Author Topic: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?  (Read 9953 times)

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2007, 08:45:40 pm »
So, Del, do we only live by our principles when it is convenient to do so? I understand the points you're making, but I find this kind of moral relativism disturbing (I find Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus a lasting mark of shame against him, and not at all admirable). I realize that not very many of us could die a martyr's death, but those who do are among the true heroes. Jesus showed by his example that it is better to be killed than it is to kill. Likewise, it is morally superior to be tortured than it is to torture.

Of course we only live by our principles when it's convenient.  We do it all the time.  Do you think WWII shouldn't have been fought and won?

What does your answer to that question say about your principles?

I find Lincoln winning the war admirable.  That was his goal, against all odds.

Jesus - if he existed at all - was a major influence over this world, but unfortunately a poor influence and he failed almost completely at his mission.

He taught to 'turn the other cheek', to 'love thy neighbor as thyself'...

How many who claim to be his followers actually follow his teachings?

Very very very few.  I have Born Again Christian friends who feel being a 'soldier' in God's work is a blessing.  Going out and killing people in a war is perfectly fine for a Christian.  I keep bringing up the contradiction between what Jesus taught and what he says is OK to do, and he simply rationalizes it away:

Jesus would want Christians to survive, so it's perfectly fine to fight battles and kill people who would kill you and destroy Christianity. 

I see here a massive failure of Jesus' teachings to stick.

People who call themselves Christians simply adopt what works for them and ignore what doesn't.  That's how many modern Christians earn the moniker 'cafeteria' or 'cherry picking' Christians.  I see that as people tossing away their principles daily simply because they're inconvenient.

Jess

As for torture, in this day and age, I haven't done a study on it of course, but I'm sure there are drugs that they use, which lowers one's consciousness and awareness, so while someone may say "I'll misdirect them, tell them what they want to hear."...that may not be an option for the person being tortured.  They may be so out of it, they won't know what they're saying.

People in charge of such things would expect people to lie and misdirect.  Like I said, I haven't done any studying on it, but anyone with a basic knowledge of human psychology would know this and have developed countermeasures.

injest

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2007, 08:54:49 pm »
not according to the studies I have found. Consistantly the information gleaned from torture has been proven incorrect and unreliable.

what does work is the THREAT of torture;

Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power

but then we are faced with the question of what kind of society we want....

 First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorist

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2007, 09:12:36 pm »
not according to the studies I have found. Consistantly the information gleaned from torture has been proven incorrect and unreliable.

what does work is the THREAT of torture;

Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power

Very likely.  However, honestly, I doubt that anyone who actually had success with a certain torture would want to publish his findings so that everyone would know and then be able to develop countermeasures...we're not told everything.

Quote
but then we are faced with the question of what kind of society we want....

 First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorist

Well, simply saying that we're not walking a higher ground morally and are just trying to protect our people destroys that entire argument.  Self-defense is an extremely high ground to walk, just checkout the nation of Israel.


moremojo

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2007, 09:24:31 pm »
Well, simply saying that we're not walking a higher ground morally and are just trying to protect our people destroys that entire argument.  Self-defense is an extremely high ground to walk, just checkout the nation of Israel.
Not necessarily. Self-preservation is very understandable, but it's not necessarily indicative of high moral or spiritual stature. I offer the example of Jesus again--the failures of most of his followers notwithstanding, he illustrated how the lack of self-preservation can be a moral/spiritual attainment of the highest order.

I realize that principles are discarded all the time out of expediency, but if they are so expedient, what was their worth in the first place? What is the point of fighting a war to "save" the United States when you shred the very constitutional foundation of the country in doing so? At the very least, such people can be honest about what they are really doing.

