Morality of Water Torture

The present question regarding the nature and morality of torture offers us an excellent opportunity to advance the level of sophistication of our understanding of morality. We learn best when we are questioning a matter that is meaningful to us.

I was eleven years old when Germany and Japan surrendered and WWII was finally over. One searing memory of this war were the stories I read and the movies I watched during and after the war regarding the torture and general brutality that the German Gestapo inflicted upon the people they conquered. I do not know why this left such a strong impression on me but it certainly did.

Coincidentally I have been studying “Moral Imagination” by Mark Johnson. This is the same Johnson who coauthored the book “Philosophy in the Flesh” with George Lakoff. I have decided to apply the theories Johnson presents in his book as a means to illuminate this matter regarding the morality of water torture used by my country in our struggle with Islamic extremists.

Moral understanding is like any other kind of experience; when we examine a domain of experience that relates to human relationships we must focus our attention on human understanding it self. If we do so we discover that human understanding is fundamentally imaginative in character.

“Many of our most basic concepts have considerable internal structure that cannot be accounted for by the classical theory of concepts as defined by necessary and sufficient features…The primary forms of moral imagination are concepts with prototype structure, semantic frames, conceptual metaphors, and narratives.”

To become morally insightful we must become knowledgeable of these imaginative structures. First, we must give up our illusions about absolute moral codes and also our radical moral subjectivism. Second we must refine our “perception of character traits and situations and of developing empathetic imagination to take up the part of others.”

Empathy is a character trait that can be cultivated by habit and will. Sympathy is somewhat of an automatic response.

When we see a mother weeping over the death of her child caused by a suicide bomber we feel immediate sympathy. Often we will come to tears. But we do not feel anything like that for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child who was the bomber.

To understand the bomber we must use empathy. We attempt through imagination and reason to create a situation that will allow us to understand why this was done. This is a rational means to understand someone who acts different than we would.

“Empathy is the idea that the vital properties which we experience in or attribute to any person or object outside ourselves are the projections of our own feelings and thoughts.”

The subject viewing an object of art experiences emotional attitudes leading to feelings that are attributes of qualities in the art object thus aesthetic pleasure may be considered as “objectified self-enjoyment in which the subject and object are fused.”

The social sciences adopt a similar concept called ‘empathic understanding’, which refers to the deliberate attempt to identify with another person and accounting for that persons actions by “our own immediate experience of our motivations and attitudes in similar circumstances as we remember or imagine them”. This idea refers to a personal resonance between two people.

“What is crucial is that our moral reasoning can be constrained by the metaphoric and other imaginative structures shared within our culture and moral tradition, yet it can also be creative in transforming our moral understanding, our identity, and the course of our lives. Without this kind of imaginative reasoning we would lead dreadfully impoverished lives. We would be reduced to repeating habitual actions, driven by forces and contingencies beyond our control.”

Can you imagine an individual who is a hard headed realist and very accomplished at empathy sanctioning the use of water torture on anyone, friend or enemy?

Morality of Water Torture

The present question regarding the nature and morality of torture offers us an excellent opportunity to advance the level of sophistication of our understanding of morality. We learn best when we are questioning a matter that is meaningful to us.

I was eleven years old when Germany and Japan surrendered and WWII was finally over. One searing memory of this war were the stories I read and the movies I watched during and after the war regarding the torture and general brutality that the German Gestapo inflicted upon the people they conquered. I do not know why this left such a strong impression on me but it certainly did.

Coincidentally I have been studying “Moral Imagination” by Mark Johnson. This is the same Johnson who coauthored the book “Philosophy in the Flesh” with George Lakoff. I have decided to apply the theories Johnson presents in his book as a means to illuminate this matter regarding the morality of water torture used by my country in our struggle with Islamic extremists.

Moral understanding is like any other kind of experience; when we examine a domain of experience that relates to human relationships we must focus our attention on human understanding it self. If we do so we discover that human understanding is fundamentally imaginative in character.

“Many of our most basic concepts have considerable internal structure that cannot be accounted for by the classical theory of concepts as defined by necessary and sufficient features…The primary forms of moral imagination are concepts with prototype structure, semantic frames, conceptual metaphors, and narratives.”

To become morally insightful we must become knowledgeable of these imaginative structures. First, we must give up our illusions about absolute moral codes and also our radical moral subjectivism. Second we must refine our “perception of character traits and situations and of developing empathetic imagination to take up the part of others.”

Empathy is a character trait that can be cultivated by habit and will. Sympathy is somewhat of an automatic response.

When we see a mother weeping over the death of her child caused by a suicide bomber we feel immediate sympathy. Often we will come to tears. But we do not feel anything like that for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child who was the bomber.

To understand the bomber we must use empathy. We attempt through imagination and reason to create a situation that will allow us to understand why this was done. This is a rational means to understand someone who acts different than we would.

“Empathy is the idea that the vital properties which we experience in or attribute to any person or object outside ourselves are the projections of our own feelings and thoughts.”

The subject viewing an object of art experiences emotional attitudes leading to feelings that are attributes of qualities in the art object thus aesthetic pleasure may be considered as “objectified self-enjoyment in which the subject and object are fused.”

The social sciences adopt a similar concept called ‘empathic understanding’, which refers to the deliberate attempt to identify with another person and accounting for that persons actions by “our own immediate experience of our motivations and attitudes in similar circumstances as we remember or imagine them”. This idea refers to a personal resonance between two people.

“What is crucial is that our moral reasoning can be constrained by the metaphoric and other imaginative structures shared within our culture and moral tradition, yet it can also be creative in transforming our moral understanding, our identity, and the course of our lives. Without this kind of imaginative reasoning we would lead dreadfully impoverished lives. We would be reduced to repeating habitual actions, driven by forces and contingencies beyond our control.”

Can you imagine an individual who is a hard headed realist and very accomplished at empathy sanctioning the use of water torture on anyone, friend or enemy? No I can't. But I can imagine a day when more people practice empathy. What a better world it would be.

No I can't. But I can imagine a day when more people practice empathy. What a better world it would be.

Amen brother/sister.

At a young age I found myself on the recieving end of what is now commonly called 'waterboarding', then, as far as Im aware, it didnt have a name, none that I had heard of anyway.

I remember at the time that the military involved took great delight and enjoyment before,during and after the process.

It was all 'fun' to them, apart from the actual sandbag going over the head,
there was slapping and pushing and all the names under the sun that could be used against Irish people.

They were trying to beat some record the previous regiment had achieved.
Anway, if you didnt hate them or became involved before you were dragged in, you sure would have been when they let you out.

All these troops would be coming into old age by now, and I often wonder if they ever think about it, or was it just part of the job.

waterboarding is immoral, all forms of torture are immoral...

In a perfect world, there would be no reason to have to resort to the tactic.

I understand why it's used, to get information. People forget that if torture is successful, it most of the time ends up saving lives.

The world is just a chaotic place, and crazy things happen down here. Women cheat on their husbands, People kill others over a $200 debt... torture fits right on the list;)

The problem with torture is that the informtion aquired by its use is usually inaccurate, thus it defeats its own purpose.

I wouldn't go that far... if you're a big time operative of some organization, chances are you know something. You don't want to sell out your cause or your friends.. so you need some "incentive" to talk. People can tell pretty easily if you're just talking BS.

'incentive' thats a good word to describe it.

'incentive' thats a good word to describe it.

Well, that's what it is. Torture is inhumane, but when you think about it, you're not killing anyone. You are putting stress and pain on the body, that they have to deal with, to get information.

Hell, I go to the gym, and I throw some weight on the squat machine and do "box squats", in which you put your feet more forward and go below the 90 degree level of your knee-to-shin angle.... They kill, they hurt, I'm "torturing" myself. Of course, it's voluntarily, but not always. In my days of soccer, track, etc... we'd do 400 yard sprints around the track, and every one had to be under 70 seconds. You would only get a minute break in between each sprint, and then you were up again. There were times that I wanted to DIE and didn't want to continue, but if I wanted to stay on the team, I did it anyway. I involuntarily destroyed myself for a greater good, staying on the team.

You can vaguely compare that to torture, you are involuntarily giving information to stay alive. The threat of death is a mighty big one. I have never had a gun to my head, but if I did, I would comply with every word (unless it had to do with denouncing God or making me kill another human being). So while people will say "studies have shown that torturees give bogus info"... I would imagine that in the "back rooms", where there are no cameras, these people eventually sing, and lives are actually saved because of the information derived.

I don't agree with the idea of torture, but I can see why it is done, and I think there can be much worse done to a person.

Well firstly Decka, when you put yourself thru physical strain to have a work out, you are volunteering to do it, and you can control the amount of pain you endure, by simply stopping.

You should remember that virtually all victums of torture are innocent of any crime, as they rarely have entitlement to due process of the law beforehand.

In our societies, all people are protected by a human rights mandate, and simply speaking torture is illegal in the EU and US both.

In todays world most resistance groups are based on the cell system, so chances of a suspect having a wealth of knowledge or even valuable information is rare indeed.

If Governments are allowed to engage in torture, then lets face it, that Government has become no better than those they oppose, and dont forget, where does it stop.

It doesnt automatically stop at 'terror suspects', next thing you now, law abiding 'friendly' citizens are on the menu.

Torture is a cowardly, degrading form of information extraction and any Government using it should be held in the contempt they desreve.

Well Paul, your slippery slope argument is noted, but until I see law-abiding citizens being waterboarded by police officers for their knowledge on a recent stealing of an old woman's purse.... I'm not going to sweat.

Most of the people they have tortured, or "waterboarded", at least, have been suspected Al Queda operatives and such... I believe one was one of the so called "masterminds" of 9-11.... so it's not like we are grabbing joe shmoe from over in Iraq or Iran and torturing them.

As for you wish for a government to "not fall to another's level"... I agree with the philosophy, but don't expect the united states to last too long if they adopt that. I'm sure the Romans said the same thing.

Decka, the key word in your post is 'suspected'.

Clearly, the Bush Administration have adopted an 'guilty until proven innocent'

system with the detainees at Gitmo.

In fact the arrest and transport of these suspects is/was in itself illegal.

Ya know, its difficult to support law and order, when the ones carrying it out flaunt domestic and International law to achieve their objectives.

Dont get me wrong, the US doesnt need the approval of anyone in their pursuit of 9/11 planners, something which I would agree with, but if the Administration are so sure of who they have caught, then internment and torture arent the way to go about administrating justice.

I don't agree with the idea of torture, but I can see why it is done, and I think there can be much worse done to a person.?????

Like what?
As for you wish for a government to "not fall to another's level"... I agree with the philosophy, but don't expect the united states to last too long if they adopt that. I'm sure the Romans said the same thing.?????

Rome didn't fall because they refused to torture people.

?????

Like what?

What is worse than torture?

How about killing someone you love, an animal you love, threatening harm on someone else INSTEAD of yourself, or being killed yourself. I'd consider all of those much worse than torture.


?????

Rome didn't fall because they refused to torture people.

No, they fell because they didn't want to drop to the lowly "savages'" level... A country has to make a decision. Do we remain morally just and be pacifists, and then get our butts kicked in by an invading country? Or do we keep a savage, militaristic, brutal side to combat such threats. For a COUNTRY'S sake, i'd say the second one. For my OWN PERSONAL SAKE.. i'd say the first one.

Torture is a cowardly, degrading form of information extraction and any Government using it should be held in the contempt they desreve.

Well said Paul.

Torture is immoral and no government has any business sanctioning it.

How about killing someone you love, an animal you love, threatening harm on someone else INSTEAD of yourself, or being killed yourself. I'd consider all of those much worse than torture.If someone tortures or kills someone you love, that is a form of torture against you. It's a psychological form but it's torture nonetheless. And if you think torture cannot be worse than death I think you greatly underestimate how incredibly terrible it can be.No, they fell because they didn't want to drop to the lowly "savages'" level...Please give me a specific example of a behavior that the Romans did not employ, but their enemies did, that led to their downfall. A country has to make a decision. Do we remain morally just and be pacifists, and then get our butts kicked in by an invading country? Or do we keep a savage, militaristic, brutal side to combat such threats. For a COUNTRY'S sake, i'd say the second one. For my OWN PERSONAL SAKE.. i'd say the first one.If you think that Roman society, even in it's later 'decadent' period, was ever "pacifistic" you might want to take a class or read some history on the subject.

Please give me a specific example of a behavior that the Romans did not employ, but their enemies did, that led to their downfall.
ROFL... Exactly...

