PDA

View Full Version : Libertarianism and Torture




krazy kaju
04-23-2009, 04:50 PM
Before I even get into this post, I would like to point out that I agree that waterboarding is torture.

Now, that said, I do not see what the big deal is about torturing not only known criminals, but terrorists responsible for the death of thousands. To quote Murray Rothbard himself:


We may qualify this discussion in one important sense: police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty. For, in that case, the rule of no force against non-criminals would still apply. Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information (not to wring a confession, since obviously a coerced confession could never be considered valid). If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated, for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return; his rights had already been forfeited by more than that extent. But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten and tortured an innocent man, and that they in turn must be put into the dock for criminal assault. In short, in all cases, police must be treated in precisely the same way as anyone else; in a libertarian world, every man has equal liberty, equal rights under the libertarian law. There can be no special immunities, special licenses to commit crime. That means that police, in a libertarian society, must take their chances like anyone else; if they commit an act of invasion against someone, that someone had better turn out to deserve it, otherwise they are the criminals.

As a corollary, police can never be allowed to commit an invasion that is worse than, or that is more than proportionate to, the crime under investigation. Thus, the police can never be allowed to beat and torture someone charged with petty theft, since the beating is far more proportionate a violation of a man’s rights than the theft, even if the man is indeed the thief. (1) (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twelve.asp)

The true crime is that many of these terrorists have not been convicted of their crimes in a true court of law yet, despite being held in captivity for years, in may cases. That said, any torture of a serial murderer like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is completely justified, considering that he already forfeited his rights against torture when he committed terrorist attacks such as the 1993 WTC bombings, the 2001 WTC attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002.

nate895
04-23-2009, 05:33 PM
We are at war with them. They are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. To torture enemy POWs is dishonorable and a war crime.

Objectivist
04-23-2009, 05:38 PM
We are at war with them. They are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. To torture enemy POWs is dishonorable and a war crime.

Show us where the Taliban or Al Queda signed on to the Geneva Accords. They have no rights unless they have a military uniform on.

And waterboarding is not torture, no more than the psychological damage done sitting in a cell for a long period of time and not knowing if you'll ever get out.

Lucky for them that we don't play by their rules.

nate895
04-23-2009, 05:41 PM
Show us where the Taliban or Al Queda signed on to the Geneva Accords. They have no rights unless they have a military uniform on.

And waterboarding is not torture, no more than the psychological damage done sitting in a cell for a long period of time and not knowing if you'll ever get out.

Lucky for them that we don't play by their rules.

It doesn't matter if they signed up for Geneva. It applies to all wars, and Geneva is simply a codification of prior rules. The Law of Nations (as it used to be called) has existed for quite some time. As for waterboarding not being torture, that is simply a semantics argument.

heavenlyboy34
04-23-2009, 05:43 PM
I disagree with Murray on this. I find this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard145.html) essay about justice much better. Regardless, I still prefer private justice systems. Just my 2 cents. I'll write more later if I have time. :cool:

Objectivist
04-23-2009, 05:43 PM
It doesn't matter if they signed up for Geneva. It applies to all wars, and Geneva is simply a codification of prior rules. The Law of Nations (as it used to be called) has existed for quite some time. As for waterboarding not being torture, that is simply a semantics argument.

What country does Al Queda represent?

nate895
04-23-2009, 05:47 PM
What country does Al Queda represent?

It isn't about countries. If there are two significant groups shooting at each other, killing a significant number of people (significant conflicts generally are considered to have around 1,000 dead per annum), they are obliged to follow the laws of war.

RiJiD-W1LL
04-23-2009, 05:53 PM
I think it comes down to not wanting our brothers overseas tortured if they become POW'
it is a matter of respect.

EX: the pirates hijacking ships they really have no other life so this is what they do without harming anyone I think one death in over a year we just killed 3 of their men now they are hell bent on retaliation. tit for tat. I don't think what they do is right but they did not harm people and must have fed them for months at times.

Objectivist
04-23-2009, 05:57 PM
YouTube - Terrorist Musical Beheading - MACK The Knife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7IlrifVeYA)

nickcoons
04-23-2009, 06:01 PM
I disagree with Murray on this. I find this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard145.html) essay about justice much better. Regardless, I still prefer private justice systems. Just my 2 cents. I'll write more later if I have time. :cool:

The article you referenced and the quote above from Murray Rothbard are essentially in agreement. How can you agree with one and not the other?

Objectivist
04-23-2009, 06:04 PM
It isn't about countries. If there are two significant groups shooting at each other, killing a significant number of people (significant conflicts generally are considered to have around 1,000 dead per annum), they are obliged to follow the laws of war.

we have, waterboarding is not torture.

heavenlyboy34
04-23-2009, 06:06 PM
The article you referenced and the quote above from Murray Rothbard are essentially in agreement. How can you agree with one and not the other?

I grabbed the wrong link. :( I'll dig up the right one some other time. :cool:

nate895
04-23-2009, 06:06 PM
YouTube - Terrorist Musical Beheading - MACK The Knife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7IlrifVeYA)

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k93/chrishorgen/Funnay/facepalm.jpg

Don't you understand that if they torture and we don't, we can write in our history books how wonderful and honorable we are, while talking about our enemies like they are barbarians?

nate895
04-23-2009, 06:07 PM
we have, waterboarding is not torture.

Well, I hate to break it out again, but:

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k93/chrishorgen/Funnay/facepalm.jpg

Edit: It is only appropriate to demand the name, rank, and serial number (if they have one) of the enemy soldier.

Indy4Chng
04-23-2009, 06:12 PM
EX: the pirates hijacking ships they really have no other life so this is what they do without harming anyone I think one death in over a year we just killed 3 of their men now they are hell bent on retaliation. tit for tat. I don't think what they do is right but they did not harm people and must have fed them for months at times.

That is a horrible analogy... so if a robber comes into your house and holds your wife and children hostage until you hand over your loot you have no right to shoot him cause he hasn't harmed anyone. He is stealing your property and you have a right to defend it which by all means includes shooting him.

If someone hijacks a boat they should be shot if they don't immediately return it.

That is crazy pacifist talk and to me is not about liberty. Liberty includes the right to protect your own property, not another's life if they infringe on your liberty just cause they haven't killed anyone.

Objectivist
04-23-2009, 06:21 PM
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k93/chrishorgen/Funnay/facepalm.jpg

Don't you understand that if they torture and we don't, we can write in our history books how wonderful and honorable we are, while talking about our enemies like they are barbarians?

War is not the Playground, the rules are different and if I am faced with treating a dirtbag nice-nice or beating the shit out of him to save my Brothers, dirtbag gets the treatment.
Call it tough love!

BKV
04-23-2009, 06:22 PM
We are at war with them. They are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. To torture enemy POWs is dishonorable and a war crime.

I don't recognize any international laws above my nation.

BKV
04-23-2009, 06:24 PM
Show us where the Taliban or Al Queda signed on to the Geneva Accords. They have no rights unless they have a military uniform on.

And waterboarding is not torture, no more than the psychological damage done sitting in a cell for a long period of time and not knowing if you'll ever get out.

Lucky for them that we don't play by their rules.

I agree, nobody living in US agreed to the Convention Accords either (or US Constitution for the matter). Nobody in US has citizen's rights unless he has a US federal ID.

Objectivist
04-23-2009, 06:24 PM
POW's? Hows that? Who are we at War with? Please name the United Nations country that you refer to?

nate895
04-23-2009, 06:27 PM
Objectivist, you have no understanding of tradition, do you? In war, you treat your enemy like a gentleman. You fight them and try to kill them, but when they give up (are made POWs), you can't just go and start torturing them. That is dishonorable and against civilization, we have had these rules in war since we stopped putting people on stretching racks. You just don't torture, maim, or slaughter your enemy. That is what barbarians do.

Objectivist
04-23-2009, 06:29 PM
Objectivist, you have no understanding of tradition, do you? In war, you treat your enemy like a gentleman. You fight them and try to kill them, but when they give up (are made POWs), you can't just go and start torturing them. That is dishonorable and against civilization, we have had these rules in war since we stopped putting people on stretching racks. You just don't torture, maim, or slaughter your enemy. That is what barbarians do.

Are we at War with Afghanistan or Iraq? No!

Wterboarding is not torture, a curling iron up their ass is torture.

By the by, I was a soldier.

RiJiD-W1LL
04-23-2009, 06:29 PM
That is a horrible analogy... so if a robber comes into your house and holds your wife and children hostage until you hand over your loot you have no right to shoot him cause he hasn't harmed anyone. He is stealing your property and you have a right to defend it which by all means includes shooting him.

If someone hijacks a boat they should be shot if they don't immediately return it.

That is crazy pacifist talk and to me is not about liberty. Liberty includes the right to protect your own property, not another's life if they infringe on your liberty just cause they haven't killed anyone.



your analogy is Ignorant we are talking about torture of an imprisoned PERSON.
we are NOT talking about B&E or self defense, that would never happen to me because I protect my family!

a prisoner poses no threat to anyone he is in a fokking cage!


POW'- we are waging war on terra and taking prisoners of terra.

Zolah
04-23-2009, 06:31 PM
That is a horrible analogy... so if a robber comes into your house and holds your wife and children hostage until you hand over your loot you have no right to shoot him cause he hasn't harmed anyone. He is stealing your property and you have a right to defend it which by all means includes shooting him.

If someone hijacks a boat they should be shot if they don't immediately return it.

That is crazy pacifist talk and to me is not about liberty. Liberty includes the right to protect your own property, not another's life if they infringe on your liberty just cause they haven't killed anyone.

It's not really an analogy, the facts are hostages are treated relatively well by Somali pirates, at least until Team America showed up, now any American hostage is liable to be killed.

America is treating terrorist suspects in a similar fashion as the Somali pirates are treating hostages btw, kidnapping, detainment, feeding them for months/years, only the Somali pirates have the common courtesy of not torturing people.

As for the topic, torture is ineffective and immoral to me, I would never use, and would not expect any NATO country to do so either (as an example of a grouping of countries). Waterboarding is torture, and if I were waterboarded, I'm sure I'd confess to whatever the hell you want me to confess to - London 05? Sure I was there, Bali 02, yeah my associate did my bidding for me, the King David Hotel bombing in 1946, well I hadn't been born yet but yes I'll confess to that too, why not!

RiJiD-W1LL
04-23-2009, 06:31 PM
Wterboarding is not torture, a curling iron up their ass is torture.

By the by, I was a soldier.

who are you to define torture let me imprison you with no evidence for a few years and water board you everyday then send you back to your cage with no clothes while listening to a bunch of hicks make fun of you and play shitty music then you can say its not torture..!

Objectivist
04-23-2009, 06:34 PM
POW Qulifications:
To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, "terrorists", saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, do not necessarily wear an issued uniform nor carry arms openly, yet captured combatants of this type have sometimes been granted POW status. The criteria are generally applicable to international armed conflicts. In civil wars, insurgents are often treated as traitors or criminals by government forces, and are sometimes executed. However, in the American Civil War, both sides treated captured troops as POWs, presumably out of reciprocity, though the Union regarded Confederacy personnel as separatist rebels. However, guerrillas and other irregular combatants generally cannot expect to simultaneously benefit from both civilian and military status.

nate895
04-23-2009, 06:35 PM
Are we at War with Afghanistan or Iraq? No!

Wterboarding is not torture, a curling iron up their ass is torture.

By the by, I was a soldier.

IT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER WHO WE ARE AT WAR WITH!!!!

We can be at war with the United Brotherhood of Torture Advocates, and you just don't do anything to a POW but ask him his name, rank, and serial number, and ask him questions which he is not obliged to answer about military operations. If he is a war criminal himself, you can charge them and treat them according to your law.

paulitics
04-23-2009, 06:38 PM
Here is another reason why torture is stupid. This is in addition to 1) It doesn't work 2)It's immoral 3)It makes our troops less safe.

When you lose the moral high ground in war, it destroys the moral of the troops. Think about it. When you are defending something, your animal instinct kicks in because you know you are fighting for good. You will fight till the death. As soon as the lines become blurred, the it is over for the aggressor. It is also horrible for recruitment when most people in their gut know it is wrong. Sure there are propaganda shows like 24, but most intelligent people know the real world is not Jack Baeur ticking time bomb.

It also destroys the moral of the country. No free country can last long when they act like babrarians. Not for long. As we accept more and more authoritarianism, the politicians get more and more bold in taking away our econmoic liberties.

Keep reading and studying history. Don't listen to Rush and Hannity who make waterboarding sound fun. They are liars. It is torture. No question about it.

Icymudpuppy
04-23-2009, 06:39 PM
In the example provided in the first place, I would say that once an individual has been given due process and found guilty in a court of law, the judge can proscribe corporal punishment (aka torture) as his sentence. Until he has been convicted by a jury of his peers as being a criminal mastermind, or a war criminal, he is presumed innocent, and a prisoner of war is not a criminal, just a soldier fighting for the other side. If we torture their soldiers, then we invite any entity, not just our current enemy, to treat us likewise in reciprocation or fear. As a soldier, I don't like fools in my government inviting other entities to torture me if I get captured.

Remember Jesus' Golden Rule.

Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. We wouldn't want other people to torture our soldiers, so we shouldn't torture theirs. Until we have convicted a man in a court of law as being an Al Quaeda Leader, we cannot order sentencing by our own constitution. Once in our custody, he is a US person, and subject to the 5th Amendment.

Indy4Chng
04-23-2009, 06:40 PM
It's not really an analogy, the facts are hostages are treated relatively well by Somali pirates, at least until Team America showed up, now any American hostage is liable to be killed.

America is treating terrorist suspects in a similar fashion as the Somali pirates are treating hostages btw, kidnapping, detainment, feeding them for months/years, only the Somali pirates have the common courtesy of not torturing people.

As for the topic, torture is ineffective and immoral to me, I would never use, and would not expect any NATO country to do so either (as an example of a grouping of countries). Waterboarding is torture, and if I were waterboarded, I'm sure I'd confess to whatever the hell you want me to confess to - London 05? Sure I was there, Bali 02, yeah my associate did my bidding for me, the King David Hotel bombing in 1946, well I hadn't been born yet but yes I'll confess to that too, why not!

That doesn't matter if someone holds you hostage someone else has the right to blow your brains out if you refuse to return them on demand (whether their hostage demands being met). Now if you capture that person that is a different story. You shouldn't be able to kill them in your custody without a trial. And hopefully the law would not allow murder as all they did was hold hostages and would not warrant the death penalty.

nate895
04-23-2009, 06:40 PM
POW Qulifications:
To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, "terrorists", saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, do not necessarily wear an issued uniform nor carry arms openly, yet captured combatants of this type have sometimes been granted POW status. The criteria are generally applicable to international armed conflicts. In civil wars, insurgents are often treated as traitors or criminals by government forces, and are sometimes executed. However, in the American Civil War, both sides treated captured troops as POWs, presumably out of reciprocity, though the Union regarded Confederacy personnel as separatist rebels. However, guerrillas and other irregular combatants generally cannot expect to simultaneously benefit from both civilian and military status.

Guerrillas are what we are talking about for most of these people. They are part of a rank structure and bear arms openly, they are entitled according to tradition to the be treated according to the laws of war. In civil wars, the competing governments are obligated to treat rank-and-file members of the opposition army as POWs once the war goes beyond the stage of "rebellion," which is generally defined as the rebel government has de facto control over territory, which the Taliban and Al Qaeda effectively have control over parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In fact, I thought I heard that Taliban forces were outside of Islamabad.

klamath
04-23-2009, 07:44 PM
It's not really an analogy, the facts are hostages are treated relatively well by Somali pirates, at least until Team America showed up, now any American hostage is liable to be killed.

America is treating terrorist suspects in a similar fashion as the Somali pirates are treating hostages btw, kidnapping, detainment, feeding them for months/years, only the Somali pirates have the common courtesy of not torturing people.

As for the topic, torture is ineffective and immoral to me, I would never use, and would not expect any NATO country to do so either (as an example of a grouping of countries). Waterboarding is torture, and if I were waterboarded, I'm sure I'd confess to whatever the hell you want me to confess to - London 05? Sure I was there, Bali 02, yeah my associate did my bidding for me, the King David Hotel bombing in 1946, well I hadn't been born yet but yes I'll confess to that too, why not!

Ask the french dad that was murdered before the Americans killed anyone. I am harder on american torture than about anyone on these forums however as an American soldier that has been there it was not a option to get captured. If you were captured you would be tortured to death without any question. No exceptions. We did not invent torture.

klamath
04-23-2009, 07:49 PM
In the example provided in the first place, I would say that once an individual has been given due process and found guilty in a court of law, the judge can proscribe corporal punishment (aka torture) as his sentence. Until he has been convicted by a jury of his peers as being a criminal mastermind, or a war criminal, he is presumed innocent, and a prisoner of war is not a criminal, just a soldier fighting for the other side. If we torture their soldiers, then we invite any entity, not just our current enemy, to treat us likewise in reciprocation or fear. As a soldier, I don't like fools in my government inviting other entities to torture me if I get captured.

Remember Jesus' Golden Rule.

Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. We wouldn't want other people to torture our soldiers, so we shouldn't torture theirs. Until we have convicted a man in a court of law as being an Al Quaeda Leader, we cannot order sentencing by our own constitution. Once in our custody, he is a US person, and subject to the 5th Amendment.

Even if a person has been convicted, no judge can sentence a person to cruel or unusual punishment (Torture) It is in the bill of rights.

Zolah
04-23-2009, 08:09 PM
Ask the french dad that was murdered before the Americans killed anyone. I am harder on american torture than about anyone on these forums however as an American soldier that has been there it was not a option to get captured. If you were captured you would be tortured to death without any question. No exceptions. We did not invent torture.

I believe that would be the only person killed by Somali pirates in the past 10 years that I'm aware of, but I'm a little unsure of that stat, I did qualify it by saying hostages were 'relatively' well treated, 1 death out of hundreds of acts of piracy, if true, would align with that statement in my opinion.

And I appreciate the 2nd part of your post, I don't doubt for a second that any captured American soldier in the Middle East would've been tortured and/or killed whether or not USA had ever tortured anyone themselves, but as a principle "we do not torture anyone" - principles are tested by how ready you are to hold onto them under tough circumstances, and generally I believe there is no justification for torture.

Brian4Liberty
04-23-2009, 09:10 PM
police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty

At risk of repeating myself, the above statement is absurd. You are predicating a current action on future knowledge. It is not possible. You might as well multiply by null...

This, and the ticking time bomb (24) scenario are not reality. They are pure fantasy.

Icymudpuppy
04-23-2009, 09:43 PM
Even if a person has been convicted, no judge can sentence a person to cruel or unusual punishment (Torture) It is in the bill of rights.

If the person is convicted of being a terrorist leader of a group which has tortured my fellow troops like sawing off their head with a dull knife on camera, then Eye for an Eye justice would seem an appropriate sentence if he is convicted in a fair trial. It is not cruel and unusual to give the a criminal a taste of their own medicine, it is justice.

It would be cruel and unusual to sentence a burglar to such punishment.

LibertyWorker
04-23-2009, 10:16 PM
I have learned a lot from watching government at work. When you give it power you better be ready to have that power used against you.

Look at history we see it over and over. The people feel a threat. The government says give us power to protect you. Then government turns that power against the people.

Back when tasers were first being used by the police. They sold it to the public as a last resort before having to use a firearm against someone. And now you get zapped for anything and everything.

The taser went from life saving tool to a compliance weapon.

Don’t think for a second that if you accept torture now. That you’re not going to regret it later.

klamath
04-23-2009, 10:20 PM
If the person is convicted of being a terrorist leader of a group which has tortured my fellow troops like sawing off their head with a dull knife on camera, then Eye for an Eye justice would seem an appropriate sentence if he is convicted in a fair trial. It is not cruel and unusual to give the a criminal a taste of their own medicine, it is justice.



It would be cruel and unusual to sentence a burglar to such punishment.


Yes it would seem that way and in another thread I stated I can understand emotional rational breakdown in those situations. I had a good friend I served with in Iraq suffer a pretty terrible fate. I would be hard pressed to not apply the eye for an eye. If in this case fight with all your might to just apply a bullet through that persons head and may God have mercy on their soul.

Actually getting your head cut off with a dull knife was one of the more humane ways they killed prisoners. Getting your genitals cut off and then watching you beating heart get cut out was the more normal way.

nate895
04-23-2009, 10:22 PM
Yes it would seem that way and in another thread I stated I can understand emotional rational breakdown in those situations. I had a good friend I served with in Iraq suffer a pretty terrible fate. I would be hard pressed to not apply the eye for an eye. If in this case fight with all your might to just apply a bullet through that persons head and may God have mercy on their soul.

Actually getting your head cut off with a dull knife was one of the more humane ways they killed prisoners. Getting your genitals cut off and then watching you beating heart get cut out was the more normal way.

Of all the people we could have pissed off, we pissed off the ones who will cut your heart out while you are still alive.

Brian4Liberty
04-24-2009, 09:22 AM
I have learned a lot from watching government at work. When you give it power you better be ready to have that power used against you.

Look at history we see it over and over. The people feel a threat. The government says give us power to protect you. Then government turns that power against the people.

Back when tasers were first being used by the police. They sold it to the public as a last resort before having to use a firearm against someone. And now you get zapped for anything and everything.

The taser went from life saving tool to a compliance weapon.

Don’t think for a second that if you accept torture now. That you’re not going to regret it later.

Ironic that you bring up the taser. It became a standard domestic torture device. A lethal one at that. Where's the outrage?

The_Orlonater
04-24-2009, 11:07 AM
Are we at War with Afghanistan or Iraq? No!

Wterboarding is not torture, a curling iron up their ass is torture.

