Not enough (official) torture in the world?

Why didn't you ask........Is there a case for torture in today's war on Islamic Fascism? The answer is......yes of course there is just as the Professor argues. But first you must make a practical judgement of whether or not it will likely result in a favorable outcome for society as a whole....

Joe

Why didn't you ask a question as a subject of the thread instead of putting a ring in our nose and leading us in the direction you wanted us to go?

Why didn't you ask........Is there a case for torture in today's war on Islamic Fascism?

The answer is......yes of course there is just as the Professor argues. But first you must make a practical judgement of whether or not it will likely result in a favorable outcome for society as a whole....and are the circumstances dire enough to justify it? Notice I didn't say.....Moral Judgement ...... because there is nothing moral about torture not the decision to use it. IMO.....there can be no moral or legal justification for torture however there are practical considerations that not only justify it but cause it to be the only logical alternative. You can put forth all the moral and legal arguments for or against but in the final analysis, practicality can be the only justification

There is no slippery slope to worry about........no legal niceties to complicate the issue. We all know that torture is inhuman but the enemy has made the decision easier for us When you tie a hostages hands behind his back, put a mask over your face and saw off his head in front of television cameras, you have indentified yourself as a subhuman species.
There can be no compromise with such an enemy therefore any behavior to gain information or attempt to save another hostage, is justified and we have made a judgement to lower ourselves to a level that he understands. If it is more effective to send such a prisoner to a country where torture is common.....then do it. If you must cut off one testicle to start the flow of information......then do it. If however, once any information given has failed the test of validity then further torture should be suspended as this could be considered proof he only wanted to stop the pain. It would not be wise to kill the sob, therefore we must put him in the hospital to recover.......there is always the possibility he is totally innocent. Where they would kill one of their prisoners, we cannot sink to that lowest level and do the same.

As the good professor points out:

<First, no right or interest is absolute. Secondly, rights must always yield to consequences, which are the ultimate criteria upon which the soundness of a decision is gauged. Lost lives hurt a lot more than bent principles.

Thirdly, we must take responsibility not only for the things that we do, but also for the things that we can - but fail to - prevent. The retort that we are not responsible for the lives lost through a decision not to torture a wrongdoer because we did not create the situation is code for moral indifference>.

Once that initial decision is made.......there is no going back, so the possible consequences should be studied very carefully. It must be acknowledged to the electorate with full accountability right up to the President.

Quote:

Why didn't you ask........Is there a case for torture in today's war on Islamic Fascism? The answer is......yes of course there is just as the Professor argues. But first you must make a practical judgement of whether or not it will likely result in a favorable outcome for society as a whole....

First problem: if you accept torture on someone because you suspect he is a terrorist, you are judging him already as guilty without a trial.
Second problem: he can be innocent. You can be wrong.
Third problem: if USA, in a few years, becomes a fundamentalist christian
society, do you think that torturing atheists would be acceptable, regarding the favorable outcome for society as a whole?

Now two questions:
Why do you feel the need to call US enemies as "Islamic Fascism"? Do you think it makes easier to accept, that way, to torture them?
And who decides when there is a favorable outcome for society as a whole?

No, an exercise of imagination: you torture an islamic terrorist. You torture 100 islamic terrorists. They reveal where the bombs are, their next attacks, the cells of terrorists in USA.

Tomorrow, an american pilot bombs Iraq or other muslim country. He is captured by muslim soldiers. They say: you are a christian fascist. So, they torture him in order to obtain the informations they need.
Is torture here justified?

Look around you. There are many islamic fascists, as you say, among us. But look better, in your own country, the US: don't you see an impressive number of christian fascists around you?

It should be obvious that the use of "facist" in such a case is sheerly an artifact of a fervid and overheated imagination. Facism is a economic and political structure which can hardly be applied to "state-less" terrorists. As you correctly note, Val, using facist is a means of dehumanizing anyone potentially identifiable as the enemy.

That was a completely meaningless response. Just precisely how do you contend that Muslims terrorists are facists? See if you can answer the question, instead of simply dribbling snot down the front of your shirt.

I note that you haven't addressed the issue of whether or not someone to be subjected to torture is to be considered a terrorist, absent due process which proves the case.

I personally find the concept of morality ridiculous and abhorent.

I have chosen to use "practicality" in order to reduce the level of complexity which the word "morality" brings to this subject. When one attempts to define every situation and every instance you become a captive in your own trap. I prefer to equate this to a life and death struggle where survival is the only acceptable outcome.........end of discussion for me.

If you choose to consider my wording as a redefinition of morality then so be it........I hope you can find your way out of the maze that you create by attempting to make a decision that all would find acceptable based on morality and legality.

rayban1 wrote:

I have chosen to use "practicality" in order to reduce the level of complexity which the word "morality" brings to this subject. When one attempts to define every situation and every instance you become a captive in your own trap. I prefer to equate this to a life and death struggle where survival is the only acceptable outcome.........end of discussion for me.

I suppose simplistic times call for simplistic solutions.

rayban1 wrote:

If you choose to consider my wording as a redefinition of morality then so be it........I hope you can find your way out of the maze that you create by attempting to make a decision that all would find acceptable based on morality and legality.

I am quite sure that, on this issue, it would be impossible for me to find a solution that would be acceptable to both me and Prof. Bagaric. But then I don't see why we need to come up with a solution that universally acceptable rather than one that is generally acceptable.

Universally acceptable....OR...generally acceptable? I refer you to the standard to which you and all Bush's hold him.........UNIVERSAL

In regard to your: "I suppose simplistic times call for simplistic solutions".

It would appear that your usually high standard for acceptable answers has been lowered considerably.

We live in extremely complex times which demands that we not yield to the temptation to overcomplicate the issues but to employ new thinking in order to reduce solutions to one elegant equation when the necessity of survival demands it.

We live in extremely complex times which demands that we not yield to the temptation to overcomplicate the issues but to employ new thinking in order to reduce solutions to one elegant equation when the necessity of survival demands it.

Morality.....ridiculous and abhorent??????? Now that's interesting

rayban1 wrote:

Morality.....ridiculous and abhorent??????? Now that's interesting

You'll need better bait than that to fish these waters . . .