Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2006, 12:40 PM       
Now that post, that post almost deserved it's own thread. well said preechr.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2006, 02:18 PM       
real quick, a quote from some army professionals -

Quote:
Torture also has been the subject of much domestic political debate in the United States, but this debate has largely been over the legality of interrogation techniques. The debate usually misses the central point illustrated by the negative impact of international reaction to reports of torture on US foreign affairs: in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, although torture may bring about some short-term tactical and operational advantages, officially or unofficially condoning its use is a major strategic blunder. The disadvantages of sanctioned abuse or torture, or even the perception of torture, at the strategic level dwarf any short-term payoffs, regardless of technical legality. In counterterrorism and counterinsurgency warfare, the moral component of the fight is strategically decisive. Commanders are obligated to maintain both the reality and the perception of impeccable moral conduct within their commands. Senior commanders have the responsibility of ensuring that the tactics of their subordinates reinforce strategic goals and objectives.

History offers no modern examples of the strategic effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques, but it is replete with examples of the negative strategic effects such techniques have on the counterinsurgency force. The French experience in Algeria from 1954 to 1962 is one of the clearest examples of how ill-conceived interrogation techniques contributed directly to the strategic failure of a counterinsurgency and the success of an insurgency.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/P...er/dimarco.htm


Briefly: I think the moral difference between torturing an unarmed suspect and shooting an armed combatant is obvious, but I also think morals are personal values, so maybe Preech and I just went to different Sunday schools. It's not an objective argument, and there's not much point to going down that route. War as anything other than defense is immoral by my beliefs - and for specific Christians (Jehova's Witnesses, Mennonites, etc) and followers of Dharmic relgions (some Bhuddists and Hindus) even defense is no excuse.


You asked if I believed the report? The report was an anonymous source at the CIA saying we've prevented terrorist attacks becasue of waterboarding. Now without saying the CIA agent was lying, is there the possiblity that he was wrong? We've had this guy in custody, what, 3 years? When was this guy "broken"? when were these attacks supposed to have taken place? Too many unanswered questions for me to weigh the report objectively.

Here's a few examples that have stood the test of time though.


Quote:
Michael LaBossiere

Number Twenty: Terror and Torture

The terrible threats presented by terrorism have lead to a serious reconsideration of torture as a means of extracting information. While there is considerable debate regarding the legality of torture, this essay is focused on the morality of torture in the context of the fight against terror.

While most people regard torture as evil, there are reasonable moral arguments in its favor. The most common argument is a utilitarian one: the harm prevented by gathering information by torture can outweigh the moral harms inflicted by the practice of torture.

A favorite example used by torture proponents, such as Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, is the 1995 case of Abdul Hakim Murad. After being tortured for over a month by Philippine police, Murad revealed various terrorist plans, including a plot to kill the Pope. Because of cases like this, one might conclude that the evil of torture can be outweighed by its good consequences-such as preventing murder.

If the evil of using torture is outweighed by its potential good consequences, then the matter of its effectiveness needs to be resolved. If torture is not an effective means of gaining reliable information, then there will be no good consequences to outweigh the evil of engaging in torture. If this is the case, then torture cannot be justified in this manner.

While there is significant debate over the general effectiveness of torture, it appears that it is not a particularly effective means of acquiring accurate information.

First, consider the American and European witch trials. During these trials a significant number of people confessed, under brutal torture, to being witches. If torture is an effective means of acquiring truthful information, then these trials provided reasonable evidence for the existence of witches, magic, the Devil and, presumably, God. However, it seems rather odd that such metaphysical matters could be settled by the application of the rack, the iron maiden and the thumb screw. As such, the effectiveness of torture is rather questionable.

Second, extensive studies of torture show that it is largely ineffective as a means of gathering correct information. For example, the Gestapo's use of torture against the French resistance in the 1940s and the French use of torture against the Algerian resistance in the 1950s both proved largely ineffective. As another example, Diederik Lohman, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, found that the torture of suspected criminals typically yields information that is not accurate. A final, and rather famous example is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Under torture, al-Libi claimed that Al Qaeda had significant links to Iraq . However, as he himself later admitted, there were no such links. Thus, the historical record seems to count against the effectiveness of torture.

Third, as history and basic human psychology show, most people will say almost anything to end terrible suffering. For example, a former prisoner from Abu Ghraib told the New York Times that, after being tortured, he confessed to being Osama Bin Laden to put and end to his mistreatment. Similar things occur in the context of domestic law enforcement in the United States : suspects subjected to threats and mistreatments have confessed to crimes they did not commit. As such, torture seems to be a rather dubious way of acquiring reliable intelligence.


Given that torture is not effective as a means of gathering reliable information, the utilitarian argument in its favor must be rejected. This is because torturing people is not likely to yield any good consequences.

