270 Responses to “Open Thread: Pigs”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
-
Featured Books
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene 
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body 
Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology 
System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts 
The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart 
Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge 
Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris 
Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey 
The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies 
Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch 
Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman 
Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur 
Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee 
The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards 
The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold 
The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet 
Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb 
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
April 25th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Does anyone else get tired of hearing public office holders advertise their concern for the poor and ordinary workers while acting against their interests?
Politics is driving the destruction of the District's school voucher program.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
April 26th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Huh. I thought this was your Swine Flu thread…
Comment by Joy — April 26, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:07 am
So let's make it a health care thread then.
Why do universal health care advocates in the States look to Canada as a great example. Our health care sucks! I have to wait 6 weeks to see my family doctor, ER waiting times vary from 1 hour to 6 hours, and Canadians in life-or-death waits for operations are going to the States to get the necessary surgery.
Health care currently takes up about 60% each provincial budget, and costs are climbing. You want a sure way to bankrupt yourself and get crappier service, then implement universal health care. Nice knowing you! We (Canada) will take Alaska, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Montana and maybe even Washington and Oregon (and Hawaii too). The rest Mexico can have.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — April 27, 2009 @ 12:07 am
April 27th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Gee, I wouldn't know, JJS. I have no access at all. I thought it interesting that CDC let loose yesterday of the information that it's a totally "unique" virus – a strange genetic mixture of swine flu, avian flu, and human flu. I don't know what parts affect infection, which trigger particular T-cell response, which gets in under the radar because it's really new (avian). I do know that CDC/NIH licensed labs at universities and corporate basements have been shipped samples of such viruses, and encouraged to 'experiment'. The goal being a super omni-vaccine that's effective against all virulant forms of influenza likely to be an issue, usable year after year.
This virus is more a threat to my daughter (prime age range) and grandson (in college) than it is to me. I'm old, this one doesn't prey on old folks. Which is a good thing, though I don't care that much if I die. I got used to that idea years ago. No, I don't expect real health care. We don't have that here. People I know well who needed complex surgery and had great government insurance got it done in Singapore. They can do bypass without the mind-killing machinery.
Some go to Mexico for cancer treatment. Some go to Canada to get any treatment at all. You can come here if you like. It's not like there's a long line ahead of you. Most of us can't get in the door.
Comment by Joy — April 27, 2009 @ 12:59 am
April 27th, 2009 at 5:17 am
In case you haven't already noticed: it seems UD now allows serious critics to participate, even though moderator Barry Arrington still has trouble keeping his finger from the banning button. It's actually good fun to read UD now, unlike before when it was an appalling echo-chamber. Blowhard Gil Dodgen has already quit the site with his tail between his legs after his ad nauseam lies about his so-called expertise in maths, engineering and simulation methods were exposed by far more knowledgeable commenters. I wonder how much longer UD will tolerate having its regulars getting their asses kicked. Until then, enjoy the show!
Comment by Raevmo — April 27, 2009 @ 5:17 am
April 27th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Sal on UD, where I am banned from contributing:
Here are two important explanations:
(1) Many hereditary diseases such as cystic fibrosis are caused by recessive alleles, that is, an individual must have two defect copies of the allele to get sick while a heterozygote with a single defect copy will not get sick. As long as the frequency, say p, of the defect allele is small, the frequency of the disease will be O(p^2)<<1 and selection against the defect allele effectively ceases.
(2) Various theories of senescence, such as the antagonistic pleiotropy theory of aging.
Comment by Raevmo — April 27, 2009 @ 6:52 am
April 27th, 2009 at 7:26 am
http://pandasthumb.org/archive...
So what is it that science logically entails that is supposed to change American culture?
Comment by MikeGene — April 27, 2009 @ 7:26 am
April 27th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Mike Gene:
Surely one of TT's resident critics could supply an answer. What is it that is so obvious that critics do not need it spelled out?
Comment by Bradford — April 27, 2009 @ 8:31 am
April 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Why be so worried about the Swine flu? Let the fittest survive…
Comment by neddy — April 27, 2009 @ 8:34 am
April 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Thanks for the tip.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 27, 2009 @ 10:41 am
April 27th, 2009 at 10:44 am
The only reason Americans come to Canada for "health care" is the cheap drugs. They definitely ain't getting in our hospitals. Ain't no room for them.
Do the poor have access to our system? Yes, if you consider 5 hour ER waits, 6-week wait to see doctor, and 18 to 24 month wait for cancer treatments access.
Canadian health care is run by a dangerous ideology that is close to fascism. Every time anyone even suggests implementing government-sponsored private care (yes, we actually do have private health care here, it's just a minor player), the "Friends of Medicare" scaremongers come screeching out of their holes to beat back the infidels until next time. One of their favourite tactics is to say that private health care = U.S. Health Care. What about European health care where there is a hybrid public-private system in place? It's not perfect, but nothing is and it's way better than what Canada has now. So I have nothing but contempt for the chicken little advocates of Universal Health Care.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — April 27, 2009 @ 10:44 am
April 27th, 2009 at 11:53 am
You have my vote to return, but that is all I can offer.
In an odd sort of way, your banning at UD helps TelicThoughts capture some of the internet market share of quality talent for the ID/Darwin debate.
I consider anyone with population genetics skills to be gold. Even people hostile to ID.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 27, 2009 @ 11:53 am
April 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I think you missed my point. I agree natural selection will infuse things like Tay-Sachs, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, diabetes…..that isn't the problem.
The issue is that Darwin's notion of "good" was in accord with our intuitive notions of "good" and the notions of "good" as defined by the culture that once revered Paley.
That natural selection selects for sickness is at variance with Darwin's notion of "good" and most people's intuitive notion of "good".
The fact that selection is defined in terms of trait frequencies rather than "good" designs (as Darwin suggest) shows there is a disconnect between what Darwin intended, and how population genetics is practiced today. That was not lost upon Lewontin in his Santa Fe 2003 bulletin.
Santa Fe 2003
Moalem's book has basically shown that Darwin's original notion of fitness has been bypassed. Sickness has become a virtue, and that is contrary to Darwin's conception of virtue.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 27, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
How about a censorship thread?
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PA...
First they came for …
Comment by Pez — April 27, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
JJS P Eng:
This is revealing and the reason I believe an irrational religious impulse motivates those wanting ever more powerful governments and ever less powerful individuals. It provides meaning to their lives. Something bigger than themselves to which they can surrender their blind faith. It's not based on reality assessments. If it were the U.S. healthcare system would be fairly evaluated and credited for its quick care response, advanced technology and more. I'm a reformer but reform does not mean adopting the policies of failure evident in socialist systems.
Comment by Bradford — April 27, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
From Pez's link:
If this comes to pass it would mean the end of the USA as an open society which is what too many are pining for. PC would replace open debate, uniformity would replace diversity of viewpoints and the thought police would have a phone line to the gendarmes with the guns and the power to enforce tyranny.
Comment by Bradford — April 27, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Sal:
Then I have missed the point indeed. I think I agree with the rest of your post (Darwin's fitness concept being outdated at points), but I'm not sure what to make of this:
In what way has sickness become a virtue?
Comment by Raevmo — April 27, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
So we can reject "good" as the appropriate term, but that says nothing about the theory. "Good" implies a human value judgement, and obviously nothing about what Darwin was talking about implies that a human value judgement is being applied, even if he spoke as if it did.
(I'm actually rather surprised Darwin used the word "good". Can you quote a passage, please?)
Comment by don provan — April 27, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Human society has decided that individuals have value beyond their ability to survive plagues. The field of medicine was invented in order to minimize the impact of the environment on individual humans. So we reject the idea that only the fittest deserve to survive just as we have rejected the idea that only those God protects should survive.
Comment by don provan — April 27, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
It was a figure of speech.
In the modern view, some kinds of sickness (such as those listed by Moalem), lead to survival advantage, in that sense a birth defect is "good" according to population biology.
