Archinect
drums please, Fab?

bitch, please.

Dec 9, 14 10:24 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

disgusting.  

Dec 9, 14 10:28 pm  · 
 · 
Barbaric is an appropriate word. WTF is wrong with us? The treatments described in the report are unacceptable. The question is: how does one reject them? How are changes made to a mindset that spans millions?
Dec 9, 14 11:29 pm  · 
 · 
,,,,

Call them what they are. They are fucking war crimes. Part of the problem is that there have been countless movies and television shows whose subtext has been to create a justification for and acceptance of torture.

Dec 9, 14 11:57 pm  · 
 · 
CD.Arch
It's barbaric, but no one is going to hand over the information otherwise. Does anyone else have a better idea to protect the U.S. from imminent and very possible attacks? What happens when information is withheld and more civilians or soldiers die to terrorism?
Dec 10, 14 12:36 am  · 
 · 
chatter of clouds

Oh by the way:

The scathing report published Tuesday by the United States Senate Intelligence Committee on the CIA's interrogation of terror suspects reveals that the CIA's lawyers used the rulings of Israel's Supreme Court to construct a legal case justifying torture.

What bedfellows.

Anyway, we all knew this kind of stuff was going on (or should have) and the only difference is that this is more or less coming from the (wooden) horse's mouth. There was a lot of talk about people disappearing, being " interrogated" (that is, tortured) by various arab and western intelligence agencies on behalf of the CIA especially starting with the period of the Iraqi war and onwards. Also remember Abu Ghraib and so on.

I don't watch much tv but happened to be hearing Dianne Feinstein speaking, to the effect,  about how horrible it was to learn that the US - a great yada yada democracy human rights yada yada- was allowing this to go on and about how that, now, as a great yada yada nation, it was accepting to examine its record and be honest about it.

Ridiculous, seriously, all this vapid "great nation" nonsense. Be real. What else would CIA be doing if not torturing, assassinating, orchestrating government overthrows and so on? Get off your high moral horse, woman. the CIA is a parallel arm of US power that has been created to be exempt from the rule of law and operates in secrecy. Its like there is a totally parallel system - integrally sanctioned- that has its own rules that overrides law and our humdrum moral outrage.

Dec 10, 14 1:10 am  · 
 · 
midlander

^what information CD.Arch? Just because someone is vile doesn't mean they know anything.

To answer your question - nothing happens. And when indefensible and unjustified acts of state lead to indefensible and unjustified acts of terror - what happens? It's a vicious circle - everyone except those responsible bears the consequences.

Dec 10, 14 1:11 am  · 
 · 
CD.Arch, the report also states quite clearly that no good information was gained through using these torturous tactics. In fact the opposite - it was damaging to intelligence gathering to torture people.

To which I can only say: Duh.
Dec 10, 14 7:12 am  · 
 · 
Non Sequitur

Well, this was a sobering read this morning... and the sun has yet to rise.

Dec 10, 14 8:31 am  · 
 · 
go do it

It is always disturbing to peek in the window at the sausage makers. But just remember the Democrats in Congress were handing over the meat to the Republicans in Congress  who were stuffing the skins. They all have greasy hands.

Dec 10, 14 10:15 am  · 
 · 

+++ go do it

Dec 10, 14 10:33 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

^politicians are all the same for a simple reason, same reason why many cops are pricks.  corrupt people seek power.  They like power.  I dont really buy that line that power corrupts...seems to be the other way around.  unfortunatly, our system is designed to favor ambition and confidence over all else.  Psychopaths and narcisists  are usually very ambitious and full of confidence.  

Dec 10, 14 11:09 am  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

A comment from the New York Times that I found interesting. I didn't write this.

* * * 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/politics/obama-says-senate-report-vindicates-his-ending-of-cia-program.html?&target=comments&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&modref=HPCommentsRefer&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0#commentsContainer

Kalidan

 NY 3 hours ago

This is the kind of story that serves as fodder to the post modernists: there is no truth. Every report is "exaggerated," and "full of untruths." Who knows what the truth is. Political ideology is everything, objective truth is nothing.

