Torture-- Let's Get Real

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You can't switch on and off the moral highground like a light switch. You can't say 'we are better than x' one minute then the next hide behind some nonsense about being animals.

Are you an animal? If yes, you can torture. But don't expect us to respect your opinions too. If no, then we'll listen, but you can't torture.

---

You have misunderstood my post. A Saturnus asserted that "why is it immoral to torture" was a meaningless question since there is never a why to the existence of a moral imperative.

I found that an interesting position, and, although it was off topic, observed that as the perception of morality was a function of the human brain, and as the human brain was an animal organ, I did not agree that there could not be a "why" to a moral question. It seems to me there must be a reason for a moral imperative, even if there may not be a purpose. (Eg Tortoises are tough for a purpose, but only slow moving for a reason)

To be honest I don't understand how you got from that to thinking I was saying it was ok to torture since we are animals, not least because from my other posts it was plain that I do not think its ok to torture, but never mind.

I have posted various links about the uselessness of torture before. For a digest, read this. It tells you what torture does to the torturers as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Torture is always wrong, and I don't think it will give accurate information.

---

YOU WHAT??

Quote:

---

But it's fun :san_cool:

---

Oh thank God, for a moment there my world fell apart. :san_embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Oh thank God, for a moment there my world fell apart. :san_embarassed:

---

Wait 2 days and it will, when your newspaper elects Rachel Hazes as the greatest dutchie of 2005 :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:

AdrianII: much of what you say is rather true and I think it is interesting that you've taken that tack. However in this case these are almost exactly the opinions I held before, if there's been any change perhaps I see a little less grey.

As far as the psychological consequences of what I may or may not undergo over the next few years, war changes everyone, some more, some less-- I can see this in my Drill Sergeants. I can see that on some of them it weighs quite heavily but none of them has it destroyed, they are still strong, capable human beings. And while I am well aware that there is little that can really prepare me for it, I have little fear of what may happen to me out there-- no matter what happens, Hajji will be at least as scared as I will, and much more likely to die.

Thank you, though, I will take care.

..

As for this discussion on torture, there seems to be some confusion as far as terms and definitions. How far would you be willing to go? Is keeping someone awake for days too much? And what is water-boarding, exactly? That sounds like an interesting procedure.

My original question was how exactly Torture is morally distinct from War-- which inflicts all of the same horrible and gruesome torments on its participants, though in a less controlled setting. No one has so far really adressed this, though many have made a logical leap ahead and declared that torture is wrong and we can't do it because it compromises our values. While this is a very premature statement, which can't rightly be made unless we can distinguish morally between the horrors of battle and the horrors of controlled torture.

But even so, I will tentatively let it stand for a moment, only to say-- what is this moral high ground of which you all speak? Historically we have been a nation which whipped our slaves and slaughtered the civilian populations of our enemies-- if anything this big, touchy "moral conscience" has been a recent development. Now yes, granted, we have perhaps acted more morally overall than many powers, but does that not still today hold true?

And finally, whether or not this "moral high ground" is fictional, and whether or not we have anything to gain by it, does a little bit of pain or discomfort inflicted on a limited number of individuals really, truly, surrender it?

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

Sure, a guy like that isn't going to tell you anything useful just because you're nice to him. But is he going to tell the truth to avoid torture? And will anyone believe him?

Why aren't you using torture in your own judicial system if it's such a great idea?

---

That last question is the important one.

torture only gets you false information, bad publicity, and the official status of a barbaric monster, so never use it for getting imformation or intimidation, its stupid. but as punishment...if you are absolutely sure of there crime, like saddam, or bin laden, or paris hilton, or hitler, TORTURE EM!!! cause they deserve it :san_grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master of the puppets

paris hilton

---

No doubt that she should suffer, but I would still like to [ha moderaters! stole your job!]] her just to belong to a very large group.

rarrrrrrrrrrr little slut.

Some interesting points have been brought up but one thing that has been missed is the fact that an experienced “interrogator” will know when he is getting nonsense from the person being interrogated. Not all of the information gained thru “torture” is worthless, that has been proven. It has also been documented that it is much more difficult to obtain information from fanatics, with or without torture.

I don’t think torture should be made completely illegal, but it isn’t nice and shouldn’t be allowed to be used on anyone, perhaps just special cases where there is an immediate threat. Plus, just having it “available” would allow interrogators to use the threat of torture to obtain information without actually using it; still the information would have to be checked for authenticity.

