I don't think anyone is "pro-torture". The problem is that Washington has muddled the word torture by calling it "enhanced interrogation" which has generated support for it. Very Orwellian. Exactly what Orwell described in his essay "Politics and the English Language".
I think Torture is wrong. But to be completely honest, if theres a bomb in NY thats set to go off, and a terrorist knows where it is, well then bring out the blowtorch and pliers. That doesn't necessarily make it right though.
I don't think anyone is "pro-torture". The problem is that Washington has muddled the word torture by calling it "enhanced interrogation" which has generated support for it. Very Orwellian. Exactly what Orwell described in his essay "Politics and the English Language".
-Sun_Tzu-
Why do you hate America?
[spoiler] Very well said. I'm against torture because I'm not sure it works [/spoiler]
Unfortunately it;s one of things that is only good when it WORKS.
Cheney used the example numerous times "What if there is a terrorist with a nuclear bomb?" would it be okay?
Well, they never found anyone with nuclear bombs and if they did we'd never hear about it so they could never justify torturing someone for something that didn't happen, not that it happened anyway. furthermore, when it doesn't work they are probably going to get false leads from people who tell them what they want to hear then they go on a wild goose chase and find nothing.
Fact of the matter is that torture is ot something that is going to be "nuclear bomb" justifiable, and that's if it worked the way it's supposed to.
I'm all for doing whatever it takes to save lives. If that means going all Jack Baur on a terrorist, so be it.Head_of_games
I am unable to understand this logic. I can make the case that by putting soldiers in every household and by abolishing the requirement of a warrant to search and seize property - lives will be saved; would you support those actions? Thomas Jefferson once said "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.", basically saying that by destroying liberty you are inadvertentlydestroying life (and vice versa), so your stance of "whatever it takes to save lives" from a Jeffersonian perspective is contradictory.
I would say that I condone torture. Then again, I also would like prisons to actually be punishment which, I know is way out there in this day and age. :roll:
I would say that I condone torture. Then again, I also would like prisons to actually be punishment which, I know is way out there in this day and age. :roll:FragStains
[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]I'm all for doing whatever it takes to save lives. If that means going all Jack Baur on a terrorist, so be it.-Sun_Tzu-
I am unable to understand this logic. I can make the case that by putting soldiers in every household and by abolishing the requirement of a warrant to search and seize property - lives will be saved; would you support those actions? Thomas Jefferson once said "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.", basically saying that by destroying liberty you are inadvertentlydestroying life (and vice versa), so your stance of "whatever it takes to save lives" from a Jeffersonian perspective is contradictory. Are you disagreeing with Jack Baur? :P Anyways, I don't think I said that we should be barging into random suspects houses and torturing them. I'm saying we should be torturing the convicted TERRORISTS that we have captured. I think that some pain on the part of someone who wants us all dead or converted is worth possibly saving lives.
[QUOTE="FragStains"]I would say that I condone torture. Then again, I also would like prisons to actually be punishment which, I know is way out there in this day and age. :roll:LosDaddie
Who says that prisons should be a nice place?
No one says that they should be nice...because they've already have morphed into being places of rehabilitation (recedivism rarely occurs) and designed with the prisoners feelings and personal comfort in mind. Criminals look at prisons as a way out...don't want to pay my bills, commit a crime go to jail and have everything taken care of for you.
I'm saying we should be torturing the convicted TERRORISTS that we have captured. Head_of_games
But in Gitmo alone, there have 775 detainees that have been brought there since 2001; only 3 have been convicted of a charge. And of the 245 detainees that remain, the government only plans on prosecuting about 60 to 80 of them. The rest are eventually going to be let free. And if you want torture to generate any results at all, you can't subject them to the legal system and then torture later because then the information they know would be outdated and worthless.
I'm against it, and it violates the Eighth Amendment. America was founded on better principles than that.
CorTilt
What is cruel defined as in it?
Also I'm against it for the most part unless it is necessary.
Cruel and usual punishment is exactly that: punishment that is greater than the crime and punishment that is not normal. Torture definitely meets the second and arguably meets the first.
There's also the Fifth Article to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'
I'm against it, and it violates the Eighth Amendment. America was founded on better principles than that.
CorTilt
What is cruel defined as in it?
Also I'm against it for the most part unless it is necessary.
Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan said after the ruling of Furman v. Georgia "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," among other things if it were to be considered uncruel and necessary.
This question is a rather strange one. Are you asking us our feelings on torture or Obama releasing the memos? I don't think anyone is going to say, "Yeah, torture is wonderful." But there are real grey areas with regards to torture- is waterboarding torture? Some say yes, some say no. So while I'll say I'm against torture, that doesn't mean anything without some context. As far as Obama releasing the documents goes, I don't think he should. I think it just opens a can of worms that doesn't need to happen. If there are people he and the attorney general believe violated US law, then they can do it the professional way- through the criminal justice system. But just releasing the documents will lead us down the path of a witch hunt, if you ask me.
I was refering to your feelings on torture, the memos just made me think about the topic.
About him relesing the memos I think they should release them all. Because the ones they are currently releasing are somewhat for their politcal direction.
Torture is not a reliable tool . Prisoners are willing admit/say anything if they were led to believe that this will stop the torture. Don't mention that this will worsen the US image in the middle east, which puts our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in a bigger risk.
Recently, the US released a Guantanamo detainee who happened to work, a very popular, Al Jazeera channel in Qatar. He was held with no trial and was found innocent. He was released after 5 years of detention and interrogations. Al Jazeera has always slammed the United States image, and now they have a proof for them to continue worsening that image. People are led to believe what is being said more and more which will eventually put the troops in much bigger risk.
Hmph, if torture could 100% guarantee that you could get accurate information from the prisoner or terrorist, then I would be completely for it. unfortunately, that is not the case with torture; prisoners or terrorists could end up lying just to end their suffering, and give you false information.
I guess in very dire situations such as bomb threats, you could do torture, just do not depend solely on the results of the torture, and at least do some other research on the problem at hand.
I don't think anyone is "pro-torture". The problem is that Washington has muddled the word torture by calling it "enhanced interrogation" which has generated support for it. Very Orwellian. Exactly what Orwell described in his essay "Politics and the English Language".
I don't think anyone is "pro-torture". The problem is that Washington has muddled the word torture by calling it "enhanced interrogation" which has generated support for it. Very Orwellian. Exactly what Orwell described in his essay "Politics and the English Language".
xaos
"Interrogation 2.0" would have been slicker Or maybe iTorture. They could put Steve Jobs in charge of marketing.
Log in to comment