Bush vetoes anti torture bill

[Andy]

You did agree to the social contract whether you realize it or not as I explained very carefully in my previous post. If you are going to now maintain that you did not, then you need to explain how it is that you (for instance) studied the traffic laws, passed the test, and accepted a government permit that allows you to operate a motor vehicle.

You have studied Christianity, yet you do not subscribe to it. I can't study a bunch of man made rules to pass a test and yet never agree to follow them? And what of the many who never passed the test, and drive without a license. Why are we stopping them when they never agreed to a social contract? Forget about driving even... let's go to the basics. When did I sign up to be punished when I take something that isn't mine? Stealing, Murder and such?

Of course you can change your mind, are you now arguing for anarchy? Up until now you haven't been, but if you wish to do that now, then I'll be happy to address the issue with you. Theft, rape, violence and the coercion of others is part of the social contract that we live under, again, if you wish to throw that over, deny that you have any obligation to that social contract, then you are advocating a form of anarchy and we can discuss that, but you need to decide. I'm alright discussing your anarchist drives, Andy, it's just a completely different tack than you've used before and throws into a cocked hat some of the things you have already posted. Make up your mind.

Of course anarchy. Who are you, or who is the government made up of men whose opinions are no more valid than my own, to tell me what I can or can not do? The only reason a social contract is even remotely valid is because... might is right. Yes or no?

One of the reasons that I asked you right at the start whether you accepted the philosophies of MIGHT IS RIGHT and the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS was so that we would not have to stop in the middle of our discussion to fight out these issues. In your post #40 you said, "I agree with neither of the statements..." so once again it appears that you are changing horses in the middle of the stream in order to argue rather than having an honest discussion with me.

You're behaving like a troll, Andy, because (I assume) you're angry with me. You aren't discussing honestly, and even though I understand that you're a young man without a wide base of life experience, it's still pretty disappointing. I've got better things to do than spar with petulant children, I'm outa' here until you stop being angry and start using the brain God gave you.

I'm not angry, if you wish you leave, it was your choice to come. I'm ok with it either way.

"might is right" / "ends justifies the means" and the argument for or against torture is based on morality. To make a judgment on any of these, you must have a moral basis. This moral basis is the common ground we must build from in order to discuss anything. After all, if we do not accept the premise of what is moral and what is not, how will we ever determine if any of the above is right or wrong? (or whatever other name we chose for those two words).

Now, if man is the determining factor in morality, then we have a huge dilemma, because not all men believe the same. One says that 50 mph is fine, another says 25 is as fast as you should go. So who determines which morality is right?

Well it's a social contract, but then who determines a social contract? Men do, in government that is. Well why are they right, and all us speeders wrong? Because they have power to enforce their morality, and we speeders do not. I am simply arguing your point, from your position.

To me this directly relates to the topic, because if the reason my 'free-will' is allowed to be violated due to a man made social contract, that is only valid because government says so, then torture is no different. Torture can then be valid and invalid based on nothing more than whether government says it is. Currently waterboarding is valid because government says it's valid. This is man made moral relativism.

 

[Andy]

I never stated nor even implied that Jesus said what she did was not wrong, my point was that moral relativism can allow a person to think for themselves (as Jesus did) and apply the law with some flexibility or mercy rather than just the monkey see, monkey do process of obeying someone else's determination of right or wrong without thought. I never made any reference to the rightness or wrongness of her actions, I try to write carefully so please read closely.

So, with this hardcore, right is right and wrong is wrong all the time with no exceptions, how is it that Lot got a free-pass for getting drunk and raping/fornicating with his daughters AND IMPREGNATING both of them?

Jesus actually applied the law directly. The reason he gave mercy was because he was the one to directly take the place of us in punishment. The reason he allowed the women to not pay for her own sin, was because he was going to do it on the cross. Sin must be paid for. The women was released from her penalty because Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for her penalty. The law was fulfilled, just Jesus, being the Christ, went to the cross of death in her place.

And this is why you don't argue from a perspective you don't believe. Ok as you wish. Lot was not given a free-pass. Just because the Bible does not record the specifics of the rest of the Lot's life, does not by any stretch indicate he didn't paying a heavy price. Further, the very fact that Abram and Lot never were together again, indicate he paid a price in losing his extended family. The fact that this is the last thing recorded in a book that lasted thousands of years, is a punishment of itself. How would you like to have the incest of your two daughters being the last thing recorded about you for the next three thousand years? Further, we know from later books that Lot's descendant were cut of from God (by their own choice) and that they were eventually virtually wiped off the Earth, unlike Abram who's descendant are with us today. No Lot paid a heavy price, both from being an outcast during his life, and the destruction of his offspring for years after.

 

[PLC1]

You have studied Christianity, yet you do not subscribe to it. I can't study a bunch of man made rules to pass a test and yet never agree to follow them? And what of the many who never passed the test, and drive without a license. Why are we stopping them when they never agreed to a social contract? Forget about driving even... let's go to the basics. When did I sign up to be punished when I take something that isn't mine? Stealing, Murder and such?



Of course anarchy. Who are you, or who is the government made up of men whose opinions are no more valid than my own, to tell me what I can or can not do? The only reason a social contract is even remotely valid is because... might is right. Yes or no?