As to tortures morality… phfff. Anyone who claims moral high ground can go jump in a lake. We as a people lie, cheat, steal, hurt and do bad things all the time, who cares if we do it to a bunch of terrorists or their like. Torturing terrorists bothers me about as much as getting a good nights sleep… not at all. I don’t approve of some of the hardcore tortures but (like I heard on the radio this morning) a few days of being forced to listen to Eminem and some other “light” torture is completely fine with me. To me there are indeed different levels of torture, all of which are acceptable to me under the right circumstances.

Del Arroyo, the two main differences between war and torture is IMO:
A. It's purpose. The main purpose of war is to win by defeating your enemy, the main purpose if torture is to inflict pain.
B. The powersituation. In war both sides can fight back, while in the case of torture you're at the whim of your torturer (that has already shown himself being able to inflict pain and suffering).

As for the moral high ground, let skip that issue for now and go for the practical stuff.

Torture as an interogation meassure gives you lot of information quickly. The problem is that you'll get unreliable information, because some will try to appease you (mostly people that got no info at all in reality) and some of those with accurate information will still continue to lie for you. And it's hard to get more info than what you know you want (aka you won't get more info then the answers on your questions) because the victim will certainly not trust you.
So for info it's the quick and inaccurate way to get info, while befriending is the slower but more accurate way to get info.

Basically if you know that you got the right guy and know that he will tell the truth when he breaks, and need info fast, torture is the way to go. In all other cases, there's better ways.

As for Iraq. It's a quite well-known fact that terrorist/freedom fighters/etc need support by the population to operate in that area. Most of it is passive, as in not reporting in to the goverment if you hear something.
Would you trust those guys that seemingly random takes people and tortures them? Hell, would you even trust them if they treat people as in Abu Gharib (some patrons here doesn't consider that torture, so I needed to be speciffic). I wouldn't. Instead those wacky guys that likes blowing things up would make more sence, when they are chanting about "Death to the oppressors!". Enough to make me not support that goverment, and that is enough to make a difference in control for the goverment.
BTW the population will know that mistreatment/torture happens, unless you make the tortured people "disappear".
And even if the US truely wins in Iraq, treating this stuff as "no big deal" will create a free democratic Iraq were the idea of blowing up every American base in Iraq is getting a massive support.

Then we got that small issue about mental damage of the victims and the torturers and the readaptation back to the normal society. Those who have comed to enjoy the torture are the biggest problem here I think.

So basically you get poor information, loses the war on terror (rallying against a true oppressor is easier than vs a mostly made up one. This is applied world wide so even if you win in Iraq by terror you lose) and get a lot of people with mental damage (=societal damage).
What a brilliant deal!!!

And now back to the moral aspect. I'm going to bet that most people from any time-line would say that our "moral high ground" is something good and something to strive for. Your founding fathers thought so for example. Is that something to trow out the window this easily?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

And finally, whether or not this "moral high ground" is fictional, and whether or not we have anything to gain by it, does a little bit of pain or discomfort inflicted on a limited number of individuals really, truly, surrender it?

---

A small speach.
This "moral high ground" applies to everybody. Except those guys, I mean I reallly, really know that those guys are bad.

Are you ready to put that power in one persons hand? A hand that got no troble torturing people. That he will always do it right? A well, it doesn't matter, if some bloke gets wrongfully tortured, I don't know him, don't care about. As suggested, why not use it in your own judical system in that case?

The slippery slope is also needed to be mentioned. It might only be one step, but it's certainly the most important one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

It seems to me there must be a reason for a moral imperative, even if there may not be a purpose. (Eg Tortoises are tough for a purpose, but only slow moving for a reason)

---

Probably discomfort of the idea of being at the complete whim of someone that creates pain or discomfort on you. Avoidance of pain is a very basic instinct and that inferior position is certainly not helping. You can override yourself and still maintain control, but when another person does it?

Ironside: You say that the distinction between battle and torture lies in intent and power relationship, and while your argument may have some validity, consider this-- when a young Iraqi sprays some bullets at an American patrol, and a US soldier drops, sees him, aims, and fires, is this young Iraqi at that point really in a position to fight back? Does he really have any power, is there anything he can do to save himself? The answer is no. War, in reality, is not about some equal struggle between warriors, a contest of strength where all get their fair chance and say-- in fact the most true aim of war is to maneuver and dispatch a defenseless enemy.

Can a band of Hajji fighters really fight back against a 500-lb bomb? And what of the US soldier drawing closer, closer to an Improvised Explosive Device? Where is his chance at self-defence?