I'd rather be killed (not too painfully) than tortured.

Please give me a specific example of a behavior that the Romans did not employ, but their enemies did, that led to their downfall.
showing up mostly...the Romans became far too dependent on proxy warfare, then their proxies turned on them...there's a history lesson there, but it's not something i want to think about.

showing up mostly...the Romans became far too dependent on proxy warfare, then their proxies turned on them...there's a history lesson there, but it's not something i want to think about.
That's true, but I'm convinced that the economic reasons were the main factor behind the downfall of the empire. If they'd actually been able to pay their military, it wouldn't have turned on them... And also maybe if the currency hadn't been devalued by 90% within 50 years....

That's true, but I'm convinced that the economic reasons were the main factor behind the downfall of the empire. If they'd actually been able to pay their military, it wouldn't have turned on them... And also maybe if the currency hadn't been devalued by 90% within 50 years....
their military didn't turn on them, the barbarians they paid to do their bidding decided they wanted it all, and wanted it now.

but hey! if they didn't have a 20 year enlistment, and pay them in salt, they may have had more Roman volunteers?

Surely the Roman Empire collapsed due to corruption from within.
This corruption led to factional fighting and the breaking up of the
Empire.

Ever notice that these great Empirese have an eagle as their crest-just a thought :)

Ever notice that these great Empirese have an eagle as their crest-just a thought :)
the Chinese (until recently) have always had a dragon.

I was thinking more of western culture,but I see your point.

Sedan, that's why I mentioned having someone you loved tortured or killed.. it's worse than YOUR OWN torture.

If I know something, and I'm tortured, I'll sing. I have nothing to hide.

If I don't know anything, it's quite frequently easy to know whether someone is telling the truth or not. Lie detectors, facial expressions, body demeanor, tone of voice.. it's like a science.

As for the Romans, they marveled at their greatness, and they become weak. They forgot what made them so powerful... IMO. Nobody REALLY knows why the Roman empire fell.

If its possible to know someone is telling the truth with the methods mentioned above, then why would you torture them in the first place.

As for the Romans, they marveled at their greatness, and they become weak. They forgot what made them so powerful... IMO. Nobody REALLY knows why the Roman empire fell.
Well we do know, the problem is that we don't know which of the multitude of reasons was the main reason. I happen to think that there were a few "main" reasons, but that all the reasons depended upon each other to create the situation... Apparently most professional historians would rather have it more clear cut than that and jockey around for position as to whose idea of "THE" reason is the best.

If its possible to know someone is telling the truth with the methods mentioned above, then why would you torture them in the first place.
Well, if they take a lie detector test, say they know nothing, and you know they're lying.... Then you have to at least threaten them to get them to say something, I suppose.

The threat of torture, the threat of violence.

Thats when your human rights are rolled up into a ball and fucked into the waste paper bin.

The threat of torture, the threat of violence.

Thats when your human rights are rolled up into a ball and fucked into the waste paper bin.

or is it when you do enough to be tortured by the government because you indulge and associate yourself with certain individuals or groups.. whom i might add have NO regard for human rights.

Can't make an omelette without breakin some eggs.

Believe me, you dont have to be aligned to a group or political persuasion to be tortured.

And even if you are, your human rights will be abused, whether you practise them or not.

I like to think we are coming OUT of the dark ages.. and if you are accused of something, generally there is a reason. Now of course there are exceptions... dumb racial cops, etc.

But if you are fighting someone who doesn't recognize your human rights... why should you recognize theirs? As a christian, I would surely recognize them. But I'm playing devil's advocate, as a COUNTRY. If you are playing 1 on 1 in basketball, and your opponent is allowed to blatantly travel, and not even dribble the basketball... shouldn't you be allowed to "cheat" too? Or should you play normal, get your ass beat, and at least feel good about yourself morally even though your high horse costs people lives.

But thats not how it works, once you approve torture as a method of extracting information, youve approved it.

Its up to your captors how they administer it, its so so easy for them to say 'well he support subversion' end of story, it simply cant be controlled.

"An eye for an eye just makes everyone blind"

"all is fair in love and war"

"all is fair in love and war"
This statement suggests you support torture and have no problem with extremists flying airliners into office blocks or beheading people.
After all-alls fair in love and war.

This statement suggests you support torture and have no problem with extremists flying airliners into office blocks or beheading people.
After all-alls fair in love and war.

I in no way "support" those acts, but I realize that they do happen. It's about realization, and knowing that no matter what, people die in war, and people's hearts get broken in love.

Realisation, c'mon Decka, thats a bit of a cop out.
Either you support the use of torture for extracting information or you dont.

If you do support it, then you support the Bush Administration breaking International Law, violating human rights, and laying the ground work for
such methods to be transfered to the United States to extract information
from citizens there, a Pandoras Box is being opened, which will be impossible to close.

Torture has been around since the beginning of civilization. Some in the past did it simply because they could, or as a means to force someone to forgo their beliefs, or something of the like, as well as a method to extract information useful for military and espionage purposes. There are certain things that happen in this world that are of a less than desired quality. Torture is one of them. However, if coercing someone into telling you something that could possibly save the lives of your countrymen, friends, family, or safeguard your country, and those of your allies, then wouldn't you do everything that you could in order to obtain that information? They are the ones trying to do harm, you are the one attempting to stop it. You are not in the wrong.

You are in the wrong as regards the laws we live by.
You are wrong by the standards of decency we live by.

That said, to use torture is to use the methods you are supposedly protecting us from.

And I'll say again, who decides who can and cannot be tortured?
In this particular case, there is no-one held without trial at Guantanamo
Bay that is guilty of anything at present, and if the military get their way,
never will be guilty, as they have no jurisdiction over civilian internees.

I like to think we are coming OUT of the dark ages.. and if you are accused of something, generally there is a reason.What a scary notion -- it borders on the "you wouldn't be accused if you weren't guilty" mentality that totalitarians throughout the ages have relied upon to seize and maintain power. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a far more civilized concept, even if it runs contrary to your idea of what "coming OUT of the dark ages" actually means. Honestly, Decka, the arguments you've put forward in this thread (as poorly reasoned and based upon as faulty an understanding of history as they are) unsettle me quite a bit. The rights of the accused are the central bulwark of our judicial system, which in turn underpins our entire civilization. If enough people in this country share your views we are indeed doomed to a loss of our most fundamental liberties.

