Author Topic: It’s true. We’ve lost the moral high ground (Read 2865 times)

Elfie · « **Reply #75 on:** September 21, 2006, 12:59:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKH
Simple - exercises aren't the real thing.

I'm not talking about exercises....I'm talking about training that happens on a daily basis.

AKH · « **Reply #76 on:** September 21, 2006, 01:14:54 PM »

Do you think that detainees can "washout" when they can't take anymore?

john9001 · « **Reply #77 on:** September 21, 2006, 01:22:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKH
Do you think that detainees can "washout" when they can't take anymore?

of course, all they have to is tell what they know. easy huh?

AKH · « **Reply #78 on:** September 21, 2006, 01:47:25 PM »

You think so?

Seagoon · « **Reply #79 on:** September 21, 2006, 02:52:32 PM »

Hi Lukster,

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Seagoon, I agree with the gist of what he is saying. However, there are two points i think he made based on emotion rather than reason. First, he cited civilians as "innocent". When countries wage war, innocence, is perhaps an irrelevant word. Second, he made the statement that torture "corrupts" a society yet did not substantiate that claim.

As to your first point, I agree with you, the choice of the phrase "innocent civilians" to describe the targets of allied area bombing during the second world war was unfortunate. Saying that a choice was made to target the civilian population or non-military targets would have been a more appropriate phrasing. Although the area bombing of civillians is also a violation of the rules of land warfare - "a. Attacks Against the Civilian Population as Such Prohibited. Customary international law prohibits the launching of attacks (including bombardment) against either the civilian population as such or individual civilians as such." Before we shrug that off, this corpus of agreed upon international law formed the basis of our prosecution of both German and Japanese war criminals following the Second World War.

As for torture corrupting a society, Cole is responding to Krauthammer's point in his pro-some-torture article in the Weekly Standard. In a portion I didn't quote he writes - "Krauthammer does not wish to persuade the reader that torture is not evil; he admits that â€œtorture is a monstrous form of evil,â€ which corrupts the individual and society that practices it. Nevertheless, when we are faced with an even greater evilâ€”the deaths of many civiliansâ€”we must choose the lesser evil in order to save lives. Krauthammer thinks that doing evil should leave moral traces even when it is the right thing to do; that is to say, our elected leaders should be troubled in conscience when they allow torture for the greater good."

As for the corrupting influence of the practice of a moral evil on society, I see it all the time as a Pastor. The more we do something, and the more we see it done, and view it as necessary part of life, the more used to it we become. For instance, for most people doing drugs in front of their children would be totally unthinkable, but I've seen that once a person develops an addiction, and it becomes part of their life, it becomes more and more normed to the point where what used to be unthinkable behavior is simply a way of life. The debate over torture is really only an issue in societies where it isn't practiced. We here in the states are still shocked by it, but in much of the middle east, Government torture is a depressing fact of life, the people expect it. The more we practice and justify it, the more our own cultural mores will decline towards that level.

dhaus · « **Reply #80 on:** September 21, 2006, 05:31:12 PM »

Gunslinger, first, if we were talking about mere interrogation, we would not be having this discussion, nor would Bush need to change the law. Second, the military does not see torture of real use. Colon Powell is a form Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he is against it. Further, here is what Lt. Gen. Kimmons (Army Deputy Ch. of Staff for Intelligence) had to say about intelligence obtained through torture:

KIMMONS: Let me answer the first question. That is a good question. I think -- I am absolutely convinced -- the answer to your first question is no. No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.

Moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there.

Now, if the military believes torture provides no good intelligence, why would the CIA need it? I did not miss that the discussion involves the CIA. You have apparently missed that we are discussing torture.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #81 on:** September 21, 2006, 05:41:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by dhaus
Gunslinger, first, if we were talking about mere interrogation, we would not be having this discussion, nor would Bush need to change the law. Second, the military does not see torture of real use. Colon Powell is a form Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he is against it. Further, here is what Lt. Gen. Kimmons (Army Deputy Ch. of Staff for Intelligence) had to say about intelligence obtained through torture:

KIMMONS: Let me answer the first question. That is a good question. I think -- I am absolutely convinced -- the answer to your first question is no. No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.

Moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there.

Now, if the military believes torture provides no good intelligence, why would the CIA need it? I did not miss that the discussion involves the CIA. You have apparently missed that we are discussing torture.

So why are we having this discussion then. None of the items listed in the first post are real torture and the chiefs listed arent talking about them either.