And as far as intent, one cannot say that the intent of a soldier in battle is simply victory. The US soldier firing his rifle at the AK-toting teenager, the Infantryman calling in Close Air Support on an insurgent position, the insurgent watching, with his finger on the trigger, as GI Joe walks closer and closer to the IED-- these men are in positions of absolute power over their victims, and their explicit and direct intent is to inflict pain; death or grievous pain, with the object of victory.

An interrogator, with his victim similarly secured in a defenseless position, also intends to inflict pain, with the object of obtaining information, and, by connection, victory.

So while I can see some moral distinction between the battlefield and the torture chamber, it seems to me a matter of flavor rather than a whole new beast. In essence, the two seem equivalent to me.

..

As for the other points you raised Ironside, about PR and society and things like that, it was not my original intent to address those here, so I will take some time to think before commenting on them.

DA

I find the word Hajji very offensive.

Not to disrupt the ongoing debate, but please reconsider your choice of words in future posts.

First, it's not about the factual ability to fight back, but that you have that ability.

Second, for a person in war the kill comes from survival, kill or be killed. For mines and IED that is intended to cripple the enemy, the person doing is distanced from it. It's not the same thing to drop a bomb on Hiroshima, than it's to shoot thousands of people in point-blank range. Torture comes up close and personal. You know your victim there.

Think of this situation. After a battle, one of the enemies is lying there in the grounds with his guts outside his body. He's screaming of pain and you can see on him that he doesn't have much time left. What do you do?
A. Shoot him in his head to end his suffering.
B. Leave him there.
C. Break his hand.

For the torturer, it's C that applies. That's the difference. You need to go against your pity and compassion to inflict pain and then continue to do it. And that in a cold and controlled manner.

Or another example, war is picking a street fight and beat your opponent to a bloody pulp, torture is to take a 10 min tour afterwards to get a knife to do some extra work on him.

So maybe your right, war might be a hill and torture a mountain, both in essence the same thing, but none calls Mount Everest for a hill and most people would wonder quite a bit over the compairation.

BTW the difference between war and torture as a hole has been blurred with the total war concept this last century, although there's certainly been exceptions from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

You have misunderstood my post. A Saturnus asserted that "why is it immoral to torture" was a meaningless question since there is never a why to the existence of a moral imperative.

I found that an interesting position, and, although it was off topic, observed that as the perception of morality was a function of the human brain, and as the human brain was an animal organ, I did not agree that there could not be a "why" to a moral question. It seems to me there must be a reason for a moral imperative, even if there may not be a purpose. (Eg Tortoises are tough for a purpose, but only slow moving for a reason)

---

Every behaviour has a cause and so has our view that torture is immoral, but morality itself is not a matter of causation. It is an abstract entity. I don´t think what Del Arroyo was interested in was an elaboration on the origins of the human rights idea. What he asked for was a justification. But any justification for a moral evaluation would be circular and therefore pointless.

I'd be much less bothered if the torture was limited to Iraqi insurgents. You could even that in such a case there'd be a undeniable and direct enough danger to the lives of troopers to justify some sort of torture.
But it's not limited to Iraqi insurgents. We've all heard of the story of the German guy (who turned out innocent) who got kidnapped while on vacation and was tortured by the CIA for information. I don't think he's the only one, either (and you're naive if you do). This sort of thing can't possibly be attributed to a "war situation" - TWAT is not a real war scenario in the correct sense of the word, and besides if it were then everybody would be elligable for torture.

Now...I'm sure that none of you are advocating dissection of limbs, pain stretching or hot coals...but where DO you pull the line? Questioning with exessive psychological pressure can too be considered torture in many cases, like with police investigators who're to enthusiastic and forget to go by the book. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that could be almost as effective. And when dealing with high risk suspects, you could justify stretching the definition of "acceptable tactics" by quite a bit- but not to justify stuff like waterboarding or hot coals.

And what is water-boarding, exactly? That sounds like an interesting procedure.

Yes very interesting Del , a thoroughly modern development of the ancient and noble craft of witchfinding .
You tie someone up then hold them underwater until they are nearly drowned then you pull them out and ask them if they practice the black arts and are responsible for milk yields going down , you repeat the practice until they either drown or admit that thay are really the devil incarnate and not only have they been secretly milking the cows and selling it to the local guild of badger botherers , but they also once knew a cat who said his name was Julian and Julian had once known a newt who applied for a pilots licence for a commercial broomstick , but the newt (whose name was Ralph BTW) aroused suspicions because he never asked how to land the broomstick .
Very nice , and very reliable .

