Post by: cosine on February 17, 2007, 08:55:43 AM
You know you've thought the same.
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 17, 2007, 09:06:11 AM
There, I said it.
You know you've thought the same.
You know you've thought the same.
Precisely why I won't watch the show. I watch shows that are pure crap, but at least the heros in those shows aren't violating every amendment of the constitution.....
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on February 17, 2007, 11:09:18 AM
~GnSx
Post by: cosine on February 17, 2007, 12:39:06 PM
I like 24. A lot.
~GnSx
~GnSx
I watch 24 occasionally. It's not at the top of my "favorites" list, but it's nowhere near the bottom of my "dislike" list either. It's only fiction, so I don't get too worked up over the portrayal of blatant constitutional abuse in the show. My only concern would be that it portrays the abuse of the Bill of Rights as "normal," or "necessary" for safety...
But still, I had to post this thread.
Post by: Warren on February 17, 2007, 01:18:07 PM
I do wonder though why Jack has not developed a nervous tic that is brought on by the clock getting to the top of the hour. Since it is always around 5 til that something horribly bad happens.
Post by: Fly320s on February 17, 2007, 02:08:53 PM
Post by: meinbruder on February 17, 2007, 05:27:11 PM
There, I said it.
You know you've thought the same.
You know you've thought the same.
Ive been wondering when someone would say it. I dont watch the show and am more than a little puzzled by the cult following. Aside from the constitutional abuse issues, the pandering to the patriot act for legitimacy of plot, and the ridicules notion that an operative of any branch of gubment would have so many direct ties to the oval office; its so over-acted that the main character is really just a caricature.
Ive tried to watch a few episodes and just cant. Just think, the hero is a JBT and everyone wants to be just like him. Its sad really.
}:)>
Post by: Ben on February 17, 2007, 05:33:33 PM
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on February 17, 2007, 05:33:38 PM
Everything else I know about the show is hearsay and wikipedia article.
~GnSx
Post by: Vodka7 on February 17, 2007, 06:13:19 PM
That said, it's still a solid 42 minutes of terrorist butt-kicking every week.
And BenW, the first two seasons are pretty slow. There's really no continuation between each season, and since so many main characters get killed off it's not worth getting attached to any of them anyway. Start with season 3 or 4, whichever the mexican one is, then just skip to the current season.
Post by: grampster on February 17, 2007, 06:23:20 PM
Post by: Dannyboy on February 17, 2007, 06:37:58 PM
PS He's more of an anti-hero type character, similar to Frank Castle (The Punisher). Of course, that came from a comic book so that couldn't possibly be confused for anything other than fiction.
Post by: RevDisk on February 17, 2007, 06:54:21 PM
There, I said it.
You know you've thought the same.
You know you've thought the same.
Cosine, your lack of patriotism is disturbing. Therefore, I suspect you have knowledge of a planned terrorist attack. Ve hav vays of makink you talk!
Prepare the Yanni tapes!
Post by: meinbruder on February 17, 2007, 07:35:14 PM
Cosine, your lack of patriotism is disturbing. Therefore, I suspect you have knowledge of a planned terrorist attack. Ve hav vays of makink you talk!
Prepare the Yanni tapes!
NO! Not the Yanni. Who could have expected the Yanni tapes?
}:)>
Post by: tyme on February 17, 2007, 07:55:51 PM
Quote
And BenW, the first two seasons are pretty slow. There's really no continuation between each season, and since so many main characters get killed off it's not worth getting attached to any of them anyway. Start with season 3 or 4, whichever the mexican one is, then just skip to the current season.
There are two kinds of 24 viewers. Some (like me) prefer seasons 1 and 2 and maybe 3, in order of preference. The rest like season 4 and beyond because it's easier to follow without watching the season in order, and because it's mindless and one-track and violent. There's nothing wrong with mindless entertainment, I just prefer if it isn't a JBT soap opera with lots of poorly-motivated shootings, torture, political debate, explosions and nonsense technology.
I prefer the dark moodiness of season 1 the best. Season 2 departed from that, but even with snafus like the cougar situation, the show didn't run off the tracks until somewhere in season 3 or 4. I really liked the Warner family angle and the political intrigue of season 2.
