PDA

View Full Version : A Question of Values



pooltchr
12-16-2005, 09:51 PM
Here is the situation:
Your child has been kidnapped. They are being held captive with enough food water and oxygen to sustain them for 2 days.
We have the admitted kidnapper in custody, but only 48 hours to find your child.
Do you want to restrict the methods we can use to interrogate the kidnapper so as to not violate his rights? Or do you want us to do whatever is necessary to save your child?

Anyone who has read any of my posts can probably know which answer I choose.

Steve---thinks it will be as interesting to see the answers to this post, but also who decides to answer.

Drop1
12-16-2005, 10:05 PM
This has to be from Dirty Harry. I have to go with "Make My Day" you get the drift.

Barbara
12-17-2005, 08:37 AM
Steve,

This is real easy. You prepare the kidnapper an excellent meal and serve it to him. Of course, it's laced with sodium pentathol.

Barbara

Deeman3
12-17-2005, 09:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Here is the situation:
Your child has been kidnapped. They are being held captive with enough food water and oxygen to sustain them for 2 days.
We have the admitted kidnapper in custody, but only 48 hours to find your child.
Do you want to restrict the methods we can use to interrogate the kidnapper so as to not violate his rights? Or do you want us to do whatever is necessary to save your child? <font color="blue"> You let the child die. Then you explain to the parents that to make the kidnapper feel embarrassed or uncomfortable would not be politically correct. You then call the ACLU to get legal protection and councilling for the kidnapper. He/she would not have done this if not abused as a child. </font color>

Anyone who has read any of my posts can probably know which answer I choose.

Steve---thinks it will be as interesting to see the answers to this post, but also who decides to answer. <hr /></blockquote>

dg-in-centralpa
12-17-2005, 09:47 AM
Do what is necessary. I would torture the answer from him. For every hour that goes by without the info needed, you cut off part of his body. No anesthesia, start with a toe and keep going. This should work rather quickly.

DG

mickey2
12-17-2005, 01:21 PM
Your question is simple and yet so wrong.
Of course parents would do anything for their child. If I had children I would probably do anything to save their life.

But where would you draw the line? Under which circumstances is torture acceptable? Obviously quit many on this board agree to torture suspects without a trial….
I frequently have to read files of people, from various conflict areas, who have been tortured and occasionally talk with them about the incidents. These stories are not the one you would like to read to your children as a good night story.

wolfdancer
12-17-2005, 01:35 PM
Obviously a baited question, and you're hoping for some bleeding heart, ACLU supporting, left wing, liberal to comment on a fair treament/torture issue about prisoners.
I can think of several reasons why you would pose such an asinine question, all of which would be to support the smug, self serving, feelings of moral superiority that you believe you possess.
Here's what I would do....I'd stick the barrel of one gun down his throat until it touched his tonsils....then stick the barrel of another gun up his other end, until my trigger finger turned brown...and threaten to fire.....after I got the correct info.....if I thought he was of a similiar ilk
....a card carrying, liberal hating, extreme right winger....I'd pull both triggers.....justifiable homicide
Geez, it felt good to write that!!!!

Gayle in MD
12-17-2005, 01:44 PM
AH HA HA HA HA....you are a riot! Love the way you call a spade a spade.

This is really not a realistic question anyway. If your child is kidnapped, you never have the opportunity to have access to the kidnapper anyway, if you did, he'd never get away with your child, because you'd die stopping him.


Gayle in Md....

pooltchr
12-17-2005, 04:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mickey2:</font><hr> Your question is simple and yet so wrong.
Of course parents would do anything for their child. If I had children I would probably do anything to save their life.

But where would you draw the line? <font color="red"> That's easy. Anytime you can save a life. </font color> Under which circumstances is torture acceptable? Obviously quit many on this board agree to torture suspects without a trial….
I frequently have to read files of people, from various conflict areas, who have been tortured and occasionally talk with them about the incidents. These stories are not the one you would like to read to your children as a good night story.

<hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
12-17-2005, 04:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Obviously a baited question, and you're hoping for some bleeding heart, ACLU supporting, left wing, liberal to comment on a fair treament/torture issue about prisoners. <font color="red"> Actually, the reason for the post was to point out that anyone can say they are against torture, but there are always circumstances where it is justified, and so far, no one has responded to the contrary. </font color>
I can think of several reasons why you would pose such an asinine question, all of which would be to support the smug, self serving, feelings of moral superiority that you believe you possess.
Here's what I would do....I'd stick the barrel of one gun down his throat until it touched his tonsils....then stick the barrel of another gun up his other end, until my trigger finger turned brown...and threaten to fire.....after I got the correct info.....if I thought he was of a similiar ilk
....a card carrying, liberal hating, extreme right winger....I'd pull both triggers.....justifiable homicide
Geez, it felt good to write that!!!! <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
12-17-2005, 04:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> AH HA HA HA HA....you are a riot! Love the way you call a spade a spade.

This is really not a realistic question anyway. If your child is kidnapped, you never have the opportunity to have access to the kidnapper anyway, if you did, he'd never get away with your child, because you'd die stopping him.


Gayle in Md.... <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red">
But Gayle....you didn't answer the question. The circumstances I described are realistic and could happen...What would you do if you were faced with the choice? </font color>

wolfdancer
12-17-2005, 06:43 PM
Steve, if you were just trying to pose a moral choice question,then I apologize.
My answer would be then, that pure emotion would take over, and supercede any ethical dilemna that you might face, if thinking clearly. Your thought would be centered only on saving a loved one. Even then, a strong Christian person, could not probable cross over a certain line.
The question requires deep thought....and we're only pool players......
I guess I'd first call the ACLU, and find out if removing both family jewels, would be a violation of his civil rights

Drop1
12-17-2005, 06:58 PM
Would the ACLU know?

pooltchr
12-17-2005, 08:29 PM
No problem. It's just that all of us have opinions on a large variety of subjects. This one has gotten a lot of attention lately. Contrary to what some might believe, I have given it considerable thought, and the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that in an effort to save a life (or lives), I think the end justifies the means.

The situation I outlined is indeed an extreme one. The point, however, is that there are times when it is the most logical course of action. I actually started thinking about it while watching the tv show 24 when the government had in custody someone with knowledge of a nuclear device in the US. They needed to learn the location before it could be detonated, and they used "rough interrogation tactics" to extract the information. Had that been an actual situation and not a tv show, I think I damn well would want the government to use every available means to prevent a major catastrophy. So I wonder if anyone can honestly say that there is never a time when torture is not justified. McCain's bill might end up tying the hands of the people who may be faced with that very decision. As a general rule, I don't think torturing another human is a good thing by any means. But extreme situations sometimes call for extreme measures.
I hope I never have to find out.
Steve

Nostroke
12-17-2005, 09:59 PM
They probably have the wrong guy in custody anyway.

Gayle in MD
12-18-2005, 02:27 AM
HA HA HA...good post, but sadly, probably, most likely. They arrested him on faulty intelligence, LOL.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-18-2005, 02:54 AM
OK, I'll bite, ...
It's a given, we'd all die for our kids, and spouses, and even sometimes for strangers, when our empathy is activated, but in your scenario, you only offer one form of attacking the problem.

Now you will probably accuse me of being dishonest, but my first choice under the circumstances you lay out, would be to reason with the man, or woman. I think there is a bit of good in every person, and I would make every effort to find that part of the kidnapper, involve him in my problem, my love for my child, the miracle of life and his own best interest in doing the right thing.

I know this post of yours is really about our country, and my opinion is that it is proven that information which you get from torture, is not usually good information. Also, on a spiritual level, we are man or woman, we are republican or democrat, we are black or white, religious or not religous, but we are ALL human. Your ability to experience empathy for your fellow human beings in this world, is the hallmark of your own personal inner growth, if you will, and your own personal emotional well being is greatly a function of the ability to feel empathy for other human beings, the hallmark of a healthy spiritual and intellectual approach to life. Therefore, I don't believe in torture, at any time, for any reason. It is simply wrong, IMO. In fact, I believe that even terrorists can be reached, with the right approach, and turned around, and that had we taken the time and effort to communicate with these militant Muslims, long ago, and set out to diffuse their anger through understanding, and communication, things might be a great deal different than they are, and many more people would be alive today.

Until the religious community understands that it is essential to bridge all religious philosophy with an acceptance, rather than using language, and descriptions of God and Heaven which divide and judge, oppress and punish, Frighten and manipulate, these religious wars will continue. Organized religion is wrought with the language of hate and punishment, along with a good bit of myth, and wishful thinking, but mostly, it turns people of other faiths against one another, which is why many times organized religion is at the root of wars.

