When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin.

Yet you advocate both the abnigation of liberty and safety, Bobby. What gives? You and R.Waite and others do it in the name of socialism/fascism/statism. Strange.

Umm, anything I specifically said that justifies the statement that I advocate the abnegation of liberty and safety? Or that I support socialism, fascism or statism? For a person that criticizes the use of state sponsored force when it comes to taxation you appear to have a surprisingly contrary view when it comes to the state exerting direct force against an individual.

Your entire posting history is replete with your exhortations for direct force by the state against individual vs my posting history which is consistently pro individual and pro freedom.

'Nuff said.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

i guess what i was trying to say, is it would be nice to hear what bobby felt in his own words

I believe I've stated my own views in this thread. To summarize, torture can only be acceptable if the person conducting (or ordering it, etc) it *knows* the person being tortured has knowledge that will cause greater suffering that s/he is suffering, and that the torturer (or the person ordering the use of torture, etc) does not have this knowledge already. However, such a situation is virtually impossible for me to imagine. It is not enough to suspect the person to be tortured has the information, as the suspicion could well be wrong.

As for modern quotes, I noted the wording of the Geneva Conventions here to which the Western democracies have all signed.

thanks, thats accurate for me to understand.
so just to confirm.

if you have a prisoner your sure planted some bombs, but claims he has no idea what you mean, then its not ok to torture him.

conversly if you have a prisoner, that admits (without duress)to planting bombs, but refuses to tell you where they are, its more acceptable to apply greater pressure till he gives up the info.

as to the geneva convention, i certainly dont think it applies to some of my previous civilian examples of the need for torture, and iirc the geneva convention prevents the military from using dum dum rounds but does not prevent the police from using them, so the geneva convention is far from perfect, and if we were going to use torture as an acceptable means of aquiring info, it could just be done by the civil authorities.

i also belive that IF we ever officially condone torture, there should be a sub clause of ' no perminant or psychological damage '

Indeed the Geneva Conventions do not apply to states acting against their own citizens, and I consider myself fortunate to be living in a nation which prohibits such activities explicitly in its constitution (as noted here). I believe such activities are also considered illegal in the UK (the country of my birth) but I'm not so sure. BTW in that post I also quoted another modern objection to the use of torture.

As to your two examples, with the information provided, torture is acceptable in neither case, the first because being "sure" is not enough, the second because for all you *know* the person is lying. As I said I find it virtually impossible to posit a situation where I would *know* another has knowledge that I do not, this is not to say that I know everything, I'm well aware that others know many things that I do not, rather that I can only know what another does by that other telling me, I can suspect till the cows come home.

As for your original example (the gang kidnapping your children but leaving one of their number behind), again this fails to meet my criteria for the use of torture, you have no idea how much of the gang's plans this individual is aware. To stretch things a little, the person left behind may have been pressed into such activity in fear of his/her own life (such things do happen), and was left behind purely because his/her knowledge is worthless but the gang felt that the authorities would waste time on interrogation.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin.

Yet you advocate both the abnigation of liberty and safety, Bobby. What gives? You and R.Waite and others do it in the name of socialism/fascism/statism. Strange.

Umm, anything I specifically said that justifies the statement that I advocate the abnegation of liberty and safety? Or that I support socialism, fascism or statism? For a person that criticizes the use of state sponsored force when it comes to taxation you appear to have a surprisingly contrary view when it comes to the state exerting direct force against an individual.

Your entire posting history is replete with your exhortations for direct force by the state against individual vs my posting history which is consistently pro individual and pro freedom.

'Nuff said.

Oh, using the "coz you sez so" form of argument. Fair enough. In this thread, all my posts have been against the use of direct force against the individual carried out by the state, so your statement is clearly wrong. I suggest you reread my posting history to find one of the exhortations you mention.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin.

Yet you advocate both the abnigation of liberty and safety, Bobby. What gives? You and R.Waite and others do it in the name of socialism/fascism/statism. Strange.

