Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
President Bush has vetoed a bill that would have outlawed the practice of waterboarding which is a method of trying to extract information from someone by a process which is simulated drowning as well as other techniques of very forceful interrogation. Most of this nation is religious as we all know and there are some very important ethical and moral issues involved so I'm wondering what people think about this. There are a number of things to consider. In an extreme situation one could imagine a scenario in which a suspect is believed to have knowledge about an immediate attack which could kill thousands of people. In order to protect our own society it could be said that in this very rare instance that extreme measures might be appropriate. On the other hand it appears that our military has been using some very brutal techniques as a matter of routine and have also destroyed videos of many of these interrogations. Personally I feel that when we resort to the torture of individuals and it becomes a commonplace occurrance and it's likely that completely innocent people are being tortured that we're no better than our enemies. What do you think?
As much as I dislike Mr. Potato Head, there is only one injunction that I find this veto justifiable under and you brought it up already.
If we KNOW that there is an attack imminent on us but we need more information about it and we know we have to have it FAST than does that make it justifiable? That brings up a tremendous amount of ethical debate. Is the torture (not murder) of one person justified over the possible deaths of thousands (millions?) of otherwise innocent people? What happens in a situation like that?
I don't know how the bill was written, or how it is currently written, but what happens to the guy who waterboards a terrorist and saves millions of lives as a result? Is that just cause for not prosecuting him/her?
What DOES scare me is that there are some, no doubt, who feel that it is justified to waterboard or otherwise torture someone because this is a religious war. Yes, there are actually people in this country who feel we are fighting a religious war. You know how those go... Anything goes in the name of God, right?
I think we need to take a step back and look at the ENTIRE picture of this. Do I approve of waterboarding in general? No. Do I think that dire circumstances require drastic measures? Yeah, sometimes they do...
However, what scares me is that there seems (and again I haven't read the bill) to be a tremendous amount of grey areas involved with the way things currently are. Justified waterboarding means that it is legal to do it to people at any person's discretion. This obviously brings up the implication of abuse of power similar to a Harvard (perhaps Yale?) study I read about a few years ago. On the other hand, what do we deem justifiable? Does religion give the justification? Is that REALLY moral because of it? What about non-religious interpretation? Does it make it ok to torture someone for the 'greater good'???
There are some serious debates behind this, but on some level, even with my complete disdain for the goofball in office, I can't say I am COMPLETELY opposed to his veto.
Edit: My bad, it was a Stanford study that was done. Here is the link to it and what can happen when people are given authority over others in such a fashion. It brings up some tremendous ethical debates and I think we can apply it here. This blew my mind when I first read it: Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't condone torture -- in any form. I mean, what are we, a bunch of schoolyard bullies? If you need the information that badly, there are other ways to obtain it.
Torture is undignified and inappropriate -- I don't think anything can justify it.
I don't know how the bill was written, or how it is currently written,
Excellent point GCS.
I am sure this is not going to be a popular post, but here goes. I think a few people know I am a believer, but I try to think as logically as I can as well. And no it is not impossible.
I see this war (and to me it is not a religous war at all) as extremely unfair for our troops. If one of our soldiers get captured, they are not handed bibles, having people there to make sure they are being treated fairly and with dignity, and getting 3 meals a day. There are horrendous things happening to them. And I don't want to hear about that we are the United States and we should be better than everyone else and always take the high ground in every situation. This is war. If waterboarding saves the life of one of our troops, or people here in the states, then to me it is worth it. Just my opinion.
President Bush has vetoed a bill that would have outlawed the practice of waterboarding which is a method of trying to extract information from someone by a process which is simulated drowning as well as other techniques of very forceful interrogation. Most of this nation is religious as we all know and there are some very important ethical and moral issues involved so I'm wondering what people think about this. There are a number of things to consider. In an extreme situation one could imagine a scenario in which a suspect is believed to have knowledge about an immediate attack which could kill thousands of people. In order to protect our own society it could be said that in this very rare instance that extreme measures might be appropriate. On the other hand it appears that our military has been using some very brutal techniques as a matter of routine and have also destroyed videos of many of these interrogations. Personally I feel that when we resort to the torture of individuals and it becomes a commonplace occurrance and it's likely that completely innocent people are being tortured that we're no better than our enemies. What do you think?
When we get so far from the way things were created to be, we find ourselves in damage control scenarios. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
None are innocent, none are without fault. We should be doing everything in our ability to move away from destruction.
Unfortunately sin builds upon sin and eventually all will feel its affects. Organized religion has no ability to change course without coming apart.
Like most scenarios we, as a society, wrestle with, this isn't a black and white issue. The arguments brought up for, and against, the use of torture are both valid. As a so-called civilized culture, it does seem that we should not be using torture as a method of extracting information. Surely, there must be a better way, surely we can rise above the ways of our enemies. And yet, the contrasting argument shows that if there are thousands of lives at stake, then perhaps the good of the many outweigh the rights of the one. We apply this thought process even to eminent domain, wherein an individual can lose their home or farm, so that a road, a school, etc., might be built, for the good of the community. Yes, I know that the process involved doesn't include torture, (although those caught up in this sort of thing may beg to differ), but the correlation between the two is inescapable. A decison must be made, and in who's interest do we make it? I wonder, if those of us on this forum were put in the position of having to decide whether or not to torture an individual, so that we might save lives, what would be our reaction? Could we do it? What if the potential lives lost included our own family and friends? Would our reaction be different then? I'm not saying that I could torture anyone, because I honestly don't know, but I think we need to be very careful in saying, without reservation, that we never would do such a thing, or even that we shouldn't. I just don't think there are any easy answers to this question.
Torture is dangerous not only for the victim of it but also for the people trying to extract information. If, to use the example MontanaGuy gave in the opening post, a terrorist attack was immanent and they were trying to get information out of a suspect using torture then the only reason they would give up any is so the pain would stop. The thing is though they could simply make up any old rubbish on the spot so the torture is stopped and then lives could be lost as a result of the authorities wasting time investigating false leads. Not only is it inhumane but it can be extremely unreliable.
I actually think humanity has advanced quite alot in the past few hundred years. Once when I was in Amsterdam there was an exhibition of torture instruments that were very old and the collection was very extensive. Torture was very common in Europe and the methods were extremely cruel and sadistic. This wasn't just used when a nation was at war, it was used as punishment. When we look at life today in the modern capitals of Europe it's hard to imagine how barbaric it was in the past.
I realize we're at war and there are terrorists who want to harm us but in the long run I think we should be trying to set an example for what kind of behavior is acceptable to the rest of the world.
If you ever get to London's Madame Tussaud's, the dungeon has some very interesting "appliances"(thumbscrews, the rack are just a tiny example). The iron maiden.... They were very well developed for hurting people and punishing them. Those who administered the pain had to be sadistic in order to be able to do this stuff. I know I couldn't go home after a long days' work and feel good about myself, after doing some of the crap they did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but the correlation between the two is inescapable. A decison must be made, and in who's interest do we make it? I wonder, if those of us on this forum were put in the position of having to decide whether or not to torture an individual, so that we might save lives, what would be our reaction? Could we do it? What if the potential lives lost included our own family and friends? Would our reaction be different then? I'm not saying that I could torture anyone, because I honestly don't know, but I think we need to be very careful in saying, without reservation, that we never would do such a thing, or even that we shouldn't. I just don't think there are any easy answers to this question.
