This One's for Stan
-
I've been against torture even back when Nancy Pelosi was for it. While I've felt that the Star Chamber that some folks think would be a good idea would be, at best, distracting while we fought one set of battles and tried to extricate ourselves from an occupation - not to mention recover from this financial mess we dug ourselves into - I've never really tried to argue that what happened was either moral or legal. Equally, more than once I have expressed a contempt for the "If the President does it, it's not illegal," school of thought often pitched by Mr. Shannon. However, I just heard something that gives me pause. On 9/11 Cheney, on Bush's authorization, was about ten minutes from ordering the USAF to take out a commercial airliner with 200 innocent souls on board. But those people, who showed more bravery than most of us could, took the decision out of his hands. Shooting down commercial airliners, especially your own country's planes, is against the law and a number of treaties and I imagine is covered in the Geneva Convention as well. There's nothing in any of those laws, AFAIK, that talks about greater good for a greater number. You aren't supposed to do it. Period. Yet, if it had happened, I cannot imagine that even Oily or Pelosi would argue that we needed to try the pilots that shot the plane down, the air-flight controllers who passed on the orders, as well as Bush, Cheney, and anyone they consulted before giving the order. Had anyone suggested such a thing, an answer from Bush that he believed, on the basis of all the information he had, that what he ordered done was going to save the lives of far more people than those he took would have been all the defense that was needed. But, doing far less damage to far fewer people in the months after the attack has many folks wrapping themselves in a mantle of righteousness and demanding that an investigation be made and, even if there is no investigation, the Bush administration be punished. Forgetting for a moment the politics, I think there's a moral ambiguity here with no easy answer. Maybe, just maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, we expect and need the President to consider himself above the law?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
I've been against torture even back when Nancy Pelosi was for it. While I've felt that the Star Chamber that some folks think would be a good idea would be, at best, distracting while we fought one set of battles and tried to extricate ourselves from an occupation - not to mention recover from this financial mess we dug ourselves into - I've never really tried to argue that what happened was either moral or legal. Equally, more than once I have expressed a contempt for the "If the President does it, it's not illegal," school of thought often pitched by Mr. Shannon. However, I just heard something that gives me pause. On 9/11 Cheney, on Bush's authorization, was about ten minutes from ordering the USAF to take out a commercial airliner with 200 innocent souls on board. But those people, who showed more bravery than most of us could, took the decision out of his hands. Shooting down commercial airliners, especially your own country's planes, is against the law and a number of treaties and I imagine is covered in the Geneva Convention as well. There's nothing in any of those laws, AFAIK, that talks about greater good for a greater number. You aren't supposed to do it. Period. Yet, if it had happened, I cannot imagine that even Oily or Pelosi would argue that we needed to try the pilots that shot the plane down, the air-flight controllers who passed on the orders, as well as Bush, Cheney, and anyone they consulted before giving the order. Had anyone suggested such a thing, an answer from Bush that he believed, on the basis of all the information he had, that what he ordered done was going to save the lives of far more people than those he took would have been all the defense that was needed. But, doing far less damage to far fewer people in the months after the attack has many folks wrapping themselves in a mantle of righteousness and demanding that an investigation be made and, even if there is no investigation, the Bush administration be punished. Forgetting for a moment the politics, I think there's a moral ambiguity here with no easy answer. Maybe, just maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, we expect and need the President to consider himself above the law?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
That is actually a point I made on several occasions way back when. Thats why we have someone in that position - so that at least one of us has the ability to make critical leadership decisions when there is simply no time for legal or social deliberation. I fully believe that all such decisions need to be investigated by congress and possibly considered by the judiciary since that is part of their job, but the executive should not be punished unless it was done overtly for some reason other than national security. I have never felt that defending that simple principle equated to defending Bush.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
That is actually a point I made on several occasions way back when. Thats why we have someone in that position - so that at least one of us has the ability to make critical leadership decisions when there is simply no time for legal or social deliberation. I fully believe that all such decisions need to be investigated by congress and possibly considered by the judiciary since that is part of their job, but the executive should not be punished unless it was done overtly for some reason other than national security. I have never felt that defending that simple principle equated to defending Bush.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is actually a point I made on several occasions way back when
That's why I said this one was for you. I'm not sure I agree with your point or with Bush's choice - ordering torture still seems morally repugnant. But I cannot deny that I understand it and the moral grayness that Bush and Cheney were forced to operate in. Sometimes you don't get to make the right choice, only the one you believe is less wrong.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
I've been against torture even back when Nancy Pelosi was for it. While I've felt that the Star Chamber that some folks think would be a good idea would be, at best, distracting while we fought one set of battles and tried to extricate ourselves from an occupation - not to mention recover from this financial mess we dug ourselves into - I've never really tried to argue that what happened was either moral or legal. Equally, more than once I have expressed a contempt for the "If the President does it, it's not illegal," school of thought often pitched by Mr. Shannon. However, I just heard something that gives me pause. On 9/11 Cheney, on Bush's authorization, was about ten minutes from ordering the USAF to take out a commercial airliner with 200 innocent souls on board. But those people, who showed more bravery than most of us could, took the decision out of his hands. Shooting down commercial airliners, especially your own country's planes, is against the law and a number of treaties and I imagine is covered in the Geneva Convention as well. There's nothing in any of those laws, AFAIK, that talks about greater good for a greater number. You aren't supposed to do it. Period. Yet, if it had happened, I cannot imagine that even Oily or Pelosi would argue that we needed to try the pilots that shot the plane down, the air-flight controllers who passed on the orders, as well as Bush, Cheney, and anyone they consulted before giving the order. Had anyone suggested such a thing, an answer from Bush that he believed, on the basis of all the information he had, that what he ordered done was going to save the lives of far more people than those he took would have been all the defense that was needed. But, doing far less damage to far fewer people in the months after the attack has many folks wrapping themselves in a mantle of righteousness and demanding that an investigation be made and, even if there is no investigation, the Bush administration be punished. Forgetting for a moment the politics, I think there's a moral ambiguity here with no easy answer. Maybe, just maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, we expect and need the President to consider himself above the law?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!! Booger Mobile - Camp Quality esCarpade 2010
-
I've been against torture even back when Nancy Pelosi was for it. While I've felt that the Star Chamber that some folks think would be a good idea would be, at best, distracting while we fought one set of battles and tried to extricate ourselves from an occupation - not to mention recover from this financial mess we dug ourselves into - I've never really tried to argue that what happened was either moral or legal. Equally, more than once I have expressed a contempt for the "If the President does it, it's not illegal," school of thought often pitched by Mr. Shannon. However, I just heard something that gives me pause. On 9/11 Cheney, on Bush's authorization, was about ten minutes from ordering the USAF to take out a commercial airliner with 200 innocent souls on board. But those people, who showed more bravery than most of us could, took the decision out of his hands. Shooting down commercial airliners, especially your own country's planes, is against the law and a number of treaties and I imagine is covered in the Geneva Convention as well. There's nothing in any of those laws, AFAIK, that talks about greater good for a greater number. You aren't supposed to do it. Period. Yet, if it had happened, I cannot imagine that even Oily or Pelosi would argue that we needed to try the pilots that shot the plane down, the air-flight controllers who passed on the orders, as well as Bush, Cheney, and anyone they consulted before giving the order. Had anyone suggested such a thing, an answer from Bush that he believed, on the basis of all the information he had, that what he ordered done was going to save the lives of far more people than those he took would have been all the defense that was needed. But, doing far less damage to far fewer people in the months after the attack has many folks wrapping themselves in a mantle of righteousness and demanding that an investigation be made and, even if there is no investigation, the Bush administration be punished. Forgetting for a moment the politics, I think there's a moral ambiguity here with no easy answer. Maybe, just maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, we expect and need the President to consider himself above the law?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
This is just a repackaging of the "ticking bomb" defence of torture, when in reality those torture scenarios only happen in movies. Torture was used as a routine intelligence gathering device in a time of conflict --- precisely the scenario envisaged in the laws that ban it.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is actually a point I made on several occasions way back when
That's why I said this one was for you. I'm not sure I agree with your point or with Bush's choice - ordering torture still seems morally repugnant. But I cannot deny that I understand it and the moral grayness that Bush and Cheney were forced to operate in. Sometimes you don't get to make the right choice, only the one you believe is less wrong.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
torture still seems morally repugnant.
