Torture

[Skyab23]

Yes they should be able to torture them if one of them has information to save people from a large scale terrorist attack (a la 9/11). If you are being held captive by the government as a suspected terrorist you have probably made some pretty poor if not malicious decisions to get into that situation. Torture is one of those decisions that no one wants to make and should never be considered as "moral". But just because it is an immoral act doesn't mean it is not necessary in extreme circumstances. It is akin to picking the "lesser of two evils". Either you torture 100 suspected terrorists with perhaps 99 of them not having the intel but 1 having information that could prevent this mass act of terror or you choose the "moral" route and abstain from torture at the expense of an impending terrorist that could take the lives of thousands of innocent people. I'm sure this will be an unpopular answer but I felt I'd voice my opinion as the devil's advocate.

I think most people, in general, especially here in the United States agree with you, I know I used to. But I don't believe you can promote a bad act in order to prevent another bad act that may or may not happen. It's the same thing as attacking a country before they attack you. It's just wrong. What if you were a citizen in Iran right now, an average every day person like you are here, and the United States decides to drop some bombs on your country in an attempt to prevent you from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Let's say those bombs that are dropped kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. What did Iran do to invoke such a response from the United States? Developing a nuclear weapon? Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they are sponsors of terrorism and yet we are not threatening to attack them. The same can be said for half a dozen other countries. In order to prevent war we must start war, is a dangerous mentality and it applies to torture as well.

I don't trust my government. They lied to us about Pat Tillman dying by friendly fire by stating it was radical jihadists. The Pentagon Papers showed that our government lied to us for decades about their involvement in Vietnam. I could go on and on. Not to mention the empirical evidence suggests that torture does not give good information, instead, the prisoner gives faulty information so that the torturing will stop. Even McCain, one of the few Republicans against torture, spoke out against torture. Why? Because he was tortured himself as a soldier.

[RIFA]

I'll resume to this...

You're too much of a pacifist and honestly that's like living in a lie. Perfect world doesn't exist. It wasn't "created" as such because then living would be pointless.

As to your question... sometimes evil is fought with evil. Evil takes your goodness for weakness and he'll continue to hurt you. In order to stop it... you might have to resort to "evil" methods.

Another way of thinking is that in order for the universe to exist it needs both fire and water, both chaos and order, both evil and good. That's the key towards evolution and the creation of life.

Evil is good when used to fight the evil. And it makes sense. You can't fight with "good" since good doesn't imply fighting...

Libertarian or not... you're too much of an absolutist or extremist... which is the "wrong" or even "evil" way to be because it always leads to bad things. Caring too much is a weakness.

Don't take my comment as me defending torture. I'm not doing that. I'm only defending the good reason behind using torture. Torturing innocent people is still an act of savageness.

[Addicted2Movies]

I'll resume to this...

You're too much of a pacifist and honestly that's like living in a lie. Perfect world doesn't exist. It wasn't "created" as such because then living would be pointless.

As to your question... sometimes evil is fought with evil. Evil takes your goodness for weakness and he'll continue to hurt you. In order to stop it... you might have to resort to "evil" methods.

Another way of thinking is that in order for the universe to exist it needs both fire and water, both chaos and order, both evil and good. That's the key towards evolution and the creation of life.

Evil is good when used to fight the evil. And it makes sense. You can't fight with "good" since good doesn't imply fighting...

Libertarian or not... you're too much of an absolutist or extremist... which is the "wrong" or even "evil" way to be because it always leads to bad things. Caring too much is a weakness.

Don't take my comment as me defending torture. I'm not doing that. I'm only defending the good reason behind using torture. Torturing innocent people is still an act of savageness.

That's pretty much my thought process behind it as well.

[Skyab23]

I'll resume to this...

You're too much of a pacifist and honestly that's like living in a lie. Perfect world doesn't exist. It wasn't "created" as such because then living would be pointless.

As to your question... sometimes evil is fought with evil. Evil takes your goodness for weakness and he'll continue to hurt you. In order to stop it... you might have to resort to "evil" methods.

Another way of thinking is that in order for the universe to exist it needs both fire and water, both chaos and order, both evil and good. That's the key towards evolution and the creation of life.

Evil is good when used to fight the evil. And it makes sense. You can't fight with "good" since good doesn't imply fighting...

Libertarian or not... you're too much of an absolutist or extremist... which is the "wrong" or even "evil" way to be because it always leads to bad things. Caring too much is a weakness.

Don't take my comment as me defending torture. I'm not doing that. I'm only defending the good reason behind using torture. Torturing innocent people is still an act of savageness.

I used to feel the exact same way...until I researched for many months on the subject of terrorism for a thesis paper I wrote for my Master's class. I formerly thought that terrorists hated the United States because we are free and prosperous and we have equal rights for women. Turns out this isn't the case. Suicide terrorist experts and foreign intelligence analysts conclude that suicide terrorism is not a product of religious extremism but instead the principle cause is resistance to foreign occupation. Overall, foreign military occupation accounts for 98.5% of all the 1,833 suicide terrorist attacks since 2004.

