Death penalty and torture double-standard?

[Texas_Roofer]

If it is in fact contrary to God’s law, He will address it naturally. Beyond that, if a crime was committed, it is incumbent upon the country of the offender’s nationality to address the crime, unless it is an issue wherein the victor of the war has precedence, as for instance the Nuremburg Trials.

God’s law says treat your neighbor as yourself, the Nuremburg trials complied by being actual trials, not so for what is happening now

Persons appointed by competent authority.

That’s me ( in your system I am as good as anybody else)

Persons appointed by competent authority.

That’s me ( in your system I am as good as anybody else)

If you take a modest look at reality, you will find that no-one has ever come up with a standard accepted by all. Its probably humanly impossible. That’s why we have governments… to set and establish standards…

As mention repeatedly that means your standard is applied not a universal standard, it also means all others apply their standard not yours

It could very well not be. If you interrogate someone intensely and they tell you that a huge dirty bomb is planted in Yankee Stadium and set to go off at mid-game when thousands of people are in the stadium…you aren’t just going to revel in the fact that you got an answer…your going to either prove the veracity of the information and act on it, or you will prove the falseness of the information and seek more accurate information…

If you have to “prove the veracity of the information” then you are admitting the torture produce little or no value.

Where I think you are making an error or confusing the issues, is that you are attempting to make one shoe fit all feet. It doesn’t work that way. No two feet are alike, and situations requiring responses are not alike.

and thus everyone tortures to their own standards, which is exactly the problem

There are instances when severe interrogation techniques are justified, and then there are instances when they are not. Its called “situational ethics determination”.

as always written with the assumption moral people in charge and a guilty party exists (omniscient knowledge), in the real world those are assumption which are always violated.

You, Texas Roofer, may have a problem with intensely interrogating a terrorist who has information that can prevent the deaths of many innocents, but there are those of us that do honestly believe that the welfare of the majority override the welfare of one or the few. I sincerely hope with all my heart that you never find yourself in the position where you have to make such a decision. I fear your decision, while coddling the terrorist, will be the death and maiming of many innocents.

Actually I can guarantee more will be died and be maimed by torture than by a refusal to torture. Torture begets torture until all are tortured and all are torturers leaving no moral ground

 

[neat62]

Texas Roofer;

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

---

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What was the point to all this?

No you do, you aspire to inflict and constrain by such

Yeah, in order to save lives, not find out where the stolen money is at.

No, please re-phrase it, I do not follow what you are saying.

So if you do not believe his words what else to you get from torture?

Hopefully, the truth. And let me make it clear, when I speak of torture, it is generally in the form of intelligence gathering in war, in order to stop the deaths of our people/soldiers/innocents. I am against torture for the sake of getting an confession.

 

[Oscarthecat]

But when it comes down to saving lives, all means should be at our disposal, complimenting probable cause. And yes, even torture, when all other methods have failed. And of the three results, we cannot hide the fact that the truth option is one of them.

Really?

All means should be at our disposal?

You can’t think of anything that you wouldn’t do in the name of saving lives??

How about torturing a terrorist’s baby in order to inflict emotional pain on the terrorist? That might be pretty effective- would you find that morally acceptable?

How about torturing 10 innocent people to save the life of one innocent person? Would that be OK?

What if you were absolutely certain that one of those 10 people was the terrorist, but didn’t know which one? Would it be right to torture the 9 innocent people?

You’re parroting a classic utilitarian value- that nothing has an absolute moral value, that the moral value of every act is relative to the desired end.

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;

You can’t think of anything that you wouldn’t do in the name of saving lives??

Of course I can.

How about torturing a terrorist’s baby in order to inflict emotional pain on the terrorist? That might be pretty effective- would you find that morally acceptable?

Yes. In order to save the lives of many innocents? Yes. Barbaric and brutal, but yes. Inflicting pain is far less damaging and affects far less people than allowing 1000 people to be murdered and have all of their familes to suffer. And of course, that would be extremely rare circumstances, if that situation were to materialize at all.

How about torturing 10 innocent people to save the life of one innocent person? Would that be OK?

What if you were absolutely certain that one of those 10 people was the terrorist, but didn’t know which one? Would it be right to torture the 9 innocent people?

Do not forget that I justify torture as long as there is probable cause. But, say, we pick up all 10 on the battlefield who were shooting guns at us, then yes. All it would be justified in pressing all ten.

You’re parroting a classic utilitarian value- that nothing has an absolute moral value, that the moral value of every act is relative to the desired end.

Well I wouldn’t say every act. But I accept the torture of terrorists(or whomever threatens innocents), where probable cause has been determined, as morally acceptable, in my personal opinion. To allow the deaths of innocent people because we want to treat a terrorist with dignity, is immoral to me.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Think this through again…

I asked…“How about torturing a terrorist’s baby in order to inflict emotional pain on the terrorist? That might be pretty effective- would you find that morally acceptable?”

You answered…

Yes. In order to save the lives of many innocents? Yes. Barbaric and brutal, but yes. Inflicting pain is far less damaging and affects far less people than allowing 1000 people to be murdered and have all of their familes to suffer. And of course, that would be extremely rare circumstances, if that situation were to materialize at all.

And then a few lines later, in the same post, you said…

But I accept the torture of terrorists(or whomever threatens innocents), where probable cause has been determined, as morally acceptable, in my personal opinion. To allow the deaths of innocent people because we want to treat a terrorist with dignity, is immoral to me.

This brings up an interesting little point…

…you’ve stated that you would consent to the torture of a terrorist’s baby…

Therefore, under the right circumstance, you are a threat to babies.

…then you said that you accept torture of “whomever threatens innocents”…

But keep in mind that all babies are naturally innocent, even if their parent is a terrorist- and you’ve stated that torturing them is within your moral code.

So, does that mean that, according to your proposition, you would support someone’s decision to torture YOU in the event that you ever endeavor to torture a terrorist’s baby?

Do you see how messy things get for utilitarians? When you’re only seeking to satisfy a particular end, you tend to prioritize those moral issues necessary to satisfy that end, and disregard those things that prohibit you from satisfying that end.

Consequently, your desired end of limiting the potential for harm to come to innocents is blinding you to all of the other moral considerations of using torture.

You need to really break the whole concept of torture down to its basic moral elements, and determine whether its moral qualities are fundamentally good, regardless of application.

 

[RobHom]

God’s law says treat your neighbor as yourself, the Nuremburg trials complied by being actual trials, not so for what is happening now

Yes, the Nuremburg trials were convened, by the CONQUERING POWERS and were Military Tribunals. They were “just” trials, and I have not argued once that the nonsense going on now is “just”. You have gotten stuck with a penchant for harping on perhaps what is transpiring at “Gitmo” or the foolishness at Abu Ghraib. I am not caught up on that. I am viewing the issue in a much broader spectrum. But frankly, I am not terribly worried about some of the enemy/terrorists being inconvenienced or being made uncomfortable.

That’s me ( in your system I am as good as anybody else)

Only if appointed by competent authority. That apparently has not happened…

That’s me ( in your system I am as good as anybody else)

Only if appointed by competent authority. That apparently has not happened.

I doubt that in any system I would direct that you would be found “competent” to make the decisions in an unbiased fashion. Your bias is too evident, in fact so evident…you would do nothing at all.

As mention repeatedly that means your standard is applied not a universal standard, it also means all others apply their standard not yours

Not so. I never said that my standards would be applied. I have been speaking in generalist terms. In a controlled environment…believe it or not, there is little wiggle room for application of “personal standards”. Especially if one is wearing a military uniform.

I might also advise you that you are apparently somewhat unlearned in this area. We Americans are actually quite “benign” where this issue is concerned. We are the “nice guys”. The South Vienamese, as well as the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, the Koreans (N&S)…as well as many others like the Japanese and Germans…and Russians, East Germans after the war were particularly brutal. They generally never “interrogated” anyone without subjecting them to particularly brutal treatment.

This is not to say or even imply that we would be right to do as they do. I am merely making the point that we are “nice” in comparison to others.

If you have to “prove the veracity of the information” then you are admitting the torture produce little or no value.

Not so. And again…you insist on using the word “torture”. I have never advocated “torture”…in its strict sense. You seem unable to accept the fact that there are many ways to interrogate a person to obtain results. Even still, after getting information, if you don’t verify its veracity, and act upon it…whats the point of getting out of bed. In fact, why not just have some “Jonestown Koolaid” and not bother?

and thus everyone tortures to their own standards, which is exactly the problem

According to your myopic view of the situation. Your grandiose statement of “inclusion” is baseless.

as always written with the assumption moral people in charge and a guilty party exists (omniscient knowledge), in the real world those are assumption which are always violated.

Not so. Are you actually trying to infer or outrightly say that the Nuremburg war trials were wrong and someone’s rights were violated? Are you trying to say or imply that the countries that won World War II were wrong to try those people deemed war criminals? Or do you have a problem with the fact that they were found guilty of heinous crimes and put to death?

What you fail to realize…is that our system actually does not permit barbaric treatment of prisoners. It is not our way, and it has never been our way. Never will be.

What you also fail to realize is that in war, the spoils go to the victor. That is how it has always been. It has absolutely nothing to do with “omniscient knowledge”. Absolutely nothing.

Actually I can guarantee more will be died and be maimed by torture than by a refusal to torture.

Actually, you cannot guarantee that, because you are not in a position to make such a guarantee, and you are opining at best. Again, there is a significant difference between interrogation and torture.

Tell me, what is your definition of torture?

Torture begets torture until all are tortured and all are torturers leaving no moral ground

Not so…and I daresay that’s a statement of nothing less than unabashed hyperbole.

Again, define what you think “torture” is.

 

[RobHom]

Texas Roofer,

In addition to answering my question to you about your definition of “torture”, answer this question as well:

If, you are in a position of appointment, having been duly appointed or sworn in by competent authority legally, and given a position of enforcement of laws and the duty to protect the people of your country, you come into the knowledge that an individual is highly suspected, based on extremely viable intelligence, of having knowledge of the presence, whereabouts, and intended usage of a weapon of mass destruction, and the intelligence further indicates that this WMD is going to be planted and detonated or released with X hours, and the destructive force will cause the deaths and injury of thousands of innocent persons, 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?

Don’t bother clipping parts or obfuscating…just answer the questions simply.

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;

Think this through again…

I asked…“How about torturing a terrorist’s baby in order to inflict emotional pain on the terrorist? That might be pretty effective- would you find that morally acceptable?”

You answered…

And then a few lines later, in the same post, you said…

This brings up an interesting little point…

…you’ve stated that you would consent to the torture of a terrorist’s baby…

Therefore, under the right circumstance, you are a threat to babies.

…then you said that you accept torture of “whomever threatens innocents”…

But keep in mind that all babies are naturally innocent, even if their parent is a terrorist- and you’ve stated that torturing them is within your moral code.

So, does that mean that, according to your proposition, you would support someone’s decision to torture YOU in the event that you ever endeavor to torture a terrorist’s baby?

I see the point you are trying to make here. For clarity sake, I will lay out the entire hypothetical scenario.

1. We wiretapped a terrorist group planning to attack, say, a school. We know that it WILL happen, we just don’t know when. We captured one on the terrorists and are interrogating him to no avail.
2. We tried everything. Peaceful talks, torture, threats, etc. Nothing works.
3. We do the unthinkable with his kid. The outcome is of concern here for our discussion. ok?

The question is whether it was morally right to do what we did.

My position is: yes.

Yours is: No.

You made two additional arguments:

A) Kids are innocent and torturing one is a threat to innocent kids, with my position being a double standard, and

B) If I would torture to save lives, by my rational, would others be justified in torturing me for the same reason?

I think we both understand the scenario here, yes?

To this I reply:

My position is to save lives. Torture for information is not designed to kill, just extract information.

A) If I torture for no other reason than to get my kicks, then yes, I would be a threat to innocents. If I am trying to stop an action that would actually kill and effect many, many people’s lives, then I am not an evil, aggressive threat. Like war. Many innocents die or are hurt in order to stop a worser evil. But in my scenario, torture is not death or taking a life.

B) Well, to answer that, I need to know if torture is equal to murder. If I torture to prevent murder, then is torturing me, to prevent torture, on an equal plane? A question to you, Oscarthecat, and to all here:

Is torture to prevent the deaths of innocents, equal to the murder of innocents?

Do you see how messy things get for utilitarians? When you’re only seeking to satisfy a particular end, you tend to prioritize those moral issues necessary to satisfy that end, and disregard those things that prohibit you from satisfying that end.

I do see the potential for that, sure. I see the debate on the dropping of the A Bomb in 1945 going on to this day. Many innocents died on those two dates, including women and babies. Those at risk then, supported the dropping of the A Bomb. Those who live in a life of luxury today, do not.(not all, of course)

Consequently, your desired end of limiting the potential for harm to come to innocents is blinding you to all of the other moral considerations of using torture.

I wouldn’t say blind. I am fully aware of my points. I thought about it plenty. And believe me, I am struggeling with it. I just do not see murder and torture as being equal. That one line is enableing me to support my position. Convince me that that is wrong, and you will have made a convert of me to your thinking.

You need to really break the whole concept of torture down to its basic moral elements, and determine whether its moral qualities are fundamentally good, regardless of application.

Sure, I look at the purpose, the intent, the end result, and the equivilency. And to me, it is boiling down to life or discomfort.

But again, convince me that torture is equal to murder, and you will make a convert of me. Seriously. I’ve spoke to a very special person in my life, who’s opinion and knowlege of morality and of the Church is very full. And they disagree with me, lol So yeah, convince me that torture and murder are equal, and I will concede my points. Oh, and can you do it without a quote from the Catechism? Not that I don’t believe it, just that I would like to reconcile it in my own mind. Thanks

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscarthecat;
But again, convince me that torture is equal to murder, and you will make a convert of me. Seriously. I’ve spoke to a very special person in my life, who’s opinion and knowlege of morality and of the Church is very full. And they disagree with me, lol So yeah, convince me that torture and murder are equal, and I will concede my points. Oh, and can you do it without a quote from the Catechism? Not that I don’t believe it, just that I would like to reconcile it in my own mind. Thanks

It all comes down to this…

You’re justifying the use of torture to prevent the murder of innocents because you believe that using a one grave sin to prevent another grave sin is morally just.

But you should consider whether we can stop the monsters of the world by becoming monsters ourselves, and whether you believe that we, as Christians, believe Christ calls us to become monsters or martyrs.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer,

In addition to answering my question to you about your definition of “torture”, answer this question as well:

If, you are in a position of appointment, having been duly appointed or sworn in by competent authority legally, and given a position of enforcement of laws and the duty to protect the people of your country, you come into the knowledge that an individual is highly suspected, based on extremely viable intelligence, of having knowledge of the presence, whereabouts, and intended usage of a weapon of mass destruction, and the intelligence further indicates that this WMD is going to be planted and detonated or released with X hours, and the destructive force will cause the deaths and injury of thousands of innocent persons, 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?

Don’t bother clipping parts or obfuscating…just answer the questions simply.

If you take out the omniscient knowledge. there is nothing left to answer! (hint)

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;

You’re justifying the use of torture to prevent the murder of innocents because you believe that using a one grave sin to prevent another grave sin is morally just.

I agree with that statement. But again, I still cannot equate the two. Just like the Church condones the death penalty, while at the same time does not condone murder. Both sins, but both for different reasons.

But you should consider whether we can stop the monsters of the world by becoming monsters ourselves, and whether you believe that we, as Christians, believe Christ calls us to become monsters or martyrs.

We might not be able to stop all the mosters, but perhaps we can save a few lives from them. And I believe that we are called to resist evil. And if we die resisting evil, then we become martyed. Placing a flower into the barrel of a gun, only to get shot by that gun, is wasteful suicide, in my opinion.

Good deabte, learned a lot and really had to reconsider my position.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Texas Roofer,

In addition to answering my question to you about your definition of “torture”, answer this question as well:

If, you are in a position of appointment, having been duly appointed or sworn in by competent authority legally, and given a position of enforcement of laws and the duty to protect the people of your country, you come into the knowledge that an individual is highly suspected, based on extremely viable intelligence, of having knowledge of the presence, whereabouts, and intended usage of a weapon of mass destruction, and the intelligence further indicates that this WMD is going to be planted and detonated or released with X hours, and the destructive force will cause the deaths and injury of thousands of innocent persons, 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?

Don’t bother clipping parts or obfuscating…just answer the questions simply.

I think your question is poorly stated.

There is a broad spectrum of options between asking politely and torturing someone.

Your question implies that anyone opposed to torture is opposed to any sort of aggressive interrogation, which simply isn’t the case.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscarthecat;
I agree with that statement. But again, I still cannot equate the two. Just like the Church condones the death penalty, while at the same time does not condone murder. Both sins, but both for different reasons.

Back to this again?
:banghead:
Because the DP isn’t murder- it isn’t the same as murder, anymore than killing someone in self defense is murder.

We might not be able to stop all the mosters, but perhaps we can save a few lives from them. And I believe that we are called to resist evil. And if we die resisting evil, then we become martyed. Placing a flower into the barrel of a gun, only to get shot by that gun, is wasteful suicide, in my opinion.

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.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Yes, the Nuremburg trials were convened, by the CONQUERING POWERS and were Military Tribunals. They were “just” trials, and I have not argued once that the nonsense going on now is “just”. You have gotten stuck with a penchant for harping on perhaps what is transpiring at “Gitmo” or the foolishness at Abu Ghraib. I am not caught up on that. I am viewing the issue in a much broader spectrum. But frankly, I am not terribly worried about some of the enemy/terrorists being inconvenienced or being made uncomfortable.

Maybe some people tortured were not " enemy/terrorists"?

Only if appointed by competent authority. That apparently has not happened…

Only if appointed by competent authority. That apparently has not happened.

who are you to question my authority, when you list no authority of your own

I doubt that in any system I would direct that you would be found “competent” to make the decisions in an unbiased fashion. Your bias is too evident, in fact so evident…you would do nothing at all.

my system is superoir to yours, as you have no system

Not so. I never said that my standards would be applied. I have been speaking in generalist terms. In a controlled environment…believe it or not, there is little wiggle room for application of “personal standards”. Especially if one is wearing a military uniform.

All you write is from you with no universal standards refferenced

I might also advise you that you are apparently somewhat unlearned in this area. We Americans are actually quite “benign” where this issue is concerned. We are the “nice guys”. The South Vienamese, as well as the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, the Koreans (N&S)…as well as many others like the Japanese and Germans…and Russians, East Germans after the war were particularly brutal. They generally never “interrogated” anyone without subjecting them to particularly brutal treatment.

This is not to say or even imply that we would be right to do as they do. I am merely making the point that we are “nice” in comparison to others.

Did the people of My Lai or American Indains write us any thank you letters?

Not so. And again…you insist on using the word “torture”. I have never advocated “torture”…in its strict sense. You seem unable to accept the fact that there are many ways to interrogate a person to obtain results. Even still, after getting information, if you don’t verify its veracity, and act upon it…whats the point of getting out of bed. In fact, why not just have some “Jonestown Koolaid” and not bother?

And what is the point at verification? If your victums states the car used was green, no yellow, no blue, no red Which is the valuable truth? Would the verification become all there is ?- rendering the torture worthless

According to your myopic view of the situation. Your grandiose statement of “inclusion” is baseless.

what a silly statement, so what is the universal standard used?

Not so. Are you actually trying to infer or outrightly say that the Nuremburg war trials were wrong and someone’s rights were violated? Are you trying to say or imply that the countries that won World War II were wrong to try those people deemed war criminals? Or do you have a problem with the fact that they were found guilty of heinous crimes and put to death?

? what torture are you talking of?

What you fail to realize…is that our system actually does not permit barbaric treatment of prisoners. It is not our way, and it has never been our way. Never will be.

What you also fail to realize is that in war, the spoils go to the victor. That is how it has always been. It has absolutely nothing to do with “omniscient knowledge”. Absolutely nothing.

being a conquerior is a requirement to achieve torture but no moral authority to torture

Actually, you cannot guarantee that, because you are not in a position to make such a guarantee, and you are opining at best. Again, there is a significant difference between interrogation and torture.

I stand behind the guarantee

Tell me, what is your definition of torture?

Not so…and I daresay that’s a statement of nothing less than unabashed hyperbole.

Again, define what you think “torture” is.

You claim to accept torture yet you cannot cite the definition of torture?
You claim not to use your standards yet you can not quote the standard you use?
You claim not to be omniscient but the unknown informant is?
You claim to have a system and competent authority yet you do not know either?

 

[RobHom]

I think your question is poorly stated.

Not so. It is clearly delineated and laid out. The question in and of itself is succinct and direct with all bases covered. It merely limits the options of answers.

There is a broad spectrum of options between asking politely and torturing someone.

And that is precisely what the question requires an answer thereto.

Your question implies that anyone opposed to torture is opposed to any sort of aggressive interrogation, which simply isn’t the case.

Ahhh, but it would seem based upon the redundantly pedantic responses of the person I addressed the question to, that… that
is just exactly the case.

 

[RobHom]

If you take out the omniscient knowledge. there is nothing left to answer! (hint)

So in other words… you would do absolutely nothing, bail out, cop out, and let thousands of people die… I am sure that God will smile on you. Not judging you, mind you, just “opining”.

I thank my lucky stars I never had to go into combat with one such as you…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So in other words… you would do absolutely nothing, bail out, cop out, and let thousands of people die… I am sure that God will smile on you. Not judging you, mind you, just “opining”.

I thank my lucky stars I never had to go into combat with one such as you…

And how do you know my actions?

 

[RobHom]

Maybe some people tortured were not " enemy/terrorists"?

Maybe all who were interrogated were. You are still stuck on the word “torture”…

who are you to question my authority, when you list no authority of your own

Simple, you have offered no “authority”, and I have already state that I have no appointed authority. I am merely “generalizing” which seems to confound you.

my system is superoir to yours, as you have no system

Oh, and your system would be? My system if I were to be appointed to function would be that authorized by my C in C.

All you write is from you with no universal standards refferenced

There are no “universal standards”…

Did the people of My Lai or American Indains write us any thank you letters?

I wasn’t at My Lai, and I had no involvement with anything that happened to Native Americans.

And what is the point at verification? If your victums states the car used was green, no yellow, no blue, no red Which is the valuable truth?

Now you are floundering and grasping at straws. The formal term is “obfuscation”. You are starting down the slippery slope where you destroy your own argument.

Would the verification become all there is ?- rendering the torture worthless

If you don’t understand the purpose of the verification, then you don’t understand anything about the issue at hand. Verification leads to disarming the WMD and preventing innocent death. The interrogation was worthwhile and fruitful.

• what a silly statement, so what is the universal standard used?

No, it was a pointed statement…and as said prior, there is no universal standard.

? what torture are you talking of?

I would have to ask you the same since you dragged My Lai into the arena, and also where Native Indians are concerned.

being a conquerior is a requirement to achieve torture but no moral authority to torture

I never said that being a conquering anyone gave a moral authority. A force that conquers another assumes it as a given.

I stand behind the guarantee

That claim is nearly as valid as saying you can levitate the Jefferson Monument and “guarantee it”! LOL!!

You claim to accept torture yet you cannot cite the definition of torture?

No, I know precisely what torture is, it is you who has refused to give your definition of torture.

You claim not to use your standards yet you can not quote the standard you use?

I never said said I “used” a standard.

You claim not to be omniscient but the unknown informant is?

Only God is “omniscient”, man can but work with what he has at hand…and prove its veracity or lack thereof. By your pedantic reuse of the word “omniscient” if applied by your methodology, then we cannot have a criminal justice system, as often times “unknown” informants are…so which is it?

You claim to have a system and competent authority yet you do not know either?

No, I have not claimed either…you have been making assumptions… Sorry.

But then again… I note that you can’t answer a simple question put to you…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Maybe all who were interrogated were. You are still stuck on the word “torture”…

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

Simple, you have offered no “authority”, and I have already state that I have no appointed authority. I am merely “generalizing” which seems to confound you.

…Not so. I never said that my standards would be applied…

I am not confounded I understand you have no outside “authority” and you have no inside “authority” 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. And thus the omniscient problem which is inherent to torture.

Oh, and your system would be? My system if I were to be appointed to function would be that authorized by my C in C.

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

There are no “universal standards”…

DA! yet you must hide from the responsiblity

I wasn’t at My Lai, and I had no involvement with anything that happened to Native Americans.

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

Now you are floundering and grasping at straws. The formal term is “obfuscation”. You are starting down the slippery slope where you destroy your own argument.

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

If you don’t understand the purpose of the verification, then you don’t understand anything about the issue at hand. Verification leads to disarming the WMD and preventing innocent death. The interrogation was worthwhile and fruitful.

The “verification” could be done without torture. Verification or good work needs not torture, but torture needs verification. Just proof one is valuable the other is not.

No, it was a pointed statement…and as said prior, there is no universal standard.

Again each torturer makes his own

I would have to ask you the same since you dragged My Lai into the arena, and also where Native Indians are concerned.

in both cases US Military attempted to elminate immoral subhumans. Now with history to aid you look back, how do their actions look?

I never said that being a conquering anyone gave a moral authority. A force that conquers another assumes it as a given.

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

That claim is nearly as valid as saying you can levitate the Jefferson Monument and “guarantee it”! LOL!!

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, I know precisely what torture is, it is you who has refused to give your definition of torture.

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

I never said said I “used” a standard.

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

Only God is “omniscient”, man can but work with what he has at hand…and prove its veracity or lack thereof. By your pedantic reuse of the word “omniscient” if applied by your methodology, then we cannot have a criminal justice system, as often times “unknown” informants are…so which is it?

if you reread post 79 you will find “to be confronted with the witnesses against him;”

No, I have not claimed either…you have been making assumptions… Sorry.

…Only if appointed by competent authority

. That apparently has not happened…

Only if appointed by competent authority. That apparently has not happened.

I doubt that **in any system I would direct **…

But then again… I note that you can’t answer a simple question put to you…

These questions are more poor debate tricks to hide from issues

 

[RobHom]

And how do you know my actions?

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?