CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

[Hobbes' Choice]

So let's rehash what I wrote ..

Why bother - no one was convinced the first time.

Alas, I must go to work soon.

Not soon enough. Don't come back.

[Greta]

Water boarding is suffocation, the feeling of drowning, and that is torture. It appears to be one of the less grotesque and damaging forms of torture, but it is obviously torturous and, thus, torture.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808

Opinions vary as to whether torture is morally justified, generally being a distillation of the ends vs means argument. I don't have much of an opinion on it given that awful, awful things are being done to people every day in this overpopulated and unstable world where most individual human lives are no longer considered valuable by the institutions that control society. It's not easy to weigh the various "awfuls" against each other. I can imagine scenarios where waterboarding could be justifiable, but it is unequivocally torture.

[Harbal]

He won't get it.

That's a shame because I think it sums up this present situation perfectly.

[fiveredapples]

My opponents (mostly ethically deranged Liberals and confused Conservatives) cannot seem to grasp the concept of argumentation. Oh well. I can't expect people to be on my level. Few are. After all, my college major was, essentially, argumentation, so of course I'm much better at it than most. Then, again, I was better at it than my classmates too, so I'm elite. Update: CARP METER = 15.

I did find at least one (new) relevant response. I really take no pleasure in sifting through the dross that are your thoughts, but every now and then I find something that is at least fool's gold -- if not gold itself. I will consider this new opinion now, as I welcome all actual attacks on my argument. The rest is sophomoric rhetoric that can have no bearing on this debate. It is intended for morons by morons. A lemming rally cry: "We are winning without attacking his argument!" It's too adorable to disturb. Carry on.

The new attack is an attack on my given definition of torture. The author wants to argue that torture requires less than I say it does with respect to 'harm', and so that by lowering the bar, sort of speak, CIA Water Boarding falls under the umbrella term 'torture.' That's coherent enough. It's wrong, but it actually bears directly on my argument.

I've never seen any definition of torture as 'something that does harm'. That would be ridiculous nonsense, right?

It would be ridiculous, which is why I didn't give that definition. Reading level = Dr. Seuss.

The UN definition: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

You know who know-nothings go to? Non-experts. You know who experts go to? Themselves. The UN is not a moral authority. "Torture" is a moral term, and they are not the be-all-to-end-all when it comes to defining moral terms. This is the same UN that constantly reprimands Israel for human rights violations but says nothing about the PLO, Hamas, the Islamic Brotherhood, etc.? Oh yes, the UN, the moral authority of Liberals. Never mind this obvious appeal to a false authority. Let's entertain you. I'm starving for an actual debate, you see, so I will concede this poor definition just because I'm bored and you will never do better. On we go. Let's assume for discussion's sake that this definition is a good one. Let's examine it!

The magic question is whether CIA Water Boarding inflicts SEVERE PAIN or SEVERE SUFFERING. And the answer to each is NO. There is no severe pain or severe suffering involved, which is why CIA water boarding cannot be torture by the UN's own definition. Argument over. You lose.

Your whole pitiful argument is based on some 'definition' that you've come up with.

LOL...The onus isn't on me to come up with a definition of torture, though, is it? I'm saying CIA water boarding is morally permissible. I don't recognize CIA water boarding as torture, so why in hell would I bring up torture, let alone try to define it? Torture is irrelevant to the CIA Water Boarding debate. It's like bringing up angels or bunnies or house slippers. They're all irrelevant.

It's those who object to the claim that CIA water boarding is morally permissible that are invoking the notion of 'torture', so they can go on to argue (falsely) that CIA water boarding is morally impermissible because it's torture and torture is morally impermissible. I was merely doing your side a favor in giving a definition you never give but which you owe us, since your arguments invoke torture. Think about that for a moment. You cavalierly assumed that water boarding was torture, so you never bothered to argue for that premise or bothered to definite torture. That's how lazy you are mentally. I would shoot myself in the head if I were as mentally lazy as you are. What's the point of living the life of a moron? Anyway, my definition is a better one than the UN's, but there's nothing worrisome to me about the UN's definition. CIA water boarding doesn't cause severe pain, so it's not torture. I'm happy to win this debate on your terms. Thank you.