You, sir, are an enemy of America.

What a scary notion -- it borders on the "you wouldn't be accused if you weren't guilty" mentality that totalitarians throughout the ages have relied upon to seize and maintain power. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a far more civilized concept, even if it runs contrary to your idea of what "coming OUT of the dark ages" actually means. Honestly, Decka, the arguments you've put forward in this thread (as poorly reasoned and based upon as faulty an understanding of history as they are) unsettle me quite a bit. The rights of the accused are the central bulwark of our judicial system, which in turn underpins our entire civilization. If enough people in this country share your views we are indeed doomed to a loss of our most fundamental liberties.

You, sir, are an enemy of America.
I have always been fascinated by just how dangerous "common sense" ideas are. Yet millions of people hold them. As anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-democratic as they are, people persist in holding them. Why? And how is it that society hasn't collapsed as a result of would-be tyrants taking undue advantage of the people holding them?

But when I take an evolutionary perspective, I realize that the vast majority of the time, they do. Society has in fact collapsed thousands of times, tens of thousands, over the million or so years humans have walked the earth. One man or a group of men subvert a peaceful order by preying on the tendency of people to believe in self-destructive ideas. And it continues to happen, on larger and smaller scales throughout the world. It will probably happen here, eventually.

The intelligent people who realize the folly for what it is will always be in the minority, blown about by the winds of change, only occasionally finding the power to create a lasting peace. As our founding fathers did 200 years ago.

I like to think we are coming OUT of the dark ages.. and if you are accused of something, generally there is a reason. Now of course there are exceptions... dumb racial cops, etc.

But if you are fighting someone who doesn't recognize your human rights... why should you recognize theirs? As a christian, I would surely recognize them. But I'm playing devil's advocate, as a COUNTRY. If you are playing 1 on 1 in basketball, and your opponent is allowed to blatantly travel, and not even dribble the basketball... shouldn't you be allowed to "cheat" too? Or should you play normal, get your ass beat, and at least feel good about yourself morally even though your high horse costs people lives.
Torture has been around since the beginning of civilization. Some in the past did it simply because they could, or as a means to force someone to forgo their beliefs, or something of the like, as well as a method to extract information useful for military and espionage purposes. There are certain things that happen in this world that are of a less than desired quality. Torture is one of them. However, if coercing someone into telling you something that could possibly save the lives of your countrymen, friends, family, or safeguard your country, and those of your allies, then wouldn't you do everything that you could in order to obtain that information? They are the ones trying to do harm, you are the one attempting to stop it. You are not in the wrong.
"It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which make the defense of our nation worthwhile." —Earl Warren, United States v. Robel, 1967

Waterboarding is a War Crime (at least when it's done by somebody else):

The United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a crime, and has prosecuted individuals for the use of the practice in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#United_States

[QUOTE=sedan]Waterboarding is a War Crime (at least when it's done by somebody else):

So than our own Military is abridging what Military Code of Conduct
when they've asked certain Air Force Pilots and special Forces
personell to undergo Waterboarding as a training tool,dating back
to the 60's.?
It wasn't mandatory but optional,for these type enlisted men to
Undergo Waterboarding,the better to understand the psychological
dynamic of such technique.

Better for promotion to.

Honestly, Decka, the arguments you've put forward in this thread (as poorly reasoned and based upon as faulty an understanding of history as they are) unsettle me quite a bit. The rights of the accused are the central bulwark of our judicial system, which in turn underpins our entire civilization. If enough people in this country share your views we are indeed doomed to a loss of our most fundamental liberties.

You, sir, are an enemy of America.

Not that its any justification, but Decka's not purposely an enemy.

It's just that --as is sadly the case with so many who have been fully indoctrinated with the God-n-Country ideology-- he is so incredibly ignorant and misguided.

Any citizen who is so blindly partisan as to make excuses for a far Right government, like ours, who has done away with the concept of habeas corpus has truly lost all sense of perspective as it regards democracy and the governance of the nation.

Realisation, c'mon Decka, thats a bit of a cop out.
Either you support the use of torture for extracting information or you dont.

I don't think it's a "cop-out" Paul... I don't endorse it, but it doesn't surprise me to see countries use the technique in order to get information.

If you do support it, then you support the Bush Administration breaking International Law, violating human rights, and laying the ground work for
such methods to be transfered to the United States to extract information
from citizens there, a Pandoras Box is being opened, which will be impossible to close.

And that is just the thing.. I don't support it.. I just see why a country would do it. No country is perfect, and when it comes to war.. "war is hell"... I would say there is plenty of torture in a place such as hell. Just like I can see why someone would "break the law" and steal something. They are probably homeless, and need it for survival (of course others do it out of the greed and obsession with money)... I don't condone those actions.. but I see why they happen. It doesn't "surprise" me like others in this forum who dream of a utopian society, and need a dose of reality 101

What a scary notion -- it borders on the "you wouldn't be accused if you weren't guilty" mentality that totalitarians throughout the ages have relied upon to seize and maintain power.

Did I say that? you put it in quotes, so I don't know who you are citing. Did I hint that "where there is smoke, there is fire?".. yes... and If I am wrongfully charged with a crime, I'll have nothing to hide, and be found innocent.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a far more civilized concept

I agree

Honestly, Decka, the arguments you've put forward in this thread (as poorly reasoned and based upon as faulty an understanding of history as they are) unsettle me quite a bit.

tell me how they are "poorly reasoned" and "based upon a faulty understanding of history" Sedan. I know you don't like me, but don't let that make you smear me whenever you get the chance.

The rights of the accused are the central bulwark of our judicial system, which in turn underpins our entire civilization. If enough people in this country share your views we are indeed doomed to a loss of our most fundamental liberties.

You, sir, are an enemy of America.

Did I say something to the tune of "every person should have their house searched once a week and be frisked 3 times a day"? You are blowing this way out of proportion Sedan. First you don't even fully understand my views, and now you base an entire smear and label post against me, based on those misunderstood views. Get your facts straight, THEN "judge" me.

It's just that --as is sadly the case with so many who have been fully indoctrinated with the God-n-Country ideology-- he is so incredibly ignorant and misguided.

I respect the separation of church and state... and I think you are also "incredibly ignorant and misguided".. so i guess it's a wash.

