One more lie

[packsaddle]

As if anyone should be surprised..."The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it."

George W. Bush

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403331_pf.html

 

I hope the next President will open the files for all to see.

[SctDad]

My only opinion on this is, they are prisoners of war. What do they do with the prisoners thay they captur, they kill them on internet broadcast. At least these prisoners in Gitmo are still alive.

 

-These are my opinions and no one elses-

[Beavah]

Yah, I agree SctDad. They are prisoners of war.

 

And as such, we have a lot more duty under the Geneva Conventions than just keeping them alive, eh?

 

Yep, the other side has executed some prisoners and abused others, much as da Japanese did during WW2. We tried and executed those folks after the war for war crimes. If we ever get back into the war in Afghanistan enough to actually win it, hopefully we can capture and try those guys for war crimes as well.

 

I don't reckon any loyal American feels that we should be committing war crimes just because the other side has, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Rooster7]

I suppose if one water board victim was spared the trauma (i.e. the experience of feeling like he was drowning), it'd worth the lives of 100 American soldiers.

[Beavah]

I suppose if one water board victim was spared the trauma (i.e. the experience of feeling like he was drowning), it'd worth the lives of 100 American soldiers.

 

Yah, ABSOLUTELY!

 

Torture is contrary to da law, contrary to our values, and contrary to our national interest in the rest of da world. Our use of torture arms the enemy and alienates our allies.

 

Those American soldiers are puttin' their lives on the line to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States - our freedom, and our rule of law.

 

I know of no American soldier who would not willingly give his life to defend our laws and our nation's interests.

 

Beavah

 

[Rooster7]

Did I leave you speechless?

 

I guess I don't see this issue as being so cut and dry, that I could condemn the President without a single thought as to what his thinking might be. First, as to why one may not consider water boarding as torture in the same sense as other methods. Second, as to what possible drivers might exist to make one employ such a method.

 

Some questions to ponder

 

Does a hot light, a pitcher of water across the room, and an upset interrogator constitute torture? Where do you draw the line? And when, if ever, does that line become gray? Exactly how little of an offense are we willing to reject in order to stake claim to the higher moral ground? How much are we willing to sacrifice (100 soldiers, 100 civilians, 100 children, a city, etc.) before were compelled to act (i.e. run some water over a terrorists face) to extract the information that would make a difference?

 

[Gold Winger]

During the big one, many Japanese prisoners never made it to a prison camp, they were just summarily executed. Was it wrong? Sure. Was it necessary? At the time.

 

The big problem with torture is that it doesn't always yield reliable information.

[Beavah]

Yah, Rooster7, that's an "ends justifies the means" argument together with a willingness to let the president and da military be above the law.

 

Waterboarding was a favorite torture method of da Spanish Inquisition, eh? Used right there alongside da rack. Got all kinds of false confessions that way.

 

I can't say I have much truck with those who try to weasel their way around what da definition of "is" is, eh? Or "torture."

 

Is it hard to be ethical? Yah, sure. Easier to hate our enemies than to love 'em. Easier to do what seems expedient in da short term than what is right in the long term. The road to hell itself is paved with da intentions of those who would commit such crimes, eh? Good intentions, to be sure. And yet still wicked acts.

 

B

 

 

[Rooster7]

I am not asserting that I know answer. In fact, I am a little bewildered by those who can make such assertions without any hesitation or qualifiers. Whenever I am confronted with an issue such as this one I try to personalize it, at least a little. By doing so, I can often avoid some hypocrisy.

 

So, you find yourself in a situation whereas you have access to a kidnapper, whose accomplices are holding someone dear to you. Are you going to take the high moral ground here? If you had the capability and means to extract the needed information, you would refuse to keep your principles intact?

 

[Gold Winger]

"Easier to hate our enemies than to love 'em"

 

It is easier to win a war if you hate your enemies. It is really hard to kill someone that you love.

 

I'm not in favor of torture to get information. However, when dealing with those fanatics, it would be theraputic.

 

 

[packsaddle]

I agree with Beavah and Gold Winger. This particular law is there for moral and practical reasons. Torture isn't required by us, we consider it morally reprehensible if done to us and that cuts both ways. And it invites more of just the kind of acts we want not to happen, not to mention that it doesn't produce reliable results.

 

There is a comparison here as well. Torture a suspect and under that kind of duress he will say anything to make it stop, even if he knows nothing. But a President is under no such duress. He can choose to be honest or to lie. If he has done something he knows is wrong, there is no pressure other than politics or threat of punishment, to lie.

 

We don't know what Bush was thinking when he authorized torture. It may indeed be a decision filled with emotional forces. I suspect it took little effort, on the other hand, for him to decide to lie about it. Probably one of his easiest decisions.

[Rooster7]

As much as Id like to have my cake and eat it too I dont think its possible.

 

Given my previous example, I think almost any loyal American would have cake on their hands at the end of the day. Ever see the movie, Man on Fire? I pray I am never put in that situation. But if I was, I cannot say with certainty that I would refrain from any such act. To the contrary, I tend to believe I (as well as most other men) would resort to any means possible to extract that information if it meant protecting a family member.

 

[Gold Winger]

If most of America knew the illegal activities that our government undertakes in the name of national security, your hair might curl. They call it "legal" because the president authorized it but much of it is illegal at the core. Lie about it, sure, why not. Did FDR proudly announce that we were slaughtering Japanese prisoners out of expediency? Nope.

 

Now, I'll go hide in the woods because the black helicopters will be here soon.

 

[Liz]

"It is easier to win a war if you hate your enemies."

 

Maybe this is why Jesus refused to lead his followers in a revolt against their Roman oppressors. Whether one regards Jesus as the Incarnate God or just on a level similar to Gandhi, most people at least see some wisdom in his methods.

 

It's sometimes frightening to think about the world Jesus lived in; it was the very world we are fighting with everything we have to prevent: political oppression, a government bent on world domination -- which routinely instigated massacres and engaged in ethnic cleansing to "keep the peace," total lack of religious freedom, religious fanatics who were willing to kill people for breaking what we would see as relatively minor points of law...

 

Wow. Jesus lived in a society not unlike Iraq or Taliban-run Afghanistan. What was his response to it?

 

Somehow, I don't recall any historical documents that indicated that Jesus or his followers (at least for the first couple of centuries) resorted to capturing their opponents and torturing them.

 

Just a thought.

 

-Liz

[packsaddle]

Rooster, no one knows what he/she will do until presented with that situation. You might be correct that you would resort to some particular kind of behavior but you can't be certain of it until you are presented with the choice.

What we do know for sure is that this President made the choice. And then he lied. They kind of go together don't they?