Yeah, I know right? But how could I resist a title like that? Anyway, I've been thinking a bit about torture with the release of the Senate report, and I think I've found an answer that satisfies me. Some people who defend the torture of the post September 11th period say that there are times that torture can be effective in extracting certain kinds of information, and that in times of emergency, such measures may be necessary. The so called ticking time bomb scenario. I'm not sure I completely agree with that point of view, but I think that they have a point. On the other side, the argument is that torture is not terribly effective for more routine interrogations, and more importantly that torturing prisoners for whatever reason is anathema to our democratic values. I think that's completely correct. So am I trying to agree with both sides? Am I saying that we should pin a medal on the interrogator's chest and throw them in jail? Yeah, pretty much. Think of it this way. In a different context, we tend to think of civil disobedience as the noblest way to fight an unjust system. Sometimes a law is simply wrong, and must be challenged, whether you are refusing to give up your bus seat or taking people to the sea to make their own salt. And yet this is not an attack on the rule of law itself. Civil disobedience is when you recognize that you are breaking the law, and there will be consequences for you, but it is still necessary. Accepting the consequences of your actions is an integral part of it. Torture is and needs to be unequivocally illegal. It is simply morally wrong and any societal tolerance of it is a very dangerous precedent that imperils the very roots of democracy. The legal loopholes that allow some to quibble that things like water boarding aren't "really" torture must be closed in as definitively as possible. But there may be times when torture is still necessary. There may be times when torturing a prisoner is the least bad option you have. That still doesn't make it right. There still needs to be consequences. If you honestly believe that you are confronted with a circumstance where torturing a prisoner is necessary it is important to recognize that even though you are doing the most moral thing you can, that you are doing everything in your power to make the best outcome possible, you are still crossing a line. You need to be able to say that you recognize that what you're doing is wrong even if it is necessary, and that you are prepared to accept the consequences. There should be no excuses. There should be no trying to avoid responsibility. If the situation isn't such that you are willing to go to jail for the good of the country, then the situation does not rise to the level of necessitating something like torture. Yes, I realize that is asking for a huge sacrifice. But we have no problem asking spies and soldiers to be prepared to sacrifice their lives. Times that call for such sacrifices are the only times that we should even consider resorting to something like torture.
Dont the fool rioters in Ferguson understand that owners of stores that were torched were tortured???
Going to war will always necessitate the protagonist to become an antagonist from the perspective of the enemy. Which side are you on?
I bring things like this up often when having discussions about morality, and it's surprisingly open. I was in a philosophy class once and following a lecture about a reading the professor asked, "so, if you had Gyges ring (which makes you invisible) would you kill people?" (its something a Greek philosopher suggested most people might do if they didn't have to face the consequences) And I was pretty much the only one who outright said, "yes." btw, the Professor cracked a great joke - he said, "oh, that's funny, because you're the only one in this room that is actually trained to kill." I mean, I was in the Navy. Anyways, yeah, most people were horrified. "You would kill" they asked. And I said, "yes, of course." People asked, "why would you do that." I said, "look, if you had the opportunity, would you have killed Hitler? Because this ring gives you every opportunity to do so, without risk of harm to yourself." One of the Greek ideas was "the soul", and one Greek philosopher didn't believe that anyone would knowingly do something wrong, because they would know that it would harm their own soul, and so one of the students said, "but if you do that you'll harm your own soul." To which I said, "yes, you will. But you'll be saving tens of millions of lives. Is there anything more selfish than refusing to stop the murder of tens of millions of innocents for the sake of your own soul (in the Greek sense, which is closer to character or reputation, but more like character)?" And I don't believe that killing is ever "right". It can be justified, which is different, but I believe that killing is always wrong and it is always harmful to the individual who does it. People put in difficult situations have had to kill for the sake of others, and even under such obviously justifiable situations the act has torn them apart. People talk all the time about those who gave their lives, but killing is the unrecognized "ultimate sacrifice."
