When torture is right

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rudy Pena,

You do know that people who planted IEDs and EFPs in Iraq that were caught and tortured via going to Egypt or another country that allows torture and give out locations to weapons caches and places of hide outs and what not have saved hundreds, if not thousands of US and NATO forces back when it first kicked off on March 19th, 2003. As those weapons and tools they had could be used to kill not just the US and NATO forces, but also the Iraqi people.

So I leave you to actually start thinking about what you post.

Okay, how many people, not involved in the plantined of IEDs and EFPs were captured and tortured leading to no usable intellegence in the course of these investigations? How much time was lost capturing and torturing these innocent individuals?

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

s09119,



Venting the air in Telford's compartment, in an effort to break potential brainwashing isn't torture. It's a specific, incredibly unpleasent, procedure done to counteract the LA's brainwashing of Telford. Consider surgery, having someone cut open your body. Outside of the context of attempting to heal an injury that would be torture. In the context of attempting to heal it is not. Therefore, what Young did, in this context, was not torture.

will you take mental green for this?

[MattSilver 3k]

I have a serious torture question.

It's a noun, right?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EG,

will you take mental green for this?

Sure.

[Rudy Pena]

Rudy Pena,



Okay, how many people, not involved in the plantined of IEDs and EFPs were captured and tortured leading to no usable intellegence in the course of these investigations? How much time was lost capturing and torturing these innocent individuals?

Zero people were tortured who not involved as no people were captured who were innocent. As everyone who was captured were caught in the act or were video taping the attack.

[Kaiphantom]

Zero people were tortured who not involved as no people were captured who were innocent. As everyone who was captured were caught in the act or were video taping the attack.

So, the US has a 100% accuracy with regards to people who deserve to be tortured. They never make a mistake.

Your faith in the government is greater than any rabid muslim fundamentalists.

Here's my evidence:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7092435.ece

"...the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken."

"...Adel Hassan Hamad, a Sudanese man who was held at Guantánamo Bay from March 2003 until December 2007. Mr Hamad claims that he was tortured by US agents while in custody and yesterday filed a damages action against a list of American officials. "

Here's some more fun: http://www.infowars.com/72-of-guanta...nees-innocent/

I think my evidence proves yours is false. Don't read if you don't want to know what's really going on.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rudy Pena,

No mistakes, ever? Really? As Kai points out above that's an extraordinary claim for which there is much contradictory evidence.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

Zero people were tortured who not involved as no people were captured who were innocent. As everyone who was captured were caught in the act or were video taping the attack.

Not to knock you, man but that sounds pretty *word redacted by me* to believe that zero innocent people were captured or tortured. If you're saying that because you've captured people they must be guilty, then there's a hell of a bigger problem going on. The two posters after you have posted as well and there's a hell of a lot of evidence out there that contradicts your claims. I know how tempting it is to want to believe you're right and are always doing the right thing but wanting to believe it's true and it being true are not the same thing.

[Ukko]

Rudy Pena,

No mistakes, ever? Really? As Kai points out above that's an extraordinary claim for which there is much contradictory evidence.

He never said no mistakes ever. He said that the paople who were caught and tortured then, were all caught in the act or caught filming the act.
To say that no mistakes have ever been made is stupid, and im pretty sure he doesnt believe that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ukko,

He never said no mistakes ever. He said that the paople who were caught and tortured then, were all caught in the act or caught filming the act.
To say that no mistakes have ever been made is stupid, and im pretty sure he doesnt believe that.

This is what he said:

Zero people were tortured who not involved as no people were captured who were innocent.

He said "no people were captured who were innocent". How is that not saying there never any mistakes made? If no one who was captured was innocent that's a 100% rate of capturing the "bad guys".

Even if that is true, however unlikely that may be, it does not justify torture. Participation in one bombing is no guarantee of information regarding other bombings. Suppose this is Bob the bomber's first bombing. He's captured after the bomb goes off. What good does torturing Bob do if the only bombing Bob knew about was the one that was already completed?

Torture is not useful and is always immoral.

[Ukko]

Ukko,



This is what he said:



He said "no people were captured who were innocent". How is that not saying there never any mistakes made? If no one who was captured was innocent that's a 100% rate of capturing the "bad guys".

Even if that is true, however unlikely that may be, it does not justify torture. Participation in one bombing is no guarantee of information regarding other bombings. Suppose this is Bob the bomber's first bombing. He's captured after the bomb goes off. What good does torturing Bob do if the only bombing Bob knew about was the one that was already completed?

Torture is not useful and is always immoral.

Because he was refearing to the time he mentiond in this post.

You do know that people who planted IEDs and EFPs in Iraq that were caught and tortured via going to Egypt or another country that allows torture and give out locations to weapons caches and places of hide outs and what not have saved hundreds, if not thousands of US and NATO forces back when it first kicked off on March 19th, 2003. As those weapons and tools they had could be used to kill not just the US and NATO forces, but also the Iraqi people.

So I leave you to actually start thinking about what you post.

Not All the time.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ukko,

Accepting your analysis of Rudy Pena's post as true it doesn't change the fact that torturing someone who has no useful information is a complete waste of time and immoral to boot.

[Lahela]

I have a serious torture question.

It's a noun, right?

It's both a noun and a verb.

[Demerzel]

Ukko,

Accepting your analysis of Rudy Pena's post as true it doesn't change the fact that torturing someone who has no useful information is a complete waste of time and immoral to boot.

If we go back to realize that we're on a sci-fi forum discussing stuff that happens in a show, it changes a couple things.

Young said something to Jack and Daniel, and you could see that Jack knew it was true. When people wrote the rules and the laws, they had no idea that this kind of situation would happen.

A lot of morals are dictated by law. I'm sure a lot of people would suddenly think torture should be used in the right way, if they knew their entire planet was threatened on a daily basis. You have to ask yourself if you being moral is worth the cost, sometimes. I'm of the school of thought that sometimes, going beyond the law is necessary, and obviously most governments agree since they all have covert operations units to do all the dirty work like assassinations and torture.

It's terribly hard to fight utter evil by being perfectly good. The evil people will cheat, cross and lie to get their way. If we're all nice and gentle, we're screwed. So if we don't get dirty sometimes, we'd stand no chance.

[Kaiphantom]

When people wrote the rules and the laws, they had no idea that this kind of situation would happen.

Part of why I love sci-fi is because it can address things we don't come up against in real life; new moral dilemmas. But you have to see the other side of the coin: an SGA episode called "Critical Mass." There, things were pushed to the limit, lives were at stake, and their "gut feeling" was that this one guy was the traitor/spy, and they needed a code. Weir authorized Ronan to torture the code out of him.

And they were wrong; it was someone else.

What do you do? Could you live with yourself knowing you tortured an innocent person? Do you just say "Oh well, that's life, just doin' what I thought was right"?

We have rules and ethics in place for a damn good reason. On a logical basis, that is why torture is bad, because you never know if the person you are torturing knows the information you need. And thus, as a rule, you will end up torturing more innocent people than guilty. And of course, will you have the balls to undergo the torture yourself, so you know what you are putting your victims through? Most people who advocate torture, will chicken out themselves.

It's terribly hard to fight utter evil by being perfectly good. The evil people will cheat, cross and lie to get their way. If we're all nice and gentle, we're screwed. So if we don't get dirty sometimes, we'd stand no chance.

Yes and no. It's one way to go, but you have to understand the bigger picture and your principles: Do you have to destroy the village in order to save it? Do you sacrifice what you are fighting for, in order to win? If you use the same tactics as those you fight, are you any better?

It's a line you have to be real careful about crossing, otherwise you're no better.