61% of Americans think torture is okay?

[jsalcedo]

Saddam used meat grinders, male/ female/child rape, electro shock, mutilation, acid drip chambers etc... to get information from supposed enemies.

Do we really want to go down the same road?

Sleep deprivation, drugs, psychological methods don't equate to torture in my book however, who is going to write the interrogation rules?


Americans need to keep to the high road no matter what the cost.

 

[jbear6]

>> AP Poll: Most Say Torture OK in Rare Cases

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 24 minutes ago

"Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling."...

"In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions."
--------------------------------

The old warning...when you fight monsters, take care, lest you become a monster yourself.

If we do what THEY do, even just at times...how, in the end, can we claim to be better than them? And how can we tell other nations not to torture captured US troops, if WE do it?

Good lord. What have we become...

Since of government has been caught paying reporters to express their point of view both here and abroad, how can you believe anything the news media spits out. If it's okay for us to torture, it's okay for them to do it to us. You shoot at me, I shoot back, you torture me, I torture back. I'm not saying I don't condone torture, but how can you fault your enemy for doing the same as you? War is hell.

Jbear6

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

I'll tell you what I DON'T want to do. I don't want to leave any tactics on the table. Whether we use them or not is irrelevant to me.

The bad guys should know that if provoked we will use anything in our power including NUKES to not only pay them back ... but pay them back with interest.

I don't want us to be liked, I want us to be FEARED! Fear and Greed rules the world. Fear is good.

All appeasement does is buy more pain. And appeasing our internal enemies is as bad as appeasing are external ones. Probably worse.

 

[Preacherman]

I think that the Golden Rule (which, by the way, is universal to all major religions in the world, and is not the exclusive property of Christianity) is a sure guide in situations like this.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This clarifies the situation wonderfully. Would I accept this particular action if it were used against Americans by our opponents? If so - I can use it against them. If I think it's immoral, or illegal, or criminal, for others to use it against Americans, then I have no moral right whatsoever to use it against them.

It really is a case of living up to our own standards. If we claim to have a better system of government, or a more moral/ethical rule of law, than our enemies, then we must live up to what we proudly proclaim to be "better". If we don't, we make a mockery of that which we proudly seek to propagate elsewhere.

Interrogation techniques have often been "hard" or "tough" without resorting to torture. These can be used without moral consequences, IMHO. However, the moment we use techniques (torture, drug-induced interrogation, etc.) that we would not be willing to see our own police and/or security forces use against Americans (much less others use against us), then we've crossed a moral and ethical line that I don't believe is justifiable.

That's my take on the situation.

 

[RaggedClaws]

Hear, hear, Preacherman!

 

[Camp David]

I think that the Golden Rule (which, by the way, is universal to all major religions in the world, and is not the exclusive property of Christianity) is a sure guide in situations like this. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."...

Preacherman: Thank you for your post; your citation of the "Golden Rule" philosophy is a guiding principle for all good men to follow and it is one in which I try to live my life...Unfortunately, we are not at war now with good men. Instead, we are at war with terrorists who have no scruples and no ethical or moral guideposts. These terrorists use every weapon at their disposal to kill, the latest being using their women as human bombs to kill our people.

In the course of fighting these terrorists, it may be necessary to use torture on them to obtain information to save the lives of our people. To save lives.

While I believe the use of such torture should be reserved for dire situations, its use should not be ruled out or denied... I posted earlier that I had no right to tell our soldiers how to win the war... I firmly believe that... I only ask that they do win the war. Whatever they need to do to win is their business, not mine and not ours. Theirs.

 

[Preacherman]

Camp David, sorry, but - with the greatest respect - that's a cop-out. Our soldiers are trained, paid, equipped and deployed with the taxes we pay. They represent our country, and what we stand for, in their actions while deployed. They act in our name to execute the policy of our nation. Therefore, we can't stand back and say:

Whatever they need to do to win is their business, not mine and not ours. Theirs.

Their business IS our business, and vice versa.

I maintain that the Golden Rule is the only universally valid moral and ethical code that we can follow here. If I would accept it being done to me, or another US citizen, by our own police and security forces, then it's OK for our forces to use it against others. If I would regard it as illegal and/or immoral to use a particular tactic or technique against me, then that makes it unacceptable for use against others.

Ethics and morals are either universally applicable, or selectively applicable. If they're universal, they bind everyone, all the time. If they're selective, who gets to choose when, where and to whom they are applied? We're all at risk from selective morality, and therefore I reject it.

 

[Camp David]

Their business IS our business, and vice versa..

No... you misunderstand the role of a soldier... soldiers are trained to win wars, not accept Monday Morning quarterbacking from back on the home front. Personally I wish we would leave them alone and let them fight the wars they are trained to win and stop critiquing their methods. "Their business" is to win; how they do that is their business, not mine...

Ethics and morals are either universally applicable, or selectively applicable. If they're universal, they bind everyone, all the time...

If this were true, the terrorists would play by the rules. They don't. Nor should we, if we plan to win.

When the War on Terror was initiated, President Bush was right to point out that this would be a new type of war... with an enemy not previously encountered. An enemy that would use any tactic to win. In order to fight a terrorist, we need to become terrorists in our methods. This is not pleasant stuff. We have no business telling our soldiers how to win.

Those that presume to speak for the soldiers fighting this war are just fooling themselves; taking the pompous high road and saying that we'll fight with our morals and our principles may, in fact, doom our effort. War has one universal truth: There are no rules. Winners find that out. That is why war is to be avoided at all costs. But if it can't be avoided, fight the war to win. And ignore the naysayers on the home front who like to Monday Morning Quarterback the soldiers!

 

[Preacherman]

Again, Camp David, I'm sorry to disagree, but I believe you're completely wrong on this.

Think about this. You're brought up as an American, believing in our system of laws, rights, values, etc. You enter our armed forces, voluntarily, to defend your country and what you believe in. You're then told to act in a way that completely ignores all those laws, rights and values in which you believe, and are furthermore told that this is justified because those upon whom you're inflicting torture are "not us" - that makes it OK.

Sorry, but this is a moral disconnect that's simply impossible. What's to stop that serviceman coming back and doing the same things to other Americans? After all, we've taught him that it's OK under certain circumstances - so what's to prevent him redefining the circumstances, to decide for himself when it's OK and when it's not?

If something is wrong, it's universally wrong - otherwise it's not "wrong" as such, but dependent upon circumstances. The same goes for something that's "right". If it's not a universal condition, it can't form part of a moral or ethical code of conduct, as no law or rule of behavior can be made conditional upon it. To say that torture is OK under certain circumstances, or against certain individuals, begs the question of precisely who defines the circumstances or selects the individuals, and what criteria are used in the definition and/or selection. If someone can designate a given circumstance or individual today, someone else can designate a different circumstance or individual tomorrow, and all pretence at a rule of law or a Constitutional mandate is lost - there is no longer an absolute authority. (And note that this completely ignores questions of religious morality - that's a whole other field, which is too explosive for this thread and this forum.)

We cannot claim to be a moral and/or ethical society if we make morality and/or ethics subject to circumstances. They either apply universally, or they're not moral or ethical standards at all - just opinions.

Oh, by the way -

you misunderstand the role of a soldier... soldiers are trained to win wars, not accept Monday Morning quarterbacking from back on the home front.

I served for four years in another country's armed forces, and saw combat on a number of occasions. I also underwent officer's training, and understand from both the "grunt" and leadership perspectives exactly what is "the role of a soldier". Soldiers are not only trained to win wars, but to do so under a system of military discipline that embodies the Constitutional approach of their country. Once they depart from this framework, they become "loose cannons", and end up doing far more damage to their own country and society than they do to the enemy.

