Obama: 'We Tortured Some Folks'

[Lumpenproletariat]

#8


NobleSavage

Torture produces shit intelligence and we knew that before we started this more current round.

All interrogation methods produce shit intelligence. The interrogators are not so brain-dead as to believe everything the guy tells them.

It's their job to figure out what part is reliable and what part is not. There are ways to test the responses and untangle them and find what they need to know in order to catch more bad guys or disrupt their plans.

 

[fast]

But why do people make such a fuss over torture, which was the right thing to do if it helped to catch the 9-11 attackers? In fact, maybe it's the one thing the U.S. did that was right, in response to 9-11.

What a paradox! The most rational action done is the one that is the most universally condemned and preached against.

Torture produces shit intelligence and we knew that before we started this more current round.

Every instance?

Also, there's the bugging feeling that the word "torture" might be one of those words being liberalized. For instance, take the word "abuse". When a teacher lightly slaps the hand of a second grader with a ruler after a student misbehaves, parents of liberal bent might call it an act of physical abuse through violence. It wouldn't surprise me if the ruler was referred to as a weapon used to harm a child. My point is that given the nature of extremism with how people use words, I can only wonder if what might constitute torture (as used by some) would even be something that is painful.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#11


Jason Harvestdancer

But why do people make such a fuss over torture, which was the right thing to do if it helped to catch the 9-11 attackers? In fact, maybe it's the one thing the U.S. did that was right, in response to 9-11.

What a paradox! The most rational action done is the one that is the most universally condemned and preached against.

No, torture is never right.

It's right if and when it works (or is likely to work). Which it does in some cases. To condemn it as always wrong is to impose an absolutist religious dogma onto decision-making.

It is certainly not the most rational action of the whole war on terror.

OK, "most rational" is too strong. But it was probably more rational than the decision to invade Iraq, and probably many other decisions that were made. It might arguably be "the most rational" of all the major decisions that were made after 9-11.

Yet it is condemned the most.

 

[fast]

#11


Jason Harvestdancer

No, torture is never right.

It's right if and when it works (or is likely to work). Which it does in some cases. To condemn it as always wrong is to impose an absolutist religious dogma onto decision-making.

It is certainly not the most rational action of the whole war on terror.

OK, "most rational" is too strong. But it was probably more rational than the decision to invade Iraq, and probably many other decisions that were made. It might arguably be "the most rational" of all the major decisions that were made after 9-11.

Yet it is condemned the most.

Torture is not always wrong. On that we agree. But, there's more to it being right or not than whether it works or not; hence, there are instances where torture might work yet still be wrong.

 

[NobleSavage]

Torture is always immoral. Just like raping a 5yr old is immoral. The only way you make it "right" is by setting up stupid scenarios where less people are harmed.

If a terrorist had a trigger to a nuclear bomb set to go off in Manhattan and told you, "if you rape this 5yr old in front of me I will not push the button" , would you?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

#11


Jason Harvestdancer

No, torture is never right.

It's right if and when it works (or is likely to work). Which it does in some cases. To condemn it as always wrong is to impose an absolutist religious dogma onto decision-making.

It is certainly not the most rational action of the whole war on terror.

OK, "most rational" is too strong. But it was probably more rational than the decision to invade Iraq, and probably many other decisions that were made. It might arguably be "the most rational" of all the major decisions that were made after 9-11.

Yet it is condemned the most.

Even if it worked (which it doesn't) it is still wrong. It does not produce reliable intelligence. In the event that the person under interrogation happens to be the right person, it is nothing more than revenge and not justice. In the event that it is the wrong person you'll never know it. I'll agree that the invasion of Iraq was far from rational, but if you're going to argue which is worse that's like saying "is it more wrong to rape a 5 year old or a 6 year old."

 

[KeepTalking]

Torture is not always wrong.

Yes, it is.

But, there's more to it being right or not than whether it works or not; hence, there are instances where torture might work yet still be wrong.

Yes, those instances would be every time torture is used and it somehow manages to work anyway.