Is the ideaology, "Do the ends justify the means"

[Kuan]

Is it right to torture a suspect to gain crucial information to save lives? Is it right to blackmail, extort, or bribe if its in the name of public safety?

I was wondering about this because I started reading what seems to be a highly biased conservative book called, Courting Disaster. It discusses in the first few pages I read an operation the CIA carried out that captured one of the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks and details how the suspect would not speak to any of the investigators, saying he would await lawyers in the US before he spoke. Well, that never happened as he was taken to a secret CIA location stripped naked for a physical and other tests, and interrogated. He held up well for the conventional techniques. So they tried some different stuff, including waterboarding. He gave them the information they wanted which lead to the capture of more high ranking Al Quieda officials and the foiling of a massive terrorist attack on the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

I didnt get far into the book before I went to work, but based upon this so far, it got me wondering, how far should we go in the name of public safety?

Does this type of behavior makes us more of a target?

Is the ideaology, "Do the ends justify the means" sound?

[Kuan]

[Replying to post 10 by The Me's]

I listened to Glenn Carle, a former CIA officer who was put in charge of interrogating a HVT. He said as he did so, that it was counterproductive. I can summarize upon request or you can listen to it for yourself at this link: http://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/ ... ast_en.xml

Also to what are you referring? Journalists line up for what?

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 10 by The Me's]

I listened to Glenn Carle, a former CIA officer who was put in charge of interrogating a HVT. He said as he did so, that it was counterproductive. I can summarize upon request or you can listen to it for yourself at this link: http://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/ ... ast_en.xml

Also to what are you referring? Journalists line up for what?

Since your source did not interview all high value targets, and others have said that waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed WAS useful, I have to conclude that your evidence is anecdotal, as is mine.

But I only need one positive result to demonstrate my point.

(What I meant was that journalists volunteered to be waterboarded to see what it was like. This is also a common practice in BUDS training. All seals are waterboarded a number of times as a part of conditioning. That hardly constitutes torture.)

[Kuan]

[Replying to post 12 by The Me's]

Ok, now I see we're you are coming from. I just want to clarify a couple questions for our discussion. Do you mind?

1. Is water boarding torture?
A. If not, what constitutes torture?
2. Is torture effective?
3. How do we control torture, are some techniques okay, and others not?

I pose these to help us stay organized and determine exactly what we are discussing.

1. I don't know. I lean slightly on the side, yes it is torture, at the moment.
2. Not all the time. It creates outrage in other nations. Especially among the extremists in the group we are fighting. It can serve to drive otherwise neutral people to the opposing side. Not only this, but it forces possible incorrect information out of the person because he wants to end the pain. Also, we run the risk of torturing the innocent. How do we protect the innocent from this? What do we do if we torture and mutilate a innocent mans body? Another issue to examine is this, aren't they innocent until proven guilty?
3. I don't know, water boarding seems questionably fine to me, but any extreme phsycological or physical damage to a suspect is out of the question for me.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 12 by The Me's]

1. Is water boarding torture?
A. If not, what constitutes torture?
2. Is torture effective?
3. How do we control torture, are some techniques okay, and others not?

Okay, this works, but your structure is missing context.

We're not talking about "high value targets". We're talking about fully trained and conditioned mass murderers who were captured ON THE BATTLE FIELD with weapons pointed at our guys.

All of them, without exception, belonged to an organization that made mass killings a science.

I choose to be outraged by THAT, not by getting someone wet.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 12 by The Me's]

1. Is water boarding torture?
A. If not, what constitutes torture?
2. Is torture effective?
3. How do we control torture, are some techniques okay, and others not?

Okay, this works, but your structure is missing context.

We're not talking about "high value targets". We're talking about fully trained and conditioned mass murderers who were captured ON THE BATTLE FIELD with weapons pointed at our guys.

All of them, without exception, belonged to an organization that made mass killings a science.

I choose to be outraged by THAT, not by getting someone wet.

But you celebrate the Mass Murderer Moses, and other characters in the Bible. (Samson)

Wheres your outrage there?

[Kuan]

Okay, this works, but your structure is missing context.

We're not talking about "high value targets". We're talking about fully trained and conditioned mass murderers who were captured ON THE BATTLE FIELD with weapons pointed at our guys.

In this case, arent they prisoners of war? What about those we capture and think they are terrorists but we cant be positive? Do we torture them too? Many bystanders have information that could be useful, and if we capture them too and interrogate them under the assumption they are terrorists, they will provide us with the information which would also incriminate them. Even if they were just a bystander. So how do we determine between those who can be tortured and those who can't be.

All of them, without exception, belonged to an organization that made mass killings a science.

I choose to be outraged by THAT, not by getting someone wet.

Are we not so different? The nuclear bombs? The WMD's that we produce? We have definetley made a destruction a science, even if we limit our use of it. Or do we? Our drone attacks that kill the targets and civillian bystanders are pretty similar to terrorist attacks.

I wonder if we tortured japanese, german, or italian prisoners in WWII.

[Kuan]

[Replying to post 15 by Ooberman]
Im sorry, and although I might agree with you that Moses was a mass murderer, it is not relevant to the questions that have been proposed. In the sense that its an attack at the theists beliefs which are not under discussion.

[Darias]

[Replying to post 1 by Kuan]

The way American intelligence services do it, you bet.

We're wimps when it comes to torture, and it's extremely effective.

