America before W.Bush and after W.Bush

[Xavier]

i don't even know why I try

is tickling inhumane too?

Only if you literally tickle someone to death.

[Kiro]

i don't even know why I try

is tickling inhumane too?

Only if you literally tickle someone to death.

IF THAT IS POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.

[Demosthenes11]

i don't even know why I try

is tickling inhumane too?

Only if you literally tickle someone to death.

I'd pay money to watch that, is that morbid?

[Khamsin]

cuz the geneva convention was totally talking about waterboarding and the "torture" we do

Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.

How could you possibly consider waterboarding to be humane treatment?

While it certainly isn't a very pleasant experience, to be fair, it doesn't leave any lasting marks or physical harm. A prisoner released after being tortured this way won't have anything to show for it, and probably couldn't even prove it had ever been done. So obviously, it shows at least some care for the welfare of the prisoner and a value for life if they're being that careful about it.

[zoobernut]

cuz the geneva convention was totally talking about waterboarding and the "torture" we do

Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.

How could you possibly consider waterboarding to be humane treatment?

While it certainly isn't a very pleasant experience, to be fair, it doesn't leave any lasting marks or physical harm. A prisoner released after being tortured this way won't have anything to show for it, and probably couldn't even prove it had ever been done. So obviously, it shows at least some care for the welfare of the prisoner and a value for life if they're being that careful about it.

I have heard several arguements for and against waterboarding... I do not have any experience with it personally so I do not know what it is like. I have heard interviews that you cannot truely know how horrible it is until you have experienced it. Once you have experienced it then maybe you can make a fair judgement on if it is humane torture or not.

Judging from descriptions it sounds like unpleasant experience is an understatement.

[Xavier]

cuz the geneva convention was totally talking about waterboarding and the "torture" we do

Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.

How could you possibly consider waterboarding to be humane treatment?

While it certainly isn't a very pleasant experience, to be fair, it doesn't leave any lasting marks or physical harm. A prisoner released after being tortured this way won't have anything to show for it, and probably couldn't even prove it had ever been done. So obviously, it shows at least some care for the welfare of the prisoner and a value for life if they're being that careful about it.

Once again I say to you that psychological harm is just as lasting and often equally as destructive as physical harm. A human exists as both body and mind, and needs both to function properly in society. You destroy either and you're going to be left with damaged goods.

You simply cannot define torture as pertaining only to those techniques that scar the physical body.

[Quicklet]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

While quotes are cute and all, that wasn't the original quote nor does it exactly make a compelling case as to why the issue of using torture or means that border on torture to gain information that could prevent deaths from occurring is any different from many of the government-coerced programs that provide economic security. You can't make a logical case for disassociating the two types unless you try to argue that somehow economic security isn't really security/safety, which would call into question the point of having such programs in the first place.

In that case, you're making the appeal on humanistic grounds such that no one should be deliberately subjected to extreme physical or psychological harm in order to prevent the potential killing of innocent people. You're basically making a Pascal's Wager in which you say "No, the only acceptable choices involve not deliberately using these methods to try and gain information." The problem is that the world is not black and white like that. The probability of somebody having information based on what you know is not set in stone. You may have very good circumstantial evidence for believing that somebody has information that could save lives. It would be naive to ignore that evidence were it strong enough to act.

[Xavier]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

While quotes are cute and all, that wasn't the original quote

The quote has been paraphrased quite often, I choose that which seemed most relevant. Your comment, however, is not.

nor does it exactly make a compelling case as to why the issue of using torture or means that border on torture to gain information that could prevent deaths from occurring is any different from many of the government-coerced programs that provide economic security. You can't make a logical case for disassociating the two types unless you try to argue that somehow economic security isn't really security/safety, which would call into question the point of having such programs in the first place.