It is absolutely morally repugnant. Who has claimed otherwise? But so is refusing to do your duty to protect innocent human life out of concern for some kind of abstract social definition of morality, or some cowardly stand behind the secure bulwark of trivial laws.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
This is just a repackaging of the "ticking bomb" defence of torture, when in reality those torture scenarios only happen in movies. Torture was used as a routine intelligence gathering device in a time of conflict --- precisely the scenario envisaged in the laws that ban it.
John Carson
bullshit.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
This is just a repackaging of the "ticking bomb" defence of torture, when in reality those torture scenarios only happen in movies. Torture was used as a routine intelligence gathering device in a time of conflict --- precisely the scenario envisaged in the laws that ban it.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
This is just a repackaging of the "ticking bomb" defence of torture, when in reality those torture scenarios only happen in movies.
I think you missed my point, John. I wasn't saying that torture is right, or morally defensible, or justified. I was saying that I understand a little better how a bad choice can be made. Or even seem to be the best choice available. And why the President of the United States might find himself backed into a corner where and when there wasn't the moral clarity that seems to have spread its grace on everyone these days.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
torture still seems morally repugnant.
It is absolutely morally repugnant. Who has claimed otherwise? But so is refusing to do your duty to protect innocent human life out of concern for some kind of abstract social definition of morality, or some cowardly stand behind the secure bulwark of trivial laws.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But so is refusing to do your duty
One thing I am relatively sure of is that no-one here can begin to understand what choices actually confronted Bush. I do remember that most of the US - probably most of the world - thought that we would be attacked again and soon. 'Tis easy to stand off eight years and say what Bush should've done (and both you and John are doing that, I believe) but I, for one, am just not cocksure enough to say with absolute certainty what I would have done had I been in his shoes in the fall of 2001, while the fires still burned in the steel graveyard that the twin towers had become.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But so is refusing to do your duty
One thing I am relatively sure of is that no-one here can begin to understand what choices actually confronted Bush. I do remember that most of the US - probably most of the world - thought that we would be attacked again and soon. 'Tis easy to stand off eight years and say what Bush should've done (and both you and John are doing that, I believe) but I, for one, am just not cocksure enough to say with absolute certainty what I would have done had I been in his shoes in the fall of 2001, while the fires still burned in the steel graveyard that the twin towers had become.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Yeah, I can recall some people attacking soldiers on duty in Iraq for their actions here. Now, this was not soldiers who plan to rape and kill innocents as has happened lately, but actions in the heat of battle. I can't percieve what that would be like, and I don't see how others who have never fired a gun in anger, or been fired upon, can judge those who put themselves in that position. Torture still sucks tho, and Gitmo sucked on many levels that I find inexcusable.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
John Carson wrote:
This is just a repackaging of the "ticking bomb" defence of torture, when in reality those torture scenarios only happen in movies.
I think you missed my point, John. I wasn't saying that torture is right, or morally defensible, or justified. I was saying that I understand a little better how a bad choice can be made. Or even seem to be the best choice available. And why the President of the United States might find himself backed into a corner where and when there wasn't the moral clarity that seems to have spread its grace on everyone these days.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I think you missed my point, John. I wasn't saying that torture is right, or morally defensible, or justified. I was saying that I understand a little better how a bad choice can be made. Or even seem to be the best choice available. And why the President of the United States might find himself backed into a corner where and when there wasn't the moral clarity that seems to have spread its grace on everyone these days.