 

[NineseveN]

I think that the Golden Rule (which, by the way, is universal to all major religions in the world, and is not the exclusive property of Christianity) is a sure guide in situations like this.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This clarifies the situation wonderfully. Would I accept this particular action if it were used against Americans by our opponents? If so - I can use it against them. If I think it's immoral, or illegal, or criminal, for others to use it against Americans, then I have no moral right whatsoever to use it against them.

It really is a case of living up to our own standards. If we claim to have a better system of government, or a more moral/ethical rule of law, than our enemies, then we must live up to what we proudly proclaim to be "better". If we don't, we make a mockery of that which we proudly seek to propagate elsewhere.

Interrogation techniques have often been "hard" or "tough" without resorting to torture. These can be used without moral consequences, IMHO. However, the moment we use techniques (torture, drug-induced interrogation, etc.) that we would not be willing to see our own police and/or security forces use against Americans (much less others use against us), then we've crossed a moral and ethical line that I don't believe is justifiable.

That's my take on the situation.

I would not want to be a passenger on a civilian commercial airplane and have it used as a guided missile to be slammed into a building, killing thousands. I will not advocate this being done to our enemies...hey, what's that on CNN? Oh my god, they just flew a plane into...

...uh, well okay, I wouldn't want my head cut off, so I won't advocate doing it to fanatics. Oh wait, they just cut some guy's head off!...um, was that how it was supposed to work?

Okay, I wouldn't use chemical or biological weapons on anyone, that must be a horrid thing to experience, so I will not advocate using them on our enemy...oh wait, a Marine post just got slammed with Sarin gas...um, gee, I guess this is how it's supposed to work.

I wouldn't want children used in the war to fire on enemy soldiers, or use children as mules for bombs to kill men guarding check points and bases...hey, wait a minute, the enemy is doing just that...what is this "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" supposed to be getting me anyway?



Preacherman, I love ya, you're someone I can respect, but this is way off. I wouldn't have Muslim extremists kill me, so we shouldn't kill them...wait a minute...

You get the point. This is where the gloves come off. You kill, you drive them and crush their spirit, you give them pain, you bring them hell, you don't win a war with a clean uniform on...it's time to get dirty. When your enemy doesn't play by the rules, he's obviously the only one that really wants to win. The only fair fight is the one you lose.

 

[Preacherman]

Again, NineseveN, you miss my point. The point is not that we do unto others what they're doing to us - rather, we do to them what we would accept as lawful, ethical and moral on the part of others. If someone tries to hijack a plane I'm on, I'll do my best to stop him, even by killing him if necessary, but I won't turn around and hijack a plane from his home country, on the basis of revenge. If someone uses poison gas against my comrades, I'll do my best to stop him, and kill him if necessary: but I won't use poison gas against him.

I've seen at first hand what happens when a police force and an army abandon the rule of law, and take up terrorist tactics against terrorists. This was in South Africa during the 1980's and 1990's. We had police kidnapping civilians off the street, interrogating them (including the use of torture) for any information they might have, then killing them so that they couldn't report the torture. We had military patrols firing indiscriminately at gathered crowds because someone in the crowd had shot at them. They very seldom shot the gunman, but all too often killed many people who had nothing to do with the shooter, and who weren't even aware that he was going to shoot.

To quote another ancient maxim: "Two wrongs don't make one right". If our enemies do what is wrong, or evil, or immoral, or unethical, this does not serve as an excuse for us to do the same things to them. We're either moral beings, or we're not. If we are (and our Constitution and laws certainly assert such values), we're bound to observe them, and there is no excuse for abandoning these standards. If we're not, then we can't expect the protection of the Constitution and laws in our own country. It really is that simple.

