Waterboarding Ruled War Crime - Page 3

sputterman · #21 (**permalink**) 11-03-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

Here is the moral issue. There is the utilitarian view that one unethical action can prevent a greater number of more unethical actions. However, we do not know that any specific act of waterboarding will prevent any specific evil from occurring. We have only the fallible judgment of the interrogators. If a person were omniscient and knew with 100% certainty that an act of waterboarding would prevent a greater evil, then they would be justified in waterboarding someone.
However, none of us are omniscient, so allowing an evil based on 100% fallible human judgment is essentially stating, "Do it when you feel like it", since no objective criteria can be given for speculating on what knowledge another person does or does not possess. That is why we have absolute moral rules- why our laws don't read, "Don't do such and such... unless you think you have a good reason". Well, they don't for most of us, but this administration has managed to put itself above the law. This is morally wrong for the reason I mentioned above, and it is a dangerous precedent for a Presidential administration to set. Accordingly, there can be no exceptions, no ambiguities and no rationalizations against this rule: There may be no torture. Torture, moreover, includes all "alternative" interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

Thanks for saying that better than I could.

Force-of-the-Truth · #22 (**permalink**) 11-03-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sputterman";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

Here is the moral issue. There is the utilitarian view that one unethical action can prevent a greater number of more unethical actions. However, we do not know that any specific act of waterboarding will prevent any specific evil from occurring. We have only the fallible judgment of the interrogators. If a person were omniscient and knew with 100% certainty that an act of waterboarding would prevent a greater evil, then they would be justified in waterboarding someone.
However, none of us are omniscient, so allowing an evil based on 100% fallible human judgment is essentially stating, "Do it when you feel like it", since no objective criteria can be given for speculating on what knowledge another person does or does not possess. That is why we have absolute moral rules- why our laws don't read, "Don't do such and such... unless you think you have a good reason". Well, they don't for most of us, but this administration has managed to put itself above the law. This is morally wrong for the reason I mentioned above, and it is a dangerous precedent for a Presidential administration to set. Accordingly, there can be no exceptions, no ambiguities and no rationalizations against this rule: There may be no torture. Torture, moreover, includes all "alternative" interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

Thanks for saying that better than I could.

You're very welcome and thank you. Nellie, I believe, is trolling, by the way.

Righty · #23 (**permalink**) 11-03-2006, 09:19 PM

waterboard Democrats

Nellie · #24 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exigent";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nellie";p=&quot

Kennedy said 'waterboarding' was inhuman, even to save thousands of innocent lives.

It is inhuman. 50 years from now history wont reflect the reliable or unreliable information gathered through torture. 50 years from now we'll look back with shame as we learn about a country that surrendered its integrty and dignity, took a 300 step backward and tortured people for information. The 'he did it first' or 'he started it' argument didnt work with my mom and it wont work for us.

I dont want to lose all of that just for the possibility of gathering some information; information that will most likely NOT be accurate.

History will already show this time period as a bleek and an all time low point for America, we dont have to make it first because 'he started it!'

50 years from now if the Left Wing Liberal Democrats should come into power the Muslims will probably be running the country then you will see some real torture, they laugh at "waterboarding".

Why do liberals try to ignore and never speak of some of things Saddam and his demented sons have done to other "human beings", is it because of their "HATRED" for GW Bush?

Nellie · #25 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by sputterman";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

Here is the moral issue. There is the utilitarian view that one unethical action can prevent a greater number of more unethical actions. However, we do not know that any specific act of waterboarding will prevent any specific evil from occurring. We have only the fallible judgment of the interrogators. If a person were omniscient and knew with 100% certainty that an act of waterboarding would prevent a greater evil, then they would be justified in waterboarding someone.
However, none of us are omniscient, so allowing an evil based on 100% fallible human judgment is essentially stating, "Do it when you feel like it", since no objective criteria can be given for speculating on what knowledge another person does or does not possess. That is why we have absolute moral rules- why our laws don't read, "Don't do such and such... unless you think you have a good reason". Well, they don't for most of us, but this administration has managed to put itself above the law. This is morally wrong for the reason I mentioned above, and it is a dangerous precedent for a Presidential administration to set. Accordingly, there can be no exceptions, no ambiguities and no rationalizations against this rule: There may be no torture. Torture, moreover, includes all "alternative" interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

Thanks for saying that better than I could.

You're very welcome and thank you. Nellie, I believe, is trolling, by the way.

You think I'm trolling because I don't think like you

Johnderondon · #26 (**permalink**) 11-04-2006, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sputterman";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

Here is the moral issue. There is the utilitarian view that one unethical action can prevent a greater number of more unethical actions. However, we do not know that any specific act of waterboarding will prevent any specific evil from occurring. We have only the fallible judgment of the interrogators. If a person were omniscient and knew with 100% certainty that an act of waterboarding would prevent a greater evil, then they would be justified in waterboarding someone.
However, none of us are omniscient, so allowing an evil based on 100% fallible human judgment is essentially stating, "Do it when you feel like it", since no objective criteria can be given for speculating on what knowledge another person does or does not possess. That is why we have absolute moral rules- why our laws don't read, "Don't do such and such... unless you think you have a good reason". Well, they don't for most of us, but this administration has managed to put itself above the law. This is morally wrong for the reason I mentioned above, and it is a dangerous precedent for a Presidential administration to set. Accordingly, there can be no exceptions, no ambiguities and no rationalizations against this rule: There may be no torture. Torture, moreover, includes all "alternative" interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

Thanks for saying that better than I could.

Well put, Force

quiller · #27 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nellie";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by sputterman";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

Here is the moral issue. There is the utilitarian view that one unethical action can prevent a greater number of more unethical actions. However, we do not know that any specific act of waterboarding will prevent any specific evil from occurring. We have only the fallible judgment of the interrogators. If a person were omniscient and knew with 100% certainty that an act of waterboarding would prevent a greater evil, then they would be justified in waterboarding someone.
However, none of us are omniscient, so allowing an evil based on 100% fallible human judgment is essentially stating, "Do it when you feel like it", since no objective criteria can be given for speculating on what knowledge another person does or does not possess. That is why we have absolute moral rules- why our laws don't read, "Don't do such and such... unless you think you have a good reason". Well, they don't for most of us, but this administration has managed to put itself above the law. This is morally wrong for the reason I mentioned above, and it is a dangerous precedent for a Presidential administration to set. Accordingly, there can be no exceptions, no ambiguities and no rationalizations against this rule: There may be no torture. Torture, moreover, includes all "alternative" interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

Thanks for saying that better than I could.

You're very welcome and thank you. Nellie, I believe, is trolling, by the way.

You think I'm trolling because I don't think like you

The poster Force tells everyone else here how to vote and what to think---but by his own admission did not register to vote. Disregard him. He is immaterial to discussing what Democracy *IS* and not what nonparticipants like himself think it *SHOULD* be.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode