US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, I will answer the question without evasion:

There is no justifcation for torture. None. Even if it were my loved ones, my family, or me.

There is no evidence that torturing AQ prisoners, or anyone, leads to accurate information which may save my family. In fact, the exact opposite has been shown to be the truth many times.

You did not truly answer the question without evasion. You supplemented your apparently unequivocal answer with your apparently equivocal answer that you think torture doesn't work.

I interpret your answer:
There is never justifcation for torture of prisoners, who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians, not even if it were your loved ones, your family, or you who could probably be rescued, if torture short of killing, maiming, disabling, or injuring were employed, because that kind of torture will probably never rescue anyone.

My answer is:
There is always justifcation for such torture of prisoners, who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians, even when it is only possible my loved ones, my family, or I could be rescued from being murdered, if torture, short of killing, maiming, disabling, or injuring, were employed, because that kind of torture does sometimes rescue people from being murdered.

I infer you perceive my position immoral.

I also infer you correctly understand that I perceive your position immoral.

I'm guessing that you think holding murderers accountable for their murders by executing them is immoral.

Make no mistake, I think holding murderers accountable for their murders by executing them is moral.

I'm guessing that you think holding combatants, who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians accountable for their murders by executing them without trial is immoral.

Make no mistake, I think holding combatants, who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians accountable for their murders by executing them without trial is moral.

0 Replies

That's in a world where no mistakes are made by the occupying country. The killing of one innocent individual makes your argument moot.

0 Replies

ican't, Do you understand anything about "democracy?" How about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

0 Replies

I've seldom seen such a low morality as showed here by ican - and I've worked as well in a prison, as probation officer, streetworker ...

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The likes of icant will never understand what is morally wrong. They think all defensive measures are justified on the basis of "fear." They don't give a shet about human dignity or the legal systems of this country or the world.

I infer you think posturing morality superior to being moral. There is nothing dignified about persons who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians -- nothing, no nothing at all is dignified about such persons -- but there is much dignified about those persons who risk their lives to exterminate persons who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians.

As for the legality of all that read our Constitution:

Quote:

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
...
Article I.
Section 9.
...
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
…
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
...

Quote:
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: ha·be·as cor·pus
Pronunciation: 'hA-bE-&s-'kor-p&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin, literally, you should have the body (the opening words of the writ)
1 : any of several common-law writs issued to bring a party before a court or judge;
2 : the right of a citizen to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment.

I think the USA Constitution as currently amended is moral.
I infer that you think it immoral.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, I am asserting exactly that. It is never right to commit an evil act, even if you believe it will lead to a good outcome later on. The act itself is still just as evil.

Once again, even though I answered it, your hypothetical is merely Appealing to Extremes; both of us know that the vast majority of tortured prisoners by the US or allies of ours have nothing to do with imminent death of anyone; you've merely picked an example designed to frighten people into choosing a solution that they ordinarily would not. Which is sad.

I identified a hypothetical meant to illustrate the ridiculousness of your extreme position. If "torturing" one person has the potential of saving millions of lives, I would do it.

Cyclops wrote:

If shooting a 10-year old girl in the head will somehow magically save a village full of people, would you pull the trigger and put a slug in her brain?

Cycloptichorn

Rather hard to say. Millions of people ... yes I would. Thousands ... probably.

-----

Okay, your turn: You've been involved in a car accident and your car is dangling over the edge of a cliff. Your two children are about to fall to their deaths, but you manage to grab onto them with each of your hands. You are getting weak, and realize you will not be able to keep holding on to both. Do you let one of them go, and save the other one? Or keep holding on to both, risking letting both of them die?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I've seldom seen such a low morality as showed here by ican - and I've worked as well in a prison, as probation officer, streetworker ...

I think your pronouncement here is not merely a lower morality; I think it is immoral.

Please explain why you think what you posted here is moral.

Please remember we are talking about treatment of people who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians and about the people who attempt to rescue civilians by employing torture short of killing, maiming, disabling, or injuring people who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican't, Do you understand anything about "democracy?" How about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Yes! Do you?
How about our Constitution?

Quote:

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
...
Article I.
Section 9.
...
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
…
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
...

Quote:
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: ha·be·as cor·pus
Pronunciation: 'hA-bE-&s-'kor-p&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin, literally, you should have the body (the opening words of the writ)
1 : any of several common-law writs issued to bring a party before a court or judge;
2 : the right of a citizen to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment.

I think the USA Constitution as currently amended is moral.
I infer that you think it immoral.

0 Replies

We are talking about humans, in a so-called civilised society.

And you live, as far as I know, in a country where 'christianity' is in every persons mind .... but obviously no-one ever read what Jesus told.

0 Replies

And to end the conversation with you (and all and any of the following member names you'll ever use) finally here: you are the only one I really regret to have ever answered here.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's in a world where no mistakes are made by the occupying country. The killing of one innocent individual makes your argument moot.

No! The killing of one innocent individual does not make my argument moot. More than one innocent individual is killed too damn frequently, because other individuals are unwilling to do what is right, just and required to save them.

We are talking about whether it is moral or immoral to employ torture, short of killing, maiming, disabling, or injuring people, against people who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians

I think it's self-evident that such is moral. I guess you think it's self-evident such is immoral.

So far all I hear from you guys (Tyco excluded) is that it is immoral. You appear to give zero arguments to why you think what you think. Please advise if you think I have missed such of your argmuents.

Note: Your arguments (Tyco's excluded) are starting to appear to me to be derived from your own personal religion and are simply based on your personal faith that they are valid. Am I right? If that is true, simply say so and our argument will be over.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yes, I am asserting exactly that. It is never right to commit an evil act, even if you believe it will lead to a good outcome later on. The act itself is still just as evil.

Once again, even though I answered it, your hypothetical is merely Appealing to Extremes; both of us know that the vast majority of tortured prisoners by the US or allies of ours have nothing to do with imminent death of anyone; you've merely picked an example designed to frighten people into choosing a solution that they ordinarily would not. Which is sad.

I identified a hypothetical meant to illustrate the ridiculousness of your extreme position. If "torturing" one person has the potential of saving millions of lives, I would do it.

I wouldn't. I understand that you are looking at the matter from a point of 'most good,' a Utilitarian viewpoint; I don't, and I think most people don't.

It is never correct to do an evil act, even if it would save lives. Ever. Is it neccessary? Perhaps. That has to be determined at the time by the person committing the evil act, and they have to be responsible for the outcome of their act.

Cyclops wrote:
If shooting a 10-year old girl in the head will somehow magically save a village full of people, would you pull the trigger and put a slug in her brain?

Cycloptichorn

Rather hard to say. Millions of people ... yes I would. Thousands ... probably.

What's the difference between millions, thousands, hundreds, tens? Morally the question is exactly the same. The degree of scope is meaningless; it remains wrong to shoot a 10-year old girl in the head regardless of the number of lives saved. As you well know. I wouldn't do it.

-----

Okay, your turn: You've been involved in a car accident and your car is dangling over the edge of a cliff. Your two children are about to fall to their deaths, but you manage to grab onto them with each of your hands. You are getting weak, and realize you will not be able to keep holding on to both. Do you let one of them go, and save the other one? Or keep holding on to both, risking letting both of them die?

Hopefully I would lift them up before this happened; don't you work out?

If there is no possibility of saving all three of us, I would attempt to quickly find the path that allowed both of my children to live and me to die. If that isn't a possibility, then we all go down together; I wouldn't sacrifice one to save the other.

Not that this question has much to do with torture, but there you are.

An aside to Ican:

You state that:

Quote:

Please remember we are talking about treatment of people who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians and about the people who attempt to rescue civilians by employing torture short of killing, maiming, disabling, or injuring people who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians.

Yeah, or innocent people. Because we have detained, incarcerated, tortured, and killed people who have not been proven guilty of any crime, let alone killing anyone.

This is the part of the whole discussion that you really wish to avoid; those being tortured have had no trial and it is unclear whether they have declared war against civilians or not. Therefore, your position, already bereft of any sort of moral authority, drops yet another notch.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

We are talking about humans, in a so-called civilised society.

And you live, as far as I know, in a country where 'christianity' is in every persons mind .... but obviously no-one ever read what Jesus told.

Jesus is alleged to have said a great many things. To what in particular are you referring.