I'm not angry, if you wish you leave, it was your choice to come. I'm ok with it either way.

"might is right" / "ends justifies the means" and the argument for or against torture is based on morality. To make a judgment on any of these, you must have a moral basis. This moral basis is the common ground we must build from in order to discuss anything. After all, if we do not accept the premise of what is moral and what is not, how will we ever determine if any of the above is right or wrong? (or whatever other name we chose for those two words).

Now, if man is the determining factor in morality, then we have a huge dilemma, because not all men believe the same. One says that 50 mph is fine, another says 25 is as fast as you should go. So who determines which morality is right?

Well it's a social contract, but then who determines a social contract? Men do, in government that is. Well why are they right, and all us speeders wrong? Because they have power to enforce their morality, and we speeders do not. I am simply arguing your point, from your position.

To me this directly relates to the topic, because if the reason my 'free-will' is allowed to be violated due to a man made social contract, that is only valid because government says so, then torture is no different. Torture can then be valid and invalid based on nothing more than whether government says it is. Currently waterboarding is valid because government says it's valid. This is man made moral relativism.

I'm not quite understanding your argument. On the one hand, you are saying that the government has no valid right to tell you, or presumably any of the rest of us, what we may or may not do. You correctly lable that philosophy as anarchy, which is a might makes right system if there ever was one. The strong survive in an anarchy, and impose their will on weaker people with impunity.

On the other hand, you seem to be saying that whatever the government says is valid is OK. If the government says waterboarding is OK, then it's valid. That is quite the opposite of anarchy.

Our country was not founded as an anarchy, nor as a land in which the government dictates whatever it wants. This is a constitutional republic, bound by law and not by the whims of whoever is in power.

Surely, you aren't going to suggest that torture is OK under the law, regardless of what the government might say about it, are you?

 

[Dr.Who]

Jesus actually applied the law directly. The reason he gave mercy was because he was the one to directly take the place of us in punishment. The reason he allowed the women to not pay for her own sin, was because he was going to do it on the cross. Sin must be paid for. The women was released from her penalty because Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for her penalty. The law was fulfilled, just Jesus, being the Christ, went to the cross of death in her place.

I find it doubtful that he would release her with no evidence that she has any faith in the atonement since faith is the one requirement. He would have probably taken the opportunity to instill a sense of faith in her.

It could be that by law two witnesses were required as well as the presence of the man with whom she committed adultery and they were not there.

It could be that lacking enough evidence to convict her and knowing He was being set up for a trap he de-trapped the trap.

It could even be that he knew that mercy trumps the law.

But most likely it is that the particular passage we are discussing is not a part of the original scriptures. This is a rare instance in which the originals have been corrupted.

Before people think that I am suppling ammunition for those who doubt the reliability of scriptures I want to say that we need to do a "CSI" and "follow the evidence." Honestly following the evidence indicates that almost all of scripture his highly reliable but in a couple of instances it is not.

 

[Andy]

I'm not quite understanding your argument. On the one hand, you are saying that the government has no valid right to tell you, or presumably any of the rest of us, what we may or may not do. You correctly lable that philosophy as anarchy, which is a might makes right system if there ever was one. The strong survive in an anarchy, and impose their will on weaker people with impunity.

On the other hand, you seem to be saying that whatever the government says is valid is OK. If the government says waterboarding is OK, then it's valid. That is quite the opposite of anarchy.

Surely, you aren't going to suggest that torture is OK under the law, regardless of what the government might say about it, are you?

Again, that's what we are trying to figure out. Does the law determine morality? Does the fact something is legal make it right, or illegal make it wrong? Or is ethics and morality above the laws, something external to it?

Because if law determines right and wrong, moral and immoral... then we have circular logic. Man created the law, and therefore it is moral. Well then man can unmake the law too, so the only reason the law is moral is because the men who made that law have the power to enforce it. Otherwise, what difference is it between their opinion of what the law should be, and my own opinion? Nothing. We're both men... it is just that they have the might to enforce their rules as right.

Why is this important? Back to torture. If the only reason why something is right or wrong is because the law allows it or disallows it, then the argument ends here. The law as it is written currently, allows for the use of waterboarding. Therefore, it is ethical. Further, it's status of being ethical can change on a moments notices and back again, with little more than the signing of a pen. That my friend, is all there is to it.

Our country was not founded as an anarchy, nor as a land in which the government dictates whatever it wants. This is a constitutional republic, bound by law and not by the whims of whoever is in power.

Ok, good... so, does this indicate that there was a set of morals that super-cede the law? And if so, what were those morals, and why are they valid?

Btw, so you know, I am not convinced of anything about this argument. I am not convinced that waterboarding is torture. Nor am I convinced that waterboarding is necessarily right. Nor convinced it's wrong. So I'm still sorting this one out myself.

 

[PLC1]

Again, that's what we are trying to figure out. Does the law determine morality? Does the fact something is legal make it right, or illegal make it wrong? Or is ethics and morality above the laws, something external to it?

