Of all the horrible things in the news, this has got to be the most outragous, horrible, and scary thing. We are shipping people out of the US so we can torture them!
[edit]Granted...we did get the first warning signs with the detention camp in Cuba.
[ March 08, 2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sure - that way we can claim to still "not torture prisoners for information" and still...well...receive the benefits of enthusiastic interrogation.
</sarcasm>
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I have long held the opinion that the CIA receives far too much credit.
-Trevor
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I would like to take this moment to reccommend that everyone watch The Battle of Algiers.
Probably one of the most important "war movies" of the century.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
But if this is happening we need to do something. We need to be up in arms...writing to Congress/President...in rallies or something.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We don't seem to be doing it intentionally, but one thing the new rule allowing the CIA to do it without specific Presidential approval has done is move pretty much all the documentation to be internal to the CIA.
IOW, there's almost a huge lack of oversight, even by the executive, and if it became necessary for, say, Congress to investigate an alleged abuse it would be nearly impossible with an unwilling executive.
When the President had to approve instances, that generated executive branch documentation which could theoretically be obtained by congress in addition to CIA documentation, which would likely be suspect in the case of an investigation anyways.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
W's dad said he wanted to be known as the Education President. I think W is going to be remembered as the Torture President.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yeah, his speeches are a little rough on the ears.
-Trevor
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Isn't ABC the network who's **news** division recently ran an hour long special on UFOs?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are you insinuating, Pix, that we are not shipping people out of the country to locations where they are then tortured and interrogated at length?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: It is supposed to be top secret, but ABC News found plenty of people who said they knew the true purpose of the airplane hangars at the end of a private two-lane road in rural North Carolina.
Why in the world would you believe an article that has that as it's opening point!
President Clinton's administration passed a bill that made it so that if we find a terrorist on our soil, we'd send him/her to their home country. I see nothing wrong with that if thats the case here.
[ March 08, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The great thing about this particular issue is that it does not rely on this article for corroboration. A quick Google turns up quite a few more likely-sounding sources.
"President Clinton's administration passed a bill that made it so that if we find a terrorist on our soil, we'd send him/her to their home country."
Yep. Bush is using it to send people suspected of terrorism -- applying criteria, mind you, to which the public is not privy -- back to their home country to be tortured. You cool with that?
[ March 08, 2005, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, these are terrorists suspects, many of them are being released uncharged, several after being tortured.
Not terrorists.
Furthermore, the big problem isn't that they are being sent overseas, its that they are being sent overseas by the CIA without specific oversight by the executive branch.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
...so you really believe the story?
[EDIT] Tom: You need to obey the laws of the land or be tortured according to the same. So, I guess I am cool with it.
[ March 08, 2005, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Funny, that.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ahem.
So, I can pick you up, torture you until I'm satisfied that you're not a terrorist and then turn you loose?
All because you're (insert skin tone or country of origin here)?
Quite frankly, I don't know how I stand about torture being used as an interrogation technique.
But I do firmly believe it's not an approach to be undertaken lightly with people who are suspected of having some terrorist affiliation.
I suppose it does take "unreasonable search and seizure" to disturbing new levels.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
edit: in response to scottneb's torture is okay on people who broke the law comment.
So you'd be okay with us torturing, say, people accused of defrauding money to find out where it went?
[ March 08, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: So, I can pick you up, torture you until I'm satisfied that you're not a terrorist and then turn you loose?
All because you're (insert skin tone or country of origin here)?
The problem is, there's no proof to back this up besides the 'very' sketchy article that started the thread.
And yes, if we believe that a person has information pertaining to another attack within the US and that person is not talking about it, they should be 'coaxed' into telling us. On the other hand I don't think anyone should torture a person in a way that disables them in any way.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote: On the other hand I don't think anyone should torture a person in a way that disables them in any way.
*SNARF*
Oh my god, there went my soda through my nose.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, might want to look up a few posts, scottneb.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
There are all sorts of mental torture you can invoke on a person. Just ask any random woman you see. Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Point taken, fugu.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
So no physical impairments, but severe mental trauma is ok?
-Trevor
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ah, good, sexist and brutal.
For the record, yo're not advocating "coaxing." You're advocating physical torture, water-boarding, psychological means to terrify, and incarceration without access to defense or basic prisoner rights. Or, for that matter, actually being charged with a crime.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
If this prevents another 9-11 is it worth it?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen with a wife and two young children, had his life flipped upside down in the fall of 2002 when John Ashcroft's Justice Department, acting at least in part on bad information supplied by the Canadian government, decided it would be a good idea to abduct Mr. Arar and ship him off to Syria, an outlaw nation that the Justice Department honchos well knew was addicted to torture.
Mr. Arar was not charged with anything, and yet he was deprived not only of his liberty, but of all legal and human rights. He was handed over in shackles to the Syrian government and, to no one's surprise, promptly brutalized. A year later he emerged, and still no charges were lodged against him. His torturers said they were unable to elicit any link between Mr. Arar and terrorism. He was sent back to Canada to face the torment of a life in ruins.
Mr. Arar's is the case we know about. How many other individuals have disappeared at the hands of the Bush administration? How many have been sent, like the victims of a lynch mob, to overseas torture centers? How many people are being held in the C.I.A.'s highly secret offshore prisons? Who are they and how are they being treated? Have any been wrongly accused? If so, what recourse do they have?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
If the person has knowledge of another attack that will take innocent lives, YES! That's my point.
I, however, don't approve of the US sending people to Gitmo for years-on-end without charging them.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Has there been any recorded instances of terrorist attacks being thwarted by what we've learned through these methods? Any?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So what's the ratio? How many innocent people can be disappeared to make up for one guilty one that gets nabbed?
