if you were told innocent lives where on the line...

[27inCali]

would you torture who you thought was a terrorist?

most of us probably would, if the situation was thrown in our lap.

Your mind would rush with images of families, cute little kids and sweet old ladies getting blown up. I don't mean to be glib, it would hit you that perhaps hundreds of lives were in your hands. A part of you would say, this is wrong, this is twisted, why am I doing this, but the image of innocent people dying would play over and over in your head, filling you with fear and urgency, you wouldn't be thinking straight. You might experience anger towards any person so fucked up they would kill innocents for a political cause. That anger too would cloud your vision.

you don't get time to think about it either. All you have is your superior, who you trust, telling you that you have to do it or people will die. They tell you it's perfectly legal, there's nothing wrong with it, the people you are doing this to deserve it anyway and that you're serving your country.

If you say there is no situation in which you would ever use physical violence to try and protect innocent people from assholes then you are either full of shit or a coward or worse -I don't believe your ideological purity because ideologies suck at handling real life which is much more complicated. You can say I'm making excuses but I don't feel like that, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm just imagining what it must be like to be THAT person and I realize that everything isn't so easy and cut and dry.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of servicemen and women who did the actual torturing on the ground, did not do it without any moral confusion or psychological repercussions, but felt compelled by an overwhelming desire to protect innocent people. They volunteered to serve their country and were put in a fucked up position by the elected officials on top of them. I look at that situation and say let's go for the assholes on top.

Far too often in the history of this country, we have picked out powerless sacrificial goats and thrown them to the fires and let the real masterminds go. I really do believe that Obama will go after the guys on top, just not right away, and he'll need public support -the really important things are always difficult to accomplish.

please feel free to disagree.

[knowbody0]

1. I cannot disagree

[rug]

2. What comic book have you been reading?

[27inCali]

6. pick my OP apart with logic

not dismissive quips.

[tekisui]

11. There is no logic in your OP.

[27inCali]

18. my logic is this

decent people fear the suffering of other innocent people and can be manipulated by use of that fear into doing undecent things.

for example.

recently in my part of the state, a four year old girl was raped and murdered and stuffed into a suitcase and thrown in a river by a woman who's own child was a friend of that girl.
I hate violence and have led a really peaceful life thus far, but honestly, put me in a room alone with that woman for five minutes..........

[DJ13]

3. That reads more like a Bush appologist piece than anything else

In fact I know the same arguments to excuse torture were being made by Republicans since 2002.

We really arent going down that path in the Democratic Party, are we?

[27inCali]

5. I am fully aware of how much it sounds -ugh Repug

but we can't base our view of the world world on whatever is opposite of Republican -that's a little too unfree for me, I can think something that feels a bit conservative without my head blowing up. I'm just saying, these people probably should have said no, but we don't know what they went through, we don't know the pressure they knew, they just wanted to serve their country.

let's go after the guys on top, who really knew better and weren't trying to serve their country at all.

I don't think we gain much either, by going after the little guys, we gain a lot by publicly humiliating the big guys.

[DJ13]

9. The premise was "if innocent people were"

Which presupposes the validity of torture.

Thats a premise we as Democrats shouldnt be using even if its a means to validate Obama's decision in some way.

[27inCali]

13. there's no easy answer, no matter how much we want it

that's my point.

the devil can come up with a million reasonable sounding justifications for what is totally wrong.

and what is right can be made to seem insane through strict adherance to ideology.


if we get hung up on indicting small fish CIA people, we will never get at the head(s) of the beast.

[angee_is_mad]

4. THANK YOU

so very much.

[katandmoon]

7. HELL FUCKING NO. Anybody who tortures a prisoner is a fucking sick bastard.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Told by a gibbering idiot or an obvious psychopath? No, I don't think I would.

[tekisui]

10. You present a fantasy question.

That is not real life, or how people have been tortured, and torture doe NOT produce anything of value.

NO, I would not. You sound like a torture apologist.

[27inCali]

14. no, the torture was wrong

the people on the ground were being manipulated and probably have suffered PTS from it.

I say, go after the manipulators.......

[countingbluecars]

12. I'm guessing that this would be a big part

of their defense if they were put on trial. And they would probably win.

[asdjrocky]

15. Oh for crying out loud!

Fuck that and your stupid ass logic. You can justify anything if you are willing to compromise yourself and get lost in hopelessly stupid hypotheticals. Please sell this crap somewhere else. And by the way, there was no ticking time bomb, and they did it anyway.

We go after the people that did it. And we go after the people that ordered it. On this, President Obama is dead wrong.

edited to add an S

[27inCali]

19. we don't know what they told those people

I think the people on the bottom were manipulated into doing something indecent.

go after the manipulators

[asdjrocky]

20. Your argument is crap.

I'm sorry, on this issue, you and a thousand crazy hypotheticals will not move me. What you are proposing here is a defense and the people that torture and the people that ordered torture are free to use the defense you've put forward in a court of law. Beyond that, you're just wrong.

When I see people so willing to justify cruelty to fellow humans it makes me wonder if they've ever seen any real suffering in life.

[27inCali]

22. I have seen suffering

I grew up in a pretty fucked up town. I've experienced some things, I've been shot at, had my life threatened over five dollars etc. Peace and Love are beautiful precisely because they fly so much in the face of the natural world and human nature.

I'm not saying at all, that torture is OK, not at all if that's what you think.

I'm saying there is such thing as doing the wrong thing for the right reason, I think it probably applies in most cases as far as the people on the bottom are concerned.

I'm much more worried about the people on top.


Do you agree with that point at all, that ultimately it is more important to indict the assholes who gave the orders?

[asdjrocky]

24. No.

It's important to indict everyone and let the truth come out in court. And from what my read is on our President he's not interested in court.

Since we're playing hypotheticals so much here, let me try one on you. The man at the top has all the money and he's still steeling from you. If I convince you that the bank down the street is a danger to you and me and you take a gun into that bank, who are they going to go after first?

I'm one of the people that really do support President Obama, but not on this. This is wrong, and I'm sorry, but your thinking is wrong.

[27inCali]

27. I don't think your vew is crazy at all

I'm into psychology and what motivates people. It colors a lot of how I see things plus I got a lot of friends in the service who are asked to make a lot of difficult decisions that stay with them forever.

and no, I don't play the whole "you don't support Obama if you don't agree with this" BS at all.

[Festusss]

16. I agree...

Go for the guys on top. I just hope Obama has this option on the table.

[stray cat]

17. If someone in my family had been kidnapped and would be killed - I would probably do anything

to try to save them before they were murdered - especially if someone could stop it but was choosing not to or even laughing about what he/she had done. I love my family more than I love someone who is going to murder them.

[spag68]

21. Torture

All of this ignores the fact that a vast majority of experts in the field maintain that it does not work. If the moral argument against torture is not enough for you, at least be truthful enough to admit the futility of torture in the first place.

[27inCali]

23. I'm not making an argument for torture

it's stupid, uselss and terrible no I don't support it on any level,

I'm just saying it's stupid to worry about going after the people on bottom who in the end were told they had to do it to keep innocent people safe. I have some sympathy for that. I've seen things done to people before that were wrong when I was powerless to do anything without getting shot or killed for interfering and it eats at me. Some people feel compelled on a deep spiritual level to protect others, -that feeling can be manipulated.

[ohheckyeah]

25. No, I don't think I would.

Hold on, you go from talking about torture to physical violence....and they aren't the same thing. If I had to shoot someone to protect myself or the life of a loved one I would but I wouldn't torture them first. A quick, clean shot that would stop them would be my goal.

[27inCali]

32. you've found a logical flaw in my argument

I am conflating two different things.

you got me.

I probably would rough people up -even badly, but probably couldn't handle this weird fetishy sounding shit the Bushies were into, but I have some sympathy for service members who are asked to make hard decisions concerning this shit.

example:

buddy of mine in Iraq, told to fire on cars that wont stop at his check point, a car doesn't stop, he comes within a hair's breadth of firing and didn't and within seconds realized it was a family with a distracted driver. If he had fired -would he be a murderer?

you will rightfully say this is a totally different situation, but the true criminals are not the humans being forced to make these decisions, but the one's forcing them to make the decision.

[zeemike]

26. I think you have been watching too much 24 on the TV

And that was the purpose of the program to make a morality play out of something that is imoral...justification...But what if they try to kill the little children?
It is all horse shit.
What if you knew someone was going to give kids heron?
What if you knew someone was going to molest a child.
What if you knew someone was going to rob a liquor store and you were afraid he might shoot someone?
What if you knew someone was going to drive drunk and hit a child with their car?
Where does it end?
The answer is it doesn't

[27inCali]

28. you're kinda making my point

it's so easy to manipulate people using their fear of others coming to harm and get them on that slippery slope where they begin to become what they are fighting.

that's what that show is all about.

BTW I HATE 24, precisely for that reason.

[Hanse]

29. Let's put it another way...

Cheney tells you to torture suspects. Cheney tells you torture is now legal. Cheney tells you if you don't torture the terrorists, you're helping the terrorists. Cheney reminds you that torture is now legal.

[Political Tiger]

30. You make perfect sense.

I understand what you are saying. Fear motivates people to do things they might not normally do. Republicans know this, which is why they keep their base in a constant state of fear.

And after 9/11, the wholeation was in a state of fear, and Bush and cronies capitalized on that.

It also doesn't make sense to believe that some person on the bottom end of the totem pole,when told buy a person in power that doing something has been cleared higher up as being legal is going to refuse orders and say "I think I'll wait for 3 or 4 more legal opinions." That just isn't the way life works.

[jamesbolton]

31. Where on the line?

You say they're some place on some line. What do you mean by that? What is this line? Where are they on this line? Your post makes no sense.

[27inCali]

33. on the line = in danger

oh! I get it, I typed "where" not "were"

I totally thought you were stupid, but it was just me!

[stevenleser]

34. You are right in the abstract. Here is the problem with the logic though...

...the folks in the military and intelligence agencies who deal with POWs or whatever you want to call them have all been trained in the Geneva conventions, they all know the basic law with regards to their areas of expertise, etc.

These folks ALSO know the dangers to our own folks in terms of ignoring these rules because ignoring them gives a green light to whoever captures our people to do what we have done and worse.

I've seen plenty of civilian folks who are on our side of the aisle discuss the topic like you have, but the problem again is that when you are in the position to deal with these questions, you have been given the training and thus the excuses are harder to come by.

[27inCali]

37. best counter-argument period

you've completely defeated my OP dude.

I still am a lot more worried about catching the big guys than the little guys.

[bigjohn16]

35. If it turns out the person tortured had no information

and no lives were in immediate danger would your idea still stand? This is not "24" where we torture people just before the bomb goes off. We were torturing to acquire information. In that rare case that you are talking about the wheels on the bus would have to of come of long before that point to allow for that scenario. Torture isn't effective in acquiring intelligence and it's an affront to humanity. Using physical violence to protect people is different then throwing a shackled mans' head against a wall or shoving a sock down his throat and poring water in his mouth.

If the individual service member had moral confusion then it was their responsibility to refuse the order otherwise they're breaking the law. You don't have to pick and choose who to prosecute. Just prosecute the individuals that broke the law, it's just that simple.

As for my personal views, I think we should treat anyone in our custody the way we would want out men and women in uniform treated.

[mmonk]

36. I'm educated. I know sadism doesn't work.

I have no "good German" blood in my body. I've studied and lived the dream of the right to a trial without indefinite detention or cruel and unusual punishment. I can't be seduced into barbarism. Maybe there is something wrong with me?

[27inCali]

38. some people are stronger than others

some adhere to their beliefs and some can be shaken.

BTW this is me playing devils advocate a bit because I thought some of the frenzy over Obama not going after the bottom players was overrought.

[mmonk]

40. I wouldn't care about the bottom feeders if I thought someone

would be held accountable. But I have seen absolute ZERO from the Democratic Party that anyone will be held accountable for any crime, no matter how egregious.

[sammythecat]

39. Torture is wrong and immoral. That's why we,

and most of the international community have laws prohibiting torture. I don't give a pass, or any fucking respect whatsoever, to those that followed orders to torture these suspects. ALL of these people, from the top down, are guilty of criminal, and despicable, behaviour and they should ALL be brought to justice. And if this were to happen, the CIA isn't going to fall apart. All of these people can be replaced. With better people.

[Number23]

41. You got two completely different issues all tangled up together

This issue: "All you have is your superior, who you trust, telling you that you have to do it or people will die."

is completely different from this issue: "If you say there is no situation in which you would ever use physical violence to try and protect innocent people from assholes then you are either full of shit or a coward or worse"

The former is simply an issue of doing what you are told; the latter is more of a moral issue in which someone is supposed to do the "right" thing.

Either way, both excuses have been used throughout history for some of the most heinous crimes against humanity. They are both disgraceful, even though some would argue that they can also both be necessary.