CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Arising_uk »

fiveredapples wrote:
... But we don't need the sanction of islamic terrorists to impose water boarding on them, so I think that these will be very different types of arguments. ...
Except one of your three turned out not to be an 'islamic terrorist'?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Belinda »

Five RedApples wrote:
This debate is essentially about the moral status of 'the means' (CIA water boarding).
I concede this point, that the end does not justify the means is what we are debating as the topic with special reference to waterboarding.

You are right that I am sincere; I come here to straighten out my thoughts by means of debating with others who make me think harder and who sometimes crystalise ideas rather well. I think that most who come here are sincerely seeking truth; philosophical thinking is hard work. No person is without some subjective stance and agenda, although I deplore lazy stubbornness.

1. Waterboarding, whatever the degree of suffering, brutalises not just the soldiers who are doing it but also the civilian population who knowingly legitimate it, and even worse delegate it to disciplined soldiers. To agree to belong to a disciplined force involves a lot of trust in superiors on the part of the enlisted indivuduals, therefore the superiors have a special responsibility to such as soldiers.

2. Illustrations of natural, understandable, passion for personal or subgroup revenge such as when a child's life is in danger, even when the accused is known to be scum of the Earth, are subject to the criticism that in a society we have ceded rights of vengeance and coercion to the state. There must be recognisable and just laws.

3.Waterboarding is cruel and unusual punishnment regardless of degree of pain inflicted. Pain is not always physical but may be acute anxiety as when the punishment is perceived to be overpowering, or when one's children are threatened, or when the detainee is depersonalised. The laws of both the UN and the American Law are clear enough in spirit if not in phrase.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

fiveredapples wrote:
Belinda wrote:But the intent to inflict pain is instrumental in the process of extracting information.
That's such sloppy phrasing that it's almost meaningless. What is the purpose of CIA water boarding? To extract information. That's it. It's over. Liberals lose.
.
No, America looses. American values are lost, as is your reason. Where did you leave it? Did you ever have any?
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Londoner »

fiveredapples wrote: Well, while I personally have no problem with water boarding US citizens who abduct children and essentially decide to murder them by not revealing their location, I recognize that there's a balance we must reach between our laws and our morality. The American public is nowhere near ready to sanction the water boarding of drug dealers, even after they've been tried and found guilty, so you can't just impose a law on them, as they must sanction such laws, that says we will water board drug dealers. But we don't need the sanction of islamic terrorists to impose water boarding on them, so I think that these will be very different types of arguments.
But the moral question is separate to whether the US public would agree to such a law. Currently, waterboarding is illegal, but you do not feel it must therefore be immoral; you still feel you are justified in saying that those who think that it is are simply wrong.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
And your objection to the words of our Declaration of Independence is what? That all men don't have "certain unalienable Rights" Or, that men's unalienable Rights don't include Life (don't unjustly kill me) or the pursuit of Happiness (don't persecute me)? Either you agree or disagree. If you disagree, then what's the argument?
I don't object to those words at all, far from it. My position is that torturing people is inconsistent with it. You say: we don't need the sanction of islamic terrorists to impose water boarding on them but I think the morality of the Constitution says you should not make that distinction; they are still people. Nor are they 'Islamic terrorists' any more than you are, not until they have been convicted by due process of law.
You're saying that we're imposing this view of man on everyone. That is how we're supposed to be "fascists." But we don't impose our laws on anyone outside our country. And if we graciously grant the awesome protection of our laws to non-citizens, then it's just benevolence on our part, if not down-right stupidity sometimes, as when Obama wanted to try terrorists in US courts of law, as if these terrorists fell under the protection of the US Constitution, which they do not. The US Constitution is the law of our land. It's an agreement among a group of people (ahem, Americans) to abide by these laws and be held accountable to these laws. Non-Americans, e.g. terrorists, are not part of this agreement, so they don't get the benefit of our laws. No one disputes that -- well, except you and Obama, apparently.
The US Constitution does not say that; it does not talk about 'us' but about 'all men'. It speaks of self-evident truths, endowed by the Creator - the Creator of the whole world.

Here is what we once thought the US believed:

...And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

When the US take a prisoner, I think they are obliged to give them the same rights they say should apply to 'all men'.
This follows from what? Nothing. The terrorists fall outside the laws of the US Constitution. They don't even fall within the laws of the Geneva Convention, because they are not members. That's the point of agreements: you say you will be held accountable to other members, all who are supposed to follow the rules or laws you've agreed to act under. You want terrorists to have the liberty to blow up innocent people and then be gifted the benefits of our Constitution? This is asinine.
Come now! If I say 'the UK should not lock up a US citizen that we suspected of rape up without trial and torture them', that is not the equivalent of me saying 'I want Americans to have the liberty to rape people'.

