Torture- Never, or sometimes?

[Butterbeer]

so .. no more heads in sand please.

that tiny snippet, is what i refer to: Genocide sir!

which, Lief: (to answer your question) you brought up, at least the reference to the Red indians.

Lief:

Was the United States' expulsion of North America's native Americans from their land acceptable?

#1 "Does it work?" Yes! Beyond doubt!
#2 "Does it create a situation that is ultimately even more dangerous than the one we were seeking to avoid in the first place?" No! The situation in the end was only positive for our people.
#3 "Does it set a precedent we don't want?" No! No one to any other state cared what we did with a bunch of savages, except Britain, for a very little while. The precedent was also one that was only positive for us. There have been no negative repercussions.

followed up later by this:

Ethics first, practicalities later. Should I steal from my fellow students at college? First come ethics: No, it is wrong to steal. I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me. To me, the issue stops there.

A Disparity with your tea, anyone?

[Spock]

Genocide within a country is one thing. War is something else. If you don't preserve yourself, the other guy wins. So do you smile and be nice or do you do what is necessary to preserve?

China still uses torture and murder; this reported this week in world news.

and we gave them the Olympics (collective "we" for you purists)


Beheading journalists, civilians and military is fine but yelling at them, photographing them, stripping them, subjecting them to hot/cold/loud music, is torture. Get real.

[rohirrim TR]

BB, i wasn't saying anyone was innocent and I'm aware of the totally messed up stuff that happened, i'm not sure what its got to do with torture though.

wounded knee is an interesting incident to study, i've read more than one theory, one said that a soldier saw a buddys coat and scalp or somethng and went postal, and caused it all to go bad. and another story i heard was that a guy got nervous, his rifle went off,the indians shot back and then everythng went sour, either way it wasn't premeditated by government.

any way what exactly does this have to do with whether or not to torture terrorists?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

i'm not saying anyone is blameless ... for sure the red indians are not saints ... but then i never said they were ...

but the facts are they were systematically driven and forced off their lands, killed, wiped out and driven out of their land (again!! ) .. there were effective pogroms to wipe them out ... which makes it genocide.

Okay, I'll read your material when I get the good opportunity. I just want to add to this that we also willingly embraced into our culture and civilization any who were willing to merge with us. We sought to bring Christ to the Indians also, and many times succeeded. There are many success stories of Indians who joined with our expanding nation. That is far from normal among genocide perpetrators.

I'm not saying that this policy "join us, leave, or die" was good. It wasn't really genocide, however, either.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Lief:
Quote:
Was the United States' expulsion of North America's native Americans from their land acceptable?

#1 "Does it work?" Yes! Beyond doubt!
#2 "Does it create a situation that is ultimately even more dangerous than the one we were seeking to avoid in the first place?" No! The situation in the end was only positive for our people.
#3 "Does it set a precedent we don't want?" No! No one to any other state cared what we did with a bunch of savages, except Britain, for a very little while. The precedent was also one that was only positive for us. There have been no negative repercussions.



followed up later by this:

Quote:
Ethics first, practicalities later. Should I steal from my fellow students at college? First come ethics: No, it is wrong to steal. I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me. To me, the issue stops there.



A Disparity with your tea, anyone?

The argument I wrote down "justifying" the North American Indian expulsions was simply intended to show brownjenkins the flaws I see in his reasoning. Brownjenkins was raising purely technical barriers that need to be overcome. I was showing him an example where they were overcome. The expulsion of the Indians was completely practical, for us. However, I don't think it was ethical, and thus, it should not have been allowed- or at least not done the way it was.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They knew that they would be leaving people alive and in states of severe suffering.

But this isnt done and designed PURPOSEFULY for that specific result! Bombing someone is about destruction. And destruction and torture are two different things. When we torture someone they are already in a position where they have lost and are now under our control. When we drop a bomb on a nation we are at war with it is for the point of distruction. Not purposeful cruelty. Of course there is going to be some that dont die instantly. Of course there are going to be some who are only wounded. But to compare wounding someone who might otherwise bring harm to you to purposefully torturing someone who can no longer harm you because they have been captured and overpowered is absurd.

