London Cops Waterboard Cannabis Suspects

[Paregoric Kid]

Six members of London’s metropolitan police force are the focus of a criminal investigation after a corruption probe revealed allegations by a serving officer that detectives waterboarded suspects allegedly caught with a “large amount” of marijuana.
“The officers under investigation were among 10 based in Enfield, north London, who were suspended in February in one of the worst allegations of corruption to hit the Metropolitan police in recent years,” reported The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5488710/Six-officers-investigated-for-alleged-mistreatment-of-suspect-arrested-in-drugs-raids.html).
“The part of the inquiry focusing on alleged police brutality has been taken over by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC),” reported the Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6466430.ece). “It is examining the conduct of six officers connected to drug raids in November in which four men and a woman were arrested in Enfield and Tottenham.
The British publication added: “Police said they found a large amount of cannabis and the suspects were charged with importation of a class C drug. The case was abandoned four months later when the Crown Prosecution Service said ‘it would not have been in the public interest to proceed.’ It is understood that the trial, by revealing the torture claims, would have compromised the criminal investigation into the six officers.”
“The officers, who include a detective sergeant, were originally suspended over allegations they stole property during the drugs raids,” noted Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Six-Scotland-Yard-Police-Officers-Suspended-Over-Waterboarding-Drug-Suspects/Article/200906215299908?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15299908_Six_Scotland_Yard_Police_Offi cers_Suspended_Over_Waterboarding_Drug_Suspects). “The officers are members of the Enfield crime squad based at Edmonton police station.”
“[British] papers gave varying accounts of the exact technique used by police, with the Times saying that officers poured water on a cloth and placed it over a suspect’s face to simulate the experience of drowning,” reported the Associated Press (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8550105). “The Daily Mail said police officers repeatedly dunked the suspects’ heads in buckets of water. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.”

[dharma bum]

Holy shit that is fucked. I thought that would happen in america first. Those london cops, are they still unarmed? We won't shoot you but we will drown your ass...

[Morphus]

Water boarding: the more you hear it the less it means. Holding a restrained victims head underwater, sound like a good way to torture a guy. Next beating a guy to a bloody mess is going to be "physical persuasion" rape with a trained dog (yep this is used in some countries) will be "canine/suspect forced intimacy" or some shit. All this euphemism, shits fucking torture.

[Shadowsblaze]

When you think you heard it all, now I have a mental picture of a trained dog. This is one sick world and getting sicker all the time. Thank God for Opi's.

[SHELLEY]

Water boarding: the more you hear it the less it means. Holding a restrained victims head underwater, sound like a good way to torture a guy. Next beating a guy to a bloody mess is going to be "physical persuasion" rape with a trained dog (yep this is used in some countries) will be "canine/suspect forced intimacy" or some shit. All this euphemism, shits fucking torture.

waterboarding for weed? fucking stupid shit
but all the proper civilized noises aside,
torture is a great way of finding out something that someone doesn't want you to know
it's like habanero peppers : "use sparingly" :)

[Paregoric Kid]

torture is a great way to get useless information. life isn't a TV show. torture usually results in false confessions.

[SHELLEY]

i'm pro-torture
sometimes they deserve it

not for drug "crimes" though

[Paregoric Kid]

torture is cool in movies but it doesn't mean shit for intelligence gathering. plus it is illegal under the US constitution (cruel and unusual punishment) and the Geneva convention.
I know this deals with a case in the UK but I'm pretty damn sure it isn't legal there either.
how the hell can you be for torture? wouldn't a fair trial and rational punishment or rational rehabilitation be a better, more sane option? what if you are wrong and you just tortured an innocent person. "OOPS guess we made a mistake, oh well at least we got our rocks off!"

[Morfiend]

All I know is that if I am being tortured, my main objective is to stop being tortured so I will do my best to make my captors think I am compliant. Therefore if I do not have the information they want, I will make it up. If I have information, I can easily make up information and my chance of being tortured anyway is the same or greater if I had told the truth.

[Morphus]

waterboarding for weed? fucking stupid shit
but all the proper civilized noises aside,
torture is a great way of finding out something that someone doesn't want you to know
it's like habanero peppers : "use sparingly" :)


Yes torture is effective. I think it's funny how this "waterboarding" phrase gets bandied about and what it really is gets obscured by the euphemism. I guess if torturing folks is OK, then whats next, kidnapping their family and torturing them? Torture for everyday crimes? Just when exactly is it okay to torture someone? If we call it what it is we can't really hold ourselves to any higher standards than any third world dictatorship, or corrupt african regime, Land of the free home of the brave ehhh? I guess till they abduct you off the street and torture your ass.........

[nick]

Torture is totally ineffective,but more importantly it's just wrong,anyone who says differently is a fucking halfwit.

Yeah,the topic at hand,the met-what can you do?

[SHELLEY]

Yes torture is effective. I think it's funny how this "waterboarding" phrase gets bandied about and what it really is gets obscured by the euphemism. I guess if torturing folks is OK, then whats next, kidnapping their family and torturing them? Torture for everyday crimes? Just when exactly is it okay to torture someone? If we call it what it is we can't really hold ourselves to any higher standards than any third world dictatorship, or corrupt african regime, Land of the free home of the brave ehhh? I guess till they abduct you off the street and torture your ass.........

dunking someones head /=/ torture

[Indy]

dunking someones head /=/ torture

...sure about that?

[Morphus]

Definition of torture, per UN

any act by which severe pain or suffering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_and_suffering), whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession), punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidating) or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
—UN Convention Against Torture

[Morphus]

dunking someones head /=/ torture\


Yeah you're right, it's not torture its "waterboarding" TORTURE LITE.

[nick]

\


Yeah you're right, it's not torture its "waterboarding" TORTURE LITE.

"Torture lite".........well that makes it perfectly acceptable!!

Jesus.

[Paregoric Kid]

our own military admits that waterboarding and other forms of torture are ineffective! here is an excerpt from a memo from 2002 by the JPRA (Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, people who help train the US military and the CIA)
The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible -- in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life -- has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually, proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.our own military and intelligence agencies admit waterboarding is torture. not only that but, to quote wikipedia legal experts,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-HRW_open_letter_WB-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-JuristPittWB_100807-3) politicians, war veterans,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-DN.21_WB_110507-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-NW_WB_110507-5) medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-NY-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-icrt20080212-7) intelligence officials,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-grey2006p226-8) military judges,[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#cite_note-CaL_WB_110507-9) and human rights organizations, consider waterboarding torture.

[Tmac5150]

i'm pro-torture
sometimes they deserve it

not for drug "crimes" though


Me too Shelley. Those cops should be the 1st ones in line for the dungeon...

[doctor diesel]

[QUOTE=Morphus;403146]rape with a trained dog (yep this is used in some countries) will be "canine/suspect forced intimacy" or some shit. [QUOTE]

Pardon me for asking, Morphus, but WHAT THE HELL is 'rape with a trained dog'??

