The effectiveness of waterboarding.

[m42]

In May of this year, Christopher Hitchens, a writer for Vanity Fair and serious proponent of the war in Iraq agreed to participate in a waterboarding demonstration.

As a result of the demonstration Hitchens:


no longer rejects the notion that waterboarding constitutes torture.

seems to have absolutely no doubt as to the effectiveness of waterboarding as a method of extraction.

The demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuhJUmR4B6Q

[John Scott]

"I sympathize a great deal more".

That should have been there to begin with.

I am not going to say that waterboarding should be illegal. It should, like prison or any other form of government coercion, be heavily regulated.

And the fact that they use it against terrorists... I think it's somewhat odd. The first place I'd use it would be against kidnappers to get them to reveal the location of their victims.

[eternaltraveler]

I am not going to say that waterboarding should be illegal. It should, like prison or any other form of government coercion, be heavily regulated.

I don't trust the government to use torture however it is regulated. I would however be more likely to trust individuals who would use it as a last resort when they know it could get them in trouble.

Torture should only be used when the situation is so dire that the "torturer" will do it despite knowing that they will likely be held accountable for assault. If I thought someone was going to nuke a major city I would personaly use whatever means I could to stop it, even if that included some prison time for myself. Those in our armed forces should sure be more patriotic than I am.

If such actions were deemed justified the president or governor (depending on jurisdiction) could pardon them after the fact, and a jury would be free to nullify the law in a particular instance (as they always are).

Alternatively I would be open to making it legal only under express presidental order.

[m42]

I don't trust the government to use torture however it is regulated. I would however be more likely to trust individuals who would use it as a last resort when they know it could get them in trouble.


The government is comprised of individuals.

These individuals just happen to have access to information that the rest of us do not. They are bound by the citizens of this nation to a social contract. By this contract, they have agreed to protect each citizens right to life, liberty, and property.

Conversely, when agreeing to the social contract each citizen consents to relinquishing specific rights in return for the social benefits provided by the legitimate state authority. One of these benefits is protection against invading nations or terrorist organizations.

I strongly support the governments decision to employ methods of torture whenever absolutely necessary. The government is merely fulfilling it's contractual obligation to support its citizens.

If you're worried about the government overstepping its bounds, an independent third party could just as easily regulate government actions.

Even as a last resort, how can a citizen protect themselves against a well constructed attempt at genocide?

[eternaltraveler]

The government is comprised of individuals.

The government as it exists today is an abstraction and functions in such a way that specific individuals within it are not (or very rarely) held accountable for their actions.

These individuals just happen to have access to information that the rest of us do not. They are bound by the citizens of this nation to a social contract. By this contract, they have agreed to protect each citizens right to life, liberty, and property.

The social contract you are describing would be a mystery to a large percentage of those who make up “the government”. A large proportion within being only vaguely familiar with the constitution itself, and the works of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau even less. So how on earth could I trust such an abstract conglomeration of individuals with deciding when it is ok to torture people, we may as well use a random number generator. I am not satisfied with the system of checks and balances that presently exists.

I strongly support the governments decision to employ methods of torture whenever absolutely necessary.

When who decides they are absolutely necessary? Anyone who happens to be in the government? As you said the government is comprised of individuals, and as I said I would only support the president himself having such authority (who happens to be both and individual, and a rather important part of the government). Others would have to do it knowing they could be prosecuted. And no, I do not trust whoever the president happens to be just because they are the president, however he can only sign so many “torture warrants” in one day.

Conversely, when agreeing to the social contract each citizen consents to relinquishing specific rights in return for the social benefits provided by the legitimate state authority. One of these benefits is protection against invading nations or terrorist organizations.

By the same logic you agree to have the government provide you with the security blanket of welfare. Just like the police there is a good chance you could live without such measures by taking appropriate steps yourself (battlements perhaps ;) ).

I of course do think the government should exist, but should remain as minimal as possible. It is not there. Perhaps I would be more inclined to trust more individuals in the government with the authority to torture people if there were a few orders of magnitude less individuals in it.

Even as a last resort, how can a citizen protect themselves against a well constructed attempt at genocide?

As I said. Were I in a position where I learned of real threat where many people may be killed, I would feel bound to whatever action is necessary to stop it. Hence my present occupation. If such an action resulted in my incarceration; sobeit. If those in authority do not feel something of the same then I absolutely would not trust them with such power. As I also said I would support the president alone having the authority for slightly different reasoning.

[m42]

The government as it exists today is an abstraction and functions in such a way that specific individuals within it are not (or very rarely) held accountable for their actions.

That's a rather general statement. Please elaborate.

I feel that the issues with the government as it exists today are a byproduct of the ignorance of this nations voting populace.

I also believe that individuals in the government are very much held accountable for their actions. This does not mean we as citizens do not suffer the impacts of their poor decisions or abuse of authority. This only means that the individuals in the government are involved in the government solely by the grace its citizens.


The social contract you are describing would be a mystery to a large percentage of those who make up “the government”. A large proportion within being only vaguely familiar with the constitution itself, and the works of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau even less. So how on earth could I trust such an abstract conglomeration of individuals with deciding when it is ok to torture people, we may as well use a random number generator. I am not satisfied with the system of checks and balances that presently exists.

That is your prerogative. I think the majority of citizens share similar beliefs regarding the fundamentals of right and wrong. Whether or not they choose to respect those beliefs is entirely up to them. There are however, consequences to every action.


When who decides they are absolutely necessary? Anyone who happens to be in the government?

I'd imagine it's a subject matter expert. Individuals who are capable of weighing the risk vs the reward. I believe these individuals clearly understand the consequences of their actions.


By the same logic you agree to have the government provide you with the security blanket of welfare. Just like the police there is a good chance you could live without such measures by taking appropriate steps yourself (battlements perhaps ;) ).

I see you still argue for the sake of arguing. ;) You should know better.


I of course do think the government should exist, but should remain as minimal as possible.

Uh huh. ;)

[eternaltraveler]

That's a rather general statement. Please elaborate.

I feel that the issues with the government as it exists today are a byproduct of the ignorance of this nations voting populace. (emphasis added)

I agree with you that of course it is a byproduct of the ignorance of the nation’s voting populace. By in large that is why I don’t trust the government. It is built on a foundation of ignorance. My present voting strategy is to promote deadlock in order to minimize the effects of this ignorance (for all the good my vote does).

I also believe that individuals in the government are very much held accountable for their actions. This does not mean we as citizens do not suffer the impacts of their poor decisions or abuse of authority. This only means that the individuals in the government are involved in the government solely by the grace its citizens.

At the bottom I would agree with you. Corruption in lower offices and ranks is remarkably absent. Soldiers do indeed face court martial when they do unacceptable things. Toward the top however, they are held accountable as far as the ignorant populace is capable of holding them accountable. That is, not very. Most in elected office are dishonest people. Our system selects for dishonest people. They need to please everyone. Honest people can hardly ever do that.

I'd imagine it's a subject matter expert. Individuals who are capable of weighing the risk vs the reward. I believe these individuals clearly understand the consequences of their actions.

selected by the ignorant populace….

I see you still argue for the sake of arguing. You should know better.

And here I thought I was making a point :)

But yes, I am a devil’s advocate.

[m42]

selected by the ignorant populace….

They seem to be doing alright. No recent acts of genocide. :)


And here I thought I was making a point :)

But yes, I am a devil’s advocate.

OK. Let's address your point.

By the same logic you agree to have the government provide you with the security blanket of welfare. Just like the police there is a good chance you could live without such measures by taking appropriate steps yourself (battlements perhaps ).

That is a remarkably erroneous assumption.

My statement clearly backs a government that adheres to the terms of the social contract. I have specifically identified these terms as the protection of a citizen's right to life, liberty, and property.

Please show me where I endorsed the provision of monetary support to the deadbeats of this country.

Your point is invalid.

[eternaltraveler]

That is a remarkably erroneous assumption.

My statement clearly backs a government that adheres to the terms of the social contract. I have specifically identified these terms solely as the protection of a citizen's right to life, liberty, and property.

Please show me where I endorsed the provision of monetary support to the deadbeats of this country.

Your point is invalid.

Of course you did not endorse such a thing. Claiming such was not my intention.

However the social contract (written by Rousseau) is defined as submission to the general will of the people in exchange for guarantees that individuals will not be subordinated to the wills of others, because collectively, everyone is the author of the law implies that you are bound to follow whatever the will of the people is. Perhaps you are using a different definition than I am using.

Yes, I am being a bit of a devil’s advocate here. But what is it fundamentally that separates being protected from lack of preparations against violence (by living in a cave, and being armed to the teeth), vs being protected from lack of preparation against having enough to eat.

The point was not to argue for argument’s sake, but to flesh out why something like libertarianism or classical liberalism are superior to anarchy, and why is the social contract valid when it is constructed largely by an ignorant populace.

[John Scott]

They seem to be doing alright. No recent acts of genocide.

That sure lowers the bar. Incarcerating 1 is 37 citizens is okay as long as they aren't committing genocide?

[m42]

However the social contract (written by Rousseau) is defined as submission to the general will of the people in exchange for guarantees that individuals will not be subordinated to the wills of others, because collectively, everyone is the author of the law implies that you are bound to follow whatever the will of the people is. Perhaps you are using a different definition than I am using.

Same idea, different wording. I used Locke's wording which was used almost verbatim in the Declaration of Independence.


The point was not to argue for argument’s sake, but to flesh out why something like libertarianism or classical liberalism are superior to anarchy.

Uhh...I'm the first to admit my ability to speak and understand English is severely lacking, but you might want to review your responses to this thread.

[eternaltraveler]

By the same logic you agree to have the government provide you with the security blanket of welfare. Just like the police there is a good chance you could live without such measures by taking appropriate steps yourself (battlements perhaps ).

to clarify this, I was speaking of the logic of the social contract itself. Which is constructed by ignorant people. Who by and large collectively say that we damn well should support social programs.

[m42]

That sure lowers the bar. Incarcerating 1 is 37 citizens is okay as long as they aren't committing genocide?

It didn't say incarceration. It said "1 out of every 37 American adults is in the prison system." That could mean paroled or processed for a serious traffic violation as well.

I said the people chosen to oversee the use of waterboarding seem to be doing alright.

[eternaltraveler]

Uhh...I'm the first to admit my ability to speak and understand English is severely lacking, but you might want to review your responses to this thread.

I appologize for any lack of clarity. I should probably wait till tomorrow to review myself (after I've rested), you are very likely correct that my ideas could be rather scatter-brained. =)

[m42]

I appologize for any lack of clarity. I should probably wait till tomorrow to review myself (after I've rested), you are very likely correct that my ideas could be scatter-brained. =)

Don't apologize. I respect your arguments, even if I don't agree with them. :)

[eternaltraveler]

Don't apologize. I respect your arguments, even if I don't agree with them.

very well.

Withdrawn ;)

[John Scott]

Same idea, different wording. I used Locke's wording which was used almost verbatim in the Declaration of Independence.


I think "social contract" really needs to be used with qualification. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ended up being the an inspiration for Marx, while Locke's was an inspiration for rugged individualism.

Perhaps referring to them as "collectivist social contract" - ones that require individuals to give up all sovereignty to the collective - and "individualistic social contract" - for ones that limit the authority and jurisdiction of the government to defense of individual liberty, would be productive? :)

[m42]

I think "social contract" really needs to be used with qualification. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ended up being the an inspiration for Marx, while Locke's was an inspiration for rugged individualism.

Perhaps referring to them as "collectivist social contract" - ones that require individuals to give up all sovereignty to the collective - and "individualistic social contract" - for ones that limit the authority and jurisdiction of the government to defense of individual liberty, would be productive? :)

Thought about that.

Agreed.

[John Scott]

It didn't say incarceration. It said "1 out of every 37 American adults is in the prison system." That could mean paroled or processed for a serious traffic violation as well.

I said the people chosen to oversee the use of waterboarding seem to be doing alright.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html

It says "More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world."

I wonder if that includes the local city and county jails. I really doubt it. It's crazy the number of people in prison.

[m42]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html

It says "More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world."

I wonder if that includes the local city and county jails. I really doubt it. It's crazy the number of people in prison.

Different url, different wording. I won't dispute that.

You win. I'm secretly a flaming collectivist. I've been sent by the ignorant masses to infiltrate your forum and destroy you from the inside out.

Happy?

[John Scott]

Different url, different wording. I won't dispute that.

You win. I'm secretly a flaming collectivist. I've been sent by the ignorant masses to infiltrate your forum and destroy you from the inside out.

Happy?

LOL.

I wasn't meaning to debate the inconsequential figures.

[m42]

LOL.

I wasn't meaning to debate the inconsequential figures.

I know. ;)

[kerrin]

Perhaps referring to them as "collectivist social contract" - ones that require individuals to give up all sovereignty to the collective - and "individualistic social contract" - for ones that limit the authority and jurisdiction of the government to defense of individual liberty, would be productive?
Fu*kin' brilliant!