The fact that we still diabetes, tay-sachs, sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis as diseases belies the fact that society doesn't regard these traits as "good", but in Moalem's view, these are actually helpful for population survival, and hence "good".
Many on the ID camp would perhaps avoid affixing a value lable of "good", but instead say something is designed. Thus blindness, diabetes, tay-sachs, sickle-cell anemia are broken designs.
If we grant for the sake of argument that ID is true, how do we determine if something is broken or if it is a feature. Recall, the opening statement: "It's not a bug, it is a feature!".
The answer to that is not so easy, and I'm not fully decided on what the answer is. I believe exploration of convergence is the way to go, to determine if something is really a bug or a feature.
Diabetes seems like a broken feature, but aside from abitrary utilitarianism, how can anyone formally defend that notion? I don't think the issue can be resolved without invoking unprovable assumptions.
But if those unprovable assumptions lead to medical advancement, I don't think there would be much reason to complain.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 27, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Happy to oblige:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 27, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I'm not sure why you're asking us when the article makes it pretty clear. He's talking about "bad interpretations of the Bible that contradicted the evidence of science," and "science contradicts many interpretations of the audience's religion," and he wants Dawkins and Coyne to be supported rather than attacked. In general, he wants to eliminate religious practices which deny and undermine science.
Comment by don provan — April 27, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Maybe you're reading a different edition, because what you quoted is only a portion of a much longer sentence.
The phrase "it may be said" implies an analogy. And "good" is defined as an improvement of an organism in relation to its environmental conditions rather than as a moral good, or a pleasantry.
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Salvador T. Cordova,
Thanks for the quote. Do you think he was using "good" and "bad" as agreeing with our intuitive notions or the notions of our culture?
Comment by don provan — April 27, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Yes his notion of "good" was agreeing with the notion of "good" in his culture (19th century) which is not too far from our notions of what is "good"in today's culture. We still label diabetes a disease, we don't label diabetes as a potentially advantageous trait for a population.
We would tend to think that diabetes is a bad trait, and the fact that there are circumstances that would cause the traits leading to diabetes to be selectively favored, would inline us to think those are "bad" circumstances.
Same is true of sickle cell anemia and its relation to malaria. Both sickle-cell traits and malaria are viewed as "bad"culturally speaking. But the value labels of "good" and "bad" don't have much meaning in the world of population genetics.
Darwin tried to link the appearance of design to natural selection. It seems the implicit assumption was complex designs were "good" and thus they would be selected for. Orr has objected saying selection shouldn't be necessarily tied to the appearance of design because selection often destroys design (such as the infusion of blindness in creatures like Gammarus Minus).
I think there is good evidence selection can favor destruction of designs, but I don't see direct empirical evidence for the creation of designs (the problem, we are told, is that creation of new designs takes a long time).
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 27, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Pez, I'd like to send you an e-mail. May I use the address you gave TT?
Comment by Bradford — April 27, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Hi Bradford,
Of course. I'll be glad to hear from you.
Comment by Pez — April 27, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
You think Darwin thought evolution was following his culture's idea of good and bad? Really?
Comment by don provan — April 27, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
April 27th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
You think that for PZ, Dawkins, and Coyne, it’s just a question of badly interpreting the Bible? Do they provide some examples of what are supposed to be good interpretations of the Bible?
Hold on a moment. Myers also writes:
So the notion that religion and science can be compatible is a pretense?
So the NCSE is supposed to support their “evolution leads to atheism” position? Wouldn’t the NCSE then have to back off their criticisms when Creationists make this same argument? Or are they upset because the NCSE makes it sound like only Creationists argue that evolution leads to atheism (i.e., falsely portraying Dawkins/Myers/Coyne’s argument as a Creationist argument)?
Hey, Dawkins has a new strategy for the “faith-heads”:
What’s your answer, Don Provan? Should Dawkins et al. take off their gloves and get people to embrace reason by using even more contemptuous propaganda or should they go along with the appeasers?
Comment by MikeGene — April 27, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
April 28th, 2009 at 5:15 am
"Taking gloves off" with it's implication of going bare-knuckled is not what Dawkins is asking. He says specifically:
I don't notice the creationist camp mincing their words over their dislike of Dakkins. Why shouldn't we all say what we really think and believe. Thanks for the link, Mike, I read a few of the comments, (Dawkins site is one I very rarely visit) and was amused to spot this quote from a British comedian, Ricky Gervais:
I get the impression US atheists often find themselves in situations where they feel disinclined to express their views unequivocally. It seems to go against the idea that the US is the country of free speech.
Comment by Alan Fox — April 28, 2009 @ 5:15 am
April 28th, 2009 at 6:27 am
If faith in creationism is required by the religion in question, compatibility
is out of the question.
Without going into the details of my religion, the question about compatibility is irrelevant.
Doesn't the entire controversy boil down to a matter of personal preference?
Comment by Satolep — April 28, 2009 @ 6:27 am
April 28th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Alan Fox:
I live in the USA and listen to atheists express themselves almost every day. They say what they wish. There is no stifling of their free speech. The best way to stifle free speech, other than through governmental regulations alluded to by Pez, is through the insult approach euphemistically and falsely labled witty.
Comment by Bradford — April 28, 2009 @ 8:15 am
April 28th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Raevmo, you're banned because you are infantile to the point of being unable to discuss issues without name calling. You need oral poddy training which unfortunately can not be provided at TT.
Comment by Bradford — April 28, 2009 @ 8:37 am
April 28th, 2009 at 8:39 am
I don't dispute that some atheists in some venues say what they think, especially those who are financially independent. I was thinking more along the lines that declaring oneself an atheist in certain circumstances is not a good career move, for example if running for public office. In France it would be unthinkable for the President of the Republic to swear an oath on the bible.
Comment by Alan Fox — April 28, 2009 @ 8:39 am
April 28th, 2009 at 8:51 am
There are irreligious office holders in the USA. What is unwise is overt hostility to people of faith. Hostility is generally counterproductive and it does not require much thought to realize why a person of faith would not want a representative who mocks his beliefs.
Comment by Bradford — April 28, 2009 @ 8:51 am
April 28th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Aren't there anti-discrimination laws to protect anyone from abuse or harassment? Or were you thinking that saying something along the lines of "There is no god, so people who believe in one must be mistaken" is overtly hostile? I mean, you can put it more politely and less politely, but the message is the same. And why would what someone else thinks worry a person of genuine faith?
Comment by Alan Fox — April 28, 2009 @ 9:05 am
April 28th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Alan Fox:
It does not worry me unless politicians attempt to institutionalize their points of view with regulations like those previously alluded to. Why would I vote for someone like a PZ Myers, for example, when a considerable part of his time and energy is spent deriding what I believe. Who votes for people that are hostile to them?
Comment by Bradford — April 28, 2009 @ 9:09 am
April 28th, 2009 at 9:17 am
…then heck, don't vote for him.
[/H Clinton
Comment by Alan Fox — April 28, 2009 @ 9:17 am
April 28th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I am curious as to what banning policy is currently being adhered to at Telic Thoughts.
At one time, I understood bannation required the approval of a quorum of moderators.
Is this still the case?
If it is, I would be especially interested in knowing what ChuckDZ's position was on this.
It is my suggestion and request that you revisit your decision concerning Raevmo.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 28, 2009 @ 9:53 am
April 28th, 2009 at 10:33 am
TP, the decision lies with the individual TTer. Raevmo is not banned from the site but is banned from particular threads. I do not have patience with commenters who insist on name calling in place of dialog.
Comment by Bradford — April 28, 2009 @ 10:33 am
April 28th, 2009 at 10:41 am
There might be 'irreligious' office holders in the USA. What's odd though is how underrepresented they are in comparison to their actual distribution among the population. For example, how many presidential candidates can you name who do not go to church on a regular basis?
Comment by hrun — April 28, 2009 @ 10:41 am
April 28th, 2009 at 10:48 am
hrun:
I disagree. I think there are more than apparent. Some are religious only in name.
