Waterboarding, is it torture? Should it be allowed?

[Cu Chulainn]

That is a perfect situation. I'll play your game. I would torture him in that situation to get what I wanted.

And this in no way suggests you believe torture is moral. All it shows is, like any parent, you're willing to throw personal morality to the wind to save your kid. If I asked you if you would rob a bank you'd do that to. Does that mean bank robbery is moral?

 

[Stevenpfo]

And this in no way suggests you believe torture is moral. All it shows is, like any parent, you're willing to throw personal morality to the wind to save your kid. If I asked you if you would rob a bank you'd do that to. Does that mean bank robbery is moral?

Thanks for elaborating on my point a bit. You are correct in your assumption as well. I'd do anything.

That link 2 posts ago was pretty crazy as well.

 

[Berzerker]

and how do you know for sure that it will? What if you're wrong?
Its called due process, its not perfect but at least we're trying to make sure we get the right people.

This has already been addressed. POWs dont get due process during a war and they only get it if Congress says so. And we weren't wrong about the Sheik. If we had him on 9/10 and he was singing like a bird because of waterboarding, the people who got him to talk would be heroes.

Its not about the welfare of the "murderer". Its about having standards, about moral high ground. Its about not giving the government carte blanch to do whatever they want to anyone they label a "terrorist".

I'm not interested in debating strawmen. Is this your standard of morality - dont waterboard murderers to save their future victims, it is better the innocent die than risk making a mistake?

The attack was so effective because no one saw it coming. If I saw him on that date I would have no reason to believe there was such a plot. I suppose we should just torture the hell out of everyone, you never know who might know something.

We didn't see it coming because our "leaders" didn't keep us informed about the enemy. There is no way those planes would have found their targets if the passengers knew their likely fate. But yeah, when we catch well known high level AQ, I'm all for waterboarding them. And spare me the juvenile strawmen, this aint about waterboarding everyone and you damn well know it.

 

[Berzerker]

That is a perfect situation. I'll play your game. I would torture him in that situation to get what I wanted.

Its what the thread is about, not my game. So is torturing him immoral?

I hate using perfect scenario examples. 99.9% of the time they're unrealistic. They'll never happen. Nothing is black and white. Matter of fact, I don't believe there are the colors black and white in politics. Politics are nothing but shades of grey.

It happened with the Sheik, and the lives saved are real. I dont know what they got from the other 2 guys but I'd say its a good thing they were waterboarded.

 

[Berzerker]

And this in no way suggests you believe torture is moral. All it shows is, like any parent, you're willing to throw personal morality to the wind to save your kid. If I asked you if you would rob a bank you'd do that to. Does that mean bank robbery is moral?

Do you sit back and read what you typed before hitting that button?

Saving the life of your kid from a scumbag is throwing morality to the wind? I wont even go into your flawed analogy...

 

[Stevenpfo]

Its what the thread is about, not my game. So is torturing him immoral?

Absolutely.

Here's the thing I do not like about your analogy: I know by doing this thing it will save my child's life. It is the perfect scenario that is completely in your favor. It allows me to use irrationality (my child is involved) and it presents me with a situation where there are no shades of gray.

As i've already stated everything in real life is made up of shades of gray. I'm not saying I don't understand where you're coming from. I do. It is just, as i've said, such a perfect scenario. Where is the line drawn? Who decides where it is drawn? You? Me? Do we take a vote? No, the government decides, as they've shown. Not even all of the government decides. A select group does. That's one problem i've had with all of this.

The next is precedence. Is this how we now operate? Was it a one time thing? Is there such a thing?

There seems to be so many things wrong with all of this. It seems everyone has agreed on certain things and this one action flies in the face of all of them. Do we give them a trial? No? Do we find evidence against all of the ones tortured? No? Maybe? How do we know?

How much do we know?

Do we torture our own countrymen or is it only people from foreign lands that we've decided are probably terrorists or enemy combatants? Where is the line?

The line seems to move at the whim of the people doing the torturing. At the very least this worries me. It's not what I either imagined a freer country doing or how I imagine a country i'd like to live in acting.

 

[Stevenpfo]

Do you sit back and read what you typed before hitting that button?

Saving the life of your kid from a scumbag is throwing morality to the wind? I wont even go into your flawed analogy...

If you believe torturing is wrong on moral grounds than yes, that is what you'd be doing.

