The Case Against Human Rights

[Brovo]

Surely a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but if information gained through torture leads to saving lives is it justifiable?

When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy. It's the first rule of the fanatic, amigo.

 

[Kadaeux]

Torture is a pretty terrible thing to do to another human being. But how would you get something from someone if all you have is eloquent speaking and lives are on the line?

Surely a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but if information gained through torture leads to saving lives is it justifiable?

A: What Brovo said.
B: Historically it doesn't lead to saving lives. Torture leads to false confessions, someone being tortured will say WHATEVER they THINK the torturer wants to hear.

 

[Windsong]

When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy. It's the first rule of the fanatic, amigo.

Isn't the second rule to get in the mind of the enemy?
Or is that part of the hearts and minds thing we heard about after we visited Iraq?

 

[Brovo]

Isn't the second rule to get in the mind of the enemy?
Or is that part of the hearts and minds thing we heard about after we visited Iraq?

Only if you wish to understand the enemy, not to emulate him. The key to defeating someone without losing yourself is understanding them without becoming them, and I'm not gonna lie, it's a pretty fine line. However, torture isn't an effective method at acquiring intelligence. As frustrating as it is, sometimes, the best choice is simply to let due process do its job.

As for Iraq, that was a giant mistake. Starting a second war while the US was dealing with a monetary crisis right around the corner? (Government debt moreso than the '08 explosion.) Still. I could get into details about Middle Eastern politics in another thread perhaps, but if you want to understand why terrorism keeps sprouting up, I've got two words for you: Saudi Arabia.

Now who are one of the main allies of the United States in the middle east?

Saudi Arabia.

When you compromise your principles to understand and emulate an enemy who has no moral qualms, you will never win. You will only become your enemy.

 

[Goldmarble]

Torture is a pretty terrible thing to do to another human being. But how would you get something from someone if all you have is eloquent speaking and lives are on the line?

Surely a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but if information gained through torture leads to saving lives is it justifiable?

The problem here is, you are trying to justify it by applying a fictional set of parameters that are designed to make your "opponent" agree with you.

Which is straight up bullshit.

If the only people who were tortured were the people who, without a shadow of a doubt, planted bombs or were the masterminds behind evil terrorist plot #6435, then no. I would not have a problem with that. A few would.

But reality is not cut and dried like this. Very few cases is the detained guilty without doubt. Most cases are taking suspected people, who you have circumstantial evidence, or they are merely connected through loose ties to people involved, and you try to torture information out of them. Frequently these people are proven innocent later on. There is no justification for it. There is no right to be found. You are just as criminal as the enemy who uses the same tactics.

 

[Windsong]

Is the line so fine when the two are so vastly different though?

Imagine the shitstorm if the U.S. Started posting excecutions of their people we got.

And a massively successful country with the most decadent city on that side of the planet fueled by natural resources and built on the backs of near slave labor? Who wouldn't want to be their ally!? (Sarcasm before someone else has a fit.)

And I'm figuring those are US police in that image? I see little to nothing wrong with using old military hardware to bolster lagging police armaments.
When the criminals started wearing body armor and using automatic weapons it shouldn't be long before the police need something to fight back with?

Or am I wrong in that opinion?

 

[Hellis]

Did the prostersters have body armor. Did they have armor piercing rounds, did they have autmatic weapons. No. They were mostly unarmed, if rowdy and vandalizing, civilians. Said police were shown pointing fully loaded automatic weapons at UNARMED CIVILIANS. And they also teargassed journalist crews. I am sorry, but how willfully ignorant to circumstances do you have to act to think that is ok?

 

[Astaroth]

This thread has turned into the "argue with Windsong" thread.

Thread locked for being incredibly tedious. Everyone go home, you're drunk.