|
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 January 26 2017 12:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 11:57 Thaniri wrote:
Some posters are being obtuse and emotional on this moral discussion on torture.
The claim was torture is ethical if one knew that it works. and then further says we don't know that it works. I would hope that people are smart enough to figure out that this is an argument against torture. Considering that torture has been employed as a tool of interrogation for millennia, I think that it is pretty safe to say that torture has some degree of efficacy. Nevermind the reports of various officers saying that torture worked on various Al Qaeda figures.
Torture has been used for so long because it provides a cathartic satisfaction. The more someone refuses to talk, the more justified and satisfied you feel by continuing to harm them. And again when they tell you exactly what you want to hear, so that you'll stop. Because a practice is employed for so long doesn't mean it's right, or even logical. And definitely not moral, in this case. By resorting to torture you open a whole can of worms that you don't want opened, like your enemies feeling all the more self-righteous in their anti-American sentiment. Not at all worth it considering the payoff is usually a cathartic one at best. No problem is ever meaningfully solved by the breaking of bones and flesh.
|
On January 26 2017 12:56 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2017 11:57 Thaniri wrote:
Some posters are being obtuse and emotional on this moral discussion on torture.
The claim was torture is ethical if one knew that it works. and then further says we don't know that it works. I would hope that people are smart enough to figure out that this is an argument against torture. Considering that torture has been employed as a tool of interrogation for millennia, I think that it is pretty safe to say that torture has some degree of efficacy. Nevermind the reports of various officers saying that torture worked on various Al Qaeda figures. Torture has been used for so long because it provides a cathartic satisfaction. The more someone refuses to talk, the more justified and satisfied you feel by continuing to harm them. And again when they tell you exactly what you want to hear, so that you'll stop. Because a practice is employed for so long doesn't mean it's right, or even logical. And definitely not moral, in this case. By resorting to torture you open a whole can of worms that you don't want opened, like your enemies feeling all the more self-righteous in their anti-American sentiment. Not at all worth it considering the payoff is usually a cathartic one at best. No problem is ever meaningfully solved by the breaking of bones and flesh.
And on what basis are you claiming that the only utility in torture as an interrogation device is cathartic?
|
On January 26 2017 13:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 12:56 NewSunshine wrote:On January 26 2017 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2017 11:57 Thaniri wrote:
Some posters are being obtuse and emotional on this moral discussion on torture.
The claim was torture is ethical if one knew that it works. and then further says we don't know that it works. I would hope that people are smart enough to figure out that this is an argument against torture. Considering that torture has been employed as a tool of interrogation for millennia, I think that it is pretty safe to say that torture has some degree of efficacy. Nevermind the reports of various officers saying that torture worked on various Al Qaeda figures. Torture has been used for so long because it provides a cathartic satisfaction. The more someone refuses to talk, the more justified and satisfied you feel by continuing to harm them. And again when they tell you exactly what you want to hear, so that you'll stop. Because a practice is employed for so long doesn't mean it's right, or even logical. And definitely not moral, in this case. By resorting to torture you open a whole can of worms that you don't want opened, like your enemies feeling all the more self-righteous in their anti-American sentiment. Not at all worth it considering the payoff is usually a cathartic one at best. No problem is ever meaningfully solved by the breaking of bones and flesh. And on what basis are you claiming that the only utility in torture as an interrogation device is cathartic?
I'm not, but are you about to claim that the moral and political damage you create by even considering it is worth the (possibly small) chance of getting any valid information?
|
Canada11519 Posts
I don't think we need wonder as to the efficaciousness of torture. We need only look back at the fate of the Templar's and de Bologna's defence for our answer.
Referring to the Templar's forced confessions after two and half years of torture, "It is not... to be marveled at that there are those who have lied; what is more wonderful is that any have kept to the truth, knowing.. the dangers, menaces and outrages which those who speak the truth suffer daily and continually."
Further 'that torture had robbed the Templars of that "freedom of mind, which every good man ought to have."'
These Stones Bear Witness- Richard White, quoting Peter de Bologna.
But even were it efficacious, I do not hold to an 'ends justify the minds' morality and so still would not torture. Furthermore, torture is not a power I am interested in allowing the government free reign for fear that it would be turned on me at some later point.
|
I can't remember who it was, but one of the individuals in the Bush administration who pushed for torture changed their mind after it was all over for a reason that rarely comes up : the negative long-term mental effects it had on the american agents/troops who were required to perform it. Said they didn't think it was worth it after it was all over purely because of that.
|
On January 26 2017 13:08 Falling wrote:I don't think we need wonder as to the efficaciousness of torture. We need only look back at the fate of the Templar's and de Bologna's defence for our answer. Referring to the Templar's forced confessions after two and half years of torture, Show nested quote +"It is not... to be marveled at that there are those who have lied; what is more wonderful is that any have kept to the truth, knowing.. the dangers, menaces and outrages which those who speak the truth suffer daily and continually." Further Show nested quote + 'that torture had robbed the Templars of that "freedom of mind, which every good man ought to have."' These Stones Bear Witness- Richard White, quoting Peter de Bologna. But even were it efficacious, I do not hold to an 'ends justify the minds' morality and so still would not torture. Furthermore, torture is not a power I am interested in allowing the government free reign for fear that it would be turned on me at some later point.