Good point. I suspect some are phonies and hold their artificial behavior in no high esteem.
Comment by Bradford — April 28, 2009 @ 10:48 am
April 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am
I'd like to see Dawkins become nice and cuddly like Eugenie.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 28, 2009 @ 11:04 am
April 28th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Hi Bradford,
Thank you for the clarification.
I agree, individual TT contributors need to be able to control the tone of their threads.
While I didn't think Raevmo's comment (link) was worthy of being sent to the memory hole that is just my opinion.
Please excuse my confusion over this incident.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 28, 2009 @ 11:17 am
April 28th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I know that it is assumed that my beliefs are based on what some ancient Hebrew author wrote thousands of years ago but sometimes this is simply untrue. My conservatism and my position on gay marriage predate my becoming a Christian. I would also point out that some words are discussion stoppers. They include homophobic (a left wing favorite) and unpatriotic (a right wing preference). When they are flung around you can safely assume there is no interest in dialog.
Comment by Bradford — April 28, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
April 28th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
AND
It's odd, isn't it, that even if you are correct (i.e. many are phonies and many are religious only in name), why is this the case? Why would atheist politicians feel the need to pretend they are religious?
Comment by hrun — April 28, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
April 28th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I don’t have a lot of time to dialogue on this issue but I will give this a go
I do feel that a law against all religion is discriminatory against Christians.
Christianity (and Islam) unlike all other religions I know of make universal claims They claim to be the Truth for all people and all of life not just a truth among many.
Religions like Judaism on the other hand are largely ethnic in their scope and religions like Buddhism for the most part don’t claim to be the one and only truth for all.
To treat Christianity (and Islam) like one option among many is to deny a major tenant of these religions. This sort of thing on the other hand is not a a major issue for other faiths.
You also need to take into account the fact that Christians consider atheism to be a religion
To promote the belief that “no God” is necessary for education is to the Christian a blatant insult. To consider God to be irrelevant for any part of life is to deny the global need for an atonement.
It is in the eyes of the Christian this is the endorsement of an idolatrous atheist world view to the exclusion of their own.
I would call that discriminatory wouldn’t you?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 28, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
April 28th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
It's not mysterious hrun. Humans are inherently inhumane. There are places in the world today where being a Christian endangers your life. There have been throughout history. By the same token I think it abhorent that an atheist would be mistreated because of his beliefs. Most people try to blend in with the predominent forces within their society. Ever more so where votes determine outcomes. If atheism were predominent in America you would see politicians going out of their way to deny they have any religious impulses.
Comment by Bradford — April 28, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
April 28th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
So it does seem like you do wholeheartedly agree with Alan when he wrote:
Which then means that you do agree with the earlier statement that atheists, due to Atheism not being the majority view in this country, do watch what they say– especially in the circumstances described by you right here and by Alan much earlier. This is not about atheist or irreligious politicians (or people in any public office) not being free to be openly hostile towards religion, but instead it is about atheist or irreligious politicians (or people in any public office) feeling the need to pretend that they are indeed religious (and not just simply religious but ideally Christian) in order to further their career.
Comment by hrun — April 28, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Gee, do you think the folks at PT are coming to terms with the ideas they hold dear. Are they appreciating the irony of their own ideas?
Sal Cordova Expresses Support for PZ Pt 1
Sal Cordova Expresses Support for PZ Pt 2
HT: Mike Gene for alerting me to the thread and for his insights into the irony of Dennett's work.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 29, 2009 @ 1:00 am
April 29th, 2009 at 11:09 am
And further:
Sal Cordova Expresses Support for PZ Pt 3
Sal Cordova Expresses Support for PZ Pt 4
There are many ironies which seem to be lost upon the crowd at PT.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 29, 2009 @ 11:09 am
April 29th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Here is irony #1, which Mike articulates so well earlier, and it was from his ideas I was inspired:
Evolution is Cruel to Dawkins and Dennett
My offerings are only a variation and embellishment on Mike's keen insights.
I miss seeing Mike.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 29, 2009 @ 11:17 am
April 29th, 2009 at 11:26 am
hrun wrote:
1. Elected officials are essentially hired by winning popularity contests. To be popular, the politicians try to appear as sympathetic as possible to the beliefs of the majority.
So either you are disturbed that politicians must pander, or that the majority of the US is religious. Somehow I don't think you're too upset about the former.
2. "Career politician" should be an oxymoron for any freedom-loving people.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 29, 2009 @ 11:26 am
April 29th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I am not disturbed by the fact that politicians must pander. I am also not upset that the majority of the US is religious. I don't like the fact that apparently being atheist or irreligious disqualifies public servants in the eye of the majority, but that is another matter altogether.
This was simply about the fact that in this country, public officials are not entirely free to voice their atheist or irreligious beliefs without it having negative consequences for their career. Nothing more. And it seems that most people on this thread agree that this is actually the case.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 11:45 am
April 29th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
hrun:
This leads to the question of what are atheist beliefs? One could point to the obvious belief that there is no God but unlike their theistic counterparts there is no body of moral codes identifiable with the no God position. Nothing like the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. So a declaration by an atheist of a no God belief tells us nothing in particular about other likely moral and ethical positions the would be office holder possesses. A no God position is a negative belief and probably the principle reason it gets little traction with the great bulk of humanity. There is nothing positive about it. Nothing that inspires hope or any aspired value. Critics of mainstream evolution are lambasted at times for not having alternatives. The atheist position is the social equivalent. What do you place into a moral vacuum when you remove Judeo-Christian values from the mix? You should have an answer if you intend to get elected.
Comment by Bradford — April 29, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
1) I have yet to see a study that shows that being Christian, going to church regularly or proclaiming faith in a particular deity does make somebody act more moral.
2) Being Christian apparently does also not give any clarity about the moral stance of a person to begin with. The plurality of this nation consists of self-proclaimed Christians. Yet, only a small minority wants to ban abortions outright. There is no clear moral positions among Christians on war, on capital punishment, on divorce, on homosexuality, …
Taken together, this means that proclamations of faith in a deity should be a non-issue when somebody is trying to judge a persons morality or values.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
hrun:
Proclamations that are not acted on are worthless. However, this still does not get to the point of what atheism stands for. A proclaiming Christian, Muslim or Jew may show behavioral traits contradicting professed doctrine but I at least have a moral compass from which I can start an evaluation process. Unless an atheist details his specific values I know nothing more than that he holds a negative position about God's existence.
Comment by Bradford — April 29, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Or, to put it another way, there is a huge variety of opinion about morals and values in this country– both in the population and in elected officials. Yet, the vast majority of elected officials claim that they adhere to Christian morals and values. Since this is the case, the professed adherence to Christian morals and values carries little to no information.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Funny. Proclamations that are not acted on are worthless. So it's clearly the actions that count. Simply judge the actions independent of proclamations.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Likewise, until a religious person details his/her specific values, I also know nothing more that the he/she holds a positive position about God's existence.
Let's illustrate it with a quiz:
Politician A is against the death penalty. Do you think politician A is Christian or an atheist? Why?
Politician B is a self-proclaimed Christian. Do you think politician B will support a pre-emptive war? Why?
Politician C is a self-proclaimed atheist. Do you think politician C will support the right to bear arms? Why?
Politician D has not made a statement about his religion. What do he think politician D will support in the previous three examples?
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Behavior is the final arbiter. Values become significant though when one's behavior aligns with them and the behavior itself is odious. In that case weakness or hypocrisy can not be the complaint. Something even more basic is wrong. There is a fundamental disagreement as to values.
For example, I do not think Bin Laden is a hypocrite. I think he really believes what he professes and acts on those beliefs. I'm not sure who I find more dangerous or distasteful- Bin Laden or a congressmen interested solely in advancing his political career.
