... condoning torture. But I am willing to take your word for it that such posts exist.

"Torture is never okay." Agreed, one hundred percent.

"There is never a reason for anyone to do it or to feel they must do it." Here I have to disagree.

There are sometimes reasons for someone to do it, or feel they must. I have no doubt that there were those who engaged in torture who actually believed they were doing the right thing, who believed (all known facts to the contrary) that they would extract information that could save lives. I also believe that those who acted on that altruistic impulse of "the end justifying the means" were few and far between. Most of them, as you say, had their own sadistic reasons for getting their hands extremely dirty.

But the end result is the same. Torture is never justified, regardless of the reasons one engages in it. Whether it is the result of some altruistic motive or simple sadism, the fact remains that it is wrong.

To say that no one ever has a "reason" to torture is an over-simplification. To say that no matter what the reason, the act is inexcusable in and of itself, would be more reflective of reality.

If you torture a fellow human being, your reasons for doing so can never negate the fact that you have done something reprehensible. In those circumstances, no "reason" can ever be held out as an "excuse".

"But Obama is excusing it now so now we have to hear rationalization for torture on DU."

I have not heard anything from Obama that "excuses" torture. Your mileage may vary - but that's a whole 'nother discussion. My point here is simply that people do have "reasons" to do what they do - but those reasons do not excuse their behaviour.

which you then proceeded to try to do with the requisite 'but that doesn't make it okay' disclaimer.

and why the conditions at Abu Gharib came about, then you are destined to repeat it.

It's possible to be shocked, appalled, and disgusted by torture, and at the same time, study why it was used. I mean, you studied the Spanish Inquisition in high school, right? Was studying it condoning it? Rationalizing it?

Was studying slavery rationalizing or condoning?

I read the The Taguba Report when it came out not because I needed to be convinced that torture was always wrong, but because I wanted to know how things degenerated to the point where these people thought they were doing the right thing.....and that should be the thing that shocks you just as much as the torture does, Union---that the torturers thought they were doing the right thing.

Hell.....we still have people who think they did the right thing. And guess what? The ONLY way you defeat those people....the only way you keep these people from running things, is by having a complex moral argument that explains the imperative "torture is wrong."

I'm rereading Eichmann in Jerusalem. Did Arendt rationalize the Holocaust? I think not.

it was wide spread,systematic and by not prosecuting those who committed these war crimes we are guaranteeing it will happen again

here is a list for you to address ms lawyer


http://generalstrikeusa.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/30-kinds-of-approved-torture-used-by-the-c-i-a/

mutilating genitals
the raping of family members in front of the detainees


this stuff is wrong,there is no complex moral argument here

potus is committing obstruction of justice by not prosecuting

facile rebuttal that torture is okay because [insert crisis/rationalization here]. Then you only have a binary argument that fails to take into account that torture is not just wrong, it is inhumane. It demeans us all.

FYI--the report isn't even released yet, and so we have no idea what is in the works. I agree with you, however---if there is a prosecutable crime, then the DOJ should act.

from the link i gave you....


Bush administration’s program of kidnapping “suspects,” a covert operation also known as “rendition,” continues under the Obama administration according to Reprieve Founding Director, Attorney Clive Stafford Smith.

Most people kidnapped and tortured are people of color, innocent of terrorism. They are used for non-consensual human experimentation according to recent reports. (See AFP, Doctors had central role in CIA abuse: rights group, Spet. 1, 2009 and CIA doctors face human experimentation claims, Sept. 3, 2009)

Human experimentation without consent has been prohibited in any setting since 1947, when the Nuremberg Code resultant of Nazi doctor prosecution.

“Every day, the U.S. picks up 40 – 60 people considered ‘suspects’ from around the world and imprisons them,” stated Smith.