Yes, this puts us at a disadvantage when dealing with an unscrupulous and determined enemy - but that's been true in other wars, too, and will always be true for so long as we maintain our Republic and all the things for which it stands. Furthermore, whenever we've found our soldiers committing such acts, historically, we've brought them to trial and punished the guilty. Sure, many guilty parties have escaped punishment through lack of evidence, or cover-ups by their superiors: but whenever evidence has been available, action has resulted. Long may this continue! It proves, at least, that we take our Constitution and laws seriously.

 

[Camp David]

Think about this. You're brought up as an American, believing in our system of laws, rights, values, etc. You enter our armed forces, voluntarily, to defend your country and what you believe in. You're then told to act in a way that completely ignores all those laws, rights and values in which you believe, and are furthermore told that this is justified because those upon whom you're inflicting torture are "not us" - that makes it OK...

I did think about it... I also thought about it on 09/11/01... What kind of animals would crash planes into civilian targets I thought? What kind of animals would strap explosives onto women and target weddings in Jordan? The answer is terrorists, who are devoid of the morals, ethics, and rules which you are telling me that our soldiers need to abide.

You are handicapping the soldiers to play by rules the enemy is free to abandon. You are saying that the men we train to fight our war need to do so with strict rules which the enemy does not recognize.

Under normal circumstanstances, Preacherman, you and I would be in complete agreement on this point. Past wars mandated complete belief in our system of laws, rights, values, etc. that you mention by all combatants. Not this time, however, as I am cognizant of the threat terrorism is to this nation. We are involved in a fight with an enemy which recognizes no such values; which offers no quarter.

As a Christian I try to embody my belief and look to others to do the same. However, I look to soldiers to fight and win wars.

As far as what soldiers might do when they return to our society, I am confident that most if not all will exhibit the professionalism that they are trained with. We can expect nothing less, nor should we.

 

[NineseveN]

Again, NineseveN, you miss my point. The point is not that we do unto others what they're doing to us - rather, we do to them what we would accept as lawful, ethical and moral on the part of others.

And where do you find the moral ground to justify Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Where do you find the Moral ground for “shock and awe”?

Where do you find the moral ground in say, killing anyone in a preemptive strike on the assumption that they may come after you?


War is not moral, it never was and it never will be. It may have honor, but it is not moral, and religious figures have been struggling with that since the day they put their noses into things that they shouldn’t have such as wear and politics.

War and morality have nothing to do with each other. We refrain from using certain weapons and tactics because we agreed to with other civilized nations, because they agreed also to not use them. The civilized world did not just all one day decide on its own that the moral thing to do was to use FMJ instead of JHP. It’s an agreement, to mitigate damage, loss and suffering should a war occur between two civilized nations. Tow gentleman shake hands and have a fair fight. Well, we missed the handshake this time around, and we got sucker punched…and now the enemy is kicking at our genitals and his gloves are filled with lead.

If we were fighting England right now, I would be totally with you…provided they kept their end of the agreement.

Maybe it’s because I’m an agnostic and my conscience doesn’t have to wrestle with much more than what I think is acceptable given a certain circumstance. In better circumstances, with a more honorable enemy, I’d agree. With these vermin, whatever it takes.

 

[Ian]

Anyone want to talk pragmatism? You know, how torture is ok if it saves some civilian lives? Well, let's see. How many people have terrorists killed worldwide in the history of the planet? A few thousand, perhaps? Let's be generous, and say a million people.

Now how about governments willing to use "terrorist tactics"? They've murdered at least 170 million innocent civilians in the last 105 years alone.

Terrorists are small potatoes. Peanuts. Negligible. Not worth worrying about - especially compared to the historic consequences of letting a government loose with the authority to abduct, torture, and murder.

 

[robertbank]

NineseveN

I don't recall anyone suggsting you limit your troops when it comes to fighting.

What is clear is that once your enemy is captured the fight is over. You are now into something else. If you condone torture of another human being you are now better than those you profess to distain.