Season 4 eschewed the political intrigue of season 3, and replaced it with a simple, linear plot with lots of action. Season 5 relied on absurd political intrigue, and IMO was an unmitigated disaster. Season 6 is, so far, no better.
I don't understand the total technical incompetence of the scripts. What would it take for them to hire a competent tech consultant?
The season plot arcs have been crap starting with season 4. Bauer's and other operative's lines in recent seasons have become irritatingly repetitive. Most of the other actors are either terrible or have terrible dialog or both. Some are okay, but are miscast (Carlo Rota -- Chloe's boyfriend -- is awesome, but not as a tech nerd).
I think that might be the key. The good actors have mostly vanished (Nina, the two original Palmers, Michelle and Tony are dead, and Mandy's probably gone for good). They've been replaced with lesser actors because there's no need for good actors. It's action, action, action, political nonsense, tech mumbo-jumbo, more action, action, action, political sniping, action, action...
Post by: BryanP on February 18, 2007, 02:57:43 AM
Holy crap, people! It's a friggin work of fiction, as in made up, as in not real. Get over yourselves.
PS He's more of an anti-hero type character, similar to Frank Castle (The Punisher). Of course, that came from a comic book so that couldn't possibly be confused for anything other than fiction.
PS He's more of an anti-hero type character, similar to Frank Castle (The Punisher). Of course, that came from a comic book so that couldn't possibly be confused for anything other than fiction.
Weird. I'm old enough to have read comics when the Punisher wasn't an anti-hero at all. He was an out-and-out villain. One with a tragic story, but a villain nonetheless.
He was "rehabilitated" to his current anti-hero status in the 90's.
Post by: Mannlicher on February 18, 2007, 03:49:10 AM
Secondly, do any of you REALLY think torturing a terrorist to get the info needed NOW to save millions of lives is a bad thing? If you do, then you are part of the problem here, not part of the solution. Most Americans don't have the guts for war, or any sense of self preservation. Sad.
Post by: HankB on February 18, 2007, 04:28:45 AM
Well, you get my drift . . . OK, it's not real, it's a TV show, so one expects certain liberties to be taken, but it's supposed to at least be plausible . . . and it isn't.
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 18, 2007, 04:45:39 AM
first of all, its just a TV show, and a badly written one at that.
Secondly, do any of you REALLY think torturing a terrorist to get the info needed NOW to save millions of lives is a bad thing? If you do, then you are part of the problem here, not part of the solution. Most Americans don't have the guts for war, or any sense of self preservation. Sad.
Secondly, do any of you REALLY think torturing a terrorist to get the info needed NOW to save millions of lives is a bad thing? If you do, then you are part of the problem here, not part of the solution. Most Americans don't have the guts for war, or any sense of self preservation. Sad.
Let me guess....I'm unpatriotic as well?
If we torture them how are we any different from them?
And, where does it end? Torture a suspected serial murderer to protect future victims?
Human rights are human rights. If you don't believe this, then you can't support any of the fundamentals laid forth in the constitution and bill of rights. How can we as a people say its good enough for us, but not for those who didn't happen to be born in America?
Hypocryte.
Post by: Werewolf on February 18, 2007, 05:11:13 AM
Quote from: jamisjockey
Let me guess....I'm unpatriotic as well?
If we torture them how are we any different from them?
If we torture them how are we any different from them?
Well there is that pesky notion of intent. Intent matters. The ends matter. If torture is the only method left available to discover the location of a nuclear weapon that will kill 1000's or even millions then it is justified. Of course in the absolutist world it is preferable to just let the million's die - after all in their minds, since the question, where does one draw the line is not answerable we just won't answer it and will let the die fall where it may. Kinda like the notion many anti-gunners have that a naked, raped and dead woman in an alley is preferable to her having shot and killed her assailant.
Quote from: jamisjockey
And, where does it end? Torture a suspected serial murderer to protect future victims?
See...Quote from: jamisjockey
Human rights are human rights. If you don't believe this, then you can't support any of the fundamentals laid forth in the constitution and bill of rights. How can we as a people say its good enough for us, but not for those who didn't happen to be born in America?
Hypocryte.
Hypocryte.
BS! We don't live in a digital universe. Black and white are not the only colors. Human beings are not computers - we have the ability to make judgements based on a whole slew of facts and variables. It all boils down to what needs to be done to effect the greater good. That said the problem as I see it is defining the greater good... But that's another discussion entirely.