Non-consensual human experimentation conducted on Middle Eastern detainees has consisted of applying torture including “physical threats, mock executions, choking to the point where detainees lost consciousness and even using a stiff brush to scrub a detainees skin raw” while health officials and psychologists monitored reactions. (AFP)

Can you name a person who has been renditioned under President Obama?

set up a chemical weapons plant--chemical weapons that were later used in Syria. The three were operatives who traveled extensively on behalf of Al-Shabab. They were arrested after a grand jury handed down a federal indictment, and they are currently awaiting trial in Manhattan.

Interestingly, it is apparent that one of the men is now a government witness.

Defense attorneys might like using the word "rendition" but as they are charged and detained prisoners currently in the US, I don't see how you call that a "rendition." Djibouti handed them over....and their home countries would have, too.

until after indictment.

While Djibouti held them, and the men were in contact with both the Swedish and British authorities. Britian stripped the citizenship of one, rendering him stateless. The Swedes apparently thought Djibouti was within its rights to hold its citizens, given that all three of the men were apparently travelling on false documentation.

And that's a problem...when you work for AQAP and you travel on false documents, you tend to get arrested when caught.

What do they care if we have a moral argument? It's not as if the media in this country is doing that. Those war criminals are getting away with murder, literally, and it's because of this country's admins turning a blind eye and pardoning and ignoring the crimes of past admins. Rumsfeld and Cheney know that very well.

These were war crimes. This was torture. It needs to be prosecuted and we should not be talked to like we are children who are asking for something fantastical. And now that Obama has done that we see DUers attempting to move the goalposts again as far was what the Dem Party principles are supposed to be. It's sickening. And it needs to stop. Talk about morals.

But I think you overstate the deterrent effect of prosecution. Prosecution isn't a deterrent to true believers, i.e., people who think they are doing the right thing.

So I agree that prosecution is the right thing to do....but I don't think that's where the conversation ends.

they can go.

War crimes absolutely should be prosecuted and yes, it absolutely would be a deterrent. People do what they can get away with. It would be nice to think that everyone has a moral compass that is truly moral and lived by it, but they don't, so we have laws. There's a ton of things people would do if they knew they would get away with it.

Even though you say you think prosecution is the right thing to do - and I take it you are talking about prosecuting BushCo for war crimes - you are softening it by saying it's not a deterrent and really, you are saying that BushCo thought they did the right thing, that they are "true believers". You are rationalizing what they did by attributing to them some moral reason why they did it. You are saying they did it for good I guess. Do you really believe that?

"true believers"... of what? What were the people who ordered the torture true believers of? We all know that torture doesn't work. You can get a tortured person to say whatever you want because they just want the torture to stop. Those who ordered the torture knew they weren't going to get good information. They know it doesn't work. We all knew that. They wanted to get "proof" to get a reason to do whatever they wanted by getting the info they wanted to hear. Then they take that and give that as the justification for continuing their war, their pursuit of war profits and oil.

Wanting war criminals to be prosecuted is not being sanctimonious. It's holding onto our principles.

are doing the right and moral thing---or, alternatively, the only possible choice given to them, prosecution is not a deterrent. It is an accepted risk.

This does not mean you do not prosecute them. This means you do not prosecute them expecting that they, or others like them, will have any remorse, or understanding of what they did wrong.

I'm not softening the issue of torture at all--merely suggesting to you that not everyone thinks the way you describe in your third paragraph. You wrote:

think that torture was justified. Wait 'til THAT hits the street.

I merely pointed out what should be obvious: to say that no one ever has a "reason" to torture is overly simplistic. I'm sure there are those who engaged in torture for all kinds of reasons.

But as I clearly stated, no "reason" for torture is ever an excuse. The man who tortures because he thinks he might extract life-saving information is equally as guilty as the man who tortures because he is basically a sadist who enjoys inflicting pain.

"But the end result is the same. Torture is never justified, regardless of the reasons one engages in it.

If you torture a fellow human being, your reasons for doing so can never negate the fact that you have done something reprehensible. In those circumstances, no 'reason' can ever be held out as an 'excuse'."

I don't know how you could have read my post and think I am "rationalizing" anything. People do all kinds of heinous things every day - but to say they didn't have a "reason" for doing what they did defies all logic. Of course they had their "reasons".

Do those "reasons" negate what they did? No.
Do those "reasons" exonerate their crimes? No.
Do those "reasons" protect them from prosecution and punishment? No.
Do those "reasons" excuse their actions? No.

If you believe that anyone engaged in torture did so for no reason whatsoever, you are "rationalizing" that people who torture are just sadistic zombies who have no thought processes whatsoever - and THAT is a dangerous thing to believe. It is to say, "Well, he tortured because he's just bent that way," instead of accepting the fact that truly good people can be "bent" into doing horrible things they once thought themselves incapable of doing.

It is imperative that we understand what motivates the torturer, what "reasons" the torturer uses to justify his own actions, or convince others that such actions are acceptable. You cannot counteract the torturer's mindset without first knowing what that mindset is, and how it works.

and these monsters that ordered and carried out the torture were in prison where they can not harm again, you might have a point about understanding how it all came about but since potus has not prosecuted and even stopped the rest of the world from prosecuting...it becomes "rationalizing"

I feel like you're headed for another 'don't call me an apologist because I won't apologize' episode here, so I'm just going to cringe and walk away before it gets worse.

... is that you somehow read:

""But the end result is the same. Torture is never justified, regardless of the reasons one engages in it.

If you torture a fellow human being, your reasons for doing so can never negate the fact that you have done something reprehensible. In those circumstances, no 'reason' can ever be held out as an 'excuse'."

... as "rationalizing torture". And now you realize that those statements cannot possibly be twisted into meaning what you want them to mean.

It means a desire to help others. A concern for the well-being of others. It is quite separate from the concept of the ends justifying the means.

... that some people who engaged in or condoned the use of torture thought they were "helping others" by extracting information that might lead to saving lives. And in that belief, as wrong-headed as it might be, they justified the "means" (torture) because they thought the "end" (extracting information that could lead to saving lives) was an honourable goal.

Is torture ever justified? No.

Do the "reasons" one tortures mitigate one's guilt? No.

Are there any "reasons" for torture that make it acceptable? No.

My only point was that saying torturers have "no reason" to torture is over-simplifying. People have "reasons" for doing all kinds of things. Recognizing that fact does not equate to accepting those "reasons" as justifiable.

That's why people are saying you are rationalizing. You can't possibly know what's in the minds of the men who tortured for the U.S., but you are sure you do. By using words like "altruism" and "honorable goal," you indicate that torturers are, in your mind, not entirely unsympathetic. You make it sound like you think they are just misguided, poor dears.

... who tortured. But to think, as the OP stated, that those people had no reasons whatsoever is absurd.

People invariably have reasons for doing things. Recognizing that fact does not equate to accepting those "reasons" as an excuse for certain behaviour.

Do you honestly think that if you lined up a group of people who engaged in torture, any of them would say, "I had absolutely no reason for doing it. I didn't even think about it - I just did it"?

"You make it sound like you think they are just misguided, poor dears."

I think a lot of people who do horrible things have been misguided. But that doesn't make them "poor dears", nor does it excuse their actions.

As I have clearly stated: "Torture is never justified, regardless of the reasons one engages in it."

In other words, "poor misguided dears" are just as guilty as those who engage in torture for any other "reason" - because there is NO reason that can justify its use.

So he did not think that they had no reasons whatsoever. I realize that, just before that, he said "there is never a reason for anyone to do it or to feel they must do it" but I think it's pretty clear from the context of the whole paragraph that he meant that there could be no *good* reason, no acceptable reason, in a civilized society.

So sticking on the point is being unnecessarily pedantic. Yes, people have reasons for what they do. I can't see where anyone on this thread has argued conversely. Beyond that, people have reasons they'll offer up hoping they sound good, to conceal what their true reasons are.

