Torture poll

[shereads]

"The USA is responsible for less terrorism than all the rest of the world effort to fight terrorism and torture. That is the pragmatic statement that should be analyzed, which you do ignor."

This is a "hey what?" non sequitor statement that is ignored because it doesn't make sense.

Yikes. I guess Amicus is right about women; being a girl is definitely making him dumber.

 

[sr71plt]

"In the first place the USA has not picked torture as its national policy and you have far less chance of being tortured here"

Just having you on the forum is more torture than I ever was threatened by while living in the Middle East.

By the way, have you found something to substantiate that claim of yours that I "promised" to put you on ignore--in addition to all those other false claims you've made that I've challenged? (Didn't think so. )

 

[wmrs2]

What do you mean by 'evil?' All those people, even the macoutes, were acting for good reasons, as they saw the world. If you employ a morality which admits of enemies, than you will do evil to those enemies. But every morality which includes the construct 'enemy' considers despoiling enemies to be moral.

I, too, once considered that I had enemies. I nurtured a better-dead list and I maintained grudges. One's moral ideas change radically as one matures. People blowing schools and churches up are most likely not doing it for the reason: I shall now do evil things. On the contrary, they have sound moral reasons for their actions, within their own set of ideas, and within their moral limits.

My country blows schools and churches and hospitals up. I am helping, this moment, with my taxes, to support the apparatus which has this as its purpose. I watched Shock and Awe take place. Wholesale destruction was visited on enemy population centers. That's what military forces are good at. If you want people killed and shit destroyed, bring on an army. And yet, armies are not sent forth to do these things out of any impulse to evil, but for sound moral purposes.

My own morality has matured, and I no longer have enemies. I see these actions as unspeakably evil. In this, my morality is also sound, at the level I am now at.

My country blows schools and churches and hospitals up. I am helping, this moment, with my taxes, to support the apparatus which has this as its purpose.

My country does not do this. Your country might. I am aware that many countries as policy hide their troops in schools and hospitals to protect them from American bombs. It works or they would not do this. That does not happen here but it does in your country. Now that is "shock and awe."

 

[amicus]

First of all it is important to acknowledge that this entire thread is entirely Purely political. It has its' roots in Vietnam and the ACLU and the animal rights people, the anti-war folks, a spider web of interconnected interests.

Secondly it is entirely bogus as the US does not and has not 'tortured' prisoners. To affirm this as truth you need only follow a search to NSA documents that outline the practices and limits that may be used during interrogation procedures.

Not a single prisoner was killed or seriously injured, physically or mentally while being subject to 'enhanced interrogation procedures'.

Other than the purely political nature of this thread, there is the continuing debate over the origin of human ethics and morality. While refusing to acknowledge an absolute source and definition of morals, the statement is often made in 'absolute terms', that all torture is morally wrong. When it suits those who complain, morality is absolute, when it does not suit them, it becomes situational, relative and subjective.

There is another aspect of this entire discussion, that of War and Terrorism, that is not addressed as it should be. Terrorists, Islamic Fundamentalists, will cut off the head of captured prisoners and not receive the criticism the US gathers for threatening prisoners at Abu Graib with dogs and nudity.

War in Iraq...aside from giving weeks of warning before, 'shock & awe', the, 'smart bombs', targeting military and industrial facilities purposely avoiding collateral civilian casualties as written rules of engagement.

The use of 'enhanced interrogation' tactics, following written guidelines did produce information that saved lives of both American and others from planned future attacks.

This is simply another of Pure's phoney arguments, political, anti American, anti war in nature and should be dismissed as proselytizing.

For over 35 years there has been one central issue that has fueled the discussion and continuing arguments concerning ethics and morality. That issue has to do with the value of a single human life and to accommodate that glaring immoral and unethical act, an entire new set of situational ethics has been tussled with in an unending effort to rationalize the taking of innocent human life.

Without that one emotional divisive issue, it might be possible to participate in a truly enlightening discussion of ethics and morals; but with that silent 800 pound gorilla always lurking at the fringe, the rationalization of any human act as situationally acceptable continues at a blinding pace.

Amicus...

 

[shereads]

"you have far less chance of being tortured here"



This makes my heart sing.

You know, the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty is way overdue for an update...

 

[sr71plt]

"you have far less chance of being tortured here"



This makes my heart sing.

You know, the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty is way overdue for an update...

"Give me your tired, your poor, your a bit more tortured than here . . ."

 

[wmrs2]

What you describe, several hundred million moralities, is precisely the case. A child is a total egoist. His moral decisions will be quite different from Gandhi's and quite different from Pastor Hagee's or the Phelps family's at Westboro Baptist. Each of these people will act morally, by their lights, if they can. But they will still act differently.

