This one is pretty self explanitory.

once we begin a numbers game, we can justify any evil.  the answer is no.

If your wife and children were being held captive and the party responsible was alone in a room with you, would you torture that party to save the lives of your family? The answer is yes. I would use whatever means necessary to save my family and would apply the same standard in the defense of the American people against a terrorist.

Will Griffith
www.griffithcorp.com

Of course I would. The very fact that they are a terrorist means they have already forfeited a certain degree of freedom. And if 5 million lives are on the line, and you say NO, you are worst than the terrorist.

Vince Flynn is currently examining the entire concept of torture and violence relative to terrorism in the 11 or so novels he`s written.

On the one side we have the classic "ends justify the means" argument. On the other is PatentAndTrademark`s "anything has a justification" argument.

My rebuttal to the "anything goes" proposition is that we do NOT have an infinitely variable set of conditions. We have an explicit set of conditions that aren`t changing.

Terrorism as an expression of religious fanaticism is explicit. It`s not in any way the same as bioethics, where we kill babies with defective hearts in order to save other babies with less drastic problems.

The hidden proposition, I think, is whether or not we should write into law a process based on "the needs of the many."

The reason we have the term "enemy combatant," and the Geneva Convention, as well as a definition of "war," is to avoid having to connect military actions in a single-case situation with the overall legal system.

When something is written into law, it applies across the board. If we legally allow torture based on supposed righteous ends, then anyone could apply that same law to local police stations. We`d be back to the rubber hoses and suspended habeus corpus situation.

However; when the issue applies to military actions and the defense of the nation, there`s no way to "justify" the same actions in a civil or criminal condition within the society itself.

Liberal activist groups, along with lawyers attempting to make a whole lot of money (in my opinion) are behind the successful attempt to "reduce" military terrorism to a civil and criminal activity. It assigns American Constitutional rights to non-citizens, just like the illegal immigration movement.

It also wipes out the entire reason for the Geneva Convention, elevates rogue bands of thugs to "nation" status, and introduces diplomacy into what`s essentially a theological crusade.

There is no intent to rationalize torture. The question was WOULD I torture a terrorist to save 5 million Americans. My answer is yes. Terror comes in a variety of forms and if my family was being terrorized and their lives in danger I would resort to whatever means necessary to save their lives.  The "bad guys" rationalize their terror tactics every day in their religious rhetoric. They use religion as their basis. I am not using religion or even politics to rationalize torture. I am simply answering the question honestly and as it was posed. Would I? In the defense of my country or my family, I would do whatever it takes to secure their lives.

If you had a terrorist in custody and all of the evidence and intelligence indicated that this terrorist knew where a bomb was planted and he was your only source to find the location, would you use torture to extract the information from him? I know damn well that I would and any other technique to prevent the loss of life.

If that places me in the same category as the "bad guys" in the eyes of some then so be it. It has been said, you don`t take a knife to a gun fight. We can`t fight the tactics of terrorists with a kinder, more compassionate approach. This has been proven.

Would you drop a nuke on a civilian population in a foreign land to save American lives? Truman did and ended the war. We find ourselves, in times of life and death and the struggle to survive, with a capacity to do that which we would not normally do.

When it comes to the defense of one`s nation or one`s family, rationalization goes right out the window and instinct kicks in.

Should torture be public policy? Of course not. Will it be used in situations where lives are at stake...you bet.

Much of this debate falls on the issue of one`s motive and intent.

www.griffithcorp.com

It`s funny. When millions of lives are at stake, we decide torture is ok. When millions of lives are at stake, we decide negotiation isn`t ok. We won`t negotiate with terrorists to save these precious lives. We will torture. Says a lot. Is it the lives we care about, or is it revenge?

Would an Iraqi terrorist torture 5 Americans to entertain 100 terrorists?

It isn`t that American actions cause terrorist responses! That`s such a specious argument, yet it hangs on and on and on.

It doesn`t matter who causes what. All I was saying was, if a terrorist said, "We have your Red Cross charity workers, release Abdul bin Jihad from prison or we`ll kill them." We`d say, "We don`t negotiate with terrorists." We`d stand our high moral ground then, even if a loved one was at risk. If Mr, Jihad knew where the loved ones were, on the other hand, we`d gladly break international law to torture him to get answers. All I`m saying is, the loved ones don`t matter as much as you`re all claiming. There are things you all wouldn`t do in the interest of saving lives. It just so happens people seem to find torture palatable.

We don`t negotiate with terrorists Matt. And we sure as hell don`t treat terrorists with diplomatic immunity or the rights we would treat the representative of a foreign government. Terrorists don`t negotiate either. They just told Obama the same thing. If the children are held captive or my wife is about to die at the hands a a group of fanatics and I have a terrorist detained who knows where they are, but won`t tell me...you`re damn right I will torture him. I`m not negotiating with any fanatic who uses terror to make his case. And it has been the national security policy of this country under Republican and Democrat alike that...WE DON`T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS. Islamic fundamentalist ideology certainly doesn`t allow for negotiation because they believe their mandate is from God. You can`t reason with that mentality Matt.

Will

Matt,

I want you to watch this video and then tell me how you negotiate with someone like this!

Visit
www.griffithcorp.com

and watch the video on the homepage.

Will

First: The Geneva Convention is sketchy where terrorism is concerned. One would be hard pressed to make a clear case that the Muslim Fascist Thugs fall into any category outlined within the GC.

Secondly: The terrorists follow a theistically oriented mandate. By any monotheistic standard, God is not answerable to Man; therefore, where a "God" (specifically, in this case, Allah, which is, in fact, the name of their god, not a transliteration of the word "god") mandates the destruction of an enemy by those identified with the worship of that "God", there is no true opportunity for negotiation. God is always right, right? Who are WE to question an Almighty Deity?...this is their point of origin, and it is integral to their identity culturally and spiritually from birth. There is only one way to break that barrier, and it is NOT through reason.

Third: Consider the fact that we, as a country, still hold the death penalty as an option for convicted murderers.  While there is much debate over the morality of killing another in response to their taking of an innocent life, most of that debate is empty semantics, not morality.  Where the situation involves standard premeditated murder (a category most terrorists fall into) the simple fact is in a non-combatant situation, one person has consciously denied another of the opportunity to live.  Morally and legally we would consider this person`s life forfeit as a consequence (something we seem to have dismissed in our DIALOG nowadays) of his/her act. But, consider the idea that if we were able to stop the murder of that same "innocent" person, would we make that attempt? And in doing so, what if it took beating the potential murderer to a pulp simply to stop him/her and save the potential victim`s life?  Is this any different than what we face now?

In fact, the potential murderer (and I would argue simply "murderer") is a many-faceted beast. We often have to cut off one head to weaken it.  They do not work as individuals, but as a single minded force. Their goal is nothing short of death to their enemy, and if you disagree with their perspective on life you are their enemy, plain and simple. Most of these murderers escape trial and execution by suicide. But those who send them are JUST AS GUILTY (as someone would be in our own courts if it was revealed they hired a hit man to kill someone.)

And finally: When was the last time you heard of any of the terrorists or terrorist organizations petitioning for negotiations with a country?

Not negotiating with terrorists - it`s a good policy. Let`s be clear. I hate the lot of them like the rest of you. If I come across as a sympathizer, it`s the fault of the communication medium and my writing style. I agree with the policy of not negotiating. It shows that our nation sticks to its values. That`s important. That`s the only reason I disagree with torture. Do terrorists deserve it? Yes. Ten times over. Am I too moral to torture a terrorist in one of those "Terrorist kidnaps your family" scenarios being tossed around? No. I`m not America though. America is more moral than me. It was founded on values - pretty good values, if you ask me. They`re values people die for. If we abandon these values, then the deaths are in vain. That has to be an argument that Will and Aysyn can agree with. If there are any two people on these forums that are all about America and its values, and what soldiers die for, it`s probably you two. We shouldn`t torture, because Americans die(d) to end torture - torture, tyranny, etc. America has values.

Both Will and I consider no one in this discussion sympathizers to terrorist activities...that is, until someone begins condoning terrorists and terrorism, which no one here is doing by any stretch of imagination.  I completely understand the tendency toward opposition to torture as a means of stopping crime.  The thought of a human being going through any violent and/or painful trauma is stomach-churning, at very least.  Death, alone, is devastating on many levels. I am not immune to the hard truth of what torture entails.

But what we are dealing with here are consequences.  In every action or decision we have to consider the potential consequences of that act/decision.  In reference to premeditated murder, our legal system takes into consideration one`s motives in determining whether they are truly guilty by conscience. Intent is as much a determinant as is action in such considerations, and is vetted very thoroughly. It is because we, as a culture, take life so seriously that we go through such painstaking lengths to justify condemning another to death for their actions. To not take such things seriously would be a terminal blow to those same values you speak of, Matt, and would put us on par with so many other governments throughout the world who, to this day, murder and torture their own civilians by the thousands daily.

I would further argue that it is those same values that we hold as a country which keeps us in check, allowing us, individually and as a nation, to determine when such means are necessary and when they are being abused.  Morality and values allow us to understand the consequences of such actions and force us to weigh them against a larger backdrop of their effect upon others and the price of our own souls.

As such, I would have no qualms in utilizing painful techniques on a terrorist to save one or more innocent people. This is where I refuse to play the numbers game.

I suppose a bit of pragmatism is important when dealing with extremists. Maybe the ends justify the means. I read Machiavelli. If torture can prevent a crime, I suppose it can be justified in that regard, though I still find it distasteful. However, I might be mistaken, but I believe torture as used thus far hasn`t been for such cause. The use of torture thus far has been more akin to trying to break a spy. If we believed an attack was immanent, fair enough. The torture committed thus far has been simply for inside info on Al Qaeda, and for confessions for 9-11. This doesn`t fall under your rationale. Do you think that sort of torture is okay? If I concede that torture to save lives from a real and immanent danger is okay, I`m still not going to condone it for Inquisition style confession seeking and general intel gathering. There`s a big difference. I don`t believe a single disaster has been averted from our torture. On the other hand, torture has legally invalidated a lot of evidence for prosecuting the war on terror. More care needs to be exercised in its application.

 I don`t think you will ever know if a true disaster has been averted or not. First I don`t see a single one of us on this forum having the clearence to sit in on top lvl national security meetins. Second I don`t think everything that is found out should be public knowlage and shared with the general population. Reason for that is the safety of our troops and others over seas.