castledoom.com

[CharlieBrown]

I think this would be a good topic to make my first post in. The question is simple does the ends justify the means? I think that it is hard question to answer due to the fact that we have been taught both sides of the argument. For example, we are taught that the bombing of two major cities in Japan with atomic bombs was just because it ended a greater conflict but then we are taught by the use of deadly chemical weapons by any nation is wrong even though it can get the job done.

I personally do not believe that the ends justify the means. Another example is that I don't think that we should give up civil liberties for the sake of security because what is the point of protecting freedom when we take it away from ourselves in the process? But then again I can think of other instances were it would be hard do disagree with the philosophy that the ends do justify the means.

I would love to hear comments on this subject so please comment away.

[s_stabeler]

yuor question is too vague, unfortunately, as it would depend on the situation and means you are talking about. and unfortuntely, you are deluded if you think there isn't precedennt for goverrnments legally whipping your rigths out from under you if they ahve to. it's called martial law, and rampant terrorism is grounds for it ( though only if it threatens civil liberties itself)

[JuntaJoe]

Sstabeler is right. You need to formulate your argument better. Refine your argument, show examples, provide some proof or references, etc.

As for the argument of anarchy versus totalitarianism, you will find it a bit like general political philosophy (right-left). It's a bell curve frequency with the weight in the middle, but no one in the exact same spot. Every person will have their own degree of comfort in the full range.

It's better usually to refine the argument to a more singular area to get a response.

Mandating clean water by law is totalitarianism. But do most of us complain? Or industrial safety laws? Or food purity?

If you generalize it too far then you put everything into the hamper. Then everyone will be mad at some aspect. All of them in uniquely different ways. Then you cannot prove a point or get popular support as no one will ever sign on to something that kills a pet privilege or protection.

I like my gun and speech laws loose. I like my crime and safety laws tight. My exact position in those four instances are unique to me, even if many people are close in one area or another.

Your logic, philosophy, or debate professor would be telling you to start from the beginning and try a lot harder here.

[NibbyCat]

Stabler, he isn't saying that there isn't precedent. Just because it's been done before doesn't make it right. A lot of people put too much stock in "tradition", such that the reasoning behind the action is lost, and all that matters is "tradition", possibly to the people's detriment. Whoa. I just flashed on a movie (and possibly book) reference... The 1960 version of "The Time Machine" has a PERFECT example with the Eloi and the air-raid sirens.

Ok, it's not identical, precedent isn't tradition, but the idea that something done in the past is "right" is very wrong. I shall avoid the obvious, for fear of Godwin's Law.

The saying, "the ends justify the means" is usually used when the means are pretty distasteful, but very few alternate means have been investigated. Granted there may be times when there is NO other recourse, but violence should be the last resort, not the first.

[JuntaJoe]

NibbyCat wrote: Granted there may be times when there is NO other recourse, but violence should be the last resort, not the first.

Even here there can be disagreement.


Catch your spouse in bed with someone else then I highly recommend you begin screaming and shooting the first moment you see it. Then immediately call the cops and begin sobbing like crazy

The marriage is effectively over anyway.

Getting revenge later will get you executed.

Getting a divorce can be more costly than a defense lawyer who can please temporary insanity that you snapped completely when you saw it.

Worse you'll get is a couple years in the lockup and you get revenge and keep all your stuff. Might even be able to bag their life insurance too after you get the charges dropped.

[NibbyCat]

But with divorce I can take him to the cleaners. I can't collect the life insurance if I kill him.

[CharlieBrown]

NibbyCat wrote: But with divorce I can take him to the cleaners. I can't collect the life insurance if I kill him.
You could collect if you don't get caught.

I guess what I am trying to discuss is wheather or not a just cause such as protecting America can warrent amoral acts such as torture. I like to use the example of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings because we killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki and most Americans have a clean conscience about it due to the fact that we did it for a just cause, to save American lives in a costly invasion of the island of Japan.

So do you think that just because the thing that you are fighting for is considered by the majority to be a just cause does that mean that you could do whatever you see fit, good or bad, to accomplish the goal?

[JuntaJoe]

Unless you are wanting to discuss torture then you've still not defined the scope enough.

A generalized conversation on the effects of the War on Terror is impossible as it covers too many actions by the government that are each fully debatable on their own merits.

In other words, pick a more distinct topic.



Nibby, he could take you to the cleaners in a divorce. It just depends who has the most material wealth invested into the marriage and who stands to lose more.

As for the life insurance policy goes, if you aren't convicted of any form of voluntary murder or manslaughter then you get the payout.

Innocent by reason of insanity or involuntary manslaughter and you cash that check.

That's why you go crazy with the pistol and call the police to sob about it.


It's like my patented way to burn down your house and collect the insurance. It relies upon you stating up front that you really did burn down the house when the investigator comes.

[CharlieBrown]

Fine, then lets narrow down the argument to our current "War on Terror" (whatever that means). Is torture justified by our goal to fight the terrorist that are around the world?

[MetalMayhem]

I'll throw this out just for fun... :smoke:

Once they've started it, then Friggin A it is. Do they stop and worry about it before they do the same? Eye for an Eye, fight fire with fire, whatever you want to call it but just remember that the punching bag never wins the fight.

Seriously it sucks and it's not right. But if that's what it takes to get the job done and save lives then that's what needs to be done. Too many times the government gets stuck on worrying about hurting somebodies feelings or some obscure technicality in a treaty or law, meanwhile down in real life real time people are getting hurt and doing everything they can just to survive.

Keeping it from getting out of hand my require some controls or checks and balances, and it shouldn't be anything other than a last resort type option, but I say overall it "can be" justified if the situation warrants it.

I know you will all pick on "who chooses the situation that warrants it" now, and I just want to comment that if the people in charge feel it is justified at the time, then that is good enough for me. If they choose wrong then we'll just have to do the best we can after that. Maybe even vote for someone different next time elections come around. Even if they weren't voted in someone who put them there was.

[s_stabeler]

torture is never justified. sorry, but it just isn't. why? because it's what gives you the moral high ground. of course, there ARE debates on what exactly IS torture ( I've seen Tasers classed as torture, whihc i disagree with, but that's another debate) but assuming everyone agrees on what torture IS, then a complete ban on torture is right. now, another thing that is wrong is anything that does not discriminate between civilian and military targets ( so yes, i would say using fire-and-forget dumb bombs in a civilian area ought not to occur. why? because it can hit civilians. why not sue guided bombs that are more likely to hit military targets? save the dumb bombs for the battlefield, where they will always hit a military target. and as for the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings, at the time they saw it as the only option. in hindsight, 3 waves of troops and we would ahve beaten them. but how many would have died then? civilian and military. also, remember these are the poeple that used schoolgirls to manufacture bomb delivery equipment that could react the USA using the jetstream. under those conditions, there IS no non-combatant/combatant differentiation in my mind.

[JuntaJoe]

I think the debate will come down to "What acts are torture and what acts are not?"

Clearly people have different acceptance levels.

Imo, no permanent physical harm is my threshold.

That gives a fairy wide latitude for the creative types.

[CharlieBrown]

According the the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which we signed, torture is considered:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

So according to your definition JuntaJoe, the sleep deprivation that the Vietnamese forced the American POWs to go through was not torture? Or the brutal solitary confinement that they were forced to go through month after month was not torture? Your definition is very flawed because it leaves way too much to be interpreted. Something as serious as the torture of a human shouldn't be left to interpretation and it shouldn't be flexible.

[JuntaJoe]

American POW's?

Hell the Marines did those things to me in training.

Sleep deprivation, hot boxes, cold boxes, sensory deprivation, starvation, non-permanent injury, etc. They would have waterboarded me if they had thought of it.

So what? It was the job, imo.

If we can do it to our own people to resist POW treatment then it's good enough for the enemy.

Honestly, I'd rather suffer that than be tossed into the general population of your average state prison system. At least the guards are paying attention to you.


As for mental torture, who cares? Make them watch thousands of hours of cooking appliance infomercials for all I care.


CB, you will discover I'm not the "sensitive" type. In Beruit in 1982 when a sniper was firing from a building I destroyed the building. Other occupants included. Did it several times. If an enemy hides behind willing shields, like what happened in Mogadishu then you do what our soldiers did. You kill all of them to protect your men. Survival is about harsh choices.


I like my interpretation. No permanent physical harm.

Americans have suffered worse and survived. I knew several Marines who were held in complete solitary for 444 days during the Tehran Crisis of 1979. Alone in 6x6 brick cells with no windows. The Marines actually grew physically stronger during their interment because all they had to amuse themselves with was exercise in their small isolation rooms.

If the enemy cannot handle what we've proven we can handle then tough luck for them.

Guess they can spill their secrets to save their precious sensitivities.

Be tougher than your enemy and you will prevail, CB.


My sig quotes exist for a good reason. I live them.

Maybe another point will clue you in about me. When asked once how I wanted to eventually die, I said bone cancer. It's likely the most painful way to die, short of vivisection or mutilation. Why?

Because I want to be convinced to accept death.

I simply just fight that hard.

I wouldn't be softer on my enemy than on myself.

Guantanamo is a damn fine idea. It just needs to be even tougher.

[CharlieBrown]

I once held my breath for one minute, beat that.

[JuntaJoe]

This isn't oneupsmanship I'm talking about here.

Being soft and sensitive only makes you a victim.

Our enemy is brutal. They start indoctrination almost at birth. They murder academics as dangerous rivals and replace them with previously indoctrinated fanatics who perpetuate the cycle in order to completely bury the spirit of freedom in order to achieve the goals of a religious totalitarian oligarchy. They use any and all tools to achieve this goal. All life and productivity are merely ammunition to assume control.

These people want you under their control or dead.

They will never abide by a Geneva Convention statute unless they are the benefactors of it.

If it gets in their way then it is pushed aside.


You need to accept 2 sets of rules when dealing with outsiders.

There are those who have ethical boundaries and there are those who don't.

The ones that do then deserve the same returned.

The ones that don't should be fed to the Soylent machines without a second thought.


If the British try to invade again then I'll give them the due of honorable warfare.

But there are places in the world that should have been nuked long ago. There are no valuable land resources we need there. Only people in great need of dying who breed like rats. They will be the first to tell you that civilian groups are the best places to attack to achieve the goal of swaying the general populace. They also claim the sheeple are as responsible as the government and military.

They sneer at us because we are too weak morally to go after them in the crowds.

We should make it clear to them that they do not deserve the same rights as civilized people until they become civilized themselves.

Tehran should be nuked. Damascus should be nerve gassed to protect the buildings. Northwestern Pakistan should be mercilessly and frequently hit with massive fuel/air bombs. Egypt should restrict breeding like the Chinese do. Gaza should be dismantled stone by stone and turned into farmland.

Make them know we have adopted their playbook.

Submit to the reformation of their society or die.

[CharlieBrown]

So we should give up our own ethical boundries to destroy those who don't have ethical boundries?

How would you define a civilized people? Not every one that lives in Tehran, Damascus, and Gaza deserve merciless death but I'm sure you'll say otherwise.

Bombing and gassing cities all across the Middle-East seems pretty barbaric to me. Though making them into Soylent green is a compelling idea. It would make a positive impact on the food crisis.

[JuntaJoe]

There is no food crisis, due to food. But that's a whole 'nuther debate.

Starting with the American Civil War, it became clear to war leaders that any cause can be sustained with sufficient civilian industry and support. Without the populace backing the play there is no conflict.

You will not solve the problem of radical Islam until you make the Islamic community completely stop supporting it.

It is these civilians that are perpetuating the conflict.

You might find this barbaric, but America brought civilian decimation and guerrilla warfare to the modern civilized world. Prior to us using those tactics they were confined to true tribal or ancient cultures. Land mines, snipers, nukes? You guessed it. America. And the oldest American government entity still in existence in its original format? The Marines. Older than the US Government actually, by a year.

We've been bathed in blood since day one. So much for perceived ethics, eh?



Now let me tell you something about why we will keep doing these brutal deeds, regardless of some people's sensitivities.

When America was founded we were the first visible democracy since the time of Christ. Yes, Iceland did it first, but no one noticed or cared. We however, put our agenda up front. We are the lone democracy and the rest of the world will fall into line eventually.

While we may suffer an autocracy for a while as an ally, only real democracies that permit opposition to share power are safe. We don't attack them. Really, go try to find a case if you like.

All the world's people will eventually conform to our agenda by either self transition or by force from us.

While you go hunting for an exception to prove me wrong (good luck!) you will note something else. We have never been out of war for more than a couple years at a time since the beginning.

The war has never stopped in 232 years. The war will not stop while you are alive. Nor likely in your near descendent's time either.

Get comfortable with this centuries old fact of life as it will not change because of your desire.


Our guns will keep firing until the world votes free and secular.


The Islamic community has a choice. Throw down their radical elements by brutal force of revolution or we will do it for them. They only get to choose who does the killing.

[Che]

My beef with torture is that it is ineffective.

Information gained from it is unreliable.

Come near my family jewels with a cattle prod
and I will make up all kinds of stuff.

PS: Hi MM (Che = Cohen)

[JuntaJoe]

Now that I do not dispute.

Torture isn't always the best way to get information.

You can break someone's will with torture, but it doesn't mean you will get the answers you want.

You pretty much need to already know that the torture suspect has the information you need. If he really does have the information then you can get it out of him.

But "fishing expeditions" are pretty useless.


Catch the comms specialist with the daily codes for a secure facility and you can get the codes out of him, but if you just grab the first person coming out and hope he has the codes then you might end up with the facility janitor spouting anything he can to save his hide.

Torture is a like a surgery tool. You need the right patient and the right preliminary diagnosis before you stand a good chance at getting to the root of the problem.

Just because you know how to torture someone who may have info you need doesn't mean torture is the right answer in every case.

The goal is information gathering. Perhaps reward, time, or trickery are better choices as depends on the person you intend to extract it from.

Interrogators would be wise to use the right tool for every job.

Torture has its uses, but it comes with many limitations too.