Is torture ever acceptable?

[Rodri]

Torture is an extreme activity; it harms both the practitioner and the subject, and it cheapens any cause it is used to support.

This is a very good point and one I thought of making myself, if I could have worded it this well.

Any government/group that is seen or percieved to be seen using torture loses cache on the international scale. It doesn't matter if the techniques are designed to create the maximum amount of discomfort with the minimum of physical injury, to most people, torture is torture and it is unacceptable. After all, how far is it from water boarding to gang-rape? (a favourite torture technique for some, as it does little physical damage whilst inflicting massive phsycological harm and degradation on the victim)

[japanpimp]

Sometimes a person in power finds it necessary to do things in his official and public capacity which in his private and personal capacity he deplores. (I think this is a Heinlein quote, but I'm uncertain.)

I am personally willing to grant those in power a degree of moral latitude that I'd not grant myself; were I in power, I would likely exercise less restraint than I would in private life. This does not mean that I'd find torture acceptable; rather, it means that I'd be willing to perform unacceptable actions at need.

This is the point and it is well said. It is hard for us to wrap our heads around what is and is not acceptable. That is why let other do it. It's like the movie A Few Good Men. "You can't handle the truth!!!" And the truth is, authorities walk a line that we often cannot understand. Authorities need to do things, very ugly things, so that the populace can be relatively safe. So we need to let them walk that line and give them leeway when they do.

[Moghedien]

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting; Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438

Government should be held to the same laws and same rights as the people. Not be a law unto themselves.

[japanpimp]

First off, that quote is a really old quote and the guy that said it is not "right". It is just his opinion. Second, the governments cannot be held accountable to the same laws that the public has. This is why there is military court and military police. Sometimes government entities operate at level far beyond what the public needs to. As in killing and so on. They NEED different laws.

[Gnerphk]

Mh... no. I agree that military courts need to operate under a different set of rules; sometimes, for example, it's necessary for a soldier to shoot an innocent. Unfortunate, horrific, abhorrent -- and necessary.

Pitt was right; the trouble is, sometimes 'right' is very expensive. If I'm unwilling to pay the price, how can I judge someone that is?

And so to politicians: I'm of the opinion that the prosecution of a President, whether acting or former, is usually unnecessary, often purposed by those with personal or political gain in mind, and frequently impracticable due to an absence of qualified peers and even a potentially unbiased court. However, it's still possible, and it should be; no leader is above the law.

On the other hand, oft-times a leader must choose a course of action that is immoral and unethical because it is felt to be justified by the potential gain or by prevention of harm. So long as such a person is prepared to pay the price for these actions, they can do so with impunity -- and should then pay for it.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that punitive laws are relatively ineffective and arbitrary. But that's another discussion entirely.

[CraigMac]

Some good points made, i "rep'd" some users for their posts.

[Hussein]

This is a very good point and one I thought of making myself, if I could have worded it this well.

Any government/group that is seen or percieved to be seen using torture loses cache on the international scale. It doesn't matter if the techniques are designed to create the maximum amount of discomfort with the minimum of physical injury, to most people, torture is torture and it is unacceptable. After all, how far is it from water boarding to gang-rape? (a favourite torture technique for some, as it does little physical damage whilst inflicting massive phsycological harm and degradation on the victim)

we will never stop doing stuff to prove how hard our country is in warfare and to show we cant be made fun of. ''america is like one big pimp and all the other countries are prostituts''

[Moghedien]

This is the point and it is well said. It is hard for us to wrap our heads around what is and is not acceptable. That is why let other do it. It's like the movie A Few Good Men. "You can't handle the truth!!!" And the truth is, authorities walk a line that we often cannot understand. Authorities need to do things, very ugly things, so that the populace can be relatively safe. So we need to let them walk that line and give them leeway when they do.

I think A few Good men is a bad example there was plenty of other things that could be done instead of ordering the code red. The movie created a moral dilemia for me but they could have transfered the Marine somewhere else instead of killing him.

[Rodri]

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783.

First off, that quote is a really old quote and the guy that said it is not "right". It is just his opinion.

When are you going to come out and tell us which agency you are working for JP?MOLE!
I know who I work for; truth and freedom and peace, how about you? Are you a worker for tyrants or just a slave?