I don't think that was the message conveyed by the final two paragraphs of your first post. I don't doubt that it is fairly easy for a person to think that torture is OK when there is a security threat. That is why it happens so often. Equally, it is easy for members of a football team, after a night out drinking, to think that it may be OK to "pressure" a women for sex, i.e., rape her. That happens fairly often too (such a case is currently filling the Australian newpapers, the latest of many such). And yes, many of those who have moral clarity after the event might not have displayed the same clarity if they had been in the situation themselves. What is striking is how selective is the "understanding" displayed. The US has by far the harshest, least forgiving, most incarceration-prone criminal justice system of any Western country (5% of the world's population; 25% of the world's known prison population). However, it is one system of justice for the ordinary people and a completely different one for those with political power. For more on this theme, see here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/28/prosecutions/index.html[^]
John Carson
-
I've been against torture even back when Nancy Pelosi was for it. While I've felt that the Star Chamber that some folks think would be a good idea would be, at best, distracting while we fought one set of battles and tried to extricate ourselves from an occupation - not to mention recover from this financial mess we dug ourselves into - I've never really tried to argue that what happened was either moral or legal. Equally, more than once I have expressed a contempt for the "If the President does it, it's not illegal," school of thought often pitched by Mr. Shannon. However, I just heard something that gives me pause. On 9/11 Cheney, on Bush's authorization, was about ten minutes from ordering the USAF to take out a commercial airliner with 200 innocent souls on board. But those people, who showed more bravery than most of us could, took the decision out of his hands. Shooting down commercial airliners, especially your own country's planes, is against the law and a number of treaties and I imagine is covered in the Geneva Convention as well. There's nothing in any of those laws, AFAIK, that talks about greater good for a greater number. You aren't supposed to do it. Period. Yet, if it had happened, I cannot imagine that even Oily or Pelosi would argue that we needed to try the pilots that shot the plane down, the air-flight controllers who passed on the orders, as well as Bush, Cheney, and anyone they consulted before giving the order. Had anyone suggested such a thing, an answer from Bush that he believed, on the basis of all the information he had, that what he ordered done was going to save the lives of far more people than those he took would have been all the defense that was needed. But, doing far less damage to far fewer people in the months after the attack has many folks wrapping themselves in a mantle of righteousness and demanding that an investigation be made and, even if there is no investigation, the Bush administration be punished. Forgetting for a moment the politics, I think there's a moral ambiguity here with no easy answer. Maybe, just maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, we expect and need the President to consider himself above the law?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Shooting down commercial airliners, especially your own country's planes, is against the law and a number of treaties and I imagine is covered in the Geneva Convention as well. There's nothing in any of those laws, AFAIK, that talks about greater good for a greater number. You aren't supposed to do it. Period. Maybe, just maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, we expect and need the President to consider himself above the law?
That raises the obvious question of why would you become a signatory to those treaties and conventions in the first place?
-
Oakman wrote:
I think you missed my point, John. I wasn't saying that torture is right, or morally defensible, or justified. I was saying that I understand a little better how a bad choice can be made. Or even seem to be the best choice available. And why the President of the United States might find himself backed into a corner where and when there wasn't the moral clarity that seems to have spread its grace on everyone these days.
I don't think that was the message conveyed by the final two paragraphs of your first post. I don't doubt that it is fairly easy for a person to think that torture is OK when there is a security threat. That is why it happens so often. Equally, it is easy for members of a football team, after a night out drinking, to think that it may be OK to "pressure" a women for sex, i.e., rape her. That happens fairly often too (such a case is currently filling the Australian newpapers, the latest of many such). And yes, many of those who have moral clarity after the event might not have displayed the same clarity if they had been in the situation themselves. What is striking is how selective is the "understanding" displayed. The US has by far the harshest, least forgiving, most incarceration-prone criminal justice system of any Western country (5% of the world's population; 25% of the world's known prison population). However, it is one system of justice for the ordinary people and a completely different one for those with political power. For more on this theme, see here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/28/prosecutions/index.html[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I don't think that was the message conveyed by the final two paragraphs of your first post.
Are you saying there is no moral ambiguity? or that I shouldn't even ask whether sometimes the President may need to break the law?
John Carson wrote:
I don't doubt that it is fairly easy for a person to think that torture is OK
I don't think that I ever suggested that it was easy. Perhaps from half a world a way, the fall of the towers was not all that extraordinary. I assure you that up close, it was. I will never clear my mind of the shot of a man falling headfirst from the 90-something floor because it was a better way to die that being burned by the fire behind him. Later on they stopped showing things like that and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't edited out overseas.
