Devil505
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,512
- Reaction score
- 315
- Location
- Masschusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
That's funny...The new Atty General agreed it was torture...But .....what does HE know, right??
No. It was said by me just recently. Anyway, none of this constitutes torture so your argument is baseless.
Are criminals with citizenship your friends? Are those who stand in the way of your plans to be your friends for long?
They resolve some issues, but can never resolve all in a satisfactory way.
Choice begets action begets consequence. It is always a choice.So means don't shape ends?(and this is coming from one who recently so attacked judicial activism.:roll
That's funny...The new Atty General agreed it was torture...But .....what does HE know, right??
Waterboarding certainly is according to the UN's definition. It causes extreme distress.
At times. Hmmm.At times, yes.
Choices take place within the constraints of circumstance.Choice begets action begets consequence. It is always a choice.
And?It did not got without notice that much of what I said in my posts in these threads you did not respond to.
Choices take place within the constraints of circumstance.
:roll:And?
What? Recognising that individuals act within the the constraint of many conditions and circumstances is hardly a principle that is just for the followers of Bentham. It is a position common in various ways amongst most except perhaps clones of Max Stirner.A rather utilitarian position, particularly given the primacy you place on honor. Whence the contradiction?
What? Recognising that individuals act within the the constraint of many conditions and circumstances is hardly a principle that is just for the followers of Bentham. It is a position common in various ways amongst most except perhaps clones of Max Stirner.
If circumstance defines the choice, then only the ends can ever be a justification for means.
However, that concept is wrong. Circumstance necessitates choice, but it cannot compel a particular choice.
It certainly is because it is the use of brutal and questionable means that you would certainly not want used on your troops.
A terrorist is a broad term, one man's terrorist is the next's freedom fighter to a degree.
It is saying that if you associate with these we consider our enemies we will use any means we feel necessary on you. They're enmies of the state after all, they are no longer human and we can do with them as we wish. It is dishonourable and it is dangerous.
Waterboarding certainly is according to the UN's definition. It causes extreme distress.
Opponents of last week's release of memos detailing CIA interrogation techniques argue that they will provide enemies of the United States with a training manual to prepare their operatives for capture. The irony is that the U.S. military appears to have done the exact opposite, taking a training program that had been designed to prepare American soldiers to withstand torture by communist regimes seeking to extract false confessions, and twisting it into a highly controversial interrogation manual.
The story of that mutation emerges in disquieting detail in a new report by the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. It shows how U.S. interrogators at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and camps in Afghanistan based some of their interrogations on techniques taken from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training program. These techniques included water-boarding, walling (slamming detainees into a flexible wall), sleep deprivation, hooding and using dogs to inspire fear. (See pictures of life inside Guantanamo)
That's funny...The new Atty General agreed it was torture...But .....what does HE know, right??
What are you talking about? You're making this needlessly complicated, even for me.
Circumstance effects choices but does not ttally define them. It effects the options and what is the best option sometimes but it does not stop you choosing between the options.
I think we can agree about that, even if not why we're discussing it.
That is different, that is part of the battlefield necessities of war. It is not unusual, it does not happen to those who are already in the custody of their enemy and is pursued, or can be, within definite constraints and boundaries.I don't want the enemy killing my troops either, does this mean we should stop killing the enemy?
That is a very broad category.Then I'll make it simple for you. A "terrorist" is anyone who deliberately targets innocent civilians while purposely neglecting the rules of war.
Ah enemies of state can be disposed of as we wish.A person who deliberately targets innocent civilians while purposely neglecting the rules of war is still a human but that doesn't mean we have to treat them like one.
Where you captured by the enemy and submitted to extreme pain and distress like that that takes place in waterboarding?So what? Four years in the Marine infantry and I can think of nary a time when I wasn't under "extreme distress." Does this mean I was being tortured? Hell no. It just means your defintion of torture is stupid.
I'll agree the rest of this discussion calls for at least a pint. How's that?
That is different
that is part of the battlefield necessities of war
It is not unusual, it does not happen to those who are already in the custody of their enemy and is pursued, or can be, within definite constraints and boundaries.
That is a very broad category.
Ah enemies of state can be disposed of as we wish.
Where you captured by the enemy and submitted to extreme pain and distress like that that takes place in waterboarding?
War isn't civilized and that's just a god damn fact of life. When there is no more war I will agree that we ought not to do anything untoward to anyone and we all shall live as one.
But we're more than a mile from that and in the meantime it's fairly stupid to talk about prisoners of war and civil behavior. Human rights go out the freaking window when strangers who don't know each other are ready and willing to kill one another at the bequest of their government.
That pressuposes those are both acceptable and in the same context I'm afraid.No, it's not different. I don't want my troops to befall a gruesome battlefield death - just as you do not want them to be water boarded (oh no!) - so that means we must disallow such a possibility. Your logic, not mine.
No it isn't. This is not a 24-like situation for the last time. Torture can get controversial results in very specific situations only. The question is is it worth loss of honour and power given to the state.Extracting actionable intelligence from terrorists hell-bent on murdering innocent civilians is also a necessity of war.
