EPTTorture is never the "right thing to do" by law, but under certain circumstances, it has to be done.
Bush Torture Memos - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Fishball
Canada4788 Posts
Torture is never the "right thing to do" by law, but under certain circumstances, it has to be done. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On April 17 2009 11:25 Fishball wrote: Somehow reminds me of "24". Torture is never the "right thing to do" by law, but under certain circumstances, it has to be done. If you want bad intelligence? | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32268 Posts
On April 17 2009 11:23 Chef wrote: Something can be discussed without profusely picking a side. This isn't your high school debate club  I think you're very ethnocentric to say that. I think you'll find in different cultures, opposite opinions about the individual and the collective exist. Well in this matter, you either torture them or you don't. You give them a trial or you don't. There's no "torturing them a little" here. So, what are your picks? How am I ethnocentric? I find that insulting and I don't see when I made any comment that made me look like one. | ||
|
Mikilatov
United States3897 Posts
| ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On April 17 2009 11:28 IntoTheWow wrote: Well in this matter, you either torture them or you don't. You give them a trial or you don't. There's no "torturing them a little" here. So, what are your picks? How am I ethnocentric? I find that insulting and I don't see when I made any comment that made me look like one. Your view is as short sighted as those you're picking out. I really don't think you understand both sides of the debate and why there is a debate at all. Ticking bomb scenario. Time is a factor. It's not as simple as either party believes. Much smarter, more informed people than anyone here have debated this issue for a very long time without a set in stone consensus. I'm not criticising you for your stance, but you really shouldn't try to paint this issue so black and white. As for those cheering or criticising Obama... You might want to look into Bagram and what his DoJ has to say about it. Might give you cause for concern or help you understand why there are no prosecutions... | ||
|
Coca Cola Classic
266 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 17 2009 12:14 Coca Cola Classic wrote: I think what Obama did is something similar to that of the pardon of Richard Nixon. Although prosecution is clearly warranted, it would be probably become more damaging to further inquire into the true nature of the torture. Additionally, dragging US top officials through the mud will not help much either in world opinion. While doing nothing is also damaging, a prolonged trial could just further inflame those already hating the US. His statement is provocative and I also believe it is the correct decision. It's not at all the same as what Ford did for Nixon. These were secret memos, he could have kept them secret. He made them public for political leverage for the entire party. | ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
On April 17 2009 12:21 Jibba wrote: It's not at all the same as what Ford did for Nixon. These were secret memos, he could have kept them secret. He made them public for political leverage for the entire party. This is pretty much right on the dot. | ||
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
Prosecution would not have helped. What's done is done. Perhaps the torturers will be prosecuted later. I actually agree with the full spectrum of his actions here. | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32268 Posts
On April 17 2009 12:01 Brett wrote: Your view is as short sighted as those you're picking out. I really don't think you understand both sides of the debate and why there is a debate at all. Ticking bomb scenario. Time is a factor. It's not as simple as either party believes. Much smarter, more informed people than anyone here have debated this issue for a very long time without a set in stone consensus. I'm not criticising you for your stance, but you really shouldn't try to paint this issue so black and white. As for those cheering or criticising Obama... You might want to look into Bagram and what his DoJ has to say about it. Might give you cause for concern or help you understand why there are no prosecutions... lol please, take your 24 terrorism fear somewhere else. Ticking time bomb scenarios are nothing but a fictional "what if" used to justify and act against human rights. Those scenarios barely happens, so if we were to talk about numbers like so many of you like to do, you have another point in favor of those against torture. You also seem to be forgetting this was the Bush administration, weapons of mass destructions that never appeared and nothing lead to thinking they every existed in the first place. You must be coherent with your own laws, if you leave them to a super vague interpretation or you totally shit over them, what's left of it? “Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law” | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
