Repulsive. Shameful. Dump this guy. He mirrors the administration. That's why he's there. Here's the problem- I fully agree with you as a human being, yet as a veteran, if beating a guy can save a squad of our guy's, the military thing to do would be to beat the crap right out of him- we are revolted by "torture tactics" and rightly so- but we have the freedom to be revolted because of it (Sometimes). Again- My stand is surely with you on the humane treatment of prisoners at every level, but it's sadly a your enembrutal truth that our enemies wouldn't hesitate to do the same, if not worse to us. What it comes down to for me is "if you have to go to war, and "every other option has failed", you have to go ROMAN because war with kid gloves - gets you the Iraqi situation we have no... While it may be ok on the battlefied to torture someone who has information that will lead to the immediate saving of some of your fellow servicemen, the cases in question are somewhat different in that the people who are being tortured may or may not have some kind of information which may or may not be usefull in the future. If you go down this road, and the people just accept it, then that is just the thin edge of the wedge. Ditto for michaelll's statement. I thought that was understood (the battlefield situation dictating the course of action vs. a renditioned civilian caught with a common Islamic last name). SOME torture is necessary in certain situations. To do it as a matter of punishment, as a matter of typical treatment of a POW, however, is immoral conduct and possibly criminal (Geneva). And with the Pentagon trying to Christianize all our soldiers now, how can a decent person remain sane? Christian...torture. What happened to the "high" ground? Methinks it all went to hell with Bush. Everything I've read about information gathered under torture suggests it to be utterly unreliable. It only works on "24". Indeed, some of the "evidence" that Bush quoted to take us into Iraq was so gathered, proving later to be false. People will say whatever they think you want to hear if you hurt them badly enough. Even pro-military John McCain, himself a survivor of torture, is strictly opposed to it, knowing it will justify in the minds of our enemies their doing the same and worse to ours. It doesn't work; it bites our own; it takes away our decency and makes us less. It's a huge net loss. Not to mention the utter hypocrisy of rendition: We're too pure to torture, but we'll get others to do it for us. How did America become an international scumbag? As a philosopher I have to point out that the nature of truth is generally universal and does not recognize constraints such as time and space. If it's true in one location, then it must be true everywhere. Likewise with right and wrong. If a thing is deemed wrong in one location then it must be deemed wrong in all other locations. People who play games with legalistic language and pretend that is the same as morality itself are kidding themselves. It's not about the information. It's not about what the enemy does. It's not even about torture really. It's about how we define ourselves as human beings. It's about what kind of human beings we are in the United States. Do we reall... @Spelunkin As a philosopher I have to point out that the nature of truth is generally universal and does not recognize constraints such as time and space. If it's true in one location, then it must be true everywhere.You're talking about truth, I'm talking about morals. Likewise with right and wrong. If a thing is deemed wrong in one location then it must be deemed wrong in all other locations.False. Sometimes killing is necessary, and sometimes it's not. You're trying to apply an absolute to a decision making process where situations vary greatly. In a warfare situation the fact of killing (sanctioned murder) is already outside of moral bounds. During war... |
View the Top Clips from November 27, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