Agreed on all points. A mind under immense duress cannot, in good faith, be trusted to bear good information. Especially when the person has no reason to trust you at that point. If I could die anyway, whether I say what they want to hear or not, why should I tell them what they want to hear, even assuming I know what they want to hear, and am in a suitable mental condition to bear that information? Logic and common sense break it down very quickly.
|
On January 26 2017 13:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 12:56 NewSunshine wrote:On January 26 2017 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2017 11:57 Thaniri wrote:
Some posters are being obtuse and emotional on this moral discussion on torture.
The claim was torture is ethical if one knew that it works. and then further says we don't know that it works. I would hope that people are smart enough to figure out that this is an argument against torture. Considering that torture has been employed as a tool of interrogation for millennia, I think that it is pretty safe to say that torture has some degree of efficacy. Nevermind the reports of various officers saying that torture worked on various Al Qaeda figures. Torture has been used for so long because it provides a cathartic satisfaction. The more someone refuses to talk, the more justified and satisfied you feel by continuing to harm them. And again when they tell you exactly what you want to hear, so that you'll stop. Because a practice is employed for so long doesn't mean it's right, or even logical. And definitely not moral, in this case. By resorting to torture you open a whole can of worms that you don't want opened, like your enemies feeling all the more self-righteous in their anti-American sentiment. Not at all worth it considering the payoff is usually a cathartic one at best. No problem is ever meaningfully solved by the breaking of bones and flesh. And on what basis are you claiming that the only utility in torture as an interrogation device is cathartic?
Never trust a starving man's opinion on what tastes good.
|
On January 26 2017 13:08 Falling wrote:I don't think we need wonder as to the efficaciousness of torture. We need only look back at the fate of the Templar's and de Bologna's defence for our answer. Referring to the Templar's forced confessions after two and half years of torture, Show nested quote +"It is not... to be marveled at that there are those who have lied; what is more wonderful is that any have kept to the truth, knowing.. the dangers, menaces and outrages which those who speak the truth suffer daily and continually." Further Show nested quote + 'that torture had robbed the Templars of that "freedom of mind, which every good man ought to have."' These Stones Bear Witness- Richard White, quoting Peter de Bologna. But even were it efficacious, I do not hold to an 'ends justify the minds' morality and so still would not torture. Furthermore, torture is not a power I am interested in allowing the government free reign for fear that it would be turned on me at some later point.
If the interrogator employs torture without regard for the truth, he clearly isn't going to get any good information. And no one is going to argue that torture has been universally well-applied.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On January 26 2017 13:12 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 13:08 Falling wrote:I don't think we need wonder as to the efficaciousness of torture. We need only look back at the fate of the Templar's and de Bologna's defence for our answer. Referring to the Templar's forced confessions after two and half years of torture, "It is not... to be marveled at that there are those who have lied; what is more wonderful is that any have kept to the truth, knowing.. the dangers, menaces and outrages which those who speak the truth suffer daily and continually." Further 'that torture had robbed the Templars of that "freedom of mind, which every good man ought to have."' These Stones Bear Witness- Richard White, quoting Peter de Bologna. But even were it efficacious, I do not hold to an 'ends justify the minds' morality and so still would not torture. Furthermore, torture is not a power I am interested in allowing the government free reign for fear that it would be turned on me at some later point. Agreed on all points. A mind under immense duress cannot, in good faith, be trusted to bear good information. Especially when the person has no reason to trust you at that point. If I could die anyway, whether I say what they want to hear or not, why should I tell them what they want to hear, even assuming I know what they want to hear, and am in a suitable mental condition to bear that information? Logic and common sense break it down very quickly.
What's also interesting is that memory by itself is faulty. People can remember false details through certain word prompts. For example, witnesses of traffic accidents are more likely to falsely remember glass shards if the word "collision" is substituted with "crash".
|
Someone needs to tell the new Administration that being compared to Andrew Jackson is not a compliment...
Donald Trump would have to seek congressional approval if he wanted to launch a first strike with nuclear weapons, under new legislation introduced in a direct response to his election as president.
Congressman Ted Lieu and Senator Edward Markey, both referenced President’s brash discussion of nuclear weapons on social media when they submitted the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017.
Mr Trump's “ignorance” of nuclear defence theory “increases the risk” of an accidental nuclear war, the Democrats said in a statement accompanying the legislation, which would forbid the President from launching a first strike with nuclear weapons without a declaration of war by Congress.
The question over the President’s authority to launch nuclear weapons at very short notice was “more urgent than ever”, they added.
Mr Trump caused concern among defence experts when being briefed on nuclear weapons, when he allegedly asked why they couldn’t be used if possessed by the US.
Taking to his Twitter account in December, he said the US “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes”.
The President has also threatened to “nuke Isis territory” in response to an attack.
After introducing the new bill, Senator Markey insisted that “neither President Trump, nor any other president, should be allowed to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack."
He said: “Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival. Yet, President Trump has suggested that he would consider launching nuclear attacks against terrorists. Unfortunately, by maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, US policy provides him with that power.”
That policy “drastically” raised the risk of unintended nuclear escalation with another nuclear-armed country, he added.
Source
|
On January 26 2017 13:20 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 13:12 NewSunshine wrote:On January 26 2017 13:08 Falling wrote:I don't think we need wonder as to the efficaciousness of torture. We need only look back at the fate of the Templar's and de Bologna's defence for our answer. Referring to the Templar's forced confessions after two and half years of torture, "It is not... to be marveled at that there are those who have lied; what is more wonderful is that any have kept to the truth, knowing.. the dangers, menaces and outrages which those who speak the truth suffer daily and continually." Further 'that torture had robbed the Templars of that "freedom of mind, which every good man ought to have."' These Stones Bear Witness- Richard White, quoting Peter de Bologna. But even were it efficacious, I do not hold to an 'ends justify the minds' morality and so still would not torture. Furthermore, torture is not a power I am interested in allowing the government free reign for fear that it would be turned on me at some later point. Agreed on all points. A mind under immense duress cannot, in good faith, be trusted to bear good information. Especially when the person has no reason to trust you at that point. If I could die anyway, whether I say what they want to hear or not, why should I tell them what they want to hear, even assuming I know what they want to hear, and am in a suitable mental condition to bear that information? Logic and common sense break it down very quickly. What's also interesting is that memory by itself is faulty. People can remember false details through certain word prompts. For example, witnesses of traffic accidents are more likely to falsely remember glass shards if the word "collision" is substituted with "crash".
Interesting indeed. Also of note is the average person's tendency to stop seeking answers once they find one that sounds good. With exactly the phenomenon you mention, I could synthesize a satisfactorily-detailed story, that would please someone who just wants an answer. There's nothing to tell that person that I just made it up. And the people likely to employ torture in the first place don't seem like the well-reasoned bunch who only seek the truth. It would surprise me if the valid success rate of torture ever broke 10%.
|
It seems like such a short walk from torture to "threatening to shoot unimplicated family members." Which is pretty much brutal dictator 101.
Torture also has dubious sensitivity and poor specificity, which means its positive predictive value as a test is generally pretty shit.
|
On January 26 2017 13:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Someone needs to tell the new Administration that being compared to Andrew Jackson is not a compliment... Show nested quote +Donald Trump would have to seek congressional approval if he wanted to launch a first strike with nuclear weapons, under new legislation introduced in a direct response to his election as president.
Congressman Ted Lieu and Senator Edward Markey, both referenced President’s brash discussion of nuclear weapons on social media when they submitted the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017.
Mr Trump's “ignorance” of nuclear defence theory “increases the risk” of an accidental nuclear war, the Democrats said in a statement accompanying the legislation, which would forbid the President from launching a first strike with nuclear weapons without a declaration of war by Congress.
The question over the President’s authority to launch nuclear weapons at very short notice was “more urgent than ever”, they added.
Mr Trump caused concern among defence experts when being briefed on nuclear weapons, when he allegedly asked why they couldn’t be used if possessed by the US.
Taking to his Twitter account in December, he said the US “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes”.
The President has also threatened to “nuke Isis territory” in response to an attack.
After introducing the new bill, Senator Markey insisted that “neither President Trump, nor any other president, should be allowed to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack."
He said: “Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival. Yet, President Trump has suggested that he would consider launching nuclear attacks against terrorists. Unfortunately, by maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, US policy provides him with that power.”
That policy “drastically” raised the risk of unintended nuclear escalation with another nuclear-armed country, he added. Source
Trump just seems aggressive enough to try to challenge such a rule in court - and to be fair he might win there.