Doc :(

[mikey5string]

i read somewhere that they would take some of the higher level suspects from guantanamo, sew their assholes closed and keep feedin em and feedin em.


im not a big fan of torture, but what are some other interrogation tactics one might use to get info out of someone unwilling to talk?

what about sodium pentathol?
i got it when i got my wisdom teeth out. the dr told me i was talking a lot but i dont remember anything. thats the stuff the gave arnold in true lies. i wonder if they really use that....

have any of you guys ever gotten atomic balm or any of those type things on your sack? fuck. i would have told someone the launch sequence codes to make that burn go away.

[doctor diesel]

So now we move from dogs trained to rape, to "atomic balm" on a man's sack.
I'm really confused.

Doc

[mikey5string]

sorry i got a little off topic.


and i dont think the dogs are "trained" to rape per se.

[Morphus]

[QUOTE=Morphus;403146]rape with a trained dog (yep this is used in some countries) will be "canine/suspect forced intimacy" or some shit. [QUOTE]

Pardon me for asking, Morphus, but WHAT THE HELL is 'rape with a trained dog'??

Doc :(


Google it my friend.

[Vico-Dan]

More journalists have undergone waterboarding than suspected terrorists to demonstrate how it is done and to videotape it.

[Paregoric Kid]

I don't know if thats true, but if it is, so what? when you volunteer to do a demonstration that is a lot different from being forced into doing it as a form of torture/punishment and not know if they are really going to drown you or not.

[digby]

Personally, I always find the argument that torture is ineffective insulting to people's intelligence. Of course it works - otherwise why would civilizations throughout history have repeatedly used it. And yes, it will often provide inaccurate information just to stop the torture, but it will also provide all the correct information as well. It will provide ALL the information a suspect has, both real and imagined. A good interrogator just has to sort out which is which. Also, often information can be checked, and if it is the wrong information, more torture should lead to eventually getting the correct information if the suspect has it.

But it is unethical and spiritually reprehensible to torture, and contrary to this countries ideals and laws. That should be the only issue, not whether it is effective or not. By arguing that torture is ineffective is giving support to the idea that using torture could be a good thing if it could only produce better information. Effectiveness should not even be an issue.

[nick]

More journalists have undergone waterboarding than suspected terrorists to demonstrate how it is done and to videotape it.

If this is true and that's a BIG if,all it proves is that some journalists are dumb.

[Paregoric Kid]

yeah there are legal, moral and ethical arguments against torture that is obvious. given that PLUS that fact that the information gained from torture doesn't help, seals the deal for why no country or organization should use torture as a means of obtaining information.
if torture works so well at obtaining information why did nearly all branches of the armed forces in the US stop teaching waterboarding techniques? did you read the quote from the JPRA? I'd think they know better than any of us if it works or not, and they say it doesn't. look at the salem witch trials, the were tortured and "confessed" to witchcraft, do you really believe all of those people were witches?

[digby]

Paregoric, the truth of the matter isn't that torture doesn't work when it is branded ineffective. It is just that interrogation has moved forward in the last hundred years and there are more effective ways of getting the same or even better information without having to resort to torture. The sad fact is, we have used techniques far worse than waterboarding in the war on terror and occasionally prisoners have died because of them. Fear, simple imprisonment and poisoning of users is the depth of their creativity so far in the war on drugs, but give them time. Why not just rebrand it the "war on everyone" and be done with it.

[Somanax]

torture is simply

the fastest way to stop it

even if it mean's a bullet

in the head

no one will give in to torture

so long as death will release them

they know death is imminient

make it count

[duck]

Definition of torture, per UN

any act by which severe pain or suffering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_and_suffering), whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession), punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidating) or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
—UN Convention Against Torture

THIS IS aMERICA buddy, not the god damn UN...when we stop footing 1/4 of the bill, I'll start giving a shit what the UN says. :)

[SHELLEY]

THIS IS aMERICA buddy, not the god damn UN...when we stop footing 1/4 of the bill, I'll start giving a shit what the UN says. :)

+10000000000
FUCK THE UN
they are a useless entity with all their "human rights" and bullshitting around
they don't even have any power for fucks sake! all they can do is run their mouths

also if you have a doctor standing by during said "torture"
to make sure that there isn't any permanent damage done to you by said "torture"
can you really even call it torture?

[Dirt McGirt]

While I basically agree that the UN is utterly ineffective, I did want to point out that torture is, of course, banned by US Law as well.

Per Title 18 § 2340 of the United States Criminal Code:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

[nick]

+10000000000
FUCK THE UN
they are a useless entity with all their "human rights" and bullshitting around
they don't even have any power for fucks sake! all they can do is run their mouths

also if you have a doctor standing by during said "torture"
to make sure that there isn't any permanent damage done to you by said "torture"
can you really even call it torture?

I gotta say that this is primo bullshit-even for you,Shelley.

[SHELLEY]

I gotta say that this is primo bullshit-even for you,Shelley.

good rebuttal!
next time try "i am rubber you are glue"

[duck]

I gotta say that this is primo bullshit-even for you,Shelley.

You think the cost/benefit of the UN illustrates that it should exist? It's the definition of idealism, great ideas that get ground into mush through bureaucratic nonsense and tertiary political agendas.

[nick]

You think the cost/benefit of the UN illustrates that it should exist? It's the definition of idealism, great ideas that get ground into mush through bureaucratic nonsense and tertiary political agendas.

I wasn't referring to the part of the post that mentioned the U.N.

However I will say this,in the near future the U.S. will acquire a new found respect for the U.N..

[digby]

The only reason that the U.N. has no power is because the big 5, and primarily the U.S. of A., are determined to keep it that way. The United States wishes to run the world their way and only uses the U.N. as a stooge to occasionally support what they are damn well going to do anyway. I agree that the U.N. has become a travesty, but it is a travesty of our own making.

[nick]

The only reason that the U.N. has no power is because the big 5, and primarily the U.S. of A., are determined to keep it that way. The United States wishes to run the world their way and only uses the U.N. as a stooge to occasionally support what they are damn well going to do anyway. I agree that the U.N. has become a travesty, but it is a travesty of our own making.

Exactly,but the age of U.S. domination is ending and as it's influence declines it's respect for the U.N. will increase.

[Paregoric Kid]

I hate the UN too, but for all of you "patriotic" flag waving americans that support torture, you should really open your eyes and realize that our own military says it isn't a reliable way to extract information. this isn't fucking medieval times. really have some of you forgotten the tragedies that happened when torture was used to convict and execute people based on "confessions" given under torture, like the salem witch trials for example?
it really comes down to this: if the US wants to have a criminal/civil trial against a terrorist suspect in the US, then they have to play by our rules, which means torture, aka cruel and unusual punishment, is illegal because of the eighth amendment. if they want to treat them as POWs (or "enemy combatants" or whatever nicer sounding name they want to use) then they have to play by the geneva convention, which means torturing them is still illegal. what is the point of having a constitution or signing international treaties if the government isn't going to meet its end of the bargain? such governments should be overthrown.

[duck]

Exactly,but the age of U.S. domination is ending and as it's influence declines it's respect for the U.N. will increase.

Who will be replacing the US as the next dominant world power?

[nick]

Who will be replacing the US as the next dominant world power?

China,I suspect.

[duck]

Not only is US GDP over 4x as much as China's, GDP per person in the US is over 8x China's...under Keynesian theory, their economy is going to enter steady state pertty soon -- similar to what happened to Japan in the late 70s when everyone was screaming that they were going to surpass the US.

I just don't see it happening.

[nick]

Not only is US GDP over 4x as much as China's, GDP per person in the US is over 8x China's...under Keynesian theory, their economy is going to enter steady state pertty soon -- similar to what happened to Japan in the late 70s when everyone was screaming that they were going to surpass the US.

I just don't see it happening.

Yes,but China is growing and has a LOT of potential.It's also worth noting that GDP is just one criteria.If you're going off rate of increase in GDP alone then India will own the world soon.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if China called in all their U.S. debts-of course that won't happen.

Of course China has numerous social "problems" which may adversely effect it's future development,but I'd still put money on them becoming the next global super power..............a frightening though.

and I only bet,these days,if I'm sure I'm going to win.

[duck]

I'm saying just the opposite -- just b/c China and India have high positive GDP growth rates does not mean they will surpass the US. I am a big believer in steady state economic theory, because both theoretically and through actual evidence it seems to hold water. China and India will go into steady state soon enough, and will probably not pass the US, just as Japan never did.

What other measures besides GDP are there that indicate a shuffle in world power?


[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_%28macroeconomics%29"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_%28macroeconomics%29)

[nick]

I'm saying just the opposite -- just b/c China and India have high positive GDP growth rates does not mean they will surpass the US. I am a big believer in steady state economic theory, because both theoretically and through actual evidence it seems to hold water. China and India will go into steady state soon enough, and will probably not pass the US, just as Japan never did.

What other measures besides GDP are there that indicate a shuffle in world power?




Japan,is a whole other gig.

The problem with using GDP alone is that it's a static measure and only reflects a short period of time(annual).It should be used in conjunction with other indicators that reflect potential.This could be something as simple as amounts of commodities.Plus throw in population projections,debt levels.Hell even climate projections and lots of other stuff I'm too stoned to remember-long time since I studied economics.
and were just discussing economic indicators here.
GDP is a good indicator,but shouldn't be used alone for accurate projection.

EDIT,steady state theory.....memories.I remember studying Solow's model.Hell,we'll be rapping about exogenous growth soon.

[duck]

In the fiat financial world we live in, GDP hands down will be the greatest indicator of world power. The US gives any nation on earth a run for their money as far as facilitation a highly productive economy, i.e. natural resources, space, technology, etc....I just have a hard time seeing what other factors come even close to being as important as financial strength.

It's true we're in massive debt to China -- but we wouldn't have the economy we have today if we hadn't (I know everyone thinks the US economy sucks, but that's only true time-relatively). Plus, this keeps us in control of China more so than it keeps us under the control of China. If China ever gets hostile, we'll quickly default and they can just get fucked.

[nick]

In the fiat financial world we live in, GDP hands down will be the greatest indicator of world power. The US gives any nation on earth a run for their money as far as facilitation a highly productive economy, i.e. natural resources, space, technology, etc....I just have a hard time seeing what other factors come even close to being as important as financial strength.

It's true we're in massive debt to China -- but we wouldn't have the economy we have today if we hadn't (I know everyone thinks the US economy sucks, but that's only true time-relatively). Plus, this keeps us in control of China more so than it keeps us under the control of China. If China ever gets hostile, we'll quickly default and they can just get fucked.

GDP is the best SINGLE indicator of economic power.SINGLE is the operative word here.I'm pointing out that it's not a good idea to evaluate nations purely on GDP or for that matter economic criteria.If you did,somewhere like Liechtenstein would be a global power and Pakistan would be a minnow.

No way would China or any other nation call in their markers,unless there's an amazing set of circumstances.The global economy would collapse if any one did this.

[duck]

I know economic power isn't the only factor in global power....what would you say #2 and #3 are?

[nick]

I know economic power isn't the only factor in global power....what would you say #2 and #3 are?

Sadly,I'm the jaded type that isn't sure economics is the primary factor and suspect having a BIG BOMB is.


There are several factors worth considering,but none are as easy to evaluate and quantify as bombs and money.Location,population,degree of technology/industrialisation,energy reserves,political stability et al.

You should be talking to my Pops.He worked for NATO doing global,political evaluation(sounds Orwellian,huh) He describes himself as a cartographer of the future.

[SHELLEY]

I hate the UN too, but for all of you "patriotic" flag waving americans that support torture, you should really open your eyes and realize that our own military says it isn't a reliable way to extract information. this isn't fucking medieval times. really have some of you forgotten the tragedies that happened when torture was used to convict and execute people based on "confessions" given under torture, like the salem witch trials for example?
it really comes down to this: if the US wants to have a criminal/civil trial against a terrorist suspect in the US, then they have to play by our rules, which means torture, aka cruel and unusual punishment, is illegal because of the eighth amendment. if they want to treat them as POWs (or "enemy combatants" or whatever nicer sounding name they want to use) then they have to play by the geneva convention, which means torturing them is still illegal. what is the point of having a constitution or signing international treaties if the government isn't going to meet its end of the bargain? such governments should be overthrown.

well, the geneva convention is very specific
it has a lot of rules governing our treatment of POWs, which are UNIFORMED soldiers
an enemy combatant without a uniform, according to the geneva convention
can be fucking shot on sight
but instead, they get free health care and great food
and lots of bleeding-hearts to cry every time someone dunks their head and makes them feel scared

[nick]

well, the geneva convention is very specific
it has a lot of rules governing our treatment of POWs, which are UNIFORMED soldiers
an enemy combatant without a uniform, according to the geneva convention
can be fucking shot on sight
but instead, they get free health care and great food
and lots of bleeding-hearts to cry every time someone dunks their head and makes them feel scared

But the war on terror isn't a war.Unless I missed it congress did not declare a war on terror.So,I's imagine the part of the constitution about cruel and unusual punishment applies.

and Shelley,you defending the indefensible.

[duck]

and Shelley,you defending the indefensible.

because you disagree with her? Just because someone approves of torture, so many anti-torture people assume the pro-torture person is just this white trash, backwards individual who hates everyone who tries to get in their way. It's not always true. A lot of people believe in torture based on simple utilitarian principles that, overall, from all the torture that the US has committed, they have prevented more damage than they have created. It's not just out of blind hatred all the time.

[nick]

because you disagree with her? Just because someone approves of torture, so many anti-torture people assume the pro-torture person is just this white trash, backwards individual who hates everyone who tries to get in their way. It's not always true. A lot of people believe in torture based on simple utilitarian principles that, overall, from all the torture that the US has committed, they have prevented more damage than they have created. It's not just out of blind hatred all the time.

Screw utilitarianism.Some things are just WRONG............morally indefensible.Torture is one of those things.

[SHELLEY]

But the war on terror isn't a war.Unless I missed it congress did not declare a war on terror.So,I's imagine the part of the constitution about cruel and unusual punishment applies.

and Shelley,you defending the indefensible.

i know, i know, if you disagree with something it is indefensible
but as you yourself said, the "war on terror" is not an actual international war (in the GC sense)
these "prisoners of war" are absolutely NOT prisoners of war
they are simply enemy combatants, foreigners who want to do harm to our country
and therefore the usa can do basically anything they want with them
including drop them in the fucking gulf with concrete slippers on (according to the geneva convention at least)

and the 8th amendment protects AMERICAN CITIZENS, not unfriendly foreigners

edit: "some things are just wrong"
are those some things, by any chance, everything that goes against your political and social OPINIONS????