Because if law determines right and wrong, moral and immoral... then we have circular logic. Man created the law, and therefore it is moral. Well then man can unmake the law too, so the only reason the law is moral is because the men who made that law have the power to enforce it. Otherwise, what difference is it between their opinion of what the law should be, and my own opinion? Nothing. We're both men... it is just that they have the might to enforce their rules as right.

Why is this important? Back to torture. If the only reason why something is right or wrong is because the law allows it or disallows it, then the argument ends here. The law as it is written currently, allows for the use of waterboarding. Therefore, it is ethical. Further, it's status of being ethical can change on a moments notices and back again, with little more than the signing of a pen. That my friend, is all there is to it.



Ok, good... so, does this indicate that there was a set of morals that super-cede the law? And if so, what were those morals, and why are they valid?

Btw, so you know, I am not convinced of anything about this argument. I am not convinced that waterboarding is torture. Nor am I convinced that waterboarding is necessarily right. Nor convinced it's wrong. So I'm still sorting this one out myself.

OK, that makes a lot of sense. Does legality make something moral? I say, no, not necessarily. Elective abortion is a moral wrong, in my opinion, yet it is legal. It would not be legal if more people shared that opinion, and if we were willing to let the government make the decision of whether or not to abort. Smoking pot is illegal, but how is it morally wrong? Foolish, yes, but morally wrong?

The problem is that not everyone shares the same moral code, yet we must all follow the same laws. Therefore, legality can't determine morality. The individual must determine for himself what is morally wrong and right.

I have no experience with torture, nor with waterboarding. John McCain, who has experienced torture first hand, says waterboarding is torture. I have to go with the opinion of the experienced, and agree that it is torture.

Is it morally wrong to torture prisoners of war? In my opinion, it is wrong beyond a doubt. Is it legal? If you follow international law, then it is not legal. The Geneva Accord prohibits it, for example.

If torture is both illegal and morally wrong, how is it accepted by the leaders of a nation founded on law, and claiming the moral high ground? There is no way that torture of prisoners can be condoned.

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, that makes a lot of sense. Does legality make something moral? I say, no, not necessarily. Elective abortion is a moral wrong, in my opinion, yet it is legal. It would not be legal if more people shared that opinion, and if we were willing to let the government make the decision of whether or not to abort. Smoking pot is illegal, but how is it morally wrong? Foolish, yes, but morally wrong?

The problem is that not everyone shares the same moral code, yet we must all follow the same laws. Therefore, legality can't determine morality. The individual must determine for himself what is morally wrong and right.

I have no experience with torture, nor with waterboarding. John McCain, who has experienced torture first hand, says waterboarding is torture. I have to go with the opinion of the experienced, and agree that it is torture.

Is it morally wrong to torture prisoners of war? In my opinion, it is wrong beyond a doubt. Is it legal? If you follow international law, then it is not legal. The Geneva Accord prohibits it, for example.

If torture is both illegal and morally wrong, how is it accepted by the leaders of a nation founded on law, and claiming the moral high ground? There is no way that torture of prisoners can be condoned.

I agree 100% except that I would say if you follow international law then our administration has found a loophole for waterboarding. Still morally wrong but in this case technically legal.

Should we stop doing it for the sake of our reputation? The torturers and terrorists out there and many others will not let their opinion be swayed one bit by whether or not we torture light. They will be swayed by the rhetoric that comes from huge segments of our left who claim that we are baby killers and say all sorts of horrible unfounded things about this country.

Most important is that our own opinion of ourselves will be swayed by whether or not we torture. If we don't want to be that people then let's not be that people.

 

[PLC1]

I agree 100% except that I would say if you follow international law then our administration has found a loophole for waterboarding. Still morally wrong but in this case technically legal.

Should we stop doing it for the sake of our reputation? The torturers and terrorists out there and many others will not let their opinion be swayed one bit by whether or not we torture light. They will be swayed by the rhetoric that comes from huge segments of our left who claim that we are baby killers and say all sorts of horrible unfounded things about this country.

Most important is that our own opinion of ourselves will be swayed by whether or not we torture. If we don't want to be that people then let's not be that people.

Our own opinion of ourselves is of primary importance. If we see ourselves as the good guys, we're more likely to actualy be the good guys.

Should we stop for the sake of our reputation? Absolutely. Torturing prisoners, or even being perceived as torturers, is giving the enemy ammunition to recruit new jihadis ready to go fight the great satan.

 

[Andy]

OK, that makes a lot of sense. Does legality make something moral? I say, no, not necessarily. Elective abortion is a moral wrong, in my opinion, yet it is legal. It would not be legal if more people shared that opinion, and if we were willing to let the government make the decision of whether or not to abort. Smoking pot is illegal, but how is it morally wrong? Foolish, yes, but morally wrong?

The problem is that not everyone shares the same moral code, yet we must all follow the same laws. Therefore, legality can't determine morality. The individual must determine for himself what is morally wrong and right.

I have no experience with torture, nor with waterboarding. John McCain, who has experienced torture first hand, says waterboarding is torture. I have to go with the opinion of the experienced, and agree that it is torture.

Is it morally wrong to torture prisoners of war? In my opinion, it is wrong beyond a doubt. Is it legal? If you follow international law, then it is not legal. The Geneva Accord prohibits it, for example.

If torture is both illegal and morally wrong, how is it accepted by the leaders of a nation founded on law, and claiming the moral high ground? There is no way that torture of prisoners can be condoned.

But consider what we have already established. We have said that law does not determine morality. Something is not right nor wrong based on law. So why bring up 'international law'? The group of men in our government says it's ok. The group of men in the UN say it's not ok. Why would we consider their 'opinion' of more relevance than our opinion?

As a side note, our nation was founded on self governance. Why are we even debating the idea of allowing other nations to dictate law to us after we paid such a high price to not have them do so?

You correctly pointed out that not everyone has the same morality. For example, many of the nations in the middle east that use torture routinely, are in the UN and tell us we can't use torture. How do we claim that a law supported by those that don't follow it, is morally correct?

Again... if morals are simply the opinions of man, then how do you claim anything is morally wrong? It's just one opinion, one of many.

Back to 'is it torture'. I have an issue with this. Torture is a subjective thing. How do you define torture? Is it merely discomfort? Then we shouldn't have police at all because arresting people causes discomfort and is torture. Prison could be torture. Crammed into a small cell for life.

There was a law suit a while back, I can't remember if he won or not, but an inmate at a prison claimed he was being tortured with food he hated everyday. Cruel and Unusual punishment. I said, deny him food.. but they didn't accept that.

Causing of pain isn't automatically torture. You rape or murder, and you are put to death, which is painful. I'm ok with this. It's not torture, you are being rightly punished for a cruel crime. You attack someone and the police taze you, it's painful. I'm ok with this, you were doing something wrong. When I was small, I did some horrible things, and my father beat my butt, and I deserved it, it wasn't torture. Thanks to him, I do not do horrible things now.

So causing pain isn't automatically torture in my book, otherwise all punishment for all crime could be considered torture. I don't buy that.

There are specific things that to me define what torture is.
1) The causing of cruel pain for no other reason than the enjoyment or hatred of the person. (Hanoi Camps)
2) The forcing of the person to admit to things they did not do. (Stalin's Show Trials)
3) Public display of harming people for the purpose of breaking the will of the people against authority. (PLO killing 'accused traitors' in public stoning)

The problem is, I do not see that this is what we are doing. We have a person that we *know* has information. We want this information to save lives. We're not trying to use him for propaganda. We're not trying to get confessions. We're not trying to just harm him for the sake of causing pain. We just want specific information from him, and he not co-operating. So.. we gush some water over him and now he's Mr. Talkative. This doesn't sound like torture to me.

 

[Andy]

Our own opinion of ourselves is of primary importance. If we see ourselves as the good guys, we're more likely to actualy be the good guys.

Should we stop for the sake of our reputation? Absolutely. Torturing prisoners, or even being perceived as torturers, is giving the enemy ammunition to recruit new jihadis ready to go fight the great satan.

Again, as you said morals are just opinions... then so too is being the good guy. Consider, how many of the most horrible people in history, thought of themselves as the good guys? How many considered themselves of the highest morals in their own opinion? Do not even the terrorist have high opinions of themselves even while they torture and kill people? Why yes they do. So is that what matter? Does seeing themselves as good guys make them good guys? Did not the PLO dance and party in the streets as 3000 Americans perished in the towers?

Further, if our opinion of ourselves is of the highest value, then reputation by default, can not be. Why should we care what others think if our own opinion is the most important thing?

Lastly... I really do not know where this theory comes from that a group of people that have been growing, recruiting, and attacking us, for the last 20 years... are suddenly going to somehow get 'worse' from us using waterboarding. Many of these very groups use torturing far worse than waterboarding, and yet I don't see Osama sending out videos saying 'don't do that to Americans, you might tick them off'. And our lack of using waterboarding sure didn't diminish the recruiting efforts for a one-way ticket into a couple of buildings.

Further, history suggests that torture is a great deterrent. For the record, I do not support torture as a deterrent by any stretch of the imagination. Do not think for a millisecond that I believe in that. I am merely pointing out that, unlike this strange otherworldly theory, the opposite is demonstrably true. Mobutu in Africa for example, accused people in his government of being traitors, tortured them, then jailed them, then appointed them back into government. Why? Because he knew they would be 100% loyal, and often reported, or quelled rebellions before they even started. Saddam himself, used torture to completely eliminate all opposition to his rule. Are you going to rally against him when you know what happens to those that do? Hundreds of horrible and communistic government in, and throughout history, used torture and consistently it resulted in less opposition to them, not more.

Torture does not rally people. I'm confused as to how one would think it would. "Hey they tortured someone? Sigh me up to fight! I want to be the next caught and tortured!!" Huh? I am open to other possibilities, so if you have some evidence this is true, let me know. But I haven't read anything supporting this, only suggestive opinions from people against waterboarding tp begin with, grasping at whatever straws they can to support their view.

 

[PLC1]

But consider what we have already established. We have said that law does not determine morality. Something is not right nor wrong based on law. So why bring up 'international law'? The group of men in our government says it's ok. The group of men in the UN say it's not ok. Why would we consider their 'opinion' of more relevance than our opinion?

As a side note, our nation was founded on self governance. Why are we even debating the idea of allowing other nations to dictate law to us after we paid such a high price to not have them do so?

You correctly pointed out that not everyone has the same morality. For example, many of the nations in the middle east that use torture routinely, are in the UN and tell us we can't use torture. How do we claim that a law supported by those that don't follow it, is morally correct?

Again... if morals are simply the opinions of man, then how do you claim anything is morally wrong? It's just one opinion, one of many.

Back to 'is it torture'. I have an issue with this. Torture is a subjective thing. How do you define torture? Is it merely discomfort? Then we shouldn't have police at all because arresting people causes discomfort and is torture. Prison could be torture. Crammed into a small cell for life.

There was a law suit a while back, I can't remember if he won or not, but an inmate at a prison claimed he was being tortured with food he hated everyday. Cruel and Unusual punishment. I said, deny him food.. but they didn't accept that.

Causing of pain isn't automatically torture. You rape or murder, and you are put to death, which is painful. I'm ok with this. It's not torture, you are being rightly punished for a cruel crime. You attack someone and the police taze you, it's painful. I'm ok with this, you were doing something wrong. When I was small, I did some horrible things, and my father beat my butt, and I deserved it, it wasn't torture. Thanks to him, I do not do horrible things now.

So causing pain isn't automatically torture in my book, otherwise all punishment for all crime could be considered torture. I don't buy that.

There are specific things that to me define what torture is.
1) The causing of cruel pain for no other reason than the enjoyment or hatred of the person. (Hanoi Camps)
2) The forcing of the person to admit to things they did not do. (Stalin's Show Trials)
3) Public display of harming people for the purpose of breaking the will of the people against authority. (PLO killing 'accused traitors' in public stoning)

The problem is, I do not see that this is what we are doing. We have a person that we *know* has information. We want this information to save lives. We're not trying to use him for propaganda. We're not trying to get confessions. We're not trying to just harm him for the sake of causing pain. We just want specific information from him, and he not co-operating. So.. we gush some water over him and now he's Mr. Talkative. This doesn't sound like torture to me.

International law only has force for those of us who sign on to it, thus, self governance is preserved. We did sign the Geneva Accords, for example, and say that we are against torturing prisoners of war.

As for what constitutes torture, I've already said that I don't have any experience with it, and so, am willing to defer to the opinions of those who have. McCain says that waterboarding is torture. He has first hand experience with the subject, so, I'll defer to his opinion on the subject.

As for only using torture when we "know" that a prisoner has information that can save innocent lives, that's a good talking point. Murat Kurnaz (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928.shtml) had no information, for example. There has never been a confirmed instance to my knowledge in which information obtained by torture has actually saved lives. Such information is suspect at best anyway.

The way that torture serves as a recruting tool for the enemy is in helping them make the case that the US is evil and that Allah wants them to fight us. The terrorists are already committed, have, in fact made the ultimate committment in many cases to die in the glorious battle to slay the infidel. The ones swayed are their potential recruits.

Torture is a moral wrong, it is against the morals of this country even if it is not against those of the cockroaches we're supposed to be fighting. It is a legal wrong as well, and it is a bad policy. There is no justification for it at all.

At least George Bush will soon be out of the white house. It is unlikely in the extreme that the next commander in chief will suborn torture.

 

[Andy]

International law only has force for those of us who sign on to it, thus, self governance is preserved. We did sign the Geneva Accords, for example, and say that we are against torturing prisoners of war.

So then, since it is amoral, or not moral nor immoral, then the only reason we should follow it is because we chose to. So therefore, we can equally chose not to. Again, if the only thing that makes something right or wrong is because we choose to make it thus, then we can also choose not to make it thus.

As for what constitutes torture, I've already said that I don't have any experience with it, and so, am willing to defer to the opinions of those who have. McCain says that waterboarding is torture. He has first hand experience with the subject, so, I'll defer to his opinion on the subject.

Which again, that's just his opinion, right? So there are dozens of people who have had first hand experience with waterboarding, and have said it's not. Why do you defer to one persons opinion, rather than another? In case you didn't know, waterboarding is common training in Special Services and the CIA. So there are many who say it isn't. What makes one mans opinion more important than another?

As for only using torture when we "know" that a prisoner has information that can save innocent lives, that's a good talking point. Murat Kurnaz (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928.shtml) had no information, for example. There has never been a confirmed instance to my knowledge in which information obtained by torture has actually saved lives. Such information is suspect at best anyway.

A: I don't trust the source. (Kurnaz)
B: I don't trust the media. (CBS 'Constantly Biased Stories' they are wrong constantly)
C: What happened to Murat Kurnaz wasn't waterboarding, and not what I'm debating.
D: The incident didn't involve US personnel. The people who beat and attacked Kurnaz openly identified themselves as KSK, part of the German police.
E: Kurnaz claimed to have bombs in his personal belonging, and openly proclaimed to guards that the Qur'an directly supported the attacks on the US and specifically 9/11.
F: The US never said he was not guilty and still lists him as an enemy combatant, and the judge that reviewed the case never suggested otherwise.

