Kudz, this is the exchange that you object to:

I don't believe that you really would put the execution of a serial killer on the same level as the beheading of an innocent civilian, hence the tone of disbelief in my reply.

For the record, I don't believe any of the posters here are terrorist sympathizers, nor do I impugn their love of country. I have apologized for any hyperbole on my side of the debate, and I offer my personal apology to you for anything I posted that you took offense to.

Question:

Is animal torture ok?

If yes, how is an animal different from a human? And how is a human who wants to do your country direct harm better than a random animal?

It seems the view of human torture being unacceptable can only fall in line with animal torture also being unacceptable, but I'd imagine most know the torture and pain animals are put through.

Is diebitter a vegetarian on the basis of avoiding the torture of animals?

So what gives?

This thread will not be derailed into discussion of the ethics of animal treatment. Start a new thread on it if you want to discuss it.

any further posts on it in here will be deleted as the minimum action.

nice post, DB, even if I can't say for sure I'd be against it in all circumstances. The bolded part is what I most relate to and am disappointed in my country for forgetting.

Hijacking and flying planes into buildings, killing thousands of innocent civilians would have seemed extreme and unlikely until 9/11. I guess we cannot ignore the unlikely any more. We live in a world where there are people who want to kill us and believe that they are going to a better place by giving up their lives to kill some of us.

I personally have a very hard time believing a lot of these things would have happened, had these damn terrorist sons of bitches not decided that they hated us so much that they had to specifically target and attack innocent civilians. It continues today in some places with bombings killing people in markets and many other public places for no other reason than to kill people and instill fear.

When a group of people, like these terrorist bastards, decide to do what they have done and continue to do then I have a very hard time affording them human decencies. I will also unequivocally say that if I were in a circumstance where I had to "torture" someone to gain information to save the lives of my family I would do it and not hesitate. I would hope that I had the fortitude to do that for other people as well.

The thought of torturing someone turns my stomach and I certainly understand the whole we should be better than those other bastards. But at what point do you say enough is enough. We are faced with people who are extreme and obviously cannot be dealt with on a rational level. We need to do everything we can to prevent more planes from flying into building and innocent people being killed. To do anything less would be what? French???

OK, Before you all start throwing spears my way, I am not 100% serious and am playing a bit of the Devils Advocate here. But I think you have to look at the events that happened and realize that we were faced with unusual and extraordinary circumstance that no one in their right mind would have believed. I very clearly remember the horrible feeling I had while I was watching a plane fly into the world trade center and the horrible aftermath of that attack. Yep, the thought of torture turns my stomach, but I am not sure it makes me sick enough to not do that if it prevents another attack like that and I have to believe that the people carrying out these interrogations had the same thoughts.

It's pretty damn sad all around that people would ever have to be in the position to do such a thing.

playing devil's advocate here - if you're going to execute them anyway, why not try and get every last bit of information out of them?

I appreciate that, and likewise apologize, because I'm sure I've done the same at some point. I try not to, but sometimes what seems like a good idea at the time doesn't work out quite so well. At any rate, I didn't even pick up the Daniel Pearl reference until Blarg mentioned it, as I just assumed, given the subject, you were discussing third world atrocities in general. Daniel Pearl's murder didn't cross my mind, as I just considered the outrage to be universal and cross party/ideological lines. When I saw that, I had the same sense of disbelief as you did when I asked my question. I took your initial question as a comment on the relative savagery of certain cultures and how we should react, sort of a "they do this, why shouldn't we.." thing. Which I see is not what you meant at all. The idea of terrorist organizations executing civilians did not hit me. So pardon both my lack of comprehension; again, I was as shocked and confused as you.

For what it's worth, I am foursquare against capital punishment, too. Pretty sure we disagree on that point, as well. But that aside, no, Pearl's murder and the execution of, say, Timothy McVeigh, are not the same, at all. And the self-righteous indignation I feel at Pearl's murder, as well as the oppression of innocent people the world over, will conveniently disappear when it comes to swine like McVeigh. I may not condone their execution, and may even protest the event. And I don't like the idea of broaching such in terms of relativity. But I will say, to clarify, the execution of someone who took the life of another, is by far and away, the lesser of two evils.

