An ethical question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coinneach, you clearly don't comprehend my argument because you are stuck on torture. I posed a philosophical question dealing with the use of force on a personal and national level and why they are so different.
Click to expand...

You're answering your own question there. It's because they are two totally different sets of circumstances.

On a personal level, there is no doubt about the identity of my attacker or his intentions. If someone comes at me with a knife or gun in a dark alley, I do not need judge or jury to establish intent or guilt, and the use of force is entirely justified because the person in question constitutes a direct and provable threat to my life.

On a "national level", it's not so clear-cut (especially when fighting a multinational enemy that does not do you the favor of wearing uniforms), unless you want to assign automatic guilt to a given nationality, skin color, or religion, and then assume that everyone fitting those charateristics has both the intent and opportunity to kill you.

Your analogy doesn't hold water. If you absolutely want to compare personal self-defense against an identified aggressor with a state's self-defense against terrorism, here's what would fit your analogy:

A group of guys breaks into your house with guns drawn. You emerge from the bedroom and cut loose with your home defense shotgun, sending the invaders fleeing. You pursue them, but they seem to have gotten away in the darkness. Then you see an individual who looks like he may have been one of the home invaders trying to start up a car nearby. You force the guy out of his car at gunpoint, and then take him to your house, where you tie him to a chair and beat him with a rubber hose to make him tell you where his buddies are.

Is that action covered under "self-defense"? Would you be legally absolved for such an action? How about morally?
 
There is a documented report due out by ABC later by B. Ross. He interviewed past and present CIA personel. Now keep in mind that some of those intervied were for "forced" interogation and some were dead against it. The information was gathered by both sides. After such techniques as sleep deprivation and water boarding----they have 14--14 documented terrorist attacks that were thwarted by the info gotten. These prisoners were 14 of the top Al Queda operatives captured and held in a secret prison. 1 of the attacks they caught was an attack on the tallest building in L.A that would have killed 1,000's.
Now they tried other techniques first---but they only "broke" after the water boarding. O'Reilly actually did an interview tonight with the reporter Ross about this. The hardest to break was the master mind behind the planning of 911---took him 2 and 1/2 MINUTES to give up this info. Now this "power" shouldn't be on the battlefield--where emotion becomes involved. But having the CIA have this ability is vital to getting important information IMO.
 
On a personal level, there is no doubt about the identity of my attacker or his intentions. If someone comes at me with a knife or gun in a dark alley, I do not need judge or jury to establish intent or guilt, and the use of force is entirely justified because the person in question constitutes a direct and provable threat to my life.

On a "national level", it's not so clear-cut (especially when fighting a multinational enemy that does not do you the favor of wearing uniforms), unless you want to assign automatic guilt to a given nationality, skin color, or religion, and then assume that everyone fitting those charateristics has both the intent and opportunity to kill you.
Click to expand...


No its really not. Yes I did mention torture in my first post, but this applies also to decisions not to enter mosques, or drop bombs near hospitals or schools, or a variety of other things that we have or have not done over the course of this war. Again I am speaking about the general policy of restraint that has seemed to enter our military decision making over the last several decades.

As far as being clear cut, the distinction isn't as blurry as you would like people to believe. Its not too difficult to understand that the guy with the ak who just happens to be shooting at you probably isn't your buddy. I'd venture to say that there are enough people causing us problems that we don't need to go running around grabbing random "muslim looking" people.

Your analogy doesn't hold water. If you absolutely want to compare personal self-defense against an identified aggressor with a state's self-defense against terrorism, here's what would fit your analogy:
Click to expand...

My analogy is fine. The argument that you and Coinneach are presenting isn't the point I'm trying to make. Both of you are taking part of what I said, altering it, and then illustrating why its wrong.

The fact remains that there are people on this board and elsewhere who have gone so far as to say that where it is legal they would shoot an intruder in their home. Not necessarily an intruder presenting a deadly threat, but an intruder nonetheless. At the same time, these same people call for restraint as far as how we prosecute this war whether it is with interrogations, secret prisons, dealing with insurgents, and just about any other relevant topic you can think of.

I don't see how someone can have a "kill em all" attitude when it comes to their own or their family's safety, yet when the country is under threat, a different standard applies.
 
one commonality that I have found in their opinions and teachings regarding self defense is that when a person is presented with a deadly threat they can and should do everything in their power to neutralize the threat. That means a knee to the groin, and elbow to the face, throwing dirt, gouging eyes and all of the other things that have been "traditionally" viewed as fighing dirty.

