Death penalty and torture double-standard?

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;

Because the DP isn’t murder- it isn’t the same as murder, anymore than killing someone in self defense is murder.

Ok. I found this:

Respect for bodily integrity

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. **Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. **Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.91

What say you?

Where does it say that extracting information to save lives is immoral?

Who said anything about putting flowers in gun barrels?
You’re misconstruing my position.

I never said we ought not resist evil, or that we ought to respond to evil with empty, passive expressions.

I said that we ought not engage in evil in our attempt to overcome it.

Ok. Then how are you proposing to deal with, say, the ticking time bomb situation.

 

[RobHom]

the thread is “Death penalty and torture double-standard?”

Ahh, while that may be true, it seems you are unable to understand or define what torture is opposed to interrogation.

I am not confounded

Fooled me.

I understand you have no outside “authority” and you have no inside “authority”

Good, you have finally absorbed one fact.

I understood the inside part when supported torture, the lack of outside authority is not relative because it would have to be a fallible human.

As with every human function that requires a decision, as does the entire criminal justice system. Your point?

And thus the omniscient problem which is inherent to torture.

Torture is not the issue. Your point?

I have been around alot of military people in my life, bright is not a word i associate with them

Now we are starting to get more of a picture of you. Most people I have heard made comments like that are disaffected effete elitists.

DA! yet you must hide from the responsiblity

I have never hidden from my responsibilities, as a Soldier or as a Citizen …Coward, not am I.

good spin - both were US military activities - so much for that C in C

Not a spin, a statement of simple fact. I cannot be held responsible actions of those outside my sphere of influence, anymore than you can.

Can you provide even an inkling of a hint that C in C USARVN or the C in C = POTUS ordered what happened at My Lai?

poor spin, you need to avoid the issue so an off the shelve “obfuscation” is used. The fact is the information is poor quality that is one of the smaller problem. You may hide from the issue if you need

I’ve not avoided a single issue. I’ve answered everyone of your questions and challenges…its YOU who is avoiding issues and “obfuscating”…

The “verification” could be done without torture. Verification or good work needs not torture, but torture needs verification.

Obfuscation. No-one specifically said that torture would be required. You assumed.

Just proof one is valuable the other is not. Again each torturer makes his own

More obfuscation. And not so. Assumption on your part.

in both cases US Military attempted to elminate immoral subhumans.

Coming farther out of the closet?

Whatever made you think that Americans considered Vietnamese “immoral subhumans”. I never di. I think they were moral, most Vietnamese being Buddhist or Catholic. They were dedicated and brave fighters…

As to Native Americans, I can’t speak to ages gone by, but myself, I served with Native Americans, who were brave & fearless. Nothing subhuman about them or the members of the Seminole Tribe I went to school with.

Now with history to aid you look back, how do their actions look?

As to the treatment of Native Americans…there are chapters in history that are certainly bad. But those chapters apply to the British, the French, the Spanish as well. Yes, there were wrongs committed, but I am to do what about it?

As to My Lai, yes, wrongs were done. However, I doubt you have knowledge of exactly what transpired there… But still, I can tell you had I been there, it would not have been as it was. I would have either stopped anyone from shooting or died protecting innocent civilians. You can believe that or not…immaterial to me.

Assumes “it” what is “it”? a right to torture (?) or is “it” an ability to torture (?) - they are not the same.

This is where your understandings of the reality of war fails. Both are to the victors. It is is theirs to claim as victor, but Americans have never viewed it in that manner.

more bad spin - notice “That claim is nearly as valid as saying you can levitate the Jefferson Monument” can be placed behind any statement, simply another poor debate trick used badly

No, it is simply a statement of fact. You’ve offered no evidence to support your claim only opinion.

I would not use the term refuse since I have posed it on this very forum ( probably a different thread)

After all the blathering you’ve done…seems unlikely you couldn’t do it one more time…

It would seem we have went over this a dozen times, this is one of the core problems; each torturer does as he pleases

Another “assumption” on your part. “Proofs”?

ifyou reread post 79 you will find to be confronted with the witnesses against him;"

Oh, I get it…you a terrorist who has specific knowledge of a WMD that is set to kill many thousands of innocents…have “due process”, while we’re at it, lets pay for their public defender, and listen to “I take the 5th”…long after thousands of innocent people are dead… Good choice. Surely every person who’s lost loved ones in the many thousands killed by terrorists would love to fund your election to some exalted position.

These questions are more poor debate tricks to hide from issues

No, the questions put to you were straightforward and direct. I realize that you are bright enough to realize that to answer either way is to either kill your own argument dead, or reveal yourself for what you really are…

That you disagree is of no consequence. Just remember, it is because of those willing, that the unwilling can remain unwilling.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Ok. I found this:

Respect for bodily integrity

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. **Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. **Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.91

What say you?

