So...why do you torture their members again? Why do you torture Tibetan monks? Because they aren't state supported? Let's say it was alright for the Chinese to torture political criminals along with the common criminal. You've already admitted that some of your government officials are corrupt. What makes you think they won't use torture on their enemies and percieved threats? But you would rather support a government policy of fear to keep your people in line.... I'm not trying bash China, but when you question our policies with rhetoric, your credibility comes into question every time. It sounds hollow to me when you can't put your opinions of our country into perspective with your own.
A) Most of us 'ain't' government, and when government actions are taken without a moral basis, you are in serious trouble. It's the slipperiest slope in the world to start justifying otherwise 'immoral' actions on the basis of expediency and/or cause. Virtually no one, not even Hitler or Stalin or Hussein just does things without justifying them to himself. No one is the bad guy in their own movie...and once begun, it's next to impossible to recant. It seems like a hard, cold, realistic position to take against the ethereal academic posture to state that 'down here in the real world we need to...yadda yadda.' but it's innacurate and misguided. The real world is made up of people, and people do things for various reasons...We as a species have evolved through societal concessions, among those being to establish what is for the long term common good. We have seen countless examples of short-term pragmatism outweighing long term morality ( Hitler, etc. ) and those have played themselves out, not in the ivory towers you are so fond of identifying, but in the real world. The United States was founded on them, and you had real people willing to give up their real lives, ( and those of others) to support their moral rights, even in the face of probable extinction. It was not in the short term, amoral light that we deemed slavery to be a wrong, it was in the moral sense...Had it remained an academic issue, it would still be one. How many real people would have suffered if we had not been 'moral' then, and how many others need never have suffered had we gotten 'moral' earlier? 2) That is all subjective. Once you start qualifying an otherwise 'immoral' act by virtue of circumstance, you assume the right to decide where the line is drawn, irrespective of consensus ( Geneva Convention, etc.)...What if this guy, as is likely, sees himself as some sort of freedom fighter? Does that then make it more wrong? What if the Nazis could have pointed out that by torturing certain people they were, realistically, attempting to get information about military activities which, if not discovered, would have cost thousands of their soldiers/peoples lives? Is it then ok? Point being, people have been faced with this situation, or ones like it, throughout history...A situation where information could save lives, or lead to others who have taken lives, and a certain person has this information, be it the plan for the invasion of Sicily, the whereabouts of the Sioux war party, or the location of Bin Laden...and irrespective of the perceived weight of the information sought, we have decided ( and agreed ) to consider the torture of a human being to be beyond the pale. Possibly it could be argued that in certain specific cases, etc. it is justifable, but what then? How do you then say to the next person who wants to use torture to achieve his ends, with justification in his opinion, that,no...sorry, we deem it a wrong. This kind of thing HAS to be an absolute, or it is nothing at all... 3) Re: Napoleon...common historical misconception. Napoleon came onto the scene during the French Revolutionary Wars, where France was beset from all it's monarchial neighbours because it was democratic, and thus a threat to the status quo, and from that time on was essentially on the defenseive, although his brilliance and daring often made him able to turn the tide to the offensive, it was ( almost without exception) only after the other nations had declared war on France. He, unlike, say the British, upheld the peace treaties signed, the demarcation agreed upon, etc. It is an interesting bit of history that we still buy into the 'Napoleon as War Monger' propoganda which was circulated at the time in the monarchial nations of Europe, which opposed France largely out of fear of the appeal of democracy in their own nations, and to restore the 'proper leaders' to their throne in France, despite the fact that Napoleon represented a form of government much more in keeping with our own standards today than any of the nations who sought to destroy him. Certainly, when compelled to by the declaration of war against France by other nation, Napoleon used war as a means to an end better than almost anyone in history, but it is grossly innacurate to portray him as the man who invaded half of Europe without proper context. In that light you could say that the U.S invaded Japan.