Comment by Bradford — April 29, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
So then how do we judge a professed Christian who is pro-death penalty? Is he true to his values? Is he a hypocrite? Is there a fundamental disagreement as to values?
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
hrun:
I think of two of my family members when looking at these questions. One (my father) is an atheist in the mold of a Dawkins or PZ Myers- very hostile to people of faith. The other (a brother-in-law) might be termed an agnostic- mostly apathetic about religion. The former is very leftist and the latter a conservative. The former opposes the death penalty, supported preemptive wars by Israel but opposed the Bush version and is strongly anti-gun. The latter favors the death penalty, supports premptive wars and the right to bear arms. I have more in common with my brother-in-law's positions on these issues with some reservations. Based on this small sample it seems atheism and religious views are not very predictive or are they?
Comment by Bradford — April 29, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Well, I don't think they are predictive at all, but you appeared to think they are.
I'm pretty certain that if we simply dig a little, we will find a huge range of views on a number of different topics (that might be considered moral or value judgments) among 'True' Christians, 'run-of-the-mill' Christians or atheists or any other group.
That was my point: Even if you proclaim Christian faith or adherence of to Christian values, you will be unable to predict a persons views on virtually all topics.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
hrun wrote:
Repetition is not rebuttal.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 29, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Rebuttal against what? I don't even know if you disagree with the premise. It seems obvious to pretty much everyone in this thread, including you, that an atheist public official it is more expedient to pay lip-service to the religious plurality rather than voicing his personal opinions, if they would like to get elected. Do you disagree with this?
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Civilization is a recent invention. There are many, many things we do every day that is contrary to our genetic nature. As Dawkins often reminds us, the critical advantage of intelligence is that it allows us to choose paths which are contrary to our nature. For example, we buy things instead of just taking them.
One might suggest that it's been doing so for the last two millenia because civilization hit a roadblock that took society in a less rational direction. It does look grim for us, but some people continue to dream of a better course where our morals and ethics are derived rationally instead of by fiat.
Comment by don provan — April 29, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Good point. It's really too bad most Christians think professed Christianity is a better arbiter, which was the original observation.
Comment by don provan — April 29, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
There are indeed perfectly rational reasons for killing babies with Down Syndrome, or the elderly, or anyone else who is deemed to be too much of a burden on society. Welcome to Don Provan's Brave New World where rationality rules the day.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Ahh, yes, I remember that post, where Don Provan advocated the killing of babies with Down Syndrome and of the elderly and everyone else who is too much of a burden on society.
Wait… what?!? He didn't advocate that? Chunkdz just made that up out of thin air. Well heck. I'll be damned. That's not moral behavior, is it?
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Did I say Don advocated killing babies, hrun? No. Don said he is in favor of rationally derived ethics, so I gave a few examples of rationally derived ethics. Do try to keep up, will you?
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
It's odd, isn't it? It's generally the folks who like prescriptive ethics and morals who think that rationally derived ethics and morals logically lead to all sorts of abhorrent behavior. Yet, the folks who do derive their ethics and morals logically don't actually display or favor those behaviors.
And please, don't use exceptions to prove me wrong, because then I'll have to trot out all those tired examples where prescriptive morals and ethics lead to similarly abhorrent behaviors.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Good day hrun,
With all due respect, you're missing chunkdz's (implied) point.
Rationally derived ethics and morals can lead to both good and bad behaviour. The issue is how do you steer behaviour towards the good side and not the bad side using logic only.
Logic alone does not grant all human life intrinsic value. For that, one needs an outside influence, and religion tends to be that outside influence. I can't speak for the rest of the world's religions, but Christianity sees human life as having intrinisic value (the "breath of God" if you will). So when using Christian morals in combination with logic, one tends to steer towards good behaviour more often (or more easily) than by logic alone.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — April 29, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
And how do you do it with prescriptive morals. Seems to me that there are plenty of 'religious' folks who end up being murderers, adulterers, liars, cheaters, …
That's your assertion… and I am sure that you have solid data to back this up. As I said before, I have never come across a single study that shows that using 'Christian morals in combination with logic' leads to more ethical and moral behavior than using 'logic alone', 'gut feeling', 'social contract', or whatever else people use to derive their morals and ethics.
As I said, it is odd that in general people who feel a need for prescriptive morals and ethics think that without such prescriptive morals the world is going to hell in a handbasket. While atheists have no problem whatsoever to be moral and ethical members of the society.
And, oddly again, virtually every single atheist I know believes that all human life has intrinsic value.
And, oddly again, I know plenty of 'religious folks' who support the death penalty and war.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
You must be listening to some stereotype that you keep handy. You certainly aren't paying attention to anything that I've said.
If you or Don or anybody else wants to argue that rationally derived ethics and morals are the way to go then you should clarify which set of rationally derived ethics you want. Should rational egoism rule the day? Or should straight utilitarianism be our ethics of choice? Which rational system is more rational than the other? Or maybe all the rational egoists should exterminate the rational utilitarians, since they have a rational basis for doing so.
Furthermore, if there exists a rational excuse for killing Down Syndrome babies can't there also exist a rational excuse for saving them? If so, which rational excuse wins? Who gets to decide?
On a thread about pigs, it seems appropriate to quote Squealer:
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
That's the key question, no matter how you derive morals. There is no answer, so sorry.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Then Provan has no logical basis for favoring rationally derived ethics. Thanks for clearing this up. At first I thought you were trying to defend him.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Oh, but neither do you. That's why I said it's the key question NO MATTER HOW you derive your morals.
Or, if you like, I can give you a different answer: It's my friend Joel. He is the ultimate arbiter of all moral questions. If anybodies morals differ from his, they are wrong and he is right. If somebody has a moral dilemma, they simply have to consult him. And once Joel dies, we can never really know what is morally right or wrong. We can simply strive to guess what Joel would have said. Do you like this better?
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Hrun, you are refuting an argument I never made. Once again you seem to be listening to some prejudicial sterotype that you harbor, rather than what I actually say.
For someone who earlier accused me of making things up out of thin air, you seem blind to your own propensity to assign arguments to me that I never made.
With that said, I think your refutation of Provan's position has some merit.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Chunkdz, you stated that a rational approach to ethics and morals can lead to killing babies and the elderly as being ethical. That is true no matter how you derive your morals. Be they prescriptive or rational or a combination thereof.
It appears that you are making the assumption that Don Provan prefers rationally derived ethics because they can not lead to some folks thinking that killing babies or the elderly. I don't think that is the case.
Yet, there are certainly logical reasons to favor rationally derived ethics over prescriptive ethics. I don't know what reasons Don might have. I certainly have my own. And it's certainly not because I believe that when people derive their morals using logic or reason they are more likely to coincide and agree with my morals.
I prefer rationally derived ethics and morals, simply because this leads to people admitting much more readily that there are no universally accepted morals. It's much harder to get people who believe in prescriptive ethics to see this.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
No, I said there are rational reasons for killing babies with Down Syndrome, etc.
Wrong. It appears that it is you making the poor assumption.
What are they?
That's not a logical reason.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Ah. So there are rational reasons for killing babies with down syndrome, but even if one were to base ethics on rational reasoning one could not come to the conclusion that killing babies with Down Syndrome would be ethical?
That may be true.
I described my reason in the post above.
It certainly is.
—-
It might help if you explain something to me. A little while back we had the following exchange:
Chunkdz: Furthermore, if there exists a rational excuse for killing Down Syndrome babies can't there also exist a rational excuse for saving them? If so, which rational excuse wins? Who gets to decide?
Hrun: That's the key question, no matter how you derive morals. There is no answer, so sorry.
Chunkdz: Then Provan has no logical basis for favoring rationally derived ethics.
So to me it appears that you directly tie Don Provan’s preference to rationally derived ethics to the ability to decide who gets to decide moral questions. And since I don’t think anybody gets to decide which excuse wins, Don (according to you) can not have a logical basis for favoring rationally derived ethics.
Why is that? Is the fact that there is a decider the only ‘logical reason’ to prefer one way of deriving morals and ethics over another?
