KontradictioN

Just to start everyone off, I am taking a Critical Thinking class for extra credit in my college program. It doesn't really help me get my Bachelor's or my Master's but instead gives me a better understanding of what the other side of a debate is thinking. Anyway, there are a couple of subjects being raised in this class that are up for debate amongst myself and my fellow classmates. The use of torture is the one that we are touching on this week. My professor issued us two write-ups on torture. The first advocating it and the second denouncing it. Both are extremely insightful. So much so that I thought it would create a great debate in this political wonderland we have here. Heh, the only difference is that here I will probably see a lot more mud-slinging in name calling than I'm used to in class as my professor is quick to shut down "personal attacks" that derail the debate within the classroom.

Anyway, the first that I'll publish on here to get the debate started is the view in which I primarily agree with (as do others on here). It's Michael Levin's "The Case for Torture" in which he argues for the use of torture in certain circumstances. Again, this is the argument that I primarily agree with and will defend in my rebuttals. Everyone else is more than welcomed to chime in with their views.

After the debate kicks off, I will publish the magazine article that my professor sent us which argues against the use of torture and brings up just as many valid arguing points. As of right now though, I want to get a true feeling for those who are against the use of torture's arguing points and not just have a rehash of the article. This isn't to put anybody who is against it at a disadvantage as you can just as easily look up other articles on Google. However, it's so that I and others can get a reading on how you all TRULY feel about torture... a hot topic around these parts.

Here is the write up: Michael Levin: The Case for Torture

Here are some key points made by Levin...

Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality. Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric. Indeed, letting millions of innocents die in deference to one who flaunts his guilt is moral cowardice, an unwillingness to dirty one's hands. If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn't bring yourself to apply the electrodes?

Here are the results of an informal poll about a third, hypothetical, case. Suppose a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital. I asked four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back. All said yes, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it herself.

If life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved even at the price of hurting the one who endangers them.

I hope I get as many bites back on this as my opinion did within the classroom.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


CREDIT - Sicilian

PressCoverage

what's new here? the same tired Con man talking points over and over... playing on fears and irrational connections that don't necessarily go together... from wacko-right icon Michael Levin, even!!!! Hooray! The guy who hates gays and feminists, and attends white supremecist conferences!!!!!

there's no way to prove what "terrorists" gave would have otherwise resulted in an alternate reality that would have cost any lives... let alone the pretentious "millions" claim...

nor does it atone for the fact that a torture-first policy also killed innocent cab drivers and countless others who were never guilty of anything...

FBI, CIA: cookies earn same intel...

cookies.

It is funny, however, seeing bomb'em all types taking time out of their anti-Obama hysteria to continue defending un-Constitutional acts of the Idiot King regime.

DarrylS

Not sure what college you are going to, but biased articles on either side are ok.. but the real sources of information US law and the Constitution...

Everything else is conjecture and opinion, my choice would be to look at it from a legal point of view and critique each articles point of view... there is too much bias in this argument and not enough constitutional common sense...

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

KontradictioN

Keep in mind here that we're attacking the idea of torture and not Michael Levin or me. If you want to attack Michael Levin you can make a thread about it. As of right now, however, you've stated absolutely nothing to back up your claim about why torture in these instances is a bad thing and have instead punted to the personal attack method of going at Michael Levin's character instead of his argument.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


CREDIT - Sicilian

PatsWSB47

Based on what I've read in this forum torture only ever worked once.......ever. When John McCain was campaigning for president torure reportedly worked quite well on him when he was a POW...but that's the only time. I'm sure that absolutely no partisan political bias ever entered in that conclusion.

PressCoverage

this is pathetic, ... not only did i offer relevant perspective on Levin's white supremacist background, but I also went RIGHT AT your claim that torture is a good thing. ... In fact, the entirety of my post is about why it's a bad thing. What post were you reading? LOL...

you continue to use my material, though. I'm flattered.

"punting" ...

Patsfanin Philly

Actually there is a lot of constitutional common sense and the courts have recognized 'exigent circumstances' such as circumstance when a search warrant isn't necessary such as rescuing a kidnapped person, preventing destruction of evidence, etc as mentioned below.. I wonder if they wouldn't carve out some limited exception in cases of imminent mass murder???I'm not arguing for or against just raising the possibility.
>>>>EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES - Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).<<<<


It is further covered here....

Exigent circumstance in US law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DarrylS

Supreme court decisions may also lend some sight, but Wikipedia is not a great source except to point you in the right direction... my choice would be to look at some type of case law.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

alvinnf

It is not a question of law, only in the literal sense. Critical thinking is a cross between math and ethics. In some senses rhetorical due to subjectiveness. You could use law to back up your argument but it still might not cover the higher tenants of the argument.

DarrylS

If I were to argue for or against torture, would want to start with the Constitution, US history and any cases that has been argued before the Supreme Court..the would proceed to international standards if they exist and international law all the rest is just textbook and BS...

Critical thinking begins with facts, and some biased view of torture is not fact based.. it is someone's opinion.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.