Conservatives Start Speaking Out Against Torture

[PubliusInfinitum]

Andrew Sullivan lays it out in such a way that (hopefully), even the diehard partisans can get it:

Manzi asks the question. I approach this from the just war tradition in which war, however vile, is sometimes defensible against a greater evil. Torture, however, is never moral or defensible under any circumstances. Why? It has to do, I believe, with autonomy. An enemy soldier that you are battling in combat remains autonomous (and potentially dangerous) until the moment of capture or surrender. At that point, his autonomy ends, as he is in captivity, unable to cause you further harm. And the infliction of severe pain or violence on someone who is thereby defenseless carries a much deeper moral weight than a fair or even unfair fight.

We all know this intuitively. It is the difference between two boys duking it out on a playground and a gang of boys restraining one while another beats the crap out of him. Torture is a form of cowardice and a form of cruelty, which is inherently different than the sometimes necessary evil of just warfare. My best attempt at expaining the relationship between torture and freedom, and why torture can only endure in unfree societies, is from 2005:

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Why is this so difficult to understand that we have a couple of dozen threads attempting to justify this practice?

For the record: I'm not a liberal. I voted for W - TWICE. I'm not a pacifist. I work in a law enforcement field. So, spare me the prejudgements.

Setting the whole liberal denial thing aside...

Would ya point out what "Enemy Soldier" we've tortured? I am not aware of any... Perhaps if you specified the "Enemy Soldier" in question and point to the 'torture' we're said to have implemented, then you will have established valid ground for a reasonable discussion of that issue.

That you've advanced principle which within the scope of the US GWOT is wholly out of context and further thoroughly redefined 'torture' to include non-invasive coersive interrogation of ILLEGAL COMBATANTS WHOSE ONLY TACTIC IS THE MASS MURDER OF INNOCENTS does a disserice to this board, the issues and the very dignity of those men whose duty it is to DEFEND INNOCENT LIFE and the RIGHTS WHICH EACH HUMAN BEING IS ENTITLED, until such time that those rights are FORFEITED through the overt usurpation of the rights of another.

Should you come across valid examples such as those noted above... get right back to us.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I see. So what is the problem. Keep it illegal and if its one of those really rare situation were torture is arguably justified then don't follow the law.

fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Disagree because there are always excuses you can find to torture someone. And the shining city on the hill doesn't torture people.

That's true and the US hasn't tortured anyone... that you and the sisters of the left need to redefine torture is your problem... the word has a meaning and making a detainee, whose is DETAINED BECAUSE HE WAS BUSY PLOTTING OR EXECUTING MASS MURDER... uncomfortable or fearful of their life, is NOT TORTURE. And it will never be torture NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ERRONOUSLY CONCLUDE OTHERWISE.

 

[ABikerSailor]

apparently you keep missing that people bring up the un treaty/charter that makes torture illegal...that treaty/charter is the supreme law of the land due to the constitution. i am talking legalities and principles of violating the constitution...and trying to get people to understand that they agree that at times it was patriotic to not follow the constitution to a "t"....

morally...i've stated already that IMO, mild torture is moral when it can save a life.

I see. So what is the problem. Keep it illegal and if its one of those really rare situation were torture is arguably justified then don't follow the law.

fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

for a real time debate on this, check out police tactics/coercion....

Okay.....tell ya what.......next time that you get pulled over for a traffic violation, get caught for something illegal, here's what I hope happens to you.......

They cuff you, take you to the station, wall you about 10-20 times, then waterboard you for 6 times/day until you confess to your crime, as well as all the unsolved crimes they have on file.

THEN come back and tell me torture works.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVKhhnRStRk[/ame]

By the way yurt......if you don't know the difference between urinal cakes and real cakes, then how in the fuck can you possibly tell us anything useful about torture?

 

[WillowTree]

Hysteria is most unbecoming librals.. very..

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

waterboarding....sleep deprevation.....dogs barking at you.......being stripped naked....sounds more like a frat hazing than anything else.....

Way to try and diminish something you have no intention of experiencing. I'll tell you what, Manu. You give waterboarding a try, and then get back to us.

I've tried it and implemented it, MANY TIMES and I couldn't agree MORE with Manu... He is exactly right.

In essence what you and the sisters of the left are saying is that without regard to the circumstances, that whether or not innocent life is on the precipice of certain mayhem; that there is NEVER a time where those reasonably believed to possess information which would likely spare those innocents... that there is NEVER a time where those individuals can or should be made to feel 'uncomfortable' or that THEIR LIVES ARE threatened...

It is absurd beyond measure...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Speaking of absurd.........

How's life Infinite Puberty?

 

[Iriemon]

waterboarding....sleep deprevation.....dogs barking at you.......being stripped naked....sounds more like a frat hazing than anything else.....

Way to try and diminish something you have no intention of experiencing. I'll tell you what, Manu. You give waterboarding a try, and then get back to us.

