Torture poll

[Pure]

Take note:

I inferred, above, that amicus supported {7}

{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).

The latest posting pretty much confirms this:

ami:Fluttering in the wind of political spin is an alleged report that 'enhanced interrogation', prevented a second 9/11 like attack on a skyscraper in Los Angeles, California in 2002.

"Waterboarding", was the method that, again allegedly, produced the information from a terrorist, who by the way, is still living.

?Amicus


To preserve the American experiment against terrorists, we torture. What's odd is that amicus calls his view 'libertarian' or 'individualism.' Yet quite clearly individuals are sacrificed.

Yet, he says, the highest value is human life. It's an UNalienable right.
Yet suspected terrorists, even American citizens on American soil, may lose their freedom, their health of body, even their life. They FORFEIT the unalienable right.

Utilitarianism, oft condemned here by some, WEIGHS the welfare of some against the welfare of all. [Greatest happiness of the greatest number, is the standard]. Sometimes the choice goes to the latter. All of us would be given pause with the 'save a city from an atomic bomb' scenario.

The difference is that some of us are up front. The 'objective' evil of torture IS, in part because of the overall effects. Just as one can claim that waterboarding prevented an attack {amicus}, one can claim, with Ogg, that one's international rep is harmed, and one's moral authority. Looking then at the overall, longterm outcome, and making a 'utilitarian' calculation, one arguably comes up with the right answer (as did Ogg).

Most of us have a bit of 'utilitarian' in us; it's just that some of us refuse to be hypocritical about it.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not sure why you are so obsessed about putting each of us inside one of the choices you gave in your poll. As with most polls, the choices are leading and have wide gaps between their gradations--and in this case, are floated without a common understanding of what constitutes torture.

Is there some second-round "gotcha" point you're building to?

 

[shereads]

Just as one can claim that waterboarding prevented an attack {amicus}, one can claim, with Ogg, that one's international rep is harmed, and one's moral authority. Looking then at the overall, longterm outcome, and making a 'utilitarian' calculation, one arguably comes up with the right answer (as did Ogg).

That's the point of the study I posted earlier, Consequential Arguments Against Torture. The author isn't talking about consequences to the torture victims, but to a society that condones/enables torture. (For example, an inability to prevent torturers and those who hire/authorize them from expanding the focus of their work, serving personal and unauthorized political agendas, etc.)

One of the most obvious 'possible' consequences he lists is the creation of many NEW terrorists, whose recruitment to anti-US terrorist organizations is made possible by our actions as torturers. We've already seen that consequence at work, as evidenced in the Joint Intelligence Report that was released during the 2nd Bush administration.

 

[shereads]

Another likely downside is economic:

Massage customers will no longer be willing to pay $35 extra for the Enhanced Deep Tissue Massage

 

[Dragonlipz]

Fluttering in the wind of political spin is an alleged report that 'enhanced interrogation', prevented a second 9/11 like attack on a skyscraper in Los Angeles, California in 2002.

"Waterboarding", was the method that, again allegedly, produced the information from a terrorist, who by the way, is still living.

?

Amicus

Since you're deriving immense satisfaction from the antagonism that you're causing these bleeding hearts, I'll make it easy for you:
Who are you?
What do you stand for?
What do you value?
Does what you stand for have value?
Does what you value reflect who you are?

If you know the answers to these questions, you know in your heart what the value of your convictions are and why it's wrong to torture.

The reason for torture is to inflict pain, physical, mental, or both; not to extract information.

Pretending that there is any justification for participating in torture is not just a rejection of higher neural function but does indicate an inability to engage those higher functions as a result.
You and Dick Cheney - you oughta take that act on the road........

 

[Pure]

note to sr71

no, i have no interest in fitting everyone into the 10 choices. yes, i realize there are nuances, and i respect all those who, *out of attention to nuance*, declined to vote. this option i always include.

sr I'm not sure why you are so obsessed about putting each of us inside one of the choices you gave in your poll. As with most polls, the choices are leading and have wide gaps between their gradations--and in this case, are floated without a common understanding of what constitutes torture.

Is there some second-round "gotcha" point you're building to?
=======================

pure: as to the second point, [sr:] [choices] are floated without a common understanding of what constitutes torture.

i have given both the US legal definition AND the UN Convention defintions. further, i've given examples.

as to 'second round 'gotcha'. no. the first round gotcha i already explained and was confirmed: amicus and wmrs, while speaking of "objective" values {"life}, have great difficulty with specific cases. it's my theory that the inconsistencies in their moral principles are the reason they will not endorse any of the choices that say, essentially, 'it's wrong generally, but there are exceptional circumstances where it's right.'

 

[sr71plt]

The reason for torture is to inflict pain, physical, mental, or both; not to extract information.

This, of course, is the nub of what went on at Abu Grab and Gitmo. It has little to do with extracting information, but is done mostly out of frustration that Americans are not all-powerful in the face of "unwashed" Muslim terrorists and the need for revenge for that.

 

[wmrs2]

no, i have no interest in fitting everyone into the 10 choices. yes, i realize there are nuances, and i respect all those who, *out of attention to nuance*, declined to vote. this option i always include.

sr I'm not sure why you are so obsessed about putting each of us inside one of the choices you gave in your poll. As with most polls, the choices are leading and have wide gaps between their gradations--and in this case, are floated without a common understanding of what constitutes torture.

Is there some second-round "gotcha" point you're building to?
=======================

pure: as to the second point, [sr:] [choices] are floated without a common understanding of what constitutes torture.

i have given both the US legal definition AND the UN Convention defintions. further, i've given examples.

as to 'second round 'gotcha'. no. the first round gotcha i already explained and was confirmed: amicus and wmrs, while speaking of "objective" values {"life}, have great difficulty with specific cases. it's my theory that the inconsistencies in their moral principles are the reason they will not endorse any of the choices that say, essentially, 'it's wrong generally, but there are exceptional circumstances where it's right.'[/QUOTE]

There are fewer inconsistencies in our moral principles than yours; in fact, your trained subjects do not even acknowledge the existence of principles. When there is no base for reasoning, all moral deductions and inductions lead to confusion. If science used the same reasoning that you suggest for moral formulations, we would still be rubbing sticks to make fire. That is exactly how far you all have come in terms of morality with your relativity about everything.

Do you not understand that the difference in the way we think is that we use scientific reasoning in our morals as compared to you all's relative thinking. In science, if you use relative thinking, you always have failure. It is always necessary to follow scientific methods to have truth in science and it is the same in formulating morals. An opinion on torture is the same way.

Whereas it may be true that absolute reasoning processes have not found all the answers to all our morals, it is true that our best chance in improving our moral codes and laws is in scientific reasoning. The reason evil men never improve their morality is because they do not recognize existing moral principles to be true, dependable, and motivational in deduction and induction, thus logical.
(E=MC squared is based on absolute thinking)

 

[wmrs2]

Since you're deriving immense satisfaction from the antagonism that you're causing these bleeding hearts, I'll make it easy for you:
Who are you?
What do you stand for?
What do you value?
Does what you stand for have value?
Does what you value reflect who you are?

If you know the answers to these questions, you know in your heart what the value of your convictions are and why it's wrong to torture.

The reason for torture is to inflict pain, physical, mental, or both; not to extract information.

Pretending that there is any justification for participating in torture is not just a rejection of higher neural function but does indicate an inability to engage those higher functions as a result.
You and Dick Cheney - you oughta take that act on the road........

Sir, you ask only rhetorical questions and these are not designed to gather the truth. The irony is that by asking these questions, you illustrate that amicus is correct and you are faulty in your reasoning. It is doubtful that you will ever see this or admit it but we will try to explain it to you.

The only person who can answer any of these questions you pose is a person who has a life based on absolute principles, which you say do not exist. You say this not in word but in the reasoning process you employ. There is no premise in your question to induce an answer back to anything meaningful. In science this is always true and it is always true in moral reasoning, except you will never recognize the need for correct reasoning in determining morals. It is simple but you may never understand it. You must have correct deductions in order to have correct inductions, none of which can happen without solid premises.It is true in science and it is true in morals.You are too interested in rhetorical reasoning than you are in scientific reasoning.

 

[wmrs2]

This, of course, is the nub of what went on at Abu Grab and Gitmo. It has little to do with extracting information, but is done mostly out of frustration that Americans are not all-powerful in the face of "unwashed" Muslim terrorists and the need for revenge for that.

Are you so naive to believe that Abu Grab and Gitmo would not have exsisted had there been a different administration in the White House? Abu Grab and Gitmo was not a result of policy but a failure in human nature.

Therefore, the rest of your assertion is based on pure ignorance: but is done mostly out of frustration that Americans are not all-powerful in the face of "unwashed" Muslim terrorists and the need for revenge for that.

You think so little of your country that you really believe our national goal has been to be all powerful and after revenge. Although revenge is sometimes to be enjoyed, our national goal is prevention first and then defense. If you see it any other way, I feel sorry for you. The way you naively talk, you sound more like the terrorist talk than a dedicated American. I believe you are the latter but please think before you speak.

 

[shereads]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3606/3461268451_694d8372bf_o.jpg

 

[sr71plt]

blatherblatherblather

Drop dead, mwrs2. I lived this stuff from the inside. You're just a gaming troll using it to pretend like you're fooling someone.

 

[wmrs2]

Drop dead, mwrs2. I lived this stuff from the inside. You're just a gaming troll using it to pretend like you're fooling someone.

I almost did last summer. I spent 30 days in the hospital. Had a $100,000 medical bill, open heart surgery, four bye passes, kidney failure, lungs filled with fluid, a major heart attack, blue lighted twice and believe it or not, etc. I am much better now and getting better each day for which I am thankful to God.

If you think I am going to get stressed out over an insignificant argument with you and your trolling friends, your nuts.

