If you support use of torture, you support al Qa’eda’s “greatest recruiting tool”

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

You make a good case against the policy. My point about individual cases was not what you think.
One: As has already been mentioned, if the only goal is to obtain a signed confession, it works. Most people will sign anything. Ask McCain. Notice I am not saying the signature is worth anything, but if somebody wants it bad enough, they will most likely get it.
Two: Somebody has something and won't tell you where it is. You can go see if they tell the truth. And keep coming back if they lie. Depends what it is, but a lot would give it up.
These are just a couple of examples of where the average person would expect torture to be effective. You can pick at them if you want, but my point is that examples can be found. This leads to the thought that under sufficient provocation, to 'save the world,' it may be an option. Sure, ineffective as a policy, but 'just this once.'
The best defense against this is to base your argument taking this thinking into account. Just saying 'it never works,' goes against common sense.
Saying it's morally wrong, otoh, leaves little room for argument.

There’s seems to be inter-changing in your verbiage among policy, absolutes (scientific or otherwise), and philosophical arguments … seems to be more acknowledged in the 2nd post today. Philosophical arguments can inform policy ... someone else can argue to what extent they 'should' ....

Policy is not based on absolutes. Policy is not science either … creating policy is more like proverbial sausage-making.

For example, no nuclear weapons state has ever gone to war with another nuclear weapons state. Under the right conditions, possession of nuclear weapons has been very stabilizing. It’s sort of the international version of the ‘everyone is a lot more polite when everyone is armed’ notion.

Should the US pursue a *policy* of intentional nuclear proliferation because thus far possession of nuclear weapons has been stabilizing? Based on the line of reasoning in the argument you site above (& by some others, e.g., [frequentfaller]), the US should encourage Iran and all other states to pursue acquisition of nuclear weapons. After all it might be stabilizing. No one has ever proven it's not stabilizing. Every single case is not known, etc. I can provide a lot more evidence showing that nuclear weapons states don’t go to war with each other than can be shown to support torture.

Why doesn’t the US actively or passively support Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons? By the logic presented in those who make the argument for torture, given the “right conditions” that should ensure that Iran never goes to war with anyone, right?

But most folks are opposed to Iran having nuclear weapons. Why? There’s no evidence to suggest it would be ineffective in keeping Iran from attacking Israel, as two nuclear weapons states have never gone to war with each other.

Because policy is not made in a vacuum and because international affairs rarely function in a vacuum, no one with a clue (imo) is advocating a policy of the US arming Iran with nuclear weapons or even tacitly supporting their acquisition of offensive nuclear weapons capability. That’s the equivalent to the argument pursued suggested above w/r/t polcy on use of torture. Given Iranian rhetoric, ties to/support of terrorists groups, animosity to the US and to Israel, and US strategic interests, one has to use extraordinarily selective logic (one might go as far as calling it warped or non-logic) to advocate a policy of arming Iran with nuclear weapons.

Similarly there are a host of security policy-based reasons to oppose torture

[just in case anyone’s forgotten : (1) it’s ineffective; (2) it increases risk to US soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, deployed US civilians and Americans abroad; (3) it’s counter to US strategic interests; (4) it’s not necessary for avert the ‘ticking-time bomb’ or ‘save-the-world’ scenario, it is likely to be counter-productive in those situations*; and (5) it may be al Qa’eda’s “greatest recruiting tool,”],

some still suggest that it should be part of US policy.

VR/Marg

[*unless you are Jack Bauer on "24"]

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The best defense against this is to base your argument taking this thinking into account. Just saying 'it never works,' goes against common sense.

Or.. you can just get writers cramp.. signing anything.. and saying any and everything...

[kallend 2,146]

Torturers are easy to find.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7791278.stm

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Torturers are easy to find.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7791278.stm

That is easy to see in this society... just by the amount of people who are willing to use the death penalty for "justice"