Heres the thing. I can understand torturing someone if there is an imenint threat. (i.e. there is a bomb and you need to find it before it goes off.) What I don't support is torture as punishment, or without a DAMNED good reason.
Heres the thing. I can understand torturing someone if there is an imenint threat. (i.e. there is a bomb and you need to find it before it goes off.) What I don't support is torture as punishment, or without a DAMNED good reason.
I'm honestly talking more about the ticking bomb scenario of prisoners caught in Iraq who are known to be in the insurgency and thus may know of planned attacks in Iraq. We aren't getting "confessions". Most in Iraq are captured with uzis in their hand, so we don't need to get them to confess. This isn't "punishment" either, it's being used to extract information that may very well save the lives of a troop convoy of 12-20 people. And honestly, we have no idea how often it had prevented an attack, because you never hear about the bombs that don't go off.Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
And as I said before, it isn't so much whether I don't approve of torture, or whether you disaprove of torture, or even what the War Crimes Court thinks of torture. The question is whether you are willing to have other people die for your moral indignation. I don't think that's a moral thing to do. I could see where I'd rather die than torture, and I know that you'd be willing to die rather than torture (and would doubtless risk life and limb lest he go to his cell and not find a mint on his pillow). All of that is perfectly legitamate. But it's when you say "Die for MY beliefs, and die rather than doing something that will make ME uncomfortable" that we part company. It isn't fair to the people you are asking to die.
No, the question is whether you're willing to sacrifice your values in order to justify harming someone else.And as I said before, it isn't so much whether I don't approve of torture, or whether you disaprove of torture, or even what the War Crimes Court thinks of torture. The question is whether you are willing to have other people die for your moral indignation.
Cloud 9, it would be much appreciated if you stop generalizing all Americans together and refering to them as if they were cancerous slime.
In any event, I believe the bill is going to pass, so I see no reason to be morally outraged any more so than I already am with the current situation in our government. I don't necessarily think that the amendment is necessary, so long as the laws are being upheld, but it is clear that they are not in some areas. Really, it seems more symbolic than anything else.
i never have. i refer to america. which is the governmental system and politics.
and yevon. the nuremburg principle says that you die for your beliefs and morality. you disobey orders and risk death for you and whoever else to prevent immorality.
some of the men in camo x-ray have been there for 4 years now under the same conditions what are the chances they know anything about what is going on or where the next bomb is?
Umm, exactly. YOU die for YOUR morality. That's all I was ever saying. What I'm saying is that it isn't fair to tell someone else to die for my morality. I feel the same way about the Israeli fence around Palestine. I think it's a bad idea to fence off your minorities and treat them all as guilty. However, I live in America, not Israel, so I'll never be blown to bits by the suicide bomber that can cross the border and get on a bus with a belt of explosives. So, what I'm saying is that unless I personally am going to face the same risks as the people there, who are trying to protect themselves and their buddies/families/fellow soldiers etc., it really isn't my decision at all.
And it isn't my decision about how to question people in Iraq. Very simple reasoning. I'm not there, and if the anti-torture or Geneva or whatever else puts more soldiers or Iraqis at risk, it can't effect me unless it's a breif bit of sadness for the victims of yet another truck bomb. I'm going to be safe and secure no matter what happens. The insurgency isn't striking in America, they're in Iraq.
It's simple. MY life for MY morality. YOUR life for YOUR morality. I can't ask YOU to die for MY morality. And you can't ask that of me.
Gitmo is a bit different. I'm not convinced there is any risk from them.
morality personal. it is infinite, eternal and godless. it is unchanging.
nuremburg stated this in plain fact. the human rights act made it absolutely binding. participation in an immoral act cannot be redeemed by orders. it cannot be redeemed by anything. protecting you and your comrades does not remove the blame from war crimes.
morality does not change when you are on the front lines or at home.
it was determined 50 years ago what should be done in this world. what is right and what is wrong. genocide and torture = wrong. refusing to have any part in them = good. that was the choices handed to the world. america has decided on the first.
Ok Murder is wrong right? I think everybody agrees to that. So if I shoot a stranger, I'm an evil person, right?
Does it change if I tell you that this stranger came into my house and pointed a gun at my kids, and said "I'm going to kill you all", does that change how you view my shooting this person? That's the thing. Yes, killing the person is still morally wrong, but it's worse, morally speaking, to allow several people to die when you can do something to prevent it.
That's a major problem for all "absolute moralities". Yes it's wrong to lie, but would it still be wrong to lie if it saves a life? If the two wrongs are in conflict, your absolute ethics never hint of which of the two evils is worse. And that's really the only time morality can influence your behavior. No one other than a psychpath would go around shooting random people for fun. This is because everyone believes that such actions are evil. But what about self-defense? What about defending other people? In those situations, there are two evils. Which do you choose?
And as far as "eternal and godless" -- give me a break. It was perfectly moral in 1491 to the average aztec to kill a human being in a religious ritual. Animal sacrifices used to be extremely common. There used to be cannibals. None of that is moral today. Our morals have evolved since humans evolved 30,000 years ago.
there is no excuse for torture. end of. the punishment in the intenational courts can be death. there is absolutely no excuse for it. you accept the concequences of not performing it.
the argument in the nuremburg trials was that these people commit genocide under fear of death by breaking orders. it was decided that it was not an excuse and death should be accepted. it is better to die than to commit these crimes. to die a martyr's death. to have no part in one of the most hideous crimes you can commit. and to accept the concequences of being right and fighting for that even in death.
and morals have not evolved. in most religions murder is wrong, same with rape, theft and other crimes. it is a common human thought that these are not to be done.
Please.... there isn't a religion I've ever heard of that hasn't condoned torture to serve it's own ends. Well, not one that's had a power base to protect. Wicca and other new-age philosophies haven't existed long enough, and certainly haven't been involved in the play that is warfare and politics.
No one has the right to judge, until they've stood in the face of it and refused. Sometimes, pragmatic behavior involves the harming of your enemies. If it serves a fuction that will improve your side's chance to survive, it's worth considering, at least. I know if someone had a gun pointed at someone I cared about (and most people I DON'T care about), and I had the choice to stop that person (killing them in the process) I'd do it. If there was a less fatal solution, I'd take it, but if there wasn't, I'd do it. Torturing of prisoners for THAT function, acceptable. Now, torturing a person for the sole purpose of your own sick amusement, that is most definately wrong.
No American fears death by not following orders. The death would come by the truck bomb that the prisoner knows about and isn't going to tell you about short of torture. Also, it isn't one for one here. If the bomb does go off, it's usually at least ten people. So then the statement is "better ten Americans dead than 1 Iraqi tortured", correct? That isn't the same as nurmberg. Nurmberg was "shoot this unarmed Jew who isn't a threat, or i shoot you". The picture is a lot different, starting with the fact that the person is in a millitia trying to kill Americans (thus he isn't innocent, and until his capture wasn't harmless), and then the fact that unlike in Nurmberg, where the only life in danger was the torturer, (who would be shot if he refused) in this case, the victims are other soldiers, perhaps a dozen who's convoy meets up with the truck bomb. These are not the same situations at all.
And once again, until one of us can take a picture of ourselves from Iraq, this conversation is largely an exercise in moral philosophy. We aren't there, we aren't involved, and we can't possobly know the whole situation unil we enlist.
but moral philosophy is what this is.
we are faced with two choices here. to let americans die but take the moral high ground and be better than our enemies. or torture these people (lets remember that torture is also useless) and be no better than them. and then what war are we fighting? are we in the moral right if we torture people? are we any better than these people if we drop to such a level? then what is this war for? freedom? justice? the rights of man? and we're going to win this by torture? what moral high ground is that?
How many more deaths should we absorb for the moral high ground? How many mothers should get flags and coffins because we're being moral? There is a difference between being moral and being stupid. And to my mind it would be stupid to let tens or even hundreds of soldiers die for the moral high ground, especially when that high ground was set by people who don't share the risks of the ones in battle. That's the problem. It would be one thing if US Army Generals and so on were saying that we shouldn't torture, and something completely different if it comes from Armchair Generals (like you and me) watching the war on CNN and saying that such things are deplorable, and that the soldiers should die rather than torture. If you'd ever been in combat, or had ever been to Iraq, you'd have a leg to stand on. But you're getting your info from TV (a channel 4 special) not experience.
And because it's the Army that has to deal with the consequences of the decision, the Army should decide the matter. To do otherwise seems like hypocracy. "Yeah you go fight, and fight in a way that doesn't look bad on my TV screen. And I don't care if you die doing it. I don't care if your best friend's life could be saved by getting intelligence from an Iraqi insurgent being kept up past bedtime, don't do it." That isn't fair. And the only way to make it fair would be for you, personally to join the millitary and head for Iraq. Honeslty it sounds more like Marie Antonette's clueless quote:
What, the people don't have bread? Then let them eat cake!
You know.... there's no reliable proof she ever said that. But, real or not, it was a good summary of her stupidity, even if made up.
I know if I was faced with the decision "torture this jackass who TRIED TO KILL ME!!!! in the hopes that I might be able to protect myself and my friends (who probably were the only reason this guy didn't succeed)"- I'd be right there with the pliars and Spice Girls album.
yes we should let these soliders die. that is final we never tortured german prisoners in the second world war when we were bing bombed. we never tortured them when we were marching forward against france and knowing were the germans were could have saved thousands of lives.
we just didn't it was totally out of the question. you accepted the fact that you just couldn't do it and you got on with it and accepted the death toll brought on by those rules and morals.
people died for that. but we didn't drop to such a level were we would torture these people. we knew what torturing them could do. it could have saved thousands of lives. but under no circumstances would we have done it. it didn't matter. it was war and people got killed. it wasn't a day out in the park playing football were we could scream "it's not fair". war was there to fight and die in. we refused to drop our morals.
america has dropped theirs. it no longer plays by the moral rules which are right and proper. rules which did not cost us that war and proved to the world who was right and who was wrong (the germans didn't torture pow's either though).
what are we fighting for in iraq if we do not have these morals? freedom? peace? the good? from what? we've replaced one regime were torture was allowed with another were torture is allowed.
what are we to try sadamma with? "mr sadamme it says here you tortured people" "yes that is true but so do the americans" "yes that's true but.......". do you let a theif try a theif? does the rapist judge the rapist? should america judge anyone's human rights record when it admits to torture?
what do we fight for if we are not ourselves moral?
Posting Permissions
:temigi: 
