Torture

Torture is deplorable, produces false information anyway, and it disgusts me to think that my tax dollars go even in part to fund something that lowers us to the level of terrorists. I personally find it irritating the way the administration is hesitant to investigate and prosecute. "Don't want to look back", my ass, this is a dangerous precedent to set. If the people responsible walk away scott-free now, you bet your ass if someone tries to pull this stunt in the future, they'll point their fingers at this and say "BUT THEY DID IT FIRST AND THEY DIDN'T GET IN TROUBLE". Nobody is above the law. If they were, it wouldn't be law, it would be guidelines. >:|

This is, of course, assuming we aren't investigated by the U.N. first. I think we should save ourselves the embarrassment and just do it ourselves, though.

... I realize Jon Stewart is a comedian first and foremost, but I did really like his thoughts on the subject. "If you don't stick to your values when tested, they're not values! They're hobbies."

 

yes i agree with both of you... this behavior is disgusting i was quite shocked when i heard about the whole scandal of a woman trying to deny the fact that she knew what was going on and now there trying to get C.I.A. files declassified. i swear us using torture makes us just as bad as the iraqis... no it makes us worse you expect it from them

 

Torture is wrong. Anybody that tries to tell you otherwise is lying, quite probably to themselves as much as to you. It is morally wrong on a fundamental level and can never be justified.

We shouldn't even need to use the argument that it more often than not yields false results. It shouldn't matter how effective it is, because, in saying that, we imply that if torture were effective, if it did work, it would somehow be right. This is clearly not the case.

I wish I could rant further on the topic, it is one of the things I feel most passionate about, but it is late and I should really be asleep. I might well come back to this thread sometime tomorrow and write a proper post on this...

 

When one group of people commit to go to war against another, truth and morality are the first victims. This has always been the case - save that in modern times the people are becoming more aware of the atrocities. We may find the acts disgusting, or like to point fingers, but war has not changed.

I am against torture on the grounds of unreliable information obtained, and propaganda opportunities offered to one's enemies. As for committing crimes against humanity to further your cause - it is only as just as the survival of your cause. The "laws of war" are but conventions to help reduce suffering of the innocent.

 

i personally do not support torture, and i think it's an immoral practice.
however, as Numfarh said, it is a really complex issue.
my morality class had a discussion on this topic few weeks ago, and it made me really think about whether it's justifiable.
well, is it effective? maybe-torture might bring out important information that could protect our government and american people OR maybe not-the person subjected to torture may soon realize the torturers won't kill him, and that they'll torture you to an extent just to get more info.
is it okay to torture somebody if it could prevent terrorism? idk. personally i do not like the idea of torturing someone in the first place, but what if you could save lives of millions of people?
i think that the issue of torture, like any other moral issues, is way more complicated than most people might think.

 

I'm sorry but I don't think it's complex at all. You are either for torture or not. All this moral dilemma mumbo-jumbo is bullshit IMO. I'm sure the rationale of all torturers (ok, all but the sadists) in wartime is to get information to save lives, or alternately, to find and kill others before they kill you. So the US can torture because it might save lives? If the US can do it, why not everyone else? Is it because we are the good guys, and they are the baddies. By who's definition?

 

Omg, this.:eusa_clap

 

Note: Comments are not directed at any particular user; the quote just makes a good starting point.

At what point would you stop to defend your friends, family, and self? What would you be prepared to do, not out of vengeance, but self-preservation, against one that would hurt the people you care for?

On an individual level it makes sense to always use the most effective means to neutralize your enemy. This includes the possibility of torture. The reason why we have established rules of war are to limit suffering in a sort of a "if you don't do X, I won't either" way. Consider the case of bearing arms openly/wearing uniforms. It makes sense to pretend to be a civilian only to suddenly attack your enemy out of nowhere. However, if you do this, your enemy may be forced to kill civilians on the fear they may be soldiers in disguise. Given the negative consequences to both parties, we have international agreements that all soldiers must bear their arms openly, or failing that, at least wear a uniform. All soldiers that do so are protected by further international agreement if they are captured - protected from, among other things, torture.

A country should respect the laws of war so that the enemy of that nation will respect them too. A country warring against another country that does not respect such rules is at a disadvantage in the conflict (see the example of the uniforms). To remove the temptation to break the rules of war we must establish punishments for those who do not respect such rules. This can include the exclusion from the protection from torture in the above example of openly bearing arms/ wearing military uniforms.

Applying this to the current situation of the US torture with a couple of variations:

In this situation torture is right:

Premise 1: an action is right if it produces the best consequences.
Premise 2a: torture provides useful information
Premise 2b: obtaining useful information is a good consequence
Premise 3: the Iraqi insurgents have no way of retribution against the USA for torturing.
Premise 4: no other negative consequences shall be incurred, such as international condemnation.
________
Torture is justifiable. One might even go so far as to say it should be mandatory. But what if torture did not produce useful information? or the Iraqis used the evidence of torture to gain sympathy for their cause? if the EU would stop trading with the US due to its war crimes? In those cases torture would be wrong.

In this situation torture is also right:

Premise 1: Iraqis and Americans have an agreement to follow the laws of war
Premise 2: the Iraqis are the first to break the laws of war (ex: by not wearing uniforms and/or bearing arms openly)
Premise 3: torture is a method of punishment
Premise 4: punishing Iraqi insurgents who break the laws of war will encourage other insurgents to follow said rules
________
Again, in this case torture could almost be made mandatory. But what if the Iraqis did not break the law? would they not in kind be encouraged to punish american soldiers for torturing fellow insurgents? What if punishing the insurgents did not encourage them or others to return to respecting the laws of war? or worse, made them break more? In these cases at the very least torture would be a drain on american resources, if not harden the fighting spirit of the ones they are fighting.


--

Turning now to the question of "good guys" and "bad guys". Does it matter? Do you really subscribe to the belief that there are absolute moral rights and wrongs to be respected during a time of war - when you are prepared to reduce your enemy into a mere footnote on the page of history, when truth and honest reporting is optional at the whim of the leadership you have trusted to lead you to victory? I would suggest such a notion is a bit naive. I propose a different take: that during a time of war an action or inaction is only as just as the survival of your cause.

You have professed no problem with the slaughter of your adversary. You are likely aware that such a slaughter will include accidental deaths of innocent, and yet you abhor a type of action (torture) that would reduce your casualties, thus also reducing total casualties, for some reason. I would be most interested to know why.

 

Well, torture is kind of a gray area... i dont support it, but sometimes, as a last resort, if you're absolutely sure they're a terrorist and/or they know vital info... then i guess you should use it. but there should be limits. ans therapy or something. :/

 

violence leeds to violence which leeds to violence which leeds to hate and more violence the cycle never stops until someone takes a moral high ground, goverments say alot of shit even obama is no different in this respect the truth is there will always be people who feel these actions are the best way to get information all in the name of pretection going ahead and betraying everything they are supposed to stand for in the name of freedom liberty and greater morality.

 

I'm not a fan of torture, but I guess in some cases we have to accept it's the only option I guess.

 

Thank you so much for posting!!

My opinion: forgive us Universe for we know not what we do!

 

I'm not going to "ride the fence" on this one. If you feel that a terrorist has vital information that could help us save people's lives, then you should do watever it takes to get that information.