[duck]

Screw utilitarianism.Some things are just WRONG............morally indefensible.Torture is one of those things.

That's absurd Nick. If 1000 were going to die unless we tortured 1 person, would it not be morally acceptable to torture the 1?

I know this isn't a realistic example, but if you are saying torture is always wrong, it must apply to every example, realistic or otherwise. Moral absolutism is a dangerous area, Nick.

[nick]

i know, i know, if you disagree with something it is indefensible
but as you yourself said, the "war on terror" is not an actual international war (in the GC sense)
these "prisoners of war" are absolutely NOT prisoners of war
they are simply enemy combatants, foreigners who want to do harm to our country
and therefore the usa can do basically anything they want with them
including drop them in the fucking gulf with concrete slippers on (according to the geneva convention at least)

and the 8th amendment protects AMERICAN CITIZENS, not unfriendly foreigners

edit: "some things are just wrong"
are those some things, by any chance, everything that goes against your political and social OPINIONS????

Mine and many others.Hell, even the U.S. "intelligence" community.That's why water boarding is not called torture by the U.S.,despite Water boarding being commonly accepted to be torture by calling it some thing inane the U.S. pays lip service to the idea that torture is wrong.Oh and the fact that the U.S. signed the geneva convention and the U.N. human rights act kinda implies that torture is not acceptable .

and while we are here,I believe it's less than 15% of prisoners from the war on terror that have actually been convicted and that's despite the use of military tribunals.That leaves a large 85% that have been detained and probably tortured that happened to be totally innocent.

Doesn't really matter if they're innocent or not,it is indefensible to inflict torture on any one.

[nick]

That's absurd Nick. If 1000 were going to die unless we tortured 1 person, would it not be morally acceptable to torture the 1?

I know this isn't a realistic example, but if you are saying torture is always wrong, it must apply to every example, realistic or otherwise. Moral absolutism is a dangerous area, Nick.

Yes,it is dangerous and yes it's wrong to torture 1 to save 1,000.

Some times,vary rarely,but some times it really is that simple.

[duck]

I would argue that most people would disagree with you that it is better to let 1000 die in order to not torture one. Definitely not indefensible, nick. Your assumed superior moral vision is, also, absurd.

[Indy]

So which thousand people did we save through torture? IF situations don't really matter, you can say "oh but in THIS case it would be OK!" but that does not mean it IS ok. I would bet that torturing people has NOT saved lives, if anything it has legitimized the fight against US troops for many would-be farmers-turned-suicide-bombers. And besides, I don't see how it could save lives, because it has been proven time and again, even by the major practitioners of torture, that it just doesn't work.

Saying that torturing someone to save a thousand is ok because the alternative is worse is fallacious. You need to remember that there are situations where this IS NO ethical choice. Just because an act is LESS unethical than the alternative, that doesn't mean it's ethical.

"If you're going off rate of increase in GDP alone then India will own the world soon."

And if you go off rate of increase alone, by 2050 300% of americans will be gay.

I heard once that the only thing the US fears is China, and that the only thing China fears is India.

[SHELLEY]

Mine and many others.Hell, even the U.S. "intelligence" community.That's why water boarding is not called torture by the U.S.,despite Water boarding being commonly accepted to be torture by calling it some thing inane the U.S. pays lip service to the idea that torture is wrong.Oh and the fact that the U.S. signed the geneva convention and the U.N. human rights act kinda implies that torture is not acceptable .

and while we are here,I believe it's less than 15% of prisoners from the war on terror that have actually been convicted and that's despite the use of military tribunals.That leaves a large 85% that have been detained and probably tortured that happened to be totally innocent.

Doesn't really matter if they're innocent or not,it is indefensible to inflict torture on any one.

honestly, it's like talking to the born-again christians
"why not? because...... it's WRONG!!! that's why!!!"

no response to the fact that the geneva convention allows for the murder of non-uniformed combatantsz?

[Dirt McGirt]

no response to the fact that the geneva convention allows for the murder of non-uniformed combatantsz?

According to the US Supreme Court, this point is moot as it relates to the War on Terror. Enemy combatants are afforded all rights and privileges provided by Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Ramdan v Rumsfeld www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

[HistoryofMadness]

if mr mgirt can respond so can i... i can't resist...

fuck torture, for all the reasons i can think of that someone may deserve it, there are probably just as many reasons that someone can think of that i deserve it.

in other words, it does nothing but cause suffering in other people, which at the time we may think will make us feel better, but it never does.

if you've ever been in a place to take revenge, you probably know what i mean. unless you are a pure sociopath, torture just isn't going to do it for you.

in my younger years, i put a person or two through hell for personal reasons, thinking i would feel better after i fuckered them up. it did not make me feel better.

and we ALL know that the information provided in torture isn't dependable. maybe sometimes it works, maybe sometimes it doesn't, but the problem is we don't know the difference.

so if we can't depend on it and it doesn't make us feel better, then we are hurting others for no reason. and that is wrong.

therefore, torture is wrong.

is that faulty reasoning? i think not.

[Dirt McGirt]

One more thing I wanted to point out.

The reason the US is party to int'l agreements, like the Geneva Conventions, is not just to govern the way the US behaves, its also to ensure that US citizens (civilian and military) are treated in an equally humane way.

So if you're for the torture of people in our custody, naturally, I assume you must also believe that other countries (or groups) have the right to torture US soldiers and civilians if they believe there's an "imminent" threat.

The way I see it, prohibitions on torture are not to protect terrorists, and they're not to protect the poor little feelings of of the liberal intelligentsia.

Its to protect our soldiers. Its to protect them from getting abused, humiliated, and murdered when they are captured. Ask an American POW sometime how he feels about the Geneva Conventions.

[SHELLEY]

One more thing I wanted to point out.

The reason the US is party to int'l agreements, like the Geneva Conventions, is not just to govern the way the US behaves, its also to ensure that US citizens (civilian and military) are treated in an equally humane way.

So if you're for the torture of people in our custody, naturally, I assume you must also believe that other countries (or groups) have the right to torture US soldiers and civilians if they believe there's an "imminent" threat.

The way I see it, prohibitions on torture are not to protect terrorists, and they're not to protect the poor little feelings of of the liberal intelligentsia.

Its to protect our soldiers. Its to protect them from getting abused, humiliated, and murdered when they are captured. Ask an American POW sometime how he feels about the Geneva Conventions.

other countries don't need the "right" to torture US soliders if they believe there is a threat
do you think that asshole mccain got free health care and head-dunking "torture" in his POW camp????

[nick]

I would argue that most people would disagree with you that it is better to let 1000 die in order to not torture one. Definitely not indefensible, nick. Your assumed superior moral vision is, also, absurd.

If believing torture morally wrong is considered a "superior moral vision" and absurd then what does it say about our society?

What does fighting terror with terror say about us?


Torturing someone demeans us all.

[duck]

If believing torture morally wrong is considered a "superior moral vision" and absurd then what does it say about our society?

What does fighting terror with terror say about us?


