Originally posted by DCkid Well, if a person believes that torture is fundamentally wrong, then they probably also believe that war is fundamentally wrong, no? I mean, is that too big of a leap? Probably too big a leap. Very different. ... I understand what you wrote and I know that there are people who feel this way, but I completely disagree with that line of thinking. It's just too cut-and-dry and simplified. Sometimes logic trumps principal, and I believe this is an example of that...just my opinion. I am ambivalent about torture. I understand your view, but pragmatism is not necessarily a good basis for morality. Simple example, say you have no money for your child's birthday, and saw a $100 bill drop from a stranger's pocket. What to do? Morally, I find it difficult to rationalize torture. Is there a price at which one sells-out one's morals? What if the 'torture' of a terrorist were to save innocent children? We should treat/consider other's children as our own...so...well...I understand both views. Anyways, I'm sure the U.S. would only restort to physical torture if other avenues produced no results. I don't believe that the US will perform the torture...directly. That is why there were conflicting reports over whether he was handed over to the US. Again, I would also be very surprised if the have to resort to physical torture to get the information they need.
I don't hate Republicans. Nor do I hate Democrats. I am amused by them, specifically their combination of grandiosity and stupidity, and I enjoy tweaking them when afforded the opportunity. Hate is a strong term, and I save it for things I really despise, like cooked carrots and throw-up rides at carnivals!
Yeah...what he said... Also, as soon as you sacrifice your morals for the sake of convenience, you have no morals. Morality is what you have when it isn't the easy or practical choice, not what you have when it is. Anyone can make the 'right' decision when it is also the decision that most helps give you what you want...moral people make that decision when it doesn't. We claim to be a moral country...we claim the right to invade others because they aren't...I suggest that that is faulty logic to begin with, but when we are afforded an opportunity to make a moral choice, and we make the same kind of choice those who we oppose would make, where are we then? And for those saying something like " One guy tortured isn't the same as thousands killed, etc. I would suggest that, from a moral standpoint, you are incorrect. As Cohen pointed out, it's right, or it's wrong. Morality isn't a relative scoreboard that you measure against someone you think is worse than you, and therefore excuse whatever you do...It is a measure you hold yourself to, a line you draw because of what is right and wrong. When you base what you do on what someone else does, you are allowing someone else tou draw your line; to establish your morality. Do we really want the likes of Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden establishing our morality? We are supposed to be above that sort of petty qualifying. We have determined that torturing is immoral..whether we stick to that when torturing would seem to be the easiest, or most satisfying/productive means to gain our end will say much about how moral we really are. And for those saying ' I believe in an eye for an eye'...Thank God we, as a country, say we don't. It's like Bush's response way back vs. Dukakis, when asked if he would want to hurt and kill the man who ( hypothetically ) killed his loved ones...He said that emotionally, as a man, he would very much want to do that, but that as an American, thank God, the law would be there to restrain him from doing what would seem to be emotionally right, but would be morally wrong. We, as a country, have evolved past that Bronze Age vindication...and for good reason. As the man said, an eye for an eye just leaves the whole world blind. Herotodus wrote that the History of human conflict and suffering was the result of exactly that kind of thinking...You kill my brother, I kill you...your nephew kills me...my cousin kills your nephew..and so on. Do we really want to base our national actions on the same kind of medieval reasoning that is so evident in the likes of the Mafia?
Well, I'm sure all of the people who die as a result of future Al Qaeda attacks which could have been prevented will be happy that they can say "at least my country was moral". That is much more important than actually preventing terrorist attacks and saving innocent lives, isn't it? What would be immoral would be to simply leave this guy alone, learn nothing, and fail to stop future attacks that could have been prevented. What soldier or cop could ever look at himself in the mirror again knowing that he could have saved innocent lives? Saving lives is moral. Failure to do so when it is within your power to do so is immoral. Unless he voluntarily talks, this guy will be tortured. We don't have time for the psychological games to take effect (they take time). We have to know what this guy knows. It literally means the difference between life and death, and questions of morality are totally - 100% - irrelevant to dead people. And BTW, I refuse to be lectured on morality by someone who fails to see the moral imperative behind removing Saddam. I think your purported views on morality are selective to say the least.
i think nation interest come befroe human right! so i agree this guy deserve to be torture or do anything neceesary to get the info needed but i think its time for american to stop accsuing other other government that are doing the same thing when they feel neceessary becuz since the american are doing it when they think its necessary too!
