You Anti Torture Guys Are Phonies... Unless

[Potomophobia 17]

I call:Colonel FeathersIn the LibraryWith the lead pipe upside his head.

[navybuttons 15]

i'm going to need someone to explain this to me. isn't the use of torture against international law?

[hblask 1]

i'm going to need someone to explain this to me.isn't the use of torture against international law?

Yeah, kind of. OK, completely.But Bush and now Obama have declared themselves and the US immune to these laws, and so far nobody has the military power to tell them they are wrong.Of course, the next time a plane flies into a building or poison is found in the subway system, the politicians will say it's because they hate our freedom.

[colonel Feathers 5]

i'm going to need someone to explain this to me. isn't the use of torture against international law?

I dont know, is kidnapping, piracy, beheadings, burning witches, cutting off arms, hands, feet, enslaving women, bombing markets, ????

[vbnautilus 48]

i'm going to need someone to explain this to me. isn't the use of torture against international law?

Yes. The Geneva convention outlawed it, but of course the whole "enemy combatant" thing was designed to get around having to treat these people under the rules of war. But beyond that, the U.S. has signed the UN Convention against Torture. Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict. Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.But these things are basically non-enforceable (except maybe by us).

[colonel Feathers 5]

Yeah, kind of. OK, completely.Of course, the next time a plane flies into a building or poison is found in the subway system, the politicians will say it's because they hate our freedom.

And the left will say its cause we made it uncomfy for the terrorists. So we must understand there legitamate beefs.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

LOL @ international law. You need an international government in order to make an effective international law.

[hblask 1]

and I was thinking of starting a separate thread, but here works just as well:You Pro-torture guys are phonies... unless...A woman you don't know from the next town is kidnapped. The police have decided it is someone in your city that did it, and that torture will save the woman's life.So the police conduct a door-to-door torture campaign, torturing everyone in the city until they find the answer they want.They come to your door, and want to take your family for torture next. They will start with your wife and daughter. The innocent kidnapped woman's life is on the line.Do you go peacefully?

[colonel Feathers 5]

and I was thinking of starting a separate thread, but here works just as well:You Pro-torture guys are phonies... unless...A woman you don't know from the next town is kidnapped. The police have decided it is someone in your city that did it, and that torture will save the woman's life.So the police conduct a door-to-door torture campaign, torturing everyone in the city until they find the answer they want.They come to your door, and want to take your family for torture next. They will start with your wife and daughter. The innocent kidnapped woman's life is on the line.Do you go peacefully?

Not even close to the original premise. But im guessing you wouldnt allow the torture of an actual kidnapper to save your daughter.Funny tho, this is how they do things in the middle east. The place you guys defend.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Not even close to the original premise. But im guessing you wouldnt allow the torture of an actual kidnapper to save your daughter.Funny tho, this is how they do things in the middle east. The place you guys defend.

LOL @ hblask being one of "you guys" that defends the middle east. You are officially the most partisan and obnoxious poster on these forums, feathers, and that's quote and accomplishment.

[hblask 1]

Not even close to the original premise. But im guessing you wouldnt allow the torture of an actual kidnapper to save your daughter.Funny tho, this is how they do things in the middle east. The place you guys defend.

LOL, it wasn't meant to be the *same* as the original premise, it was meant to be the exact *opposite* of the original premise, only using the exact same flawed logic. A fallacious argument is flawed no matter which side it supports.As for defending the middle east, I'm pretty sure I've never done that. I vote that we get out and let them kill themselves for another couple hundred years until natural selection chooses the less violent members of their society from the gene pool. And if they mess with us, we bomb them into oblivion. (Fortunately, that's a short trip).

[vbnautilus 48]

Not even close to the original premise. But im guessing you wouldnt allow the torture of an actual kidnapper to save your daughter.Funny tho, this is how they do things in the middle east. The place you guys defend.

Feathers, lets examine this hypothetical you keep using and how useful it is. The premise is: (1) anything that you would do to save your daughter is ok for the government to do But basically, most people would agree that(2) I would do anything to save my daughterTherefore, if we really believe (1) then the government has the right to do absolutely anything. (1) is really a very poor standard for determining what the government should be allowed to do, and is entirely without justification.

[Sal Paradise 57]

when did we, as a nation, forget how to silence people? it is shocking how bad the federal government is at doing anything on the DL.

we are not brite.

I dont know, is kidnapping, piracy, beheadings, burning witches, cutting off arms, hands, feet, enslaving women, bombing markets, ????

oy vey

[El Guapo 8]

Geneva convention is more a set of guidelines than law.

[colonel Feathers 5]

LOL @ hblask being one of "you guys" that defends the middle east. You are officially the most partisan and obnoxious poster on these forums, feathers, and that's quote and accomplishment.

Tough, but fair.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Geneva convention is more a set of guidelines than law.

More like a Catholic/jewish mother guilt trip.

[El Guapo 8]

More like a Catholic/jewish mother guilt trip.

Good analogy

[strategy 4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX8Bnk4mB0w

[akoff 0]

Yeah the problem with the OP is that it's a fantasy. In reality, the amount of children who are kidnapped for the purpose of rape/murder is extremely small, and sadly something like 90% of those kidnap victims are dead within 3 hours. In other words, the use of torture to determine the location of an alive-but-dying victim just wouldn't ever happen, or if it did it would happen like once. A much more important question is if, how, and why we should or shouldn't use torture against 'enemy combatants,' aka accused terrorists. When thinking about torture I think we need to look at real-world examples, not fantasies. I will stand by the idea that I don't think torture should be used to gain information on dead victims, and like I explained before it would be extremely unlikely that the opportunity to use torture to save a live victim would ever come up, in terms of domestic law enforcement. So, should we torture terrorists for information? Not like Abu-graib-style random humiliation, but Jack-Bauer style 'I'm going to cut out your eyeball unless you tell me where the bomb is?' Our government absolutely does use 'interrogation techniques' that border on torture, and I would be quite surprised if they don't also use downright illegal torture as well. But how do I feel about it? I'm not sure. I don't think they're doing it for the enjoyment of torturing ugly hairy men, but rather in an effort to save American lives (that sounds cheesy, but it's true). So of course I want to torture somebody if it will save my daughter, but that's Hollywood bs. Do I also want to torture somebody if he might know information about attacks against American civilians or soldiers? I dunno, but I think I might.

Maybe a better example I should have used, very similar to the OP is this: Should we use torture if we capture an enemy who we believe has knowledge of captured American soldiers, reporters, etc? Like if we have a specific reason to believe this person was involved in the kidnapping or holding of the Americans, and you've seen enough underground terrorist broadcasts to know that while some victims are left alive for weeks or even months, others are killed on camera. In other words, there is a good chance that a rescue mission could be successful. I feel like this is a much more realistic scenario than the OP, but it is still much less likely or common than torture scenarios involving enemies with potential knowledge of terrorist attacks in the United States, or against US soldiers oversees.

Oh my god...Twice in one thread I agree with you!! I must need a Vac or you are getting smarter Tim!!!!Maybe your still flying high after crushing the dreams of Yankee fans over the weekend!!

[CaneBrain 95]

ironic yet unsurprising headline of the year:Survey: Churchgoers more likely to back torture http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

[Loismustdie 0]

ironic yet unsurprising headline of the year:Survey: Churchgoers more likely to back torture http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

It's not really the question that should be asked. The real question is "Would you do it?" The answer of course would largely be no. The interesting thing is that as a churchgoer, I can recognize that I personally would not hurt another man in most instances, yet this being an imperfect world in certain situations there must be others willing to do just that. If we must be in a war with another country might as well do what works, or what would be effective. Churchgoer or not, common sense dictates that steps need to be taken that would not be taken in other instances. So, really, somehow you have managed to find irony in the fact that most polled churchgoers are not completely blind and stupid. They have managed to think a situation through and make the correct judgement call. Bad form, church goers, bad form.

[Nimue1995 1]

It's not really the question that should be asked. The real question is "Would you do it?" The answer of course would largely be no. The interesting thing is that as a churchgoer, I can recognize that I personally would not hurt another man in most instances, yet this being an imperfect world in certain situations there must be others willing to do just that. If we must be in a war with another country might as well do what works, or what would be effective. Churchgoer or not, common sense dictates that steps need to be taken that would not be taken in other instances. So, really, somehow you have managed to find irony in the fact that most polled churchgoers are not completely blind and stupid. They have managed to think a situation through and make the correct judgement call. Bad form, church goers, bad form.

Sounds like hypocrisy at it's best. If you won't do it then why is it okay to hire somebody to do so? That's what you're basically saying. My opinion is that if you wouldn't do it yourself then you shouldn't be asking someone else to do it. It's why I finally came down on the side of being pro-life from cradle to grave including being anti-death penalty. If someone asked me if I could sentence a criminal to death, knowing the inequities and imperfection of the criminal justice system, I could not do so. Therefore, I can't in good conscience ask someone else to do so. The same applies to torture. Sounds to me like you would have approved of the inquisition if it got information valuable to the particular people in power at that time. I'm sure they used the same ridiculous logic as you're doing there. If it's wrong for you to do then it's wrong for anybody to do. When you start getting into believing that the ends justify the means then you're on a slippery slope toward tyranny.

[CaneBrain 95]

It's not really the question that should be asked. The real question is "Would you do it?" The answer of course would largely be no. The interesting thing is that as a churchgoer, I can recognize that I personally would not hurt another man in most instances, yet this being an imperfect world in certain situations there must be others willing to do just that. If we must be in a war with another country might as well do what works, or what would be effective. Churchgoer or not, common sense dictates that steps need to be taken that would not be taken in other instances. So, really, somehow you have managed to find irony in the fact that most polled churchgoers are not completely blind and stupid. They have managed to think a situation through and make the correct judgement call. Bad form, church goers, bad form.

Or they have managed to ask "What Would Jesus do" and decided the answer is "what the Romans did to Jesus during the Passion".being slightly more serious, most churchgoers are Republican therefore they support Republican platforms. I seriously doubt there are a lot of church groups out there right now debating the merits of coercive interrogation.

[vbnautilus 48]

It's not really the question that should be asked. The real question is "Would you do it?" The answer of course would largely be no. The interesting thing is that as a churchgoer, I can recognize that I personally would not hurt another man in most instances, yet this being an imperfect world in certain situations there must be others willing to do just that. If we must be in a war with another country might as well do what works, or what would be effective. Churchgoer or not, common sense dictates that steps need to be taken that would not be taken in other instances. So, really, somehow you have managed to find irony in the fact that most polled churchgoers are not completely blind and stupid. They have managed to think a situation through and make the correct judgement call. Bad form, church goers, bad form.

Well this might explain why churchgoers might support torture.... but why would they support torture more than non-churchgoers, which is what the poll found? They found the more often people go to church, the more likely they are to support torture.