CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Exactly, let's say if an individual knows where is a bomb is and it is going to be set off in a major city, and you had find out where it was to deactivate it?
I would beat the shit outta him until he squealed, one little shit life isn't worth millions.
This extreme example cannot be applied to the topic on hand, torture in general, because it is extremely unique. Otherwise I could just bring up an example of hundreds of innocent people being mercilessly tortured for information they can't give just because security forces acted rashly on an assumption.
We have to look at the big picture because of course there are always going to be exceptions (like the one you brought up) to the rule. An exception to the rule doesn't justify disbanding the entire rule.
Exactly, let's say if an individual knows where is a bomb is and it is going to be set off in a major city, and you had find out where it was to deactivate it?
Oh it starts that way, the exceptional circumstances one can imagine to justify inflicting severe pain upon a person in order to get information. Then it becomes about using torture on normal suspects because it's easier, and then your rights just vanish so quickly and now you look no better than the backwards countries in Africa, the Middle East, or even countries like Brasil where police beat people with near-impunity as part of the job.
How much is civilised society worth to you? How hard would you defend it against the increasingly easier ways we can subvert it?
That is a logical fallacy known as the 'slippery slope'. Your argument is baseless.
No, it's an argument based upon how governments work. A slippery slope argument would be if I said "it'll start with torture, then we'll lose freedom of speech, then freedom of religion, and suddenly we'll be in the United States of North Korea!"
Torture is applied to people BEFORE there is proof of guilt. Now take ten minutes and reread that, over and over again, until it sinks in. It means that you only need be SUSPECTED of a crime or link to some important political target, and you could be kidnapped and tortured. Then realise that it is in government interests to apply torture to political dissidents in order to maintain stability. Terrorism is only the thin part of this wedge.
Torture is applied to people BEFORE there is proof of guilt.
A search warrant allows officers of the law to completely turn your house upside down. Without the warrant, it's called invasion of privacy, breaking and entering, vandalism, etc... This is all done before any conviction by court. Now, torture should be regulated the same way to prevent abuse.
A search warrant allows officers of the law to completely turn your house upside down. Without the warrant, it's called invasion of privacy, breaking and entering, vandalism, etc... This is all done before any conviction by court. Now, torture should be regulated the same way to prevent abuse.
We already have laws that prevent it from leading to abuse: it is illegal in most civilised countries.
Also, quit using the phrase "prevent abuse" with torture as if torture can ever be nonabusive when it is by definition a form of abuse.
We already have laws that prevent it from leading to abuse: it is illegal in most civilised countries
It's called a ban, as in sweep it under the carpet even though it's happening on a regular basis, in most civilized countries.
It's called politicians can't be fucked dealing with it because most people are like you: don't deal with the problem, just ban it and ignore it when it happens and if anyone points out the fact that it happens, just show them that our laws ban it so it must mean it's not happening.
There's no such thing as black and white in this world when it comes to moral issues. Torture? Would that REALLY get the information you need out of them? Or would it just get them to tell you anything to stop the pain. To back this statement without criticising it would be moronic in my opinion. Torture is illegal for many, many reasons, and to want it legalised is fairly sadistic of you in my eyes.
It is an acceptable risk - them lying. It's much better than the hypothetical bomb going off.
By the way - I am not much of a sadist. If you asked if I were a masochist, I'd agree to an extent. If you asked if I were insane - I would say no, but mildly psychopathic.
I disagree with it being "an acceptable risk", suffering for an invalid out come through physically and psychologically crippling pain isn't acceptable to me.
Hmmm, you're a very wise man, neither of us will sway the other's opinion on this topic, but I look forward to seeing you in later topics.
So then tell me, is One mans life worth more than millions?
Torture is necessary with the right kind of enemy.
Lets take a dog for example (We don't torture dogs, but just hold on) if your dog chews up something your not just going to let it get away with it, no! Your going to slap it or whatever.
The point being is some people ONLY respond/obey to pain just as dogs do.
Another, if someone had kidnapped your daughter/son/wife/husband/Whatever! and you found him would you torture him to get the information out or would you pussy foot around and ask him polity and bring roses to him?
And don't tell me its not the same if the government is doing it it's always the same.
Personally I would just kick someones ass for doing that, but, that's just me.
This isn't about what we'd personally do, because anyone would do anything to save a loved one.
"Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information."
I've not said one man's life is worth more than millions.
Target the question instead of trying to provoke a personal response.
We're talking about military trained people here, not government. And everyone is susceptible to corruption, what about some sick fuck torturing people and enjoying it?! And for that person to be found innocent, and then his/her confession to be followed up by the police wasting time and resources, time and resources which could've been spent following a more liable lead.
1. I'm not talking about torture for enjoyment only for information.
2. MILITARY IS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Did you know if you get a tattoo in the military and its not a military tattoo you are charged for defacing Government property? Yeah, fuck you.
3.I've not said one man's life is worth more than millions.
I wasn't accusing you of that I was asking.
4. For your last paragraph make it easier to understand..your all over the place and your grammar is bad.
5. his isn't about what we'd personally do, because anyone would do anything to save a loved one.
A country you are loyal to is a loved one. I love Germany, I love the US but I hate US's politics right now but I still love the country.
The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few.
Cliches don't make an argument, besides the fact that allowing the torture of suspects doesn't benefit the many, because our legal system presently protects the many from torture.
So really you should phrase it as:
The needs of the few agents, police, and investigators outweigh the needs of the many citizens who require a set of rights to feel protected even in unusual circumstances.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
And if you don't think having the United States government adopt a policy of torturing people for information they want is a sacrifice of liberty you're hopelessly blind.
Nobody has given me a real argument other than 'if you can't see that you are blind'. Americans will feel less safe if they become a bombing range for terrorists.
So your counter argument is, to sum up... 'screw liberty, screw morality, screw principles, just give me safety'.
Or... we should be a nation of cowards with no ethics.
The founding fathers would be so proud. The English make it through the BLITZ from Nazi Germany without abandoning their core principles as a nation and embracing the torturing of prisoners for intelligence. Americans get one building complex knocked down by some whackjobs living in caves halfway around the world and they should toss every core ethical belief they hold out the window in panic and terror. That's the path you want the nation to take.
Joy. I'm going to have to remember to regularly take a little time out of my day to be thankful people who think like that are not in charge of the country anymore. They did quite enough damage before 2009.
If you didn't understand the perfectly clear explanation the first time why should I think you would understand it if I repeated it? Well, I'll try anyway.
The English had courage. They were under MASSIVELY higher levels of threat and defended themselves with honor and integrity and did not let fear drive them to abandon their principles and ethics.
You on the other hand, at the first sign of trouble, run screaming for a torturer to protect you from the scary people and to hell with principle or ethics.
THAT is what makes "protecting yourself" an act of cowardice. It's easy to talk a big game about how the US is the nation of truth and justice and freedom when nobody is threatening it. But if you don't have the guts to stick by that when one little fringe whackjob organization knocks down a couple buildings you're all talk. the English managed to do it when the entire Naze empire was razing their major cities to the ground. THEY had fortitude. THEY had the courage of their convictions. What the hell do you have?
How do you not comprehend that the primary concern of ALL cowards is protecting themselves before any other considerations? What do you think MAKES them cowards?
Call me a coward if you want, but don't call yourself a hero when you're walking around up in the clouds and can't see reality. People know the US torture. People are neither blind nor stupid. For all its moral high grounds, the US does torture and sneaks around doing it. So call me a coward, but you'll get respect from me if you see reality and deal with it like a man instead of like a mouse.
You, the person who ignores the assessments of actual profession interrogators in the military and intelligence commmunities because he thinks he knows how torture REALLY works... thinks that the only effect of making the United states an international pariah is that people "think whatever they want" but apparently don't do anything about it, and have just recently implied that fighting the nazi's and torturing prisoners holds moral equivalence... are giving me advice on not ignoring reality?
and you, the guy so primarily concerned with protecting his own backside that he'll compromise ANY principle or ethic to do it are suggesting I deal with things like "a man"?
I'm done with you. Either you have some kind of severe psychological issue or you're somewhere in the vicinity of 12 years old and either one of those possibilities leaves me just wasting time trying to engage you in rational discussion.
Yet, you base your argument on the fact that if we don't torture people for information that there is no other to find information and, because of that, we will certainly face another terrorist attack. You provide no logical or statical warrant for this claim so, how can this argument be seriously considered?
I did not intend on creating the impression that torture is the only way to go. Nor do I believe it is the most effective. However, on a case-to-case basis, torture should be an option - there may be times when other things work, when torture works, or when nothing works.
You say that you don't intend to give off the impression that torture is the only way to go but, your arguments all rely on the fact that torture is the only way to stop the lives of many losing their lives. You assert that torture could have stopped 9/11. You offer no other options in the debate besides torture.
Morality dictates that torture never be used because by doing so we undermine our own cause of spreading democratic ideals.
I do not have any democratic ideals - frankly, I agree with most political systems over democracy. I do not believe that morality has a place in war. Nor do I claim that torture could have stopped 9/11. What I did say was that torture could stop future occurrences. Of course, there are sure to be some that may 'slip by'.
I recall reading news articles in which Osama bin Laden promises more attacks, and North Vietnam stated a desire to 'wipe America off the map.'
I do not have any democratic ideals - frankly, I agree with most political systems over democracy. I do not believe that morality has a place in war. Nor do I claim that torture could have stopped 9/11. What I did say was that torture could stop future occurrences. Of course, there are sure to be some that may 'slip by'.
This is why people downrate you all the time. You display a child's understanding of ethics and morality. I shouldn't be surprised though, this site attracts teenagers and you're probably still in high school.
