'90% of Americans' would approve waterboarding

thelordofcheese

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well you could go with the Russian take on Islamic terrorism - if they got a terrorist, they sent round the Spetsnaz in the wee hours of the morning and slaughtered their family and friends in their beds. Don't see many planes being flown into Russian buildings now do you? Not that I'm saying its a good thing, just a different perspective on the issue.

However, you do see several suicide bombings and hostage situations, beslan anyone?

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

They don't strike me as being parallel examples. On one hand you have a proximate lethal threat

So it is OK to torture innocent people if there is a proximate lethal threat?

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote: »

So it is OK to torture innocent people if there is a proximate lethal threat?

In extremis, yes. To take the cliché'd example, you've got two detainees. One of the two you are pretty sure knows nothing, the other knows where the nuke is that's about to obliterate your capitol city in 24 hours, but you don't know which is which. If waterboarding or some such has a better chance to help, I think there would be little choice.

Terry Nichols was a terrorist

I was referring to (then) Flt Lt John Nichols, the Tornado pilot captured and beaten about a bit in the 1991 Gulf War.

NTM

SimpleSam06

Hobbes wrote: »

So your saying we should be like monsters? Have we sunk that low?

To quote myself, just a different perspective on things.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

However, you do see several suicide bombings and hostage situations, beslan anyone?

That was Chechens, after the destruction of Grozny I believe. It is doubtful they had much family left to lose, if any. Also I believe the Russians broke the hostage situation by setting the school on fire and shelling it with a tank, before storming it with special forces.

humbert

In much the same way I believe most people are capable of murder in a suitably extreme situation I think there are few of us that wouldn't consider torture an acceptable evil under certain situations.

However there is a massive leap between accepting that there are situations where torture is an acceptable evil and condoning any governments systematic use of torture as an interrogation method.

The Geneva Convention was put in place making this sort of conduct illegal because even in times of war a certain degree of humanity must be maintained, even toward one's enemies.

Terry

Manic Moran wrote: »

In extremis, yes. To take the cliché'd example, you've got two detainees. One of the two you are pretty sure knows nothing, the other knows where the nuke is that's about to obliterate your capitol city in 24 hours, but you don't know which is which. If waterboarding or some such has a better chance to help, I think there would be little choice.



I was referring to (then) Flt Lt John Nichols, the Tornado pilot captured and beaten about a bit in the 1991 Gulf War.

NTM

I'm really hungover/ about to get drunk again.
Could you please explain where you are going with this Nichols analogy.

Also, your reply to Hobbes sounds like something out of an Arnie film.

thelordofcheese

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

That was Chechens, after the destruction of Grozny I believe. It is doubtful they had much family left to lose, if any. Also I believe the Russians broke the hostage situation by setting the school on fire and shelling it with a tank, before storming it with special forces.

Who they were or what the had to lose isn't really the point, more that the russian approach that you describe doesn't seem to be as successful a deterant to terrorism as you'd imply.
Infact there have been plenty of suicide bombing and assassinations since the whole chechnya fiasco started, not just beslan and the Moscow theater hostage crisis.

(also fun fact: Most Chechens are muslims)

SimpleSam06

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Who they were or what the had to lose isn't really the point, more that the russian approach that you describe doesn't seem to be as successful a deterant to terrorism as you'd imply.
Infact there have been plenty of suicide bombing and assassinations since the whole chechnya fiasco started, not just beslan and the Moscow theater hostage crisis.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

which goes to show the technique works for small groups of terrorists, but you can't apply it to a countrywide resistance.

Do try to keep up.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

(also fun fact: Most Chechens are muslims)

No, really? :rolleyes:

Overheal

To take this in a less stagnant direction: how do any of you feel about 'unwarranted surveillance'?

Its not torture but it can lead to the information you want.

Terry

I don't really think anyone should be worried about surveillance, as long as they have nothing to hide.

Manic Moran

Terry wrote: »

I'm really hungover/ about to get drunk again.
Could you please explain where you are going with this Nichols analogy.