In that case, you're making the appeal on humanistic grounds such that no one should be deliberately subjected to extreme physical or psychological harm in order to prevent the potential killing of innocent people. You're basically making a Pascal's Wager in which you say "No, the only acceptable choices involve not deliberately using these methods to try and gain information." The problem is that the world is not black and white like that. The probability of somebody having information based on what you know is not set in stone. You may have very good circumstantial evidence for believing that somebody has information that could save lives. It would be naive to ignore that evidence were it strong enough to act.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson

As for the bolded, it is erroneous to say I suggested one should ignore actionable evidence.

[Quicklet]

As for the bolded, it is erroneous to say I suggested one should ignore actionable evidence.

Then it's acceptable to be pro-torture or "pro-torture as long as it isn't me", or hey, even "pro-torture-when-it's-necessary" if the other two are too broad?

[Xavier]

As for the bolded, it is erroneous to say I suggested one should ignore actionable evidence.

Then it's acceptable to be pro-torture or "pro-torture as long as it isn't me", or hey, even "pro-torture-when-it's-necessary" if the other two are too broad?

What are you talking about? I said it was erroneous to suggest I would ignore actionable evidence, not that I would torture someone for it or as a consequence of it. Torture is one method to gather information, but it is not the only one. You're skewing the comment, but its rather imprudent to suggest that we live in a world where if you don't torture someone, everyone dies. Its nothing but fear mongering. Compromising principles, morality, ethics, the law, whatever you want to call it, because of fear is a recipe for failure both for the individual and the community at large.

When you create a society of fear, a culture of mistrust, you undermine the very foundation on which America was founded, and any architect will tell you that a building on a faulty foundation is an accident waiting to happen.

[Quicklet]

What are you talking about?

I am talking about situations where torture may be the only available option for getting time-sensitive information that would directly have an impact on stopping plots or groups that are aimed at killing people. I never said it was a common situation, nor would it typically be a "Jack Bauer-esque" "the bomb is going to explode within the day if you don't get information out of this person" situation, but it has likely occurred in various forms involving things such as people connected to Bin Laden and his whereabouts, etc.

I said it was erroneous to suggest I would ignore actionable evidence, not that I would torture someone for it or as a consequence of it. Torture is one method to gather information, but it is not the only one.

In the context of torture as a consequence of actionable evidence, it sure sounds like that is what you are saying. I am not saying that by any means torture should be used as a routine technique or even condoned in general, but if you have a damn good reason to believe it's the only available option to obtain information that could directly save lives, I'm not sure you can simply dismiss it out of hand.

You're skewing the comment, but its rather imprudent to suggest that we live in a world where if you don't torture someone, everyone dies. Its nothing but fear mongering. Compromising principles, morality, ethics, the law, whatever you want to call it, because of fear is a recipe for failure both for the individual and the community at large.

It's erroneous to characterize what I'm saying that way. It is unlikely that there will be a situation in which "if you don't torture someone, everyone dies," but there are likely to be situations in which "if you don't get information from a bad person that could help stop/capture other bad people, some other people may in fact die as a consequence." Those situations are probably much more infrequent now than they would've been several years ago, but when they do arise it's not so simple as to dismiss them because of some abstract principle that gets used when it's convenient in cases where it's advantageous to bring it up yet gets ignored in cases where it works against the interests of the person who brings it up in the first place.

When you create a society of fear, a culture of mistrust, you undermine the very foundation on which America was founded, and any architect will tell you that a building on a faulty foundation is an accident waiting to happen.

What exactly is there to fear about bad people being punished for doing bad things? The idea that making decisions based on circumstances, even if it calls for an extreme decision that is not something you would typically do, somehow creates a "society of fear" seems a bit like fearmongering itself. And I'm not sure if you've noticed this or not, but many other policies that have become ingrained in American government have had a much more detrimental effect on the individual and the foundation on which America was built than anything that might have occured at Guantanimo Bay or in some overseas detention facility.

[Xavier]

if you have a damn good reason to believe it's the only available option to obtain information that could directly save lives, I'm not sure you can simply dismiss it out of hand.

Your argument rests on the hypothetical that torture is the single response to a situation, I don't believe it ever has to be.