I think that you misunderstood the meaning of my words. I meant was that morality mustn't be the prime thought on everybody's mind during a war. If you have a choice between torturing a member of the nation with whom you are at war, or allowing your own people to die - is the former not a better choice?
People have a very odd notion of morality. The enemy must be subdued so that they cannot harm our own people.
I think that you misunderstood the meaning of my words. I meant was that morality mustn't be the prime thought on everybody's mind during a war. If you have a choice between torturing a member of the nation with whom you are at war, or allowing your own people to die - is the former not a better choice?
I think you simply have no concept that wars are fought with a code of ethics. The point of ethics is that you cannot just disregard them when it's convenient. If you have a code of ethics which exhaults human rights and fair trials before punishment, breaching those ethics is not an option. You chose beforehand to obey a more restrained set of rules of engagement, and the justification for those rules has become a sort of central point of your nation, a matter of honour, based upon seeing how wretched governments become who do not have these ethics.
It's that simple. You can't make the argument "well it might save lives" because this isn't about efficiency. This is about defending a way of life that was very hard to obtain in the first place, and that demands the sacrifice of playing with gloved hands.
But this is war! You don't try each and every solder before you shoot them - why should torture be any different?
I suppose the best distinction can be described in a very horrendous anecdote.
Imagine you are walking home, and manage to find someone who will drive you. He seems nice, but in fact he has been eyeballing you for days and decided you were the one. Your door is locked and he manages to sedate you with a chloroform-like substance, catching you completely off guard. He's clearly planned something... special for you. You wake up, strapped to a table in a garage. He's in front of you, intimidating you. It seems you were his prey. He is going to rape you. After he satisfies himself with you this way, he shows you some bolt cutters, and a blow torch. He tells you he has some fun things planned for you. He's going to cut each one of your digits off, one at a time, and he's going to use the blowtorch for well... best not to talk about THAT. You are his now, and he is going to make you suffer in every way possible before finally letting you die.
The point of this lurid tale is that any one of us would rather die quickly than experience that kind of pain, that kind of horror. THAT is the difference between the ethics of torture and killing. Death can be quick, but torture puts you in the hands of someone sadistic who might enjoy what they do, it might put you in the hands of someone who does it for their duty and you are just scum who has to be dealt with. In either case you're going to feel pain, humiliation, trauma, because your capturers think you know something. You are theirs now, you have no rights, you have no representation, you are even expendable in some jurisdictions.
Sure, this is war, but as a country I wouldn't want to be known for such atrocities. I wouldn't want to be a member of a country that treats its captives with such disregard. I would like to hope that we can rise above this type of behaviour in the same way we rose above cannibalism and slavery. Both of those, by the way, have extremely rational arguments in their favour but you would be hard pressed to find someone who wishes to sink to level of eating another human being, or owning them, now in our modern culture.
I can, in a way, understand your point of view. However - doesn't the people in the yet-to-unfold terrorist attack get rights? Why should they have to die to save somebody else from torture?
same way we rose above cannibalism and slavery.
America was never involved in cannibalism.
P.S. If my family were starving, I'd prepare a human for them to eat - if there were no other options. The life of my family comes first - I'll try not to eat any CreateDebaters, though (except for Crackers).
Personal rights and liberties endure for decades, even centuries. Issues like terrorist attacks or wars do not offer justification for reducing our rights for a short-term gain that has decades-long consequences.
Since it is the opinion of any actual professional interrogator I've eer seen give an opinion on it it that torture doesn't actually work for acquiring useful intelligence, your question is irrelevent since it wouldn't save the lives of thousands or prevent any wars.
And the deaths of thousands do not have decades-long consequences? What about resultant wars, etc.?
Do you realise that it took from the reign of early Christianity to the Enlightenment, centuries of fear and rule by royalty before weakly defined ethics concerning basic human rights began to resemble anything that we have today? Do you realise that centuries ago people were slowly tortured in devices like the Brazen Bull (look it up), thumb screws, among others? It took years of suffering before we finally achieved a set of ethics that prohibited this kind of abuse, and history has shown that with any kind of law, once you give something up it may take decades to get your right to it back.
So how could you rationally defend us simply abandoning a core human right of protection over fear of a war or some dead people? People may die, as a consequence of our adherence to first-world ethics, but we will have PROTECTED those ethics that MAKE us first world, which took blood and tears of many generations' suffering to see come to fruition.
We are dealing with terrorists. They are using everything they have to be against us. Naturally we should use everything we have fight with them and protect our people - torture is one of the tools we have and we should use it when it's necessary.
So there are a few outcomes with the debate about torture. Perhaps you do torture a few terrorists (who despise our country anyway, even before the torture), then you find out information and save hundreds or even thousands of lives from an attack. Or maybe you don't torture. Then you could technically get lucky and catch the attack before it happens, but without intel. That's tough to do though and most likely, due to a lack of information, the terrorists would find a way around our securities to attack again. The way I see it, it's torturing a few terrorists who want us dead and saving hundreds or thousands of lives. Or we don't torture and let our own citizens die.
But torture doesn't necessarily lead to good intelligence. In fact, it can lead to the exact opposite causing a waste of resources.
Plus, there are more than just two outcomes; this isn't a do or die topic. There are boundless ramifications of the use (or non-use) of torture. Also, there is no way to prove that everybody in a military prison is actually a terrorist or an innocent bystander who was mistaken for a terrorist. This leaves the possibility that we may torture innocent persons; an atrocity that we, as a nation, cannot stand for.
But torture doesn't necessarily lead to good intelligence. In fact, it can lead to the exact opposite causing a waste of resources
Do it properly and it won't result in misleading intelligence.
.
This leaves the possibility that we may torture innocent persons; an atrocity that we, as a nation, cannot stand for
The reality is that we do our best not to capture and convict an innocent, but we inevitably do imprison innocents. This does not mean that we should carry on investigating and imprisoning criminals. The same goes for torture.
But torture doesn't necessarily lead to good intelligence. In fact, it can lead to the exact opposite causing a waste of resources
There is no way to do torture properly because it is a flawed system of interrogation. People, in times of duress, because of their fight of flight response will start to spout off information, regardless of its accuracy, in order to stop the torture
The reality is that we do our best not to capture and convict an innocent, but we inevitably do imprison innocents. This does not mean that we should carry on investigating and imprisoning criminals. The same goes for torture.
Yeah I think that's actually a good reason to tread carefully around interrogations... which means no torture
"The reality is that we do our best not to capture and convict an innocent, but we inevitably do imprison innocents. This does not mean that we should NOT carry on investigating and imprisoning criminals. The same goes for torture."
.
Sorry if I mislead you, i neglected to put the word "NOT" in where it is now. Sorry about that. So it means that just because we might torture someone innocent, doesn't mean we should stop it all together. Besides, we should actually have overwhelming evidence against a criminal before we torture him/her for info about other things related to the crime.
"Among defendants sentenced to death in the United States since 1973, at least 2.3 percent—and possibly more—were falsely convicted, said U-M law professor Samuel Gross in a study co-authored by Barbara O'Brien, a professor at Michigan State University College of Law"
and
"If defendants who were sentenced to prison had been freed because of innocence at the same rate as those who were sentenced to death, there would have been nearly 87,000 non-death row exonerations in the United States from 1989 through 2003, rather than the 266 that were reported, the study said"
.
So, should we stop pursuing criminals because we might convict an innocent? Or should we manage it better? Same with torture. Manage it better.
How to manage torture? I'm no expert but let's see: Look at where we've gone wrong with the technique and adjust it!
1 - The methods used should be considered. Things like false positives must be weeded out. If you ask someone "is so and so a bad person" and then torture them for an answer, then the answer you get won't be very reliable if you can't verify this info. The question was stupid in itself. But if you ask "where is x or y", the info given can be verified and the torture victim will see there's no point in lying!
2 - Supervision and video monitoring of tortures to avoid abuse.
3 - Permission from court to torture, just like search warrants, etc...
4 - The victim of torture must be considered also: At one end of the spectrum, if you're a convicted murderer and you're going to be executed anyway, it should be ok to torture you for info, but on the other end of the spectrum, if you're a suspected robber with only circumstantial evidence against you, it's not ok to torture you.
Why do I need to come up with ways to manage this when I'm not even the professionals in the field? I only need to argue that it should be regulated and not abused like it is now!
Something I'd like to note is that the torture of terrorists is not likely to be as successful as the torture of criminals of other crimes. This is because the terrorist has more conviction than a common criminal. Terrorists are likely to believe in a greater cause very strongly and so pain or even death may not break them. The common criminals on the other hand are either motivated by money or are simply psychologically deranged, pain would suit them quite nicely :)
The fool is you, who think that it doesn't work contrary to overwhelming evidence that it does work, is used and abused all over the world. You don't have to go search very far for proof that it works, next time someone hides the TV remote from you, just twist his/her wrist until its location is revealed. It won't take long, 2 seconds would be my prediction.
The fool is you, who think that it doesn't work contrary to overwhelming evidence that it does work, is used and abused all over the world. You don't have to go search very far for proof that it works, next time someone hides the TV remote from you, just twist his/her wrist until its location is revealed. It won't take long, 2 seconds would be my prediction.
Because twisting the arm of someone who takes away a television remote is comparable to kidnapping a suspect, taking them to another country, engaging them in heavy white noise, bright lights, sleep deprivation for periods of days at a time, restricting their diets to Ensure with a maximum of 1500 calories daily, while using abdominal punches, suspended uncomfortable and straining positions, and simulated drowning in order to extract information.
There is no form of torture that bypasses an individual's ability to lie, and pain encourages deception. But since you're stubborn, do an experiment: have someone try waterboarding on you, with the demand that you reveal your most humiliating, darkest, deepest secrets to make it stop.
If you're torturing people to ask them to reveal their deepest darkest secrets, it probably won't work:
1 - It's useless info, as in you're not using it to do anything good with it.
2 - you probably can't verify,
.
Regulation and strict control of the processes of torture will enable it to be more efficient, while minimizing abuse. The right candidate, the right kind of info, the correct methods, abuse safeguards, etc... See my post on managing the process.
If you're torturing people to ask them to reveal their deepest darkest secrets, it probably won't work:
1 - It's useless info, as in you're not using it to do anything good with it.
2 - you probably can't verify,
Number two hit it on the head. You can't verify what they said without already knowing something about what they know. They can always say something that sounds plausible, only with the intent of making the pain stop. Torture doesn't motivate a person to give accurate information, but only to make it stop.
Regulation and strict control of the processes of torture will enable it to be more efficient, while minimizing abuse. The right candidate, the right kind of info, the correct methods, abuse safeguards, etc... See my post on managing the process.
Regulation and strict control of the processes of slavery will enable it to be more efficient, while minimizing abuse. The right person, the right kind of service, the correct training, abuse safeguards, etc...
I know you aren't advocating slavery, and I know that torture is not slavery, but I only wanted to make the point that ANY backwards process or behaviour can be legitimised to the public through regulation.
The point of civilised society is to abstain from centuries old processes like state religion, slavery and indentured servitude, torture chambers, show trials, witch burning, etc. This is the cost of becoming civilised, can't have both.
They can always say something that sounds plausible, only with the intent of making the pain stop
That is why you don't ask those questions. Instead, ask something like "where is the briefcase?" or "where is that bomb", something that you can verify. Once the person knows that lying results in more pain, lying will stop, you'll end up just be having a nice conversation with each other.
.
ANY backwards process or behaviour can be legitimised to the public through regulation (slavery)
Slavery HAS been regulated. It's called employment! You work for someone else, but now you get proper pay, benefits, etc... sometimes you don't.
.
Don't kid yourself. Civil society is the same as the societies of days gone past, only more regulated. You still have witch burning, show trials, all of that, just not under the same name or methods. If we regulate torture well enough, it may well be known by a much nicer name in the future, or the dictionary definition may even change to reflect that.
That is why you don't ask those questions. Instead, ask something like "where is the briefcase?" or "where is that bomb", something that you can verify. Once the person knows that lying results in more pain, lying will stop, you'll end up just be having a nice conversation with each other.
I really hate explaining the obvious but since you're acting unable to put two and two together, it's simple:
Pain versus information is a very simple rational process for just about anyone to comprehend. If a person gives you pain, in exchange for information rooted to something to must not talk about for whatever reason, the obvious choice is to give information that is vague enough that it can be of no use, unverifiable so you won't be retaliated against, or incriminating so that you lead your torturers into either a trap or a position that actually isn't in their favour because they lack the complete picture you could have provided. Remember we're not dealing with a television show where it's some random guy who has no attachment to his cause, the people who are tortured generally are very dedicated to their ideology and will do whatever they can to not betray it.
But go ahead with your magical "pain equals instant honest information" routine. You only sound like a fool who watches television.
Slavery HAS been regulated. It's called employment! You work for someone else, but now you get proper pay, benefits, etc... sometimes you don't.
Please be serious. Slavery WAS regulated, over a century ago. People were regulated as property, and there were people out there defending it as a public service, like you are with torture. Needless to say, they were proven wrong.
Don't kid yourself. Civil society is the same as the societies of days gone past, only more regulated. You still have witch burning, show trials, all of that, just not under the same name or methods. If we regulate torture well enough, it may well be known by a much nicer name in the future, or the dictionary definition may even change to reflect that.
Since you're acting with a crass lack of insight on the subject, I'll leave you with these:
Go ahead and advocate a slow return to the type of society which employed these devices and methods. Be a fool who throws away the rights guaranteed to you and your children to never have to face cruel and unusual punishment, all because you are given to pettiness.
Remember we're not dealing with a television show where it's some random guy who has no attachment to his cause, the people who are tortured generally are very dedicated to their ideology and will do whatever they can to not betray it.
See my post on the use of torture on terrorists. I agree that terrorists believe in a greater cause then themselves, they are soldiers who are likely to give their lives for their cause, so pain doesn't work as well. Other criminals on the other hand are motivated by much less, so pain will do just fine. You have attached yourself to the idea of torture being used for terrorists only, but please look at the debate topic and get back on track.
.
Employment = regulated slavery
You still think that it's not, that's because it's no longer perceived as such. The main differences being the benefits of your employment and the freedom to leave employment whenever you choose (most of the time).
.
Go ahead and advocate a slow return to the type of society which employed these devices and methods. Be a fool who throws away the rights guaranteed to you and your children to never have to face cruel and unusual punishment, all because you are given to pettiness
You have not rebut my argument that society hasn't changed. Just the methods and names of the things you mentioned have.
Don't give me links to historical methods of torture, I'm not interested in bringing back the old days. I'm interested in progress:
- Strict controls and regulations,
- efficiency,
- abuse safeguards.
Please address these in your next reply. Otherwise we're just going around in circles with you thinking of the old days and terrorists. Get them out of your head.
See my post on the use of torture on terrorists. I agree that terrorists believe in a greater cause then themselves, they are soldiers who are likely to give their lives for their cause, so pain doesn't work as well. Other criminals on the other hand are motivated by much less, so pain will do just fine. You have attached yourself to the idea of torture being used for terrorists only, but please look at the debate topic and get back on track.
I thought you were arguing for use on terrorists only, because when you start to include OTHER criminals you only make the position you're defending even more offensive to human rights.
You still think that it's not, that's because it's no longer perceived as such. The main differences being the benefits of your employment and the freedom to leave employment whenever you choose (most of the time).
The discussion would be expedited if you had a basic grasp of the language. Slavery is ownership. You are not owned by the company you work for, you can never be their possession. Employment confers wages, slavery does not. Learn the meaning of words before you try to be clever.
You have not rebut my argument that society hasn't changed. Just the methods and names of the things you mentioned have.
I really thought you were smart enough that you were just being facetious. I'll let you in on a secret: I hate stupidity, and you're starting to cross my threshold for it.
If society hadn't changed, state religion would still be the law of the land. If times hadn't changed, slavery would still exist. If times hadn't changed, we would not have a basic bill of human rights guaranteed to us. If times hadn't changed, we would still be ruled at the whim of monarchs. Do I really need to go on, or are you telling me that you honestly don't see the failure of your position?
Don't give me links to historical methods of torture, I'm not interested in bringing back the old days. I'm interested in progress:
Those methods are the "progress" you speak of. Progress means upholding our ethics which guarantee rights, torture means going backwards, and you can bet that if torture became approved in society that some of those devices would inspire new forms of inflicting pain.
- Strict controls and regulations,
- efficiency,
- abuse safeguards.
Which doesn't apply to torture categorically, because:
Torture is applied BEFORE guilt is ascertained, meaning that regulations which already exist are forfeit.
Torture is NOT efficient because it leads to wrong information, because the motivation for the tortured isn't truth.
Torture IS abuse, so your statement about safeguards is contradictory.
when you start to include OTHER criminals you only make the position you're defending even more offensive to human rights.
You have not rebut any of my arguments with anything intelligible. Human rights should see all prisoners no matter how violent or cunning or damaging to society go free. They're humans, no? They too should have the freedoms to do as they please? Why do we confine their existence to "rehabilitation facilities"? Your hypocritical attitude makes me sick.
.
Slavery is ownership. You are not owned by the company you work for, you can never be their possession. Employment confers wages, slavery does not. Learn the meaning of words before you try to be clever.
I explained the primary difference of slavery and employment in the very sentence that you quoted. Ridicule my "grasp of the language" all you want, until you can do the same, you're not even worth an insult to me.
.
I hate stupidity, and you're starting to cross my threshold for it
I was wondering when your inability to argue logically would result in your own frustration...
.
Society has changed
In your stupid rant, you failed to see the point of my statement that society hasn't changed. The basic elements are still there, they simply go under different names and methods. The world is still ruled by the rich and powerful few and the majority has illusions of freedom.
.
Torture is applied BEFORE guilt is ascertained, meaning that regulations which already exist are forfeit.
Torture is NOT efficient because it leads to wrong information, because the motivation for the tortured isn't truth.
Torture IS abuse, so your statement about safeguards is contradictory
See my post on how to manage torture, it outlines some basics. But to rebut your desperate points:
- Search warrants are issued before a person's guilt is ascertained.
- The motivation for the tortured is to stop the pain, not tell a lie.
You have not rebut any of my arguments with anything intelligible. Human rights should see all prisoners no matter how violent or cunning or damaging to society go free. They're humans, no? They too should have the freedoms to do as they please? Why do we confine their existence to "rehabilitation facilities"? Your hypocritical attitude makes me sick.
Protection from incarceration is not a human right. Learn2Research.
I explained the primary difference of slavery and employment in the very sentence that you quoted. Ridicule my "grasp of the language" all you want, until you can do the same, you're not even worth an insult to me.
You mean this little gem which underpins you lack of ability to reason and substitute with hyperbole?
Slavery HAS been regulated. It's called employment! You work for someone else, but now you get proper pay, benefits, etc... sometimes you don't.
In your stupid rant, you failed to see the point of my statement that society hasn't changed. The basic elements are still there, they simply go under different names and methods. The world is still ruled by the rich and powerful few and the majority has illusions of freedom.
I'm sorry, I can't take this statement seriously since I've yet to see negro slaves in cabins on plantations in the country, and we aren't burning people alive in public displays any longer. Learn to acknowledge when you've lost a point.
See my post on how to manage torture, it outlines some basics. But to rebut your desperate points:
- Search warrants are issued before a person's guilt is ascertained.
- The motivation for the tortured is to stop the pain, not tell a lie.
- Torture is not abuse. Only in your head.
This debate isn't "Is your ideal form of torture which will never be implemented permissible for interrogation?" Torture is abuse, stop being stupid. Better yet, go get waterboarded and then come back and tell me it isn't abuse.
yes they can torture if the subject if they are absoulutely sure that they have the infromation. but if they are not sure then no they should not be allowed to torture the suspect if they have no convincing evidence that they know
yes if the interrogators are are sure beyond reasonable doubt that the person is guilty or has the infromation that could save lives then yes torture them. if there is any reasonable doubt then don't torture them unless some new facts turn up or you catch them trying to leave the country.
There are people (including myself) who sleep soundly at night because of what we do to terrorists. It may be morally wrong but these people can and will kill hundreds of innocent others, and it's also wrong to see heads get cut off on TV.
Torture must be allowed and regulated because it has merits as a way to obtain information that otherwise may be withheld (that's why it's done regardless of the law, and the US does it by doing everything it can to circumvent the laws and conventions regarding it, so why don't we just legalize it?).
.
There's just 1 important proviso: if it cannot be regulated, it must be banned. Simple as that.
.
- Torture must not be done for a confession. (as confessions without hard evidence to back them up are (in my view) useless, torture or not. But if you have hard evidence already, then a confession is no longer necessary).
- The law must regulate the methods, tactics and pretty much everything else about torture to maximize effectiveness and minimize harm to the torture victim. For example: Torture must be done in a controlled environment with supervision and video monitoring, etc.
It may have some merits but, these merits are heavily outweighed by moral and practical issues. Why should we use a questionable method of obtaining information when we have more modern and humane ways of obtaining information?
It may have some merits but, these merits are heavily outweighed by moral and practical issues
Those who take the moral high ground when it comes to treating criminals should go and form a country by themselves. Then when they get robbed, killed, kidnapped, perhaps they'll send those crims into a piece of land outside their jurisdiction so if torture takes place, it's not on their land! The moral high ground always makes me sick, when it disregards reality.
.
On the practicality of torture, it works, that's why it's used. Sure we have modern and humane ways of obtaining info, so keep using those methods, torture is meant to be a complement, not a substitute.
Those who take the moral high ground when it comes to treating criminals should go and form a country by themselves.
Hmmm that just happens to be the USA... just look at amendments 4-8 and you'll see what I mean, This country has always been for defendants rights. Without morals we are no better then the terrorists and we loose all rationale for our efforts in the middle east. We can have peace and morality it just means that we will have to rise above torture and use more of the NSA, CIA and FBI large institutions whose job it is to find information through legal investigations.
it works, that's why it's used.
Yeah it works to get us false info and to make enemies out of those who were once on our side. Torture can't be used at all... not even as a complement.
This country has always been for defendants rights. Without morals we are no better then the terrorists and we loose all rationale for our efforts in the middle east
Are you fucking blind or did you deliberately ignore what I wrote after that sentence? The US does torture and everybody knows it. So much for the moral fucking high ground.
.
Yeah it works to get us false info and to make enemies out of those who were once on our side. Torture can't be used at all... not even as a complement
If it doesn't work, the entire investment into a facility like Guantanamo Bay was a waste of money then? The rest of the world is wrong then? All the movies (and TV shows) that portray torture as an effective means of extracting info is basing it on wrong facts then? If you caught an enemy and torture him, he was not on your side to begin with!
.
I'm now of the opinion that you're incompetent when it comes to understanding properly what you read, unimaginative in rebutting arguments (because you simply repeated what you said previously without adding anything new when it's already been rebutted).
Me: It works because of reason A.
You: It doesn't work.
Me: Yes, it works because of reason B.
You: It doesn't work.
Me: Um... there's also reasons C and D.
You: No, it doesn't work.
Me: But everyone's doing it, including us.
You: Um... well, but our Constitution said we're not doing it...
Okay, if you look at the Constitution it shows the US standing for defendants rights. Sure the US tortures but does not make it right; it shows that our policy needs to be fixed. We went into both the Afghani and Iraqi war on the premise of spreading democratic ideals yet, how can we do that when we follow undemocratic ideals ourselves... that's just absurd. It's my point... we can't stand on this moral high ground. Just because we aren't on the moral high ground doesn't mean we shouldn't be there.
If it doesn't work, the entire investment into a facility like Guantanamo Bay was a waste of money then? The rest of the world is wrong then?
Yes Guantanamo Bay is a waste of resources; that's part of the reason it's being shut down. Other democratic countries don't torture. We are in the wrong.... just because the US is doing it that doesn't make it right. And you're basing what works off of movies and TV? That's just pure bullshit; movies and TV have been known to contain elements of fiction thus, they can't be reliably used to determine what works
...
Okay, now I don't appreciate the personal attacks. I have rebutted using what I've said before (while adding more to the mix) because you did not touch upon enough and thus they were still valid arguments. Your logic used to form your rebuttals was weak where most of the time you stated that torture can carefully regulated while providing no actual examples yet you used time after time. You never gave a reason B,C, or D just a reason A which was faulty. You're logic on the moral argument has failed and your arguments on the practical benefits have been properly disposed off by my psychological reasoning on why torture won't work . Now I feel that you are resorting to these pitiful ethos attacks that fall flat.
We went into both the Afghani and Iraqi war on the premise of spreading democratic ideals yet, how can we do that when we follow undemocratic ideals ourselves... that's just absurd
The very act of waging war is already undemocratic. True democracy is when the people themselves want it and demands it and successfully gets it without a foreign army going in to give it to them. If you want to spread democracy the pussy way, do it by peaceful means only, stop all manners of trade sanctions that can harm the enemy's people. Again, let's get back to reality. We do wage war, we do have crimes, we do torture. Let's do it properly.
.
Yes Guantanamo Bay is a waste of resources
How do you know it didn't yield any positive results? Hell, it may have saved millions of lives including your own.
.
Reasons torture works:
A - Pain is not a friend, you'll avoid it if you could. And you will.
B - It's widely used (or misused) all over the world, especially by criminals, for the reason that it works.
C - Mental or Physical torture could drive a person to suicide, so it should work to extract info.
D - In prison, if an inmate plays up, he/she gets put into solitary confinement, that's a form of torture, it works.
E - It's a well known fact that torture puts the victim's mind into so much stress that it's difficultl to lie.
On the practicality of torture, it works, that's why it's used.
And just you nevermind what all the experts who know the first thing about it say. Sure they might say it doesn't work, and it's counterproductive... on top of being contemptible. But we're talking to the real expert here folks!
Experts are the ones using torture right now as we speak! It's being used! And also those experts who think they're not torturing people, think about what it means when depriving a crim of recreational drugs when he needs it. Have you seen the amount of pain a drugs addict feels when going through rehab cold turkey style?
Ok, I'll run along and play, you can come and play with me whenever you want to, but don't bring that dismissive attitude towards problems if you decide to come.
In certain circumstances torture is useful and it does work.
As a lot of you are saying
"when you are tortured you will say anything to make it stop"
That is true and if you have the information i need you will tell me to stop the torture!
Also, sometimes you have to play by the rules of the other team, they torture and kill our guys...we will do the same to you! even if that doesn't give us the info we need it might work as a deterrent for some.
Guantanamo Bay tortured non-uniformed terrorists that did not serve a country. As long as they are non-uniformed and are confirmed guilty, not just suspects, it is ok to torture.
The price we pay for living in a free society with guaranteed civil liberties and provisions which prevent cruelty towards citizens is inclusion of criminal suspects among the protected. When we start to allow torture of criminals and suspects we start to lose that dignity which makes our country worth defending against other countries which have few civil liberties.
Yes it's always nice and inspiring to take the moral high grounds but the fact is we DO torture people, the only way to have any dignity left is to acknowledge that and manage it better.
Yes it's always nice and inspiring to take the moral high grounds but the fact is we DO torture people, the only way to have any dignity left is to acknowledge that and manage it better.
Or pressure other nations to ensure human rights universally. Another approach is to ban torture by proxy with stiff and swift penalties. This isn't a light subject that we should just accept, it's a matter of people being kidnapped and transported to foreign nations where they are at best interrogated using morally ambiguous methods such as sensory, food and sleep deprivation combined with battery; at worst it means being placed in excruciating positions in order to break the person down.
This is a matter of inflicting harm upon a person without even a proper trial.
You're another one to deal with problems by simply banning it. Let's just ban everything:
- Your children abuse their mobile phone usage, let's ban it.
- They abuse computer usage, ban that.
- TV? Banned.
Ban ban ban ban, that's why circumvention exists. Ban torture by proxy? You think people can't circumvent that too?
.
Banning things is the simplest and laziest approach to solving any problems. It requires no thinking whatsoever, a 5 year-old kid could run a country by doing that.
Well, it dawned upon me that you're potentially a big waste of time. You compared genocide to torture. Are you aware of what genocide means? Stop making stupid comparisons to exxagerate your points, it makes you look... exxagerated.
Well, it dawned upon me that you're potentially a big waste of time. You compared genocide to torture. Are you aware of what genocide means? Stop making stupid comparisons to exxagerate your points, it makes you look... exxagerated.
I figured that you were bright enough to see your error if it was highlighted with exaggeration. Was I wrong to assume you were capable of this?
I figured that you were bright enough to see your error if it was highlighted with exaggeration. Was I wrong to assume you were capable of this?
I thought you were a potential waste of time. I'm now assured of it. You're incapable of any real arguments against torture. Instead, you rely on the assumptions that it doesn't work, on the abuse of it, and human rights, all of which are due to the fact that torture is not regulated. Come back and debate when you're more capable.
