REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A Better Question About Torture

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 08:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2519
PAGE 1 of 2

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:42 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I hope we can keep the tone of this discussion polite. Perhaps everyone should close their eyes and imagine that they are having a discussion not with strangers, but rather with a respected elder of their own family.

I ask now the question... And this is a question that requires thoughtful humoring of the premise...

If Torture was 100% effective and swift in producing results, would it be justified to torture in order to obtain information that might save the lives of your countrymen?

This is, to me, a hard question. I boil it down in my mind to this, "Is it right to violate the humane rights of the individual to save the life and limb of masses?"

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:38 PM

FREMDFIRMA


No.

The ends never justify the means, cause eventually the means BECOME the end itself.

Witness how many rules and laws originally made and intended to protect people and their stuff eventually become somehow more important than those very things they were meant to protect, and wind up enforced to their detriment.

So no.

Not now, not EVER.

Period.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:39 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I have been considering this question a lot since I posted it. I think I'd be willing to die to preserve humane rights. That is, I'd be willing to forego torture even if it was guaranteed to save my life.

This is a decision I can only make in a calm moment. Surely if myself or someone close to me was in peril, I'd change my mind in an instant, and desperately claw at the tool of torture to save the ones I love. This is why shows like '24' frequently put a relative, friend, or mate in harm's way. Why, when we see that, we can completely sympathize with the main character doing anything to save the day.

But in a calm moment of rationality, I can sign my name on the dotted line. "Do not torture to save me," I can declare. Because I am not in a moment of peril, I can think clearly enough to place my ideals above my life. I could even, right now, say the same for my son. My mother. My father. I can do this now because right now it is just an idea. Faced with them in actual dire straits, I'm not sure I could uphold my beliefs.

I do wonder, though, about making this decision for others. How would a thousand strangers feel, I wonder, if they knew I'd sold their beloved friends and family for the maintenance of my philosophy?

It's still a very hard question. I hope we can all agree on that, at least.

It's a hard thing, either way.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:40 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Double Post.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


This is a question I still don't have answer for.

My one impulse is to say - the greatest good for the greatest number.

The other is to say - by denying your ethics when you need them the most you have denied them completely.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


It sounds like a simple question but has several parts:
Quote:

If Torture was 100% effective and swift in producing results, would it be justified to torture in order to obtain information that might save the lives of your countrymen?
How much of a chance? How many people are you willing to torture on the idea they MIGHT hold vital information? When you say "justified" do you mean "legalized"?

But having considered all those parts, my answer is very much with Frem's: no.


---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:58 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Signy,

How much of a chance?

That is built into the premise. There is a 100% chance that the torture will get you whatever you need, in a short enough timeline to save these people with certainty.

How many people tortured? How many saved? Good questions. Does it matter? Is there a threshold ratio?

What does justified mean? Hmm. Perhaps a better word would be 'correct?' Would it be correct to torture one to save many, if the result was certain?

And I see you've answered already. No. Are Rue and I the only ones that struggle with the answer?

Rue,

I wonder if the defining substance of human beings is not tool-using or language, but rather the ability to choose life and death on the basis of nothing more than an idea?

That someone could override the need to live to serve an idea of liberty, or humane rights? Is that what it means to be human?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:01 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Rather than imagine you're having the DISCUSSION with an elder family member, try imagining you're having to TORTURE that same family member. Or imagine someone else doing it, if that helps.

Now ask yourself if it's reasonable and right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:06 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


I wonder if the defining substance of human beings is not tool-using or language, but rather the ability to choose life and death on the basis of nothing more than an idea?

That someone could override the need to live to serve an idea of liberty, or humane rights? Is that what it means to be human?



There are those who say that Jesus lived and died to prove this idea.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:11 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello Kwicko,

I suspect there are advocates of torture who would calmly sign on the dotted line to have themselves or their families tortured if it would save lives... and then when confronted with the reality of it, change their minds.

Anyone's ideals might be compromised in a moment of doubt and pain. I'm not sure I'd be strong enough in the face of despair, as I stated earlier.

This is why I never want to codify any acceptance of any violation of any humane right. Because if we leave it to the moment, or to the individual, then we'll always make the ill-considered choice.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:25 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Some random thoughts:

I've reversed the scenario in my mind: from torturing a random stranger for a beloved family member to torturing a beloved family member for a random stranger.

But parts of the scenario don't easily reverse and there are other parts I can't ignore: if you KNOW that torturing them will give information, doesn't that mean that you KNOW they are guilty ? And if you know they are guilty, is it torture or punishment ? And if your family member is guilty, do you love them anyway despite the evil that they've done ? Do you value that evil family member above an innocent stranger ?

So I have a hard time with that. It's not a decisive way to parse out the situation, for me.

Also, I hope people read this:

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt

I think it has some relevance.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:27 PM

RIPWASH


Are we talkin' medieval torture (pain and pain and more pain) or discomfort (sleep deprivation, waterboarding, hot box, etc)?