It's erroneous to characterize what I'm saying that way. It is unlikely that there will be a situation in which "if you don't torture someone, everyone dies," but there are likely to be situations in which "if you don't get information from a bad person that could help stop/capture other bad people, some other people may in fact die as a consequence."

Forgive me, I shouldn't have said everyone dies. If you don't torture, some people die.

Those situations are probably much more infrequent now than they would've been several years ago, but when they do arise it's not so simple as to dismiss them because of some abstract principle that gets used when it's convenient in cases where it's advantageous to bring it up yet gets ignored in cases where it works against the interests of the person who brings it up in the first place.

The Constitution, the Geneva Convention and hell, even a belief in a higher power, are abstract principles now?

What exactly is there to fear about bad people being punished for doing bad things?

Nothing. However:

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.

You've advocating torturing people without absolute certainty. Consequently, you have to assume that 'good' people will be punished in the process. When 'good' people have to fear seizure and torture at the whim of suspicion, you've created a society of fear. When individual rights are trampled in the name of the greater good, you've created a culture of mistrust. Capitalism and Democracy both rely on trust among its citizens to function. Without trust, they are not efficient, they do not work.

The idea that making decisions based on circumstances, even if it calls for an extreme decision that is not something you would typically do, somehow creates a "society of fear" seems a bit like fearmongering itself.

That isn't an accurate statement because you've taken a very specific example, applied it to a generality and slapped a label on it. You seem to go off on tangents constantly in your points, as if incorporating distant or unrelated subjects somehow strengthens your point.

Creating a society in which fear is so predominant that people accept decisions normally unacceptable is fear mongering. You've said, in no uncertain terms, if we do not torture suspects, people will die. Correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that you're accusing me of fear mongering for advocating we stick to our principles, to our constitution and to the Geneva Convention, which seems like a stretch and a convenient misuse of the word to make your opinion look sharper.

If you want a current example of fear mongering, the Homeland Security Advisory System is a prime example. Not once has it gone below (except in Hawaii for a few months in 2003) Elevated (Yellow), which is described as a significant risk.

And I'm not sure if you've noticed this or not, but many other policies that have become ingrained in American government have had a much more detrimental effect on the individual and the foundation on which America was built than anything that might have occured at Guantanimo Bay or in some overseas detention facility.

Irrelevant.

[guartz]

To those who say that 9/11 was the cause of this economical disaster, I have something to say to you.


After 9/11, we had the world's sympathy. People in fucking china lit candles for us. More importantly, we finally had the attention of American citizens. With such a focus around the world and in U.S.A, washington and congress could have accomplished virtually ANYTHING.

If the president stood up there and said "We need electric cars" the majority of cars on the road today would be electric.

But what did he do instead?


Fuck Bush, and his family.

[Beckwin]

^ he's right

No one was saying "I heard those Americans got attacked, fuck those guys" or "So America is taking out the organization in Afghanistan that attacked them, fuck those guys"- it was "Hey uh, America is invading Iraq (which has nothing to do with them being attacked) and kind of is ignoring what we're saying about it... fuck those guys."

[Quicklet]

Your argument rests on the hypothetical that torture is the single response to a situation, I don't believe it ever has to be.

Situations in which it may be the only reasonable option are rare, but not impossible.

The Constitution, the Geneva Convention and hell, even a belief in a higher power, are abstract principles now?

The Constitution is a legal document created several hundred years ago when many of today's ethical issues weren't even imaginable. Many of the principles that it embodies aren't directly applicable to some situations today.

Belief in a higher power is simply a psychological and social construct that helps people sleep at night because it's easier to simply attribute things beyond explanation to some divine power for some. So yes, it is an abstract principle and science is showing us more evidence of that.

You've advocating torturing people without absolute certainty. Consequently, you have to assume that 'good' people will be punished in the process. When 'good' people have to fear seizure and torture at the whim of suspicion, you've created a society of fear. When individual rights are trampled in the name of the greater good, you've created a culture of mistrust. Capitalism and Democracy both rely on trust among its citizens to function. Without trust, they are not efficient, they do not work.

