Torture

[Demerzel]

Threat of suffocation is torture both physical and mental.

Oh dear, now we can't be MEAN to traitors and terrorists? Do we have to say "please, give me the information we need, SIR." ?

[DigiFluid]

...so you're insisting that torture has never, in all of history, yielded useful intelligence? Okay, sure, let's go with that.

Nice try, but twisting words does nothing to enhance your own argument. I said it was "wrong and unreliable", not "wrong and always incorrect". Torture demands certainty of results to be even remotely justifiable; though it's still wrong.

[DigiFluid]

Oh dear, now we can't be MEAN to traitors and terrorists? Do we have to say "please, give me the information we need, SIR." ?

Suffocating someone isn't simply 'being mean', it's physical and mental abuse with very clear consequences.

[Krazeh]

You don't have moral absolutes?

Very few, if any. I don't think i'd hold anything as an absolute, to do so prevents you from self-examination.

The bit I've bolded is completely unprovable, by the way.

Perhaps so, maybe there are large numbers of people who think that it'd be better to allow someone to live even if doing so meant the death of others. I don't personally know any of these people and can only talk about my own experience with what people think. I do however concede I could have made that clearer.

I've said that torture is wrong. Have I said I wouldn't torture someone? I don't think I have? I think I've said I wouldn't know what I'd do in that situation until faced with that situation, have I not? I don't have a difference stance if it's killing someone.

So you think torture is wrong but are open to the possibility that it could be a necessary evil?

[s09119]

Nice try, but twisting words does nothing to enhance your own argument. I said it was "wrong and unreliable", not "wrong and always incorrect". Torture demands certainty of results to be even remotely justifiable; though it's still wrong.

Why does it demand certainty? Nothing in life is ever 100% certain, no police sting, no military raid, no arrest, no anything. Why is torture any different? As long as we're reasonably sure and the stakes are too high to ignore, why must we sit there and let people die for no reason?

[JustAnotherVoice]

Oh dear, now we can't be MEAN to traitors and terrorists? Do we have to say "please, give me the information we need, SIR." ?

Aren't both of them, under American law, excusable from normal rights? Suspected terrorists get shipped off to detainment without due process and traitors (they have more than enough corroborating evidence against Telford to get a conviction) get executed?

[Alexandria7]

I said that it was not a military practice. It's the CIA rather that's come under heavy fire for torture. The whole full disclosure was about CIA practices, not military practices. The Central Intelligence Agency, for those that might not know, is not a branch of military. It's a division of the Department of Defense.

If it was discovered that a General or a Colonel, or anyone in the US military was behind an interrogation, the military would hang them out to dry. Literally. They would have the big chicken dinner, a dishonorable discharge, and would likely face a hearing on their actions. They'd probably be in jail for so long they'd forget what it felt to be free. And don't think that that a lowly military officer would be saved for "following" orders. They would also have the same treatment.

So if an interrogation with torture scene occurred on Destiny. If it gets out, then whoever knew about it/were involved with it in the US military would officially be dishonorably discharged. It would not only wreck their career in the military, but make it near impossible to find work if they weren't locked up for life. The military takes a hard stance on it and they will make an example of the people involved.

I read back where someone claimed they knew cops that would beat up suspects. You're right, it happens. And it's most often caught on tape. The officers will usually go to jail for it.

[EllieVee]

So you think torture is wrong but are open to the possibility that it could be a necessary evil?

Nice try at twisting my words but no cookie.

[DigiFluid]

Why does it demand certainty? Nothing in life is ever 100% certain, no police sting, no military raid, no arrest, no anything. Why is torture any different? As long as we're reasonably sure and the stakes are too high to ignore, why must we sit there and let people die for no reason?

Because it's based on a monumentally wrong crime against humanity. A police sting, military raid, or arrest are based on intelligence building, not coerced information which is as likely to be correct as not.

[Demerzel]

Suffocating someone isn't simply 'being mean', it's physical and mental abuse with very clear consequences.

I'll bring back my argument that killing is wrong, yet we do it when it's absolutely needed and it's not considered "wrong". So killing a terrorist during a chase after he blows up a bomb is okay, but hurting him a bit to prevent the bomb from going off at all is wrong. Right?

[spinny magee]

I don't see a reason why anyone should care about this, and sending the wrong message? Teh?

It's a show

NEXT complaint

[Alexandria7]

I will also add that if O'Neill knows about, gave orders to torture someone, and it gets out somehow. It will ruin O'Neill. Given his high rank, he'll be hit the hardest.

[DigiFluid]

I'll bring back my argument that killing is wrong, yet we do it when it's absolutely needed and it's not considered "wrong". So killing a terrorist during a chase after he blows up a bomb is okay, but hurting him a bit to prevent the bomb from going off at all is wrong. Right?

And therein you reveal the fault in your own argument. Torture isn't about hurting "a bit", it's about pushing someone physically and mentally into the fear of death. Having to downplay the wrongness of your own argument is a sure sign of fault.

And yes, still it's wrong.

[Krazeh]

Nice try at twisting my words but no cookie.

How am I twisting words? I think we can agree that you think torture is wrong? Which then leaves us with 2 options, you either take the view that torture should never ever ever be something that is done, or you take the view that even though it's wrong you can accept that could be circumstances in which it's a necessary evil. So which is it? If, as you claim, you've said that you wouldn't know what you'd do in the situation and that you haven't said you wouldn't not torture someone then that would imply to me that you fall into the latter camp. If however i'm wrong i'd love to hear an explanation of what I've got wrong.

[Demerzel]

I will also add that if O'Neill knows about, gave orders to torture someone, and it gets out somehow. It will ruin O'Neill. Given his high rank, he'll be hit the hardest.

He won't be. Even Weir technically authorized Ronon to torture Kavanagh. It went on record that she authorized it, even though it didn't happen. Did she get fired? Newp! And Jack is a hell of a lot more powerful and important and needed than Weir ever was.