[andrei]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-24, 04:15, said:

Torturing prisoners (arguably) fails both tests

1. The US made a deliberate choice to torture
2. It wasn't necessary to use torture to achieve the same ends

There are some moral absolutists who claim that any act that puts a civilian life at risk is unreasonable.
Personally, I don't find these arguments convincing...

So, while torture is unacceptable civilian casualties are.
Between killing and injuring somebody, the former is preferable.
Cool.

[hrothgar]

andrei, on 2013-May-24, 16:04, said:

So, while torture is unacceptable civilian casualties are.
Between killing and injuring somebody, the former is preferable.
Cool.

Damn you're stupid.
Let's try this again.

Torturing people for no good reason is wrong.
There are some cases where civilian casualties are justified.

I don't think that this is in any way out of the mainstream.

[hrothgar]

andrei, on 2013-May-24, 16:04, said:

So, while torture is unacceptable civilian casualties are.
Between killing and injuring somebody, the former is preferable.
Cool.

Damn you're stupid.
Let's try this again.

Torturing people for no good reason is wrong.
There are some cases where civilian casualties are justified.

I don't think that this is in any way out of the mainstream.

[hrothgar]

duplicate deleted

[hrothgar]

andrei, on 2013-May-24, 16:04, said:

So, while torture is unacceptable civilian casualties are.
Between killing and injuring somebody, the former is preferable.
Cool.

I don't recall making that argument.
Since reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit, let try to simplify the presentation down to a more appropriate level.

Torturing people for no good reason is wrong.
There are some cases where putting civilian lives at risk is justified.

I don't think that this is in any way out of the mainstream and offer World War II as a practical example.

[andrei]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-24, 16:12, said:

Damn you're stupid.
Let's try this again.

Torturing people for no good reason is wrong.
There are some cases where civilian casualties are justified.

I don't think that this is in any way out of the mainstream.

I am smart enough to avoid posting the same reply twice.

Obviously, those prisoners were tortured only for the entertainment of Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney, while there is a greater good in the usage of drones.
This is going nowhere, so I'll drop it.

[andrei]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-24, 16:12, said:

Damn you're stupid.
Let's try this again.

Torturing people for no good reason is wrong.
There are some cases where civilian casualties are justified.

I don't think that this is in any way out of the mainstream.

I am smart enough to avoid posting the same reply twice.

Obviously, those prisoners were tortured only for the entertainment of Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney, while there is a greater good in the usage of drones.
This is going nowhere, so I'll drop it.

[andrei]

haha, busted , not as smart as I thought I was

[hrothgar]

andrei, on 2013-May-24, 17:01, said:

haha, busted

BBO appeared to have a hiccup leading to a number of double posts
(The tournaments were all down as well)

With this said and done, it was an epic fail...

[hrothgar]

andrei, on 2013-May-24, 16:59, said:

I am smart enough to avoid posting the same reply twice.

Obviously, those prisoners were tortured only for the entertainment of Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney, while there is a greater good in the usage of drones.
This is going nowhere, so I'll drop it.

So, now we get to the crux of the matter...

You seem to believe that the use of torture by Bush and Cheney was justified.
Any reason why we had to progress by such a circuitous route?

Jumping back to an earlier point in the thread:

Torture is banned by international law.
There aren't exceptions...

I understand why Obama and the Democrats aren't going after Bush / Cheney. With this said and done, I doubt that you'll be seeing much foreign travel bu either of them. As I recall, Cheney just had to cancel plans for an internation trip after some discussions about war crimes flared up in the host country.

[awm]

During a war the military is allowed to kill "enemy combatants." Sometimes a reasonable effort to kill enemy combatants leads to civilian deaths as well. This is unfortunate but not considered a war crime.

However, a deliberate attempt to kill or seriously harm non-combatants would be a war crime. Note that someone who has been captured and disarmed is no longer a combatant (even if he was before).

This explains why killing civilians (provided this is "accidental" and not the intent) is not necessarily a war crime whereas torture is. Use of biological or nuclear weapons is arguably a war crime though (very non-targeted, hard to argue this is aimed at the "bad guys" and not indiscriminate slaughter).

