O.K. people, I cannot stress this enough: Torture is BAD O.K.?

[mopaul]

can you believe all the bloviating since abu ghraib about torture? can you believe that grown adults are sitting around debating it pro and con? can you wrap your little mind around that?

remember this rage filled statement?: 'thanks to that deplorable bill clinton, my children are seeing discussions of fellatio on t.v.' 'the other night i had to explain to little suzy what a blowjob is thanks to our disgusting president', etc.

but now, we have to explain war and torture to them. we discuss gray areas in droll debates parsing the words abuse and torture and interrogation and it gets downright confusing for young or ignorant minds.

so to refresh, torture is bad, always bad, never good, never ever. civilized people don't torture and they don't have to stand up and say it to the world.

[Missy M]

1. It seems many people in this country believe torture is bad only....

when it is done to an American. They seem to think it is perfectly OK when we do the torturing to our perceived enemies. I don't know how they can possibly condone torturing anyone and call themselves civilized.

[Just Me]

2. I can't believe a majority of Repubs think it's okay when it's illegal,...

,...immoral and an abomination to humanity. The party of sociopaths, apparently.

[Spinzonner]

3. Under all circumstances ?

You don't accept the lesser evil argument of dealing with someone who has knowledge of an imminent, catastrophic terrorist attack ?

[mopaul]

4. the bomb will go off in one hour, let's torture the truth out of him!

no, that is a common torturpologist arguement. i might torture someone if they'd kidnapped my kid, etc., but i'm not a nation, just a schmuck. i don't want my son drafted and tortured by folks who want to get even for abu ghraib

[Spinzonner]

5. That's hardly a responsive or particularly respectable argument

And it begs the question of whether you think moral purity is superior to saving the lives of thounsand or ten's of thousands of people.

[mopaul]

7. i don't make any claims of respectability on my part

i don't support torture. under any circumstances. that's just me personally. just my humble opinion.

i assume you think a little torture is o.k. every now and then, and i believe you have the right to state your opinion.

[Spinzonner]

8. Who said 'every now and then' ?

Why are you putting your thoughts in place of my words ?

The scenario proposed was to possibly prevent the success of a terrorist atttack that could cause massive casualties.

So your moral choice is to let the event proceed with the consequential casualties to avoid torturing one or more people.

Well, I respect your right to to state your opinion but not the logic behind it. And I assume that you hold to the principle even if your child is one of the victims.

[H2O Man]

10. Perhaps it is best

to keep the discussion on what is real: the people that are being tortured are not suspected of planning the next 9-11. They are people who are engaged in the conflict in Iraq.

[madokie]

25. In other words, us if we were being occupied

under no circumstances is torture ok. I'm above it, I would hope the rest of the u.s. were.

[mopaul]

11. what if the torture fails to make the mad bomber confess?

well at least you had the fun of torturing another human being. some mad bombers would never tell you where the bomb is cause they're mad.

[Zhade]

37. It usually DOES fail!

Studies show, time and time again, that those being tortured will lie to stop the torture. Why wouldn't a person with knowledge of an imminent bombing lie about the location? The lie only has to last so long, after all.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. So lets be clear about the 'ticking bomb' excuse.

Your hypothetical is that we have clear and certain knowledge that there is a bomb about to explode that will kill many people and we have sure and certain knowledge that a suspect in our control knows where this bomb is. It is also indisputable that (the ticking part) there is no other timely way to find the bomb (despite our extensive and certain knowledge) than to obtain the information about its location from the suspect using any means necessary.

Let us accept your resolution of this ethical dilemma. In order to save the lives of the many, an act of barbarity: the torture of the suspect known to have this knowledge is acceptable, and is in fact the ethical act in this existential dilemma.

I hope I have not misstated your case, that in fact I have done it justice.

Now I have a few questions for you.

Suppose that this individual resists physical torture, however it is clear that he will talk if his wife is raped by several men in front of him. Should the rape of his wife be allowed in order to save the lives of the many who will certainly die?

Suppose that he will talk if his son is raped? Is that ok?

Suppose he will talk if his elderly mother is beheaded in front of him?

Suppose he will talk if an eye is put out of his infant daughter in front of him?

Do you understand what the problem is with the ticking bomb excuse?

Now lets go back to the torture of the suspect only limit, not that I think that this limit has validity, but just to explore the ethical issues here. Lets expand on a different dimension, the dimension of certainty.

The original scenario is in fact highly unlikely. More realistically certainty will be missing in all areas. We may not, for example have certain knowledge that the ticking bomb exists, we have only heard from 'sources' that there might be a ticking bomb. Is the torture ethical now?

Suppose that we are in fact certain of the ticking bomb, but we are not certain of the suspect's knowledge (a very likely scenario.) Is the torture of this individual ethical?

Now lets get to the practical. Once you have allowed torture under 'certain circumstances' the bureaucrat will simply manufacture those circumstances, will simply fill out the forms and check the correct boxes, and torture will become commonplace and legal. This is why it is simply banned.

To get back to the existential ethical dilemma. The ethical official confronted with the certain knowledge that a suspect must be tortured in order to save the lives of the many will decide to commit that act of torture, with the full and certain knowledge that he, the torturer, will be severely punished by the state for the crime he will commit by torturing the suspect. It is only within this constraint that I find torture ethically permissible.

[U4ikLefty]

17. Awesome response. I'm gonna use this one...thx!!!

n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

20. For some reason I had been pondering the ethics here.

I was having 'shower time' with the ticking bomb. I think it was Dershowitz's inane letter in The Nation defending his support of torture that got me thinking about the issues here. So it was all sort of ready to pour out when the poster hit the right button :-)

[U4ikLefty]

21. Good job extending torture to its ethical extremes.

Taking the torture question out of the hands of the tortured & extending it to other attrocities that Americans find 'more distasteful' gets the sheep thinking a little harder about the rights/wrongs of torture.

We all know that there was sexual torture in Iraq & using it to illustrate a point was insightful. It was 'shower time' well spent.

[mopaul]

18. there's a sick underlying current of sexuality in torture

in other words, it's fun. some folks dig it. some folks pretend to torture their sexual partners for thrills, it's called s and m, and it filters into the room when it's just you and your perceived enemy all alone in a cell.

[EFerrari]

24. Is it sick, or human? Oral sadism is a human being's nearly

first pleasure, first experience of power.

[EFerrari]

22. If we are willing to inflict torture, which does not work anyway,

on an individual to potentially save a group of people, it's possible that that large group of people is so morally bankrupt, it is not worth saving.

Last night Paula Zahn said this spunky sentence, "And, torture doesn't always work."

I can't believe the whole nation seems to be having this debate.

Darn torture -- for not always working. :puke:

[Spinzonner]

30. The answer to all your questions is

Yes.

If you going to make the calculation that individuals must be sacrificed for the sake of a larger number, then there is no other choice. After all, those who would claim that torture is wrong in such circumstances are willing to sacrifice the lives of many innocents for the sake of a self-serving moral purity and righteousness.

I was going to propose something similar to your last paragraph after letting the outrage hang out for a while, but I would go even further perhaps in establishing who has the 'right' to torture.

They must be trained by undergoing torture themselves and the qualifying torture must include the risk of death.

And it must be witnessed by those who are opposed to torture and recorded completely.

And the record must be made available to the public. It is being done in their name for their protection and they must accept the moral responsibility also for the institutionalization of it, not just the torturer.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. I think you misunderstood my last paragraph.

Torture must remain illegal and in fact punishable by the severest penalties. Any normalization of torture is unacceptable.

The official who tortures 'to save the many' must do so with certain knowledge that he, the torturer, will spend the rest of his life in jail.

[Murdock]

41. Ok...

Fine, try this one:

Your only teenage daughter is kidnapped. After a few days, a ransom note arrives, accompanied by a lock of your little girls hair (which is positively ID'd). The kidnapper indicates she is literally buried with a limited supply of air and water.

The suspect is apprehended at the ransom drop. He is identified as being mentally disturbed, with a history of sex offense. He refuses to reveal her location and actually appears to revel in the agony he is causing. Hours pass.

As a parent, what would you want the police to do? How far would you want them to go."

[chrisau214]

42. The desire for personal vengeance

which would be perfectly human and understandable in this situation should not extend to the police being allowed to act in an unlawful manner toward the kidnapper.

If the parent of this now dead child (after all hours have passed) were to exact a personal revenge on this killer I would certainly have sympathy for the parent. I suspect that the courts also would have sympathy and the parent would recieve the proverbial 'slap on the wrist' as punishment.

In any event, it is unlikely, based on the your description of the kidnapper, that torture would have led to the discovery of the daughters location.