But absolutely, you are free to explain that when the US Constitution expounds universal moral principles this is not to be taken seriously; that 'unalienable rights' are just for Americans. That everyone else in the world are inferiors who can either be treated 'graciously' or waterboarded, just as America chooses.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Belinda wrote:1. Waterboarding, whatever the degree of suffering, brutalises not just the soldiers who are doing it but also the civilian population who knowingly legitimate it, and even worse delegate it to disciplined soldiers. To agree to belong to a disciplined force involves a lot of trust in superiors on the part of the enlisted indivuduals, therefore the superiors have a special responsibility to such as soldiers.
You presume to speak for soldiers or CIA members, as if you're somehow more enlightened, more informed, more autonomous than they are. What hubris. What gall. That's worse than protesting the war in the name of your son who has willfully joined to serve his country. You do not speak for them. They don't want you to speak for them. They have already spoken with their decisions. You may choose to honor it or not, but it's extremely offensive and patronizing for you to now speak for them. They don't agree with you. They think you're naive and ill-equipped to make such decisions for people better than you, for people who recognize the sacrifice and are willing to make it. And no matter what pretty speech you give, a speech they would condemn, it still doesn't give you your premise that CIA water boarding is morally impermissible nor the premise that CIA water boarding is torture, so you have nothing.
Belinda wrote:2. Illustrations of natural, understandable, passion for personal or subgroup revenge such as when a child's life is in danger, even when the accused is known to be scum of the Earth, are subject to the criticism that in a society we have ceded rights of vengeance and coercion to the state. There must be recognisable and just laws.
This is incoherent.
Belinda wrote:3.Waterboarding is cruel and unusual punishnment regardless of degree of pain inflicted.
No, it's not cruel. You simply like to make pronouncement as if they mean anything.
Belinda wrote:Pain is not always physical but may be acute anxiety as when the punishment is perceived to be overpowering, or when one's children are threatened, or when the detainee is depersonalised. The laws of both the UN and the American Law are clear enough in spirit if not in phrase.
I don't care what kind of pain it is. You need SEVERE PAIN OR SUFFERING. Show that or spare me the flowery speeches, the oh-so touching and moving words that mean nothing. You know who I have compassion for?--the innocent people that terrorists murder, for the children who are blown up into little pieces on school buses, for the men whose heads are chopped off, for the women sold to be fuck slaves for old sadistic zealots, for the hundreds and thousands who are murdered so you can give pretty speeches and feel good about yourself.

Your warped view of reality is what makes Liberals the ethical monsters they are. Your inability to string premises together into a coherent whole, let alone a cogent whole, is what makes your more like monkeys than people. Those of us who provide arguments, provide thoughtful contributions to this debate, are the ones who actually care. What you imbeciles do is emote. That's why you can't provide arguments, because you don't think. If you can't articulate your thoughts, it's because you don't have any.
Last edited by fiveredapples on Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Belinda »

FiveRedApples, the above is cantankerous assertions mostly about what you think I don't have a right to.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

fiveredapples wrote:
Belinda wrote:1. Waterboarding, whatever the degree of suffering, brutalises not just the soldiers who are doing it but also the civilian population who knowingly legitimate it, and even worse delegate it to disciplined soldiers. To agree to belong to a disciplined force involves a lot of trust in superiors on the part of the enlisted indivuduals, therefore the superiors have a special responsibility to such as soldiers.
You presume to speak for soldiers or CIA members, as if you're somehow more enlightened, more informed, more autonomous than they are. What hubris. What gall..
Its' true. The CIA and soldiers are public servants and should do what they are told. Their opinion carries no more weight than any citizen.
If they don't like what they are told to do, then they don't have to sign up. But as they have, they ought to STFU and get on with the job at hand.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Belinda wrote:FiveRedApples, the above is cantankerous assertions mostly about what you think I don't have a right to.
All you do is make assertions. You cannot think. You invoke moral principles such as "The end doesn't justify the means" as if it's applicable here, without bothering to explain how it's applicable here. Doing what you do requires no work, no effort, and no thought. It takes me to come along to explain how this assertion is question begging, to point out how it only makes sense when we consider the 'means' as immoral, and how this debate just is the debate about whether 'the means', CIA water boarding, are indeed immoral. In other words, while you walk around convinced that 'the end doesn't justify the means' supports your non-argument that CIA water boarding is morally impermissible, I show that it's completely pointless.

