America before W.Bush and after W.Bush

[Khamsin]

The best thing to come out of the Bush presidency is the death of the Republican Party.

?

[CMMeast]

The worst thing to come out of the Bush presidency is the death of the Republican Party.

?

The Republican Party hasn't always been a mouthpiece for neo-cons and big business elite.

[Xavier]

What about methods of torture that do not leave marks or lasting physical harm, such as waterboarding? That's fairly effective without causing any real harm, and leaves the prisoner with nothing but some psychological trauma from the experience.

I'd wager that psychological trauma can be classified as real harm, just saying.

I wonder how long the pro-torture people would remain so if the torture techniques were used on them.

[evilbau]

I had to look up that quote and wow, you really need to hold back on the campaigning.

I purposefully left off who made that quote because I didn't want this to be a debate over him. I think the fact that I didn't mention his name proves that I wasn't trying to campaign for him. I just felt it an apt quote for the conversation.

You are right, i think i really meant you need to get off his nuts.

[Blarg]

If you are willing to drop 1-whatever bombs that will undoubtedly cause civilian casualties in an attempt to kill someone/win a war, then you should be willing to torture someone to achieve similar results. Even though the intention is not to harm civilians it will always happen and they will be 'tortured' by the shrapnel and whatnot. The only thing you can really hope is that the people in charge of a prisoner are very sure that the person knows information that will help you. Now obviously you shouldn't use extreme torture methods if lesser methods work as well as that is unnecessary. Openly admitting you torture people will just cause too much trouble so keep denying it and torture in private.

[pohibaba]

The constitution is very clear in this manner: only Congress has the right to declare war.

Fixed.

I would argue that the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the constitution, or with your assessment that every offensive military action is tantamount to "war".

Let's look a little further in to this. The text of Article I Section 8 of the constitution (that applies to this discussion) is as follows:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Now, let's see what Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution says about this:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

If you simply read the text of the Constitution then I can see where the debate may be. There is no clear authorization of war power for either branch. But if you study the history of the constitutional convention it becomes clear what their intent was. One of the main reasons for their break from Britain in the first place was the recklessness in which the King ventured into war. They wanted to prevent this and so it was their intent to give the power of war to the Legislature and for the President to only have the power direct once at war or to immediately be able to react to a threat if attacked.

James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.

Alexander Hamilton explained further in Federalist #69:

the president’s authority

would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.

[Rammses]

If you are willing to drop 1-whatever bombs that will undoubtedly cause civilian casualties in an attempt to kill someone/win a war, then you should be willing to torture someone to achieve similar results. Even though the intention is not to harm civilians it will always happen and they will be 'tortured' by the shrapnel and whatnot. The only thing you can really hope is that the people in charge of a prisoner are very sure that the person knows information that will help you. Now obviously you shouldn't use extreme torture methods if lesser methods work as well as that is unnecessary. Openly admitting you torture people will just cause too much trouble so keep denying it and torture in private.

No. Beating up someone, knowing that he will get serious permanent injuries is worse than speeding, especially if you are speeding in order get your sick friend, or even a stranger, to the hospital before s/he dies. Intent matters. And it matters alot indirectly. It alters attitudes which might in turn cause alot more harm that you are then partly responsible for.

[Khamsin]

What about methods of torture that do not leave marks or lasting physical harm, such as waterboarding? That's fairly effective without causing any real harm, and leaves the prisoner with nothing but some psychological trauma from the experience.

I'd wager that psychological trauma can be classified as real harm, just saying.

I wonder how long the pro-torture people would remain so if the torture techniques were used on them.

Well, torture is a frightening thing, certainly not something I'd want used on myself. Ideally, we'd be the only ones in the world to employ such methods, so we don't have to worry about having it used on ourselves.

It's not hypocritical if I carefully word my opinion thus: "Torture is okay as long as it is not done to me" since I can stick by that statement with confidence and not change my views when its convenient to me, which is what hypocrisy is.

[archibaldcrane]

It's not hypocritical if I carefully word my opinion thus: "Torture is okay as long as it is not done to me" since I can stick by that statement with confidence and not change my views when its convenient to me, which is what hypocrisy is.

That's a wonderful and completely pointless statement. Are you going to include your family members/loved ones in there too?

If you simply read the text of the Constitution then I can see where the debate may be. There is no clear authorization of war power for either branch. But if you study the history of the constitutional convention it becomes clear what their intent was. One of the main reasons for their break from Britain in the first place was the recklessness in which the King ventured into war. They wanted to prevent this and so it was their intent to give the power of war to the Legislature and for the President to only have the power direct once at war or to immediately be able to react to a threat if attacked.

You act as though the President also provides funding for the war. If congress could stop being so chicken shit and would say "this is wrong, fuck your funding, I'm going to force your hand and stop this military action", as they have the right to do and is their end of the "checks and balances" - Congress isn't powerless here, they just allowed the hawks to label cutting off funding as "abandoning the troops" and left themselves politically neutered.

[Blarg]

If you are willing to drop 1-whatever bombs that will undoubtedly cause civilian casualties in an attempt to kill someone/win a war, then you should be willing to torture someone to achieve similar results. Even though the intention is not to harm civilians it will always happen and they will be 'tortured' by the shrapnel and whatnot. The only thing you can really hope is that the people in charge of a prisoner are very sure that the person knows information that will help you. Now obviously you shouldn't use extreme torture methods if lesser methods work as well as that is unnecessary. Openly admitting you torture people will just cause too much trouble so keep denying it and torture in private.

No. Beating up someone, knowing that he will get serious permanent injuries is worse than speeding, especially if you are speeding in order get your sick friend, or even a stranger, to the hospital before s/he dies. Intent matters. And it matters alot indirectly. It alters attitudes which might in turn cause alot more harm that you are then partly responsible for.

It only matters perceptually, the torture of someone to get a favorable outcome happens in both cases. The bomb doesn't intend to hurt innocents but it happens all the time so every bomb you drop you decide that its worth the torture of however many innocent people nearby.

It won't alter attitudes if it is kept quiet like I said.

I'm sure everyone has heard of the hypothetical 'there is a terrorist in custody that has admitted to putting a bomb in a sports stadium full of people but will not tell the police/fbi/whatever where it is, time is running out. Is torturing that one person worth saving tens of thousands of lives? Torture in this cause should absolutely happen but it should be kept quiet for the sake of the publics mental well being.

[Xavier]

What about methods of torture that do not leave marks or lasting physical harm, such as waterboarding? That's fairly effective without causing any real harm, and leaves the prisoner with nothing but some psychological trauma from the experience.

I'd wager that psychological trauma can be classified as real harm, just saying.

I wonder how long the pro-torture people would remain so if the torture techniques were used on them.

Well, torture is a frightening thing, certainly not something I'd want used on myself. Ideally, we'd be the only ones in the world to employ such methods, so we don't have to worry about having it used on ourselves.

It's not hypocritical if I carefully word my opinion thus: "Torture is okay as long as it is not done to me" since I can stick by that statement with confidence and not change my views when its convenient to me, which is what hypocrisy is.

Seriously?

____________________________

Blarg watches too much 24.

[Khamsin]

It's not hypocritical if I carefully word my opinion thus: "Torture is okay as long as it is not done to me" since I can stick by that statement with confidence and not change my views when its convenient to me, which is what hypocrisy is.

That's a wonderful and completely pointless statement. Are you going to include your family members/loved ones in there too?

Nope, they're screwed. I'd be a hypocrite if I tried to protect them now.

Seriously?

No, but at least it allowed me to be technically correct, even if the point is lost!

See, the mistake many hypocrites make is that they use blanket statements without qualifiers. The trick to not being a hypocrite is to carefully lay out the terms of when something is and is not okay. Otherwise, you could go so far as to call states with the death penalty hypocrites for punishing murder with government-sanctioned execution. Or you could call police officers hypocrites for diligently pursuing a reckless driver who is endangering people by traveling at unsafe speeds.

[Rammses]

If you are willing to drop 1-whatever bombs that will undoubtedly cause civilian casualties in an attempt to kill someone/win a war, then you should be willing to torture someone to achieve similar results. Even though the intention is not to harm civilians it will always happen and they will be 'tortured' by the shrapnel and whatnot. The only thing you can really hope is that the people in charge of a prisoner are very sure that the person knows information that will help you. Now obviously you shouldn't use extreme torture methods if lesser methods work as well as that is unnecessary. Openly admitting you torture people will just cause too much trouble so keep denying it and torture in private.

No. Beating up someone, knowing that he will get serious permanent injuries is worse than speeding, especially if you are speeding in order get your sick friend, or even a stranger, to the hospital before s/he dies. Intent matters. And it matters alot indirectly. It alters attitudes which might in turn cause alot more harm that you are then partly responsible for.

It only matters perceptually, the torture of someone to get a favorable outcome happens in both cases. The bomb doesn't intend to hurt innocents but it happens all the time so every bomb you drop you decide that its worth the torture of however many innocent people nearby.

It won't alter attitudes if it is kept quiet like I said.

I'm sure everyone has heard of the hypothetical 'there is a terrorist in custody that has admitted to putting a bomb in a sports stadium full of people but will not tell the police/fbi/whatever where it is, time is running out. Is torturing that one person worth saving tens of thousands of lives? Torture in this cause should absolutely happen but it should be kept quiet for the sake of the publics mental well being.

"Keeping it quiet" won't stop it from affecting in reality. As for the hypothetical question, it's hypothetical. If an innocent man's brain activity is the detonator of a nuclear bomb over New York, it's obviously not wrong to kill him. But it doesn't mean it should in any way be legal or encouraged to kill innocent men simply because doing so may or may not be beneficial to the society.

[Blarg]

If you are willing to drop 1-whatever bombs that will undoubtedly cause civilian casualties in an attempt to kill someone/win a war, then you should be willing to torture someone to achieve similar results. Even though the intention is not to harm civilians it will always happen and they will be 'tortured' by the shrapnel and whatnot. The only thing you can really hope is that the people in charge of a prisoner are very sure that the person knows information that will help you. Now obviously you shouldn't use extreme torture methods if lesser methods work as well as that is unnecessary. Openly admitting you torture people will just cause too much trouble so keep denying it and torture in private.

No. Beating up someone, knowing that he will get serious permanent injuries is worse than speeding, especially if you are speeding in order get your sick friend, or even a stranger, to the hospital before s/he dies. Intent matters. And it matters alot indirectly. It alters attitudes which might in turn cause alot more harm that you are then partly responsible for.

It only matters perceptually, the torture of someone to get a favorable outcome happens in both cases. The bomb doesn't intend to hurt innocents but it happens all the time so every bomb you drop you decide that its worth the torture of however many innocent people nearby.

It won't alter attitudes if it is kept quiet like I said.

I'm sure everyone has heard of the hypothetical 'there is a terrorist in custody that has admitted to putting a bomb in a sports stadium full of people but will not tell the police/fbi/whatever where it is, time is running out. Is torturing that one person worth saving tens of thousands of lives? Torture in this cause should absolutely happen but it should be kept quiet for the sake of the publics mental well being.

"Keeping it quiet" won't stop it from affecting in reality. As for the hypothetical question, it's hypothetical. If an innocent man's brain activity is the detonator of a nuclear bomb over New York, it's obviously not wrong to kill him. But it doesn't mean it should in any way be legal or encouraged to kill innocent men simply because doing so may or may not be beneficial to the society.

How exactly will it adversely affect reality. I never said it should be legal, why would I say to keep it quiet if its legal, and why would an innocent man be tortured? In my first post I said that the torturers should be very sure that the person they are going to torture knows something being that they are part of the terrorist group/whatever.

[Xavier]

See, the mistake many hypocrites make is that they use blanket statements without qualifiers. The trick to not being a hypocrite is to carefully lay out the terms of when something is and is not okay. Otherwise, you could go so far as to call states with the death penalty hypocrites for punishing murder with government-sanctioned execution. Or you could call police officers hypocrites for diligently pursuing a reckless driver who is endangering people by traveling at unsafe speeds.

Is the trick to not being a hypocrite rambling until the original point is a footnote?

Unless this was sarcasm, I'm pretty sure you've got it backwards.

-----------------------------------------

To Blarg: How can anyone ever have absolute certainty in differentiating between the innocent (in the sense that they don't have the knowledge you're after) and those who -may- know something until after the fact? Circumstantial evidence can always be misleading, and you can't take back torture after the fact. You either have to accept that torture is going to inevitably be used on innocent people, or seek ways to minimize its usage in society, which a lot of people have tried to do.

[Beckwin]

why would an innocent man be tortured? In my first post I said that the torturers should be very sure that the person they are going to torture knows something being that they are part of the terrorist group/whatever.

Uh, this is why domestically we have courts n' stuff. We try to prove without a doubt that someone is guilty. You can know someone is involved with a terrorist group, but it could be harder to determine exactly how much they should know and so you'd run into a dilemma when deciding how far to push to extract information that may not even be there. There's also a difference between "terrorist" and "insurgent". The whole thing is getting really gray because we're basically defining terrorist as anyone fighting without official backing from a recognized State.... and what recognized state is actually gonna declare war on us nowadays?

[Demosthenes11]

psst
terrorists should not be given the same rights I have

That is all

[Quicklet]

How can anyone ever have absolute certainty in differentiating between the innocent (in the sense that they don't have the knowledge you're after) and those who -may- know something until after the fact? Circumstantial evidence can always be misleading, and you can't take back torture after the fact. You either have to accept that torture is going to inevitably be used on innocent people, or seek ways to minimize its usage in society, which a lot of people have tried to do.

Conversely, if somebody has critical information but you don't have absolute certainty, you can't take back all the people who might be killed if you fail to obtain information in time. So you either have to accept that people are going to die in terrorist attacks, or seek ways to prevent those attacks from happening within reasonable measures.

[Kuya]

psst
terrorists should not be given the same rights I have

That is all

Stop calling yourself a republican, you make them look bad. Everytime you post you use exageration to try and get your point across and more often than not end up attacking an issue that is not even being addressed at all. And other times, much like this, you drop by into threads with simple two to three sentences without even explaining your position, furthermore you have the audacety to act like your opinions aren't up for debate.

[Blarg]

How can anyone ever have absolute certainty in differentiating between the innocent (in the sense that they don't have the knowledge you're after) and those who -may- know something until after the fact? Circumstantial evidence can always be misleading, and you can't take back torture after the fact. You either have to accept that torture is going to inevitably be used on innocent people, or seek ways to minimize its usage in society, which a lot of people have tried to do.

You can never be sure, but this goes back to my original point. You can't unshrapnel innocents after you drop a bomb and take away all that pain to the person and their family. I am relating the torture from a regular war using bombs with collateral damage, mistaken targets and whatnot to achieve a cause, to the intentional torture of a person (who in most cases is more guilty than an innocent person hurt from a bomb).

What were the odds that the 51st bomb dropped onto, insert place being bombed, wins the war by killing whoever needed to be killed? Every bomb has a relatively low chance at winning with a high chance at collateral torture, whereas torturing a person, while intentional, isn't really worse. Just because one is up close and personal does not mean that it is worse to do.

I guess it's up to you what is worse, torturing 2 people (and don't immediately think of the worst kind of torture as their are 'nicer' kinds) one of who is innocent and the other gives information that saves 100's+ ppl or not torturing at all and having those 100+ people die as a result.