Quote:

---

Yes very interesting Del , a thoroughly modern development of the ancient and noble craft of witchfinding .
You tie someone up then hold them underwater until they are nearly drowned then you pull them out and ask them if they practice the black arts and are responsible for milk yields going down , you repeat the practice until they either drown or admit that thay are really the devil incarnate and not only have they been secretly milking the cows and selling it to the local guild of badger botherers , but they also once knew a cat who said his name was Julian and Julian had once known a newt who applied for a pilots licence for a commercial broomstick , but the newt (whose name was Ralph BTW) aroused suspicions because he never asked how to land the broomstick .
Very nice , and very reliable .

---

Geez man, that's not waterboarding... where did you hear that? It's when you put someone on a board, tilt it upsidedown, with their head partially submerged (not the face). Then, you place a damp cloth over the nose & mouth and proceed to pour water on their face. As some water seeps through, and due to the overall situation (upside down, partially submerged, ect) it apparently creates a very real and very frightening sensation of drowning without significant risk of actually drowning (since the lungs are actually elevated above the head and water cant easily flow into them). I'm not saying that's much nicer, mind you, but lets be accurate at least. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

JINGSHAN, Hubei Province: A man who served 11 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murdering his wife was officially cleared yesterday.

She Xianglin, 39, walked free following the pronouncement of the Jingshan County People's Court, the same body which in 1998 sentenced him to a 15-year jail term.

The original conviction came based on a confession which She says was extracted under police torture.

The miscarriage of justice came to light when She's wife, Zhang Zaiyu, the supposed victim of She's "crime," resurfaced late last month after being missing for 11 years.

---

The same thing happens in the US under coercive police interrogations- I've seen video of police officers lying/threatening/browbeating someone until they confess, only to be freed later. Clearly, torture for the purposes of making someone confess to doing something is going to regularly give false results.

However, if someone started waterboarding you for specific information- like your bank PIN numbers- how long do you think it would take for you to give up the information? :san_shocked:

lol, iron pokers will do the job too

accused (but innocent): i did'nt do nuthin!!!
torturer: i don't believe you
metal poker: hissssssssssssssssssss
accused (but innocent): ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhuuugh, i did'nt do it i swear.
torturer: wheres bin laden?
Accused (but innocent): i have no idea, i'm sikh, i hate muslims.
metal poker: hisssssssssssssssss
accused (but innocent): whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
torturer: did you suicide bomb anyone lately?
accused (but innocent): how would i be here if i did you dumbarse
metal poker: hissssssssssssssssssssssssss
SEVERAL HOURS LATER
accused (and newly found guilty): whaaaaa, ok i swear,al queda has links to france, i commited suicide with a car bomb, sabatoged the CIA, am really a woman, had an affair with bill clinton, i sabotaged peral harbor and and part of the fourth reich operating undergoung the north pole, now please let me gooooooo.
torturer: see, does'nt the truth feel better
Accused (and newly found guilty): no, so can i go?
torturer: well not exactly, we can't let news of our under-handed doings get into the public.
accused (and newly found guilty): but the public already knows, its all over the news
torturer: *gasp* you told the news
accused (and newly found guilty): wait, what no, oh god NOOOOOO
metal poker: HISSSSSSSS

hooray for torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The same thing happens in the US under coercive police interrogations- I've seen video of police officers lying/threatening/browbeating someone until they confess, only to be freed later. Clearly, torture for the purposes of making someone confess to doing something is going to regularly give false results.

---

The police acted wrong. And you're wrong about the use of torture, it's irrelevant if you can get results or not, the probability of the result being -how can I call it?...- "biased" or totally created out of the nothing, is enough for any court to dismiss it, and it's enough for the law to presume it like biased or created. You can argue about how many cases it worked, but it will be for naught.

As I've said, I agree that it's pointless to use it to elicit confessions or even in any part of a criminal prosecution. The only use it could and has had is when it's used in a very specific, directed manner for intelligence purposes.

Quote:

---

Now...I'm sure that none of you are advocating dissection of limbs, pain stretching or hot coals...but where DO you pull the line? Questioning with exessive psychological pressure can too be considered torture in many cases, like with police investigators who're to enthusiastic and forget to go by the book. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that could be almost as effective. And when dealing with high risk suspects, you could justify stretching the definition of "acceptable tactics" by quite a bit- but not to justify stuff like waterboarding or hot coals.