No one here would look down upon a person who utilized the above tactics to ward off an attacker while they were minding their own business on their way home. Quite the contrary, we would say they were resourceful, and pat them on the back.
Click to expand...

Well, now, your original premise was that of an attack in the dark. Now you're shifting to an intruder in the home. And you've shifted from a philosophical discussion in theory to this:

that there are people on this board and elsewhere who have gone so far as to say that where it is legal they would shoot an intruder in their home. Not necessarily an intruder presenting a deadly threat, but an intruder nonetheless. At the same time, these same people call for restraint as far as how we prosecute this war whether it is with interrogations, secret prisons, dealing with insurgents, and just about any other relevant topic you can think of.

I don't see how someone can have a "kill em all" attitude when it comes to their own or their family's safety, yet when the country is under threat, a different standard applies.
Click to expand...

What we are telling you is that there IS a difference between an individual being attacked while they are sitting at home OR walking to their car, and a war. You want the actual attack, or burglary/home entry/home invasion/whatever to equal war, and you want the self defense of the individual within their home or walking along in public to equal treatment of prisoners. What we're telling you is that they are not the same.

If there's an equation to be made in the use of violence, it is this: if I have the right as an individual to protect myself and my family by the use of deadly force, then the United States has the right to protect itself from an attacking nation by the use of deadly force. And I can't think of anybody who would argue that point. But the use of force in combat is different than the use of force against a disarmed prisoner under your control. Marko has it absolutely right when he says:

A group of guys breaks into your house with guns drawn. You emerge from the bedroom and cut loose with your home defense shotgun, sending the invaders fleeing. You pursue them, but they seem to have gotten away in the darkness. Then you see an individual who looks like he may have been one of the home invaders trying to start up a car nearby. You force the guy out of his car at gunpoint, and then take him to your house, where you tie him to a chair and beat him with a rubber hose to make him tell you where his buddies are.

Is that action covered under "self-defense"? Would you be legally absolved for such an action? How about morally?
Click to expand...

Again, it is an interesting question you pose, but the analogy is faulty.

Springmom
 
I agree with Springmom (once again). Faulty analogy.
When mugged on the street, the assumptions are #1) There is an immediate threat to your life and #2) you are justified in whatever action helps you win.
Neither of these assumptions have been proven applicable here.
If I were to draw a parallel between torturing prisoners and a street mugging, I'd liken it to taking the six year old girl on the corner hostage because "she must be involved because she's the same race as the perp".
You see, not all actions are justified in response to an attack and your response might not be helpful to your cause.
 
Are we going to be a nation of law or a nation of hypocrites? We say we want to spread democracy to Iraq to make them a nation of laws. How can the Iraqis and others really beleive that when you have lied about secret torture camps and broken International law? The folks we elect and public officials are there to uphold the law and the Constitution. I dont care how you sugar coat it, the constitution guarantees due process. The actions of those who want to use torture and deny due process have made the Constitution the equivelant of a piece of toilet paper. What makes America better than Al Qaeda and others is that we are a nation of law. If we sink down to the level of folks of Al Qaeda and others we have already lost the war on terrorism. Because instead of a land of freedom and law we will be a nation of hypocrisy no better or worse than Al Qaeda to the rest of the world.
 
Premise: Why is it then that what we applaud on a personal level, we denounce on a national level? In modern times, America is the man on the street walking home, and terrorism is the thug trying to take our wallet, and our life if he can.

But once you take the mugger prisoner, the entire scenario changes. As a prisoner, the mugger is no longer the threat he was, when actively trying to mug you.

Using the premise first stated, no prisoner should have been taken. The threat should have been terminated at the outset. Once a prisoner is taken, the analogy falls apart.

That is precisely what others are trying to say and what you are failing to understand.
 
Self-defense is applauded because it is what you must use when you are defending yourself and there is no help available. The thing you are defending is your life, and you are alone in that effort.

National defense is scrutinized because you are really defending a concept. There's plenty of help around and there are alternate ways to go about doing it.

That is the difference.
 
The analogy is sound.

Take for instance our policy of not fighting in mosques. In that case there are KNOWN terrorists who have engaged us and we refuse to fight when they retreat to their "holy" site.