Is it worth living in a country where the leaders can make you disappear if they don't like you, can hold forever without charging you or allowing you legal defense, can send you to a country and look the other way while you get tortured there?
Aren't we supposed to fight countries like that?
In the new United States, the ends justify the means, always. Better get used to it, people. Sign your loyalty oaths and stop ordering questionable books from Amazon, it'll come back to get you some day.
[ March 08, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Come on Chris, calm down. I'm just exercising my opinions. I made a simple joke, no need for names.
Off the top of my head I can't remember any specific instances, but I'm sure we could find some.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If this prevents another 9-11 is it worth it?"
Jay: no. The ends never justify the means. Never.
[ March 08, 2005, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
If we can take the intensity down a bit, I'd be more than happy to go point-by-point. And, hopefully, I'll be able to support my feelings.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not really upset at you, but I am upset at the situation (although "go ask your ex" would have been funnier and more evenhanded, women are hardly the only masters of mental cruelty )
I want to live in a country I can be proud of. I thought that was, you know, the point of the United States, what separated us from the dictatorships. I understand grey areas and expediency, but there's gotta be a line somewhere.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sorry, I'm going to have to stop here - mental "torture" can be just as crippling if not moreso than any physical affliction.
Ask anyone with a phobia, mental disorder or similar impediment.
I am of the opinion that neither Scott nor Jay really understand the implications of what they're advocating.
As for stopping another 9-11...had the freaking law enforcement agencies done their freaking jobs and not played turf war, it would have been stopped.
And who, the hell, blithely waves off someone paying a flight school (in cash, mind) with the stated intent of only wanting to learn how to take off, not land.
Imagine this - someone only wants to know to take off and not land? What's wrong with this picture?
I can see wanting to learn how to land a plane for those moments of crisis, but alarm bells should have been ringing from here to whatever incompetent genetic mistake at the FBI ignored the flight school's concerns. </rant>
-Trevor
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
If you have a person who is willing to die for what he believes, how else but mental anguish, will you get information from him?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And if there is mental anguish, how do we know that information is accurate?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
That's a good point. So, we know there must be a point where the "torture" is too much and the information is bad. I agree.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If I may ask, calmly, and without rancor: what separates torture from "torture"?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I seem to recall studies that called into question the validity of any information gained under extreme duress, although I cannot quote sources so take that for what it's worth.
As for "willing to die for their cause making them immune to the impact of physical torture" - not true. Dying quickly doesn't hurt much.
However, dying slowly...by inches...that's another matter entirely.
Not that I think it would be particularly beneficial to employ such techniques, but death by slow torture is a far cry from being blown up in a car bomb.
-Trevor
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Torture could be defined as so many things. I could say that waiting until the end of the work day is torture and so, the military is torturing me right now. Torture is a broad word that is used in many contexts. So, when I say "torture" I mean whatever you think is torture.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, note that the incentives which lead people to commit suicide bombings depend on the success of that suicide bombing; in other situations, they'll tend to react much as most other people. There've been a number of studies on the subject, and the general result is that these people are acting rationally, given their beliefs. It is not wacko fanatics who commit suicide bombings, it is anyone normal people who feel extremely marginalized by the system.
Not to mention that most terrorists by far are not suicide bombers willing to die for their causes. Even of 9/11 hijackers, most did not know their true purpose (as far as we've been able to determine).
[ March 08, 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:President Clinton's administration passed a bill that made it so that if we find a terrorist on our soil, we'd send him/her to their home country. I see nothing wrong with that if thats the case here.
I think the idea is that we ship them over and let THEM torture our prisoners while our CIA people wait down the hall to hear what they spill. This is just as bad as if we do it on our own soil. And that's what they are trying to do.. that we didn't torture people on American soil... thus we didn't torture them.
[ March 08, 2005, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ahh, I love Webster's:
quote: Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r Function: noun Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle 1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain 2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
Now, in legal terms, I would imagine we'd have to be more specific because as you noted, the word is bandied about rather lightly.
Saying you were being tortured by the long hours doesn't carry the same information as having your fingernails torn off or...well...your imagination can wander.
-Trevor
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Even so, what if you had one of the lead hijackers?
[EDIT] I'm two posts behind.
[ March 08, 2005, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Interestingly enough, other people have just as much problem defining it.
Q Why has the President approved of and expanded the practice of rendition, of the transfer of individuals from CIA custody to third countries for the purposes of interrogation?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Terry, we're talking about the war on terrorism. And this is a different kind of war. What took place on September 11th changed the world that we live in; it changed the equation, when it came to addressing the threats of the 21st century that we face. We have an obligation to the American people to gather intelligence that will help prevent attacks from happening in the first place.
There are people that want to do harm to America. We're talking about enemy combatants who are terrorists that have been involved in plotting and planning to attack the American people. And if they have information that can help us prevent attacks from happening in the first place, we have an obligation to learn more about what they know. That will help us prevent attacks from happening in the first place.
But the President has made it very clear that when it comes to the question of torture, that we do not torture, we do not condone torture, he would never authorize the use of torture. We have laws and treaty obligations that we abide by and adhere to. This is -- the United States is a nation of laws. We also have an obligation not to render people to countries if we believe they would be tortured.
And so Judge Gonzales, during his testimony, provided information, talking about how we get assurances from countries to make sure that they abide by our values when it comes to the question of torture. But this is a different kind of war, and it requires us to gather intelligence in order to protect the American people.