As for politics, as an American, I am very hurt that this discussion is even taking place in my country on the political horizon. Call my naive' but IMO, to even consider behaving in inhumane ways, is beneath America, and the higher principles of humanity. If God is love, then the search must be an inner search, for the good of all mankind, and war, is hell, for all involved, when so much more can be accomplished through peace, love, compassion, communication and understanding. Communication is the key, regardless if you are dealing with a terrorist, or a kidnapper, the decision to utilize the tools of ones heart and mind, is much more powerful than torture and bombs.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-18-2005, 06:49 AM
Gayle,
You do make some valid points in your post, and in all but the most extreme cases, I agree with your philosophy. The problem with applying it to terrorists is that they don't think like that. They have no problem killing innocent people for their cause. They have shown that over and over that their one goal is to destroy our country by whatever means. They will take captives, blindfold them, put them on television and cut their head off. If success in their mind means flying passenger jets into public buildings and dying in the process, they are willing to do it. Reasoning with someone like that isn't going to get you anywhere. If they think they are doing what is right, you aren't going to change their mind through negotiation, compassion, or any of the normal methods that would be preferable. Sometimes, you have to meet them on their own level.

I don't think it should be a routine method of interrogation, but sometimes, it needs to be an option.
Steve

SnakebyteXX
12-18-2005, 07:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Here is the situation:
Your child has been kidnapped. They are being held captive with enough food water and oxygen to sustain them for 2 days.

<font color="blue">Other than single parents seeking custody, people don't normally kidnap children without some kind of expected gain involved (ransom). In this case because the child has been secreted in what could become a life threatening situation we can assume that a ransom has been demanded in exchange for information as to their whereabouts (bargaining). Because the child is still alive we can assume that the kidnapper(s) had no intention of murdering him/her. If they had the child would be dead already. </font color>

We have the admitted kidnapper in custody, but only 48 hours to find your child.
<font color="blue">How did we catch this bad guy? Through investigation - following up on leads and acting promptly. It's safe to assume that we know about the '48 hours to live' aspect from the same process. In all likelihood the kidnapper has provided this information as part of his/her effort to get the ransom. IE: I have your child. He/she is safe for the time being. However due to the physical constraints of their current location if you do not pay he/she will suffocate within 48 hours.

This is a serious and compelling threat. It's designed to get you to pay the ransom in exchange for information that will lead to the safe return of your child. It's important to note here that the threat is real BUT that the kidnapper will ONLY allow the child to die if you fail to pay. As odd as it may sound the kidnapper is offering an honest bargain. In other words they fully intend to see that the child is returned in exchange for being paid. This is crucial to understanding the situation. Considering that they could simply murder the child outright and pretend that they had not. From where you sit you wouldn't know if they had or they hadn't until the child is recovered alive or dead. But you would still be compelled to act (pay the ransom) based on your fear for the child's safety and desire for their return.

So... what do we know about this kidnapper?

Number one: he's not a murderer.

Number two: He bargains in good faith. He fully intend(ed) to complete his side of the bargain and return the child alive once the ransom had been paid.

Number three: He's not very good at this whole kidnapping thing because he's gotten caught.

Number four: Getting caught means that he can forget about being paid any ransom and now must be concerned instead about tempering/mediating the consequences for his actions. Kidnapping is a capital offense. This guy is facing the prospect of death by execution if at this point, anything were to happen to the child (death from suffocation if not found in time).

</font color>

Do you want to restrict the methods we can use to interrogate the kidnapper so as to not violate his rights? Or do you want us to do whatever is necessary to save your child?
<font color="blue">You might want to restrict the methods you can use to interrogate the kidnapper not out of a fear of violating his rights so much as a fear of violating your own humanity. How much of your personal ethics, integrity and morality are you willing to sacrifice for the return of your child? The short answer is undoubtedly ALL of them. (IE: How far would I be willing to go? Answer: All the way.)

The long answer is not so simple. Let's review: A kidnapper has taken your child - but not murdered them. You have captured this person and foiled their plans to be paid a ransom and make a safe get away. Best case scenario, at a minimum they now face going to jail for a LONG, LONG time. At the maximum should the child they've taken die - they face the prospect of execution. The bargain has changed. Now the kidnapper must negotiate to save their own life or perhaps reduce the time they will spend in prison by co-operating. As odd as this may sound they've already demonstrated their own humanity by not killing the kid in the first place. Why would they now allow the child to die (thus becoming a murderer) if the trade-off meant dieing themselves?