Torturing someone demeans us all.

Your assumption that another perfectly defensible view is indefensible because, as far as you have pointed out, it contrasts with your view is what I am calling absurd.

On fighting terror with terror: do you believe that every war that has ever been fought has been completely morally indefensible? Often wars use violence to fight violence, under the same premise we use torture to fight torture, it prevents more harm than it causes.

[nick]

Your assumption that another perfectly defensible view is indefensible because, as far as you have pointed out, it contrasts with your view is what I am calling absurd.

On fighting terror with terror: do you believe that every war that has ever been fought has been completely morally indefensible? Often wars use violence to fight violence, under the same premise we use torture to fight torture, it prevents more harm than it causes.

Promoting torture is indefensible and if that's absurd................ we are all doomed.

There are many logical rational reasons why torture shouldn't be used and they're all valid,but kinda miss the point that torture under any circumstances is morally wrong.


Maybe you should explain why you find torture acceptable.


Actually,don't.I don't want to hear that kinda ugliness.

[Dirt McGirt]

other countries don't need the "right" to torture US soliders if they believe there is a threat
do you think that asshole mccain got free health care and head-dunking "torture" in his POW camp????

But you do believe that torture is a perfectly acceptable way to extract information, right?

If another country (lets say Iran) captured a US soldier, or a soldier who wasn't on duty, but in civilian's clothing, you believe its ok for them to torture him/her, right ("fucking shot on sight")? Or do you believe its only ok for for the US to torture its detainees?

We can't reasonably expect from others, what we don't do ourselves.

[SHELLEY]

But you do believe that torture is a perfectly acceptable way to extract information, right?

If another country (lets say Iran) captured a US soldier, or a soldier who wasn't on duty, but in civilian's clothing, you believe its ok for them to torture him/her, right ("fucking shot on sight")? Or do you believe its only ok for for the US to torture its detainees?

We can't reasonably expect from others, what we don't do ourselves.

it doesn't matter whether i think it's okay or not
because countries like iran don't bother with all these civilized noises like the sickeningly apologetic usa
they would just kill a us soldier without any thought to anything else
and you know what? that's fucking war, that's combat
it sucks, but war sucks- necessary sometimes (i am not saying i am pro-war on terror)

the phrase "violence never solved anything" is a lie from the pit of hell
violence solves a lot of things

[Dirt McGirt]

it doesn't matter whether i think it's okay or not
because countries like iran don't bother with all these civilized noises like the sickeningly apologetic usa
they would just kill a us soldier without any thought to anything else
and you know what? that's fucking war, that's combat
it sucks, but war sucks- necessary sometimes (i am not saying i am pro-war on terror)

the phrase "violence never solved anything" is a lie from the pit of hell
violence solves a lot of things

Agreed.

[duck]

Promoting torture is indefensible and if that's absurd................ we are all doomed.

There are many logical rational reasons why torture shouldn't be used and they're all valid,but kinda miss the point that torture under any circumstances is morally wrong.


Maybe you should explain why you find torture acceptable.


Actually,don't.I don't want to hear that kinda ugliness.

What if, unless we torture one person, everyone will be tortured by an outside source, say a rebel faction army....then is it right? Just imagine the scenario, however unlikely. If you are saying torture is absolutely morally wrong, it must apply to every imaginable circumstance.

I'm not saying that I personally find torture acceptable. I am just saying it isn't necessarily true to say that torture in every circumstance is wrong.

[nick]

What if, unless we torture one person, everyone will be tortured by an outside source, say a rebel faction army....then is it right? Just imagine the scenario, however unlikely. If you are saying torture is absolutely morally wrong, it must apply to every imaginable circumstance.

I'm not saying that I personally find torture acceptable. I am just saying it isn't necessarily true to say that torture in every circumstance is wrong.

Unlikely as it is.............It's still wrong.I'm uncomfortable with moral absolutes,but torture is one.It's always wrong.

Torture is like child rape it's always wrong.

and Shelley,you profess to being anti government,right? So,you don't trust your government to supply health care or impose taxation,but you do trust them enough to break a fundamental taboo in your name?

Seems kinda odd.

[SHELLEY]

duck- you're starting to sound like the pro-abortion people
"would abortion be wrong.... if ______ happened? or if the mom was _____? would it be wrong then?"
i'm a nitpicker and my brother is a law student so in order to avoid meaningless arguments
we started using the word BOCTAOE (bok-tao)
which means "but of course there are obvious exceptions"
it's really necessary to BOCTAOE damn near every "absolute"

because absolutes are ALWAYS wrong, every single fucking time :)

Unlikely as it is.............It's still wrong.I'm uncomfortable with moral absolutes,but torture is one.It's always wrong.

Torture is like child rape it's always wrong.

and Shelley,you profess to being anti government,right? So,you don't trust your government to supply health care or impose taxation,but you do trust them enough to break a fundamental taboo in your name?

Seems kinda odd.

in MY name????? really????
i just don't feel a moral obligation to cry sad sad tears
every time some lowlife asshole foreigner gets his head dunked after his 5-star fucking dinner

[duck]

Unlikely as it is.............It's still wrong.I'm uncomfortable with moral absolutes,but torture is one.It's always wrong.

Torture is like child rape it's always wrong.

and Shelley,you profess to being anti government,right? So,you don't trust your government to supply health care or impose taxation,but you do trust them enough to break a fundamental taboo in your name?

Seems kinda odd.

Gotcha. Thanks for keeping a level head. I wasn't defending my own view -- my view of ethics is more complicated (convoluted?) than my view of the economy.....not really sure what I believe.

[digby]

Unlikely as it is.............It's still wrong.I'm uncomfortable with moral absolutes,but torture is one.It's always wrong.

Torture is like child rape it's always wrong.

and Shelley,you profess to being anti government,right? So,you don't trust your government to supply health care or impose taxation,but you do trust them enough to break a fundamental taboo in your name?

Seems kinda odd.


Nick, your heart is in the right place, but boy are you naive. America has always tortured. So has England, so has France and any number of countries that I can think of. The did it because they felt it was necessary. Not that it was moral or that it was right. But necessary.

The situation that must be avoided is legalized torture, or it becomes commonplace and done other than as a last resort. People need to be held accountable for torture, and if they do it, and are found out - then they have to pay the price for breaking the law. But if they feel it is important enough for national security, they will do it anyway. But they can't be allowed to feel comfortable or protected doing it.

If my family was about to be killed in an hour, and I had one of the fellows that kidnapped them in my possession, and most likely he knew where they were - of course I would torture them, or do anything else I felt necessary to get my family back. If you wouldn't do the same, or cannot think of a similar scenario where you would also torture someone to save someone else, then you either have no imagination or you are lying to yourself or you are a self-absorbed asshole who thinks only of himself and his gleaming moral code. After reading your posts, I sincerely doubt it is the latter. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't care if it was illegal - I would do it anyway. I would gladly risk my life to save them, so how much remorse do you think I would have for one of the perpetrators? I mean c'mon Nick - get real.

[nick]

Nick, your heart is in the right place, but boy are you naive. America has always tortured. So has England, so has France and any number of countries that I can think of. The did it because they felt it was necessary. Not that it was moral or that it was right. But necessary.

