Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6484)	5/20/2007 4:36:19 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"As an analogy, if we were discussing WMD treaties of "no first use", and one side decides to nuke the other, are we supposed to restrain ourselves from retaliating? It's not a great analogy since most would agree that torture should not be used as retaliation or in a vengeful or sadistic manner. The use of torture ends up being more about the torturer than the torturee. "Secondly, groups like Al Qai'da are not signators to the GC. In fact, they are not even recognized sovereign governments. And the very tactics they follow in waging their war/struggle is, at its heart, a violation of the GC because they deliberately target innocent non-combatants in order to undermine the authority of the government. They execute prisoners in brutal fashion merely for representing "collaboration" (actual or perceived) with the government they are fighting. They engage in hostage taking, mutilation, and regularly violate what would be the obligation of any occupying power (were they a signator of the GC) towards the proper and respective treatment of the people under occupation. This seems like a fairness argument ... 'If they get to torture people, then we should get to torture people'. I can't argue with the fairness aspect only that if that is one of the things that defines their culture of heinousness, why would we want to 'get to be like they are'? Especially when we declare our purpose in engagement to defeat that very kind of enemy. Do we become the enemy to defeat it? "So one has to ask themselves why we provide them the benefit of the protections of that treaty when the very nature of their tactics revolve around blatant violations of it?" Because it brings honor to our cause, and dishonor to their's which is ultimately the test of any cause. Not to mention that it is known to be a failed strategy for getting sound intelligence. It is more likely that they will tell you what they think you want to hear than useful intelligence that is news to you, which can be counter productive. "Now let's get specific with a few examples ... " I hope you don't mind if I deal with the examples in another post...

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6484)	5/20/2007 5:01:57 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

"Let me ask you parents a question out there. If you spank your children for misbehaving, is that torture? Can you be criminally prosecuted for spanking?" I have never spanked my kids but I don't view it as torture. I wouldn't object to it exept when applied by an angry parent who is intent on causing someone else to feel pain in retribution for their own frustrations. I don't consider that torture either but it is certainly abusive. " Can you be criminally prosecuted for spanking?" Yes. It has been criminalized in certain locations and/or circumstances. "How many of you were the recipient of corporal punishment while in school? How many of you were threatened with it, it you continued to misbehave in school? Raising my hand here. The practice was never abused in my setting as far as I know. We viewed it as the School Admin practice of 'Walking softly while carrying a big stick'... and it seemed effective. Again, not torture in my book. "You pull into a 7/11 to get some snacks, and out of the store window you see your family being kidnapped. You rush out to try and assist and you manage to capture one of the assailants while his partners scream away with the family you love. The partner does not achieve prisoner status with me until or unless he has surrendered... surrendering himself includes all information he has that could lessen the threat against my family. After that point he will be given safe haven and protection from any harm while in my custody. I will release him to the police with that understanding as well. No torture. "In sum, this is a topic with some very broad moral interpretations. What is the value of the life of the detainee in our custody when compared to the lives of innocent non-combatants that he and his fellow terrorists have deliberately targeted for death?" The value of one life vs another life has long been debated and will continue to be debated when the current bunch of us are long dead. The fact is we all die and the issue we miss in this debate is 'what makes a life worth living?' It is the nobility of purpose that binds us to others. Conscientious people accept that and seek the well being of one in response to another with liberation from oppressive coercion. Persons who seek an escape from that responsibility are bound in despair and the misery of their selfishness or lost causes, which drives them in their envy to lash out continually at those living up to the nobility of their birth. The temptation of teaching them a lesson by acting as they do may gain you the moment but ultimately bring the loss of something very valuable for all of eternity. "I personally define torture as procedure that DOES NOT have the express intent of safeguarding the lives of innocent non-combatants, or preventing the adversary from committing a flagrant and deliberate violation of the Geneva Conventions. In other words, if detainees are being physically abused for punitive purposes (punishment) then it's torture. But if those people are reasonably suspected of being part of a group deliberately plotting to commit a terrorist act in violation of the GC, and are suspected of having information that would thwart such a violation, then IMO, we have a HIGHER moral obligation of using whatever means necessary to defend the intended victims than we do in defending the rights of the plotter/perpetrator. Ok. Thanks for your contributions and for helping us get this discussion moving. I expect to modify my views and to obtain some clarity for some of the issues as we are able to get some sincere input like yours. Hang in there. Best Regards, Gem

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6484)	5/21/2007 1:01:11 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Hawkmoon, re: "I personally define torture as procedure that DOES NOT have the express intent of safeguarding the lives of innocent non-combatants, or preventing the adversary from committing a flagrant and deliberate violation of the Geneva Conventions. In other words, if detainees are being physically abused for punitive purposes (punishment) then it's torture. But if those people are reasonably suspected of being part of a group deliberately plotting to commit a terrorist act in violation of the GC, and are suspected of having information that would thwart such a violation, then IMO, we have a HIGHER moral obligation of using whatever means necessary to defend the intended victims than we do in defending the rights of the plotter/perpetrator." Forgetting for a moment the big picture questions of whether torture works and what it does for the country in the long run, maybe you'd like to tell me who you'd like to apply the test for "torture" that you propose? Is it the torture guild? You know the sadistic bastards that can actually live with (and probably enjoy) the up close and personal acts of brutality that force the POSSIBLE bad guys to blurt out whatever it is that they think you want to hear? I ask because in most similar situations those in charge stay as far away from it as they can and simply rubber stamp the "recommendations" of the hands-on guys. Maybe it will get so loose that eventually it will be you being aggressively "questioned" by a government torturer with a slightly different viewpoint than the extreme viewpoint you now hold. You can find extreme examples with built in assumptions that don't match the real world but once started these things never stay under control. It's just a terrible idea on many levels. If you want a better world for all of us then you have to rise above expediency and act with principle according to ethical and moral rules. It will cost you on rare occasions short term but in the long run it's the only way up. And the world is watching what we do. Ed