Bush vetoes anti torture bill

[Andy]

Perhaps I'm showing my age (I don't remember any of the Cold War, I was four when it ended), but I don't consider communism to be a very strong international force anymore. There's the Cubans and the North Koreans who have more to deal with domestically than they can handle, Vietnam which isn't interested in war, and China which is looking more and more capitalistic every day. Did I miss any?

Not at all. When I made my comment, I should have given more context I suppose. You are correct that Communism isn't nearly as much an international issue. I would suggest that Communist/Socialist threats are more internal now. The Communists that supported the soviets from inside America back in the 60s - 80s, have not left, and neither has their failed ideology.

Just a few days ago on a major network, a reporter (John Yang) claimed that the government subsidized athletic sports. His rational was that by donating money to a College or University, you get a tax break and free sports tickets, thus the government is subsidizing sports. This theory depends on the presupposition that all your money, taxed or otherwise, is the governments. If you pay them less, they are subsidized. This is Socialism.
Social Security, Medicare/caid Walfare, Government housing, Section 8, and millions more are all Communistic/Socialist systems infiltrating our nation.

And every day gains more power to Socialize our lives. Taking children away from parents without real proof of the abuse claimed. Even though I am against polygamy (see the other thread on that), I am surely against taking children from families without real evidence. The Branch Davidians waco Texas were killed because Janet Reno got a note that children were being abused inside.

Don't forget, they probably thought the same thing about us.

I doubt it. FDR called Stallin "uncle joe". When it was reported that people in our government were Soviet spies, FDR ignored them. We were not marching all over the world, forcing countries into American rule. The Soviets were forcing countries into Communist rule.

What failed international policies were those?

Bay of pigs. We went in half-baked. We didn't provide the intel or air cover needed for success. My issue would be, if you are going to do something, do it completely. Instead we set up a situation that could not succeed and it didn't. This is normal for Democrats sadly.

LBJ sent millions of troops, but instead of rolling up north, and meeting the enemy, and defeating them... we instead had a 'lets just patrol' and walk around. LBJ even hand selected targets for bombing runs. Do you know what happens when a stupid politician starts micro managing the war instead of letting the generals fight it?

Bill Clinton did the same thing in Mogadishu. We had a mission, we had a target. The generals request the proper equipment to do the job, and the White house said no go. We want this low key. You get just barely enough to do what we want. Next thing you know, Black Hawk down, dozen die, and we pull out in defeat.

My dear friend, if we stepped in on every revolution in every minor little country in the world during the 40s and 50s (and 60s, come to think of it) there wouldn't have been any Americans left in America; they'd have needed all of us in the Army to go invadin'.

No I do not suggest this. Here is what I suggest.
A: If we choose to make allies, we should support those Allies. (Shaw of Iran)
B: If we decide to go into a country, we should fully support it completely until the job is completely done.

If there is a revolution somewhere, where we do not have an ally, and we choose to do nothing, then I'm ok with this. But if we go, we go 100% and none of this "oh it's not easy as pie, let's quit now". Or none of this "we're allies, unless something happens, in which case good luck".

I wouldn't say we did "nothing." The Iranians sure wouldn't say we did nothing, both before their revolution and after.

Well I guess when our ally calls for help and we do nothing until after the government is toppled and our embassy is surround and our people are getting shot... that to me is nothing. Sending an ill-advised rescue attempt after the fact, hoping we get a few of the hostages back alive, is not a great effort in my book. Thankfully the Iranians knew Reagan wasn't going to play and released all of them right after he won the election.

 

[Dr.Who]

You seem to be saying that anytime there is a change of government or political attitude in a country anywhere in the world, we should go and make sure those people change the way that is best for us. Have I got that right?

I was intrigued by your comment:"We did nothing about the take over of Chinese..." Beyond the gammatical error, are you saying that you think the US could have done something to prevent Mao from taking over China? Short of carpet bombing with nukes I can't think of a single thing. You?