Any citizen who is so blindly partisan as to make excuses for a far Right government, like ours, who has done away with the concept of habeas corpus has truly lost all sense of perspective as it regards democracy and the governance of the nation.

More exaggeration by FT... Can you show me the bill that says the united state has "done away" with the concept of habeas corpus?

and If I am wrongfully charged with a crime, I'll have nothing to hide
Everyone has secrets, Decka. Most of the time they're benign secrets, but I daresay you still wouldn't want the government to know them. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments are very important to all of us, not just those of us on trial at the moment, because we do have things to hide. Your rights don't disappear as soon as you're accused of a crime.

true borg, but better safe than sorry. and I never said anything about giving up rights.

true borg, but better safe than sorry. and I never said anything about giving up rights.
If you think the government should be allowed to torture people, you're giving up your right not to be tortured should you be detained.

Decka's no stranger to torture, his posts are nothing but.

Cute nappy

As for Borg, I don't happen to be at war with the United States government, do I? Or am I suspected to be associated with a terrorist organization or plot? Nope...

As for Borg, I don't happen to be at war with the United States government, do I? Or am I suspected to be associated with a terrorist organization or plot? Nope...
Are you really so naive, Decka, as to believe that the government will only use a tool given to them against "suspected terrorists"? Look at the USA PATRIOT Act. The feds promised, before that bill passed, that it would be used only in very limited, very specific circumstances involving suspected terrorists only. Turns out, whoops! They were lying. Now the PATRIOT Act is regularly used against U.S. citizens.

Another thread that is entirely in the wrong place.
I'm startin to wonder if there IS any Administration goin on
here.This Thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANY Religion
or Philosophy.
It belongs in a general or current events Board.

Did I hint that "where there is smoke, there is fire?".. yes... and If I am wrongfully charged with a crime, I'll have nothing to hide, and be found innocent.You can tell yourself this and hope that it's the case but the fact of the matter is you don't know any such thing. Innocent people are found guilty all the time and there's no way for you to forsee that someday you won't be one of them. And torture won't help you there either -- you can be tortured into giving a false confession just as easily as you can be tortured into telling the truth.tell me how they are "poorly reasoned" and "based upon a faulty understanding of history" Sedan.You're defending a torture policy by comparing it to a one-on-one basketball game and you want me to explain why your reasoning is faulty? ROTFL!! And for some reason you think Rome lapsed into pacifism before it's fall or became some kind of non-brutal society. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that doesn't stop you from using it as a cockamamie justification for torturing people. I know you don't like me, but don't let that make you smear me whenever you get the chance.I like you just fine, Decka, and if you were the only person going out of his way to justify the unjustifiable I'd probably be more amused by it than anything else. But you're not the only one, and when I think of millions of others in this country who, like you, are willing to cede their most basic liberties simply because there are dangerous fanatics in the world it makes me sick and it makes me angry. Don't expect me to play nice with you when it's my country you're destroying.Did I say something to the tune of "every person should have their house searched once a week and be frisked 3 times a day"?No. Did I say you did? You are blowing this way out of proportion Sedan. First you don't even fully understand my views, and now you base an entire smear and label post against me, based on those misunderstood views. Get your facts straight, THEN "judge" me.I've been reading your posts for over two years now, Decka, and if I don't "fully understand" your views it can only be a lack of comprehension on my part or a lack of clarity on yours. But I doubt if either is the case -- you're not that difficult to understand. You can whine about me "judging" you all you like but when I think you're grievously in the wrong about something I'm not going to shut up about it just to spare your feelings. See signature below.

You're defending a torture policy by comparing it to a one-on-one basketball game and you want me to explain why your reasoning is faulty? ROTFL!!
Holy shit, best laugh I've had all weekend. I'd missed that one. LOL!

[quote=Decka Sedan. I know you don't like me, but don't let that make you smear me whenever you get the chance. .[/quote]

Dont cry decka...at least he isnt picking on your spelling.:p

Are you really so naive, Decka, as to believe that the government will only use a tool given to them against "suspected terrorists"? Look at the USA PATRIOT Act. The feds promised, before that bill passed, that it would be used only in very limited, very specific circumstances involving suspected terrorists only. Turns out, whoops! They were lying. Now the PATRIOT Act is regularly used against U.S. citizens.
really? who?

really? who?
Not too many people, only suspected drug offenders (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00EFDC103DF93BA1575AC0A9659C8B 63), one million visitors to Las Vegas (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051110_9709_db016.htm), and at least thirteen other cases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301352.html). Moreover, the Dept. of Justice agrees (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/usa) that the act is used too broadly.

That took me about five minutes, Mike. I'm sure I could find many more cases if I really dug around. But, I think I adequately answered your question, no?

Are you really so naive, Decka, as to believe that the government will only use a tool given to them against "suspected terrorists"? Look at the USA PATRIOT Act. The feds promised, before that bill passed, that it would be used only in very limited, very specific circumstances involving suspected terrorists only. Turns out, whoops! They were lying. Now the PATRIOT Act is regularly used against U.S. citizens.

This has gone to a different topic.

I'm not saying the government is full of responsible, nice human beings with pure intentions.

All I'm saying is that while I wouldn't personally torture anyone, I can see why a country would do it. A country who has to protect its citizens.

Oh, and you can try to fend off my analogy all you want because it's "just a basketball game"... but prove to me how it is not comparable. It has to do with dealing with someone who doesn't follow the same rules and standards you do, which is essentially what we are talking about.

You can tell yourself this and hope that it's the case but the fact of the matter is you don't know any such thing. Innocent people are found guilty all the time and there's no way for you to forsee that someday you won't be one of them. And torture won't help you there either -- you can be tortured into giving a false confession just as easily as you can be tortured into telling the truth.

I, along with anyone else, could very well be found guilty of a crime I didn't commit. I could die on my way to class in 20 minutes. I highly doubt the statistics are just screaming that all these innocent people are doing time for crimes they didn't commit.

Yep, and torture sucks and is immoral. But sometimes countries have to do ugly things in order to advance themselves. Hell, look at you. You live in a nation that killed thousands of redcoats just to not live under a King. How can you justify all those deaths? And all those native americans that we killed for the land... I don't get how you can live with yourself sedan.

I, however, REALIZE that these have occured. I don't "support" them, but I don't act shocked and appalled either. It's a cruel word we live in, if I were you i'd start to get used to it.

You're defending a torture policy by comparing it to a one-on-one basketball game and you want me to explain why your reasoning is faulty? ROTFL!!

hahahaha yea... tell me how the reasoning isn't faulty. Go ahead and try to smear me by saying "it's a basketball game!!".. when the ideals about people not following rules and whether or not you drop to their level to protect yourself are very comparable. hahahahah

And for some reason you think Rome lapsed into pacifism before it's fall or became some kind of non-brutal society. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that doesn't stop you from using it as a cockamamie justification for torturing people.

I don't use Rome as a "justification".. just an example among many, who got soft, marveled at their greatness, and got their asses handed to them. Greece would be another example.

I like you just fine, Decka, and if you were the only person going out of his way to justify the unjustifiable I'd probably be more amused by it than anything else. But you're not the only one, and when I think of millions of others in this country who, like you, are willing to cede their most basic liberties simply because there are dangerous fanatics in the world it makes me sick and it makes me angry. Don't expect me to play nice with you when it's my country you're destroying.

What liberties am I saying we should forfeit? I don't remember saying that.. can you please enlighten me on this Sedan?

Oh, and how does one go about destroying a country by posting on a message board?

No. Did I say you did?

You might as well have.

I've been reading your posts for over two years now, Decka, and if I don't "fully understand" your views it can only be a lack of comprehension on my part or a lack of clarity on yours. But I doubt if either is the case -- you're not that difficult to understand. You can whine about me "judging" you all you like but when I think you're grievously in the wrong about something I'm not going to shut up about it just to spare your feelings. See signature below.

I don't need you to worry about my feelings Sedan lol.. I'm just fine. It's just when I get misrepresented and smeared that I'll bite back a bit. And then when that person uses things out of context to label me as something else... that's just irresponsible posting. I've said how I've felt.. I can't put my "christian morals" of treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated and love your enemy into political and legislative practice. America is looking out for America. You wanted a secular nation? You sure got it.

This has gone to a different topic.

I'm not saying the government is full of responsible, nice human beings with pure intentions.

All I'm saying is that while I wouldn't personally torture anyone, I can see why a country would do it. A country who has to protect its citizens.
Do you also see why doing such a thing would undermine the very freedoms and liberties that that country stands for?
Oh, and you can try to fend off my analogy all you want because it's "just a basketball game"... but prove to me how it is not comparable. It has to do with dealing with someone who doesn't follow the same rules and standards you do, which is essentially what we are talking about.
I haven't said anything about your silly little analogy. In fact, I've been ignoring it because I prefer to deal in reality, not analogies. Funny, how the one of us who needs a "dose of reality 101" is the guy who used that phrase first...

Do you also see why doing such a thing would undermine the very freedoms and liberties that that country stands for?

Yea, but at what cost? This comes down to a very simple question. Is a country willing to lower its standards in order remain in existance or to maintain social order? It's been done countless times over history, and those who don't are extinct.

On a personal level.. I would ADMIRE a country who would be pacifist, and let the barbarians be barbarians, slaughter everyone, and then down the line they might realize how much of a horrid act it was.

However, my personal opinion really doesn't matter. A country will defend itself, and try to maintain social order. A country is like a living organism, it eventually dies off or it withstands the test of time. Do I think EVERY torture ever committed by the United States was justified? no. Do I think we have saved lives and prevented terrorist plots by torturing? yes... It's a double-edged sword, and I can see why a country would do it for security's sake. I realize you are thinking on a philosophical level Borg, and on that level I agree with you. However, philosophy and reality differ quite a bit.

I could go on the offensive and ask how in the hell can you justify NOT getting information in persuasive ways (aka torturing) in order to save further human deaths. These suspected terrorists aren't being killed.. Like i said earlier... it could be a lot worse. You could have your head chopped off by a bunch of guys in black masks.

I haven't said anything about your silly little analogy. In fact, I've been ignoring it because I prefer to deal in reality, not analogies. Funny, how the one of us who needs a "dose of reality 101" is the guy who used that phrase first...

Sorry dude, I wasn't aiming my sentence of my analogy to you.. it was kind of a "blanket statement" to all those who were ripping it because it dealt with basketball, but could not disregard the underlying concept.

As for dealing in reality, I share your practice. I think analogies can provide a GREAT way of perspective and put things IN reality. That is just my opinion though.

I could go on the offensive and ask how in the hell can you justify NOT getting information in persuasive ways (aka torturing) in order to save further human deaths.

What if they truly don't know the stuff you're insisting they do? Torture 'em till they say ... anything to make you stop? And if that information is a bunch of lies, what then? Act on those lies and possibly hurt/kill/torture more innocents? Or just torture 'em some more until they say something you want to hear? Shall we torture 'em until they're dead?

And if we follow your recommendation of torturing anyone we think might possibly know something.... What have you gained but the exact same M.O. and reputation of those you revile? And if we're doing it too, what moral ground do we stand on when we accuse them of being disgusting, dangerous, deadly terrorists?

Your recommendations leave us just as debased and deadly as our enemies. It's a fool's game, and your support of such stupidity doesn't surprise me in the least.

:rolleyes:

What if they truly don't know the stuff you're insisting they do? Torture 'em till they say ... anything to make you stop?

That is where science and common sense come into play. You might not even physically harm them if they REALLY don't know anything. Like I said earlier, facial muscles giving the slightest twitch are how card players win at poker, and how professionals in the gov't can tell if someone is lying. If you don't know a DAMNED thing.. and you are just ganked off the street, I doubt you will be getting electrocuted anytime soon.

And if that information is a bunch of lies, what then? Act on those lies and possibly hurt/kill/torture more innocents?

Well, you check the validity of his information, you don't just let him go after he is questioned. And you don't go and send the entire fleet based off of some guy's testimony... now if the information is backed up, THEN you might see action. And who said anything about hurting and killing innocents?

Or just torture 'em some more until they say something you want to hear? Shall we torture 'em until they're dead?

That would defeat the purpose now wouldn't it. A lot of times they DO say "something you want to hear".. that's why they are threatened NOT to lie, and then you check the info. They can save themselves a lot of time and trouble if they just tell the truth. If you can't get information from prisoners, what good are they.

And if we follow your recommendation of torturing anyone we think might possibly know something.... What have you gained but the exact same M.O. and reputation of those you revile?