What was your reaction when the Canadian officer was hand-cuffed to a poll outside a NATO targeted area in Bosnia. Did it strengthen your resolve to end the fighting their or did you weaken? I suggest that for most of us our will was strengthened. When the British airmen were tortured in Iraq 1 or when Saddam used children as hostages did you feel we should stop the war or was your will strengthened to carry on and get it over with.

If we react that way what do you suppose our enemies reaction is to pictures of their people being tortured? Or do you care? I am not sure what value physical torture brings to the table. I'll let people who are experts in the field of interogation respond to that question but I suspect what you get from physical torture is less than applying other techniques.

Torture of captured warriors is wrong, period. The fact that this issue is being openly debated is a sad reflection of where we are today IMHO.

Stay Safe

 

[NineseveN]

If you condone torture of another human being you are no better than those you profess to distain.

I don't think in terms of being better than someone else or not, so I am fine with the accusation of my character for professing such beliefs. I did not advocate torture for fun, I do advocate using ANY means necessary to win this conflict, period.

 

[antarti]

In regards to whether or not torturing makes us like the enemy, doesn't the motive have something to do with it. If they torture to ends lives and we torture to save them, I hardly see how that makes us comparable to our enemies.

DOH! You do realize Stalin and Hitler (and even Pol Pot) never had the thought enter their mind that they were "killing" anybody... They were "creating" or "building" a great civilization, an uber-Utopia, out of "New Soviet Men", "Aryans", or "Simple Pure Agrarians". You can add Che and Castro to that list, and Chairman Mao as well. All good guys, you see, who cared deeply about making life better and "more fair and equal" for "their" people.

Fear those people most who want to improve your condition, despite what you might want for yourself and family! Fear them doubly when they are the law and the government.

we need to define torture

I completely and vehemently disagree. For the purpose of discussion, it's one thing, for the purpose of law it's going to be quite another. Whether it will be called "light discomfort", "torture", "open-faced knuckle sandwiches" or even "theraputic back massage" in law, it will mean as much as "sporting purpose" or, better yet "shall not be infringed" (which is pretty damned clear to 99% of the population, except within the confines of the 2A).

To say this is a slippery slope is like comparing a spring-powered BB Pistol to the Paris Gun.

The people we're talking about under the broad umbrella "terrorists" can largely be encompassed under the heading "saboteurs", "spies", and "enemy combatants", all of which have legal definitions and exceeding strict guidelines for punishment befitting them. Catching one of these folks red-handed gives anybody all the force they need to deal with the situation, within the current structure of law.

What possible good can come of creating even 1 more piece of federal legislation, regardless of subject? None. Applied to THIS subject, the prospects of a good result aren't just dismal, they are completely unexpected even as a side effect.

When the cold war was on, I didn't consider myself as "having grown up in the Soviet Union", these days I'm not so sure that the Commies didn't win it outright.

 

[ArmedBear]

I don't think in terms of being better than someone else or not, so I am fine with the accusation of my character for professing such beliefs. I did not advocate torture for fun, I do advocate using ANY means necessary to win this conflict, period.

Really? You wouldn't prefer death to the vapid moral condemnation of people on an Internet bulletin board? What have you become?

 

[ArmedBear]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This clarifies the situation wonderfully.

I wish I could see how.

If I were an Islamofascist terrorist, I'd just as soon have American troops not spray me with bullets, even if I AM aiming an RPG at a school full of Iraqi children.

Of course, I wouldn't be a terrorist, because I try to follow the Golden Rule.

Obviously, those who actually ARE terrorists don't. And we have to do things to them that completely violate this rule. Okay, we don't have to, but as the son of people who grew up under Hitler's rule, I have this to say to absolute pacifists: thanks for nothing!

So, as far as I can tell, this puts us back at square one. The Golden Rule, while it can act a guide, doesn't make everything that much easier, or particularly clear, in military matters. You have to split hairs and force it to fit.