John Carson wrote:
Equally, it is easy for members of a football team, after a night out drinking, to think that it may be OK to "pressure" a women for sex, i.e., rape her. That happens fairly often too (such a case is currently filling the Australian newpapers, the latest of many such).
The comparison is both ludicrous and thoughtless.
John Carson wrote:
US has by far the harshest, least forgiving, most incarceration-prone criminal justice system of any Western country (5% of the world's population; 25% of the world's known prison population).
In part that's because we serve as the main prison for most of central America. Much of the rest is the stupid reflexive response to marijuana so beloved by bible belt. Eliminate the Mexicans and the druggies and I doubt we put as many folks in jail as some other countries. If by some chance you think that only the US has a justice system that treats the rich and powerful with more deference than anyone else, I suggest you need to rethink the matter. Perhaps asking a few indigenes what they thought about Australia's system of justice might give you insights into the universality of the problem.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Shooting down commercial airliners, especially your own country's planes, is against the law and a number of treaties and I imagine is covered in the Geneva Convention as well. There's nothing in any of those laws, AFAIK, that talks about greater good for a greater number. You aren't supposed to do it. Period. Maybe, just maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, we expect and need the President to consider himself above the law?
That raises the obvious question of why would you become a signatory to those treaties and conventions in the first place?
Josh Gray wrote:
That raises the obvious question of why would you become a signatory to those treaties and conventions in the first place?
I personally never did, Josh - except for the Geneva Convention. And as you may remember, I have suggested more'n once that the U.S. would be better off abrogating most of its agreements with countries not in the western hemisphere. More generally, are you saying that the scenario I described re flight 93 calls into question why we have laws against shooting down civilian aircraft or murdering people? I am not saying that the president is above the law or that the US can or should break its word with impugnity. But I am not quite as sure as you Aussies are that there can never come a point where the latter may be the best of a set of bad choices or the former might need to be true. In other words, I am asking questions, not providing answers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
I've been against torture even back when Nancy Pelosi was for it. While I've felt that the Star Chamber that some folks think would be a good idea would be, at best, distracting while we fought one set of battles and tried to extricate ourselves from an occupation - not to mention recover from this financial mess we dug ourselves into - I've never really tried to argue that what happened was either moral or legal. Equally, more than once I have expressed a contempt for the "If the President does it, it's not illegal," school of thought often pitched by Mr. Shannon. However, I just heard something that gives me pause. On 9/11 Cheney, on Bush's authorization, was about ten minutes from ordering the USAF to take out a commercial airliner with 200 innocent souls on board. But those people, who showed more bravery than most of us could, took the decision out of his hands. Shooting down commercial airliners, especially your own country's planes, is against the law and a number of treaties and I imagine is covered in the Geneva Convention as well. There's nothing in any of those laws, AFAIK, that talks about greater good for a greater number. You aren't supposed to do it. Period. Yet, if it had happened, I cannot imagine that even Oily or Pelosi would argue that we needed to try the pilots that shot the plane down, the air-flight controllers who passed on the orders, as well as Bush, Cheney, and anyone they consulted before giving the order. Had anyone suggested such a thing, an answer from Bush that he believed, on the basis of all the information he had, that what he ordered done was going to save the lives of far more people than those he took would have been all the defense that was needed. But, doing far less damage to far fewer people in the months after the attack has many folks wrapping themselves in a mantle of righteousness and demanding that an investigation be made and, even if there is no investigation, the Bush administration be punished. Forgetting for a moment the politics, I think there's a moral ambiguity here with no easy answer. Maybe, just maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, we expect and need the President to consider himself above the law?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, we expect and need the President to consider himself above the law?
I agree with the sentiment was I disagree with the wording. Under exceptional circumstances the President ought to be given some 'flexibility' in his actions. But consider himself above the law? Never. Had Bush ordered the torture of one or two individuals shortly after 9/11(in the heat of the moment, so to speak) and had admitted to it, there might be some 'moral abiguity with no easy answer'. Even in this circumstance, it should still be investigated. But that's not what happened here. Deliberately, and in secret, Bush made toture US policy for the first time in our history. He created a network of prisons (many secret) in which hundreds, if not thousands, were tortured and dozens murdered. A legal figleaf was created to justify it. This was done over a period of years. I don't think this fits into any 'extraordinary circumstances' exception. The answer here is easy - It should not have been done. [Edit]
Oakman wrote:
I've been against torture ...Equally, more than once I have expressed a contempt for the "If the President does it, it's not illegal," school of thought
You are "against" torture but don't believe those responsible for torture should be held accountable in any meaningful way. You have "contempt", yet you think illegal acts by the President should be ignored. Your statements ring completely hollow.
modified on Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:26 AM
-
Josh Gray wrote:
That raises the obvious question of why would you become a signatory to those treaties and conventions in the first place?
I personally never did, Josh - except for the Geneva Convention. And as you may remember, I have suggested more'n once that the U.S. would be better off abrogating most of its agreements with countries not in the western hemisphere. More generally, are you saying that the scenario I described re flight 93 calls into question why we have laws against shooting down civilian aircraft or murdering people? I am not saying that the president is above the law or that the US can or should break its word with impugnity. But I am not quite as sure as you Aussies are that there can never come a point where the latter may be the best of a set of bad choices or the former might need to be true. In other words, I am asking questions, not providing answers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
But I am not quite as sure as you Aussies are that there can never come a point where the latter may be the best of a set of bad choices or the former might need to be true.
Us Aussies? all of us? you've come to this conclusion from talking with CG, John and me? okey dokes I realise you didn't go as far as saying that shooting the plane down would have been acceptable but my point was that by asking the question you did you also bring into question the value of international agreements made over things like torture.
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't think that was the message conveyed by the final two paragraphs of your first post.
Are you saying there is no moral ambiguity? or that I shouldn't even ask whether sometimes the President may need to break the law?
John Carson wrote:
I don't doubt that it is fairly easy for a person to think that torture is OK
I don't think that I ever suggested that it was easy. Perhaps from half a world a way, the fall of the towers was not all that extraordinary. I assure you that up close, it was. I will never clear my mind of the shot of a man falling headfirst from the 90-something floor because it was a better way to die that being burned by the fire behind him. Later on they stopped showing things like that and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't edited out overseas.
John Carson wrote:
Equally, it is easy for members of a football team, after a night out drinking, to think that it may be OK to "pressure" a women for sex, i.e., rape her. That happens fairly often too (such a case is currently filling the Australian newpapers, the latest of many such).
The comparison is both ludicrous and thoughtless.
John Carson wrote:
US has by far the harshest, least forgiving, most incarceration-prone criminal justice system of any Western country (5% of the world's population; 25% of the world's known prison population).
In part that's because we serve as the main prison for most of central America. Much of the rest is the stupid reflexive response to marijuana so beloved by bible belt. Eliminate the Mexicans and the druggies and I doubt we put as many folks in jail as some other countries. If by some chance you think that only the US has a justice system that treats the rich and powerful with more deference than anyone else, I suggest you need to rethink the matter. Perhaps asking a few indigenes what they thought about Australia's system of justice might give you insights into the universality of the problem.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Are you saying there is no moral ambiguity?
Yes, I am. Ticking bomb scenarios aside, the issue is completely straightforward. Torture is wrong and should not be practiced. See here, for example: http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_12309887?source=commented-opinion[^]
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps from half a world a way, the fall of the towers was not all that extraordinary. I assure you that up close, it was. I will never clear my mind of the shot of a man falling headfirst from the 90-something floor because it was a better way to die that being burned by the fire behind him. Later on they stopped showing things like that and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't edited out overseas.
We saw them and I don't doubt the emotional power of the event. That is one reason why I said "I don't doubt that it is fairly easy for a person to think that torture is OK." But conflict situations pretty routinely produce very intense emotions.
Oakman wrote:
The comparison is both ludicrous and thoughtless.
Yes and no. The rape analogy lacks the mitigation that it was done with good intentions, but the fundamental similarity is that of losing one's moral bearings in the emotion of the moment --- though it turned out to be a very extended "moment" in the case of torture.
Oakman wrote:
If by some chance you think that only the US has a justice system that treats the rich and powerful with more deference than anyone else, I suggest you need to rethink the matter. Perhaps asking a few indigenes what they thought about Australia's system of justice might give you insights into the universality of the problem.
Every country treats the rich and powerful better. However, the hypocrisy is rarely as stark as we are seeing it now, with the people who are most militantly "tough on crime", wanting "zero tolerance", "no excuses" and hefty sentences turning around and offering every excuse they can think of for giving a favoured few a free pass on crime.
John Carson
modified on Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:19 AM
-
Oakman wrote:
But I am not quite as sure as you Aussies are that there can never come a point where the latter may be the best of a set of bad choices or the former might need to be true.
Us Aussies? all of us? you've come to this conclusion from talking with CG, John and me? okey dokes I realise you didn't go as far as saying that shooting the plane down would have been acceptable but my point was that by asking the question you did you also bring into question the value of international agreements made over things like torture.
Josh Gray wrote:
all of us?
Actually, I meant only you and John. I agree, my wording could have been more precise.
Josh Gray wrote:
but my point was that by asking the question you did you also bring into question the value of international agreements made over things like torture.
Okay, then perhaps I am doing that. I do, strongly, believe that contracts should be kept unless made under duress. But at the same time, I have to wonder if there aren't extraordinary circumstances that allow for breaking the rules. Does the President have to ask Congress to declare war if China drops a few atomics on us - or on our allies in the southeast pacific? In time of warfare, the rule about killing is suspended - and that the Geneva Convention was an attempt to establish rules around this breaking of rules. The agreement about gas warfare is another such attempt. It is, according to international law, okay to spray a guy with a jet of burning napalm or white phosphorous, but it's not okay to gas him. (Either way, it's a painful death.) It is, again according to international rules, okay to cut a guiy in half with a two second burst from an M60 - even if he has no idea you are aiming at him, but not okay to hit him with your fists, if he sticks his hands up in the air when he see you - even if you think he has or might have a concealed weapon. I don't believe that rules are made to be broken (the way I think Stan does) nor do I think rules are supposed to substitute for thinking and analysing (the way I think Stan does.) I do think that there's a gray area where someone on the spot makes the call - shoot the plane down; waterboard Sheik Khalid; blow the guy away before he realises he is being targetting - and then says I did it. I take responsibility for it and I made the best decision I could with the information that was available - knowing that a bunch of REMFs, political opponents, or foreigners will start weighing in with their opinions without ever asking themselves - would I have done it any differently? More and more I am realising that Obama understands this, even though many of his political allies don't. I don't like the calls he makes, quite often. But he's willing to make them and he doesn't hide behind "we," or "the nation," or "Jeffersonianism." He says, "I." JFK was like that; Johnson wasn't.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Are you saying there is no moral ambiguity?
Yes, I am. Ticking bomb scenarios aside, the issue is completely straightforward. Torture is wrong and should not be practiced. See here, for example: http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_12309887?source=commented-opinion[^]
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps from half a world a way, the fall of the towers was not all that extraordinary. I assure you that up close, it was. I will never clear my mind of the shot of a man falling headfirst from the 90-something floor because it was a better way to die that being burned by the fire behind him. Later on they stopped showing things like that and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't edited out overseas.
We saw them and I don't doubt the emotional power of the event. That is one reason why I said "I don't doubt that it is fairly easy for a person to think that torture is OK." But conflict situations pretty routinely produce very intense emotions.
Oakman wrote:
The comparison is both ludicrous and thoughtless.
Yes and no. The rape analogy lacks the mitigation that it was done with good intentions, but the fundamental similarity is that of losing one's moral bearings in the emotion of the moment --- though it turned out to be a very extended "moment" in the case of torture.
Oakman wrote:
If by some chance you think that only the US has a justice system that treats the rich and powerful with more deference than anyone else, I suggest you need to rethink the matter. Perhaps asking a few indigenes what they thought about Australia's system of justice might give you insights into the universality of the problem.
Every country treats the rich and powerful better. However, the hypocrisy is rarely as stark as we are seeing it now, with the people who are most militantly "tough on crime", wanting "zero tolerance", "no excuses" and hefty sentences turning around and offering every excuse they can think of for giving a favoured few a free pass on crime.
John Carson
modified on Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:19 AM
John Carson wrote:
Torture is wrong and should not be practiced. See here, for example:
John, I am interested in what you think, not what the Denver Post thinks. I thank you for your answer. I pretty much expected it, but it's nice to have it confirmed. I on the other hand, have not visited Mount Sinai and have no engraved tablets to tell me exactly what is right or wrong.
John Carson wrote:
but the fundamental similarity is that of losing one's moral bearings in the emotion of the moment
I find myself thinking that you have led a very sheltered life. How is it possible to equate the drunken Neanderthalian behavior of some soccer players celebrating after a meaningless game, and the anger and fear that this nation felt after it was attacked?
John Carson wrote:
However, the hypocrisy is rarely as stark as we are seeing it now, with the people who are most militantly "tough on crime", wanting "zero tolerance", "no excuses" and hefty sentences turning around and offering every excuse they can think of for giving a favoured few a free pass on crime
I found myself thinking that many boondocks Christians may not react as strongly to torture as I do because they believe in a literal hell and unending torture at the hands of a Supreme Goodness. That said, in a post I just made to Josh, I talked about times when a crime is declared not a crime. I note that many, not all, of the people who are screaming, Red Queen-like "off with his head," also like to throw the word war-crime as the crew of the Enola Gay, Douglas MacArthur, and Harry Truman. Yet you might be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for such criminals.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
Torture is wrong and should not be practiced. See here, for example:
John, I am interested in what you think, not what the Denver Post thinks. I thank you for your answer. I pretty much expected it, but it's nice to have it confirmed. I on the other hand, have not visited Mount Sinai and have no engraved tablets to tell me exactly what is right or wrong.
John Carson wrote:
but the fundamental similarity is that of losing one's moral bearings in the emotion of the moment
I find myself thinking that you have led a very sheltered life. How is it possible to equate the drunken Neanderthalian behavior of some soccer players celebrating after a meaningless game, and the anger and fear that this nation felt after it was attacked?
John Carson wrote:
However, the hypocrisy is rarely as stark as we are seeing it now, with the people who are most militantly "tough on crime", wanting "zero tolerance", "no excuses" and hefty sentences turning around and offering every excuse they can think of for giving a favoured few a free pass on crime
I found myself thinking that many boondocks Christians may not react as strongly to torture as I do because they believe in a literal hell and unending torture at the hands of a Supreme Goodness. That said, in a post I just made to Josh, I talked about times when a crime is declared not a crime. I note that many, not all, of the people who are screaming, Red Queen-like "off with his head," also like to throw the word war-crime as the crew of the Enola Gay, Douglas MacArthur, and Harry Truman. Yet you might be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for such criminals.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
How is it possible to equate the drunken Neanderthalian behavior of some soccer players celebrating after a meaningless game, and the anger and fear that this nation felt after it was attacked?
These are elite athletes and it is rugby league, not soccer, but...I am not "equating" the behaviour. I am simply making the point that people commonly show weakness in allowing their moral standards to slip. I know that those defending or understanding or whatever those who practiced torture don't like to see the torture policies as simply a failure of morality, but that is how I see it. The other analogous thing about football teams is that people often exhibit greater extremes of bad behaviour in groups than they would as individuals. Group members incite each other to go one step further and people lose their individual morality in pursuit of group acceptance. I try to avoid being a fundamentalist on any issue. There is no legal or ethical principle that I wouldn't put aside if the cost of adhering to the principle was human suffering on a large enough scale (except for the principle I just stated). However, I don't see the practice of torture by the Bush Administration in those terms. The case for torture was always weak, and practicing it was just weakness.
John Carson