Oh for crying out loud... I fail to see how anyone could possibly have been paying attention through the events of the last 15 years and not outgrown such a childish dualism. Firstly, what exactly does "going to war" really mean today? The so called war on terrorism is not a war in the traditional sense of the word, which is a full scale conflict between nations. So what's the standard? At what point do you decide to cleave the world in two, into us and them? Does the war on crime count? How about the war on drugs? The war on poverty? The war on cancer? Just slapping a word label on something like a kid's sticker doesn't justify dehumanizing those who disagree with you. And then once you've decided who your enemy is, what then? Do you torture them? Do you kidnap them? Do you murder them? Do you rape and torture and murder their families in front of them? Do you wipe out their home towns? Where do you stop? I mean, why stop at torture when we have much more effective and decisive tools at our disposal, like genocide. A strategic nuclear attack on the Middle East followed up by well planned conventional attacks, combined with decisive action domestically could wipe out most of the world's Arab population and get rid of the problem permanently. They're the enemy, after all. So the question is, what do you want? Do you want to fight the enemy? To find glory in war? To reveal in death and destruction? What's the line from Conan the Barbarian? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women? Then by all means keep stoking your ego by telling yourself how much better you are then your enemies. And you can count me as your enemy, along with all civilized people. Or do you want to actually improve the situation? Do you want to make the world a safer, more peaceful place? Do you want to do something to actually reduce terrorism? Then you need to throw away this us and them mentality, along with your toy six shooter and coonskin cap. You need to understand that even the most barbaric terrorists are still human, with human motivations. You need to understand why terrorism occurs in the first place. You need to choose your actions based on what's actually effective and not based on what makes you feel like you just watched an action movie hero curb stomp all the bad guys. But then, none of this is really what you were talking about, was it? Be really honest. What you were really saying was, "You can't criticize Republicans about this or you're a terrorist," wasn't it? Nothing but a political deflection, an attempt to get out of responsibility. And a pretty pathetic one at that, if you ask me. But you need to understand that you don't just grab the most convenient cudgel to beat your political opponents. Using things like this has consequences, even if they're not always immediately obvious. As an aside, I just really made myself sound old with the line about the toy six shooter, didn't I? LOL
They killed 3,000 innocent souls on 9/11 Kessy. That is less than the 2,403 killed at Pearl Harbor. (12/07/1941) and we geared the nation for WAR after that. It's really not about Republicans or Democrats, our enemy will sever heads of both with equal vigor. We need to FIND the enemy and OBLITERATE them instead of questioning ourselves. Terrorism 'occurs' because it is a way for disgruntled, psychopathic elements to gain power. The ONLY way to thwart them is to KILL them. Unfortunately Islam (with its dogma to kill infidels) is a powerful religious movement for psychopaths to use to uplift and support their narcissistic vision of themselves. Although the majority of Muslims are peace-loving, honest folks, the psychopathic element in their midst is a clear and present threat to anyone who defies them. Therefore, we do not see Muslims rise up as a cohesive force decrying the radical fundamental cult in their midst. Beheading innocent people, videoing it and then publishing it to a worldwide site requires no 'understanding' other than a direct threat to anyone who defies their particular radical Muslim sect. What is there to 'understand' there? What about beheading innocent souls needs to be 'understood' Kessy? Please tell me how you validate this practice of beheading human beings.
"losing some stuff"? What is wrong with you? If those shop and store owners are like me, I have an entire lifetime of sweat and money tied up inside the four walls surrounding my "stuff". You need to wake up. And oh yes, Try to come and take my "stuff". . .
Name one technique of "torture" used by the US. Don't include waterboarding in your answer because waterboarding is NOT torture. Listening to loud tracks of Judas Priest is not torture as well. Definition of torture is the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something. So name me one technique the US used.
And just how many countries do you want to go to war with at the same time to accomplish this. The target after Pearl Harbor was an easy one, a country with a population willing to die for their emperor. It's not the same now. These "groups" hide in countries. We cannot simply invade ALL of them, we couldn't win such a war alone. I do believe ISIS is making it easier and easier to make the decision to send boots on the ground. The more territory they claim is "theirs" the easier of a target they make themselves to be. I agree that the only way to fight a true terrorist is to kill them as they will not change their ways. I don't think anyone disagrees that ISIS needs to be fought, that radical Islam needs to be fought. The problem occurs where these dangerous groups hide out in MAJOR population centers. Do you suggest MASS KILLINGS of civilians not seen since we dropped two Atomic Bombs on Japan? The only way to get boots on the ground it to topple the current governments like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. To be quite honest and this is going to sound bad. America is sick of wars in other countries and is not willing to do what really must be done to stop it. The only real answer is to leave that side of the world alone until something major happens to either one of our allies where MILLIONS are killed or something happens like that here. That is the ONLY way you are going to get the U.S. in it to win it.
What about it? The same applies. The only reference I made to the post September 11th period was to clarify that I was talking about people defending relatively recent American "enhanced interrogation" techniques, as opposed to, say, people defending the Spanish Inquisition. And if you want to talk numbers, at least 100,000 Iraqis died in the Iraq war. (Some estimates put it in the millions.) Hardly seems proportionate. But numbers aren't really the point. Does a crime, however heinous, justify simply throwing morality out the window? They hurt us, so now we're going to rampage and murder without restraint or concern? That may have been the way things worked during the Dark Ages, but I really don't think you want to live in that sort of society. So if we need to FIND and OBLITERATE the enemy, does that mean you're in favor of the nuking the Middle East plan? Because nuclear weapons are pretty much the final word in OBLITERATING someone. If you really want to do everything we can to stop terrorism, well, genocide is included in everything. Throwing out the rule book and saying no holds barred means no holds barred. You pull out a knife, the other person pulls out a pistol, you run off and come back with a shotgun - where does it end? And if you want the US to adopt that sort of approach, then it becomes a serious question: what makes us any better than the terrorists we're trying to fight? Really, if we go down to their level, how are we any different? What does understanding have to do with validation? They're completely separate things. And your own post was largely about understanding terrorism and seems to but a high value on that understanding. Saying that terrorists are psychopathic killers is an understanding of it. Unfortunately a deeply flawed understanding that has little connection to reality, but still an understanding. For one thing, you seem to be confused about what psychopathy means. Most psychopaths do no murder people, and most murderers are not psychopathic. The people fighting for ISIS are not like Bond villains played by some over the top ham actor. These are real people with real human motivations who are not that terribly different from you or me. And if we don't understand how ordinary people get turned into killers by a pathological social movement, how can we ever hope to defeat that movement? I would also point out that one of the most important steps in someone going down that path is when they stop questioning themselves. People fighting for ISIS or Al-Qaeda firmly believe they are fighting for a just and righteous cause. They believe they are doing the right thing. It is when someone stops asking if they're doing the right thing and starts believing that they are that they become capable of rationalizing any monstrous act. One more point: before you start talking about Islam is a religion of violence or anything like that, I would remind you that almost anything you want to say along those lines would apply equally well to Christianity. Incidentally, what's the big deal with beheadings? As methods of execution go, it's one of the more merciful ones. Seriously? What's wrong with me? What's wrong with you? You think that having your store looted is in any way comparable to being made to feel like you're drowning day after day? As terrible as it would be to be the victim of that sort of vandalism, you're really saying that you put it in the same league as out and out torture? That's deeply disturbing. Things don't matter, people do. The contents of a store are just things, and can be replaced. (And are probably insured anyway.) People cannot. You can't fix a person like you can fix a broken window. Just ask our vets coming home with PTSD. If you don't understand that, your values are extremely messed up. Yes, waterboarding is torture. That's not even a question. If you think otherwise why don't you try it out for yourself? It wasn't even a question the last time it was a controversy more than a century ago during the Philippine Insurrection. No one questioned if it was torture - the question was whether it was acceptable for US soldiers to be using it. Theodore Roosevelt courtmartialed a senior general for using it and had him fired. A solution to the problem that won support from both Republicans and Democrats, incidentally. It is worth noting that at the time, the practice wasn't called waterboarding. It was simply called water torture. One of several names it's gone by over the centuries, such as the toca when it was used by the Spanish Inquisition. More on the use of waterboarding during the Philippine Insurrection: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6647.html Tell me that after you've been through the same sort of "enhanced interrogation" those prisoners were put through. There is only so much the US can do in this situation - we have neither the means nor the moral authority to fix other people's countries for them. At least not unless you want to create a true American Empire, using far more ruthless means than I think the American people would ever support. We need to think of this as being more like a containment policy - trying to prevent local problems from blossoming into global ones.
This is why I think we should just bow out from there and let the M.E. fix the problem on their own until either America or Europe has the balls to actually win a war it wages. While I am for fighting ISIS, I am not for using the methods we have been. We either fight a war to win it, or we don't wage it. War isn't a scalpel it's a large hammer.
Because they don't generally threaten dozens if not hundreds of lives if left to their own devices and don't generally know what some other criminal is up to.
The body counts do not designate who is doing the killing. You are swallowing leftist propaganda. http://markhumphrys.com/iraq.dead.html Genocide? What in the world are you talking about? Unlike the enemy, the U.S. does everything it can to minimize collateral damage. The enemy want's to eradicate anyone who does not subscribe to their religious dogma. That is tantamount to genocide is it not? I never mentioned any of that...Your imagination is running wild. Leftists in this country are largely responsible for the pathological killers that exist in ISIS with their 'touchy feely' wanting to 'understand'.....People like YOU that constantly deride and decry America, its culture and it's right to self preservation. How do you 'understand' 9/11? What IS there to 'understand' other than psychopathic radical Muslims rejoicing in the streets at the deaths of 300,000 innocent souls. We should have BOMBED those streets. They are ALL the enemy if they are celebrating such carnage and mayhem. You are conflating self defense with radical Jihad when there really is no comparison. We (the U.S.) do not cut off heads, fly planes into buildings, line up thousands of civilians and shoot them dead, use chemical warfare, nor do we conquer parts of a country, kill all the men and rape all the women. Really? When was the last time any Christian cut off the head of a Muslim, videoed it and put it on the Internet with a cowardly masked perpetrator spewing Christian dogma? When was the last time a Christian pulled out a gun and hollered 'God is great!' While mowing down innocent souls with an automatic rifle? Go watch Daniel Pearls beheading...If you can come back here and make the same statement, you are officially more insane than that comment.
