Discussion in 'Politics' started by Memphis Slim, Nov 1, 2007.
Heh, he was probably serious, like, "Hey! I'll have to try that motif to win my next argument for how killing babies to save them from Liberal brainwashing is God ordained!"
Some could say you made your own bed by associating with the neo-con agenda, therefore it's your own fault if you or someone you love is maimed/killed/falsely imprisoned, and it's just an unfortunate byproduct of your associations.
It's sad that a lot of people have no sense of sympathy.
Can't tell if your joking but if your not take your head out of your ass. You do know that regardless of how bad war is, countries do have and for the most part follow the rules. There are rules to war moron. It's something terrorists don't have the balls to stick to. My point was, in regards to the terrorists, why should we?
What if we suspect someone is terrorist and later it turns ot they weren't terrorists? Is it moral to torture an innocent perosn who was just suspected of being a terrorist?
Don't be cruel.
It's permanently grafted in there.
They are "one".
I was talking about the meaning of the quote. I'm not saying we let 100 people go free for every one falsely accused. But, it is moral reprehensible to deny an innocent person their freedom. That is part of what makes the country great.
If you know that torturing someone will gaurantee the safety of hundreds of people, that's one thing. But, you can't. And how many innocent people have to be tortured to get the ONE that might have information? And if that person has that information, how can you be sure it's acurate, or that he is even telling the truth? And if it is true and accurate, how can you gaurantee that not only that hundreds of people will be saved but that you can stop the attack at all?
I don't believe one bit that torturing people has prevented another 9/11, yet alone any other type of minor attack.
I don't believe in torturing "suspected" terrorists for that same reason. If you look back a page or so I had used the words "proven" or something of that nature in regards to only torturing people we have found out as fact are terrorists.
But torture is still an unreliable way of getting info. It's been studied into again and again always with the same results. Its not reliable.
Hmmm... well, according to the Bible, all people are pathetic, but something tells me you don't want to hear that. t: It's funny... I've never met a purely intellectual atheist... I've only met normal well-meaning folk who became frustrated when they couldn't fit my big giant God in their normal-sized well meaning head. Which gives me a question: what's the difference between a contradiction and a paradox?
Regardless, on the topic:
The ends does not justify the means simply because the end cannot certify the effectiveness of the means. If we could compare lives for lives, sure, Waterboard away, but we can't, because we can't prove that extreme torture is effective.
Should we WaterBoard Terror Suspects to Save Lives?
We should also teleport Bin Laden and all middle-eastern terrorists into Gitmo with a wiggle of our noses. But is it possible?
Are people in Western culture generally taught anything that we would endure incalculable pain and death for?
This is the problem: suspected terrorists are being tortured for information they may not have to give. We're detaining people without allowing due process, and if we get information through torture, we can't use that info against them in court because of the means we used to get the information.
The argument isn't about what terrorists deserve, it's the means we're using to detain suspected terrorists (the key word being "suspected"), which many have insisted are ineffective, not to mention completely unconstitutional.
It always confuses me when its the religious folk that are all for things like torture. Try to be more like Jesus!!
They're Crusaders and Inquisitors at heart. It's their nature.
If you are captured on the battle field, shooting at our guys, you have no rights.....no due process!! This is war.
But what if the Taliban has been using press gang tactics? They could have gone around and captured some farmer's family and demand that the guy fight for the taliban or they will kill his family. Would that guy really be a terrorist? Everything is not so clear cut. There are rules to war, you can't do what you please just because a war was declared.
We invaded their country, do they not have the right to defend themselves?
plus, when the "battlefield" is a city, and all people look the same to you. how exactly could you be sure?
These aren't the people being captured on the battlefield. These are people being detained at airports or taken from their homes, then shipped out to countries where they are tortured.
Do the means justify the ends? Is a terrorist being protected from torture good justifaction or a good excuse when we fail to stop them?
Yeah we got another thousand dead, but don't worry guys, the terrorist is perfectly fine. Not a scratch on him, and that is way more important than stopping terrorist attacks.
It's a matter of priority. Innocent lives more important than a terrorist's right not to be tortured.
They invaded our country!
We just returned the favor.....
That's the way I see it. I like to think that we're supposed to be better than the terrorists we're fighting.
Technically it really isn't his opinion. It's sorta true actually, the various parts of the Geneva Conventions apply to treating casualties, treatment of POWs, treatment of civilians, the treatment of victims of war, and establishing the Red Crystal.
Also the United States hasn't ratified various parts of the Geneva Conventions, so legally, they're not bound by certain parts.
Groups such as al-Qaeda technically don't fall under any of these categories which makes our treatment of them to be very debateable on the basis on the fact that they won't follow them and if they actually do apply to the Geneva Conventions.
Do you honestly have to be a jackass everytime. First of all, al-Qaeda attacked us, not invaded us.
Second, the reason why al-Qaeda attacked us was because of our continual presence in the Middle East which has been gone on for decades. Building bases in Saudi Arabia, interfering with Middle Eastern politics (particularly with Iran, Iraq, and Israel), enforcing the No-Fly Zones in Iraq and bombing it multiple times (1996 and 1998), and supporting Israel. They didn't just attack for absolutely no reason.
People like you and my dad need to realise that terrorist groups have goals that they try an accomplish. al-Qaeda wants to rid the Islamic world of Western influence and establish an Islamic government. Hamas wants to destroy Israel and establish an Arabic Palestinian state. The Irish Republican Army wanted the British out of Ireland completely. The Black Hand wanted to get the Austrians out of Serb dominated areas. The ETA wants the Spanish out of the Basque provinces. The list goes on and on. Despite the fact that their actions are irrational, there is reasoning behind their actions.
Again, it's not that simple. These are terror suspects, not just terrorists. People who've been detained and shipped off to places like Syria or Egypt for informaton that they may or may not have, and some who have been held without ever being linked to crime or connected to any terrorist group, who are tortured regardless. It's also lead to false confessions and revenge attacks by terror groups.