|
Koja -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:26:14 PM)
|
Ho hum... Not to get annoyed on a topic I am decidedly not interested in at the moment. I've been without a T.V. without a year or more. Priorities.
BUT...
there's a major logical fallacy on claiming that rights do not apply to suspected terrorists.
Saying that the convention does not apply to a TERRORIST, possibly. But that's kind of the idea behind a fair trial; you can't do anything you like to anyone you suspect of committing a crime.
Likewise: A man in uniform under a different nation's colors is not the same as a civil individual. But this argument does NOT hold true while examining the ideals of equality between individuals. Civil entitites are all equal.
Honestly, I could claim anyone to be a suspect of "civil terrorism" due to vulgarity or difference of opinions (Sounds stupid, but so does "economic terrorism"). And thereby give moral right to torturing them? Could justify the death of an awful lot of people who put ketchup on steak. Kind of makes the purpose in having ANY rights for ANYBODY useless, if you can just suspend them on a whim. Is there explicit justification given for each detainee's "terrorist-ness"? Something to look into before arguing the matter at all. Whilst looking at ALL of the facts, not just facts cited by the detaining body.
Listening to a reason such as "Well, they're a terrorist, trust me; I've looked deeply into the facts" to ensure accountability of a government is about as reliable as trusting a 13 year old to drive. Immediate similar results that come to mind are all the political speakers that end up in insanitariums reliant on knowledge given by doctors paid by their rivals. Funny phenomenon when people trust unsubstantiated "expert" opinion.
If you think we as a populous are too responsible to let such a thing happen, then explain the groundless detention of large numbers of civilian japanese in concentration camps. Likewise, look into the holocaust: it's very difficult to conceive ANY individuals "letting" something like that happen, but it did.
It may well be that it is both efficient and morally right to torture many of these individuals. But using sweeping variables such as "suspects" or "civilian" to define who can be subjugated to a reduced human status is not something that can be done.(1)
(1): The argument that "Yes it can. Look, we're doing it right now!" is rightfully hilarious. Funny enough, in fact, to possibly elicit some type of "cyber-groan" across space and time. But that is an argument that is completely tasteless on an issue as serious as this. That's why footnotes were invented. They're great for sneaking character attacks past editors, as well, supposedly.(2)
(2): On the subject of footnotes, it should be noted that having only one footnote referencing something at the end of an argument is a mark of incredible wit and style.
|
|
|
|
