Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (1522)	9/21/2006 11:53:55 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"...but doesn't it depend on the meaning of "torture"? And doesn't it also depend on whether torture actually works?" It definitely depends on whether or not we have a clear definition of "torture", which is an unresolved problem that clouds the issue. Assuming we could agree on a definition that clearly defines treatment that is effective, and as some of the tv spokespersons seem to agree that we have techniques that are very effective, we have a starting point for discussion. Others who may be speaking about a different circumstance argue that torture is unreliable. I agree with the former that you can probably guarantee the prisoner will spill his guts using some techniques. On the other hand, with regard to the latter, those guts may be empty of anything we find useful. Is effectiveness a good enough guide on its own? You could get me to tell you the truth about any secret I hold, if you torture my daughter in front of me. If we agree to effectiveness alone as a rule, we have met one of Saddam's standards. How about saving American lives? Of course we want our loved ones to stay alive with us as long as possible. But what do we mean by 'saving.' Is staying alive on this pile of rock, more important than any purpose or principle that we might choose to live for, or even die for. After we have stayed alive via the torture of others do we go to our eventual deaths claiming a life worth having lived. Personally, I would allow the entire world of human beings, including my self, to perish rather than torture one who is innocent just to 'save' the rest. I can't really reconcile this staying alive idea with torture, as having saved anything. Every American living today will die. For every American that will die, there is a list someplace. Some of them will die from their own stupid mistakes. Some will die from indulgeances that are legal. Some will die in battle. Many will die from preventable highway accidents. Some will die of old age in hopelessness as they struggle against cancer or alsheimers etc. We will die, the argument of saving lives seems irrelevant in this case. How about advancing our cause of winning a war. If the war is to be fought purely on the basis of victory over an opponent, certainly we can count torture as a valuable weapon. But if winning means brutal tyranny and heinous terrorism have been pushed down, to be replaced by autonomous and free human coexistence, then our use of torture as a means to justify these ends is a flawed strategy. Because, as we promote torture as an 'effective' value, we diminish the very cause we hoped to raise. .... but we still don't have a clear definition of what we mean by the word, "torture," any way.