Why on earth would you jump immediately to the prospect of torturing them to find out where your child is? Are you simply looking for an excuse to justify torturing them? If torture is not necessary to gain the return of the child why would you want to take that step? Do you not see that there is a real danger here of becoming the evil which we are fighting?

If we resort to torturing/murdering those who would torture/murder us how are we any different from them? If we allow torture to become the norm as a means to an end without exhausting all other means of negotiation what does it say about us as human beings?

If this was (as I suspect) really a question about torturing captured suspected terrorists then what do you do with the 'suspected' part? Well... we thought he was guilty so we tortured him to find out what we wanted to know. Later on we found out that he was innocent and knew nothing.

In your 'Question of Values' scenario - what if the captured suspect isn't guilty? What then? Once torture has been approved as a means to an end - do you torture them anyway? I think that contrary to what we might like to believe the answer would be - yes. And if the answer is yes have we not lost something hugely important to us (our values?) in an attempt to gain something that is not?

Snake</font color>

Anyone who has read any of my posts can probably know which answer I choose.

Steve---thinks it will be as interesting to see the answers to this post, but also who decides to answer. <hr /></blockquote>

Deeman3
12-18-2005, 08:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Here is the situation:
Your child has been kidnapped. They are being held captive with enough food water and oxygen to sustain them for 2 days.

<font color="blue">Other than single parents seeking custody, people don't normally kidnap children without some kind of expected gain involved (ransom). In this case because the child has been secreted in what could become a life threatening situation we can assume that a ransom has been demanded in exchange for information as to their whereabouts (bargaining). Because the child is still alive we can assume that the kidnapper(s) had no intention of murdering him/her. If they had the child would be dead already. </font color> <font color="purple"> I agree with some here that the senerio is a little unlikely. However, if it is a real situation, in the last twenty years or so, the "Proof of Life" requirement has changed the kidnapping situation a little and may cause some people who would later kill a hostage to keep them alive until the money is delivered. </font color>

We have the admitted kidnapper in custody, but only 48 hours to find your child.
<font color="blue">How did we catch this bad guy? Through investigation - following up on leads and acting promptly. It's safe to assume that we know about the '48 hours to live' aspect from the same process. In all likelihood the kidnapper has provided this information as part of his/her effort to get the ransom. IE: I have your child. He/she is safe for the time being. However due to the physical constraints of their current location if you do not pay he/she will suffocate within 48 hours.

This is a serious and compelling threat. It's designed to get you to pay the ransom in exchange for information that will lead to the safe return of your child. It's important to note here that the threat is real BUT that the kidnapper will ONLY allow the child to die if you fail to pay. As odd as it may sound the kidnapper is offering an honest bargain. <font color="purple"> I struggle to see anyone who would take a child as making an honest bargain. </font color> In other words they fully intend to see that the child is returned in exchange for being paid. <font color="purple"> This is unfounded as many kidnap victims are killed. </font color> This is crucial to understanding the situation. Considering that they could simply murder the child outright and pretend that they had not. From where you sit you wouldn't know if they had or they hadn't until the child is recovered alive or dead. But you would still be compelled to act (pay the ransom) based on your fear for the child's safety and desire for their return.

So... what do we know about this kidnapper?

Number one: he's not a murderer. <font color="purple"> Naw, we don't know this. What we know is he is willing to risk his life, a childs life (who had made no bargain) for the possibility of monitary gain. </font color>

Number two: He bargains in good faith. He fully intend(ed) to complete his side of the bargain and return the child alive once the ransom had been paid. <font color="purple"> Again, this is an assumption you can not make. We have no way to predict his intent nor to forsee any circumstances that would make him deal honestly.</font color>

Number three: He's not very good at this whole kidnapping thing because he's gotten caught. <font color="purple"> Very good point.</font color>

Number four: Getting caught means that he can forget about being paid any ransom and now must be concerned instead about tempering/mediating the consequences for his actions. Kidnapping is a capital offense. This guy is facing the prospect of death by execution if at this point, anything were to happen to the child (death from suffocation if not found in time). <font color="purple"> This is true and a strong bargaining chip. However, if he was, as well as a kidnapper, a fundamentalist, zealot or sees himself as having a higher purpose, he may not care and even embrace being executed. </font color>

</font color>

Do you want to restrict the methods we can use to interrogate the kidnapper so as to not violate his rights? Or do you want us to do whatever is necessary to save your child? <font color="purple"> Most of us can't answer this honestly. I'll try. If it were my child, I'd get an answer from him. Sorry, but I love my children beyond all else. If he was someone else's child I'd have the luxury of looking at it from a more constitutional and removed basis. </font color>
<font color="blue">You might want to restrict the methods you can use to interrogate the kidnapper not out of a fear of violating his rights so much as a fear of violating your own humanity. <font color="purple"> This is really the bigger question. </font color> How much of your personal ethics, integrity and morality are you willing to sacrifice for the return of your child? The short answer is undoubtedly ALL of them. (IE: How far would I be willing to go? Answer: All the way.) <font color="purple"> Correct </font color>

The long answer is not so simple. Let's review: A kidnapper has taken your child - but not murdered them. You have captured this person and foiled their plans to be paid a ransom and make a safe get away. Best case scenario, at a minimum they now face going to jail for a LONG, LONG time. At the maximum should the child they've taken die - they face the prospect of execution. The bargain has changed. Now the kidnapper must negotiate to save their own life or perhaps reduce the time they will spend in prison by co-operating. As odd as this may sound they've already demonstrated their own humanity by not killing the kid in the first place. <font color="purple"> Again, this itself may have been done for economic purposes. But, you have put up a wonderful argument. </font color> Why would they now allow the child to die (thus becoming a murderer) if the trade-off meant dieing themselves? <font color="purple"> It's a different world now, some people don't place value on their own life. </font color>

Why on earth would you jump immediately to the prospect of torturing them to find out where your child is? Are you simply looking for an excuse to justify torturing them? If torture is not necessary to gain the return of the child why would you want to take that step? Do you not see that there is a real danger here of becoming the evil which we are fighting? <font color="purple">Yes, this is a real danger. If my child has been killed, what do i do to them now? That's where I hope I could let the police deal with this but I can't honestly say i would. This is a difficult questions unless you have great control over your emotions and actions. </font color>

If we resort to torturing/murdering those who would torture/murder us how are we any different from them? If we allow torture to become the norm as a means to an end without exhausting all other means of negotiation what does it say about us as human beings? <font color="purple"> We should never allow torture to become normal. I think that's what this thread is about, extraordinary circumstances.</font color>

If this was (as I suspect) really a question about torturing captured suspected terrorists then what do you do with the 'suspected' part? Well... we thought he was guilty so we tortured him to find out what we wanted to know. Later on we found out that he was innocent and knew nothing. <font color="purple"> This is clearly wrong. </font color>

In your 'Question of Values' scenario - what if the captured suspect isn't guilty? What then? Once torture has been approved as a means to an end - do you torture them anyway? I think that contrary to what we might like to believe the answer would be - yes. And if the answer is yes have we not lost something hugely important to us (our values?) in an attempt to gain something that is not? <font color="purple"> I agree. However, i agree that even above, with the child senerio, we will havelost something if we save the child using torture. However, some may be willig to lose that part of themsleves for their children.

Deeman </font color>

Snake</font color>

Anyone who has read any of my posts can probably know which answer I choose.

Steve---thinks it will be as interesting to see the answers to this post, but also who decides to answer. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
12-18-2005, 11:20 AM
BRAVO ! A very well written and logical post. Kudos!

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
12-18-2005, 11:29 AM
Steve, do you really think I don't know how these guys operate. In my sentence, I should have said that had we made an effort to have some communication with these religious fanatics long ago, perhaps they would never have reached this outrageous level of violence and destruction. Torture is wrong, always, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
12-18-2005, 11:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you want to restrict the methods we can use to interrogate the kidnapper so as to not violate his rights? Or do you want us to do whatever is necessary to save your child? Most of us can't answer this honestly. I'll try. If it were my child, I'd get an answer from him. Sorry, but I love my children beyond all else. If he was someone else's child I'd have the luxury of looking at it from a more constitutional and removed basis. <hr /></blockquote>

Dee, that's a very interesting answer....and if I had my book around "Psychology For Dummies"....
I find it interesting though that in the first scenario, you would have no moral compunction, over extracting the truth, by any means.
And while it is still a good Vs evil thing, a chance to save a life by going against one's moral convictions....only your relationship towards the other victim has changed, yet it is enough to have you stop and think about any subsequent actions.
I just find it intersting, like a Zen Koan....and have no real comment about it.

Gayle in MD
12-18-2005, 12:01 PM
You may think that it is justified at times, not everyone thinks that way. Ever heard of a guy named Jesus, they tortured him to death. They had their very good reasons, too, in fact, I do believe there were some politics involved, and he was perceived as someone who posed a serious threat, at the time. Just wondered if you think he deserved it in the eyes of the offenders?

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-18-2005, 07:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> BRAVO ! A very well written and logical post. Kudos!

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>
Agreed. However, I never said this was a logical situation. Maybe the guy is just a couple sandwiches short of a picnic. Maybe he gets his jollys by holding kids hostage...those aren't the point. The point was to determine if anyone can honestly say there is NEVER a time when they would consider torture to be justified.
I can't.

pooltchr
12-18-2005, 07:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You may think that it is justified at times, not everyone thinks that way. Ever heard of a guy named Jesus, they tortured him to death. They had their very good reasons, too, in fact, I do believe there were some politics involved, and he was perceived as someone who posed a serious threat, at the time. Just wondered if you think he deserved it in the eyes of the offenders?

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

I suspect they did it more for public humiliation as opposed to any effort to save the lives of others...certainly not a valid reason. Similar to the televised beheadings that our enemy's have done in past years. As I stated before, the only valid reason I have been able to come up with in my mind, is to save lives.
I'm not a barbaric person, in fact, just the opposite. But sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Personally, I don't know if I could do it myself. But if I were in the situation I described initially, I would probably be thankful for someone who could.
Steve

Deeman3
12-19-2005, 07:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Do you want to restrict the methods we can use to interrogate the kidnapper so as to not violate his rights? Or do you want us to do whatever is necessary to save your child? Most of us can't answer this honestly. I'll try. If it were my child, I'd get an answer from him. Sorry, but I love my children beyond all else. If he was someone else's child I'd have the luxury of looking at it from a more constitutional and removed basis. <hr /></blockquote>

Dee, that's a very interesting answer....and if I had my book around "Psychology For Dummies"....
I find it interesting though that in the first scenario, you would have no moral compunction, over extracting the truth, by any means. <font color="blue">Wolf, No. The fact is I would have moral compunction against doing this but am saying, if it were my child, despite my moral misgivings, I beleive I would act selfishly and get the information. This in no way means it would not bother me, probably a lot. I might suffer the rest of my life for it but would prefer that, for me personally, than letting my child die. Anyone who says they would do this with job or no conscience, either does not understand violence or has little soul. </font color>
And while it is still a good Vs evil thing, a chance to save a life by going against one's moral convictions....only your relationship towards the other victim has changed, yet it is enough to have you stop and think about any subsequent actions. <font color="blue"> I think your relationship with everyone and yourself would change should you have to exercise an option to torture. I just think I could not go the discussion route when my child was involved. </font color>
I just find it intersting, like a Zen Koan....and have no real comment about it.

<font color="blue"> It is mearly an interesting discussion as most are only guessing their behavior in a hard to predict situation. Most will never know the difficulty of dealing with taking a life, even under circumstances that most would call "justified'. Most of the crap we do does not have much impact on society. Taking a life is the one that does. It impacts the future, like not a lot of other decisions do. While I support the death penalty, for instance in some cases, I don't have to like it.(and would worry if I did) </font color>

Deeman

<hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
12-19-2005, 07:43 AM
I could forsee a scenario where the authorities had proof the guy kidnapped the child, but in custody, the guy still refused to admit it. There's no time for a trial; the child is hidden with only 48 hours of air left and time is running out. The authorities present the proof to the kidnapper, yet, he still refuses to admit he did it. The child is dying. What do you do?

Fran

supergreenman
12-19-2005, 07:44 AM
"God told Abraham: Kill me a son. Abraham said where do you want this killing done. God said out on highway 61"

(Bob Dylan)

Deeman3
12-19-2005, 07:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I could forsee a scenario where the authorities had proof the guy kidnapped the child, but in custody, the guy still refused to admit it. There's no time for a trial; the child is hidden with only 48 hours of air left and time is running out. The authorities present the proof to the kidnapper, yet, he still refuses to admit he did it. The child is dying. What do you do?

Fran <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">

Call Dirty Harry Callihan. Come on now. Did any of you really cheer for the bad guy in that movie. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>

Deeman

SnakebyteXX
12-22-2005, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Contrary to what some might believe, I have given it considerable thought, and the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that in an effort to save a life (or lives), I think the end justifies the means.

The situation I outlined is indeed an extreme one. The point, however, is that there are times when it is the most logical course of action. I actually started thinking about it while watching the tv show 24 when the government had in custody someone with knowledge of a nuclear device in the US. They needed to learn the location before it could be detonated, and they used "rough interrogation tactics" to extract the information. Had that been an actual situation and not a tv show, I think I damn well would want the government to use every available means to prevent a major catastrophy. So I wonder if anyone can honestly say that there is never a time when torture is not justified. McCain's bill might end up tying the hands of the people who may be faced with that very decision. As a general rule, I don't think torturing another human is a good thing by any means. But extreme situations sometimes call for extreme measures.
I hope I never have to find out.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I never said this was a logical situation. Maybe the guy is just a couple sandwiches short of a picnic. Maybe he gets his jollys by holding kids hostage...those aren't the point. The point was to determine if anyone can honestly say there is NEVER a time when they would consider torture to be justified.
I can't. <hr /></blockquote>

During the war in Viet Nam they used to take captured VC up in helicopters two or three at a time. When the chopper reached a couple hundred feet off the ground they'd grab one of the prisoners and toss him out the door. Amazing how that kind of thing used to loosen the tongues of the remaining passengers.

One of my best high school buddies spent his time over there with the Marine Seventh. He jokingly told me that they were referred to as "The Seven Second Seventh" because seven seconds was their life expectancy. During his tour of duty his unit experienced a three hundred percent casualty rate - so I guess the seven second thing had some basis in reality.

Anyway, he told me that during his first week in country he watched while some Marines in a tank chased a farmer out of his field and ran him over - just for fun. He said that he was horrified at what he saw but that after he had been over there for a couple of months he would have happily driven the tank himself.

If you've read or heard much about the history of that war you may have heard about the My Lai Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre)? What many Americans never knew is that the kind of things that happened at My Lai were not as uncommon as they'd like to believe.

When I read your original post it got me to thinking about what can happen when torture and murder become officially accepted as a means to an end. Your kidnapped child analogy is really about the power of fear and what kind of inhumane actions it can lead us to take in an effort to regain safety and security as we perceive it.

You are correct, if a person is frightened enough for their safety (or the safety of their child) they will go to any lengths (or in the case of goverment actions - permit the goverment to go to any lengths) to protect themselves and their child. This does not mean that going to extremes is the LOGICAL thing to do. It just means that we as human beings are WILLING to go to extremes to protect ourselves. The problem here is that when extremism is allowed to become institutionalized it can very quickly become the norm. Once it becomes the norm - logic and rational thinking flies out the window.

The key here is that actual safety and security and the perception of safety and security are NOT the same thing. Since 9/11 our country has been turned on its ear by a government that promises a return to safety and security in exchange for giving up many of our most cherished freedoms. The most fearful among us have been quick to let go of those freedoms in the misguided belief that they've made a fair trade. There remain a few of us who do not believe that the government with its restrictive measures is actually keeping us safe (our borders and ports remain seives). I for one believe that it is of the utmost importance to keep safeguards in place to restrain governement action and will never willingly tolerate allowing them to torture ANYONE.

Snake

supergreenman
12-22-2005, 01:56 PM
Very well said.

wolfdancer
12-22-2005, 03:21 PM
For an example of what can begin to occur......if anyone is familiar with the web page (http://stanford-prison-experiment.foosquare.com/)
even role playing, changed the attitudes of the participants

Deeman3
12-22-2005, 03:40 PM
Snake,
There's an old saying that there is nothing meaner than a teenager with a gun overseas. I do beleive our soldiers now are much better and professional then they were in Vietnam. However, you will still have abuses and behavious that they would not consider over here.

Gayle in MD
12-22-2005, 08:21 PM
Great post...

Gayle in Md.