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Rationally derived ethics can come to any number of conclusions.
Lol! Your reason for preferring rationally derived ethics was that it leads to more people agreeing with you.
Who can argue with that kind of logic?
Wrong again.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
I know. Ethics, no matter how they are derived, can come to any number of conclusions.
Nope. That's not what I said. I said I prefer them because then people are more likely to admit there are no universally accepted ethics.
If it's wrong, can you explain the following exchange?
Chunkdz: Furthermore, if there exists a rational excuse for killing Down Syndrome babies can't there also exist a rational excuse for saving them? If so, which rational excuse wins? Who gets to decide?
Hrun: That's the key question, no matter how you derive morals. There is no answer, so sorry.
Chunkdz: Then Provan has no logical basis for favoring rationally derived ethics.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Chunkdz, if you like we can make things easier and leave Don out of this.
I think that both rationally derived ethics and prescriptive ethics equally lead to the dilemma that there is no ultimate way to decide who is right if a difference of opinion arises about whose ethics are right. Be it about the death penalty or killing down syndrome babies.
As I said above, there is no answer to the key question of 'who gets to decide' no matter how you derive your ethics.
Yet, I still have a preference that people should derive their ethics rationally rather than prescriptively. The reason being that generally people who derive their ethics rationally much more readily admit that there are no universally valid ethics or morals. It's much harder to get people who believe in prescriptive ethics to see this.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Who are these people claiming that there are universally accepted ethics?
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
I guess it's not universally accepted but rather universally valid.
—-
Do I see this correctly that you have no interest in explaining what you meant in this exchange?
Chunkdz: Furthermore, if there exists a rational excuse for killing Down Syndrome babies can't there also exist a rational excuse for saving them? If so, which rational excuse wins? Who gets to decide?
Hrun: That's the key question, no matter how you derive morals. There is no answer, so sorry.
Chunkdz: Then Provan has no logical basis for favoring rationally derived ethics.
If so, then I can save my time and stop typing.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Here is a gem.
What happens when evolutionary biology starts examining atheism as a stealth religion:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 29, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Hmmm. Can't rational people disagree on the subject of universal morality? Didn't Kant rationally argue that lying is universally immoral?
What makes you so sure of your opinion, hrun?
What do you know that Kant didn't?
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
April 29th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Yes. People can disagree on the subject of universal morality. I personally believe there is no such thing. Kant might disagree. You might as well. Who knows. I prefer if people do not believe in universal morality.
—–
I still would like to understand that prior exchange– especially your statement: "Then Provan has no logical basis for favoring rationally derived ethics."
Generally, a sentence of this form starting with 'then' are conditional statements of the type: "if a then b".
In this case the b is "Provan has no logical basis for favoring rationally derived ethics."
As best as I can tell, the a is "there is no answer to the key question (who decides)"
This makes me believe that you see a connection of the ability to answer the key question to favoring rationally derived ethics over ethics derived some other way.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
April 30th, 2009 at 11:18 am
I assume he's speaking of interpretations which take some or all of the Bible as legitimate scientific input.
While Meyers probably believes that, in this context what he's addressing, as far as I can tell, is the more the notion that religious beliefs can advise science and science education.
I was trying to help you understand something about the Meyers paper that you seemed confused over. I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you about what is and isn't contemptuous or propaganda and who should or shouldn't use it. I only quickly scanned the Meyers paper, but it seemed like a rational argument which with one might agree or disagree. When you start slinging around loaded terms, I start to suspect you're not that interested in addressing the arguments and are really more interested in invoking your listeners' emotions rather than their brains.
Comment by don provan — April 30, 2009 @ 11:18 am
April 30th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
You're entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is no better than anyone else's.
If two different rational systems of ethics can yield contradictory ethical stances, then pure rationally derived ethics are no better than any arbitrarily derived ethics.
If it's just a preference, as you say, that's fine. But I noticed that Don asserted that rationally derived ethics are "better". "Preferred" is not the same as "better".
And frankly, I couldn't care less what your preferences are. I really don't care what your beliefs are either. But when folks like Don suggests that society looks "grim" because of the "roadblock" of Christianity, and Judeo-Christian ethics should give way to his "dream" of rationally derived ethics because his "dream" is "better", then a good hard reality check is in order. His "dream" is actually an illusion.
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
April 30th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Of course it's an opinion. And, of course, there is a reason for that opinion. Folks who don't believe in universal morality are much less likely to try and impose those morals on others.
They might not be better than arbitrarily derived ethics. But they are better than ethics that some people perceive to be prescribed by a infallible deity.
And this still doesn't explain the exchange. You made a logical connection between being unable to decide who answers the 'key question' and the question of whether rational or prescriptive morals could be preferred.
As I have shown above, I have a perfectly rational reason to prefer rational (or arbitrary) ethics over ethics prescribed by a deity. Even though both suffer from the same flaw: There is no ultimate arbiter when there are difference of opinion on ethical or moral questions.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
April 30th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I see. So you must really have a problem with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since it is clearly an attempt to impose moral absolutes on every human being.
Again, I really could care less about your opinions.
No. As I said earlier I don't care about your preferences.
That's the point. There are rational reasons to kill babies and rational reasons to save them.
Obviously raw logic in and of itself offers no inherently superior ethical system if it unavoidably entails contradiction.
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
April 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I'm done.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
April 30th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Comment by Alan Fox — April 30, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 4:10 am
Funny! The smiley I put in my previous post seems to have morphed. I do hope nobody is indulging in creative editing. That I consider to be the lowest form of internet dishonesty.
Comment by Alan Fox — May 1, 2009 @ 4:10 am
May 1st, 2009 at 10:06 am
I still saw it in its original form. Odd that it changed.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2009 @ 10:06 am
May 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am
I thought this poll is quite interesting and somewhat relevant to the exchange I had with Bradford earlier.
It appears that, when looked at by religious affiliation, white evangelical protestants are most likely to answer that torture may be justified. And it also appears that the more frequently one attends religious service, the more likely one is to think that torture may be justified.
Now, take this study with a grain of salt, because of a fairly low sample number in the individual subgroups and because it's a rather complex question with very simplistic answers.
In any case, I would not have suspected that the more religious one is, the more likely one is to think that torture may be justified. I honestly can not square the view that I have of Jesus and his teachings with torture. So it seem to me that something else is going on here.
Could it be that its not the religious vs. non-religious moral view dominates the answer to this question? Could it be that regular church goers and white evangelicals tend to be more on the conservative spectrum and that might make them more likely to approve of torture under certain circumstances? And to, for example, white evangelicals think torture is immoral in all cases, yet they still approve of its application under certain circumstances?
I really don't know the answer to these questions, but it appears to me to be another example that shows that knowledge of the religious views and morals is not necessarily a good predictor for opinions on specific questions.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2009 @ 10:36 am
May 1st, 2009 at 11:22 am
Hello Bradford, I am hoping you can help me. I went looking for an old thread that you started – the title, or at least part of it, is "Historical Tidbit". In it, I posted some info and links that I wanted to use somewhere else. It was a blog you posted about the ID text "Of Pandas and People". I am sure you and some of the regular TT readers will remember. You wrote how you thought OPAP was an obscure book that didn't have much influence. I posted, in part, that several of the contributors to the text are big names in ID (Thaxton, Denton, Behe,…) and that Dembski in 2005 said the definition of ID used in the text was correct. I cannot find it anymore, and I have tried using several different phrases that I know I used in my posts for a Google text search. In fact, several months after the thread retired, I used the same Google method to find it and update it with Dembski's statement that he doesn't accept common descent. But now, nothing. Any ideas or, better still, a link?