[nige1]

When countries like the US and UK wage unjustifiable wars and torture suspects and so on, they don't just break international law; they also break treaties that they helped to frame and then freely ratified; and they betray the fundamental values of their constitutions. To take an extreme example, Osama Bin Laden should have been treated as innocent until proven guilty and, if captured alive, should not have been lynched in our name. When a liberal democracy, as a matter of policy, engages in humanitarian outrages against foreigners to protect its own people, it is metaphorically throwing the baby out with the bath-water. When we re-elect governments guilty of such behaviour, we share their guilt. We, too, are whited sepulchres.

[blackshoe]

You make a good point Nigel, but.. didn't Osama claim credit for 9/11?

[blackshoe]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-28, 16:46, said:

You make a good point Nigel, but.. didn't Osama claim credit for 9/11 and other terrorist acts?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-28, 16:46, said:

You make a good point Nigel, but.. didn't Osama claim credit for 9/11?

Allegedly, yes. Nevertheless, that's no justification for execution, without trial.

[Flem72]

nige1, on 2013-May-28, 16:36, said:

When countries like the US and UK wage unjustifiable wars and torture suspects and so on, they don't just break international law; they also break treaties that they helped to frame and then freely ratified; and they betray the fundamental values of their constitutions. To take an extreme example, Osama Bin Laden should have treated as innocent until proven guilty and should not have been lynched in our name. When a liberal democracy, as a matter of policy, engages in humanitarian outrages against foreigners to protect its own people, it is metaphorically throwing the baby out with the bath-water. When we re-elect governments guilty of such behaviour, we share the guilt of our political leaders. We, too, are whited sepulchres.

Repeating: The rules of engagement in any conflict are established by the least-principled participant. Conflicts involving the interests of nation-states are all dirty in one way or another b/c the stakes are ultimate. Even a relatively insignificant sovereign act, such as the negotiation of a treaty, is a conflict between competing interests that will not lead to a zero-sum outcome. Interesting and ever-present moral question in the most significant of sovereign conflicts: In order to preserve the constitution, does one take action directly at odds with its fundamental values and ideals? It's a Col. Jessup kind of commitment; let's hope most called to make it don't trivialize it as did the good colonel. IOW, if you are going to sin, sin big.

OTOH, I suppose one could simply take the high ground and withdraw from the conflict. IMHO, we call that "losing."

[nige1]

Flem72, on 2013-May-28, 17:31, said:

OTOH, I suppose one could simply take the high ground and withdraw from the conflict. IMHO, we call that "losing."

If we don't enter wars, we're less likely to lose them (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan).
In war, arms-manufacturers and defence-contractors are sure-winners Otherwise ...

General George Marshall, in 1947 said:

The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.

Thus, "winning" wars creates problems for us, too (e.g. Iraq, Libya). However...

John Philpot Curran, in 1790 said:

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.

World War II may be a case in point. Conceivably, arguments about the Patriot-Act could go either way.

[Flem72]

Here's an honest question, one unanswered by my study of American history : Do we suppose there has been any administration that has not used targeted assassination and "torture" (trying to avoid definition kerfluffle) as a tool in sovereign conflict?

[Zelandakh]

Here's a better question: is it better to fake (or withhold) evidence with the intention of causing (poiltical) harm to an opponent than to fake (or withhold) evidence with the intention of avoiding (political) harm being done to yourself or an ally? It seems that the former is regarded as normal politics while the latter is seen as a serious crime. Would it not be fun for the Democrats to start inquiries into some of the ridiculous claims made by Republican opponents? There must surely be some laws about this sort of thing that can be dredged up.

[hrothgar]

Flem72, on 2013-May-29, 07:33, said:

Here's an honest question, one unanswered by my study of American history : Do we suppose there has been any administration that has not used targeted assassination and "torture" (trying to avoid definition kerfluffle) as a tool in sovereign conflict?

I think that torture as a matter of state policy is exceptionally rare.

I have no doubt that there are plenty of examples where individual Americans engaged in torture. However, I can't think of many cases where this was officially sanctioned as a matter of state policy.

As for assassination: As far as I know the US has always maintained an official policy that sanctions the use of assassination in times of war. For example, after the Church committee produced a report documenting the use of assassination by the US, President Ford issued an executive order banning assassination during peace time. However, the exception reserves the right to use assassination during times of war.