[dcmacdaddy]

This thread was inspired by a post I made in the Nancy Pelosi torture thread.

The question gets at one's sense of national pride and how it relates to their country's willingness to conduct torture on their behalf. In essence, does knowing that your country practiced torture to protect you make you feel pride or shame in your country.

[screener]

Can't believe yes got a vote, then read your link.

[Shaddim]

Yeah, this thread looks like the right place for a mature, productive discussion...

[finboy]

We can have all the polls and open threads we want to, but when it comes down to protecting one's family, torture would suddenly be "in" for 90% of the folks who highly and mightily say "NO" right now.

[screener]

The question was "proud" or not.

Look up the definition.

Wether or not I would be for it in any given situation, proud is not how I would be.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, this thread looks like the right place for a mature, productive discussion...

Well, cast your vote then and join the conversation.

[screener]

I'd like to know who voted proud and why.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

We can have all the polls and open threads we want to, but when it comes down to protecting one's family, torture would suddenly be "in" for 90% of the folks who highly and mightily say "NO" right now.

Ahh, the good old commit-torture-to-save-my-family argument. What kind of success rate do you think such torture would have, assuming such a scenario would ever occur? Actually, how often has there been a case of police or individual citizens torturing someone to gain information to help in the release of captured family members? Anyone know? I am guessing the number of times such a scenario has occurred is dismally low and I am guessing the success rate for such commissions of torture to be dismally low or neglible.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

How about a wider selection?

Where's the choice:

"Yes. I would feel proud knowing that my country could have used torture to obtain information that would have prevented an attack, but didn't. Thousands since died, but at least I have my, uh, pride."

[Shaddim]

I feel no pride regarding this situation, one way or the other. Of course, there's very little about this country that brings me any pride. Mostly just the people who put their lives at risk for it, and the original ideals that were in evidence at it's conception. Since then, we've royally ****ed up too many times to count.

[Doofy]

I don't even understand how one can be "proud" of an abstract concept which one (probably) only happens to be associated with due to simply being born in it.

[BadKosh]

Any little pathetic word games to validate the touchy-feely emotion driven left. idealistic jackasses are a dime a dozen.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Ahh, the good old commit-torture-to-save-my-family argument. What kind of success rate do you think such torture would have, assuming such a scenario would ever occur? Actually, how often has there been a case of police or individual citizens torturing someone to gain information to help in the release of captured family members? Anyone know? I am guessing the number of times such a scenario has occurred is dismally low and I am guessing the success rate for such commissions of torture to be dismally low or neglible.

And I'm guessing that the efficacy rate wouldn't make a bit of difference if the only trail you had to an atomic bomb (or a kidnapped family member) led through a known terrorist's kneecaps. To paraphrase Saki: you live comfortable in the knowledge that you'll never have to live under the rules which you espouse. "Torture" with or without someone watching, helps save lives here and abroad every day, whether that's loud music or fingernail pulls.

As for the "it doesn't work" response: we don't know whether or not it will work in any particular circumstance. And that small shred of uncertainty is enough to guarantee an about-face in most folks. Besides, the folks who WOULD know if different levels of "torture" worked or not don't talk about this stuff, ever. In the intelligence business, that's how to distinguish the pros from the amateurs who've read a few Tom Clancy novels.

[BadKosh]

I'm still waiting for the Leftist know-it-alls to explain how THEY would keep us safe. I don't think the solution is to make nice with the enemy. Caring about what other foreign nations think about us is an exercise in shallow stupidity - as seen by our current fascist administration.

[screener]

Gotta love it when a term is used without knowing what it means.

fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

[Doofy]

Gotta love those dictionary bods who don't know that fascism almost always comes from the left.

Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato

Hmmm. Big government.

[besson3c]

This thread turned out well!

I think this subject may be nearly impossible to discuss in a civil manner, it's very emotional.

[Dork.]

Maybe you're right, besson3c. I've tried to reply to this thread about two or three times, but I can't get my thoughts in print correctly.

I think that what we have done fits the definition of torture. (And as an American, I use the term "we" purposefully, because the people who carried this out were acting on orders and justification from our government.) I think that torture should not have any place in American society, it is against our values. If we feel we need to resort to torture to get what we need, then we aren't doing it correctly.

We manage to convince ourselves that we are only doing it to protect the country and its values. But once we engage in it, we become the bad guys. It's logically impossible to protect our values by violating them. After that, nothing is left to protect.

And yes, I would feel this way even if it impacted me or my family directly. Values are supposed to carry you through tough times, not help you avoid them at all costs.

[Shaddim]

Sorry, I don't believe you, at all.

If your wife was being raped and beaten you'd burn someone's toes off with a blow torch to get her back.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Sorry, I don't believe you, at all.

If your wife was being raped and beaten you'd burn someone's toes off with a blow torch to get her back.

Would it matter if it wasn't the right someone?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by screener 

Would it matter if it wasn't the right someone?

That wasn't what he was saying. He said he wouldn't condone it under any circumstance, and I say he's deluding himself.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That wasn't what he was saying. He said he wouldn't condone it under any circumstance, and I say he's deluding himself.

And you said you didn't believe him and then went on to create a scenario that you created.
Because you created it, it would follow that the action you described is what you would do.

I asked you the question.

[besson3c]

Yeah, it's funny when people come up with ridiculous hypothetical circumstances to try to find exceptions to a rule in order to get the better half of an argument.

The likelihood of there being a clear smoking gun that points to the actions of an alleged terrorist is quite remote. We have courts to establish whether somebody is guilty or not, and we live by the principle that everybody is entitled to a fair trial. Like Dork. said, these are our values.

Most of these "imminent threat", possibility of the finger over the button of a remote detonator that will setup of nuclear bomb sorts of arguments are baloney. The only reason why most of these threats are imminent is because we are afraid that they might be. We cannot discard our values every time our imaginations run amok.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by screener 

And you said you didn't believe him and then went on to create a scenario that you created.
Because you created it, it would follow that the action you described is what you would do.

I asked you the question.

He said he wouldn't under any circumstances, I find that hard to believe.

If someone stole my wife and was raping and beating her, and I found one of the accomplices (and they were without any doubt), you bet I'd tear their fingernails out with pliers to find out where she is. It wouldn't be pleasant, I would hate doing it, but that's part of life.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, it's funny when people come up with ridiculous hypothetical circumstances to try to find exceptions to a rule in order to get the better half of an argument.

and then there's people who won't admit that their rosy altruistic views don't mean very much when they are in a very tight spot. It may never happen in your life, but if it did you'd break your own rules. I guarantee it.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

He said he wouldn't under any circumstances, I find that hard to believe.

If someone stole my wife and was raping and beating her, and I found one of the accomplices (and they were without any doubt), you bet I'd tear their fingernails out with pliers to find out where she is. It wouldn't be pleasant, I would hate doing it, but that's part of life.

I probably would as well if they didn't give it up right away.

What I can't see is how anyone could be proud of their country using torture in their name for any reason.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If someone stole my wife and was raping and beating her, and I found one of the accomplices (and they were without any doubt), you bet I'd tear their fingernails out with pliers to find out where she is. It wouldn't be pleasant, I would hate doing it, but that's part of life.

What would tearing his fingernails off accomplish, other than inflicting pain? You think the only way to get information out of him is to injure him?

What is it that you want, information, or revenge? If it's information you want, there are better ways to get it without stooping to his level.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and then there's people who won't admit that their rosy altruistic views don't mean very much when they are in a very tight spot. It may never happen in your life, but if it did you'd break your own rules. I guarantee it.

What is your point? Was it that when we are hard pressed we will go outside of the boundaries that we establish? If so, I think we can all agree with that. However, the question is two fold:

1) Should we establish boundaries at all?
2) Do circumstances warrant going outside of these boundaries?

I say to number one yes for all of the reasons that have been stated already, and to number two no for a number of reasons:

1) There is no conclusive evidence that going outside of the boundaries even yields us with useful information, and if so whether this happens consistently. It needs to be repeatable, because getting useful information 1 out of 10 times and garbage the rest of the time probably doesn't make this worth our while when in many cases it is not possible to reverse decisions that were based on garbage information

2) I don't think we had any evidence that we were under any specific imminent threat. We should not torture out of fear in imagining what could happen, because where would this end?

3) Torture is illegal, which becomes more relevant when combined with everything else listed here

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Sorry, I don't believe you, at all.

If your wife was being raped and beaten you'd burn someone's toes off with a blow torch to get her back.

I agree. My values dictate that people who have crossed the line don't have the right to breathe, much less the right to toes. That's something that doesn't change over time -- I've pretty much held that view all of my life. A dog has more "rights" than a kidnapper or terrorist, in my opinion. Thank goodness there are people out there working to protect us that have a similar value system.

Unfortunately, the world isn't all about little birdies singing and happiness. When bad people do bad things, they have to be removed from the rest of us.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

What is it that you want, information, or revenge? If it's information you want, there are better ways to get it without stooping to his level.

No, there really isn't. Fear is the greatest motivator when time is short. That's not to say a person should use intimidation on a regular basis, I'm typically very easy to get along with, but Hera help someone who hurts my family.

[Dakar V]

I'm not sure I entirely get what's being communicated here. That we should act with the desperation and emotion of man with a kidnapped significant other when it comes to the security of our country? Or that the pacifists might become hypocrites given a stressful enough situation?

[besson3c]

finboy: who would disagree with that? That's not the debate.

[besson3c]

Dakar: you aren't the only one that is confused what the connection is.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is your point? Was it that when we are hard pressed we will go outside of the boundaries that we establish? If so, I think we can all agree with that. However, the question is two fold:

1) Should we establish boundaries at all?
2) Do circumstances warrant going outside of these boundaries?

I say to number one yes for all of the reasons that have been stated already, and to number two no for a number of reasons:

1) There is no conclusive evidence that going outside of the boundaries even yields us with useful information, and if so whether this happens consistently. It needs to be repeatable, because getting useful information 1 out of 10 times and garbage the rest of the time probably doesn't make this worth our while when in many cases it is not possible to reverse decisions that were based on garbage information

2) I don't think we had any evidence that we were under any specific imminent threat. We should not torture out of fear in imagining what could happen, because where would this end?

3) Torture is illegal, which becomes more relevant when combined with everything else listed here

Should we establish boundaries? Yes, it's a good thing for polite society. However, a realist knows that these walls are mobile in very extreme situations.

What warrants moving those walls? When there aren't more pleasant options (and there's almost always a more pleasant option).

addressing your other points:
1) Very few people have a tolerance for pain that would allow them to withhold the needed information for very long. Not everyone is Daniel Craig with balls of steel.

2) When the threat has been identified, and there are no doubts, you act swiftly and lay down your ethical concerns.

3) So is speeding to get to the hospital during an emergency. There's a price to be paid for everything, on very rare occasions the cost is a piece of your humanity. It's always best to know your limitations and those of others.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Dakar: you aren't the only one that is confused what the connection is.

I was addressing this comment:

And yes, I would feel this way even if it impacted me or my family directly. Values are supposed to carry you through tough times, not help you avoid them at all costs.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

What is it that you want, information, or revenge? If it's information you want, there are better ways to get it without stooping to his level.

LOL

So what would THOSE METHODS BE? I'm wondering. If, as I suspect you are stating YOUR OPINION as IF it were a FACT, then you are typical of the shallow liberal, driven by guilt and you have no real evidence of this.

If those other methods are SO GREAT, then why don't all countries use such techniques? Lack of morals? Lack of results?

[Dork.]

Lack of morals. For someone with no morals, it's easy to torture. It can even be satisfying to the people doing it, especially if they project actions done by someone else onto the person being tortured.

However, when you use torture, the information you get back is liable to not be true. Instead, it will be what the person being tortured thinks the torturer wants to hear, to make the torture stop quickly. Torture is bad at finding truth, but is very good at extracting politically expedient false information.

So, if you don't care about the inailenable human rights or the truth, go ahead and torture. The USA is supposed to care about those things (we were founded, in part, because of a recognition of universal rights to life, liberity, and the pursuit of happiness), so we shouldn't do it.

[BadKosh]

So I guess your "OTHER METHOD" was just liberal BS? Don't lecture me on who is or isn't 'moral' when you can't even be truthful in your own posts.

ASSUMPTION stated as fact: "However, when you use torture, the information you get back is liable to not be true."

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't even understand how one can be "proud" of an abstract concept which one (probably) only happens to be associated with due to simply being born in it.

Well, most people on here identify with a particular national identity, yourself as a citizen of the world is one of the few exceptions to that trait of of personal identity.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'm still waiting for the Leftist know-it-alls to explain how THEY would keep us safe. I don't think the solution is to make nice with the enemy. Caring about what other foreign nations think about us is an exercise in shallow stupidity - as seen by our current fascist administration.

OK. What level of safety do you want from the government? Your answer to this question will determine my suggested methods of keeping you safe from foreign threats. (I will leave out for the time being the threat we face from home-grown domestic terrorists.)

--Do you want no more foreign terrorist attacks on American soil?
--Do you want no more foreign terrorist attacks on Americans on foreign soil?

--Do you want a small likelihood of foreign terrorist attacks on American soil?
--Do you want a small likelihood of foreign terrorist attacks on Americans on foreign soil?

--Do you want a big likelihood of foreign terrorist attacks on American soil?
--Do you want a big likelihood of foreign terrorist attacks on Americans on foreign soil?

So, tell me what level of safety from terrorist attacks you want the US government to provide you and I will give you my suggestions for how to go about doing it, without resorting to torture.


NOTE: I just want to remind you, once again, that there is an inverse relationship between the level of safety provided to you by a government and the level of personal freedoms you have. The more a government is able to protect you from harm the less freedom you have. So, choose wisely.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I agree. My values dictate that people who have crossed the line don't have the right to breathe, much less the right to toes. That's something that doesn't change over time -- I've pretty much held that view all of my life. A dog has more "rights" than a kidnapper or terrorist, in my opinion. Thank goodness there are people out there working to protect us that have a similar value system.

Unfortunately, the world isn't all about little birdies singing and happiness. When bad people do bad things, they have to be removed from the rest of us.

I don't like your values. I don't like the fact that you seem to be willing to sacrifice your principles when someone "crosses a line". If your principles are so flexible it makes me question just how dearly you hold them. I don't trust people whose are so willing to cast aside their values and principles in tough times. Tough times is when we need our values and principles the most.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Should we establish boundaries? Yes, it's a good thing for polite society. However, a realist knows that these walls are mobile in very extreme situations.

What warrants moving those walls? When there aren't more pleasant options (and there's almost always a more pleasant option).

Do you think the US government ran out of "more pleasant options" in trying to get information out of captured prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a result had to resort to torture? Do you think the powerful US military and intelligence community ran out of "more pleasant [than torture] options" of how to get information out of captured prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I do not. Personally, I think in the procedures for interrogation the US military and intelligence community were expected to choose expediency over accuracy, to choose getting some information over getting some accurate information. As a result, I think torture became the easiest solution to "get answers". And, as you have said, very few can resist high levels of physical pain. So, I think those who were tortured did not provide nearly as much accurate, useful information as they could have had they not been tortured.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

LOL

So what would THOSE METHODS BE? I'm wondering. If, as I suspect you are stating YOUR OPINION as IF it were a FACT, then you are typical of the shallow liberal, driven by guilt and you have no real evidence of this.

If those other methods are SO GREAT, then why don't all countries use such techniques? Lack of morals? Lack of results?

What other democratic, developed countries do you know of that use torture as a regular part of their intelligence-gathering activities?

[screener]

Forgotten are those caught in the net that are, were innocent that were vanished into an alternate reality where they have no rights.

But hey, the world isn't all about little birdies singing and happiness.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Should we establish boundaries? Yes, it's a good thing for polite society. However, a realist knows that these walls are mobile in very extreme situations.
SNIP

2) When the threat has been identified, and there are no doubts, you act swiftly and lay down your ethical concerns.

Explain this statement, please. If a threat has been identified, what can you have "no doubts" about? The nature of the threat? Who is behind the threat? who has information about the threat? what to do about the threat? What about your hypothetical scenario involving a known threat contains doubt?

[dcmacdaddy]

For those of you who think torture is an acceptable method for use by the US government to protect us, is there anything you would consider not an acceptable means of use by the US government to protect us?

In other words, what do you think it is not acceptable for the US government to do in their efforts to try and protect us. If there is nothing you would find unacceptable then say that as well.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Maybe you're right, besson3c. I've tried to reply to this thread about two or three times, but I can't get my thoughts in print correctly.

