For the last few days basso has been asked repeatedly whether or not he supports the United States engaging in torture. Inexplicably, he has dodged every time, either ignoring the question completely or making some snide joke about it (since torture is so very hilarious). I find it impossible to believe that any freedom loving American citizen could possibly support our government engaging in torture, but I find it even harder to believe that someone would flatly refuse to share his opinion on this uniquely black and white subject -- especially one that has so much time and energy to post opinions on everything else here. If one is against torture, I'd think they'd want to be on the record about it. If one is for it, I'd think they'd be eager to explain. Not so basso apparently, so far at least. So, rather than derailing countless other threads, I thought I'd make one just for basso to finally answer the following simple question: basso, do you support torture? Yes or no?
Stupid thread, stupid premise. You can't deal with torture in the abstract. You must look at it on a situation-specific basis. If torture in a specific situation is deemed to be a tool that will 1) Work; 2) Save lives; 3) Protect our nation's interests; then it must be considered. There is a reason why the CIA and military engages in what you call 'torture'. That's because they believe it is in our best interest in a specific situation. Of course, I pesonally do not believe that dunking someone in water, sexual humiliation, or stress positions are considered to be 'torture'. Do you think our enemies are all tied up in mental knots, struggling with the morality of dunking someone in water? That's just funny. No, they are beheading innocents with machetes. What a crippling blow it would be to our efforts against terror to take away our interrogation techniques. Of course, in the liberals' deranged state of being, crippling the United States' ability to win ain't all that bad...
I realize this thread isn't directed towards me. Anyway, I think that if the need for torturing someone is so dire, time critical and whatever... someone should do what needs to be done. Then they should turn themselves in, and go to jail.
I think if I had a choice between most types of torture or death, I'd probably choose toture. I think most people would also. The USA kills people all the time. Plus whatever we do will not stop some crazed idiot from slicing our people's heads off.
It's almost like people don't understand the difference between interrogation and torture anymore. We interrogated Nazi (generals) during WWII. We got info out of them. No torture was required. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003929105_torturevets06.html Some more torture to all the mentally challenged ones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHSzpnvKkMY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V65FZiJu6w
Kinda different considering those Generals were quite honorable about wars and surrender. Also they mostly hated Hitler and his stupid war tactics.
Well, you are the expert. But seriously, basso or no basso, the replies to this thread are incredibly disturbing. I have no idea what's happening to my beloved country. Attacked by barbarians? I know, let's act like barbarians. But um yeah, only against other barbarians, I guess... I mean, if they are carrying their barbarian membership card... or, uh, , people who kinda look like and smell like barbarians... The messages we are sending out to the world are going to do us no good at all. They've already sent our international standing into a downward spiral. But just focus on yourselves. If one of you ends up in a bad, dark situation with some feds one day, you'll know exactly when you signed off on it. This "rules don't apply now" tactic, in historical analogs, knows very few long-term boundaries. You can draw a clear line between torture and interrogation, if you want to do so. If you want to maintain any shred of the moral high ground, if you want to distinguish yourself from the craven enemy it is simple and well-documented.
Torture is never OK. There is never any information that could really be gotten from torture that would ever make it OK. Waterboarding is torture.
Excellent response. I could conceivably imagine a situation where torture is the only option available, a 24 type situation, but the problem is should the most extreme situation be what we base policy on? Why I think we need to lay down a bright and legal line on torture is that if there is legal murkiness about it then torture might be used more frequently and more often with impunity. Instead of being something that is only used in extremis it becomes something used for fishing expeditions for information. If there is a legal boundary though if the extreme situation arises where for whatever reason torture is used then those actions can be judged legally but if we leave it unclear, or write into the law that torture can be used, then those torture can and will be used with impunity.
1. 24 is not real. 2. Torture doesn't work. 3. Torture is counter-productive. 4. Torture is morally wrong. Anybody who did a bit of honest research into this question would find this stuff out pretty quickly. If your position on torture is influenced by the so-called ticking time bomb scenario, try to set aside your emotions long enough to get the facts. Googling "efficacy of torture" is a start.
Exactly. I think on legal and moral grounds our government should not allow torture. It makes us look better in the eyes of the world, it gives humanity to those who have to interrogate. Not only is there no distinct rule (interpretation) against torture right now, but no one knows just how low the bar is set. Look no farther than Abu Ghraib as an example of this policy failing.
Natural human instincts don't justify your actions. If your first instinct when you're really horny and you see a pretty girl passing by is to have sex with her, and she refuses to, do you then just rape her? Not a great analogy, but again your human instincts (passion, anger, love, hate, lust, etc) don't justify your actions.
texx, experts in the field of interrogation, from the military intelligence officers, cia counter-terrorism experts, fbi agents, admirals, military judges and jag officers say that torture is not an effective way to gather intel. are they all wrong? furthermore, the army field manual (fm 34-52) specifically prohibits things like "use of force, mental torture, threats, insults or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind". it also says that "experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of the sources for interrogation. therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear." the republican congress in 1996 believed so. and under the war crimes act of 1996 and the geneva convention it is. we know that this administration changed the definition of torture to be only things that result in organ failure or death. this is a violation of us law and the geneva convention. as i already pointed out, experts in the field of interrogation say that torture is not an effective way to gather intel. it is truly pathetic and sad that in america we are even having this debate.