To the people "horrified" by this report, I ask only this: 

"after you have found a way to deal with your indignation, could you inform the rest of us, how the CIA and other agencies are supposed to save America and American lives, unless we get information from bad guys about other bad guys? Our ideology (living free) is clashing with their ideology (living in medieval nihilism). So, let's begin by asking every homicidal sociopath caught in a hot zone, "pretty pretty please, tell us about the other bad guys?" What, pray tell, would you do after you are met with stony silence - knowing full well that the answer would save innocent American lives?"

I breathlessly await your answers about the line; because you seem clearly aghast that it was crossed.

Kalidan

Dec 10, 14 12:32 pm  · 
 · 

‘Rectal Feeding’ Has Nothing to Do with Nutrition, Everything to Do with Torture- The Daily Beast

"The treatment of these detainees is a national disgrace. The participation of medical personnel is an egregious violation of medical ethics. Those who did so used their medical training not to care for patients, but to abet their abuse. “Rectal feeding” belongs alongside waterboarding and sleep deprivation on the list of torture methods, and everyone who participated in it knew it at the time."

Dec 11, 14 2:57 am  · 
 · 
Again, Serious Question: "no actionable intelligence" was gathered by using these methods. People in charge of torture know full well that those being tortured will say whatever they can to end the torture. It's not a useful information gathering tactic.

Which is why the word "barbaric" is appropriate: we're rational thinkers using a method that we know rationally does not work. There's no excuse for torture; torture means we haven't done a good enough job trying to solve a problem by being human.
Dec 11, 14 6:04 am  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

You speak with such certainty, Donna. I'm not sure why .

Dec 11, 14 6:46 am  · 
 · 
∑ π ∓ √ ∞

Torture

I'll speak with authority on torture, and yes, because I've read about torture. Torture, is not about getting information, or answers, torture is about destroying "the world" of the person being tortured. How can anyone trust the information given by the individual being tortured? If someone is being physically abused, they almost will certainly tell you what you want, but of course, how, or why would the person doing the torturing believe what that person is telling them.

Torture is never, ever right, because torture is never about truth, it's about destruction, so just admit that fact.

Dec 11, 14 7:23 am  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

I said certainty, not authority (to Donna, not you). And just because you've read a book about torture doesn't mean that you have all the answers.

Dec 11, 14 8:06 am  · 
 · 
∑ π ∓ √ ∞

Serious-lee. No, shit, dummy. You got a point, or how bout refuting my point, dummy.

Oh, and I speak with certainty. Torture, got us nada.

Dec 11, 14 8:17 am  · 
 · 
Non Sequitur

Defending torture is just like defending capital punishment; you just can't.

Dec 11, 14 8:24 am  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

(Actual moron)

I'm not celebrating torture but I don't think it's as black-and-white as people are making it out to be.

Dec 11, 14 8:28 am  · 
 · 
∑ π ∓ √ ∞
AmateurInquisitor, it is black and white.
Dec 11, 14 9:06 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

they used to get women to admit that they are witches during the inquisitions.  under torture you will say whatever the tourturer wants to hear.  I know I would.  Even under prolonged interegations the person will crack and lie to get out of there.  look at the central park 5 case or instance.

all this tourture shit has done is to create more people who hate us...im suspicious that this may be the true intention to create ongoing conflict.  when war=profit, torture=advertisment. 

Dec 11, 14 9:15 am  · 
 · 

Serious Question: torture is black and white within the context of an ethical society of humans sharing a planet.  Within this ultimate context, it's wrong.

Within the significantly smaller context of "terrorist threats to the lives of innocent 'muricans" it may, on very shallow reading, seem like there are grey areas.  Of course the situation of protecting a loved one allows for a brutal response to an immediate threat - any parent would agree with that, I think.

But when a threat is imagined or fantasized - which is what our defense industrial complex has to do to keep getting themselves paid - it's necessary to ask deeper questions.  Sorry to resort to trite sayings but when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If there is a culture within our defense department that thinks torture is a hammer, they're going to use it.  But we live in a society that studies actions and responses scientifically, and there is no strong evidence that torture leads to useful information, in fact, there is tons of evidence that it does not, and that knowing these practices are being used only pumps up the opposition to fight even harder.  Look at our response to beheadings of innocent journalists - that kind of barbarism (which it absolutely is) leads to even mild-mannered, sensible people feel their blood boil and want to call for equally violent retribution. It's a lose-lose scenario.