Sexual humiliation (including forced masturbation and taking photos of piles of naked people), sensory deprivation, including loud metal music, confinement, chained by the arms to the ceiling - forced to stand for hours, not allowed to sleep but for 1 or 2 hours each day -- none of the people involved may be terrorists, but all are pretty much delusional vegetables by the time it's over -- that is if they don't die from repeated, uncounted knee kicks, which several innocent men have. You call this "extremely effective." In what dimension of reality is this medievalry a productive way of procuring information or "winning hearts and minds" among the innocent involved?

[Replying to post 9 by Kuan]

How can it be counter productive if you prevent terrorist attacks and save lives?

Talking points won't get you very far in a debate. Can you name a single instance where water boarding has saved lives? You know the State Department would have already declassified anything to put it in a good light if any administration had an agenda to push for its continuation.

Assuming torture could save lives, a quick cost benefit analysis should demonstrate how counterproductive it is at doing so. Torture, after all, elicited falsehoods uttered under duress, which proved to be the basis for launching the Iraq War. Colin Powell now regrets addressing the UN with this "smoking gun," but as many as 133,923 documented civilian deaths, as a result of this pointless military excursion, have proved that torture does not save lives; it in fact assures more death than any one person can stomach.

And how can you call it "torture" if journalists line up to have it done to them so they can see what it's like?

And how can you call forced intercourse "rape" if virgins everywhere are lining up to volunteer to see what sex is like?

[center][/center]

[Replying to post 10 by The Me's]

I listened to Glenn Carle, a former CIA officer who was put in charge of interrogating a HVT. He said as he did so, that it was counterproductive. I can summarize upon request or you can listen to it for yourself at this link: http://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/ ... ast_en.xml

Also to what are you referring? Journalists line up for what?

Since your source did not interview all high value targets, and others have said that waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed WAS useful, I have to conclude that your evidence is anecdotal, as is mine.

But I only need one positive result to demonstrate my point.

(What I meant was that journalists volunteered to be waterboarded to see what it was like. This is also a common practice in BUDS training. All seals are waterboarded a number of times as a part of conditioning. That hardly constitutes torture.)

1. The torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed revealed no useful information. It in fact did not lead to the discovery of the whereabouts of bin Laden, very unlike the popular film.

Everyone from top generals to interrogators themselves have confirmed just how ineffective it was. KSM was waterboarded nearly 200 times and never said anything.


2. You don't even have one, but you're wrong in any case; if you're going to rationalize torture from a consequentialist or utilitarian perspective, you're going to have to show that the benefits outweigh the costs of the consequences. Good luck topping the carnage had in Iraq, or the disaster that it is today.

And you have to rely on hard data and what's realistically possible; you cannot dream up a nightmare scenario to justify torture. Sophists have used ad metum arguments in the attempt to justify all kinds of madness and bloodshed for centuries now. But this won't fly here in a debate.


3. Journalists volunteered to be subjected to this practice, military personnel sign up to be subjected to this practice. When it is forced upon unwilling victims, it is torture. Based on ethics and the dictionary, there is no foggy gray escape to this question.

Getting punched in the face is an unpleasant experience, but just because MMA fighters consent to physical altercations does not mean getting hit "isn't so bad." In any context where the person on the receiving end isn't consenting, the correct term is assault.

[Replying to post 12 by The Me's]

1. Is water boarding torture?
A. If not, what constitutes torture?
2. Is torture effective?
3. How do we control torture, are some techniques okay, and others not?

Okay, this works, but your structure is missing context.

We're not talking about "high value targets". We're talking about fully trained and conditioned mass murderers who were captured ON THE BATTLE FIELD with weapons pointed at our guys.

All of them, without exception, belonged to an organization that made mass killings a science.

I choose to be outraged by THAT, not by getting someone wet.

But according to recent legislation, the whole world is a battle field when the "laws" of war are applicable everywhere; US leadership can deem any region on earth "a battlefield," making all who inhabit it "combatants" and "potential combatants." And most of the targets kidnapped have been innocent. Most of the people assassinated by drones have been innocent -- many of them children, some Americans themselves.

The people who have made mass killings a science wear ties and work in Washington. Jihadists armed with box cutters, AKs, or pressure cookers are amateurs. The reality is that your average American is 8 times more likely to be killed by the actions of negligent or trigger happy law enforcement personnel than a suicidal Islamist. States have and can kill far more people than rogue non-state actors; if you rightly attribute the existence of radical groups to the ill-thought-out policies of the state, then states do in fact account for all of the violence in the end. They're the only reason cells exist in the first place and the only reason cells fight.

Don't get me wrong, no one likes a suicide bomber. I'm just saying let's not glorify or justify the system and the policies that influence the creation of more suicide bombers. It's really the only reasonable position one can take.

Are we not so different? The nuclear bombs? The WMD's that we produce? We have definetley made a destruction a science, even if we limit our use of it. Or do we? Our drone attacks that kill the targets and civillian bystanders are pretty similar to terrorist attacks.

I wonder if we tortured japanese, german, or italian prisoners in WWII.

Similar? You mean Is. What the US does, or what any state does for that matter is the textbook definition of terrorism, which the FBI defines as:

[quote="FBI, "Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code""]"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*[/color][/quote]

Or, as Google defines it: 1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

So, based on the definition, drone strikes and extra-legal assassinations, kidnapping, and indefinite detention, wars -- even voting -- all are forms of terrorism.


[center]“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.� -- Confucius[/center]

Well, there you go.

[Darias]

[Replying to Darias]

I forgot to mention the name of the film: Zero Dark Thirty, which suggested torture helped US forces find bin Laden. This was not the case.


[center][yt][/yt][/center]