By the by, I was a soldier.

http://paulbuckley14059.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/waterboard.jpg

Yes it is. It's drowning someone

LibertyWorker
04-24-2009, 11:46 AM
Ironic that you bring up the taser. It became a standard domestic torture device. A lethal one at that. Where's the outrage?

What I find ironic is that people don’t see where this is going.

Let’s see we have a war on drugs right?

Well next time some guy gets stopped and they find some dope on him lets water board him find out where he got it from. after we get the guy that sold it to him lets taser him for more information and work are way up the chain.

Hey it’s for the grater collective good of the people so it must be ok .

Silly people this is the same trick they use over and over again to get power.

krazy kaju
04-24-2009, 06:42 PM
We are at war with them. They are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. To torture enemy POWs is dishonorable and a war crime.

Funny, seeing that this is coming from someone who considers themself some kind of libertarian, conservative, constitutionalist, or some mix and/or variation of these three.

If the US signed a treaty handing mandating that all Americans be slaves to Kim Jong Il, would you bow down and do your "duty?"

I know that you're an intelligent person. That's why I'm baffled why you would use an argument from positivistic law. Law and rights are not things which are decided by group consensus or some special group of people in some building somewhere calling themselves government. Law and rights are naturally occurring entities within human beings which can be logically deduced from our very nature.

This law quite clearly upholds that if one transgresses against another's rights, then the transgressor is required to compensate the victim. By torturing a transgressor to save someone else's life, not only are you only returning the transgressor's due by a tiny, tiny fraction, you are in fact helping to reduce further violations of rights.


I disagree with Murray on this. I find this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard145.html) essay about justice much better. Regardless, I still prefer private justice systems. Just my 2 cents. I'll write more later if I have time. :cool:

The two are in agreement. Of course private justice systems are preferable. This does not change the fact that torture is not wrong if it is done to a person guilty of capital crimes and if it is done to prevent further crimes from occurring.

krazy kaju
04-24-2009, 06:47 PM
POW's? Hows that? Who are we at War with? Please name the United Nations country that you refer to?


Objectivist, you have no understanding of tradition, do you? In war, you treat your enemy like a gentleman. You fight them and try to kill them, but when they give up (are made POWs), you can't just go and start torturing them. That is dishonorable and against civilization, we have had these rules in war since we stopped putting people on stretching racks. You just don't torture, maim, or slaughter your enemy. That is what barbarians do.

Besides the fact that the Geneva Convention is simply an issue of postivistic law, and thus has no relation to true justice at all, it is quite clear that unless you fight in some kind of military uniform and represent a country, you do not receive the benefits that soldiers gain from the Geneva Convention. For example, rebels and narco gangs cannot be treated according to the Geneva Convention because they are not soldiers representing a country. The same applies to international terrorists.

freemarketblog
04-24-2009, 06:49 PM
Before I even get into this post, I would like to point out that I agree that waterboarding is torture.

Now, that said, I do not see what the big deal is about torturing not only known criminals, but terrorists responsible for the death of thousands. To quote Murray Rothbard himself:


We may qualify this discussion in one important sense: police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty. For, in that case, the rule of no force against non-criminals would still apply. Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information (not to wring a confession, since obviously a coerced confession could never be considered valid). If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated, for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return; his rights had already been forfeited by more than that extent. But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten and tortured an innocent man, and that they in turn must be put into the dock for criminal assault. In short, in all cases, police must be treated in precisely the same way as anyone else; in a libertarian world, every man has equal liberty, equal rights under the libertarian law. There can be no special immunities, special licenses to commit crime. That means that police, in a libertarian society, must take their chances like anyone else; if they commit an act of invasion against someone, that someone had better turn out to deserve it, otherwise they are the criminals.

As a corollary, police can never be allowed to commit an invasion that is worse than, or that is more than proportionate to, the crime under investigation. Thus, the police can never be allowed to beat and torture someone charged with petty theft, since the beating is far more proportionate a violation of a man’s rights than the theft, even if the man is indeed the thief. (1) (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twelve.asp)

The true crime is that many of these terrorists have not been convicted of their crimes in a true court of law yet, despite being held in captivity for years, in may cases. That said, any torture of a serial murderer like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is completely justified, considering that he already forfeited his rights against torture when he committed terrorist attacks such as the 1993 WTC bombings, the 2001 WTC attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002.

Very retributivistic--don't agree with it at all. Torture is never justified, just as death can never be justified. The State should never be able to do it just as no other human being should be able to, but we certainly shouldn't attempt to match the offense with equal ramifications. We shouldn't torture torturers and we shouldn't murder murderers.

How do you handle someone who has committed bribery? To bribe him? Or someone that committed accounting fraud...how exactly do you "punish" someone who cooked the books---by cooking their books as well?

krazy kaju
04-24-2009, 06:50 PM
What I find ironic is that people don’t see where this is going.

Let’s see we have a war on drugs right?

Well next time some guy gets stopped and they find some dope on him lets water board him find out where he got it from. after we get the guy that sold it to him lets taser him for more information and work are way up the chain.

Hey it’s for the grater collective good of the people so it must be ok .

Silly people this is the same trick they use over and over again to get power.

Had you read the OP, you would have realized that:

Torturing someone for anything less than rape or murder would be wrong.
Torturing someone for a nonviolent crime would be wrong.
Those who torture the innocent should fully compensate for their wrongdoings.
Torture may only be used as a tool to prevent further infringements on rights, unless it is specifically used as a method to compensate the wronged individual (which I doubt would happen often).

krazy kaju
04-24-2009, 06:53 PM
Very retributivistic--don't agree with it at all. Torture is never justified, just as death can never be justified. The State should never be able to do it just as no other human being should be able to, but we certainly shouldn't attempt to match the offense with equal ramifications. We shouldn't torture torturers and we shouldn't murder murderers.

How do you handle someone who has committed bribery? To bribe him? Or someone that committed accounting fraud...how exactly do you "punish" someone who cooked the books---by cooking their books as well?

This is clearly not what is being proposed. Full compensation means that if I damage your property, costing you thousands of dollars, I am liable for those thousands of dollars, plus money for time lost, stress, worries, etc. Punishment must serve to compensate the victim as best as possible for the wrongdoings of the criminal.

So no, you don't commit fraud on a person who has committed fraud. The proper action is to force the fraudster to compensate the victims of fraud.

Perhaps you should read what you quote before you post again.

krazy kaju
04-24-2009, 07:00 PM
Here is another reason why torture is stupid. This is in addition to 1) It doesn't work 2)It's immoral 3)It makes our troops less safe.

Prove it.
1) I'm no expert on torture, but I tend to believe soldiers and intelligence gatherers who state that a small amount of torture is necessary for quick action in certain cases.
2) The OP proved how it is, in fact, moral.
3) How does it make the troops less safe?


When you lose the moral high ground in war, it destroys the moral of the troops.

I agree completely. That's why we need to do the moral thing and protect the rights of American citizens and soldiers by torturing known mass murderers in order to obtain evidence which may prevent further attacks.


Think about it. When you are defending something, your animal instinct kicks in because you know you are fighting for good. You will fight till the death. As soon as the lines become blurred, the it is over for the aggressor. It is also horrible for recruitment when most people in their gut know it is wrong. Sure there are propaganda shows like 24, but most intelligent people know the real world is not Jack Baeur ticking time bomb.

