Morally Acceptable?

With reference to the question in the OP, is this morally acceptable?

  • Total voters
    0
#102
#102
This is a well thought out conundrum on the part of the OP. I wouldn't use "celebratory" to describe my feelings on OBL's death. I can't describe exactly how I felt. Relief, maybe a little pride in our actions, I don't know. I'll say it disturbed me a little to see street celebrations after the announcement. I don't ever recall us celebrating someone's death as a nation. That said, OBL got what was coming to him. Bringing him back for trial would not have changed the outcome. Therefore I don't see the way we did it as morally wrong.

As to torture, I am solidly against it. We, as a nation, either have priciples or we don't. Torture puts us in the same boat as the Irans, Syrias and Chinas of the world. I still see us better than that. Would we have gotten OBL without it? I don't think we can definitively say yes or no to that.
 
#106
#106
NewToVolCountry said:
You don't think airports are any safer? How many plots have been foiled that we will never know about because of increased security and things like roving wiretaps?
Click to expand...

How many terrorist plots have been foiled by the TSA in the last 10 years? I'm sure that any plots foiled would be made very public as to brag about the efficiency of the TSA.

I don't feel any safer in airports.

The Department of Homeland Security is a joke.

You think it's okay to wiretap American citizens without warrant?
 
#108
#108
Torture is wrong, period. As for Bin Laden, it's pretty obvious the plan from the outset was not to take him alive, and I am totally fine with that and look forward to the day when his #2, Zawahiri is killed too.
 
#110
#110
BigPapaVol said:
Help me understand your reduced freedom.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Other than being groped at the airport?

Photography is a hobby of mine. I like to take photos of architecture. I've been stopped by cops three times in Chicago and St Louis for "suspicious actions" while taking photos. First two times they went through my camera and deleted photos, the third time I got smart and had a copy of the photographer's rights on me. All three claimed they were acting within the Patriot Act.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#111
#111
VOLatile said:
How many terrorist plots have been foiled by the TSA in the last 10 years? I'm sure that any plots foiled would be made very public as to brag about the efficiency of the TSA.

I don't feel any safer in airports.

The Department of Homeland Security is a joke.

You think it's okay to wiretap American citizens without warrant?
Click to expand...

The US "felt" safe before 9/11. Being safe/safer would be more important.

Fact is (particularly with flying) domestic everyday planes where used on 9/11 with relative easy. Could that happen again? Sure, the probability is down from 10 years ago so the chances are less IMO. Which should be the goal.
 
#112
#112
BeecherVol said:
The US "felt" safe before 9/11. Being safe/safer would be more important.

Fact is (particularly with flying) domestic everyday planes where used on 9/11 with relative easy. Could that happen again? Sure, the probability is down from 10 years ago so the chances are less IMO. Which should be the goal.
Click to expand...

could the same event happen again? Not unless the pilots were in on it and executed the plan themselves. No plane will be hijacked in the US again
 
#116
#116
On the morals question:

There was a scathing article yesterday from Andrew Sullivan about the torture debate. Basically he thought the whole discussion was an attempt to hide the war crimes of Bush and Co.

I found it interesting that he believes Bush and Co. should be tried for serious war crimes (of which Sullivan believes they are guilty) yet he apparently sees nothing wrong with us going into a sovereign country and killing an unarmed man with no trial.

I don't see how one could be so adamant about one being wrong but not see the wrong in the other (or vice versa). (obviously it's more about "who" than "what"; his guy didn't do anything wrong. The opponents guy is a filthy war criminal)
 
#117
#117
VOLatile said:
Other than being groped at the airport?

Photography is a hobby of mine. I like to take photos of architecture. I've been stopped by cops three times in Chicago and St Louis for "suspicious actions" while taking photos. First two times they went through my camera and deleted photos, the third time I got smart and had a copy of the photographer's rights on me. All three claimed they were acting within the Patriot Act.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Oh the horrors :)

I kid, I kid.
 
#118
#118
volinbham said:
Oh the horrors :)

I kid, I kid.
Click to expand...

I think it was actually a pretty big deal a year or two ago. Resulted in a "national photography day" or some such, where people were supposed to go out and take pictures of Transit Authority stuff, like subways and the like.

