What do you know? American "torture" worked...

[Velociryx]

The real problem, Tass, lies with the fact that the minority who don't have a problem with resorting to these tactics all got high level jobs in a little town called Washington DC, and even if we got rid of the politicians tomorrow, many of these guys are fill non-elected posts....they're in place for the long haul, and they'll keep pushing their agenda....

A clean sweep is needed.

-=Vel=-

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The real problem, Tass, lies with the fact that the minority who don't have a problem with resorting to these tactics all got high level jobs in a little town called Washington DC, and even if we got rid of the politicians tomorrow, many of these guys are fill non-elected posts....they're in place for the long haul, and they'll keep pushing their agenda....

A clean sweep is needed. Jefferson was right.

-=Vel=-

But it isn't as if the people have no blame here. Were torture widely unpopular in the US, not even the Bush Admin would attempt to push it forth (at least, in such a blatant matter).
However, the fact is that a significant minority (if not a majority) of the American population find nothing wrong with torture at all, as long as it isn't commited against them.

Yes, the general non-democratic nature of the US Government structure is partly to blame, but ultimately the people could change it if they wanted to.

[MrFun]

Re: What do you know? American "torture" worked...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

b) these al Qaeda leaders don't qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention and sure as **** don't display a regard for the treatment and dignity of our servicemen and civilians that would call for reciprocity on our part,

Oh look -- the childish, whining, "But he does it too!"

I still believe that two wrongs do not make a right -- just because Hitler committed genocide, doesn't mean that it's alright for someone else to commit genocide. Just because someone rapes a woman, doesn't mean it's alright for someone else to rape a woman.

Honestly -- the world would be a better place if people in positions of power outgrew the childish notion that just because someone else is doing something wrong, that it makes it right for anyone else to do it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The morally wrong arguement is interesting as well. Consider the main complaint regarding the so called fundamentalists of either Christian or Islamic stripe. Their world is broken down into right and wrong and there can be no allowable discourse to persuade them otherwise. When people see that their backs get up as they see these as symptonms of intolerance and closed mindedness of the group in question.

How does this differ then from the fundamental unshakeable belief that things of this nature are morally wrong?

[Velociryx]

The people DO bear responsibility, Tass...you are right. However, I think if you had asked ANYONE who voted for Bush in the last election if these were the kinds of things he would be doing...lying to the public to get his war, opening the secret prisons, amending a good portion of the bills he signs into law with interpretive "signing statements", doing things blatantly illegal and then trying to pass retroactive laws so he can say he "didn't commit a crime," the answer would have been a resounding NO!

He has gotten away with it thus far because he has preyed (fairly effectively) on people's fears.

That time is drawing to a close.

The rumble of outrage is just beginning.

-=Vel=-

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The morally wrong arguement is interesting as well. Consider the main complaint regarding the so called fundamentalists of either Christian or Islamic stripe. Their world is broken down into right and wrong and there can be no allowable discourse to persuade them otherwise. When people see that their backs get up as they see these as symptonms of intolerance and closed mindedness of the group in question.

How does this differ then from the fundamental unshakeable belief that things of this nature are morally wrong?

The problem is that, when it comes to morality, if two sides do not have a common ground....logical and rational discourse *is* impossible. Reason is a slave to the passions, and is implimented insofar as those passions allow.
Ultimately it is impossible to rationally argue two different moral beliefs except within some pre-existing system of morality.

Would you say that you have an issue that you cannot compromise, morally? For example, your family....Would it be okay for me to torture them for any reason, even national security? For me, that is also a clear "No!" - and I suppose you could superficially compare it to any other moral system that declares something to be completely good or completely evil.

[Kropotkin]

Torture is the way to go!
Worked great against "Article 58":s in the USSR.
Doesn't Bill O'Reilly look a lot like Beria btw?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


But it isn't as if the people have no blame here. Were torture widely unpopular in the US, not even the Bush Admin would attempt to push it forth (at least, in such a blatant matter).
However, the fact is that a significant minority (if not a majority) of the American population find nothing wrong with torture at all, as long as it isn't commited against them.

Yes, the general non-democratic nature of the US Government structure is partly to blame, but ultimately the people could change it if they wanted to.

I agree with your assessment that by and large the public actually supports (tacitly or otherwise) this. To yourpoint that Americans claimed never ever under any circumstances torture prior to 9/11, I would suggest is misreading the US public. While onthe surface those claims may have been presented in a wrold forum it likely wasn't Joe American talking as even pre 9/11 you could show example after example of the culture presenting hero after hero working above or around the law making monsters pay dearly when red tape would get in the way.

Dirty Harry

[Velociryx]

Og, your example is a good one, and you're right...we like the vigilante style anti-hero in our movies, for sure.

The problem I see with the whole equation is this:

We're VERY fond of calling ourselves the "good guys." We're the ones fighting and dying for high minded ideals like democracy around the world and enduring peace...all the good stuff, you know?

Torture has no place in that.

It cannot stand beside the virtues we claim to hold dear.

If it does, then we are being disingenuous in the best case, and outright hypocritical in the worst.

If we're going to continue to hold ourselves up to the rest of the world as the example to follow....if we wish to BE the beacon of light we claim we are, then we need to start acting the part.

IMO, it's just that simple.

Let's either act the part or drop the act.

-=Vel=-

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Velociryx
the answer would have been a resounding NO!

But even in the last election, many of these things were widely known. We already knew that Bush believed himself to be above the law, we already knew that he considered the structure of the US government to be flawed (in that he wasn't dictator), we already knew that he had no qualms about doing evil things abroad....And yet many Americans voted for him anyway.

Plus, it doesn't particularly matter what happend back then as what is happening right now. Many Americans support these actions, therefore many of them share in the moral negativity.

I think a big problem is nationalism - many Americans cannot see how their country could possibly be wrong, and hence no actual critical self-evaluation takes place.

[MrFun]

Using fictional movies and literature to justify real-world atrocities.




brilliant, guys

[Velociryx]

But even in the last election, many of these things were widely known. We already knew that Bush believed himself to be above the law, we already knew that he considered the structure of the US government to be flawed (in that he wasn't dictator), we already knew that he had no qualms about doing evil things abroad....And yet many Americans voted for him anyway.

Plus, it doesn't particularly matter what happend back then as what is happening right now. Many Americans support these actions, therefore many of them share in the moral negativity.

I think a big problem is nationalism - many Americans cannot see how their country could possibly be wrong, and hence no actual critical self-evaluation takes place.

Yeah, but in the last election it was either the boogey man we knew, or Kerry?! UGH....I mean, Kerry?! If it had been ANYBODY but him, Dubya would have gotten stomped!

I agree that many of his shenanigans were well known, and I'm not so sure why we're dredging the bottom of the gene pool where our candidates are concerned. You'd think that with a few hundred million people, we could come up with better candidates, but apparently not.

And while I agree that nationalism has at least some to do with it, I think that the main problem is that we WANT to believe in our leaders.

Too often, however, they disappoint. Especially of late.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Vel,

Too true. I didn't vote for either (Libertarian ) but knew there was absolutely no freakin way I could have voted for Kerry.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun
Using fictional movies and literature to justify real-world atrocities.




brilliant, guys

The point of course being that no manner of justification was being presented. Merely that American psyche is receptive to this manner of behavior. Much moreso than the inneffectual bueracrat that impotently sits on the sideline waiting for the next bus load of kids to be hijacked and killed because red tape dictates otherwise.

The gist of the discussion being that Americans like and support this kind of behavior even pre 9/11 despite our self aggrandizing claims of being the 'good guys'. To which I say there is no such thing regardless of nationality. People in general have the unique capacity to suck ( and likewise have the possibility of greatness)and no amount of government prevents that from happening.

"Every saint has a past and every sinner a future"

[Pekka]

Ogie, you're Libertarian?