I've written an entire paper on this, and would be more than happy to email it to you if you're interested in the subject. But the most important thing for people to realize is the symptom and cause as to why things happen. Once that is completely and clearly understood, then we can talk about the proper role of our government in protecting our national security. I'll leave you with a brief excerpt from my paper, again more than happy to send you it in its entirety:

The mastermind behind September 11th, Osama Bin Laden, stated in a 2004 video addressing the American people why he planned the suicide terrorist attacks: “Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example.” Bin Laden goes on to state that, “The events that influenced me directly trace back to 1982 and subsequent events when the United States gave permission to the Israelis to invade Lebanon, with the aid of the sixth US fleet… While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust one in a similar manner by destroying towers in the United States so that it would feel some of what we felt and to be deterred from killing our children and women” (BBC, 2004). Perhaps the most well informed man regarding Bin Laden, former CIA analyst of the Bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer says that the American people have been lied to when its government states, “al Qaeda is attacking the West for what it is, not what it does” (Scheuer 2006 p.294).

[RIFA]

I used to feel the exact same way...until I researched for many months on the subject of terrorism (...) I formerly thought that terrorists hated the United States because we are free and prosperous and we have equal rights for women.

Never thought like that so that's not an "excuse" for the way I feel about torture.

[Skyab23]

I used to feel the exact same way...until I researched for many months on the subject of terrorism (...) I formerly thought that terrorists hated the United States because we are free and prosperous and we have equal rights for women.

Never thought like that so that's not an "excuse" for the way I feel about torture.

Yeah, but the whole free & prosperous and equality laws...that's what all the leaders of the free world said and continue to say as to why they hate us. In my mind, the only real threat to the United States' national security is radical jihad, so Obama, Bush, Blair and I all agree on that point. However, that threat wouldn't exist or it would be to an extreme minimal if it wasn't for our continued intervention overseas for decades. What other threats can you specifically point to that you would deem an extreme enough threat to enforce torture on?

[RIFA]

Never thought like that so that's not an "excuse" for the way I feel about torture.

Yeah, but the whole free & prosperous and equality laws...that's what all the leaders of the free world said and continue to say as to why they hate us. In my mind, the only real threat to the United States' national security is radical jihad, so Obama, Bush, Blair and I all agree on that point. However, that threat wouldn't exist or it would be to an extreme minimal if it wasn't for our continued intervention overseas for decades. What other threats can you specifically point to that you would deem an extreme enough threat to enforce torture on?

Radical Jihad isn't the only threat out there... imo... that's still one of the rarest threats in the world. Drug world, human trafficking or the "simple" poverty... still cause much more victims than the radical Jihad.

Torture could be applied in any case regarding a possible event that would risk the lives of tens of people.

I have this simple theory in my mind. If I have no other solution I'd give one life for two or I'll torture one to save another from imminent death.

[Skyab23]

Yeah, but the whole free & prosperous and equality laws...that's what all the leaders of the free world said and continue to say as to why they hate us. In my mind, the only real threat to the United States' national security is radical jihad, so Obama, Bush, Blair and I all agree on that point. However, that threat wouldn't exist or it would be to an extreme minimal if it wasn't for our continued intervention overseas for decades. What other threats can you specifically point to that you would deem an extreme enough threat to enforce torture on?

Radical Jihad isn't the only threat out there... imo... that's still one of the rarest threats in the world. Drug world, human trafficking or the "simple" poverty... still cause much more victims than the radical Jihad.

Torture could be applied in any case regarding a possible event that would risk the lives of tens of people.

I have this simple theory in my mind. If I have no other solution I'd give one life for two or I'll torture one to save another from imminent death.

Yeah, well I don't want my government to be above the law, considering the citizens aren't allowed to be. If I torture someone, I'm getting persecuted for it. You advocate the government doing it, and it being tolerated. The United States government gets its power from the people and the government is supposed to uphold the laws and liberties of the people. Committing illegal acts such as torture doesn't abide by this objective. We just have a moral difference regarding this. I want the government to not be able to do anything a person isn't allowed to do. For instance, if I'm not allowed to possess marijuana legally, then an undercover government agent shouldn't be allowed to possess it while attempting to sell it to someone while subsequently charging them for acquiring drugs after the fact. Talk about a double standard.

[RIFA]

Yeah, well I don't want my government to be above the law, considering the citizens aren't allowed to be. If I torture someone, I'm getting persecuted for it. You advocate the government doing it, and it being tolerated. The United States government gets its power from the people and the government is supposed to uphold the laws and liberties of the people. Committing illegal acts such as torture doesn't abide by this objective. We just have a moral difference regarding this. I want the government to not be able to do anything a person isn't allowed to do. For instance, if I'm not allowed to possess marijuana legally, then an undercover government agent shouldn't be allowed to possess it while attempting to sell it to someone while subsequently charging them for acquiring drugs after the fact. Talk about a double standard.

The government's power is what also protects you... Sorry to break if for you but you don't control shit as a simple citizen so you should think twice before judging your government for doing things you know jack shit about. They might have to torture someone in order to keep you safe. You don't want them to do that because it's a conflict of morals? Well okay then... I'm curious if you'll think the same while walking around on one street bleeding and holding your ripped off right hand not knowing what the fuck just happened. This is a generalization because it applies for many other countries out there not only U.S. And don't even go there to compare marijuana with what someone has to do to protect his life or family...

BTW, Why haven't you addressed any issue I talked about if you're so vocal about this? Your arguments kinda lack depth and they're really superficial as hell. Think before generalizing things... Torture is a delicate subject for someone to have such a simple-minded view on it. We're not talking about marijuana here... (talking about double standard?)

[d4mi4n]

Torture all the way. Obama does it the best.