How Does A Religious Society View Waterboarding And Other Methods Of Torture? (fanaticism, contradiction)

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by Dewdrop93

I gave you my reasons long ago. I understand your reasoning. I do not agree with it. You not only do not even attempt to understand any reasoning besides your own but whatever reasons people give you - you say they aren't even valid. What is the point of trying to converse with someone when any point you make - they dismiss and consider invalid? Who are you to decide which points are valid and which are not?

First, I read and responded to your reasons long ago. I explained to you why your concerns or worries were confused. So it's not that I ignored them, it's that you didn't like the fact that I dismissed them as wanting because they were wanting. Not by my decree, but my the decree of logic, basic reasoning, philosophy, what-have-you.

Your first concern was "How do you know when it's okay to implement waterboarding?"

Answer is simple: when we have very strong evidence that someone is part of a terrorist plot. In the case of Khalid Sheik Mohameed, we have such evidence and more. He was a known terrorist, the recognized and admitted mastermind behind 9/11, and he was bragging about an impending terrorist attack. What possible question could you have in such cases? None. So that answers your first concern.

Your second concern was "where does it stop?" Answer: it stops at waterboarding or other similar interrogation techniques, ones which aren't all that painful and produce results like getting people to agree to talk if we agree to stop subjecting them to (for example) waterboarding. If there comes a time when terrorists are immune to such techniques, then we'll have to have another discussion at that time. But it makes no sense to have that discussion now. So that answers that concern.

You third concern was "How do you know it's going to produce results?" Answer: the way you know most methods produce results -- by experience and checking. We know the information we got from KSM was good information, and waterboarding was effective on other terrorists, so that's good reason to believe it's going to be effective in the future. You can't be asking whether waterboarding works, because that's already been proven. The status of its effectiveness -- is it 'not very effective', 'effective', or 'very effective' -- is yet to be learned, but so far so good. That answers your third concern.

Your fourth concern was "What do we do next?" As in, how far do we take it. Well, you've already expressed this concern, and my answer was that we don't need to address it now. Waterboarding works. It's relatively benign and it's effective, so let's just sanction, both legally and morally, this method as it is the method we'll be using. If we want to abandon waterboarding someday in favor of something more drastic, more painful, then we'll have to have another discussion. Until then, imagined slippery slope scenarios are of no concern. This answers your fourth concern.

Then you expressed this bit of confused thinking: "Also, to me - waterboarding IS morally wrong. Anything that knowingly inflicts pain and suffering on an individual that is being imprisoned, in my opinion, is morally wrong."

This characterization of yours is one of PUNISHING prisoners for their wrongdoing. But that's to completely misunderstand our discussion. Our discussion is what we're morally permitted to do to someone who is in the middle of an immoral and illegal act such that we can try to prevent him from carrying out this immoral act. The interrogation isn't punishment. The interrogation is a tool for extracting information so we can foil the terrorist plot. Physically abusing inmates may or may not be immoral. But that's not this discussion, which only shows how confused you are about what we're talking about. Yet I'm wrong for saying your comment is invalid or confused, right?

You then went on to talk about the death penalty. That's irrelevant to this discussion. You offered irrelevant comments. They aren't irrelevant because I say so, or because I judge them to be, but because they have nothing to do with our topic.

There are people who simply think a lot better than you do, a lot more clearly, have keener minds when it comes to ethical and philosophical topics, who know when you're confused, and who have studied ethics in college. These people tend to be able to say who has a good argument and who doesn't. I couldn't tell you which composer is better, Mozart or Bach, but I can tell generally you who has a better argument, this guy or that guy. All your concerns were naive and really easily answered. Your other comments were irrelevant.

Your unwillingness or inablity to see why you're mistaken is not interesting to me. But maybe it should be interesting to you. You should try to understand why you can't accept my good responses as good responses. Do you have a stupidity-complex you're compensating for? Are you wedded to your beliefs because you can't separate them from your very being -- that is, somehow accepting that you're wrong would force you to accepy that you're not all that clever, also. Or, maybe you really haven't arrived at your conclusions through reason. Instead, you have emotions and your reasons are there for adornment only. You know, to make it seem like you're rational or intelligent. Whatever the answer, you should fix it.