Comment by JAllen — May 1, 2009 @ 11:22 am
May 1st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
hrun:
So much of the torture debate revolves around how the issue is framed. For example, if enhanced interrogation were to result in information enabling authories to stop an operation that would have caused threethousand deaths (people dying by being burned to death, crushed, falling from tall buidings to avoid being burned to death etc.) then not hosing an informant down and creating a drowning sensation and not getting the requisite stoppage information, is an indication that one favors the torture of innocent victims to the sacrifice of one's self-rightous stance against torture.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
JAllen, I'll look. I do remember the thread.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 12:52 pm
An Historic Tidbit.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
An Historic Tidbit
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
As I said before, one should take this poll with a grain of salt– due to the complexity of the question and the simplicity of the potential answers.
I'm surprised that you chose to describe the stance against torture as 'self-righteous'. It could be that the stance against torture might arise from weighing the potential benefits and detriment if torture becomes a lawful practice. Self-righteousness might have nothing to do with it.
In any case, I simply thought it was an interesting observation that followed along the lines of religious affiliation or a lack thereof not being a good predictor for key questions that are currently being debated in this country.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Thanks, guys.
Comment by JAllen — May 1, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I thought of a simpler way to view it.
If Provan says he likes fish and does not like steak, then he is stating a preference.
If Provan says steak is bad, that the outlook for food is "grim", and that he dreams of the day when fish dominates the culinary world – this is still just his opinion. He has provided no objective data to support his subjective view.
Furthermore (and this gets to your question about "who gets to decide"),
if fish is the definitive answer to the supposed problem of steak, then it must be acknowledged that some fish tastes bloody awful and some of it is even deadly. Nevertheless, they are still fish and a sizable part of the population still loves to eat deadly and awful tasting fish. Clearly there is more to improving cuisine than simply saying "fish, fish, fish".
Viewed this way, "fish, not steak" is seen for what it is. A child demanding that everyone like his favorite food. Pedantic and selfish, illogical and contradictory, with little thought given to the consequences.
So, hrun, the question of "who gets to decide" does not invalidate Provan's preference. It merely points out that his preference is just a preference – conceived outside of logic or reason. Doubly ironic since Provan's stated preference is reason itself.
Comment by chunkdz — May 1, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 1:39 pm
hrun:
Then let's look at the facts. The recent exposure campaign on torture initiated by the Obama administration is selective in the memos released. What is missing from the mix are papers testifying to the effectiveness of specific waterboarding cases. The Brooklyn Bridge comes to mind. Wire taping picked up messages indicating an attempt to sabotage the bridge. Waterboarding induced information about a specific cell. Precaustionary measures and arrests followed. The admissions of Khalid Sheik Mohammed are historic. If waterboading is labled torture why not the numerous documented painful deaths around the world caused by terrorist acts? There is enough reasonable evidence indicating that tough interrogation methods can induce information other methods do not elicit. CIA agent William Buckley sang like a canary in Lebanon and gave up everything and everyone when tortured. It was much worse than waterboarding. To use the same term- torture- speaks to the imprecision of language in these circumstances. I do not relish anyone suffering but to rule out enhanced interrogation policies under any and all conditions is dogmatic. It is not based on reason or compassion for those who would die painful deaths.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Bradford, you misunderstand my post. I do not wish to discuss when and if torture should be used. Nor do I particularly care to discuss if torture can be morally justified or not. And I certainly do not wish to discuss the Obama administrations release of memos.
It was simply an observation that a complex moral matter (whether torture is never, sometimes, often, … justified) can lead to a) unexpected correlations with regard to religious affiliations (and by extent religious value systems) and b) there is certainly no homogeneous answer among people of similar religious affiliations.
Again, I'm surprised that you characterize an absolute stance against torture as 'dogmatic', 'not based on reason' and 'self-righteous'. Maybe you should try and engage a person who has this stance and try to discover if their stance really is 'self-righteous' and 'not based on reason'. I would suspect that you might be surprised.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Thank you for trying to finally address the point. As I tried to indicate above, I am no longer interested in attempting to engage.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
It needs to be pointed out that in closed door sessions legal experts during the Bush term insisted that waterboarding did not meet the definition of torture. Linguistic and legal imprecision is a big problem in this discussion. There is ample evidence that some present day torture critics knew of the waterboarding intent before the tactic was utilized. That's a major source of my doubts about the sincerity of some.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Well, there is a big difference between questioning the sincerity of politicians and describing an absolute stance against torture as 'self-righteous' and 'not based on reason'.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
True but I need to see some specification as to what constitutes torture. I always understood it to be a deliberate infliction of intense pain for sadistic purposes. I have not checked the dictionary but think that view is held by many.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Here's a definition:
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Then anything that is done for the purpose of the extraction of information can, by definition, never be termed torture.
And, if you go by that definition of torture, every single human being on this planet should be dogmatically anti-torture.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Actually, I was addressing the point all along. I just wasn't saying the things you expected to hear.
Engage who? Me? Or the imaginary stereotype that you have been talking to for the last two days? I haven't seen the slightest sign that you ever wished to actually engage me in discussion.
You did make me think, though, so, thanks for that.
Comment by chunkdz — May 1, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Those responsible for the WTC towers were guilty of torture by the preceeding definition right? Punishment being the motive. In the real world where torture is ubiquitous, limiting it is a moral imperative is it not?
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
No. The bigger picture is the issue. Churchhill decided to not warn the inhabitants of a large city they would be bombed during WWII. Many thousands suffered and died. Did Churchhill abet torture and murder. No. Why not? Because his intent was to guard against the discovery by the Nazis that the Brits had cracked the ultra-code used by the Germans.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
And there are good reasons for not doing those things, as well.
But when your religion tells you to kill anyone that won't convert to Islam, there's no longer another side to consider.
Comment by don provan — May 1, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
and
Again. These are both interesting points… and in the case of Churchill certainly a difficult moral quandary. I don't dispute that whether or not torture should be allowed/perpetrated is a complex issue. I am simply surprised that you dismiss the stance that torture should not be a lawful activity by a country as 'not based on reason'. I can assure you, that this stance can be based on reason. And I can also assure you that it does not necessarily have to be self-righteous either.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Whether you agree with the ban on torture, the United States promised not to torture and has implemented laws against it. The U.S. has righteously tried and convicted people of torture, including waterboarding. Every tinhorn dictator
torturesuses enhanced interrogation for national security against threats real and imagined. It is a matter of whether a great nation is capable of keeping its promises and whether it can live up to its own professed ideals.Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Another way to express this exact same thought is, "They made me do it."
Even when viewed through simple logic, the problem here is that you cannot really know whether the person you're torturing actually knows anything you want to know until after you've tortured them. That's enough all on its own to defeat the "but we need to stop terrorists" argument because that argument fails to consider the innocent people being tortured.
There are plenty of other reasons to oppose torture on even more fundamental grounds, something we did in this country until recently, at least publically.
The most useful definition of torture is "something you wouldn't want someone to do to you if you knew something they wanted to know." This whole groundswell of support for torture over the last decade or so required a complete abandonment of the Golden Rule as everyone tells themselves that they don't have to worry about being tortured because they aren't terrorists.
I haven't paid much attention to what Obama did, but I have to agree with you that's it's probably in large part underhanded politics. But at the same time, we really have to pull this whole thing into the light of day and look at it where it's harder for people to say, "Oh, that's OK, it's just my government torturing nasty terrorists, so I don't mind that they're being treated like animals."
Comment by don provan — May 1, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
hrun said:
You really do have to take it with a grain of salt, considering that a large percentage of these particular people make up the radically exclusive audience for FoxNews (which I'd love to sue for alienation of affections in turning my once very nice and caring Mother-in-Law into a raving fascist lunatic now that she's old and lonely and her mind is going). These people believe what they're told, tend not to think things through. It also matters how the questions are asked.
Bradford:
This excuse for torture can be stretched ten ways to sideways, Bradford. First of all, you can never know how many people might be 'saved' unless you've got a time machine so you can go back and change history. Anybody could torture and or kill anybody else for any reason and justify it in court by claiming they 'saved" 5 or 6 million people who WOULD HAVE died if the person they tortured and/or killed hadn't been tortured and/or killed. Our judicial system doesn't allow that defense, for very good reasons.