I am having fun! Lighten up brother and join me.

 

[sr71plt]

crapola

Don't count on it. You neither impress nor fool me.

 

[cantdog]

That's the point of the study I posted earlier, Consequential Arguments Against Torture. The author isn't talking about consequences to the torture victims, but to a society that condones/enables torture. (For example, an inability to prevent torturers and those who hire/authorize them from expanding the focus of their work, serving personal and unauthorized political agendas, etc.)

One of the most obvious 'possible' consequences he lists is the creation of many NEW terrorists, whose recruitment to anti-US terrorist organizations is made possible by our actions as torturers. We've already seen that consequence at work, as evidenced in the Joint Intelligence Report that was released during the 2nd Bush administration.

Will there be a Contractor of Fortune magazine for the new class of torturers-for-hire?

 

[cantdog]

If what you need is information, then you use the best method to get it - torture doesn't work because eventually you can get a person to say anything to get it to stop; if they don't know anything, they'll make shit up, and you can't sort good information from bad.

Interrogation takes time and patience, and it definitely might make the interogatee uncomfortable for a while, but there is seldom any lasting damage from proper interrogation.

In short, there is not so fine line between causing discomfort, even extreme discomfort, and outright sadism. The tortures administered in Abu Graib could have been just as easily staged if compromising material was needed - abetting sadism just backfired and the bottom line is, it didn't work, and it's pointless to try and justify it.

You say it takes time and patience, and you do have to go in willing to take the time it takes, but it's surprising sometimes how fast a willing ear will work. People want to tell you, in their hearts, most of them. At least, in ordinary criminal investigation, or counseling.

A determined adversary will take time, perhaps, but also perhaps less than you think. The APA or whatever it's called has had ongoing debates about lending psychological expertise to enterprises like Gitmo, and the verdict was, no. Association members agreed not to play.

I think it was interesting the extent to which FBI kept clear of the torture scene. FBI, when they were called in, actually turned them in, and they have largely kept out of it.

 

[sr71plt]

I think it was interesting the extent to which FBI kept clear of the torture scene. FBI, when they were called in, actually turned them in, and they have largely kept out of it.

That's hardly surprising. It all happened/is happening away from the U.S. mainland (for specific legal reasons), where the FBI has no jurisdiction.

 

[Verdad]

Someone said it was a failure of human nature, so now I really want to say why I insisted on what is torture.

There are people, here and anywhere else, who hesitate to as much as tell a hurtful joke, and then there are people who think, "Meh, what's the big deal with waterboarding? It's not like anyone's dick was cut off."

That's human nature, and that says to me as loudly as anything that cruelty is in the eye of the beholder and that by extension the same could be said of torture.

Additionally, I'd speculate it's the latter kind of beholders that's more likely to find themselves in certain lines of job.

From there it follows, or at least it does to me, that the only meaningful way of talking about torture is in terms of specifics and law. Instead of having to worry whether the person in the situation shares my sensibilities or about how fallible their nature is, I want it to be as simple as this:

Have any regulations been broken? If yes, charge the motherfuckers.

If no, but the public and/or experts still feel torture has occurred, the regulations are clearly unsatisfactory and need to be tightened.

And yes, I know this is somewhat circular, given precisely all the dancing around the laws that's occurred in the specific cases, but adequate legislation is something I put much more hope into than persuading every single potential torturer to become a better human being.

 

[shereads]

Will there be a Contractor of Fortune magazine for the new class of torturers-for-hire?

Isn't there?

 

[shereads]

"Be thankful that you are allowed to exercise your power of benevolence and mercy in the world, and thus become pure and perfect.”

Swami Vivekananda! You're full of surprises.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Intelligence agencies will always use inquisitors to get information from defiant sources. And inquisitors will use every effective tool they know of to get the information.

 

[xssve]

Key word here is "effective" - is it really effective, or just an excuse for sadism?

Presumably, we are fighting for some sort of principle here, if not, then drop the fucking sanctimony.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XXSVE

It isnt torture if the action has an outcome apart from the infliction of pain and suffering.

And whining about interrogations wont stop them. We need the information, some people are defiant, and we're forced to use techniques that work.

 

[freshface]

Key word here is "effective" - is it really effective, or just an excuse for sadism?

Presumably, we are fighting for some sort of principle here, if not, then drop the fucking sanctimony.

That is a key question. If torture is effective, then we need to move on to when or if it might be appropriate. If it's not effective, then it becomes the means of retribution that sr71 mentioned.

Perhaps not coincidentally, AP just released an article on torture effectiveness, available here. According to the article, in 2006 a group of scientists and retired intelligence officers were tasked with identifying effective interrogation techniques. They produced a 372 page report for the Director of National Security. According to this article, that report concluded that harsh interrogation techniques were not effective. As the report says, "The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information. In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that ‘compliance' carries the same connotation as ‘meaningful cooperation.'"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Inflicting pain is very effective with most people. But in every case you discover what works, and go with what works.