I've spent many hours just explaining my position here to people who can't stick to a topic, can't understand the topic, take liberties in the assumptions they make, and intentionally obfuscate.

I know you'll read this someday. I also know nothing I write will make any difference to YOU. But it will to those who aren't so Liberal at heart that reason and common sense can't shape their beliefs. The fight in this world is an idealogical one. Liberals/socialists/communists/fascists/progressives have historically been on the side of evil. I am here to expose another instance of it.

[philosofish]

I was against waterboarding until I learned some of the details such that it does not inflict any irreversable pain and/or suffering. I do realize that I shouldn't have been against it without understanding what it is clearly.

When KSM is the example, I cannot think of any better iterrogation technique (there might be some, I just can't think of one) than waterboarding. I don't see how water boarding can be viewed as torture. once ither has to claim waterboarding to be a lot more destructive than it is, or had to water down the meaning of torture to be able to categorise waterbording under torture.

I agree with fiveredapple's reasoning, and I am for waterboarding to extract useful information from terrorists (or other criminals) when the information will save lives. Having said that, I would be against it to use it as a tool to find out if the terrorist (or a criminal) has any useful information. I make this distinction knowing that it was not part of the discussion under this thread.

Oh, not that it matters for this thread, but if one were to catogarize my political inclinations, it would probably fall under being a liberal.

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by philosofish

I agree with fiveredapple's reasoning, and I am for waterboarding to extract useful information from terrorists (or other criminals) when the information will save lives. Having said that, I would be against it to use it as a tool to find out if the terrorist (or a criminal) has any useful information. I make this distinction knowing that it was not part of the discussion under this thread.

I appreciate the positive criticism, but I think you're trying to walk too fine a line here.

The KSM case is actually too easy a case to argue. Nobody I argue with thinks to concede that waterboarding KSM was morally permissible...but qualify that by saying it was only morally permissible because we knew before interrogating him that he had useful information that would ultimately save lives. This seems to be something you would like to hold.

But what if KSM wasn't a known terrorist? What if he wasn't the acknowledge mastermind behind 9/11? What if he wasn't bragging/threatening the CIA with another terrorist attack? Had these circumstances not been the case, yet we still had 'strong intelligence' (which is a relative notion, I admit) suggesting he did know about an impending terrorist attack, I would say we would still be morally justified to waterboarding him.

You, on the other hand, could consistently maintain your position and deny that it would be morally justified...on the grounds that we were interrogating him to find out if he indeed had this information.

I don't think we're morally limited in that way. If our 'strong intelligence' isn't reliable (not 'infallible'), then I'd say we might not be morally justified to waterboard someone whom we believe knows about an impending terrorist attack. I'd say this because the basis for such a belief (our belief about him) isn't significantly reliable. We can't go around waterboarding people we don't have strong reason to believe are atually guilty of something. Now, non-morally speaking, I might support such a policy (to waterboard suspected terrorists) just because so much is at stake: likely the lives of thousands of innocent people. But that's a different argument.

[philosofish]

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

I appreciate the positive criticism, but I think you're trying to walk too fine a line here.

The KSM case is actually too easy a case to argue. Nobody I argue with thinks to concede that waterboarding KSM was morally permissible...but qualify that by saying it was only morally permissible because we knew before interrogating him that he had useful information that would ultimately save lives. This seems to be something you would like to hold.

But what if KSM wasn't a known terrorist? What if he wasn't the acknowledge mastermind behind 9/11? What if he wasn't bragging/threatening the CIA with another terrorist attack? Had these circumstances not been the case, yet we still had 'strong intelligence' (which is a relative notion, I admit) suggesting he did know about an impending terrorist attack, I would say we would still be morally justified to waterboarding him.

You, on the other hand, could consistently maintain your position and deny that it would be morally justified...on the grounds that we were interrogating him to find out if he indeed had this information.

I don't think we're morally limited in that way. If our 'strong intelligence' isn't reliable (not 'infallible'), then I'd say we might not be morally justified to waterboard someone whom we believe knows about an impending terrorist attack. I'd say this because the basis for such a belief (our belief about him) isn't significantly reliable. We can't go around waterboarding people we don't have strong reason to believe are atually guilty of something. Now, non-morally speaking, I might support such a policy (to waterboard suspected terrorists) just because so much is at stake: likely the lives of thousands of innocent people. But that's a different argument.

Fiveredapples,

I don't think it is possible to know with certainty that a terrorist has information which would save lives. This knowledge (with some uncertainty) would have to rely on strong intelligence as you stated. I can't think of how else to reach to the conclusion that the terrorist has this information, and yes this seems a bit problematic.

So to rephrase what I posted before, I think it is morally permissable to waterboard a terrorist that we believe -- based on strong intelligence -- to have information which would save lives.

My objection was targeted for cases where waterboarding possibly being used in place of 'strong intelligence' instead of following 'strong intelligence'.

[LookinForMayberry]

I think anyone that approves of torture of any kind should be subjected to it, first. If they still think its a good idea, I think their loved ones should line up.

[philosofish]

Originally Posted by LookinForMayberry

I think anyone that approves of torture of any kind should be subjected to it, first. If they still think its a good idea, I think their loved ones should line up.

Really? So you want to subject the approver of torture to torture. and since you are advocating torture for someone (aka approver of torture), then you must be approving torture yourself. Therefore using your reasoning, you should be subjected to torture. Following you reasoning further also puts your loved ones at risk being tortured as well. This is all is just weird.

Well since I am against torture, I hope neither you or your loved ones get tortured. You see, I am being kinder to you and your loved ones then you are.

However besides weirdness, what is any of these got to do with the topic being discussed?

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by LookinforMayberry

I think anyone that approves of torture of any kind should be subjected to it, first. If they still think its a good idea, I think their loved ones should line up.

The above is what happens when you have nothing to stand on: you say the dumbest stuff ever without realizing it.

There's so much wrong with this one brief thoutht that it's almost comical thinking about what a full argument of yours would look like (not that I think you could even muster a full argument).

Let's start, shall we?

1) Why are you even participating in a thread about waterboarding if you can't even stick to the topic? You are talking about torture. Wrong topic.

2) Why would this make sense even if we were talking about torture? I mean, this little rule doesn't seem to apply anywhere else. Let's try: "Anyone who believes that we should imprison convicted serial killers for at at least 20 years should first be imprisoned for 20 years, and then their family should also be imprisoned for 20 years." LOL...that's pretty pathetic.

3) Your Liberal shortcomings don't allow you to acknowledge (or even understand) that those of us who say waterboarding is morally permissible (in these certain circumstances) and good policy recognize better than you (and your kind) what does and doesn't occur during waterboarding. This will apply to torture too. We kinda know torture hurts. We're not talking about torture -- as much as you would like to -- but the same thing applies to your myopia. You simply aren't honest enough to have this discussion.

4) Your whole simplistic argument rests on the premise that if people realized how much pain they were subjecting terrorists to, they wouldn't subject them to it no matter how horrible their deeds. How naive and dangerous Liberals are: completely divorced from reality, morality, and common sense.

Yeah, if we captured a terrorist who had planted a bomb with the power to kill 300 million people, Liberals would be the ones saying, "No, we can't waterboard him to find out where the bomb is because we'd be violating some imagined right of his. Yes, I understand that this will likely mean all of our deaths, but we must accept our fate because my super genius reasoning says it's better that 300 million people die than we waterboard one guilty known terrorist who is in the process of killing us all. Yay. We are good."

Liberalism is a disease of the human spirit.



Second

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by philosofish

Following you reasoning further also puts your loved ones at risk being tortured as well.

