Senate Consequences of U.S. Torture

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jabbadabbado, Apr 16, 2013.

  1. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Ok, but this is a normative question and not a descriptive one. It's not a question of what "people" do -- it's a question of what we do. So do we stoop to petty crime because it can be effective, or do we go to work in the morning? Do we as a nation simply quell dissent by force, or do we allow free speech?

    I mean, the idea that people CAN do something bad until they can no longer get away with it could easily be an apology for dictatorship or totalitarianism. Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
    SithLordDarthRichie likes this.
  2. Likewater Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2009
    star 4
    Most of us do not stoop to petty crime because it is not effective, the risk does not out weigh the reward. Or investment in the social contract so we might live with a stable environment as apposed to chaos.

    For example a nation that say invades another nation.

    The invading nations existence is not being threatened, its not suffering a crisis environmental that might override common sense.

    Is the invading nation disassembled and its territories reorganized? Is that nation killed, as an organization and its people scattered to the winds?

    If nations faced this reality for invading a fellow, if this was a consequence national behavior would be very different. If every war is a war of survival rather than a war of choice, that will change an entire societies psychology.


    Whats the theory called? Diffusion of responsibility? I forget.

    Anywho, it is not about what should be, most people raised right knows what should be: Justice, Honor, Fraternity, Liberty, all the ideals were were raised to aspire to. It is about what is. And without intensive to change things will not change, Until the discovery of the damaging properties of lead it was a common construction material, Governments endorsed slavery until it became a economic hindrance on the global scale. Government was fine with racial injustice until the boycott.

    Ideals a great, but adjustments must be made for the reality of the situation. If the nations of the world or a sizable region bands together and boycotts the United States, until like the Montgomery Transit Authority, it is ready to negotiate. Things will not change.
  3. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Or because it's wrong.

    [IMG]
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Apr 23, 2013
  4. LandoThe CapeCalrissian Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2012
    star 3
    so youre that soft as a human being that you have a problem with someone catching a beating.. How often do you think the CIA takes in a wrongfully accused suspected terrorist overseas and it turns out the guy just runs a store or something with 0 terrorist ties?? id say its slim to none..

    So when they catch someone handing out a beating doesn't seem to be a problem., all out torture?? sure I can see why someone would be against that, but just handing down a beating is something that happens in every school play ground on a daily basis..
  5. The Loyal Imperial Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 6
    So you're saying that the ideal that national governments ought to aspire to is that of the schoolyard bully, then?
  6. Likewater Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2009
    star 4
    Mmmmm Hmmm, because what is wrong and right is universally agreed upon?

    Or his what is wrong a concept that is flexible and totally dependent on a given situation.
  7. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    So sayeth the relativists.

    The point was, not everyone makes a decision not to do crime because of an amoral and soulless risk/reward calculation. Maybe some people do. But that doesn't apply to everyone. Many crimes are considered crimes in the first place because they are, in fact, immoral acts, and some people choose not to do them because they have a moral objection to hurting the innocent for personal gain, not because they're worried about getting caught.
    GrandAdmiralJello likes this.
  8. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    No, not everyone is as wanting of a moral compass as you seem to be.
  9. LandoThe CapeCalrissian Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2012
    star 3
    No,what I said was giving someone a beating, especially someone with terrorist ties isn't something most people care about. At the end of the day it is what it is, a beating..

    And getting into a fight in a school yard isn't something only bullies do, kids fight, doesn't mean one is automatically a bully.
    Last edited by LandoThe CapeCalrissian, Apr 24, 2013
  10. The Loyal Imperial Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 6
    Except we're not talking about a fair fight now, are we? One-sided beatings of someone who is powerless to resist you generally does make one a bully.
    RC-1991 and Point Given like this.
  11. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Is there a purpose behind these beatings, or is it ok just because people allegedly don't care?
  12. LandoThe CapeCalrissian Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2012
    star 3
    oh wait I forgot the terrorist who plots the deaths of innocents, especially that of little children like the Taliban has made a career of aren't the bullies.. How silly of me...

    google how many girls schools they've bombed, than tell me they aren't bullies...
  13. Point Given Mod of Literature and Community

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Dec 12, 2006
    star 5
    So why should we stoop to that level?

    And we've hit innocents with drone strikes as well.
    Last edited by Point Given, Apr 25, 2013
    RC-1991 and SithLordDarthRichie like this.
  14. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    I need to point out the difference between hitting them and targeting them (law of war principle of distinction) and that civilian casualties are allowed in wartime so long as not incommensurate with the legitimate military objectives (proportionality).

    Don't draw hasty equivalencies.


    Misa ab iPhono meo est.
    Last edited by GrandAdmiralJello, Apr 25, 2013
  15. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    Call it "that soft as a human being" if you like. I just call it being human. I won't speculate on the CIA's hit/miss rate since neither you or I should do so, having utterly no knowledge or reliable materials upon which to make a wild guess like that. You're arguing the sad old "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument in pastel form, which is no better so pastelised -- because history shows, quite often, that the reverse is the case.