To torture, or not to torture?
I know it's inconsistent with my blog, and way too long, but I had to write it. I did a bingo search for the USA torture debate and found two Australian articles, 'one of each' so to speak. The first tries to lay out the case for torture, the second has both viewpoints, but I've cherry picked the opposing argument. Firstly:
"Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person. The reason that torture in such a case is defensible and necessary is because the justification manifests from the closest thing we have to an inviolable right: the right to self-defence, which of course extends to the defence of another. Given the choice between inflicting a relatively small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person, it is verging on moral indecency to prefer the interests of the wrongdoer." from theage.com.au
The second argument seems so go something like this:
MARK SIMKIN: When it comes to torture, John McCain knows what he's talking about. He's been on the receiving end.
In 1967 he was on a bombing run over Hanoi. A surface to air missile blew off the wing of his plane. McCain bailed out, landed in a lake and was captured by the Vietcong. He spent the next five and a half years as a prisoner of war, being beaten and tortured.
JOHN MCCAIN: Our image in the world is suffering very badly, and one of the reasons for it is the perception that we abuse people that we take captive.
MARK SIMKIN: The White House isn't happy about the amendment. It's worried it will impede its ability to fight terrorism, and George W. Bush is even threatening to block it with the first veto of his presidency.
Behind the scenes, Vice President Dick Cheney is trying to roll back the ban, arguing that it should not apply to the CIA.
Supporters of the ban on torture argue that the mistreatment doesn't just hurt the prisoner, it also hurts the United States' reputation.
Chuck Hagel is a senior Republican.
CHUCK HAGEL: I think the administration's making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture. Why in the world they're doing that I don't know. From abc.net.au
Despite the fact that the second argument relies heavily on 'protecting the USA from international brow furrowing' I must find it the more compelling argument. Torturing people is torrorising people. But they are bad guys! I hear people say. Well, how can you be so sure? Would people have been tortured to find where Saddam's WMD was? (to save lives from an Iarq attack on the USA).
I don't want the USA to go down the tubes, it would be bad for the world. Please, if you have an ounce of Christian value, write to George Bush and give him your opinion.
"Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person. The reason that torture in such a case is defensible and necessary is because the justification manifests from the closest thing we have to an inviolable right: the right to self-defence, which of course extends to the defence of another. Given the choice between inflicting a relatively small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person, it is verging on moral indecency to prefer the interests of the wrongdoer." from theage.com.au
The second argument seems so go something like this:
MARK SIMKIN: When it comes to torture, John McCain knows what he's talking about. He's been on the receiving end.
In 1967 he was on a bombing run over Hanoi. A surface to air missile blew off the wing of his plane. McCain bailed out, landed in a lake and was captured by the Vietcong. He spent the next five and a half years as a prisoner of war, being beaten and tortured.
JOHN MCCAIN: Our image in the world is suffering very badly, and one of the reasons for it is the perception that we abuse people that we take captive.
MARK SIMKIN: The White House isn't happy about the amendment. It's worried it will impede its ability to fight terrorism, and George W. Bush is even threatening to block it with the first veto of his presidency.
Behind the scenes, Vice President Dick Cheney is trying to roll back the ban, arguing that it should not apply to the CIA.
Supporters of the ban on torture argue that the mistreatment doesn't just hurt the prisoner, it also hurts the United States' reputation.
Chuck Hagel is a senior Republican.
CHUCK HAGEL: I think the administration's making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture. Why in the world they're doing that I don't know. From abc.net.au
Despite the fact that the second argument relies heavily on 'protecting the USA from international brow furrowing' I must find it the more compelling argument. Torturing people is torrorising people. But they are bad guys! I hear people say. Well, how can you be so sure? Would people have been tortured to find where Saddam's WMD was? (to save lives from an Iarq attack on the USA).
I don't want the USA to go down the tubes, it would be bad for the world. Please, if you have an ounce of Christian value, write to George Bush and give him your opinion.
posted by Vegetables Go Off at 11:52 AM
1 Interesting comments:
Politics shouldn’t interfere with military and DOD business. Military personal have to worry about too much nowadays and it is hurting everyone. Right now the rules of engagement in Iraq are so far out of wack that I am surprised we only have a death count of 2100. As it stands soldiers fear being court marshaled more than being killed by the enemy. Of course I am not saying let the military run all over the people without restriction. The things that happened in Vietnam are atrocious and should never have happened but I think we are getting closer to the opposite end of the spectrum. Keep politics where it belongs, baby kissing and hand shaking.
Post a Comment
<< Home