I was just about to let this thread drop, but I couldn’t resist just one more little educational lesson for you.

“Using torture rarely doesn t change the fact that everytime you use it there is a high chance that it will prove inefficient and unrelaible.”

Every time? Really? Then why is it and has it been repeatedly used throughout history – even by democracies. Hint: because it can work sometimes when perhaps nothing else will work.

I suppose good ‘ol coach frame, trailing by 6 points, with fourth down and 6 seconds on the clock, then would not try to win the game with a Hail Mary. “Nope. Can’t do that. It probably won’t work. We quit right here. Ground the ball and concede defeat boys. What, the owner is calling?”

Dugger

Okay, see, you’re brain dead. Using torture rarely doesn’t change the fact that everytime you use it there is a high chance that it will prove inefficient and unrelaible. If there’s an 80 percent chance that a gun will jam every time you use it, only using it once a year won’t change that. The point is, if you cannot rely on torture to produce reliable information efficiently, your scenario, no matter how rare, will never end in the result that justifies torture: saved lives.

“Also the argument isn t if it is or is not legal but rather whether it should be permitted – theoretically- under any circumstances.”

If it is not legal, then it is illegal to use it. Give me another scenario in which the police are allowed to use such illegal or exta legal methods to accomplish their goals?

“They will kill large numbers of people and the historical evidence of this propensity is clear.”

And I agree. My point, however, is that they do this to force an extreme reaction from the state they target: They want us to turn to torture because they want to corrupt and destroy our way of life. Whether or not terrorists can accomplish their ultimate goal — destroying our way of life and shaking our faith in our prinicples — is entirely up to us.

“torture would not use due process (as a sniper who points his rifle and shoots someone, does not use due process)”

In what context does your sniper analogy suipport torture? You mean a police sniper who takes out a suspect firing on a crowd of people? That’s a lot different than arresting someone with an Aranic last name who lives in the same building as a terrorist cell and then torturing him to figure out where the bomb is. Remembering the guy who was shot after the London bombings? Turns out the only reason the cops were tailing him was that he had brown skin and lived next door to the terrorists. An innocent man died because fear took precedence over due process.

“The Israelis used and wanted to continue to use torture.”

So did the Nazis. Prove they use it effectively and reliable a high degree of the time. But then again, you don’t care if torture works right? Isn’t that a bit like saying, “I don’t care if this luck rabbit’s foot doesn’t work, I’m going to use it to cure my cancer anyway?”

“I would permit it under certain very limited, tightly controlled circumstances. I m leaving it at that.”

You have to leave it at that because on all counts you haven’t got a leg to stand on. There is no factual, legal or moral argument you can make that holds up to the slightest scrutiny. If you were honest you’d just admit it. But you won’t because you aren’t. At long last we know how you operate. You’ll whine and whine about how no one is arguing like reasonable adults but once you are backed into a corner by the facts and arguments both legal and moral, you stick your fingers in your ears and hold your breath until your face turns blue. You’re just sad.

“most are incapable of civil excahnges, probably because in a civil exchange the shallowness of their positions are so easily exposed.”

Ha. It’s too classic. The shallowness of their positions? You have been forced to admit that you don’t care if torture is effective. You don’t care if it works but you are convinced it can save lives. Tell me how that makes sense. Explain yourself. You can’t. Because your position is puddle deep.

So you did not say (in response to an exchange between frame and myself): “It s interesting how freely Dugger throws around accusations of  personal insults where none exist. “?

And therefore you must have actually said: “It s interesting how freely Dugger throws around accusations of  personal insults by Ahem where none exist. “? Did OW or the Internet Gremlin twist your words?

Face it. The left and leftist posters have a bad anger/hate problem and most are incapable of civil excahnges, probably because in a civil exchange the shallowness of their positions are so easily exposed. Can’t debate? Can’t argue civilly? Call names.

Dugger

Also the argument isn’t if it is or is not legal but rather whether it should be permitted – theoretically- under any circumstances.

” Killing people is only a means to an end for them. Their ultimate aim is to undermine and destroy our way of life. I submit to you that inflicting massive civilian casualties will never accomplish thsi goal.”

Doesn’t matter if thats how you think. It isn’t how the terrorists think. They will kill large numbers of people and the historical evidence of this propensity is clear (remember Lockerbie, what the shoe bomber was trying to do, McVeigh).

The Israelis used and wanted to continue to use torture.

And yes torture is corrupting and yes I doubt any world leader has said ” I like torture” and yes torture would not use due process (as a sniper who points his rifle and shoots someone, does not use due process).

And I would say the bottom line is that you think torture is so bad that you wouldn’t let is be used under any circumstances and I would permit it under certain very limited, tightly controlled circumstances. I’m leaving it at that.

Dugger

Um, you weren’t quoting me, Dugger. Pick out a personal insult from the comment of mine to which you replied earlier, rather than wielding a broad, tar-drenched brush.

“But if my society can electrocute (killing is bad) a person for killing another single person, why can t that society torture a terrorist to prevent him from taking ten thousand lives?”

I disagree with capital punishment but at the very least it is a punishment meted out — in this country at least — after a very lengthy system of due process that involves a trial by jury and the right to appeal. Even then it can sometimes prove horribly, tragically flawed:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/chronicle/3472872

I would also add that under our current system of law even a murder charge or conviction based on a confession can be thrown out if the confession was found to be coerced.

None of this holds true or could hold true in the case of torture. The scenario you describe precludes due process, trial by jury and the right of appeal in favor of administering cruel and unusual punishment based on suspicion and assumption. Don’t you see that torture isn’t due process, torture is the antithesis of due process? Of course you don’t. Otherwise you never could have written what you’ve written.

Do you not even see the contradictions of your own statements? You have to care about the effectiveness of torture because in order to achieve the ends that you say justify your means, torture has to work, and it has to work in an efficient and dependable manner. If torture doesn’t work, you don’t have an argument period. History and the facts have shown that torture is neither efficient nor dependable. So to be intellectually honest you must include a degree of uncertainty into your utilitarian equation. You have to say, “On the outside chance that torture might save half a million lives, would you do it?”

Of course, as I have previously pointed out, this isn’t the entire equation either. You have to also include the legal side of the argument as well because torture is against the law in the United States and any information gleaned through coercion is inadmissable in a court of law.

So the utilitarian argument has to be this:
“Understanding that torture is a violation of the Constitution and could jeopordize the possibility of future prosecution in American courts would you torture someone on the outside chance that it might save half a million lives?”

Of course there is also the ethical and moral dimensions to consider as well. Your utilitarian equation does not take into account the corrupting influence of torture on the individuals and society who condone it and practice it. So the utilitatian equation has to be this:

“Understanding that torture has a corrupting influence on society, that it’s a violation of the Constitution and could jeopordize the possibility of future prosecution, would you torture someone on the outsiude chance that it might save half a million lives?”

If utility is your sole argument in favor of troture, you have to include all of these things into the equation. But there’s more.

For your scenario to make sense, we have to assume that killing innocent people is the sole goal of the terrorists. But it isn’t. Killing people is only a means to an end for them. Their ultimate aim is to undermine and destroy our way of life. I submit to you that inflicting massive civilian casualties will never accomplish thsi goal. Los Angeles, where I live, could be incinerated tomorrow, and myself and everyone I love with it, but this massive tragedy, in and of itself, has no bearing on the surrvival of our way of life and the Constitution. The real danger to the Constitution and our way of life comes in our response to this tragedy. I believe that taking up torture as a response to this threat does more to undermine our way of life and Constitution than any number of civilian casualties. If we sanction torture we are saying point blank that our free, democratic society is a failure. That it is weak and cannot stand without resorting to the tactics of our enemies. We would be announcing our lack of convinction in our highest ideals. It’s a very simple relationship: If we torture, the terrorists win.

But you still have yet to present an honest scenario in which torture is justifiable. There are a number of questions you have yet to answer or refuse to answer:

1. What is the minimum number of lives that have to be at risk before torture becomes acceptable? Is it half a million? Why not half a dozen?

2. What is the minimum timeframe in which torture becomes acceptable, that is, at one point do we say that there is no more time for acceptable and effective forms of interrogation or investigation to work? Is it 24 hours out? A week? A month?

3. What level of evidence will have to be met to determine if the suspect has the information needed? Is it simple association or will there have to be more concrete proof? “Punitive prejudgement,” to use your words, will be based on what? What if there is only a 50 percent chance that the suspect might know the information? Do we proceed with torture anyway?

You don’t answer any of these questions and yet still arrive at the conclusion that your scenario is valid, workable and justified. If the president is going to take responsibility for violating the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold and defend you better have have some pretty clear guidelines of when and how he is going to do it. Failing these guidelines there is no way a reasonable policy can be built that sanctions torture.

You also note that our society sanctions killing in times of war and in captial punishment. I am opposed to capital punishment for many of the same moral reasons I am opposed to torture. For one because it leads to a debasement of the society that practices, as witnessed in your argument of equivalence: “We execute people, why can’t we torture them?” You may as well ask, “We execute people, why can’t we also eat them?” You can use captial punishment to start down the slippery slope to justify all manner of barbarity. On the question of effectiveness, can you show me any study that proves capital punishment is a clear and effective deterrent to crime? We also know that historically it has been applied in a discriminatory fashion to people of color and the poor. So as a social policy, capital punishment has and always will raise just as many moral, ethical and pragmatic questions as does torture.

But setting aside the question of capital punishment for the moment, let’s return to the issue of war. You cannot fail to recognize that even war, while sanctioned, has rules and is governed by a set of laws under the Geneva Conventions. The rules of war specifically outlaw torture in any and all circumstances. You can argue all you want that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to terrorists but that simply isn’t true. At the same time, this doesn’t help you at all when the terrorist, in Abu Ali’s case, is an American who is still protected under the Constitution. Even in the face of sanction mass murder, such as war is, torture remains abhorrent and illegal in the eyes of decent nations.

Can you find, at any point in modern history, a respected world leader arguing on the record in favor of torture for national security. Can you find Bush himself, saying directly, that torturing people to save lives is a good and just? Do you think the President or anyone in his administration would ever come out and directly support the argument you are making for torture?

I would also point out that we kill in the name of war, but we also send civilians to die in the name of war. We make them soldiers yes, which is another way of saying we make them legitimate targets for murder. But why are civilians to be spared from having to make this moral choice of dying for the defense of our country and our way of life? The willful bombing of civilians in war is a disgusting, immoral and illegal practice. But that doesn’t mean that civilians don’t have to accept some sacrifice, some responsibility in maintaing the integrity of our principles and ideals. People keep saying that freedom isn’t free. They’re damn right and the price we pay to live in a free society is that we, soldier or civilian, may have to die to keep our society free. As I ahev said before, I would rather die in a terrorist bombing than see the Bill of Rights chucked aside in favor of torture. Which is why I could look into the eyes of those who lost loved ones in an attack and say to them that their loved ones died to keep this country free.

You’re entire argument is built on a pair of dubious assumptions: One, that torture works; Two, that saving lives is the only thing that matters in war. Neither is true.

Seriously. Why do you call names? Do you hate other posters? Is it possible to disagree with you without being called whatever harsh name pops into your mind? Is that the type of world you live in everyday: screaming invective at people?

And it was never an issue with me as to whether torture works or could be used to get information to save lives. It was your thought. I know history and I know what has happened over time. In addition do you understand that I also know torture is bad, very bad? That some of the worst critters in human history have used it. Thats no revelation. Taking a life is also very, very bad, but we permit the state to do it, don’t we? Lifetime incarcertion is bad but we permit the state to do it, don’t we. We permit a soldier to point a gun at another soldier and take his life, don’t we? Arguably, taking a life, killing a person, is worse than torture. But our and most other civilized societies see a need, per tightly controlled circumstances, to do those very ‘bad’ things at times. To make your point, it won’t do to argue torture is bad or that it hurts or that it has been done by bad people. I acknowledge all of those.
But if my society can electrocute (killing is bad) a person for killing another single person, why can’t that society torture a terrorist to prevent him from taking ten thousand lives?

Dugger

“How about if you give me one real world scenario in which torture saved lives. Give me just one. And we ll proceed from there.”

You see, all you had to do was give me an example in which torture worked to save lives as it supposedly would in your rhetorical ticking time bomb scenario. In the BBC, article a Frenchman who tortued in Algeria says he saved lives in a literal ticking bomb scenario. I will note that he got the techniques from the Nazis. So now that I’ve found you your own evidence because you’re too fucking lazy and stupid to do it yourself (please, I have a certain right to call you names now that I’m feeding you your own argument) we can proceed to the next phase of the discussion. Are you game?

So your blaming the failure of your own argument on the lack of a clearinghouse for objective information on torture? Hilarious. Next you will be blaming the obvious anti-torture agenda of the liberal media for covering up all the positive news about torture. “Yes, it’s true, the good news about torture just isn’t getting out there. I would make my case using facts and expert testimony but there’s just no central clearing house for it all.” How intellectually honest am I? I’m doing your work for you. Read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4412065.stm Read the article and just tell me you support what these men did and what they say.

Read it all the way through to the end:

“Many torturers cite the pressure of leading a double life as the hardest aspect of their profession.

Mr Garcia in Uruguay was carried along with the belief shared by his colleagues that the prisoners were evil and, given the opportunity, would do the same to him. It was only when he witnessed the torture of a family friend that he began to question what he was doing, exposed the regime and fled the country.

Most torturers, however, continued their trade until the regime change. For many, stopping torture was not an option – peer pressure, political indoctrination and a conviction of its effectiveness ensured their participation. But the very demise of the governments under whose name they tortured is testimony itself to the fact that torture, in the long term, rarely sustains a regime.”

You’re on the side of cowards and monsters.

You are so easy to knock down becasue you are your own worst enemy. You said: “And please, there s no clearinghouse for facts on torture?”

But I actually said: ” There is no unbiased clearing house of data on torture”

Are you smart enough to see where you screwed yup. Or do you want to hurl another insult?

You couldn’t get Plame right now you’ve bungled this. But you did manage to throw in another crude insult . Make sure your ideological buddy Ahem, who says he didn’t see any insults, sees what a nice, intellectual guy you are.

You write reams of crap and despite that, screw up every time.

Dugger

“But you would let those peopler die because you have some kind of weird rule that the information gained by torture, BY DEFINITION, can not be used to save lives. Wonder what magic rule of nature causes that to happen.”

What weird rule are you talking about? I never said that information extracted using torture can’t be used to save lives. I have said and proven repeatedly that the information extracted through torture is not useful to save lives because torture does not produce reliable information on which you can act. There’s a huge difference that you refuse to see. What magic rule of nature makes this so? BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU ANYTHING YOU WANT TO HEAR TO STOP BEING TORTURED! If I put a pair of pliers to your balls and asked you “Where is the bomb?” how long would it take before you told me that you planted the bomb in locker A at the Greyhound Bus Terminal in Los Angeles? Even if you’ve never beento Los Angeles in your life? Second of all, if terrorists areso die hard determined to kill Americans on a mass scale, why do you think a terrorist would crack under torture in time to save anybody? Your whole scenario depends entirely on torture working so quickly and efficiently that wecould torture someone in the morning and have the bomb defused by lunch. That’s why I say your whole scenario is a fantasy your whole understanding of torture has no basis in fact. Torture does not work to extract relaible informationso how can you argue that it canbe used to save lives? You have yet to produce one single example from real life in which lives were saved using information gleaned through torture. I dare you bring up the Abu Ali example again and try to explain how it advances your case. You have yet to explain why this example proves what you say it does. You once again have yet to return to it to clarify what it is you mean. I bet you won’t either. I bet you’ll never mention it again in another post because you know it doesn’t mean anything. Indeed, it proves the exact opposite of what you want it to prove because Ali’s lawyers are arguing the confession he gave under torture was bogus and now the American prosecutors are saying that he wasn’t tortured at all. Either way you lose. So I know you won’t ever return to it and explain yourself or — even worse — admit you were wrong. Because you are fundamentally dishonest. It’s either that or stupid as fuck.

I gave you the facts of torture, from experts and from newspaper accounts of proven cases in which torture produced false information. You have yet to refute any of these facts. None of it. Instead you go one making up strawmen to attack and shifting the subject from torture to my manners.

And please, there’s no clearinghouse for facts on torture? Try this one:
http://www.amnesty.org/

“It s interesting how freely Dugger throws around accusations of  personal insults where none exist.”

Did I just imagine all of this below? When you get right down to it, nobody, I mean nobody, hates as intensely and as irrationally as a leftist. That is undoubtedly why under the banner of that political ideology, in the history of our planet, many, many more innocent human beings have been murdered than any other form of extremism. Uncontrollable, irrational, hate. Its pervasive on the left.

“You have proven yourself here to be utterly dishonest and incapable of reasoned debate.”

“You are indeed a liar, a coward and a disgrace to this country.”

“You just had a fantasy in your head and your dick in your hand. You have proven yourself once again to be without credibility and without shame.”

“Dugger and OW apparently don t give a fuck about what we re supposed to stand for. Oh no, they just want to live to see another day no matter they have to do to get through the night. Glad to hear it boys. Like I said, only cowards condone torture.”

Dugger, Well ‘Informed’ Comment, Ahem

Of course, this is the Republican tactic par excellence: accuse others of your own faults.

Do you even know what anecdotal evidence is. You just gave anecdotal evidence and then said you didn’t. Make it harder than that,. Come on.

“No one ever said that the scenario of nuclear bomb threatening half million people or whatever scenario you want to concoct was unrealistic. No one ever said that. I never said that. All I ever said was that there is no evidence whatsoever that torture will produce the results you say it will, that is, information that will save lives.”

So a nuclear bomb scenario is, then, realistic. It could kill half a million. But you would let those peopler die because you have some kind of weird rule that the information gained by torture, BY DEFINITION, can not be used to save lives. Wonder what magic rule of nature causes that to happen. I would think that under any given set of circumstances, just about any source of information could be used to save a life. A man in the street. Etc. But magically, per your ground rules, God intervenes with data gained from totrture and forbids by Holy fiat that information from being used to save lives. Nice.

Dugger

Here’s how dishonest you are. No one ever said that the scenario of nuclear bomb threatening half million people or whatever scenario you want to concoct was unrealistic. No one ever said that. I never said that. All I ever said was that there is no evidence whatsoever that torture will produce the results you say it will, that is, information that will save lives. Indeed, all the evidence indicates that torture does not produce effective information. You’re arguing against statements that no had made but yourself because you cannot argue the real point: torture does not work.

The Israeli’s use torture? Give me a link, give the article, find me the quote where an Israeli intelligence officer says that torture has saved Israeli lives. Can you find one person in a position of authority anywhere who has gone on record as saying that torture works, torture is effective?

If you weren’t open to dicussion then why did you ask me to stop calling you names and address the “facts” and “logic” of your argument? I’ve done that in spades and you have given nothing to refute any of it accept more of the same fantasy. When pressed for actual facts what do you? Resort to hogwash: There is no clearinghouse of data on torture so I guess we’ll never know. We’ll never know if torture works or not so we better err on the side of torture? Give me a break. All you have left is your ridiculous opinion that torture works. That isn’t enough to trash the Constitution in my book. I’m sure most Americans would agree. You are indeed a liar, a coward and a disgrace to this country.