Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

I am aware.

I also want those caught torturing people (not just Americans) to be prosecuted and delt justice. We cannot ethically do that if we torture people.

How do you ethically justify doing something you convict others for?

A
R
T

I've never tortured anyone. You're just full of straw men. Why do you shield murderers? You want to talk about "ethics". Let's do. How can you defend abortion on demand? Explain your "ethics" on that one.

Here ya go. I just read this.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

The left just isn't as intelligent as they think they are. Indoctrination doesn't equal intelligence. Being full of information doesn't mean you know squat if it's untrue.

i don't much care where folks get their information in my mind it's all spin, midway patter they're the carnies and the consumers are the rubes

You don't believe the truth is out there?

If it is, you will never find it.


Even if you torture yourself.

That's your opinion. I don't listen to people who tell me I can't do something.

I like that. Very nice.

i don't think one will find it by looking for it

I do.

Your mother still regrets that you refused to listen when she told you not to jump off the roof and land on your head.

You lose.

You believe it is justifiable, but you don't wish to defend it? After all, you've said you'd personally do it.

So I'll ask it again in more specific terms: How can you ethically accept torture being legal for the USA to do, and want to prosecute or punish those who use it against us?


I'm more than willing to address any strawman you think you find. So far, every instance of you making this allegation has been you putting words in my mouth. The, however, is a strawman. You make too many assumptions. You should just ask me what I think about something instead of assuming. I have no objection to answering. I would like you to do the same. I've asked you a number of questions to assist in our discussions. I hope in the future you'll reply when I ask.


To whom do who refer? Specifically.


I don't desire to sidetrack the thread, but by the looks of many posts in the thread, it's not very focused right now.

Defending abortion for me is rather simple. I would fight the government if they tried to legislate against my body, so I should defend others rights when the government is trying to legislate against theirs. Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion. Imagine a government system where abortion was mandated, that would be a removal of choice as well. That would be legislation on person's body as well. Pro-choice would have a very different goal, and have the exact ethical rationale.

I'm as pro-choice about people having the right to keep, as I am about people having the right to abort. The reality is that a choice is always being made, that choice can stay with the woman/family or it can belong to the state.

A
R
T

You are such a puppet Renaldo, so easy to manipulate.

Sounds like blatham. Anyone know how he's doing?

You're perspective is fixed on issues of legality.

What we have here is a war, not a law school seminar.

The winners of wars prosecute the losers for all the nasty things they did during the course of the war. That the winners may have done some of the same nasty things may seem hypocritical or, at least, ironic, but it's war. The notion of a civilized war is absurd and the notion of laws governing war is obscene.

What is ironic (although not at all hypocritical) is that the folks who make the most noise about "war crimes," tend to be fundamentally anti-war. Applying legal parameters to the waging of war only makes it more likely to occur.

Ethics is larger than just law, Finn.

Think about what you're saying. You're saying that war grants some special demand to use techniques that haven't been shown to be effective. Think about that. We do know what works to coerce, and it's a science based on sound psychology. The historical effectiveness of torture has never been on the recipient, but as a means to generate propaganda against the masses.

So if you'd like to argue that torture works, at least argue for its only real track record.

A
R
T

Maybe you're a globally renown expert on torture, but I don't think so. Because you insist that torture doesn't work, doesn't make it so.

Yours is not an an argument on ethics, it is an argument on utility. Focusing so heavily on your belief that torture is ineffective, implies that if you believed it was effective you might be OK with it.

Your conclusion that I am saying that war "demands" using ineffective methods is a result of you're not comprehending what I wrote and your seemingly religious belief that torture is ineffective.

Effective or ineffective, I've not argued that war "demands" torture.