*sigh* as I said, a trick question. You are ignorant in that regard as much as I. Of course, people much less ignorant than you and I seem to agree consistently. Furthermore, first hand reports indicate that a lack of torture resulted in real tangible results. I digress. I could link and link and link, but you don't really want data. You just want to distract from the more difficult attributes of your preferred policy. In that vein, since you seem incapable of acknowledging any of the more salient points in my posts, but are more than happy to trumpet meaningless trivialities to further an indefensible position, by all means, declare victory. I've said it before. This has been hashed out before, with the same results. EDIT: You know what - I don't think you're ignorant. Just blinded. Read the third link, and just think about it a bit more.
I wasn't. I altered that stance a bit in my edit above. You are still ignoring those troubling comments regarding morals and ideals, but that is not surprising - it's the real meat of the argument.
rhad, after reading the third link, I do agree with trying other techniques and that would be my prefered choice. I would not rule out other techniques besides rapport building if it was needed though.
I noticed your edit after I posted. I think my morals and ideals are less concerned with the well being of those that are trying to kill innocent civilians. And before you say my veiwpoint is revenge driven, it is not. Like I said, I want them to use what is most effective and I think what is effective on some is not as effective on others.
I can understand that. It's hard to feel pity for those intent on cruelty. But I urge you to apply that dangerously seductive logic to our own actions, as well. Sacrificing your ideals to save them is just plain a bad idea. You lose, no matter what the outcome. As a supporter of the death penalty that gets routinely chewed up in this forum for my views, please also realize that I try to maintain some pragmatism - I'm not some flippant idealist. I just draw the line at unnecessary and ineffective suffering.
I understand where you are coming from, and to be honest, I'm very non violent so I'm glad I never have to be in the situation of needing to obtain vital information from someone that is unwilling to give it up. Luckily we have others that do this for us and we can vote on idividuals who set these policies. On a side note, I'm a little taken aback by you being a supporter of the death penalty. The ironic thing is I can go back and forth on the death penalty. But I do see your point on unnecessary and ineffective suffering.
torture would only be necessary if there was no other way to get the information or no other person could be found, who also had that same information, and we would be sure that torture would actually get us the information we needed. The situations where all of those conditions would fit is pretty much zero, especially since we know that there are better ways to get information.
Stories like these make me feel smart. When they said only 2 tapes were destroyed, I knew they were lying. Now, we know they were. But, they got away with it. They're probably lying about the 92 as well, and will get away with that too. It probably pisses off the judge and people should probably go to jail, but there will be no justice. Okay, I'm done patting myself on the back.
ends do not justify the means no. some laws, aren't so much about morality and decency as much about efficiency and thus they may properly have exceptions. but when the means include de-humanization of both the victim and the culprit, the ends cannot possibly justify the means. secondly your ends justifying the means presumes the end via the means. you say no one has first hand evidence, well ok maybe no one has been tortured on this message board, but there are ample studies that clearly state that the ends just do not come about via the means. and this equivocation of yes im ignorant but you haven't been tortured either is stupid. i don't know what terror victims feel like either since i haven't been terrorized, but i know terrorism is wrong.
What should also piss off the judge as well as other Americans is the fact that the Bush Justice Department went around issuing statements that the 1st and 4th amendments didn't apply anymore. Where is Roxran and other people who treasure the 2nd amendment or the bill of rights in general? I'd like to see the outrage from them. Or is the 2nd amendment more dear than the 1st and 4th put together?