We have rational minds, as do all humans.  Rationally, the best resolution to problems, the resolution that serves the best end for the most people, is discussion and compromise. 

I'm not being pollyanna about this.  I also know we have covert operations systems that, I have faith, can figure out how to get information from people without hanging them naked in dungeons.  They might use unsavory tactics, like bribery or blackmail or mental indoctrination.  In my mind, those psychological tactics, while not pleasant, are far away more acceptable than physical torture. We're not the Spanish Inquisition, and it's the 21st Century; there are smarter ways to make the world a better place.

Dec 11, 14 9:20 am  · 
 · 
curtkram

also, if you're trying to sell hammers, you want to convince people every problem is a nail.

the spanish inquisition wasn't effective at gaining information either.  it was effective at getting people to confess.  getting people to confess is not the objective they were focused on.

if we accept torture as a reasonable military tool, we also have to accept that we no longer have moral superiority over countries that don't torture people.  since we aren't doing the 'right' thing any more, we don't have much credibility as 'world cop,' which ultimately undermines our ability to host military bases in places like okinawa (and everywhere else in the world) and significantly reduces the useful parts of our military readiness.

Dec 11, 14 10:31 am  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

Comparing the Spanish inquisition to combating Al Qaeda is inapt, and inept.

also, to argue that the Muslim world hates the US because of isolated instances of torture is, well, wrong.

im not pro-torture but I'm growing increasingly bored of the total lack of nuance on this forum with regard to hard questions like these. Having reservations about jumping to conclusions doesn't make me-- or anyone else-- a bad person. National security is a challenge because there aren't straightforward answers despite our vested American beliefs in transparency and some nebulous sense of "liberty ." 

Dec 11, 14 12:13 pm  · 
 · 

But when a threat is imagined or fantasized or created - which is what our defense industrial complex has to do to keep getting themselves paid

Dec 11, 14 12:35 pm  · 
 · 

Um, I was comparing the Spanish Inquisition to us.

If I want to be proud of being a United States citizen I can't accept that torture is an acceptable tool for our country. Period.  It really is not grey at all.

As Michael Rotondi said in podcast #8, when you have values, your choices become limited. 

Dec 11, 14 12:36 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

also, to argue that the Muslim world hates the US because of isolated instances of torture is, well, wrong.

"They" hate us for a number of reasons.  torture probably doesn't help.  if the goal is to stop terrorism  why would we create more justification for hatred?  For some bogus intel? 

There are psychologists working within the cia. They are not naïve to the fact the torture is a poor method for gathering intel.  This is after all the organization that experimented with all sorts of psychological manipulation...

Dec 11, 14 12:49 pm  · 
 · 

Nice quote on values, but it implies people without values rather than with values that some (many?) consider to be negative.

I would have put it a bit differently - your values determine the choices you make.

Dec 11, 14 12:51 pm  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

I wasn't attributing the inquisition comment to you, Donna

Dec 11, 14 1:08 pm  · 
 · 
go do it

The CIA is creating a reputation of fear. What if the product of all of the torture and the black hole in the lives of detainees that GItMO has become is that our "enemies" become so fearful of being picked up by the CIA that they start singing like a canary and give up what ever information they have even without torture? Now everybody knows that if you are snatched by the CIA you are going to get hurt.

We no longer have a moral leg to stand on, if we ever did, for we are doing the same thing as other police states.  

Dec 11, 14 1:10 pm  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

I don't understand why there's this blanket belief that torture unequivocally produces bogus intel. 90 percent of the CIA report remains classified and that also doesn't speak to other instances of interrogation that were beyond the scope of the report. I am not promoting torture but I would like to know how you all think that these issues are so cut and dried.