I think that what we have done fits the definition of torture. (And as an American, I use the term "we" purposefully, because the people who carried this out were acting on orders and justification from our government.) I think that torture should not have any place in American society, it is against our values. If we feel we need to resort to torture to get what we need, then we aren't doing it correctly.

We manage to convince ourselves that we are only doing it to protect the country and its values. But once we engage in it, we become the bad guys. It's logically impossible to protect our values by violating them. After that, nothing is left to protect.

And yes, I would feel this way even if it impacted me or my family directly. Values are supposed to carry you through tough times, not help you avoid them at all costs.

I just want to quote this again as it expresses my sentiments much more clearly and succintly than I have been able to do.

Originally Posted by Dork.

We manage to convince ourselves that we are only doing it to protect the country and its values. But once we engage in it, we become the bad guys. It's logically impossible to protect our values by violating them. After that, nothing is left to protect.

And yes, I would feel this way even if it impacted me or my family directly. Values are supposed to carry you through tough times, not help you avoid them at all costs.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I don't like your values. I don't like the fact that you seem to be willing to sacrifice your principles when someone "crosses a line". If your principles are so flexible it makes me question just how dearly you hold them. I don't trust people whose are so willing to cast aside their values and principles in tough times. Tough times is when we need our values and principles the most.

You seem to misunderstand. My principles aren't flexible. They've been the same for many years now, through good and bad times. Known terrorists, "freedom fighters" and enemies of the state (or me) forfeit a large part of their rights merely by committing acts of violence. Acts of violence must be answered accordingly with more violence. People who want me and/or other innocents dead are opening themselves to violent and deadly termination before they can exercise their particular methods. This is PART OF MY VALUE SYSTEM, not something I rush to out of desperation.

"Evil must be stopped right the f*ck now" is a core value of mine. Biker friends of mine call that "sh*t comes back tenfold" or the "don't screw with us" rule. This whole thing of "if we do that, we're just as bad as THEY are" is pure bullsh*t. THEY advocate killing random innocents; I advocate killing/torturing for information the guilty BECAUSE OF their behavior and threat to everyone's happiness. If that makes us "the same as them" then I can only imagine the cognitive challenges you must overcome each day.

I'm not asking you to trust me, or anyone else, or to be proud. I am pointing out, however, that your rosy attitude on this is notwithstanding the fact that people are out there hunting and killing in your name so you can stay safe -- right this very minute. Feel however you'd like to about "torture," but it keeps you safe at night whether you like it or not. Just be intellectually honest about this, that's all.

Finally, let's address the evil government thing.

Do I have the individual right to interrogate someone if they have credibly threatened me or intend to kill me or others? Yes, absent the state doing it in an organized fashion with due process. It's part of self-defense. I sure as heck can torture someone to discover where they're keeping my kidnapped wife or where they've planted the bomb. The lack of efficacy is their problem, not mine. Is it moral for me to do so? THEY STARTED IT, so I'd say yeah, probably. No relativism there.

Can I then assign that right to the state? Sure. Do I worry that they'll abuse it? Absolutely. After all, they've nationalized General Motors at this point, so they're obviously capable of anything these days.

Do I have a better plan? Nope. When you guys on the other side of this get one, drop a line.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by finboy 

You seem to misunderstand. My principles aren't flexible. They've been the same for many years now, through good and bad times. Known terrorists, "freedom fighters" and enemies of the state (or me) forfeit a large part of their rights merely by committing acts of violence. Acts of violence must be answered accordingly with more violence. People who want me and/or other innocents dead are opening themselves to violent and deadly termination before they can exercise their particular methods.

I'm not asking you to trust me, or anyone else. I am pointing out, however, that your rosy attitude on this is notwithstanding the fact that people are out there hunting and killing in your name so you can stay safe -- right this very minute. Feel however you'd like to about "torture," but it keeps you safe at night whether you like it or not.

But we're not talking about eliminating a terrorist in the field. We're talking about torturing someone already in our custody. This person is not, at that moment, a threat to the state.

Do these principles of yours also extend to domestic criminals? For example, would you support torturing the suspected accomplice of a murderer who is still at large and who authorities believe will kill again?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Well, most people on here identify with a particular national identity, yourself as a citizen of the world is one of the few exceptions to that trait of of personal identity.

Well, I'm a citizen of the state of Tennessee, and it just happens to be part of the United States of America.