Scary, when did I ever state that liberty and safety were off the table?
Every living human being has a right to these.
Isn't that the central theme from everyone posting in this thread who is opposed to torture?

And what's with all the "ism" words?

You must have noticed that I am stridently anti-fascist by my distrust of corporations.
I fail to see how a social democratic government would be a threat to liberty and safety.
And finally, what the h*ll is statism supposed to mean?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin.

Yet you advocate both the abnigation of liberty and safety, Bobby. What gives? You and R.Waite and others do it in the name of socialism/fascism/statism. Strange.

Scary, when did I ever state that liberty and safety were off the table?
Every living human being has a right to these.
Isn't that the central theme from everyone posting in this thread who is opposed to torture?

And what's with all the "ism" words?

You must have noticed that I am stridently anti-fascist by my distrust of corporations.
I fail to see how a social democratic government would be a threat to liberty and safety.
And finally, what the h*ll is statism supposed to mean?

No....being 'anti corporations' is a typical fascist position. Hell, it's not even truly socialist. But I can be friends with fascist people. Carry on. I just won't invite you over for Thanksgiving dinner. I'm afraid you'll dictate to the turkey.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I think you should reread your history.
Fascism and Corporatism are intertwined.

I think you've been over exposed to the propaganda that equates capitalism with freedom.

I think you should reread your history.
Fascism and Corporatism are intertwined.

I think you've been over exposed to the propaganda that equates capitalism with freedom.

I think what you need to understand is that alot of your criticisms of 'corporatism' is due in fact to fascist kinds of policies. And socialist practices. You're confusing Capitalism with 'Corporatism'.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I think you should reread your history.
Fascism and Corporatism are intertwined.

I think you've been over exposed to the propaganda that equates capitalism with freedom.

I think what you need to understand is that alot of your criticisms of 'corporatism' is due in fact to fascist kinds of policies. And socialist practices. You're confusing Capitalism with 'Corporatism'.

Corporations are structured like a fascist state with total authority and power concentrated in the hands of an all powerful leader.
The fascists have always been corporate friendly and the corporations always support fascists.
Remember that Hitler was Time's Man of the Year in the early 30's and the elites in North America invested huge amounts in his fascist Nazi state.

You started this sidebar by stating that I was in favor of fascism and something called statism, to which I am still awaiting an explaination of because I don't know what that is.

Just for the record, I believe in democracy... accountable responsible government... community ownership of resources and vital industries... trade/labour unions... free education... universal single payer healthcare...progressive taxation...and strong central government.

Atlantean makes some important distinctions too. These enemies never signed a Geneva convention.

Indeed, it is states that agree to the Geneva conventions, if we're talking about individuals committing criminal actions (kidnap, planting bombs, etc) then they should be processed as criminals, and as I've already mentioned, here in the US criminals have rights guaranteed by the constitution, which do not permit the use of torture, no matter whether the statement "the way it's praciticed gets results that saves lives" is true.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

here in the US criminals have rights guaranteed by the constitution

When have you ever known the current ruling generation to follow the rules?

In fact, if you look through recent history, you'll find that the rules often change to suit their needs... ;)

(Strength in numbers.......... I suppose.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

<Bobby> As for your original example (the gang kidnapping your children but leaving one of their number behind), again this fails to meet my criteria for the use of torture, you have no idea how much of the gang's plans this individual is aware. To stretch things a little, the person left behind may have been pressed into such activity in fear of his/her own life (such things do happen), and was left behind purely because his/her knowledge is worthless but the gang felt that the authorities would waste time on interrogation.

Im sure it fails to meet your intellectual 'criteria', however and please dont take this as an attack, but i wonder if you even have children. I find it very very difficult to concieve of a loving parent NOT going balistic on that gang member in order to save their kids and logic be damned.

yes scary this is situationism or whatever you called it, but i am a fan of 'come the moment, come the man' and 'reaction befitting the situation' syle beliefs.

Any of you with kids can understand even the little things that can cause sheer terror, such as your little one climbing the stairs and nearly falling. i would think nothing at all of shredding a person inch by inch if i though it would save my kids.

i know on the surface this seems very little to do with global politics, but the truth of life is there really isnt a 'big picture' except in someones mind or on the preverbial drawing board. in reality we are very complex beings and all out big decisions are influenced my many thousands of little experiences and decisions. i know some of scary's beliefs dont like what im saying but the simple of it is its human nature to react and we all react differently, guess the world would be a lot easier to understand and apply th stamp of logic to if we were all robots, but we are not.

---

here in the US criminals have rights guaranteed by the constitution

When have you ever known the current ruling generation to follow the rules?

In fact, if you look through recent history, you'll find that the rules often change to suit their needs... ;)

(Strength in numbers.......... I suppose.)

I hoping that it's a temporary aberration, we'll see soon enough whether I'm hoping in vain.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

<Bobby> As for your original example (the gang kidnapping your children but leaving one of their number behind), again this fails to meet my criteria for the use of torture, you have no idea how much of the gang's plans this individual is aware. To stretch things a little, the person left behind may have been pressed into such activity in fear of his/her own life (such things do happen), and was left behind purely because his/her knowledge is worthless but the gang felt that the authorities would waste time on interrogation.

Im sure it fails to meet your intellectual 'criteria', however and please dont take this as an attack, but i wonder if you even have children. I find it very very difficult to concieve of a loving parent NOT going balistic on that gang member in order to save their kids and logic be damned.

yes scary this is situationism or whatever you called it, but i am a fan of 'come the moment, come the man' and 'reaction befitting the situation' syle beliefs.

Any of you with kids can understand even the little things that can cause sheer terror, such as your little one climbing the stairs and nearly falling. i would think nothing at all of shredding a person inch by inch if i though it would save my kids.

i know on the surface this seems very little to do with global politics, but the truth of life is there really isnt a 'big picture' except in someones mind or on the preverbial drawing board. in reality we are very complex beings and all out big decisions are influenced my many thousands of little experiences and decisions. i know some of scary's beliefs dont like what im saying but the simple of it is its human nature to react and we all react differently, guess the world would be a lot easier to understand and apply th stamp of logic to if we were all robots, but we are not.

I'd like to think I'd defend my children against a vigilante such as yourself, and that my kids would be subject to due process. I'm afraid the path you advocate appears to lead ultimately to lawlessness, where the rights of others are a secondary consideration to those of me and mine.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

<Bobby> As for your original example (the gang kidnapping your children but leaving one of their number behind), again this fails to meet my criteria for the use of torture, you have no idea how much of the gang's plans this individual is aware. To stretch things a little, the person left behind may have been pressed into such activity in fear of his/her own life (such things do happen), and was left behind purely because his/her knowledge is worthless but the gang felt that the authorities would waste time on interrogation.

Im sure it fails to meet your intellectual 'criteria', however and please dont take this as an attack, but i wonder if you even have children. I find it very very difficult to concieve of a loving parent NOT going balistic on that gang member in order to save their kids and logic be damned.

yes scary this is situationism or whatever you called it, but i am a fan of 'come the moment, come the man' and 'reaction befitting the situation' syle beliefs.

Any of you with kids can understand even the little things that can cause sheer terror, such as your little one climbing the stairs and nearly falling. i would think nothing at all of shredding a person inch by inch if i though it would save my kids.

i know on the surface this seems very little to do with global politics, but the truth of life is there really isnt a 'big picture' except in someones mind or on the preverbial drawing board. in reality we are very complex beings and all out big decisions are influenced my many thousands of little experiences and decisions. i know some of scary's beliefs dont like what im saying but the simple of it is its human nature to react and we all react differently, guess the world would be a lot easier to understand and apply th stamp of logic to if we were all robots, but we are not.

What you are doing is connecting individual circumstances with systemic policies to make a case for torture.

As an individual, you just might perform these actions in defence of your children and in the end will face a jury of your peers.
As a national policy, torture is repugnant and indefencible.

I'd like to think I'd defend my children against a vigilante such as yourself, and that my kids would be subject to due process. I'm afraid the path you advocate appears to lead ultimately to lawlessness, where the rights of others are a secondary consideration to those of me and mine.

lol, why on earth would you need to defend your children against me? that makes no sence at all i ONLY advocate violence in defence.

What you are doing is connecting individual circumstances with systemic policies to make a case for torture.

As an individual, you just might perform these actions in defence of your children and in the end will face a jury of your peers.
As a national policy, torture is repugnant and indefencible.

If a democratic nation does not reflect the ideals of its citizens then its not very democratic.

as to torture being repugnant, tell that to those that managed to survive the initial blasts of americas nuke's...could you imagine a worse death than being slowly cooked and dissasembled from the inside?

that was without doubt the worst terror incident the planet has ever seen. dont tell me it wasnt because the whole point was to instill so much fear and terror into our enemies that they would surrender...

we all know the 'victor' writes the history.

my views may not be popularist but at least they are not hypocritical.

---

I'd like to think I'd defend my children against a vigilante such as yourself, and that my kids would be subject to due process. I'm afraid the path you advocate appears to lead ultimately to lawlessness, where the rights of others are a secondary consideration to those of me and mine.

lol, why on earth would you need to defend your children against me? that makes no sence at all i ONLY advocate violence in defence.

Umm, "i would think nothing at all of shredding a person inch by inch if i though it would save my kids." doesn't sound to my hears to be a defensive action.

What you are doing is connecting individual circumstances with systemic policies to make a case for torture.

As an individual, you just might perform these actions in defence of your children and in the end will face a jury of your peers.
As a national policy, torture is repugnant and indefencible.

If a democratic nation does not reflect the ideals of its citizens then its not very democratic.

What country is peopled by a citizenry that has torture as one of its ideals? If it's dear old blighty I'm glad I left when I did.

as to torture being repugnant, tell that to those that managed to survive the initial blasts of americas nuke's...could you imagine a worse death than being slowly cooked and dissasembled from the inside?

that was without doubt the worst terror incident the planet has ever seen. dont tell me it wasnt because the whole point was to instill so much fear and terror into our enemies that they would surrender...

we all know the 'victor' writes the history.

my views may not be popularist but at least they are not hypocritical.

Be that as it may, just because the Allies may have used atomic weapons to "instill [...] fear and terror", does not negate Robert's comment that "As a national policy, torture is repugnant and indefencible", though it might suggest other policies are also repugnant and indefencible.

As for the victor writing history, just how many Vietnam movies does a person need to see before realizing that this tired cliche is simply not true?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I'd like to think I'd defend my children against a vigilante such as yourself, and that my kids would be subject to due process. I'm afraid the path you advocate appears to lead ultimately to lawlessness, where the rights of others are a secondary consideration to those of me and mine.

lol, why on earth would you need to defend your children against me? that makes no sence at all i ONLY advocate violence in defence.

What you are doing is connecting individual circumstances with systemic policies to make a case for torture.

As an individual, you just might perform these actions in defence of your children and in the end will face a jury of your peers.
As a national policy, torture is repugnant and indefencible.

If a democratic nation does not reflect the ideals of its citizens then its not very democratic.

as to torture being repugnant, tell that to those that managed to survive the initial blasts of americas nuke's...could you imagine a worse death than being slowly cooked and dissasembled from the inside?

that was without doubt the worst terror incident the planet has ever seen. dont tell me it wasnt because the whole point was to instill so much fear and terror into our enemies that they would surrender...

we all know the 'victor' writes the history.

my views may not be popularist but at least they are not hypocritical.

I'm not certain if you are calling me the hypocrite or someone else.
I believe my stand has been quite consistant through out this discussion in that torture is never acceptable.

While I did state that an individual might perform such an act and they would be held accountable by a court of law, it does not mean I approve of, or agree with torture under any circumstance.
It's no different than stating that someone will rob a bank. While I state someone, somewhere will rob a bank, it doesn't imply that I agree with the act.

I'm not certain if you are calling me the hypocrite or someone else.

not at all, i wasn't implying that anyone in this room was being a hypocrite, i was reffering to american policy on terror in contrast to the nuke's used in japan.

just because the Allies may have used atomic weapons to "instill [...] fear and terror", does not negate Robert's comment that "As a national policy, torture is repugnant and indefencible", though it might suggest other policies are also repugnant and indefencible.

as you can see thats the classic "thats not the same" point of view appearing.

the ONLY difference between a suicide bomber and an american muke is you have the money to throw it at them with no loss of life on your side.

a classic state of mind that I find repugnant is phrases like "we will pay any price, to ensure liberty" which really means, we will highly train and equip 0.0001% of our population to go into your country and kill whoever or destroy whatever we feel might cramp our style on the global stage.

What you are doing is connecting individual circumstances with systemic policies to make a case for torture.

As an individual, you just might perform these actions in defence of your children and in the end will face a jury of your peers.
As a national policy, torture is repugnant and indefencible.

If a democratic nation does not reflect the ideals of its citizens then its not very democratic.

What country is peopled by a citizenry that has torture as one of its ideals? If it's dear old blighty I'm glad I left when I did.

I never said England considered it ok to torture people, the fact is most people in england dont think like me, but if they did then it probably would go through a policy check.

"individual circumstances with systemic policies" is how most policy is formed in most countries.

for example the legalisation of cannabis in Holland, was agreed by the majority of the nation hence the law passed.

the continued growth of "individual circumstances" with regard to knife use in england has triggered "systemic policies" leading to a perminat knife ban with escalating punishments.

i know i dont have the best grammar and laguage skills, but i dont think its that hard to seperate my views on the democratic proccess and my views on situations i find torture acceptable.

my point on the governmental level was that if the majority of the population of a nation consider it reasonable to use torture in extenuating circumstances, then its perfectly reasonable from that nations point of view that their government can adopt similar policies to that of their civilians..if you as a nation dont like that nations policies on information extraction, then i guess you best keep your agents and violent criminals out of that country.

is the same issue i have with the blurred distinction between monarchy and dictatorships, granted most dictators are very bad at running their country so rarly last long enough to pass it onto an heir. the only difference between a monarch and a dictator is the military coup of the monarchy system happened a long time ago.

if a country IS in a state of dictatorship/monarchy AND the people of that country are satisfied with its policies AND they dont come onto your land giving your citizens hassle, then live and let live..not everything has to be run by 'management by exception' aka democracy.

I'd like to think I'd defend my children against a vigilante such as yourself, and that my kids would be subject to due process. I'm afraid the path you advocate appears to lead ultimately to lawlessness, where the rights of others are a secondary consideration to those of me and mine.

lol, why on earth would you need to defend your children against me? that makes no sence at all i ONLY advocate violence in defence.

Umm, "i would think nothing at all of shredding a person inch by inch if i though it would save my kids." doesn't sound to my hears to be a defensive action.

hmm, considering the context of my statment, because it does sound horrid when you take it out of context. if you had to "defend you children against a vigilante such as myself" that would mean, that your kids are in my house kidnapping my children! if that was the case, then they deserve everything they get.

Doing whatever it takes, to prevent harm to your children doesnt really make you a Vigilante, it makes you a protective parent.


and finaly,

As for the victor writing history, just how many Vietnam movies does a person need to see before realizing that this tired cliche is simply not true?

i dont understand how this contradicts "we all know the 'victor' writes the history.".
afaik, america got their butts kicked and everyone knows it...please explain

---

I'm not certain if you are calling me the hypocrite or someone else.

not at all, i wasn't implying that anyone in this room was being a hypocrite, i was reffering to american policy on terror in contrast to the nuke's used in japan.

just because the Allies may have used atomic weapons to "instill [...] fear and terror", does not negate Robert's comment that "As a national policy, torture is repugnant and indefencible", though it might suggest other policies are also repugnant and indefencible.

as you can see thats the classic "thats not the same" point of view appearing.

