Just want to say that if Americans are captured we'd be tortured without a second thought in way worse conditions than in Guantanamo Bay. Not saying that justifies our actions or anything like that, but I just wanted to add that they had it coming.
Just want to say that if Americans are captured we'd be tortured without a second thought in way worse conditions than in Guantanamo Bay. Not saying that justifies our actions or anything like that, but I just wanted to add that they had it coming.
In my opinion, torture for revenge is abhorrent and makes you no worse than they. It is only when through the use of torture intelligence is gained that saves other lives it is acceptable, in my opinion. If we are to go by the 'eye for an eye' adage, it would be justified to commit all manner of atrocities.
In Guantanamo Bay there is a simple yet effective system to stop this from happening. If you give false informattion you are treated worse, if you give good information you are rewarded. Inmates quickly learn to give correct information.
I remember that, and that is one of the reasons Obama decided to shut it down, because he believed that there should be no favoritism towards inmates.
@BifP: No. Torture is illegal-the USA isn't supposed to use torture techniques, so they would not hae it coming. And being pain jockeys like that as a tool of vengeance is stupid- we would make much more progress in preventing torture of Americans if we only used torture on people who it would work on psychologically- which we have epically failed to do, and as long as we apply torture where it won't work, mroie SAmericans will be tortured. Use of torture currently perpetuates the cycle of torture towards Americans- it doesn't help whatsoever.
Obama decided to shut it down because it was part of re-imaging America and getting rid of all the hate that surrounded the Bush administration. As Gitmo was symbolic of the Bush era, he decided to shut it down, not because of the rights of the inmates.
In my opinion, torture for revenge is abhorrent and makes you no worse than they. It is only when through the use of torture intelligence is gained that saves other lives it is acceptable, in my opinion. If we are to go by the 'eye for an eye' adage, it would be justified to commit all manner of atrocities.
Like I said, I'm not supporting torture. In the sense or moralitym of course we shouldn't torture them if there is nothing to be gained. All I was trying to point out was that we aren't torturing innocents, we're torturing captured enemies that want to kill us.
No. Torture is illegal-the USA isn't supposed to use torture techniques
It's illegal applying to American citizens. All American laws don't apply to someone who stepped on American soil, but those who are American citizens. Anyway, I never said I agreed with it. I was pointing out that they aren't undeserving out it.
we're torturing captured enemies that want to kill us.
That's a bull**** justification. -------
I was pointing out that they aren't undeserving out it.
Generalization. It doesn't help us to torture all of them- it only helps to torture the ones who will actually give up the correct information. The rest of my post refutes your rebuttal just fine; I won't repeat myself.
I said THREE times that I'm not supporting torture.
I understand that. But what you're saying ids still unjustified and crazy- torture is not justified because the person deserved it-like I said earlier, torture for vengeance enflames theose who would torture Americans, and it perpetuates the vicious cycel of torture. You don't seem to understand my argument.
In the sense or moralitym of course we shouldn't torture them if there is nothing to be gained.
Read my entire post and think about my position BEFORE you assume that I'm against you because I was trying to make one point that didn't completely shut down torture.
Read my entire post and think about my position BEFORE you assume that I'm against you because I was trying to make one point that didn't completely shut down torture.
I did read your post. But little is to be gained in ANY field, not just a moral one! Your post convinces me further that you don't see the gist of my argument- that the only purpose of torture is to use it when it will work- those situations are rare -and that will stop the cycle of the enemy torturing us unnecessarily and us torturing the enemy.
anticipation can be the greatest torture. As demonstrated by by chinese water torture, where the victim has their sight, and hearing sense taken away, and water drips irregularly on their forehead. Or the victim is induced in a faux sense of drowning (eyes masked, legs, hands bound head stuck in water) both of these require no force, though the second one called "Russian snake torture" may use a little bit. The first water torture (chinese) is supposed the drive the person insane, till he can't stand it anymore.
That's why I said of course we shouldn't torture them if there is nothing to be gained. Sorry for using the word *morality*. Fine, I'll rephrase it. In any sense, we shouldn't torture them if there is nothing to be gained. That's almost exactly what you're saying. I just happened to make the point that I don't like them. Apparently that combined with the word *morality* completely changes my position...
Adding 'morality' to it implies that the moral field was the only one- and I was mainly arguing your statement 'they aren't undeserving out it' because whether they deserve it or not is moot, and earlier you DID say that they had it coming. . .which implies that the torture could be used for some sort of vengeance for it. I wasn't arguing your statements as much as the implications of them.
