Waterboarding, is it torture? Should it be allowed?
- Thread starter Abaddon
- Start date
In middle ages everybody knows what he has to say to end it. But todays terrorists should lie or something but CIA will probably identify it as lie and doesnt end torturing.
Wow triple post.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
No, it should be done very silently.
Are you familiar w/ the Stanford Prison Expirement?
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Yes, very 'allegedly'...sources please.
Yeah, and the Milgram experiment. I have a hard time imagining the CIA is prone to that sort of psychological effect, given that they probably knowingly take advantage of it in other circumstances, but I have been wrong before.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Neither, you just dodged the issue. you hold two contradictory beliefs, and it's apparent to anyone with a brain you cant reconcile your "law and order" stance with your "always be the tough guy" stance. thats enough though, I know your opinion on it: you dont have one, you just say whatever suits, it evolves through the thread and in the end you are ambiguous enough that you havent taken any position at all. no need for further comment.
According to Rush Limbaugh and various posters here on this forum, it's "hazing"!
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
I voted it's not tortue just out of spite because of some of the other things that people whine about is torture like isolation and sleep deprivation.
I only support using waterboarding in very rare circumstances and the evidence against them can't be based solely or mostly on what was said during the waterboarding. Yeah, people can falsely say "I did it!" when waterboarded, but if they say "Look under this tree and you will find some evidence", and Lo and Behold, underneath that tree there was indeed the evidence he was talking about, then that should be used against him.
No he doesn't. It's like the anti-death penalty people who, upon hearing about some absolutely horrendeous crime (the worst of the worst cases), says "you know, I am against the death penalty, but I have to make an exception in this case".
I only support using waterboarding in very rare circumstances and the evidence against them can't be based solely or mostly on what was said during the waterboarding. Yeah, people can falsely say "I did it!" when waterboarded, but if they say "Look under this tree and you will find some evidence", and Lo and Behold, underneath that tree there was indeed the evidence he was talking about, then that should be used against him.
RedRalphWiggum said:
No he doesn't. It's like the anti-death penalty people who, upon hearing about some absolutely horrendeous crime (the worst of the worst cases), says "you know, I am against the death penalty, but I have to make an exception in this case".
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
My cynicism meter is beeping. I think it wants a word with you.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
/shrug. Wasnt a dodge, but was an honest attempt to tell you how I felt about it. Instead of appreciating the attmept, you continue to be antagonist about it.
/oh well.
Sometimes thats the nature of 'being on the fence' about something. Why do you have a problem with that?
Well, as El_Mac used to say on the subject, and I paraphrase here: 'its ok to outlaw torture for the sole reason if we ever really needed to use it (say to get the location of a nuke out of a terrorist) someone would simply break the law for the greater good anyway'.
Now in trying to balance the issues of the USA holding the moral highground and not torturing such terrorists, with the fact I would pretty much stick you in a blender to protect my own family and not even blink while doing it, you are entirely correct. I had hoped you would appreciate my feelings on it as opposed to continued derison since I am trying to remain open-minded on the issue that said torture (i.e. waterboarding) is torture and should never ever be used regardless of the particular situation.
lovett,
The moral objection is that you don't know if you're going to save people with the information you receive, but you are certain to have tortured someone. When you choose to torture, it might serve the greater good, but you're definitely doing evil.
If you insist upon the "we know we're going to get good information that will save lives" aspect of the hypothetical (which, I'll point out again, cannot possibly exist in the real world), then the issue simply comes down to the acknowledgement of individual human dignity implicit in the 20th Century's rejection of utilitarianism. You just don't torture people. As philosopher Ronald Dworkin has said, "no one has a right to security purchased through injustice."
(The article linked-to is a decent run down of the moral objection to torture, and, also, the other curtailments of liberty supported by those who most frequently rationalize torture.)
Cleo
The moral objection is that you don't know if you're going to save people with the information you receive, but you are certain to have tortured someone. When you choose to torture, it might serve the greater good, but you're definitely doing evil.
If you insist upon the "we know we're going to get good information that will save lives" aspect of the hypothetical (which, I'll point out again, cannot possibly exist in the real world), then the issue simply comes down to the acknowledgement of individual human dignity implicit in the 20th Century's rejection of utilitarianism. You just don't torture people. As philosopher Ronald Dworkin has said, "no one has a right to security purchased through injustice."
(The article linked-to is a decent run down of the moral objection to torture, and, also, the other curtailments of liberty supported by those who most frequently rationalize torture.)
Cleo
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." -Thomas Paine
No torture. Torture is a gamble, and always makes someone suffer, while actually getting useful, true, or life-saving information out of them is uncertain.
No torture. Torture is a gamble, and always makes someone suffer, while actually getting useful, true, or life-saving information out of them is uncertain.
Berzerker
Deity
You just quoted the answer, because its effective. That doesn't make it torture...
MrDictator
No
edit: the mental anguish fits the definition of torture, but if my brother was being waterboarded it wouldn't be the same as if they were cutting off fingers or something more tangible than simulated drowning.
Berzerker
Deity
Not knowing doesn't mean you dont try... How moral is it to let people die without trying to save them? You gotta look at this like its a Dirty Harry situation, you got the guy and he's got the info you need. If it was my kid's life on the line, I wouldn't care about the well being of the murderer. If he talks, fine. If I gotta get rough, thats his problem. If he cant or wont talk, my kid is dead and I'll kill the guy anyway. I dont see much of a difference between that and how we interrogate some guy we know is bad.
cubsfan6506
Got u
Shouldn't be used except for anything short of a impeding civilian deaths.
Berzerker,
I refuse to look at "Dirty Harry scenarios," because fictional situations do not and cannot exist in the real world. Whether it's Dirty Harry or Jack Bauer, you do not know that the guy you have has the information you need, and you do not know that torturing him will get it out. The viewer knows, because it's been written that way by people beforehand, but the real world isn't a Spaghetti western.
Additionally, the guy the "hero" tortures never does the obvious thing: tells the hero something fake so the hero stops torturing him and wastes valuable intelligence resources while the bomb goes off. And do you know why that never happens? Because it's fiction, specifically genres of fiction where the good guys always win.
Cleo
I refuse to look at "Dirty Harry scenarios," because fictional situations do not and cannot exist in the real world. Whether it's Dirty Harry or Jack Bauer, you do not know that the guy you have has the information you need, and you do not know that torturing him will get it out. The viewer knows, because it's been written that way by people beforehand, but the real world isn't a Spaghetti western.
Additionally, the guy the "hero" tortures never does the obvious thing: tells the hero something fake so the hero stops torturing him and wastes valuable intelligence resources while the bomb goes off. And do you know why that never happens? Because it's fiction, specifically genres of fiction where the good guys always win.
Cleo
Similar threads
