Waterboarding

m42 · 05-01-2008, 09:55 AM

Amnesty International's latest rant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dLcc...eature=related

Do you feel waterboarding is a justified measure in protecting the lives of millions of people?

Zap · 05-01-2008, 10:08 AM

Amnesty International aside,

It's torture.

Isn't one of the things that really bugs us Westerners, the practice of torture? We're supposed to be against that this week, right?

m42 · 05-01-2008, 10:49 AM

My stance doesn't vascillate by the week.

I believe the sacrifice of a select few in order to save the many can be justified.

One of my favorite movie exchanges between Jamie Lee Curtis and Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Helen: "Have you ever killed anyone?"
Harry: "Yes, but they were all bad."

- True Lies

**John Scott** · 05-01-2008, 04:04 PM

If a person knows about terrorist activities that put innocent people in harm's way, and refuses to disclose that information, I'd torture him. Is it torture? Yes. Why debate that? Call it torture. Call it gruesome. Call it barbaric. I'd gruesomely and barbarically torture the person until he divulged the information.

I don't think that people should be tortured in fishing expeditions, though. Torturing somebody just to find out what they know is going too far.

Zap · 05-01-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m42

My stance doesn't vascillate by the week.

Not yours. Sorry if you thought I implied that.
I was speaking about the collective "us" in the West.
We go after torturous villains and often use torture to do it. Makes little sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

If a person knows about terrorist activities that put innocent people in harm's way, and refuses to disclose that information, I'd torture him. Is it torture? Yes. Why debate that? Call it torture. Call it gruesome. Call it barbaric. I'd gruesomely and barbarically torture the person until he divulged the information.

How would you justify that? (Not to me or anyone else, but to yourself)
How would you become at peace with that, or would that never happen?

And how do you feel, about getting faulty information? It's been shown that if you torture someone long enough, they will say whatever you want them to say or whatever they think you want them to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

I don't think that people should be tortured in fishing expeditions, though. Torturing somebody just to find out what they know is going too far.

The problem with torture is that it's often very difficult to tell what a person knows, or even if they might know enough to help you, before the torture begins.

m42 · 05-01-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

Not yours. Sorry if you thought I implied that.
I was speaking about the collective "us" in the West.
We go after torturous villains and often use torture to do it. Makes little sense to me.

Don't be sorry. You are not responsible for what is in my mind. I simply dislike the idea of grouping individual thinkers with the "collective" sheeple. I believe when challenged, the majority of people are actually capable of rationally thinking things through without the "collective."

**John Scott** · 05-01-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

How would you justify that?

Easily. All members of society have an obligation to stop crimes. If a terrorist or collaborator needs some help to fulfill his obligation to society, I don't see any problem with helping him to fulfill that obligation.

Quote:

We go after torturous villains and often use torture to do it. Makes little sense to me.

Of course it makes sense. Putting an innocent person in a prison cell isn't the same as putting a guilty person in a prison cell. One is a crime, the other isn't. If you can't see the difference, you need to spend some time thinking about the social contract.

Quote:

It's been shown that if you torture someone long enough, they will say whatever you want them to say or whatever they think you want them to say.

A skilled interrogator wouldn't put a person in a situation where they would be forced to fabricate information.

Quote:

The problem with torture is that it's often very difficult to tell what a person knows, or even if they might know enough to help you, before the torture begins.

Really? Are you just blowing hot air? Have you any experience with torture? Have you any experience with interrogation? Or are you just mouthing words without any knowledge to back them up?

In specific cases, the interrogator knew that some persons would have specific information and they went after that information, and it has helped us to arrest terrorists. So, yeah, the value of waterboarding has been proven.

Zap · 05-01-2008, 06:06 PM

Not blowing hot air, just stating the obvious, and now, apparently, explaining that fact to you.

So, you are of the mind in this case that two wrongs make a right. I get it.

m42 · 05-01-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

Not blowing hot air, just stating the obvious, and now, apparently, explaining that fact to you.

So, you are of the mind in this case that two wrongs make a right. I get it.

If the extraction methods didn't produce viable results, do you think they'd do it?

Yes, it is a negative act. Yes, it is justified. It is no more "wrong" than killing someone in self defense.

**John Scott** · 05-01-2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

So, you are of the mind in this case that two wrongs make a right. I get it.

See, this is what makes you appear to be stupid. The way you run madly and at full speed like some drunk streaker at running towards the strawman goal post.

Two wrongs? First, if you were intelligent, you would have to establish that there were two wrongs. Then you could conclude that "two wrongs" have occurred.

Somebody plans terror attacks. Okay, that's one wrong. He is arrested, the government knows he has accomplices. They waterboard the SOB and he gives up his accomplices. Peoples lives are saved.

Was an innocent person waterboarded? No. so where is the second wrong?

Seriously, Zap, is the whole of Canada immune from logical reasoning? Are you all a bunch of emotive thinkers? Or it is just you?

**John Scott** · 05-01-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m42

If the extraction methods didn't produce viable results, do you think they'd do it?

Yes, it is a negative act. Yes, it is justified. It is no more "wrong" than killing someone in self defense.

Just a heads up. I've known Zap for years. He is immune to logical reasoning. He "emotes" rather than "thinks" so don't expect too much from him. But he is good-intentioned.

m42 · 05-01-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

The way you run madly and at full speed like some drunk streaker at running towards the strawman goal post.

Woah there.... If Zap actually looks like Adriana Lima, I'd have absolutely no problem with that.

Just keep pullin' that strawman goal post back a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Just a heads up. I've known Zap for years. He is immune to logical reasoning. He "emotes" rather than "thinks" so don't expect too much from him. But he is good-intentioned.

Good intentions don't do #$@ for me, I'm not that emotional.

This has more to do with that idealist bandwagon.

If you believe he is beyond hope, why do you respond to his ignorance?

**John Scott** · 05-01-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m42

If you believe he is beyond hope, why do you respond to his ignorance?

Sport.

He's Canadian, so he is beyond hope.

m42 · 05-01-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Sport.

"Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?"

Zap · 05-01-2008, 07:57 PM

@John: First off, we all argue with emotion, including yourself. That doesn't exclude logic. If your posts don't contain emotion, then how is it logical to try to bully your opponents, rather than provide logical, factual information?
I'm surprised that you feel so strongly against rendition, yet are in favour of torture.
Honestly, torturing someone is good, but the plane ride is bad?

I guess you really don't like plane food or something.

@M42: I think it would be pointless to try to explain the difference between an act of self defense and the torture of someone to a person in favour of the latter, so meh.

m42 · 05-01-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

@M42: I think it would be pointless to try to explain the difference between an act of self defense and the torture of someone to a person in favour of the latter, so meh.

@John Scott: I stand corrected.

This marriage is not going to work. You're too damned tolerant for my tastes.

m42 freefalls off the idealism bandwagon. Wheeeeeeee!