I'm always shocked when people say this. How could you not have heard that we got valuable life saving information after using waterboarding? I suppose the one sided media part of the problem, but here is one example, and there are many others. If you wish a detailed list, perhaps later.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was one of the only 3 terrorist to be waterboarded. KSM, was the one instrumental in the murder and video taping of the execution of Daniel Pearl. He was widely know and a long time attack planner of many terrorist events world wide. After his capture, he refused to speak, often responding to questions with Qur'anic chants. After 90 seconds of waterboarding, KSM answered every question.

Due to the information given the following terrorist were captured: Iyman Faris, Jemaah Islamiya, Hambali, Majid Khan, Jose Padilla, and Malaysian Yazid Sufaat.

Along with the capture of these six terrorist, the following plans were foiled: derail a train near Washington, D.C., use acetylene torches to sever the Brooklyn Bridge’s cables, plot to assassinate Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, detonate U.S. gas stations, poison American water reservoirs, and a radioactive “dirty bomb” attack.

This is only a short highlighted list. Much of the information aquired is still secret. But clearly what was released here is more than enough to ask the question... if it was you, would you roll the dice on thousands of people dieing in these attacks? Would you want these people freely walking in the US? What if you or your family was on a DC train, and because we didn't waterboard one terrorist, your family was killed?

All the information given was very accurate. As I explained in post 20# of this thread, bad information is highly unlikely since it can be verified. But the point is, here is proof that it worked... not could work... did work.

The way that torture serves as a recruting tool for the enemy is in helping them make the case that the US is evil and that Allah wants them to fight us. The terrorists are already committed, have, in fact made the ultimate committment in many cases to die in the glorious battle to slay the infidel. The ones swayed are their potential recruits.

In the 90s, during the Clinton administration, the PLO accused a fellow arab Palestinian of being a spy. Without a trial, or the slightest scrap of evidence, they dragged him through the streets of Palestine, publicly beat him physically, and stoned him for more than an 1 hour. After being tortured by his own people for blocks, he was hung upside down on a communications tower by his legs. There he was stoned and beaten until death at which point they sliced half way through his neck with a blade of some sort. Then the people of Palestine had their children come and and throw stones at the body until one finely knocked his head off of his sliced neck.

Let's think through what you are suggesting. People from this type of culture, that have public torture and murdering without so much as a show trial, are some how going to be morally offended by us pouring water over someone's head, when they do a million times worse? How are they going to build a case they we are the 'great satan' based on us doing what they do? Especially when we don't do a fraction of what they do!

Put yourself in the place of a muslim guy. You grew up with public torture as a common thing. Here a guy comes and says we need to fight the great satan. You say what did they do? Oh well they pour water over peoples heads to make them talk. Now in the back of your mind, you see people being stoned, murdered, tortured, publicly executed without a trial as morally acceptable... yet darn that US immorally pouring water on us!

The only way that is valid is if they are insane, and if they are, then it doesn't matter what we do.

Torture is a moral wrong, it is against the morals of this country even if it is not against those of the cockroaches we're supposed to be fighting. It is a legal wrong as well, and it is a bad policy. There is no justification for it at all.

Moral wrong to whom? There are nations across the planet where it isn't a moral wrong. Why is this moral better than theirs? Morals of this country are based on what? Everyone has different morals. There are millions in this country that support this, so it can't be against the morals of the country when the many people in the country support it. Obviously it isn't illegal or they wouldn't have been able to do it, nor would they need to make a bill banning it if it was already illegal.

At least George Bush will soon be out of the white house. It is unlikely in the extreme that the next commander in chief will suborn torture.

Exactly. Votes makes morals. THe next person may say it is morally wrong. The next morally right, and after that wrong again. Morals could change every election.

 

[PLC1]

So then, since it is amoral, or not moral nor immoral, then the only reason we should follow it is because we chose to. So therefore, we can equally chose not to. Again, if the only thing that makes something right or wrong is because we choose to make it thus, then we can also choose not to make it thus.

I suppose the same could be said for an individual. Is it morally right to break the law, if there is a slim to no chance of getting caught? When fear of being caught doesn't apply, then the law can be broken or not, as we choose. That doesn't make it legal.

Which again, that's just his opinion, right? So there are dozens of people who have had first hand experience with waterboarding, and have said it's not. Why do you defer to one persons opinion, rather than another? In case you didn't know, waterboarding is common training in Special Services and the CIA. So there are many who say it isn't. What makes one mans opinion more important than another?

Right off hand, I can't think of anyone who has been tortured and who believes that it's OK.

A: I don't trust the source. (Kurnaz)
B: I don't trust the media. (CBS 'Constantly Biased Stories' they are wrong constantly)
C: What happened to Murat Kurnaz wasn't waterboarding, and not what I'm debating.
D: The incident didn't involve US personnel. The people who beat and attacked Kurnaz openly identified themselves as KSK, part of the German police.
E: Kurnaz claimed to have bombs in his personal belonging, and openly proclaimed to guards that the Qur'an directly supported the attacks on the US and specifically 9/11.
F: The US never said he was not guilty and still lists him as an enemy combatant, and the judge that reviewed the case never suggested otherwise.

When the media airs or writes a story that we don't want to believe, it's always easy to say, "I don't trust the media." Here's more, from the 60 minutes web: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928_page3.shtml

Six months after Kurnaz reached Guantanamo, U.S. military intelligence had written, "criminal investigation task force has no definite link [or] evidence of detainee having an association with al Qaeda or making any specific threat toward the U.S."

At the same time, German intelligence agents wrote their government, saying, "USA considers Murat Kurnaz’s innocence to be proven. He is to be released in approximately six to eight weeks."

But Azmy says Kurnaz was kept at Guantanamo Bay for three and a half years after this memo was written in 2002.

I'm always shocked when people say this. How could you not have heard that we got valuable life saving information after using waterboarding? I suppose the one sided media part of the problem, but here is one example, and there are many others. If you wish a detailed list, perhaps later.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was one of the only 3 terrorist to be waterboarded. KSM, was the one instrumental in the murder and video taping of the execution of Daniel Pearl. He was widely know and a long time attack planner of many terrorist events world wide. After his capture, he refused to speak, often responding to questions with Qur'anic chants. After 90 seconds of waterboarding, KSM answered every question.

Due to the information given the following terrorist were captured: Iyman Faris, Jemaah Islamiya, Hambali, Majid Khan, Jose Padilla, and Malaysian Yazid Sufaat.

Along with the capture of these six terrorist, the following plans were foiled: derail a train near Washington, D.C., use acetylene torches to sever the Brooklyn Bridge’s cables, plot to assassinate Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, detonate U.S. gas stations, poison American water reservoirs, and a radioactive “dirty bomb” attack.

This is only a short highlighted list. Much of the information aquired is still secret. But clearly what was released here is more than enough to ask the question... if it was you, would you roll the dice on thousands of people dieing in these attacks? Would you want these people freely walking in the US? What if you or your family was on a DC train, and because we didn't waterboard one terrorist, your family was killed?

All the information given was very accurate. As I explained in post 20# of this thread, bad information is highly unlikely since it can be verified. But the point is, here is proof that it worked... not could work... did work.

OK, point made. Still, to support torture, you have to believe that the end must justify the means.

In the 90s, during the Clinton administration, the PLO accused a fellow arab Palestinian of being a spy. Without a trial, or the slightest scrap of evidence, they dragged him through the streets of Palestine, publicly beat him physically, and stoned him for more than an 1 hour. After being tortured by his own people for blocks, he was hung upside down on a communications tower by his legs. There he was stoned and beaten until death at which point they sliced half way through his neck with a blade of some sort. Then the people of Palestine had their children come and and throw stones at the body until one finely knocked his head off of his sliced neck.

Let's think through what you are suggesting. People from this type of culture, that have public torture and murdering without so much as a show trial, are some how going to be morally offended by us pouring water over someone's head, when they do a million times worse? How are they going to build a case they we are the 'great satan' based on us doing what they do? Especially when we don't do a fraction of what they do!

Put yourself in the place of a muslim guy. You grew up with public torture as a common thing. Here a guy comes and says we need to fight the great satan. You say what did they do? Oh well they pour water over peoples heads to make them talk. Now in the back of your mind, you see people being stoned, murdered, tortured, publicly executed without a trial as morally acceptable... yet darn that US immorally pouring water on us!

The only way that is valid is if they are insane, and if they are, then it doesn't matter what we do.

I seriously doubt that the general populace finds such actions morally justified.

We need to be better than the cockroaches we're trying to exterminate, or we will become cockroaches ourselves.

Seeing the US use torture on prisoners of war will make it easier to recruit jihadis, even if they are used to seeing torture performed.

And, it is more than pouring water. Read the account of the German prisoner. He isn't the first or the only one.

Moral wrong to whom? There are nations across the planet where it isn't a moral wrong. Why is this moral better than theirs? Morals of this country are based on what? Everyone has different morals. There are millions in this country that support this, so it can't be against the morals of the country when the many people in the country support it. Obviously it isn't illegal or they wouldn't have been able to do it, nor would they need to make a bill banning it if it was already illegal.

That's what I said: We must take the moral high ground, even if the terrorist nations don't.

Exactly. Votes makes morals. THe next person may say it is morally wrong. The next morally right, and after that wrong again. Morals could change every election.

Voting for an amoral leader doesn't make him moral, just elected.

And voting for a leader who is willing to flout international law doesn't mean that the law is wrong.

 

[Andy]

I suppose the same could be said for an individual. Is it morally right to break the law, if there is a slim to no chance of getting caught? When fear of being caught doesn't apply, then the law can be broken or not, as we choose. That doesn't make it legal.

Well in a round-a-bout way, you are actually making my whole point. You can't say that we should make waterboarding illegal because it's immoral, and then say that it's immoral because it's against the law.

Like we both agreed last post, legality doesn't determine morals, or it would work both ways. As in, since waterboarding is not illegal, it is moral.

Right off hand, I can't think of anyone who has been tortured and who believes that it's OK.

The CIA uses waterboarding in their training, and most of them support it's use. Special forces also use waterboarding, and many of them support it's use. But baring those large groups of people... I can think of three off hand. How about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? He clearly believed torture was ok when it was against an unarmed jewish civilian reporter named Daniel Pearl.

