Young Writers Society

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Bush_vetoes_bill_outlawing_CIA_wate_03082008.html

Sick.

Prokaryote

It's this sort of thing that makes the upcoming election all the better, IMHO.

*shakes head* That's appalling. How can anyone justify that kind of treatment?

Anyone surprised? Of course not! The man's become what he was supposed to fight, happens all the time.

That is horrible. And he wonders why nobody likes him?

I think it's worth pointing out that they are enemies of the state, not members of it. They don't and, further, shouldn't enjoy the right to life granted to Americans (a right which I'm all for removing, as it were).

In any case, to say that we've become what we're fighting is to assume we were ever anything different, and that our past can be hermetically sealed from our present. If either of those are true, it's only because you've been complicit with a distorted worldview of the human race. We are beings of flesh and blood, not divinity, and if moral superiority got anyone anywhere, the Church would be the undisputed leader of the world.

I'm currently serving in the United States Army, and go to Iraq this month.

How have we become like our enemies?

-have we started deliberately targeting civilians?
-have we started a religious holy war against a percieved 'great satan?'
-have we started targeting our own citizens with suicide bomber attacks?
-have we started stealing water and food from local villages that collaborate with the enemy?

We have

-been holding MEDCAPs, where medics set up courtesy stations where Iraqis can bring their sick and wounded.
-Seen to an elected democratic-republic in a nation that has seen nothing of the sort for thousands of years.
-built schools, roads, hospitals

Yeah, we've become real similar.


I don't think the citizens of the United States fully understand what is going on: The terrorists want to kill you. They wouldn't hesitate to murder you, your family, and your friends.

How can we justify using sleep deprivation and waterboarding? Because they are not really torture, and unlike torture, they are actually effective in gathering information. Mind games and breaking down the psyche is usefully, thumbscrews and racks are not.

Look beyond all the Noam Chomskys, Nat Hentoffs, and Democrats. Take it from a real soldier, really defending the people of the United States, not some bookworm sitting at a desk at Berkley writing like he knows how to defend his country.

What sickens me is that America isn't supporting this president in his efforts to win the war.

Keep in mind, our founding fathers that wrote the Bill of Rights supported going to war and killing tens of thousands of soldiers...over taxes being too high.

Do you think taxes being too high is justification to kill?

Thanks, warrior. I'm not exactly what you'd call a Bush supporter, but I think it's sick the way this country has turned on him. In case everyone's forgetting, our Senate (that's an elected body of officials consisting of members from both parties) voted unanimously to start this war. What if it were your hometown on the line, your family, your friends, maybe even your life? Well it is, darling. Maybe not directly, maybe not even immediately. But what Incan said was right: "they are enemies of the state, not members of it. They don't and, further, shouldn't enjoy the right to life granted to Americans." This doesn't mean I advocate torture, and if you'll look a little closer, no where does it say that's what Bush is doing. But to tie our hands now would be beyond stupid.

Well weekend I'd love to remind you that yes all people have rights. Plus there is so much paper work against torture. And Waterboarding is torture. Look up definition, it causes pain it gains information. Therefore it's torture.

I myself think if you stoop to enemies means of getting info then you're no better than them. It's all a breach of human rights. The UN has a document the Geveva Convention is against it. Read these documents you'll see.

Vernon,


People do not intrinsically possess (self-evident) rights. They are rights legislated by governing bodies, and when those bodies fail to protect those rights, it becomes quite clear that they aren't self-evident.

Think what you want about sinking to the level of your enemy--a gentleman would never win against a mugger in a gunfight. War isn't about moral superiority (I don't know where this frankly idiotic notion originated), or being classy--it's about crushing a threat.

You're quick to point out the Geneva Convention and blame Americans, yet where in the world is your outrage at Iraq's mistreatment of POWs and civilians under the same treaty? It's a sort of reverse racism for you to point only to America, because what you're saying is: "America knows better, Iraqis don't"--or, essentially, "You're better than they are."

Smells a bit like hypocrisy. Like I said before, if moral superiority was a factor in determining anything at all about a war (indeed, even your own moral superiority is tainted as it were with a kind of racism, so how 'moral' can it be?), the Church would be the worldly legislative body. Further, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened--more importantly, it wouldn't have been stoppd.


Best,
Brad

Oh, come on, we can agree torture is wrong, right? So what it comes down to is whether the supposedly borderline treatments are torture or not. Now, there are numerous papers on the psychological effects of sensory deprivation and waterboarding, not exactly bedtime reading. Of course, you really can't know how it affects you until you yourself are put through it, so, any volunteers?

But aside from that, aside from the subjective and political arguments, from a mere strategical standpoint, torture is almost universally acknowledged as ineffective in obtaining accurate information. So, unless their doing it for kicks, there's really no point.

I'd cite things but I'm too slack to chase them up.

Incandescence wrote:Vernon,


People do not intrinsically possess (self-evident) rights. They are rights legislated by governing bodies, and when those bodies fail to protect those rights, it becomes quite clear that they aren't self-evident.

Think what you want about sinking to the level of your enemy--a gentleman would never win against a mugger in a gunfight. War isn't about moral superiority (I don't know where this frankly idiotic notion originated), or being classy--it's about crushing a threat.

You're quick to point out the Geneva Convention and blame Americans, yet where in the world is your outrage at Iraq's mistreatment of POWs and civilians under the same treaty? It's a sort of reverse racism for you to point only to America, because what you're saying is: "America knows better, Iraqis don't"--or, essentially, "You're better than they are."

Smells a bit like hypocrisy. Like I said before, if moral superiority was a factor in determining anything at all about a war (indeed, even your own moral superiority is tainted as it were with a kind of racism, so how 'moral' can it be?), the Church would be the worldly legislative body. Further, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened--more importantly, it wouldn't have been stoppd.


Best,
Brad

I wasn't saying that, I never said America knows better, just with a democratic government these laws should be respected, not ignored. Also you're other arguement on mugger, there a huge difference to mugger and getting torture. If you're getting mugged you won't stand their and allow him. Torture that's nothing like it. One you can't fight back really, two if you fight back it's worse for you. With fighting a mugger you've a chance. I stick to my point waterboarding is torture, because it causes pain to gain info. Yes but torture is still ruled out wrong in whatever time. War doesn't change that. These documents were made a reason. I've read both of them. The rules stay the same.

Incandescence wrote:Vernon,


People do not intrinsically possess (self-evident) rights. They are rights legislated by governing bodies, and when those bodies fail to protect those rights, it becomes quite clear that they aren't self-evident.

Some notable people might disagree with that statement, I find it interesting that you deliberately use Thomas Jefferson's language while claiming that his logic is incorrect. But indeed, you seem to take different perspective towards human rights. Your argument seems to assume that rights are physical characteristics, like a long nose or the power to shoot lasers from your eyes. These are things that some people intrinsically possess. (well, maybe not the laser thing, but hey, you never know!)

But "self evident" does not mean "universal in practice", it means "obvious". Therefore, the right to not be tortured is a right that, over time, rational people have concluded is a no-brainer. The right to not be tortured is not a privilege which can be taken away. In the United States, our constitution states and we agree, that this right applies to all people. Thus, right that we hold to be "self evident".

Think what you want about sinking to the level of your enemy--a gentleman would never win against a mugger in a gunfight. War isn't about moral superiority (I don't know where this frankly idiotic notion originated), or being classy--it's about crushing a threat.

Your analogy serves to justify the use of torture by terrorists, as opposed to the United States. The United States is not helpless, the terrorists never had, nor have the upper hand. The mugger-gentleman argument implies that the United States does not have the means to defeat terrorist without "playing dirty". And it's obvious that this is not the case.

You're quick to point out the Geneva Convention and blame Americans, yet where in the world is your outrage at Iraq's mistreatment of POWs and civilians under the same treaty? It's a sort of reverse racism for you to point only to America, because what you're saying is: "America knows better, Iraqis don't"--or, essentially, "You're better than they are."

Do you honestly think that anyone who holds this position is in favor of our soldiers being tortured? Of course not. Were just as horrified by these actions as you. Our position is remarkably consistent. We're against all torture.

Smells a bit like hypocrisy.

I'll be as fair as I can be right now.
I condemn the use of torture by terrorists worldwide.
I condemn the use of torture by the United States of America

But think about it. Which of these two abuses can I personally do something about? Well, I can enlist a year from now, and go fight the terrorists. But at this moment, all I can do is try to stop our government from torturing.

Like I said before, if moral superiority was a factor in determining anything at all about a war (indeed, even your own moral superiority is tainted as it were with a kind of racism, so how 'moral' can it be?), the Church would be the worldly legislative body. Further, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened--more importantly, it wouldn't have been stoppd.

But just because moral superiority has never yet been a factor in a war, does that mean that it shouldn't be? I don't think so. I think that if we tortured less, we would have gotten much farther in our fight.