Also, Andrew Jackson is definitely much-maligned. He was a hero of a less civilized age.
|
Ted Lieu has one of the best twitter accounts. massively entertaining. Good idea for a bill but i feel it might be seen as conspiracy theory/panic. I'd focus less on Trump and more on the bill just being a good idea. (at least I think it is. Can't think of any reason that a President would need to launch a first strike without congress).
|
On January 26 2017 13:32 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 13:20 mustaju wrote:On January 26 2017 13:12 NewSunshine wrote:On January 26 2017 13:08 Falling wrote:I don't think we need wonder as to the efficaciousness of torture. We need only look back at the fate of the Templar's and de Bologna's defence for our answer. Referring to the Templar's forced confessions after two and half years of torture, "It is not... to be marveled at that there are those who have lied; what is more wonderful is that any have kept to the truth, knowing.. the dangers, menaces and outrages which those who speak the truth suffer daily and continually." Further 'that torture had robbed the Templars of that "freedom of mind, which every good man ought to have."' These Stones Bear Witness- Richard White, quoting Peter de Bologna. But even were it efficacious, I do not hold to an 'ends justify the minds' morality and so still would not torture. Furthermore, torture is not a power I am interested in allowing the government free reign for fear that it would be turned on me at some later point. Agreed on all points. A mind under immense duress cannot, in good faith, be trusted to bear good information. Especially when the person has no reason to trust you at that point. If I could die anyway, whether I say what they want to hear or not, why should I tell them what they want to hear, even assuming I know what they want to hear, and am in a suitable mental condition to bear that information? Logic and common sense break it down very quickly. What's also interesting is that memory by itself is faulty. People can remember false details through certain word prompts. For example, witnesses of traffic accidents are more likely to falsely remember glass shards if the word "collision" is substituted with "crash". Interesting indeed. Also of note is the average person's tendency to stop seeking answers once they find one that sounds good. With exactly the phenomenon you mention, I could synthesize a satisfactorily-detailed story, that would please someone who just wants an answer. There's nothing to tell that person that I just made it up. And the people likely to employ torture in the first place don't seem like the well-reasoned bunch who only seek the truth. It would surprise me if the valid success rate of torture ever broke 10%.
For what its worth, James Mattis, who actually has empirical experience with captured combatants, doesn't believe torture works. He literally says that he can get better information faster with beer and cigarettes.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On January 26 2017 13:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Ted Lieu has one of the best twitter accounts. massively entertaining. Good idea for a bill but i feel it might be seen as conspiracy theory/panic. I'd focus less on Trump and more on the bill just being a good idea. (at least I think it is. Can't think of any reason that a President would need to launch a first strike without congress).
National security/MAD-logic, I think. if another country launches a debilitating strike, one only has minutes to decide whether to counterattack or whether one thinks it was probably just a malfunction of equipment. Not an enviable position.
EDIT: I'm dumb, if such a chain of events takes place, there's probably plausible deniability involved.
|
On January 26 2017 13:41 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 13:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Ted Lieu has one of the best twitter accounts. massively entertaining. Good idea for a bill but i feel it might be seen as conspiracy theory/panic. I'd focus less on Trump and more on the bill just being a good idea. (at least I think it is. Can't think of any reason that a President would need to launch a first strike without congress). National security/MAD-logic, I think. if another country launches a debilitating strike, one only has minutes to decide whether to counterattack or whether one thinks it was probably just a malfunction of equipment. Not an enviable position.
I guess it depends on how you define first strike. If you think they've attacked you I have no problem with president deciding. I don't want the president deciding to nuke a country if they don't think we're under attack though.
unless theirs something I'm missing.
|
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure.
|
On January 26 2017 12:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 11:57 Thaniri wrote:
Some posters are being obtuse and emotional on this moral discussion on torture.
The claim was torture is ethical if one knew that it works. and then further says we don't know that it works. I would hope that people are smart enough to figure out that this is an argument against torture. Considering that torture has been employed as a tool of interrogation for millennia, I think that it is pretty safe to say that torture has some degree of efficacy. Nevermind the reports of various officers saying that torture worked on various Al Qaeda figures.
...so the argument you're making is that torture must have some degree of efficacy, because people did it a lot for a long time? I hate to think what would happen if you discovered the Wikipedia pages for blood-letting or trepanation.
|
On January 26 2017 14:20 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2017 11:57 Thaniri wrote:
Some posters are being obtuse and emotional on this moral discussion on torture.
The claim was torture is ethical if one knew that it works. and then further says we don't know that it works. I would hope that people are smart enough to figure out that this is an argument against torture. Considering that torture has been employed as a tool of interrogation for millennia, I think that it is pretty safe to say that torture has some degree of efficacy. Nevermind the reports of various officers saying that torture worked on various Al Qaeda figures. ...so the argument you're making is that torture must have some degree of efficacy, because people did it a lot for a long time? I hate to think what would happen if you discovered the Wikipedia pages for blood-letting or trepanation.
I'd rather liken it to the medicinal effects of drinking tea or the efficacy of building walls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
