Torture battle escalating, Pelosi vs. Boehner

[Iriemon]

So Irie. Then what does legitimate death mean?

I think you brought it up first? It means lots of things. You asked if a terrorist can be legitimately killed. Yes. I mentioned on example. Another is when necessary to stop the act the terrorist is trying to accomplish.

The fact that they can legitimately be killed does not imply they can be legitimately tortured. Though some might argue that point to argue that it is never legitimate to put someone to death.

How can you be pro death and anti torture?

Yeah, that is what the anti-death folks say.

The answer given is that death can be done in a "humane" way. Plus, permissible torture would affect a far broader range of persons than the death penalty does.

 

[catzmeow]

How can you be pro death and anti torture?

Because some people need to be culled from the herd. That doesn't mean that we should embrace barbarism.

 

[Mr. President]

So persmissable torture is used to find out who else needs to be culled from the heard. Or would we allow wolves in sheeps clothing to remain among the sheep in the name of humanity?

 

[MalibuMan]

Against torture but support abortions!!!!!!!

 

[catzmeow]

So persmissable torture is used to find out who else needs to be culled from the heard. Or would we allow wolves in sheeps clothing to remain among the sheep in the name of humanity?

What acts do you consider permissible, Mr. President?

Are you okay with cutting off body parts in the name of uncovering the wolves? How about flaying someone's skin from his body? Burning a suspect? Repeatedly electrocuting a suspect? How about genital mutilation?

Can you excuse those deeds if they turn up information that stops a terror attack?

 

[Mr. President]

Yup

 

[catzmeow]

Yup

Then, that's where our two roads diverge in a bloody wood.

 

[Mr. President]

So be it.

 

[Iriemon]

Yup

Do you support a rule that permits that kind of torture even if it doesn't turn up information that stops a terror attack?

 

[catzmeow]

It doesn't mean I don't like and respect you, Pres. I just think you're wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Mr. President]

Yup

Do you support a rule that permits that kind of torture even if it doesn't turn up information that stops a terror attack?

Was the torture in attempt to stop a terror attack?

 

[Mr. President]

It doesn't mean I don't like and respect you, Pres. I just think you're wrong, wrong, wrong.

If everyone I liked agreed with everything I said I wouldn't like anybody.

 

[Iriemon]

Yup

Do you support a rule that permits that kind of torture even if it doesn't turn up information that stops a terror attack?

Was the torture in attempt to stop a terror attack?

Whatever the reason was for doing it. The interrogator thought that the victim might have information about an attack.

 

[Mr. President]

Yup

 

[catzmeow]

Yup

So, you would support torturing a potentially innocent person in the off-chance that it might prevent some other atrocity.

Do you get the moral ambiguity of your position here?

Is it that middle easterners are just somehow less human than the average American, and thus, expendable?

 

[Iriemon]

Yup

So, you would support torturing a potentially innocent person in the off-chance that it might prevent some other atrocity.

Do you get the moral ambiguity of your position here?

Is it that middle easterners are just somehow less human than the average American, and thus, expendable?

There is no logical reason why the same rational doesn't apply to Americans.

If the rational for torture is that it might save an innocent life, then the only logical conclusion is that we should torture Americans if it might save a life.

And then its a small jump to saying we should do away with a trial if it might save a life.

The "might save a life" justification (close cousin to the "national security" argument) can be used to justify a police state.

 

[Iriemon]

Yup

Now that we've adopted the rule that allows governments to torture people if they say they thought it might save lives, does our rule apply to civilian interrogations as well? If someone is believed to be a member of a gang and the interrogator thinks that torturing the gang member might save lifes, is that OK under the rule too?

 

[catzmeow]

Evil gang members also don't need access to legal counsel or a trial. Let's also say that we can hold them, on suspicion of criminal activity, indefinitely.

That seems democratic.

 

[Iriemon]

Evil gang members also don't need access to legal counsel or a trial. Let's also say that we can hold them, on suspicion of criminal activity, indefinitely.

That seems democratic.

That is the logical conclusion if your rule system is based on whether it can save lives.

 

[Mr. President]

Yup

So, you would support torturing a potentially innocent person in the off-chance that it might prevent some other atrocity.

Do you get the moral ambiguity of your position here?

Is it that middle easterners are just somehow less human than the average American, and thus, expendable?

Enemies of the United States are expendable.