| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/11/2008 03:07:36 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
In some threads, you claim a moral absolute, particularly as espoused by the scriptures. In this one, you claim moral relativism. Specifically that it's OK to severely mistreat someone as long as your goals are for the greater good. How can you have it both ways? Perhaps you choose your morality to suit your arguments. Does that make you a moral opportunist? A hypocrite?
Do you think Jesus would waterboard someone? Make them stand in "stress positions" for hours? Keep them awake for days at a time until they are delirious and hallucinating? |
1. Jesus would likely have them tell the truth to begin with - but since he doesn't exist and is only a myhological ficticious figure that was adopted by opportunistic writers at a later time, it realy doesn't matter what he would do.
2. There is a moral absolute. Plato defines it. Just as their exists an absolute for right and wrong and redness and blueness, etc. Morality and legality can be separate characteristics of the same event - is my only point. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:11:56 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
You claim that coercive interrogation techniques ... |
It's much easier to justify them if you don't call them what they really are; torture. |
You must be referring to terms like "pro-CHOICE" or "a woman's right to choose"
Each positioner has terms that maximixe or minimize the impact based on where they fall on the questions of legality/morality. This is not new news. |
That is a different argument. Why do you assume to know my position on that? How is that relevant to this discussion? |
I do not know your position, nor do I need to. The point is not your position, rather the inference that 2 positions exist. Both claimed by each side to be "right". One side claims the legality of the practice, the other claims the immorality of it. Now one of them is wrong.
Thus - in the same vein, which side is wrong when it comes to coercive interrogation. The side that claimed it was legal or the side that claims that it is immorral? |
Morality and legality don't necessarily go hand in hand. In your mind it could be immoral yet still be legal. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:15:56 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Morality and legality don't necessarily go hand in hand. In your mind it could be immoral yet still be legal. |
You are exactly correct. I should warn you that not many here agree with me, so be careful how you are percieved. The wrath could fall upon you. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:19:38 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance - is it legal/illegal/moral or immoral for a man and a woman to sit alone in a public place without being married? The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
So, you espouse moral relativism? You'd make a good Catholic. |
I do not espouse moral relativism. It is what I am reading in your posts, that you practice it. |
That's an astounding leap, quite acrobatic.
Originally posted by Flash:
The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
Unless I've completely lost my mind, that is a fairly accurate description of moral relativism. It seems to me that you can't make such a definitive statement on the nature of morality while saying you don't subscribe to it, since there was otherwise no reason to draw the discussion toward relativism. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:24:59 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Morality and legality don't necessarily go hand in hand. In your mind it could be immoral yet still be legal. |
You are exactly correct. I should warn you that not many here agree with me, so be careful how you are percieved. The wrath could fall upon you. |
That's nonsense. As a point of fact, something is either legal, or it is illegal. Nobody is arguing that something legal must therefore also always be "right". Why get mired in such pointless discussions? |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:27:23 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance - is it legal/illegal/moral or immoral for a man and a woman to sit alone in a public place without being married? The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
So, you espouse moral relativism? You'd make a good Catholic. |
I do not espouse moral relativism. It is what I am reading in your posts, that you practice it. |
That's an astounding leap, quite acrobatic.
Originally posted by Flash:
The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
Unless I've completely lost my mind, that is a fairly accurate description of moral relativism. It seems to me that you can't make such a definitive statement on the nature of morality while saying you don't subscribe to it, since there was otherwise no reason to draw the discussion toward relativism. |
Louis,
You and I both know that you hold acceptance to a practice that many members of many societies deem immoral. Yet you do not think it is so. You would even argue that such practices/behaviors are "natural" and even "normal". There is no acrobatics here. Plain simple facts. You do not agree with all members of all societies on what constitutes moral acts, therefore if you are to call an act immoral, then we need to define what morality is. Otherwise we just end up with each saying a thing is or is not moral based upon 2 completely different definitions of what moral is.
In relation to waterboarding, I think we both agree on a definition of imorrality in this instant case, however, I am willing to accept the practice as "legal" whilst you do not care if it is legal or not, you condemn it solely on it being immoral. So I ask you, how is that any different that those who criticize you. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:35:38 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I'm saying that if you are arguing against coercive interrogation based on a morality argument, then you need to define what moral and immoral are. |
Wasn't torture, er... "coercive interrogation" already defined as wrong/immoral/illegal/etc. by the Geneva Convention and its signatories?
Message edited by author 2008-02-11 15:37:23. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:38:25 PM · #58 |
Flash --- can you distill your points into three or 4 (or whatever) bullets?
I get that you're saying that legal does not equal moral (and vice versa). But what else are you saying? |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:38:46 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I'm saying that if you are arguing against coercive interrogation based on a morality argument, then you need to define what moral and immoral are. |
Wasn't torture, er... "coercive interrogation" already defined as wrong/immoral/etc. by the Geneva Convention and its signatories? |
If you are defining morality (aka wrong) based upon the Geneva Convention and its signatories, just say so. Then we can assess if "any" coercive interrogation techniques comply, and if so which ones do and which ones don't. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:51:02 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I'm saying that if you are arguing against coercive interrogation based on a morality argument, then you need to define what moral and immoral are. |
Wasn't torture, er... "coercive interrogation" already defined as wrong/immoral/etc. by the Geneva Convention and its signatories? |
If you are defining morality (aka wrong) based upon the Geneva Convention and its signatories, just say so. Then we can assess if "any" coercive interrogation techniques comply, and if so which ones do and which ones don't. |
Why not just base it on agreements and treaties the US has previously signed up to. For example
'the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment came into force. The United States became a party to that Convention in 1994 and there are now 132 parties.
The prohibition of torture is a basic principle of international law, and is not subject to negotiation or compromise. The United States not only condemns and prohibits torture, but also urges other countries to abide by the prohibition of torture.
The United States helps the advance toward a world free of torture by a number of means, including a $5 million contribution to the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. In addition, we support torture victims' treatment centers in the U.S. and abroad, provide funds to the Center for the Victims of Torture's global project on New Tactics on Human Rights, and press for progress through our bilateral diplomacy. The Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices report impartially and forthrightly on incidents of torture worldwide. The Department's new report Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record, released this week, details what we are doing around the world to address the worst human rights abuses, including torture. These efforts engage both governmental and non-governmental organizations and promote effective action in the fight to end this scourge and assist victims and their families.
We continue to be appalled by the actions of governments that use torture or turn a blind eye to its occurrence. They may try to escape international scrutiny and accountability for their actions, but as long as torturers around the world spread fear and suffering, the United States will not waver in its commitment to eliminate torture.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:55:43 PM · #61 |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 04:00:15 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Flash --- can you distill your points into three or 4 (or whatever) bullets?
I get that you're saying that legal does not equal moral (and vice versa). But what else are you saying? |
1. I beleive that an action can be supported by memebers of a society, even if that society deems that action to be immoral. For instance; I used the action of abortion. Many members of a given society deem that action as immoral. Yet they support the action based on its legailty. They may not personally ascribe to supporting the practice, or even personally rally to oppose the practice, they just don't think it is a moral action.
2. Likewise, coercive interrogation can be similarily veiwed. It was judged to be legal, yet many members of society regarded it as immoral or at least borderline moral (depending upon ones level of justification). It is not anymore moral or immoral based upon its legality (just like abortion is not more or less based on legality), it simply was legal, and now is not, based upon current laws passed in congress. However, its legality could again be changed - just like abortion. The moralness never changes in its absolute form, but the veiw of it may change, based upon the society within which the action takes place.
3. Just as the law changed on defining waterboarding as illegal, other actions of a society could also changed at the stroke of a politicians pen. That does not necessarily change the absolute morality of it (just the legality).
4. This is a very complicated issue, that is not readily conducive to high emotion discourse, as are a number of other examples within society like suicide, capital punishment, etc. For every high emotion position, there is an opposite one, just as emotional. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 04:00:35 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You and I both know that you hold acceptance to a practice that many members of many societies deem immoral. |
I suppose you're talking about homosexuality for some reason. If you are determined to go down that track, simply refer to what I've alluded to dozens of time before, that morality entails an abhorrence of harm to others. Anyway what difference does it make what I think is moral or immoral? The judgement against the government's words and deeds are what's at issue, a government egregious enough to claim to be a moral authority in the world while actively dehumanizing others for the sake of expediency. You should be outraged. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 04:09:05 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I'm saying that if you are arguing against coercive interrogation based on a morality argument, then you need to define what moral and immoral are. |
Wasn't torture, er... "coercive interrogation" already defined as wrong/immoral/etc. by the Geneva Convention and its signatories? |
If you are defining morality (aka wrong) based upon the Geneva Convention and its signatories, just say so. Then we can assess if "any" coercive interrogation techniques comply, and if so which ones do and which ones don't. |
Why not just base it on agreements and treaties the US has previously signed up to. For example
'the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment came into force. The United States became a party to that Convention in 1994 and there are now 132 parties.
The prohibition of torture is a basic principle of international law, and is not subject to negotiation or compromise. The United States not only condemns and prohibits torture, but also urges other countries to abide by the prohibition of torture.
The United States helps the advance toward a world free of torture by a number of means, including a $5 million contribution to the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. In addition, we support torture victims' treatment centers in the U.S. and abroad, provide funds to the Center for the Victims of Torture's global project on New Tactics on Human Rights, and press for progress through our bilateral diplomacy. The Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices report impartially and forthrightly on incidents of torture worldwide. The Department's new report Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record, released this week, details what we are doing around the world to address the worst human rights abuses, including torture. These efforts engage both governmental and non-governmental organizations and promote effective action in the fight to end this scourge and assist victims and their families.
We continue to be appalled by the actions of governments that use torture or turn a blind eye to its occurrence. They may try to escape international scrutiny and accountability for their actions, but as long as torturers around the world spread fear and suffering, the United States will not waver in its commitment to eliminate torture. |
Gordon,
I understand your point - however torture must be defined. Having a bad hair day, or not receiving a holy book, or being incarcerated are not necessarily torture. Having bamboo shoots driven under your fingernails, having your genitals sliced open, removing digits of fingers or ears or eyeballs may be considered torture. As might be the case with broken bones etc. Loud music that does not rupture eardrums, or constant lighting (bright or dim), mockery, withholding sanitary conditions etc, the employment of "good cop/bad cop" techniques and other such measures like sleep deprivation, are effective information gathering techniques that based upon your point of view, may or may not be defined as torture. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 04:11:15 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Do you think Jesus would waterboard someone? Make them stand in "stress positions" for hours? Keep them awake for days at a time until they are delirious and hallucinating? |
1. Jesus would likely have them tell the truth to begin with - but since he doesn't exist and is only a myhological ficticious figure that was adopted by opportunistic writers at a later time, it realy doesn't matter what he would do.
|
According to your posts in other threads and many statements by the leaders of this country, Jesus was, and is, very real. So, in the context of you and them justifying torture, or, as you call it, "coercive interrogation", consideration of what Jesus would do is quite pertinent to the discussion at hand.
And you're avoiding the question.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 04:12:16 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I understand your point - however torture must be defined. Having a bad hair day, or not receiving a holy book, or being incarcerated are not necessarily torture. Having bamboo shoots driven under your fingernails, having your genitals sliced open, removing digits of fingers or ears or eyeballs may be considered torture. As might be the case with broken bones etc. Loud music that does not rupture eardrums, or constant lighting (bright or dim), mockery, withholding sanitary conditions etc, the employment of "good cop/bad cop" techniques and other such measures like sleep deprivation, are effective information gathering techniques that based upon your point of view, may or may not be defined as torture. |
Except of course, water boarding has pretty consistently been defined as torture, including by the US before and now after is was politically expedient to not define it that way. If you want to hold the authority that the US tries to claim in these matters, holding to a higher standard than say the Khmer Rouge wouldn't be a bad starting point.
That's why the attorney general seems to have such a hard time articulating if the practice is or is not torture. Surely it is a simple question about the application of a particular technique - unless the line is so fuzzy that it just happens to be whatever you aren't doing right this minute.
Message edited by author 2008-02-11 16:27:53.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 04:22:29 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...torture must be defined. |
Torture is already well defined by the Geneva Convention, the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Waterboarding qualifies as torture under all three international agreements, and each of them also declare that exceptional circumstances are no excuse. The practice didn't suddenly become illegal by a recent congressional act either...
"The United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a crime, and has prosecuted individuals for the use of the practice in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor."
Message edited by author 2008-02-11 16:23:29. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 04:34:31 PM · #68 |
"The Field Manual 2-22.3, which, as the secretary mentioned, is Human Intelligence Collector Operations, was recently approved for distribution to our forces worldwide, and it replaces our 1992 Field Manual on interrogation. The new manual is broader in scope and incorporates hard-won wartime lessons learned since 9/11 across
interrogation, military-source operations, analysis, screening, debriefing, document exploitation, and more.
We have used straightforward language in the Field Manual for use by soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. It is not written for lawyers. The new Field Manual is wholly unclassified. It can be shared with our coalition partners. And it establishes the DOD-wide interrogation standard, consistent with law, the Geneva Convention, and Department of Defense policy.
The new Field Manual incorporates a single standard for humane treatment, as was alluded to, for all detainees, regardless of their status under all circumstances, in conjunction with all interrogation techniques that are contained within it -- and there are no others. That is as a matter of law, to include the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, to include Common Article 3, as well as Department of Defense policy and service doctrine.
The Field Manual explicitly prohibits torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment. To make this more imaginable and understandable to our soldiers -- and I use that in a joint context -- we have included in the Field Manual specific prohibitions. There's eight of them: interrogators may not force a detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner; they cannot use hoods or place sacks over a detainees head or use duct tape over his eyes; they cannot beat or electrically shock or burn them or inflict other forms of physical pain -- any form of physical pain; they may not use water boarding, they may not use hypothermia or treatment which will lead to heat injury; they will not perform mock executions; they may not deprive detainees of the necessary food, water and medical care; and they may not use dogs in any aspect of interrogations. As you know, dogs can be used legally by our military police for security, but not as an adjunct part of the interrogation process.
The interrogation approach techniques in this Field Manual have undergone favorable interagency legal review and been judged to be consistent with the requirements of law, Detainee Treatment Act, and the Geneva Conventions, as well as policy. The Field Manual was reviewed and endorsed by senior DOD figures at the secretarial level, by the Joint Staff, by each of the combatant commanders and their legal advisers, by each of the service secretaries and service chiefs and their legal advisers, in addition to the Director of Defense Intelligence Agency and the Director of National Intelligence, who coordinated laterally with the CIA. It's also been favorably reviewed by the Department of Justice. The Field Manual contains 19 interrogation approaches. No other techniques are authorized within the Department of Defense. Sixteen of these are traditional interrogation approaches which were enshrined in the old Field Manual 34-52. "
//www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2006/09/sec-060906-dod02.htm
Message edited by author 2008-02-11 17:50:32. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 04:35:40 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
...torture must be defined. |
Torture is already well defined by the Geneva Convention, the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Waterboarding qualifies as torture under all three international agreements, and each of them also declare that exceptional circumstances are no excuse. The practice didn't suddenly become illegal by a recent congressional act either...
"The United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a crime, and has prosecuted individuals for the use of the practice in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor." |
Based upon this post, you are claiming that a particular coercive interrogation technique (namely waterboarding) is both illegal and immoral. Are other techniques legal yet immoral? Do you have a prescription of how to effectively illicit information from enemy combatants, without causing them any discomfort? Is any level of discomfort legal and/or moral? If so, how much? If not, why not?
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 04:43:46 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Loud music that does not rupture eardrums, or constant lighting (bright or dim), mockery, withholding sanitary conditions etc, the employment of "good cop/bad cop" techniques and other such measures like sleep deprivation, are effective information gathering techniques that based upon your point of view, may or may not be defined as torture. |
Well, everyone on the planet defines the preceding as torture. Here's the UN's take:
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession..."
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 04:46:37 PM · #71 |
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
I suppose Bush's equivalent legacy will be hiss responses to 'are you torturing anyone'
Glad to see things have improved so much under the administration that wanted to bring back integrity to the office.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 05:00:11 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Flash:
you are claiming that a particular coercive interrogation technique (namely waterboarding) is both illegal and immoral. Are other techniques legal yet immoral? |
ALL torture is both illegal and immoral by international convention and definition.
Originally posted by Flash:
Do you have a prescription of how to effectively illicit information from enemy combatants, without causing them any discomfort? |
U.S. police departments and other signatory countries manage to question people without resorting to torture. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 08:04:14 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
U.S. police departments and other signatory countries manage to question people without resorting to torture. |
Is the use of a taser not torture?
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 08:39:10 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by scalvert:
U.S. police departments and other signatory countries manage to question people without resorting to torture. |
Is the use of a taser not torture? |
It is not legal to use a taser to question a suspect -- only to subdue/arrest one who is resisting. The use of a taser during questioning would be highly illegal, and subject to both civil and criminal prosecution (if it were discovered). |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 08:46:31 PM · #75 |
Well, if it's torture what the heck difference is it when it is used?
|
|
