g.o.d #fundie forum.gateworld.net

[ With that justification what limits would you place on interrogators? Suppose torture isn't getting what they need. That the captive will not break. Should you bring in the captive's compatriots who don't know what the interrogators need to know and torture them until the captive breaks? What if that doesn't work should you bring in the captive's spouse, children? Remember we're desperate for this information. What limits would you place upon the methods used in torturing someone for actionable intellegence? ]

yes, why not? The end justifies the means.If this is the only way how to save other people, it's not a big problem.

[ So, torture innocents to protect innocent lives? No irony there. ]


ok, let's make it simple. I would torture terrorist's family in order to break him so he would reveal informations I need to save a city or my country. I still don't have any problem with it

[ So, innocent lives have value, but not enough value to stop them from being tortured, despite the fact they are innocent? ]

what are you talking about? I value the western civilisation more than f.e. somalian or arabic. Look, I'm not one of those people who believe all cultures are equal, heck they don't even share same beliefs or moral standards. In order to preserve the western civilisation(even though it's very flawed) I would sacrifice another. You can call me racist, I don't care.

[ my whole point is that I think torture is a waste of time in addition to being immoral. ]

if it would be a waste of time, people wouldn't use it in the first place

Demerzel #fundie forum.gateworld.net

[ I disagree. This is not about semantics. It's about what lines you think it is okay to cross in the name of saving "innocent lives." If you are willing to allow innocents to be tortured to save other innocents I would find that rather ironic given that the justification for the torture of innocents is the protection of innocent lives. ]

How do you know the person being tortured is innocent? Why did you assume we knew the information beforehand? If we did, torture wouldn't be needed. We're talking about terrorists here. Not the use of torture on a victim that may or may not be guilty. That was never the point. Once more, considering the US government only recruits its very best and elite operatives for the few units that could come across those situations, I trust they'd know the right thing to do. Not the moral thing. The right thing.

Asking ME that question is not a good idea. I am pro atomic bomb, pro death penalty, and if you asked me, terrorists would have no right whatsoever, they'd have less rights than my cat. I am not officer material, nor am I the most moral person ever. So if needed, I'd go pretty darn far. Good thing I'll never be in that kind of situation or have that kind of authority.I certainly value the lives of my family and friends more than some random foreign family. And hell, I'm not even a patriot in any way. But ever since my best friend lost her uncle in the WTC tragedy and then watched her sink deeply into depression and worse, and after serving in the army, I have ZERO tolerance or pity for terrorists and what happens to them when they get caught. They attack our freedom and OUR rights. Why should we give them any rights whatsoever?

[ Well, as you, I live in this world, and I'm sitting in this very moment on my computer, as you do, and of course I know that torture exists in civilised nations, and that it is used under special circumstances. But, it is forbidden, and it should be forbidden, and that is a good thing. Only under this strict law a civilised nation is able to keep this interrogation method as rare as possible, also to protect their own people. Really, I feel better if I know that not every single policeman, or any soldier is allowed to use torture to act as one thinks best. Because this happens if torture is allowed by law. Really, would you prefer to live in a nation, where torture is not restricted? Those nations exists in this world, and I don't want to live there. ]

I don't know for you. But I served my country, I was in the army for two years. So while now yes, I am here, I actually went and saw how it was for myself and it changed my life and my way of seeing the world.

And of course I wouldn't live in a country where torture is freely used. Of course I am glad only a very small number of operatives within the government are allowed to do these things.My point all along has never been that torture is a beautifully effective method that should be used all the time. It is simply that it has its place sometimes, and its uses. It's not perfect, it's not right. A lot of good men did questionable things for the greater good. One would argue that Truman shouldn't have ordered the nuclear attack on Japan. A lot of people were killed, innocent people. A lot more would have died, Americans, had he not done what he did.

But I'll say this. Some terrorists don't care about their own lives, but if confronted with their family about to die or get hurt, they might be willing to talk. Doesn't make it right, but it's still an option I would consider. I could go ahead and quote about 20 highly respected people like Patton, Wilde, Von Clausewitz, Asimov and a number of fabled generals and leaders that have plainly said that morals can't get in the way of doing what's right and that sometimes innocent lives must be sacrificed so that a greater number can live.

Sami_ #fundie forum.gateworld.net

on torture

Any psychological effects are unfortunate but every measure should be taken to reduce the chance of long term psychological trauma and to make sure that there is good reason to believe the person has the information in the first place.

Every country has examples of innocent people going to jail for crimes they didn't commit (A-Team lolol) and I'm sure those people had lasting psychological effects but we don't stop sending people to jail because we might be wrong.