Despite its ineffectiveness as a means of extracting information directly, torture does seem to be an effective means towards another end, namely that of intimidation. History has shown that authoritarian societies successfully employed torture as a means of political control and as a means of creating informers. Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power.

Given its effectiveness as a tool of coercion and intimidation, torture and the threat of torture could be used as weapons against terror. If the threat of torture is both credible and terrible enough, then the likelihood of terrorist activity could be reduced and the number of useful informants could increase significantly.

From a moral standpoint, if torture were to prove effective as a means of reducing terrorist activity then it could be argued that the use of torture is morally acceptable. The gist of the argument is that the moral harms of threatening and utilizing torture are outweighed by the moral consequences-namely a reduction in terrorist activity.

While this argument has a certain appeal, it faces three problems. First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorists. Thus, it would seem that the use of torture is not morally acceptable.
Did you know we'd caught Bin Ladin??? :O


Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play a video game about killing people who loook different than you.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2006, 02:48 PM       
Thanks. I just hope Max doesn't thinking I'm attacking him personally. I'd love to see both sides of the political spectrum in this country unite in a war we all need to win. The Democrat Party is too caught up in Anti-Bush and Socialism to see the forest for the trees. America can do great things for itself and the world when or if it gets it's head out of it's own ass and does the right things for the right reasons.

The War on Terror SHOULD BE a Liberal cause. The Democrat's War for Political Power has obfuscated any real debate on the more important war... the war we all must win... replacing it with a pathetic bitch-fest that is serving as a very powerful tool for our real enemies, and they are using it to great effect in hopes of continuing to enslave the remaining 1/3 of the world still disconnected from the Western globalized economy.

Stopping violence is not going to happen by nit-picking to death the methods used by those that are striving to do it. If they try some day to turn the war into a profit engine by exploiting oil resources, then let's cross that bridge when we come to it. If this devolves into an imperial quest, then let's curb that arrogance when it shows it's face. The Republicans may be using the sucesses of the war so far to gain political advantage, but I challene anyone here to name ONE single success in the Liberal growth of the world the so-called Liberal Party of this country is so far responsible for.

All the Democrats have done so far is point out boogeymen that have not been proven to exist. Theirs is the culture of fear and mistrust. You guys follow them blindly at your own peril.

Rather than insult and belittle Max, my goal is to show him exactly how he's been misled. I respect the hell out of him, and would love to have him on the right side of this conflict. Well, "left" side, if you want. Let's all spread freedom and Democracy together instead of tearing down the engine of such a cause with partisan in-fighting. We cannot afford to ignore what's really at stake here. Even if the Democrat Party was completely destroyed by the Republicans, the hearts of all the people of America would still be soft and willing to dedicate themselves to great things.

The War on Terror is such a great thing, regardless of which party was in charge on 9/11 and thus had to lead the charge against tyranny and despotism once again. As long as the Democrats are stuck in a political power struggle here in this country, fighting for their own existence, they are missing the opportunity to aid in the struggle for the existence of the values they were supposedly founded upon.

Max, that book I recommended you, "The Pentagons New Map," was written by a Liberal. He favors the war in the end, because it is truly a Liberal cause. Stop attempting to destroy the movement and start helping to make it better. The irony of this war being held in the hands of "conservatives" is striking. Only true Liberals can actaully win a war like this. I believe you have acknowledged this dilemma in your heart if not your mind yet, back when you started calling yourself an independent.

I'm holding out my skeletal claw to you, buddy.

JOIN USSSSSS!!!
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #79  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Sep 24th, 2006, 03:04 PM       
So because torturing doesn't always work (like most forms of interrogation) we shouldn't use it at all? (do you think all forms of intelligence gathering are always 100% accurate?) Everybody knows people will say anything to get out of torture(or jail or anywhere else they don't want to be), that's why you have trained professionals doing it who can tell who's lying. It's just like with police interrogations. Did you know people lie in police interrogations ALL THE TIME? and yet they still do it. HOW STRANGE IS THAT? Sometimes I wonder how criminals are even sent to jail!
I'm surprised that you guys are surprised that sometimes criminals lie when they get caught and want to protect their fellow men in arms. them lying is WHY you torture them, so they will stop lying!

Espionage doesn't always have the most accurate information, either. That's the nature of information itself. If they don't get any reliable information, why do they continue doing it? SOME reliable information must've came out of it. How much intel has been available over the past few years about iraqs WMDS? How much of it was just plain wrong?

The only thing I agreed with was that moral decensy must be maintained in an insurgency war, but one important thing to consider is that the insurgents DONT HAVE THE SAME MORALS AS US and aren't necessarily going to respond to it in the same way. I still have yet to see a crazy muslim video or shirt that says, "TORTURE IS BAD MMKAY, OF T HE AMERICAS".
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2006, 03:21 PM       
My last response was directed at Abcdxxx's post.

As for Zig's post, I guess I'll defer to kahljorn's retort. It pretty much covers all the bases.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.