The question is: what if "enhanced interrogation techniques" helped give tips that led to the capture of Bin Laden?? If so, is "water-boarding" justified in certain rare situations authorized on an individual basis by the President of the United States?

Views: 411

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

WE have also liberated millions of people from oppressive regimes and we have saved more human lives than killed. Let's not get on that discussion though on this topic of "torture"
Reggie, it is from your own logic my friend. It can be clearly inferred from your arguments and thinking that it would be worth the death of 10,000 civilians than to have a single terrorist tortured. There is no way around your argument. You feel that it is morally superior if a scenario happens where mass civilians die than to torture anyone in U.S. custody even if they are non-enemy combatants whom are not legally bound to the Geneva Convention.

William Craig lane would be proud of your apologetics.

That should be William Lane Craig.

William Craig lane would be proud of your apologetics.

 

Wouldn't he, though!?

Rather than William Craig Lane I think Christopher Hitchens' would be proud as he shares many of the similar sentiments as aforementioned. All the pragmatic and realist atheists who base their lives on rationality and logic understand we don't live in an idealist world and that we must not make it easier for our enemy to kill our innocents. Again, I am not advocating for wide-spread use of such methods, but only that the option remains with the commander-in-chief on a case-by-case basis; in particular, if it is shown that such methods may have led to the capture of Bin Laden, you are saying that it would have been better that such methods not have been used and Bin Laden was still alive and free.

"All the pragmatic and realist atheists who base their lives on rationality and logic understand we don't live in an idealist world and that we must not make it easier for our enemy to kill our innocents."

So the moral high ground has become torture ok to save our innocents.   OR

Torture is ok and understand we will kill your innocents but that is just the casualties of war, stuff happens.

This policy will keeps us safe?

Not at all, we don't kill them; we use "enhanced interrogation techniques" supervised by medical professionals.

 

Rather than William Craig Lane I think Christopher Hitchens' would be proud as he shares many of the similar sentiments as aforementioned.

 

Do you think he is "naive" on this subject and you all are more superior than Mr. Hitchens on this topic??

 

 

 

Everything has been said clear enough and others can read and decide for themselves.
Mr. Hitchens under-went the procedure. No one is saying it is not "torture", it is "torture-lite" I agree. BUT, the argument is the moral necessity in saving potential lives determined on a case-by-case basis by the President himself. Again I will state, you argue that 10,000 civilians being killed is better than a single terrorist under torture-lite. In addition, it would be better if Bin Laden was alive and free enjoying himself rather than dead as he is if such procedures were used. That is the "moral high ground" you take.

Again I will state, you argue that 10,000 civilians being killed is better than a single terrorist under torture-lite. In addition, it would be better if Bin Laden was alive and free enjoying himself rather than dead as he is if such procedures were used. That is the "moral high ground" you take.


There is no need to continue demonstrating your ignorance over what I argue.  It is quite clear.  Either your comprehension skills are lacking or you have not taken the time to read what I have been arguing.  Either way, it is evidently a waste of my time to continue.  You are free to continue beating down straw men, if you like. Perhaps you can fantasize that each straw man knocked down saves a bajillion lives.

Sassan, Again I will state, you argue that 10,000 civilians being killed is better than a single terrorist under torture-lite. In addition, it would be better if Bin Laden was alive and free enjoying himself rather than dead as he is if such procedures were used. That is the "moral high ground" you take.

 

You come from the neo con school of debate? Who has argued killing 10,000 civilians is better than using torture or it would be better that Bin Laden was alive? You make these leaps and then assign them to someone, it is disenguesoius at best. 

The argument is because we are the world power right now doesn't give us the right to break international law. We are a country based on law and it is the governments duty to follow the law. This is what keeps our population free. When the government can justify breaking the law it's only a small step to justify breaking the law when it comes time to deal with anyone we disagree with, a citizen or not.

Reggie & Jim: I am not twisting your representation on the issue. You take the stance that it is always wrong to "torture" (regardless of the procedure - as in enhanced interrogation techniques no one dies and medical supervision is always on site) and therefore under zero circumstances is such techniques permissible, correct?

Therefore, in your opinion, one can infer that you would take the stand that if such methods were used in leading to the tips in capturing Bin Laden, it would be better if he was alive and free. In addition, even if such methods could lead to saving thousands of lives (such as the 10,000 I stated) it is never justified so if 10,000 people die in a situation where information could have been obtained from a terrorist through such methods, it is better to have 10,000 people die than to ever use these methods in any situation whatsoever.

Tell me, where am I going wrong in deducing your viewpoint??

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service