President Bush's Crusade Against Justice Continues..

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And I think that if properly prodded, said terrorist would be a bit less certain about the 70 virgins awaiting him...again, no terror mind you...just...a little heart to heart conversation as the ticker wound its way to zero.



-=Vel=-

We have a different idea of "properly prodded" I guess.

IMO, a "heart to heart" conversation is unlikely to overcome a lifetime of religious conditioning. A terrorist in this scenario is unlikely to be lightly chosen. It remains to be seen what a man will do when his balls are in a pair of pliers though.

[The diplomat]

Do we have real facts or are people just reacting to buzz words like "CIA" and "secret prisons"?

I know Abu Ghraib was bad but we stopped that. I have heard that we confined a prisoner to a cold room and played really loud rock music (red hot chili peppers to be exact). There's certainly nothing wrong with that. I do know that we give Gitmo prisoners regular, healty meals, clean clothes etc just like any other prison.

If there is illegal treatment of prisoners going on, it should stop. But I want real facts not anti-bush hysteria!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Sorry guys...I can't make that trip with you.

If it's okay to torture someone in an attempt to save a million lives, then is it okay to do it to save a hundred thousand?

10,000?

100?

2?

Where's the line? Do you want to be responsible for drawing that line?

It's never okay, and

Well i guess thats one reason you dont write the exception into law. Thats a line you have to draw for yourself, as an individual, and when you do, having reconciled it in your conscience, you take your chances with how many jurors, etc are gonna see things your way.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Sorry guys...I can't make that trip with you.

If it's okay to torture someone in an attempt to save a million lives, then is it okay to do it to save a hundred thousand?

10,000?

100?

2?

Where's the line? Do you want to be responsible for drawing that line?

Ahh! Now you have hit upon the fundamental point...and what is truly the human face to it all. It is easy for many of us to justify torture to save millions, but to save 2?

Now we are getting into the real ethics of where and when torture could be used.

I dare say that if (yes, "if") you could guarantee a straight answer on the disarm code by using torture, and that it was the only way you could get it, then there would be no (or an extreme minority of them) dissenters to doing so. But to save a couple of people driving through rural Nebraska? Hmmm....

Well, I think many still say yes...it is after all "guranteed", but we become a little less sure of the principle.

The real question here is, "Do the results justify the means?" isn't that what this discussion has become?

[SlowwHand]

I'll say 2 things.

1) We should keep the moral high road in combat.
2) That means, however, no mercy one those who are caught. No trial. No jail terrms. No discussion. I would think their countrymen would feel the same way, having been put at risk.

[Velociryx]

PLATO: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Watching the clock tick toward zero can't be easy, no matter how indoctrinated you are. Especially sitting shoulder to shoulder with someone who is not your enemy. Someone who does not want to die, but will, for you...if you do not use your power to stop it.

A few well chosen words from such a person, at such a time, could have tremendous impact.

That's all I"m saying.

Diplomat - All we know about what goes on in the secret prisons is that "alternate interrogation methods" are used.

This is widely held to be a euphamism for torture, but of course, that can't be right, since Bush speaks with God daily and would never do any such thing.

However, no specific answers are forthcoming because, you guessed it, to divulge the information would be a threat to our national security.

{/smirk}

-=Vel=-

[PLATO]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Do we have real facts or are people just reacting to buzz words like "CIA" and "secret prisons"?

I know Abu Ghraib was bad but we stopped that. I have heard that we confined a prisoner to a cold room and played really loud rock music (red hot chili peppers to be exact). There's certainly nothing wrong with that. I do know that we give Gitmo prisoners regular, healty meals, clean clothes etc just like any other prison.

If there is illegal treatment of prisoners going on, it should stop. But I want real facts not anti-bush hysteria!

The cold room and rock music have no been determined to be torture...or at least "gross afronts on human dignity" and are therefore unacceptable.

Do we see the line we are drawing now? Is this where we really want it?

[Velociryx]

Plato - then I would say that we need to pass the most stringent laws possible, and hold the said torturer accountable for his deeds.

The law should exist as the ideal...if you don't live up to it, and you torture someone, then you should be held accountable for that.

If your acts save tons of lives, a jury of your peers will likely be forgiving, but that does not change what the law ought to be....a reflection of us at our very best.

-=Vel=-

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by PLATO


The cold room and rock music have no been determined to be torture...or at least "gross afronts on human dignity" and are therefore unacceptable.

Do we see the line we are drawing now? Is this where we really want it?

A cold room and rock music is torture?!? That's stupid.

This is the problem: we are defining torture differently than the Arab world is. The Arab world defines torture has raping someone and cutting their fingers off. We define torture as playing bad rock music too loud. So, basically, when Al Queda captures a US soldier they will not hesitate to mutilate and murder our soldier. But if we capture an Al Queda terrorists, we have to put them up at a 5 star hotel or it's torture.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Where's the line? Do you want to be responsible for drawing that line?

Since I would be acting as an individual, and I already said I would torture the terrorist, the answer is Yes, I'm willing to be responsible for drawing that line.

If my wife has been kidnapped, and I have access to a dozen (or a hundred, or whatever) people who know her whereabouts, and all your non-torture techniques have failed, I'll do whatever I have to do to all of them to get her free. And I'll submit myself to the courts for justice afterwards. It's a risk I'll take.

Vel, you can offer a million little details, but you're smart enough to know that it's all bullshit. When you boil it down you believe that no one, from individual to sovereign nation, should besmirch themselves with something as uncivilized as torture, and thus keep values intact, even if it means total annihilation or extinction. Because if your arguments are taken to extremes, I think you feel the absolutely worst scumbag person should not be tortured even at the cost of the nation, or all human life.

If you feel comfortable with this position, fine. I do not. Many of your fellow Westerners do not.

Sometimes sacrifices must be made. And I'll gladly accept the consequences of my position over yours.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
PLATO: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Watching the clock tick toward zero can't be easy, no matter how indoctrinated you are. Especially sitting shoulder to shoulder with someone who is not your enemy. Someone who does not want to die, but will, for you...if you do not use your power to stop it.

A few well chosen words from such a person, at such a time, could have tremendous impact.

That's all I"m saying.
-=Vel=-

Fair enough. I always respect your opinions...even when I disagree with them.

[Velociryx]

ajbera: I've lived almost 40 years now, and in that time, I have never had to torture a soul.

Not a single individual has come into the intimidating grasp of the Velicious Torture Machines I keep in my garage.

Sacrifices must sometimes be made, sure.

I'm all for it.

It does NOT follow, however, that those sacrifces must include torture.

We are better than that.

Our laws should be written to reflect the ideal, and those who torture should be held accountable (as you yourself said you'd gladly do...present yourself to the courts after the fact).

As far as I can tell, we are on the same page.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And I yours, Master Plato...



-=Vel=-

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Plato - then I would say that we need to pass the most stringent laws possible, and hold the said torturer accountable for his deeds.

The law should exist as the ideal...if you don't live up to it, and you torture someone, then you should be held accountable for that.

If your acts save tons of lives, a jury of your peers will likely be forgiving, but that does not change what the law ought to be....a reflection of us at our very best.

-=Vel=-

I can't say I disagree with this in principle.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Surely you know the following quote

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that one way or another."

Physicist Robert Oppenheimer - Supervising Scientist Manhattan Project

Ah yes, that way. Oppenheimer was a badass. But he misquoted the Gita, which actually says:

If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky
That would be like
The splendour of the Mighty One.
I am become Death,
The shatterer of worlds.

Quite appropriate for the occasion, nevertheless