The situation that must be avoided is legalized torture, or it becomes commonplace and done other than as a last resort. People need to be held accountable for torture, and if they do it, and are found out - then they have to pay the price for breaking the law. But if they feel it is important enough for national security, they will do it anyway. But they can't be allowed to feel comfortable or protected doing it.

If my family was about to be killed in an hour, and I had one of the fellows that kidnapped them in my possession, and most likely he knew where they were - of course I would torture them, or do anything else I felt necessary to get my family back. If you wouldn't do the same, or cannot think of a similar scenario where you would also torture someone to save someone else, then you either have no imagination or you are lying to yourself or you are a self-absorbed asshole who thinks only of himself and his gleaming moral code. After reading your posts, I sincerely doubt it is the latter. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't care if it was illegal - I would do it anyway. I would gladly risk my life to save them, so how much remorse do you think I would have for one of the perpetrators? I mean c'mon Nick - get real.

No man,I know I sound like a condescending do righter and I understand what you're saying-I just don't agree.

The problem with using torture as a last resort is a last resort to what? You'll torture some one to save a 1,000 lives? A hundred lives? 1life? because some pissed you off?
Torture is a moral absolute because if we don't draw a line in the sand we,as a species,end up in a dark place.

This isn't just about having compassion for the tortured,it's about having compassion for the torturer too.

Ultimately when I say torture is wrong,I don't care how I sound because to saying anything less would be much worse.

[digby]

So you are in effect saying that the Means doen't justify the End because the Means ARE the End? True enough on one level, but one level only. If a man was killing and torturing hundreds and you could torture his accomplace, find the villain and stop the torture but you chose not to out of a higher sense of moral obligation. So the torture went on for 20 years. Weren't you partially responsible for all those people tortured for 20 years because you could have stopped it but chose to do nothing? In my mind, that makes you the facilitator, because by choosing to let it continue, you supported the action and are in fact guilty of the conspiracy of torture yourself.

People have a direct responsibility to deal with the situations that enter their inidividuel relationships on the planet. They don't need to go out and look for things, simply deal with the problems presented to them. This is my philosophy, because without it there is no piece of mind, and with it comes freedom from stress, fear and alienation. A person doesn't have to solve all the problems in the world, just the one's in his own immediate circle of life, as best he can. If everyone did that, all problems in life would either be solved or be worked on in the best possible way by the person or persons they affect most directly.

But with this philosophy, there can be no absolutes. Can't be. Because you never know the next problem that needs to be solved and how that will change both your viewpoint as well as your environment. You can't plan on how to continue to raise this years chickens next year, because a needy family may require those chickens to eat, and severl months later give you a pig as payment for the charity - no next year you will need to worry about raising a pig, not raising chickens.

You can't plan on always telling the truth, because next year a group of Nazi SS might ask you where the women and children Jews are hiding, and you would be forced to tell them if truth was another of your absolutes, and under this last situation, the actual telling of the truth would be morally reprehensible.

There are no absolutes. Many feel killing is wrong, particularly in India. A group called the Jains there are so concerned with not killing anything that they cover their mouths and noses with cloth so not to accidently breathe in and kill innocent insects. They also sweep the walkway before them as they walk lest they accidentally step on ants, insects or other crawling living things. But still they breate in and kill microbes, viruses, bacteria, pollens and a host of microscopic living organisms. Ahimpsa (or non-violence) that they strive for is an impossablity.

There are no absolutes on this planet. Harmony is caused by balance, not be reckless and rigid behavior and philosophy, but even balance is tenuous. It swings one way and then another, trying to reach equalibrium but our extreme behaviors keeps that from ever happening. So it just swings first one way and then the other.

No Absolutes. Save maybe one, which whatever your concept of First Cause, God, Divine Mother, The Void, Emptiness or The One. Other than that, every thing else is in flux. Might as well enjoy it as get all bent out of shape from the varying extremes.

[nick]

So you are in effect saying that the Means doen't justify the End because the Means ARE the End? True enough on one level, but one level only. If a man was killing and torturing hundreds and you could torture his accomplace, find the villain and stop the torture but you chose not to out of a higher sense of moral obligation. So the torture went on for 20 years. Weren't you partially responsible for all those people tortured for 20 years because you could have stopped it but chose to do nothing? In my mind, that makes you the facilitator, because by choosing to let it continue, you supported the action and are in fact guilty of the conspiracy of torture yourself.

People have a direct responsibility to deal with the situations that enter their inidividuel relationships on the planet. They don't need to go out and look for things, simply deal with the problems presented to them. This is my philosophy, because without it there is no piece of mind, and with it comes freedom from stress, fear and alienation. A person doesn't have to solve all the problems in the world, just the one's in his own immediate circle of life, as best he can. If everyone did that, all problems in life would either be solved or be worked on in the best possible way by the person or persons they affect most directly.

But with this philosophy, there can be no absolutes. Can't be. Because you never know the next problem that needs to be solved and how that will change both your viewpoint as well as your environment. You can't plan on how to continue to raise this years chickens next year, because a needy family may require those chickens to eat, and severl months later give you a pig as payment for the charity - no next year you will need to worry about raising a pig, not raising chickens.

You can't plan on always telling the truth, because next year a group of Nazi SS might ask you where the women and children Jews are hiding, and you would be forced to tell them if truth was another of your absolutes, and under this last situation, the actual telling of the truth would be morally reprehensible.

There are no absolutes. Many feel killing is wrong, particularly in India. A group called the Jains there are so concerned with not killing anything that they cover their mouths and noses with cloth so not to accidently breathe in and kill innocent insects. They also sweep the walkway before them as they walk lest they accidentally step on ants, insects or other crawling living things. But still they breate in and kill microbes, viruses, bacteria, pollens and a host of microscopic living organisms. Ahimpsa (or non-violence) that they strive for is an impossablity.

There are no absolutes on this planet. Harmony is caused by balance, not be reckless and rigid behavior and philosophy, but even balance is tenuous. It swings one way and then another, trying to reach equalibrium but our extreme behaviors keeps that from ever happening. So it just swings first one way and then the other.

No Absolutes. Save maybe one, which whatever your concept of First Cause, God, Divine Mother, The Void, Emptiness or The One. Other than that, every thing else is in flux. Might as well enjoy it as get all bent out of shape from the varying extremes.

Thank you Donald Rumsfeld.

Seriously,that's exactly why it's an absolute.Otherwise folks start compartmentalising and rationalising and you realise you're on a very slippery slope.

[SHELLEY]

i think anyone who says
"[drugs/guns/torture/murder/abortion//hunting/rape/racism/lying/stealing/etc] is wrong NO MATTER WHAT"
what they actually mean is
"i am morally superior to you and therefore should decide for everyone else what is right or wrong"
the constantly maligned "religious right" doesn't have a monopoly on moral superiority based on hot air
as nick and others have proved, the libs got it going on in their own way

[nick]

i think anyone who says
"[drugs/guns/torture/murder/abortion//hunting/rape/racism/lying/stealing/etc] is wrong NO MATTER WHAT"
what they actually mean is
"i am morally superior to you and therefore should decide for everyone else what is right or wrong"
the constantly maligned "religious right" doesn't have a monopoly on moral superiority based on hot air
as nick and others have proved, the libs got it going on in their own way

Let's be fair,I don't believe I said anyone's morality was superior or inferior and if I've given that impression I apologise.

