Warden Norton, on 13 Aug 2009, 1:58, said:
But then to be fair, is that fighting the right fight? Everyone moans about how torture and inhumane means of treating are terrible, terrible things, but so are the atrocities committed upon our own soil. I don't think there's any way of saying who started this 'War' that we have going on at the moment, but as long as the other side does this sort of thing, and worse *remembers bloke having head cut off with machete on TV*, then I'd say that it's not unreasonable to protect ourselves in a way that we see fit. I doubt anyone here would have a problem with being saved from danger through the torture of the person planning the event to begin with, which would kill or maim you if let be.
It's not nice, and in a time of peace I'd condone it as it would be pointless. However, it serves a point, and are we so stupid as to take the high ground so that we can 'lose' this 'war', just because we have a few people marching through the streets complaining about how it's not completely fair. Life isn't fair, they made their choice, and we have a right to defend our country.
The problem with torture, notwithstanding moral aspects, is that it is ultimately the most unreliable "tool" to gather information. Even the basic premise of torture is "the subject lies" or at least "the subject doesn't cooperate" and "we don't know the truth", i.e. "his statements are worthless" because there's no way to verify them. Now, the idea is to change this by subjecting the subjects to physical and mental torment to the point at which they stop lying and start telling the truth - problem being, for any neutral observer (i.e. anyone who isn't the poor bastard being tortured),
there's still no way of telling whether the subject lies or not as his statement's still can't be verified.
Besides that, forgive me for beginning to be a total asshole, but statistically and objectively speaking, saying that "their atrocities allow us to do the same" lacks
the foundation to have the meaning needed for your point.
First, it's a double-edged sword - it's not them who attacked us, so the statement could just as well be "our atrocities allow them to do the same".
We are the ones having heavy military forces deployed in foreign countries and meddled with their affairs and life far earlier. Life isn't fair, we made our choice, and they have a right to defend their country.
Second, in accordance to this, the battle is hardly fought "on our soil". Look at how many people have been killed by terrorism over time. Every friggin car driver is more of a threat to the general populace then ten terrorists. But, let's just stay with this cretinous analogy for a moment, shall we? I'm a bicyclist and can reliably count on having at least two situations per week in which a car driver intentionally ignores my safety, which could very easily lead to killing me, maiming me or reducing my brain to a smear on his windshield. So is it justified for me to demand torture being used against these obvious aggressors? Can smokers demand the CIA to start torturing Marlboro CEO's to find out about their schemes of adding addictive and poisonous substances to their products? Can homeowners demand the NSA to abduct waste disposal clerks to uncover their plans of saving 10$ each year by dumping hazardous materials near housing estates?
Third, we're not gonna loose this war if we refrain from torturing people. It's not a question of live and death, not a question of survival, it's a matter of convenience. We torture people because we are afraid of what we turned them into, not because it's a matter of achieving victory. The irony being that our undifferentiated actions are very likely to create even more of those monsters we are afraid of, to the point were we will one day (or perhaps already did) reach the moment in which for every death prevented, more people will die by the hands of those people our actions drove into fighting us.
Edited by Golan, 13 August 2009 - 10:11.
0