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 18, 2007, 05:40:40 AM
And I insist, where does it end? Creeping incrementalisim isn't just one of APS's members user names....creeping incrementalisim is exactly how it works. First, its suspected terrorists....but we're okay with that because it might (not will) save lives. Next, its suspected murderers or child molesters....but its okay 'cause you're not a murderer or child molester, right? But next, next its anyone the police/government feels like, just in case you're a murderer or child molester. It's the old frog theory.....stick a frog in a pot of boiling water and he jumps out.....stick him in a pot of water and slowly turn up the heat until it boils, he doesn't jump out....
And just how reliable is inormation gleaned from torture? If you electrocute my nuts enough times, I'll admit to the overthrow of the Roman Empire!
There is a certain price for freedom. Our founding fathers understood it and wrote about it.
Liberals are against torture because they are all soft and gooey. They don't get it.
Post by: 280plus on February 18, 2007, 05:57:24 AM
Quote
And just how reliable is inormation gleaned from torture? If you electrocute my nuts enough times, I'll admit to the overthrow of the Roman Empire!
Hell, just TELL me you're going to electrocute my nuts and I'LL admit to said overthrow! 
I don't really care for little Kieffer to start with so I've only flipped through 24 occasionally. I hate guys who are where they are just because of daddy. There's so much damn drivel on the tube these days. Nobody knows how to write anymore. We need another Rod Serling or the "Psycho" guy, geez I can't remember his name.
"Good evening..."
Post by: 280plus on February 18, 2007, 06:02:05 AM
Post by: RevDisk on February 18, 2007, 08:22:37 AM
Secondly, do any of you REALLY think torturing a terrorist to get the info needed NOW to save millions of lives is a bad thing? If you do, then you are part of the problem here, not part of the solution. Most Americans don't have the guts for war, or any sense of self preservation. Sad.
Yes, but the ticking bomb terrorist is a very rare occurance. Politician dissants (which may someday include gun owners), unpopular ethnic groups, etc are much more common. Play the odds.
I recall a case of an American officer pulling out his sidearm, firing a round into the ground next to a gentleman recently captured, and send the next one was going in his head if the gentleman did not cough up the location of a mortar team. This is an example of heat of the moment stretching of the Geneva Conventions, a far more realistic example than "terrorist with a nuclear weapon."
Does the officer deserve to be tossed in the clink? Of course not, any reasonable person understands that under stressful situations (and getting shot at definitely counts) folks deserve some leeway. Some leeway does not mean they are immune to the UCMJ, the War Crimes Act (look it up), and the GC/Hague.
Systemic institutionalized torture is a different story. It is pure evil, on the moral side. It is a pure waste of time, on the practical side. I remember being told by indigenous folks that you torture for three reasons. Entertainment, revenge or to force a confession. Not sure how much I'd agree, but they had practical experience where I did not. So there you go. None of them expected torture to yield much or any useful information. There are far superior methods of gathering reliable intelligence.
Mannlicher, you have a GWOT medal? I'm just curious. There are things we do not do. DO NOT DO. We are Americans, not some tin pot third world rabble. Things can turn charlie foxtrot in a hurry. But there is a huge difference between that and institutionalized conduct.
Quote
Well there is that pesky notion of intent. Intent matters. The ends matter. If torture is the only method left available to discover the location of a nuclear weapon that will kill 1000's or even millions then it is justified. Of course in the absolutist world it is preferable to just let the million's die - after all in their minds, since the question, where does one draw the line is not answerable we just won't answer it and will let the die fall where it may. Kinda like the notion many anti-gunners have that a naked, raped and dead woman in an alley is preferable to her having shot and killed her assailant.
People love to toss that "terrorist with a nuclear weapon" example out there to legitimize illegal, unethical and immoral behavior. Here's a reality check. There are no terrorists with a functional nuclear warhead. None. Zip. Notta. Unlike in Hollywood, nuclear weapons cannot be assembled by slapping random electronics onto a 1kg chunk of uranium, and pressing a button on some ueber-ultra sophisticated triggering device to cause a explosion that blows the world into two halves, causes global warming and kicks a puppy. Nuclear weapons ain't the easiest to use, deploy and maintain even if you have the best technology on the planet. And few countries, including Russia, have nuclear technology remotely close to the US's level.