I'm pointing out that some people who suffered abuse after capture consider an amount of it to be about par for the course. Everyone suffers some form of intimidation in detention, be it minor (Good cop/bad cop, considered generally acceptable) through notable, but not permanent (Like Nichols, considered something of an occupational hazard)) through permanent (We'll cut off this finger here..., generally considered a little beyond the line)

Also, your reply to Hobbes sounds like something out of an Arnie film.

As I said, in extremis, as an example to show that there's a subjective moral line. We as Western society already have few qualms with killing innocents as long as we try to minimize it as much as reasonably possible.

NTM

Hagar

Manic Moran wrote: »

We as Western society already have few qualms with killing innocents as long as we try to minimize it as much as reasonably possible.

NTM

Shouldn't that read as follows?

"We as Americans already have few qualms killing non-American innocents as long as we pretend to try be trying to minimise it."

God Save (us from) America.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

In extremis, yes. To take the cliché'd example, you've got two detainees....

How do you determine to that point that the person knows nothing or not? The point I am trying to make is that just agreeing to torture puts you on a very rocky road.

Your example is routinely spouted on Fox News and in Senate hearings (known as the Jack Bauer defense). It is a flawed argument as you will never be put in a position where you know the exact person who will 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt be responsible for something that is about to happen.

Even if you could, that isn't what is happening in the US.

But the main flaw in your logic is that because torture is acceptable, then it is also acceptable for others.

So lets say Iran realises that the US is going to attack in 24 hours. By your description it is perfectly fine for them to grab people that may know about the attack and torture them. These people not always being in Iran (streets of America, or parts of Europe fair game).

So by extension, if you allow that then you shouldn't have a problem with Americans being tortured if others feel they need to find out information fast.

Or is it a case of do what I say, not as I do.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

In extremis, yes. To take the cliché'd example, you've got two detainees. One of the two you are pretty sure knows nothing, the other knows where the nuke is that's about to obliterate your capitol city in 24 hours,

Lets turn this around, what if you (by you I mean those suppoprting torture and not Manic) were kidnapped (I reject the term detention in these cases, as its actually kidnapping)? Would you be ok with someone torturing you in such a situation? Using Jack Bauer as an example, this could mean being stabbed and probably a beating at a minimum. After all, all there trying to do is save lives and they screwed up and tortured you instead and a bunch of people still die, since they got the wrong guy and waisted a load of time on poor innocent you.

The whole torture example that is trotted out is some bizarre revenge fantasy. The whole thing take huge leaps to justify torturing another Human being, even if the method there using isn't exactly the best one and very often produces false positives.

Tigger

Terry wrote: »

I don't really think anyone should be worried about surveillance, as long as they have nothing to hide.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2690172.ece


i disagree
its all realative

Hobbes

Here is another interesting take on MM example, and why torture or threat of torture tends not to work.

Abdallah Higazy (Egpytian national) during 9/11 was in a hotel in New York. When the planes hit he evac'ed like everyone else out of the building.

While out of the building the hotel found a radio that air pilots use in the room. Thinking that he may be related to the hijackers they call in the FBI.

The FBI then interrogate him. He pleads being innocent so the FBI threaten that they get his family tortured unless he confesses to being a hijacker (they live in Egypt). So he does confess and is then processed.

Meanwhile an airline pilot shows up at that hotel asking about a misplaced radio he owns. He gets it back.

Sometime later Abdallah is released. He is suing the hotel and FBI. But the only reason this has come to light at all is because the case details was made public, then marked confidential where it pointed out that the FBI had coercied him.

Much more details here. Very upsetting tbh.
http://www.psychsound.com/2007/10/a_tale_of_two_decisions_or_how.html

Nevyn

Tehre has been a push to make the american public think that torture is acceptible,
this has been done in several ways from making it seem that saving lives is permissible by any means nesscary to declassifying certain things as not torture, like water baording, keeping people away for 36 hours and bombarding them with harsh sounds.

This is even being reflect in advertisments in the usa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dC0_lVaiTQ

the_syco

Sounds like he plucked the 90% figure out of the air.