Just to be clear I'm completely against rounding up people arbitrarily based on anything than convincing evidence that they are connected to an attack in some way, I would not tolerate torturing people because they are a certain race or because they happen to go to the same mosque as a known terrorist or whatever the case may be. Investigating, gathering evidence and implementing the interrogation techniques we classify as torture should be a science and approached impartially by competent individuals.

[ And what if the average percentage of people who commit suicide is put to that '100' people. So we now have (iirc it is around 2.8 percent) so 3 people killing themselves cause of that 'torture'? Was that one life still worth it? ]

Again this is something that I feel is more about careful application of the various techniques used and the proper steps that should be taken afterwards.

Innocent or not I don't want to see people killing themselves after torture so I would want a careful investigation into what techniques used are causing it and adjust practices accordingly to bring that number as low as possible, also I would want some sort of "after care" to make sure a person subjected to torture is mentally stable and is not likely to commit suicide.

[ So how many innocent have to suffer torture or you to NOT think it is all right? 2? 8? 1000? ]

I wouldn't really use a flat number to decide nor would my decision be to decide that its not "all right".

If it was turning out that a very high number of people were being subjected to torture that had no involvement then I would be calling for stricter evidence that indicated a suspect could provide information.

If you are asking how many peoples temporary suffering I think a life is worth though, it would be very high, certainly well over 100.

[ "The U.S. Constitution Amendment VIII:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Yeah, those guys in the 18th century *shakes head* I wish they hadn't been so doggone sqiwmish. They could have thrown in an exception for "unless we really, really, really, need to torture someone" couldn't they?

I'm not American so not sure why your quoting the US constitution to me, I actually live in a true democracy.

As for suggesting that jail and torture have anything in common. I'd like to remind that people who go to jail get a trial. People who are tortured do not. People who go to jail can appeal the decision. People who are tortured can not. ]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that any measures that are currently taken or even ones I'd like to see in regards to torture would be as thorough as a trial I'm merely pointing out that we already subject people that could be innocent to long sentences that in my opinion are worse than torture and that the risk of incarcerating an individual who is innocent whether it be a jail sentence or torture is not reason enough to avoid the practice altogether

[ So, hypothetically of course, If I find out who you really are and call the Dept. of Homeland Security to let them know I think you may be aware of an impending terrorist use of nuclear weapons on U.S. soil you'd be cool with being picked up, waterboarded, beaten, sleep deprived, or worse (all without the benefit of counsel or trial) despite the fact they are operating on nothing but the hearsay warning? After all it's only temporary pain weighed against a possible nuclear explosion in a major U.S. city, right? ]

If the bolded part is the extent of your evidence then no I would not be happy just as I would if anyone was arrested/charged/convicted of a crime with the justification that "you think". As for the techniques you cited, yes I am fine with all of those if there is a real expectation that information gained can save lives.

False confessions can happen in any investigation and there are rules and procedures in place to identify them, I'm no expert in torture but I assume they work just as dillligently to weed out false confessions.

The Mighty 6 platoon #fundie forum.gateworld.net

Military men and women deal in violence, they kill people for a living, and in the heat of the movement many will have no problem about kicking the crap out of prisoners for information. This attitude isn’t going to go away, and no matter how many rules and regulations you put in place, it won’t work, soldiers will still give prisoners a shoeing if they feel the need to, and if it comes out that this has been going on then more than likely the military will close ranks and cover it up. As far they are concerned if you aren’t in a combat situation you can’t understand, and the military will go a long way to protecting its men and women, especially if they feel they are being scapegoat by people who weren’t on the ground and have no idea about how what it’s like on the ground.

Speaking as a part time member of the military, I would have no trouble in kicking the crap out of someone if I thought I could get vital information out them, if that information was needed fast and peoples lives were on the line, and it’s a particularly common view (I'd like to point out that if however, It is not the official or common policy or practice of the British Army, or any other Western Army to abuse prisoners, but if a do or die situation arose, you do what you have to do). When you train people in combat and violence you can’t expect them to be the most empathetic people on the planet when it comes to peoples welfare, especially when they've been trying to kill you and may be withholding information that may get you killed.

[ If you are willing to take yourself down to their level, what the hell are you fighting for? The enemy, who has been dehumanised as a terrible monster who is killed, raping, pillaging and torturing people willy nilly is what you want to stop. When you become them, what's the point in even trying to stop them? You just became them.

They just won.

Granted, this is more of an ethics debate and really has no place here but it's just a little food for though ]

Your already down on their level so to speak. You think that planting a bayonet into the face of some 18 year old conscript who's just doing what he's told gives a person a particularly moral high ground?