Q Well, one of the countries that receives a lot of these individuals is Uzbekistan. What is it that the Uzbekis can do in interrogations that the United States of America can't do?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, if you're asking me to talk about specific intelligence matters, you know that I'm not going to do that. But --
Q In general --
MR. McCLELLAN: Our understanding --
Q -- what is it that this country, the most advanced in national security matters of any country in the world, cannot accomplish in interrogations --
MR. McCLELLAN: Again --
Q -- that the nation of Uzbekistan can?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking me to get into specific matters, and I'm not going to do that --
Q Generally, in general --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- because of the classified nature of our intelligence. But it is important that we gather intelligence to protect the American people. We are working closely in partnership with many countries to win the war on terrorism and to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. The President will talk about some of those efforts that are being undertaken by countries around the world to win the war on terrorism tomorrow. And he looks forward to doing that.
But in terms of the whole question of renditions, I think our views are very clear in terms of --
Q But I'm wondering about the rationale for rendition. Why does the President approve of it? Why has he expanded it? And what is it that countries like Uzbekistan, in general, offer the U.S.?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, in terms of the whole issue of renditions, that's relating to classified intelligence matters, which I'm not going to --
Q You can't even tell me in general why this practice occurs?
MR. McCLELLAN: Which I'm not going to get into. No, I just told you in general that we have an obligation to the American people to gather intelligence that will help prevent attacks from happening in the first place. The war on terrorism is a different kind of war. And we have sworn enemies of the United States who continue to seek to do us harm. And we are talking about enemy combatants, known terrorists, who have been involved in plotting and planning to attack the American people in the past, and who might have information that can help us prevent attacks from happening in the future.
Now, as we go about gathering intelligence, we have values and laws that we believe are important, that we believe need to be adhered to. And that is our commitment. The President has made it very clear to our government that we must abide by our laws and treaty obligations. And he's made it very clear that we do not torture.
-------------------------------
The main question -- what can these countries do that we can't? -- is not and will not be answered, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's contrary to American ideals of justice.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Telp hits the point squarely - if we're going to engage in torture, fine.
But hiding behind this thin veil of deniability is more insulting than changing our policies on the subject.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If I had one of the lead hijackers?
Am I getting revenge or searching for information?
If I knew he was a lead hijacker, I would be inhumane in his treatment, but I would also take great effort to ensure his personal safety - even from himself so I could tap his information.
-Trevor
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Why even bother calling ourselves the land of the free and brave? If we say it's ok to torture then we're neither of those things and we'll have lost the "mandate of heaven"/moral highground. We really will be an evil empire then, and probably worth taking down. Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
That's basically what I'm saying as well. Even if I didn't say it as effectively.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I dislike the notion of having a moral high ground or a "mandate from heaven" - but I am also supremely tired of trying to play big brother to an unruly schoolyard.
-Trevor
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Telp, you could almost use what you just said when talking about what the British felt like when they encountered our guerilla warfare techniques.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
...and I will never think that we should be taken down. I will never roll over like that!
Wow, that got to me.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Maybe I was a little melodramatic there... (I don't think we really should be taken down).. and I can see how we are reacting is like how the British did... but they were upset for a reason...the loss of honor in battle. And we are loosing honor in this too, no matter how well it works or the need to do it.
[ March 08, 2005, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Losing honor in battle? I think they were just upset at the change of tactics and our lack of proper battlefield etiquette.
Permit me to point out that claiming a "mandate from heaven" or possessing a moral high ground is as likely to cast us as an Evil Empire as not having one.
People tend to dislike other people telling them how to live because we know better than they do.
As a gay man, I would think you could empathize with that situation more than most.
-Trevor
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I don't think that was relavent Trevor. I'd suggest you edit your last comment.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I stand by what I said.
How many conservative Christian groups would gladly tell Telp he's damned to hell and should never have been born because they feel superior, because they have the moral high ground and because they claim a mandate from Heaven?
Do we think these nuts are right? I don't. I'm pretty sure Telp doesn't. But this doesn't stop them from embracing their self-appointed mandate.
I am trying and perhaps failing to illustrate the differences in perspective.
-Trevor
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Losing honor in battle? I think they were just upset at the change of tactics and our lack of proper battlefield etiquette.
Permit me to point out that claiming a "mandate from heaven" or possessing a moral high ground is as likely to cast us as an Evil Empire as not having one.
People tend to dislike other people telling them how to live because we know better than they do.
As a gay man, I would think you could empathize with that situation more than most.
I wasn't actually thinking about the American Revolution... but I guess that can apply.
I'm an agnostic... but the idea of a "shining City on a Hill" and "manifest destiny" and "mandate from heaven" have all been used by religious people to describe America, I didn't make it up. Quite a lot of how people feel about the US is based on this idea that we are the best example of a good society for the world.
I used "mandate from heaven" partly because OSC used it in his new book, partly to address the loss of American honor in saying torture is OK, and partly as irony.
[ March 08, 2005, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, Scott brought up the American Revolution.
Sorry, I have a bad habit of answering multiple posts in one reply.
-Trevor
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
You put a very personal aspect of another person's life on a public BB. I don't think that's fair.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I didn't out him - Telp has been very forthright about his sexual orientation and I respect him for it.
I do not insult him, nor do I denigrate him in this context. Well, so far, in any context.
But I think invoking an example close to home does help emphasize my point.
-Trevor
Edit: Whoops, typo.
[ March 08, 2005, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
To continue... while I am atheist/agnostic I too have this feeling that America is special. Not because of our military and/or economic might.. but by the fact that we are/try to be a Good Society. It's not religious for me, but for some it is. And I see the use of torture as diminishing those ideals that the Framers created. Heck, before WWII America refused to have a spy network because we saw it as evil and not the gentlmen thing to do.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
A Good society casting our beliefs on others? Dictating how they should and shouldn't live?
I do object to that notion, perhaps because we are so fond of doing so.
The charge of cultural Pax Americana is not far wrong, albeit mostly unintentional.
-Trevor
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:I didn't out him - Telp has been very forthright about his sexual orientation and I respect him for it.
I do not insult him, nor do I denigrate him in this context. Well, so far, in any context.
But I think invoking an example close to home does help emphasize my point.
-Trevor
No harm no foul T-man The point was understood. Thanks for looking out for me scottneb.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I just hate seeing (or what I see as) personal attacks. But, I think the thread has wandered.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If it had been a personal attack, Telp would have called me on it in no uncertain terms.
As well as most of Hatrack - Telp has his own groupies around here.
-Trevor
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I do love my groupies!
But back on track...
quote:A Good society casting our beliefs on others? Dictating how they should and shouldn't live?
I do object to that notion, perhaps because we are so fond of doing so.
The charge of cultural Pax Americana is not far wrong, albeit mostly unintentional.
Ok, let's forget about American honor and goodness... how else is our new sneaky way of committing torture good/bad? I still think it's horrible and probably illegal.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Unethical, immoral but likely not illegal as there has never been a need to make a law covering the topic at hand.
-Trevor
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Sure, there is, Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to name two.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I'm linking on the fly here. I haven't read the Code yet.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:But the President has made it very clear that when it comes to the question of torture, that we do not torture, we do not condone torture, he would never authorize the use of torture. We have laws and treaty obligations that we abide by and adhere to. This is -- the United States is a nation of laws. We also have an obligation not to render people to countries if we believe they would be tortured.
So Bush lied and is lying... that's another big point. That our government is lying to us.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
And why lie? Because, going back to my old point, that most voters still care about the ideals of American goodness and justice.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If I read the Code correctly, it does not prohibit the use of torture on non-US nationals outside of US borders.
As for Telp's quote...well, yep...that does kinda kill any gray shading, legal maneuvering or semantic trickery one could use to justify the alleged actions.
Provided, of course, the accusations are true.
As to why bother lying? Instinctive reaction? We are talking about politicians. A poor attempt to maintain the illusion of moral superiority that we blithely and too often incorrectly wrap ourselves in?
The average voter may care about it, they may want to believe it, but if they won't act to preserve it - then it becomes a de-fanged paper tiger suitable more for laughter than respect.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If we had one of the lead hijackers, I would interrogate him using non-torture methods to determine what he knows, and let him know that if he does tell us he will be offered a plea bargain for life in prison, but if he does not, whether or not they succeed, the death penalty will be sought.
No torture would be used, though reasonable non-torture methods would be engaged in.
Lets put it this way: by saying it is okay to torture people we hold, we allow other countries to torture our military members they hold captive -- after all, they know things that will lead to the deaths of the captors' countrymen.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Um...most of the other countries in question probably do torture captured US service personnel, although allegations of US misconduct to strip away our right to protest such action.
On a side note - would the Geneva convention cover non-military behaviors? I don't believe the Bush administration is claiming an actual state of war, although the term "enemy combatant" has been bandied about quite a bit.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And we condemn them for it. With what justification?
Plus, given our current status, I bet a number of them would think twice on the subject.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:President Clinton's administration passed a bill that made it so that if we find a terrorist on our soil, we'd send him/her to their home country. I see nothing wrong with that if thats the case here.
Hiya, scottneb. Just as a point of clarification for those of us joining the thread late (not to be piling in on you): the NYT article linked by Chris Bridges is about a Canadian citizen who was suspected of something, deported from the US to Syria, and then never found guilty of any crime.
quote:[After over a year in Syria] His torturers said they were unable to elicit any link between Mr. Arar and terrorism.
He's back in Canada now. This received a good deal of attention in the Canadian press, and I think it has colored many Canadian citizens' view of the US. Initially (I think), Canadians were generally willing to attribute this just to the Bush II administration. Once we re-elected him, I think that attribution spread to the citizenry, too.
[ March 08, 2005, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Although being piled on by Claudia is hardly a bad thing.
-Trevor
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Hey CT, I can't remember for the life of me what the Act was called! I know someone used the term in this thread already... it was the _____ment Act.
Man, this is really bothering me. I can't even remember one of Clinton's landmark Acts.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't know the name of the act, but I think the technical term for the practice is "extraordinary rendition." An article from Salon.com (in my read, quite biased) here and from CBS News here.
I lay a good bit of this at Clinton's feet, as he initiated the allowance. Nonetheless, it has definitely been expanded in application under Bush. I don't think it had been used to deport any Canadian citizens to other countries before 9-11.
Point taken, though, that this isn't a partisan thing. I think the effects of the current broad interpretation of it has gotten a lot more press elsewhere in the world, and that is in good part why people elsewhere are reacting so strongly to us. Without knowing how our policies have hit home for citizens of other countries, the world's reaction to us doesn't make as much sense. That's all.
[Trevor: Better be careful about which definition of "piles," there. ]
[ March 08, 2005, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Or we never stop to consider someone else's point of view - Americans tend to be very self-centered, but as I have said before, we lack the opportunity to be multi-national.
While walking in Scotland, I saw a billboard advertising a weekend getaway to France for 80 pounds - roughly $120 at the time. In Europe, you can pass through three different countries in the course of a day - each with it's own language or even languages, customs and traditions.