There is a big difference between moral basis and moral absolutes. Please don't yada yada about the founders and their morality. After all, they did allow slavery, yes? Oops. There is no absolute right to life (death penalty), liberty (prison system), or the pursuit of happiness (can you say Jim Crow). Immoral to who? I failed to see the declaration that made you the arbiter of what is or is not moral. Oh boy, watch out for the 'slippery slope.' This illustrates my point about you exactly. How many actions are taken everyday by the government that 'risk taking us down the slippery slope?' You see, in the wonderful world of a 'kritik'ing academic, you can rail on to your captive (not captivated) audience about how 'each step we take' or 'every action we make' literally rolling the dice on our journey to fascism or anarchy, whichever roll you're on for the day. In the world most of us live in, there is no such action. Wouldn't euthanasia 'take us down the slippery slope' to nazified elimination of elderly and r****ded and gypsies etc etc? Didn't happen in the Netherlands, did it? Ridiculous. We torture this al queda guy to get info and we are immoral in that one action so now we are Hitler. That is so silly. Let me elaborate. We basically assassinated Allende in Chile, yes? That was immoral, you would agree? Are we now the same as Saddam or Stalin or Hitler? Uh, no. In your mind we are, because we have taken similar steps over the bounds of what you consider moral. It is why you say we should not intervene to stop ANY country from getting nukes, since after all, we are the only ones to use them. To you there is NO context (although its funny that you decry 'context context' when someone talks about Napoleon), there are only absolutes. But unfortunately the danger from the ostrich in the sand approach is infinitely greater than the chance of sliding down the slope. Yep. But unfortunately for you, you are making my point. You see in your world of absolutes there is no room for a concession. How could there be? Oops again. Not to mention your position is completely Eurocentric. If one were to examine the torture of this al queda guy from an eastern 'group' perspective, instead of yo white honkyness Euro individualness, there would BE no problem. You assertion of an absolute morality denies the legitimacy of contradictory moral views. Not very tolerant of you, MacBeth. Only a view that accomodates the concept of shades of gray can allow for co-existence of individual and group right. Both concepts exist. Each must be weighed in their context to decide the course of action. Otherwise they are constantly at war with each other. And another thing, if you believe there are absolutes I wonder why you don't advocate MORE intervention? Seems like your circle is closing in on itself. Actually Hitler was following what he felt was an absolute moral code. That's why he could handle no argument or course other than what he felt was the one to take. He was not making decisions based on context. We have seen countless examples of someone's vision of absolute morality working its magic and it is not pretty (Pol Pot, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Stalin's gulags, Nazi concentration camps). Those each in turn supported by the ivory tower-ites like yourself until the blood ran so thick the position became unteneable. At which point you run back to your books and say 'well, Maoism got distorted,' or 'the implementation of Marx got skewed by xyz.' I don't really think most of the revolutionaries thought they were going to get slaughtered. Yes, there were willing to risk their lives, but few of our founding fathers 'gave their lives willingly.' More often than not those killed did so while trying to kill the enemy, not die. Uh, I disagree. Short term decision making prompted the EP by Lincoln. And what is your point? That all of the sudden someone said 'oh we should be moral and so slavery was outlawed? That is skewing history quite a bit. The Geneva Convention does not protect terrorists nor does it protect spies. So where are you drawing your consensus from? Certainly the Russians don't agree with your consensus, nor do the Chinese, nor do, for that matter, the French or the British or the Germans. Who, pray do tell, are you talking about? Amnesty International? Who cares how he sees himself? What difference does that make? You want to blur all lines until there is both all right and wrong and none. Paralyze decision making. Sit on your hands and wait. No thanks. What agreement are you speaking of specifically? We have agreed that torturing soldiers that meet specific criteria is not desirable. That in no way applies to this guy. There is no absolute. Not in this world. That is the point. All of history is the flow and counterflow of what people considered moral at the time, and their ability to enforce or protect that vision. There are no absolutes. The save one man from torture and let thousands die as a result equation is not a sustainable one. Given the choice, the people would choose the other way 100 out of 100 times, on a whole. Interesting how someone can fight defensively from France to MOSCOW. Look at a map please. When Napoleon made his moves it was not for the defense of France, after all he was not even French. It was for power, and his own personal destiny. He certainly did some good things with his power, but championing democracy across Europe is quite a claiml. He did declare himself Emperor? He did install his brother as King of, what Spain? That doesn't sound so much about moral absolutes to me.
So you're saying that the entire premise of all the Patrick O'Brian novels I've read several times is bogus? That the idea of Napoleon as "the tyrant of Europe" was false, that he was just defending France from "the monarchial nations of Europe"? So, when he declared himself Emperor and installed several of his relatives and cohorts in positions of power, as royalty in nations he had conquered and/or intimidated, that he was just trying to "fit in"??
