posted
Telp, you could almost use what you just said when talking about what the British felt like when they encountered our guerilla warfare techniques.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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 ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You put a very personal aspect of another person's life on a public BB. I don't think that's fair.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And why lie? Because, going back to my old point, that most voters still care about the ideals of American goodness and justice.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. ]
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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)
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?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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:
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?"
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The point was understood.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