Dec 11, 14 1:10 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

serious question, i've picked up a lot of nuanced opinions in this thread.

some people hold the opinion that torture is a bad idea; that there is not a grey area.

you disagree with that opinion.

you could torture those people until they agreed that there is a nuanced grey area.  however, they wouldn't really believe that.  they would simply be telling you what you wanted to hear to stop the torture.  surely you can pick the nuanced reasoning in there?

much like the spanish inquisition, you would get the statement you want to get.  much like the CIA, you would not get any useful actionable intelligence.

sometimes the answers aren't straight forward. but then again, sometimes the right answer is pretty clear.

Dec 11, 14 1:12 pm  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

Go do it, do you think terrorism would go away or even subside if the US had never engaged in torture? 

Dec 11, 14 1:15 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

no serious, but that's not the point is it?

first we accept that torture is wrong.

perhaps you have a different view and think it's all in fun.  but whatever, for the sake of argument let's assume the starting premise is that torture is wrong.

the 'nuance' you seem to be trying to introduce is either that torture is wrong, but sometimes necessary, or that sometimes torture is the right thing to do.

the nuance you aren't picking up is that most people think torture is wrong, and should be avoided.  they're saying that the benefits gained from torture are not worth the costs associated with torture.

you're suggesting something like the costs of torture are acceptable compared with the benefit.

so the question isn't "do you think terrorism would go away if the US never engaged in torture," but rather "did terrorism stop because of the US engaging in torture?"  it did not.

Dec 11, 14 1:24 pm  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

Curt, I'm going to do what I can to break down your argument. I'm doing this in earnest, so correct me if I'm wrong. Your argument appears to go, as follows: 

(1) There is nuance in this thread; (2) there are people in this thread who believe that ideas about torture need not be nuanced, because it is a black-and-white issue; (3) if said opponents to torture were, themselves, tortured, they might, under duress, state that questions of torture are, indeed, nuanced; therefore, (4) there is nuance in this thread and the CIA's use of torture is wrong.  

Suffice it to say, I'm having a hard time following your very strained logic. 

I'm not asserting anything, but I am asking to the group whether torture, if ever, might be justified. These are questions that college philosophy professors would ask in a seminar-- the fact that people won't even grapple with the question and keep saying that it's wrong under any circumstance seems rather fascist and intellectually dishonest.

I have a strong feeling that I'm going to get castigated more by the Archinect thought police merely for posing the question, so I'll check out of this thread and let the group enjoy the cordiality of its echo chamber.  

Dec 11, 14 1:34 pm  · 
 · 
Non Sequitur

SeriousQuestion:

"... therefore, (4) any attempt to justify that the end result (information) is justified by the means (torture), is wrong."

I think that's what Curt was aiming at.

Dec 11, 14 1:46 pm  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

And that postulate embedded in your reading of curt's conclusion is nuanced how?

Okay, done here. :)

Dec 11, 14 1:48 pm  · 
 · 
go do it

The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know.

Napoleon 

Dec 11, 14 1:50 pm  · 
 · 
go do it

Sometime having a simple mind like I do is a blessing because it allows me to dissect issues or thoughts into parts that I can understand.

Torture. I break it down to, revenge.  Somebody has to PAY right? Even if it is not the original perpetrators somebodies blood needs to run. Right? After all you just can't "let people get away with this

Everybody knows that torture is not reliable and that you can not trust the information. So why do it? 

Revenge

Dec 11, 14 2:08 pm  · 
 · 

What ever happened to the rule of law?

Forgetting for a minute whether or not torture can be nuanced (we only tortured him subtly?), such inhumane treatment is against ever tenet of basic human rights and international law. Everyone from Amnesty International to the UN is calling for prosecution of these crimes.

If they convicted US soldiers of torture at Abu Ghraib, and it's now been demonstrated that this was national policy, then those who set, approved and implemented these policies are guilty and must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not to do so abandons forever every principle expressed in the constitution.

We have met the enemy, and they are us.

Dec 11, 14 2:41 pm  · 
 · 

curt's analogy is right on, and Serious Question, you're misrepresenting it in your breakdown.

That said, I did allow that there are grey areas if one changes the context. In the biggest context, at the most elemental level of being a human member of a civilized society, when you get to the deep roots of what we are as a species, it's black and white. We have rational thought and empathy; torture bypasses both to appeal to baser instincts.