Errm, I wasn't saying they're not the same (from a particular point of view), I was saying the use of nuclear weapons does not in and of itself legitimize the use of torture. If the argument can be made that the use of nuclear weapons is a form of torture, then my stance would be that their use cannot be justified.

the ONLY difference between a suicide bomber and an american muke is you have the money to throw it at them with no loss of life on your side.

a classic state of mind that I find repugnant is phrases like "we will pay any price, to ensure liberty" which really means, we will highly train and equip 0.0001% of our population to go into your country and kill whoever or destroy whatever we feel might cramp our style on the global stage.[/quote[

Quite, but I don't think either Robert Waite or I have ever said anything like that.

[quote]What you are doing is connecting individual circumstances with systemic policies to make a case for torture.

As an individual, you just might perform these actions in defence of your children and in the end will face a jury of your peers.
As a national policy, torture is repugnant and indefencible.

If a democratic nation does not reflect the ideals of its citizens then its not very democratic.

What country is peopled by a citizenry that has torture as one of its ideals? If it's dear old blighty I'm glad I left when I did.

I never said England considered it ok to torture people, the fact is most people in england dont think like me, but if they did then it probably would go through a policy check.

"individual circumstances with systemic policies" is how most policy is formed in most countries.

for example the legalisation of cannabis in Holland, was agreed by the majority of the nation hence the law passed.

the continued growth of "individual circumstances" with regard to knife use in england has triggered "systemic policies" leading to a perminat knife ban with escalating punishments.

i know i dont have the best grammar and laguage skills, but i dont think its that hard to seperate my views on the democratic proccess and my views on situations i find torture acceptable.

my point on the governmental level was that if the majority of the population of a nation consider it reasonable to use torture in extenuating circumstances, then its perfectly reasonable from that nations point of view that their government can adopt similar policies to that of their civilians..if you as a nation dont like that nations policies on information extraction, then i guess you best keep your agents and violent criminals out of that country.

The whole point of this thread was to find out what, if any, are the extenuating circumstances where we find torture to be acceptable from a policy perspective (hence the link to Hillary's comment at the start).

is the same issue i have with the blurred distinction between monarchy and dictatorships, granted most dictators are very bad at running their country so rarly last long enough to pass it onto an heir. the only difference between a monarch and a dictator is the military coup of the monarchy system happened a long time ago.

if a country IS in a state of dictatorship/monarchy AND the people of that country are satisfied with its policies AND they dont come onto your land giving your citizens hassle, then live and let live..not everything has to be run by 'management by exception' aka democracy.

I'd like to think I'd defend my children against a vigilante such as yourself, and that my kids would be subject to due process. I'm afraid the path you advocate appears to lead ultimately to lawlessness, where the rights of others are a secondary consideration to those of me and mine.

lol, why on earth would you need to defend your children against me? that makes no sence at all i ONLY advocate violence in defence.

Umm, "i would think nothing at all of shredding a person inch by inch if i though it would save my kids." doesn't sound to my hears to be a defensive action.

hmm, considering the context of my statment, because it does sound horrid when you take it out of context. if you had to "defend you children against a vigilante such as myself" that would mean, that your kids are in my house kidnapping my children! if that was the case, then they deserve everything they get.

Doing whatever it takes, to prevent harm to your children doesnt really make you a Vigilante, it makes you a protective parent.

Vigilante
1. a member of a vigilance committee.
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.

Errm, you stance appears to meet the second and third definitions, and I already provided a plausible reason why my kids could innocently end up in your house given the circumstances you described.

and finaly,

As for the victor writing history, just how many Vietnam movies does a person need to see before realizing that this tired cliche is simply not true?

i dont understand how this contradicts "we all know the 'victor' writes the history.".
afaik, america got their butts kicked and everyone knows it...please explain

That the US were not the victors in Vietnam is certainly true, that the history of the conflict has been mainly been depicted (and written) by Americans is also true, hence "the victor writes the history" is false.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...