Originally posted by treeman Well, I'm sure all of the people who die as a result of future Al Qaeda attacks which could have been prevented will be happy that they can say "at least my country was moral". That is much more important than actually preventing terrorist attacks and saving innocent lives, isn't it? Maybe. Many people have given their lives for causes, no? What would be immoral would be to simply leave this guy alone, learn nothing, and fail to stop future attacks that could have been prevented. What soldier or cop could ever look at himself in the mirror again knowing that he could have saved innocent lives? Saving lives is moral. Failure to do so when it is within your power to do so is immoral. Shall we say the same to criminal suspects, or do we have to abide by our laws (often driven by our morals)? How many murderers have gotten-off on a legal technicality to murder again because we were unwilling to emasculate the Bill of Rights? Unless he voluntarily talks, this guy will be tortured. We don't have time for the psychological games to take effect (they take time). We have to know what this guy knows. It literally means the difference between life and death, and questions of morality are totally - 100% - irrelevant to dead people. You live here for maybe, what...80 or 100 years. Where do you spend eternity? Would your morals be important there? Hmm. And BTW, I refuse to be lectured on morality by someone who fails to see the moral imperative behind removing Saddam. I think your purported views on morality are selective to say the least. I understand that you're speaking to someone else, because I am neither lecturing nor having serious difficulty with the moral imperative to remove Saddam. I understand your view. But I don't understand why you have difficulty accepting the 'wrongness' of torture. Again, who really wants pragmatism to be the sole basis for one's morals?
Voluntarily. Are you telling me that you think that the victims of future attacks would voluntarily give their lives in order to protect this man's right not to be tortured? Please don't say yes, Cohen, because I've always thought you a rational person... Does the Bill of Rights apply to this man? Methinks not. At any rate, this is certainly an unusual case, difficult to compare the gravity of the question with even the worst serial killer's deeds. This is a matter of national security. We are perfectly willing to pulverize our enemies into ash and dust, yet we are unwilling to pump them for information? Do you not see the absurdity of this? Remember that we are at war, and this man is the enemy. He is not merely a suspect in a crime. Please provide proof of an afterlife and we can continue with this line of discussion. Oh, I accept the inherent 'wrongness' of torture, I simply think that in this particular case it is more dangerous to miss out on the information that this man has. It is just too imperative that we obtain that information. Under any other circumstances I would not condone such action, but in this case it is definitely warranted in my view. And to be perfectly honest, I don't have alot of sympathy for the guy. Could your conscience handle it if 10,000 people died in a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by torturing this man and getting vital information? My conscience could not.
