The Torture Poll

An intellectually honest response, you are forever excluded from politics

 

I just noticed I was missing and important 'not' in my statement.
It has been edited for clarity.

 

If you allow it to happen, or consider it necessary, you are condoning it, by any reasonable definition of the word.

 

actually by allowing it to happen in limited circumstances you are merely acknowledging what has been part of every culture's law in some form or another. Self -defense, defense of others, duress and necessity are recognized defenses to committing a crime. It's wrong to kill another, but excusable if done in self defense.
Are you denying the existence of those defenses? When a slave rose up and killed his master, should he be punished for committing murder?

 

I don't allow it to happen or consider it necessary.
The choice was: A bad but useful tactic in some circumstances.
There is no inherent link between an action's moral rightness/wrongness and it's utility.
I think torture is wrong. I don't support it's use; I don't condone it's use.
I recognize that there are circumstances in which it is a useful tactic, but the fact that it is useful doesn't make it right or OK.

 

Once again, just for the record, torture doesn't work. Maybe on TV, but not in real life. None of the attacks Bush claims have been averted because of "aggressive techniques" can be verified.

Torture doesn't work. But don't take my word for it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

 

If it is wrong, and you don't support its use, but think it's useful, you are condoning it.
The argument is not entirely that it works or doesn't work. The moral argument is that is inhuman savagery that in all cases dehumanizes its victims and its practitioners, that it is a barbaric vestige of a different era, and that it runs contrary to 200 years of western law.

 

There was a good article this month by Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times about this. He talked to an Asian refugee who said he was tortured and confessed to being a Catholic preist, a Buddhist monk, somebody against the government, and a whole bunch of other things. John McCain said it doesn't work. At some point, unless somebody wants to die or get beaten nearly to death, any human will tell a torturer whatever they want to hear.

 

I'm agreeing with you on the immorality. The fact that it can be usfeul does not make it OK.
Let's try an analogy that distances us from the emotion.
A kid wants a comic book but has no money. He has a chance to steal one with no personal repercussion.
Obviously, theft in this example would be a useful option for the kid. Theft would be a useful tactic to assuage his desire for the comic book and to overcome his lack of money.
However, stealing the comic would be wrong. He should not steal the comic book.
The morality and the utility of the action have no relationship.

 

Thought I'd pull a Lazarus on this thread in light of ABC's interview with a CIA interrogator who said yes, he believed waterboarding is torture and yes, it has been effective in getting useful information on other planned attacks.
I'm an idealist, so I say of course we should never torture. We've gone to war with countries because they do torture. But the thing that is typically overlooked in this discussion is when these techniques are used on somebody who might turn out not to have any useful information. Is it wrong then?
And if the ends justify the means, where do we draw the line on how far we will go?

 

I will sleep well tonight knowing that none of you are in charge of anything more important than an agate page and/or an advance-gamer-sidebar-follo. Except maybe Doc.

As it pertains to saving of lives, I'm not in favor of taking anything off the table.

 

It sure worked in Casino after that dude got his eyeball popped out of his head. I hate to think what Nicky Santoro did to Charlie M.