GNP of Afghanistan in 2000 (pre-US Occupation): 3.1 billion. (Source: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selectionbasicFast.asp) Hey look, we spend 300 times more money on military than all of Afghanistan's GNP! Even by the most conservative estimates, the war on terror alone has 38 billion allocated towards it. We still seem to spend 10 times the amount of money, much less human resources and technology, than all of Afghanistan had when Al Qaeda still had power there. Can we really not defeat Al Qaeda without having to use torture? On April 17 2009 12:01 Brett wrote: Your view is as short sighted as those you're picking out. I really don't think you understand both sides of the debate and why there is a debate at all. Ticking bomb scenario. Time is a factor. It's not as simple as either party believes. Much smarter, more informed people than anyone here have debated this issue for a very long time without a set in stone consensus. I'm not criticising you for your stance, but you really shouldn't try to paint this issue so black and white. As for those cheering or criticising Obama... You might want to look into Bagram and what his DoJ has to say about it. Might give you cause for concern or help you understand why there are no prosecutions... Citing smart people to back up a point is silly. Remember the last time everyone made this argument when the Soviet Union still existed. Take a look at Kennedy's administration. Full of Ivy league scholars and whiz kids and smart people like that. MacNamara anyone? And everyone in the administration was like "HMMM I THINK THE VIETNAM WILL JOIN RED CHINA WE MUST STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING. Ticking time bomb!" The time bomb never ticked. In fact we later uncovered evidence that showed the time bomb never really existed. And the Soviet Union / Chinese have had a millionfold more resources than the modern day "terrorists" ever had. This goes back all the way through US (and human) history, from fear of Soviet and Chinese saboteurs in the Cold War to fear of the Japanese immigrants in the WWII era to fear of the Southern European newcomers in the post-Reconstruction era to the fear of Native Americans in the pre-modern era to the fear of English sympathizers in the post-Revolution era to the fear of Spanish and French agents in the new Americas from the day our country was born. How many times have these threats been real? Well they all were real, they were all just stupendously overexaggerated, and paranoia kills. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On April 17 2009 12:41 IntoTheWow wrote: lol please, take your 24 terrorism fear somewhere else. Ticking time bomb scenarios are nothing but a fictional "what if" used to justify and act against human rights. Those scenarios barely happens, so if we were to talk about numbers like so many of you like to do, you have another point in favor of those against torture. You also seem to be forgetting this was the Bush administration, weapons of mass destructions that never appeared and nothing lead to thinking they every existed in the first place. You must be coherent with your own laws, if you leave them to a super vague interpretation or you totally shit over them, what's left of it? “Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law” What? 24? I've never watched a fucking episode of that show. Don't be a twit. The ticking bomb scenario is a fictional scenario. And it is purposely SIMPLISTIC. BUT THAT IS THE POINT; IT'S AN ILLUSTRATION . And holy balls have you missed the whole issue. Did you not read that I said you're over simplifying the debate? You've done it again. Time is one of the main factors that complicates the debate. Those in support of torture pose that time is a factor in getting the necessary information before it is acted upon or before the window of opportunity is shut. The criminal justice system is incredibly slow, and there are just as many individuals involved in the criminal justice system whose rights are as important as those of the person who may be subjected to torture. That is but one facet of the argument which you clearly have failed to even consider. Before you go spouting off at the mouth (fingers?) about my views, let me tell you this: I'm against torture, but I'm ultimately against it because it has been used contrary to the rule of law. The difference is I can admit that it's not as simple as "torture or dont torture" and "trial or no trial". Don't be so naive. What does it being the Bush administration have to do with any point I made? If anything, you're again showing your ignorance. Like I said, Go and look at Bagram and what OBAMA's DoJ has to say about the subject. In case you're too daft: they're (Obama's DoJ) challenging the applicability of the Boudameine (sp) ruling to Bagram because they want to be able to, essentially, abduct foreign nationals, move them to Bagram, hold them indefinitely contra to habeus corpus and do who knows what the fuck ever they do to that person to get information. FFS, they even adopted the Bush administration's arguments. Your final quote is about the only thing of value in that post and I wholeheartedly agree with it. Rule of law. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On April 17 2009 12:41 HonestTea wrote: Obama did the sane thing. Actually releasing those memos and closing down Gitmo is a bid deal, and that's what really matters. Prosecution would not have helped. What's done is done. Perhaps the torturers will be prosecuted later. I actually agree with the full spectrum of his actions here. Actually Obama still opened a large loophole for future torture by the US government well through the policies. When he closed down Gitmo and issued bans on torture, he only banned current forms of torture meaning that newer methods would still be legal. It's doubtful that any of the torturers will get any serious punishments. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On April 17 2009 13:02 SerpentFlame wrote: US Military expenditures for 2007: 653 billion department of defense alone, (estimates in total usually 1 trillion +). GNP of Afghanistan in 2000 (pre-US Occupation): 3.1 billion. (Source: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selectionbasicFast.asp) Hey look, we spend 300 times more money on military than all of Afghanistan's GNP! Even by the most conservative estimates, the war on terror alone has 38 billion allocated towards it. We still seem to spend 10 times the amount of money, much less human resources and technology, than all of Afghanistan had when Al Qaeda still had power there. Can we really not defeat Al Qaeda without having to use torture? Citing smart people to back up a point is silly. Remember the last time everyone made this argument when the Soviet Union still existed. Take a look at Kennedy's administration. Full of Ivy league scholars and whiz kids and smart people like that. MacNamara anyone? And everyone in the administration was like "HMMM I THINK THE VIETNAM WILL JOIN RED CHINA WE MUST STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING. Ticking time bomb!" The time bomb never ticked. In fact we later uncovered evidence that showed the time bomb never really existed. And the Soviet Union / Chinese have had a millionfold more resources than the modern day "terrorists" ever had. This goes back all the way through US (and human) history, from fear of Soviet and Chinese saboteurs in the Cold War to fear of the Japanese immigrants in the WWII era to fear of the Southern European newcomers in the post-Reconstruction era to the fear of Native Americans in the pre-modern era to the fear of English sympathizers in the post-Revolution era to the fear of Spanish and French agents in the new Americas from the day our country was born. How many times have these threats been real? Well they all were real, they were all just stupendously overexaggerated, and paranoia kills. I never said I disagreed or criticised him for his ultimate stance. I think you'll find we actually agree. But he's making plenty of comments, spouting rhetoric and criticising others for their views. He's throwing plenty of 'lol' at everyone who disagrees rather than making any sort of considered argument; it's stupid. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
The difference is I can admit that it's not as simple as "torture or dont torture" and "trial or no trial" Perhaps i am being naive and stupid here, but what exactly is so complex about torture? I honestly don't see where the grey area is. I think it is agreed by now that: a) Torture is morally wrong b) Torture is ineffective (for extracting accurate information) From there on it it seems to be rather black and white. And just for the sake of clarity: Definition from Oxford Eng Dictionary: + Show Spoiler + Torture: The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion Please elaborate/enlighten me about your position. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 17 2009 14:48 Railxp wrote: b) Torture is ineffective (for extracting accurate information) Inconsistent, and dangerous if you rely on it as your only source of information. But it's possible that the FBI has enough resources to cover all bases, including false positives. You can also triangulate through various sources to confirm information. Say you torture 10 prisoners and get confessions out of all of them, but 9 are lying to end the torture and only 1 knows something (and we assume torture WILL make him confess, but that is disputable too.) As long as you can prepare/check for all 10 stories, it'll work out. That would be the utilitarian argument for it (which I disagree with) - that the information could very well be wrong, but you can afford for it to be wrong as long as you're testing other possible alternatives. There is still the ethical component, and the many other problems associated with violating codes of conduct with prisoners (such as our own soldiers being tortured.) I think Brett's point is valid though. It's more grey than most people think, and it's easy to make moral judgments on an internet forum, but it's not so easy when you're actually held accountable if an attack goes off. | ||
|
Ichigo1234551
United States649 Posts
| ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
NO ONE FUCKING CARES ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON OTHER PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO ARGUE. TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS THREAD AND LEAVE YOUR STUPID BULLSHIT AT THE DOOR. DO NOT GET PERSONAL AND DO NOT PRETEND SOMEONE ELSE IS "ARGUING WRONG". YOU ARE NOT HERE TO WIN THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO ONE FUCKING CARES. that is all | ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
Edit: personal life forget it ^_^ By the way, torture is so crude... | ||
|
RA
Latvia791 Posts
| ||
| ||