I thought you were a potential waste of time. I'm now assured of it. You're incapable of any real arguments against torture. Instead, you rely on the assumptions that it doesn't work, on the abuse of it, and human rights, all of which are due to the fact that torture is not regulated. Come back and debate when you're more capable.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You can't possibly be this obtuse.
I thought you'd be smart enough to grasp that torture is by definition a form of emotional and physical abuse. I even pointed it out to you. But you just kept running with it, like you were oblivious to the fact.
We do not have the right to abuse our prisoners. In the united states this falls under cruel and unusual punishment, and no-doubt other legal codes since added to prevent further abuses.
I shouldn't have to even explain this preliminary stuff to you. Why are you even on this debate if you don't even know what torture is, and what our rights are?
I thought you'd be smart enough to grasp that torture is by definition a form of emotional and physical abuse. I even pointed it out to you. But you just kept running with it, like you were oblivious to the fact.
I thought you'd be homosexual enough to grasp that torture is by definition a form of emotional and physical abuse. I even pointed it out to you. But you just kept running with it, like you were oblivious to the fact.
Again, look up torture, don't go wandering in the woods. Abuse confers misuse. Regulations should take care of that.
.
We do not have the right to abuse our prisoners.
I'm not saying we should. It's not abuse if you lawfully sanction it and do it properly.
.
I shouldn't have to even explain this preliminary stuff to you. Why are you even on this debate if you don't even know what torture is, and what our rights are?
Like I said, you're not very imaginative are you... Same old shit: doesn't work, abuse, human rights.
Again, look up torture, don't go wandering in the woods. Abuse confers misuse. Regulations should take care of that.
I'm not saying we should. It's not abuse if you lawfully sanction it and do it properly.
Physical abuse is abuse involving contact intended to cause feelings of intimidation, pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.
Psychological abuse, also referred to as emotional abuse, is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that is psychologically harmful. Such abuse is often associated with situations of power imbalance, such as abusive relationships, bullying, child abuse and in the workplace.
This is what torture is, you nitwit. It is an intrinsic property of torture that it inflicts pain, injury, power imbalance and so on.
It's like I'm trying to explain to you that murder requires that you kill someone, and you just keep writing "if we regulate it, no one will die from it."
I've never met someone so unable to grasp the most basic conceptual relationships.
Did you look up the definition of torture? I even gave you a link to the wikipedia article. Abuse confers misuse, and that's why I've been arguing that we should regulate it. And don't equate murder to torture, you idiot.
The real world is not "24" with Jack Bauer. And people need to grow up and stop thinking it works that way. Professionals interrogate. Terrified amateurs in way over their heads torture.
Torture isn't used to extract intelligence, it's used to extract confessions... TRUE OR NOT. People being tortured will tell you anything they think you want to hear to make the torture stop.
And we pay an extremely heavy price in international credibility and support for engaging in this kind of contemptable behavior. You can't run around the world telling everyone they should support your agenda because you're the good guys while engaging in the most despicable criminal behaviour and declaring it's ok when you do it because you're special.
People being tortured will tell you anything they think you want to hear to make the torture stop
That's why you should never use torture to obtain a confession.
.
It should only be done to obtain information from uncooperative suspects. And if the info they give you is bs, then they'd get double pain when you find out. So lying in that case isn't a way to stop pain.
.
And we pay an extremely heavy price in international credibility and support for engaging in this kind of contemptable behavior. You can't run around the world telling everyone they should support your agenda because you're the good guys while engaging in the most despicable criminal behaviour and declaring it's ok when you do it because you're special
This is because the US goes about it the wrong way: Sneaking around, circumventing laws, unregulated methods used by undisciplined personnel, etc...
If you sneak around and you get caught, it's a bad thing.
If you're up front about it and do it properly for the right reasons, people will support it. It happens everywhere, why wouldn't people support it? They only don't support its abuse.
I'm sorry. So... it's bad to get false confessions but it's good to get false information?
And we're doing this in situations where we have time to take their information, act on it, discover whether it's correct or incorrect, come back, repeat the process... etc... meaning we're not talking about "ticking bomb" scenarios but just general "tell me something I want to know or I'll torture it out of you" scenarios?
So... we're basically North Korea now? That's your brilliant idea?
And you think the problem is we don't ADVERTISE torture programs? Are you supposed to be on some medication that you've gone off of?
Your power of interpretation is phenomenal: How did you get "it's good to get false information" from "It should only be done to obtain information from uncooperative suspects. And if the info they give you is bs, then they'd get double pain when you find out. So lying in that case isn't a way to stop pain.""
It should have been interpreted as meaning: if you torture for info (as oppose to for a confession), you're not likely to get false info as info can be verified. The resumption of pain will deter suspects from lying. After all, the suspect wants to stop pain, not get more pain from lying.
.
And we're doing this in situations where we have time to take their information, act on it, discover whether it's correct or incorrect, come back, repeat the process... etc... meaning we're not talking about "ticking bomb" scenarios but just general "tell me something I want to know or I'll torture it out of you" scenarios
Why not "ticking bomb" scenarios? One person doesn't have to do all these tasks. You can have a torture specialist to beat it out of them, then you've got a team out there acting on the extracted info, much quicker :) . And remember that torture is supposed to be quicker than other methods of investigation, this should actually make it a more suitable method for time sensitive scenarios.
.
we're basically North Korea now? That's your brilliant idea?
Don't get all excited. To be North Korea, you gotta brainwash everyone to worship the dictator, etc, etc...
.
And you think the problem is we don't ADVERTISE torture programs? Are you supposed to be on some medication that you've gone off of?
Dude (or dudette if you're female), you make me out to be some kinda sicko, which is, again, inaccurate cos I'm not :) Why can't we just have a civilized debate?! The problem is because the US's gone about it the wrong way. I didn't say to advertize anything.
We can't have a civilized debate because "let's torture people for information" is the antithesis of being civilized. You know how we define a civilized nation? One that doesn't run round torturing people is pretty much a central characteristic.
Next why don't you ask me why we can't sit down and calmly and reasonably discuss whether it's a good idea if we kill and eat the neighbors, because you know it's a well proven fact that they have nutritional value so there has to be an argument to be made on the fact that it would work, right? So no reason for anyone to get excited or anything.
And people being tortured don't consider long term consequences real well. They're a little excessively focused on the present for some inexplicable reason. So they're not thinking about whether there will be future pain, they're just trying to stop right now pain. And no, torture is not supposed to be quicker, except in badly written action movies and certain television series on Fox. Because one of the primary requirements of something being quicker is that it actually WORKS. Which this DOESN'T.
The only thing it does is make terrified little cowards feel better because they can hurt the scary people and make them less scary. In the meantime REAL intelligence officers consistently testify that torturing prisoners is stupid and counter-productive and yields crap results.
And in the meantime, you make torture official policy and you put EVERY damn soldier in the field in harm's way when it becomes open season on torturing US personnel since that's how WE decided the game was going to be played. We created things like the Geneva conventions for a freaking reason you genius.
I cannot put into words how contemptible the crap is.
You know how we define a civilized nation? One that doesn't run round torturing people is pretty much a central characteristic
Ok, you want to play the defining game? What if I tell you a civilized nation is one where noone murders, conspire to hurt, or steal from anyone else? In my civilized nation, we have no crims, so no need for torture, really. But guess what? We aint living in that world. What a shame, cos I'd really enjoy it there.
.
kill and eat the neighbors
Ok, firstly we actually can sit down and calmly talk about that, but then we'd come to the conclusion that it's a lot better and easier to obtain nutrition from just eating normal grocery :) We also won't have to deal with retaliation from their loved ones, etc, etc...
.
people being tortured don't consider long term consequences real well. They're a little excessively focused on the present for some inexplicable reason. So they're not thinking about whether there will be future pain, they're just trying to stop right now pain
Well, all you have to do is make it absolutely clear to them before the whole thing starts :) This should be well regulated and clear procedures to be followed and everything like that, so yeah, regulated torture rocks!
.
one of the primary requirements of something being quicker is that it actually WORKS. Which this DOESN'T
If it doesn't work, why is everyone doing it? Because it's fun? The US didn't have Guantanamo Bay because it's a recreational facility for the soldiers. Torture works! People don't like it because, well, it's painful! But it works :)
.
you make torture official policy and you put EVERY damn soldier in the field in harm's way when it becomes open season on torturing US personnel
Soldiers in the field aint eating fairy floss and riding rollercoasters, they're already in harm's way!!! It's called risk of getting shot in the head! Oh and they do get tortured, beheaded and killed and whatever else their enemies do.
.
If torture doesn't work, it's because it was not done correctly. So like I said, research it, regulate it, complement it with other methods.
I'd love to live in that kind of nation too. So your point is supposed to be "people do bad things... so we should do worse things in response. Genius. Truly brilliant moral theorizing.
And we don't want to have to deal with retaliation from the neighbours loved ones but we're fine with dealing with massive international fallout fom becoming a torture regime and the retaliation from the loved ones of all the people we torture. Gotcha.
And what is it with you and the insistence that all you have to do is rationally explain something to a torture victim and they'll behave rationally? Do you or do you not comprehend that they are being tortured? They are in no state to be behaving rationally whether you "explain things to them first" or not. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
And now you're some kind of expert at torture so you know how it works when you do it "right"? Have lots of personal experience at this do we? Know what is involved better than professional military and intelligence agengy interrogators so you know that all we have to do to make torture "work right" is regulate it properly and those clueless so-called prfessionals don't have any idea what they're talking about? Well gosh.
This should be well regulated and clear procedures to be followed and everything like that, so yeah, regulated torture rocks!
Are you familiar with the term "antisocial personality disorder"? Might I suggest you discuss it with someone in the psychiatric profession? In person would be best. Tell them all about this discussion when you do.