For example, if we had not tortured prisoners in Abu-Grahib, then the arab world may have not turned so violently against us. Less impressionable young arabs would have joined terrorist organizations. It has been estimated by the army, and state department, and many other independent organizations, that a large portion of prisoners detained in Iraq have been innocent. But if we torture them, we turn them and their families into terrorists.

***

In my mind, torture is indefensible. It is a level of barbary that is the lowest of low for the human race. It is repugnant. Hundreds of countries around the world recognize this. The geneva conventions recognize this. The US recognizes this.

Every defense of this policy can only try to obfuscate the issue and deny the reality of torture. But even the arguments that dismiss the moral and focus on the practical fall flat. Torture has time and time again been proven to result in incorrect and unreliable information. Torture has been proven time and time again to create more enemies than it leads to the capture of.

The defense of this policy is baffling, and it's sorely disappointing to see our government so badly off the mark.

[quote]I'll be as fair as I can be right now.
I condemn the use of torture by terrorists worldwide.
I condemn the use of torture by the United States of America [/quote]

Well-put, I agree. I fully recognize that terrorists commit brutal, inhuman acts and that action should be taken against them. However, I don't support my country retaliating with equally inhumane action.

Cruelty is cruelty.

I don't mean to debate with you all (this is, after all, not the debate forum), so I'll stick more to general ideas and points about the nature of torture and human rights than specifics--in any case, my hope is simply to justify another way of looking at the situation.


Kit,


I don't agree with your premise that torture is fundamentally wrong. I don't know how you justify it as such, either. Nonetheless, torture isn't supposed to be pleasant or psychologically fulfilling (sort of the point of the whole enterprise, isn't it?) (more on this in response to smorgishborg, though). Anyway, there has been no causal relation between torture and inaccurate information established by any author or policy-maker, as you seem to assume. In truth, there are statistics that show low yields of accurate information from those who have been tortured; however, many of those tortured were originally "asked nicely" and either didn't respond or also gave inaccurate information. Indeed, one could make the equally viable case for causality between inaccurate information leading to torture than torture leading to inaccurate information.


Cheers,


Smorgishborg,


Jefferson didn't have "logic" behind his statements; he made proclamations and evaded having to justify them by saying they are "self-evident truths," "obvious," or the like--an evasion you also made recourse to. 18th century theoreticians of "Natural Law" such as Jefferson and Rousseau founded their mainspring of relation to other human beings on pity--the identification of the other person as suffering beast. I must, of course, specify that I am absolutely opposed to this conception (as well as Kant's formulation of morality). I maintain that the natural state of the human animal has nothing to do with Good or Evil, and I maintain that the kind of formal moral obligation described in Kant's categorical imperative does not actually exist (namely, that we have a "duty" to acknowledge and condemn and stop things against the rights of man). Take the example of torture--today, we believe that torture is "clearly" and "obviously" Evil, opposed to the rights of Man (the right to life, the right to dignity, etc.).

However, even in a civilization as sophisticated as the Roman Empire, not only is torture not considered an Evil, it is actually appreciated as a spectacle. In arenas, people are devoured by tigers; they are burned alive; the audience rejoices to see combatants cut each other's throats. How, then, could we think that torture is Evil for every human animal? Aren't we the same animal as Sencea or Marcus Aurelius? I should add that the armed forces of any country, say, France, with the approval of the governments of the era and the majority of public opinion, tortured all the prisoners during the Algerian War--even though now the French are often the first to wag their fingers at America's torturing tactics!

Thus I'll say the condemnation of torture is a historical and cultural phenomenon, not at all a natural one. In a general way, the human animal knows cruelty as well as it knows pity; the one is just as natural as the other, and neither one has anything to do with Good or Evil. One knows of crucial situations where cruelty is necessary and useful, and of other situations where pity is nothing but a form of contempt for others. You won't find anything in the structure of the human animal on which to base the concept of Evil, nor, moreover, that of the Good. Objections to torture always begin with the idea that they can.

Anyway, getting into a discussion of the use-value of torture at this point would be needlessly obfuscating the issue, which is whether waterboarding is wrong. Since I don't acknowledge any universal rights to man, or obvious or self-evident rights, as such, I don't find waterboarding wrong. What's more, I don't think enemies of the state in a time of war enjoy the rights granted to the state's citizens (in particular, the US's right to life and freedom, blah blah blah)--in short, I have an obligation to my state, not my enemies, to ensure the "fair" treatment of citizens. I have no obligation to the world or humanity at large (or in the small). That said, I take my leave!


Interesting points made all around, I think!


Take care,
Brad