On Mar 9, 11:32*am, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:07:06 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:





wrote:
Stephen Trapani *wrote:
I'm sure you would agree that *if* you obtain information that prevents
slaughter of innocents by dunking someone in water a few times, you have
not done something wrong, you have done something good.

No, actually I woould not agree that torture is "good" under any
realistic circumstances.

You can construct all sorts of theoretical justifications; but the
facts are pretty clear... torture does not yield useful or reliable
intel. OTOH it's great if you want to convert a few heretics before
you burn them; but fortunately most of the civilizedworld has out
grown that.

.... I am not arguing that all torture is okay, I'm arguing
that there is such a thing as torture that is okay.

And that's what makes you sick in the head.... or at least not
civilized enough to be making serious decisions that affect the rest
of our society.

Well, by all civilized standards, allowing the slaughter of innocents to
protect the rights of a killer is sick in the head, isn't it? Clearly
you have taken your rationalizing on the issue so far that it makes no
sense anymore. Common with herd mentality issues like this.

The problem with Doug's argument is that it relies upon labeling as a
substitute for thought. Rather than dealing with the specific question you
pose, he labels your proposal "torture," and deems that sufficient to
foreclose further discussion of the policy question.


What do -you- call holding somebody's head under water until he
"almost" drowns?

And please note that

1- US 'interrogaters" using waterboarding and other "harsh" or
"pressure" methods have in fact killed many of their captive subjects.
pThis makes debating whether or not it's "really torture" or just all-
good-fun prankmanship rather backward. When pranksters kill people
accidentally, it's called "1st degree murder."

2- killing the subject certainly limits the amount of info gained, eh?

3- there are/were a lot of "methods" used besides waterboarding,
including an indoor form of crucifixion. What fun!

4- I have said nothing at all against using INTELLIGENT methods of
gaining info, such as playing scratchy Elvis songs at 120 decibels
(such as was used to flush out Noriega). Although the best method is
to turn the interrogee into a collaborator, that takes time... and a
lot more skill & intelligence than torture.



I will credit Doug with possibly adding a substantive claim that
waterboarding doesn't work. I say "possibly" because again rather than
making that specific claim he invokes the T word to claim that "torture"
doesn't work

Well, it doesn't. The only people who say it does are Bush/Cheney
propagandists.... at least nowadays. In the past, torture had it's
enthusiastic adherents.

And trying to say that crucifixtion & waterboarding are not "torture"
is a not a red herring, it's a big fat lie. Of course, you're very
comfortable with that as a basic tactic.

Lastly, let's take a look at the premise that by NOT torturing
captives, we are "allowing" terrorists to carry out their planned
attacks... a very very misplaced moral responsibility.

Of course, for a group that is openly hoping that millions more
Americans will lose their jobs & homes, will suffer medical
misfortunes they can'tafford, and that as a result President Obama's
popularity will wane, isn't really out of place hoping that terrorists
will attack & kill thousands of Americans so they can blame Obama for
that too.... doesn't really have much of a sense of morality OR
responsibility, do they?

DSK