Reopening the Torture Debate

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

For those who say yes, I ask whether you would be in favor of changing the law for cases like these. Or would it be better to keep the laws as they are and simply look away in these very rare cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main problem is that I don't see how you can accurately codify "cases like these" well enough to make these laws anything other than "well, when we think it's important, we're going to torture people," which just means "we're going to torture people." What sets the threshold for where you decide immediate action is important enough that torture is indicated? Or how effective your torture method must be?

[NickMPK]

In a case such as this, the interrogator should use the torture and be willing to accept the legal consequences.

[Jetboy2]

So it's a game....

Player 1 (serial killer) has repeatedly violated the rules and has a hidden BIG prize.

Now, I can get this BIG prize, by violating the rules, just this once.

Will it be a slippery slope?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

This was a great movie.



[/ QUOTE ]

Is that 'scorpio'? I'm just guessing from the link.
IMDB wasn't so hot on it...should I really see it? I don't want to waste bandwidth...

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
During the Cold War, when the battle of ideas was so important, the US was very careful about its image and tried hard to distinguish itself from the Soviet block. Twenty years ago, it was unthinkable for mainstream politicos to sanction torture. America did not do that sort of thing (openly).


[/ QUOTE ]

Bill,
So you believe that the US didn't use torture during those years, or you just wish that we would continue to keep it hush hush like we used to? Having the discussion out in the open is far far better than not having it.

[kerowo]

While part of the problems America faces today stem from not being open about going against them in the past, I think we as a country should strive to uphold the principles upon which it was founded. I makes me ill that there is any question whether or not our constitution should be applied to by us to people who are not citizens. During the Cold War America attempted to be a shining example of the way things should be done. We should be doing that again instead of letting fear erode our principles.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what's wrong with it in Iraq. We are fighting a dirty war against cowards who hide among the civilian populace. If they see us coming, they drop their weapons and act like innocents and they have no qualms with murder.


[/ QUOTE ]

1. We make mistakes. All the people we have captured aren't really terrorists.
2. We signed the Geneva Conventions.
3. It makes us look awful to the world at large and quite probably inspires more terrorism. We won't win the war on "terrorism" unless we convince everyone that our way of life is better than that.
4. Our captured troops get treated worse
5. Torture doesn't work that well. People will say whatever you want them to say so that you stop the pain.

[r3vbr]

I think the "rules of war" got pretty much obsolete after WW2 and total warfare. If WW3 breaks out someday, you can rip the geneva convention because it's just going to be a meaningless piece of paper and I bet you'll see stuff like Dresden and Manchuria again

[r3vbr]

War implies that anything goes

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
.

By the way, I see where you're going with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't going anywhere with it. Just like to encourage logical debates and cause trouble.