That's the thing about morals. Everyone has their own standard.

 

[Berzerker]

Absolutely.

Here's the thing I do not like about your analogy: I know by doing this thing it will save my child's life. It is the perfect scenario that is completely in your favor. It allows me to use irrationality (my child is involved) and it presents me with a situation where there are no shades of gray.

It aint irrational or immoral to do what it takes to save your kid's life from a murderer. You practically admitted I'm right on this with all that talk about the perfect scenario and everything in my favor, but you still say it would be immoral to waterboard the guy who is killing your kid. Its like saving the life of an innocent person is irrelevant to your morality...

As i've already stated everything in real life is made up of shades of gray. I'm not saying I don't understand where you're coming from. I do. It is just, as i've said, such a perfect scenario. Where is the line drawn? Who decides where it is drawn? You? Me? Do we take a vote? No, the government decides, as they've shown. Not even all of the government decides. A select group does. That's one problem i've had with all of this.

They admitted waterboarding the Sheik, thats black and white, no shades of gray.

There seems to be so many things wrong with all of this.

There aint nothing wrong with waterboarding top AQ people, and there aint nothing wrong with waterboarding the Sheik. Had we done it on 9/10 and he cracked, close to a million people would be alive today.

How much do we know?

This is not a debate about whether or not its immoral to torture the innocent.

Do we torture our own countrymen or is it only people from foreign lands that we've decided are probably terrorists or enemy combatants? Where is the line?

The Constitution

 

[Flak]

For me, it depends. If the torture is just to get information, then forget it. I bet I could simply threaten to 'waterboard' more than few people on this forum and get them to not only admit to any terrorist act I could come up with, but likewise implicate every person who posted on this thread. All just to avoid being tortured, truth be damned. It's just to unreliable.

Now if the purpose is simply punishment, then as long as the person isn't genuinely physically hurt or driven insane, sure. It is punishment afterall.

 

[Stevenpfo]

It aint irrational or immoral to do what it takes to save your kid's life from a murderer. You practically admitted I'm right on this with all that talk about the perfect scenario and everything in my favor, but you still say it would be immoral to waterboard the guy who is killing your kid. Its like saving the life of an innocent person is irrelevant to your morality...

They admitted waterboarding the Sheik, thats black and white, no shades of gray.

There aint nothing wrong with waterboarding top AQ people, and there aint nothing wrong with waterboarding the Sheik. Had we done it on 9/10 and he cracked, close to a million people would be alive today.

This is not a debate about whether or not its immoral to torture the innocent.

The Constitution

I like to believe you are completely missing my point or refusing to budge from your stance what-so-ever. Who knows.

Yes, I said I would do something I considered immoral in your perfect scenario.

No, I said water boarding someone before they've committed a crime you know they're going to commit is a shade of gray.

Whether or not "close to a million people would be alive today" is up for grabs. I happen to think Bush and Co. would have found a way to attack Iraq regardless.

Lastly, this is a debate about whether it is immoral to torture the innocent. Hence my 'shades of gray' remarks. Unless you have a perfect scenario (which I do not believe to exist except for in peoples minds and in movies) than it is a shade of gray. Innocent people will be (have been?) tortured at Gitmo and other places if this is to continue.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Do you sit back and read what you typed before hitting that button?

Saving the life of your kid from a scumbag is throwing morality to the wind? I wont even go into your flawed analogy...

You don't understand my point. I won't even go into your flawed reasoning...

 

[Berzerker]

I like to believe you are completely missing my point or refusing to budge from your stance what-so-ever. Who knows.

Yes, I said I would do something I considered immoral in your perfect scenario.

So why is it immoral? I've explained why it aint, but all I get in response is "we might make a mistake". There aint no mistake, you got the guy who buried your kid...and you still think its immoral to torture the bastard to save your kid? That nonsensical argument is a result of you refusing to budge. Btw, you didn't say it would be immoral so I had to ask again...

No, I said water boarding someone before they've committed a crime you know they're going to commit is a shade of gray.

We aint talking about waterboarding someone before they commit a crime. Jesus will you guys stop with the strawmen?

Whether or not "close to a million people would be alive today" is up for grabs. I happen to think Bush and Co. would have found a way to attack Iraq regardless.

Maybe, maybe not... If he did it still wouldn't exonerate you for letting a top AQ planner keep quiet on the eve of 9/11.

Lastly, this is a debate about whether it is immoral to torture the innocent.

BS, no one here is arguing that, we're debating whether or not torture is (inherently) immoral.

Hence my 'shades of gray' remarks. Unless you have a perfect scenario (which I do not believe to exist except for in peoples minds and in movies) than it is a shade of gray. Innocent people will be (have been?) tortured at Gitmo and other places if this is to continue.

The Sheik is not any shade of gray. But you dont care about shades of gray, you just said it would be immoral when its black and white - even to save your kid's life.

 

[Berzerker]

You don't understand my point. I won't even go into your flawed reasoning...

This was your "point"

All it shows is, like any parent, you're willing to throw personal morality to the wind to save your kid.

So I asked

"Saving the life of your kid from a scumbag is throwing morality to the wind?"

If that aint your point, what is? Tell us why it is immoral to waterboard the guy who is murdering your kid.

 

[Stevenpfo]

Let's start at square one, shall we? Is Wikipedia a good enough source? If not, please provide your own.

In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.

In its second, normative and universal, sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism.[1]

In its third usage 'morality' is synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.[2]

Under those stands a personal code of conduct that I follow. Part of that is something so many people have heard: treat others how you'd like to be treated. I think we can all see how that falls under torture.

I know how I feel but I find it hard to convey that into words for you. Plus, to be honest, I don't think you'll care. But i'll give it a shot. I think that to make the world a better place we (I) have to set a standard. It's not easy. It's hard. It's near impossible. It's easy to give up and give in to irrational feelings. To let them take control. I think all humans are better than that.

I think here in North America we have the privilege of how and where we're raised. We can sit back and rest on our laurels or we can use this privilege to help others. I like to think that's what others have meant by a "moral high ground." I'll let them answer for themselves though.

This is what I meant by saving my child. I would do it because I like to think I wouldn't be able to control rational thought at that time. Not that it would be right. I mean that in a philosophical sense, I think.

That is also what I mean by a perfect scenario. If I use a perfect scenario to judge how I will act in an imperfect situation then I am probably doing something wrong.

Talking to you have been pretty frustrating. I don't know why yet. I haven't been stubborn. How do I know? I've actually sat back and considered what you said. Rolled it over in my mind. I understand where you're coming from. I've been there before. I disagree with that way of thinking now. I think it may have something to do with either personal gain or the betterment of all. I'm pretty sure I know where your argument will go after that comment but i'll wait and see. It'll be my little experiment.

 

[Berzerker]

Under those stands a personal code of conduct that I follow. Part of that is something so many people have heard: treat others how you'd like to be treated. I think we can all see how that falls under torture.

Is the guy murdering your kid treating ya'll by that standard? Does this mean if he came up to you and your kid and pulled out a knife and tried to kill your kid, you'd do nothing to physically stop him lest you violate the Golden Rule? Is it immoral to kill someone trying to murder you and your kid? Is that irrational?

I know how I feel but I find it hard to convey that into words for you. Plus, to be honest, I don't think you'll care. But i'll give it a shot. I think that to make the world a better place we (I) have to set a standard. It's not easy. It's hard. It's near impossible. It's easy to give up and give in to irrational feelings. To let them take control. I think all humans are better than that.

I think here in North America we have the privilege of how and where we're raised. We can sit back and rest on our laurels or we can use this privilege to help others. I like to think that's what others have meant by a "moral high ground."

The innocent already have the moral high ground against those trying to murder them. Do we lose that moral high ground when we defend ourselves by killing the people trying to murder us? No, but waterboarding is worse than killing them?

This is what I meant by saving my child. I would do it because I like to think I wouldn't be able to control rational thought at that time. Not that it would be right. I mean that in a philosophical sense, I think.

The rational reaction to that situation is to extract the location of your kid from the villain. The irrational response is to...what were you planning on doing with him?

That is also what I mean by a perfect scenario. If I use a perfect scenario to judge how I will act in an imperfect situation then I am probably doing something wrong.

We aint debating shades of gray, we're debating black and white because this debate is about whether or not torture is immoral. If the answer depends on the circumstances, and it does, then the morality or immorality of torture depends on the situation.

 

[Stevenpfo]

Meh. You have fun with that. You win teh internets.