Water boarding vs.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Not at all. My answer is that there are limits to what can and should be done in the name of "saving lives." It just creates a slippery slope. That and the fact that you won't ever know for a fact that you are saving lives, and the silly hypo you have proposed won't ever actually occur. I feel safe in saying "no, not worth it." Better to face God with a clear conscience. You're up.

Good to know that you'd let a terrorist kill millions.

Would I do what you suggested?

I don't know. Until I'm faced with that, I can't answer.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Not at all. My answer is that there are limits to what can and should be done in the name of "saving lives." It just creates a slippery slope. That and the fact that you won't ever know for a fact that you are saving lives, and the silly hypo you have proposed won't ever actually occur. I feel safe in saying "no, not worth it." Better to face God with a clear conscience. You're up.

The slippery slope is a bankrupt argument. We're not slippery sloping anywhere.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Good to know that you'd let a terrorist kill millions.

Would I do what you suggested?

I don't know. Until I'm faced with that, I can't answer.

Afraid to answer?

Sounds like you would let a terrorist kill millions.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The slippery slope is a bankrupt argument. We're not slippery sloping anywhere.

Why is it bankrupt? At what point do you say you are "saving lives" and torture must, therefore occur?

Only when it is someone who knows something directly (how do you know they know something directly before you torture them)? What if they can give you a 50% chance of finding someone who knows something directly? 20%? What if they appeared to know something, but didn't? And now you really think you found the guy who knows? What if the guy believes he knows something, but he also was fed misinformation? What if the guy knew something that would have been useful 2 months ago, but it turns out it isn't now? What if he just makes something up to make the torture stop (like McCain claims he did all the time)? Once you start using torture, what guidelines do you use to know when to use it again or to stop? Who makes the decision?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Afraid to answer?

No. I did answer. It wasn't the answer you wanted to hear, but I did answer.

Again, my answer is "I don't know."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

No. I did answer. It wasn't the answer you wanted to hear, but I did answer.

Again, my answer is "I don't know."

So you are at least willing to entertain the idea you would let millions die? So what's your problem with my answer?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So you are at least willing to entertain the idea you would let millions die? So what's your problem with my answer?

My problem with your answer is that you seem so sure that allowing millions to die is the right thing to in order to not torture a terrorist. You came across as thinking you are on some sort of higher moral ground than I am.

Had you asked me if I would water board a terrorist to save the lives of my family and millions others, my answer would have been yes. But you raised the ante - which is ok - and I learned that I would stop at hurting an innocent person rather than a terrorist.

I can understand wanting to face God with a clear conscience - but is that for your benefit? What about the millions that could have been saved had you water boarded the terrorist? Would their deaths be on your head?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

My problem with your answer is that you seem so sure that allowing millions to die is the right thing to in order to not torture a terrorist. You came across as thinking you are on some sort of higher moral ground than I am.

Had you asked me if I would water board a terrorist to save the lives of my family and millions others, my answer would have been yes. But you raised the ante - which is ok - and I learned that I would stop at hurting an innocent person rather than a terrorist.

I can understand wanting to face God with a clear conscience - but is that for your benefit? What about the millions that could have been saved had you water boarded the terrorist? Would their deaths be on your head?

You are just asking me the same question I asked you. What if raping and killing a child could save lives? Would you do it? I submit every person alive has a limit at which point they say "no." And they should say no.

And my answer was given so easily in part because I know the question you phrased isn't ever going to happen.

[Indy Coug]

In the great Hereafter, when those millions of dead people come up to you and wonder why you let them die and allowed them and their loved ones to suffer untold pain and anguish, do you confidently look them in the eye and tell them you made the right decision?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why is it bankrupt? At what point do you say you are "saving lives" and torture must, therefore occur?

Only when it is someone who knows something directly (how do you know they know something directly before you torture them)? What if they can give you a 50% chance of finding someone who knows something directly? 20%? What if they appeared to know something, but didn't? And now you really think you found the guy who knows? What if the guy believes he knows something, but he also was fed misinformation? What if the guy knew something that would have been useful 2 months ago, but it turns out it isn't now? What if he just makes something up to make the torture stop (like McCain claims he did all the time)? Once you start using torture, what guidelines do you use to know when to use it again or to stop? Who makes the decision?

I understand that this is the philosophic argument. I'm saying that in practice, we're not slippery sloping anywhere. This is just doomsday arguing, like when people freaked out over the "library book" provision of the Patriot Act. "What's next?!" they said. "It's a slippery slope!!" Then a year or two later, out comes John Ashcroft who says, "It's never been used."

I don't accept the argument that waterboarding is de facto torture, but even if I did, it's application has been narrow and controlled. I don't see a slippery slope here.