Legalizing Illegal immigrants

[BrentAllen 10]

Sure. Let's refuse to do anything that might be considered torture, while they are brutally cutting the heads of US citizens, filming it, and broadcasting it. I can go along with that. While we're at it, let's take the military's rifles away, and give them soda straws and sheets of paper. Our soldiers might get lucky and hit them in the eye!

They fly planes into our buildings, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children, and we are worrying about humiliating them. We have lost.

[Trevorum 24]

We have lost the moral high ground, thats for sure.

 

I really dont think Americans are concerned about humiliating anyone. You loose your rights to personal dignity when you commit violence against another person.

 

The torture we have refused to forswear is far worse than inflicting simple emotional turmoil. The fact that other people act as barbarians does not give us the right to do the same. Torture is repugnant to (most) Americans and we should let the world know it.

 

[Rooster7 11]

We have lost the moral high ground, thats for sureTorture is repugnant to (most) Americans and we should let the world know it.

 

Not claiming to have all the answers here, but your response begs some questions.

 

So in regard to losing the moral high ground

 

Am I to presume, the actions of a few rogue soldiers (i.e. prison guards humiliating POWs) taints the morality of all Americans?

 

Or, are you surmising, because our government refuses to totally disassociate itself from any form of torture, the mere specter of its realization causes all Americans and/or our government to be discredited?

 

Lastly, while I am personally repulsed by the idea of torture what would you prescribe for each of these scenarios? Its a given that a particular individual holds certain knowledge of controllable events, which if let unchallenged, will lead to the deaths of - Dozens of American and allied soldiers? - Hundreds of civilians? - Thousands of Americans? What order of magnitude does a preventable tragedy need to sustain, for it to become a crossable threshold? When does your desire to prevent the killing of innocent lives become so strong that you abandon your indignation for torture?

 

[Trevorum 24]

As always, you pose excellent and thought provoking questions. Like yourself, I dont have all the answers either.

 

With regards to your first question, I pick #2. The first is regrettable to be sure, but perhaps understandable given the passions of the situation and the evident lack of on-site leadership. As far as the second, yes, I believe our government has discredited all Americans by refusing to forswear torture. We dont believe it is right and we should say so for all the world to witness. That would be the moral thing to do.

 

With regards you your series of scenarios, you hammer home the brutality of the modern world. I honestly dont know what I would do in any of those circumstances. Sophies Choice. I do know that an accepted policy of the end justifies the means is one step away from barbarism. Id like to think that we are more civilized than the terrorists who use violence to further their political ends. But of course, no war is civilized.

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Prairie Scouter, I didnt understand your comment, somehow it seemed off topic .

 

Anyhow, As I recall, the invasion of Iraq was caused by Saddam. Yes, I said Saddam. According to the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, Saddam was to destroy his WMD and allow UN Arms Inspectors to well, inspect arms and oversea the process. Anybody remember how that was working out? The inspectors would show up and be delayed, they were harrassed and thrown out of Iraq a few times, and left on their own a few times and the UN passed resolution after resolution that Iraq has better be good and allow the inspections, or else.

 

Well, heck, the world could see the UN inspectors werent going to find anything, Saddam did what he could to obstruct anything he could. And we watched on TV. We watched as scenes of terrorism unfolded across the globe, then on 9-11, it happened, it wasnt a movie, Bruce Willis couldnt bail us out and thousands died.

 

By now we know either Iraq didnt have the WMD we thought he did, did he ever? I don't know, I thought part of the evidence of the arms was that the US gave him stuff back in the 80s and it hadnt been acounted for, I could be wrong.

 

All Saddam had to do was let the UN Inspectors do their job and nothing would have happened.

 

So, did Bush lie to get us in war with Iraq? I dont know. But I do know, if Bush had done nothing, and on the third anniversary of 9-11 sarin gas was released in the Chicago subway while a dirty nuke went off in San Francisco, and Iraq was implicated, the same people abusing Bush now would have been screaming about how he had all this information that WND existed and he did nothing.

 

 

Awhile back, before 9-11, I was reading how the fundamental Islamists said the West, especially the US was too soft and corrupt to fight them. That they could rely on us to fold from the inside. On 10-11 I saw the American Flags on cars and houses and was glad, a year later fewer and now, hardly any. The terrorists have patience, they can wait while we destroy ourselves. I remember when the Dixie Chicks apologized for having Bush as a president and it almost cost them their career, now the president is fodder to all many of jokes, how did it change so fast?

 

We have such capacity to wage war, we will have evolved when we wage peace as effectively as we wage war. The problem I see is the war was tactically brilliant, the aftermath a jumbled mess of assumptions and inadequate supplies that leads me to beleive FEMA orchestrated it. We talk about losing credibility, if we walk out of Iraq now why would any country beleive us again? if we walk out now and leave Iraq, we will be back there fighting them, or fighting them here.

 

What we cant forget is the militant Islamics want us all dead. Its not because we have cars, its not our houses, its not our way of life, its because we are not followers of Islam and they will continue to kill as many of us as they can. How do you make peace with people who want you dead?

[Hunt 11]

"Lastly, while I am personally repulsed by the idea of torture what would you prescribe for each of these scenarios? Its a given that a particular individual holds certain knowledge of controllable events, which if let unchallenged, will lead to the deaths of - Dozens of American and allied soldiers? - Hundreds of civilians? - Thousands of Americans? What order of magnitude does a preventable tragedy need to sustain, for it to become a crossable threshold? When does your desire to prevent the killing of innocent lives become so strong that you abandon your indignation for torture?"

 

Never. I would think somebody who believes in moral absolutes would agree with that. Once you start down that road, next you're arguing that if enough innocent lives will be saved, it's justifiable to torture the suspect's wife and children in front of him so he'll talk. Once you convince yourself that it's OK to violate some absolute moral rule in the interest of the "greater good," you've left morality behind.

[Rooster7 11]

Hunt,

 

I dont buy your line of reasoning. Regardless, I submit that your burning desire to treat all POWs as humanly as possible would diminish greatly - if you had absolute knowledge that a specific individual was willfully withholding information that could prevent the torture and/or murder of someone close to you. Perhaps your way is more noble, but personally - Im not so sure.

[Trevorum 24]

Strangely, I find myself in agreement with Rooster here (hey, it happens!). On the one hand, I strongly feel that in this instance our President should have gone on record as denouncing torture. On the other hand, I do not believe in moral absolutes and I can easily construct thought experiments - as did Rooster - in which one must choose between two immoralities. To take it to an extreme, let's say that Zaphrod Beeblebrox will destroy the entire Earth unless you commit an act which you find repugnant - say, murdering an infant. I have no doubt in that bizarre case what I would do - and I'd just have to live with the guilt for the rest of my life. In that case, one immoral act is outweighed by another of far larger magnitude. However, and as I said above, I have no clue where the line is - tens? thousands? millions? In a similar case, Truman chose to use WMD against tens of thousands of innocent civilians to save perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans. That decision is still debated, but I think he made the moral, but agonizing, choice.

[Rooster7 11]

Ironically, I do believe in absolute moral standards. Im just not sure how capable I am at meeting those standards 24/7 no matter what the circumstance might be.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

 

Mr. Spock

Noted Vulcan Science Officer and Philosopher

[LongHaul 10]

Am I reading these posts right? Do some of you actually believe that ANYTHING and I mean literally ANYTHING can be justified as long as the price is right? In 1941 the Japanese Military bombed Pearl Harbor, which incited Congress to declare war. (The atrocities committed in China, the Philippines and the Okinawan chain before that had little affect. ) Yet in 1971 we couldnt wait to sell them Southern California . Deliberately avoid bombing certain mainland Japanese cities to leave them in good condition to judge effect (the fact that it also attracted civilians fleeing the bombings elsewhere not with standing) and then drop a WMD on them. Hey no problem. As long as we can say it saved AMERICAN LIVES we can do ANYTHING we deem necessary. The end justifies the means. I wonder how some of you would feel if the person BEING tortured was a family member or child. But our government NEVER makes mistakes so wrongful imprisonment and torture could never happen. Americas problem is we have a very short, selective memory. To us 100 years is a long time. To most of the Arab nations 100 miles is a long distance. They have lived within 100 miles of their birth place all their lives and their families have lived in the same place for thousands of years.  Some had family members involved in the Crusades, stories passed down from generation to generation.  We will travel 100 to have dinner! and as Ive said can forget past aggressions against us if the money is right. Why is there no discussion about what WE did to these people that they want to kill us? You can believe its religion if that makes it easy but most of you know thats not the truth. We have imposed our views, culture and influence on these people for a very long time. We support dictators and ruling class rich in countries and then wonder why the common people hate us. The fact that in one breath we discuss teaching youth to make moral and ethical choices and in the next claim that WMD are moral and ethical if we use them but grounds for killing thousands of innocent civilians if we think the other guy might be trying to make them gives me cause to wonder . LongHaul

[Rooster7 11]

LongHaul,

 

I dont believe the non-sense that you are spewing about our country. But since you do, I think you have to seriously ask yourself, How can I remain a citizen of such a morally deficient nation? May I suggest that you take a long haul down the road perhaps to one of those Middle Eastern countries that you seem to admire so much? Im sure you would be welcomed warmly. Certainly, there must be at least one nation in that area of the world that you find more acceptable than "The Great Satan" - at least, so your words seem to indicate.

 

[Rooster7 11]

LongHaul,

 

Let me restate my last post in more direct language. This is one time I think may have been too polite. So to be more to the point Your views disgust me. You cannot justify 9-11. Your words, and others who preach the same garbage, are only encouraging our enemies and fueling their twisted minds to do more.

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Rooster,

BUDDY! It's early in the morning, have another coffee or something. Sheesh.

 

I don't read anywhere in LongHaul's post that he admired Middle Eastern countries that supposedly hate us, nor do I see anything there where he tried to justify the attacks on 9/11. Those, I think, are conclusions you're reaching based on your reading of his comments. I don't read them that way, but your mileage may vary.

 

But, he does have a point. We as a nation understand very little about what's going on the Middle East, why things are happening the way they are, the history that led them there, etc. There's no justification for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I believe that we were justified in our invasion of Afghanistan in an effort to capture those who attacked us. I also believe that the invasion of Iraq was misguided, based on a faulty view of intelligence, and diverted us away from the true mission. But, this isn't a tit for tat kind of adventure. Just because somebody does something to us means we can turn around and do the same thing to them. Just because our enemies practice torture and inhumane treatment doesn't mean that we should. What kind of country are we, really, if our government is passing around notes asking what they can get away with in regards to torture, and this from an administration that's notorious for it's black and views of things? So, let's see, if the person doesn't quite die, is that torture? So, if we say that we won't torture people, is it ok for us to take our prisoners and turn them over to "friends" who will torture them on our behalf? Should we be "hiding" prisons where we can keep people for undetermined lengths of time with no benefit of counsel, not charges being brought, just because we "think" they might be somehow associated with our enemies? I'm personally encouraged that the American people aren't walking in lockstep, agreeing with this view of things, and more and more, saying in effect, "hey, wait a minute".

 

Torture is wrong. Whoever does it is wrong. And that includes us. Create all the moral thought experiments you want; it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. That doesn't mean that in some extreme cases it might come to that, but we shouldn't for a second think that it becomes some sort of noble thing to do in that case.

 

And let's put this "America, love it or leave it" baloney to bed right now. The fact that there are those who don't agree with what this administration is doing doesn't mean that they love this country any less. Why don't we turn it around? If there are those who think that torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners is an okeedokee thing to do, then maybe you're the ones who should find yourselves a nice place to go live. There are plenty of countries around who think that that behavior is perfectly fine. The U.S. just doesn't happen to be one of them, at least most of the time.

[BrentAllen 10]

A scenario for Long Haul and P-S:

Al-Qaeda operatives in the US just grabbed your sons. They threaten to behead them with a dull, rusty butcher knife on camera unless the US is completely out of Iraq in the next 48 hours. You know that isn't going to happen. The FBI grabs an operative who knows where the boys are being held. You two suddenly have a change of heart about torture, and you are ready to do some "information extraction" in any way that will work. Unfortunately, Congress has passed their law making any kind of torture illegal. How does that law Congress is proposing look now?

We are not proposing torture be used regularly. We are saying Congress should not tie the hands of everyone for every circumstance, and that is what they are trying to do.

 

Real life scenario. A Captain on the ground in Iraq is losing soldiers regularly to road-side bombs and ambushes. One of the locals point out this Iraqi who seems to know when they are going to happen, because he has been warning some to stay away from certain roads at certain times. The soldiers grab him and bring him in. The Captain is certain the Iraqi has intel, but won't talk. He takes the Iraqi outside his tent, points his sidearm at his head and says he will kill him if he doesn't talk. Mr. Iraqi is scared, but still won't talk. Captain throws him on the ground, puts sidearm in his face and threatens again. Iraqi still won't talk. Captain points firearm a foot away from Iraqi's head, and fires into the sand. Mr. Iraqi has a sudden change of heart, and starts telling about an upcoming ambush. The Captain's actions saved the lives of American soldiers. Unfortunately, this was considered torture and he was relieved of his command and brought up for Court Marshal.

I have no problem with the Captain's actions. This is war, not capture the flag. I'm afraid Congress, sitting in their nice surroundings, wearing their nice suits, has no idea what they are doing with this proposal. They need to get out in the war zone before they take any action on defining torture.