Torture Poll

[Guest justme]

The needs of the many sometimes outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

it is easy to say this--but lets put your statement to a test of sorts....with the following question:

here is a question for you--assume for a moment a person has taken over an aircraft that you are on while still on the ground--assume for the sake of argument he/she had managed to smuggle in a knife of some sort and has it to the throat of another passenger and says they will cut the persons throat if everyone does not comply--

yes it is similar to the story of what supposedly happened on 9/11

NOW--would you, if you had the ability to do so, allow him to cut the throat of the passenger/flight attendant if you knew you could take that hijacker out--subdue him, kill him--however it turned out--would you be willing to allow him to cut the throat of the hostage and then watch as that hostage dies in order to prevent the hypothetical hijacker from taking the plane?

Yes it is hypothetical, yes it has it's limits--but if the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one...how many are acceptable losses? Could you knowingly sacrifice one person to save 50? Would you? Take it closer to home--say it was your wife, or your g/f taken hostage on in the plane scenario--could you sacrifice her life if it could save not only the lives of the remaining passengers, but perhaps hundreds of others as well?

a moral and ethical question--it is easy to say yes, but look deep in you and give me your best, honest answer...I'll tell you mine right now--I really don't know if I could sacrifice one innocent person to save 50--what do you tell their family--we're sorry for your loss, but by allowing your loved one to be killed we saved the lives of several others?

Edited June 9, 2009 by justme

[Guest justme]

I'm not, but whatever means necessary is the only thing that the terrorists seem to understand. I'm pretty sure we can't "nice" information out of 'em.

and when it is happening to Americans here--being done to Americans by Americans...

the road you so easily travel is one whose direction travels only one way--downhill.....

[Guest KevinM]

He might not be able to give you a name, but I bet there are quite a few people who could.

I understand your conviction, but I think you're being naive.

I think the people giving the federal government the benefit of the doubt and eating out of Obama's hand are the one's being naive.

The needs of the many sometimes outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Keep in mind this so-called "need" is being sold to you by the federal government. Is there really a need..or have they merely convinced you that there is one?

Torture goes against EVERYTHING our nation stands for. It puts us in league with the very same people we call our enemies...

[Punisher84]

a moral and ethical question--it is easy to say yes, but look deep in you and give me your best, honest answer...I'll tell you mine right now--I really don't know if I could sacrifice one innocent person to save 50--what do you tell their family--we're sorry for your loss, but by allowing your loved one to be killed we saved the lives of several others?

I was pretty much at the stalemate point with what you replied to me so I guess I'll put my 2 cents on the above statement.

It's not an easy choice, but some people make that choice selflessly. There are soldiers that throw themselves on grenades to save their friends, there are police officers who take bullets for their partners. Their families are told they died so others may live.

I think the problem with most people is they ask themselves "Who am I to decide who lives and who dies?" Maybe it's because they don't want to play God. If you want to bring religion into it then I believe God works through our actions. Wrong or right.

It's easy to be selfish. It's easy to say "I would kill your wife to save my family." It's easy to say it, not easy to do it.

In summary I guess I'll say this, I condone torture in certain extreme circumstances. It is my personal feeling on the matter and it is no better or worse than anyone else's. As far as "the needs of the many" I hope I am never faced with that dilemma, because the realistic outcome is that everyone loses.

[Punisher84]

I think the people giving the federal government the benefit of the doubt and eating out of Obama's hand are the one's being naive.

I thought Obama was against torture so wouldn't I be eating out of Bush's hand?

Kevin, I admire your passion, but you aren't really debating or debunking anything. You just keep posting the same thing repeatedly about what our nation stands for. Do you know what our nation stands for? I wore a uniform and was part of what our nation stands for. How about you?

[Smith]

Oh, the Ivory tower philosophers. These are the same people who wonder why the cops couldn't have shot the gun out of an assailants arm instead of killing him with "massive" center mass hits. The argument is the same. If we shoot back in kind we are no better than the armed murderer. Again !

[Guest justme]

I was pretty much at the stalemate point with what you replied to me so I guess I'll put my 2 cents on the above statement.

we are somewhat at a stalemate--we just have different views on this particular topic.

It's not an easy choice, but some people make that choice selflessly. There are soldiers that throw themselves on grenades to save their friends, there are police officers who take bullets for their partners. Their families are told they died so others may live.

self-sacrifice is something that is done in an instant--it requires no conscious thought really--it is almost a reflex action in the heat of the moment. not everyone would do it--there are many who would.

torture requires conscious thought and planning--you listen to the screams, you listen to the pleas, those sounds should haunt the "interrogators" until their dying day.

I think the problem with most people is they ask themselves "Who am I to decide who lives and who dies?" Maybe it's because they don't want to play God. If you want to bring religion into it then I believe God works through our actions. Wrong or right.

the issue isn't so much of playing God of deciding who lives and who dies--it is the question for me of exactly where does it stop--when do we say enough? To some extent is the question of exactly who can pick and choose the person to be tortured and why, and why do we trust our government to not do it to us--we already approve of it as a nation, say it is necessary for national security--and yet we trust our government to not do it to us?

It's easy to be selfish. It's easy to say "I would kill your wife to save my family." It's easy to say it, not easy to do it.

absolutely agree 100%--we can say all day long that we would be willing to sacrifice anyone we had to--but it isn't as simple as that, and it should never be that simple.

In summary I guess I'll say this, I condone torture in certain extreme circumstances. It is my personal feeling on the matter and it is no better or worse than anyone else's. As far as "the needs of the many" I hope I am never faced with that dilemma, because the realistic outcome is that everyone loses.

I agree about what you said in terms of hoping you are never put into the "needs of the many" dilemma...because everyone would lose--including the person who made the decision to sacrifice that life.

In closing I will say--when we resort to torture, we are weakening the very foundation of this nation. The pillars upon which we are founded, contained within the Constitution, and formed in the words of the Bill of Rights...because when we allow and condone it be done to "them"--who is to stop the government from doing it to "us"...will we condone it so easily then?

there are no winners here--we might gain some information that might or might not be useful--but at what cost? The voices of the interrogated and the tortured should haunt those who interrogate and torture them for the remainder of their days. Those who condone it--should themselves have to undergo it, so they can get first hand knowledge of what they are really condoning. Let them get an upclose and personal feel for it just once--and give them a good taste of it.

I just don't see how we win here.

As for the "needs of the many versus the needs of the few or the one"--I too hope that I am never put into the position to make that decision--because I also agree--in that position, there are no winners.

[Guest KevinM]

Oh, the Ivory tower philosophers. These are the same people who wonder why the cops couldn't have shot the gun out of an assailants arm instead of killing him with "massive" center mass hits. The argument is the same. If we shoot back in kind we are no better than the armed murderer. Again !

That is absurd and the argument isn't close to being the same. Killing an assailant who is a direct threat at that moment in time...that is simply acting in self defense.

I guess Thomas Jefferson was an "Ivory Tower Philosoper" as well, huh? Those pesky civil rights written by those damn liberal Founding Fathers...

In any case, I'll take being an "Ivory Tower Philosoper" over being a cheerleader for the behavior of tyrants and despots any day.

[poak]

<--Has lost no sleep over spooks waterboarding jihadists...

[Guest justme]

Oh, the Ivory tower philosophers. These are the same people who wonder why the cops couldn't have shot the gun out of an assailants arm instead of killing him with "massive" center mass hits. The argument is the same. If we shoot back in kind we are no better than the armed murderer. Again !

legitimately defending yourself is one thing, but consciously planning the torture and possible murder of an unarmed prisoner in your custody is something else entirely.

[Guest justme]

<--Has lost no sleep over spooks waterboarding jihadists...

then you should be willing to be waterboarded--just to find out what it is like...you approve of it? you condone it? have you ever had it done to you?

those who condone it should have to endure it just once--for a full length session--find out what deep dark secrets they are hiding in their past...and if it takes more than one session to make those who condone it talk--that is fine...just as long as they come to understand exactly what they are condoning...

[bteague2]

I was going to reply to all the things I agreed/disagreed with but it would have taken too long, so I'll sum it up with this; I'm all for torture, and I don't care if (insert name of terrorists/foreigners/other countries here) respect us. I want them to butt out and leave us alone, and if fear of bombings/torture/whatever accomplishes that so be it.

"Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved." Machiavelli

[poak]

then you should be willing to be waterboarded--just to find out what it is like...you approve of it? you condone it? have you ever had it done to you?

You carry a gun, but you've never been shot, right?

Besides, I played water polo a couple of times... if that's not simulated drowning, I don't know what is...

[Guest LieutenantDan67]

Not to derail things too much, but has hypnosis ever been tried to gain information, or truth agents?

I just question the quality of information one can obtain from torture. If someone is subjected to excruciating pain or severe threat of death for long enough, they will say anything you want to hear but not necessarily the truth. Change a name, place, time, etc. Maybe even 90% truth mixed with 10% false, and that 10% makes ALL the difference.

I'm no liberal, and I'd be the first in line to castrate sex offenders with a rusty spoon, but torture is a tough subject.

[Guest KevinM]

I thought Obama was against torture so wouldn't I be eating out of Bush's hand?

It's called political posturing. I see very little difference between Obama and Bush excluding a little rhetoric. Yeah, he's against torture...but what we are doing isn't torture. 2+2=5, you see...

Kevin, I admire your passion, but you aren't really debating or debunking anything.

I certainly am. Torture indeed goes against everything our nation was founded upon. All one has to do is read the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights? Can you point out where it mentions torturing perceived enemies at the behest a largely unaccountable, bloated federal government?

You just keep posting the same thing repeatedly about what our nation stands for. Do you know what our nation stands for? I wore a uniform and was part of what our nation stands for. How about you?

Some things are worth repeating.

So...your uniform is a patriotic trump card? Is that what you are suggesting?

[Guest justme]

You carry a gun, but you've never been shot, right?

Yes I carry a gun on occasion, and no I've never been shot--but I get your point.

Besides, I played water polo a couple of times... if that's not simulated drowning, I don't know what is...

I have never played water polo--I would ask what it is, but I don't want the ...

I just think that those who condone it should have to do it themselves and undergo it.

[Guest KevinM]

<--Has lost no sleep over spooks waterboarding jihadists...

How do you know who is a jihadist and who is an innocent goat herder? You will simply take Obama at his word? Is it ok to call you a criminal even though you've never been found guilty of a crime?

[Guest KevinM]

I was going to reply to all the things I agreed/disagreed with but it would have taken too long, so I'll sum it up with this; I'm all for torture, and I don't care if (insert name of terrorists/foreigners/other countries here) respect us. I want them to butt out and leave us alone, and if fear of bombings/torture/whatever accomplishes that so be it.

Then you might as well take the US Bill of Rights and use it as toilet paper...

[E4 No More]

Not to derail things too much, but has hypnosis ever been tried to gain information, or truth agents?

I just question the quality of information one can obtain from torture. If someone is subjected to excruciating pain or severe threat of death for long enough, they will say anything you want to hear but not necessarily the truth. Change a name, place, time, etc. Maybe even 90% truth mixed with 10% false, and that 10% makes ALL the difference.

I'm no liberal, and I'd be the first in line to castrate sex offenders with a rusty spoon, but torture is a tough subject.

I'm no expert, but I believe that the subject has to have a willing mind in order to hypnotise, and then how do you know it's not fake. I also believe that you can train someone to resist truth agents although I don't know that the average terrorist has that luxury in their training schedule.

[Guest justme]

Not to derail things too much, but has hypnosis ever been tried to gain information, or truth agents?

I just question the quality of information one can obtain from torture. If someone is subjected to excruciating pain or severe threat of death for long enough, they will say anything you want to hear but not necessarily the truth. Change a name, place, time, etc. Maybe even 90% truth mixed with 10% false, and that 10% makes ALL the difference.

I'm no liberal, and I'd be the first in line to castrate sex offenders with a rusty spoon, but torture is a tough subject.

I have heard rumors in non traditional media that chemical agents have been tried--regular news isn't reporting it if it is. It is considered to be a form of torture--so my best guess would be yes, they have tried it or use it on a regular or near regular basis...

whether you can receive actionable intelligence from torture is another issue--the generally understood answer is no, not unless you get someone under interrogation who really has a low threshold of pain--and you might then gain some information that you can use.

[Guest KevinM]

Oh, the Ivory tower philosophers. These are the same people who wonder why the cops couldn't have shot the gun out of an assailants arm instead of killing him with "massive" center mass hits. The argument is the same. If we shoot back in kind we are no better than the armed murderer. Again !

By the way....Mark Twain was outspokenly anti torture. Ivory tower philosopher?

[poak]

How do you know who is a jihadist and who is an innocent goat herder? You will simply take Obama at his word?

Pretty sure Obama's not calling those shots, chief.

I'll trust the intel from our guys in the military, NSA, and CIA to know who to take where, when, and why. Their intel may not be perfect 100% of the time, but it's certainly better than mine or yours.

Is it ok to call you a criminal even though you've never been found guilty of a crime?

Well, I'm an American citizen, not an enemy combatant or resident of a country that harbors terrorists.

[Guest justme]

Then you might as well take the US Bill of Rights and use it as toilet paper...

they already do--have you not been paying attention in the last few years?

[bteague2]

Then you might as well take the US Bill of Rights and use it as toilet paper...

Fight fire with fire, they don't play by the rules. Us playing by the rules only puts us at a disadvantage. And I don't think the Bill of Rights applies to Afghanistan, similar to how Sharia law doesn't apply to the US. Hypocritical? Probably, but I can live with that.

[Punisher84]

I'll say it again for the record. If you want to pull my fingernails out, hook a battery up and soak me in water ala Lethal Weapon I'm not all about that.

Waterboarding would suck and I'm pretty damn sure I'd tell them what they wanted to know, but I'd MUCH rather have that done to me.

For the record you guys do know they torture our own guys in SERE school right?