I do appreciate your links and willingness to discuss the issue without offhandedly dismissing the opinions of others. You usually do make good points, which really pisses me off, as I often disagree with them. And you are correct, my dislike of the Bush/Cheney policies certainly adds grist to the mill. But I still say, the idea of state sponsored torture is among the most repugnant things I can possibly think of. If the idea of a government or state is to protect, and level the playing filed as much as possible so that all have the same rights, then to endorse such an exercise, even in the most extreme instances, becomes a self-defeating concept. And that is even if it's effectiveness was guaranteed.

Okay, lessee...
Katyseagull....check
entertainme...check
Seemed to piss off BeccaGo a week or so ago, so....check
Okay, well on my way to pissing off all the ladies here in the lounge...
oh, HOOOOBBBBBBBYYYYY....

you beat me to it...isn't it better to have a tortured and now dead terrorist with innocent people saved than to have a dead (not tortured) terrorist and a bunch of dead innocent people?

db, i don't want to make this personal to you, but its the easiest way to make the point...are you really saying that you could go up to your wife and children and say "if you were being held by a terrorist and hes gonna kill you, i would not be willing to torture him to save your life. sorry wife and children, but the life and rights of this terrorist plus my principle that torture is wrong is worth more than your lives"

I think the argument is the same as if I was hunting and shot animals in the guts just to see them suffer before I kill and eat them. The terrorists will not give up good information because they are fanatical, So, trying to extract info is useless. Better just to remove them from civilized society.

fish in a barrel, Kudz.

This wedge-tactic, where you try and find the extreme situation where someone is basically forced to say 'yes, I would torture under those conditions' else look like a coldheared bastard/idiot, in order to validate institutionalised torture, is not worthy of serious consideration, frankly.

It's quite interesting to see how some people react to this whole thing though.

Seriously, aren't you the tiniest bit outraged about your state indulging in torture? Just a little? Be honest.

And those of you who say it isn't torture...well, isn't it pretty close to torture? Would you mind if your local police force had powers to use it, for example?

I've already answered this fully, albeit briefly. You look into the pit, you become a monster, is the kernel of it.

Institutional brutality is not something you want your society to start playing with, I'd suggest.



Hell, just look to the guiding lights in your country's own past. What do you think Lincoln would say?

db, i definitely understand what you are saying about me making up a situation, no matter how unrealistic, where every sane person will say yes is cheating, but it is not worthless imo...there is a huge difference between saying that there there are a limited amount of extreme situations where I would condone it, in fact find it mandatory, to torture someone and saying "i'm not a relativist, i would never torture"...i've had this argument with every person that has every told me that they feel all life is worth the same...

i still don't really have a strong opinion (if any opinion) on state mandated torture...

Which is exactly why, as you pointed out earlier, such methods are unlikely to work. If these people feel like they are doing "God's Will", you are not going to torture them into submission. They think a far worse torture awaits if they give in.

So we perpetuate the circle of violence and oppression by condoning torture? I mean, I don't think you're endorsing the torture of prisoners as a method of punishment. So tell me, from an ethical standpoint as well as a practical one, where is it's validity?

To make us feel better? That's a temporal fix, and the long term ramifications far out weigh any good. To get information? Doesn't seem to work, and may have the opposite effect. On a practical level, there is no real utility.

I probably would, too. But that is a personal reaction. Even if it may be the "right" thing to so, it doesn't nullify the possible negative and corrosive ramifications. And the chances it be successful would are virtually nil. The fact is, if a terrorist plants a bomb, he wants carnage. And no amount of extreme torture, or persuasion of any kind, is going to prevent that bomb from going off. It is going to happen. The 9/11 hijackers were on a suicide mission, for God's sake. They were under a death sentence from the moment the volunteered (or were chosen) to do what they did. The only thing they truly feared was failure and disappointing Allah.

And if you get someone who is not a true believer, who does not buy into the whole thang, but has information that may prevent such an occurrence? You're probably going to be able to get that information using less extreme, but far more reliable, techniques. The "weak links" are not candidates for such intense treatment.