How held together do you imagine societies are? Can you honestly look about you and see unity of purpose across an entire society as big as this one? If so, you really are deluded.

You are deluded! There is only one country in the world that says it is ONE NATION UNDER GOD and it is not one of those Muslim counties either.

 

[sr71plt]

"I am aware that many countries as policy hide their troops in schools and hospitals to protect them from American bombs."

How absolutely vile of them. They should stand in the center of big targets painted on the ground when Americans want to bomb them.

 

[sr71plt]

"You are deluded! There is only one country in the world that says it is ONE NATION UNDER GOD and it is not one of those Muslim counties either."

Ummm, don't look now, but that's exactly what Muslim countries are founded on (and it's the same God, hot shot).

This gets funnier and funnier.

 

[freshface]

Hey Cant, am I missing something? Are you one of them dern ferrners, or is wrms especially incoherent today? I always thought you were just one of us who hated freedom, but wrms keeps talking about you being from someplace else.

 

[shereads]

"Give me your tired, your poor, your a bit more tortured than here . . ."

LOL. Seriously.

 

[Pure]

a definite advantage of torture

it's a time honored means of discovering and proving the guilt of withches. here's a notice of a new book:

The story at the heart of The Last Witch of Langenburg [by Thomas Robisheaux]: One afternoon in 1672, a woman called Anna Schmeig baked some cakes and wandered around her neighbors' homes in her German village, handing them out. One of them, Anna Fessler, thought the cake tasted foul and couldn't eat much. She threw it away after only a few bites—but she died soon after.

The villagers—already traumatized by the failure of crops and mass hunger across Europe caused by the Little Ice Age—concluded she must be a witch. Anna was arrested and tortured. Her daughter eventually "admitted," under the pressure of fists and torture implements, that her mother was a witch. So Anna was strangled and then burned.

 

[wmrs2]

jbj: I believe most people will torture if the information is important enough.//

this is possibly true, and applies to murder as well. but i did not intend a question about human psychology [behavior] under stress.

i intended a question about one's personal policy [one's morality; moral code], one's standards applied to others' actions [one's general moral views] and about public policy [the laws in our society; or the laws one would support as proper]; secondly i intended to look at the basis for any such policies, for one's moral views.

some around this forum talk about 'objective moral principles,' and i was curious about the results of 'objective' or rational analysis for this issue.

===
i think some of the points above about the efficacy of torture are *highly* relevant, since the defenders of torture often describe it as a 'magic bullet' [magic arm twist] applied in a perfectly clear situation where the suspect is *known* to be guilty and well informed, and where the immediate saving of a life is guaranteed to result. as soon as one adds uncertainly to the equation--is it the right person? does he really know?-- then the downside is rather apparent. the wrong person, under torture, will end up telling you anything to save himself and hence wild goose chases result, detracting from more efficacious approaches.

I suggest that your opinion is extremely subjective and your research is very faulty just like your opinion. Before you even begin your research you are opposed to objective principles; therefore, we know where your research will go and we know you will condemn Ameerica for the use of torture.

It is true that you will not find few studies that support the effectiveness of torture but it also true that there a no studies that prove torture is never effective at getting information.

 

[freshface]

it's a time honored means of discovering and proving the guilt of withches. here's a notice of a new book:

The story at the heart of The Last Witch of Langenburg [by Thomas Robisheaux]: One afternoon in 1672, a woman called Anna Schmeig baked some cakes and wandered around her neighbors' homes in her German village, handing them out. One of them, Anna Fessler, thought the cake tasted foul and couldn't eat much. She threw it away after only a few bites—but she died soon after.

The villagers—already traumatized by the failure of crops and mass hunger across Europe caused by the Little Ice Age—concluded she must be a witch. Anna was arrested and tortured. Her daughter eventually "admitted," under the pressure of fists and torture implements, that her mother was a witch. So Anna was strangled and then burned.

I recently visited a torture museum in Rothenberg, Germany. It's truly amazing what people would confess to when given the right motivation.

 

[impressive]

What you describe, several hundred million moralities, is precisely the case.

Exactly. Those "God-given" rights are merely the commonest ground. Laws, social niceties, tradition -- it's all subjective.

Personally, to the topic, I find the use of torture as a means of obtaining "truth" to be ineffective. So, for me to condone the use of torture, there would have to be a different objective (such as those convenient lies). However, I can't fathom an instance when that end would justify those means. *shrug*

I don't go so far as to take the holier-than-thou high ground, though. To believe "we" have the "moral right" to punish crime by ending another person's life is not so far removed from believing "we" have the "moral right" to punish by other means. All means of punishment are distasteful, unless (IMO) you're a sick fuck. Only society -- and its several hundred million moralities -- determines which path is acceptable, which path allows us to sleep at night.