I'm not advocating anything. I'm simply saying that decisions can't be made in a bubble where you use hard, immutable rules that can't always take circumstances and probabilities into consideration.

People can be convicted of crimes if they are considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean there is absolute certainty that they are guilty of committing the crime, but people have faith in the system because most of the time it works. Yes, people have to accept that occasionally somebody may be falsely accused, imprisoned or even executed, and in those cases the system must be accounted for and restitution should be given to the innocent person, but I think it would be a stretch to say that people live in fear of being falsely convicted of some crime.

As for the part I bolded, you seem to be stretching what I am saying. Fearing seizure and torture at the whim of suspicion would be an issue that I think most people wouldn't tolerate, but that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a few select instances where there isn't just a "whim" of suspicion, there's a mountain of suspicion. Would it make you feel better if there were a group of people to make the decision about whether or not a situation warranted torture? Maybe you will say "well, these people don't have lawyers to defend them against these suspicions," but as long as there were some form of oversight and accountability, how would the situation be substantially different?

That isn't an accurate statement because you've taken a very specific example, applied it to a generality and slapped a label on it. You seem to go off on tangents constantly in your points, as if incorporating distant or unrelated subjects somehow strengthens your point.

Much like you've changed the subject of the argument in order to avoid inconsistency, throwing in quotes here and there to generalize? Please indicate where I've gone off topic and maybe I will be able to enlighten you as to how it relates to the overall point.

Creating a society in which fear is so predominant that people accept decisions normally unacceptable is fear mongering. You've said, in no uncertain terms, if we do not torture suspects, people will die. Correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that you're accusing me of fear mongering for advocating we stick to our principles, to our constitution and to the Geneva Convention, which seems like a stretch and a convenient misuse of the word to make your opinion look sharper.

If people are stirred up into being unnecessarily afraid of the government because they are constantly hearing about how "the government is taking away their freedoms" and "the government is spying on them" and "the government could torture them on a whim of suspicion," when those things are either highly unlikely at best or blatant exaggerations at worst, how is that any different from the Homeland Security Advisory System? Both are attempting to stir up fear in people in order to make their points more appealing.

And I'm not sure if you've noticed this or not, but many other policies that have become ingrained in American government have had a much more detrimental effect on the individual and the foundation on which America was built than anything that might have occured at Guantanimo Bay or in some overseas detention facility.

Irrelevant.

If you are basing any argument against torture on its detrimental effect on the individual and the community as a whole, then the magnitude of its effect in relation to other policies that have a detrimental effect is surely of relevance. If you are advocating strongly against something that has less of an impact than, say, bad energy policy or bad economic policy, which affect the average person MUCH more strongly than this, that leads to an inconsistency in how you're applying your standard of judgment. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I'm just making the point that it's a curious standard to use since it would require some specific stances in order to avoid hypocrisy.

[Correction]

Here's the basic problem with torture. It affects not only those being tortured, but those who carry it out. You can't seriously watch someone go through extraordinary pain and not lose a little bit of what makes you human. It's not like George Jetson pushing a button for 8 hours a day; torture is the kind of thing that really fucks up the people doing it.

And yet you continue to entrust these gradually eroded souls with decisions that may or may not save human lives? Fuck that.

[Khamsin]

When 'good' people have to fear seizure and torture at the whim of suspicion, you've created a society of fear.

What if we only tortured non-citizens (POWs, illegal immigrants, etc.)? That would avoid the whole liberty-for-security dilemma, and the society has nothing to fear. Win-win?

Here's the basic problem with torture. It affects not only those being tortured, but those who carry it out. You can't seriously watch someone go through extraordinary pain and not lose a little bit of what makes you human. It's not like George Jetson pushing a button for 8 hours a day; torture is the kind of thing that really fucks up the people doing it.

And yet you continue to entrust these gradually eroded souls with decisions that may or may not save human lives? Fuck that.

I'm sure they can devise some sort of impersonal torture method to overcome this problem. Perhaps have the person doing the actual torturing in another room with the press of a button, and a speaker so they can hear the prisoner. Or maybe even something entirely automated, like a system where a computer will pour water at regular intervals, and the prisoner has a button they can push to stop the water. Once pressed, a guard will come in and expect the prisoner to talk. If the prisoner isn't cooperating, tell him/her that in a minute, the computer will automatically pour an extended stream of water that they can't stop as punishment, then leave the room before it happens. Soundproof the room, so you can't hear the screams, and you're golden.

This solves the issue by removing human responsibility from the equation, and will therefore not cause any psychological trauma from the events.

[Correction]

I'm sure they can devise some sort of impersonal torture method to overcome this problem. Perhaps have the person doing the actual torturing in another room with the press of a button, and a speaker so they can hear the prisoner. Or maybe even something entirely automated, like a system where a computer will pour water at regular intervals, and the prisoner has a button they can push to stop the water. Once pressed, a guard will come in and expect the prisoner to talk. If the prisoner isn't cooperating, tell him/her that in a minute, the computer will automatically pour an extended stream of water that they can't stop as punishment, then leave the room before it happens. Soundproof the room, so you can't hear the screams, and you're golden.

You can't 'cleanse' the ugliness of torture by not being there, just like you can't do it with the death penalty. If you're in any way aware of the consequences of your actions then there's absolutely no decoupling the effects on the torturer. What's next, make them unaware of the pain levels involved like those psych experiments from the 60's? I can't believe we're trying to tie a bow on it and say 'here now look it's okay!'

[Blarg]

I'm sure they can devise some sort of impersonal torture method to overcome this problem. Perhaps have the person doing the actual torturing in another room with the press of a button, and a speaker so they can hear the prisoner. Or maybe even something entirely automated, like a system where a computer will pour water at regular intervals, and the prisoner has a button they can push to stop the water. Once pressed, a guard will come in and expect the prisoner to talk. If the prisoner isn't cooperating, tell him/her that in a minute, the computer will automatically pour an extended stream of water that they can't stop as punishment, then leave the room before it happens. Soundproof the room, so you can't hear the screams, and you're golden.

You can't 'cleanse' the ugliness of torture by not being there, just like you can't do it with the death penalty. If you're in any way aware of the consequences of your actions then there's absolutely no decoupling the effects on the torturer. What's next, make them unaware of the pain levels involved like those psych experiments from the 60's? I can't believe we're trying to tie a bow on it and say 'here now look it's okay!'

Actually merely being separated by a wall mentally diminishes the harsh effects on the torturer, there have been several tests regarding how the same kind of torture effects people differently based on their proximity and apparent involvement in the torturing even though it's essentially the same thing.

[Kuya]

I'm sure they can devise some sort of impersonal torture method to overcome this problem. Perhaps have the person doing the actual torturing in another room with the press of a button, and a speaker so they can hear the prisoner. Or maybe even something entirely automated, like a system where a computer will pour water at regular intervals, and the prisoner has a button they can push to stop the water. Once pressed, a guard will come in and expect the prisoner to talk. If the prisoner isn't cooperating, tell him/her that in a minute, the computer will automatically pour an extended stream of water that they can't stop as punishment, then leave the room before it happens. Soundproof the room, so you can't hear the screams, and you're golden.

You can't 'cleanse' the ugliness of torture by not being there, just like you can't do it with the death penalty. If you're in any way aware of the consequences of your actions then there's absolutely no decoupling the effects on the torturer. What's next, make them unaware of the pain levels involved like those psych experiments from the 60's? I can't believe we're trying to tie a bow on it and say 'here now look it's okay!'

Actually merely being separated by a wall mentally diminishes the harsh effects on the torturer, there have been several tests regarding how the same kind of torture effects people differently based on their proximity and apparent involvement in the torturing even though it's essentially the same thing.

Actually, if you're reffering to the study i think you're reffering to, then the only thing that proved was that they would do anything as long as they belived they were not responsible.