The "Law of the Land" by international treaty and American law is that torture is a crime. And the specifics of what counts as torture are spelled out quite graphically in those treaties and laws. Waterboarding is included. Deciding this or that form of torture is exempt doesn't work – the issue has long since been decided, the Bushites broke the law, as did their torturers. Hell, they even claim Khalid Sheik Mohammad, whom they waterboarded 183 times in one month and who you somehow believe needed to be tortured, gave up information that allowed them to prevent an attack that had actually been prevented a year before the guy was captured! I think we deserve to know where our gub'ment has hidden their Way-Back time machine!!! Face it, they're self-righteous liars, thoroughly evil humans and dastardly criminals who have rotted your mind with their lies. Who is the father of lies, Bradford?
Obama released the memos he released because a judge ruled that they must be released. He may release more, because there are more lawsuits pending to get the information out. That's CITIZENS making use of the law to get information that has been hidden by people who ran this country all the way to ground politically, morally and economically. If you don't like the fact that citizens have standing under the law, I hear they're looking for dutiful foot-soldiers for that lily-white fiefdom they're building in Paraguay…
Oh… and that waterboarding gag you think is so much fun? It was invented long ago by sadistic Catholics and gained its evil reputation during the Inquisitions. We executed Japanese soldiers after WW-II for waterboarding prisoners, because it in fact IS deemed torture and the Nuremburg defense was tossed – "I was only following orders" does NOT excuse war crimes. There is simply no reasonable way to justify tortures we executed people for doing back in 1945, just because your favorite wannabe fascists decided it's all okay now. By the way, Spain has opened judicial investigation of the Bush administration for war crimes. Soon those guys and gals won't be able to visit Europe at all.
Even worse, a veritable army of experts – including those in the military and intelligence communities who were ordered to do the torture so the Bush Gang could get their rocks off watching the tapes late at night – have asserted time and again that torture does not produce reliable intelligence and that there are much better ways of getting useful information. Torture someone enough and they'll swear to anything you want them to swear to. I can assure you that all POWs the Bushies tortured would likely admit to BEING Osama bin Laden. There are not hundreds of Osama bin Ladens running around.
This is self-righteous posturing and the most ridiculously evil thing any American administration ever thought of. It ENDANGERS OUR TROOPS when we ignore the Geneva Convention, you know. Why you believe this is justified is obviously your own mental issue, but… wow. Just wow.
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Is it torture to put a caterpillar in the room?
How about a really, really scary caterpillar?
Comment by chunkdz — May 1, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
chunk:
If that's torture to you, I've got some doozies out here on the farm! They come in every spring along with those monster garden spiders as big as your hand, ugly as all get-out and my grandson's such a wus that he'd tell you ANYTHING to get away from 'em! So I'm the one who has to kill them despite him being Mister Kung-Fu Big Time Warrior tough guy. Go figure.
Heck, there's centipedes in Oklahoma that would scare the bejesus out of anybody – a foot long, black segments and dayglow legs and scorpion tails… come to think of it, they've got scorpions galore and tarantulas there too. When I was growing up those danged tarantulas would migrate from one side of the road to the other every fall, and they can jump considerably high – sometimes the back roads were literally crawling with 'em. Had one jump right into the Volkswagen through an open window once, land on my lap. They hurt, but they aren't deadly. I have always been convinced they come from another planet.
Psychological torture is still torture. Even though those ever-so-tough jihadists should be quite used to big bugs since they come out of the desert and all. Maybe we should do to them what we did to the Native Americans and give them a place like Oklahoma (and fence 'em in). Which nobody in their right mind ever wanted until they discovered oil. Or we wouldn't have given it to the Natives, would we?
Big bugs are creepy for sure, you wouldn't want to be in a coffin with several varieties I can think of. Yes, that is torture. That if the person is truly phobic, only has to be threatened in order for them to tell you everything you ever wanted to know plus a lot of made up stuff that's completely useless. It would work on my grandson if you just showed him a tarantula. I used to collect them for science class every year, one of my adopteds had one as a pet. Along with two snakes, the pit viper version of which are a lot less scary than these bugs, though a lot more deadly.
A CIA interrogator recently 'fessed that he got more reliable information while playing chess than could be had from torture. I suspect he's telling the truth. If you really believe you can't get necessary and immediately timely information from someone unless you torture them to within an inch of their lives, then do it and take the consequences of your criminal actions like a man. Torture as official state policy is so… so… Peruvian. Or Guatemalan. Or El Salvadorian, or, ultimately, Nazi-ish. There's a reason Bush tried to re-elevate the masterminds of Central American horrors in his administration. Surely you don't wish to align yourself with such people!
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
No, I don't associate with the caterpillar wranglers.
And I'm fairly certain that just about anybody is capable of the most horrific things you can imagine given certain circumstances.
I guess my view on torture is that it is evil, probably doesn't work as well as casual interrogation, and should be abolished. That even goes for the caterpillars too.
But I also know that this is a romantic ideal for me, and that in war romantic ideals get shelved until after the war is over. You brought up WWII. Americans dispatched Japanese humans in every sick and twisted way imaginable. Chopped, fried, diced, skewered, fondued, roasted in a tank, boiled in a sub, rotisseried, and in the end – vaporized. Civilian and soldier alike.
The Japanese did likewise back to us. And so it has been from time immemorial. Whatever we happen think is ethical gets quickly forgotten when it appears that WE may be the ones who will be roasted alive.
Yeah, it's sickening. But that's war. Wanna outlaw torture? Just outlaw war instead. That's the root of the problem, no?
People are being beheaded, ripped in half, stuffed into woodchippers, and blown to chunky bloody smithereens. I have a hard time getting worked up over waterboards and caterpillars, disgusting as they are.
Comment by chunkdz — May 1, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
chunk:
While there are always sadists involved in warfare (or who start wars), it's not something we've ever really encouraged or condoned as a nation of supposedly "enlightened, modern" people. Have you ever served? The professional warriors I've known have all been totally decent people, who disapprove of torture as policy and always have. Even though they've done their share of killing.
Real warriors have a better appreciation of what qualifies as HELL than your basic armchair general or chickenhawk. I was born military – in another country even – my father was a career Naval officer, an intelligence planner and a tactical instructor at The Citadel, who fought in 2 wars, served at the Pentagon, and was a serious student of warfare. I have his Regis Neptunis right here on the wall – from the USS Indianapolis, I kid you not. Sharks!!!
My husband joined the Navy after his draft number came up in the Christmas Lottery of 1970, he served aboard nuclear submarines of the variety that had the capacity to wipe out Russia all by themselves even if all other forces disappeared. I have been instructor to Navy Nukes, and did my own time, have taken the oath to protect and defend. There are still two recently retired Generals (real ones) in the immediate family. Hubby's side of the family served in the Pacific with the Army Corps of Engineers building runways during the Big One, carried their scars all their lives. I have not one but two trifolds on the mantle, and a Navy Cross from a shoulda-been father we never knew. I have a son and nephew in the current wars as well as two grandsons old enough to be maiming and killing right now (both thankfully in college, they'd go into this morass over my dead body). Service is part of my heritage and my life. I DO know what it means, and it's not about getting your rocks off with snuff flicks in the dead of night because FoxNews tells you it's cool.
I can't stand know-nothings who pretend it's all about glory and adventure and petty personal revenge, never having done a moment's actual service to know anything about what being a Warrior really means. But I must say I'm weak enough that I'd truly love to see Chickenhawk Hannity waterboarded for charity, though that's not going to happen due to liability issues he didn't think through when he offered.
But then, if in charge of such a situation in real life, I'd turn my back on his stupidity without caterpillars or waterboards or anything Hannity thinks he's man enough to tolerate. Watta maroon.
