Torture

[crizon]

I don't understand why people talk about whether or not torture might work. I think it is still not clear if it is morally proper to use torture.

My biggest concern with torture is the loss of any commensurability. Every decent society needs a code of law that applies worse punishment to worse crimes. You can't properly sentence someone to death or to life in prison for a minor theft.

As far as I know, the death penalty is rejected by Objectivism because there can be no compensation when a mistake is made and an innocent is convicted.

With torture, I feel the same principles apply. Firstly one has to say that the government obviously has no right to force someone to give away information. It would of course immoral be to withhold information about a terrorist attack, but it is no initiation of force (as long as the person with the information has no direct part in the attack) so the government can't do it.

Now people argue, that things change once this person used force himself (was captured during the preparation of a terrorist attack). That means that the government virtually can do anything with a person, once he initiated force, that has some kind of benefit for society.

With the same argument one could cut out a kidney of a murderer and give it to a moral person or use a rapist for medical tests.

I think this argument fails to take into account that punishment has to be appropriate and that there is always the possibility of an error.

Because of the possibility of error, you can't cut of a finger or damage an eye, because you can't (for now) replace it or make up for it. I think you will also have a lot of trouble to justify torture as a punishment once you think about crimes besides terrorist attacks.

Why not torture a rapist and force him to answer to tell if he thinks he will rape again?

[gags]

I don't understand why people talk about whether or not torture might work. I think it is still not clear if it is morally proper to use torture.

My biggest concern with torture is the loss of any commensurability. Every decent society needs a code of law that applies worse punishment to worse crimes. You can't properly sentence someone to death or to life in prison for a minor theft.

I've often thought that in cases where torture may be justified, there should be a set of legal procedures that must be followed before the interrogation would be allowed. The government would be obligated to lay out its evidence, the nature of the threat posed, etc... and then a judge trained in these issues and sitting on a special court would decide whether torture would be permitted and the extent of the techniques used.

As far as I know, the death penalty is rejected by Objectivism because there can be no compensation when a mistake is made and an innocent is convicted.

I'm not aware that this is the case. Can you point to something that says this is so?

With torture, I feel the same principles apply. Firstly one has to say that the government obviously has no right to force someone to give away information. It would of course immoral be to withhold information about a terrorist attack, but it is no initiation of force (as long as the person with the information has no direct part in the attack) so the government can't do it.

Now people argue, that things change once this person used force himself (was captured during the preparation of a terrorist attack). That means that the government virtually can do anything with a person, once he initiated force, that has some kind of benefit for society.

If someone is part of the planning for an attack, then that person has initiated force and is in a position where he should lose certain rights. We have laws so that the government can't do virtually anything to someone who has initiated force. I don't see why those engaged in terror attacks would not have certain minimal legal rights.

With the same argument one could cut out a kidney of a murderer and give it to a moral person or use a rapist for medical tests.

I think this argument fails to take into account that punishment has to be appropriate and that there is always the possibility of an error.

Because of the possibility of error, you can't cut of a finger or damage an eye, because you can't (for now) replace it or make up for it. I think you will also have a lot of trouble to justify torture as a punishment once you think about crimes besides terrorist attacks.

Why not torture a rapist and force him to answer to tell if he thinks he will rape again?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that torture should be used to interrogate people involved in domestic criminal activity. This discussion is focused on enemy combatants who are in possession of information that could potentially save US lives.

Of course there are situations where errors are possible. That is why we have legal procedures designed to establish that the facts give rise to a certain level of certainty. There should be a similar set of procedures set up for the relatively few situations where torture might be a reasonable option to pursue during an interrogation.

[Zip]

So, as long as what he's saying can be verified (like what's the address of the rest of your terror cell?), physical torture is not of dubious value at all. If a person being tortured will say anything to stop the pain, and it is clear that only the truth will stop the pain, then he is guaranteed to tell the truth.

(I do agree that in situations where a testimony isn't immediately verifiable, physical torture is pointless, and the techniques you describe are probably more useful.)

But the problem is Jake that all intelligence has an expiry date and in cases of terrorist/criminal organizations it is usually very very short. When a terrorist goes missing his pals don't sit around wondering if he's had a flat on the expressway they pull up stakes and disappear.

[RationalBiker]

As far as I know, the death penalty is rejected by Objectivism because there can be no compensation when a mistake is made and an innocent is convicted.

This is not exactly true. Ayn Rand said (essentially) capital punishment was morally justifiable, but that the current justice system was not trustworthy enough to rely on for the reason you state above. So Objectivism does not reject the idea of the death penalty per se, just the current implemenation. If guilt could be determined with certainty, capital punishment would be acceptable according to Objectivism.

[crizon]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that torture should be used to interrogate people involved in domestic criminal activity. This discussion is focused on enemy combatants who are in possession of information that could potentially save US lives.

Of course there are situations where errors are possible. That is why we have legal procedures designed to establish that the facts give rise to a certain level of certainty. There should be a similar set of procedures set up for the relatively few situations where torture might be a reasonable option to pursue during an interrogation.

Why may it only be used on "enemy combatants"? Why should they be treated any different that a "normal" criminal?

IMO torture differs greatly from normal punishment because you apply retaliatory force upon a person not because of the crime he made, but because he has something that may be of value to society.. like information.

That means that the punishment or course of action would be different for the same crime when there would be no reason to believe the criminal has any useful information.

Having information about a possible future crime is no crime itself and I also don't see why not giving away this information is a crime.

IE: If I accidentally got information about a future crime, the government could not force me to give away this information because I did not initiate force in any way.

I don't see an argument why "saving lives" has to be the only benefit for society where torture may be used.. and even so: Forcefully cutting out organs of murderers would probably save more lives that any information about terrorist attacks ever could.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Well, not always. Sometimes the "brute hand" is used as a result of the application of our reasoning in a specific context. War is a perfect example. When reasoning ceases to stop your attacker, brute force is the reasoned response.

Well, it's rather illogical to suggest that you "stop your attacker" when torturing somebody. You get something informative from it, but that's all. Torture isn't used as a means of ending aggression - it's used to further our knowledge of something which we can use against our enemy. It's a false conclusion to propose that torturing will directly lead to stopping your attacker.

What's that psychological condition called? Never returnedness from a point of anger over bad thing America did?

Go ahead, point me to the relevant scientific literature that proves that condition exists. Or stop mentioning it, because it's more mindless, baseless rhetoric.

Right. Technologies that turn the enemy sent to kill you into a peaceful state of bliss. We should replace all brutish guns and mindless soldiers with happiness cannon wielding pacifists right away. Where can I purchase that wonderful technology again?

But you're against total war, remember?

Also, the word "This" adds nothing, so it's against the rules of the forum.

To put it in a more simplistic manner: If you torture your enemy, your enemy will remember it and be angered by it. Our objective in war is to remove the threat of the aggressor. If your enemy finds evidence of you torturing one of their own, that does not aid in the successful completion of the objective.

This is a groundless statement, it is complete supposition stemming from a leftist point of view. Evidence actually supports the opposite conclusion.

This is weird, you seem to be voicing agreement with me here but I get the impression that you and I have entirely different ideas about what our self-defense entails.

I propose the destruction of our enemy's will to fight so that there are no "potential attacks" to thwart.

The only "evidence" provided that torture works is from cases reported by our own government, which is not in any position to be trusted in giving us factual evidence.

My agreement is that an Objectivist nation would not need to torture its enemies because its enemies would be defeated by superior tactics, strategies, technologies, weaponry, soldiers, and intelligence.

Once our enemy knows we won't convert to Islam it brings them to a point of anger from which there is no return. We're there.

Since you seem to state this as factual instead of speculative, how did you derive this conclusion?

Again, how have you derived the conclusion of a future potential context with such certainty?

Check your premises. Our enemies do not attack us because we're rich and free.

I arrived at that conclusion because it's the truth. Torture is a method of last resort - it's not ordinary, and it's not routine. If our intelligence systems were more capable, we wouldn't need to rely on the fallible minds of easily-fallible men, broken by ruthless violence. It's far more reasonable to rely on intelligence gathered by intelligent men which can be easily used to draw a logical conclusion, than the uncertain word of a single person, brought out by brutal force, to gain information on your enemy. Surely, the CIA could have put more money into its intelligence technologies and employees, and less into researching torture methods and materials?

Imagine how much better off we'd be if we had a better intelligence system in this country. It was the complete pathetic ineptness of our country's intelligence systems that allowed 9/11 to slip by this government. Better intelligence is obviously attainable, since we should have been able to EASILY thwart off that conflict. We have a long way to go in the development of our intelligence systems until we should be resorting to using torture; our intelligence systems could clearly stand to be overhauled entirely, what with their terrible track record and all.

[Sergio]

Whether or not they can go on is irrelevant when a death in service of your god is rewarded and you absolutely believe your enemy is the devil. We aren't talking about a war to take some land here or there, we're talking about a war in which the enemy hates who we are and everything we stand for. They don't want our country, they want our minds or our dead bodies.

America is a fascistic empire that pays lip-service to the ideas of capitalism. Fascism and imperialism are what America Stands for. If you were speaking from some pure capitalist free society, then you might have a point, but you are talking about America here: a generic mixed economy with the biggest government the world has ever seen. Have you ever spoken to middle eastern people? I have spoken to a great many of them, and the thing that pisses them off the most about America is the imperialism, not Britney Spears or Coca Cola or Freedom or Christianity. If America was a free market society with a non-interventionist foreign policy and no foreign aid, only a few crackpots would hate them. The major threat to a free natrion comes from being so successful that other governments are proven to be useless by comparison, thus giving other leaders an incentive to destroy this beacon of liberty and blame the failure on freedom. But that is not what is happening today: America has not been a beacon of liberty for a very, very long time.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Sergio

[gags]

Why may it only be used on "enemy combatants"? Why should they be treated any different that a "normal" criminal?

For very obvious reasons. A common thief is not comparable to a terrorist hell bent on killing innocents.

That means that the punishment or course of action would be different for the same crime when there would be no reason to believe the criminal has any useful information.

Enhanced interrogation techiniques should only be used when there is convincing evidence that the enemy has useful information.

Having information about a possible future crime is no crime itself and I also don't see why not giving away this information is a crime.

IE: If I accidentally got information about a future crime, the government could not force me to give away this information because I did not initiate force in any way.

We're not talking about crime here. We're talking about terrorist and other acts in war situations.

I don't see an argument why "saving lives" has to be the only benefit for society where torture may be used.. and even so: Forcefully cutting out organs of murderers would probably save more lives that any information about terrorist attacks ever could.

I don't advocate hard physical torture. However, enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, psychological techniques, etc... should have a place in our arsenal of weapons for fighting this type of enemy.

America is a fascistic empire that pays lip-service to the ideas of capitalism. Fascism and imperialism are what America Stands for.

Ah yes, the truth usually finds its way to the surface. I had my suspicions about where you were coming from and now you’ve confirmed them.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

America is a fascistic empire that pays lip-service to the ideas of capitalism. Fascism and imperialism are what America Stands for.

So which is it? Rothbardian or Chomskyite?

[RationalBiker]

Torture isn't used as a means of ending aggression - it's used to further our knowledge of something which we can use against our enemy.

Hmm.... use against our enemy.... to what end... to thwart a future attack(s)? I'm in disbelief that you connected these two things in your sentence and yet fail to integrate the connection in your mind. However, it sounds as though you are conflating my claim into meaning it will stop all future attacks versus information being gained that would enable us to stop some specific future attacks. No one specific tool can be used to end all future types of aggression we could face, and I would never make such a claim.

Check your premises.

Been there, checked that.

I arrived at that conclusion because it's the truth.

Okay, let me quote you again;

Their intelligence systems would be stellar enough that any information we'd need to gather would be sufficiently done so by those groups.

How do you know, with certainty, the outcome of a future context? How are you divining the future, because the future is not truth yet.

Self-defensive force, a rational foreign policy, and active intelligence communities would be enough to thwart any potential attacks.

Again, how do you know, with certainty, the outcome of a future context? How are divining the future because the future is not truth yet.

You talked about improving systems, which probably would improve our chance to reduce the likelihood of potential attacks, but I'm still curious how you derive that we could have perfect systems that could stop all potential attacks. All I see is speculation on your part, not "truth" or facts.

America is a fascistic empire that pays lip-service to the ideas of capitalism. Fascism and imperialism are what America Stands for.

Well, that's certainly one opinion. Moving on...

[Jake_Ellison]

To put it in a more simplistic manner: If you torture your enemy, your enemy will remember it and be angered by it. Our objective in war is to remove the threat of the aggressor. If your enemy finds evidence of you torturing one of their own, that does not aid in the successful completion of the objective.

Right. It is wrong to torture a terrorist, ever, no matter how many lives could be saved, because his suicidal, murderous coleagues could find out and are going to get more angry at us than they already are. I guess they're gonna blow themselves up in a busy train in London twice now.

[Sergio]

So which is it? Rothbardian or Chomskyite?

Glad to see some curioisity, but I am probably a Sergio-ite lol. Perhaps you are one too. The philosopher that I agree with most is Stefan Molyneux on www.freedomainradio.com.

In my approach to thinking, i use logic and reason, and I reject logical fallacies. I also subject my ideas to empiricism: theories should be attached to reality. I am strongly opposed to any form of religion, mysticism or wishy-washy 'agnosticism'.

Economically, I advocate pure free market capitalism that respects individual and property rights.

Psychologically, I advocate self esteem, empathy, ambition and moral courage. People should be honest and open about their feelings, and should not repress emotions. Regarding second-handers, I think that the only people who's opinions matter are those whom we value, such as close friends, loved ones or collegues.

Artistically, I prefer heroic or natural or beautiful art, usually with some kind of consistent principle running through it. I am opposed to postmodernism and ugliness of any form. My favorite books are the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

My political ideas can be reduced to one line: It is immoral to initiate physical force, and people who break this rule should face some sort of consequences.

I advocate the basic methodology of objectivism, but I do not agree with some of its contradictory conclusions. For example, in an free society, it would be immoral and irrational to prevent a man like Rearden from competing with government services. Dispute resolution, security, insurance and military contractors are all fields that can and should be open for men like Rearden to compete in the free market.

I am close to being an objectivist - or rather, what objectivism would be if people were loyal to it's methodology rather than all of Rand's final conclusions.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Sergio

[Sergio]

Right. It is wrong to torture a terrorist, ever, no matter how many lives could be saved, because his suicidal, murderous coleagues could find out and are going to get more angry at us than they already are. I guess they're gonna blow themselves up in a busy train in London twice now.

If you torture someone, and it turns out after-the-fact that they were guilty of directly initiating force (or setting up a bomb etc), then I suppose that torture would be ok (if torture actually works better than alternatives). However, if you torture an innocent man, you should absolutely be punished - severely. This creates an in-built deterrant to torture, because of the consequences of being wrong. At the same time, if the torture is to prevent millions of people from dying, then the torturer might be willing to take the risk.

One thing is clear: initating force against innocent people is wrong, and should be punished, regardless of what nationality you are./ None of this "Americans are superior and other people don't have rights" nonsense.

[Sergio]

Ah yes, the truth usually finds its way to the surface. I had my suspicions about where you were coming from and now you’ve confirmed them.

and

Well, that's certainly one opinion. Moving on...

I'm sorry, but these are not logical arguments.

I made the claims that America is both fascistic and imperialist. I can back this up with facts that you are probably already familiar with.

1) Is America Fascist? Fascism is characterized by a unique kind of government-business partnership:

Ayn Rand wrote, "Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership ... the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens."

"Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal."

Ayn Rand has spoken before about the transition of America towards Fascism, and that was 40 years ago, so none of this should be contraversial. The US government allows men to have some private ownership of property, but the government regulates and controls what people can do with their property. This is the economic definition of fascism. We live in the age of the looters in Atlas Shrugged. That was the end of the road of a mixed economy: a fascist dictatorship.

You can learn more about Fascism from the Mises institute, the intellectuals who created the economic foundation for Ayn Rand's ideas. Rand has praised Ludwig von Mises's work as a systematic refutation of every single argument ever put forth by collectivists.

2) Is America Imperialist? Check out the wikipedia article on Empire:

"An empire is a State with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture [3] — unlike a federation, an extensive State voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples. As a State, an empire might be either territorial or a hegemony, wherein the empire’s sphere of influence dominates the lesser state(s) via divide and conquer tactics, i.e. “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, (cf. superpower, hyperpower)."

"An imperial political structure is established and maintained two ways: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force (direct, physical action to compel the emperor’s goals), and (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power (the perception that the emperor can physically enforce his desired goals). The former provides greater tribute and direct political control, yet limits further expansion, because it absorbs military forces to fixed garrisons. The latter provides less tribute and indirect control, but avails military forces for further expansion."

America has invaded or controlled numerous nations in its history, both openly and indirectly. In many cases, the purpose is for corporations with 'special connections' to get a monopoly license for extracting resources in some 3rd world nation. The corporation uses the US government to keep the 3rd world governments in line, and to make sure that their monopoly license continues indefinitely. In echange, they do favours for the politicians and ruling class, as characterised in Atlas Shrugged. In other cases, the purpose is to spend vast sums of taxpayer dollars for the benefit of looters in military corporations at home. Sometimes, the US props up other nations such as Israel, Iran (before), Iraq (before and again), and Afghanistan, and uses these puppet nations to extend US influence in key areas. Finally, the US establishes many military bases around the world to maintain an upper hand, so that this entire system can remain unchallenged.

So when I said that America is a fascistic empire, don't just dismiss my arguments.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Sergio

[gags]

I made the claims that America is both fascistic and imperialist. I can back this up with facts that you are probably already familiar with.

The arguments you made in support of your ridiculous statement are so weak and hackneyed they hardly deserve a response.

[Jake_Ellison]

Ayn Rand wrote:

[insert out of context quotes here]

So when I said that America is a fascistic empire, don't just dismiss my arguments.

Ayn Rand addressed this:

Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called “Free World” consists of various “mixed economies,” it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All “mixed economies” are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand a

country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw. (The Virtue of Selfishness)

You are being dismissed because you are selectively quoting someone who's work you do not understand, and interpreting history you don't understand. As long as there is no one party rule, political executions, or censorship, stop attributing your obviously nonsensical theories to Ayn Rand. The US is still a mixed economy with most individual rights recognized under Law. Appropriation and nationalization of property existed during Rand's life (in fact it was far worse in the sixties and seventies), and she could not have made it more clear that America is still the best country on the Planet.

[crizon]

For very obvious reasons. A common thief is not comparable to a terrorist hell bent on killing innocents. [...]

We're not talking about crime here. We're talking about terrorist and other acts in war situations.

I don't see how simply labeling someone as a terrorist and proclaiming a state of war is justified after, let's say a bombing, or how the principles may change.

If you blow up a train, it is not worse when you do it because you fight the government than if you do it because you enjoy seeing dead people. A different motive does not permit more usage of force by the government as retaliation.

Fighting Terrorism is _not_ comparable to a classical war. It was an arbitrary juggling of words to proclaim a "war on terror" and label the terrorist "enemy combatants" by the US government.

Enhanced interrogation techiniques should only be used when there is convincing evidence that the enemy has useful information.

That is exactly my point. The punishment or "the amount of retaliatory force" changes not because of the crime he committed, but because of what he knows, which is no crime itself.

The key here is that you are using force against an individual that poses no current threat _not_ because of his crimes but because the society has a benefit.

Once you consider torture in this context moral, you will open the door to a lot more situations where torture may be used because the line to just use it against terrorists is simply arbitrary.

[Jake_Ellison]

The punishment or "the amount of retaliatory force" changes not because of the crime he committed, but because of what he knows, which is no crime itself.

I guess some points do need to be reiterated again and again (since you did join the discussion late, and there's a lot of nonsense to sift through): the motivation for torture is not punishment, but self defense. Americans have the right to self defense, and they have delegated that right to be exercised by their government: in the case of a massive threat like terrorism, a massive effort is justified. The torture of a fanatic murderer is well justified, even if it is only one person, protecting only himself or his family. (for instance, in a system without a government to defend one's rights, trying to find his kidnapped child one would definitely be justified in torturing the kidnapper, no?)

With a government protecting millions, it is even more so.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Right. It is wrong to torture a terrorist, ever, no matter how many lives could be saved, because his suicidal, murderous coleagues could find out and are going to get more angry at us than they already are. I guess they're gonna blow themselves up in a busy train in London twice now.

Nice fear mongering.

I really don't care what happens to said terrorist on a physical level. I care about the consequences of utilizing torture as a legitimate strategy instead of focusing our resources and minds on a more trustworthy and useful method.

[Sergio]

Ayn Rand addressed this:

Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called “Free World” consists of various “mixed economies,” it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All “mixed economies” are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand a

country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw. (The Virtue of Selfishness)

You are being dismissed because you are selectively quoting someone who's work you do not understand, and interpreting history you don't understand. As long as there is no one party rule, political executions, or censorship, stop attributing your obviously nonsensical theories to Ayn Rand. The US is still a mixed economy with most individual rights recognized under Law. Appropriation and nationalization of property existed during Rand's life (in fact it was far worse in the sixties and seventies), and she could not have made it more clear that America is still the best country on the Planet.

Non Sequitur. Your post doesn't address my arguments. I used the words 'fascistic imperialism', which does not require political executions or one party rule. You can have democratic fascistic imperialism which treats some political opponents as 'enemy combatants' and strips them of the right to a fair trial.

If Americans are superior because of the system's respect for individual rights, then this superiority cannot be used to justify violating the rights of peoplein other countries. That would be a contradiction, because the Americans would be using their own superiority as a justification for destroying the very thing that made them superior in the first place.

I have been very unimpressed with the standard of debate so far, so much twisting, evasion, nitpicking, and haughiness and too little real substance. It seems like people are emotionally invested in their positions, at the expense of the truth. Their motive of posting is more "to win" than to find the truth. Not good enough.

I guess some points do need to be reiterated again and again (since you did join the discussion late, and there's a lot of nonsense to sift through): the motivation for torture is not punishment, but self defense. Americans have the right to self defense, and they have delegated that right to be exercised by their government: in the case of a massive threat like terrorism, a massive effort is justified. The torture of a fanatic murderer is well justified, even if it is only one person, protecting only himself or his family. (for instance, in a system without a government to defend one's rights, trying to find his kidnapped child one would definitely be justified in torturing the kidnapper, no?)

With a government protecting millions, it is even more so.

Out of curiosity, would you have a moral problem if the US government specifically targeted only innocent civillians in its wars, as a way of destroying the tax base of the enemy nation? If it worked better than other tactics, would you support it? Do you support a method of war that depended purely on violating the rights of individuals in other nations?

I guess some points do need to be reiterated again and again (since you did join the discussion late, and there's a lot of nonsense to sift through): the motivation for torture is not punishment, but self defense. Americans have the right to self defense, and they have delegated that right to be exercised by their government: in the case of a massive threat like terrorism, a massive effort is justified. The torture of a fanatic murderer is well justified, even if it is only one person, protecting only himself or his family. (for instance, in a system without a government to defend one's rights, trying to find his kidnapped child one would definitely be justified in torturing the kidnapper, no?)

With a government protecting millions, it is even more so.

If the torturer makes a mistake and hurts an innocent person, he ought to face consequences, no? Or can you just blame the murderer for the torturer's mistake?

Edited June 21, 2009 by Sergio

[Grames]

I don't see how simply labeling someone as a terrorist and proclaiming a state of war is justified after, let's say a bombing, or how the principles may change.

If you blow up a train, it is not worse when you do it because you fight the government than if you do it because you enjoy seeing dead people. A different motive does not permit more usage of force by the government as retaliation.

Fighting Terrorism is _not_ comparable to a classical war. It was an arbitrary juggling of words to proclaim a "war on terror" and label the terrorist "enemy combatants" by the US government.

That is exactly my point. The punishment or "the amount of retaliatory force" changes not because of the crime he committed, but because of what he knows, which is no crime itself.

The key here is that you are using force against an individual that poses no current threat _not_ because of his crimes but because the society has a benefit.

Once you consider torture in this context moral, you will open the door to a lot more situations where torture may be used because the line to just use it against terrorists is simply arbitrary.

"War on terror" is wrong because random bombings are just a tactic. The war should be directed at those persons embracing the ideology that organizes them and motivates them to act. However, even if Bush had correctly identified the nature of the current war the people held as enemy combatants would have the same status because they were captured on a battlefield. Fighting in a battle is an objective behavior, not a thought crime.

Criminals typically act alone or with a very small number of accomplices because their motive is necessarily secret. Terrorists espouse their philosophy openly and actively recruit accomplices. The number of terrorists and the resources they gather necessitates that they gather at a safe haven, usually outside the jurisidiction of law enforcement. The scale of effort necessary to defeat a terrorist campaign involves invading and defeating them in their safe havens. Action on that scale is far beyond what domestic law enforcement is authorized to do, therefore a military response is necessary.

You are right in that merely a different motive does not justify more force by the government, but the motive is not the only thing that is different and emphatically not the important difference distiguishing terrorists from criminals.

[Jake_Ellison]

I have been very unimpressed with the standard of debate so far, so much twisting, evasion, nitpicking, and haughiness and too little real substance. It seems like people are emotionally invested in their positions, at the expense of the truth. Their motive of posting is more "to win" than to find the truth. Not good enough.

You and Andrew are both ideologically opposed to Objectivism. On top of that, you are also quite incoherent and completely unable to address any arguments we present. At least Andrew understands what we are saying here and now, even though he does not seem to understand Objectivism, and is falsely claiming to.

You, on the other hand, can't seem to pay any attention to the opposing points of view, and have shown no interest whatsoever in the theme of this website, Ayn Rand's philosophy. If this was a democracy, my vote would've been in favour of telling you to stop posting before reading the rules, and showing some understanding of Objectivism. But it is not, so I can only ask you to try and read the site's rules. Until then, I shall utilize the wonderful feature that allows me to not see your posts, for the second time since I joined OO.net.

[Grames]

Until then, I shall utilize the wonderful feature that allows me to not see your posts, for the second time since I joined OO.net.

Hey I didn't realize that was possible. Awesome.

[Sergio]

You and Andrew are both ideologically opposed to Objectivism. On top of that, you are also quite incoherent and completely unable to address any arguments we present. At least Andrew understands what we are saying here and now, even though he does not seem to understand Objectivism, and is falsely claiming to.

You, on the other hand, can't seem to pay any attention to the opposing points of view, and have shown no interest whatsoever in the theme of this website, Ayn Rand's philosophy. If this was a democracy, my vote would've been in favour of telling you to stop posting before reading the rules, and showing some understanding of Objectivism. But it is not, so I can only ask you to try and read the site's rules. Until then, I shall utilize the wonderful feature that allows me to not see your posts, for the second time since I joined OO.net.

Ironically, social ostracism is the very tool that makes non-violent forms of law enforcement viable.

For anyone else reading this, I do understand objectivism. My interest is revealing some of the contradictions within some people's conclusions. Methodology is more important than end conclusions, every time. If people are just parroting back Rand's conclusions in new bizarre contexts (like nuking Tehran), it is essential to point out if they are not supported by the methodologies that objectivism is based on.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Sergio

[Andrew Grathwohl]

You and Andrew are both ideologically opposed to Objectivism. On top of that, you are also quite incoherent and completely unable to address any arguments we present. At least Andrew understands what we are saying here and now, even though he does not seem to understand Objectivism, and is falsely claiming to.

Leave me out of any quarrels you may have with another member. My arguments stand on my own merits, and do not endorse the ideas being brought up by Sergio.

I consider myself nothing more than a student of Objectivism. I'm only trying to learn here. However, I think it's rash to say I don't understand Objectivism; after all, I'm referencing Objectivist writings and am employing what I'd consider rational thinking and connecting my ideas to the principles that Objectivism teaches: objective reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism (luckily, I haven't engaged any discussions with you dealing with art, because I can only imagine you'd offer me nothing). If you truly believe ideas are rational or irrational based on their own merits, then argue the ideas, not the labels.

I think Sergio is getting frustrated by your unnecessarily blunt and nondescript posts which are certainly full of harsh words and labels, but seemingly lacking context, rational evidence, and background information. I think you should take a lesson from David Odden, because I find he's been extremely helpful, and comparatively nice, when engaging in discussions with other users. I am quite unsure of what it is you think you're getting out of these discussions when you seem so incredibly hostile, not just in your verbiage, but also in your rude manner of constructing thoughts and ideas in response to others.