You're idea of a moral code and mine are very different and I find a lot of what you profess to believe pretty repugnant,but that doesn't mean I believe I'm in any way superior.


As I have said before,these are matters of PERSONAL conscience.

I believe that torture is morally wrong is an absolute,what's in your soul is your business.

[SHELLEY]

Let's be fair,I don't believe I said anyone's morality was superior or inferior and if I've given that impression I apologise.

You're idea of a moral code and mine are very different and I find a lot of what you profess to believe pretty repugnant,but that doesn't mean I believe I'm in any way superior.


As I have said before,these are matters of PERSONAL conscience.

I believe that torture is morally wrong is an absolute,what's in your soul is your business.

fair enough
words like "absolutely wrong" and "indefensible" gave a slightly different impression though

[nick]

fair enough
words like "absolutely wrong" and "indefensible" gave a slightly different impression though

Sure,For ME torture is indefensible because I believe it's absolutely wrong.What others think is a matter for their consciences.

I only ever talk for myself.Morality should always be individual.

[digby]

Thank you Donald Rumsfeld.

Seriously,that's exactly why it's an absolute.Otherwise folks start compartmentalising and rationalising and you realise you're on a very slippery slope.

Oh my. With all I have posted in this thread, you somehow equate that with Donald Rumsfeld???

People mostly have a tendency to think of things in terms of the abstract, not in a way that directly applies to them. No fuss, no muss that way. If we have the moral absolutes that torture is bad, certainly killing has to be worse. What would you actually do Nick - no theorizing here, just actual facts - if home invaders broke into your home and were going to first torture and kill your family? My guess is you would do nothing, because you never considered that something like that could actually happen to you. So you hadn't really considered it and were certainly not prepared for it. It tend to call this "buffalo consciousness", where once giant herds of buffalo simply milled about as there were being shot and the herd decimated. They either had no concept of why the other buffalo were dropping dead around them or more likely, they realized that only a few were affected and most likely as an individual buffalo, they were likely to survive like nothing happened.

Now if you consider torture to be worse than killing, then you aren't really looking at life around you. Torture is all around us - a chronic pain patient that is squirming in pain but denied available treatment is torture of the first magnitude, yet people ignore this situation all the time. Animals or tortured constantly so that you don't experience pain in your eyes from the shampoo that you use regularly or to insure that drugs and cosmetics work the way that they should. Humans torture each other all the time in various individual and group relationships. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it moral, but it is part of the life condition. Often there is no black and white, no really good choice. Sometimes we are simply left with two or more very bad options and we are forced to just make what we consider to be the best, the most moral and the least harmful.

Just for your general information Nick, I didn't like Rumsfeld, Chaney or Bush and considered their policies to be atrocious. Unfortunately, while a bit better, the current administration is following in their footsteps on many issues. I don't believe that torture is a good thing and believe it should be outlawed at an international level. (oh wait - it is) But the real villain that is trampling over human rights and personal liberty in my own country is ignorance. Ignorance is the foster child of a closed mind. So when I hear someone not only expound inflexibility of thinking and downright ignorance and are actually proud of that ignorance and close-mindedness, it leaves me to think that things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better anytime soon.

[nick]

Oh my. With all I have posted in this thread, you somehow equate that with Donald Rumsfeld???

People mostly have a tendency to think of things in terms of the abstract, not in a way that directly applies to them. No fuss, no muss that way. If we have the moral absolutes that torture is bad, certainly killing has to be worse. What would you actually do Nick - no theorizing here, just actual facts - if home invaders broke into your home and were going to first torture and kill your family? My guess is you would do nothing, because you never considered that something like that could actually happen to you. So you hadn't really considered it and were certainly not prepared for it. It tend to call this "buffalo consciousness", where once giant herds of buffalo simply milled about as there were being shot and the herd decimated. They either had no concept of why the other buffalo were dropping dead around them or more likely, they realized that only a few were affected and most likely as an individual buffalo, they were likely to survive like nothing happened.

Now if you consider torture to be worse than killing, then you aren't really looking at life around you. Torture is all around us - a chronic pain patient that is squirming in pain but denied available treatment is torture of the first magnitude, yet people ignore this situation all the time. Animals or tortured constantly so that you don't experience pain in your eyes from the shampoo that you use regularly or to insure that drugs and cosmetics work the way that they should. Humans torture each other all the time in various individual and group relationships. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it moral, but it is part of the life condition. Often there is no black and white, no really good choice. Sometimes we are simply left with two or more very bad options and we are forced to just make what we consider to be the best, the most moral and the least harmful.

Just for your general information Nick, I didn't like Rumsfeld, Chaney or Bush and considered their policies to be atrocious. Unfortunately, while a bit better, the current administration is following in their footsteps on many issues. I don't believe that torture is a good thing and believe it should be outlawed at an international level. (oh wait - it is) But the real villain that is trampling over human rights and personal liberty in my own country is ignorance. Ignorance is the foster child of a closed mind. So when I hear someone not only expound inflexibility of thinking and downright ignorance and are actually proud of that ignorance and close-mindedness, it leaves me to think that things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better anytime soon.

I don't consider ignorance to be biggest problem,I believe APATHY is.A disinterested acceptance of how things are of the "life condition."
and how suggesting that torture can be acceptable is "the most moral and least harmful" stance to take on the subject is odd.Simply because torture happens and happens often does not make it justifiable.

You asked what I'd do if an intruder attacked my family.Well,obviously,as a last resort I'd fight and use the minimum amount of force required to protect my family.I don't see how this relates to intentionally harming someone to acquire something.

[digby]

I don't consider ignorance to be biggest problem,I believe APATHY is.A disinterested acceptance of how things are of the "life condition."
and how suggesting that torture can be acceptable is "the most moral and least harmful" stance to take on the subject is odd.Simply because torture happens and happens often does not make it justifiable.

You asked what I'd do if an intruder attacked my family.Well,obviously,as a last resort I'd fight and use the minimum amount of force required to protect my family.I don't see how this relates to intentionally harming someone to acquire something.


I believe that ignorance spawns apathy. Michael Vick tortured and killed dogs because he was ignorant of the fact that people really love their dogs, that dogs have emotions, intellects and feelings and suffer just as humans do. This ignorance let to his apathy towards the plight of his dogs.

"I'd fight and use the minimum amount of force required to protect my family." Nick, you just professed to do exactly what the proponents of torture have defined as reasonable use of torture.

If you were able to subdue your families attacker, most likely you would end the confrontation by pinning him to the floor and twisting his arm or arms behind his back (or something similar) so he would not be hurt nor could he hurt you or your family. But twisting someone's arm behind their back is excruciatingly painful Nick. You might even accidentally break his arm if he fought you hard enough. That my friend, is torture, just as tasering someone is. We call it "restraint" rather than torture, so that seems to make it all ok with everyone.

