1
   

Not enough (official) torture in the world?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 03:25 pm
rayban1 wrote:
Oh, so you're not familiar with the mathematical term, "elegant equation" with it's reduction of thousands of calculations to one simple equation. :wink:

I'm quite familiar with the notion of an "elegant solution." Yours, however, is not so much elegant as it is expedient. You have not reached your solution through logic but through sheer impatience. You have, in other words, taken Alexander's approach to the Gordian Knot: perhaps a good way to solve knots, but a rather poor way to solve legal and ethical problems.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 04:04 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
rayban1 wrote:
Oh, so you're not familiar with the mathematical term, "elegant equation" with it's reduction of thousands of calculations to one simple equation. :wink:

I'm quite familiar with the notion of an "elegant solution." Yours, however, is not so much elegant as it is expedient. You have not reached your solution through logic but through sheer impatience. You have, in other words, taken Alexander's approach to the Gordian Knot: perhaps a good way to solve knots, but a rather poor way to solve legal and ethical problems.


There is a concept for interrupting your enemies decision making cycle which involves 4 steps that must occur almost simultaneously and in this sequence.......observe, orient, decide and act. The one who who completes this cycle over and over in the shortest period of time......wins. In a life and death struggle there is no time for the luxury of civilized activities such as "due process" and arguing the various facets of morality, ethics and legality. In a life or death struggle expediency will win every time over the paralysis caused by debate.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 04:09 pm
Setanta wrote:
Not this one . . .



I also dispute your contention above........ you are the biggest fish of all because your anger completely submerges your brain rendering it useless.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 04:11 pm
I suppose you think that some of the effective bait to which you earlier alluded. It isn't, however. As i've already pointed out, this was a civil discussion before you arrived. It continues to be a largely civil discussion, despite your participation. It does not surprise me in the least that you attempt to raise the heat of the room with outright insult. Such things occur often enough with arguments, the paucity of which is self-evident.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 04:23 pm
Setanta wrote:
I suppose you think that some of the effective bait to which you earlier alluded. It isn't, however. As i've already pointed out, this was a civil discussion before you arrived. It continues to be a largely civil discussion, despite your participation. It does not surprise me in the least that you attempt to raise the heat of the room with outright insult. Such things occur often enough with arguments, the paucity of which is self-evident.


As in any conversation when your responses cease to have any meaning, I will always let you have the last word.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 04:26 pm
So, Rayban, you still haven't addressed the issue of how one is to know which individuals are terrorists who merit torture, and which are simply the unfortunate, swept up in a widely thrown net. I suspect what we have here is the "kill 'em all, and let god sort 'em out" argument in operation.

To make this comprehensible to you, it is the uncertainty in most situations in which crime is alleged that leads so many people to insist upon due process and a presumption of innocence.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 04:44 pm
Setanta wrote:
So, Rayban, you still haven't addressed the issue of how one is to know which individuals are terrorists who merit torture, and which are simply the unfortunate, swept up in a widely thrown net. I suspect what we have here is the "kill 'em all, and let god sort 'em out" argument in operation.

To make this comprehensible to you, it is the uncertainty in most situations in which crime is alleged that leads so many people to insist upon due process and a presumption of innocence.


You remind me of a reporter at a news conference who has just asked the same question that 5 others have just asked and received the same answer. You must have a comprehension problem so let me refer you to an answer I have just provided for Joe:


There is a concept for interrupting your enemies decision making cycle which involves 4 steps that must occur almost simultaneously and in this sequence.......observe, orient, decide and act. The one who who completes this cycle over and over in the shortest period of time......wins. In a life and death struggle there is no time for the luxury of civilized activities such as "due process" and arguing the various facets of morality, ethics and legality. In a life or death struggle lightning action will win every time over the paralysis caused by endless debate.

Ease up on your anger and let your brain take a breath.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 04:48 pm
You flatter yourself, i'm not angry, and there is no possibility of you making me angry--you just don't have it in you.

That response simply sidesteps the issues of alleged but unproven culpability and of due process, it does not address them.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 06:18 pm
Setanta wrote:
The eminently credentialled Mr. Bagaric wrote:
Given the choice between inflicting a relatively small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person, it is verging on moral indecency to prefer the interests of the wrongdoer.


Can one assume then, that due process is not necessary to establish that the person to be tortured is a wrong-doer?


The above is one of your questions at the beginning of this thread......is there something wrong with your memory as well as your comprehension
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 06:38 pm
Keep throwing the insults out there Rayban, it gives anyone reading the thread a clear idea of the value of your contribution. My position is unchanged, neither you nor Mr. Bagaric are willing to address the issue of how it is to be established that such and such a person is a wrongdoer.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 08:45 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Can one assume then, that due process is not necessary to establish that the person to be tortured is a wrong-doer?

I think that is a reasonable assumption, given Prof. Bagaric's analysis. As he states: "Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person." Note, he doesn't say anything about due process or even proof. Granted, he talks about the putative torturee as a "wrongdoer," but I would guess that the standard by which one can deem someone a "wrongdoer" capable of being tortured in an exigent circumstance is somewhat lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt."


This is Joe's answer to your question then and you acccepted it........I rest my case and hereby withdraw from any further discussion.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 05:35 am
rayban1


Quote:
There is a concept for interrupting your enemies decision making cycle which involves 4 steps that must occur almost simultaneously and in this sequence.......observe, orient, decide and act. The one who who completes this cycle over and over in the shortest period of time......wins. In a life and death struggle there is no time for the luxury of civilized activities such as "due process" and arguing the various facets of morality, ethics and legality.


Let's assume that we are, as you said, in "a life and death struggle". According to your perspective, the correct methodology for interrupting your enemies activity is: observe, orient, decide and act.
But you are assuming already what and who are the enemies. You are saying that Mr. A and Mr. B are enemies. That means that you think they are making decisions against you or your country. The problem is: how do you know that Mr. A and Mr. B are those enemies?
I think you miss one point: you can be wrong, the FBI can be wrong, Mr. Bush can be wrong. In this case you are torturing innocent people and worst, according to your own methodology, you are failing your action against the enemy.
Unless, of course, you decide, in order to be sure, to torture all islamic people.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 06:37 am
val wrote:
rayban1


Quote:
There is a concept for interrupting your enemies decision making cycle which involves 4 steps that must occur almost simultaneously and in this sequence.......observe, orient, decide and act. The one who who completes this cycle over and over in the shortest period of time......wins. In a life and death struggle there is no time for the luxury of civilized activities such as "due process" and arguing the various facets of morality, ethics and legality.


Let's assume that we are, as you said, in "a life and death struggle". According to your perspective, the correct methodology for interrupting your enemies activity is: observe, orient, decide and act.
But you are assuming already what and who are the enemies. You are saying that Mr. A and Mr. B are enemies. That means that you think they are making decisions against you or your country. The problem is: how do you know that Mr. A and Mr. B are those enemies?
I think you miss one point: you can be wrong, the FBI can be wrong, Mr. Bush can be wrong. In this case you are torturing innocent people and worst, according to your own methodology, you are failing your action against the enemy.
Unless, of course, you decide, in order to be sure, to torture all islamic people.


When you are captured wearing a mask and brandishing an AK-47 or rocket launcher......or you are captured with bomb making materials and training manuals with diagrams of bomb making.......or you are captured destroying evidence of any of the above, you have lost your right to the benefit of the doubt. It's called circumstantial evidence and I think you will find that most lawful convictions in this or any other country are based on circumstantial evidence.

Please don't insult my intelligence by inferring that we go out and pluck a muslim jaywalking and begin to torture him........There may be suckers on this forum who would fall for that but I'm not one of them.

Muslims in this country are allowed to practice their religion as they see fit which includes hiding in a mosque with an Imam preaching hatred for citizens of this country, but he is allowed to do that under our laws. What is a christian allowed to do in Saudi Arabia.......zippo. He will be imprisoned and probably shot for even carrying a bible, let alone speaking of christianity with another person.

There will never be torture without some circumstantial evidence to provide just cause. I now withdraw for the second and final time.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 07:10 am
rayban1 wrote:
When you are captured wearing a mask and brandishing an AK-47 or rocket launcher......or you are captured with bomb making materials and training manuals with diagrams of bomb making.......or you are captured destroying evidence of any of the above, you have lost your right to the benefit of the doubt.

Everyone who has half a brain, and who has ever taken a freshman college course in inorganic chemistry, knows how to make a bomb if he wants to. So you've got me once. Moreover, out of curiosity, I have legally purchased on Amazon.com a manual on how to make my own submachine gun. I haven't actually tried making one yet, but nobody knows that, so now you've got me twice. Are you saying I have forfeited my due process rights, and that the FBI, the CIA and their friends can torture me at their convenience? If not, where do you draw the line, and why?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 07:40 am
Thomas wrote:
rayban1 wrote:
When you are captured wearing a mask and brandishing an AK-47 or rocket launcher......or you are captured with bomb making materials and training manuals with diagrams of bomb making.......or you are captured destroying evidence of any of the above, you have lost your right to the benefit of the doubt.

Everyone who has half a brain, and who has ever taken a freshman college course in inorganic chemistry, knows how to make a bomb if he wants to. So you've got me once. Moreover, out of curiosity, I have legally purchased on Amazon.com a manual on how to make my own submachine gun. I haven't actually tried making one yet, but nobody knows that, so now you've got me twice. Are you saying I have forfeited my due process rights, and that the FBI, the CIA and their friends can torture me at their convenience? If not, where do you draw the line, and why?