No one, not even the evil doer BUSH wants real forcefull removal fo finger/toe nails type TORTURE. Those in opposition are attatching this word to these interrogation techniqes to fight a political battle.

This issue has been clouded and dilluded. Interrogation.....you bet your bellybutton the military wants that. The current Army manual defines it allready, yet what is being saught is clerification.

Your response is elloquent as ever yet it's in black and white and fact that no one is asking for torture yet here we are having this discussion.

dhaus · « **Reply #82 on:** September 21, 2006, 06:11:35 PM »

Umm, Common Article 3 has been interpreted by the military since the late 40s. It needs no "clarification." Bush needs the law changed so he can try and torture his detainees, and to absolve the poor intelligence types who were ordered to engage in the practice by this administration. Even though his own military says there is no credible intelligence obtained through its use. Check again on the practices of waterboarding, hypothermia, and extreme sleep deprivation - Bush needs "clarification" because these practices are and have been considered torture.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #83 on:** September 21, 2006, 06:49:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by dhaus
Umm, Common Article 3 has been interpreted by the military since the late 40s. It needs no "clarification." Bush needs the law changed so he can try and torture his detainees, and to absolve the poor intelligence types who were ordered to engage in the practice by this administration. Even though his own military says there is no credible intelligence obtained through its use. Check again on the practices of waterboarding, hypothermia, and extreme sleep deprivation - Bush needs "clarification" because these practices are and have been considered torture.

So far all I see here is opinion.....I have yet to see any fact. Care to source what you are talking about?

In one hand I see you saying that "Bush wants to torture detainees" but in the other I see nothing where he or any organization have asked the congress to change the laws to support such a claim.

The whole clarification issue is pretty transparent. You need not look past this thread to see those that cloud interrogation with torture.

Thrawn · « **Reply #84 on:** September 22, 2006, 06:29:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
House panel backs Bush on detainees

wonder if the senate will fall in line next

What the hell?

"Bush gets deal on treatment of detainees
Last Updated Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:36:07 EDT
CBC News
The White House reached agreement with dissenting Republicans on guidelines for the treatment and interrogation of terror suspects on Thursday.

The consensus was key to the party, just weeks ahead of November's congressional elections.

The compromise agreement ensures that detainees are handled according to Geneva Convention standards for treatment of prisoners and not a more narrow interpretation that President George W. Bush had sought.

The accord, however, explicitly states that Bush has the authority to enforce the Geneva standards and enumerates acts that constitute a war crime, including torture, rape, biological experiments and cruel and inhuman treatment.

The Bush administration had argued that the Geneva Convention standards did not apply to terrorism suspects and were vague, leaving CIA agents to operate in legal uncertainty when dealing with suspects."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/22/bush-republicans.html

Bush is the one that "fell in line".

Reynolds · « **Reply #85 on:** September 22, 2006, 06:38:43 AM »

Doesnt sound so bad. The standing gets boring, and very tiring, and the whole shirt thing would get annoying. Id call the guy a homo for the stomach thing, and the slaps would just be irksome. It would be a useful tactic just because it sounds so damned annoying. Other than that though, its not very 'inhumaine'.

Eagler · « **Reply #86 on:** September 22, 2006, 07:37:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Bush is the one that "fell in line".

ok, if you say so

"Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., another negotiator, said the deal allows for prosecution of terrorists without revealing the methods and techniques. It makes sure those methods for interrogation don't come back to haunt the United States."

White House, GOP Leaders Reach Deal on Detainee Legislation

Gunslinger · « **Reply #87 on:** September 22, 2006, 09:09:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
What the hell?

Bush is the one that "fell in line".

Looks like he got exactly what he wanted with a few exceptions.

Edbert · « **Reply #88 on:** September 22, 2006, 09:22:07 AM »

I always thought that only those countries which LOSE wars have "war criminals" in their midst.

Civilized warfare is a farce. War is the antithesis of civilization.

War crimes is redundant. War is a crime.

Morality? Thou shalt not kill, but it is moral to defend oneself and one's loved ones.

================

I hope we use any and all means at our disposal to win this war, a war that was not started by us. A fact that gives us "the moral high ground" in my opinion.

CHECKERS · « **Reply #89 on:** September 22, 2006, 09:41:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I am against torture. I think that we have too many nameless faceless alphabet soup federal cops too. There should only be federal marshals.

lazs

Federal Marshals......
Of late, Have again shown me they are nothing more than
political puppets ........

Bob/CHECKERS