Printable View
A strict moralist wouldn't make the distinction, but I guess torture+hypocrisy is worse...Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
One is inclined to bastardize a useless phrase from yesteryear:
If a questionable act is committed by an agent of the U.S., in circumstances constituting an arguably gray moral area, is it still reprehensible?
Never mind; I know your answer. ;)
define "gray moral area"Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You do :huh: I have yet to see you get it right when you tell me "what I think"Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You are pro-torture? :OQuote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I'm surprised, well and truly. :huh:
Oh, and as to the other, as you should know by now, the U.S. seeks to have the international community accept there is a need to address legal status issues vis a vis terrorists.
I'd have thought this was clear...
How is this a "gray moral area"? . Perhaps you mean "gray legal area"Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Both, actually, but well-spotted nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
It also occurs to me the tactic currently being employed is reflective of nothing less than the best efforts of the most able and agile lawyers, unpalatable though this might be.
Actually all "moral" issues are a "grey area" to a certain degree but how about this.... we set what counts as "torture" or "unethical" things we would object to ourtroops or citizens having to endure. That would clear the "greyness" up.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
in other words the "enemy" is legitimately entitled to do to us as we do to them. I appreciate they already do bad things but the point here is what we think is both moral or legal.
What will it take to get the "international" community to entertain any idea that, where these people are concerned, some dialog beyond merely assigning them to current "policy" is necessary?
Leave torture out of it for a moment; these terrorists are associates of organizations fervently united only for purposes of inflicting death and destruction on those they deem unworthy.
They answer to no one, no entity holds sway over them.
There is no mechanism with which to pressure or influence them; they do as they please.
We have no method, system, or cogent philosophy to deal with them-indeed, their effectiveness depends wholly upon the lack of international disquisition.
In the absense of coherent and universally accepted policy, they cannot ultimately be defeated by means other than elimination.
Given these conditions, as long as their actions suit anyone apart from their current targets, they will continue to do what they do.
Some see their actions as expressive; they are more correctly viewed as oppressive, even by those who overlook their acts as long as they themselves are not targeted.
The fruits of a civilized world should be reserved for the willingly civilized.
Don't the civilized lose that status once they stop behaving civilized?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I think I just proffered that behaviors (all of them) are conditional.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If your kid behaves, he doesn't get spanked, right?
Civilized nations are no different; we are as civilized as we can afford to be.
Consider that perhaps the price to countenance terrorism is too high for civilized men. ;)