Whats better, whats worse? Torture or assassination?

Seems like assassination has its proponents around here. But not torture, OH NO!!! Somebody might survive torture, y'know?

Let's imagine for a moment that Saddam was, in fact, a real threat that needs to be removed. A hypothetical situation, I know, since we know that wasn't the case.

So, there are two options I see. We either kill Saddam, or we engage in war against Iraq.

One results in lots of deaths of uninvolved people. One doesn't.

The decision seems pretty simple to me.

It is used to force false confessions.
If this scandal had not broken we would have seen numerous confessions of Iraqi/Al Queda connections and people confessing to working of WMD.
The civilian interrogators are working to manufacture proof of *'s twisted policy.

Assassination, while not exactly a nice thing, is a legitimate military tactic. Death is going to occur in War, it just happens. Assassination can limit the actual Death Toll.

Torture on the other hand has been proven to be an unreliable method of extracting information. So, knowing that torture is unreliable, why continue it?

Well, the sick and twisted viewpoint I have is that everyone is entitled to their politics, and if some party decides that another parties political POV is too threatening to contend with, its time for you know what, especially as it was in the 60's. So, would you rather torture Republicans, or assassinate them before they authorize torture?

I wasn't discussing assassination as a political tool, I was discussing assassination as a military tactic. A sniper is technically an assassin. A fighter pilot ordered to bomb the enemy HQ is an assassin.

Torture, by its very nature can only be conducted against a helpless prisoner. That IMO makes it far more evil.

military tactics or not, there are moral and social issues that really overshadow the pluses and minuses of better forms of murder.

Your initial post asked which was worse, torture or assassination. Not War or Peace.

Obviously war is a bad thing. However, if a war is going to happen, or is happening, and a single assassination can end the conflict, or resolve it much faster, then the assassination is clearly the lesser evil.

War is murder. Assassination is murder. It's a simple question of numbers. One death versus thousands or even millions of deaths. I will choose that one death every time without hesitation. If it could all be resolved with a nice game of Go I would prefer that. However the world rarely works like that.

Torture on the other hand is a despicable act that has been proven over the centuries to have no real use in extracting information. It is simply cruelty and sadism. It's ok if you are into S&M and everyone knows their safewords, but against POW's its a very serious warcrime and quiite honestly, serves no value other than enraging allies of the torture victim.

and if you can show me WHEN an assassination ever STOPPED a war, I will be glad to show you a dozen others that started them.
Assassination has ONLY, EVER achieved oppression. Give me ONE GOOD example from history. No hypotheticals please.

If your viewpoint was supposed to be "Assassination and Torture are bad" then you should have said so and in that case I agree with you. However, you made it appear that you wanted to see which was worse, assassination or torture, going so far as to say that assassination has it's supporters on this board.

I have seen very few posts calling for assassinations, however, now you have all the "support" for it you were looking for, since you chose to frame your question as "Which is worse".

Only a sadist would say torture isn't as bad as assassination.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: 2torture
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): tor·tured; tor·tur·ing /'torch-ri, 'tor-ch&-/
1 : to cause intense suffering to : TORMENT
2 : to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain
3 : to twist or wrench out of shape : DISTORT, WARP

Main Entry: as·sas·si·nate
Pronunciation: &-'sa-s&n-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons
synonym see KILL

let's look at those synonyms, since English tensd to be a bit clumsy.

Main Entry: 2tor·ment
Pronunciation: tor-'ment, 'tor-"
Function: transitive verb
1 : to cause severe usually persistent or recurrent distress of body or mind to <cattle tormented by flies>
2 : DISTORT, TWIST
synonym see AFFLICT

Main Entry: 1kill
Pronunciation: 'kil
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, perhaps from (assumed) Old English cyllan; akin to Old English cwellan to kill -- more at QUELL
transitive senses
1 a : to deprive of life b (1) : to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2) : to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering
2 a : to put an end to <kill competition> b : DEFEAT, VETO <killed the amendment> c : to mark for omission; also : DELETE
3 a : to destroy the vital or essential quality of <killed the pain with drugs> b : to cause to stop <kill the motor> c : to check the flow of current through
4 : to make a markedly favorable impression on <she killed the audience>
5 : to get through uneventfully <kill time>; also : to get through (the time of a penalty) without being scored on <kill a penalty>
6 a : to cause extreme pain to b : to tire almost to the point of collapse
7 : to hit (a shot) so hard in various games that a return is impossible
8 : to consume (as a drink) totally
intransitive senses
1 : to deprive one of life
2 : to make a markedly favorable impression <was dressed to kill>
synonyms KILL, SLAY, MURDER, ASSASSINATE, DISPATCH, EXECUTE mean to deprive of life.

So what was my point of that? Torture exists to cause suffering. Assassination is over in an instant for its victim.

As far as assassination ending a war, I wouldn't know, since it almost never happens. However, on the battlefield assassinating Generals and other command staff does give a significant military advantage, I can cite you many historic examples of that. WHich in turn wins the war faster.

One hypothetical though- Saddam's assassination would have ended the need to for us to change the regime though, now wouldn't it?

Thats pretty much all I have on it. If you wanted a happy-fuzzy-everyone hug thread about how war, assassination, rape, torture and murder are all bad things, you should have said so.

I think assassination is murder, and that is worse than torture.
In no way can you construe this as an endorsement of torture. Hope this helps. To further address the humane aspects of assassination, when someone is killed, no matter how it happens, there are people who suffer from the death. Maybe they should be shot as well? And how long should I hold my breath waiting for a good example of the benefits of assassination?

and people do insane things to recover those lost items.

In this case it was junior who lost face and tried to recover at any cost. The right wing neocons were completely shot down when no WMD's were found.

eom

its cheaper since we took out the Taliban I unnerstan?

and unacceptable?????????

the sick part is how assassination can be supported by "Democrats" 40 years after. Absolutely sickening.

the question you asked was "Which is worse"; people have answered that torture is worse, because, in the cold hard facts of life, one is an act of evil that can possibly save lives, while the other can only serve to debase and humiliate a human being for no real purpose other than to cause them suffering.

you never know if it's going to end up with you dead anyway. I would think everyone would rather it be quick then hours of you begging why and no one gives a damn.

Some people get through these things and they are fine. Some things would be more than I would want to remember, if I still had a memory.


Maybe that is why people are more outraged over the torture than the killings. They wouldn't want to live through it, either.

On one hand, you survive.

On the other, you don't have to live for the rest of your days with the memories of being tortured and humiliated.

I guess it depends on your mind-set and the time of day. Some people would rather die than live with the emotional pain.

Undecided.

Really ? .... Is it a majority view ? ... or one or two amoral assbites who happened to post their own homicidal fantasies ?? ...

Im not sure if you know this: assassination equals murder ....

Yes: one can identify moments when assassination can be 'expeditious', but this doesnt mean assassination is a moral act ...

If one promotes assassination, then one is promoting amorality ...

Furthermore: ... you present two immoral choices ... as if there are no other options ...

Isnt this a Bifurcation fallacy ? ...

False Dilemma ? ...

and you betcher booties some big name players around here are down with assassination. And to think they were associating with Kucinich gives me shivers.

At least with assassination, the victim dies either immediately or shortly after the shooting....

....torture is a slow, painful death I wouldn't even wish on the BFEE.