Dec 11, 14 2:42 pm  · 
 · 
chatter of clouds

go do it, yes, with one difference. Most other police states don't bandy around with talk of democracy, "human rights" and so on .Well, unless they learnt doing it from the US.  

One of the major reasons given for being so "proactive" is to protect the great yada yada land of yada yada democracy and rights. Meaning, protecting it against willful acts of violence that violate innocents and in contradistinction to elementary principles of human rights and well being. Well, isn't torture a violation of human rights and in stands totally in opposition to it? How could a state protect its "morality" by resolving to the very opposite of its morality? In this, there is not just cruelty and the lack of values it purports to have, there is also a snide hypocrisy.

Torture is, in principle, a violation of human rights. It is, in the absolute, a violation of human rights. There are no exceptions and no interpretations. The nature of the tortured -let alone suspicion of a particular nature, or possession of valuable information -  is not a factor in alleviating or abolishing the terms of violation. Neither is the purpose of torture. Torture -legally, and in relation to the state- is defined by deliberation, infliction of pain, purposefulness and the nature of person doing the torturing.

................

A legal definition of torture

The legal definition of torture in human rights law differs quite significantly from the way the term is commonly used in the media or in general conversation.

Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is the internationally agreed legal definition of torture:

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

This definition contains three cumulative elements:

  • the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical suffering
  • by a public official, who is directly or indirectly involved
  • for a specific purpose.

Other international and regional treaties, as well as national laws, can contain broader definitions of torture, covering a wider range of situations.

..........................................................................

Thus, torture is always torture is always a violation of human rights. You either accept that it is a violation of our right, entirely, or you don't. Saying that it is sometimes excusable and at other times inexcusable - or, excusable for some and inexcusable for others- opens the door to relevatizing human rights. Thus, Bahrain, as a state, for example, would (and does) deem it OK to be torturing its citizens because they threaten its ruling despotic monarchy that deems itself as the statehood.

Who is to argue against them if the US -and others- see that it has the right to torture those it suspects of being terroristsor even in casual possession of information to be extracted by force - even thousands of kilometers away from the US? I am not saying that things should be measured by US standards, of course. What I am saying is that each state and entity becomes the sole authority defining what human rights include and do not include, and at what times, and for whom and where. As such, there is no longer a platform of"human rights" and the right for each one of us to NOT be tortured.

In my opinion, inflicting, willingly, harm on others and having them suspended in pain, against their will, for any duration in time for any sort of purpose is simply sociopathic. An entity or person who pursue this is a sick criminal. Definitely sick and Should be a criminal, that is.

I am against the "functional" approach taken in attacking the stance of others who see torture is excusable. It is not the lack of utility of torture and its inefficacy that forms the reason to attack the argument for torture. Because, if you choose to argue this way, then, firstly, you accept that torturing others is measured by functional outcome and not by its violation of a right. Secondly, you open the door to a discussion of functionality of torture; the opposite side might well introduce cases highlighting certain cases where torture was indeed useful.

I disagree. It is a matter of principle not at all of utility.

Torture is inexcusable because it strips us all of the right to be preserved against being punched, raped, cut up, electrocuted, etc. It strips us from a mutual agreement keeping us away from deliberately abusing each other's body and mind.

In actual fact, there is no reasoning with the argument for torture. It implicitly accepts to have people being tortured, pained, raped for an excusable purpose, period. Which is to say, it accepts that we accept to see others as bodies to violate, things to torture. How can you argue against this stance that situates itself out of the mindset of all of our wellbeing, the dignity and well being of all human beings, rendering us into each other's object of physical and brutal violence?

Again, you either accept it or you don't. You fully respect it or you don't; there is no some-humans-are-more-worthy-of-human-rights Orwellian kind of formula.

 If one cannot reprimand those who have broken the law without torturing, one is not morally entitled to reprimand. If one cannot extract information without inflicting pain on others then one is not morally entitled to the information.

Dec 11, 14 2:44 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

i'm happy to respond as honestly as i can for you serious

first, my 'nuanced' statements grew from your take on the forum;

I'm growing increasingly bored of the total lack of nuance on this forum with regard to hard questions like these.

which is kind of insulting toward the forum in general.  i'm just saying, i do not agree that there was or is a lack of nuance...

(1) yes

(2) i believe that people are trying understand the complexities of the problem, thus accepting the nuances of the problem, and still coming to the conclusion that torture is wrong.  the idea that one must be non-nuanced to arrive at that conclusion is not accurate.

(3) right.  people will tell you what you want to hear to stop the torture, thus illustrating the problems with using that as a tactic to gain information.  you have to know the answer before you start, otherwise how would you know when to stop?

(4) correct.

torture isn't just about revenge.  it can be used to force a confession, such as jla's example of witch burning.  that confession can be used to carry out an agenda such as increasing political capital or waging a war or discredit an organization, or probably any other number of useful scenarios.

justifying the gather if intelligence through the use of torture is wrong as i see it for 2 reasons.  if we look at in terms of the good outweight the bad

(a), there isn't much good.  torture as a tactic implies you already know the answer.  if you're trying to get joan of arc to declare herself blasphemous, you know the answer (which is 'i'm blasphemous.')  in the case of CIA torturing, maybe it was the location of another operative.  that implies that the agent knew the torture victim already knew the location of said operative, which might not be accurate, and even then the torture victim is just as likely to say 'walmart' just to get the torture to stop.

(b) there is a lot of bad.  it's the wrong thing to do, and it's the wrong way to represent what many americans want from their country.

in contrast, to say there are scenarios where torture is a good thing, you would have establish criteria where the good outweighs the bad.  in my opinion, that's unlikely to happen.  i don't believe the 'ticking clock' situation is realistic, and i don't believe torture is an effective means of accelerating information gathering in the event of a 'ticking clock' scenario.  limited time would be better spent on more effective avenues of intelligence gathering.

Dec 11, 14 2:50 pm  · 
 · 
SeriousQuestion

One more thing and then I'm done. For reals this time.

Just fucking LOL at Tammuz butting into a debate about torture while defending Hamas's cold-blooded execution of Palestinians over the summer. All done, carry on.

Dec 11, 14 3:02 pm  · 
 · 
chatter of clouds

you mean proxy agents to Israel's occupation of Palestine and their aiding in the continual torturing and massacres en masse of the Palestnian population?Hamas were not the agents of torture but an expression of the tortured's reaction. If you want to have an honest argument, stay on topic and don't obfuscate. This topic is not about war, occupation, colonization and the colonized's response.

Dec 11, 14 3:10 pm  · 
 · 
xian

At the end of the day, nobody can prove conclusively whether torture does or does not produce useful information. I mean yeah, we got the information but we will never know if we absolutely had to torture them to get it. And nobody can even give a clear definition of what exactly torture is. Leaving somebody in a dark room can be classified as torture. Hard questioning can be called torture. Watching gay porn can be torture if that's not your thing. It's all your point of view. Somebody a few hundred years ago who saw prisoners drawn and quartered would be laughing at us for calling waterboarding torture. Hell, ISIS is laughing at us for that now, it's all a point of view depending on where your sensibilities are.

But yes, there is nuance to this and a huge amount of speculation about the unknown and unknowable, so anybody who thinks they have a black and white answer on the “torture” question is wrong.

Dec 11, 14 3:28 pm  · 
 · 
xian

Tammuz -

But... you're still defending torture, and I thought torture was wrong. By your logic, can't anybody torture anybody they please as a reaction to past wrongs?

Dec 11, 14 3:29 pm  · 
 · 
chatter of clouds

In fact, come to think of it, there is a harmonic resolution between SeriousQuestion's support of torture in or on behalf of the US and her or his support of aligned entities that employ torture  as a matter of normalcy. And it is not merely an occasional link.

curtkram : "in contrast, to say there are scenarios where torture is a good thing, you would have establish criteria where the good outweighs the bad.  in my opinion, that's unlikely to happen."

In tandem with my preceding post, torture -the violent deliberate aggression of a person associated to the state/controlling authority against another's body- is itself is inexcusable irrespective of good or bad. it is, inherently, a negative value that will outweigh, by itself, as a sole criteria, any good awaited as an outcome. A principled argument rather than a functionalist one.

Dec 11, 14 3:36 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: