Good torture, bad torture

Pekelo

Pekelo

I just caught Torture 101 on CNN, no shit! Eat your heart out Fox News! They were showing animated versions of sleep deprivation, waterboarding,etc. Like I couldn't imagine it myself, I really needed visual help. Although those pussies at CNN didn't dare to animate electrodes to the balls or the gaypile. Those coward liberals...

But all these talks and debates about torture are missguided in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with torture, per se.

I meant good torture, of course. What is the definition of good torture? Well, I know it when I see one. But here is a simple example of good and bad tortures:

Torturing prisoners who fought against an occupying army: BAD
(Of course here I had Germans torturing the members of the French resistance in my mind. Why, you thought of something else?)

Torturing a pedophile for information on where the kidnapped child is hidden: GOOD
 
Good torture presumes the person is actually guilty, or does actually know something.
If neither of those those conditions are met, then its bad torture.

Trouble is, its usually speculative, or they wouldnt (generally, unless they were above the law sadists ) be conducting it in the first place.


The other factor, is that nobody ever hears about it until after the fact, and for damn sure the public will never hear of it, so there is no possible determination of its efficacy or just use, re; whether an incredibly important end was justified by the means.

(see, first point)
 
I also don't have problem with torture as part of punishment. Not just for obtaining information.

You raped someone? Well, let's do it to you, so you would know what it feels like. Green river killer gets life sentence for killing 50+ women? I would hand him over to the relatives of the victims, if he survives, I would still castrate him before executing the bastard...

Here is another idea for using torture as a timesaver, in a positive way. Convicts could have a choice between normal time or hard labor but for shorter time. (I look at hard labor as torture) It would save money for the society, and convicts could save time of their lifes...
 
Quote from Pekelo:

I also don't have problem with torture as part of punishment. Not just for obtaining information.

You raped someone? Well, let's do it to you, so you would know what it feels like. Green river killer gets life sentence for killing 50+ women? I would hand him over to the relatives of the victims, if he survives, I would still castrate him before executing the bastard...

Here is another idea for using torture as a timesaver, in a positive way. Convicts could have a choice between normal time or hard labor but for shorter time. (I look at hard labor as torture) It would save money for the society, and convicts could save time of their lifes...
More...
I tend to agree with this (except for the obtaining information part, we ought to be civil to the innocent until proven guilty... with absolution).

If a person is convicted of some heinous crime without ANY doubt. String 'em up... for a man by his scrotum; for a women by some other painful part of her anatomy.

I also feel that people in prison should be subject to hard labor; to monetarily pay for their burden on society. Bring back the chain-gangs and let them pay their own damn way (That sheriff in Arizona has the right idea). What is this bullshit about tv's and radios in the jail cell.
 
Isn't the only way to find out of you've got the right guy to give him a FAIR DEMOCRATIC TRIAL, I mean isn't that one of OUR FREEDOMS that OUR EMEMIES hate us for?

That we as LIBERATORS are briging to all those arabs and muslims that we LOVE in iraq (I know how the average american LOVES arabs) and just wants to liberate them (Abu Garab notwithstanding...just a "few bad appples" LMAO).

Or are we just the same barbaric SOBs as anyone else in the world...

The neocon's "logic" just does not add up.

And we all know how the DEATH PENALTY has all but eliminated murder in the USA! So torture should all but elimate other crimes, right?
 
Quote from ktmexc20:

(except for the obtaining information part, we ought to be civil to the innocent until proven guilty...
More...

Well, obviously I thought on that part when the client is for sure dirty. Now of course there are cases where the guiltiness of the accused is not absolutely clear. Then I would withhold torture.

On the lighter side: Here is a line from the Jon Stewart show:

"If the prisoner is beaten to death in a soundproof chamber, does he make a sound?"
 
I hate to see politicians grandstanding on these issues, because they are difficult and serious problems. It's easy to take an absolutist position against torture. Less easy if you have terrorist in custody who knows the location of a nuke set to explode in a major city in a few hours.

Traditionally, the Law of War distinguished between combatants and criminals. Terrorists are more akin to criminals, in that they can be criminally prosecuted for their actions, but there is a big difference. The law enforcement process is designed to respond to crimes after they have been committed. The objective is to find the perpetrators and convict them.

In fighting terrorists, the objective has to be to prevent their crimes ahead of time. This makes the law enforcement approach, and the mentality of those in our law enforcement branches, less helpful.

The debate between the administration and McCain focused in issues like giving terrorist defendants access to evidence against them. That is elemental due process in a criminal case. In a terrorist prosecution, it might require the identification of undercover agents or provide information that tips terrorists off to how they are being watched. Thoughtful people can see there is a real dilemma involved. The closest analogy may be to counter-intelligence operations. But there, the typical measure was to simply seize the spy and deport him or trade him for one of ours. That is not a useful response to terrorists.

The response of McCain, Graham and the other attention whores and that of the media in general demonstrate that we are not serious about combatting terrorism. It's not a question of "lowering ourselves to their level." Rather, it's a matter of understanding what will be required to win. In this case, the end does justify the means.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

In this case, the end does justify the means.
More...


Another scared neocon ready to give up liberties and freedom in the face of danger. Ends do not justify means... if it curtails liberties, sacrifices due processes and treads on freedom.
 
Good torture = Bush/Neocon torture

Bad torture = Saddam torture


so um.. why did we kill little babies and their mothers??? why did we rip the limbs off of innocent civilians?? why did we blow up their infrastructure and starve 1000's and prevent medical supplies to these civilians?

oh yeah.. they hate our freedoms. wait, no.. they had nothing to do with 9/11. no wmd's.....the torture reason is a joke now... RIGHT???? oh yeah, saddam gassed his own people... no wait, the US Army War College in the early 90's blamed it on Iran.

HMMMMMMMMMM.... someone help me please before i go bug hapless and traderNikki about 9/11.
 
Hapabouy......
"Torturing just for the sake of torturing? I don't agree with it, as that is pure sadism. Of course, our enemies, as noted every day in the headlines, think and act otherwise.

If some waterboarding, loud Britney Spears music, and sleep deprivation assists in retrieving information that ends up saving lives - American and otherwise - I'm all for it. Worse things happen at frat house hazings anyway...."




Hap, apart from basic training or college, have you ever been tortured, under the VERY liberal descriptions you've alluded to there?

ie, electrocution, waterboarding, etc.


Just wondering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top