So your point is supposed to be "people do bad things... so we should do worse things in response. Genius. Truly brilliant moral theorizing
Thanks :)
Look at it this way, Hitler tried to take over the world. We stopped him with guns and bombs and split his country into many pieces. We didn't invite him over for dinner and ask him to nicely stop.
.
And we don't want to have to deal with retaliation from the neighbours loved ones but we're fine with dealing with massive international fallout fom becoming a torture regime and the retaliation from the loved ones of all the people we torture. Gotcha
People think what they want! We allow our citizens to bear arms and other countries think it's stupid, we execute murderers and other countries think it's stupid,... they think what they want anyway. And don't think for a second that people don't know what Guantanamo Bay is, so you go ahead and take that moral high ground, people see reality for what it is.
.
And what is it with you and the insistence that all you have to do is rationally explain something to a torture victim and they'll behave rationally? Do you or do you not comprehend that they are being tortured? They are in no state to be behaving rationally whether you "explain things to them first" or not. Seriously, what is wrong with you
Ok, I sit you down, then I give you the usual: tea/coffe, cigarettes, mineral water, etc... then I tell you that I'm gonna ask you a few questions and that you should answer them honestly otherwise you'll feel a lot of pain, then I show you the implements of torture, if it's not clear in your head that you should be cooperating with me by then, I would then make it clear by giving you a little taste of it, not too much of course. What is wrong with giving people a clear indication of what you will do before you do it?
.
Are you familiar with the term "antisocial personality disorder"? Might I suggest you discuss it with someone in the psychiatric profession? In person would be best. Tell them all about this discussion when you do
You can dismiss my arguments as antisocial, but you should pull your head out of your anus and see the sunlight for what it is. Sure, take the moral high ground. Be all high and mighty. Have a no cheating policy with your wife, then sneak around behind her back. You'd have more respect from me if you were an honest swinger partying it up at an all-night orgy.
.
I'll have you know that if I caught a murderer and he has another victim hidden somewhere alive and he doesn't feel like telling me about it, I'd beat him until he's inches from death to extract it from him. I wouldn't be asking him nicely.
.
Regulate it. Do it properly. Don't abuse it. Just like gun control. Just like police brutality. Just like searching people's houses.
I'm sorry, it is impossible to take you seriously.
You are now ethically equating fighting the war against the nazi to the torture of prisoners.
You apparently think that being deemed a torture regime by the rest of the world has no more material impact than people "thinking bad things" about the US so I can only assume the words "foreign policy" have never been heard or comprehended by your ears. Just so you know... people ACT on what they think.
And you really DO think you know how torture works better than professional interrogators! Good grief! It's imposible to even satirize your positions. It's like you live on your own imaginary planet.
You are now ethically equating fighting the war against the nazi to the torture of prisoners
You brought the "using bad to fight bad" argument up. I'm just jumping on the bandwagon. The nazis did bad, but we fucked them up pretty good ourselves, raping some 2 million of German women in the process....
.
And you really DO think you know how torture works better than professional interrogators
They're the ones practicing the art of torture right now!!! I'm just saying to regulate it so they don't abuse it.
It should only be done to obtain information from uncooperative suspects. And if the info they give you is bs, then they'd get double pain when you find out. So lying in that case isn't a way to stop pain.
Have you ever been tortured? Have you ever been actively drowned, deprived of the ability to breathe as water covers your face? You'd say anything to make it stop.
If you're up front about it and do it properly for the right reasons, people will support it. It happens everywhere, why wouldn't people support it? They only don't support its abuse.
People wouldn't support it because torture is one of the defining human rights abuses of "regimes" in the world, used as a method to intimidate the population. It's one of the privileges of civilised society that we are protected from such abuse.
Why should terrorists be protected? Why should they be protected when they seek to destroy our country and the free world?
Social laws exist as an all or nothing gambit. When you start torturing people in a nation governed on principles of citizen rights, you erode everyone's safety from torture by creating a loophole. You need to understand that this is the cost of living in a civilised society, we cannot disregard our social laws when they are inconvenient, we cannot deny our citizens or prisoners rights because it would expedite matters, without undermining what our society stands for, and putting innocent people at risk.
Inflicting pain upon someone is a form of physical abuse. Ergo torture is abuse
With that same line of logic, I can say that imprisoning someone is a form of abuse, so let's release all criminals. The fact is inflicting pain is not a form of physical abuse. Certain members of society are treated differently to the vast majority to protect the vast majority.
With that same line of logic, I can say that imprisoning someone is a form of abuse, so let's release all criminals. The fact is inflicting pain is not a form of physical abuse. Certain members of society are treated differently to the vast majority to protect the vast majority.
At the very top of the page, you'll find the definition of torture according to the UN Convention Against Torture. Torture is all of that.
Now take out all the bad stuff with regulations and then it won't be bad any more. Notice this sentence at the end of the definition:
"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." So if the law sanctioned it, it's not torture. Make it so.
At the very top of the page, you'll find the definition of torture according to the UN Convention Against Torture. Torture is all of that.
Now take out all the bad stuff with regulations and then it won't be bad any more. Notice this sentence at the end of the definition:
"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." So if the law sanctioned it, it's not torture. Make it so.
This reminds me of an aphorism: "it is better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
You can legally define torture to mean imprisonment in solitary confinement for a year. The legal definitions aren't important here because I wasn't using legal definitions of abuse. I was using language definitions.
If you are applying pain to somebody in order to punish them, get a confession, or get information, you are torturing them. Pain is a form of abuse. Stop being foolish.
This is the same as using the legal definition of murder to defend someone's right to kill another human being under a certain circumstance. We all know that laws provide sanctions, but in this case we would be using the lingual version of murder.
I honestly can't believe that you think that if it becomes legal, it is no longer torture, as if that has everything to do with it.
Your present "debate tactics" don't work and you're running out of ideas
You're the one running out of ideas.
Before road rules exist and traffic lights were used, driving may be very bad for society too, because it would cause too many deaths, but guess what? People put in traffic lights and regulate road usage...
Just try and argue why we can't make torture work with regulations.
Dear oh dear, it is because I've rebut the arguments so many times before, but since you're still in lala land, here's the rescreening:
- Human rights applying to prisoners: Prisoners are deprived of many of their human rights already, article 13 of the UDHR being the primary right. If an inmate misbehaves, he/she gets the solitary confinement treatment, that's a form of torture. Why do we see fit to treat criminals differently from the more civilized population? It's because they're different!
- Abuse: this is a word that you use over and over and it denotes misuse of the practice of torture. Like many other things that can be abused (cigarettes, alcohol, power, trade practices, etc.), if properly regulated, it can be managed. But pain is just wrong right? To that I say, if a surgeon cuts you open to help you but in the process he causes you pain, is it still bad? If you need to lose 100 pounds and your personal trainer pushes you through a painful training schedule, is it still bad? If you're a drug addict and to kick your habit you have to go through a painful rehab program, is it bad?
- Effectiveness as a means of obtaining information: It's a proven method. The type of questions, the candidate, the methods all need to be considered to maximize effectiveness.
.
I trust this should settle your doubts. If you want to rebut any of these points, please do so with something more interesting this time.
Dear oh dear, it is because I've rebut the arguments so many times before, but since you're still in lala land, here's the rescreening:
You don't read ANYTHING I link to you, ad infinitum. You are incapable of learning. You have no concept of RIGHTS versus LAWS versus LANGUAGE. Talking to you is like talking to a mentally handicapped person. A regular person LEARNS what physical abuse and emotional abuse are after you define it for them two times in separate posts. A regular person can appreciate the subtleties between solitary confinement and torture proper without needing an explanation, like "one of these is a limited form of punishment with damage being limited to emotional only after long periods of time, while the other is an enduring form of physical and emotional scarring."
A regular person comprehends the difference between abuse, physical abuse, and emotional abuse. A regular person can comprehend the difference between starving a person for weeks, depriving that person of sleep for days, battering that person with your fists, drowning that person with waterboarding, hanging that person on a wall rack, and the practice of surgery and physical training. Who here is dumb enough to need the differences spelled out? You are, apparently.
A smart person should have done their research before going on this debate, reading about the torture methods used in extraordinary rendition, noting that the process is actually regulated and still has lead to the deaths of inmates who were detained, and has proven unable to extract information from conditioned people.
But you're not a smart person. Your entire debate style is fluff. You resort to hyperbole in nearly every post, you use style over substance to try and bluff the confidence of your arguments, all to mask your centrally flawed premise of "I just know it can work gosh darnit! Why don't we torture more people!"
This is why stupid people grate on my nerves. They think they know better than everyone else when in reality they are like the town fool running through town yelling about the latest end of the world prophesy while everyone else shakes their heads.
i was really hoping for something interesting to read, instead all i got was more of the same old shit: "I'm really smart and you're just a smart ass dammit! Why don't u go get an education! Blah blah blah"
.
solitary confinement is not torture, gotcha!
.
Never mind me saying we should regulate it for proper use and efficiency, you don't need to rebut any of that if you could just recycle the same old rhetorics, highlighting the most negative aspects of unregulated torture.
.
To the definition of torture, I'd like to add: the reading of stupid arguments from smart people like you.
i was really hoping for something interesting to read, instead all i got was more of the same old shit: "I'm really smart and you're just a smart ass dammit! Why don't u go get an education! Blah blah blah"
Smart-ass? Don't elevate yourself. You're more a dumb-ass.
Never mind me saying we should regulate it for proper use and efficiency, you don't need to rebut any of that if you could just recycle the same old rhetorics, highlighting the most negative aspects of unregulated torture.
Can it be? Did you ACTUALLY concede a point and LEARN something? It was probably just a typo but I'll remain hopeful that my referencing physical and emotional abuse for you no less than three times finally got through to you, and you learned that torture is a form of abuse.
However, minus a point for suggesting that there aren't only negative aspects to torture.
Never mind me saying we should regulate it for proper use and efficiency, you don't need to rebut any of that if you could just recycle the same old rhetorics, highlighting the most negative aspects of unregulated torture.
I just told you it is already regulated and still lead to deaths, but whatever, guess you can't be bothered to do the research yourself.
Smart-ass? Don't elevate yourself. You're more a dumb-ass
C'mon, you know I'm a smart-ass :)
.
Can it be? Did you ACTUALLY concede a point and LEARN something
Now, there's definite signs you're hallucinating... failing to see sarcasm like that, must be the desperation for victory coupled with the frustration of knowing you don't have the ability to ever get there... ok fine, you can keep that point for your team, but if anyone else asks: I didn't give it to you, mkay?
.
Finally a link to something interesting... by st. Peter's dusty gown I can't believe it! Damn you really know how to make us wait... respect for you restored, a little bit... Now, thanks for highlighting the abuse of the law, I do hope the Obama administration will keep to its words on more transparency and tighter control... something I've been advocating since the beginning of this debate.
You accuse me of using hyperboles, right, here's a list of hyperboles I gathered from YOUR posts:
Oh it starts that way, the exceptional circumstances one can imagine to justify inflicting severe pain upon a person in order to get information. Then it becomes about using torture on normal suspects because it's easier, and then your rights just vanish so quickly and now you look no better than the backwards countries in Africa, the Middle East - sure we'll become Africa and the Middle East.
.
This is why people downrate you all the time. You display a child's understanding of ethics and morality. I shouldn't be surprised though, this site attracts teenagers and you're probably still in high school - Anyone you cannot argue against is a child.
.
I would like to hope that we can rise above this type of behaviour in the same way we rose above cannibalism and slavery - eating people? wow... I was wrong, you DO have an imagination!
.
So how could you rationally defend us simply abandoning a core human right of protection over fear of a war or some dead people - abandoning a core human right of protection... are you like a woman experiencing PMS?
Way to use a chewbacca defence. You're not impressing anybody with an intelligence higher than that of a pudding. It must be miserable for you having this as your big gun. Oh, wait, that's right, you honestly think that this is how debating works.
You keep saying that as if you have no idea how torture works, and you think there's some magic technique that works all the time - Magic technique? For the life of me I can't find where it is I said anything about a single technique...
.
go get waterboarded and then come back and tell me it isn't abuse - I should go and get tortured so you can make a point? Right...
.
Why are you even on this debate if you don't even know what torture is, and what our rights are? You're really dense - Right, if I don't agree with your definition of torture, I'm dense... gottit!
.
This is the same as using the legal definition of murder to defend someone's right to kill another human being under a certain circumstance - you're getting really desperate now... comparing taking someone's life to application of pain for the extraction of information.
Poor guy, whatever I write to you just goes above your head and you miss the point completely.
To any other readers, look at this gem:
This is the same as using the legal definition of murder to defend someone's right to kill another human being under a certain circumstance- you're getting really desperate now... comparing taking someone's life to application of pain for the extraction of information.
So this idiot defends the idea that torture isn't torture any longer if it's legal. But somehow he can't grasp the comparison to murdering someone, getting off on a legal technicality (like insanity, a well-played legal defence, faulty evidence), and yet being still condemned as a murderer in the eyes of people despite being legally clean.
Wow I really have to thank you for being so thorough with your explanations... they totally change the fact that you're comparing murder to interrogation tactics. Please draw us another hyperbola, Mr. Hyperbolan :)
What you shoulda done was to compare your perceived intelligence with your debating ability. See, you and your recycled rhetorics no matter how intelligent they sound doesn't change the way people see your lack of imagination when it comes to debating... Given that you've pretty much got it bagged with your side of the debate, you still manage to fumble and never quite get there in the end... if only you'd think of something other than the: abuse, doesn't work, human rights defense that have already been shot to shreads numerous times...
I tend to shy away from the word suspects in this debate. I will put aside the morality argument as it will get nowhere.
No one should torture a suspect for information.
There are two properties to be weighed in performing an action such as torture: definite harm and potential harm. Definite harm is the harm you will directly inflict upon a suspect and will undoubtedly happen. Potential harm is the harm that will result from not retrieving the information. The issue with potential harm is that gaining the tools to prevent that is purely a matter of chance. If you catch a suspect in a murder investigation and torture him for information, the harm you inflicted upon him or her is real and definite, but the suspect may have no useful information, resulting in an irrelevant potential harm.
At the end of the day, the interrogator may go home saying, "Well that was useless, and I just [expletive]ed up someones life."
I agree. Suspects are not convicted of any crimes. They are no different to anyone of us and should be afforded the same rights.
.
If, on the other hand, you are a criminal, you have the right to remain silent, but you should also have the right to pain. :)
.
This is useful for extracting info from a criminal who's been caught robbing someone at gun point. He/she may have info regarding the whereabouts of accomplices, etc... So if there's overwhelming evidence of his criminal activities, then even before he is convicted in court (or his lawyer agrees on a plea bargain), we should torture him.
This is where we agree on some ground. I feel that I have no moral obligation to protect an individual who has committed a crime. The issue is the position of the bright line.
Where is the bright line between suspect and criminal?
Until that question can be answered, issues with torture are much more plentiful. Obviously, the scenario you gave shows an individual as an obvious criminal, but sometimes it is not that simple.
This is where the strict regulations should kick in and prevent abuse. I suppose if it's not clear the suspect will be convicted or not, torture should not be allowed.
Do you know what the definition of torture is? That's like saying we can institute regulation to prevent abuse while allowing "properly regulated" wife beating.
Wow, the emotional content in your argument is suffocating...
Personal drugs use is decriminalized in many places in the world and it's proving to be a successful way of controlling its abuse. It's not wife beating, you're just too hormonal to think straight when debating. Seriously.
did you seriously just try to equate substance abuse to TORTURE "abuse"? As in... hey, torture is fine as long as it's in moderation? You know, a little torture after dinner once in a while... but don't go doing that all day long or your hand will cramp up?
Substance abuse is never a good thing, so it actually doesn't even deserve to be in the same league as torture. Torture done properly is good. I know you know that I know that you know deep down inside you think it works.
Why should we put someone through pure hell simply because they know something that we want to know? If the tortured person was a terrorist, and torturing this terrorist was therefore considered by people as the right thing to do, then wouldn't that be an "eye for an eye," which seems to have brought more trouble than it has removed?
Actually, in almost any situation in this might be realistically used it's because they MIGHT know something we want to know. If the Bush admin's track record is anything to go by we'll be torturing innocent people who don't even know anything half the time and they'll be yelling out pure imaginary answers just to make it stop, then we'll be running around chasing fairy tales, finding nothing, and torturing them again because they "lied" to us.
Just repeating it over and over isn't going to make it any more true. Regulating something that DOESN'T WORK doesn't suddenly make it work.
And saying you need to "regulate" torture to make it work "right" is like saying you need to "regulate" car theft or rape and then they'll work the way they're supposed to and everyone will be fine with it.
If you've ever dealt with criminal organization you'd know that. They're using it for doing bad, we're using it for good. Let's regulate so it won't be abused. Please leave the crazy emotions at home when debating.
No, I will deny it. Because everyone who knows what they're talking about denies it and your private little fantasy that you know better has no credibility here.
I might be in a private fantasy, but it's not little. And it's people like you, who are wide awake and aware of reality (so you think) that are sweeping this issue under the carpet and allows Guantanamo Bay to exist. Torture happens and is being abused. Keep on denying it if it makes you sleep better but I hope your conscience is never clear.
Why should we put someone through pure hell simply because they know something that we want to know
Someone already made the point that the information extracted may save lots and lots of lives, so 1 person going through pure hell is ok if a lot of people get to live.
.
It's not an eye for an eye, it's some pain in exchange for a lot of lives.
Look, it saves lives, sometimes, I don't deny that, but let's face the fact that torture is something that no-one deserves, and that we don't have the right to judge as to who should be tortured and who shouldn't. Now, this doesn't comply to interrogators, as they know who they are interrogating and what they are hoping to get out of them, but the message is still there; it is an undeserving act of abuse. Why don't we start upgrading our Lie-Detecting system and start using that as a supplement? We get the truth and false defined without anyone getting hurt. If people start messing up the system, then we work to fix it. Sure, it is harder, but it is less demoralizing and much more humane.
Why don't we start upgrading our Lie-Detecting system and start using that as a supplement?
For people to tell the truth (or lie) they would have to speak first. If people won't say anything, we gotta beat it out of them, then we can use lie detectors.
.
Criminals don't deserve civilized treatment like the rest of society.
No, it doesn't, I basically said we work towards another means, whether it be something chemical or God knows what we can think of. If we discover a non-violent method of obtaining truth and which still enforces people to speak, why shouldn't we use it?
Well, you didn't say that at all in that post... but now that you've said it, here's my rebuttal:
It'd be great if we have another method of obtaining truths, but as it stands, we still don't, we might be working on it, but we haven't got it yet, so if a suspect remains completely silent (as in not saying a single word or making a single sound), then what dya do? YOU BEAT IT OUT OF THEM :)
Temporarily perhaps, until we manage a better solution. If we have one, we use it, so we should be working hard to find one since so many people have issues with interrogation.
Torturing terrorists, contrary to popular belief, is not meant as a form of punishment. It is done to gain knowledge which could potentially nullify a future terrorist attack. Is it not better for the terrorist to be put through hell then for the innocent Americans being attacked?
There is no time for humanity during war - if you believe it to be inhumane now, how will you feel with your entire family dead?
Torturing terrorists, contrary to popular belief, is not meant as a form of punishment. It is done to gain knowledge which could potentially nullify a future terrorist attack. Is it not better for the terrorist to be put through hell then for the innocent Americans being attacked?
