One could make the argument that simple incarceration is torture. After all to someone with claustrophobia it certainly would feel that way. Are we going to ban taking prisoners altogether?

US Law states torture is illegal, under the following definition.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2340.html



August - No.

This begs the question...what the hell were Bush and Co including Pelosi doing in 2002-2003? Do as I say not as I do? This is certainly a quaqmire.

Sure, you can always argue this way, as the slippery slope always apply. So we can't really argue any moral standards because of that? Not even upholding our own?

Yes some people would describe being in a cell as torture. But can you find anyone that has been subject to prolonged water boarding claim "I was not tortured, I was simply subjected to advanced interrogation"

cheers Porphy

Not withstanding being put in a cell it looks like International law as well as US Constitutional Law was completely ignored. Although many point the finger at Bush, the implications that Pelosi knew that some form of 'enhanced techniques'(just another name for torture) was happening would be conclusive that all were involved in some form of torture which is illegal...period. I would say that Pelosi is attempting to save her hide. The others, well, no use attempting to do that. So, at this point, it does not matter who knew about waterboarding and who didn't, the fact is, torture was being performed to their knowledge thus making them part of it. End of story.

This makes no sense. If my point is that torture works despite claims to the contrary, how is it that said point is not actually the point?Honestly, I can't believe you're asking this question, either.

It is obvious that who would set the guidelines would be those who are legally tasked in doing so - you know, the same people who set the guidelines against enhanced interrogations.

You know, elected officials. The same people who set the guidelines (read: laws) for the rest of everything.

Are system of government is fairly clear on who's in charge.I have practicality (along with links I have posted earlier in this thread, ALONG with the fact that the average time for a CIA officer to break is 14 seconds).

If the techniques didn't work, why would anyone want to use them? This is a point of Richard Cohen's piece (and he's against the techniques).

Furthermore, a former Vice President of the US says they work, and there's proof, and has called for said proof to be declassified. Why aren't these memos being shown?Please cite this case more completely, with specifics.

Oh, and one case does not invalidate a technique.I've already written this several times in the thread.

I approve of the use of limited forms of torture when it is used against a known terrorist when there is probable cause to believe said terrorist has specific information relevent to the safeguard of innocent, civilian life. Further, said techniques are not to be employed unless other methods of obtaining the information has failed. Finally, the methods used are to only include those that do not cause permanant injury, disability or disfigurement. As an aside, I really couldn't give a damn if a terrorist ends up suffering from a mental illness such as PTSD. Just imagine what their surviving victims are going through.

In addition, I would even approve of a warrant system being put in place, meaning that probable cause would have to be demonstrated to a civilian authority prior to techniques being used. That is, so long as we can get past the politics of it.It is wrong to risk innocent lives because you're squeamish about a technique that could save them. In fact, it is so morally wrong that I consider it depraved, and quite sickening that certain individuals won't accept that sometimes undesirable things need to be done in order to spare innocent lives.

And, I've just decribed "limited" torture.

Why would anyone agree with that?

A terrorist organization itself is illegal and immoral. As such, activities that directly support its mission are illegal and immoral.

Pelosi is no doubt complicit. I do agree with her original acceptance of the methods, however.

That was a bit to short, almost sidestepping, wasn't it? Please read again. It would be more interesting to me if you replied to more than half a quoted sentence of the the original post.

How would the situation described there directly support their mission? You don't really answer the question I asked through an example. I can spell it out more clearly.

Could it be right that evil persons in illegal organizations use torture for a good cause?
Does it not in any way affect the moral and legal standards if a good person use torture for a good purpose?

cheers Porphy

I don't think you can find anyone who has been in jail that WOULDN'T call it torture...

I'm sorry, but it didn't seem to require a terrible amount of explanation when the topic is regarding the moral authority of terrorist organizations.

But, I'll bite. Let's say that both the US and Al Qaeda waterboards prisoners. Which do you think is more morally justifiable: waterboarding prisoners to obtain information used to assist in the destruction of innocent civilian life, or waterboarding prisoners to PREVENT said destruction? In fact, I would argue that the latter becomes a moral IMPERATIVE when considering the former.

As far as legal standards goes, you won't get any argument from me that, according to the letter of the law, torture in all cases is illegal. However, that being said, I believe the law to be wrong, short-sighted, and dangerous. I believe the law was written in a time that didn't comprehend the nature of the enemy that, I believe the law must be side-stepped in order to counter.

The law even defines "torture" as the use of "truth serum"-type drugs. Having been under the influence of those drugs in the past (for training purposes), I find nothing "torturous" about them (according to the literal definition).

Heck, even substantial amounts of painkillers can be used for the same purpose - which is precisely why officials with certain security clearances have security details posted with them during hospital visits.

But hey - that's torture, too ... legally.

[quote=Aramike;1101942]The topic is obviously not about the moral authority of terrorists, it's about your own, I might even say personal, moral standard and the reasons given for them.

Read my example again. The situation I described is one where evil terrorists are water boarding US persons to obtain information to prevent loss of innocent civilian life. Is that ok? According to your argument with some sort of torture in special cases, it seems yes. If not please explain why not.
If the reason is they are evil already, and they have done bad things and plan do do more of the same after saving the civilians, it seems your final position is that it is alright for good people to use some torture on evil persons for a good cause.
So why isn't this used on a wider scale, say in connection to serious crimes that hurt a lot of citizens in the US? And if the methods are effective, as suggested, it seems strange to withhold these means of combating serious crime even at home, or?

That is fine. It's a very clear and straight answer and you stance is, I take it, that the law should be changed to allow for some torture in special cases. Is it right that you also want this as UN treaty? When the nature the enemy is especially bad, any nation can use some torture to extract vital information. Or is the sidestepping or changing of law only for the US?


I can understand that. So the new law should allow for the use of truth serums. If you have them, anyone can use them, internationally as well, in the described special cases? That sounds fair by me. But water boarding and getting hurt physically, and getting threatened with more of the same is still tortures even by the literal definition, which then still would be illegal I guess?

Not the most impressing argument. I guess their hospital visit is not for the purpose of extracting security clearance information from the official in question? So the guard is there to watch that they don't get abused in that sense, or by accident spill the beans. What this example has to do with intentional torture, like water boarding is beyond me. It's obviously not a case of torture to be administrated drugs during surgery, as the purpose is a bit different, which I think you will agree with. Or do you want the law changed because of security clearance personnel "by definition" is tortured at US hospitals when under medical care?

cheers Porphy

:har::har::har::har:
that would be the former vicepresident who is well known as a liar and has a track record of claimng there is proof when all there is was fabriction.
So what Cheney says is about as believable as Ted Haggard claiming to not be a poof .

Torture is itself illegal and immoral . As such, activities that directly support torture are illegal and immoral

Thats an easy question , what they were doing was breaking the law and telling people under them to break the law.

I'm sorry, if that was supposed to part of any real discussion on the topic, I really don't think anyone will be very impressed by your word play. But you maybe just tried to be witty and lighten things up a bit? I agree, all this serious talk about torture done by the US can really be depressing...

cheers porphy

Well my friend if you have ever experienced it yourself I think you'd agree that being confined to a small cell for any length of time is definitely a torturous experience for a human being. It has driven some people insane and it has caused others to literally wither and die.

Now how is that not considered torture?