But, most of the planet doesn't happen to think that 'American lives' are more important and special than any other lives. What is 'We aren't talking about the Khmer Rouge here' supposed to mean? That they are the 'baddies' as opposed to 'goodie' Americans, who of course would never do anything evil?

Normally I would ignore these deranged and idiotic comments, but you did at least say something relevant earlier, so I'll oblige. Nobody said anything about Americans being privileged. This is YOUR STRAWMAN. That's an argumentative fallacy, which is mostly what you guys do here. It's fucking pathetic.

Face it. Your country is an immoral and backward cesspit. You don't even bother with 'innocent until proven guilty', a fundamental principle of any enlightened society. Or don't muslims count as human? I mean, they are all terrorists anyway, so there's no chance of torturing the innocent--unlike Americans, who are all 'goodies'.

Ha ha ha...so precious. This addresses my argument how? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Get off your Third World soapbox.

The funniest thing I read today was by some twat who referenced Christopher Hitchens. That has to be the funniest shit I've ever read. Basically, Hitchens endured ONE DOUSING and declared CIA Water Boarding excruciatingly painful. LMAO. LMFAO!!! Do you snowflakes realize that Khalid Sheik Mohammed endured 186 dousings? WOW! He must be SUPERMAN!!! Do you know what "excruciating pain" is if there's another human being who can withstand 186x what you call excruciating? LMAO. Hitchens is not a proper judge. Plus, did you know that he once had a near death drowning experience as a youngster? Oh gee, maybe a guy who once almost drowned might over-react to the drowning sensation???????? LMAO....Morons, the lot of you! And here's the final straw. Hitchens declared that ONE DOUSING was excruciatingly painful, which means that, according to his characterization, CIA water boarding is torture. So, for Hitchens, it's more ethical to let hundreds of innocent people die the victims of terrorist attacks than to perform ONE DOUSING on a known terrorist. That kind of stupidity, which you ethically deranged fuckstains endorse, is beyond sinister.

"Daddy, why did our country let Mommy die?"
"Because, child, it's better that she and hundreds others die than we perform one dousing on a known terrorist."

That is the mind of the most deranged on this planet. That is the mind of a Liberal. Contemptible. See you tomorrow, dimwits.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Is fiveredfaces mentally handicapped? ↑ So, if you were burnt 186 times with cigarette butts it's not torture, but once might be.
Has this Einstein addressed ANY points on here? I can't even think of a scenario where torture would 'save lives'. It might elicit a false confession to events that have already occurred, but what use is that to anyone? People will say anything to escape torture.
This guy is a poster boy for reasons to STAY AWAY from philosophy courses. If this is the shallow garbage they produce then they might as well be done away with altogether.
@fiveredfaces Umm, winning an argument involves a teensy bit more than telling the other person you have won. And projecting is so undignified. Where is your self respect?

[Londoner]

The new attack is an attack on my given definition of torture. The author wants to argue that torture requires less than I say it does with respect to 'harm', and so that by lowering the bar, sort of speak, CIA Water Boarding falls under the umbrella term 'torture.' That's coherent enough. It's wrong, but it actually bears directly on my argument.

...The magic question is whether CIA Water Boarding inflicts SEVERE PAIN or SEVERE SUFFERING. And the answer to each is NO. There is no severe pain or severe suffering involved, which is why CIA water boarding cannot be torture by the UN's own definition. Argument over. You lose.

That may be your preferred definition, but it is not how torture is understood in law, including US law. You may have an alternative definition, but your original argument seemed to be that waterboarding did not fit the existing definition of torture and was therefore legal.

LOL...The onus isn't on me to come up with a definition of torture, though, is it? I'm saying CIA water boarding is morally permissible.

Then surely that is where we should start.

You presumably accept that waterboarding causes some suffering, otherwise it wouldn't be any use for extracting information. If we consider it is moral to do that, why stop with waterboarding? Why wouldn't it also be moral to inflict severe pain and severe suffering to achieve the same ends?

[Greta]

How funny! After all the bragging and big-noting, I was hoping for a response that could live up to the hype. Instead all I get are insults, misrepresentations and distraction from the fact that he'd been owned.

No logic or reason to work with. Zero argumentation. The most incompetent and toxic member of any forum I have encountered.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Normally I would ignore these deranged and idiotic comments, but you did at least say something relevant earlier, so I'll oblige. Nobody said anything about Americans being privileged. This is YOUR STRAWMAN. That's an argumentative fallacy, which is mostly what you guys do here. It's fucking pathetic.

You said something along the lines of 'we aren't talking about the Khmer Rouge', the implication being that good ol Amurricans would never do anything like what those wogs did'. Actually you are just as bad, and have done a lot worse (not least because of the fact that the US has set itself up as the moral standard-bearer of the planet). There was no strawman.
I posted the UN definition because you obviously need it spelt out to you, and it's quite thorough. Your absurd assertion that the UN definition is somehow invalid because of an apparent (totally unrelated) bias against Israel is a logical fallacy, so it's rather pathetic the way you keep whining about 'strawmen'. And modern democracies are naturally going to be held to a higher moral standard than totalitarian theocracies.
Why don't you get someone to waterboard you (I'm sure you will find plenty of takers) and then get back to us on how little you suffered.
Just keep telling us how brilliant you are. Say it often enough and we are sure to believe you eventually.
Oh, and it hasn't gone unnoticed that you keep editing your OP.....

[Hobbes' Choice]

How funny! After all the bragging and big-noting, I was hoping for a response that could live up to the hype. Instead all I get are insults, misrepresentations and distraction from the fact that he'd been owned.

No logic or reason to work with. Zero argumentation. The most incompetent and toxic member of any forum I have encountered.

I loved 5redapples to have to spend a little time being interrogated with "NON"- tortuous methods.
He obviously lacks basic imagination, maybe he lacks the wit to find torture difficult to cope with?
After the water-boarding, it like to treat him to a less "harmful", method of torture; the Chinese water torture in which the victim is simply tied down with his head under a dripping source of water.
People have been driven insane with this "harmless" method. Apparently one of the most devastating aspects is when you change the water supply to be erratic, after a period of regular dripping; the body longs for the predictability.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Normally I would ignore these deranged and idiotic comments, but you did at least say something relevant earlier, so I'll oblige. Nobody said anything about Americans being privileged. This is YOUR STRAWMAN. That's an argumentative fallacy, which is mostly what you guys do here. It's fucking pathetic.

You said something along the lines of 'we aren't talking about the Khmer Rouge', the implication being that good ol Amurricans would never do anything like what those wogs did'. Actually you are just as bad, and have done a lot worse (not least because of the fact that the US has set itself up as the moral standard-bearer of the planet). There was no strawman.
I posted the UN definition because you obviously need it spelt out to you, and it's quite thorough. Your absurd assertion that the UN definition is somehow invalid because of an apparent (totally unrelated) bias against Israel is a logical fallacy, so it's rather pathetic the way you keep whining about 'strawmen'. And modern democracies are naturally going to be held to a higher moral standard than totalitarian theocracies.
Why don't you get someone to waterboard you (I'm sure you will find plenty of takers) and then get back to us on how little you suffered.
Just keep telling us how brilliant you are. Say it often enough and we are sure to believe you eventually.
Oh, and it hasn't gone unnoticed that you keep editing your OP.....

Spraying napalm over children in foreign countries is a poor example. What American did in Asia was amongst the worst crimes in history; right up there with the holocaust.
Morons like fiveredapples are the tragic consequence of a country making allowances for pure evil.

[Harbal]

being subjected to my loud country music doesn't imply that I am torturing you.

It's ridiculous to claim that being subjected to country music (at any volume) in not torture.

I sodomized you with a rusty pipe

Out of an almost limitless choice of hypothetical scenarios, one can't help but wonder why you chose this one.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

being subjected to my loud country music doesn't imply that I am torturing you.

It's ridiculous to claim that being subjected to country music (at any volume) in not torture.

I sodomized you with a rusty pipe

Out of an almost limitless choice of hypothetical scenarios, one can't help but wonder why you chose this one.

How predictable that he would be a country music fan. And I think he has a crush on you.

[Harbal]

And I think he has a crush on you.

Yes, I think so too, but given his taste in music and sex toys, he won't get anywhere with me.

[ken]

1st Argument -- Water Boarding is not torture

I will have to ask you some clarifying questions first, and await your response to ALL of My questions, before I would even begin to agree with and accept your attempt at this "argument".

1. Torture involves 'intent to harm', where 'harm' must be specified as a certain severe and long-lasting or permanent damage.

So, to you, 'torture' has two aspects;
a) 'Intent to harm'
b) The 'harm' must cause a certain severe and long-lasting or permanent damage.

a) Do you KNOW, for sure, what the actual intent was of the people who were doing the water boarding?
If you say, "No", then just maybe they were intending to do harm. I do NOT know what the intention of the people doing the water boarding was, so just maybe they were intending to do harm, and/or even a lot of harm in the process, thus just maybe they were torturing the "other" people.
If, however, you say, "Yes", then how do you KNOW?

b) What does 'certain severe damage' contain and/or mean to you? How do YOU define 'certain severe damage'? What does the word 'certain' actually mean in 'certain severe damage'? How 'severe' exactly is in 'severe damage'? What 'damage' is needed before it becomes torture?
And, how long is 'long-lasting'?

2. The CIA Water Boarding (of which there has been three cases only) has not caused 'harm' to any of the three KNOWN TERRORISTS we water boarded.

How do you KNOW that no harm was caused?

Do you personally KNOW the three KNOWN HUMAN BEINGS who were water boarded?
If you say, "Yes", then did they tell you personally that no harm was caused, and if they did, are you able to trust them 100%?
If you say, "No", then HOW would you KNOW if any harm and/or how much harm was caused or not caused?

Also, why did you use the word 'we' in 'we water boarded'?

3. It's very unreasonable to infer that the CIA had an 'intent to harm' when there was no actual harm

Again HOW do you KNOW there was no actual harm? I, for one, certainly do NOT know either way.

Also, besides the fact that IF no harm was caused, then that in of itself does NOT provide any indication of what 'intent' there was in the beginning. There obviously was an 'intent', but what it actually was would only be KNOWN by the instigators and/or the ones doing the water boarding. There could have by all means been an 'intent to harm'. I was NOT there so I do NOT know what the intent was or was not. Were you there at the time of the water boarding? Were you one of the ones doing the water boarding?

4. The CIA did not intend to harm

Do you really believe that by just making a statement, like this one, all by itself, with absolutely nothing else, makes the statement true in any way, shape, or form?

Conclusion: CIA Water Boarding is not torture

Is "cia" water boarding different than "other" water boarding?

If you say, "Yes", then how exactly?
And, does that mean, from your perspective, "other" water boarding could actually be torture while "cia's" is not torture?

If you say, "No", then does that mean, from your perspective, ALL water boarding is NOT torture?

I would just like to suggest also that water boarding is done by human beings, and not by companies nor institutions, and human beings CAN do things intentionally, without others ever knowing what the real intent was or is. I would also like to suggest that just how severe the actual damage is, which was done, and, just how long-lasting the damage was for, which was done, would NOT really be known by any other person than the one who was water boarded. And, how long-lasting the damage was for would not really be known until on one's death bed.

You could also run this argument on the premise that torture involves 'harm' (again, the relevant kind) and that the CIA water boarding didn't 'harm' any of the three KNOWN TERRORISTS, so CIA water boarding isn't torture.

YOU could also TRY to run this argument on this premise you propose here BUT we are still stuck in the same position of HOW do you KNOW, for sure, no 'harm' was caused?

Also, 'harm' ("the relevant kind", which if you stopped to think about this has absolutely no meaning at all), anyhow, the 'harm' is being relevant to who, exactly?

I am pretty sure the relevant 'harm' being done could be on the opposite ends of the spectrum when looked at from the one doing the 'harm' compared to when looked at from the one being 'harmed'.

Would you, do you, have the exact same view of water boarding not being torture, and the relevant 'harm' done or not done, if it was, let us say, "others", from the other side of the world or from another religion, who were water boarding those people who, let us say, work for the cia themselves? Would "their" water boarding instantly be torture now, or do you hold the same view that water boarding is NOT torture?

My response was that his definition -- by the examples he gave -- didn't fit the definition of harm for torture.

Remember that this is YOUR definition of 'torture'. It is NOT an accepted and agreed upon definition.

Basically, if I step on your foot once, I have not tortured you -- although I have caused you harm -- even if I have restrained you and prevented you from avoiding my stepping on your foot. Commonsense tells us that torture requires a little bit more severe harm than having your foot stepped on -- not mashed by an elephant (<--before you start carping me).

But I thought you said in premise 1. that one aspect of torture involves 'intent to harm'. Did you intend to harm the human being who's foot you stepped on or not?

If you said, "Yes I did", then that fulfills part 1 of YOUR 'torture' definition.

If you said, "No I did not", then I am not really sure how trust worthy you are. You have just admitted that even if you had caused harm and had done this by restraining the human being, so preventing them from avoiding you stepping on their foot, I, for one anyhow, would still wonder what your intent was if it was as you say NOT to harm them. Why would you do such a thing?

Now, to the second aspect of YOUR definition for 'torture'. YOU say, 'harm' IS specified as a certain severe and long-lasting or permanent damage. What happens after you step on a human beings foot, which you did on purpose by the way, and also did by first restraining them so they could not stop you, and some bones are harmed in their foot, now you lock them up in a prison cell and do not give them proper medical attention to heal the damage. After some time the foot has not healed properly. The human being is left not able to function as good as they could before, for the rest of their lives. Is this a 'harm' that is specified as being a certain severe and long-lasting or permanent damage harm? Or, does this 'harm' still not fit YOUR criteria?

If it is the former, then you have just fulfilled both criteria needed for 'torture'.
If it is the latter, then what exactly does 'harm' entail?

By the way, when you are the one doing the restraining and the stomping on the foot of another human being do you think the criteria for 'intent of harm' and for 'harm' itself would differ in any way if it was you who was the one who was being restrained AND being stomped on?

Alas, I must go to work soon.

Just wondering, what does a qualified and, self-labelled, "superior philosopher" such as yourself actually do for work?







In short this is YOUR argument;

P1: Torture involves 'intent to harm', where 'harm' must be specified as a certain severe and long-lasting or permanent damage.

P2: The CIA Water Boarding (of which there has been three cases only) has not caused 'harm' to any of the three KNOWN TERRORISTS we water boarded.

P3: It's very unreasonable to infer that the CIA had an 'intent to harm' when there was no actual harm.

p4: The CIA did not intend to harm.

Conclusion: CIA Water Boarding is not torture.

In short, this is My response to your argument. To Me, this is just an obvious case of coming to or jumping to a conclusion, and believing in that conclusion, before looking at the facts, and then "trying" to find anything that will fit in with and support the already gained conclusion and belief.

P1:
a) No one can KNOW, for sure, the intent of another. Unless of course human beings can be trusted 100%, and trusted 100% of the time, to tell the absolute and whole truth and nothing but the truth always. So, 'intent to harm' or not may never-ever really be truly known.

b) YOUR definition of 'torture' and/or 'harm' is NOT an accepted and agreed upon definition. So, anything you say regarding this is just YOUR subjective view on the matter.

P2: You can NOT know, for sure, what harm has been caused or not unless you are the one who has been water boarded, yourself.

Also, labeling the human beings who were water boarded as "KNOWN TERRORISTS" is just an attempt to get people on "your side". It is just emotive language trying to persuade others that if you are not on "my" or "our" side, then you must be on the "other's" side. The use of the word 'we' was also an attempt at the same thing. Further to this using language in a subliminal way to trick or persuade people to follow you was also done with the use of the word 'only' in "there has been three cases only". As if because the "cia" only did it three times, then it is not really that bad, AND, since it was only done to "three KNOWN TERRORISTS, then really it is not bad at all. This kind of idea and use of language in trying to obtain support is obvious at the best and stupid at the worst.

As for trying to suggest that you KNOW no harm was caused is about as closed or as stupid as a belief one can get.

P3: What is more unreasonable is that you expect all of us to accept that you somehow KNOW the whole truth of what happened and is continuing to happen to these human beings who were water boarded.

p4: If the cia did not intend to harm, as you allege is the case, of which I am still baffled as how you would KNOW what the cia is up to, but anyway what do you propose the cia were intending to do if they were not intending to harm?

What ever your answer comes back as, how do you propose they were obtain what they were intending to obtain if they did NOT intend to do harm?

Conclusion: Just for your information your conclusion might be correct. I have NO view either way.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Whatever else it might be, waterboarding is an intent to elicit information. If WB is 'harmless', then how is this information to be elicited?