|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Torture: Europe and Gitmo (12/13/2008 2:33:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
My question is simple. Do you believe that laws can be, or even should be based on morality?
My beliefs are irrelevant here, since it is a given that many laws are based on moral values. Whether this should be the case or not touches upon principles of universal ethics as applied to human rights, a fascinating subject, I agree.
...
PS: lol at your 'unambiguous answer' - yes, laws should be based upon certain inalienable moral principles: in this instance, they are called human rights. It is the only to have progress and to move on as a specie.
what are "inalienable moral principles" and "human rights" and where do they come from?
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
To go back to the subject of the thread, and concerning torture, it's obvious to me that inflicting unbelievable pain on a helpless human being, no matter what they are suspected of having done or of planning on doing, is absolutely morally wrong - and Sandra explained this very well.
What is "unbelievable pain"?
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
The police acted illegally and they should be penalised. However, to have state-sponsored torture under the guise that there are "special circumstances" is also morally wrong, but it is different precisely because it is implemented with the benediction of the State.
So ... it would be ok, if interrogators conducted "harsh interrogations", but were pardoned by the state, after admission of their tactics?
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
And another thing: if you torture other 'enemy combatants', you implicitely accept that your enemy can torture your own combatants. Unless you believe that moral relativism tilts in your favour?
As an interesting fact, none of the current or likely opponents of the US respect the Geneva Conventions, or any of the international legal or moral strictures concerning treatment of prisoners (or even innocent non-combatants. Nor have any in the recent past (~100 years), other than the Germans during WWII.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
You might find this article illuminating to understand a certain moral point of view: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/february/23.32.html
If I remember correctly, I believe that you find religion - especially the Christian religion - less than a stellar ideal when it comes to morality, and as a source of guidance and beliefs, so I'm not sure why you'd wish to attempt to buttress your positions by citing an article based on an authors interpretation of Christian theology.
That being said: Interesting article.
Some quotes for discussion, in which I agree with the author, and is the basis for much of my comments on the subject of both torture and "enhanced interrogation techniques":
Few people disagree that a liberal democracy has the right and responsibility to take prisoners and interrogate them during a war or police action. This is part of the government's biblical mandate in Romans 13:1-7, a mandate to deter violations of peace and justice. Most would even agree that interrogators should have some flexibility in applying pressure to encourage prisoners to reveal information that could save lives.
...
As to the exact kinds of acts that constitute torture, there is no single definition ...
...
But since September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has, in the name of national security, attempted to carve out room for acts that brush up against the boundary line separating aggressive interrogation from torture, without (they believe) crossing over it. Called "enhanced interrogation techniques," "professional interrogation," "moderate physical pressure,"
...
Among the unapproved but practiced measures have been punching, slapping, and kicking detainees, religious and sexual humiliation, prolonged shackling, exposure to severe heat or cold, food or toilet deprivation, mock or threatened executions, and letting dogs threaten or in some cases bite and severely injure detainees.
...
... terrorist acts around the world remind us that our nation, along with many others, faces a threat from enemies who do not adhere to the kinds of moral scruples we are considering in this essay.
...
Nor do I want to get into a technical and detailed argument about particular interrogation techniques to determine if they are torture.
...
Is this right absolute? Using Catholic moral reasoning, Robert G. Kennedy, professor of Catholic studies at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, has argued that even the most widely recognized human rights, such as the right to life or the right not to be tortured, can theoretically be qualified by other rights and by the requirements of justice.
However, probably the paragraph that strikes the deepest cord with me is the following:
But I think any potential resort to torture in rare, ticking-bomb cases would be better handled within the context of an outright ban. The grand moral tradition of civil disobedience, for example, specifies that there are instances in which obedience to laws must be overridden by loyalty to a higher moral obligation. These are usually unjust laws, but not always. Dietrich Bonhoeffer participated in an assassination plot against Hitler, for instance, but he did not argue for rewriting moral prohibitions against political assassinations. He was prepared to let God and history be his judge. If a one-in-a-million instance were to emerge, in which a responsible official believed that a ban on torture must be overridden as a matter of emergency response, let him do so knowing that he would have to answer for his action before God, law, and neighbor. This is a long way from an official authorization for torture.
This is a solution to difficult moral decisions that I have advocated myself, in these forums, for other situations. And, in effect, it is the solution that the German police accepted.
But would you accept such a solution for other situations such as euthanasia and abortion? Why or why not?
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
And some facts:
UN Convention against torture. (Ratified by the USA in 94.)
OK.
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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 ...
Doesn't the entire debate rest on the definition of "severe"?
Firm
|
|
|
|