Good sweeping generalizations. We aren't talking about torturing left and right. We are talking about torturing mass murderers like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who revealed plots against LA after being water boarded dozens of times. There are "ticking time bomb" situations where torture is the just and moral action.


It also destroys the moral of the country. No free country can last long when they act like babrarians. Not for long. As we accept more and more authoritarianism, the politicians get more and more bold in taking away our econmoic liberties.

We should stop acting like barbarians by acting in a just and moral manner. This would include the torture of mass murderers in order to obtain information about future planned mass-murders.


Keep reading and studying history. Don't listen to Rush and Hannity who make waterboarding sound fun. They are liars. It is torture. No question about it.

Had you read the OP, you would have noticed that I came out and said it was torture in the first or second sentence. Read what you're replying to before you reply.

paulitics
04-24-2009, 07:03 PM
Had you read the OP, you would have realized that:

Torturing someone for anything less than rape or murder would be wrong.
Torturing someone for a nonviolent crime would be wrong.
Those who torture the innocent should fully compensate for their wrongdoings.
Torture may only be used as a tool to prevent further infringements on rights, unless it is specifically used as a method to compensate the wronged individual (which I doubt would happen often).


Torturing someone that has proven to be a murder is not what happenes in 99% of the cases. In 99% of the cases, the person is kidnapped, detained and tortured in order to get (false) information , or to terrorize political dissidents....there is no trial to prove the suspected terrorist's guilt. Most Guantanomo prisoners were released for no wrongdoing..oops. There lives runined. This is stuff that is supposed to be relegated to the middle ages or other barbaric time periods.

The intent of torture is very evil, very evil indeed. Sometimes they torture just to do human experimentation...no different than lab rats.

The ticking time bomb situation does not exist. If you justify it in one case, you must justify it in all cases. there is no glory in torture, no justification ever. it is not like the movies, or Jack Bauer. It does not work, it is immoral, and will destroy the soul of the country leading to tyrrany, and 3rd world status.

We used torture to obtain information that lead to the Iraq War. This is what evil does. It only produces more evil that leads to death and destruction.

nate895
04-24-2009, 07:06 PM
Funny, seeing that this is coming from someone who considers themself some kind of libertarian, conservative, constitutionalist, or some mix and/or variation of these three.

If the US signed a treaty handing mandating that all Americans be slaves to Kim Jong Il, would you bow down and do your "duty?"

I know that you're an intelligent person. That's why I'm baffled why you would use an argument from positivistic law. Law and rights are not things which are decided by group consensus or some special group of people in some building somewhere calling themselves government. Law and rights are naturally occurring entities within human beings which can be logically deduced from our very nature.

This law quite clearly upholds that if one transgresses against another's rights, then the transgressor is required to compensate the victim. By torturing a transgressor to save someone else's life, not only are you only returning the transgressor's due by a tiny, tiny fraction, you are in fact helping to reduce further violations of rights.



The two are in agreement. Of course private justice systems are preferable. This does not change the fact that torture is not wrong if it is done to a person guilty of capital crimes and if it is done to prevent further crimes from occurring.

The Geneva Conventions was a mere codification of centuries of rules of war. It was a sort of Bill of Rights for warriors. The purpose is to make war as civil and keep as many civilians out as possible. It is dishonorable even without the Geneva Conventions. If you are a military commander who tortures or slaughters your enemy, you are considered little more than a barbarian. You are obliged to treat your enemy with care and respect as a military officer, and if you are one you have to restrain your men from committing atrocities as well.

krazy kaju
04-24-2009, 07:10 PM
Please show me one quote from myself on this board where I support torture for any reason against someone who has committed anything less than capital offense.

Now that we've automatically eliminated 97% of your accusations, how can you say that the "ticking time bomb" situation does not exist when there clearly are instances where a terrorist attack might happen in a year or two and conventional interrogation methods most likely won't work? By using torture wisely, one may obtain information, weed out the false information, and proceed to save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands.

Moreover, how does justifying torture in one case automatically justify it in all cases? Did I not clearly set rules about when torture is justified and when it is not using libertarian and natural rights legal theory, or did you not read the OP at all?

krazy kaju
04-24-2009, 07:12 PM
The Geneva Conventions was a mere codification of centuries of rules of war. It was a sort of Bill of Rights for warriors. The purpose is to make war as civil and keep as many civilians out as possible. It is dishonorable even without the Geneva Conventions. If you are a military commander who tortures or slaughters your enemy, you are considered little more than a barbarian. You are obliged to treat your enemy with care and respect as a military officer, and if you are one you have to restrain your men from committing atrocities as well.

This isn't about committing attrocities. It is about protecting the rights of innocent beings by torturing someone who is planning the mass initation of violence against many innocents for information in order to attempt to prevent the aggressive act from occurring in the first place.

No postivistic claim, no argument from tradition, and no illogical explanations of "honor" can stand any higher than the rights of man, which are ingrained in your very nature.

nate895
04-24-2009, 07:19 PM
This isn't about committing attrocities. It is about protecting the rights of innocent beings by torturing someone who is planning the mass initation of violence against many innocents for information in order to attempt to prevent the aggressive act from occurring in the first place.

No postivistic claim, no argument from tradition, and no illogical explanations of "honor" can stand any higher than the rights of man, which are ingrained in your very nature.

On what justification can we prove that someone is a terrorist worthy of torture? Presumably, we have to get a warrant of some kind and demonstrate probable cause. Now, that would be illegal because you have a right, both naturally and constitutionally, against cruel and unusual punishment, let alone cruel and unusual interrogation methods.

LibForestPaul
04-24-2009, 09:00 PM
we have, waterboarding is not torture.


UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18.1.113c
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.


Honestly, do you not understand English?

klamath
04-24-2009, 09:19 PM
This isn't about committing attrocities. It is about protecting the rights of innocent beings by torturing someone who is planning the mass initation of violence against many innocents for information in order to attempt to prevent the aggressive act from occurring in the first place.

No postivistic claim, no argument from tradition, and no illogical explanations of "honor" can stand any higher than the rights of man, which are ingrained in your very nature.

I have to ask you how many insurgents did you pick up in Iraq that you knew beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that they were getting ready to blow up an American City? Were 11 other people with you sure beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty those Iraqi's that were dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night had knowledge of or were about to commit mass murder in America? Are you sure that the inteligence that told us of WMD got the names on the detainment list right?

shenlu54
04-24-2009, 10:04 PM
I disagree whith Murry Rothbard on this case,Mises has already said that the end can not justify the means,we are a civilized nation and one sign of the civilization is we don't torture people anymore!

Any torture is evil,is the enemy of a civilized society.

Dreamofunity
04-24-2009, 11:54 PM
I think the main problem with "enhanced interrogation techniques" is that they are done in our name while we are forced to pay for them by the threat of force. If I disagree with the tactics being done and refuse to pay for them on a moral basis, the state comes and takes my house or throws me in jail. The actions, while still remaining abhorrent in my personal opinion, wouldn't be such a big deal if they were done by people who remained liable for their actions. If they ever were to do such an act to an innocent man they would be responsible and not protected by the state.

If someone was completely responsible for their actions, like one should be, I don't have much say in what they do. They should be forced to face the consequences of their actions regardless of what may arise.

RonPaulR3VOLUTION
04-24-2009, 11:59 PM
No to Torture, Yes to the Constitution

by Rep. Ron Paul

On Tuesday, March 11, the US House of Representatives voted for the version of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 that banned waterboarding and other forms of torture. The measure, previously passed by Congress, was vetoed by President Bush. This vote was an attempt to override the veto. It passed 225-188, but failed to get the 2/3 requirement to override the veto.

Only five Republicans voted to support the torture ban over the veto. Here is the speech Rep. Ron Paul gave before the vote:

I rise in somewhat reluctant support of this vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 2062, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008. Although I voted against this authorization when it first came to the floor, the main issue has now become whether we as a Congress are to condone torture as official U.S. policy or whether we will speak out against it. This bill was vetoed by the President because of a measure added extending the prohibition of the use of any interrogation treatment or technique not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations to the U.S. intelligence community. Opposing this prohibition is tantamount to endorsing the use of torture against those in United States Government custody.

We have all read the disturbing reports of individuals apprehended and taken to secret prisons maintained by the United States Government across the globe, tortured for months or even years, and later released without charge. Khaled al-Masri, for example, a German citizen, has recounted the story of his incarceration and torture by U.S. intelligence in a secret facility in Afghanistan. His horror was said to be simply a case of mistaken identity. We do not know how many more similar cases there may be, but clearly it is not in the interest of the United States to act in a manner so contrary to the values upon which we pride ourselves.

My vote to override the President's veto is a vote to send a clear message that I do not think the United States should be in the business of torture. It is anti-American, immoral and counterproductive.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12509
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul439.html

Torture, War, and Presidential Powers
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul185.html

idiom
04-25-2009, 01:45 AM
It is the same debased argument as Nuking and Burning Japan. Murdering hundreds of thousands of their civilians will save hundreds of our soliders...

9/11 (going with the official story for now, if you don't believe the official story then we are torturing *innocent* people) did not occur in a vacuum. The majority of Americans think 9/11 came out of the blue and in now way was part of an ongoing conflict between America and the broader Islamic nation. By most measures it was a valid assymetrical assault on Military and Industrial Targets.

It was in fact rather like an Arab Doolittle raid. Lets take Doolittle Quote:


The Japanese had been told they were invulnerable. An attack on the Japanese homeland would cause confusion in the minds of the Japanese people and sow doubt about the reliability of their leaders.

And update it:


The Americans had been told they were invulnerable. An attack on the American homeland would cause confusion in the minds of the American people and sow doubt about the reliability of their leaders.

Except it turns out the American people turned to their leaders to save them from imminent continuous and apparently personal danger, abandoning all previously held moral standards.

Ozwest
04-25-2009, 04:21 AM
It's about the rule of Law.

If America wants to break long-standing domestic and international law, to suit its own circumstances, they cannot preach to others.

Consequences.

nobody's_hero
04-25-2009, 05:16 AM
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

nayjevin
04-25-2009, 05:20 AM
By using torture wisely, one may obtain information, weed out the false information, and proceed to save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands.

Should I kill Hitler prior to his atrocities if I have perfect knowledge?

Highly debatable, even when it can be assumed that perfect knowledge is possible.

Torture will NEVER be a moral action. It is possible that an immoral action is the proper course of action.

I do not believe in torture under any circumstances, because I don't believe in perfect knowledge.

Justification for immoral action often comes from an individual's belief that he/she has perfect knowledge.

Ends don't justify the means. There's always another way.

1. Torturer does not know whether tortured has the information desired
2. Torturer does not know whether information gained is accurate
3. Torturer does not know whether information gained will prevent atrocity
4. Torturing produces inaccurate admissions
5. Dishonesty/barbarism begets dishonesty/barbarism. Subsidize something, and you get more of it.

Ozwest
04-25-2009, 05:21 AM
" Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil. "

Thomas Paine ---

Ozwest
04-25-2009, 05:26 AM
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

" People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. "

George Orwell ---

Liberty Star
04-25-2009, 11:48 AM
Before I even get into this post, I would like to point out that I agree that waterboarding is torture.


Now, that said, I do not see what the big deal is about torturing not only known criminals, but terrorists responsible for the death of thousands. To quote Murray Rothbard himself:


[INDENT] We may qualify this discussion in one important sense: police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty. For, in that case, the rule of no force against non-criminals would still apply. Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information (not to wring a confession, since obviously a coerced confession could never be considered valid). If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated, for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return; his rights had already been forfeited by more than that extent. But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten and tortured an innocent man, and that they in turn must be put into the dock for criminal assault. ...

That argument is fallacious or let's turn US prisons into torture chambers like the ones in Egypt, Israel, Jordan and other third world dictatorships


Even if moral compass is turned off, torture policies may have cost tax payers in trillions of dollars.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2081491&postcount=1

Cna the tax payers sue Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their torture lawyers to receover damages due to their criminal misconduct?

Meatwasp
04-25-2009, 12:32 PM
what is wrong with you gleeful people who believe in torture? Haven't you heard of truth serum for pete sake? Is that to mild for you?

krazy kaju
04-25-2009, 01:21 PM
On what justification can we prove that someone is a terrorist worthy of torture? Presumably, we have to get a warrant of some kind and demonstrate probable cause. Now, that would be illegal because you have a right, both naturally and constitutionally, against cruel and unusual punishment, let alone cruel and unusual interrogation methods.

Torture is not cruel and unusual punishment when applied to mass murderers like Khalen Sheikh Mohammed.


I have to ask you how many insurgents did you pick up in Iraq that you knew beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that they were getting ready to blow up an American City? Were 11 other people with you sure beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty those Iraqi's that were dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night had knowledge of or were about to commit mass murder in America? Are you sure that the inteligence that told us of WMD got the names on the detainment list right?

These problems have been already dealt with in the OP. Someone who tortures an innocent is fully liable for their actions.


I disagree whith Murry Rothbard on this case,Mises has already said that the end can not justify the means,we are a civilized nation and one sign of the civilization is we don't torture people anymore!

Any torture is evil,is the enemy of a civilized society.

Wrong. Mises was a utilitarian, he believed that the ends did justify the means. Rothbard was a believer in natural rights, he stated that the ends did not justify the means. That is why he supported torture. By already transgressing someone else's rights to the extent that you have by mass murder, torturing you is only paying back a tiny fraction of what your due is. This torture, when used to protect the rights of others is completely justified.


I think the main problem with "enhanced interrogation techniques" is that they are done in our name while we are forced to pay for them by the threat of force. If I disagree with the tactics being done and refuse to pay for them on a moral basis, the state comes and takes my house or throws me in jail. The actions, while still remaining abhorrent in my personal opinion, wouldn't be such a big deal if they were done by people who remained liable for their actions. If they ever were to do such an act to an innocent man they would be responsible and not protected by the state.

If someone was completely responsible for their actions, like one should be, I don't have much say in what they do. They should be forced to face the consequences of their actions regardless of what may arise.

I agree completely.


No to Torture, Yes to the Constitution

by Rep. Ron Paul

On Tuesday, March 11, the US House of Representatives voted for the version of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 that banned waterboarding and other forms of torture. The measure, previously passed by Congress, was vetoed by President Bush. This vote was an attempt to override the veto. It passed 225-188, but failed to get the 2/3 requirement to override the veto.

Only five Republicans voted to support the torture ban over the veto. Here is the speech Rep. Ron Paul gave before the vote:

I rise in somewhat reluctant support of this vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 2062, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008. Although I voted against this authorization when it first came to the floor, the main issue has now become whether we as a Congress are to condone torture as official U.S. policy or whether we will speak out against it. This bill was vetoed by the President because of a measure added extending the prohibition of the use of any interrogation treatment or technique not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations to the U.S. intelligence community. Opposing this prohibition is tantamount to endorsing the use of torture against those in United States Government custody.

We have all read the disturbing reports of individuals apprehended and taken to secret prisons maintained by the United States Government across the globe, tortured for months or even years, and later released without charge. Khaled al-Masri, for example, a German citizen, has recounted the story of his incarceration and torture by U.S. intelligence in a secret facility in Afghanistan. His horror was said to be simply a case of mistaken identity. We do not know how many more similar cases there may be, but clearly it is not in the interest of the United States to act in a manner so contrary to the values upon which we pride ourselves.

My vote to override the President's veto is a vote to send a clear message that I do not think the United States should be in the business of torture. It is anti-American, immoral and counterproductive.


Torture, War, and Presidential Powers
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


He doesn't attack the non-existant "immorality" of torturing the guilty in order to protect the rights of many, but the immorality of torturing the innocent. Nobody argues that it is moral and just to torture the innocent. Those who torture the innocent should be fully liable. Those who torture the guilty and save lives should be rewarded.


It is the same debased argument as Nuking and Burning Japan. Murdering hundreds of thousands of their civilians will save hundreds of our soliders...

Not at all. Read the OP before you respond.


9/11 (going with the official story for now, if you don't believe the official story then we are torturing *innocent* people) did not occur in a vacuum. The majority of Americans think 9/11 came out of the blue and in now way was part of an ongoing conflict between America and the broader Islamic nation. By most measures it was a valid assymetrical assault on Military and Industrial Targets.

If A attacks you, you do not have a right to attack B for compensation, even if A is the government of B.


It's about the rule of Law.

If America wants to break long-standing domestic and international law, to suit its own circumstances, they cannot preach to others.

Consequences.

It's about the rule of natural law, not absurd positivistic law devised by some old statists in a building somewhere. The best punishment for mass murder is to be murdered, respawned, murdered again, respawn, repeat. Torturing a mass murderer in order to save the lives of others is completely just and moral.

sailor
04-25-2009, 01:41 PM
That said, any torture of a serial murderer like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is completely justified, considering that he already forfeited his rights against torture when he committed terrorist attacks such as the 1993 WTC bombings, the 2001 WTC attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002.

Even if by a government?

V-rod
04-25-2009, 06:37 PM
what is wrong with you gleeful people who believe in torture? Haven't you heard of truth serum for pete sake? Is that to mild for you?


Waterboarding is less immoral than the death penalty.

nayjevin
04-25-2009, 08:30 PM
Wrong. Mises was a utilitarian, he believed that the ends did justify the means. Rothbard was a believer in natural rights, he stated that the ends did not justify the means. That is why he supported torture. By already transgressing someone else's rights to the extent that you have by mass murder, torturing you is only paying back a tiny fraction of what your due is. This torture, when used to protect the rights of others is completely justified.

fallacy. possibly, if some mathematical model could be produced to determine the exact quotient of good that comes from an action, and evil that is prevented, then the action could be determined moral/justified on those grounds.

such a model is impossible to produce, without perfect knowledge.

utilitarianism is a decent model for determining morality, but does not provide guidance in determining any real-world action, as utility is not quantifiable in the real world.

1. we cannot trust humans to quantify utility, as humans do not have perfect knowledge or (reliable?) precognitive abilities

2. we cannot therefore give a government the power to protect some humans from consequence of acting aggressively toward others (as in torture)

3. when torture occurs, the value of human life is compromised - this is unacceptable in every form.

4. eye for an eye is a fallacy. no matter the actions of an individual, it is not justified to take power to hurt others in our own hands.

5. the proper, moral, course of action is to use the least amount of force necessary to prevent further atrocity. caging humans is somewhere above the least amount of force necessary, doing nothing is somewhere below that amount.

the gray areas can only be determined in the real world on an individual basis by wise individuals with great understanding of the value of human life, questions of morality, and understanding of consequence.

ex: juries (not modern day juries)

sailor
04-26-2009, 07:52 AM
Well in a sense we all probably agree with the OP. Under certain conditions torture is just fine. For example if a father of a raped girl kneecaps the rapist before handing him over to the police it would not really raise eyebrows. Nor it should.

Of course the thing is that this is fairly irrelevant to the ongoing torture debate. What we have here is the state wanting to make torture lawful, but only for its agents. It would stil be illegal for a private citizen to torture someone even if with a good reason. You or me, or a father of a raped girl would stil go to jail for it. No, what they want is to create a class of people who have a licence to torture and a class of people who can be tortured by the licensed.

We should never give the state such powers. Even when they supposedly have good reasons for it. We should strive to put even tighter limits on the government than we put on ourselves. It should always be illegal for an FBI agent to torture. If he has good reason to torture someone he can go ahead and break the law. But he will be put in jail for it later. Of course if he really has such a good reason to torture then the jailtime will be a very small price to pay for it, and he should be ready to make that sacrifice. I am sure he will be greeted as a hero when he gets out of jail, if his torturing really had saved lives and it will have been worth it. But if he is not willing to torture someone if it means paying such a price then there probably is no good reason to torture the detainee in question in the first place. Or alternatively that the agent has no buisiness being in the employ of the FBI (which is supposedly there to protect us) in the first place.

AgentOrange
04-26-2009, 12:47 PM
Wow. I don't hold out much hope for the future of the US, when I read even Libertarians/Constitutionalists justifying the use of torture. Name just one free country with a high living standard that routinely uses torture. Torture is wildly ineffective--sure sometimes useful information may be gotten, but at what cost? How many innocent people had to be tortured before the torturers luck into torturing the right person? And how in the world do you begin to compensate someone for torture? False imprisonment is bad enough, but torture? Torture isn't the fun and games TV makes it out to be. Accepting torture will be the final nail in the coffin for freedom in the US.

nayjevin
04-26-2009, 01:18 PM
Wow. I don't hold out much hope for the future of the US, when I read even Libertarians/Constitutionalists justifying the use of torture. Name just one free country with a high living standard that routinely uses torture. Torture is wildly ineffective--sure sometimes useful information may be gotten, but at what cost? How many innocent people had to be tortured before the torturers luck into torturing the right person? And how in the world do you begin to compensate someone for torture? False imprisonment is bad enough, but torture? Torture isn't the fun and games TV makes it out to be. Accepting torture will be the final nail in the coffin for freedom in the US.

Don't lose too much faith - some may be playing devil's advocate, others may still be very young and learning. Not unheard of to see non-supporters come around and act like they are libertarian and claim to support issues like these for some juvenile fun.

Also, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=39188
and
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=190040&highlight=forum+slide

mediahasyou
04-26-2009, 01:37 PM
Do I have the right to torchure you? No.

Then how can I give this right to the government?

mczerone
04-26-2009, 02:47 PM
Everyone here is quibbling over the smaller issues (of whether waterboarding is torture or if any other type of possible torture is justified in any class of situations).

Instead you need to step back and realize that each and every one of us supports this torture, it is done in each of our names.

We need to be able to peacefully opt out of the security monopoly that is the State and choose our own protection agencies - ones that use competing methods. Those individuals that want to have their security use this method can, and everybody else doesn't have to contribute, and can pay attention to who really supports terrorism (what is waterboading but a method of fear, i.e. terror?).

Just like when the Post Office exhibits that it doesn't meet my needs, I want a market alternative.

krazy kaju
04-26-2009, 03:11 PM
Wow. I don't hold out much hope for the future of the US, when I read even Libertarians/Constitutionalists justifying the use of torture. Name just one free country with a high living standard that routinely uses torture. Torture is wildly ineffective--sure sometimes useful information may be gotten, but at what cost? How many innocent people had to be tortured before the torturers luck into torturing the right person? And how in the world do you begin to compensate someone for torture? False imprisonment is bad enough, but torture? Torture isn't the fun and games TV makes it out to be. Accepting torture will be the final nail in the coffin for freedom in the US.


Don't lose too much faith - some may be playing devil's advocate, others may still be very young and learning. Not unheard of to see non-supporters come around and act like they are libertarian and claim to support issues like these for some juvenile fun.

Also, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=39188
and
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=190040&highlight=forum+slide

It would be nice if any of you read the OP.

Again, I quote Rothbard:

We may qualify this discussion in one important sense: police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty. For, in that case, the rule of no force against non-criminals would still apply. Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information (not to wring a confession, since obviously a coerced confession could never be considered valid). If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated, for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return; his rights had already been forfeited by more than that extent. But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten and tortured an innocent man, and that they in turn must be put into the dock for criminal assault. In short, in all cases, police must be treated in precisely the same way as anyone else; in a libertarian world, every man has equal liberty, equal rights under the libertarian law. There can be no special immunities, special licenses to commit crime. That means that police, in a libertarian society, must take their chances like anyone else; if they commit an act of invasion against someone, that someone had better turn out to deserve it, otherwise they are the criminals.

As a corollary, police can never be allowed to commit an invasion that is worse than, or that is more than proportionate to, the crime under investigation. Thus, the police can never be allowed to beat and torture someone charged with petty theft, since the beating is far more proportionate a violation of a man’s rights than the theft, even if the man is indeed the thief.

One person has yet to respond to any argument I have made.

krazy kaju
04-26-2009, 03:20 PM
Even if by a government?

That's my biggest problem with the current waterboarding situation. I have to say I'm not sure. I really don't trust government with the ability to torture. But that doesn't mean that libertarians need to attack torture - far from it. We need to attack the existence of a state monopoly on security, protection, arbitrage and defense.


fallacy. possibly, if some mathematical model could be produced to determine the exact quotient of good that comes from an action, and evil that is prevented, then the action could be determined moral/justified on those grounds.

such a model is impossible to produce, without perfect knowledge.

utilitarianism is a decent model for determining morality, but does not provide guidance in determining any real-world action, as utility is not quantifiable in the real world.

1. we cannot trust humans to quantify utility, as humans do not have perfect knowledge or (reliable?) precognitive abilities

Two things:

Nowhere did I defend utilitarianism. Had you read the OP you would have realized that.
There is such a thing as rule utilitarianism, you know.



2. we cannot therefore give a government the power to protect some humans from consequence of acting aggressively toward others (as in torture)

You better not be a minarchist, because you just refuted your own beliefs if you are.


3. when torture occurs, the value of human life is compromised - this is unacceptable in every form.

Would you not kill a mass murderer if you had no other option and if you didn't kill him, the mass murderer would attack yet another victim?

This is the situation presented with my OP. Too bad you respond before you read.


4. eye for an eye is a fallacy.

Where did I ever support an eye for an eye? Perhaps you should read the OP.


no matter the actions of an individual, it is not justified to take power to hurt others in our own hands.

"It is not justified to enact justice." Riiight...


5. the proper, moral, course of action is to use the least amount of force necessary to prevent further atrocity. caging humans is somewhere above the least amount of force necessary, doing nothing is somewhere below that amount.

the gray areas can only be determined in the real world on an individual basis by wise individuals with great understanding of the value of human life, questions of morality, and understanding of consequence.

ex: juries (not modern day juries)

This isn't an argument against torture. It's an argument for the proper use of violence which I don't necessarily reject.


Well in a sense we all probably agree with the OP. Under certain conditions torture is just fine. For example if a father of a raped girl kneecaps the rapist before handing him over to the police it would not really raise eyebrows. Nor it should.

Of course the thing is that this is fairly irrelevant to the ongoing torture debate. What we have here is the state wanting to make torture lawful, but only for its agents. It would stil be illegal for a private citizen to torture someone even if with a good reason. You or me, or a father of a raped girl would stil go to jail for it. No, what they want is to create a class of people who have a licence to torture and a class of people who can be tortured by the licensed.

We should never give the state such powers. Even when they supposedly have good reasons for it. We should strive to put even tighter limits on the government than we put on ourselves. It should always be illegal for an FBI agent to torture. If he has good reason to torture someone he can go ahead and break the law. But he will be put in jail for it later. Of course if he really has such a good reason to torture then the jailtime will be a very small price to pay for it, and he should be ready to make that sacrifice. I am sure he will be greeted as a hero when he gets out of jail, if his torturing really had saved lives and it will have been worth it. But if he is not willing to torture someone if it means paying such a price then there probably is no good reason to torture the detainee in question in the first place. Or alternatively that the agent has no buisiness being in the employ of the FBI (which is supposedly there to protect us) in the first place.

I agree to an extent: the state should be abolished and private police agencies should have the power to use torture if need be. Torturing Khaled Sheikh Mohammed supposedly saved lives. This would not only be a just and moral action, but it would be very profitable. Imagine the good rep you would get from preventing a terrorist act!

nayjevin
04-26-2009, 05:41 PM
Had you read the OP you would have realized that



I did. You took my response too personally. I was merely pointing out things that have yet to be discussed, or haven't been discussed in a way I see them.

I never claimed you believed the fallacies, only pointed them out.

Seems to me the rest of your refutations are based on similar assumptions and not having carefully read my post.

nayjevin
04-26-2009, 05:46 PM
If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated, for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return; his rights had already been forfeited by more than that extent.

I simply disagree. Shoot first and ask questions later is a fallacy. Eye for an eye is a fallacy.

nayjevin
04-26-2009, 05:50 PM
That said, any torture of a serial murderer like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is completely justified, considering that he already forfeited his rights against torture when he committed terrorist attacks such as the 1993 WTC bombings, the 2001 WTC attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002.Where does this idea come from that a serial murderer forfeits rights against torture?

Why doesn't a petty shoplifter forfeit rights against torture?

Where is the line drawn, and by whom?


"It is not justified to enact justice."Obvious misrepresentation in attempt to discredit.

sailor
04-26-2009, 08:32 PM
That's my biggest problem with the current waterboarding situation. I have to say I'm not sure. I really don't trust government with the ability to torture. But that doesn't mean that libertarians need to attack torture - far from it. We need to attack the existence of a state monopoly on security, protection, arbitrage and defense.

Yeah, in essence there are many paralels with the death penalty situation. It can be justified, but at the same time you don`t the want the state to have that sort of power over us.


It is fascinating how you can take a perfectly logical and valid principle, but as soon as you combine it with the state it just deforms into something terrible, as if its soul was corrupted by the state. Take democracy. Elections - a very nice institution. As long as we are talking corporate elections or elections for a chess club president. But combine them with a state, and suddenly you get a carte blanche for executive tyranny.