But torture isn't exactly new, and the reasons for doing it aren't new. Nothing your 21st century American torturers could tell you about their reasons would be any kind of revelation, any different from any other torturers' reasons, in any other century, in any other barbaric society.

I think it is wrong.

You think we haven't yet discovered the reasons people torture; I think the reasons are as ancient as the practice is.

You think we have to explain to people why torture is wrong if (IF!) our nation is going to end the use of torture. I remember when we were proud to say we didn't. I remember when we had laws against it. I remember when we vilified the Japanese for using it. I remember when it didn't have to be explained to "perfectly moral and ethical people" that deliberately doing things to people to make them scream in pain was a bad thing.


You can reply, if you want, but I won't answer. Your "If" has left me unspeakably sad.

... seeing something as complex precludes thinking it is wrong speaks for itself.

"You think we have to explain to people why torture is wrong."

Yes, sadly we do - because the previous administration did such a bang-up job of explaining why it is right, justifiable, productive - even legal. And sadder still, a lot of people have accepted THAT explanation.

Nance, you should be ashamed of yourself for that statement. Despicable.

What has happened to DU? What has happened to the anti-torture, pro-human rights, anti-war peace that I love?

Tired of the bullshit and being called GOP ratfuckers and other mean and nasty things. Tired of beating our heads against walls of blue links. Tired of trying to follow pretzel logic.

I'm about ready to take a break.

I mean, I feel like someone must have hacked her account. Either that, or she's been possessed by aliens. Either way, trying to reconcile her writings now with her writings of the past is rather impossible.

... I wrote a few pieces back in the day about my views on torture.

As I clearly stated above - in pretty clear and understandable English, I believe - "Torture is never justified, regardless of the reasons one engages in it."

If you can find anything I have written in the past that is irreconcilable with that statement, please feel free to post a link to it.

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

... for recognizing that people have "reasons" for doing things? Really?

You seem to think that recognizing that people have "reasons" for committing heinous acts is the same as accepting said behaviour, or justifying it, or condoning it. It isn't - not by a longshot.

Serial killers have "reasons" for doing what they do. Those "reasons" can run the gamut from listening to voices in their head, to eliminating those they perceive as evil, to simple bloodlust and the "thrill" of taking a life.

Those are "reasons" for someone's actions. Recognizing those reasons is a far cry from accepting them as a justification for those actions.

Maybe you live in a black-and-white world where people just go around doing things for no reason whatsoever. In the real world, people are motivated to do things based on all kinds of "reasons" - and to think that torturers, or serial killers, or anyone who commits heinous acts are just acting without any thought process behind their actions simply defies common sense.

So, no, I am not "ashamed" of having common sense enough to know that people's actions are motivated by "reasons" - whether we find those "reasons" acceptable or not does not change the fact that those reasons exist.

... "it's never okay, but ..."?

I was taking issue with the idea that people who torture have no reasons for doing so. They do. People have all kinds of reasons for doing terrible things. That doesn't mean their reasons justify their actions, or mitigate their guilt in any way.

I very clearly said:

"Torture is never justified, regardless of the reasons one engages in it."

"If you torture a fellow human being, your reasons for doing so can never negate the fact that you have done something reprehensible. In those circumstances, no "reason" can ever be held out as an "excuse".

So where is the "but" that followed those statements?

I said that people have reasons to do what they do - whether it be torture or anything else one acts upon.

Two completely different things.

You know, there's murderers in prison who thought their victims needed killing. There's rapists who thought their victims needed raping. And every one of those who ordered, committed, or even condoned torture should be right in there with them.

if they are in jail for anything, including murder.

Sex crimes? We can look at a perpetrator's own victimhood to at least try and understand psychological dynamics at work.

AND we can do that whilst also saying someone should be incarcerated & hopefully rehabilitated.

being a cop out for justice being pursued at all.

At this point all such discussion is excuse making and distraction but I'll be happy to discuss it on an individual basis when the prosecutions and especially sentencing begins.

What is happening now is some rationalization of the best of intentions is being granted across the board and then used as an excuse of why it is "sanctimonious" to expect justice for these "patriots".

At issue is not whether torture is justifiable. You made it clear that you are not defending it. Instead, the issue is the psychology of people who order or engage in torture. Possibilities:
(1) They are always, everywhere, and only sadists, who have no other reason for their actions.
(2) Some of them do so in whole or in part because they hold a sincere but misguided belief that it will further some legitimate goal.

I read you as espousing the second assessment. My uninformed guess is that the second assessment is more likely to be correct.

It may be that the first assessment is correct, but surely this is a legitimate subject for discussion. Instead, the responses to you seem to be the latest example of the all-or-nothing thinking that too often arises on DU. Its application in this instance is that it's not enough to say that torture is never okay, as you do. Because we want to be emphatic in our rejection of torture, we must also reject anything that paints its practitioners as anything other than pure unadulterated evil. The complexities that are typical of humans' motivations in other contexts are inadmissible here. Any discussion of a "sincere but misguided belief" is inadmissible here.

This is nothing but intellectual laziness. We can be emphatic in our rejection of torture and, at the same time, try to understand why it occurs.

I remember that, after September 11, some right-winger was sneering at liberals, saying that if Gore were President, he would have been trying to understand the terrorists. This was contrasted with the manly decisiveness of Bush, who didn't bother with such subtlety. My reaction was: Well, yeah, Gore would have been trying to understand the terrorists, and that's a good thing. When people do things you don't like, it's sensible to try to understand why, because a correct understanding may improve your ability to stop it from recurring.

Of course, that was back in the day when we felt superior to Bush and his ilk because Bush used the term "nuance" to condemn Kerry, and we agreed with Kerry that nuance is often the correct approach. I wonder if there's just something about an internet discussion board that pushes people toward oversimplification. Whatever it is, some people here owe Bush a retroactive apology.

i must be one of those who doesn't understand nuance! lol

please, go shove a stick up your ass.

The day I give Bush a retroactive apology is the day... I don't even know what to say. Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Now not only are we rationalizing torture but we are supposed to apologize to Bush?

Do you have amnesia? Bush lied us into the Iraq war. He made fun of not finding WMDs when speaking to the rich people who are his supporters. Remember that joke he made about that too? He ignored Katrina. He tortured and killed innocent people. His lies are responsible for thousands of American troops' lives and over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqi lives and the current instability in Iraq. And now you tell me I owe him a retroactive apology????

You, sir, are insane.

You are allowed to consider more than one line in a post, you know.

As should be obvious to anyone who read the whole thing, my point was that many progressives criticized Bush for his overly simplistic worldview, but now turn around and engage in oversimplification themselves.

That doesn't mean you owe Bush an apology for your opposition to his war crimes and crimes against humanity (or his bad taste in making jokes about those crimes).

The point of my remark was that, when people are making a mistake, they can sometimes see that mistake more clearly when they're shown an instance of the same mistake being made by someone else, especially someone else they despise.

Of course, the operative word in that sentence is "sometimes". Judging from the overall tenor of this thread, I'd say that your view is the majority one here.

But that's probably because my understanding of what NanceGreggs was saying is the same as yours. As a social science type, I think trying to figure out the reasons for behaviors is usually a pretty good idea, even when I personally think the behaviors and/or reasons are repellant/bullshit/irrational.

Alas, I think 'nuance' and 'DU' don't play together so well these days.

But there are people saying they can understand that the torturers felt it needed to be done. This means there are DUers that believe that a) there was good intention and b) that torture is okay if there's a good reason.

It's not okay. Ever. Torture is never okay.

It is well known that torture does not work to get any real, good information. The torture victim will say whatever her/his torturers want them to say in order to make it stop. This is well known and BushCo knew that. They had motives for going into Iraq that were dictated by greed. War profiteering and oil is what they wanted. We know that.

No one is trying to stop anyone from psycho analysis, but when people on DU say that it's understandable that the war criminals felt they had to do it, that's just plain wrong. There is no "other side" of that, just like there is no "other side" to the fact that the earth is a sphe

And this rationalization popped up after the condescending comment Obama made regarding torture. Because apparently Obama is to be defended even when he goes completely off the deep end and minimizes torture. And now there's some bozo on here saying he trusts Obama to torture responsibly. I'm not kidding, someone actually said that. Although that must be performance art. But I'm not sure.

You write:

See, everybody here would never ever allow an authority figure to convince them that it was ok to intentionally hurt one person, to (allegedly) protect the lives of others. Some will be very offended I said that.

The psychological literature is pretty clear on this. Under the right circumstances, many if not most people fail this test. Its not as hard as one might imagine to get someone to hurt another person by making them think it was actually a good thing.

Of course no one on DU would such a test. Just ask them.

Personally, I hold the authority figures most responsible because they knew the truth. They intentionally manipulated others and got them to act outside normal boundaries using the claim of "extenuating circumstances" as justification.

Were there a few Jack Bauers who enjoyed having their rules expanded, I suspect yes. But its still those who expanded the rules who deserve the most direct punishment.

The larger problem is that, whether folks on DU want to admit it or not, we as a nation did this. The way our country is designed simply does not allow us to stand apart from it. Nor can the country move forward in any manner but together.

As in so many cases, DU demands an immediate remedy for a problem that won't be solved quickly. Not like that hasn't happened before.

Nations are like aircraft carriers, they don't just stop and turn on a dime. Sadly, most Americans were ok with the Bush torture program, in part because it wasn't called torture.

Only as the nation figures this out, through a prolonged discussion, will a more full and complete accounting be possible. Much of which will probably happen only after Cheney and Bush have passed from this life.

In the meantime, this will be the DU outrage du jour until some other "worst thing ever", comes along.

As you noted, the evidence is overwhelming that we as a species are absolutely willing to hurt others even if we swear we never would.

(Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal - 2013)

It is a story based on that exact premise - kidnapped children and the idea that their whereabouts can be "extracted" from the person determined to be the most likely suspect.

It runs the gamut of "reasons" for doing the unthinkable - from "the end justifies the means" to "our children's lives are at stake", to "do what you have to do - just don't ever tell me what it was."

It is a truly fascinating study of how people are capable of the most unspeakable acts in certain circumstances.

The title "Prisoners" is truly apt - as we watch those who allow themselves to lapse into justifying their actions become prisoners of their own self-deception that they are doing "the right thing".

Which you agree are responsible. So why should we not prosecute them? Why are so many defending Obama's words to us and why am I seeing posts saying they can understand why some might have a reason to torture, let's have a moral argument about it as if doing that on DU accomplishes anything out in the real world.

And no, I am not responsible for the torture. I protested the war, I called my senators and my rep. The blood is not on my hands. And you said yourself some Americans were okay with it because it was not called torture. That's partially correct. They were also whipped up into a frenzy of fear by BushCo and the complicit media thinking that the terrorists were going to come get us any day if we didn't go to war and torture. It was all a big bogeyman created by their scare tactics. It was the admin who did that. They did it on purpose. They are at fault. The American people were played.

As to your outrage comment. That almost negates any points you make because it is so silly and unjustified. Why are you not outraged by anything? Why do yuo ridicule outrage? Do you really think the govt is doing everything right by the people?

In fact, when the Abu Ghraib story broke, I honestly thought it would shock the nation. To be faced with the evidence of our leaders' depraved behavior. After all, torture was a TABOO. I thought we would feel ashamed. Well, I was the one who was shocked. To hear it not just rationalized, not just justified, but joked about. My stomach still crawls to remember it.

And now I'm being told by my president that I'm being sanctimonious? That it was just "folks" doing things to "folks"? My stomach crawls again.

I'll never look at Obama in the same way again. I don't know what possessed him to take the tone he did—THERE'S something I'd like to know the reasons for—but my respect for him just plummeted down as fast & as far as it could possibly go.

when it comes to torture or NSA some DU'ers simply like to shout down anything that doesn't equal simplistic dialog.

the moral zenith of your reasoning, well, you ain't getting too far on the evolutionary ladder.

There is no psychological study being done, nobody is trying to discover why regular folks become monsters here, and nobody is probing any minds to make sure that such instincts are controlled before they get out of hand.

All of this is just lame excuse making to defend the indefensible, to minimize the criminality, and to move on without any actual correction other than some lackluster "hope it doesn't happen again in the future" bullshit.

You want to see how these people tick then you probably better start interviews, looking into their pasts, do some testing, and bring in some mental health professionals but gas bagging on the Internet about your own idol and dataless speculation isn't going to stop American torture nor is a pile of bullshit preemptive excuse making not to prosecute some of the most heinous possible crimes.

Senate is going to suggest. I hope they suggest that if there's anyone to prosecute, we do so.

They seem intent we never see the actual report and are working diligently to react as much of the cliff notes as can be gotten away with.

The Senate can recommend whatever they please, all indications are sweep it under the rug (with a fringe of "truth and reconciliation" aka the same but talking about it and wagging fingers as the carpet is lifted and broom moves) at best and codification of crimes as legal at worst.

If that follows through then they will be taking on guilt as well but it isn't their statutory responsibility nor are they vested such power, they make the laws but enforcement is an Executive duty.

of GG and Snowden.

Please, do you even read DU? The ones attempting to stifle discussion of serious issues are the apologists who attempt to smear good journalists as soon as they say something critical of Obama.

And now, we are supposed to not prosecute war criminals but simply have a moral discussion about them and their reasons.

You are totally projecting. That's another thing the same old DUers do a lot. There's a huge similarity with what the same old DUers do and what a couple other groups do when they are trying to beat down the truth.

My mistake was in thinking there were more people left here who actually DO grasp those concepts than there actually are.

When I can make statements like "Torture is never justified, regardless of the reasons one engages in it," and, "If you torture a fellow human being, your reasons for doing so can never negate the fact that you have done something reprehensible. In those circumstances, no "reason" can ever be held out as an "excuse"." and be told I am "rationalizing torture" - well, it's obvious that aside from not grasping complex moral thought, grasping plain English is beyond the ken of many here.

Our government made torture legal, in violation of the Geneva convention. is 'complex' or 'moral' about that? If you empower people to commit unspeakable acts legally, they will.

people in MY name in some country like Syria. No thanks, sadistic people like to torture others...I would rather join modern society in condemning torture. It is not an effective means to extract truth from someone and is a barbaric practice.

There is no rational reason to torture someone. It doesn't work and is an act of evil.

... anywhere in the world, for whatever reason.

It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that torture doesn't "work" - and that is the true insanity of its continued use: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

You said it, torture is insanity.

... but people have "reasons" to torture, to kill, to maim, to rape, to kidnap, to bully, to brutalize, to steal - along with a whole range of crimes.

Recognizing that those reasons exist is not the same as accepting those reasons as rational, acceptable, or justifiable.

Do you live in some zombie-populated world where people continually do things for no reason whatsoever? Do you think people torture or murder without any thought behind it? Do you think your average rapist rapes because he has nothing better to do?

The lack of logic here is astounding. People are motivated to act for "reasons" - and just because we don't accept those reasons as justifying their actions does not mean those reasons don't exist.

'reasons' with 'morally acceptable reasons.'

Maybe we should use a different term -- motivations, maybe? Would that work?

People who torture have motivations for engaging in that torture -- be they basic sadism, a belief that they are doing what is necessary, an unwillingness to question orders, an inability to see the 'enemy' as human, a desire to remain in power/control, etc.

Does that work better to help folks see that no one was trying to equate 'a reason' with 'a legitimate excuse'?

In that context is becomes a rationalization and an excuse. He minimized torture and called us "sanctimonious". And people on here are defending him by leveling the "nuance" and "shutting down discussion" talking points, which are pure projection since those they are leveling it at are the ones who regularly discuss policy and issues while those throwing out the talking points are generally attempting to derail threads and stifle discussion when it is critical of the Obama admin. It's pretty obvious.

Torture gives bad information, the victim says whatever the torturers want them to say to make it stop. Everyone knows that. The only reason for them to torture is to get "evidence" to back their claims and to "legitimize" the actions they decided to take and take in the future. There is no need to explore what was in the minds of those that ordered the torture, especially not when it is stated that we must because they are defending someone who called the torturers patriots.

I am not of the 'defend Obama at all costs' crowd, and I think "We tortured some folks" may be the most appalling sentence I've heard out of his mouth, ever. Certainly in the top 5.

Torture is morally repugnant and strategically useless. There is no excuse, ever.

But I'm a social science academic, and trying to understand the motivations behind morally repugnant behaviors -- in the hope that we as a society can stop creating motivations/circumstances for same -- is just something I do. And sometimes I do lose track of context in discussions. In any case, I'm sorry if it came off like I was supporting torture in any way.

Peace.

Denial. They know, but they wish they didn't.

are those of the Obama administration for failing to comply with the Geneva Convention.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Article 4

Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

...

Discussing hypotheticals is a waste of time.

I can, but I can only speak for what I am capable of and why I may be pushed to do such a thing.

morally wrong and I can't see any justification for it. None.

As a psychology major, human behavior under various circumstance has always intrigued me.

a lot of them "were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."

If you will permit me to equate "punishment" with torture for the purpose of this discussion--

no need for complex psychological analysis of the individuals involved. the bush administration legalized torture, so what the torturers did was "legal." was there a reason to make torture legal? um, sure. what was the reason? because they wanted to torture people.

After 6 years of not saying anything about torture, some held out hope that he still might come out with, if not prosecutions, then at least a strong statement. Now those hopes are dashed. He is rationalizing and minimizing torture.

If someone engages in torture because they think they are doing the right thing, that is not justification. People were brutalized and people need to be prosecuted.

... I have not seen anyone "rationalizing" torture here. That is not to say such posts don't exist - I do not spend a lot of time here, so I see very few posts.

That being said, despite the fact that I stated in my post that "Torture is never justified, regardless of the reasons one engages in it,", I am being told by others here that I am "rationalizing torture".

If making a clear statement like that is "rationalizing torture", I have to wonder what other posters have had their words completely twisted into meaning the exact opposite of what they said.

"If someone engages in torture because they think they are doing the right thing, that is not a justification"

That is exactly what I said - but for some 'unknown reason", when I said it, it meant something else.

"People were brutalized and people need to be prosecuted."

Couldn't agree with you more.

Now I'll just sit here and wait for someone to come along and explain how "couldn't agree with you more" means that I disagree with you. There seems to be a lot of that going around.

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 01:27 AM - Edit history (1)

LOL Don't put too fine a point on it, since as you know the brave patriot-type folks are counting on you looking all forward-like now.

One OP that is "pro torture" - and over a hundred replies from posters vehemently disagreeing.

Is this what the OP here is talking about? One poster?

so I don't know how many more there are. I think there was a poll with lopsided, but mixed results.

But - as far as I'm concerned - even one is one too many on a progressive website.

Some folks are binary in their presentation of a position, incapable of accepting nuances or shades of grey or accepting that others' points of view may be valid, even if partly so.

It's easier for them to think this way, I suppose.

Good to see you posting!

to some other site. Disgusting that anyone here would say anything remotely like rationalizing torture for any reason.

The rationalization for spying on citizens was bad enough.