Chris

[Warren Stupidity]

43. As a parent I might want them to cut his thumbs off.

However, as a civilized society cannot institutionalize torture and remain a civilized society, the police must be barred from torturing suspects. Individual desires, and the hypothetical life of this child, do not trump the greater good here. The 'ticking bomb' hypothesis has the more compelling argument that the one should be sacrificed for the many. Your hypothetical does not have even this going for it.

And once again I would have respect for the police official who, knowing with certainty that he would be punished severely for his actions, broke the law and coerced the suspect into revealing the location of the girl.

[Stockholm]

13. No torture is always wrong

You use the same argument as Dick Cheney, you know that don´t you.

You should read what Sen. McCain has to say on the subject, he even has first hand experience.

[Just Me]

14. Yes. Under all circumstances. First of all, it's illegal. Second,...

,...it doesn't work to extrapolate reliable information as has been proven time and time again!!!

[fasttense]

15. What makes you think this person with knowledge of an imminent

catastrophic terrorist attack would tell you the truth under torture? What guarantee do you have that he will tell you the truth when you torture him? Tortured information is unreliable and frequently just plain lies. People will say anything under torture. They will tell you anything you want to hear but is it true?

In the meantime you have opened up you and your society to accept this horrible, inhumane, despicable act in the name of what? Freedom? Safety? Perhaps it is simply revenge.

[mopaul]

16. those who condone & accept torture shouldn't whine when it's one of ours

[Zhade]

38. Or when it's THEM.

NT!

[flordehinojos]

6. i wish the MSM would run the interview AMY GOODMAN conducted yesterday

with an ARMY PFC INTERROGATOR who conducted some of these type of interrogations out in abu ghraib ... it was very disturbing to watch and equally disturbing to me to watch were the man's eyes which seemed to reflect some deep sorrow and/or depression over what he may have done to other human beings.

the entire hour of her program yesterday was devoted to that interview. CHRIS MATTHEWS ought to be the first one to watch it ... and then quite a few of the general public could learn just really how awful it is, how criminal, how dehumanizing and just how sadistic this entire bush cabal is ... that is why they have blood on their hands and teeth.

[ninkasi]

9. Torture is wrong

It is always wrong, in my opinion. It is bad, mopaul, as you say, and I agree. It reduces us to being barbarians, and if the only way to function in life is to do it, then for me, that life would not be worth living. Why fight evil only to replace it with more evil?

[stray cat]

19. Terrorism is also bad, although I hear it justified.

[Bridget Burke]

27. So it's OK if we torture terrorists?

Or those we think might be terrorists?

[Just Me]

28. What does that have to do with the US establishing a precedence,....

,...of torture?

AHHHH! Yes! NOTHING!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Don't you understand? Two bads make a right.

Ooops, my bad. It seems that two bads make MORE BADNESS. DUH.

I know, lets mutilate little muslim children on live tv until all the bad terraists surrender! It could work! Worth a shot, isn't it?

[JayWyss]

23. It's simple really....

We're Americans. We didn't torture the Nazis and we don't need to torture these bastards either.

And the Nazis were a whole lot more murderous.

[Bridget Burke]

26. "We're Americans" doesn't mean quite as much as it used to.

Not that American history proves us 100% pure--but Germans who had the choice wanted to be liberated by our guys rather than the Red Army. Those pictures from Iraq--even just the ones we've seen--are evidence of a change. Torture is wrong for all human beings.

And how can you say "these bastards"? Many of our prisoners have been released without charges--& with a new hatred of the good old USA.

[EFerrari]

29. Don't you realize they went right back to herding their al Qaeda goats?

"It's a habit of terrorists." -- Rumskull.

[newyawker99]

31. Hi JayWyss!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[incapsulated]

33. Issues I thought had long ago been decided...

Are now an "open debate" in this country.

I don't know whether to think "what have we become" or "is this what we really were, all along".

:(

[Warren Stupidity]

34. They are only an open debate because pravda

only reports one side. Otherwise the debate would have ended long ago.

[incapsulated]

36. Unfortunately, I think it's more than that..

Right after 9/11, people were willing to round up all the americans of arabic descent and make them carry I.D. This country has become so "terra"ized that it will rationalize anything in the name of "security".

[DanCa]

39. I ve said it before i ve said it again

I still never thought the day that i would see torture being debated as national policy. I want my country back.

[mmonk]

40. Fear and the psychology

of the ticking time bomb scenario is how they are manipulating and changing America and its tolerance and rationalization of the heretofore unthinkable.