It was spearheaded by a group of dudes that got harassed by a group one day.

There was also a big blog by one individual that kept having run-ins with the police... because he kept taking pictures of them whenever they and he were nearby.

It was kind of amusing.

Found it. It was this dude: http://www.pixiq.com/user/carlosmiller/
 
Last edited:
#119
#119
i must say i'm pretty impressed the cops have actually stopped anyone from doing that.
 
#120
#120
droski said:
i must say i'm pretty impressed the cops have actually stopped anyone from doing that.
Click to expand...

It is big with the mass transit groups. You take a lot of photographs and you will get asked several questions, and might get some of the pictures deleted.

Which is dumb, because you can just dump the raw data from the card, and get the pictures back, or use partition recovery software to restore the pictures back as well.

It is just annoying.

Filming/photographing the police, though. That is a whole different story. You can get prosecuted for that, and quick.
 
#121
#121
Philisophically, I wonder if the anti-torture crowd has a problem with actual torture, or with the thought of torture. What if there were a pill, where when somebody took it they fell asleep, seemingly peaceful, but were actually in a great deal of pain. No scarring, no physical damage...but when they woke up told you everything you wanted to know not to have to go through it again. Would that even be "torture"?

Or what about this argument. When we drop bombs during war, we do so knowing innocent civilians will get injured in the process, despite our best efforts to avoid it. What is torture, if it isn't killing and maiming innocent civilians? Seems to me, if we are ok with bombs or even stray pistol rounds hitting innocent people, what is the problem with torturing somebody we KNOW has killed, or has information on killing numerous people?
 
#122
#122
rjd970 said:
Would that even be "torture"?

What is torture, if it isn't killing and maiming innocent civilians?
Click to expand...


Yes. Torture is defined by the UN as:
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Click to expand...

BTK, ironically, did not "torture" people.
 
#123
#123
fl0at said:
Yes. Torture is defined by the UN as:


BTK, ironically, did not "torture" people.
Click to expand...

There are a great deal of legal loop holes in the UN's definition:

any act by which severe pain or suffering,
Click to expand...

What qualifies as severe?

whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,
Click to expand...

If information and/or a confession has already been obtained, may torture be used to corroborate?

punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
Click to expand...

Does this allow for plausible deniability? What if the public official simply orders the directive to get the information and then leaves the room, never actually consenting nor acquiescing to torture...just decides he will take the information and not ask specific questions as to how it was retrieved?

It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Click to expand...

Catch and release; catch and release; catch and release...ensure that every time the suspect is caught, he with only so much care as is required by the law and the situation...could possibly be rough every single time, until he talks...

This UN directive, as with almost every UN directive, remains vague and fails to specifically name actions that could be considered torture; fails to specify certain thresholds that must be met for an act to be considered torture; and, as always, fails to actually enforce anything.
 
#124
#124
therealUT said:
There are a great deal of legal loop holes in the UN's definition:

What qualifies as severe?
Click to expand...

Pain is scaled to the individual. Ask any physician about a pain scale. They are decent indicators, not 100%, but decent indicators of pain relative to the individual.

What is painful to you may or may not be painful to me.

So, I don't think that is a loop hole, unless you stop and ask the individual if they are in severe pain, and they reply no, so you keep going.

If information and/or a confession has already been obtained, may torture be used to corroborate?
Click to expand...
"or a third person[,] information"

So, no.

Does this allow for plausible deniability? What if the public official simply orders the directive to get the information and then leaves the room, never actually consenting nor acquiescing to torture...just decides he will take the information and not ask specific questions as to how it was retrieved?
Click to expand...

"or other person acting in an official capacity."

Catch and release; catch and release; catch and release...ensure that every time the suspect is caught, he with only so much care as is required by the law and the situation...could possibly be rough every single time, until he talks...
Click to expand...

"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

This UN directive, as with almost every UN directive, remains vague and fails to specifically name actions that could be considered torture; fails to specify certain thresholds that must be met for an act to be considered torture; and, as always, fails to actually enforce anything.
Click to expand...

I don't see the vagueness.
 
#125
#125
Law enforcement officials solve heinous crimes everyday without the use of torture.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top