I asked that question earlier. You may feel high and mighty on your throne right now, but if terrorists attack again, and we might have been able to stop the attack if we would have tortured someone to get the info... you might be singing a different tune.

But, you wouldn't drop to somebody else's level, you would stand there and let a man stab you with a knife. You wouldn't defend yourself or physically harm him, because you'd have the same reputation and M.O... right?

And if we're doing it too, what moral ground do we stand on when we accuse them of being disgusting, dangerous, deadly terrorists?

We stand on the IMMORAL ground of war, which THEY declared on US. There ARE no rules in war... at least ones that have one country vs. a bunch of guys who happen to slip through the cracks. "Declaring War" isn't just a newspaper headline.

Your recommendations leave us just as debased and deadly as our enemies. It's a fool's game, and your support of such stupidity doesn't surprise me in the least.

:rolleyes:

Well, go back and check and read again. Personally, i DO NOT support torture. BUT, i can see why the united states does it. There is a difference.

Decka. Do you think that these methods are/would be acceptable in Continental United States against American citizens ?

No, we aren't at war with our own citizens.

No, we aren't at war with our own citizens.
So let me get this right.

Its justifiable to use torture to extract information from anyone other than US citizens, and anywhere outside the USA.

anyone? I never said that. I can see why the united states would torture to extract information from those who are at war with them, or those associated with.. that is all.

anyone? I never said that. I can see why the united states would torture to extract information from those who are at war with them, or those associated with.. that is all.
Who decides who is and who isnt a combatant ?

Not too many people, only suspected drug offenders (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00EFDC103DF93BA1575AC0A9659C8B 63), one million visitors to Las Vegas (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051110_9709_db016.htm), and at least thirteen other cases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301352.html). Moreover, the Dept. of Justice agrees (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/usa) that the act is used too broadly.

That took me about five minutes, Mike. I'm sure I could find many more cases if I really dug around. But, I think I adequately answered your question, no?
i was hoping for a name of someone that didn't deserve prosecution.

Justice Department officials say such criticism has not deterred them. ''There are many provisions in the Patriot Act that can be used in the general criminal law,'' Mark Corallo, a department spokesman, said. ''And I think any reasonable person would agree that we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect the lives and liberties of Americans from attack, whether it's from terrorists or garden-variety criminals.''

i was hoping for a name of someone that didn't deserve prosecution.
The PATRIOT Act allows the government to withhold the names of citizens prosecuted under it. :) I don't see why the one million folks in Vegas wouldn't be enough for you...that's a damn lot of innocent people whose privacies were violated.

Who decides who is and who isnt a combatant ?

good question, which makes one wonder how people come up who is and who isn't an innocent also.

However, someone with ties to a major terrorist organization whose main goal is to kill us westerly folk is probably a good definition, along with someone who enjoys setting off car bombs in public, shooting public figures or religious leaders.. that type of thing.

The PATRIOT Act allows the government to withhold the names of citizens prosecuted under it.
Yep. You can sue if you're being wrongly wiretapped, but you can't find out if you're being wiretapped!

:) I don't see why the one million folks in Vegas wouldn't be enough for you...that's a damn lot of innocent people whose privacies were violated.
i didn't notice.

but i did notice that while i was there, my right not to be killed wasn't violated. guess which one i care more about?

but i did notice that while i was there, my right not to be killed wasn't violated.
Red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi). Invasion of privacy and being killed are two completely disparate things. Try again, Mike.
good question, which makes one wonder how people come up who is and who isn't an innocent also.
Everyone is innocent, Decka, until they're proved guilty. We've been over that already.

good question, which makes one wonder how people come up who is and who isn't an innocent also.
Its called the judicial system in this country. All that other stuff you deem to be ok was tried in this country also, and failed.

That is where science and common sense come into play. You might not even physically harm them if they REALLY don't know anything. Like I said earlier, facial muscles giving the slightest twitch are how card players win at poker, and how professionals in the gov't can tell if someone is lying.

Ok. Let's apply this little theory of yours to the real world, and the lovely Guantanamo Bay Resort where we're currently holding about 275 people that Mr. Bush has deemed "enemy combatants." If those individuals told us the truth about their innocence (and we know they've told the truth because they didn't twitch!), why are we still imprisoning them?

On the other hand, if they've lied (and we know they're lying because they twitched!), why are we not prosecuting them in a court of law?

If you don't know a DAMNED thing.. and you are just ganked off the street, I doubt you will be getting electrocuted anytime soon.

Your doubt doesn't convince me. Can you offer anything more concrete? Like maybe a copy of Mr. Bush's re-establishment of habeas corpus? Until that happens, I'm afraid your assurance that people aren't being beaten, threatened, waterboarded, electrocuted, and so on (either by us or by others we've paid to do our dirty work) changes nothing.

And who said anything about hurting and killing innocents?

Does it not occur to you that information gleaned through torture could possibly be a set up? "Go to Ahmad's house. There you will find two American soldiers bound and tied in the basement." And when you open the door to the basement, KA-BOOOM. Up goes the whole block. Are you certain such a thing could never happen?

If you can't get information from prisoners, what good are they.

I guess that's the point you'd start up with the waterboarding and the electrocutions, eh? 'Cause, by god, they're not worth anything unless they're singing a song for me!

You may feel high and mighty on your throne right now, but if terrorists attack again, and we might have been able to stop the attack if we would have tortured someone to get the info...

First of all, how do you figure the torture you inflict on someone after this supposed future attack "might able to stop the attack?"

If the problem here is that you're unable to explain yourself clearly, and the torture you advocate would come after this supposed future attack, how would information obtained through torture prevent the attack that already happened?

If, on the other hand, you're saying we should "gank people off the street" because they might know something about something that might happen at some undisclosed time in the future... or not, and torture them until they tell us something that sounds plausible, you are then advocating pre-emptive torture.

Or, perhaps you foolishly believe that if we were to stumble upon some schlub that did know something about an impending attack and we tortured him to find out how to stop it, [B]I'd be happy we tortured that person. Well, you'd be wrong. Torture is unacceptable to me in any form, for any reason. It simply cannot be justified, no matter how many dire and deadly "what if's" you care to dream up. Mr. Bush has been playing the fear card on us for five solid years now, and while he's obviously sold you on his propaganda, your ominous warnings don't convince me any more than his have.

you might be singing a different tune.

As already noted, I wouldn't be "singing a different tune." Torturing anyone for any reason is immoral and my opinion on that is never going to change, even if you and your brownshirt pals show up at my door with your electrodes.

We stand on the IMMORAL ground of war, which THEY declared on US.

You are aware, aren't you, that the people in the country we attacked five years ago (and whose country we still occupy) had nothing to do with 9/11? If we were really going after the people who attacked us, we'd never have invaded Iraq in the first place.

Personally, i DO NOT support torture. BUT, i can see why the united states does it. There is a difference.

Your entire post was a fevered argument in favor of torture. If that's not support, nothing is.

Your entire post was a fevered argument in favor of torture. If that's not support, nothing is.

I appreciate your input Marzipan.. but I simply can see WHY a country would use means of torture when they are at war. The United States has said they are at war with Iraq AND Al Qaeda terrorists, along with other militaristic groups.

I don't think people should be tortured, but this isn't a perfect world.

However, since you took the time to read and respond to each of my points, i will do the same...

Ok. Let's apply this little theory of yours to the real world, and the lovely Guantanamo Bay Resort where we're currently holding about 275 people that Mr. Bush has deemed "enemy combatants." If those individuals told us the truth about their innocence (and we know they've told the truth because they didn't twitch!), why are we still imprisoning them?

On the other hand, if they've lied (and we know they're lying because they twitched!), why are we not prosecuting them in a court of law?

It's not an exact, 100% science I'm talking about here, of course there is margin for error... However, there ARE people highly trained to detect if someone is telling the truth or lying, and whether they are hiding something or are fully innocent. There are even the ol' lie detectors, although those can be defeated, but I don't know if a low-end terrorist would know how.


Your doubt doesn't convince me. Can you offer anything more concrete? Like maybe a copy of Mr. Bush's re-establishment of habeas corpus? Until that happens, I'm afraid your assurance that people aren't being beaten, threatened, waterboarded, electrocuted, and so on (either by us or by others we've paid to do our dirty work) changes nothing.

Well I really don't see or hear about the practice being used on a regular basis , so you and I can both be happy about that. However, we both know that sometimes private government affairs are like Las Vegas.. "What happens in *blank*, STAYS in *blank*"....


Does it not occur to you that information gleaned through torture could possibly be a set up? "Go to Ahmad's house. There you will find two American soldiers bound and tied in the basement." And when you open the door to the basement, KA-BOOOM. Up goes the whole block. Are you certain such a thing could never happen?

I would imagine much precaution would be at hand dealing with any instructions a detainee might give. I don't think any government will just have guys walk right in...

Just like you don't believe anything you see on a website.

And if this guy DID happen to pass our security protocol.. obviously he was going to probably kill some people anyway. But that is just speculation.


I guess that's the point you'd start up with the waterboarding and the electrocutions, eh? 'Cause, by god, they're not worth anything unless they're singing a song for me!

Well, looking through a country's point of view, there are THOUSANDS of these terrorists who can slip through the cracks. It's like a house, you have the united states as a big house, and you try seal off or use "roach repellent" or whatever (although our border security isn't that good)... but yet a few STILL manage to get through. It only takes one to get in and do any damage. So detaining 5, 10, 20, even 100 people won't really do much. It doesn't give them bargaining power, because the united states has nobody to bargain with. So the only reason to hold them in captivity is to extract information. If you aren't using them for that, in MY opinion just let them go, but that's the government's call, not mine.

My personal opinions are much different, I think we are all the same as human beings.


First of all, how do you figure the torture you inflict on someone after this supposed future attack "might able to stop the attack?"

If the problem here is that you're unable to explain yourself clearly, and the torture you advocate would come after this supposed future attack, how would information obtained through torture prevent the attack that already happened?

I never said to torture someone AFTER the attack... that would be pointless. I'm saying that if you detain a suspicious man with several links to terrorist organizations and a history of militaristic behavior, and he shows all the physical signs that he might know something.. that information can save lives... do you disagree?

This reminds me of "A few good men".. and yes I am debating on Colonel Nathan R. Jessip (Jack Nicholson) on this one, but i personally don't agree. They BOTH have a point. Do I want a guy like Jessip on that wall? You better believe it. "I want him on that wall, I NEED him on that wall" LOL...

BUT... just because he's old school and takes no crap does not justify inhumane behavior on an innocent man.


If, on the other hand, you're saying we should "gank people off the street" because they might know something about something that might happen at some undisclosed time in the future... or not, and torture them until they tell us something that sounds plausible, you are then advocating pre-emptive torture.

Like I said above, It's not "selective torture"... Torture would be the last option. There would be questioning, interrogation, etc. And only those who are KNOWN or highly suspected to be involved with terrorist plots would be "ganked".


Or, perhaps you foolishly believe that if we were to stumble upon some schlub that did know something about an impending attack and we tortured him to find out how to stop it, [B]I'd be happy we tortured that person. Well, you'd be wrong. Torture is unacceptable to me in any form, for any reason. It simply cannot be justified, no matter how many dire and deadly "what if's" you care to dream up. Mr. Bush has been playing the fear card on us for five solid years now, and while he's obviously sold you on his propaganda, your ominous warnings don't convince me any more than his have.

Well I'll save the politics for that forum. I don't agree with Bush on several accounts, and personally I don't agree with him on this one either.

BUT, i can see why, as a secular nation at war, a country would do it.

I absolutely agree with you, personally, that torture is unacceptable in any form. I wish circumstances would never have to lead to any behavior like that or worse.


As already noted, I wouldn't be "singing a different tune." Torturing anyone for any reason is immoral and my opinion on that is never going to change, even if you and your brownshirt pals show up at my door with your electrodes.

Again, I'm looking from a country's perspective, not my own.


You are aware, aren't you, that the people in the country we attacked five years ago (and whose country we still occupy) had nothing to do with 9/11? If we were really going after the people who attacked us, we'd never have invaded Iraq in the first place.

There is far from smoking gun evidence that terrorists and 9-11 were linked yada yada... the fact is we are at war with Iraq, and pretty much wiped out Saddam, that war is pretty much over. We are also at war with terrorists, and they aren't going down without a fight. BUT.. that's politics, another argument.


Your entire post was a fevered argument in favor of torture. If that's not support, nothing is.

See my post before this one.