Anyway, I'm signing off of this thread for now. I enjoyed our discussion, but I realized going in that discussions of this nature are efforts in futility if you really expect change from those that disagree with you, or for myself to change my own perspective. We are all ignorant, myself included, and we only learn those things that incite change to our beings when we are ready to learn them. All the answers have always been out there, we just avoid looking for them until we are ready. I'm no different. It seems to be one of the main elements of the human condition. Take care bro.

[nick]

I believe that ignorance spawns apathy. Michael Vick tortured and killed dogs because he was ignorant of the fact that people really love their dogs, that dogs have emotions, intellects and feelings and suffer just as humans do. This ignorance let to his apathy towards the plight of his dogs.

"I'd fight and use the minimum amount of force required to protect my family." Nick, you just professed to do exactly what the proponents of torture have defined as reasonable use of torture.

If you were able to subdue your families attacker, most likely you would end the confrontation by pinning him to the floor and twisting his arm or arms behind his back (or something similar) so he would not be hurt nor could he hurt you or your family. But twisting someone's arm behind their back is excruciatingly painful Nick. You might even accidentally break his arm if he fought you hard enough. That my friend, is torture, just as tasering someone is. We call it "restraint" rather than torture, so that seems to make it all ok with everyone.

Anyway, I'm signing off of this thread for now. I enjoyed our discussion, but I realized going in that discussions of this nature are efforts in futility if you really expect change from those that disagree with you, or for myself to change my own perspective. We are all ignorant, myself included, and we only learn those things that incite change to our beings when we are ready to learn them. All the answers have always been out there, we just avoid looking for them until we are ready. I'm no different. It seems to be one of the main elements of the human condition. Take care bro.

I've enjoyed the discussion too,it's always good to hear different opinions.Changing folks minds isn't always possible(or desirable-I don't want to foist my morality on anyone else),but just encouraging each other to think outside are normal thought patterns is more than good enough.
I understand your argument,which is fundamentally a version of moral relativism and for most subjects I support relativism,but there are a few subjects I,personally,believe are morally universal......maybe I've read too much Kant,huh.

[digby]

Yep, used to like reading old Immanuel myself, but I really got a big kick out of Schopenhauer, who was very strongly influenced by Kant and who started as an atheist, migrated to something akin to hybrid Buddhism/Vedanta mix but still slept with two loaded pistols under his pillow. Ya just gotta love the contrasts. :)

But then came LSD...and that pretty much changed everything in my camp.

[nick]

Yep, used to like reading old Immanuel myself, but I really got a big kick out of Schopenhauer, who was very strongly influenced by Kant and who started as an atheist, migrated to something akin to hybrid Buddhism/Vedanta mix but still slept with two loaded pistols under his pillow. Ya just gotta love the contrasts. :)

But then came LSD...and that pretty much changed everything in my camp.

Yeah,a good jolt of LSD will do that.

I've only read a little Schopenhaur(found it heavy,heavy going) mostly about the power of the will and mind.

[Duckfeet]

Like Kant, David Hume woke me from my own dogmatic slumbers, and changed the way I looked at everything...and I never felt like Kant--or Schopenhauer, who was mostly just "likely story" in his beliefs, and Kantian in his causation..--really got around Hume's simple way of showing that not only was rational a priori thought obviously suspect...but that what we considered empirical a posteriori notions were also based on assumptions about cause and effect and the uniformity of nature, and Hume made it basic and fundamental in a way that I've never escaped...or really wanted to...but I still hark back to one of my other heroes, Bertrand Russell, who tried to show that without hope and without belief, a man still could care about his fellows, and be kind and compassionate...

But I'm not as good a guy as Russell. So on torture?:
After 9/11--actually, after Beirut-- I just wanted revenge, and was fine with torture, mass bombings, anything: I just wanted dead unhappy muslims in payment for their joy in our deaths...and I got that....and I do feel that we are always playing with one arm tied behind our backs when dealing with religious murderers...but often, listening to Nick, I'll try to think better of other humans, even those who hate me and my way of life....as long as I get to keep living in a country where I can make fun of Mohammed and Christ both, without people trying to kill me, I'm easygoing...but don't fuck with me or mine...my ethics get dark and basic quick...any soldier will tell you that....

[nick]

Like Kant, David Hume woke me from my own dogmatic slumbers, and changed the way I looked at everything...and I never felt like Kant--or Schopenhauer, who was mostly just "likely story" in his beliefs, and Kantian in his causation..--really got around Hume's simple way of showing that not only was rational a priori thought obviously suspect...but that what we considered empirical a posteriori notions were also based on assumptions about cause and effect and the uniformity of nature, and Hume made it basic and fundamental in a way that I've never escaped...or really wanted to...but I still hark back to one of my other heroes, Bertrand Russell, who tried to show that without hope and without belief, a man still could care about his fellows, and be kind and compassionate...

But I'm not as good a guy as Russell. So on torture?:
After 9/11--actually, after Beirut-- I just wanted revenge, and was fine with torture, mass bombings, anything: I just wanted dead unhappy muslims in payment for their joy in our deaths...and I got that....and I do feel that we are always playing with one arm tied behind our backs when dealing with religious murderers...but often, listening to Nick, I'll try to think better of other humans, even those who hate me and my way of life....as long as I get to keep living in a country where I can make fun of Mohammed and Christ both, without people trying to kill me, I'm easygoing...but don't fuck with me or mine...my ethics get dark and basic quick...any soldier will tell you that....

I'm a total light weight.I find Hume hard going too.Although I like his bundle theory of self-which is very similar to uncle Bill's past life tracks.I did like his history of England.Df,as an anglophile you should check it out.It's about the best complete history of England I've come across-been a long time since I read it though.

It's not relevant to my beliefs or argument in this thread,but I should point out that if you check out extreme Islamic websites-they're full of images of Guantananmo and abu ghraib being used to incite Islamic terrorists.

[Duckfeet]

Yeah, I think there was a year or two, I went back to college, a lot older than most, and found philsophy fascinating, and it was usually just bits and pieces of any of them that I liked...Hume I found most fascinating for some of his simpler more accessible ideas, since I was just stunned by some of the things I took for granted not being provable either...well, I think anything that shakes up my foundations is good, makes me less sure of myself, and for me, that's good.

And I often found that all these philsophers were really interested in *ethics,* which is kind of where this thread started anyway, and I really can't defend any behavior, not mine, not the muslim extremists, but I know on the level I live, I have to try to act right, and I guess we all know what that means, and I'd be fine w/even Kant's Categorical Imperative being "Yah gotta act right towards your fellows," and yeah, I'd wish and accept that being universal...but once people start thinking their religious notions and text give them leeway, or even mandates to kill their fellows, I forget all that, and just want to kill them and rain hell on their parade...but, like them, I'm nice to guests and visitors...;)

I'd heard of Hume's history of England, and always "planned to read it..." but hell, I'm back, one more time, to reading "The Honorable Schoolboy," by LeCarre...that man could write...

I'm a total light weight.I find Hume hard going too.Although I like his bundle theory of self-which is very similar to uncle Bill's past life tracks.I did like his history of England.Df,as an anglophile you should check it out.It's about the best complete history of England I've come across-been a long time since I read it though.

It's not relevant to my beliefs or argument in this thread,but I should point out that if you check out extreme Islamic websites-they're full of images of Guantananmo and abu ghraib being used to incite Islamic terrorists.