 

[Pure]

delicious ironies

NOTE: This comment is NOT about a number of persons participating, who found the wording imperfect or whose stands were not captured in any choices.

those labeled 'relativist', by amicus and wmrs, have posted and voted on the objective wrong of torture. their stands are expressed and clear.

amicus and wmrs, those labelling themselves believers in objective moral principles, or devoted to self evident values, including above all, the absolute supremacy of human life, have not taken any definite stand in the poll. this, despite three choices affirming the 'objective' truth regarding torture. their positions remain unclear, in the poll.

their postings however reflect a willingness to use torture in a variety of situations of emergency, 'public good,' and so on. absolute and self evident principles, apparently, have a number of 'commonsense' exceptions ([well, you have to understand it's barbarians we're dealing with!).

roughly speaking then, i infer that those believing in 'objective moral truths', amicus and wmrs, in fact, subscribe, more or less, to either alternative 3 or 7, though they are reluctant to be clear about it. (I stand subject to correction as to my inference by any of these people.)

[from pure's poll]
3. It's objectively wrong, except in an emergency, to torture.

7. It's definitely wrong to torture UNLESS there is some immensely great, 'social good' [general welfare] that is preserved (e.g., keeping a city from suffering an atomic explosion).

 

[wmrs2]

I recently visited a torture museum in Rothenberg, Germany. It's truly amazing what people would confess to when given the right motivation.

It is important to note that the torture machine was not in the USA.

 

[sr71plt]

"It is important to note that the torture machine was not in the USA."

Perhaps more relevant to note that the torture museum wasn't there.

 

[cantdog]

Your statement is not rational or empirical enough for me.

At the present moment we are dealing with the terrorist world and the non-terrorist world...

It is not in the USA where the need is to take a stand against torture but really and truly it is in most of the rest of the world. It is only a few European countries where torture is not used.

It is an exaggeration to say that the USA has lost the respect of the world by using the small amount of torture it has used.

As you rationally think about it, it does seem that it is an issue between "us and them" and I am willing to keep it that way...

I have removed some of the wilder things you said in the post. I generally don't answer questions with two or more unspoken assumptions in them. I don't even agree with your expressly spoken assumptions.

First, though, Your list of people who use the policy is incoherent and inaccurate. I'm in Amnesty International, and I have written letters to government officials all over the world about human rights issues. Not general statements, such as we make here, but individual cases. "This woman spoke out for investigations of extrajudicial execution, you must release her," and so on. The practice is fairly widespread, but not nearly so much as you imagine. Human rights violations take place worldwide, but torture as a policy is not usual, unless you include repeated and endless beatings and holding in squalor with sleep deprivation.

What really is widespread is isolated instances when soldiers or police holding a line somewhere, say, soldiers who have been fed these scare stories about torture saving lives, undertake it without a policy. The point of the letter then is to urge investigation and prosecution.

More common than torture is simple killing with no charges, no trial. Many times the body is mutilated, but maybe not before death. Again, the letter points to the problem with details and urges particular officials to do their duty and bring those responsible to trial.

More common still is systematic persecutions of particular groups, such as tribe members of a particular tribe or women, gays, journalists, trade unionists, clergy, foreigners, whatever it is. Much of the time these are raids conducted by police or military members, or civilian militias, or just groups of armed yahoos, and the persecution is not being discouraged or investigated.

I gather that you are filled with animus toward relativists, liberals, muslims and terrorists, and you also seem to think all those people are involved in torture, but that doesn't prevent you from defending torture yourself.

I am in no doubt that your morality falls within the Us and Them category, since you lay blame against groups and protest the relative innocence of other groups. What can you imagine your Christ to have meant when he said to turn the other cheek, to forgive seventy times seven times, to love those that hate you, to give him your cloak also?

 

[amicus]

