...
Why the silence from so many Obamites in the face of this?

 

[Ajidica]

The point is, torture is wrong... drone missile assassinations are wrong...
Why the silence from so many Obamites in the face of this?

For me, it isn't worth the same level of outrage. Torture is morally abhorrent on just about every level, not to mention blatantly illegal. Drone strikes, on the other hand, occupy a moral and legal grey area. Conventions against torture have been a part of warfare for roughly 100 years. Drone strikes have been used for less than ten. Hardly surprising they still reside in a legal limbo.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. It's an interesting question. I don't see how drones differ from manned aeroplanes, from a moral position. Nor from a trained assassin. Nor any military action, in fact.

 

[Flying Pig]

While we're on the subject, you know that our governments have sent thousands of people into Afghanistan to hurt and kill people? Where's the moral outrage about that?

On a serious note, drones are no worse, morally in themselves, than any other weapon of war; their implementation is perhaps another matter, though.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I don't see it either. What's the difference between a gun, designed to kill somebody at range, and a drone, also designed to kill somebody at range?

As for moral outrage, you can find it right here with me. But I'm rather the quiet sort. So you may not have noticed.

 

[Core Imposter]

At some point you will all realize we still live in a world where the use of force is necessary for survival.

 

[Borachio]

How much force have you had to use today in order to survive? I had to use some this evening, in order to open a tin of salmon.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mostly agree with the OP, the liberal hivemind is very much ignoring the drone strikes while they (and I!) was up in arms about the torture. Drone strikes strike me as a legitimate tool, but it's the implementation that matters. Civilian casualties are completely unacceptable. Cross-border strikes are an act of war.

 

[Borachio]

I must be missing something then. How are drones more heinous than ground or other air strikes?

 

[kochman]

For me, it isn't worth the same level of outrage. Torture is morally abhorrent on just about every level, not to mention blatantly illegal. Drone strikes, on the other hand, occupy a moral and legal grey area. Conventions against torture have been a part of warfare for roughly 100 years. Drone strikes have been used for less than ten. Hardly surprising they still reside in a legal limbo.

What do you base your morals on?
Law?

You keep falling back to this, well, drone strikes are in a legal grey area.

So the hell what? That's the most ridiculous answer I've ever seen in my life. Wrong is wrong and you know it. That you would excuse those doing it based on the current absence of laws that will be written, I guarantee you, but haven't been yet... it's scary.

While we're on the subject, you know that our governments have sent thousands of people into Afghanistan to hurt and kill people? Where's the moral outrage about that?

I've been railing about that, personally, since I was there in 2005 and saw what was happening there.

On a serious note, drones are no worse, morally in themselves, than any other weapon of war; their implementation is perhaps another matter, though.

Yes, as I said, actual type of weapon is irrelevant...
Why Obama is getting a pass from his supporters is the issue.

 

[GhostWriter16]

While we're on the subject, you know that our governments have sent thousands of people into Afghanistan to hurt and kill people? Where's the moral outrage about that?

It was a moral outrage. Not because we hurt and killed people, but because we hurt and killed them for no doggone reason.

Believe me, if America were actually attacked by a foreign governmnet, I would not be squeemish about "Hurting and Killing People" until that enemy nation learned to leave us alone... or surrendered.

That's not what happened in Afghanistan.

On a serious note, drones are no worse, morally in themselves, than any other weapon of war; their implementation is perhaps another matter, though.

Targeting civilians on the other hand...

At some point you will all realize we still live in a world where the use of force is necessary for survival.

Not against those that had never attacked you.

You are assuming that the death penalty is universally accepted: it most certainly isn't.

No it isn't. But it is surely not on the same level as torture.

The only anti-death penalty argument that I actually give legitimacy to is the innocent deaths argument. Due to my growing faith that it will be much, MUCH easier to figure out who the actual criminals are within the next 30 years or so, I'm hesitant to kill someone who might be reprieved with more technological advancement. As such, I only support the death penalty in the most blatant cases (How many people they killed is irrelevant, if I'm sure they killed one, they should get it, if they probably killed 10 and there just barely isn't a "Reasonable doubt" I don't want them getting it). But ethically I have no problem with a killer who stole someone else's right to life being treated in kind.

 

[Thedrin]

I would like to know where all the anti-torture people have been while Obama has escalated the Drone war?

When the Dreaded Bush Juggernaut was torturing, it was the end of the world if we continued... but...

Torture generally doesn't kill the target... maybe gets valuable info (see Bin Laden raid facts)... doesn't directly hurt 3rd parties...

Drones kill the target... drones get not intel... drones piss other countries off... drones kill 3rd parties....

Which is worse?
Better question... are not both wrong, so the degree of how wrong should be at least weighed against the benefits if it must go on?
Must either go on?

I haven't seen that point addressed anywhere in this thread.

Back when people were up in arms about torture, a strong argument against it was that the information gathered from torture was notoriously unreliable. Possibly the strongest argument since a lot of those in favour of torture didn't appear to be too concerned about the morality of inflicting physical or psychological pain on 'bad guys'.

Under torture a guilty man will confess to his crimes and an innocent man will confess to the same crimes.

Has this been debunked? Is torture now regarded as a reliable and effective means of obtaining information?

Drone strikes don't appear to be any different from cruise missile strikes or bombings by manned planes. Aerial bombardment is a spectacularly counter productive when you're trying to win over the locals. I don't see why it should be any different if the device that delivers the bombs has an on-board human. I also can't think of a reason why sending a drone on a bombing mission in Pakistan would be any more counter productive than sending a manned bomber on the same mission.

FYI, I wasn't an Obama supporter in 2008. He's proven to be a better than I anticipated. Not great by any stretch of the imagination. But better than I expected.

 

[Leonel]

I figure drones are way cheaper than going into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 on paper thin evidence and staying there for almost a decade only to discover that the reason for the action was over three 20 year old artillery shells that have long since expired in the corner of a long forgotten bunker in the desert, monetarily and life wise.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So no killing without a trial. Not even in self-defence?

Self-defense is a very different case. Drones are a form of execution.

If someone is trying to kill you they are by the fact itself guilty until they cease.