You presume that the people being tortured are known terrorists and not simply suspects who are innocent and will suffer extreme emotional damage. You also seem to believe that somehow a barrier exists that will never let torture be applied to say, enemies of the state, or political enemies. One of the hallmarks of a civilised society is the dependence upon law and human rights instead of violence and intimidation.
There is no time for humanity during war - if you believe it to be inhumane now, how will you feel with your entire family dead?
If there were no time for humanity during war, we would have reduced Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan to smouldering beds of glass instead of using intelligence and diplomacy. Only fools act flippantly like you are over our core concepts of human rights, because they do not realise how difficult it is to get human rights back once you start to give them away due to fear.
There is a moral and a practical argument against torture; the moral argument is obvious and, the practical argument is easy to explain.
The moral argument is that it is wrong to cause pain to others. This holds true even if torturing people would help out the common good because we have to judge morality based off of actions --not consequences. This is true because it is only our actions that we can really control; that to judge an action on its consequences allows external factors to influence how we determine morality.It is easily seen how torture contributes unjust suffering to captives. Why is it unjust? Well to find that out you all you need to do is read the 8th amendment to the constitution that prohibits the use of cruel punishment. Some may argue that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens of the United States but, that simply is not true. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that these rights are limited to citizens and, the 9th amendment can be used to apply these rights to our captives. Essentially, we are bound to give all of the Constitutional protections to those under our jurisdiction.
The second argument is the pragmatic argument. Simply put, torture actually slows the justice process down instead of making it easier. Sure, information can be obtained quickly by torturing people but, that information is likely to be misleading. People will say anything they think a torturer wants to hear; it doesn't matter if it's true or not. This slows down the whole system because it forces out security forces to stretch out its resources amongst many (probably false) leads. This won't lead to anywhere good for the US.
Because of the moral and practical ramifications of torture interrogators should stop using it.
The moral argument is that it is wrong to cause pain to others
Yes, it's wrong, but when people do cause pain and plan to cause pain and have info regarding their plans to cause pain as well as info on the locations of others who caused pain or plan to cause pain, then we should inflict pain on them to minimize pain. Doing that will result in a society with as little pain as possible.
.
Sure, information can be obtained quickly by torturing people but, that information is likely to be misleading
Do it properly and you won't get misleading information. It works, that's why we do it.
.
Take the moral high ground if you want, but torture exists for a reason and because we've swept it under the carpet for too long, rejecting on these moral high grounds, we end up abusing it. If a violent convicted criminal is caught and is likely to hold information that could stop more crimes, then we should not spare him of any pain. The other thing is if we will execute a criminal, that is to end his life, we should not shy away from inflicting pain for info that would further the cause of justice.
Utilitarianism is a faulty way of judging morality because it can be used to justified any action just by skewing how one looks at a society; the means must justify themselves, which in the case of torture they do not. Keep in mind that we have an obligation to not violate the constitution in any way, which torture does.
Quality of Information
There is no way to do torture properly because it is a flawed system of interrogation. People, in times of duress, because of their fight of flight response will start to spout off information, regardless of its accuracy, in order to stop the torture.
And if we are fighting for democratic ideals like we claim to be doing we should have to use these democratic ideals in our own policies.
Utilitarianism is a faulty way of judging morality because it can be used to justified any action just by skewing how one looks at a society
There's no skewing here. It's as plain as day. Besides, crims operate on a different set of moral values to you and I.
.
the means must justify themselves, which in the case of torture they do not.
Says you? The means do justify themselves. Torture is an effective method if done properly.
.
Keep in mind that we have an obligation to not violate the constitution in any way, which torture does
Who wrote the Constitution? God or humans? People wrote it, it can be changed. Even God designed his creations to evolve and change.
.
There is no way to do torture properly because it is a flawed system of interrogation
In its current practice it may not yield optimal results. Regulate it, make it more effective in complementing other methods, practice it properly and you'll minimize the unreliability of extracted info.
There's no skewing here. It's as plain as day. Besides, crims operate on a different set of moral values to you and I.
that doesn't mean we should not follow our own morals.
The means do justify themselves. Torture is an effective method if done properly
What you have provided is an example of the ends justifying the means. In order for the means of torture to justify the means of torture it has to be shown that regardless of consequence torture is justified (and since you stated that is justified if it works it is shown that the means don't justify the means)
People wrote it, it can be changed. Even God designed his creations to evolve and change.
Once we start changing our core values in order to meet policy instead of the other way around we lose all of our credibility.
Quality of Information
I've stated before in this debate about how torture will always lead to unreliable information being spread yet you've provided no counter example to this. You just can't use the magic bullet approach --there is no way to regulate a system which is inherently flawed.
that doesn't mean we should not follow our own morals
Yeah, I agree. We have 2 sets of morals. One for us and one for them.
.
Means justifying themselves
Well, in my mind the means of torture justify themselves AND the ends perfectly. There's no need to get complicated. And if the ends don't justify the means, no matter how good the means is, it's useless.
.
Once we start changing our core values in order to meet policy instead of the other way around we lose all of our credibility
We've already lost credibility, evolve with the times or become obsolete. Allowing daily life to give us input as to how to adjust our core values is called decentralization of power. You can't have a set of values and then never change it while things around you change with time. You'll be out of touch and become irrelevant.
.
I've stated before in this debate about how torture will always lead to unreliable information being spread yet you've provided no counter example to this
There you go again. Nothing new. The same old "it doesn't work" argument.
Yeah, I agree. We have 2 sets of morals. One for us and one for them.
Well... double standards are not in themselves not moral... how is it just to treat two groups differently
Well, in my mind the means of torture justify themselves AND the ends perfectly
How is the act of hurting someone moral? How can you justify abusing someone? How do the means justify themselves? You're not debating here... there are no analytics or evidence... in your mind? explain that...
We've already lost credibility, evolve with the times or become obsolete
That means we need to work to get it back. We just can't give everything up willy-nilly saying "Fuck it, it's gone anyways"
You can't have a set of values and then never change it while things around you change with time. You'll be out of touch and become irrelevant.
That is why we influence change that is positive to our values... that is how we should stay relevant. Instead of degrading ourselves why not stand up for what our core ideals our. In a sense, once those core ideals are changed we're not the same anymore...
There you go again. Nothing new. The same old "it doesn't work" argument.
I'm still using it because it still stands... you haven't countered it... you've provided no sound logic or evidence to show that this claim is bad. I used psychological example to show how it doesn't work. This argument is till valid that is why I am using it. It's how debate works... you don't have to bring up new things if your old arguments still stand. So if you want me to bring up a new example destroy the one that I already have.
I don't see how you're not comprehending this little fact...
Because the 2 groups are different. Your parents watch TV and porn till late, but you have to do your homework and go to bed at 8pm... are you going to tell them you don't like the double standard?
.
How is the act of hurting someone moral
How is it not moral? Why do you call it "abusing someone"? Why don't you just call it what it is: extracting vital info from a criminal by applying pain measures.
It's what you make of it! I think it's moral, but you think it's not. So let's go to the ends and look at that instead. The ends justify the means.
.
We just can't give everything up willy-nilly saying "Fuck it, it's gone anyways"
I'm not saying give up. I'm saying deal with it head on. Don't sweep it under the carpet. Manage it properly.
.
That is why we influence change that is positive to our values
Right, so if our core values say we shouldn't accept homosexuality, abortions, interracial marriages, etc... we should influence life to align with those core values? Ok, you try. By the way, have you read the Constitution of China or Vietnam? May be those core ideals shouldn't change huh?
.
Torture works or not
Just think about a very simple scenario where you've hidden the TV remote control from your big bully of a brother. He asks you and you refuse to tell him. He then grabs your wrist and twists your arm until pain tells you to spill all your beans and begs him to stop. Now, like any other methods of investigation, torture may yield negative results, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. Criminal organizations use it for a good reason, and they use it for doing bad. We've been using it for doing good, but we just need to manage it better, weed out the false positives, etc...
or your younger brother may of been the one to actually hide the remote and your big brother twisting your arm deserves to be knocked on his ass by you. Fact of the matter is you don't know what other people know in most situations, in most situations for that simple fact alone, torture should not be used. Other situations in which it could reasonably be used are rare.
"wheres the bomb"
" i don't know and you have no conclusive proof that i do"
"wheres the bomb"
"what the mom?"
"the bomb"
"ooo the bomb, you take drewy lane hes right next to the muffin man"
"wheres the bomb, the one you hide"
"... He actually was quite content to hide on his own, you see a big stupid brute is after him and the muffin man has a nice bed and break...uoh"
You cowardly hippie! Life is unfair- get used to it! Violence has solved most of the worlds conflicts. WW1, WW2, Civil War, Revolutionary War, the French Revolution etc.
umm, i think not because when you are being tortured for a long (or even short) period of time, your gonna say whatever you need to, to get out of that situation. for example... if someone tortured you because they thought you took there wallet, your not gonna keep denying it if they say ''if you tell me the truth that you took it ill let you go''... even if you didn't take it... wouldn't you want to get out of that situation as quick as possible by just saying ''YES!!!, i took the damn thing!!'' think about it. the same thing applies with more serious information, many non guilty inmates where put in jail just because the police kept grilling them. what do you think now?!?!?
For one, it is an inhumane way to treat people, just to get a piece of information, and for the second, the information given is likely to be false, simply to end the pain and suffering. It gets you a quickly constructed lie to stop the pain.
No. What if you get someone who legitimately does not have the information you are looking for? Aside from the fact that it is too late to say sorry, they might say what you want to hear just to get it to stop.
And it strains foreign relations.
There are some rather devious psychological interrogation methods that while frightening, are not in violation of the Geneva Convention.