Interrogating KSM Jack Wheeler With the capture of top al Qaeda terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (known as "KSM"), getting him to disgorge the contents of his brain quickly and truthfully is critically necessary before his network has a chance to vanish undercover. What, then, would the most efficient and effective form of interrogation be? In 1995, the Philippine State Police captured an al Qaeda agent. They knew he was planning some terrorist act, but didn't know what. So they tortured him — the old-fashioned way, right out of the movies with putting out cigarettes on his testicles, breaking his ribs, the whole brutal nine yards. It took two weeks and finally he broke, revealing a plot to hijack 11 airliners. By exposing and unraveling the plot, the torture saved hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives, so it was clearly justified. The ethics of torturing KSM should not be an issue. As a practical matter, the question is: How to torture him in such a way that it takes hours, not days or weeks, for him to break; and when he does, you know for sure he is telling the truth. To start, you don't want to use a so-called truth serum like thiopental sodium. It acts by confusing your memory so much you forget who is your friend and who is your enemy. So you think the interrogator is your friend and you talk — except you can't think or remember clearly. No, you want KSM to be thinking and remembering with crystal clarity. The best lie detector — although it's not used as such — would be a medical brain-scanning device called a functional MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). Light years in effectiveness beyond a polygraph, an fMRI scan can distinguish — instantly, in real time — when someone is lying as opposed to telling the truth, as different regions in the brain would light up. So here's what to do. Fly in from the United States and set up an fMRI at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where KSM is being held, and do three things: Place KSM under the fMRI brain scanner; put him on a mechanical respirator; and give him an injection of a paralytic drug called succinyl choline chloride (SCC). SCC, used as a veterinarian anesthetic, causes muscle paralysis by blocking neuromuscular junction. It causes immobilization without affecting the central nervous system, such that KSM cannot move, yet he is fully conscious and there is no analgesia (pain relief). Injection by an M.D. anesthesiologist of SCC into the nerve tracts leading to the diaphragm will paralyze the muscles needed for breathing. KSM can think, remember, and talk, but he cannot breathe. The mechanical respirator breathes for him. Without the respirator, he would quickly suffocate and die. The respirator is a CPAP, a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure unit used for treating sleep apnea, with a nasal mask. The unit itself is placed in an adjacent room with a long hose, as no metal can be around the huge magnets of the fMRI. The unit will force air via the nasal passageway into the lungs. His mouth is free and clear to talk. Now the interrogation begins. KSM is asked a series of questions to which the answers are known (e.g., Are you a Muslim? Would you like a drink of pig grease?). If he lies, the respirator is turned off. Few experiences are more terrifying than that of suffocation. After a sufficiently terrifying period of suffocation, the respirator is turned back on, the question is asked again, and the process repeated until he tells the truth. Once you have the regions in KSM's brain clearly distinguished that light up when he is lying or telling the truth, the serious questioning starts. It will not take long, an hour or two at the most, before KSM is singing like a full chorus of canaries. After all useful information has been extracted from his brain, KSM should be informed that he will now be killed after his body is smeared with pig fat, that his dead body will be handled by women, and all other actions taken that prevent a Muslim from entering heaven upon death so that he dies believing he will never get the heavenly wine and virgins, but will burn in Hell instead. Upon his execution, there should be no physical remains. The body should be cremated and the ashes scattered to the winds. Then, the word can be spread. All members of al Qaeda must know that once captured, their terrorist brethren will betray their comrades and that their fate will be ashes and Hell. The only way to win the war against terrorism is to terrorize the terrorists into giving up their evil jihad. Jack Wheeler is president of the Freedom Research Foundation and editor of ToThePointNews.com.
when n where did u see a tibetan monk being toruture? do u care? the falung gong member who get toruture deserve it just like the al queada members !why did u bring up falung gong anyway ? were u shock after reading the interview now knowing what kind of lunatic the leader is??!! u didnt even know **** about falun gong like many others n defended it!
Berkley psychology professor Mararet Singer, one of the few psychologists who supports the claims of the anti-cult movement. The report discusses "spiritual poisoning." Cults are said to "not obey the law, they upset social order, and they create a menace to freedom of religion and social stability. Under the pretense of religion, kindness, and being non-political, they participate in political activities. Some of them even practice criminal activities such as tax evasion, fraud, drug dealing, smuggling, assassination, and kidnapping." the falung gong aint no rational relgion group, i say most member are innocent n being fool , its those who are at the higher rank that are evil n something must be done to stop the movement! come on the leader , master li, saying the alien are invading human brain n he can direct n set things happan through his mind! how can u trust n defend this guy after seeing what he said?
