Posted on 12/12/2014 7:47:39 AM PST by Kaslin
"There are some simple definitions for enhanced interrogation and torture that even left wing lunatics like you might be able to understand.
Enhanced interrogation makes prisoners uncomfortable and puts imaginary fears in their minds.
Torture is the infliction of pain that can lead to disfigurement and even death in some instances"
"WE came, WE saw, HE DIED!" - Sec. of State Hillary Clinton
The silence is deafening.
I didn't add the picture where he is being cattle prodded, but that can be easily googled.
Terrorists have no Geneva Convention protections. All the "elites" seem to omit that fact in their insipid lamentations.
CIA - thank you.
Not an adequate definition. It references the permanent damage done, not the pain inflicted.
There are a number of methods that are indisputably torture that apparently cause little or no direct physical damage. Some of these involve electricity and probably various drugs. If you can have anesthetics to reduce pain, it seems reasonable drugs could be developed to amplify it.
Whether a person has protection under a treaty is a legal question. It has little to do with the more profound moral issue of whether a certain way of treating him is right or wrong.
Thanks for morally condemning the CIA agent who tortured in YOUR NAME. Yes, in your name. LOL. Jerkface.
Bump.
Bump.
Just curious.
Do you condemn the torture by Nazis or Commies?
If so, on what moral basis do you ground that condemnation?
Or is it simply that we’re the good guys, so anything we do is right? If so, what is your explanation for why we should be considered the good guys?
You apparently, as usual, also seem to be comprehension-challenged in reading. Where exactly did I condemn anybody?
I simply said that how we as a society decide to treat helpless people in our power says important things about us and our morality. Do you disagree?
Bump.
BTTT
I will tell this; what you fail to grasp is captured soldiers HAVE GENEVA CONVENTION PROTECTIONS. So if a Nazi or a Commie tortures a captured soldier they are committing a war crime. A CIA agent torturing a terrorist has committed no crime at all. DO GET IT YET?
So torture itself has no moral implications? Only who is torturing or being tortured?
Jews in concentration camps had no Geneva Convention protections. Neither did kulaks in Lybyanka Prison. Were there no moral questions involved because what they were doing was “legal,” which it was?
Where have I said anything about legalities? I’m talking morality, not legality. The two often coincide, but there is no law of nature requiring it.
>I simply said that how we as a society decide to treat helpless people in our power says important things about us and our morality. Do you disagree?
Of course it is also possible to take the position that all violence is wrong, even self defense. There are all manner of different moral positions one can take. Many of them are extremely impractical in the real world.
A position that inflicting retribution on people in a manner commensurate to their actions is just fine with me. Terrorists do not abide by any of the rules of war or protections afforded by a civilized society to either soldiers or civilians. As such they should not be afforded any protections whatsoever. If you do not treat them in a manner which reflects their actions, you do nothing to deter those actions.
As for the ‘helpless people in our power’, the number of these scum who have been released from our custody (after being well treated) only to go onto resume fighting us in a barbaric fashion is quite large.
It’s nice to take the moral high ground. It’s just a question of how much of our blood do you want to sacrifice to hold it.
So did the CIA agents that “tortured” KSM commit an immoral act? Yes or No.
This piece of human excrement knew exactly what he would get if caught.
This treatment obviously covers a spectrum.
Since terrorists do not abide by the rules of war, is it okay in your book to burn captured terrorists alive or crucify them? If not, why not? According to you, they should be afforded no protections whatsoever.
All I’ve tried to do is generate discussion of how we should decide to treat our captives. All we tend to get is bloviating from both sides.
One side says “torture doesn’t work and we should never, ever do it.” Generally, like pacifists, they don’t really mean this. They’re just taking the cost-free (or so they think) moral high ground.
Meanwhile the other side says there should be no limits whatsoever on what we do. And I don’t think most of you mean that either. Unless we want to get into boiling alive, crucifixion and impalement.
So for both sides there actually are lines, they just spout platitudes that there aren’t. So why can’t we talk about where we as a society decide we are going to draw those lines? Rather than pretending there are none.
Fixed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.