[title should say neccessary - can't change it or links will be ruined]
Is it moral to torture someone if that torture will serve a greater good? What if you do not know whether it will serve any good or not? In a general war, the answer must be absolutely not. To take away the human dignity of another is to lose one's own. But in this new war on terrorism, the answer must change.
As opposed to most wars, where an average soldier has little to no information of military plans (certainly not of something similar to a terrorist attack; most attacks in a regular war are directed toward the opposing military, not civilians in general), terrorists are generally from smaller pockets which tend to know more about each other's actions. A larger problem is that there is a need to find out just who the terrorists are in this case: As opposed to a regular war, in which a country is fighting another country, and therefore is able to determine who is an enemy soldier and who is not, such is not the case here. The only way to determine who the terrorists are is through information - information which only the terrorists can give us.
When I was in Israel two years ago (I studied there post-high school for two years), there was an incident where the Shin-Bet grabbed a terrorist who was about to blow himself up on a Rechov Bar-Ilan, a main street in northern Jerusalem. They interrogated him quite harshly in front of many people, and within minutes they had the answer they needed. They then stopped another terrorist on the other side of Jerusalem, also wearing a bomb vest aimed to kill civilians.
This is the largest difference between a standard war and a war on terrorism. It is not so much that they are not wearing uniforms - it is that they are impossible to differentiate from the standard population without information; that they attack civilians; and that it is almost impossible to predict where they will strike next - they often do not have a strategic goal beyond murder when they attack. People often question whether it is moral to sacrifice the civil rights of one person for the sake of another. In this case, the answer is simple: When someone is dedicating their life to the violation of the civil rights of others, to the murder of people by means of terrorist atrocities, and e fortiori if they are doing so by 'sacrificing' their lives, they have forfeited any civil rights they may have had. "Torture" in this case is not just legal - sadly, it is a moral necessity for society to exist.
First, it's A fortiori, not E
ReplyDeleteSecond, you used it wrong
Third, you're making a dopey argument, because how do you know someone is"dedicating their life to the violation of the civil rights of others, to the murder of people by means of terrorist atrocities" if they've had no trial, or even been charged with a crime??
You can't just go around saying, hmmm HE looks like a terrorist! Let's torture him and find out what he knows!! (though that's more or less Bush's policy)
Fourth - Why does someone forfeit his civil rights? Because you say he did? The Constitution disagrees (there's no ammendment reading: "Hey. Everything we said here doesn't apply if they guys a terorrist") and doesn't a strict conservative like you worship the constitution?
1) That's how I was taught by my Bar-Mitzvah...
ReplyDelete2) Ditto.
3) That's lunacy. These people were captured while fighting, or after being tracked for a while.
4) The last paragraph specifically explains how they have forfeited - not lost - their civil rights.
3) That's lunacy. These people were captured while fighting, or after being tracked for a while.
ReplyDelete-----> So why do we have trials at all? Your whole thought process on this issue is lunacy. You seem ready to believe any thing any cop says. What protects people from mistakes?
4) The last paragraph specifically explains how they have forfeited - not lost - their civil rights.
----> No it doesn't. What's the process? Is there a hearing? A trial? A sworn statament? Or does it just happen whenever a cop with a chip on his shoulder decides he feels like knocking some darkie around?
3&4) That's crazy - I specifically said this is where they were nabbed while fighting (though I'll extend that to anyone in the process of carrying out an attack, or caught with weapons, or with physical plans for an attack). What's "believing" what the cop says? These are facts - not opinions. The cops aren't knocking darkies (or ragheads) around - it's more often US soldiers grabbing terrorist fighters.
ReplyDeleteOk so your new rule is we get to rip the fingernails off anyone we catch in a battle? How do you define a battle? What checks and balances will you put in place to prevent a rouge commander with a grudge from giving someone the once over?
ReplyDelete(this is taken from a post by DovBear - in my comments (#27)
ReplyDeleteCommon sense. Isn't that the point, really? When you have to check all the criteria, you're going through the whole bureaucratic process again - which means nobody will ever do anything, in case it comes back to haunt them later. It also means the terrorists now have a list of criteria through which they can peruse, and can ensure that even if one gets caught, there's no way the information will ever leave his head.
That said... I'll give criteria anyway:
The criteria have to be basic - where it is obvious the person is a terrorist, and there is at least some reason to believe he may be holding valuable information, interrogation should be allowed. If there's a slightly less pressing urge, check with a judge first. Can this be agreed to?