I explain, I expound, I do philosophy. You spout catch-phrases, like Londoner, and don't even bother to explain how it's all supposed to lead to your conclusion. Philosophy requires time and effort, a little acumen, to show how all your premises are true or at least plausible, to show how they are linked (support each other or lead from one to another), so that the reader is left without questions as to the forcefulness of your argument. You do nothing like that. You cannot do anything like that. You simply have never thought at that level. Instead, any notion which seems relevant, any catchy moral terms you've seen written on bathroom stalls, gets mentioned as if it helps you.

You only assert. You never argue. If you ever did bother to argue, even just for your own edification, you wouldn't be so clueless.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Its' true. The CIA and soldiers are public servants and should do what they are told. Their opinion carries no more weight than any citizen.
If they don't like what they are told to do, then they don't have to sign up. But as they have, they ought to STFU and get on with the job at hand.
Look at what this imbecile writes as a "contribution" to this debate: lies disguised as snark. No American soldier is obligated to follow an order he deems immoral. This is codified for him and all military personnel know this. So, if someone does have an objection to an order, he has a means to object to this order and is permitted to not follow the order. The military are grown men and women we're talking about, autonomous people, not little children Belinda takes them to be, so if they perform their duty, then it's because they have consented to it. They don't need imbecile Liberals fighting for the opposite of what they obviously consent to.
Last edited by fiveredapples on Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Londoner,

Like I said when I first encountered your writing: it's the ones with a little philosophy who say the dumbest things. You, sir, are no exception

The Declaration of Independence was the list of grievances the people of the American colonies had with the British Crown, British Parliament, and British People. The colonists considered themselves citizens of Britain and they were explaining how the British government was failing to treat them as such. They say in the Declaration that it's the job of a government to secure those unalienable rights for its people. Now, explain how this list of grievances against the British government legally binds the US government to bestow not just on non-citizens of America the rights of American citizens, which are laid down in the Constitution of the United States, but to foreigners who perpetrate terrorist acts. Have we ever pretended that British citizens have these American rights? Have we ever pretended that Israel should abide by the US Constitution? No. Yet, here you come and say that the USA is bound -- you don't explain any of this because you don't know how to do philosophy -- to bestow full citizenship rights to foreigners. Worse yet, you are claiming that terrorists in their war against American civilians should be granted US Constitutional rights. LOL....you are the dumbest person here. I said it before and you're proving it now. Do you at least have an argument to get us from "The colonists wrote the Declaration of Independence' to "Islamic terrorists deserve the full protection of the American law as delineated in the Constitution of the United States'. This is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this thread. I am not surprised you are its author.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Let's consider this debate in a slightly different way.

Consider how we determine whether a killing is murder. Definition of murder: unlawful killing. We could run this argument as “immoral killing”, but I think it'll be less contentious if we use the 'unlawful killing' definiton, and nothing rests with this since it's just an analogy to show how we go about answering certain questions.

So, one way to think about this is to think of all the killings that have occurred. The ones we determine were unlawful will be the ones we label 'murder.' Notice that the label 'murder' is the final act, not one of the steps.

Consider how we determine whether an interrogation method is torture. We'll run this using two different definitions. First the US definition, and then the UN definition.

US definition of torture: an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control (Title 18 U.S. Code § 2340)

Suppose we have three cases (X, Y, and Z) of the CIA using an interrogation method on a known terrorist. How do we determine whether X, Y, or Z is torture? Well, we study each case to determine whether the relevant personnel intended to inflict severe physical or severe mental pain or severe suffering. It'll be those cases in which the person has the relevant intent which we will classify as torture. Again, 'torture' is a label which comes in after our investigation of the interrogation techniques.

The problem for Liberals using the US definition of torture is that ostensibly CIA water boarding was performed and would be performed to extract valuable information involving terrorist plots, not to inflict severe pain or suffering. So, CIA water boarding is not torture under the US definition.

Even if it can be shown that CIA water boarding causes severe pain or suffering, it will not have any bearing on whether or not CIA water boarding is torture – because we need the intent to inflict severe pain or severe suffering, which is ostensibly not the intent of CIA water boarding. So, this is why Liberals prefer to use the UN definition of torture.

This weaker definition of torture (the UN definition) states that the causing of severe pain or suffering, whether intended or not, is enough to make an act an act of torture. So, with this broader definition, Liberals need only show that CIA water boarding causes severe pain or suffering. The problem is that they don't have the evidence. So, in light of insufficient evidence, CIA water boarding cannot be deemed torture under the UN definition either. Liberals will of course insist that severe pain or suffering is caused by CIA water boarding, but there are perfectly plausible stories as to how it works without severe pain or suffering and there is no evidence that it did cause severe pain or severe suffering to any one of the three known terrorists water boarded, so in light of this being a contentious point, Liberals cannot successfully argue that severe pain or suffering occurs. Hence, Liberals are losing this debate too.

And if Liberals ever manage to get enough evidence to win the 'severe pain' premise, they still have to argue for the premise that torture is morally impermissible, which might seem easy but will be very difficult to do. And, mind you, the only argument they can possibly win will involve the one implementing the UN definition, which isn't a definition America need adopt, so Americans will always win the CIA water boarding debate, because it's unlikely that there's an argument that would compel them to accept the UN's definition when deciding American policy.

But, as it stands, Liberals are losing this debate. I doubt they'll ever get the 'severe pain' premise they need. And if they ever do manage it, they still have an argument to give to defend their assumption that torture is morally impermissible. This is why the hysteria over CIA water boarding is so evil and mendacious -- because Liberals have nothing compelling to say for their false opinions -- but we should, they insist, severely disarm ourselves in the fight against Islamic terrorists. How brutal and moronic is that?!?
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

I wanted to add one more thing but not as part of the previous post, because there's a consistency in approach in that post that I didn't want to disrupt with this caveat.

From the beginning I said that I have a definition of torture that is better than the UN's definition. I said that the UN is no moral authority. And the reason why the US definition of torture and my definition of torture are better is for this simple reason: these two definitions, which partly involve the intent to inflict severe pain or severe harm or severe suffering, are not defeated by the simple observation that it's morally permissible to cause people incredible amount of pain -- more much pain than CIA water boarding could possibly cause -- in certain cases of self-defense.

In certain cases of self-defense we are morally permitted to shove someone into a giant cauldron of acid. Now that's gonna smart a wee bit more than being water boarded, I would imagine. Ha ha ha...now here's the problem for Liberals. If you decide to call that torture, then you've conceded that torture is sometimes morally permissible. And if you decide that it's not torture, then you've conceded that the definition of torture is not decided by how much pain or suffering is inflicted on the person. So, the UN definition is the easiest to defeat, because either you must concede that torture is sometimes morally permissible, in which case you'll have to argue why the CIA water boarding is morally impermissible without the magical assistance of the notion of 'torture', or you'll have to concede that the UN definition is a bad one, in which case we're back to the US definition - and you can't win that debate.

Again, I say, the argument for the Moral Permissibility of CIA Water Boarding is one of the easiest arguments ever to defend. And only the mass hysteria of imbeciles sheds any doubt among reasonable but philosophically and ethically naive people.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Londoner »

fiveredapples wrote:Londoner,

Like I said when I first encountered your writing: it's the ones with a little philosophy who say the dumbest things. You, sir, are no exception... LOL....you are the dumbest person here. I said it before and you're proving it now... This is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this thread. I am not surprised you are its author.
And like I said, when people feel the need to starting writing like that it is a sign they have lost confidence in their own argument.
User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Post by TSBU »

Londoner wrote:
And like I said, when people feel the need to starting writing like that it is a sign they have lost confidence in their own argument.
Then why are you both feeding each other? Really, why are you talking in this thread? I would like to have your answers.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Belinda »

FiveRed Apples please allow me to try again.

Nursing , in the late 1940s and 1950s anyway was still run on hierachical discipline lines as Florence Nightingale conceived it as an adjunct to the army. I am not patronising and I myself have worked at a metaphorical coal face.

Soldiers in battle, even bomber aircrews, or desperate parents of a missing child , are in a different sort of social situation from veteran soldiers or civilians. In democracies, while the latter should hold themselves partly responsible for what soldiers are required to do, in a democracy veterans and civilians are also responsible to the society for the treatment of detainees distant in time and passion from the battle fronts. Guantanamo Bay Camp was not a battle front, therefore soldiers or any other workers should not have been employed to do dirty work in which any passionate responses were not implicated. The cruel and unusual punishments of detainees were carried out in cold blood.

The whole of the democratic population is therefore tainted with the calculated mistreatment of detainees. Us too, in the UK. I understand that "rendition" aeroplanes we permitted to stop at Prestwick for refuelling. Most of us were not told about official policy in the matter.
Locked