Either way, like Anthony, I'm not sure what I think on this.

On the one hand I want to say that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one". If one person, who has been absolutely guilty of committing pain and terror on others has information we need in a short time span to stop more pain and terror from happening, I would want that person to be made as uncomfortable as possible to get that information out of him.

I know that sounds harsh and I may be called a monster, but that's my humble opinion. Perhaps I need to be enlightened. I've heard several here decry torture of any kind what so ever, but my question is, how else can information be obtained from those unwilling to give it in the shortest amount of time possible? I just can't get past thinking that if we had less than a week to stop another terrorist attack, that we wouldn't get these guys at Gitmo to talk by asking pretty please with a cherry on top. They'd laugh and spit in our faces and then what. Should we just shrug our shoulders and resign ourselves to the fact that a major catastrophic event is about to happen and we can't stop it? I don't mean to be snarky here. I really want to know what you're thoughts and opinions are.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:35 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello Rip,

That's exactly the dilemna. Thousands of lives on the line. One man's humane rights.

Are we really willing to sacrifice thousands for the dignity of one?

I don't think you're a monster if you think the answer might be 'Yes.'

It's a hard question. I like to think that people like Frem, who answer reflexively, do so because they have spent long hours thinking about it in the past.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 7:46 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL


No. I can't think of a scenario when I would be okay with torture.

It may kill me, but I wouldn't cave if a loved one was added to the mix. My loved ones know that about me. I've thought about it many times (I was very morbid in my teen years). I also know that I would die to protect other people.

On the other side of the coin, I think my father would go Sayid on someone who threatened to harm my mother or I.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:18 PM

SERGEANTX


"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"

This phrase is often uttered as though it's a truism. Maybe it is. But how is it different than "might makes right"?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:42 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by RIPWash:
Are we talkin' medieval torture (pain and pain and more pain) or discomfort (sleep deprivation, waterboarding, hot box, etc)?




If it was just discomfort, it wouldn't be effective, though, so that distinction should not be made. It's torture, and you'd have to assume that whatever is effective would be used.



As for the question.. I don't think so. I would never be okay with someone torturing my sister, even if she was guilty. And seeing as how I am filled with horror and revulsion at any attempt to create an "us and them" division between human beings, making some worthy of human rights and others not... I cannot ever see myself considering torture justified.

I'm not a Christian, but I find a lot of truth in some of Jesus words, such as "As you have done unto the least of these, you have done unto me".

If you deny one person human rights, you deny them to all. They become conditional privileges based on behavior and conformity and.. no.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:58 AM

RIPWASH


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Rip,

That's exactly the dilemna. Thousands of lives on the line. One man's humane rights.

Are we really willing to sacrifice thousands for the dignity of one?

I don't think you're a monster if you think the answer might be 'Yes.'

It's a hard question. I like to think that people like Frem, who answer reflexively, do so because they have spent long hours thinking about it in the past.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner



You're right, Anthony. That is EXACTLY the dilemma I have with all of this. While I don't feel particularly comfortable condoning those actions, I really don't know of another way to extract that information. Many here are right in that the ones being tortured give information they think the torturers want to hear. But I also think we've come a long way since the witch trials (perhaps not, but overall I think so). We now have the technological means of quickly checking the person's information to see if it is valid out or not.

In my eyes, we'd only be torturing someone guilty of horrific crimes against humanity in the past. This person has, in effect, waived his own humanity in that regard. Again, in my own humble opinion. He doesn't give a good gorram about human life. It is believed he has information about a horrific attack that will take place within a week's time. Do we sacrifice the lives of thousands of people just to let this guy sit in a cell somewhere, grinning ear to ear because he knows we won't do anything to stop it or at least try to get the information out of him. In that case . . . he won.

Another thing I struggle with is the whole thing about the Geneva Convention. To my understanding, that was set up as a treaty between nations. People wearing the uniform of an army from any nation would be afforded the basic rights of any human being. Food, comfort (to a degree), etc. (that's what I recall, if I'm wrong please enlighten me). The problem today is that the terrorists (insurgents, whatever you want to call them) have no particular national allegiance and wear no particular uniform (more civilian clothes, actually). They do not hold themselves to the Geneva Convention and do unthinkable things to the people they capture.

So again, I'll ask what is a viable means to extract (for lack of a better word) information from someone who is not willing to give it willingly within a short period of time?

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:19 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


In my eyes, we'd only be torturing someone guilty of horrific crimes against humanity in the past. This person has, in effect, waived his own humanity in that regard. Again, in my own humble opinion. He doesn't give a good gorram about human life. It is believed he has information about a horrific attack that will take place within a week's time.



Is this belief based on any real-world events? You say this hypothetical person is "guilty of horrific crimes against humanity in the past." What if they weren't? What if we've tortured people who were completely innocent, who were picked up mistakenly and by accident. What if we've also tortured people simply because they might know where this global criminal is at the moment, but not because of anything THEY THEMSELVES have done, other than not come to us with information?

I only ask because I'd bet that either of those are more likely to happen than your hypothetical scenario where we've captured Doctor Evil, but haven't defused the ticking bomb next to him.

It seems that many people believe that governments and their various entities are incompetent, yet they paradoxically ALSO believe that government intelligence operatives are incapable of screwing up. Humans make mistakes. Intel people are human. Ergo, intel people make mistakes. Given that mistakes are going to be made, I'd prefer my country err on the side of caution - if there's a chance you're torturing the wrong person, DON'T TORTURE ANY PERSON!

You know how I can prove that intel people screw up? Easy. September 11, 2001. There's proof that we screwed up - we weren't able to predict, intercept, or foil that attack, despite allegedly having the best intel people in the business. Want more proof? Iraq and WMD.

Given the recent record of mistakes and missed opportunities, why on Earth would you want to give these same people the wherewithal to torture, and why on Earth would you think they WOULDN'T screw it up and torture the wrong people?

Quote:

Another thing I struggle with is the whole thing about the Geneva Convention. To my understanding, that was set up as a treaty between nations. People wearing the uniform of an army from any nation would be afforded the basic rights of any human being. Food, comfort (to a degree), etc. (that's what I recall, if I'm wrong please enlighten me). The problem today is that the terrorists (insurgents, whatever you want to call them) have no particular national allegiance and wear no particular uniform (more civilian clothes, actually). They do not hold themselves to the Geneva Convention and do unthinkable things to the people they capture.


I have a problem with this. For one thing, since when do we allow how someone else acts to dictate OUR behavior? We used to be the nation that said things like, "That's what makes us different from them; we'd never do that." Apparently now we're happy being no different at all from tyrants, henchmen, and terrorists; if they do it, we can do it.

Secondly, I have an issue with the supposition that the Geneva Conventions apply only to how you treat those wearing the uniform of a recognized army. Should they not also be seen to apply to how that uniformed army treats those with whom it interacts? In other words, we want to see it as how THEY should act, rather than how WE should act. It goes both ways, you see.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:37 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

If Torture was 100% effective and swift in producing results, would it be justified to torture in order to obtain information that might save the lives of your countrymen?




Anthony - thank you for your provocative question.

In all honesty though, this is why I have disdain for "theory" or hypothetical questions (and why I bug some people who seem so enamored of using theory as a way to solve real issues). In real life things are never that simple. Nor would they end as soon as you answer the question.

What if I torture and save my countrymen but make and even larger enemy, one that eventually threatens my countrymen to an even greater degree?

If I don't torture and my countrymen die then what kind of leader would I be? Could I possibly deserve their trust? Wouldn't I make my country a target for extremists who have no concerns about such ethical questions?

For me the question is not about torture, it's about what is the most effective way to achieve our collective goals - If that means in the end it's through torture then I torture. If it means buying them pizza then I buy them pizza.

Ironically, I think Frem's post the other day about how ineffective torture has been was the best on the subject - simply: if it doesn't work get rid of it. But I disagree with him here on your theoretical question: I say the ends justify the means so long as the means are not worse (I know, who's to judge that? More theory...).

I would rather live with my own ethical transgressions if it meant that my fellow humans wouldn't suffer - inn't that ultimately less selfish than feeling good about yourself because you upheld some theoretical notion?

Your question would make a good Firefly ep - what if Niska had Kaylee somewhere with a time bomb on her ankle...tic toc... and Mal had Niska, all alone in a room. What would Mal do?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:48 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Your question would make a good Firefly ep - what if Niska had Kaylee somewhere with a time bomb on her ankle...tic toc... and Mal had Niska, all alone in a room. What would Mal do?




Mal kicks handcuffed people into engines.

Of course, he'd torture Niska if he thought it would help.

As far as suspense goes, this wouldn't really make for a surprising decision.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:43 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Your question would make a good Firefly ep - what if Niska had Kaylee somewhere with a time bomb on her ankle...tic toc... and Mal had Niska, all alone in a room. What would Mal do?




Mal kicks handcuffed people into engines.

Of course, he'd torture Niska if he thought it would help.

As far as suspense goes, this wouldn't really make for a surprising decision.





I don't see Mal as a torturer - I think there's a difference between torture and murder - he'd probably give the job to Jayne.

How about reversing it - Mal is trapped and Kaylee has Niska? Would she have the will to torture if that was the only way to save Mal?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:16 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

"Is it right to violate the humane rights of the individual to save the life and limb of masses?"


Of course yes. Although I don't believe in right and wrong... My own calculation as an atheist/humanist is the same as Rue's "the greatest good for the greatest number", basically, cumulative human happiness. I boil it down to happiness because that is something tangible - our ideals are important, serving human happiness in the short and long term, but do they have any intrinsic, tangible value of their own?

