No

A Grave Threat

Chuck

Natalie

anthony

Sean

Devin's Response to Selfish:

Selfish, we need to set a few things straight…EVERY individual who walks this earth has rights. Whether those rights are defined by a government or not is not relevant, the rights remain the same. A government may take away rights, but the citizen of that government still has innate human rights. You are saying that Nazis take away all rights from their citizenry, but yet you seek to treat the Nazi individual that you speak of with no rights. Are YOU a Nazi, Selfish? You denounce an individual because his government is oppressive, but you desire to do the same to that person? Your hypocrisy is stunning. You refer to him as a “savage”, but yet you are the one who is advocating the torture of him? You say that he should have been “shot in the head right away”, but you wish to “use the Nazi anyway you can…?” Weren’t the Nazis the ones who shot thousands of people in the heads? You don’t “use” an individual; is that not what the Nazis did in their work camps, use individuals for their own ends? You spoke of bringing an end to the Nazi Regime…Is that dissimilar to what the Nazis were trying to do to the Jews??? To speak with complete candor, you are paralleling a Nazi flawlessly in your comment. Are you attempting to be satirical, as a sarcastic portrayal of an obviously sinister Nazi-esque character? Or is that actually how you feel, angry and vengeful?

Annalise

Government Officials Must Use Minimum Force Necessary

     Sean

The Convention Against Torture States There is No Justification

Devin:

It is incredible that there is still debate on this subject in civilized states, in the United States in particular. The United States should have no such debate on the legality or justification of torture, as it not only signed the Convention Against Torture, but also ratified it in 1975.

The Convention clearly states that torture is never justified under any circumstances and that any country that joins into the agreement upholds that principle. The United States entered into this agreement willingly and without reservation, thus they are bound to uphold its standards, the primary one being the denunciation of torture, and the refrain from the use thereof.  It is a violation of international law to continue the practice of torture. The CIA attempts to justify their use of waterboarding by saying that it is not torture; after WWII the US found several Japanese individuals guilty of torture because they were WATERBOARDING. So what’s the deal, it’s only illegal when it’s not us doing it? That epitomizes hypocrisy.

Even if we chose to reject the legal binding contract that we entered into with the United Nations (CAT), torture is still against our system of justice established by our founding fathers. Innocence until proven guilty, due process, right to a trial by a jury of peers, no cruel and unusual punishment…Those were all tenets upon which our justice system was founded. Any action by the government of the United States MUST adhere to those guidelines set forth by our first 10 amendments to the Constitution. In a democracy, no one is above the law, not even the government itself. The government was created to PROTECT the rights of its citizenry, not encroach upon those very rights, trampling all over civil liberties and disregarding our own system of justice.

The Question of Waterboarding 

     Sean

    Annalise 

Information Obtained Through Torture is Not Reliable

     Sean 

Devin:

To begin, let us define torture, as to avoid any confusion. As a noun, the simplest definition for torture is: “extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.” As a verb, it can take on several definitions, some of those being: “to force or extort” or “to afflict with severe pain of mind or body.” It has even taken on the meaning “to distort or pervert.”

            That being said let us move on to discussing the inefficacy of torture in modern society. America built itself on a solid foundation, creating a system of justice and law based on that of the Romans, a governmental system similar to that of Ancient Greece, and an ethical value system based primarily on that of Westernized religious standards. The largest deviation from America’s roots as a young nation is the growth and use of our military. George Washington warned us of the dangers of entangling alliances and told us of the importance of maintaining an isolationist foreign policy; in the centuries since then, we, particularly our governments, have forgotten the warnings of our first president as we struggle to keep up with the ever-changing popular whims of the global society. Along with having armed forces that receive approximately 50% of the world’s military expenditur, America has adopted an aggressive foreign policy, an interventionist “preemptivist” style that interferes in the affairs of states all over the world in the name of democracy. This type of foreign policy comes with its own set of problems: our focus is far too widespread, the sphere of information from which to draw is far too large and all-encompassing. With little hope of keeping up with the ever-increasing number of foes that our aggressive position creates, we are desperate to attain valid and important information regarding issues of national security. Our newly-found enemies have one main focus: The United States. We, the United States, have a large number of areas that need attention; our government is aware of this fact, and is thus willing to do whatever it takes to obtain information for matters of national security (under the Bush/Cheney administration of course). For the sake of expediency and convenience we are willing to torture in order to get such information.

            So how’s it working out for us? Well, aside from its immorality and blatant disregard for humanity, it also yields inaccurate information. Torture is an ineffectual means by which to obtain information. Under extreme pressure and stress, the human body begins to shut down. When the body begins to exhaust, the brain does as well. Particularly with waterboarding, when the victim is denied the chance to breathe, blood flow is restricted to the brain. Waterboarding has effects similar to those of drowning: panic, dizziness, and tachycardia. This all puts the body and brain under significant strain, inhibiting the ability to think. Information obtained from a victim of waterboarding is inaccurate due to the fact that thought is clouded due to a lack of oxygen and an increased heart rate. Clearer thought would allow for more accurate and detailed information, so it would make more sense to grant the detainee the ability to think clearly. Is it possible to think clearly while under extreme conditions of torture?

            Furthermore, the information given up during torture is not only inaccurate due to physical inhibitions, but also mental ones. Those subjected to torturous conditions are willing to make up information (if physically, able of course) in order to cease their suffering. John McCain even spoke of this; when he was tortured he gave up false information in an attempt to stop the torture. He yielded no useful information, and actually gave them the names of the Green Bay Packer’s offensive lineup when asked the names of his flight crew, all in a feeble attempt to suspend the torture. Knowing that torture can bring completely falsified statements, can it ever be fully trusted to yield accurate information? With such a margin of error, can it ever be justified? The bottom line is: torture is an ineffective means by which to attempt to obtain information. After all, its definition has been construed to mean "to distort or pervert." I would prefer my national security information to be nethier distorted nor perverted, thank you.

Annalise

Sarah: 

                 It makes perfect sense that someone would lie to end the torture that is being forced on them. Take the Salem witch trials for instance, were those women really witches? I am going to go out on a limb her and say no, but a lot of them would admit to have alliances with the devil in order to avoid torture and being burned at the stake. One would do anything in regards to ending pain, even lying and giving out false accusations. How is this an appropriate way for the American government to obtain information?

IS TORTURE EVER JUSTIFIED

SHELBY BUTLER (HUFF)

The Ticking Time Bomb is False Hypothetical

Devin:

The hypothetical presented is of such a remote possibility that it is hardly worthy of consideration. What are the odds that officials would know of a bomb located in a city, have a detainee who knows that there is a bomb, know that the detainee has such knowledge, know that the detainee has SUFFICIENT knowledge to lead to the disarming of said bomb, and know that the detainee will respond to torture by releasing such information? This situation is so remote that it is not a worthy justification for the intentional infliction of excruciating physical pain and mental anguish (torture). But sure, to appease the crowd who likes to work off of bizarre hypotheticals, I’ll discuss it.

Consider that this hypothetical were to occur…If someone was so vehemently hateful as to place a time-bomb in a crowded city, would they not be willing to die for their cause? If I felt so passionate about a cause, I would not let ANYTHING get in my way of achieving my goal. Is this not a commonly held ideology among violent extremists? If they are willing to do anything for their cause, they are certainly willing to withhold information. Torture does not negate the importance of their cause.   

Even if the timebomb hypothetical was valid, the underlying principal is not. Torture is NOT the only option for obtaining information. It is more effectual to outwit the detainee, using subtle mental trickery to obtain information, rather than torture it out of him. In fact, it is acknowledged by experts that people are willing to say almost anything to suspend torture. The detainee would be more willing to give up false information than true information if they remain true to their beliefs.

            I would prefer to see an argument for torture based off of actual circumstances rather than hypotheticals so far-fetched as to lose all viability. Finally, is the American system of government not based off of the principle of majority rule? The same principle should remain true here: Even if there is a remote possibility of the ticking time bomb being true, it is so remote an idea, so minute a point, that it is rendered unimportant relative to the majority of situations. Just a thought…

SARAH:

All emotion and no logic

It seems illogical to argue torture as a just way of receiving information when the situation presented is so far fetched. The ticking time bomb theory plays on the emotions of the person to which the situation is presented to because I think anyone would want to save the lives of a whole city by torturing one person, but then one must remember how outrageous the ticking time bomb situation is. Of course you want to save the innocent lives of civilians, but this situation merely cons people into agreeing by using pathos and no logos.

Hayden

Intent and Just War Theory 

Sarah:Someone once said "An eye for an eye, everyone would be blind". Torture does not seem to be an ineffective way of obtaining information, but it also does not seem to be the right way to go about things. If our country started stooping to low levels of those who torture we loose all credibility among nations that are already at odds with us. Thus this fuels more to become involved in terrorist plots against us. America is founded on values and principals, and when we start setting aside these liberties that all have, we are setting aside what America is essentially. 

Shelby : I do agree with what you are saying.  I was reading and argument by Michael Allen on a blog site and he said "torture is better than saying please."  Say we have a terrorist in custody who knows the where abouts of Bin Laden.  We wouldn't be stooping down to the level of others who torture because we would possible be preventing the harm to many American lives.  By getting information out of this terrorists we would be one huge step closer to stopping the current terrorism on America.

Devin's Response to Shelby:

Shelby, you made several assumptions that render your argument severely handicapped. First off, you assume that torture is an effective means by which to obtain information. Secondly, you assume that Bin Laden remains in one place long enough for information regarding his whereabouts to be relevant. Thirdly, you are assuming that knowing the location of bin Laden would lead to his capture. You are also assuming that his capture  would save American lives, which is also assuming that he plans on killing more Americans. Couldn't it cost American lives, the soldiers that are used in the raid to capture him? You also assume that taking down one terrorist, even a major one, would lead to a reduction of anti-American terrorism. Are you forgetting about the numerous other terrorists in Al-Qaida? How about domestic terrorists? What about a possible resurgence at his capture by other members of bin Laden's company? And all of the above points are made without regard for the immorality and illegality of torture. I am simply critiquing your argument; I feel that you made too many unqualified statements and warrants to the point where your argument cannot be taken seriously. The entire argument you presented is speculative, and calls for hearsay obtained from a TERRORIST! Some advice: tone down the unnecessary hypothetical situation and back up your warrants by qualifying your statements.

Sean: This is more a yes argument than a no argument, I'm just putting it under the listed topic.

Annalise: Sarah I agree with your idea that the use of torture hurts America's standing in the world. It makes America seem very hypocritical when we accuse other countries of using torture and then we do the exact same thing. We lose our standing in the world and more importantly it encourages terrorist groups to retaliate in the same manner.

SARAH:

Thanks Sean. any who, also responding to Shelby

I think that if we did know where Bin Laden was and we could extract information from him torture would be the worst way to go about it.  Once all other terrorists find out how we extracted information from him through means of torture, what is stopping them from doing that to our soldiers, and other civilians.  We cannot resort to torture because this creates the never ending cycle, America has to stand up and stop resorting to these ways.  

Annalise