Some Americans do, yes. But the majority are FAR more concerned about cheap gas and a robust economy...we just get upset when things 'leak out' and we find out about all those ugly details; the inconvenient truths upset us. If you benefit from the status quo, it's all good... Over 80% of Americans were in support of the Iraq war, they only turned against it when they didn't see results. Had the war gone smoothly, no one would have given two sh**s about the 'details', just that Iraq is now this great democracy and they're pumping more oil onto the market than ever before. Americans are mostly practical people, they understand that sometimes you have to get your hands 'dirty' and they're willing to look the other way. Is it all Americans? No, but I would say a comfortable majority... Machiavelli was an advocate of real politik, he didn't preach 'senseless' violence or policies that needlessly 'offend'.
when you are sticking things up detainees butt-holes than it is safe to say you have gone too far. when you are raping and murdering detainees than it is safe to say you have gone too far. what is wrong with you?
judging by the applause from the audience that the transvestite vampire guiliani and empty suit mitt "kerry" romney generated at the fox news debates when they were salivating over who likes torture more, i would say that unfortunately there are a whole lot of people who knowingly and actively support torture. hell, just look no further than this very thread for advocates of such a policy. its total ignorance on their part and on the part of many of the posters here. torture does not work nor is it an effective means of gathering intelligence. furthermore, our own military intelligence officers and the red cross say that 70-90% of the people we detain are totally innocent. i think we just have alot of sick and immoral people living in this country (and posting in this board). its pretty pathetic and im sick of it.
Yes, Americans care about their self interest. That includes cheap gas and a robust economy. This is the same as any people in the world. Only a few are "conscious" and mindful of the plight of others - true anywhere. But Americans, caring about their self-interest, are not in support of "senseless" acts of violence or vulgarity that gives Americans bad names. There's still an idealism that we're the good guys, and we don't want to appear bad. And I think most Americans feel it's our duty as the leader of the free world to do mostly right. Now, some Americans think that means anything we do is write but I don't think that's the majority. And the 80% support for the IRaq war was at a strange time in this countries history - right after 9/11. It wasn't just that the war went badly, support dropped over time even before it was clear it was a failed mission. I don't think it was 80% even when bush claimed mission accomplished.
I am not being critical, I am just saying "it is what it is". People are people, we're all self-interested, whether you're an American or a Chinese. Right, I didn't say anything about the average American supporting 'senseless' violence. Every nation in the world has the "we're special" syndrome; it's an almost inevitable byproduct of nationalism. Well, it fluctuates, but most polls I've come across indicate that at least half of all Americans are comfortable with some level of torture, if not by us then at least by our allies who're willing to do it on our behalf (e.g. Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Poland, Romania, and others). Again, the vast majority of Americans are not idealists, most voters have at least a basic understanding of how the world works...
I am ok with using torture to gather information to stop a terrorist attack (although not to force a confession). That doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it, not sure anyone can really be comfortable with it.
Isn't ironic then, that this "senseless violence" has the most power in it to rouse people? I guess people are used to senseful violence in the form of collateral damage and violent media. I don't doubt a small majority of Americans would allow torture if it prevented another 9/11. Much like spying, it's not torture unless you get caught. As much as people on this board like to think America stands for a particular brand of idealism, much of it comes packaged with the assumption that it's our duty to do so as long as we're #1. This becomes tricky when our leaders are forced to choose between our espoused ideology or our preeminent position. Mostly the latter wins, and what follows is some hollow rationalization that the locals didn't try hard or didn't do enough to rise up. This excuse will come in handy if the situations in Iraq or Afghanistan deteriorates even more.
You are okay with torture but not to force of a confession? Confession is the end result of torture, is it not?
A confession under torture is useless - since people will confess to anything to avoid the torture. However; finding out other types of information can be useful. Such as, who was your contact, etc...etc.
Huh...good logic. People will confess anything about themselves under torture, but confessing things about other people? Accurate to a tee. Say what?
There's no such thing about confessing about other's misdeeds. Confession is a moral issue. Not an intelligence gathering one.
so you admit that torture is useless b/c people will confess to anything, but then go on to say that torture is helpful b/c people will confess as to who their contact is. that makes sense.... NOT!!!
once again, you are contradicting yourself. so which is it new yorker? torture is useless or torture is helpful? you can only pick one option.
Really. Talk about splitting hairs. As if you know in advance whether torture would get the info you need, or simply learn that the guy knew nothing, assuming the info was worth anything, since someone being tortured will say whatever he thinks will make it stop. We're the United States. Torture is for tinpot dictators and regimes like the former Soviet Union. I can't believe people defend it, like this country is a damn TV show. D&D. Replicant Democrat.
Yes, becasue we assume that under duress, people will lie about themselves and what they did but be perfectly honest when it comes to thier contacts, how the operation was set up and who were the bigshots. Uh huh.
Yup. That's the whole point of torture, to get people to say what you want. If you want a confession, torture will get you that no matter of guilt. If you want to know someone's associates, torture will get you that too. Lying will only temporarily stop things. I love how everyone can be so high and mighty. But the fact is, if someone knew the whereabout of a loved one in trouble, and you had them confined, and they refused to tell you....would you beg? Or would you beat it out of them?