If you suggest that Mr sheikh isn't such a strong supporter of it now... well for lack of a better response... duh. Most kidnappers likely are not so hot about being forced into a confined space after 30 years in prison either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't imprison them because 'slavery is immoral'.

When the media airs or writes a story that we don't want to believe, it's always easy to say, "I don't trust the media." Here's more, from the 60 minutes web: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928_page3.shtml

No, I don't 'think' they are wrong. I know they are wrong many many times. I have watched dozens of news reports that were more than obviously in error, almost to the point of commonsense, something most people lack. I'm currently reading a book "Off with their heads!" which details how slanted and one sided many stories are. So you can list 100 articles from the same untrustworthy source, and I still will not blindly follow the lemmings over a cliff. I need real evidence, verified evidence, and from at least an outside source.

Granted I don't know they are wrong in this poticular case.. but I'm not going to say it's guilty until proven innocent like media wants me too. I'll find out sooner or later the real answers.

OK, point made. Still, to support torture, you have to believe that the end must justify the means.

This assumes the means is immoral, something we have yet to determine.

I seriously doubt that the general populace finds such actions morally justified.

So morals are determined by a poll? If 51% of the voters say it is, then it is? Isn't that the same as "Might is Right" theory? Does this mean that slavery was completely moral for all the years that 51% supported it?

We need to be better than the cockroaches we're trying to exterminate, or we will become cockroaches ourselves.

Seeing the US use torture on prisoners of war will make it easier to recruit jihadis, even if they are used to seeing torture performed.

How do you determine better? We have money and they do not? We are strong and they are not? I want to know the the underlining reason for your morals. If it's merely whatever you want them to be, then we are no better than they.

That's what I said: We must take the moral high ground, even if the terrorist nations don't.

How is this taking the moral high ground? Because... waterboarding is immoral. On what basis do you claim it's immoral? Because I say it's wrong. Well others say it's right, so what makes your morals better than any others?

Voting for an amoral leader doesn't make him moral, just elected.

And voting for a leader who is willing to flout international law doesn't mean that the law is wrong.

See, you say that, but in doing so, you imply that international law should not be flouted. Why? What makes that law any more valid than our laws? We already know that international law isn't moral, we established that before. So the only reason we follow international law is because we chose to... Well if that is the only reason, then we can chose not to.

You are basically saying we have a moral obligation to follow international law because... we decided to follow international law. Well hey, we just decided that we didn't want to follow international law, so... we don't have a moral obligation to do so.

 

[PLC1]

Well in a round-a-bout way, you are actually making my whole point. You can't say that we should make waterboarding illegal because it's immoral, and then say that it's immoral because it's against the law.

Like we both agreed last post, legality doesn't determine morals, or it would work both ways. As in, since waterboarding is not illegal, it is moral.



The CIA uses waterboarding in their training, and most of them support it's use. Special forces also use waterboarding, and many of them support it's use. But baring those large groups of people... I can think of three off hand. How about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? He clearly believed torture was ok when it was against an unarmed jewish civilian reporter named Daniel Pearl.

If you suggest that Mr sheikh isn't such a strong supporter of it now... well for lack of a better response... duh. Most kidnappers likely are not so hot about being forced into a confined space after 30 years in prison either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't imprison them because 'slavery is immoral'.



No, I don't 'think' they are wrong. I know they are wrong many many times. I have watched dozens of news reports that were more than obviously in error, almost to the point of commonsense, something most people lack. I'm currently reading a book "Off with their heads!" which details how slanted and one sided many stories are. So you can list 100 articles from the same untrustworthy source, and I still will not blindly follow the lemmings over a cliff. I need real evidence, verified evidence, and from at least an outside source.

Granted I don't know they are wrong in this poticular case.. but I'm not going to say it's guilty until proven innocent like media wants me too. I'll find out sooner or later the real answers.



This assumes the means is immoral, something we have yet to determine.



So morals are determined by a poll? If 51% of the voters say it is, then it is? Isn't that the same as "Might is Right" theory? Does this mean that slavery was completely moral for all the years that 51% supported it?



How do you determine better? We have money and they do not? We are strong and they are not? I want to know the the underlining reason for your morals. If it's merely whatever you want them to be, then we are no better than they.



How is this taking the moral high ground? Because... waterboarding is immoral. On what basis do you claim it's immoral? Because I say it's wrong. Well others say it's right, so what makes your morals better than any others?



See, you say that, but in doing so, you imply that international law should not be flouted. Why? What makes that law any more valid than our laws? We already know that international law isn't moral, we established that before. So the only reason we follow international law is because we chose to... Well if that is the only reason, then we can chose not to.

You are basically saying we have a moral obligation to follow international law because... we decided to follow international law. Well hey, we just decided that we didn't want to follow international law, so... we don't have a moral obligation to do so.

Let's turn the argument around, then, and say that it is OK morally and legally to torture prisoners and to flout international law.

What is it that makes it OK?

Is it because the jihadi scum think it's OK?

Is it because it's already being done, so It's OK?

Is it because different individuals have different moral codes?

Is it that the end justifies the means?

Is it because we're the big dog in the yard, and we'll do what we please?

Or is it something else?