This is really funny considering this administration's propensity for painting situations in black and white. This is commonly known among right wing Christian fundamentalists as having a moral compass. Maybe you could lecture President Bush sometime Hayes.
1) Right...and that was a reflection of their morals at the time...Slavery didn't go away until our morality about the issue changed. 2) there is a huge difference between questioning the relative moral merits of a government decision and saying that one need have no moral basis at all, which is your contention. You, and others, would advocate national policy exclusively based on expediency, and that is the slope I am talking about. 3) I see...I'm wrong because you say I'm wrong...and to back up your statement, you say it again. Yes, from a moral standpoint, a person who commits 3 or 4 immoral acts is as immoral as one who commits 300 or 400...just like a person who kills 4 or 5 people is as much a murderer as someone who kills 400 or 500, from a moral standpoint. ( Note, not just one..it can be argued that one act of passion without forethought can be morally distinguished from someone knoweingly repeating that action). Do I think that this is a popular stance? No, but morally defensible...Let me ask you something...why do you think that there is so much emnity towards the U.S. in places where they have practiced the kind of 'limited' immorality you mention, like, say, Central America? Just jealous, I guess... 4) Wrong...I never said that there can be no concessions...I was saying that arriving at a common morality was a proces wherein many of us concede some immediate advantages, or expediencies...like, for example, the opportunity to have certain information if it means sacrificing the morality we adhere to. Possibly I was unclear...ANd the Eurocentric sling is a noble attempt, but unfortunately off target...I wasn't talking about sacrificing someone else's version of morality, but either your own, or the globaly conceded one..I actually defined such earlier. ANd finally, your last comments about gray and closing circles are non-sequitors of such bizarre leaps of reasoning that I cannot respond unless you clarify your thought process...The dots just don't connect. 5) No, Hitler was not...Have you read My Struggle? He makes it very clear that he prioritizes 'getting things done', and spendsmost of his book talking about process...he even discusses the 'Jewish question' from a pragmatic standpoint, chillingly discussin the fact that a defeated people, like Germany at the time, need a scapegoat to blame for their misfortune and therefore allow them to reclaim their pride. He talks about the racial issue from a standpoint of different races being practically ( in his opinion) proven to be allocated by nature to fulfill different roles, and his entire plan, from conquering the East ( for resources and a slave race) to Eugenic camps to further the Master Race, was based on the idea of function over morality.Stalin, Pol Pot, et al are also great examples of pragmatists...Seriously, you have never heard about how Stalin belittled Trotsky for being an 'idea man', while Stalin said what the World needs is men of action...like himself? He even rationalized the Gulags from a practical standpoint: "You kill one man, the world sees a murderer...you kill a million, the world sees a statistic." Note, he never discusses the morility of it, just the perception/impact it will have after. 6) The point is they were willing to sacrifice their lives for their morals..a clear distinction, and where you and they part ways idealistically. 7) No...the distinction I was making was about how the moral shift had real life effects, and how it would have had even more had it happened earlier...A demonstration of the fact that the morality you limit to the ivory towers of my academic world are very much a part of the real world. 8) Geneva, does not allow torture of spies or terrorists...it allows their excecution. It completely outlaws torture. 9) No, the point was about how subjective your rationale for doing something you otherwise conced to be 'immoral' is. 10) Lastly..re Napoleon and maps...This has to be the single worst point I have ever seen you make, aside from when you feel the need to get personal, and insult my teaching, question my sanity,etc...Yes, Napoleon fought defensively all the way from FRANCE to MOSCOW...or are you suggesting that the U.S. wasn't fighting in self-defense all the way from AMERICA to TOKYO? When someone else declares war, breaks a treaty, allies themselves with others who are at war with you, you are obviously going to try and eliminate their ability to destroy you...and that often takes place, if you are successfull, on their territory...the examples are countless. And I was making no claim that Napoleon believed in absolutes...nor was I claiming that he didn't alter his political thinking...I was firstly quoting him on the zeal for war that certain members of society typically have, and then, when questioned ( off topic, but oh, well) on a historical misconception about his being a war monger, tried to clarify the issue. If you want to belabour the point, yes, he eventually shifted from the democratic ideals to more of a version of absolute power..still much closer to democracies than his contemporaries, but still seen to be a betrayal of his ideals.
macbeth, u are my favorite poster in here, i believe u are a good man who question everything u can think of n try to define what is right n what is wrong n maybe try to live by ur principle , unfourtunately this is a cold world n u are only the minority.......
MacBeth, On the Geneva Convention and the false consensus you claim: "By their terms, the Geneva Conventions apply to "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties." Did I miss something about Al Queda being a signatory? Re: Napoleon - I'm interested to hear why you seem to support Napoleon and his offensive defense and don't support Bush's preemptive policy? It would stand to reason that if its ok to take the battle to the enemy whether or not they are invading your actual borders, then the situations are similar? As far as Japan goes, I recall you arguing many times that Japan was not a threat when we dropped the bombs, correct. They were hardly a 'threat' to the US then, yes? Was Russia a 'threat' to France when Nap was outside Moscow? Was it necessary to go all the way across Europe to protect France's territorial integrity? I think that's a reach. And as I said before, Nap did not go to Russia for defense of France, he did it to fulfill his vision of his own destiny. And his well documented vision of his 'destiny' is hardly something you can deny. Re: 4 vs 500 is still a murderer... I think this probably makes my point. You would allow the mass murderer to continue killing rather than be 'immoral,' and I would not. As far as Central America et al are concerned, I saw Elie Weisel, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Holocaust survivor, and noted scholar, on CNN last night. He pointed out that we have a moral obligation to stop evil, even by unjust means, rather than sitting on the sidelines. I wonder how you reconcile your perspective with this? You cannot I think. Re: Eurocentrism. Sorry, there is no 'global moral consensus' on this issue, or on almost any issue. The whole idea of an individual being protected from torture is a western one. The core idea of an individual at all having rights over the group is a western one. So I think what you have is a 'common misconception' about the outlook on rights as a whole. In many places there is simply no argument of whether the individual could possibly be chosen over the whole. Re: The slippery slope. I don't see or I guess understand your argument here. The slope argument is sited on such a wide variety of actions that it is emperically denied over and over and over here. How many things can you name that would put us in danger of the slope? Black Ops? Unaccounted for budgets? Death penalty? Abortion? Increased search and seizure? RICO? Wire tapping? Driving checkpoints? Profiling? blah blah blah. If the government were to deal in absolutes then it would grind to a halt. After all, your moral criteria would not just deal with torture, right? How about oppression? How about societal inequalities? Would we stop dealing with all countries that are oppressive? Do you, in your own life, not buy ANY product from an oppressive system? Is your own moral compass as tight as your kritik? I doubt it.
1) the Geneva Convention, AI, etc...every single contemporary international decree/agreement on the issue has determined that torure is immoral. The scope of the G.C. doesn't apply to the current situation? Really..and we were not at war with Afghanistan over this issue? Even if I concede your point on scopre for argument's sake, my point was that it is designated as immoral, and I was citing it as an example of 'global morality'. Would you prefer if I refered you to the A.I. decree, which the U.S. supported, or the Der Haag W.C. decision re. Milosovic, which the U.S. supported, on what constitutes international crime? 2) Re. Napoleon...I see your point...and would almost agree...excpet for that one pesky point...which was sort of the primary point I was making...I charecterized Napoleon as largely defensive because He didn't start/declare war, but saw his neighbours declare war on him. Just like the U.S and Japan...He went to Russia when the Tzar broke his agreement re: the Continental treaety, and signed an alliance with England ( who was at war with France after breaking their own peace treaty with same).Like how we attacked Germany when they upheld their alliance with Japan and thus became our enemy...Once again, we didn't start the war...do you see the difference? And yes Napoleon cited in his own memoires that the key to removing the threat of a ( declared enemy at war) Russia was eliminating their capacity to make effective war on France, and he saw the means to that end as destroying their army in the filed...which was his means at all times in war...And the Russians kept backing up and scorching the Earth, as it's termed, refusing to engage him in battle until Borodino, just outside Moscow itlself. You are suggesting he should have turned around and gone home against a declared enemy allied with other enemies on your other borders, and already fighting in the Penninsular War because they refused to fight? Right...leave enemies on two fronts...Honestly, have you studied this at all, or are you getting it form pop history? And I said Japan was not a threat in terms of not needing to use the Bomb, not in terms of needing to take Japan proper..Unlike your version of me, I am not that myopic...My primary areas of academic focus are Classics, Military History, and Peace & Conflict Studies...So I might have something less than the one-sided Peace At All Costs view you ascribe to me. What I do feel about war, like virtually every single recognized authority on the subject ( Sun Tzu, Clausevitz, Fuller, etc.) can be reduced to these simple rules of thumb... 1) When considering war, do so only for clear, specific needs/goals in mind, and only in conjunction with the beliefs of your party. 2) Only do so when every other possible means to achieve your needs has been exhausted. 3) Essentially if you're going to do it, do it right. Take it seriously, achieve your aims with the least possible cost, and apply the lessons of war. ( too long to outline here..volumes..but standard knowledge to those in the filed..and organic, admitedly) 4) Do not allow the war to determine/change your objective, but engage only to achieve your pre-determined aims, and then cease action. ie..do not allow the war to take on a life of it's own, and extend/alter your reasons for fighting. You might be surprised, but I basically supported the Gulf War. Saddam was clearly in breach of international law, and in a serious, aggressive manner ( ie. invading another country) I was a little sceptical about some of the motives we had for engaging only in a theatre where there were other interests at work, but that didn't take away from it being justifiable in a global sense. And we did it the right way, not dictating to the world, but arriving at a concensus. And, best of all, I admired the hell out of Bush for following rule 4 and stopping once the designated aim was achieved. This is not a knee jerk reaction on my part...I have or would have supported many 'wars', as sad as they are, because they were moral, necessary, and undertaken as a last measure. This is my area of interest. Please stop attributing this childish attitude to me merely because I don't automatically support this war, because it has failed to meet the moral or practical measure required by virtually every major military thoerist in history, and most of the world. 3) I did not say allow a mass murderer to keep killing to be moral..If it is in your area of authority to stop said murderer, do so. If it isn't, then subjectively choosing to extend your authority beyond that which you have to do so is a greater moral wrong, as A) It being subjective, would allow you to make war whenever and wherever you chose, which is imperialist, jingoistic tyranny, and morally equivalent to mass murder, as well as being B0the slippery slope mentioned. Every expansionist nation in history has rationalized their actions...to say that ours are ok because, like Germany, Rome, etc. we, unlike the rest of the world , agree with ours places us in the company of all those we say we abhore. Also, what I said was that there would be no moral distinction between killing 5 or 50 or 500..Once you have determined that you have the right to end other human lives for your own reasons, and choose to do so not in the passion of a single moment, but with forethought and determination, you have crossed a moral line which separates determined moral groups..What your score is after you cross that line is, morally, merely an extension of the same immorality, not a greater one. 5) The Eastern view you are apparently trying to work in here is the wholisitc approach, but you are misapplying it. Their view is that if you do something, like make war, you do it entirely, not reducing it's influence to certain areas...But, as I mentioned before, it doesn't apply here becaue the betrayal of moral principles I was talking about was bot our own and the recognized global one we agreed to. The distinction I was making was that it is immoral to make an action you have determined to be immoral. The global perspective was brought up to acknowledge the possibility of altering your own moral standards if they were in opposition to the recognized global one, such as ours with slavery, but clearly NOT an out in this case.
We are not talking about Afghanistan, we are talking about Al Queda. The Geneva Convention clearly does not apply to non-state actors. There is no authority that recognized your extention of that Convention to terrorists. Underlying the GC is the assumption that there are certain boundaries that 'civilized' countries do not cross even in the case of war against each other. It is not designed in scope to cover every possible governmental action. So, yes, I would prefer that you not reference it in this case because it is simply not applicable. In addition, when speaking of your asserted 'global moral consensus' on the issue you fail to address the fact that many countries do, in fact rather than theory, practice torture. Many of them countries currently in opposition to US foreign policy. You can look clear from France to China and see how many actual countries view the issue as you do. Very few, and hardly a consensus. Considering that many of the very examples you would find of these nation states using torture revolve around their treatment of terrorists, I think my view is much more on point than your own. I know that most of Napoleon's expansion was from his own ego. You seem to disagree but I think the preponderance of historical interpretations agree with me. Again you fail to deal with my point about his 'sense of destiny,' of which he himself wrote, and you've undoubtably read. And it would seem that the argument you make for Napoleon is one of the slippery slope, since you favor it so. I must take the war to them or they will come back and attack us, is much the same message we hear from Bush about Iraq. A point with which you hardly agree. And I believe the Continental Treaty was established by Napoleon under threat of war in the first place, so its hardly like he got stabbed unexpectedly by a friendly neighbor. But we digress. Let's have it straight and simple from you instead of dillydallying around. You are saying that Napoleon drove to France because he feared Russia? And that he was driving to Russia for the defense of France? Not because he had a higher sense of his own destiny? I believe this thread is about Al Queda. I know you get confused and blur all current US actions into one big kritik, but what are you talking about? Even these 'theorists' were not waxing philosophic about how to engage terrorists, but how to engage opposing armies and nation states. So, for instance, the Geneva Convention can be seen as an outgrowth of their conceptions of 'civilized warfare.' Not as an outgrowth of interactions with murderous curs like Al Queda. There is no slippery slope, that assumption is emperically denied with example after example. Th composition of the US is inherently different than the 30s Germany, or Rome et al. And as there is no 'objective' assessment in any human calculation, it would be impossible not to subjectively decide whether or not it is within your scope to act. Not to mention I am not sure, professor, how your latest diatribe is relevant in the least to the question at hand, which is not making war on Iraq (maybe you got confused), but on how we can deal with Al Queda. In this case specifically it is factual to point out that many countries security organizations practice torture. The US is on the bottom of that list, not the top. Ahead of it would be France, Germany, Russia, China, and on and on. So judging by actions, not words, there is no jingistic tyranny, rather the coldly effective solution to breaking down asymmetrical opponents. You cannot apply the same standards for civil conduct to terrorists as you do to soldiers. They do not wear uniforms and announce their presence. They hide and strike without warning and attack targets with no military significance merely for the terrorizing effect (hence the term 'terrorists'). They do not get the protection of the 'civilized' rules for warfare because they do not practice them, and cannot be dealt with as nation states have come to deal with nation states. Wow, really? Like, say, Napoleon's France perhaps? Again you claim false consensus. Go see how long the list of countries that use torture as a method for information gathering and tell me where your consensus comes from. Personally, I put the torture we talk about in this case on a high plane because it is not torture to oppress but in self defense. You draw no distinction even though the rule of law has always done so. For example, there is killing, but there is manslaughter and murder. Well, no need to go in circles. You argue that torturing this al queda guy makes us as bad as a regime that tortures its whole population. I think that's silly. And I have no doubt that most of the world's population agrees with me. No, I don't think you're getting it. The whole idea of absolute individual rights in inherently a Western idea. As such there can be no 'global consensus' on the issue of torture. In societies where group rights, the whole, are the focus, there would be no talk of one terrorists rights when the larger group is in danger. Take the PRC for example. Historically their concern for thousands of years has been internal stability and protecting from outside aggression. The concept of individual rights is more than disregarded, but rather is seen as a force of instability. The very idea of sacrificing thousands for the one is the antithesis of their worldview. And none of this really addresses the prime motivation of anti-torture sentiment. Which is not that people like Al Queda terrorists should not be tortured, but that torture is often used on civilian populations as a tool of repression. This is not the case with this guy. Nor with the idea that you can be in a place of moral conflict. Inaction is immoral and action is immoral. In this case inaction, not doing everything we can to neutralize Al Queda, is immoral. You say torturing him is immoral. So given the choice of which way to be immoral I'll sacrifice this terrorists rather than the men, women, and children he will kill and maim, and his cohorts will kill and maim, in the future.
Hayes...this is going nowhere..to me the distinction about Napoleon being because others were the ones to declare war on him is pretty clear. You don't seem to agree..I am baffled, but resigned. Let me try this..were CHina to declare war on us, and we were to prove superior in the war that follows, and end up in Beijing, we would still be acting in self-defense...just like we were in Berlin...or Tokyo..etc. In this case we are the ones declaring war..pre-emptive action BEFORE the enemy declares war is not the same as pre-emptive action after...If you don't agree with that distinction, I don't see where we can go with this, we obviously see things from entirley different perspectives. And secondly, I was originally talking about tortire too, and don't feel that it was myself who brought in Iraq...I was responding to others bringing it up.
Yeah, that whole part of the conversation was pointless. I think Napoleon took an opportunity when he saw it, both to gain and then consolidate his power. And then to expand it. You think he did it for defensive motivation, apparently. Either way it really begs the question of whether or not we should torture the Al Queda guy for information.