"...Exactly. Those "God-given" rights are merely the commonest ground. Laws, social niceties, tradition -- it's all subjective...."

~~~

Once again I take exception to those that deny an 'absolute moral foundation' and then declare, "It's all subjective", as an absolute.

This time Impressive offers that absolute statement.

It is fine with me that you, and others, reject the concept of 'God-given rights', but to discard the human mind and the human condition in favor of a 'subjective', non absolute, situational, ever changing, relativist morality, is an affront to any rational mind.

Not only an affront, but dangerous in the extreme, as any act, no matter how obscene can be justified as acceptable under a given situation.

According to your logic, the forced abortion imposed on Chinese women daring to give birth to more than one child, is perfectly all right in your moral system.

Do you not see the contradiction?

Amicus

 

[Verdad]

But Ami, do you deny that the very question of what constitutes torture is subjective? I have posed it here already because I've found it most difficult to answer.

The dilemma in my mind isn't when it's okay to torture—I say never. It's not whom it's okay to torture, either—I say no one.

The gray area, if there is one, is what is torture? Where do we cross the line from 'enhanced interrogation' to torture? The only way to draw that line, like it or not, is by reaching a consensus. Nothing natural, God-given, or self-evident puts 4000 hours of listening to Alvin and Chipmunks on the one side and waterboarding on the other.

 

[shereads]

it's a time honored means of discovering and proving the guilt of withches.

It wasn't always about proving them guilty, you know. It was widely known that an accused witch could be proven innocent by means of drowning her. Witches don't sink.

 

[shereads]

"It is important to note that the torture machine was not in the USA."

Perhaps more relevant to note that the torture museum wasn't there.

Worth a bump and some thought.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

zimbardo's 'stanford prison experiment,' in which a model prison [or jail, more exactly] was created and randomly some students were made 'guards' and others prisoners. all were normal.

the guards' behavior became increasingly sadistic. some of the prisoners underwent great stress and suffered trauma. there was a 'rebellion' which fizzled.

the principal experimenter himself was initially blind to the evil that was being created. a student made the case [for stopping] to him, and on day 6, of the planned 14, the experiment was discontinued.

there is an account at
http://www.holah.karoo.net/zimbardostudy.htm

and in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

zimbardo testified in defense of some of the prison guards at abu ghraib, iow, offered a defence based on the dehumanizing context and the authority structure. as in the Stanford experiment, some guards who became extreme had no previous history of such behavior.

Zimbardo is a twit. I read his stupid fucking book, and its nonsense. He used no controls. In the book he says some of the dummest goddamned things imaginable. Like, Nixon increased the bombing of North Vietnam to get back at the demonstrators in America. Bull shit. He did it to force North Vietnam to negotiate a peace treaty. But back to the 'guards' and 'prisoners,' they could have walked away from the stunt any time they wanted to. They werent held against their will or coerced to participate. The whole thing was head theatre circa 1971.

I've particpated in these skits a bunch of times, and they always attract people who are histrionic or manipulative. He needed controls to test his hypothesis, and he had none.

 

[amicus]

But Ami, do you deny that the very question of what constitutes torture is subjective? I have posed it here already because I've found it most difficult to answer.

The dilemma in my mind isn't when it's okay to torture—I say never. It's not whom it's okay to torture, either—I say no one.

The gray area, if there is one, is what is torture? Where do we cross the line from 'enhanced interrogation' to torture? The only way to draw that line, like it or not, is by reaching a consensus. Nothing natural, God-given, or self-evident puts 4000 hours of listening to Alvin and Chipmunks on the one side and waterboarding on the other.

~~~

You raise an interesting and valid point, Verdad, one perhaps beyond me to answer with certainty.

There is not much admirable coming out of the nations Capitol, either now, under a new President,or before under several different administrations.

Pure, specifically, has raised false allegations against US behavior in both 'torture', and, 'invasion of privacy', laws.

The best answer I could offer is that we are a nation of laws.

I have followed closely, the court cases questioning interrogation methods and wire tapping cases alleged to violate the rights of American citizens.

The activities of many nations during wartime as it applies to treatment of prisoners and the violation of basic human rights, can well be brought into question and should be.

While the execution of prisoners and extreme torture has been often employed by other nations, any such incident within the US Military or the Intelligence Service, is carefully scrutinized and prosecuted if the 'rule of law', is violated in any way, large or small.

That is not to say that isolated incidents do not occur; it is to say, however, the the policy of this nation is clear and it does not include torture or the invasion of privacy rights.

If you read the guidelines recently published, they are much more restrictive than even I had imagined.

The 'grey' area you speak of is more an adherence to law than it is an ambivilous one. For example, the French and Norwegian Naval forces, fought and captured Somali Pirates on the High Seas and then had to release them because their laws did not permit holding them for prosecution.

In the same manner, it was and is a difficult legal process for the United States as to how to deal with captured enemy combatants.

It is even more difficult as a State of War exists between Iraq, and Afghanistan and the US, but many captured combatants are mercenaries from Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iran. Most countries will not prosecute those mercenaries and in fact will release them to fight again.

I suggest, or recommend, you leave the decision of what is torture and what is not to the legal minds that are skilled in the legal niceties of determining such things.

There must, I think, be some trust afforded our government unless you become like the thread starter who is totally anti American and uses any excuse to attack the nation.

There is much I do not like about government, but, as the saying goes, it represents us and is the best we have been able to manage.

Thank you...

Amicus...