Errrrrr...because it isn't torture.
Torture is defined , under the definition of torture you can find a line that means incarcertion is not torture

Sure, under that standard, the same morality would apply.

But the reason your argument is flawed is because your example is simply not occuring, while my example IS real life.The difference is nationalistic. US citizens are specifically protected under the Constitution of the United States, which is of higher importance than any law or treaty subsequently created.

But that being said, you raise a valid point. And, quite frankly, my answer is that I would support the same methods being used under conditions I've prescribed with the same type of risks being presented.

So, no, my moral belief in the method is not conditional or hypocritical.Umm, why are you attempting to change the issue and make it a typically-lefty version of the "US versus the World" debate?

In any case, my moral position remains unchanged: if ANY nation on the Earth used the SAME standards I've set forth (probable cause of suspicion, limited applicated of the techniques, goal being the safety of innocent life, etc), I would support them in using said techniques.

Morality doesn't know borders.So we agree that one part of the law should be changed. Hence, the debate can now be defined as whether or not the law is right, rather than people trying to justify their positions by quoting the law.You guess wrong. The use of torture would still be permitted following my guidelines (i.e., last resort).

Putting the rights of a known terrorist/criminal to be comfortable over the rights of the average citizen simply to live is immoral.

In the end, it becomes a situation of, "don't want to be waterboarded? Don't become a terrorist. However, should you do so, just tell us what you know when captured. However, should you decide to NOT do that, make sure we are able to retrieve the information via drugs. However, should THAT not be successful ... well, you had your chance."

I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with that.You missed the point completely. I mean WAY completely. :03:

The point was that many innocuous drugs used for pain management also can also be used to subvert an individual into saying things they would not otherwise say. That, technically, is also legal torture.

Now, ask ANYONE who's been on morphine whether or not they consider it torture, and tell me the results.

The greater point is that clearly the legal definition of torture is in need of some refinement. And, as such, if both sides can agree that one point of the law is inadequate, what precludes other points from being so?

I take it that you don't argue the point, when comparing torture to the experience of being in jail or locked up in a small cell, that a courts' sentence for jail at the same time qualifies as a sentence to torture? Aramike had a point when he earlier said that any proper discussion needs qualified statements.

Torture and a torturous experience is not exactly the same thing, no news there really. You can't exchange the one for the other in all contexts, which most people recognize. But sure, torture and torturous experience are connected. So, if you are serious about your words, which practical conclusions do you want to draw from the premise that being locked away always is a torturous experience for a human being? Should more methods of inflicting torturous experiences be approved of by law as we already have proper torture in the form of prisons, or should methods of treating humans formerly not thought of as torture be relabeled and put out of use?

cheers Porphy

Stop redefining torture.We were discussing the moral legitimacy of those who partake in an activity. Using the activity itself as a moral standard completely avoids the actual debate, which is WHY.

I know you like to "redefine" everything into something that you believe proves you right, but that's now how debate works.

Now step aside and let the big boys discuss this.

[quote=Aramike;1102130]Thanks, a clear and candid answer.

I don't think my argument is flawed because of the rarity of the example. Actually, it was not an argument against torture, but more a test piece which clearly show a certain kind of moral problem or situation. You responded and thought the conclusion that using some means of torture, in this case water boarding against US citizens to get hold of information would be ok, given the specified situation. In fact, it is more than ok, it would be a moral imperative, as you say earlier. The terrorists could according to this view be morally blamed for not torturing the US persons in this situation. Which is a consistant stance given your conditions, although most probably will feel a bit awkard about voicing it.

Maybe that is why I also notice that you feel a certain resistance, or say hesitation to allow for US persons being subjected to torture even in this specific situation.
My example was about exactly this, and you made your moral choice in a clear way, which I find refreshing compared to the stance, "the bad guys can have some go easy torture, good guys can't rightly be subject to it", or the "US citizens or soldiers are protected by law against any form of torture". As you point out, this is discussion is not mainly about the meaning of the law, but about a moral stance towards torture in relation to law and different kinds of situations, rare or common, but all possible.



It was not my intention to make it a US vs world thing. I was merley curious about how this stance of yours would fare on a global level. Which you responded to as well. Moral judgements know no borders as you say. They strive for universal cover, and that goes for both condemning torture and approve of it in specified situations.

I don't agree that the law necessarly should be changed, but I agree that any discussion of the merits of the law can in the end lead to a change of the law. But this change should not be the result of political secrecy or a sudden reaction to a situation which couldn't be known in advance were you only seek an advantage against the enemy. The laws are used as guidence in these cases, otrherwise ends would always justify means. The change of law comes from informed and open democratic discussion, not as part and parcel of a strategy to obtain hard to get information from prisoners.

Yes, that is consistent, as long as no one complains if US citizens getting a rendez vouz with the water board, for refusing to give up inormation that can save civilian life. but we have already settled that one.


Yes, maybe I missed the point there. But I still maintain that you can't make a clear case about what is approved torture and what is not, from only the experience of the treatment. (see Augusts try down that line...).

I agree with your last thing, law can always be discussed and found inadequate from a moral point of view. The other thing is to consider what kind of world we will have if this moral point of view is to have legal form.

I'm going out for some rock climbing now, it is a beatuiful day here.

cheers Porphy

I did argue the point, you just did not comprehend it I guess.

The practical conclusion is what constitutes torture is largely a matter of perception by the tortured, therefore when you talk about using torture as a means for gathering information from an unwilling subject, then the only thing that is important here from that standpoint, is which methods will work and which ones won't.

Now you may continue to attempt to dismiss incarceration as a valid form of torture but the fact remains it certainly is a painful enough experience that the mere threat of it has caused innumerable people to become willing to talk and to testify against their confederates, even their family in some cases.

So when you are talking about methods for obtaining information that will save thousands if not millions of my fellow countrymen from a horrible death then all I really care is that they do what works and not waste vital time on what doesn't. Get my drift now?

Is that a memo to yourself?
It must be since what you quoted isn't redefining anything , the established definition has been posted , it is you who has problems with the established definition because it doesn't fit with your views .


You mean the big boys who suppport torture but don't support torture but support torture:har::har::har::har::har::har: