PredatorX wrote:
Well, seeing as I was tlaking about a US run Iraq, obviously not.
Moron, what do you think Bush has been preaching about? That we are bringing American "Democracy" to the Iraqis.
*sigh*. There are three ways that torture can be carried out. Systematically, institutionally, on orders from higher up, as a part of a policy to achieve some national goal - perhaps security. This is very likely to become known to the Iraqis eventually, if implemented, and of course peace and prosperity will be out of the question.
Right.
The second way is is systematically, but not as a part of a policy, not from orders originating high up, but from a mid-level. Which of these two the abuse in Abu Ghraib was is still under dispute. If this sort of things occur, it might become known to Iraqis but might not, and if it does happen it will seriously hinder prospects for peace and prosperity, and would need to be acted upon very swiftly to minimise damage (the current scandal hasnt been handled well enough) - or completely covered up so that only rumours exist at most.
Once again, no peace or prosperity, plus you have commanders which have the power of military governors.
The third way is the inevitable, limited torture and abuse that Axis was tlaking about - individual or small groups of soldiers, acting without orders (or at least not from particularly high up). This is happening and has been happening since the beginning, and I've talked with soldiers who've returned from Iraq and confirm this.
Gee, having our troops violating orders and toturing people at will sounds like a great idea. We should certainly encourage this as it will certainly lead to peace and prosperity. [/dripping with sarcasm]
If the US continued (as it inevitably will) the third, and maybe even a few instances of the second (especially if they covered it up so that only rumours existed), while this would obviously be terrible (I have to keep stating this or people will mischaracterise my argument as "it happens, so it's ok"), and if, as is true in my example, everything else is greatly improved, then firstly the societal order created probably wouldnt collapse, and secondly, to get back to the point, *all things considered*, the administration of the country could not be considered equivalent to Saddam's regime.
That's a long way from peace and prosperity and you STILL have the problem of the society imploding. The tortures already happening might very well lead to that if given time.
No, it is relevant, because it refutes the argument that this abuse scandal, or hypothetical continued limited torture and abuse, *alone* would make the US administration of Iraq morally equivalent to Saddam Hussein, who not only used torture on a larger scale, but also ran a pretty unpleasant society in general.
You are the densest fucking bitch we've had around here in a long while. I'll repeat what I said again:
YOU CANNOT CONDUCT TORTURE WITHOUT LEADING TO MASSIVE SOCIOLOGICAL SHIFTS. THIS IS INEVITABLE. THEREFORE YOUR EXAMPLE IS IRRELEVENT.
My argument is that it's other factors that make the US admin of Iraq morally equivalent. The commonality of torture isnt enough alone.
Morally equivalent now? Before it was equivalent, now you have slipped in a "morally". Did anyone ever tell you asshole that morality is a subjective word?
This reminds me of what one particular senator said, on the reason he retired from the senate. "If you're explaining, you're losing". Obvoiously the point went a bit above your head. That's a shame.
Your mistake is assuming that you had a point in the first place.
Backpeddling? I'm refuting your point, arsehole. If your point was addressing a strawman version of my argument, that's your fault. You've again assumed that I'm claiming that in my example torture would be the means of maintaining security, which as I already pointed out, it's not.
Bullshit, what other possibly use for torture is there? Fun and games?
I know exactly what you meant by "freely", it's meaning is exactly why it's a problem that you shoved it in there. Torture and abuse has been and will continue to be covered up - it's happening all the time.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make it legal, and if it is ever discovered, heads roll. The police officer in your example would be sent to jail, not given a medal, as will the soldiers involved in the Iraqi abuses.
For example, a guy who returned not long ago from Iraq, has told me about how they were performing a search, and one woman, who was twice checked for weapons, who was cooperating, was ordered to strip for a strip search for no reason, ignoring the protocol that striip searches of women be performed only by a woman, behind closed doors. When she was reluctant to do so, they beat her, and he wasnt able to do a lot to stop it. That's an example of the kind of humiliation and abuse that is performed all too often.
Once again I see you do not know the purpose of a legal system. If someone is breaking the law (like the soldiers in your example) and gets away with it, that means that tighter law enforcement is needed, NOT an abandonment of those laws. Use your fucking brain before you speak.
And it's directly analogous to police brutality, of which extremely little ever becomes publically known and the perpetrators punished.
Yet when it does become known it leads to things like the Rodney King riots. Remember when I said public knowledge of such things leads to outcry and civil disobediance?
Besides, all you have made a case for once again is stronger enforcement of the laws. OF COURSE PEOPLE WILL BREAK THE LAW. That does not mean the laws should be adandoned.
Do you think you're disagreeing with me?
I think that you are too stupid to know what the implications of what you are saying is.
If there is a building, within which there is 100 people and a nuclear device that has a 50% chance of going off and killing 100,000 people, and your only option to destroy the bomb is to call an airstrike on the building killing the 100, what do you do?
Once again, in your horribly contrived example, the outcome is known for certain. I reiterate that one does not violate their morals if they don't know the outcome. Did you consider that a rebutal to my point?
The fact is, we have to take action on our best guesses sometimes, even when we need to do things that would, in isolation, be bad. Sometimes we have to take some sort of gamble, when the stakes are high, to get the best results, or perhaps, the least bad results. That's a moral equation that can be difficult at times. What we shoulodnt do is, upon seeing that the moral equation is difficult, declare ourselves unable to solve it, and stand idly by.
Amazing that you can type all that and not say a damn thing.
It's not so much that I've shielded myself in the hypothetical, as you've shown yourself completely unable to grasp the concept I presented. Repeatedly you've created strawmans of my argument.
Yes, you are so brilliant that I have been unable to grasp the complexities of your bullshit argument. Try again.
Where are you even going with any of this? Do you even have a point anymore?
The point, which you obviously fail to grasp, is that torture as a policy breaks down when the public becomes aware of it.
Alright then. Lets say that in Abu Ghraib, no pictures were taken. How would the public have found out?
A leak by one of the guards maybe? Or maybe one of a thousand different ways? Use your imagination.
Do you know that there are torture methods that leave no visible signs? They've gotten so good that even medical analysis can sometimes not pick up evidence of torture.
God bless medical science. I'm sure the guards and the prisoners would be unaware of it as well.
Do you really believe that if the US wanted to torture Osama once they catch him, wihtout the public knowing, that the public would come into knowledge of that fact? Not rumour, not speculation, but actual knowledge that this did happen?
Rumor and speculation are often enough to topple an administration. Besides, you are still talking about an illegal act, albeit one at a much higher level of government.
I think you underestimate the skill and resourcefulness of the US government.
Yeah, just like how the Watergate burglary went off without a hitch.
So you agree, it could be put into law, good. Specific was the point - if I didnt think that very specific and extreme circumstances were needed to justify torture, this part of the argument would have been a lot simpler. And of course, remember that all of this is conditional on torture being effective in the first place. A lot of people here are convinced it isnt, and that there are better methods. Nevertheless.
No I don't. Theoretically it could as you said, but practically it could not since no politician would ever want to touch a "torture bill". The thing WOULD NEVER PASS, thus it is possible in theory but impossible in reality. Want an example of this? Warp drive is possible in theory too, but why don't you ask some PhD's if they think it is feasible. If they say yes, I suggests you recommend a catscan.
Your entire argument thusfar has been a bunch of hot air dressed up in long winded verbeage. Tell me, do you have
anything useful to offer here besides your ridiculous hypotheticals?
