Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Um, what?



Or maybe it's because the winners get to try people for war crimes. What we did to Dresden is pretty similar to what the Germans did to Rotterdam earlier in the war, which caused massive outrage. Strategic bombing is really just another name for terrorism, right? We were destroying Axis cities in the hopes that they'd lose the will to fight.

I see two critical questions here - are there noncombatants in a "total war" (I assume that there are always moral issues in attacking noncombatants) and was the attack proportionate to the justifiable moral basis for that war.

WWII was a total war, and if attacks like these are justified anywhere it is in that war. It was terror, and terror to a much greater degree than the bombing of London, for example. At the end of the day, given the importance of winning that war against a genocideal enemy, I'm not sure I'm ready to second guess the morality of Dresden. On the other hand, historically, I believe it had the reverse effect of its goal, and that it did more to incite Germans to rally against the Allies than it did to break their will to fight.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I see two critical questions here - are there noncombatants in a "total war" (I assume that there are always moral issues in attacking noncombatants) and was the attack proportionate to the justifiable moral basis for that war.

WWII was a total war, and if attacks like these are justified anywhere it is in that war. It was terror, and terror to a much greater degree than the bombing of London, for example. At the end of the day, given the importance of winning that war against a genocideal enemy, I'm not sure I'm ready to second guess the morality of Dresden. On the other hand, historically, I believe it had the reverse effect of its goal, and that it did more to incite Germans to rally against the Allies than it did to break their will to fight.

To set the moral questions aside for the moment, advocates of air power have always suggested that it will demoralize (terrorize?) the enemy's population, but the opposite has been true, as you suggest.

There are always moral issues in attacking noncombatants, and I don't understand how someone could draw a meaningful decision between intentionally attacking noncombatants with strategic bombers and intentionally attacking them with the simpler weapons that contemporary terrorists use.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The point is, it's not hard to distinguish either from torture, although bombing a city just for the sake of bombing a city is pretty reprehensible too.

I think it is, and no one has explained a reason why its different. You all want to say "torture" and have that be the end of the conversation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it is, and no one has explained a reason why its different. You all want to say "torture" and have that be the end of the conversation.

Speaking for myself, I am stunned that you are asking for an explanation of why torture is wrong. (So much for conservatives' concern about moral relativism, I guess.) Anyhoo, I thought wonk addressed the point pretty well yesterday, so he can have my proxy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From the Christian Science Monitor:

• At a demonstration [in Cairo] Wednesday, kifaya was the mantra. About 500 secular and democracy activists returned again and again to the one-word slogan - the Arabic word that translates to "enough" - at the heart of their invigorated campaign to bring democracy to Egypt.
  
  Kifaya has become the name of a movement and the buzzword of what some Western commentators are calling the "Arab Spring" - the rise of democratic expression around the region. In rallies from tiny Bahrain to Egypt, demonstrators are shouting kifaya to dictators, kifaya to corruptions, and kifaya to the silence of Arabs eager for change.
  
  * * * * *
  
  The nucleus of what calls itself Kifaya today began organizing five years ago in response to the Palestinian uprising and picked up steam in March 2003 when about 10,000 Egyptians took to the streets of Cairo to protest the US invasion of Iraq. That protest quickly evolved into an anti-Mubarak demonstration, the first in his 25-year rule.
  
  While those causes might seem far afield from demands for change inside Egypt, the country's activists see them as inextricably linked.
  
  The US has provided about $2 billion a year in aid to Egypt since its 1980 peace agreement with Israel, and Egypt's activists see in the unpopular peace treaty and relative Egyptian silence over the invasion evidence that the country's foreign policy "has been colonized by the US,'' as Mr. Qandeel puts it.

So I guess the invasion of Iraq did spur Arab democracy movements.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Speaking for myself, I am stunned that you are asking for an explanation of why torture is wrong. (So much for conservatives' concern about moral relativism, I guess.) Anyhoo, I thought wonk addressed the point pretty well yesterday, so he can have my proxy.

No, his response was "trust me." And I'm not asking for an explanation of why torture is wrong, I'm asking why we are distinguishing among the various heinous acts of war, e.g., is a bullet wound to the stomach, which results in a long, slow death, somehow morally better than pull out someone's finger nails?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, his response was "trust me." And I'm not asking for an explanation of why torture is wrong, I'm asking why we are distinguishing among the various heinous acts of war, e.g., is a bullet wound to the stomach, which results in a long, slow death, somehow morally better than pull out someone's finger nails?

You mean is there something meaningfully different about intentionally inflicting extreme pain on a captive with no present ability to defend themselves and with no process in place to protect any rights as opposed to inflicting pain on someone in the course of a military engagement where people are seeking to do the same to you?

No, I really can't see any difference at all. How the hell could anyone think there is a meaningful difference?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, his response was "trust me." And I'm not asking for an explanation of why torture is wrong, I'm asking why we are distinguishing among the various heinous acts of war, e.g., is a bullet wound to the stomach, which results in a long, slow death, somehow morally better than pull out someone's finger nails?

Do you not see the difference between:

(a) intentionally shooting at a soldier with a rifle and hitting him in the stomach, causing a slow and painful death,

(b) intentionally aiming at a soldier, and instead hitting a civilian, and

(c) intentionally shooting at the civilian.

Or

(d) shooting at a building in which you believe there are soldiers, and instead hitting a civilian,

(e) shooting at a building in which you know there to be civilians, and in which you do not believe there are soldiers, and

The short answer to your question is that we are not Benthamite utilitarians -- bilmore, perhaps, excepted -- and that without discounting the importance of the result of an action, the intent of the action has moral significance, too.

Torture is also avoidable, unlike other harms that happen in combat.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You mean is there something meaningfully different about intentionally inflicting extreme pain on a captive with no present ability to defend themselves and with no process in place to protect any rights as opposed to inflicting pain on someone in the course of a military engagement where people are seeking to do the same to you?

No, I really can't see any difference at all. How the hell could anyone think there is a meaningful difference?

I would phrase it a bit differently. Is there a meaningful difference between intentionally inflicting extreme pain on a captive, who prior to being a captive, wanted and was actively seeking to take your life or the life of someone whom you had a duty to protect v. inflicting extreme pain on someone who wanted to take you life or the life of someone whom you had a duty to protect?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you not see the difference between:

(a) intentionally shooting at a soldier with a rifle and hitting him in the stomach, causing a slow and painful death,

(b) intentionally aiming at a soldier, and instead hitting a civilian, and

(c) intentionally shooting at the civilian.

Or

(d) shooting at a building in which you believe there are soldiers, and instead hitting a civilian,

(e) shooting at a building in which you know there to be civilians, and in which you do not believe there are soldiers, and

The short answer to your question is that we are not Benthamite utilitarians -- bilmore, perhaps, excepted -- and that without discounting the importance of the result of an action, the intent of the action has moral significance, too.

Torture is also avoidable, unlike other harms that happen in combat.

I don't think any of those examples are relevant. I also think that if you are going to look at the intent of the action, you also have to figure both sides of the equation. You are not considering the intended "good" to be derived from the information sought.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
A lot of people lost the war to Germany and Japan, but I don't recall ever seeing any evidence that they tried any losers as "war criminals".

Huh? The Axis won?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would phrase it a bit differently. Is there a meaningful difference between intentionally inflicting extreme pain on a captive, who prior to being a captive, wanted and was actively seeking to take your life or the life of someone whom you had a duty to protect v. inflicting extreme pain on someone who wanted to take you life or the life of someone whom you had a duty to protect?

I don't understand why you are limiting this to those who were actively seeking to take a life -- it is pretty clear that we have resisted putting in place any kind of process that makes that determination of guilt prior to the act of torture. The torture being done is done based on the military suspicion, and guilt is part of what they are trying to ascertain by torture.

Even if we assume they are guilty of something, do you still see no difference between torture in captivity versus wounding or killing someone in the heat of battle? Can you discern absolutely no difference between the two you see as material to a discussion of morality?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
The fact that we debate whether or not torture is OK makes us different. The Nazi, the Communists and the Baathists never did any soul searching over torture and that makes us better right there.

Your absolute position that torture is wrong is untenable. It is like saying it is always wrong to lie: but what if you are hiding Jews and the Nazis ask if you have any. The moral thing to do there is lie. Don't laugh but in the first Dirty Harry movie he caught a serial killer who he knew had burried a woman somwhere and he knew that if did not find out where the woman was buried the woman was going to die. So Dirty Harry stepped on one if his bullet wounds until he told him where the girl was buried. That was the moral thing to do. Allowing an innocent girl to die just because you have some absolute moral rule about torture is absurd - and immoral.

I disagree. Torture is immoral, absolutely. Which is not to say I am opposed to it in all instances. I can't even say that I would never resort to it on a personal level, e.g., someone has kidnapped my kids and I have him in a room alone.

That, however, is different from accepting it on a political level. As a nation, we can never accept the use of torture institutionally. People can make the choice to act immorally and then face the consequences, whatever they may be. When nations do so, they violate one of their primary purposes, protecting all people through the enforcement of the rule of law.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would phrase it a bit differently. Is there a meaningful difference between intentionally inflicting extreme pain on a captive, who prior to being a captive, wanted and was actively seeking to take your life or the life of someone whom you had a duty to protect v. inflicting extreme pain on someone who wanted to take you life or the life of someone whom you had a duty to protect?

Beyond the other issues of the captive being, you know, captive, unarmed, and in our control, please explain to me why your second category doesn't appear to have the "is actively seeking" requirement.

If this person is defined only by "wanting" to kill me or someone else, I really don't follow your description.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think any of those examples are relevant. I also think that if you are going to look at the intent of the action, you also have to figure both sides of the equation. You are not considering the intended "good" to be derived from the information sought.

Relevant to what? I can't figure out what you're defending any more.

The use of force is justified in self-defense. When you have someone in custody, they are not threatening you anymore. Someone else might be, but not them. Rationalizing that it's OK to use force on them in order to forestall a threat posed by someone else is treating them as a member of a group rather than an individual, something that libertarians and conservatives are bothered by, apparently, only when it means that blacks are getting highway construction contracts.