What are the limits of torture? Just mental/emotional abuse? Physical abuse? Sexual abuse? Rape? According to the Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba (aka, the Taguba Report), these have already occurred. I can think of no reason why a soldier found guilty in a clear cut charge of rape of a detainee should not be executed, in public.
A bit of a side note... All of the above to 'foreigners'? Is it ok to do such things to fellow Americans? What is the threshold? What warrents torture up to and including death, without conviction or even charges?
But that's me. I have those opinions because they were drilled into me from the beginning of my service, and I drilled it into my FNG's. This was the core of all of it: We are Americans. No further justification is required.
Post by: 280plus on February 18, 2007, 10:06:55 AM
Quote
There are no terrorists with a functional nuclear warhead. None. Zip. Notta.
Not yet anyways...Quote
and kicks a puppy.
Good thing I don't usually drink at the keyboard! Quote
I can think of no reason why a soldier found guilty in a clear cut charge of rape of a detainee should not be executed, in public.
I agree. That would send the right message in a lot of the right directions. Quote
But that's me. I have those opinions because they were drilled into me from the beginning of my service, and I drilled it into my FNG's. This was the core of all of it: We are Americans. No further justification is required.
That just bears repeating. Makes me proud.Post by: Mannlicher on February 18, 2007, 10:31:46 AM
Let me guess....I'm unpatriotic as well?
If we torture them how are we any different from them?
And, where does it end? Torture a suspected serial murderer to protect future victims?"
no not necessarily unpatriotic, but certainly pathetic.
Post by: Parker Dean on February 18, 2007, 10:40:00 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 18, 2007, 11:30:39 AM
Seriously, though, the "terrorist with ticking bomb" scenario does not justify torturing just anyone. But it does justify the torture of the terrorist with the ticking bomb. No, actually it demands it, if torturing the terrorist will do the trick. Terrorists have the right to humane treatment, and humane treatment of the terrorist in that scenario is to find the location of the bomb by any means necessary. Just as you can waive your right to life and liberty by committing crimes, you can also waive your right to not having splinters shoved up under your fingernails, by having info on a ticking bomb and not letting the good guys know about it. How can I explain letting thousands of people get cooked, when I could have saved them by breaking a terrorist's fingers?
What's the difference between them and us? "We" are the ones trying to save lives. "They" are the terrorists.
Never seen the show.
Post by: RevDisk on February 18, 2007, 04:06:15 PM
no not necessarily unpatriotic, but certainly pathetic.
Hey, Mannlicher. Do you have a GWOT medal?
I have a thing about armchair commandos who accuse other folks of cowardism, lack of patriotism, et al when they're risked nothing or have accomplished nothing worth praise. Not saying that folks who haven't done anything worthy can't have an opinion, but I like to know where things stand before I truly dispise someone. I'd like to know what kind of moral high ground you think you stand on.
Quote
Seriously, though, the "terrorist with ticking bomb" scenario does not justify torturing just anyone. But it does justify the torture of the terrorist with the ticking bomb. No, actually it demands it, if torturing the terrorist will do the trick. Terrorists have the right to humane treatment, and humane treatment of the terrorist in that scenario is to find the location of the bomb by any means necessary. Just as you can waive your right to life and liberty by committing crimes, you can also waive your right to not having splinters shoved up under your fingernails, by having info on a ticking bomb and not letting the good guys know about it. How can I explain letting thousands of people get cooked, when I could have saved them by breaking a terrorist's fingers?
Uh huh. And for every one "terrorist with a ticking bomb", you have hundreds tortured without just cause. Have a glance at the percentage of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc detainees who are released without a single charge.
Let's take Gitmo, allegedly the worst of the worst. As of November 2006, the DoD admitted 775 detainees (no numbers for ghost detainees, of course). Roughly 340 have been released, 110 have been labeled as ready for release. "More than 70" will face trial, according to the DoD. 250 are not scheduled for release or trial. Ergo, 60% are released without charges (ie, the majority), 30% apparently "don't exist" and aren't worth a trial, and 10% may someday face a trial.
Again, there is a huge difference between the "ticking bomb" scenerio and institutionialized torture. For some reason, folks don't like to see the difference. Can anyone explain to me why people focus on the astronomically unlikely scenerio and completely ignore the too routine and common scenerio?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 18, 2007, 07:35:51 PM
The rest of us were talking about torture. You're talking about GITMO. Assuming the worst is true about wrongful detention of innocent people at GITMO, that is a different issue. I'll leave aside the question of whether any torture is going on there.
Aside from GITMO, you've got a slippery slope argument. "Well, if you torture one person, you'll torture everybody else." Isn't that a logical fallacy?
Post by: 280plus on February 19, 2007, 01:30:18 AM
Quote
Can anyone explain to me why people focus on the astronomically unlikely scenerio and completely ignore the too routine and common scenerio?
"Newsworthiness"
Post by: roo_ster on February 19, 2007, 07:14:33 AM
----------
And just how reliable is inormation gleaned from torture?
There are some good arguments against using torture in interrogation*. The above is not one of them. Other countries have used such methods in interrogation and found them fruitful. We would, too, I'd wager.That is why it is so darkly tempting for some to use: it is effective. Making the "Torture is not effective," argument is akin to the "He'll take your gun away from you" argument.
* As opposed to the purposes of fun & exercising one's culture's peculiarities. Self-fulfillment (fun) and cultural diversity/expression being unassailable reasons for action. [That was sarcasm, for the sardonically impaired.]
-------------
The problem is that it is black and white!
I liken the absolute refusal to consider torture akin to the the absolute refusal to use force (pacifism). Both insist that others do the dirty work of civilizational survival while maintainig a pose of moral purity (the reality of such moral purity being unattainable on this plane of existence).
"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty."
---- "John Joseph Bonforte," in Double Star by Robert Heinlein
"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States..."
----George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
Post by: roo_ster on February 19, 2007, 07:49:22 AM
Yes, but the ticking bomb terrorist is a very rare occurance. Politician dissants (which may someday include gun owners), unpopular ethnic groups, etc are much more common.
I agree, on both counts. The former point requires some examination, however. Is there a number of potential casualties greater than 1, but less than the human population of Earth*, at which torturing the suspect is justifiable? Is letting a bandstand full of limey musicians go "boom" something one wouldn't torture for, but a city of one million currently holding the annual Special Olympics worth going at it with hammer & tongs?
The "No torture under any circumstances" position is undergirded more by faith and moral dogma than it is by practical concerns, though, and ought to be subject to such questions. (If a confirmation class student can ask the minister, "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" the "no torture under any circumstances" dogmatists get to tell us just how many humans get to die to preserve the dogmatists' moral standing.)
* End of human life on Earth
I recall a case of an American officer pulling out his sidearm, firing a round into the ground next to a gentleman recently captured, and send the next one was going in his head if the gentleman did not cough up the location of a mortar team. This is an example of heat of the moment stretching of the Geneva Conventions, a far more realistic example than "terrorist with a nuclear weapon."
Does the officer deserve to be tossed in the clink? Of course not, any reasonable person understands that under stressful situations (and getting shot at definitely counts) folks deserve some leeway. Some leeway does not mean they are immune to the UCMJ, the War Crimes Act (look it up), and the GC/Hague.
Plus One.Does the officer deserve to be tossed in the clink? Of course not, any reasonable person understands that under stressful situations (and getting shot at definitely counts) folks deserve some leeway. Some leeway does not mean they are immune to the UCMJ, the War Crimes Act (look it up), and the GC/Hague.
I am willing to grant those on the pointy end of the spear some leeway, too.
Systemic institutionalized torture is a different story. It is pure evil, on the moral side. It is a pure waste of time, on the practical side. I remember being told by indigenous folks that you torture for three reasons. Entertainment, revenge or to force a confession. Not sure how much I'd agree, but they had practical experience where I did not. So there you go. None of them expected torture to yield much or any useful information. There are far superior methods of gathering reliable intelligence.
I agree, mostly. Systemic institutionalized torture is evil, but what some folks are (re)defining as torture is not.Also, just because some folks are exercising their cultural diversity by torturing for reasons other than data gathering, does not mean that others can not glean useful information from it.
Quote
Well there is that pesky notion of intent. Intent matters. The ends matter. If torture is the only method left available to discover the location of a nuclear weapon that will kill 1000's or even millions then it is justified. Of course in the absolutist world it is preferable to just let the million's die - after all in their minds, since the question, where does one draw the line is not answerable we just won't answer it and will let the die fall where it may. Kinda like the notion many anti-gunners have that a naked, raped and dead woman in an alley is preferable to her having shot and killed her assailant.
