|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 18 2016 06:48 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 06:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:Does anyone happen to know Trump's view on 9/11? I'm curious because the 28 pages were pretty damning, yet was completely overlooked because of the election. Any reasonable person would have been outraged, and I know if I were president-elect, I would be looking to get to the bottom of the issue once and for all. And as a bonus, I would probably get to watch Bush, Cheney, and other government officials be indicted for not only allowing the attacks to occur, but actively facilitating them. I know that's a random thing to ask about, but it is still pretty important to a lot of people. I haven't been able to find anything regarding his views on this topic anywhere. I particularly like this explanation for being decently written (she needs an editor though) and not overly complicated for the average reader. https://m.facebook.com/notes/larisa-alexandrovna-horton/the-28-pages-explained/10153728805622895/ He did say on the news either the day of or day after the attacks, that there was probably a bomb in the buildings that went off at the same time as the planes, because the WTC's steel was too tough for a plane to smash through. He was drawing on his building expertise to make this assertion. Clearly an assertion worthy of the highest of intellects.
Oh.... so he's as ignorant about the events of 9/11 as he is about everything else. That's unfortunate. I was hoping that it would all be laid out and justice would be served in my lifetime, but I suspect it won't happen at this point. God damn shame.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I'm somewhat fearful of Flynn in a CIA role because then perhaps his beliefs on torture may come into play. In the NSA role, I'm not that afraid because I don't think NSA does that much with HUMINT, especially uncooperative HUMINT.
I'm always afraid of how Trump's worst supporters want to violate civil rights of certain folks in order to feel more comfortable. Often these supporters live in the most out of the way, insular, communities that won't have to worry about violence from Muslim extremism. Instead it is the cities that have the most to fear from Muslim extremism, and people there want a different approach.
I don't know if David Petraeus belongs anywhere. He has to serve out jail term for mishandling confidential materials.
But at the same time Muslims themselves need to have a big conversation about Muslim extremism and the US need to recognize the role of the Saudi government in driving strains of Muslim extremism.
|
NSA meaning national security advisor. Not National Security Agency. In case anyone was tripped up like I was.
|
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really.
|
|
|
On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really.
the geneva conventions and the history of mankind?
if you think ethical boundaries are bad then you should study the long-term effects of things more.
did you actually need an explanation of the history of it, or are you just using that form of speech to state your opinion?
|
On November 18 2016 07:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. the geneva conventions and the history of mankind? if you think ethical boundaries are bad then you should study the long-term effects of things more. did you actually need an explanation of the history of it, or are you just using that form of speech to state your opinion?
Just stating my opinion. If you are morally against waterboarding because of ethical concerns, how can you then say it is morally acceptable to go to war and kill people in the first place. Seems a bit hypocritical and silly to me.
|
On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really.
It comes from our evolved liberal sensibilities. I was reading Augustine's City of God last weekend, and was stricken by his discussion of the customs of war. Needless to say, there was nothing resembling a code against war crimes back then.
|
lol
WASHINGTON – With Nancy Pelosi facing a challenge within her own party after House Democrats’ disastrous election results, the NRCC would like to offer its full support to the embattled former Speaker of the House.
Under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, House Democrats squandered their majority by forcing through unpopular legislation like Obamacare, of which Pelosi famously told us, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” After her party’s devastating 63 seat loss in the ensuing 2010 election, Pelosi miraculously maintained her spot as Democratic leader, which, predictably, led to the largest Republican majority since the 1920s.
Former Speaker Pelosi has also established herself as the world’s worst election prognosticator. Since her relegation to the minority, Pelosi has repeatedly assured reporters, cycle after cycle, that a Democrat majority is right around the corner, only to be soundly defeated each time.
“No single person deserves more credit for House Republicans’ historic majority than Nancy Pelosi,” said NRCC Communications Director Katie Martin. “Under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, House Democrats have become completely irrelevant, and there is no better way to ensure that remains the case than by keeping her as Minority Leader. The NRCC offers its full support to Nancy Pelosi as she attempts to fend off this challenge to her failed leadership from within the ranks of her own party.”
|
On November 18 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 07:27 zlefin wrote:On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. the geneva conventions and the history of mankind? if you think ethical boundaries are bad then you should study the long-term effects of things more. did you actually need an explanation of the history of it, or are you just using that form of speech to state your opinion? Just stating my opinion. If you are morally against waterboarding because of ethical concerns, how can you then say it is morally acceptable to go to war and kill people in the first place. Seems a bit hypocritical and silly to me.
there are several scenarios which would justify going to war but not the use of waterboarding.
do you actually want to go through them and understand the ethical theories behind them?
I'm guessing not it seem more like you simply want to express your opinion again.
|
On November 18 2016 07:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. It comes from our evolved liberal sensibilities. I was reading Augustine's City of God last weekend, and was stricken by his discussion of the customs of war. Needless to say, there was nothing resembling a code against war crimes back then.
Any particularly old work will have a remarkably unpalatable code of morality by modern sensibilities. Anyone who reads any historical literature will see as much very quickly. Though I have to say, even by that standard the historical Arabic code of morality is particularly striking. Like "he looked at me funny, I should kill him and his entire family" compared with Westerners who often just look like authoritarians who don't know any better.
|
On November 18 2016 07:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. It comes from our evolved liberal sensibilities. I was reading Augustine's City of God last weekend, and was stricken by his discussion of the customs of war. Needless to say, there was nothing resembling a code against war crimes back then.
Umm. Didn't he say that in order to be morally justified conduct in war had to fit specific moral criteria, and many of those criteria do not in fact apply to war crimes or torture?
I'm pretty sure one of them is in fact "don't do things you consider evil" basically. Or it was once Aquinas expanded them anyway.
And he even said all of these principles need to be the subject of active discussion and update by the citizens according to a quick google.
Or was this a joke?
|
On November 18 2016 07:40 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:On November 18 2016 07:27 zlefin wrote:On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. the geneva conventions and the history of mankind? if you think ethical boundaries are bad then you should study the long-term effects of things more. did you actually need an explanation of the history of it, or are you just using that form of speech to state your opinion? Just stating my opinion. If you are morally against waterboarding because of ethical concerns, how can you then say it is morally acceptable to go to war and kill people in the first place. Seems a bit hypocritical and silly to me. there are several scenarios which would justify going to war but not the use of waterboarding. do you actually want to go through them and understand the ethical theories behind them? I'm guessing not it seem more like you simply want to express your opinion again.
If you can justify going to war then you can justify torture, even if it is in a very limited form. Are you really saying waterboarding is completely unethical in any and all circumstances?
|
On November 18 2016 07:44 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 07:40 zlefin wrote:On November 18 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:On November 18 2016 07:27 zlefin wrote:On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. the geneva conventions and the history of mankind? if you think ethical boundaries are bad then you should study the long-term effects of things more. did you actually need an explanation of the history of it, or are you just using that form of speech to state your opinion? Just stating my opinion. If you are morally against waterboarding because of ethical concerns, how can you then say it is morally acceptable to go to war and kill people in the first place. Seems a bit hypocritical and silly to me. there are several scenarios which would justify going to war but not the use of waterboarding. do you actually want to go through them and understand the ethical theories behind them? I'm guessing not it seem more like you simply want to express your opinion again. If you can justify going to war then you can justify torture, even if it is in a very limited form. Are you really saying waterboarding is completely unethical in any and all circumstances?
I never said that. So i'm not sure why you're saying "are you really saying" when I never said that in the first place.
I have a more general anti-torture stance. generally speaking, don't do it. I support the geneva conventions.
What level of justification are you looking for in your statements? I ask since obviously anyone can justify anything, so it's not clear what standards you're applying in your statement.