You prove my point. It is the battlefield.This is preposterous. Men are disemboweled, blown up, killed with nerve agents, burned alive, shot to pieces, heads smashed in, run over by tanks, etc. Hell, I once saw an Iraqi police officer get crushed to death by a giant slab of concrete. The only constraint on the battlefield is the human imagination.
Well it applies to the allies in WWII for a start.How is it broad? To what portion of a given population can that definition conceivably apply?
:lol:Only if they meet the aforementioned criteria and the intended purpose of their disposal is to protect innocent civilians.
Have you ever experienced waterboarding? It is generally considered to be extremely distressful and has been cited as torture including the US AG.1. Your idea of "extreme pain" is a joke. It's obvious you've never experienced "extreme pain" otherwise you wouldn't use to term so loosely. Having your fingernails pulled out with pliers is extremely painful. Being subjected to a simulated drowning is really unpleasant. There is a difference.
Of course it is being captured by the enemy, I thought that went without saying. I did not move the goalposts, it is just that when you got out the tennis rackets I was forced to remind you this is football laddy.2. You are moving the goal posts. You said torture was defined by "extreme distress." Now you're inserting irrelevant qualifiers like being captured by the enemy. I was forcibly subjected to periods of "extreme distress" while in the military, so according to you I've been tortured numerous times.
That is a very broad category.Then I'll make it simple for you. A "terrorist" is anyone who deliberately targets innocent civilians while purposely neglecting the rules of war.
Wrong term. Not "enemies of state", but "my enemies".Ah enemies of state can be disposed of as we wish.A person who deliberately targets innocent civilians while purposely neglecting the rules of war is still a human but that doesn't mean we have to treat them like one.
Actually it is a very broad term, particularly if you list the wanton endangerment which is similar to it as manslughter is to murder. Damn we should of arrested bomber Harris and Truman.Not at all. Deliberately targeting civilians makes the category very narrow and specific.
That pressuposes those are both acceptable and in the same context I'm afraid.
No it isn't.
This is not a 24-like situation for the last time.
Torture can get controversial results in very specific situations only.
The question is is it worth loss of honour and power given to the state.
You prove my point. It is the battlefield.
Well it applies to the allies in WWII for a start.
So broad.
Have you ever experienced waterboarding?
It is generally considered to be extremely distressful
and has been cited as torture including the US AG.
Of course it is being captured by the enemy, I thought that went without saying. I did not move the goalposts, it is just that when you got out the tennis rackets I was forced to remind you this is football laddy.
You're absolutely right, and when a terrorist is pointing a gun at a US Marine, I'll be the first to agree that the marines should open fire on him. Having someone helpless in a prison cell where they don't pose any immediate threat to anyone is a different matter entirely. In that situation, there are a wide range of options available that DON'T abuse human rights.
Having someone helpless in a prison cell where they don't pose any immediate threat to anyone is a different matter entirely. In that situation, there are a wide range of options available that DON'T abuse human rights.
No you're simply cutting off these actions from their contexts. It is not irrelevant when you do not pressupose equal context and acceptability of the procedeures.I was merely highlighting the illogical premise you formulated earlier, i.e. that we shouldn't do something to others if we wouldn't want it done to our own troops. The fact that you wouldn't want our troops to get water-boarded is irrelevant to whether or not it is an acceptable practice.
Here you miss out the key point that we still need to be restrained in how we do it. Hence I do not advocate attacking any nation that poses even a small risk.Stop being so obtuse. The whole point of having a military is to protect innocent civilians. Obtaining actionable intelligence from terrorists helps protect those civilians; therefore it is a military necessity.
Yep, your side is relying on 24-like scenarios that are very unrealistic.Is this supposed to mean something?
Nope, it has gained a little info then helped to prevent some plans from moving forward.It can also prevent terrorist attacks.
Contextless assertion. Meaningless.There is nothing dishonorable about protecting my family and my country.
That makes no sense. The justice system takes place in broad daylight, it is not supposedly secret and without due process. The jutice system is supposed to work with limits, balances and the rule of law, none of this is there for this torture.As for giving the state the power to torture known terrorists, I'm perfectly comfortable with that. If your rebuttal is that the government could conceivably label anyone a "terrorist" and start torturing people with impunity you might as well give up. I mean, the government could conceivably label anyone a "criminal" and start imprisoning them with impunity too. Does this mean we need to get rid of the justice system?
There are still boundaries. You cannot normally burn down the villages of those you suspect ofThere is no defined "battlefield" in asymmetrical warfare.
Oh so now they must not wear uniforms. Now it is going from broad to arbitrary. If you wear a uniform and murder civilians you aren't a terrorist then it is fine. Got it.The Allies wore uniforms and acted at the behest of a nation-state. These are crucial distinctions one must ignore in order to equate them with terrorists.
So are a lot of things. Ever been pepper-sprayed in the eyes?
Well it seems that at least one senior figures disagrees with you.How in the world is this relevant?
Context, context. It is pretty simple. We are obviously talking about people in custody being forcibly being exposed to great distress, distress far beyond discomfort.Contrary to popular opinion, I cannot read people's minds. You said extreme distress - I've been forcibly subjected to periods of extreme distress numerous times. Why doesn't your argument apply to people like me?
Human rights are not absolute. Simply confining someone in a prison cell is a violation of human rights, yet you find that perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?