Again, I don't like to look at such things in relativistic terms, but let's look at things another way. There are laws against speeding. Is speeding sometimes justified? Yes. But the state does not, by and large, condone it. If you are speeding to get someone to the doctor, it will probably be let go. Technically, though, it is still against the law. It is not legally condoned. But the laws are in place because we require our citizens to adhere to certain responsibilities. Standards are applied not just to assuage victims and punish, but to set levels of behavior that protects the rights of everyone. When those rights go down the drain for anyone, they go down the drain for all of us.

In such an extreme case, and with all other options being expended, would I turn my head if some Jack Bauer type starts playing pin the icepack on the idiot's testicles, because there is a chance they might give up the information? Yeah, probably. But, even though we do live in a world far more precarious than we thought, such a scenario is highly unlikely. We can come up with scenario after scenario where it (torture) is the "only" solution; they are the exceptions which prove the rule.
"The War Against Terror" is a marketing term, as it is a war that is not winnable in our lifetime. Or at least it is unlikely. But the prevention of such acts will not be due to mere strong arm tactics. In fact, it will only inspire others such attacks. We are not going to undo decades of selective hatred by acts of violence and personal degradation and torture. We haven't yet, anyway.

As mentioned earlier, the only interrogators who thought they were doing any real good by torture were those too incompetent to do it correctly, and even then, they were getting only useless or misleading information. Their intentions may have been just that lofty; that does not matter in the slightest.
I think your post sort of sums up how all of us, even those who do not come to the same conclusions, feel about the whole thing.It's easy for us to frame things in such simple terms, but real life gets a whole lot messier.

Lemme get this straight, then, Fish...you're saying we should eat the terrorists?

Official torture would be good because: (i) Bad guys do bad things and (ii) bad guys don't want to be tortured and so bad guys would do less bad things.
Simple.

yes, the death penalty sure has cut down on the number of murders, hasn't it?

Oh, wait....

perhaps not but it (i) might actually be worse than torture and (ii) has saved a heckload amount of money and (iii) may have stopped the state from releasing bad criminals and (iv) heck! bad guys don't deserve to live.

These people are ******ed if this is how they are going about trying to extract information from uncooperative prisoners. I'm sure the CIA or NSA has plenty of drugs available to them that would be a quite a bit more effective than a "facial slap" or "confinement with insects". They're just doing this stuff because they're sadistic. If they really just wanted to get sensitive information out of high-ranking terrorists, keeping them drugged up out of their mind for a few days, and manipulating them into talking would be FAR more effective. Even something as simple as a few hits of LSD would be enough to get most of them talking, provided it was coupled with a proper manipulation of the prisoner's perceived circumstances/identity.

These folks never seem to show up for the Danny Pearl's of this world or the folks who joined hands with strangers and jumped from the World Trade Towers.

I tried calling Fox News to be allowed on to speak about my outrage, but I was turned down.

Maybe you should have tried CNN. I'm sure their lines were mute and unused.

Ugh seriously I can't handle lurking Lounge anymore. It's like you guys love letting drooler opinions like this just go unabashed. I swear to god I get dumber reading this stuff.

Could a mod please give me a sub-forum specific ban from the lounge for 30 days? Thank you.

Which I why I agree with DB that all these fanatics should really be killed. That is horrible but really is the only conclusion that makes any sense, right?

I think the problem is there are those who believe that even if a chance is virtually nil there is still some shred of a chance to get information that saves people so doing nothing is perhaps worse

Running out of time, but let me just say I do not disagree with a lot of your points but I just have a hard time doing nothing and rolling over. I would certainly MUCH rather live in a world where we never even had to consider using violence to get information from other people but I am just not sure this is possible.

Yep, With a nice Chianti and Fava Beans. (How do you spell Fffffffff like Hanibal Lecter?)

It's really about the golden rule. If we wouldn't want it done to us we shouldn't be doing it to others. Everyone saying water boarding and other forms of torture should be allowed should have no problems with it being done to U.S. troops. Also anyone that supports torture should petition the government to forgo the geneva convention so it's all out in the open that we support it.