I have stated elsewhere that  I do find the intentional taking of human life permissable under certain conditions, and used the Second World War as an example. The kind of evil that Hitler and the Nazis represented had to be met with the only kind of power that someone like Hitler understood and respected--brute, violent force. But killing someone swiftly is very different from torturing them needlessly. And I still find much to admire in those that met the Nazis' bullets with gentleness and meekness, and sacrificed their lives in the demonstration of their faith and principle. Just because most of us are unwilling (incapable?) of doing the same does not diminish the potency and beauty of their gesture.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2007, 09:45:00 pm »
Not necessarily. Self-preservation is very understandable, but it's not necessarily indicative of high moral or spiritual stature. I offer the example of Jesus again--the failures of most of his followers notwithstanding, he illustrated how the lack of self-preservation can be a moral/spiritual attainment of the highest order.

It most certainly can be...until everyone who believes so is exterminated...then what was gained?  Some people would rather be a live dog than a dead lion - forget any noble sacrifices.  They'd just rather live.

Quote
I realize that principles are discarded all the time out of expediency, but if they are so expedient, what was their worth in the first place?

That's what makes them so precious and the people who DO stick to them very admirable.  They're extremely hard to maintain.  They're doable, but as I pointed out in my Christian example, most people would just rather live their lives and not worry about the morality of the constant compromise that is their lives. 

Quote
What is the point of fighting a war to "save" the United States when you shred the very constitutional foundation of the country in doing so? At the very least, such people can be honest about what they are really doing.

We've already done so, many times in the past, and now and will probably do so again.

If you read the book The DaVinci Code, the author in his afterword, has several interviews and in one he talks with an ex-govt operative.  This operative actually told him that the U.S. government had been secretly wire-tapping its own people for years - in full violation of the Constitution.  Didn't matter.  It was a matter of National Security and no president alive would go against that.  That was back in 2003 when the book was published.  The gods only know how long its been going on.

My best friend in high school was half-Middle Eastern and I don't know where she learned this, but she told me that if someone in the States called certain Middle Eastern countries more than 3 times in a single year, their phones would start being tapped.  She did this one year and all year, we kept hearing strange noises over her phone during conversations - this was back before cell phones.

[shrug]

Quote
I have stated elsewhere that  I do find the intentional taking of human life permissable under certain conditions, and used the Second World War as an example. The kind of evil that Hitler and the Nazis represented had to be met with the only kind of power that someone like Hitler understood and respected--brute, violent force. But killing someone swiftly is very different from torturing them needlessly. And I still find much to admire in those that met the Nazis' bullets with gentleness and meekness, and sacrificed their lives in the demonstration of their faith and principle. Just because most of us are unwilling (incapable?) of doing the same does not diminish the potency and beauty of their gesture.

It doesn't diminish the picture of their sacrifice, but I don't usually find people going to their death like sheep very admirable.  What did it accomplish except make martyrs of themselves, earn world-wide victim status and leave 6 million dead?  In many cases, the victims outnumbered their persecutors.  How much shorter would the war have been if Hitler had had to deal with constant revolts and civil war in his own country while trying to fight a war on two fronts?  If they had to die, IMO, their descendants and the world in general would have been better served by them doing so to help end the war.  As for the torture, the difference is whether we consider it 'needless' or not.

 

Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2008, 10:46:24 pm »
I prefer LOVE !

Of course, the civilized world does not think that torture is good.

But those who were in the airplanes that hit in 9/11, were they not tortured by the radicals muslims holding them for that terror?

It is a thought that comes to mind... as many countries or individuals view torture as exential for their cause, don't they?


Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2008, 06:46:46 pm »
Torture is never acceptable, but such criminals do it like they did to this innocent young lady who happen to be on the sidewalk or in a shopping mall:

           First man to be tried in death of Jane Creba guilty of second-degree murder
48 minutes ago
 


By Allison Jones, The Canadian Press


TORONTO - He may not have fired the shot that killed 15-year-old Jane Creba, but by participating in a reckless shootout that sent a hail of gunfire through a street teeming with Boxing Day shoppers, the first man to stand trial in the case must bear responsibility for her death, a jury found Sunday.


Creba's 2005 death sent waves of outrage rippling through Toronto and beyond with dismay over the random shooting of the bright young girl on downtown Toronto's busiest street in the waning hours of the busiest shopping day of the year.