---

I think that's what is really unfortunate here. The Bush administration has had many opportunities to refine and limit the scope of their use of coercive interrogations so as to protect it's use for the high-value targets. Yet, they missed opportunity after opportunity thinking they could keep their carte blanche and now they've been stuck with the McCain ammendment because of it. A big screw up by the administration, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The Bush administration has had many opportunities to refine and limit the scope of their use of coercive interrogations so as to protect it's use for the high-value targets.

---

If you've been reading any of the first-hand accounts from guys who were conducting/facilitating interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan, you must know that this lack of clarity has hit the ground. Some guys use dogs. The SEALS get a lot of props from the other interrogators for inducing hypothermia without killing the subjects. (Well, they did kill and photograph one, but we'll have to chalk that up to the odds.)

I was reading one soldier's account, saying basically that when he heard Rumsfeld talking on-air about how soldiers should never use dogs or torture techniques, he nearly peed his fatigues. Everybody he worked with was using such techniques.

The torture problem is systemic, and it's not being used just with high-value targets. And it's not being used just for time-sensitive data. What we have is a leadership problem, a classic failure to provide clear direction. If the McCain amendment is what it takes to clear this mess up, then so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

The torture problem is systemic, and it's not being used just with high-value targets. And it's not being used just for time-sensitive data. What we have is a leadership problem, a classic failure to provide clear direction. If the McCain amendment is what it takes to clear this mess up, then so be it.

---

That's almost exactly what I'm saying. Bush had many opportunities to outline some clear rules on detainee treatment- he decided not to and because of his unwillingness to compromise, we're now totally losing what can be an important intelligence gathering technique due to his stubborness. McCain is grandstanding, as usual (he's a presidential candidate afterall)- but Bush all but brought these new regulations on himself. He's facing the same problem with the Patriot Act, imo. Instead of allowing time for debate on it's provisions he tried to stifle it by ramming it through at the last possible minute and sabotaging any short-term extensions. Again in this case, his brinkmanship seems like it's going to blow up in his face and leave him without any of the provisions once it expires.

I am not sure about the assertion that there is never any "why" to moral arguments. You do have to start with certain axioms, but you can deduce moral positions from the axioms.

For example if you accept that equality of human beings and the requirement that punishment should not be applied without "due process" it is difficult to justify torture of those not convicted of any offence.

However a stronger argument against torture is enlightened self-interest. Apart from the terrible affect on the victim, torture dehumanises the perpetrator. It is unwise to allow those with a judicial or quasi-judicial function to become inured to violence and cruelty. If they are acting this way towards those who many agree "deserve" it today, who will they be torturing tomorrow? If we empower them to act outside the normal judicial process because we perceive that the risk is worth it, we may find that, later, they are extending the powers they have been given.

I would assert that you can only agree that torture is justified if you accept that, in some circumstances, torturing you would be acceptable. If not, you have to ask yourself what makes you different and special.

Even if we feel that the "biological" why questions for morality are uninteresting (and I'm not sure why we would) it seems to me that the fact that we can choose between different moralities suggests we have some sense of a "why" behind them.

A Roman, for instance, would see nothing incompatible with his morality in owning a slave, and yet in our current morality the idea that a human being can be the legal property of another human being is profoundly immoral.

How can we make these judgements without having an idea of a why behind our moral judgements? Or is AS going to slip out of this one by defining my "why" for choosing between different moralities as his "morality"?

If he does its going to be impossible to argue further because as every parent of a two year old knows if you push a chain of why questions far enough you always end up with a "just because".

On a side note I think the statement that a roman didn't think it immoral to own a slave is in danger to be interpreted incorrectly. First of all, the old patron-client system meant that owning a slave was also a matter of protecting the slave and so on. Secondly, it was justified by tradition which had grown from step by step extension of the patron-client system and similar institutions, and is therefore comparable to the religious crusade and heretics-hunting ideas, without really being seen as completely and fully morally just by either of the sides, but rather a necessity. Heretics threatened the church because they were against the heretic, pornocratic and power-hungry leadership the church had at that time. Not silencing the heretics would hurt the church (although the silencing of them however made the hatred for the church so much stronger once it fell, like today for instance). Similarly, slaves were needed in the economical competition. In a reality where you had little reason to travel far and choose your job, freedom or not didn't matter as much as it does when freedom of choice is absolutely essential to the survival. Slaves becoming gladiators, or slaves being maltreated or forced to work too hard by their patronus, on the other hand, had a strong moral reason to dislike the slavery, and did.

