Thirith on 11/10/2012 at 13:21
@Vasquez and DLL:
Code:
Statement: Get a room, you two.
Vasquez on 11/10/2012 at 18:11
Don't be silly Thirith, I just have weakness for words :D
(Thread title does scream for a torture chamber joke though, but I'm not quite that tasteless :angel: )
Kolya on 11/10/2012 at 18:37
Quote Posted by Briareos H
Upholding inflexible moral standards is both worthy of praise and not completely in tune with our nature. I prefer not to do it, but I won't try to convince you otherwise.
Oh I'm flexible, if you're a shoplifter or a snake woman.
But moral standards that are flexible in core issues like human rights, to get bent when it seems opportune, aren't really moral standards, just good intentions.
Independent Thief on 11/10/2012 at 22:25
Torture has no place in a civilized society-period. Once you allow that, things will go downhill from there.:p
Scots Taffer on 11/10/2012 at 23:28
Anyone who says no here clearly does not have enough respect for Jack Bauer.
Independent Thief on 12/10/2012 at 00:16
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Anyone who says no here clearly does not have enough respect for Jack Bauer.
Pure stupidity, but not surprising.
While I'm obviously not a Hitchens fan, he did investigate the subject.
[video=youtube;4LPubUCJv58]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58[/video]
As I said before, it should not be tolerated in a sane society.
LarryG on 12/10/2012 at 02:07
My 2 cents.
1. Forget about morality. That changes with the times and the culture. Ask instead DOES IT WORK? How well does it work? What techniques work best? Where does it make practical sense to apply it? If it doesn't work, then the whole discussion is moot. Before you go down Torture Alley, you should know that other roads won't do as well or better. The damage you do to a human being when you torture them is very long lasting, even if it is only psychological torture and they get to keep all the same bits and pieces that they had before you tortured them. Is torture better at getting quick answers that you can trust, or just quick answers? Does it work as well as other approaches to getting the answer you need. If it does, then we get to my second penny.
2. Presume that torture works when properly applied to the right person (someone who actually knows something, though how you know they know something is a good question in its own right) under the right circumstances, now the next question is at what point is it OK for a government (at least I don't think we have been talking about individual rights to torture other individuals; this discussion is limited to a government's desire to torture someone, right?) to violate one person's personal liberties without due process in the furtherance of that government's interests. Note how I phrased that: "to violate one person's personal liberties without due process in the furtherance of that government's interests." How do you draw the line and say it's justified here to torture someone but not there? Because sure as you can draw that line, someone will want to push the limits and move it over. Kidnapping. OK to torture to find the victim and foil the kidnappers. Drugs. OK to torture and find out who the king pin really is and lock them away. Terrorists. OK to torture to find out about plots to overthrow the government. Save thousands of lives. OK to torture? Save one life. OK to torture? Recover stolen property. OK to torture?
The problem I see is that once you open the door to it ever being OK you eventually will throw it wide open and have it OK to torture on "suspicion of intent to inconvenience" and when it gets there all the rest of our "inalienable" rights get alienated and thrown out the window.
Thirith on 12/10/2012 at 09:01
Agree with LarryG - and I'd even go further: to my mind asking all of those questions and answering them honestly is more moral than a mere appeal to ideals. Why? Because there's always going to be a gap between ideals and reality, and unless that gap is addressed and explored, the so-called moral high ground remains an abstract. Interesting to discuss, definitely, but barely related to the world and what's happening in it. You can make a good case for the idealistic position coming at it almost entirely from a pragmatic, utilitarian point of view, but in order to do so you have to be willing to go beyond "It's simply wrong, 'kay?", at which point your argument for it is about as convincing as saying, "There *totally* is a pink invisible unicorn in my garden!" Even if I agree with the point, it'll convince absolutely no one who's sitting on the fence.
henke on 12/10/2012 at 09:47
Quote Posted by Independent Thief
Pure stupidity, but not surprising.
Pure comedy, actually.
demagogue on 12/10/2012 at 10:19
From my perspective this is a curious topic because at this point the prohibition on torture is so well established legally that actually debating it sounds very anachronistic, sort of like debating the merits of prohibitions on forced labor, child labor, or women voting.
And I think the reason an international norm has crystallized so solidly around it is because of POWs... You need an absolute restriction against torturing enemy POWs in your own military law so that you can insist your own POWs aren't tortured by the other side. And then if it's established in military law, it's hard to argue (politically) that your own nationals deserve less protection in police custody than foreign enemy combatant POWs. I think this ultimately what keeps the debates academic and enforces it in practice (or at the very least keeps it underground so you never have an official pronouncement sanctioning it; that's all enemy forces need.)
That isn't to say there aren't open questions to debate though, just like there are still open questions about forced labor (does compulsory military service count?) or child labor (surely some work for children is ok...). For torture, I think the open question that actually gets debated in practice is what constitutes "severe physical or mental pain". Apparently the US was trying to define it as anything that scars the body or causes permanent damage, so they could slip something like waterboarding, longterm crouching, sleep deprivation, loud sounds, etc, through. Would one interpret repeated drowning reflexes or serious posture uncomfort as "painful"?