The now 20-year-old man, who can only be identified as J.S.R. because he was under 18 at the time, remained stoic after the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, two of six counts of aggravated assault and five weapons charges.


The Crown exchanged hugs and huge smiles, while the defence was incredulous. Lawyer Mara Greene's tear-stained face spoke volumes about their utter shock.


Outside court, lawyer Gary Grill said "in our combined experiences as defence lawyers, Ms. Greene and I, we've never, ever, ever had a stronger defence case."


They will "obviously" be appealing, he said.


"We maintain our client's innocence and we will not stop fighting as far as we can go in order to make sure that everyone knows that he indeed is innocent."


The defence called no evidence, but in his closing remarks Grill said the Crown's allegations defied common sense.


The Crown alleged the group of men J.S.R. was with that day escalated a confrontation with another man, Jeremiah Valentine, by pulling guns out, which prompted Valentine to allegedly fire the first shot.


One of the shots that came from Valentine's gun is the one that killed Creba, piercing her back and exiting her body at the base of her throat, the Crown said.


In her closing arguments, Crown attorney Kerry Hughes likened it to street racing, and the courts have said if one driver involved in a street race kills a bystander, both drivers are guilty.


Three guns were fired that day: Valentine's .357, a .25-calibre pistol and a 9-mm Ruger.


Though J.S.R. was arrested carrying the 9-mm gun, the defence argued that another man, Louis Woodcock, was the one who fired shots with that gun, then handed it off to a naive and underage J.S.R.


The Crown alleged J.S.R. took Woodcock's gun and began shooting after Valentine fired the first shot.


The fact that Woodcock brought the gun downtown that day and had it when the shooting began was in the agreed statement of facts and apparently gave the jury trouble, as they went back to the judge with a question about it.


Valentine, Woodcock, five other adults and one youth are charged with either second-degree murder or manslaughter in the case and are expected to stand trial next year.


As the jury's deliberations dragged into a fourth day, many began to wonder if the jury of 11 people (one was excused for personal reasons) would in fact be able to reach a unanimous verdict.

"Of course as time went on we all started thinking, as everybody else here did, as to which way it was going to go," lead investigator Det.-Sgt. Savas Kyriacou said

"(But) I knew what the right thing was and I knew that ultimately they would come up with the right decision."

The defence, however, was stunned.

"I can't explain this jury's verdict," Grill said. "Most of the observers can't explain this jury's verdict. It really is confounding for us."

In his closing arguments last week Grill urged the jury not to let anger over Creba's senseless death cloud their judgment, but outside court Sunday he suggested that's exactly what happened.

"That's obviously what goes through our heads right now, but I don't know and we'll never know what this jury was thinking," Grill said.

Kyriacou said he knew the jury would make the right decision.

He said he spoke with the Crebas and they are also satisfied with the verdict.

When Kyriacou heard the word guilty in the courtroom he said many things went through his head, but primarily the young girl who was shot while shopping with her sister then lay dying on the cold street that day.

"We've been thinking about Jane since Dec. 26, 2005," he said.

"We always think about Jane and I'm sure anyone that's a parent or has siblings or loved ones would also think about her."

A date for sentencing will be set on Thursday.

             


..........

So, these murderers will not be hanged because that would be torture? Better to hang them instead of letting them murder again, again, again.. innocent peoples ! ?

Here is a pic of Jane, the innocent person shopping....
and the one holding the newspaer is or was the girlfriend of the murderer(s) !!!

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2008, 01:38:10 pm »
Experts on information-getting techniques generally concur that newer means of engaging captives and creating a nearly mentoring scenario with friendly overtones is more effective in getting bad guys and girls to talk.

the problem is, that takes time.

when there are only seconds or minutes or even hours to avert a disaster, time is of the essence and mafia tactics need to be employed to do whatever is necessary to get information, imo. Experts also agree this works, just with a somewhat lower rate of good info, but again, when you don't have time to nurture a relationship, gotta act.