In America...not so much. We have Canada to the north, Mexico to the south and a whole lot of America inbetween. We don't have the opportunity to travel abroad often or easily and as such are content to remain within our borders.
By comparison, Australia has a cultural tradition of heading to Europe during the teen and young adult years so they develop a multi-cultural awareness early while still having a similar problem with physical isolation.
But moving back to Claudia's point - we don't stop to consider other viewpoints, any more so than other countries would pause to consider ours.
Of course, with Bush's re-election and his current trend towards the absurd, I have a harder time protesting a foreign national's unwillingness to consider American viewpoints.
-Trevor
Edit: CT -
[ March 08, 2005, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Telp hits the point squarely - if we're going to engage in torture, fine.
No. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Like it or not, Teshi, the majority of this country voted for a president who's willing to contract out for torture. And they're okay with it. They like the guy.
That's just who we, as Americans, are. People who are cool with having our enemies -- and suspected enemies -- tortured, as long as we don't have to get our own hands dirty.
It is precisely because I did not want to admit that America was this kind of country that I voted against Bush. Twice. However, with the results of the second election, I am forced to admit that I was wrong, and that America is the sort of country that winks at this sort of thing.
[ March 08, 2005, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Don't forget the rest of my post Tesh - I was protesting the sneaky, underhanded nature in which the US government is attempting to commit an act without ever really admitting to the act.
Either torture or don't - but please do not pretend that by enlisting the aid of third parties you are somehow absolved of any guilt on the matter.
It's like the pacifist who protests violence, but will cheerfully engage people to inflict violence for her. (long story about an idiot teenager I used to know)
-Trevor
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Either torture or don't - but please do not pretend that by enlisting the aid of third parties you are somehow absolved of any guilt on the matter.
You think it would be okay if the U.S. announced it was torturing people?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It would be more honest than what the government is doing now, if you believe the allegations.
I don't care for the hypocrisy.
Either torture is inhumane and should not be allowed under any circumstances, or it isn't. Someone needs to make up their minds and stick by the rule.
This is not a rule that you can adhere to when it suits you and cast it aside when it doesn't.
-Trevor
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Like it or not, Teshi, the majority of this country voted for a president who's willing to contract out for torture. And they're okay with it. They like the guy.
I bet that most of the people who voted for Bush believe him when he says the U.S. doesn't use torture. It's not that they think it's okay that he does evil things. It's that they think he is a morally upright person and so disregard any reports like this as personal attacks on him.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If these allegations are true, if that can be proved, what does that mean for the United States?
~
The American President stands and makes the speech:
"The American Government uses mental and physical torture as a routine procedure."
Flags fly; people cheer. The anthem plays.
~
You'd think, how does this fit with what the U.S. set out to be, but of course, the constitution mentions only those inside the United States; themselves, ourselves.
quote: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How am I, as a global citizen, supposed to swallow these:
if these allegations are true. What am I supposed to think? What is the world supposed to believe?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Shigosei: except there are a number of people on hatrack who are okay with and endorse the use of torture, so I'm not so sure its true people would care even did Bush say we did torture.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The World can believe a number of things.
Well, at least they've stopped lying about it.
Gee, maybe torture isn't so bad after all if the situation really, really warrants it.
I guess the ends do justify the means.
Those barbaric Americans! They excute their criminals and they commit torture too!
Maybe the Americans will stop playing World Cop and enforcing Pax Americana around the world.
Yeah! We can settle our disputes the way we want to now!
Truthfully, it could be taken a number of ways - each interpreted differently by the specific audience member in question.
At the moment, international opinion of the US isn't the greatest - with some justification. Whether or not I care what that opinion of me happens to be is another matter.
Tesh, by all means - argue against the use of torture. Protest the lies and deceit of the American government.
I'm not advocating or protesting torture on its own merits - I am critical of the Government's thinly veiled double-standard which, in this case, happens to involve torture.
-Trevor
Edit: For typos. Edit 2: And you would not be the first to point out the double-standards of the US government. We criticize other nations for doing what we ourselves do - as you noted in your links above.
[ March 08, 2005, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The point is, that people used to, whether they liked it or not, look to America or Russia. Russia fell.
America's image, although it was always slightly tarnished, has slipped lately and people are no longer looking at America as they used to. They are no longer looking at England, or Russia, or any of the other countries that have been in the position of, not veneration, but the world or part of the world gaze.
They do not know where to look.
I like metaphors: The U.N. is an absent father, the U.S. is the powerful and charismatic Uncle that the world suddenly sees as something clearly less than glorious. It's like catching that Uncle in the backwoods, taking pot shots at squirrels and laughing.
And then turning around and shrugging, and saying, "what's the matter?"
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
quote:The point is, that people used to, whether they liked it or not, look to America or Russia. Russia fell.
America's image, although it was always slightly tarnished, has slipped lately and people are no longer looking at America as they used to. They are no longer looking at England, or Russia, or any of the other countries that have been in the position of, not veneration, but the world or part of the world gaze.
They do not know where to look.
I agree Teshi. The Cold War, though expensive and wasteful, at least forced people and countries to choose sides. Since the fall of the USSR, that no longer holds true, and their is far less unity in foreign affairs--every country seems to obey only the Bronze Rule--Screw unto others before they screw you. I am reminded of Yeat's "The Second Coming": Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
[ March 09, 2005, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Mormo ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You know, I thought it might be fun to complicate this for those on hatrack who believe torture is justified. Now, the reason for torture being acceptable is because its worth it to save lives, that I've heard, but feel free to expound your own reasons and methods of differentiation in the following cases.
The person who has the information is:
A woman.
A pregnant woman.
A priest or other religious figure who received the information in confidence and believes that even given the cost in lives it would be immoral to reveal it.
A person with a mental disability involving decreased intelligence a who has fixated on not telling (say, because he promised someone else not to tell).
--------
Don't try to think up cute ways around the restrictions because that's completely missing the point, and typical methods aren't working, so far at least.
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
quote:The ends never justify the means. Never.
Tom Davidson. I go with my sf guru Spider Robinson on this. He had a character say (paraphrased) "it depends on the ends, and the means."
Absolute statements that "The ends justify the means" or "The ends never justify the means" bother me a little.
Mr. Arar's case bothers me a lot. It's a far cry to go from "it would be OK to torture someone to prevent another 9/11" to "that guy might be a terrorist, let's ship him to Syria and see if he cracks under torture."
The first is debatable, the second is deplorable.
[ March 09, 2005, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Mormo ]
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
Given that suspected terrorists on watch lists can still buy guns, are we really doing all we can to prevent terrorism, without resorting to imprisonment without charges, torture and the like?
[ March 09, 2005, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Mormo ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Not to mention he wasn't even a US citizen.
If another country did that to one of our citizens, we'd be a little upset.
Provided, of course, the case actually made the news and we could be bothered to care.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yeah, right Mormo.
The "Patriot Act" was unnecessary - had the freaking agencies done their freaking jobs to begin with...
Sorry, I will stop ranting now.
-Trevor
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
Trevor, I forgot to say that I agree with your point about the hypocrisy involved in extraordinary rendition to countries that torture people, with our implied consent and probably at our request, with plausible deniability when it breaks public.
We are like Pontius Pilate, washing our hands of the blood, while benefiting from it.
But we're just kidding ourselves--in the future, we may become like Lady Macbeth: "Out damned spot: out I say!... What, will these hands never be clean? Here’s the smell of blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand."
And be forever washing hands that won't be clean of blood.
The problem with plausible deniabilty is it doesn't work after losing all credability.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*snort* Considering the blood this country was built on, I don't know that I'd give our national conscience that much credit.
-Trevor
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
Well, but we like to pretend we are better than other countries, "the city on the hill", the land of the free and brave, etc.
quote: Why even bother calling ourselves the land of the free and brave? If we say it's ok to torture then we're neither of those things and we'll have lost the "mandate of heaven"/moral highground.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote: This above all, to thine own self be true
Sorry, I got caught up in the Shakespeare moment.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom Davidson. I go with my sf guru Spider Robinson on this. He had a character say (paraphrased) "it depends on the ends, and the means."
This is incorrect. Ends cannot justify means. If the means seem justified by an end, that's only because we have decided that the means aren't all that bad. That does not mean that the means have themselves become acceptable; it means that we are able to rationalize using them.
Shooting someone to save someone else is not justified. It is rationalized. Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
Trevor, one of the main reasons for our bloody revolution was arbitrary governance from the English Crown. Which is why the Constitution and Bill of Rights attempted to limit broad application of executive powers--limits which recent events have shown to be threadbare or nonexistant.
Morbo
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Mormo - nothing stays the same. Perhaps the naive idealism has outlived it's time.
Although I suppose I should point out I'm not condoning or supporting my government's actions, although I am not taking any active measure to oppose them either.
-Trevor
Edit: Although I suppose we could argue the realistic effectiveness of trying to limit a government's broad powers.
[ March 09, 2005, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Tom, that is only true if we accept the premise that killing a human being can never be justified.
I find no particular wrong in killing someone - depending on circumstance and occasion.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"that is only true if we accept the premise that killing a human being can never be justified."
That is an operating premise I'm willing to accept, yes. I will also grant that killing someone can, in extremis, be rationalized. Justification, however, is something else altogether.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Anything can be rationalized.
Legitimately justifying something is not so easy.
Killing a human being, in my opinion, is not in and of itself a completely unjustifiable act.
The question becomes: by what standard do we apply when we seek to justify something? The law? Personal moral code? Religious code?
-Trevor
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
quote: Shooting someone to save someone else is not justified. It is rationalized.
Then why do they call it justifiable homicide? Shooting someone in self-defense of self or others when they are shooting at you is both justified and rational, not rationalized, assuming you use rationalized to mean "to devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior." rationalized Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
[edit: I missed this when I posted above]
quote:"that is only true if we accept the premise that killing a human being can never be justified."--Trevor
That is an operating premise I'm willing to accept, yes. --Tom Davidson
I just find that--odd. I am against violence generally, but violence in self-defence is completely justified, assuming it's proportional.
[ March 09, 2005, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Mormo ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I am against violence generally, but violence in self-defence is completely justified, assuming it's proportional."
Based on what premise? Does self-determination trump the sanctity of life? Or does someone forfeit their right to life the instant they try to take it away from you?
If so, under what other circumstances can someone forfeit their right to life without actually wanting to die?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Or does someone forfeit their right to life the instant they try to take it away from you?
Do you forfeit your right to life the instant someone tries to take it away from you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nope. You still have a right to live. But does that grant you the right to ignore someone else's right to live?
Only if their denial of your right nullifies theirs. Otherwise, even in saving yourself, you have violated their right to live.
I believe that you DO violate their right to live if you kill in self-defense, that it is not possible to unwillingly commute that right under any circumstances. That does not mean that, given the two options, you have made a poor decision; it merely means that you have murdered.
[ March 10, 2005, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And should you then be sent to prison? Or should self-defense still provide legal justification?
Edit: I ask because the answer will define pretty clearly the areas we disagree, if any.
[ March 10, 2005, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I think we presume too much when we assume that any of us has the inalienable right to anything, even life. Therefore the justification of any act neither impinges on or supresses anyone else's rights on a very macroscopic level. However, once you form a society, these "rights" can be agreed upon and protected to a degree. But as we've seen with so many other societies, as morals and attitudes change, what constitues an individuals rights also changes.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Are we disputing on legal or moral grounds?
Killing - the act of ending life.
Murder - the act of ending life for unlawful reasons.
Are we expanding the definition of murder to include motivations outside of the current legal canon? Thus any act of killing is automatically murder, regardless of circumstance?
-Trevor
Edited with apologies to English majors.
[ March 10, 2005, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't know about you, but I'm disputing on moral grounds. As far as I'm concerned, murder is the killing of anyone who doesn't want to die.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then we disagree at the most fundamental levels.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Only if you consider legality fundamental to morality, as opposed to an arbitrary and artificial construct of society.
[ March 10, 2005, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, I consider morality to be fundamental, and I vehemently disagree with the definition of murder that is part of your moral framework because of the definition I give it in my moral framework.
quote:as opposed to an arbitrary and artificial construct of society.
You've made an unfounded assumption about why I disagree with you on the most fundamental level.
[ March 10, 2005, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ok, count me in the fundamental disagreement category.
-Trevor
Edit: And is it safe to assume with the expanded definition that you still view murder as a bad, immoral thing?
[ March 10, 2005, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
When I saw this one I thought it was going to be complaints about more outsourcing of jobs! BC
[ March 10, 2005, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. Murder's still bad and immoral.
Let me quote something I just posted on Ornery, on a similar topic. The first quote is someone else's post, to which I was replying.
--------
quote:On the surface, imposing freedom and liberty abroad by American force of arms seem noble and even courageous. The notion that we, as Americans, are willing to pay a price in blood, toil, tears, and sweat to save the oppressed peoples from tyranny has a nice ring to it.
Allow me to explain why I am a pacifist. Or, rather, let me explain why the above paragraph, quoted verbatim, explains why I am a pacifist. *grin*
Because when we send people abroad to fight wars to "liberate" countries, we are not sending them abroad to shed their own blood. If we were, I wouldn't have a problem with it; if we could turn Iraq into a peaceful democracy by lining up 15,000 willing Americans in New York and asking them to shoot themselves, I'd be fine with it. A voluntary sacrifice to bring peace and prosperity to someone else is nifty-keen.
But war doesn't work like that. We don't send our boys out to shed their own blood. We send them out to draw blood, and in fact want them to shed as little of their own blood as possible. Our soldiers are not martyrs; they do not intend to sacrifice themselves. If they die, it is because they failed to kill -- because killing the other guy is the intention of a war.
And who is the other guy, precisely? We speak of collateral damage. We speak of tens of thousands of conscripted Iraqi soldiers dead. We speak of houses destroyed, towns abandoned, hospitals shelled.
This may be a cost worth paying. But we do not give Iraq the choice to pay it. We invade, taking upon ourselves the decision not just to let our boys die but the decision to kill thousands of Iraqis and blow up thousands of buildings. To bring them freedom.
We present this as a burden we bear, as a cost we are willing to pay. But we don't pay it. They pay it.
We take unto ourselves the supreme right of God: the right to renounce someone else's right to life. We say "this is a cost we are willing to pay" and what we mean is "your life is worth this goal."
I do not believe that anyone -- anyone -- has the right to tell me that my life is not worth living. That is a decision I may someday make for myself, but I will not contract that decision to a third party. And yet we as a country, by invading a country to bring it "freedom," don the mantle of God.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
The U.S. had a limited life span anyways. It's built up a good bit of momentum, but it's one of the only countries in the world whose society and structure is over two hundred year olds, and we're statistically due for drastic changes. Probably negative.
Under very rare circumstances do I accept torture. For one thing, there's the whole "not becoming what you fight". And random, hidden, unsubstantiated--if you are to torture, then you are our government and at least somewhat responsible to tell us, that we may denounce you. Naive, yes, because what government would tell its people? But if the government refuses to disclose any practices because they fear great public outcry and disgust, then it is no government of mine.
*buys ticket back to Germany and prepares to head out*
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Oops. This thread is three pages . . .
*commences to read other two*
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, Tom is pushing a pretty hard line here, and one which I think is obviously wrong. It's quite clear that the wrongness of an action depends in part upon its foreseeable consequences. Lying is wrong in most cases, except when a would-be murderer asks you where his victim is hiding. In such a case it is obviously wrong not to lie.
Similarly, if someone is holding three hostages and intends to kill them, it is wrong not to stop him in some way, even if that means killing him.
Tom does have a good point in the following way: insofar as you have a right to life, it makes no sense to say that you forfeit that right when you threaten someone else's life. If I'm holding a pistol in one hand and a tranquilizer gun in the other, and you approach me with a knife intending to kill me, it would be wrong for me to use lethal force to stop you when I could just as easily save my own life with non-lethal force.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
FYI, my last post was a response to Tom's point about the morality of killing. I pretty much agree with what he said about the war.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
How about: All killing is immoral and, for lack of a better word, sinful, but on occaision it is unavoidable.
Obviously the question now exists in where the line is drawn.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
But in the case where you're killing one hostage-taker to save three hostages, the killing absolutely is avoidable. You could easily walk away and let him go on with what he was doing. And like I said, it seems morally wrong not to save the hostages, even if it means killing the guy.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I mean unavoidable in the "obviously in this case it is better to commit the crime and save the people" sense.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
How can something obviously be the best option and yet be the wrong thing to do?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's not wrong, it's just not right. It's a choice that should be made grudgingly and unhappily.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Have you ever heard the term "the best of bad options"? How about "the lesser of two evils"? Just because something is not as bad as something worse does not make it good.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Tom does have a good point in the following way: insofar as you have a right to life, it makes no sense to say that you forfeit that right when you threaten someone else's life. If I'm holding a pistol in one hand and a tranquilizer gun in the other, and you approach me with a knife intending to kill me, it would be wrong for me to use lethal force to stop you when I could just as easily save my own life with non-lethal force.
That's all well and good for the situation where you do in fact have the option to use non lethal force. But if someone comes at me with a gun or knife with the intention of killing me, and I have a gun or knife, I don't think it is immoral to kill them in self defense.
You have two options in that circumstance. You can let yourself be killed, sacrificing yourself for the sake of the immoral actions of your attacker, or you can kill them first.
I also disagree that a would be murderer doesn't forfeit his right to life when he tries to murder. I think he does. If someone tries to murder you I think he breaks whatever moral covenant exists between man that murder is wrong, and once he does that, he forfeits his own safety under the covenant. And if he is willing to break it, and is willing to murder you, he has no right to claim protection for himself.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
I just want to go on the record as stating the fact that your all paranoid.
I'd also like to point out that you only hear about the government screw ups.... literally thousands of terrorists have been found and plots uncovered by these techniques. So the only question in my mind is whether we'd rather these people complete their missions before we take away their rights or allow them to be caught red handed?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
So, you're saying you're ok with the notion of picking up citizens, holding them indefinitely without proof or criminal charges and shipping them abroad for some inquisitive torture?
-Trevor
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Should we start randomly picking up people and executing them because they MIGHT murder someone? Or know someone that has/will?
Don't know who you are making a response to with your comment, but if it's me, I was only talking about murder in self defense, though I suppose the argument could be stretched to the death penalty, though I don't intend for it to be.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think certain allowances can be made in wartime, but not as much as you suggest JT.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Who exactly have we declared war on?
We don't declare war on people or groups - at best we undertake legal/police actions against them.
Until or unless we decide to re-define our concepts of waging war and what constitutes war, we should err on the side of caution and not lash out blindly, wantonly in some misguided notion of "preserving the peace" or "doing what must be done."
I have no objections to violence when and where appropriate, but if all you use is a hammer, all your problems will look like nails.
-Trevor
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think war will ever again be what it was before world war two. We aren't going to get polite announcements of formal declarations.
Wars of now and the future, fought against groups without official status cannot be declared in the same sense.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Then we really need to redefine war - as such, our terms of engagement only address the notion of wars against nations.
Until we decide to change our notion of war and define the rules of engagement, we will continue to flounder aimlessly.
Although I will point out, current US military planners also believed the need for large-scale divisions needed to fight a WW2-type engagement were no longer needed.
And then we occupied Iraq. Yep, great planning there.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I also disagree that a would be murderer doesn't forfeit his right to life when he tries to murder. I think he does. If someone tries to murder you I think he breaks whatever moral covenant exists between man that murder is wrong, and once he does that, he forfeits his own safety under the covenant.
Out of interest, what other actions break this covenant? Does anything besides explicitly trying to kill someone else waive your own right to live?
--------
"literally thousands of terrorists have been found and plots uncovered by these techniques"
Name one, Stryker. Heck, name a couple hundred. There've been "literally thousands," right, so it shouldn't be too hard. Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
quote: *snort* Considering the blood this country was built on, I don't know that I'd give our national conscience that much credit.
-Trevor
Well, you certainly have a point there
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I also disagree that a would be murderer doesn't forfeit his right to life when he tries to murder. I think he does. If someone tries to murder you I think he breaks whatever moral covenant exists between man that murder is wrong, and once he does that, he forfeits his own safety under the covenant.
This means that it's ok to shoot the guy with the pistol instead of the tranquilizer gun. Do you really believe that that's permissible? You can just kill someone even though you have it in your power to accomplish the same end with non-lethal means?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Destineer you misunderstood me, I meant that only if all you had with you was lethal means, you should be morally justified to use them. If you have non-lethal means, then that's a judgement call. But personally I think you should use the non lethal. But in how many circumstances is that likely to happen?
quote: Out of interest, what other actions break this covenant? Does anything besides explicitly trying to kill someone else waive your own right to live?
As for that, I'm not really sure. Certainly trying to kill someone would break it with that person. But other than that, I really don't know. Maybe if someone were holding their finger to the trigger of a bomb that will kill people and you have lethal means of stopping them then you have the right to, and maybe in that instance you would have the obligation to.
It's a case by case basis, but works on the foundation of a one on one situation. One person trying to kill another waives any rights the attacker has.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It was even preached in the Bible. A lot of people use that for their moral compass."
Why would they stop with the Old Testament?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"It was even preached in the Bible. A lot of people use that for their moral compass."
Why would they stop with the Old Testament?
Well, some people don't believe in the New Testament.
[ March 14, 2005, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I, as a rule, do not claim moral superiority over anyone else. At least, I try not to.
The question I feel I always have to ask: "If faced by the same challenges, would I use the same tactics?"
The answer is a disturbing "Maybe, maybe not - depending on the situation and tactic."
Generally speaking though, I have no objections playing by the rules set by the other fellow - what's good for the goose and so on.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
A quick Google turns up quite a few more likely-sounding sources.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)