I say that you’re clearly not reading my posts.

I say I have said on numerous occasions that there is a difference between interrogating someone and torturing someone.

I say I have even said that inflicting pain and discomfort on someone is not the same as torture.

I say you’re torturing me because you’re going in circles.

Where does it say that extracting information to save lives is immoral?

Did you read your quote?

It obviously doesn’t say extracting information to save lives is immoral.

It says “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

the phrase “Extract confessions” is adequate, but doesn’t convey the full weight of the text in the original latin.

The latin phrase translated as “extract confessions” is actually "confessiones extorquendas.

the latin word “confessiones” is a bit more than just a confession of guilt, it refers to revealing one’s thoughts or actions, and also taking responsibility for those actions.

the latin word “extorquendas” comes from the root “extorqueo,” which means “to twist, wrench, dislocate; extort
by force.”

So, the verbose translation would be “to twist, wrench, dislocate, or extort by force” someone to make him reveal his thoughts or actions, and take responsibility for them.

There you have it.

Ok. Then how are you proposing to deal with, say, the ticking time bomb situation.

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I do not know the answer.

I’m not proposing better ways to stop the ticking time bomb scenario, I’m just saying that the lack of an ideal answer doesn’t make your wrong answer right.

Good and evil are mutually exclusive.
God is good.
To fight evil with evil, you have to become evil.
If you choose to become evil, you are choosing to exclude yourself from God.

This isn’t a new idea…

WILLIAM PENN:
To do evil that good may come of it is for bunglers in politics as well as morals.

BLAISE PASCAL:
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE:
Battle not with monsters
lest ye become a monster
and if you gaze into the abyss
the abyss gazes into you.

HENRY BROOKS ADAM:
It is always good men who do the most harm in the world.

HIEROCLES:
We ought always to deal justly, not only with those who are just to us, but likewise to those who endeavor to injure us; and this, for fear lest by rendering them evil for evil, we should fall into the same vice.

MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT:
No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.

SOPHOCLES:
All concerns of men go wrong when they wish to cure evil with evil.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT:
No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I have never hidden from my responsibilities, as a Soldier or as a Citizen …Coward, not am I.

Yoda, you are?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You would need to have “omniscient” knowledge that the enemy was about to kill you, and by the time that would have become quite evident, you and your brothers in arms would be dead or about to die.

Also, your trite comment about the intellectual level of military people…says much about you… You aren’t possibly an effete elitist by chance?

Ahh, while that may be true, it seems you are unable to understand or define what torture is opposed to interrogation.

Fooled me.

Good, you have finally absorbed one fact.

As with every human function that requires a decision, as does the entire criminal justice system. Your point?

Torture is not the issue. Your point?

Now we are starting to get more of a picture of you. Most people I have heard made comments like that are disaffected effete elitists.

I have never hidden from my responsibilities, as a Soldier or as a Citizen …Coward, not am I.

Not a spin, a statement of simple fact. I cannot be held responsible actions of those outside my sphere of influence, anymore than you can.

Can you provide even an inkling of a hint that C in C USARVN or the C in C = POTUS ordered what happened at My Lai?

I’ve not avoided a single issue. I’ve answered everyone of your questions and challenges…its YOU who is avoiding issues and “obfuscating”…

Obfuscation. No-one specifically said that torture would be required. You assumed.

More obfuscation. And not so. Assumption on your part.

Coming farther out of the closet?

Whatever made you think that Americans considered Vietnamese “immoral subhumans”. I never di. I think they were moral, most Vietnamese being Buddhist or Catholic. They were dedicated and brave fighters…

As to Native Americans, I can’t speak to ages gone by, but myself, I served with Native Americans, who were brave & fearless. Nothing subhuman about them or the members of the Seminole Tribe I went to school with.

As to the treatment of Native Americans…there are chapters in history that are certainly bad. But those chapters apply to the British, the French, the Spanish as well. Yes, there were wrongs committed, but I am to do what about it?

As to My Lai, yes, wrongs were done. However, I doubt you have knowledge of exactly what transpired there… But still, I can tell you had I been there, it would not have been as it was. I would have either stopped anyone from shooting or died protecting innocent civilians. You can believe that or not…immaterial to me.

This is where your understandings of the reality of war fails. Both are to the victors. It is is theirs to claim as victor, but Americans have never viewed it in that manner.

No, it is simply a statement of fact. You’ve offered no evidence to support your claim only opinion.

After all the blathering you’ve done…seems unlikely you couldn’t do it one more time…

Another “assumption” on your part. “Proofs”?

Oh, I get it…you a terrorist who has specific knowledge of a WMD that is set to kill many thousands of innocents…have “due process”, while we’re at it, lets pay for their public defender, and listen to “I take the 5th”…long after thousands of innocent people are dead… Good choice. Surely every person who’s lost loved ones in the many thousands killed by terrorists would love to fund your election to some exalted position.

No, the questions put to you were straightforward and direct. I realize that you are bright enough to realize that to answer either way is to either kill your own argument dead, or reveal yourself for what you really are…

That you disagree is of no consequence. Just remember, it is because of those willing, that the unwilling can remain unwilling.

At this point the constant spinning away from every subject of substance leaves nothing of value to discuss. The entire discussion is now based on your interpetation of my opinion, which is amazingly inaccurate. If you desire to defend “Death penalty and torture double-standard” as an accurate statement then post to others. It is not a double standard as has been explained to other posters.

 

[Ender]

will you just ask the person politely to give up the information, and in the event that they refuse, will you just give up and walk away? Or will you increase the pressure on the person to get the information?[/B]

It’s not exactly clear to me what is controversial about your question that others have difficulty addressing. The situation you describe exists (in less extreme forms) today; there are officials faced with just the dilemma you describe. Of those who say they will not increase the pressure, there is not much that can be said. I really don’t think any discussion is possible. For me, the question is how much “pressure” is it moral to inflict; where is the line that should not be crossed?

I disagree with the comment that torturing the suspect’s child to force his compliance would be acceptable. That seems on its face to be immoral. I will admit, however, that my claim is in no sense a moral argument; this is something I have not carefully reasoned out for myself. I have spent most of my efforts in disputing arguments that seem ill founded, much like clearing away the underbrush to get a good whack at the tree.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… For me, the question is how much “pressure” is it moral to inflict; where is the line that should not be crossed?

So what standard to the"* officials faced with just the dilemma*" use today (or yesterday, last week , last year) ?

I disagree with the comment that torturing the suspect’s child to force his compliance would be acceptable. That seems on its face to be immoral. …Ender

Let’s be clear that was neat62’s comment (post #83?). However under what standard do you reject that?

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;4548819]

I say I have said on numerous occasions that there is a difference between interrogating someone and torturing someone.

I say I have even said that inflicting pain and discomfort on someone is not the same as torture.

So just to be clear, your idea of immoral torture is simply compelling someone to act? Is that right?

"You can’t ignore that the function of torture is to compel action from the subject… you are torturing them with the intention of making them do something. "

It says “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

the phrase “Extract confessions” is adequate, but doesn’t convey the full weight of the text in the original latin.

The latin phrase translated as “extract confessions” is actually "confessiones extorquendas.

the latin word “confessiones” is a bit more than just a confession of guilt, it refers to revealing one’s thoughts or actions, and also taking responsibility for those actions.

the latin word “extorquendas” comes from the root “extorqueo,” which means “to twist, wrench, dislocate; extort
by force.”

So, the verbose translation would be “to twist, wrench, dislocate, or extort by force” someone to make him reveal his thoughts or actions, and take responsibility for them.

There you have it.

This means that you cannot force a confession out of someone in order to punish them. Like a cop beating a confession out of someone in order to convict them and make the force look good.

This is not the same as attempting to extract life saving information out of a suspected criminal with probale cause.

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I do not know the answer.

I’m not proposing better ways to stop the ticking time bomb scenario, I’m just saying that the lack of an ideal answer doesn’t make your wrong answer right.

Fair enough.

Good and evil are mutually exclusive.
God is good.
To fight evil with evil, you have to become evil.
If you choose to become evil, you are choosing to exclude yourself from God.

Thank God the allies in WW2 blew that off. Sprechen Sie Deutsch?

 

[neat62]

Yoda, you are?

LOLOLOL

http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1997/star.wars.anniversary/where.are.they/yoda.lg.jpg

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…**you **are torturing them … "

I guess it could be written a million times but never read? Say ***“They are to torture me…” *** that is the only proper way to discuss torture

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscarthecat;4548819]
So just to be clear, your idea of immoral torture is simply compelling someone to act? Is that right?

"You can’t ignore that the function of torture is to compel action from the subject… you are torturing them with the intention of making them do something. "

No, that’s just one of many things to consider about torture.

You’re lumping things together.

We compel people to act all the time- but that isn’t the same as resorting to violence to compel people to act, and that isn’t the same as responding to violence with equal, opposite force for the purpose of protecting oneself or others, and that isn’t the same as giving the suspect a nice big dose of LSD so that he thinks he’s 10 years old and trades all of his intel in exchange for some yummy cookies.

Other things about torture would include the amount of force you’re using, the type of force, whether your intervention is proportionate to the percieved danger, etc.

This means that you cannot force a confession out of someone in order to punish them. Like a cop beating a confession out of someone in order to convict them and make the force look good.

That’s one interpretation. We could go around and around about that all day, but I’d rather not because it will get us nowhere, and I’m already a little dizzy.

This is not the same as attempting to extract life saving information out of a suspected criminal with probale cause.

Really?
Which suspect are you talking about?
The one accused of setting a ticking time bomb that’s about to go off? He’d be tortured on the basis that he has information that could stop that bomb from going off…

Or the one accused of setting a ticking time bomb that’s already gone off?
He’d be tortured on the basis that he has information that could stop more bombs from going off…

Both of those seem pretty dangerous to me…if you’re “pro-torture,” why wouldn’t you want to torture both of them if that’s what it took to save lives?

Thank God the allies in WW2 blew that off. Sprechen Sie Deutsch?

Star Trek has pretty much beaten the “theorizing about alternate historical timelines” motif to death- do we really need to resurrect it here?

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;

No, that’s just one of many things to consider about torture.

You’re lumping things together.

We compel people to act all the time- but that isn’t the same as resorting to violence to compel people to act, and that isn’t the same as responding to violence with equal, opposite force for the purpose of protecting oneself or others, and that isn’t the same as giving the suspect a nice big dose of LSD so that he thinks he’s 10 years old and trades all of his intel in exchange for some yummy cookies.

I’ve said that torture should not be taken off the table. It should be the last resort, but not banned.

Other things about torture would include the amount of force you’re using, the type of force, whether your intervention is proportionate to the percieved danger, etc.

Ok. So consider them. Again, I am not in favor of using torture to find out where the thief hid the old lady’s purse. It should be only with the intent, of extracting life saving information. And, as a last resort.

That’s one interpretation. We could go around and around about that all day, but I’d rather not because it will get us nowhere, and I’m already a little dizzy.

Ok.

Really?
Which suspect are you talking about?
The one accused of setting a ticking time bomb that’s about to go off? He’d be tortured on the basis that he has information that could stop that bomb from going off…

Or the one accused of setting a ticking time bomb that’s already gone off?
He’d be tortured on the basis that he has information that could stop more bombs from going off…

Both of those seem pretty dangerous to me…if you’re “pro-torture,” why wouldn’t you want to torture both of them if that’s what it took to save lives?

I would. Only let me be clear: If one is accused, that is different than probable cause. This is not Iraq under Saddam, where all a person had to do to get in good graces with Saddam, was to accuse his neighbor of anti Saddam actions, and they would torture him. No, this is about, for example, the product of a bug, where the courts(or others) have already determined that something funny is going on, based on reasonable intelligence.

Star Trek has pretty much beaten the “theorizing about alternate historical timelines” motif to death- do we really need to resurrect it here?

LOL Not to me it hasn’t. And it is still very much applies. I guess that it is a sing of the times that we can write off history, and the real horrors that have occured and how they were stopped. The fact is, is that evil was used to end a greater evil, and that is moral and just.

 

[ninaq4]

No, that’s just one of many things to consider about torture.

You’re lumping things together.

We compel people to act all the time- but that isn’t the same as resorting to violence to compel people to act, and that isn’t the same as responding to violence with equal, opposite force for the purpose of protecting oneself or others, and that isn’t the same as giving the suspect a nice big dose of LSD so that he thinks he’s 10 years old and trades all of his intel in exchange for some yummy cookies.

Other things about torture would include the amount of force you’re using, the type of force, whether your intervention is proportionate to the percieved danger, etc.

That’s one interpretation. We could go around and around about that all day, but I’d rather not because it will get us nowhere, and I’m already a little dizzy.

Really?
Which suspect are you talking about?
The one accused of setting a ticking time bomb that’s about to go off? He’d be tortured on the basis that he has information that could stop that bomb from going off…

Or the one accused of setting a ticking time bomb that’s already gone off?
He’d be tortured on the basis that he has information that could stop more bombs from going off…

Both of those seem pretty dangerous to me…if you’re “pro-torture,” why wouldn’t you want to torture both of them if that’s what it took to save lives?

Star Trek has pretty much beaten the “theorizing about alternate historical timelines” motif to death- do we really need to resurrect it here?

Hey um…an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at President Bush over the weekend…to Muslims that is the ultimate insult…and in fact, would be considered TORTURE!!!

For me…putting gas in the car is TORTURE…maybe I should go after both the car companies and BIG OIL for forcing me to have to do so…for that matter…maybe I should look to sue the government because it allows this sort of TORTURE to go on…they force me to smell gas fumes as I have to fill my take, and until recently forced me to pay exorbitant prices for the “pleasure” of doing so…its insane, its inhumane…its just WRONG!!!

I demand retribution…I am going to sue all involved and cry at the trial when I have to explain how the gas fumes cause me to become dizzy, confused and could potentially lead to CANCER!!!

Then I am going to do all that I can to compare my “torture” to that which those on death row have to go through here in CA.

Oh wait…we have a moratorium in this state…so those who have viciously murdered, in the most heinous ways, their fellow human beings, without remorse, won’t be “tortured” with a needle prick through the arm…no, that would be inhumane.

Instead they sit on death row for 20 or more years appealing their case and pleading their “innocence" over and over…no…instead they will finish their educations, receive three full and hot meals…have access to the internet and in some cases even become a “celebrity” by writing children’s books…i.e. TOOKIE WILLIAMS.

 

[RobHom]

Yoda, you are?

Yoda, not am i…

 

[RobHom]

At this point the constant spinning away from every subject of substance leaves nothing of value to discuss. The entire discussion is now based on your interpetation of my opinion, which is amazingly inaccurate. If you desire to defend “Death penalty and torture double-standard” as an accurate statement then post to others. It is not a double standard as has been explained to other posters.

It is you that is constantly “spinning” away from the salient points, and it is you that has refused to answer my questions, especially that one that required you to actually answer what you would do under a prescribed set of circumstances. You haven’t even defined what you consider to be “torture”, as opposed to interrogation. And I have “yet” to bother “interpreting” your opinion…

If you haven’t the “stones” or the courage of your convictions to state precisely what your answers would be, then so be it.

 

[apromisemade]

I oppose torture on both moral and practical grounds. If someone gives information under torture, even if there is evidence the person being tortured has valuable, whose to say that information is even true? How does one know the person did not just make up some information and told you what he thought you *wanted *to hear just so he could get you to stop torturing him. The info could be not only useless but misleading.

Also, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I have never forgotten the day I first saw those pictures of the atrocities commited inside Abu Ghraib. Everytime I look at those photos, I think the same thing I thought the first time I saw them, nothing is worth this. If someone showed me those photos and told me that this was going to happen in order for me to stay alive, my response would be, “Take my life.”

Now as far as how I feel about the church teachings on the subjects and whether or not they contradict eachother…

I could go on and on about the injustices of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, but I’ll sum it up by saying I don’t think the prisoners being held there are quite the same as a person who has already been found guilty of murder, rape, etc. There are thousands of people being held in those places. And most of the time they are in there not because *we know * that they know anything. There is just the faint possibility that they might. Here in America, you can’t even arrest someone unless you have already proven there is sufficient evidence they commited a crime. Most of the people in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib are in there because they are a friend of a friend of someone who blew up a car (well, not all of them are there for that exact reason, but you get my point).
Besides, if someone was arrested for murder and put in prison here in the U.S was subjected to the same treatment the people in A.G and Gitmo have been while awaiting trial, there would (at least I hope there would) be outrage and swift action to reprimand it.

So in that regard, no, I don’t think the teachings contradict eachother in this scenario.

To me it is a simple question of whether or not the most basic human decency is a luxury given to just us Americans or a God-given right to all people.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It is **you **that is constantly “spinning” away from the salient points, and it is you that has refused to answer my questions, especially that one that required you to actually answer what you would do under a prescribed set of circumstances. You haven’t even defined what you consider to be “torture”, as opposed to interrogation. And I have “yet” to bother “interpreting” your opinion…

If you haven’t the “stones” or the courage of your** convictions** to state precisely what **your **answers would be, then so be it.

I rest my case

 

[apromisemade]

Thanks for the reply…but in the case I presented above, we do know that he is guilty…so what now?

I believe I’ve received few posts because this is is tough one. Anyone want to take it on?

Regardless, there are ways to get someone to give information, much more effective ways I might add, without treating them worse than I would even think of treating a dog.

 

[neat62]

Regardless, there are ways to get someone to give information, much more effective ways I might add, without treating them worse than I would even think of treating a dog.

I don’t know. In this country, they treat dogs pretty darn well. Better than most homeless.

 

[apromisemade]

I don’t know. In this country, they treat dogs pretty darn well. Better than most homeless.

My point was you don’t need to treat someone like they are sub human in order to get them to cooperate with you and give you information. The dog thing was just a metaphor. Apparently not a very good one.