Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Tax Wonk said that it is immoral to abuse prisoners. From my point of view, sometimes it is immoral not to abuse prisoners. These guys hide among the population; they kill woman and children, and want to completely destroy western civilization. What the Taliban did to Afghanistan was obscene. Beyond all bounds of decency. They don't care about western civilization, so they should not be entitled to reap its benefits.
Spies break the rules of warfare and therefore are not accorded any protection under the Geneva Convention. As far as I am concerned Al Queda (and the Taliban) is one big spy ring that does not get any protections.
If there is a reasonable chance that torturing one of these guys will save one life the moral thing to do is torture them.It would be immoral not to torture them. One innocent life is worth a thousand terrorists lives.
I have many differences with the Bush administration, but I think they are sincere in their desire to fight the war on terrorism effectively. I don't think they are doing this to "show off" or "show they are tough". The idea that they are evil or sinister is just people buying their own propaganda, just like many conservatives did during the Clinton administration. In their fight on the war on terror I don't want to make their job any more difficult than it has to be. They are standing on the wall trying to protect me. Why would I tie one had behind their back?
So if the Bush administration asks for something in this war as far as dealing with these detainees then I have no problem with that. In addition, the bulk of the fighters of the war on terror have nothing to do with the Bush administration. These are permanent civil servants. If they feel something is necessary, then great.
I don't think the Geneva Convention applies to these idiots. If it does it should be amended. The idea behind the Geneva Convention is that if we play by the rules other countries will treat our prisoners well. There is absolutely no chance our prisoners will be treated well, so that goal is nullified. Treating them well when captured will not help us. In addition, none of these guys have signed it, so screw them.
When it comes to the Domestic front and dealing with US citizens and legal residents, then the full weight of the constitution applies. But if a US citizen goes overseas and works with Al Queda or a similar group, their citizenship is forfeit.
The slippery slope argument was criticized by the Greeks as a fallacy and it is always a stupid argument that produces bad policy. "We can't outlaw machine guns because that will eventually lead to us outlawing rifles" "if we allow abortions eventually people will start killing babies after they are born". If we don't give these guys any legal protections that won't eventually lead to the loss of our rights. Our rights are fine and the minute the government crosses that line I will be one of the first to complain.
Sure I don't want sadists running our camps. That is why I have no problem with congressional oversight. But if the Bush administration thinks that pissing on Korans or water boarding these guys might give us some useful information, then go to it and God speed.
If torture does not help get information, then don't use it. But if there is a chance it will save innocent lives, then by all means, go crazy. The administration will get the benefit of the doubt as long as they are not infringing on my rights or other US citizens rights.
These guys are not soldiers simply following orders, or doing their patriotic duty to their country. None of these guys were drafted. They all volunteered to join an evil organization to do evil things. Many members of the SS didn't know what they were getting into. Many members of the KGB thought they were fighting for a workers paradise and didn't realize the terrible thing they were going to be asked to do. Every single member of Al Queda knows what evil goals the organization has, and knows that they will be asked to commit unspeakable crime.
There are no innocent members of Al Queda or the Taliban. There is no moral need to give them any rights or legal protections.
|
I guess we just disagree. I would like to clarify one thing though.
I don't for a minute doubt the sincerity of Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld in their stated belief that they are doing the right thing and they are fighting against terrrorism. I agree with you that they are true believers.
For me, that's what makes them so scary. We have survived as a democratic republic for over 200 years because we were not like other nations. We were above torture, we were above detention without a hearing and due process of law. We believed that we were a nation of laws, not men.
Now we have a leadership that says "trust us." And so many Americans are so afraid they are willing to set aside that last notion.
As I said earlier today, I can live with one man acting under exigent circumstances to save the lives of many. I will never accept that it is anything but a denial of all we stand for to suddenly become a nation that places expediency over respect for each and every person as a human being as a matter of law.
Threaded Mode