Also making the decision not to bomb populated areas where terrorists purposefully stay. Again here the attacker has not been captured and is waging war against you.

If you are still stuck on torture, I suppose the proper situation would be where you neutralize your attacker who just happens to be a gang member and his buddies are going to come after you if you don't find them first. I don't know that there wouldn't be a single person here who wouldn't put the screws to some guy who said "my homies know where you live and they are going to come for you".

Due to the differences between a nation and an individual there are going to be some practical differences but for some reason you folks keep getting hung up on this and the torture aspect. 9/11 was our sucker punch. Even though the particular individuals who carried it out are dead, the "guy" who did it is still out there in that al quaeda is still operating.

Until these islamic fundamentalists are stopped, the person on the street, being America, is still being attacked.
 
invention_45 said:
)Self-defense is applauded because it is what you must use when you are defending yourself and there is no help available. The thing you are defending is your life, and you are alone in that effort.

National defense is scrutinized because you are really defending a concept. There's plenty of help around and there are alternate ways to go about doing it.
Click to expand...

I agree with Stage 2, I consider Self-defense and National-defense the same. I feel that we haven't been fighting dirty enough God knows we've been kicked below the belt more than once during all this. WHATEVER IT TAKES!~
 
L'état, c'est moi!

Now if I were king ... :rolleyes:

Due to the differences between a nation and an individual there are going to be some practical differences but for some reason you folks keep getting hung up on this and the torture aspect. 9/11 was our sucker punch. Even though the particular individuals who carried it out are dead, the "guy" who did it is still out there in that al quaeda is still operating.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the reason that guy remains "out there" has little to do with the ostensible efficacy of torture, or the supposition that somehow we haven't taken our collective gloves off during the current hostilities, but rather more to do with the complexities of international diplomacy and those who the '"nation" selected as its bedfellows.

Some recent wranglings about torture:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212983

There are very good reasons that people get hung up on the torture aspect.
 
Seems like everybody here wants thier individual rights and due process. You would scream like a stuck pig if the police hauled you off and kept them in a cell for a month with no charges or due process. On the other hand, its okay to do it to someone we suspect of being a terrorist. When the precedent is set where you can snatch a person just because he is Arabic or muslim off the street and hold him for months without proof because some guy behind a desk says he is a threat to "national security" without due process. That is a very dangerous precedent to set. How many times in history has "national security" been misued? How many time has it been used to silence those justly speaking out against an administration or government. Its not a far stretch for what is going on now to be turned against American citizens one day for political purposes if due process can be suspended for "nation security".
 
L'état, c'est moi!

Now if I were king
Click to expand...

Thanks for my laugh of the day, Leif. I haven't heard that phrase in a loooooonnnnnggggg time :p

Now, to try one last time:

Take for instance our policy of not fighting in mosques. In that case there are KNOWN terrorists who have engaged us and we refuse to fight when they retreat to their "holy" site.

Also making the decision not to bomb populated areas where terrorists purposefully stay. Again here the attacker has not been captured and is waging war against you.
Click to expand...

OK. Thanks for specifying some battle tactics that we can discuss. It helps move us off the individual focus, which happened when you used the idea of the mugger. Because the mugger is an individual, it made sense to assume you were wanting to discuss how our military deals with individuals in war. That's not what you're discussing now, so we can move on past the torture issue. (I think.) :rolleyes:

We don't bomb mosques not because we give a rip about the religious sensibilities of the guys inside shooting at us: they don't have any, because no truly faithful Muslim would do this. They wouldn't desecrate their own holy places if they were holy to them. They're not. They're just using the mosques. You are right to say they hide within them for exactly the same reason they hide in villages behind the skirts of moms and their toddlers. It's a despicable practice, utterly at odds with everything every single civilized nation or people have ever done in waging war (well, until Vietnam....:( )

So why don't we bomb the mosques when the insurgents are inside? Because we care about the religious sensibilities of the innocent Muslims who would see their holy sites blown to smithereens. When the insurgents really wanted to stick it to the Shiites in Iraq in a big way, they DID blow up a mosque, and during Friday prayers no less.

We don't go blow up villages complete with moms and tots when we know there are insurgents there, because we care and value the lives of those innocents. Because it IS a despicable practice, because it is not who we ARE, because when we sink to their level something that is essentially good about America dies with those innocent moms and toddlers.