Damn Thomas......just because you are foolish enough to use a picture of Krugman as your avatar, does not justify acting like him. You are avoiding one other factor which I have already mentioned......birds of a feather flock together. Since terrorists are more like rats than birds, they usually "rat" on each other. So....captured together.....questioned separately......more evidence.

Sounds to me like you are arguing just for the sake of argument.....not much fun really
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 07:56 am
rayban1 wrote:
Sounds to me like you are arguing just for the sake of argument.....not much fun really

I notice that you didn't answer my question.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 08:06 am
rayban1 wrote:

When you are captured wearing a mask and brandishing an AK-47 or rocket launcher......or you are captured with bomb making materials and training manuals with diagrams of bomb making.......or you are captured destroying evidence of any of the above, you have lost your right to the benefit of the doubt. It's called circumstantial evidence and I think you will find that most lawful convictions in this or any other country are based on circumstantial evidence.

Please don't insult my intelligence by inferring that we go out and pluck a muslim jaywalking and begin to torture him........There may be suckers on this forum who would fall for that but I'm not one of them.

Muslims in this country are allowed to practice their religion as they see fit which includes hiding in a mosque with an Imam preaching hatred for citizens of this country, but he is allowed to do that under our laws. What is a christian allowed to do in Saudi Arabia.......zippo. He will be imprisoned and probably shot for even carrying a bible, let alone speaking of christianity with another person.

There will never be torture without some circumstantial evidence to provide just cause. I now withdraw for the second and final time.


Circumstancial evidence is weighed by a jury before a conviction. That evidence is disputed and argued against by an advocate for the accused. After all that it must rise to a level of no reasonable doubt.

You are not promoting that we try anyone or allow them to present evidence in their defense.. You are promoting that the unrebutted circumstancial evidence is enough to torture. There are many reasons for having the items you mentioned above. Not all of them lead to being a terrorist.

Note your use of "OR" in listing them then look at your argument against Thomas.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 08:14 am
rayban1 wrote:
There is a concept for interrupting your enemies decision making cycle which involves 4 steps that must occur almost simultaneously and in this sequence.......observe, orient, decide and act. The one who who completes this cycle over and over in the shortest period of time......wins. In a life and death struggle there is no time for the luxury of civilized activities such as "due process" and arguing the various facets of morality, ethics and legality. In a life or death struggle expediency will win every time over the paralysis caused by debate.

A couple of observations:

1. I agree with Val: calling these suspects "enemies" merely begs the question. By calling them "enemies," you have already made them "torture-eligible." But that assumes what you need to prove: that they really are enemies and not just some unfortunate bystander. What you posit is an Alice-in-Wonderland kind of jurisprudence: sentence first, verdict afterwards.

2. No doubt "expediency will win every time over the paralysis caused by debate." We don't even need a "life-or-death struggle" to convince us of that: most mafiosi, revolutionaries, and dictators, after all, follow the same principle. But then that simply means that you've elevated "expediency" above other considerations, such as due process and adherence to the law. You have, however, not given any reasons why expediency is a better alternative in this situation, or why we shouldn't follow the expedient course in every situation.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 09:33 am
rayban1 wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Can one assume then, that due process is not necessary to establish that the person to be tortured is a wrong-doer?

I think that is a reasonable assumption, given Prof. Bagaric's analysis. As he states: "Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person." Note, he doesn't say anything about due process or even proof. Granted, he talks about the putative torturee as a "wrongdoer," but I would guess that the standard by which one can deem someone a "wrongdoer" capable of being tortured in an exigent circumstance is somewhat lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt."


This is Joe's answer to your question then and you acccepted it........I rest my case and hereby withdraw from any further discussion.


Yeah, you need to bail out now, because you continue to demonstrate your complete inability to comprehend to what point the discussion here has advanced.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 01:54 am
rayban 1

Believe me, I didn't want to insult your intelligence.
Circumstantial evidence are used in trial but they don't mean an automatic conviction. I have seen several cases in which, despite very strong evidence, the accused was innocent. At least innocent of the crime he was accused.
Any person who has some juridical experience knows that there is a significant percentage of cases, that appeared based in strong evidences, but failed to provide a conviction. And that by a simple reason: the accused had the opportunity of defending himself, presenting his own proofs. It is not a game: sometimes those men were really innocent.
But you deny your "enemies" the right of defending themselves. It is only a matter of police interpretation of what a "strong evidence" could be in any particular case. And, in absence of a real trial, police criteria of what is a strong evidence can become very, very vague, specially in situations where police itself is under pressure.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/31/2023 at 02:08:51