People love to toss that "terrorist with a nuclear weapon" example out there to legitimize illegal, unethical and immoral behavior. Here's a reality check. There are no terrorists with a functional nuclear warhead. None. Zip. Notta. Unlike in Hollywood, nuclear weapons cannot be assembled by slapping random electronics onto a 1kg chunk of uranium, and pressing a button on some ueber-ultra sophisticated triggering device to cause a explosion that blows the world into two halves, causes global warming and kicks a puppy. Nuclear weapons ain't the easiest to use, deploy and maintain even if you have the best technology on the planet. And few countries, including Russia, have nuclear technology remotely close to the US's level.
What are the limits of torture? Just mental/emotional abuse? Physical abuse? Sexual abuse? Rape? According to the Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba (aka, the Taguba Report), these have already occurred. I can think of no reason why a soldier found guilty in a clear cut charge of rape of a detainee should not be executed, in public.
What is torture? Some folks have tried to define torture down to the point where I try to find out if an author is writing about torture or "torture."
I think that today we have the worst of any solution. Sen John McCain wants stern law against both torture and "torture," but he expects our soldiers or agents to break the law in the "ticking time bomb" scenario and tear into the suspect. That is the most morally cowardly position a legislator could possibly come up with. Congress needs to lay down just where we, as a nation, stand on the issue and not place that responsibility on to a 1LT, SPC, or agent in the field.
Would that be institutionalized? Yep. But, I think it best to give our men clear guidance. Making it illegal but expecting our boys the do it anyway is the wrong answer.
Post by: roo_ster on February 19, 2007, 08:03:16 AM
Quote
Seriously, though, the "terrorist with ticking bomb" scenario does not justify torturing just anyone. But it does justify the torture of the terrorist with the ticking bomb. No, actually it demands it, if torturing the terrorist will do the trick. Terrorists have the right to humane treatment, and humane treatment of the terrorist in that scenario is to find the location of the bomb by any means necessary. Just as you can waive your right to life and liberty by committing crimes, you can also waive your right to not having splinters shoved up under your fingernails, by having info on a ticking bomb and not letting the good guys know about it. How can I explain letting thousands of people get cooked, when I could have saved them by breaking a terrorist's fingers?
Uh huh. And for every one "terrorist with a ticking bomb", you have hundreds tortured without just cause. Have a glance at the percentage of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc detainees who are released without a single charge.
Let's take Gitmo, allegedly the worst of the worst. As of November 2006, the DoD admitted 775 detainees (no numbers for ghost detainees, of course). Roughly 340 have been released, 110 have been labeled as ready for release. "More than 70" will face trial, according to the DoD. 250 are not scheduled for release or trial. Ergo, 60% are released without charges (ie, the majority), 30% apparently "don't exist" and aren't worth a trial, and 10% may someday face a trial.
Again, there is a huge difference between the "ticking bomb" scenerio and institutionialized torture. For some reason, folks don't like to see the difference. Can anyone explain to me why people focus on the astronomically unlikely scenerio and completely ignore the too routine and common scenerio?
Folks focus on the "ticking time bomb" scenario for the same reason folks focus on other extremes in moral questions: Just how far are we going to push a principle or logic?
Does the pro-life guy expect the gal with the deformed baby in her womb to carry to term, or will he brand her a killer for aborting a baby whose life outside the womb will be measured in minutes? If a human being (embryo/fetus/whatever) is not a "person" worth saving if it would inconvenience the mother, does an animal with more person-like qualities than a newborn infant human have a greater moral claim than the infant? If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so big He can't lift it? Does the 2nd Amendment/RKBA mean that any citizen can buy & own crew-served weapons, artillery, tanks, fighter planes & nukes? How much wood can a woodchuck chuck...?
Leo nailed it:
"Finite, relative problems can be solved; infinite, absolute problems cannot be solved. In other words, human beings will never create a society which is free from contradictions."
----Leo Strauss
It is up to us to figure out where we will draw the lines and where the contradictions will bite us in our logical, principled a$$es.
Post by: Lonestar49 on February 19, 2007, 08:12:54 AM
The world is like a Forrest..
When it starts to burn, sometimes the only way (and the best in many cases) is to start a back-fire to put the fire out.
The Answer IS blowing in the wind..
LS
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 19, 2007, 10:56:31 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 19, 2007, 11:21:49 AM
Jamisjocky"
Let me guess....I'm unpatriotic as well?
If we torture them how are we any different from them?
And, where does it end? Torture a suspected serial murderer to protect future victims?"
no not necessarily unpatriotic, but certainly pathetic.
Let me guess....I'm unpatriotic as well?
If we torture them how are we any different from them?
And, where does it end? Torture a suspected serial murderer to protect future victims?"
no not necessarily unpatriotic, but certainly pathetic.
If refusing to agree with human and civil rights abuses makes me so, than who am I to argue?
I'd presume you believe the founding fathers are pathetic as well? They overthrew English rule for less than our current government is doing.....
Fistful:
If we are no different than them, then what the hell are we fighting for? Why don't we just start gassing people....oh, wait, we removed Saddam from power for that....
We are different than them. Its fundamental to the way we function as a civilization. Without it we're just another dictatorship waiting for the next coup or neighborly intervention. If we are to function in the world as a leader we must uphold the moral highground. Do we screw up? We're in one big screw up right now......but if we just sell out everthing that separates us from then.....just burn the constitution and wipe your ass with the DOI right now, 'cause what are we fighting for then?
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 19, 2007, 11:49:58 AM
...
The world is like a Forrest..
When it starts to burn, sometimes the only way (and the best in many cases) is to start a back-fire to put the fire out.
The Answer IS blowing in the wind..
LS
The world is like a Forrest..
When it starts to burn, sometimes the only way (and the best in many cases) is to start a back-fire to put the fire out.
The Answer IS blowing in the wind..
LS
Again, if we become them, then what are we defending anymore?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 19, 2007, 11:55:29 AM
Quote
What's the difference between them and us? "We" are the ones trying to save lives. "They" are the terrorists.
My point is that torturing the "terrorist with ticking bomb" does NOT make us like them. They are trying to kill innocents. They will torture anyone that doesn't agree with them (the takfir doctrine, I believe it's called). On our side, we are (or should be) unwilling to use torture except in extreme cases.
Quote
if we just sell out everthing that separates us from them
Using torture in the limited circumstances I describe is not selling out all of that by a long shot. And where do you get the idea that torture always violates human rights or is anti-American in all cases? Why should it be? I should reiterate that I've never seen 24, so I'm not trying to justify everything that Jack Boot Baur does. OK, ok, I saw part of an episode once at Dad's house. He has TV!
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 19, 2007, 12:15:17 PM
To define torture may be a sticky subject, yes. Indirectly depriving someone of sleep to make them soft for interrogation is likely not torture. Hooking thier nutsac up to electrodes and making them do homo-erotic pyramids while PFC Lookslikeaman watches is. The rules of interrogation should be defined clearly by an international body. We as a country can set our standards higher, but never lower.
Post by: Lonestar49 on February 19, 2007, 12:52:34 PM
Welcome, Lonestar. Could you expand on your comments? I'm not sure what you mean, though I can guess.
...Thanks for the welcome,
Sometimes one has to fight fire with fire to put out a destructive force, that has no care of innocents vs the guilty.
The world has changed, and to put a loaded gun into a child's hand with a mindset (their/one's thinking that has not evolved since the beginning of the rift between what religion is right) means that, like a child who says I didn't take it, or didn't lie, will never do that again, etc., will in most cases do it again, using a little more thought/thinking, as not to get caught.. again.
Which ever way it goes in the near future, and it will happen, unless those in the civilized world whom agree with the basic rights for all mankind, color, religious beliefs, etc., without "fear" of if they're right, and I'm wrong, or visa verse, and let their God decide (in the end of normal life and death) who is right and who is not, act soon IMO, then as I said, the world will be guilty of putting a loaded gun into a child's hand, with the mindset, that goes along with such a child..
And, as I agree with and said, the answer IS, and will be, blowing in the wind.
LS
Post by: cosine on February 19, 2007, 02:38:38 PM
Premise: Agent that use torture are JBTs.
Jack Bauer is an agent.
Jack Bauer uses torture.
Therefore: Jack Bauer is a JBT.
(I was feeling a little trollish when I started this thread *evil grin*
)Post by: Jamisjockey on February 19, 2007, 03:01:12 PM
Don't mistake my stance for weakness in dealing with those who would do us harm. When there is real evidence, or results, of an act of war or terrorisim, we should act with swift and violent decision. Diplomacy is for countries that treat us diplomaticaly.
However, the getting there and the actions thereof is what separates us from them.
We suppossedly are a just and fair society. Hooking electrodes up to Ali's nuts because he knows where the bomb is makes us the animals we seek to destroy.
Post by: Werewolf on February 19, 2007, 03:20:19 PM
Alas, my friend, this is where we differ. That hadji could have his finger on the trigger of a nuke, and yet if we torture him to save millions or to "protect" freedom, we are lost.
And if we don't... are we still not lost.Your way is a lose-lose proposition. Sometimes hard choices must be made. Sometimes practicality supersedes morality if the end result of practicing that morality would lead to bad things happening when those same bad things could be prevented. Sometimes it is you or him. Life is all about choices and consequences. Let us hope that when the time comes to choose that those making the choice have the courage to choose wisely.
Post by: Lonestar49 on February 19, 2007, 05:03:50 PM
Don't mistake my stance for weakness in dealing with those who would do us harm. When there is real evidence, or results, of an act of war or terrorism, we should act with swift and violent decision. Diplomacy is for countries that treat us diplomatically.
However, the getting there and the actions thereof is what separates us from them.
We supposedly are a just and fair society. Hooking electrodes up to Ali's nuts because he knows where the bomb is makes us the animals we seek to destroy.
For the sake of simplicity, if you had kidnapped my wife, or my dog, or cat (sorry, no kids here to use as an example) and your note told me I had 3 days to do what you asked (pay up) or they died, and I found you on day 2, I'd hook your nuts up and fire up the juice until you became a clean shaven virgin otw to his due heavenly reward of gold and 58 virgins.. to get the information, or kill ya, trying to save any one of them. Now, switch shoes with me, and what are you gonna do? And if you're the President over millions of mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, friends etc., and was told you had the bomber, and you had 1 day to find out where the bomb was, you'd do what?
LS
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 19, 2007, 05:30:02 PM
Quote
Sometimes practicality supersedes morality
What you're saying is that what previously seemed wrong in all cases suddenly becomes right in particular cases of life and death. So, you're not superseding morality at all, just adjusting your view of morality as you gain a clearer picture of how the world really works. You already put your neighbor's survival ahead of the terrorist's. Or at least I would hope you did. Torture was already morally acceptable in that extreme case, and it remains unacceptable for the other cases. Morality does not need to change, rather we sometimes need to change to gain a clearer view of what is moral. Quote
Hooking electrodes up to Ali's nuts because he knows where the bomb is makes us the animals we seek to destroy.
That is absurd. Is the torturer blowing up innocents? No, he's inflicting necessary pain on a guilty party. This is no different from shooting a man who's about to actually press a trigger. There is simply no difference. The fact that the Vietnamese Commies used torture or the Inquisition used torture doesn't make torture wrong any more than your AK is evil because it was used by the Viet Cong. Lonestar, you are getting more and more obscure with each post.
Post by: Guest on February 19, 2007, 05:31:08 PM
Of course Bauer is a JBT. IRL, he would be a criminal.
Post by: cosine on February 19, 2007, 05:34:47 PM
IRL, he would be a criminal.
Well, I assumed that would be a given, him being a JBT and all.
Post by: royh on February 19, 2007, 07:23:11 PM
Mr. JBT has the big bad guy strung up. They're in some major metropolitan area, and somewhere in it is a nuclear bomb set to go off in one hour (tick, tock...). Jack does whatever it takes, big bad guy doesn't have the stuff, and spills it. They head off to the place, which just so happens to be so inconveniently located that it takes 50 minutes to find. They just barely get to the spot in time but oops! It's not there! The show ends with the explosion wiping the entire cast and most of the city out.
Post by: Lonestar49 on February 19, 2007, 07:40:21 PM
Lonestar, you are getting more and more obscure with each post.
[/quote]
...
I feel more comfy this way, until I get to know the lot-of-ya better..
No worries, I think I'm done with this thread.
LS