Being pro-torture already puts your loved ones at risk.
One only has to spread the rumour that your loved ones are terrorists and fiveredapples wants them tortured.
All in the name of home security.
Wasn't that not the way how the so called American intelligence gathered 'intelligence' before they invaded Iraq? Which led to the US government to approve of the invasion of Iraq on the false rumour that Iraq had (chemical) WMDs?
I mean bad intelligence still is intelligence.
And physical proof is overrated, right?
And we shouldn't gamble with our nation's security which means that when waterboarding doesn't work we should simply switch to full blown 100% torture.
All for the sake of the nation, right?

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

I don't think it is possible to know with certainty that a terrorist has information which would save lives. This knowledge (with some uncertainty) would have to rely on strong intelligence as you stated.

Which means that there is no difference between Americans (or is it just the American Republicans?) and their 'reservations' or their modern-day version the Guantanamo Bays, Russian Stalinists and their gulags or German Nazis and their death camps; here simply being a member of the opposing party is already enough to be labelled 'enemy of the state' and be thrown in prison (and / or tortured).

BTW define 'strong intelligence'.
Heck, without physical proof the strongest intelligence is nothing more than gossip.

Then again I'm not surprised at all because the US invaded Iraq on the complete faulty 'intelligence' of them having WMDs, which wasn't the case at all.
I'll bet that American Republicans want the world to believe that America invaded Iraq for the good of the Iraqis and that the US had no economic motivation whatsoever.

Originally Posted by fiveredapples

Liberalism is a disease of the human spirit.

And Republicans are a boon for the individual?
As I posted before I see no difference between your brand of American Republicanism, Russian Stalinists or German Nazis; they all view their opponents as inferior (read: irrelevant).

[fiveredapples]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Being pro-torture already puts your loved ones at risk.
One only has to spread the rumour that your loved ones are terrorists and fiveredapples wants them tortured.

I like that you're so dishonest about my position. It only supports my position that Liberals are dishonest at heart because they must be; otherwise, they would be forced to admit to contradictions and embarrassing positions -- so, intead, they obfuscate the best they can.

All in the name of home security.
Wasn't that not the way how the so called American intelligence gathered 'intelligence' before they invaded Iraq? Which led to the US government to approve of the invasion of Iraq on the false rumour that Iraq had (chemical) WMDs?

LOL...wow, you really want to get a lot of mileage out of this WMDs nonsense! So, we were wrong about WMDs in Iraq, so let's scrap a perfectly sane and useful tool against terrorists. Let's see, we aren't infallible, so let's never trust our information -- no matter how strong the evidence is -- because, well, there were no WMDs. You know, once I thought this woman walking down the street was my girlfriend, but I was wrong. So, I immediately jabbed out both my eyes as they were obviously no good to me anymore. I mean, one mistake and that's enough to win every debate about anything. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Genius!

I mean bad intelligence still is intelligence.

And sloppy rhetoric is still rhetoric. Next.

And physical proof is overrated, right?

LOL...physical proof of what? How do you physically prove that a terrorist has planted a bomb in a New York skyscraper? I mean, you can find the bomb, but how does that prove he put it there? And if you find the bomb, what point is there for an interrogation policy that would allow us to get information in order to find the bomb? Kinda moot, right? Well, that's the point, now, isn't it? Your impractical solution is pure evil.

And we shouldn't gamble with our nation's security which means that when waterboarding doesn't work we should simply switch to full blown 100% torture.
All for the sake of the nation, right?

Well, if you want to argue for this position -- which is really different from your other 'please kill us all' position, then argue for it, but I can't support you here. I've been arguing for waterbaoarding. You have been avoiding that argument. Nice to see nothing has changed.

You're still inept and dishonest to the core. But then you have to be: you're a liberal.

[sanspeur]

In my opinion torture is ALWAYS wrong....Nine times out of ten the torturer gets bad info, because the person being tortured will say whatever he needs to to get the torture to stop.

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his/her back with the head inclined downwards; water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, thus triggering the mammalian diving reflex causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning. In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death

Sheesh, you bandy about the word liberal as if it's a bad thing...Well I'm a liberal, and damned proud of it. Judging from your narrow minded posts you are not.

Liberal.... definition.

broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"

having political or social views favoring reform and progress.

tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition.

a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.
big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets