Americans voted for Change

[Theben]

a question?

During h3ll week, do we still water board our guys, so they will know what it is like if they are capture at some point in the future.

Yes.

[Arrian]

Seriously, Arrian, if torture has a moral cost and a practical benefit, why is ONLY the moral cost relevant? Why is it impermissible - monstrous, even - to even consider weighing the cost against the benefit?

I do not believe that we must descend into barbarism in order to give ourselves a reasonable level of protection.

I concede that it's possible (though obviously there is debate on this point) that torture, in certain situations, might produce information that could help defend against an attack. And I, for one, would rather that we accept the additional risk of remaining civilized.

Further, I said the question of whether it provides good info is secondary, not completely irrelevant. So yes, in theory, if the moral harm were low enough and the benifit were high enough, one could make an argument for "enhanced" interrogation technique. The thing is, my bar for that is really, really high. WELL above where we've been at the past ~7 years. My initial foray into this was a response to Dan saying that our government's record here wasn't very dark. I think it's dark as all hell.

I think it's clear that the moral harm >>> info gained. Why? A number of reasons. First and foremost, I think the moral harm is very high. Second, I don't trust the people who authorized torture or those who tortured AT ALL. I think they're lying sacks of ****. I don't particularly trust the new guys either. So when somebody claims that torture "saved American lives" I just don't buy it. Third, there is more here than just the moral harm, there is also PR harm. The rest of the world cares about this stuff, and it impacts our relations with other nations.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

By the way, did you note the bit about how Cheney & Co. were pushing the interrogators to torture people into providing a link between A-Q and Iraq?

Awesome. You've got a shoddy casus belli, so you torture people to try and bolster it. Seriously, guys, go ahead and put a good face on that. I ****ing dare you.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

"We are America! I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are AMERICA! We do not ****ing torture!!"
-Shepard Smith, Fox News Anchor

I agree with Smith. I don't care how much it works. The moral costs are just too great.

[Lorizael]

To those that oppose torture: Do you only oppose it as a national policy, or do you also oppose acts of torture committed by Special Forces and CIA operatives that never get publicized and will never be stopped?

[SpencerH]

Its interesting to me that a number of the people here who oppose more severe interrogation techniques on "moral" grounds scoff at those who oppose abortion on the same basis.

[Arrian]

Its interesting to me that a number of the people here who oppose more severe interrogation techniques on "moral" grounds scoff at those who oppose abortion on the same basis.

I don't know if this is aimed at me* (or Imran, or Ramo, or whoever), but...

On the same basis? Um, no. Unless you mean that any moral argument is "the same."

-Arrian

* - it shouldn't be, considering that while I think abortion should be legal within certain limits, I don't recall "scoffing" at moral opposition to abortion. I may have scoffed at the idea of a newly fertilized egg being a human being with rights that trump the wishes of an adult human, though.

[Theben]

Apples and oranges.

[SpencerH]

It was a general statement not aimed at anyone in particular and I dont see it as apples and oranges. In the case of abortion, the argument is that the immorality of killing a human embryo is trumped by the needs/desires of the mother. In the case of severe interrogation, the argument appears to be that the immorality of the act is NOT trumped by the needs of the people. Those appear to be opposing viewpoints to me.

[Arrian]

What if you don't think killing an embryo is immoral in the first place (b/c it's a "clump of cells," not a human being, so there's nothing to trump)? Just throwing that out there, since there is more than 1 argument about abortion.

If you believe that an embryo/zygote/fetus is a human being, then abortion is murder and that's that. I've always conceded that. If you convince me that a x-week old is, in fact, a human being, then I'll agree that aborting it (with the possible exception of a clear case of "the mom will die if we don't abort, the mom will live if we do") should be illegal. As things stand, there are limitations. As there should be. But I don't buy the moral argument for a blanket ban starting at conception.

The detainees are clearly human beings. Even if you think each and every one of them is a terrorist, they're fully human (oh so very human ).

There are some parallels here, but I still don't see a very good match. Apples & Oranges are both round.

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

As for Drake, the impetus is on you, I'm afraid, to prove the likelihood of torture being more effective than traditional methods of interrogation and that the benefits exceed the costs.

Why? I've already said that I don't know if the benefits of enhanced interrogations outweigh the costs. I'm not claiming that they do. I'm only saying that there's room to have a rational discussion of this issue on the merits, rather than relying on blanket moral judgments to slander your opponents and justify self-satisfied histrionics.

I do not believe that we must descend into barbarism in order to give ourselves a reasonable level of protection.

I hope you've never supported military action overseas, then.

[Arrian]

I hope you've never supported military action overseas, then.

Your position is that war is barbarism?

Battle is one thing. Treatment of a captive is another. You don't see a distinction?

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

Your position is that war is barbarism?

Of course it is. You think killing people is civilized?

[Arrian]

Then why do we have any rules of warfare? We have those rules because we have attempted to civilize war. The basic point that war is hell is obvious. That doesn't mean warfare and torturing detainees are on the same level.

If you want to nitpick about my choice of the word "barbarism," fine. I think that torture of a captive is fundamentally different than fighting a battle.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

To those that oppose torture: Do you only oppose it as a national policy, or do you also oppose acts of torture committed by Special Forces and CIA operatives that never get publicized and will never be stopped?

That has got to be one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen.