Torture and Civilization
-
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/04/torture-and-civilization[^]
I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don't care whether it "works." I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information. On other things there's no consensus yet. Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world. But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong. Full stop. It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians. But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide. Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great. Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/04/torture-and-civilization[^]
I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don't care whether it "works." I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information. On other things there's no consensus yet. Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world. But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong. Full stop. It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians. But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide. Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great. Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.
So just for drill, you're saying that you wouldn't torture or apply harsh techniques to get a kidnapper to tell you where he's buried (alive) your son, daughter, wife, mother? That is a real question and I am honestly curious.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/04/torture-and-civilization[^]
I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don't care whether it "works." I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information. On other things there's no consensus yet. Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world. But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong. Full stop. It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians. But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide. Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great. Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.
-
So just for drill, you're saying that you wouldn't torture or apply harsh techniques to get a kidnapper to tell you where he's buried (alive) your son, daughter, wife, mother? That is a real question and I am honestly curious.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Your question is pretty stupid and illustrates how the proponents of torture like you will use any example (most often stupid like this one) to promote it. I will give you another example: how would you feel if the authorities capture your son and are convinced he is the kidnapper of a family and torture him to get the information and later realize they had the wrong guy and left him marked for life? You see, any side can make up examples to support their views.
-
Your question is pretty stupid and illustrates how the proponents of torture like you will use any example (most often stupid like this one) to promote it. I will give you another example: how would you feel if the authorities capture your son and are convinced he is the kidnapper of a family and torture him to get the information and later realize they had the wrong guy and left him marked for life? You see, any side can make up examples to support their views.
Le Centriste wrote:
will give you another example
and I'll respond once someone addresses my question because Oily made his statement in black and white terms - he should be able to reply in black and white terms.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
will give you another example
and I'll respond once someone addresses my question because Oily made his statement in black and white terms - he should be able to reply in black and white terms.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
There is no black and white terms. As a person opposed to torture, it is most certain that I would be very upset if a situation described in your example arrived to me, and I would be tempted to torture the guy myself. Would I do it? Hard to tell, because that situation never happened. But, what happened in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib looks very disgusting to me, and I don't understand why a great nation like the USA would go that low. The only explanation I have is a desire of revenge.
-
There is no black and white terms. As a person opposed to torture, it is most certain that I would be very upset if a situation described in your example arrived to me, and I would be tempted to torture the guy myself. Would I do it? Hard to tell, because that situation never happened. But, what happened in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib looks very disgusting to me, and I don't understand why a great nation like the USA would go that low. The only explanation I have is a desire of revenge.
Le Centriste wrote:
There is no black and white terms.
I saw no nuance in Oily's post.
Le Centriste wrote:
I would be tempted to torture the guy myself.
I would hesitate, but there's no question what so ever that I would and will do anything and everything it takes to protct my family.
Le Centriste wrote:
Abu Ghraib looks very disgusting to me
I wouldn't argue, but that was not systemic, it was a number of rogues and not an official policy.
Le Centriste wrote:
Guantanamo looks very disgusting to me
what have you seen other than newspaper reports (certainly biased) and talking head reports? the worst that I heard was waterboarding of 3 and that saved lives. now whose life has the greater value; innocents in a high rise building or 3 known terrorists?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/04/torture-and-civilization[^]
I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don't care whether it "works." I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information. On other things there's no consensus yet. Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world. But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong. Full stop. It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians. But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide. Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great. Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment".
You must if you are to adequately define torture. Lack of cable television is not torture - lack of water is. In thousands of "what ifs" there is a line that when crossed some would consider it torture but others would not.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment".
You must if you are to adequately define torture. Lack of cable television is not torture - lack of water is. In thousands of "what ifs" there is a line that when crossed some would consider it torture but others would not.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You must if you are to adequately define torture.
Torture is already adequately defined. US law, Geneva Conventions and the Convention on Torture, to name a few.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You must if you are to adequately define torture.
Torture is already adequately defined. US law, Geneva Conventions and the Convention on Torture, to name a few.
-
So just for drill, you're saying that you wouldn't torture or apply harsh techniques to get a kidnapper to tell you where he's buried (alive) your son, daughter, wife, mother? That is a real question and I am honestly curious.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
That is a real question
Well, no it isn't. The government is not an individual and the gov't doesn't have a "son, daughter, wife, mother".
-
Cute.
-
Cute.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
That is a real question
Well, no it isn't. The government is not an individual and the gov't doesn't have a "son, daughter, wife, mother".
pure bullshit sport, I asked you a question and you can't bring yourself to answer it.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/04/torture-and-civilization[^]
I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don't care whether it "works." I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information. On other things there's no consensus yet. Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world. But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong. Full stop. It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians. But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide. Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great. Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.
oilFactotum quoted:
I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don't care whether it "works." I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; ...
Yes, we all know that your sort don't care about these important distinctions. That has been clear all along.
oilFactotum quoted:
I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." ... I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; ...
What idiots do you fools take everyone else to be?
-
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/04/torture-and-civilization[^]
I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don't care whether it "works." I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information. On other things there's no consensus yet. Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world. But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong. Full stop. It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians. But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide. Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great. Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.
Torture is actually good. All real men enjoy torturing their enemies. In fact, almost all humans living in a natural primitive state glorify in torture. We should bring it back and train our young people in school on the finer techniques, possibly using illegal aliens as subjects. Oh, and we should also bring back dueling. I loved this comment in the link you posted: Our opponents who don't believe in these things are basically barbarians. They hate science, love fundamentalist religon, disdain the rule of law and see no problem with changing standards of morality for those seen as others -- whether it's torturing Muslims or denying marriage to gay couples. They actually like war, and don't like diplomacy. There are a lot of these people. And that is precisely why its gonna be real easy to kick your fucking asses and take our country back out of your communist claws.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
:rolleyes:
Isn't it amusing that he invokes the Geneva Conventions ... right after quoting a rant proclaiming a lack on interest in the content of those conventions, and a lack of interest in knowing what differentiate actual torture from non-torture? That's LeftyLogic (tm) fer ya'
-
pure bullshit sport, I asked you a question and you can't bring yourself to answer it.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
bullshit. you asked me what I would definitively do in a one in a trillion 'ticking time bomb' scenario. You want an answer? OK here it is: Who knows?
-
What's accurate? Are you claiming that there is a qualatative difference in the definition of torture in those various documents? Prove it.