ThePaleoLibertarian
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 3,497
I don't think too many on this forum will vote "yes". Nothing about Western foreign policy has done anything to prevent terrorism, by any empirical measure I'm aware of.
Too complicated to answer yes or no.
95% or more of the time, no it doesn't.
I could build scenarios and so on. But the impossible absolutists on RPF will just call me names again.
But really that 1 in 100 time it might be necessary, so I don't rule out it out.
95% or more of the time, no it doesn't.
I could build scenarios and so on. But the impossible absolutists on RPF will just call me names again.
But really that 1 in 100 time it might be necessary, so I don't rule out it out.
DamianTV
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 20,677
It would be more interesting, but also more manipulative by distorting the perspective. I could have also rephrased "torture" as "Enhanced Interrogation Tactics" as a way to validate the methods performed by simply altering its phrasing. Processed Meat sounds less disgusting (but still somewhat disgusting to a few) than "Pink Slime". Policy and Contract insinuate the idea that something is Legal. It is just as much Policy for a Loan Shark to break someones kneecaps, despite the actions of the Policy not being deemed legal, unless youre a Cop. It is the phrasing that is critically important, and I am doing my best to not sugar coat it at all.
If you want, we can try a different "phrasing" in a separate poll, and instead of not sugar coating it, go the other way and sugar coat it and fluff it up as much as is possible. I think the differences in the outcomes may be quite different than those in this poll...
alucard13mm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,454
If they capture enemy combatants from overseas that was actively engaging in "terrorist" activities.. maybe.. but if they just kidnap some baker of a bakery in the middle of the night, then yes. there would be a problem.
brushfire
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2011
- Messages
- 6,472
Tribal Leader: Hey, that goat in our neighbor's herd looks a lot like the one you lost last month! Those a$$holes stole our goat! Tell the Americans that they are jihads that work for al qaeda - teach those thieves a lesson.
US: Off to gitmo - time for a chower...
^ The US plays the useful idiot here
DamianTV
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 20,677
Im not sure that would be that effective either.
Fighting, as in Active Combat, thats one thing. But after you've won your fight, continued fighting in the form of torture only perpetuates the very reason they hate us. It is possible that information can be extracted, but it isnt the only possible way to extract said information. What happens is when we do take the Baker, as mentioned, then torture the shit out of them until they say what is expected, we are creating at least as many new terrorists to replace the one just took out. It is the Violence and Fear Downward Spiral. As far as I am concerned, it is no way to end the "War on Terror", and we do it to eternally perpetuate it. It is no way for us to Lead by Example.
Next problem is our Govt only hears what it wants to hear. They dont give two shits about why those people became Terrorists to begin with. The only thing they want to hear out of the Terrorists that they Torture is something that will validate the existence of Torturers.
Now, how is Torture not a form of Terrorism in and of itself?
I was getting more to the distinction between the general effect that torture has on preventing terrorism, versus the specific effect that torture can have in an individual case. Nothing can really prevent terrorism in general, and torture can have the opposite effect by inciting more blowback. In specific cases though, if it can be an effective method to extract information, then it could prevent a particular act of terrorism.
presence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,330
All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.
It's a good quote, but it doesn't really apply here. No one advocates torture for the purpose of punishing guilty people -- the only justification being offered by some has to do with protecting other innocent people.
ThePaleoLibertarian
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 3,497
There certainly are scenarios where torture and all sorts of other brutalities may be justified. If there really is a ticking bomb scenario with a person in custody who knows where it is and hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives in the balance, torture might be the way to go. The thing is, life isn't an episode of 24, regardless of how much neocons want to convince us it is.
Problem is, unless you have access to classified intelligence, you aren't in a position to know whether we do or don't in fact have ticking time bomb (or equivalent) scenarios going on.
To quote jmdrake from the thread in the religion forum:
Of course, I am quite skeptical about it as well, but hence the dilemma. It is unwise to blindly trust the CIA to do the right thing, but it is also erroneous to make a claim about the situation surrounding an instance of torture that would be impossible for you to know.
?
So are you thinking that there is a context for which torture would be justified (but that this context isn't it), or are you saying it would still be immoral in any context?
Similar threads