We've come a long way, apparently...From Henry's " I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees!" to "I'd rather live than be moral!" It's an interesting process, and particularly interesting in a member of the armed forces...Considering that you are advocating an action which will assuredly cost more 'innocent lives' to support what you think is right, how do say that it is wrong for someone else to suggest that what is right supercedes what is practical? Napoleon, who knew a little about the subject, once wrote that " the two easiest people to convince that war is the right and proper thing to do are the soldier who has never seen war in person, and the politician who never will." The assumption being that the one is predisposed to the idea of war, else they wouldn't be where they are, but have yet to see the reality of it, whereas the other need never fear seeing the reality of it, but might benefit from it. In none, not one, of the courses I have ever taken or taught ( Military History and Peace & Conflict being among the most common) has any single military theorist of any note, from Sun Tzu, to Clausevitz, to Fuller to many others..none of them has attempted to suggest, as you do, that there is a division between proper military objectives of a nation and the base morailty of it's people. You are forgetting what defines a nation...unless you believe that you can reduce it to a line on a map, it is about what they stand for.. If when in danger, when lives are at risk what that nation stands for is put on the back burner so that they can continue to go on living, than what ultimately defines it? What? Their 'way of life'? That is based on their morality, and it evolves...Their 'freedom'? Freedom to do what, stay alive? If we have nothing worth dying for, we have nothing worth killing for either. In your world, treeman, it would just come down, when you strip all the rhetoric and diatribe away, to two different people fighting in the same way, with the same goal in mind: Who gets to decide how to cut up the pie, thereby ensuring that they eat first. Otherwise why do you not put the 'innocent lives' of the Iraqis who will surely die in this conflict onto the scale? Or does 'innocent' only mean American? Oh..I see...yeah, collateral damage, right? An unfortunate bi-product of doing what needs to be done, right? Doing the....'right' thing, perhaps? And cops are presented all the time with 'knowing' that a guy is a bad guy, but they cannot summarily excecute him until the law allows it. If we were to leave it up to that cop and his mirror, we would have anarchy, as what is right and wrong would become a selective process changing from one cop to another, with them having the authority to enforce their own version, and the entire process founded upon their infalibility. Once again, what is morally right has been determined by society to rank above what is practical...If you want practicality without morality, there are very few better examples of it's effectivness than Hitler. And BTW, refuse all you want. Ypu equate moral imperatives with agreeing with you, and claim someone is inconsitent because they are saying A) Be moral... while simultaneously B) Not agreeing with you. You know what, tree, as hard as this might be for you to imagine, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Of some interest is a months old Washington Post article about our interogation tactics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A37943-2002Dec25¬Found=true I believe we had the terror status raised to level Orange because of a captured informant who fed us false information. I wonder if he was under duress when he gave it. Regardless, I think we're held in a state of fear more than we let on. When it comes to a time where we're more accepting to legislation that will encroach on our privacy and condone tactics initially upon other non-American people who are percieved as threats, then yeah, I am afraid. I just don't know of whom I should be more afraid.... Men like Khalid make issues like these seem cut and dried. Emotion overpowers reason. I would be the first to bring on the pain upon him for all he's done. But then I'm only one person. I'm not the government who was given the trust of the American people to protect them and to do better at the same time. Heck, I think anybody can do one thing or the other fairly well, but it takes leaders to pull off both. It speaks volumes for our people who believe that there are no possible alternatives to torturing prisoners. The credibilty of the extracted information and the precedent it sets for future interrogations are managable concerns. Our government has done questionable acts before. It might not be a new dilemma. I personally wonder if Americans still believe we're getting better as a people. Will it ever get to the point where the quality of life wins over the primal drive to survive? Or maybe that issue is moot and only to be selectively chosen and held when it is to our benefit. I would rather die a free man than live as someone who has nothing to believe in.
Lives vs Moral principle i respect the people who believe moral principle over anything but in reality if this guy target is "u" would u rather torture this guy so u can live or die sticking up to ur moral principle?
I would find alternatives towards finding the information I need so that I wouldn't have to die. Using torture does not guarantee your chances of survival. If I should die as a result for not doing too much, at least I would hold the redeeming qualities of what a human being should be. And I would hope that my government would guide their people towards that direction as well. After all, in the eventual extreme of losing all their rights, the people will no longer have to fear the terrorists. So it is not soley the moral issue of one person. It is that of the government and the power of trust the people give in it. The terrorists are targeting the American people and friends of the American people. With so many people, how can you guarantee your survival when the threat is so large and the numbers are so small? When does it come to the point where the fear of death drives your life to the point where you can't be who you were anymore? The more we are afraid, the more we are willing to use drastic measures. That is what I fear, how you can lose so much with the intents of preserving the quality of life we live in. People like Khalid are murderers. Murdering the murderers will create more murderers. It's not about being a fool or suicidal. A band of fanatical thugs can not bring down America. In these times, a democratic country like the US can only lose order from within.... Interesting question fatcow. So just who in China is targeting 'u' in order for China to implement torture upon groups like the Falun Gong?
Originally posted by treeman Voluntarily. Are you telling me that you think that the victims of future attacks would voluntarily give their lives in order to protect this man's right not to be tortured? Please don't say yes, Cohen, because I've always thought you a rational person... I'm not too worried about how other's assess my rationality, but the answer is no. I was pointing out that many people have given their lives for the beliefs, for their morals, not necessarily the victims of terrorism. Does the Bill of Rights apply to this man? Predictable, but irrelevant. My intent was not to protect him under the Bill of Rights, and I think you understood that. As you are probably aware, my intent was to provide an example of the price our society pays to protect the ideals that it was founded upon. Methinks not. At any rate, this is certainly an unusual case, difficult to compare the gravity of the question with even the worst serial killer's deeds. This is a matter of national security. We are perfectly willing to pulverize our enemies into ash and dust, yet we are unwilling to pump them for information? Do you not see the absurdity of this? Remember that we are at war, and this man is the enemy. He is not merely a suspect in a crime. War? Geneva Convention. Please provide proof of an afterlife and we can continue with this line of discussion. Don't you ever watch Jon Edwards? Eternity. Just a little something to consider. Oh, I accept the inherent 'wrongness' of torture, I simply think that in this particular case it is more dangerous to miss out on the information that this man has. It is just too imperative that we obtain that information. Under any other circumstances I would not condone such action, but in this case it is definitely warranted in my view. And to be perfectly honest, I don't have alot of sympathy for the guy. I certainly don't have sympathy for him. And I'm not necessarily against some harsh handling of him, but I find it difficult to simply condone the concept of torture w/o serious debate. Where do we draw the line next time? Could your conscience handle it if 10,000 people died in a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by torturing this man and getting vital information? My conscience could not. My conscience would never have a problem 'not' supporting torturing someone, although I might honestly regret it.
the leader of falun gong is like a satan cult leader , he claim hes born the same day as buddha n think he is a savior or sth some of them leaders teaches people to burn themselve or do something extreme to express thier view! they are no ordinary religion group they have their political goal ! its perfectly fine if they pratice falun gong like they pratice tai chi but those cult leaders have a different goal in their mind. if they only preach about peace n harmony they wouldnt be doing what they are doing right now, alot of higher rank falun gong member are radical to the extreme, they are taking advantage n fool those who know nth but thoguth this was just a form of martial art to achieve thier goal n get power!
Not much is known about Li Hongzhi, 48, the man who created Falun Gong in 1992. He worked as a grain clerk in northeast China's Liaoning province. He played trumpet in a troupe run by the forestry police in neighboring Jilin. And then he wrote a very odd book that affected millions. Li's rambling dissertation, Zhuan Falun, has only added to accusations that Falun Gong is a cult. Li writes he can personally heal disease and that his followers can stop speeding cars using the powers of his teachings. He writes that the Falun Gong emblem exists in the bellies of practitioners, who can see through the celestial eyes in their foreheads. Li believes "humankind is degenerating and demons are everywhere"—extraterrestrials are everywhere, too—and that Africa boasts a 2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor. He also says he can fly. Wacky, perhaps. But is Falun Gong a cult? Not necessarily, if classic characteristics of cults are taken into account. A reckoning: Typical Cult Techniques Falun Gong's Record ?Exerts tremendous pressure on people to join NO ?Fosters an us-versus-them approach to life YES ?Believers remove themselves from society NO ?Uses jargon that outsiders don't understand YES ?Believers required to donate large sums of money NO ?Led by a charismatic master YES http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/magazine/0,9754,165166,00.html
A few weeks before the demonstration, TIME interviewed Li Hongzhi, the soft-spoken 47-year-old creator of Falun Gong, in Manhattan where he settled after leaving China a year ago. Li believes the ancient Chinese art of qigong (Falun Gong is one variation) can endow practitioners with superhuman powers. He also says the world is in chaos today because the human race has been invaded by aliens from other planets who hope to challenge mankind through scientific means, especially through human cloning. If Li's ideas seem far fetched, it is worth noting that he has fans and followers worldwide. On Oct. 11, 1996, Houston mayor Robert C. Lanier proclaimed the date to be Li Hongzhi Day. Li was interviewed in New York by TIME correspondent William Dowell. He spoke in Chinese and Zhang acted as interpreter. http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990510/interview1.html i suggest anyone who is interested in falun gong read what said in the interview...! some are TIME: In your book [Zhuan Falun] you talk about people levitating off the ground but you say that they should not show other people. Why is that? Li: It is the same principle that Western gods in paradise should not be seen by ordinary mortals because they cannot understand its meaning. TIME: Have you seen human beings levitate off the ground? Li: I have known too many. TIME: Can you describe any that you have known? Li: David Copperfield. He can levitate and he did it during performances. TIME: Would you use qigong to cure an illness? Li: I can do all of this, but I won't do it. TIME: What is the wheel that is Falun? Li: It is a pattern, or a symbol on the surface. What it is inside is much better. TIME: So it is an idea? Li: In the West, the spirit is separate from the body. In the East these are things that are very real and concrete. TIME: You talk about placing the wheel into the body. Li: I can use my mind to direct and order things to happen. TIME: Is cultivation achieved through mental effort or physical exercise. Li: Both are needed. TIME: What happens after one attains the Tao? Li: We have all heard about the Chinese deities. When one completes cultivation, one has special powers. TIME: Can qigong prevent death? Li: In the West, one can reach paradise through cultivation practice after death. In the East, one can achieve a divine status through cultivation practice while one is still alive. TIME: Why does chaos reign now? Li: Of course there is not just one reason. The biggest cause of society's change today is that people no longer believe in orthodox religion. They go to church, but they no longer believe in God. They feel free to do anything. The second reason is that since the beginning of this century, aliens have begun to invade the human mind and its ideology and culture. TIME: Are you a human being? Li: You can think of me as a human being. TIME: Are you from earth? Li: I don't wish to talk about myself at a higher level. People wouldn't understand it. TIME: But what is the alien purpose? Li: The human body is the most perfect in the universe. It is the most perfect form. The aliens want the human body. TIME: What do aliens look like? Li: Some look similar to human beings. U.S. technology has already detected some aliens. The difference between aliens can be quite enormous. TIME: Can you describe it? Li: You don't want to have that kind of thought in your mind. TIME: Describe them anyway. Li: One type looks like a human, but has a nose that is made of bone. Others look like ghosts. At first they thought that I was trying to help them. Now they now that I am sweeping them away., please tell me how u think of this guy n falung gong after reading what this man said in the whole interview
Unfortunately most of us don't live in the neat little academic ivory tower that MacBeth does. In real life no one can live in a vacuum where 'morality' exists as some all encompassing standard that can be used to judge on a black and white basis which choice is the correct one. Simply doesn't happen. In the academic world you can critique and that is nice. In the real world we are often confronted with situations that do not allow a black and white confrontation. The world is made of shades of gray. Is it moral to let this al queda guy sit in jail rather than torture him when the information he holds will save thousands of lives? Is it moral to sacrifice one man for many? Some say yes, some say no. But do not equate our claims against Saddam with situation. It is simply incomparable. How does torture to save lives of an obvious and dangerous foe equate to torture by a regime of athletes for fun by the scion of the despot? How does torture of this operative compare to torture of political opponents before they are executed? How does torture of this operative compare to torture of individuals that oppose the despot? Simply, it doesn't. Yes, it is still torture. But is all killing the same? No. It is not. The world is not black and white. btw: i love the use of napoleon for an anti-war stance. didn't he invade most of europe? of course, i ain't no big city professor, so maybe you can enlighten us.
