Not enough (official) torture in the world?

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:

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.

Not this one . . .

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

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?

Sounds to me like you are arguing just for the sake of argument.....not much fun really

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.

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.

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.