We are more than just a wealthy country with some really effective bombs and planes and soldiers. We are a democracy, a city on the hill for the rest of the world. And the day we start acting like terrorists, we lose that, we lose every bit of moral authority we have in this world. And that moral authority is a good thing, not only in itself, but because it is a force that has from time to time brought enemies to the peace table and prevented wars in other situations. Long term, and any nation MUST think long term, it is the most precious thing we have in international relations.

We cannot throw it away for short term battlefield exigency.

This has nothing to do with personal feelings or squeamishness about war,nor am I into singing "where have all the flowers gone". But the issues are bigger than those posed by your question, and the consequences of tossing that aside too grave for the possible gains.

Springmom
 
Yes, but much to their dismay, things like waterboarding and sleep deprivation have been proven effective.
Click to expand...

Can you give me a case by case example and how many times the information has been found out to be true out of the total number of people tortued? a verifiable percentage ?

Any information that is gained from torture without solid humint or sigint to back it up is just a guess. Is he telling the you the truth or just tellin you to get you to stop? Or is he lying to you on purpose. You dont know without other intel.
 
Eghad,

Seems like everybody here wants thier individual rights and due process. You would scream like a stuck pig if the police hauled you off and kept them in a cell for a month with no charges or due process. On the other hand, its okay to do it to someone we suspect of being a terrorist. When the precedent is set where you can snatch a person just because he is Arabic or muslim off the street and hold him for months without proof because some guy behind a desk says he is a threat to "national security" without due process. That is a very dangerous precedent to set. How many times in history has "national security" been misued? How many time has it been used to silence those justly speaking out against an administration or government. Its not a far stretch for what is going on now to be turned against American citizens one day for political purposes if due process can be suspended for "nation security".
Click to expand...

You are missing 2 points. Nobody is saying that due process isn't/shouldn't be available to those in the US. We are talking about terrorist captured on foreign land. They have NO rights under our constitution.

Can you give me a case by case example and how many times the information has been found out to be true out of the total number of people tortued? a verifiable percentage ?

Any information that is gained from torture without solid humint or sigint to back it up is just a guess. Is he telling the you the truth or just tellin you to get you to stop? Or is he lying to you on purpose. You dont know without other intel.
Click to expand...

Please read my post earlier in this thread regarding the documented cases uncovered by B. Ross from ABC. Beyond the 14 he cited, the waterboarding technique also led to the bombing suspects being captured in London before they could blow up the planes. Now as I said earlier, I'm NOT for the military using these techniques, BUT I am in favor of our CIA using it on captured and known terrorists---even if it saves 1 American vs discomfort for a terrorist.
Let me ask you this---would you have been in favor of Truman making the decision to drop the A Bomb--killing 200,000 in order to save 250,000 or so American soldiers? Sometimes these hard decisions must be made in times of war.
 
BUT I am in favor of our CIA using it on captured and known terrorists---even if it saves 1 American vs discomfort for a terrorist.
Let me ask you this---would you have been in favor of Truman making the decision to drop the A Bomb--killing 200,000 in order to save 250,000 or so American soldiers? Sometimes these hard decisions must be made in times of war.
Click to expand...

My dad didn't have to go invade Japan because Mr. Truman made that hard choice, and for that I have always been thankful. Instead he got to spend 18 months in Hawaii as an MP :D


MoW, has that report aired yet? I read your post, but I haven't seen the piece. Thing is, while "waterboarding" may have gotten info that corroborated other info, New Scotland Yard, MI-5 and other spooky types got a whole lot of what they needed by electronic spying as well. I'm not at all clear that they got info that they did not already have or did not get otherwise by this technique.

I suppose the underlying question is, "when does 'forceful interrogation' become 'torture'?" Deep down, I expect that most of us would say "when it becomes something we would never sit still for OUR soldiers being subjected to". Not that they aren't....my middle name is NOT Pollyanna...but as a yardstick by which to measure "acceptable force" in interrogation, it's a pretty good one.

Springmom
 
oh, and by the way...

I'd just like to say how pleased I am that we've kept this going without throwing poopy pies at each other and getting it shut down! ;) I am not a moderator and I do not play one on TV :D but I just wanted us to all give ourselves a virtual pat on the back for a moment about that.

Springmom :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top