I've tried it and implemented it, MANY TIMES and I couldn't agree MORE with Manu... He is exactly right.

In essence what you and the sisters of the left are saying is that without regard to the circumstances, that whether or not innocent life is on the precipice of certain mayhem; that there is NEVER a time where those reasonably believed to possess information which would likely spare those innocents... that there is NEVER a time where those individuals can or should be made to feel 'uncomfortable' or that THEIR LIVES ARE threatened...

It is absurd beyond measure...

You waterboarded people?

 

[Just A Man]

Waterboarding does not injure or drown. I think before anyone takes a stand on waterboarding they should be waterboarded. Then they would be speaking intelligently from their experience.

I do know if I had the option of being decapitated or waterboarded I wouldn't have to think very long on it.

 

[Iriemon]

fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Disagree because there are always excuses you can find to torture someone. And the shining city on the hill doesn't torture people.

That's true and the US hasn't tortured anyone... that you and the sisters of the left need to redefine torture is your problem... the word has a meaning and making a detainee, whose is DETAINED BECAUSE HE WAS BUSY PLOTTING OR EXECUTING MASS MURDER... uncomfortable or fearful of their life, is NOT TORTURE. And it will never be torture NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ERRONOUSLY CONCLUDE OTHERWISE.

So you've said before.

Yet the US Govt says otherwise, called it a war crime and prosecuted and sentence people to 15 years hard labor for doing it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Tell it to Ronald Reagan. He's the one who signed the ban into law. Last I checked, he was a conservative.

Also, do you have any idea how ridiculous the phrase "mild torture" sounds? What an oxymoron.

I believe you are correct... except you strip Reagan's intentions from the context in which his agreement rests...

Reagan actually understood what the international conventions were designed to do... and part and parcel of that understanding was the protections of UNIFORMED COMBATANTS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS... where one NATION WOULD NOT ABUSE THE PRISONERS OF WAR WHICH IT HELD and he agreed that the US would adhere to the same principles...

Terrorists, particularly high value EXECUTIVES of TERRORISM... are NOT COMBAT TROOPS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS...

They are MASS MURDERERS WHO ARE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF TIME SENSITIVE INFORMATION WHICH< IF IT CAN BE HAD> WILL MOST CERTAINLY SPARE INNOCENT LIFE AND DEFEND THE BED ROCK PRINCIPLES ON WHICH ALL HUMAN RIGHTS REST.

It is the DUTY of the US, where such individuals are in our possession to INDUCE THEM TO BE FORTHCOMING WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY CERTAINLY POSSESS WHICH WILL BE USED TO PREVENT THE OPERATIONS FROM MURDERING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS... as that is the ONLY TACTIC WHICH THIS ENEMY EXECUTES...

 

[Iriemon]

Waterboarding does not injure or drown. I think before anyone takes a stand on waterboarding they should be waterboarded. Then they would be speaking intelligently from their experience.

I do know if I had the option of being decapitated or waterboarded I wouldn't have to think very long on it.

Neither does electrodes attached to your testicles, if the shock isn't too great. So let's do that too.

America. Land of the free and home of the torturers.

 

[Yurt]

Disagree because there are always excuses you can find to torture someone. And the shining city on the hill doesn't torture people.

so its the slippery slope argument...tell me, why then does the law allow you to kill someone in self defense when killing someone is otherwise illegal? using your argument, everyone will always then find an excuse to defend themselves and murder people...

the slippery slope argument in this case is meritless, there are checks and balances to it just like the self defense argument. perhaps you think we should away with all defenses to criminal law....

The proposal has more merit that a rule that simply permits torture. I thought about it. But it the end, I just don't want to be associated with a government that thinks torturing people can be legitimate. Nor do I think it is helpful in the war of ideas we are in.

kindly answer the right to kill in self defense and other defenses to criminal law...

you can leave if you don't want to be associated...fact is torture works and does save lives. perhaps you don't like saving lives. and really, they don't care whether we torture or not...before any torture stuff came out they were sawing people's heads off and hanging them up over bridges after beating the living shit out of them....

i can't fathom how it is you libs ignore that and act as if they are upset at us just because of a few torture acts when torture, cutting off hands, is allowed in islam....they won the media war, act angry and violent and scare the crap out of libs....they won, you lost

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Way to try and diminish something you have no intention of experiencing. I'll tell you what, Manu. You give waterboarding a try, and then get back to us.

I've tried it and implemented it, MANY TIMES and I couldn't agree MORE with Manu... He is exactly right.

In essence what you and the sisters of the left are saying is that without regard to the circumstances, that whether or not innocent life is on the precipice of certain mayhem; that there is NEVER a time where those reasonably believed to possess information which would likely spare those innocents... that there is NEVER a time where those individuals can or should be made to feel 'uncomfortable' or that THEIR LIVES ARE threatened...

It is absurd beyond measure...

You waterboarded people?

Yes, but just for fun... practice, if ya will.

And I've been waterboarded... and yes... waterboardING is preferred.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yo......Infinite Puberty.......weren't YOU taught how to resist torture?

If so, you of all people should understand it DOES NOT WORK.

Unless........of course.........you're stupid, which may be the case.

 

[Iriemon]

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

Tell it to Ronald Reagan. He's the one who signed the ban into law. Last I checked, he was a conservative.

Also, do you have any idea how ridiculous the phrase "mild torture" sounds? What an oxymoron.

I believe you are correct... except you strip Reagan's intentions from the context in which his agreement rests...

Reagan actually understood what the international conventions were designed to do... and part and parcel of that understanding was the protections of UNIFORMED COMBATANTS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS... where one NATION WOULD NOT ABUSE THE PRISONERS OF WAR WHICH IT HELD and he agreed that the US would adhere to the same principles...

Terrorists, particularly high value EXECUTIVES of TERRORISM... are NOT COMBAT TROOPS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS...

They are MASS MURDERERS WHO ARE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF TIME SENSITIVE INFORMATION WHICH< IF IT CAN BE HAD> WILL MOST CERTAINLY SPARE INNOCENT LIFE AND DEFEND THE BED ROCK PRINCIPLES ON WHICH ALL HUMAN RIGHTS REST.

It is the DUTY of the US, where such individuals are in our possession to INDUCE THEM TO BE FORTHCOMING WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY CERTAINLY POSSESS WHICH WILL BE USED TO PREVENT THE OPERATIONS FROM MURDERING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS... as that is the ONLY TACTIC WHICH THIS ENEMY EXECUTES...

You believe everything the Govt tells ya?

 

[Iriemon]

I've tried it and implemented it, MANY TIMES and I couldn't agree MORE with Manu... He is exactly right.

In essence what you and the sisters of the left are saying is that without regard to the circumstances, that whether or not innocent life is on the precipice of certain mayhem; that there is NEVER a time where those reasonably believed to possess information which would likely spare those innocents... that there is NEVER a time where those individuals can or should be made to feel 'uncomfortable' or that THEIR LIVES ARE threatened...

It is absurd beyond measure...

You waterboarded people?

Yes, but just for fun... practice, if ya will.

And I've been waterboarded... and yes... waterboardING is preferred.

How long did you last? Describe what it was like, if you don't mind.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Torture is a crime under all circumstances. Warfare isn't necessarily a crime.

 

[WillowTree]

I believe the left wing lunatics will happily let millions die.. and not blink an eye,, feeling all sanctimonious and shit..

 

[Yurt]

I see. So what is the problem. Keep it illegal and if its one of those really rare situation were torture is arguably justified then don't follow the law.

fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

for a real time debate on this, check out police tactics/coercion....

Okay.....tell ya what.......next time that you get pulled over for a traffic violation, get caught for something illegal, here's what I hope happens to you.......

They cuff you, take you to the station, wall you about 10-20 times, then waterboard you for 6 times/day until you confess to your crime, as well as all the unsolved crimes they have on file.

THEN come back and tell me torture works.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVKhhnRStRk[/ame]

By the way yurt......if you don't know the difference between urinal cakes and real cakes, then how in the fuck can you possibly tell us anything useful about torture?

you're fucking moron...i'm telling you the difference between urinal cakes....looool, apparently you don't know how to read LMAO....thats the best you got....dude, stay off the keyboard

and again, you're not following what i am saying. i advocate some amount of torture ONLY to save a life. stop putting words in my mouth and spouting red herrings....

and btw....stop eating the yellow urinal cakes, they're not real cakes

 

[WillowTree]

fine with me...some actions are unlawful, however, under exigent circumstances, exceptions to the law are allowed...one type test is the totality of the circumstances...

but to outright ban all torture, mild included, is silly. what might be considered torture might just get (and intelligence says has worked) information that will save lives. its a balance...if a claim of torture is brought, run a balance test. mild torture vs save hundreds or one life...i'm going to go with mild torture. no reasonable cause to torture, then busted.

for a real time debate on this, check out police tactics/coercion....

Okay.....tell ya what.......next time that you get pulled over for a traffic violation, get caught for something illegal, here's what I hope happens to you.......

They cuff you, take you to the station, wall you about 10-20 times, then waterboard you for 6 times/day until you confess to your crime, as well as all the unsolved crimes they have on file.

THEN come back and tell me torture works.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVKhhnRStRk[/ame]

By the way yurt......if you don't know the difference between urinal cakes and real cakes, then how in the fuck can you possibly tell us anything useful about torture?

you're fucking moron...i'm telling you the difference between urinal cakes....looool, apparently you don't know how to read LMAO....thats the best you got....dude, stay off the keyboard

and again, you're not following what i am saying. i advocate some amount of torture ONLY to save a life. stop putting words in my mouth and spouting red herrings....

and btw....stop eating the yellow urinal cakes, they're not real cakes

pssss yurt,, it's just more of their dishonest fuckery..