Why in the world would you feel that we have the right to dictate to other countries how they should conduct their affairs just so that they do not become a threat to us? Do other counties have that same right?

Of course we should do something about it. It might be as simple as saying "please don't do that" or it might be as severe as declaring war. Obviously there are criteria that need to be followed to decide which course of action is best. But doing nothing is never good and is a kind of action in itself.

 

[Andy]

I noticed somehow we got off topic without ever answering the question as to how people claim waterboarding is morally wrong. Perhaps they don't know. Not sure. Didn't convince me yet.

 

[PLC1]

I noticed somehow we got off topic without ever answering the question as to how people claim waterboarding is morally wrong. Perhaps they don't know. Not sure. Didn't convince me yet.

I believe we were discussing whether torture is morally wrong, weren't we?

Here is a great example of torture. Does anyone want to defend it?

According to the report, one of the two men — known to the Army only as Dilawar — died after being chained by his wrists to the ceiling of his cell for four days.

During that time, he was interrogated repeatedly, and his legs were beaten so badly that a coroner later said they "had basically been pulpified," the Times reported.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-20-afghanistan-deaths_x.htm

And here is a description of waterboarding, should anyone want to defend that practice, or call it something besides torture:

The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim's mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.

Typically, a victim goes into hysterics on the board as water fills his lungs. "How much the victim is to drown," Mr Nance wrote in an article for the Small Wars Journal, "depends on the desired result and the obstinacy of the subject.

"A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-20-afghanistan-deaths_x.htm

 

[Andy]

I believe we were discussing whether torture is morally wrong, weren't we?

Here is a great example of torture. Does anyone want to defend it?

Do you want to condem it? On what basis do you call it wrong?

Mostly I was am concerned about the issue as it relates to waterboarding because that is the issue at hand. No one is suggesting the abuses listed in the article are justified, nor anyone even hinting the soldiers involved should not be going to court, which they are. Clearly, it wasn't an action to protect lives even given no information can be acquired from a dead person, nor would a random taxi driver have any information.

And here is a description of waterboarding, should anyone want to defend that practice, or call it something besides torture:

I'm sure that there will be people to defend it. But you still assume that it needs defending which assumes pre-judgment on it's morality, which we still have not determined. Or should I say, none has yet made a clear cut case for.

 

[KingClovis]

I say water-board AQ terrorists without hesitation. Remember 911.

 

[9sublime]

Remember 9/11. Do you really think that suffices for any action taken against arabs for ever or something?

 

[PLC1]

Do you want to condem it? On what basis do you call it wrong?

Mostly I was am concerned about the issue as it relates to waterboarding because that is the issue at hand. No one is suggesting the abuses listed in the article are justified, nor anyone even hinting the soldiers involved should not be going to court, which they are. Clearly, it wasn't an action to protect lives even given no information can be acquired from a dead person, nor would a random taxi driver have any information.



I'm sure that there will be people to defend it. But you still assume that it needs defending which assumes pre-judgment on it's morality, which we still have not determined. Or should I say, none has yet made a clear cut case for.

No, no one has made a clear cut case for the morality of torture, nor is anyone likely to do so.

Are you ready to defend torturing prisoners as being morally right?

 

[Andy]

No, no one has made a clear cut case for the morality of torture, nor is anyone likely to do so.

Are you ready to defend torturing prisoners as being morally right?

This is an interesting concept. One I'd suggest doesn't seem logical. You are suggesting that unless one determines a thing to be moral, then it is assumed Immoral? Does that work with pre-martial sex? Or Drug use? Homosexuality? Divorce? Porn? Children out of wed-lock? Shacking up?

Actually let's move from things of religious contention... was driving a car ever proven moral? Was use of the internet ever proven moral? There are millions of things that have never had a moral case proven about them, which based on your post, would seem to suggest they must be immoral.

Do things have to be proven moral, or until which point they are automatically considered immoral? I suggest not. So simply because one has yet made a case for the morality of a specific issue, does not mean it is automatically the opposite there of. It's a logical fallacy of if A ≠ B Therefore A must = C. Nope, that's not true.

Besides this, I'm still neutral on this issue. You have to convince me either way. I'm undecided.

However, if I were to try and make a (moral relativism) case, I'd go back to Mare Tranq's theory of 'the most good'. Therefore since using waterboarding, regardless of what you consider it, is useful to getting information to save thousands, and possibly tens of thousands of lives, it is doing the most good, and thus, moral. Everything else, of course, does not and thus is immoral.

You are the prosecuting attorney, trying the case of waterboarding. The burden of making a case is on you. Not me. You don't go to the supreme court and tell the justices 'well no one made an opposing case, so I must be right!'. That don't work.

 

[PLC1]

This is an interesting concept. One I'd suggest doesn't seem logical. You are suggesting that unless one determines a thing to be moral, then it is assumed Immoral? Does that work with pre-martial sex? Or Drug use? Homosexuality? Divorce? Porn? Children out of wed-lock? Shacking up?

Actually let's move from things of religious contention... was driving a car ever proven moral? Was use of the internet ever proven moral? There are millions of things that have never had a moral case proven about them, which based on your post, would seem to suggest they must be immoral.

Do things have to be proven moral, or until which point they are automatically considered immoral? I suggest not. So simply because one has yet made a case for the morality of a specific issue, does not mean it is automatically the opposite there of. It's a logical fallacy of if A ≠ B Therefore A must = C. Nope, that's not true.

Besides this, I'm still neutral on this issue. You have to convince me either way. I'm undecided.

However, if I were to try and make a (moral relativism) case, I'd go back to Mare Tranq's theory of 'the most good'. Therefore since using waterboarding, regardless of what you consider it, is useful to getting information to save thousands, and possibly tens of thousands of lives, it is doing the most good, and thus, moral. Everything else, of course, does not and thus is immoral.

You are the prosecuting attorney, trying the case of waterboarding. The burden of making a case is on you. Not me. You don't go to the supreme court and tell the justices 'well no one made an opposing case, so I must be right!'. That don't work.

Since you're undecided on the issue, let's consider the pros and cons of torture.

If, indeed, tens of thousands of lives can be saved by torturing one person, then it would seem the prudent thing to do, even a moral thing to do. Is it true, however that lives can be saved by information obtained through torture? Some say yes, but they haven't proven their point.

If our purpose in fighting the war is to win the hearts and minds of the people, as has been asserted, then torture would seem to be counter productive to that end, and therefore not to be allowed regardless of the morality or immorality of the act.

So, the question becomes, this:

Is there a greater good to be obtained through torture? If those tens of thousands of lives are saved, then perhaps there is, and that is the justification that has been given for it.

What if torturing prisoners results in hatred not only from the fanatics who would torture anyone who disagrees with their narrow point of view, but from reasonable people as well? In such a case, torture would not save lives, but take them through prolonged warfare.

There are some things that are just wrong on an emotional level. Torture, child rape, taking an innocent life, all are in that category. You bring up an interesting question in trying to prove that torture is morally wrong on a logical level as well as on emotional level.

 

[Andy]

If, indeed, tens of thousands of lives can be saved by torturing one person, then it would seem the prudent thing to do, even a moral thing to do. Is it true, however that lives can be saved by information obtained through torture? Some say yes, but they haven't proven their point.

Since lives have been saved, terror plots have been stopped, and terrorist agents have been captured due to information from Waterboarding, then I suggest that does prove the point.

If our purpose in fighting the war is to win the hearts and minds of the people, as has been asserted, then torture would seem to be counter productive to that end, and therefore not to be allowed regardless of the morality or immorality of the act.

I do not see a connection between winning the hearts and minds, with the use of waterboarding. Since this would only be used specifically against known terrorist who are with-holding useful information, the only way the people would have an issue is if...

A: they have a moral objection to waterboarding and torture in general, which as I detailed before, they do not.
B: They support the ideology and morality of the terrorist, in which case our use of waterboarding will make absolutely no difference.

Is there a greater good to be obtained through torture? If those tens of thousands of lives are saved, then perhaps there is, and that is the justification that has been given for it.

Ends Justifies the means. A logical conclusion then.

What if torturing prisoners results in hatred not only from the fanatics who would torture anyone who disagrees with their narrow point of view, but from reasonable people as well? In such a case, torture would not save lives, but take them through prolonged warfare.

Iraqi support for American involvement has increased dramatically. Yet waterboarding was in 2002. This doesn't bare out in history either. People do not support causes when torture is used by the opposition.. unless... and this is key, unless it's used randomly. I can detail that later. But historically, when a movement is threatened with torture, it doesn't grow, it dwindles. A person is not motivated to join Al-quida because 'oh we get to be tortured? sign me up!'.

There are some things that are just wrong on an emotional level. Torture, child rape, taking an innocent life, all are in that category. You bring up an interesting question in trying to prove that torture is morally wrong on a logical level as well as on emotional level.

So if it feels wrong emotionally it's wrong... but if it feels right emotionally, then it's right? Ok, I promise you there are people out there that emotionally feel torture is right. I detailed it in prior posts.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So if it feels wrong emotionally it's wrong... but if it feels right emotionally, then it's right? Ok, I promise you there are people out there that emotionally feel torture is right. I detailed it in prior posts.

Hardly a convincing argument when I promise you there are people out there that emotionally feel child rape is right.

 

[PLC1]

Since lives have been saved, terror plots have been stopped, and terrorist agents have been captured due to information from Waterboarding, then I suggest that does prove the point.

Such a thing has been suggested, but far from proven.

I do not see a connection between winning the hearts and minds, with the use of waterboarding. Since this would only be used specifically against known terrorist who are with-holding useful information, the only way the people would have an issue is if...

A: they have a moral objection to waterboarding and torture in general, which as I detailed before, they do not.
B: They support the ideology and morality of the terrorist, in which case our use of waterboarding will make absolutely no difference.

We aren't trying to win the hearts and minds of the terrorists. We are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people. If all of the people are terrorists, then we'd be better off just to conduct an ethnic cleansing.

Ends Justifies the means. A logical conclusion then.

Only if you believe that the ends do justify the means.

Iraqi support for American involvement has increased dramatically. Yet waterboarding was in 2002. This doesn't bare out in history either. People do not support causes when torture is used by the opposition.. unless... and this is key, unless it's used randomly. I can detail that later. But historically, when a movement is threatened with torture, it doesn't grow, it dwindles. A person is not motivated to join Al-quida because 'oh we get to be tortured? sign me up!'.

Or, more likely, sign me up to go and fight the evil ones who torture and kill our people.

So if it feels wrong emotionally it's wrong... but if it feels right emotionally, then it's right? Ok, I promise you there are people out there that emotionally feel torture is right. I detailed it in prior posts.

There is no question that torturing prisoners is an absolute evil on an emotional basis. What we're discussing is whether it is a moral evil on an intellectual basis as well.

 

[foggedinn]

This really is just the old "ends justify the means" argument.

The prophet Daniel was thrown into a lion's den for an act of open rebellion against the king. His first words upon being released were "Oh great king, may you live forever".

Hope we don't waterboard a prophet.

 

[Andy]

Hardly a convincing argument when I promise you there are people out there that emotionally feel child rape is right.

Actually you make my point. If morals are simply man made, then who are you to say the child rapist is wrong? He's a man like you, and has morals like you, they are just different right? Everyones view is equal, right? His view is.... Absolute truth is the question. Do you believe in absolute truth?