I see that we're just animals with some noble instincts, a strong sense of moral beauty and of what is 'sacred', that should not be transgressed. We appeal to these senses to guide us for our own individual moral compass, and for the laws we create to govern our society. As one might expect from naturally evolved instincts, they sometimes come into conflict with each other.

As with this torture scenario.

We ask ourselves, should we break a human spirit, even a malevolent one, by subjecting the person to abuses of the body in a way that generally tramples upon human dignity - or do we allow innocent people to suffer and die?

For me, the weight of human suffering and the extinguishing of happy, innocent life that would come from say, a terror-planted, nuclear ticking time-bomb going off, easily tips the scales.

It seems obvious to me; if we absolutely have to, we torture, and we live with it.


Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:52 AM

CHRISISALL


The central part here is that it is 100% sure that it would save lives. This presupposes that the perp has acknowledged his intel of and thereby guilt in said theoretical diabolicalness.
In that instance, break every bone in his body until he gives it up.
Of course, this is impossible, so I still say no way no how.
Torture: the gift that keeps on taking.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:55 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:

For me, the weight of human suffering and the extinguishing of happy, innocent life that would come from say, a terror-planted, nuclear ticking time-bomb going off, easily tips the scales.

It seems obvious to me; if we absolutely have to, we torture, and we live with it.



In the movies I would agree here, but Real Life denies such simple triumphs.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:14 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Glad we agree in the movie world chris.

A hypothetical doesn't have to be 'likely' to have value. It's enough if it is conceivable.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:40 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Another question to compare and contrast.

An airplane is flying towards the United States, say New York City. It has on board a pilot, a co-pilot, and a nuclear device. The pilots do not answer radio transmissions. They may be planning to detonate the device, or they may be planning to deliver it to the U.S. government for a reward. Their radio may not work. Their intentions are unknown.

Do you shoot the plane down?

If so, why do you consider killing two people to stop a possible nuclear attack on New York an acceptable moral exchange?

If not, why do you feel it necessary to risk the lives of tens of thousands to uphold your moral standards?

Is there any substantial difference between this and AnthonyT's torture dilemma, aside from the fact that torture may not prove fatal?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA


You know, this all presumes that torturing the perp would actually WORK, as in yield functional, actionable information, and truthfully that is rarely the case.

Tell you what.

Give him to me, for 10 hours.

And he WILL talk, he'll spill his guts and sing the fuckin national anthem, if you like.

And I would never have to lay a hand on him to do so.

And if you didn't necessarily care if the perp was psychologically destroyed in the process, it'd be even quicker.

And yes, before anyone else need point it out, I am fully and well aware that this is WORSE damage than a few broken fingers and far more permanent.

My major objection to physical torture was never on moral grounds anyway, as I have stated time and time again, but simply on the bald fact that it DOES NOT WORK.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:42 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

I don't see Mal as a torturer - I think there's a difference between torture and murder - he'd probably give the job to Jayne.



Still torture by proxy, which would actually be an interestingly cowardly twist... But if he didn't have Jayne at hand, he'd still do it.

I doubt, actually, that Jayne is much of a torturer. I think intimidation is his strong suit. I doubt he really collects ears, you know.

Quote:


How about reversing it - Mal is trapped and Kaylee has Niska? Would she have the will to torture if that was the only way to save Mal?



Now that's more like it!

I think Kaylee would be quite a mess in such a situation. Very volatile. It depends very very much on the particulars of how Niska interacts with her, why and how she has him at her mercy, what the surrounding circumstances are, what she's been through before...

Torture might not even enter her mind as an option, let alone a choice, but if it did, under certain circumstances I could see her try. Especially if she somehow came to think it was her duty to do it.

But I think she would be bad and ineffective at it. It goes against her character to create physical pain, let alone sustain it, let alone keep a clear head during it to get information.

Kaylee's just not that cold blooded. Which is a beautiful thing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:12 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Another question to compare and contrast.

An airplane is flying towards the United States, say New York City. It has on board a pilot, a co-pilot, and a nuclear device.



If they aren't communicating, how do you know there is a nuclear device?

And will shooting the plane down detonate the bomb?

Quote:


The pilots do not answer radio transmissions. They may be planning to detonate the device, or they may be planning to deliver it to the U.S. government for a reward.



For a reward? How about calling ahead?? No one with friendly intentions and access to a nuclear device just so puts it on a plane and heads to NYC.

Quote:


Their radio may not work. Their intentions are unknown.

Do you shoot the plane down?



I think I would try to send up other air crafts to try and communicate that they should turn the hell away. Anything they can see or be made aware of without a working radio.

If they react and go away or change course, no need to shoot them down.

If they do not react, they either have malicious intent or are sadly a victim of someone else's malicious intent.

In that case, yes, I would advocate shooting the plane down, unless it would detonate the bomb.

Quote:


If so, why do you consider killing two people to stop a possible nuclear attack on New York an acceptable moral exchange?



This would fall more into the realm of self-defense, because they - by choice or not - are a direct part of an immediate threat that can actually be stopped. Since their intention, or that of their kidnappers' - after attempts to steer them away - is in all probability malicious, their lives are likely going to be lost, either way.

They don't just know about the threat, they are it.

It's an impossible situation for the poor pilots if they were kidnapped, but it's just as if they were put into a canon and fired. It's not the wall they are smashed against that kills them, it was the person who put them in the canon and fired it.

Quote:



Is there any substantial difference between this and AnthonyT's torture dilemma, aside from the fact that torture may not prove fatal?



Yes.

Because torture is not self-defense. It's like beating burglar by swinging your toddler at his head. Ineffective, above all, and it undermines what you're trying to defend.

With torture, you have an unharmed person at your mercy and you are going to harm them for the sake of unreliable information that is useless without outside verification, it's time consuming, it's possibly not going to help at all. It's not self-defense.

With the pilots, if they are innocent, they are already harmed by having been made into a weapon that you have to immediately defend yourself against because it is hurtling toward you Right Then.

That's the difference to me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:40 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello Geezer,

Standard procedure.

Hail the plane, send a fighter contingent to signal them. If they do not reply by radio or by light signals, do not obey instructions to divert, then you light them up. I'd have done the same thing to that flight that Piratenews enjoys posting about.

And this IS the subjective difference I draw, difficult to justify, between torture and immediate self defense.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:41 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You know, this all presumes that torturing the perp would actually WORK, as in yield functional, actionable information, and truthfully that is rarely the case.

Tell you what.

Give him to me, for 10 hours.

And he WILL talk, he'll spill his guts and sing the fuckin national anthem, if you like.

And I would never have to lay a hand on him to do so.

And if you didn't necessarily care if the perp was psychologically destroyed in the process, it'd be even quicker.

And yes, before anyone else need point it out, I am fully and well aware that this is WORSE damage than a few broken fingers and far more permanent.

My major objection to physical torture was never on moral grounds anyway, as I have stated time and time again, but simply on the bald fact that it DOES NOT WORK.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it


No.

The ends never justify the means, cause eventually the means BECOME the end itself.

Witness how many rules and laws originally made and intended to protect people and their stuff eventually become somehow more important than those very things they were meant to protect, and wind up enforced to their detriment.

So no.

Not now, not EVER.

Period.






Hello Frem,

There is a schism between your statements. Earlier you said an unequivocal NO to torture even if success was guaranteed.

Now you say your only concern is success, not methodology or morality.

I find it difficult to follow your logic.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:23 AM

RIPWASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Tell you what.

Give him to me, for 10 hours.

And he WILL talk, he'll spill his guts and sing the fuckin national anthem, if you like.

And I would never have to lay a hand on him to do so.



We are all giving mixed answers here and that's to be expected and I'm learning a little by reading them. So I thank Anthony for the question and I thank the rest of you for keeping this a civil conversation.

But my question remains and Frem here is the only one who has skimmed the surface of it so far.

If torture is totally forbidden, then how is one to get information out of somebody unwilling to give it? And for Kwicko's sake, yes, this is someone we're as certain we can be that has SOME kind of information needed to thwart an attack.

Talking? What kind of conversation and how would it be so psychologically damaging? Wouldn't THAT also be inhumane treatment and therefore forbidden as well?

Truth serum? Does that stuff really exist and is it effective?

Buying pizza? [snark]

Bring in a psychic?

Play Slim Whitman records?

Bring in Cal Lightman or Patrick Jane ("Lie to Me" and "The Mentalist" respectively)? [again, said snarkilly]

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:41 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Another question to compare and contrast.

An airplane is flying towards the United States, say New York City. It has on board a pilot, a co-pilot, and a nuclear device.



If they aren't communicating, how do you know there is a nuclear device?

And will shooting the plane down detonate the bomb?

Quote:


The pilots do not answer radio transmissions. They may be planning to detonate the device, or they may be planning to deliver it to the U.S. government for a reward.



For a reward? How about calling ahead?? No one with friendly intentions and access to a nuclear device just so puts it on a plane and heads to NYC.

Quote:


Their radio may not work. Their intentions are unknown.

Do you shoot the plane down?



I think I would try to send up other air crafts to try and communicate that they should turn the hell away. Anything they can see or be made aware of without a working radio.

If they react and go away or change course, no need to shoot them down.

If they do not react, they either have malicious intent or are sadly a victim of someone else's malicious intent.

In that case, yes, I would advocate shooting the plane down, unless it would detonate the bomb.

Quote:


If so, why do you consider killing two people to stop a possible nuclear attack on New York an acceptable moral exchange?



This would fall more into the realm of self-defense, because they - by choice or not - are a direct part of an immediate threat that can actually be stopped. Since their intention, or that of their kidnappers' - after attempts to steer them away - is in all probability malicious, their lives are likely going to be lost, either way.

They don't just know about the threat, they are it.

It's an impossible situation for the poor pilots if they were kidnapped, but it's just as if they were put into a canon and fired. It's not the wall they are smashed against that kills them, it was the person who put them in the canon and fired it.

Quote:



Is there any substantial difference between this and AnthonyT's torture dilemma, aside from the fact that torture may not prove fatal?



Yes.

Because torture is not self-defense. It's like beating burglar by swinging your toddler at his head. Ineffective, above all, and it undermines what you're trying to defend.

With torture, you have an unharmed person at your mercy and you are going to harm them for the sake of unreliable information that is useless without outside verification, it's time consuming, it's possibly not going to help at all. It's not self-defense.

With the pilots, if they are innocent, they are already harmed by having been made into a weapon that you have to immediately defend yourself against because it is hurtling toward you Right Then.

That's the difference to me.



I'll add another couple questions to the mix, in an effort to gain more information:

Is the airplane an American military aircraft?

Are the pilot and co-pilot American?

Reason I ask is, historically speaking, we're the only nation to have flown nukes in over another city and detonated them. So if it's an American plane and American pilot, you probably have more reason to worry...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Bring in Cal Lightman or Patrick Jane ("Lie to Me" and "The Mentalist" respectively)? [again, said snarkilly]



Well, in a word, yes. These characters ARE based on things that a few actual people can do. Yes, they are exaggerated, but such powers of observation DO exist, and they look remarkably like "mind reading".

But the bottom line is, you really CAN'T know every single thing that is in someone's brain. And you really shouldn't want to - unless you're equally happy having someone else know every single thing in YOUR brain...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If they aren't communicating, how do you know there is a nuclear device?

And will shooting the plane down detonate the bomb?



Because this is a moral question, not a movie script that has to maintain backstory and continuity.

Quote:

This would fall more into the realm of self-defense, because they - by choice or not - are a direct part of an immediate threat that can actually be stopped. Since their intention, or that of their kidnappers' - after attempts to steer them away - is in all probability malicious, their lives are likely going to be lost, either way.

They don't just know about the threat, they are it.



So the difference is between someone who is going to personally carry out an attack, and someone who has the knowledge required to prevent it. You can kill someone who you think wants to nuke New York, but you can't torture someone who's information could (in Anthonyt's scenario), with 100% certainty prevent the nuking of New York.

Now, what about the folks who plan the nuking of New York? Can you morally kill them, during either the planning, execution, or aftermath? They're never a direct threat, since they won't actually be carrying out the attack.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Hello Frem,

There is a schism between your statements. Earlier you said an unequivocal NO to torture even if success was guaranteed.

Now you say your only concern is success, not methodology or morality.

I find it difficult to follow your logic.


Oh it's still an evil act, and one I am fully opposed to either way.

Morally, the means NEVER justify the ends.

But in the hypothetical of a ticking bomb situation, or the not so hypothetical "where is my clients child?!" situation, as an *individual* rather than an act of policy - I may well decide to put the psychological squeeze on someone if harm may come to an innocent from not doing so, but at NO time do I consider it moral, or consider it right, it's still a vile and inhumane thing to do regardless and I'll suffer from having done it, mind you.

Lemme give you the details of a not so hypothetical.

Bitter divorce, joint custody, and not only does the mother deliberately move further away and mistreat the child as an act of malice, but eventually uses the childs resistance to that mistreatment as an excuse to have them incarcerated in a domestic teen boot camp type facility.

The father, realizing just how limited his options are, finally engages us after much fruitless pursuit of other avenues.

The facility catches wind of this via the mother, and at her encouragement and expense, decides to transfer the child to a non-domestic facility, specifically tranquility bay.

We get on site, and they stonewall us - we have no way to determine whether they have the child, or said child is en route to an airport and from there out of this country towards a facility with a known history of severe abuse, and the clock *IS* ticking.

Two hours later we're en route to the father with the much relieved child in the back seat.

That does not, under any circumstances morally justify what occurred to bring about that result, it doesn't mitigate the harm done, or make it right, especially due to the undeniable fact that while getting the child out of harms way was indeed the primary and desired result, it was most certainly not *exclusively* the reason for taking the actions that were taken in bringing it about - there was indeed a punitive/retaliatory aspect to that, to even pretend otherwise would be a ridiculous farce.

I never claimed to be a moral paragon, and I knew full and well even at the time it wasn't morally justifiable, hell, I wrote the damn policies forbidding that very behavior several months later as a direct result, cause while an individual making a decision like that in a "situation" and willing to suffer the consequences is one thing - it's far and away another to make something like that official policy.

One is a temporary act of immorality done in a crisis situation by a single individual, and the other is an ongoing act of immorality which continues as long as that policy is in place *even if no one ever executes it* simply due to it's existance as an excuse, and it WILL eventually become the reason for it's own existance.

And none of it mitigates the fact that I had less than noble intentions to begin with when they handed me an excuse to act in a fashion I damn well knew was immoral, and THAT part of it had not a whit to do with the intended result, did it now ?

And I refused to hide behind that excuse because I try to be honest with myself about my failings, and these days if at all possible bring one of my people with more restraint along as a check against that kind of thing in the future - it was a learning experience, and quite a bitter one to be honest with you, no one likes to look into the face of their own savagery, especially when denial and rationalisation makes it SO much easier not to.

Morally, it cannot be justified either way - but we live in a world of morals-be-damned, and this particular argument is wasted on most of the folks actually involved in the political or physical end of the care and treatment of what are, let's be completely honest here, political prisoners.

And thus I make the argument on the grounds of effectiveness because it's the only argument which might WORK with the mindset of those folk, and we can address the morals of the issue once we get the practice stopped, which I do not believe for a moment has occured despite the passionate denials of the current administration and in fact the very passion of those denials convinces me otherwise, especially in light of a proven history of our alphabet-soup and military-intel goons utterly ignoring such directives for the entire history of their respective agencies.

I hope that clarifies the matter a bit.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Talking? What kind of conversation and how would it be so psychologically damaging? Wouldn't THAT also be inhumane treatment and therefore forbidden as well?

Oh yes, it's quite possible, especially given various understandings of a persons cultural, religious, and philosophical beliefs, the very bedrock which their personhood rests upon, in combination with exploitation of their own personal and psychological flaws, to do some real serious harm to someones mental health if you know what you're about.

And hell yes, it's completely inhumane and damn well oughta be as forbidden as outright torture, cause it's MORE damaging than physical abuse, for a fact.
Quote:

Truth serum? Does that stuff really exist and is it effective?

Exist ? kinda-sorta.

Effective ?
Not so much, not in a hollywood kinda way - you might get em to "talk", by lowering inhibitions to it and screwing with their sense of reality, sure - but what they might say is a random roll of the dice, and once they're stoned enough to start babbling, the subjects sense of reality is so distorted they are often as not unable to determine fact from fiction themselves, you see.

Now a very light dose in combination with an experienced interrogator who can manipulate them into BELIEVING the stuff works, you might net some benefit from, in the same way most of the benefit from a polygraph examination lies in mental domination and intimidation on behalf of the examiner - but the devices themselves, drugs or polygraph, are by themselves of not much use and easily resisted or even turned back on the examiners by a someone with proper tradecraft because they can play on that hollywood effect to deliberately feed you false information, and someone without proper training is likely to swallow the bait whole.


As for that level of powers of observation and manipulation, minus the hollywood effect, they most certainly do exist and are the very hallmark of a good investigator or interrogator, some of whom are able to make logical and intuitive leaps that at times do seem almost unnatural, but in fact are quite easy to verify since due to their employment and standard procedure, they also tend to document their logic chains, which leads to "Ohhhh!" and a selfie dopeslap kind of reaction when read by folks who haven't been trained in that sorta thing.

For the hell of it, here's a quick primer.
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php

It's actually fairly easy *once you know how*, and experience counts, in this sorta thing - one reason for my EXTREME ire at the incompetent berks we have doing this cause they're not at all looking for truth, they're playing spanish inquisition.

Of course, that can be turned against you as well - were you to try this sorta thing on me, my body language will ALWAYS tell you I am lying, 100% of the time, even when I am telling the stone truth, and if you tried it on some of the more professional criminal element, they can and will believably fake you out, although their ability to do that doesn't hold out quite as well over long periods of time.

And just as an aside - children are almost incapable of effectively lying or practicing deception due to lack of experience and certain of the mental tools required to do so, one thing that makes me so blisteringly hateful of the Sembler-Lichfield theory that "All children are lying manipulators." cause to anyone with even a bare minimum of experience this is a completely ridiculous statement.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:32 AM

FREMDFIRMA


As for how to get information out of someone without doing them harm - it's not so hard if someone ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

A combination of hardball/softball playing on basic human frailties and needs along with a keen understanding of human nature and some tradecraft is all it really takes, and the lies tell you as much as the truths - and in a proper interrogation, one that is excellently done, the perp never even KNOWS they fumbled the ball.

You wanna see a damn good example of that, read the Stephen King novel Firestarter, cause Rainbird uses a proxy method that's generally effective as hell, under certain conditions.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 5:15 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Is there any substantial difference between this and AnthonyT's torture dilemma, aside from the fact that torture may not prove fatal?


Yes. Torture transgresses human dignity, physically and mentally - because you are breaking a person's spirit, trying to make them 'crack'. I don't like to see anyone mentally 'broken', I think it demeans us all.

Killing suspected terror suspects by shooting down their plane you don't rob them of their dignity; whereas torturing them, you do.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 5:29 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

An airplane is flying towards the United States, say New York City. It has on board a pilot, a co-pilot, and a nuclear device. The pilots do not answer radio transmissions. They may be planning to detonate the device, or they may be planning to deliver it to the U.S. government for a reward. Their radio may not work. Their intentions are unknown.

Do you shoot the plane down?


Watch Executive Decision for a better scenario.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 5:32 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Talking? What kind of conversation and how would it be so psychologically damaging? Wouldn't THAT also be inhumane treatment and therefore forbidden as well?



Good point. What other harsh interrogation techniques (like loud, sustained heavy metal music) are inhumane? Since here you are ultimately trying to 'crack' a person psychologically, which is close to how I defined torture.

The only way to draw the line that I can think of at the moment is whether the person needs rehabilitation afterwards, like some of the Gitmo detainees.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 6:36 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

...an individual making a decision like that in a "situation" and willing to suffer the consequences is one thing - it's far and away another to make something like that official policy.


And THAT, my friend, is the nub of the situation. As Signy pointed out, it should ALWAYS be illegal, and there should ALWAYS be consequences.

Once upon a time, judges didn't have their hands tied by idiotic policies like mandatory minimums (they were actually JUDGES, in other words, not automated punishment dispensers), and they would have sat in judgment of such actions, deciding if there were mitigating circumstances which to some degree justified what took place. Now such judgment isn't allowed; now all a judge can do is look in the book and see what it says the punishment is.



Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2009 7:16 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


This is not a real tough question for me. If you turn it around, would you let many innocent people die if you could prevent it by making one person very uncomfortable? The answer is no, which means the answer to the original question is yes.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 27, 2009 7:22 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!







NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 27, 2009 7:54 AM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Your question would make a good Firefly ep - what if Niska had Kaylee somewhere with a time bomb on her ankle...tic toc... and Mal had Niska, all alone in a room. What would Mal do?




Mal kicks handcuffed people into engines.

Of course, he'd torture Niska if he thought it would help.

As far as suspense goes, this wouldn't really make for a surprising decision.





I don't see Mal as a torturer - I think there's a difference between torture and murder - he'd probably give the job to Jayne.

How about reversing it - Mal is trapped and Kaylee has Niska? Would she have the will to torture if that was the only way to save Mal?



I have a REAL hard time imagining sweet, good-natured Kaylee torturing anybody for any reason.

That said, I don't think of getting between Kaylee and Her Captain as a move that would enhance personal comfort and longevity. Everybody's got unplumbed depths...



W W R D ?
What would Rorschach do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 27, 2009 8:29 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


An answer to any question about torture, a better question or a worse question or any other question:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

I forget exactly where I learned that one.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 27, 2009 8:57 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Washnwear ?

Every time I think about that, one image comes to mind.

Kaylee making that oh-so-cute poutyface of hers, grabbing them by their collar and draggin em straight to Jayne.

Always thought they had a kinda big-brother, little-sister dynamic goin on there, and I can name at least three guys I beat the hell out of on my sisters behest in my misspent youth.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 27, 2009 11:11 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:





2974 "reasons" to support torture, huh? Tell me, Rappy, who are you going to torture for this? The hijackers? Too late - they're dead. Their families? How will that help the victims of 9/11?

Are you hoping to prevent another such attack? If so, you never needed to torture anyone in the first place. Hell, they'd all but sent the White House an engraved invitation to the ball on Al Qaeda stationery, and the White House utterly ignored their warnings. Ask Condi Rice. She's still got the memo, I'll bet. She oughta frame that goddam thing, and let it be her constant reminder of how she fucked up and let 3000 Americans die on her watch.

So now you've exposed that you're not about torture for the sake of saving lives, but rather for pure revenge. That's pretty much what I figured all along. Like I said, you don't care what inhuman, inhumane deeds are done in your name, just so long as they're done to someone other than you. You get off on it. And you've somehow convinced yourself that you're still interested in "spreading democracy"; tell me, does democracy spread like the Pear of Anguish?



Today those 2974 people are your reason to cheerlead torture. Not long ago, they were your reason to cheerlead invading Iraq. The more things change, the less valid your reasons remain...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 27, 2009 11:48 AM

STORYMARK


Rappy's down with any excuse to let other people go fight, torture and kill Muslims - end of story. Doesn't matter if it actually applies to scenario at hand.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:00 AM

MALACHITE


Interesting discussion! I've only got a minute, so I figured I'd comment about the "2,974 reasons for supporting enhanced interrogation" cartoon. Obviously, the fact that Americans were killed is enough to justify torture to Aurap, but I wonder what answer you would get from the family members of the 2,974 people who died -- and, I wonder what the 2,974 themselves would say (if you could ask them). I imagine many would still say torture was not acceptable and that forgiveness and the moral/legal pursuit of justice would be the ideal. For example, I think some family members of those who died in the Oklahoma City Bombing wished to pursue forgiveness of Ted K. (I don't have time to look up his name's spelling).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:42 - 851 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:33 - 444 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:16 - 51 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL