A plunge from the moral heights

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

What would I do?

I wouldn't torture. Those 10000 people are going to die anyway. No one lives forever.

Wow! That lets us off the hook for providing AIDS care to the indigent; to having police patrol the streets looking for rapists and murderers; to defending just about anybody in any manner!

"We're all going to die, anyway, and probably within 70-100 years of now, so it's just a waste of effort to try to protect lives in the now!"

Great logic, Tonto.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Tonto 1]

There is never no doubt.

The fact that so many are incorrectly sentenced whenever even "reasnoble" doubt is used should be proof of that.

Once the other party is captive, or dead, the game is over. If that means 10 000 die - that's life. At least we who remain alive remain human.

There is never any shortage of those who will torture "for their country". Nazi Germany, the former Soviet union and South Africa's own past is proof of that.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[markd_nscr986 0]

you're right K......I'm just a wee bairnbut I did have friends and family that served in the Pac.and they were none too complimentary about Japanese prisoner treatment.But ,by the same token, the few surrendering Japanese that there were did not fare well with our guys ( some probably shot "attempting to escape").And I realise that The US is a signatory to a number of treaties regarding humane treatment of prisoners,but perhaps that needs to be looked at and exceptions made in the interest of national security.

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I figured that people would dodge that question. Tonto had the balls to answer, even though that answer is unfathomable to me.

How about this? You've got a guy who has a bomb strapped to your daughter/mother/father/sister, he won't tell you where they are so that the bomb can be defused. The bomb is set to go off in a short amount of time. What do you do?

If it takes me doing something irreversible to the guy to get information that may save 1 or 1000 lives, I'll live with the consequences of that. If making myself the bad guy saves lives, so be it.

The thing is, that wouldn't make you "the bad guy" any more than you'd become the bad guy if the criminal had a gun pointed at your wife's head, was about to pull the trigger, and you drew and shot him dead before he could.

Once someone transgresses in a violent criminal manner, he has broken the "do no harm to others" tenet of our social contract. A person who responds to that transgression is no longer bound by the same rules that govern him if he were acting under "peacetime rules" of behavior.

There is no absolute that says violent behavior is axiomatically wrong. Generally, it is if it is used preemptively, but violence is righteous if it is used in defense to save the innocent.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I just want to see where some of these super "High-Ground" guys draw the line. If you're pretty sure that someone has info and it will cost 1000s of lives if it is not learned, what do you do?

Let me ask you something.

If I'm pretty sure that your wife has info and it will cost 1000s of lives if it is not learned, is it ok for me to torture her?

[Tonto 1]

Quote

Great logic, Tonto.

It's called karma. Being the best you that you know how to be.

or

if you prefer, turning the other cheek.

There is no moral quandry when providing ARV's for AIDS sufferers, or to maintaining law and order, or even dropping the dude who has a gun to your wife's head (Although I'd be sure to tell him to go ahead and shoot. She's my ex wife, after all.)

Torturing those you have not tried, or found guilty?

There are moral issues there.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[kallend 2,174]

I believe that the general consensus in the Senate and among the people at the time of signing and ratifying these treaties was that, on the whole, we have far more to gain than to lose by abiding by them.

I strongly believe that to be the case still.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,131]

>You've captured somebody who has information that you know will
>prevent 10,000 civilian deaths in the near future.

>He will not provide the information voluntarily.

>What do you do?

Hypothetical #2:

You have 20 13-15 year old children in a room. They are friends, but only one of them has information that will prevent 10,000 deaths in the near future. And they ain't talking. Do you torture them all until you get to the one who knows? Does it matter if there are 100 kids? How about 1000? How about if they are 10 year old girls, or 21 year old guys? After all, it's to save ten thousand people!

At the bottom of such a slippery slope are people like Saddam Hussein, who was very good at justifying torture to prevent violence against his government and his people. We're the United States of America; we shouldn't even be _on_ that slope. We're better than that, and I don't have much respect for people who say we're not.

So the answer to your question? The US does not torture people. Period And when we have people who violate our laws and torture prisoners, we make sure it does not happen again. We don't come up with lame justifications about how we're not _quite_ as bad as Saddam Hussein; instead, we prove through our actions that we are not even in the same league.

[billvon 3,131]

>A guy is holding a group of school kids. You think he is going to kill
>them and you have a clean shot.

>Do you take the shot? Kill him to save a bus load of kids?

Absolutely! Anyone who takes such an action should be arrested, or if that's not possible, shot. However (and here's the important part) that doesn't give you the right to shoot or torture his family or friends. Saddam might do such things, but we don't.

[PhillyKev 0]

Nicely put. I hear people complaining about the crime rate all the time, too. You know who had very little crime? The Soviet Union. Why don't we just go that route? I mean, after all, it's for the better good.

Let me explain to those who have forgotten exactly why America was called the model of freedom and the experiment in democracy. In case you're not up on your history, the UK had a pretty representative democracy in place ever since the Magna Carta, well before our revolution. There was one magnificent and profound difference in our model that made us such pioneers.

The protection of individual freedom and liberties even at the expense of the collective.

That's what I love about this country. That's what I don't want to change about this country. That's what I would fight to defend about this counrty. And that is what I see eroding in this country every day. And i see that errosion being hastened by the policies and tactics of our current administration. If any of you want to understand why some of us have such a hatred of this administration, that is my reason. They are destroying what I believe to be the greatest thing about this country and what defines us as Americans.

Give me liberty or give me death.
Don't tread on me.
Common people must be free from all 'Foreign or Domestic Oligarchy.

[markd_nscr986 0]

***And i see that errosion being hastened by the policies and tactics of our current administration. If any of you want to understand why some of us have such a hatred of this administration, that is my reason

No,I will never understand such blind unreasoning vehement hatred of the current admin. no more than you would understand my hatred of the Clinton admin. or why I think Kerry is more of the same

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004