Yes. I can guess. But on this one, I prefer not to guess.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
An aside to Ican:

You state that:

Quote:
Please remember we are talking about treatment of people who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians and about the people who attempt to rescue civilians by employing torture short of killing, maiming, disabling, or injuring people who have declared war against civilians, make war against civilians, and murder or abet murder of civilians.

Yeah, or innocent people. Because we have detained, incarcerated, tortured, and killed people who have not been proven guilty of any crime, let alone killing anyone.

This is the part of the whole discussion that you really wish to avoid; those being tortured have had no trial and it is unclear whether they have declared war against civilians or not. Therefore, your position, already bereft of any sort of moral authority, drops yet another notch.

Cycloptichorn

I do not wish to avoid this part of the discussion. By all means let's discuss it.

Yes, there have probably been many such so-called innocent people taken prisoner who were captured merely because they were in the company of or neighbors of terrorists at the time of their capture. Either they did not realize or would not realize that merely being in the company or neighbors of terrorists is abetting terrorists. It gives terrorists aid and/or comfort. The only available future recourse for innocents is to at all costs avoid being in the company of or neighbors of terrorists.

Terrorists are evil. They are like a cancer; they are a malignancy. To avoid infection what must one do? Clearly, one must avoid the cancer and avoid the malignancy if one can.

If one cannot avoid cancer one must takes drugs to exterminate it, or have surgery to remove it, or simply give up and die. However, it is unfortunately true that both drugs and surgery on cancer cells kills both cancer cells and non-cancerous cells (e.g., innocent cells in the company of or neighbors of cancer cells).

Nature is horribly ruthless!

We are faced with an additional kind of deadly malignancy. We are faced with a malignancy that has declared war on much of humanity, has waged war against much of humanity, and is so far has killed thousands of humanity. We must cure that malignancy as best we can to save thousands of humanity.

We can negotiate with that malignancy in the hope we can buy its tolerance of us. We've tried that and it hasn't worked, nor is there any reason to think it might work in time to save the lives of thousands of more humanity. There are no chemicals I know of that will cure this malignancy. Like it or not -- as in the early history of cancer -- we must employ surgery until such chemicals are discovered. To permanently remove this kind of malignancy, we have no choice but to exterminate it from the face of the earth. To not employ such surgery-- that also exterminates some innocents -- will result in far more innocents being exterminated.

So there you are. That is our moral dilemma. To save thousands (or millions) of lives we must risk losing hundreds (or thousands) of lives.

Reality is horribly ruthless!

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And to end the conversation with you (and all and any of the following member names you'll ever use) finally here: you are the only one I really regret to have ever answered here.

Walter, you can easily escape me, but you cannot escape reality and continue to live.

I infer you detest me. I can live with that. Can you?

0 Replies

I have repeatedly posted a preponderance of evidence supporting the following allegations.

Al Qaeda and the al Qaeda religion are a deadly threat to a major part of humanity. Al Qaeda must be exterminated or it will attempt to exterminate that major part of humanity that chooses not to adopt the al Qaeda religion. Anyone or government that abets al Qaeda, is likewise a deadly threat to that same part of humanity.

My most recent post of a preponderance of evidence that supports these allegations will be found at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1704043#1704043

Al Qaeda moved into Iraq December 2001 (after 9/11/2001 and after the USA invasion of Afghanistan October 2001) and established new training camps there. Al Qaeda grew substantially by the time of our invasion of Iraq in March 2003, because Saddam's government tolerated (i.e., harbored) al Qaeda in Iraq.

My most recent post of a preponderance of evidence that supports these allegations will be found at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1705085#1705085

Regardless of why Bush decided to invade Iraq, his decision to do so was a fortunate decision for humanity.

0 Replies

icant, Your preponderance of evidence is a blind one. You only see evil, and fail to see the good in most people on this planet. Your's is a miserable world filled with hate and negativity. Your brain needs a spring cleaning, but I fear that will not be enough.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

icant, Your preponderance of evidence is a blind one. You only see evil, and fail to see the good in most people on this planet. Your's is a miserable world filled with hate and negativity. Your brain needs a spring cleaning, but I fear that will not be enough.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

I urge you to seek competent psychological counseling. I sense you are transferring to me that which you subsconciously know to be your own faults regarding those with whom you disagree.