That's absurd. A native with a spear has no chance whatsoever against an M-16.

Then why engage someone with an M-16 when you only have a spear... You might also tell this to the Zulus who killed many many british with nothing but spears and shields by the way. The point is if you engage an army in battle then you are purposefully seeking combat no matter how bad your odds are. It in no way is the equivilent of torture. It might be a massacre but its certainly not anything like torture. Its two forces seeking each other out in conflict.

Also, I don't understand why you say, "Combatants purposefully seeking to capture or kill the other or take out his resources by violent means is 'fair game' to me," and you don't add to that list, "extracting information to help your war effort."

Because once again it doesnt work and once again it back fires against you in the long run so why do it other then to be cruel? And this is not fair combat. This isnt combat at all.

President Bush never publicly advocated torture. Quite the reverse.

My point exactly. He makes speeches about how horrible torture is and how it should never happen and then he backs secret torture camps in other countries where we can ship prisoners to be tortured for information. Havent you been following the news about this stuff lately?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But this isnt done and designed PURPOSEFULY for that specific result! Bombing someone is about destruction. And destruction and torture are two different things. When we torture someone they are already in a position where they have lost and are now under our control. When we drop a bomb on a nation we are at war with it is for the point of distruction. Not purposeful cruelty.

The point of torture, if legalized in some cases, would not be purposeful cruelty. It would be gaining information which would save lives on your side.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Of course there is going to be some that dont die instantly. Of course there are going to be some who are only wounded. But to compare wounding someone who might otherwise bring harm to you to purposefully torturing someone who can no longer harm you because they have been captured and overpowered is absurd.

The fact that "they have been captured and overpowered" is not the reason they would be tortured. The fact that they have been overpowered makes torture possible. The reason for doing this would be procuring vital information.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Then why engage someone with an M-16 when you only have a spear... You might also tell this to the Zulus who killed many many british with nothing but spears and shields by the way. The point is if you engage an army in battle then you are purposefully seeking combat no matter how bad your odds are.

(Shakes head) All right . . . if that's fair game to you.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It in no way is the equivilent of torture. It might be a massacre but its certainly not anything like torture. Its two forces seeking each other out in conflict.

Torture would only be used against people who were actively working to destroy you. It would be used to save lives on your own side, much like dropping a bomb on an enemy city is. In both cases, your enemy is helpless and experiencing terrible suffering because that suffering suits your need.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Because once again it doesnt work and once again it back fires against you in the long run so why do it other then to be cruel? And this is not fair combat. This isnt combat at all.

Much of what you've described as "fair combat" isn't combat at all. Bombing cities full of civilians, for example, which might fit under your "taking out enemy resources" option.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

My point exactly. He makes speeches about how horrible torture is and how it should never happen and then he backs secret torture camps in other countries where we can ship prisoners to be tortured for information. Havent you been following the news about this stuff lately?

I have. This is getting off-topic, however, don't you agree?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The point of torture, if legalized in some cases, would not be purposeful cruelty. It would be gaining information which would save lives on your side.

But it doesnt work so it therefore amounts to not much more then purposeful cruelty. But lets pretend for a moment that torture is a wonderful way of gaining information. Then what happens when we, as the most powerful military force in the world, always lecturing other "lesser" nations about the concepts of democracy and human rights, turns around and uses torture against the residents of these very nations? What tremendous bold faced hypocrisy on our part. And what short sighted hubris to do such a thing. You would in essence be saying whatever the bad guys do is fine. Forget everything we said about democracy and human rights. We stoop to their level. We endorse all tactics no matter how cruel. We would be giving the green light to people around the world and in our own military that its ok to do stuff like this not just for "actively procuring information to save american lives" but then next to intimidate people and then to humiliate and strike terror in people. WE would become the terrorists... And we would therefore have already lost.

The line between surgical cruelty and sadistic abomination is way too fine to keep everyone from crossing it. The essence of human nature would almost immediately lead to "abuses" in this tactic (if you can really make a distinction between "proper torturing" and "abusive torturing"....). You would have Abu Grabe times a million.

Furthermore, we could never say one word to China anymore for their massive human rights abuses. We would have much less clout and moral leverage over "rogue" states like North Korea and Iran. We would severely limit our ability to resolve hostile situations around the world because we would be "America the Torturers". We would be giving impetus to all sorts of two bit dictators and tin cup despots that everything is fair now. That they need not worry about america coming after them when they do despicable things to their own citizens because we do the same things to theirs. Let the reign of cruelty begin! And finally the biggest irony would be the fact that we could never again justify invading in a situation like Iraq based of the fact that their leader does horrible things to his own citizens. Because the minute we bring that up in world court he can say well America does it so why cant I?

Torture would only be used against people who were actively working to destroy you.

But how do you know which person is actively working to destroy you? Inevitably the vast majority of prisoners you would be torturing would not have any useful or relevant information for you. So a torture policy would in effect be a be cruel to a lot of innocent people policy. And hey is that really what you want us to become lief? Is cruelly torturing 100 people worth getting a nugget of information from one about a road side bomb somewhere? Or a stash of weapons?

It would be used to save lives on your own side, much like dropping a bomb on an enemy city is. In both cases, your enemy is helpless and experiencing terrible suffering because that suffering suits your need.

How are enemies behind enemy lines as helpless as a prisoner blind folded and strapped to a chair exactly? Bombing a munitions plant and killing workers and soldiers is not at ALL the same as capturing some of them and dragging them into our dungeons and sticking hot metal stakes up their nostrils on purpose. I dont see how you can even make the comparison. Sure, fire bombing a village with no real connection to the enemy war effort or dropping bombs on a wedding party because they look like terrorists to us is also a horrible thing to do. And we can argue about those things as well. You certainly wont find me endorsing indiscriminate killing of innocents. But while killing people is horrible overtly seeking out people to torture is psychotic.

[Spock]

PLEASE STAY ON SUBJECT --------------------------

I know things can be interrelated but let's not go back to the 17-1800's and keep this topic fairly current.......even from WW II if you must.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

PLEASE STAY ON SUBJECT --------------------------

I know things can be interrelated but let's not go back to the 17-1800's and keep this topic fairly current.......even from WW II if you must.

I haven't noticed many off-topic things posted here.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We would be giving the green light to people around the world and in our own military that its ok to do stuff like this not just for "actively procuring information to save american lives" but then next to intimidate people and then to humiliate and strike terror in people. WE would become the terrorists... And we would therefore have already lost.

War has certain boundaries. For example, we do not allow the use of poisonous gases to destroy groups. These are considered inhumane weapons of war. We also make as much effort as we can to avoid civilian casualties, unless we have no other choice. There are boundaries in medicine as well, which are firmly kept. We aren't allowed to do now what was done with the Ptolemies in Egypt- dissect live criminals for the sake of science. There are limits that are held to. I can't see any reason why torture wouldn't hold to those limits as well.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The line between surgical cruelty and sadistic abomination is way too fine to keep everyone from crossing it. The essence of human nature would almost immediately lead to "abuses" in this tactic (if you can really make a distinction between "proper torturing" and "abusive torturing"....). You would have Abu Grabe times a million.

You don't have to keep everyone from crossing it. In war also, there are instances of terrible abuse- not just torture abuse, but killing abuse, looting and other. Does this mean that war should never happen? No. We permit war, but bind it to certain rules. We know that these rules will be broken by some people in our army, but we do our utmost to minimize these instances of rule breaking, and we consider the overall result to be worth the cost of unintentional wrongdoing. In the same way, torture could be bound by rules and used only in specific circumstances. This would also give us the moral right to condemn torture in China of religious groups, for example, or democracy activists. We might torture in some cases to save lives. This is utterly different from states like Iraq once was, places where you could be tortured or killed for not giving over your property to someone else just because he asks for it. Thus, we would possess a certain moral authority still. Our moral authority might be weakened somewhat, but the difference between when torture should be used and when it shouldn't would be made clear.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I haven't noticed many off-topic things posted here.

Yeah. What in the world are you talking about spock? No talking about torture in the 1800's? Are you bored or something?

War has certain boundaries. For example, we do not allow the use of poisonous gases to destroy groups. These are considered inhumane weapons of war.

Just as we don’t and shouldn’t allow torture. For the very same reasons you site for gas. Why differentiate exactly? Gas can be an effective weapon after all. A “tool for victory”. But its generally held that it is just too cruel and despicable of a weapon to use.

There are boundaries in medicine as well, which are firmly kept. We aren't allowed to do now what was done with the Ptolemies in Egypt- dissect live criminals for the sake of science.

But we do still widely hold as ok torturing and dissecting live animals for the sake of science (or at least the pharmaceutical and the make up industries) which many people think is also cruel and unnecessary and should not be allowed.

There are limits that are held to. I can't see any reason why torture wouldn't hold to those limits as well.

We don’t even officially allow it at all now and we get abu grab and secret torture prisons as it is. Nevermind the countless episodes you hear about in the news every so often about kids in juvenile facilities dieing from excessive punishment or teachers or priests taking liberties with those they have power over. Do you really truly think as corrupt and weak as humans have time and time again shown themselves to be over the course of history that we could suddenly get it right with handing people the power to legally be sadistic and cruel?

You don't have to keep everyone from crossing it. In war also, there are instances of terrible abuse- not just torture abuse, but killing abuse, looting and other. Does this mean that war should never happen?

This difference is that you cant outlaw war. The enemy doesn’t have to listen to you. If you outlaw war then they’ll just come riding down on you killing as they wish. You can fight back. And yes abuse will happen under such hellish psychological and physical conditions as war but all we can do is attempt to minimize them. There is no reason to initiate cruelty when not under those combat conditions though.

This would also give us the moral right to condemn torture in China of religious groups, for example, or democracy activists.

Oh come on you cant rationally think China would ever ever take us seriously again if we were to say anything about their human rights policies when we are torturing people. They would feel they now had cart blanch to do whatever they wanted short of vast genocide. And to further the political issue, would we also pick and choose which nationalities are ok to torture? What if we capture Chinese citizens in opposition to us who may have information for your use? Would we torture them knowing china would go ballistic over that and that we would be direct hypocrites for doing such a thing? What if they were citizens of our very own allies? Should we torture Pakistanis and foment even further hatred among the Pakistanis against us and perhaps lose the government as an ally? For that matter could we torture Brits and Germans and Italian citizens who were members of the insurgency? We already lock them up without a word for years. Would it be ok to torture them too and risk the political fall out from a country that is an ally of ours?

Thus, we would possess a certain moral authority still. Our moral authority might be weakened somewhat, but the difference between when torture should be used and when it shouldn't would be made clear.

That’s a joke. We would be hypocrites of massive proportion. We would be handing dictators and corrupt leaders (and friends!) the ability to simply say well I was doing it because they are a criminal element who had information we needed to extract. And we would never again have any room to argue against that. We would be giving a free pass card to every torturer in the world to do as they wanted and just mouth the right words when questioned on it.

[The Gaffer]

You are spot on, IRex. This is really mind-boggling, let's all go back to the middle ages type stuff.

We don’t even officially allow it.

Precisely the point: what we are seeing from the militaristic right at the moment is an increasingly convoluted rhetoric which is as self-righteous and sanctimonious as it is amoral and hypocritical.

Do they not teach history in schools any more?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yeah. What in the world are you talking about spock? No talking about torture in the 1800's? Are you bored or something?
.

Posts 77, 82-83 are in that time period. Post 85 has Zulus and M-16's which are entirely different decades.

Please don't attact the messenger.

[Lief Erikson]

I'll respond to you, IR, soon.

Originally Posted by Spock

Posts 77, 82-83 are in that time period. Post 85 has Zulus and M-16's which are entirely different decades.

Please don't attact the messenger.

Zulus and M-16s were illustrations of an important point, though. We were discussing what was "fair game" in war, because I was arguing that torture could be a reasonable act of war. We weren't just being random .

The main items I think we ought to watch out for, as regards going off-topic, are the discussion of specific nations. For example, this thread is not created for discussion of Guantanamo Bay or these alleged secret CIA prisons. So we'll need to be careful not to accidentally shift into discussing specific nations rather than the issues, unless in certain cases discussion of the nations is necessary to discussion of the issues (like in the setting a precedent matter).

[BeardofPants]

Doesn't the thread starter get to define exactly what his/her topic is about?

Originally Posted by LE

This thread is about the ethics of torture. Obviously, there is the practical aspect that torture often provides bad information. But what about the ethics?

[Butterbeer]

Posts 77, 82-83 are in that time period. Post 85 has Zulus and M-16's which are entirely different decades.

I think Spock is kidding ..since post #82 that he cites is his own!

I agree BoP, that was always my understanding ...

i see no serious wandering off track that hasn't had a good initial reason in the course of debate and not then come back to the central breadth of the main issues.

If lief is happy and all the mooters are happy, i can see no problem, thus i am guessing Spock is kidding us?

(if not ... then i shall say no more on the subject, as per rules )


EDIT: anyway what has time to do with the debate about torture??? The thread has not specified the debate be narrowed to certain time-periods.

Now, Spock i only mention this because i have an interest in comparing some of Lief's practical and moral arguments in relation to Torture, never or sometimes? with reference to Torqemada and the spanish Inquisition (i promise only one Monty Python comment, honestly )

best BB

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

My philosophy completely diverges from yours and IR's on this point. Ethics first, practicalities later. Should I steal from my fellow students at college? First come ethics: No, it is wrong to steal. I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me. To me, the issue stops there. If I want to continue the thought process, I could go into the practicalities, the dangers and perks, of stealing from my fellow students.

I do not go into the technicalities alone. "Does it work? Does it set a precedent (No, for no one sees me steal but me )? Is it too risky?" Those practicalities are completely separate from my thought processes. The ethics alone are enough. If the ethics clear me, however, (this student stole my book; I'm just "stealing" it back) then the practicalities come in.

the ethics are clear to you because, as you grew from a newborn baby to the adult you are today, you were taught them... you were not born with the ethic not to steal... some get this teaching via biblical means, others via real world experience/examples... the "technicalities", or implications of stealing is why you were taught these ethics... the very reason why all societies, whether christian, muslim, buddhist or athiest all teach their children not to steal

you assume that the ethics stem from some divine being, but i would say they stem from the collective human experience... societies learned over time that they must live together peacefully, and the best insurance for their own happiness is respecting the happiness of those around them... it's a slow process, and many try to get around it for their own personal gain... but as society evolved, people realized collectively that these ethics were the best way to live and prosper... some got enshrined in religious teachings, but this is because they make sense "technically", not because they actually stemmed from a divine source

a good illustration is to look at how ethics have changed over time... at one time the beating slaves in this country was seen as perfectly ethical... there was nothing wrong with it from the slaveowner's pov... slaves were their property and not entitled to the same rights a non-slave had... some even used biblical justification, calling africans the children of cain and thus cursed by god

it took a lot of societal evolution to overcome this particular "ethic"... but in time, the "technicalities" (the dangers of slavery for society as a whole) were realized by more and more people, and the practice was eventually condemned... the same is the case with torture in much of the modern world

ethics do not exist in a vacuum, they exist because of the technicalities

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The argument I wrote down "justifying" the North American Indian expulsions was simply intended to show brownjenkins the flaws I see in his reasoning. Brownjenkins was raising purely technical barriers that need to be overcome. I was showing him an example where they were overcome. The expulsion of the Indians was completely practical, for us. However, I don't think it was ethical, and thus, it should not have been allowed- or at least not done the way it was.

and i'd argue that, if you take the longterm perspective, it was not "completely practical, for us"... many issues that exist to this very day among the native american populace in our country, and effect all of us, could have been avoided if we had dealt with them differently a few hundred years ago

it only seems "completely practical" because you fail to look at the entire picture of human existance on this planet... a common practice that most nations and religions still do to this very day

[Lief Erikson]

Brownjenkins, your arguments that refer to "evil never pays," are always very interesting to me. The way I interpret it is that you've gotten an understanding of how God's justice often works out in practical experience without being a Christian! That's my perspective, and it's very interesting to observe those arguments.

Indeed, ethics do entwine with reality and practicality in an extremely real way. However, I approach it from the opposite perspective. To me, ethics do essentially "exist in vacuum." They existed before the world existed, and the practicalities spring from ethics. Why is an evil action often impractical, or why does it often draw a judgment? Because the theft is breaking a natural moral law that exists. When God created the moral laws, he created them as what is most practical as well as what is most good. Sins draw judgment in the world he created, and goodness can draw God's favor. It's fascinating to see how you see how some of this plays out in real life, without seeing it through the perspective of Christianity.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and i'd argue that, if you take the longterm perspective, it was not "completely practical, for us"... many issues that exist to this very day among the native american populace in our country, and effect all of us, could have been avoided if we had dealt with them differently a few hundred years ago

The negative reprecussions of having inhumanely treated the Indians are not nearly so great as the gains, however. Virtually all of our country and wealth come from that westward drive. The gains are astronomical. Our country would be a fragment of what it is, if we had not shoved the Indian populations off their land.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Just as we don’t and shouldn’t allow torture. For the very same reasons you site for gas. Why differentiate exactly? Gas can be an effective weapon after all. A “tool for victory”. But its generally held that it is just too cruel and despicable of a weapon to use.

Yes, but that's really because of the practicalities. Poisonous gas is often unnecessary, nowadays. There are other ways to accomplish what poisonous gas accomplishes. I know you'd argue the same about torture, and that's reasonable. I'm just not capable of arguing it, yet.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But we do still widely hold as ok torturing and dissecting live animals for the sake of science (or at least the pharmaceutical and the make up industries) which many people think is also cruel and unnecessary and should not be allowed.

That's true. However, whether we've set our limits in the medical field inappropriately or not, we have set limits that are being held to, even though data used from performing experiments on people could be useful. Though to be fair, there is debate going on in some places over whether or not we should use the data the Nazis gained from experimenting on humans.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We don’t even officially allow it at all now and we get abu grab and secret torture prisons as it is. Nevermind the countless episodes you hear about in the news every so often about kids in juvenile facilities dieing from excessive punishment or teachers or priests taking liberties with those they have power over. Do you really truly think as corrupt and weak as humans have time and time again shown themselves to be over the course of history that we could suddenly get it right with handing people the power to legally be sadistic and cruel?

Of course we wouldn't get it exactly right all the time. Yet we don't require that war be required to be exactly right all the time. Yes, I know that war is forced on us, while torture isn't. However, it depends how willing to yield you are. Some people might be so willing to yield, or not use "evil means" like war in order to achieve the end of our security and freedom, that they would submit completely peacefully to any invader. They would surrender all their lives. If we fight wars, we are willing to surrender less lives. If we use torture (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is effective at saving lives), we are surrendering even less lives on our side. So I still don't see a major difference.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

There is no reason to initiate cruelty when not under those combat conditions though.

War would be used in "combat conditions," as I have frequently said. It would be used only in cases where it can save lives.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Oh come on you cant rationally think China would ever ever take us seriously again if we were to say anything about their human rights policies when we are torturing people.

Sneaky. You've managed to get me debating the precedent technicality, an issue I'm not equipped to discuss . I'm going to put my hands over my head and run on this matter, because I haven't researched it yet fully enough to give you a proper devil's advocate argument. I may debate the technicalities with you all at another time. At present, I just do not have enough information.

[Lief Erikson]

Here is a very interesting article on the subject of torture, that just recently showed up on BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4499528.stm

Some of it, of course, is inappropriate for discussion in this thread. That, specifically, is the matter of US policy. But the definition of torture aspects are relevant to the discussion . . . I just thought some of you would probably find it interesting, as I did.

[Beor]

I always get to the good threads far too late.

I dont know what was said so far, but I dont agree with torture at all because if you comprimise your ethical values, or morals, or whatever you call them, once, then you are more likely to continue to slip, until nothing really matter anymore.

I am sure that