|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 9, 2011 18:44:20 GMT -8
Hardly absurdist, these are real questions posed back to a moral relavist. The enhanced interrogation of KSM saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. It was arguably not torture. Regardless, you are stating you are morally superior to our positions. You stated directly that I am no better than the terrorists because I don't have a problem with a single arguable, borderline, safe interrogation technique. That is pretty superior, haughty and extreme. If one had to argue absurdism, most would point the finger in the opposite direction, I think. So, when I equated a hypothetical familial scenario you said you would do what it took yet knowing I was using it as a simile to the enhanced interrogation KSM, you chose the opposite end. The interrogation of KSM stopped several active plans in their tracks. Those are on the record. It saved those lives. Frankly, starting with those in the 70s in Beirut, continuing through Daniel Pearl (see who finally copped to being the beheader through google) and our US folks in Anbar drug and paraded through the streets, our enemy could care less how we treat them, they are going to be brutal and kill innocents. Look at the recent mosque and church attacks in Iraq. They don't care. These people are animals. We are acting on the moral high ground yet you don't seem to admit it. Regardless of having the moral high ground, all it has done is let them keep on killing. The "absurdist" comment was related to having family members in harm's way. I, like you, would do anmything to protect my family. That has nothing to do with the systematic and bureaucratized implementation of a torture program. So, if it is your family, it is OK, if it is your neighbor's family, then no. That is my point. We are a collective nation, our government acts on our behalf. If it is OK to protect our family, then it is OK to protect our neighbors since we are allegedly a democracy. Again, We can disagree on our sources of what is effective and what is not but one thing has never been shown, that our non-torture enhanced interrogations of a few folks back in 2003 and 4 caused anything. These people were already doing it. We weren't and don't. We are on the moral high ground, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 9, 2011 22:13:54 GMT -8
You continue to misrepresent my sentiments. I would and do try to help my neighbors and friends at every turn. In fact, I volunteer a lot of my time on behalf of others. I consider our society a collective of mutual interests and I try to fit into that mold whenever possible. We simply disagree on this point and I believe you're wrong and you believe I'm wrong. But please don't try to paint me as someone who doesn't care about my fellow citizens because you would be incorrect in your assumption.
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 10, 2011 8:26:39 GMT -8
You continue to misrepresent my sentiments. I would and do try to help my neighbors and friends at every turn. In fact, I volunteer a lot of my time on behalf of others. I consider our society a collective of mutual interests and I try to fit into that mold whenever possible. We simply disagree on this point and I believe you're wrong and you believe I'm wrong. But please don't try to paint me as someone who doesn't care about my fellow citizens because you would be incorrect in your assumption. I didn't say you didn't care about your fellow citizens at all. I suggested you were inconsistent in the concept of protection. It is OK for you to do what it takes but you don't want others to have that latitude, in the arm of the US Government. That is all I was saying there. Dealing with terrorists is not a clean, honorable battlefield. They fight in contravention to every law civilized society has ever written. We follow every law. Some rules we get into the grey area but never cross the line. We are held, as individual combatants, to very strict rules of engagement and conduct on the battlefield. That is lost in this platitudanal argument. To quote you directly, "you are no better than the terrorists you purport to hate." is the complete and utter opposite of who we are and how we act on the battlefield. To inch into the grey area in order to save hundreds of lives is hardly the same as who and what they are. It is provocative and something folks like me will strongly and vigorously defend from where I stand. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 10, 2011 10:12:52 GMT -8
You continue to misrepresent my sentiments. I would and do try to help my neighbors and friends at every turn. In fact, I volunteer a lot of my time on behalf of others. I consider our society a collective of mutual interests and I try to fit into that mold whenever possible. We simply disagree on this point and I believe you're wrong and you believe I'm wrong. But please don't try to paint me as someone who doesn't care about my fellow citizens because you would be incorrect in your assumption. Okay, now we're getting closer to an understanding of our relative arguments. Here's my counter to you, and it we will probably still debate the definition of torture - I believe, as John McCain does, that WB is torture. IF you accept that it is, then the systematic, beuacratizing of it in an institutional setting is, in my opinion, wrong and should not be sanctioned by American authorities. IF you accept John McCain's argument that it is wrong and puts American service men and women in harm's way, then it seems to me it is wrong minded. It is a fact that there are many assumptions in my argument, but the one part of all of this I cannot accept is the sliippery slope that WB represents in the continuum of possible treatment of terrorosts and/or enemy combatants. To accept your side of the argument is to assume that WB works as a technique for valid confessions and there is much to dispute that. In any case, it's clear that we could argue this for the next decade and never resolve our differences. It is enough to say that we both have strong beliefs and that each of us believe that our recommended approach is in the best interests of all Americans. I can leave it at that if you can. I didn't say you didn't care about your fellow citizens at all. I suggested you were inconsistent in the concept of protection. It is OK for you to do what it takes but you don't want others to have that latitude, in the arm of the US Government. That is all I was saying there. Dealing with terrorists is not a clean, honorable battlefield. They fight in contravention to every law civilized society has ever written. We follow every law. Some rules we get into the grey area but never cross the line. We are held, as individual combatants, to very strict rules of engagement and conduct on the battlefield. That is lost in this platitudanal argument. To quote you directly, "you are no better than the terrorists you purport to hate." is the complete and utter opposite of who we are and how we act on the battlefield. To inch into the grey area in order to save hundreds of lives is hardly the same as who and what they are. It is provocative and something folks like me will strongly and vigorously defend from where I stand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2011 10:40:26 GMT -8
My dad's best friend survived the Bataan death march and pow camp. He'd laugh at you for your ignorance on torture. Just because there are worse forms of torture doesn't mean waterboarding isn't torture. Nor does the absence of physical pain mean it isn't torture. It's simply mental torture. And if your heart starts beating as fast as that guy's, it may be a stretch to even say it isn't physical torture. All that said, I'm not one of those Democrats who thinks the U.S. should never torture our enemies. We shouldn't do it just to terrorize them because that would be stooping to their barbaric level. So the torture should be of the most mild type which would effectively gain us information. Seems to me waterboarding is exactly that. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 12, 2011 6:16:33 GMT -8
My dad's best friend survived the Bataan death march and pow camp. He'd laugh at you for your ignorance on torture. One of my first co-workers was on the Bataan Death March. His hatred for Japanese attained an almost physical form in it's vehemence. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 12, 2011 18:00:29 GMT -8
Sooooooooooooo, I guess the answer is "yes?" We do support torturing U.S. soldiers if it justifies torturing non-Americans? Just askin'. How so? WB isn't torture If it isn't torture, why did we prosecute our troops for doing it during the Philippines Insurrection and the Japanese after WW II? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 12, 2011 19:10:57 GMT -8
If it isn't torture, why did we prosecute our troops for doing it during the Philippines Insurrection and the Japanese after WW II? =Bob If it were, we wouldn't be able to do it to our own troops in training. Further, I made the point above that there is a grey area in everything and some actions are more in the grey area than others. Nothing is black and white. Same thing in police interrogations. |
|