The basis of morals when it comes to restricting what others should be allowed to do is self-preserverance, and the basic urge to grant ones own survival etc. The basis of morals when it comes to restricting what oneself should do is when one realizes that power isn't final. A strong man once turns old, a man who uses divide et impera against his enemies must once be prepared to face them all at once. A silent, or loud, agreement of what can be done, and what can't, is simply a way of granting your own security when/if you once become too weak to be able to carry out your evil actions and defend yourself against revenge. Morals has an obvious usage, and is both genetically and culturally in all of us. It is when we get too much power to have to worry about consequences of evil acts, or when we are exposed to enemies breaking the silent agreements, that we start questioning morals. Sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly. The civilization also makes it more complex in that it's difficult for people of one nation to direct revenge towards the guilty, and respond quickly. The power of some nations is too great for that. Therefore, innocent people are struck by revenge. It's the children of the criminals that are struck. Those children natually see it as an unprovoked attack, which it, biologically, is. On the society level, it often isn't. To use personal revenge in stately matters in civilization isn't possible without causing a series of revenge back and forth. Blood-feud. That is also one of the main reasons for how the blood-feud started. Look at the ghibellins and guelphs of Florence, and how difficult it actually is to strike the actually guilty. Look at vikings, where a quick reprisal raid had to have the element of surprise and going around looking for the guilty to punish would be impossible. Personal revenge has no place on the political level in civilization. Similarly, one must know ones history about the political actions of ones nation, and look for faults the nation made earlier. An apology and carried through promise to repair the damage is accepted by any nation with honor.

So in conclusion morals are really biological. It's simply that power balances shift often and quickly, and that you only by moral agreements can be secure when you lose the power. Apart from being something on the personal level, it's also a matter of keeping the flock calm. A flock with constant internal rivalry is weaker than one which stands united. I'm talking about the weakness in the ability to survive in nature, not the weakness in conflict between the flocks, as that is a nearly non-existent phenomenon in nature (only a few examples exist). It's of course for good reason that wars don't exist often in nature. Most flock have almost the same size, as evolution has made the most useful flock size standardized with very few exceptions and differences. A fight between two equally strong parts is, needless to say, devastating for both parts. There's nothing more important for survival than to as much as possible avoid a fight with another flock in nature. That is why we have a strong desire for peace. Even when we start wars, we are doing it because of that very desire for peace (no, I'm not being sarcastic here). But again, our instincts aren't adapted to civlization. That's why we keep starting these devastating wars.

EA, I´m not pushing the question away, but you keep applying it to things it was not meant for.
You can have different "why´s". A causal why, an intentional why or a conceptual why. Del Arroyo´s question was a conceptional why, but you seem to see it as either a causal or intentional one. The causes for adopting a certain morality or the intentions behind it are not relevant here. The question was about the conceptual status of torture within morality. Causes or decissions play no role. The problem with the question is that the conceptual status of torture is set in many moral systems as either moral or immoral. That just is so and bears no conceptual answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master of the puppets

lol, iron pokers will do the job too

accused (but innocent): i did'nt do nuthin!!!
torturer: i don't believe you
metal poker: hissssssssssssssssssss
accused (but innocent): ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhuuugh, i did'nt do it i swear.
torturer: wheres bin laden?
Accused (but innocent): i have no idea, i'm sikh, i hate muslims.
metal poker: hisssssssssssssssss
accused (but innocent): whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
torturer: did you suicide bomb anyone lately?
accused (but innocent): how would i be here if i did you dumbarse
metal poker: hissssssssssssssssssssssssss
SEVERAL HOURS LATER
accused (and newly found guilty): whaaaaa, ok i swear,al queda has links to france, i commited suicide with a car bomb, sabatoged the CIA, am really a woman, had an affair with bill clinton, i sabotaged peral harbor and and part of the fourth reich operating undergoung the north pole, now please let me gooooooo.
torturer: see, does'nt the truth feel better
Accused (and newly found guilty): no, so can i go?
torturer: well not exactly, we can't let news of our under-handed doings get into the public.
accused (and newly found guilty): but the public already knows, its all over the news
torturer: *gasp* you told the news
accused (and newly found guilty): wait, what no, oh god NOOOOOO
metal poker: HISSSSSSSS

hooray for torture.

---

Cattle prods are fun, are they not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Cattle prods are fun, are they not?

---

Actually that was a red hot poker, but thanks for playing... :stupido2:

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Convention of Geneva

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

...

---

You are a soldier right, Del Arryo? Why do you need more? Or do you reject these rules of war?