It's certainly possible to have a reason for war that wouldn't allow the use of torture, under some reasonable ethical standards.
|
On the issue of torture, I think a good nuanced position can be made if you read the "Torture" section of the Stanford encyclopedia, which is a good review of the works of moral philosophers and their debate on the issue.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/
It's not hard at all to see how unbelievably inhumane torture is, and it shouldn't be normalised in any scenario. But there's no denying that there exist (albeit extremely rare) circumstances in which torture is the most moral course of action. An example is given in section 3.1 of the link above, which is a true story. In Wales, a woman's car is stolen at a gas station, with a toddler in the back seat. The thief, upon seeing the toddler, abandons the car and runs to the train station. The police, having seen his face on the gas station camera footage, catch him at the train station. And they find property from the car on his person, so there's absolutely no denying that he's the thief. But they don't know where he left the car. And it's left in a very hot climate, where in less than 40 minutes the toddler will get baked. So they're on a clock. They exhaust any reasonable means to get the information of the car's whereabouts from the thief, who persistently denies the theft (even though they know, without a doubt, that it was him). So, as a last resort, they beat the shit out of him until he reveals its location.
Of course, just because there do exists scenarios in which torture is the best option, that doesn't at all mean it should be normalised in any sense. Nor does it mean that any of the instances in which the US administration used it was justified. My position, personally, is that it should be illegal. But that doesn't mean that nobody should ever do it. In the example above, the officers broke the law (a law that I agree should be in place) but that was a heavily anomalous situation in which the best thing to do was use your own personal judgement of the scenario, not adhere to the law. As great as the law is, it cannot always cover every basis.
Anyway, the Standford encyclopedia entry is worth a read.
|
Agreed that there are cases where torture might be ethical, nonetheless there's no reason to legalise it. Agree essentially with Bottle, if you're willing to torture should at least accept the punishment.
|
Jumping in, but I thought the whole argument is that torture doesn't guarantee information. I remember reading this before.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2
It's a compelling argument, until you start to look at the assumptions that you have to make to accept it. This argument assumes that you have the right person in custody, it assumes that this person actually has the information you need, it assumes that there isn't a better way of getting hold of the evidence, and above all it assumes that torture is an effective way of getting that information.
One of the interesting features of the torture debate is that many in the military and intelligence communities seem decidedly unconvinced about the effectiveness of torture.
...
…the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.
...
The situation is further clouded by the fact that members of the George W. Bush administration made claims for the effectiveness of torture that have later been proven to be untrue. One such claim was that the water-boarding (simulated drowning) of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed produced vital information that allowed them to break up a plot to attack the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles in 2002. Slight problem - in 2002 Shaikh Mohammed was busy evading capture in Pakistan.
...
The second major problem is that human memory just isn't reliable. Take a bunch of witnesses from any major news event: a bombing, 9/11, a car crash, wherever. The more people you interview, the more different stories you'll get, because our recall of past events isn't always very accurate. On top of that, there is a vast body of scientific literature telling us that one way to make a person's memory even less reliable is to deprive them of sleep, or put them under great stress, or otherwise confuse them. You know, like you do with torture.
|
On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really.
Basic human rights. Google Geneva Conventions. A question like that is disturbing to be quite frank. It's not just moralizing, it's (international) law.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Ok, well then time to worry about Flynn in the National Security Advisory role.
The moralizing part about torture is effectively the same as the moralizing part about abortions. Never in my name.
Especially not as a matter normal procedure.
In my opinion, torture in the general case is ineffective for intelligence because the target will eventually try to say what the intelligence agent wants to hear, especially if they don't actually know anything.
In some special cases, like extracting a password or something that you know the person knows and can be instantaneously verified, torture can be effective but I still feel like there are better ways of doing that. For situations like this, I would rather have case by case judicial review than enable torture as policy.
In the end, it is simply not in my name.
|
On November 18 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 07:27 zlefin wrote:On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really. the geneva conventions and the history of mankind? if you think ethical boundaries are bad then you should study the long-term effects of things more. did you actually need an explanation of the history of it, or are you just using that form of speech to state your opinion? Just stating my opinion. If you are morally against waterboarding because of ethical concerns, how can you then say it is morally acceptable to go to war and kill people in the first place. Seems a bit hypocritical and silly to me.
What about non-combatants and family members who could potentially have sensitive information ? Do you support their torture as well? And how far are you willing to go? Can we start dismembering small parts of them without posing a direct threat to their life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