My hate and negativity are directed solely at those people and/or their cohorts and/or their abettors, who have declared war against civilians, and who have declared their intention to murder civilians, and who have murdered civilians. I'm happy with that, because I think it humane and sensible.

0 Replies

ican't, This EVIDENCE should be enough, but we know you'll ignore it like everything else that speaks negatively against this administration, because you agree with them.

December 6, 2005
German Sues Over Abduction Said to Be at Hands of C.I.A.
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 - A German citizen who says he was abducted, beaten and taken to Afghanistan by American agents in an apparent case of mistaken identity in 2003 filed suit in federal court today against George J. Tenet, the former C.I.A. director, and three companies said to have been involved in secret flight operations.

The suit came three days after Khaled el-Masri, a 42-year-old Lebanese-born former car salesman, was refused entrance to the United States after arriving Saturday in Atlanta on a flight from Germany with the intention of appearing at a news conference today in Washington. He spoke instead by video satellite link, describing somberly how he was beaten, photographed nude and injected with drugs during five months in detention in Macedonia and Afghanistan.

"I want to know why they did this to me," Mr. Masri said, speaking in German. He said that he had been reunited with his wife and children and was seeking work in Germany but that he had not fully recovered from the trauma of his experience.

"I don't think I'm the human being I used to be," he told reporters through an interpreter.

In a separate interview in Germany, Mr. Masri said his weekend encounter with federal immigration officers in Atlanta made him briefly fear that the ordeal might be repeated or that he might be taken to the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

"My heart was beating very fast," he said. "I have remembered that time, what has happened to me, when they kidnapped me to Afghanistan. I have remembered and was afraid."

The lawsuit, filed by lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union in Alexandria, Va., came on a day of talks between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who said Ms. Rice had admitted that Mr. Masri's detention had been a mistake.

Since it was first reported in January, the Masri case has become an oft-cited example of tough American counterterrorism policies gone awry.

His lawsuit is the latest development in a series of challenges by human rights groups on the Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine operations to transport, detain and interrogate suspected terrorists since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Under particular scrutiny are secret detention centers, including some reported to be in Eastern Europe; the use of harsh interrogation methods by American intelligence officers; and the delivery of more than 100 suspects to other countries, including some where torture has been routine, in a practice known as rendition.

The lawsuit appears to be the first to target a web of companies that own and operate a fleet of aircraft used by the C.I.A., including many based at the rural Johnston County Airport in Smithfield, N.C. The companies named in the suit were Aero Contractors Ltd., a Smithfield company that provides crews and maintenance; Premier Executive Transport Services of Dedham, Mass., which previously owned the Boeing business jet used to take Mr. Masri from Macedonia to Afghanistan; and Keeler and Tate Management L.L.C., of Reno, Nev., which owns the jet today.

The lawsuit could force the C.I.A. to acknowledge its secret relationship with the companies, said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U. "That's what's novel here," he said. "What we learn of these three companies will be as interesting as the outcome of the case."

A spokesman for Mr. Tenet, who served as C.I.A. director from 1997 to 2004, said he had no comment, as did a spokesman for the C.I.A. Initial attempts to reach executives of the three air companies named in the lawsuit were unsuccessful.

Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U. said the lawsuit was an attempt to counter the "culture of impunity" in the Bush administration for human rights violations and to force the C.I.A. to abandon practices in conflict with American values. The organization has obtained 77,000 pages of government documents on detention and interrogation under the Freedom of Information Act that have been the basis for thousands of news reports.

Mr. Romero took issue with a statement Ms. Rice made on Monday before leaving for Germany denying accusations of human rights violations and declaring that "the United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture."

"Unfortunately, as our lawsuit shows today, those statements are patently false," Mr. Romero said.

Souad Mekhennet contributed reporting from Germany for this article.

0 Replies

This president is now telling our military audiances that the democrats are rewriting history and lying.

It's against military code to participate in political meetings/gatherings.

Only countries with military countrol has this kind of thing happening, but it's now happening in the good ole USA.

I'm sure all Bushco supporters see nothing wrong with this new Bushco policy of using the military for political purposes.

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know