Would I want to be bayonetted under any circumstances? NO! Do we think that it is wrong for a soldier to bayonet an enemy actively trying to kill him? Not as far as I can tell.

C.S. Lewis deals with this pretty well. And Lewis is anything but simple.

 

[Tequila_Sauer]

I must say I also object to the title of this thread.

"Torture is okay"? I'm not sure that's what is implied in the poll. It reminds me of the way the news reports things with misleading titles like that.

It's like when somebody asks me if I'm "Pro-war." NOBODY is "pro-war", regardless of whether or not they think we should be engaged in this current war.

 

[ArmedBear]

I must say I also object to the title of this thread.

"Torture is okay"? I'm not sure that's what is implied in the poll. It reminds me of the way the news reports things with misleading titles like that.

It's like when somebody asks me if I'm "Pro-war." NOBODY is "pro-war", regardless of whether or not they think we should be engaged in this current war.

See my post farther above, where my first point is: define "torture."

I have a friend who used to be in MI. He won't tell me much, but he tells me this: people like Manedwolf are REALLY naive. He says they didn't actually torture anyone, but they have ways of making them talk. Rough ways, mind-bending ways, etc.

The moonbats have robbed the word "torture" of its real meaning by tossing it around too loosely in their mindless attacks on the Bush administration. It turns out they've created a backlash and simply confused the issue further. People predicted this outcome well over a year ago.

BTW note that everyone from Congress who went to visit Guantanamo came back with a different attitude about it. After they went, we stopped hearing about Guantanamo in their speeches. Either that meant that they found that we WEREN'T actually torturing people, or they found themselves scared spitless of the inmates they saw down there. One way or another, I don't think any of US has any really good information to share.

 

[jefnvk]

I didn't bother to read all of the responses.

IMHO, torture is not necessairialy right, but it is somewhat acceptable.

Going off CNN's definition of torture, which seems to be something like keeping the temperature a degree off what the prisoner wants, or not providing all the reading material that the prisoner wants, I say go ahead, torture away.

 

[robertbank]

"I don't think in terms of being better than someone else or not, so I am fine with the accusation of my character for professing such beliefs. I did not advocate torture for fun, I do advocate using ANY means necessary to win this conflict," period."

Which speaks exactly to my point. I am not at all sure torturing your combatants on either side brings matters to an end quicker, in fact I would suggest all it does is strengthen the resolve of your enemies and in the case we speak of, provides a poster issue for the recruitment of more foes. Works in our society so why do you suppose it does not work for the muslim extremists. A picture of a US marine or a Canadian Infantryman obviously a victim of torture would bring an end to any talk of ending the war on terror quicker than anything else I can think of.

Stay Safe

 

[NineseveN]

"I don't think in terms of being better than someone else or not, so I am fine with the accusation of my character for professing such beliefs. I did not advocate torture for fun, I do advocate using ANY means necessary to win this conflict," period."

Which speaks exactly to my point. I am not at all sure torturing your combatants on either side brings matters to an end quicker, in fact I would suggest all it does is strengthen the resolve of your enemies and in the case we speak of, provides a poster issue for the recruitment of more foes. Works in our society so why do you suppose it does not work for the muslim extremists. A picture of a US marine or a Canadian Infantryman obviously a victim of torture would bring an end to any talk of ending the war on terror quicker than anything else I can think of.

Stay Safe

We don't publicize ours, and torture, or what the liberals would call it anyway, is a useful tool in gathering intelligence. The WoT won't end with talks, we aren't fighting a country here, there will be no negotiations. You comments hold true in the sense of a tradtitional war, but I wish some folks would come to realize this is not a traditional war and a new set of tactics, objectives and rules need to be enacted.

 

[NineseveN]

Really? You wouldn't prefer death to the vapid moral condemnation of people on an Internet bulletin board? What have you become?

Well, some say I'm not all that friendly, wonder if that has anything to do with it?