[ o quote Michael Weston from Burn Notice:

"The fact is, torture is for sadists and thugs. It's like getting groceries with a flame thrower; it doesn't work and it makes a mess."


"Torture just gets you the fastest lie to make the pain stop"

Frankly, I tend to agree. ]

Yeah, that's a tv show, you know fiction.

The fact is there have been numerous cases where torture has been highly effective. The KGB didn't keep places like Lubyanka open simply for their own amusement. As a interrogation tactic its not more or less effective than any other form of interrogation, prisoners can string people along in many other ways. The main and only real argument against torture is the moral implications.

Considering my friends serving overseas are fighting the Taliban the chances of them getting good treatment if they were captured is slim to none. They are at the very least if ever captured guaranteed far worse treatment than any Taliban captured. And honestly you get captured you hope for the best, but it is very difficult to have any sympathy or respect for someone who has just tried to kill you.

The idea that torture is ineffective is a fairly recent one, a nice way to justify not using it. Is this actually the case? Not really no. Torture can be ineffective and unreliable, but no more so than any other form of interrogation can be. Morality aside in order to be effective it simply has to be used in the right situation.

s09119 #fundie forum.gateworld.net

[ rofl no it doesn't. Torture is both wrong and unreliable. These are facts.

It always astonishes me that there are people willing to argue in favour of it. All this "would you torture to save this" nonsense is a ludicrous strawman argument. Would you violently rape a woman to save your mother's life? Would you torture a child to death to save your own? It's ridiculous. There's absolutely no justification for torture, ever. ]

And yes, if it meant saving innocent lives, I would do immoral things. Compromising my own sense of morality or innocence to prevent others from a horrible fate is something I could live with, however painful it may be

So policemen torture all the time when they made threats they never intend to make good on to people in the interrogation room. And don't tell me that doesn't happen, because I have several family members who have made lifelong careers out of police work that can testify that it and similar things happen fairly routinely.

Torture demands certainty of results to be even remotely justifiable; though it's still wrong.

Why does it demand certainty? Nothing in life is ever 100% certain, no police sting, no military raid, no arrest, no anything. Why is torture any different? As long as we're reasonably sure and the stakes are too high to ignore, why must we sit there and let people die for no reason?


[ Morality aside? Morality should never be swept aside.It was swept aside during the previous administration years. It should be something they should always be held accountable for. And NEVER forgiven.Using torture is inexcusable. It is no better than the crimes they were being accused of. ]

So when your life depends on someone being tortured for information, I would like you to go up to the person due to be interrogated and tell them how much you're looking forward to dying because his captors will not torture.

[ Hence my point. In order to be willing to torture, you have to be willing to torture an innocent. If we are talking about the "ticking time bomb" scenario everyone throws out. It's going to look like a MacGruber sketch if you've got the wrong person. Torture is pointless unless you already know what the person you are torturing knows ]

Yes, just like there are innocent people thrown in jail or put to death in every country in the world every day. It's a risk we have to take, but of course we try to minimize the chances that such a person would ever be subjected to that

[ How does the interrogator "miminize" the risk of torturing an innocent if they don't know what the person to be tortured knows before they torture them ]

We need to have a good idea that the person in question has the information we need to know, of course, same as we'd like to be reasonably sure the person we're sending to jail or putting to death actually committed the crime we say they did. I don't see what you're arguing

I'm definitely someone who thinks war is a sad state for humanity to be in, and if it was possible in this world, I'd want us all to be pacifists. But since that's out of the question, we need to accept reality for what it is and work with that. Warping how things really are for the sake of your argument doesn't create anything but an illusion.

[ All you need to do is substitute the word paedophilia for the word torture in this thread to see what I'm saying. There is, after all, a section of society that says paedophilia is okay. ]

One is a sexual act that achieves nothing substantial, one is an intelligence-gathering act that can provide information to save lives. Completely different circumstances, and you bringing it up is no different from opponents of same-sex marriage comparing said institution to incest to drive a debate off track.

[ Okay, so, if someone says paedophilia is wrong and someone else says it's right, that's just a meaningless social construction. ]

Technically, yes. But of course we're from the society that says it's sickening and perverted, so it's not as if we're going to spring to its defense. Torture is a different issue entirely

[ It's proven that people will lie when tortured, that if they don't have the information wanted that they'll make it up in order to make the pain stop.]

And the same for normal interrogation to avoid being thrown in jail.

[ and what value do you put on a life. How many people have to be in danger to justify torturing someone? How many people do you torture to get the information? After all, one person rarely knows everything. Wouldn't you logically need someone to back up the intel? ]

Any more than the amount of people I'm torturing. Reverse of the one before. True. Possibly, depends on how much time we have to work with.
me with any other case in life where an innocent is wrongly subjected to something, yes.

[ Furthermore, what exactly do you do when you figure out it's an innocent you've tortured? Do you compensate them or say, "opps my bad" and let 'em go? ]

same with any other case in life where an innocent is wrongly subjected to something, yes.

[ A lot of people are jumping on a moral stance of torture being bad simply because on face value it appears to be a bad thing to do. Unfortunately, in this place we live in called reality, sometimes bad things have to be done to stop much worse things happening. ]
What I find stranger is that people don't bat an eyelash at all the killing done along the same lines and for the same reasons as torture, but find torture itself to be irredeemably reprehensible in every and all situations.

Demerzel #fundie forum.gateworld.net

Every time I try to convince myself that torture is wrong, I remember the first scene in the first episode of season 7 of 24. Bauer is accused of torturing a terrorist for information. He admits that torture is wrong and illegal, but points out that said terrorist had targeted a bus with like 40 people and 12 children. So torturing that guy saved the lives of all those people.

Would you honestly prefer to see the terrorist, a guy that attacked your country and innocent citizens, unharmed, and see 50 people die, rather than inflicting him a little pain to make him admit the truth, so you can save innocent lives?

I think some things are wrong but yet may become necessary sometimes. Killing is wrong. Yet we do it in self-defense, or to protect others.

It's a weird world we live in. The SAD section of the CIA is authorized, by law, to assassinate people if needed to protect the country. So, ending someone's life is alright. But inflicting pain on them to try to get information is something that would go "against all this country stands for". Would be better if we simply killed him and didn't try to get intel out of him, then other people will also die. But hey, at least we can feel good about ourselves and our high moral standards, since we didn't torture anyone. Let's not interrogate terrorists anymore, let's just kill them. I mean, their numbers are bound to run out sometimes, right? Right? Oh wait.

We're talking about the country that dropped a nuclear bomb on a town filled with civilians and keeps putting its nose where it doesn't belong.

Torture is immoral. So is killing. Both are unfortunately necessary evils and are sometimes required to save lives. While people are busy being morally right, people die. Simple as that

[ Demerzel,Because it's a natural progression. If this is all about the ends justifying the means then perhaps the Terrorist will resist torture of their person. Thus, the next step is to torture people they care about, people who are innocent of any wrong doing and just happen to have a ******* for a mother or father.
To be clear, are you saying torturing the child of the terrorist (the child who has nothing to do with their mother or father's activities) is justified?

this is a difficult question. Personally, I don't think I would be able to do that unless, let's say, I knew that the lives of my family were threatened. That would be a direct enough threat to make me do about anything. Would it be "justified" to torture a child? I think it's wrong. But I also believe that our enemies don't follow any laws and don't care about the lives they take, and if we follow the laws to the letter while fighting them, we're going to lose. That's why the SAD exists, that's why we don't only fight enemies on the battlefield. President Reagan knew that some situations would come up that required soldiers to cross a line for the greater good.

I'm going to stop posting here, because the truth is that we can keep talking about this but none of us can know how it feels to be in such a situation, or what we'd do if such a situation presented itself. Presented with the chance to save many people at the price of one life, no matter be it adult or a child, I would do whatever is needed to save the most lives. That's my bottom line.

[ Becoming a monster to stop a monster will never, ever, make sense to me. In essence, you lost the 'war' before you've even started if you 'fight' that way. ]

it's interesting to see that killing people is fine, but hurting them makes you a monster.
Why the heck should we respect them and be nice to them?
I'd have an easier time living with torturing someone, than letting a lot of people die without trying to prevent it. When was the last time a terrorist nicely offered information when asked without being threatened?
Snd please, we can agree that torture doesn't always provide the right information, but it does work sometimes.

[ But is sometimes really worth the psychological, life long damage you are going to leave the victim with on the off chance of them having information which may, or may not save them?

TV Show or real life, no situation is acceptable. Except on TV or in Movies they know they have the bad guy and we are - at times - positioned to follow the hero torturing... except, I'm still unsure how that makes the act acceptable. ]

So let's say a terrorist has planted a bomb in a bus full of people. He doesn't care that they will all die, even children, since he does this to make a point and attack the country. So you'd sleep good that night, if you didn't torture him. Now ask yourself how the families of those murdered by the terrorist you protected, are sleeping that night.

You'd care about leaving a murderer and terrorist with psychological damage, while innocent people are dying? Why the heck shouldn't we at least try to make him talk? You respect a murderer and terrorist more than innocent lives? Good people die when the people in authority choose inaction and morals over what needs to be done.
So let's say a terrorist has planted a bomb in a bus full of people. He doesn't care that they will all die, even children, since he does this to make a point and attack the country. So you'd sleep good that night, if you didn't torture him. Now ask yourself how the families of those murdered by the terrorist you protected, are sleeping that night.

You'd care about leaving a murderer and terrorist with psychological damage, while innocent people are dying? Why the heck shouldn't we at least try to make him talk? You respect a murderer and terrorist more than innocent lives? Good people die when the people in authority choose inaction and morals over what needs to be done.

[ LMAO, no you don't. You assume they have the information you want, and if you are torturing an innocent person and they lie to you to get you to stop how does that save lives?

The simple answer is; it does not. ]

It doesnt. Risk of hurting some innocents wont stop me from doing something that could save lives in the future.

It's a shame I can't give you rep more often. I completely agree.

"Never let morals get in the way of doing what's right." - Isaac Asimov

Sami_ #fundie forum.gateworld.net

I really can't disagree with torture on the basis of the pain/anguish it causes, human beings are resilient and I think we're becoming very soft and squeamish to such things. The only real arguments that I think hold value on the subject and are relevant to the opposing side are related to effectiveness. The question of torturing innocents is all down to competency of the individuals involved and really have nothing to do with the issue of torture itself and as I stated; humans are resilient - we can handle it. and I think we're becoming very soft and squeamish to such things.
Better for one man to feel such pain than a thousand innocents later on

I don't find anything morally objectionable about using torture to obtain information that will save lives.

Given the choice between inflicting temporary pain on one person to save the life of another I'd take the former without a seconds thought.

[ Trying to logically argue the value of compassion or empathy to someone is pointless. Either they have it or they don't. For many torture supporters the feelings of protection and pound of flesh retribution gained from the practice more than overrides any sense of compassion or fair play they may have. As long as they don't know who is being tortured and it isn't directing impacting their lives the suffering imposed on others isn't important to them. ]

It has nothing to do with a "pound of flesh" or "retribution gained". Maybe you should stick to your own feelings on the subject rather than trying to tell me what mine are, because none of what you just wrote is correct.

[ Is torture okay when you are unsure whether the person you are torturing has the information you need? ]

Yes, again we're weighing temporary pain for a very short time against a persons life.

Every country has examples of innocent people going to jail for crimes they didn't commit (A-Team lolol) and I'm sure those people had lasting psychological effects but we don't stop sending people to jail because we might be wrong.

[You also didn't answer my question about an innocent who lies under torture to make it stop. Is that a crime or not? Should an innocent who is totured be able to sue for being tortured, or is that just the cost of keeping or nation "free"?]

No I don't consider it a crime to falsely confess under duress and no I don't think an innocent who is tortured should be able to sue.

~Dave #fundie forum.gateworld.net

Evolution predicts nothing. Evolution scientists observe remains and tries to put a theory on what they find. The theory changes over time as contradictory evidence is found. It is evolution which slaves to it's theory, not fossils which tell them anything. I think it's all guess work "substantiated" by unprovable/anecdotal/circumstantial fossil records. And we have a long history of jumping to the wrong conclusions based on this kind of evidence. But that's just my opinion.

Jackie #fundie forum.gateworld.net

Could Satanist and Atheist be the same?


This thread is not intended to offend anyone but to merely examine the common elements between the two subjects. Please respect one another's beliefs.

As I have examined different beliefs and I have found two that strike me as eerily similar and yet strikingly different.

From my understanding so far, Atheist believe there is no life after death, god, heaven, hell or devil.

WingedPegasus #fundie forum.gateworld.net

[when confronted with the "We Have The Fossils, We Win" JPG]

You have the ancient pig's teeth, the bones of an old man with a rickets that made his skeleton look ape-like, chemically treated skulls that have teeth plugged with bubble gum, and millions of MISSING transitional skeletons that should be all over the earth.

Somehow I doubt the validity of Darwin's theories.

Cameron Mitchel #fundie forum.gateworld.net

Let me just say this, not once has proven science disproven facts about the Bible. But the Bible does disprove certain theories of science. Think about that... proven science doesn't disprove the existence of a deity. You may say that the Big Bang and evolution do, but no, they aren't proven. But, however, the Bible does disprove evolution and the Big Bang. So, as I said, think about that before responding again.