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I can say the same. In fact, every combat soldier I ever knew detested killing or maiming – period. Yet they did it, and did it better than the bad guys so that they could come home and live in peace.
I don't agree that those who commit atrocity in war are "sadists" or "chickenhawks" who are "getting their rocks off".
Some of the most detestable killing and maiming was done by the most honorable soldiers in history.
When the Japanese dug in on Iwo Jima, honorable and respectable Marines squirted their caves full of napalm and roasted them alive, this being the most efficient way to do away with them.
When we had to cut German supply lines we strafed farmhouses so that food wouldn't get harvested. Spaatz ordered it and his men carried it out with a knot in their collective stomach because we had to win.
And perhaps the most honorable guy in WWII flambe'd 150,000 Japanese civilians and slow roasted another 200,000 in a giant bowl of radiation soup.
None of those involved in these atrocities were "sadists", nor did they "get their rocks off" watching human beings run around with their skin falling off their partially cooked bodies.
As awful as it must be to have water poured down your neck I just can't seem to get upset over it. If there were no war going on I'm sure that I'd be as morally outraged as anybody.
By the way, tell all your family who served (including you) thanks from me.
Comment by chunkdz — May 1, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Zachriel (expressing rightous indignation):
Which begs the question as to what constitutes torture.
I came across this before in another venue. The Japanese used waterboarding in WWII against Americans. What was not said in the other venue or here was that the Japanese used other worse forms of torture along with waterboarding and more importantly this was done to satisfy sadistic pleasures. The US soldiers were not threatening to bomb innocent civilians Middle East style. There also was the detail about a declaration of war, Pearl Harbor… IOW, there was absolutely no point to what the Japanese were doing.
Reality is a crucial aspect of all this which is why I brought up the example of Winston Churchhill. Do you think he aided and abetted Nazi torture by not enabling authorities to guard against a coming Luftwaffe attack?
A great nation takes all reasonable measures to secure its own citizens against torture and death at the hands of its enemies.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
To the contrary, noone is making me or like-minded people do anything including waterboarding. But if I had a reasonable suspicion that a known terrorist possessed information about a planned, purposeful infliction of pain and death and talking was not getting results I would not remove waterboarding from a list of options. I would also be prepared to:
1. Defend that policy and
2. Severely criticize a policy that enabled the tortuous deaths of thousands because of a name, rank and serial number approach to interrogation.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Joy:
Not so. We can take a body count which tells us how many Americans were killed on 911. None of them should have died. None should have been tortured. The SAS and Isreali security agencies are examples of counter-terror agencies, operating within free societies, which have prevented torture and death by not feeling reluctant to scare baby killers and mass murderers.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Here is a telling juncture about responsibility. Obama has intelligence agencies operating according to military manuals with respect to interrogations. If this is not so kindly link me to a correction. If four years from now (or maybe eight) he walks away from the office having not presided over major assaults against America or Americans he will be able to claim credit for securing the USA according with his own revised operating procedures.
If however, some time in the future, on his watch, the USA or a major part of it is severly damaged with considerable loss of life will Obama and his supporters accept responsibility or will they search for scapegoats? There are plenty of authoritarian leaders throughout the world who are hostile and have motive. Future developments rather than present day arguments will decide the fate of both Obamanomics and our foreign policy assessments.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
chunk:
Perhaps you aren't familiar with the terms. Sadist is sadist, of course. Folks like Mengele and Pinochet and Torquemada and Amin and such, who just like to hurt and kill people. A "chickenhawk" is a term for someone like chief Bushite torture mastermind Dick Cheney, who managed to get a total of five (That's 5) deferments during Vietnam so he wouldn't have to serve his country while hundreds of thousands of others – including those like my husband who were in college at the time doing just fine, with a wife and child and another on the way and a well-paid part-time job at the bank – didn't get the same breaks. Hell, my guy tried to get a hardship deferment after Nixon did away with student deferments and went after campus "troublemakers" with the lottery. They told him if they wanted him to have a family, they'd have issued him one. The kids and I had him BEFORE the SS, thanks. They didn't care.
BTW, he got the equivalent of combat pay going in, because he had to promise six years due to nuke school requirements instead of the 'normal' two for being cannon fodder in 'Nam. That got him a whopping total of $112 a month. Honest to God, and it wasn't enough in even 1971 dollars to get an apartment with our own bathroom, much less buy baby formula and food. The kids and I had to move in with Dad until hubby got the 'extra' job of honor guard for incoming casualties of 'Nam. An extra $60 a month and extra food once a 16-hour day, which he usually boxed up and brought home to me. My ONLY meal of the day all the way through A-School. My Dad put his sister through college during the 1930s with his pay, which apparently went farther back during the Great Depression. Of course, he was an officer who'd already done college…
Thus a "chickenhawk" is someone who managed by hook or by crook (like Rush Limbaugh, who got out of service because he had boils on his fat butt), but who yammers to high heaven about how great war is and how MY kids should go fight and die because THEY think it's so cool. For everybody but them. Cheney never served. Bush went AWOL so he could play at politics, they lost him for two entire years. He never served in combat, btw, after they grounded him for serial drunkenness. Commander Codpiece indeed! Luckily his Dad was DCI at the time, so junior got a pass.
WMDs don't count as much, sadly. Which is why nobody really considers the Air Force to be a real warrior's branch. Bombs are bombs. Whoever gets in the way is either a 'hit' or "collateral damage." War is hell. But it's much less of a hell from 40,000 feet than it is on the ground.
When they're shooting at you, you do whatever is necessary to make them stop. THAT is what war is all about, and THAT is what makes it hell. Killing the people shooting at you – in uniform or buck naked – is the name of the game. No innocents died in those caves.
A matter of opinion, obviously. That was the USS Indianapolis connection, by the way (Google it). A military target could have been chosen, and needed only a single bomb to make the undeniable point. But by golly they'd built 'em, and they were hell-bent on using 'em. In my opinion the Nagasaki overkill was perhaps the most blatant war crime of all time, but then again, it did scare the rivals into MAD, and they were merely yellow-people (to those who counted). It apparently served its purpose, for all except those insane religio-jihadists who want some of their own to play with. A.Q. Khan tried hard to make sure they'd get 'em. He's a regular National Hero in Pakistan to this day. Go figure. Oh… and it was the CIA's counterproliferation op in the Middle East that busted him. Valerie Plame's outfit, which Dick Cheney targeted because they got in the way of his lies…
Well, the Bushies apparently DID get their rocks off watching torture tapes. Of course, they were Chickenhawks, so there's no accounting for that.
That's THROAT, chunk. Not neck. As in drowning. Did you know they installed trach kits in the torture rooms? Why do you think that was? Did you know licensed and sworn to Hippocratic Oath doctors and psychologists had to be present? Why do you think that was? AMA and APA are now busy weeding their ranks, because they know this is atrocity.
I'm morally outraged. But because I no longer call myself "Christian" (it's been too corrupted of late), I don't count. Right?
Thanks for that. Now try to see if you've got a good handle on what's gone seriously wrong. I believe that's very important.
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
One more anecdotal story. I too have many family members who served during WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam and more. My father served during the second world war. He was very young at the time and recounted the following event. There is no way to verify it. Most participants are dead. My father's views are more like Zachriel's Joy's and others than they are like mine but I have no reason to doubt this account of his. A US Army unit captured three German operatives behind allied lines. It was suspected they had knowledge of a planned and imminent attack. Extensive interrogations revealed nothing. The Germans were stonewalling. In contravention to operating procedures one of the American interrogators put a pistol to the head of one of the Germans. The Germans thought it an empty gesture. So did the other Americans. He pulled the trigger instantly killing the German. The other shocked Germans could not talk fast enough. They did indeed know of a coming attack and their information was quite useful.
Some situations in life are very complex. It is easy to take noble postures. It's impossible to find people willing to own up to their consequences when people suffer and die. It should be sanitary and according to the rules. At least in an ideal world.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Bradford:
??? If you'd killed all of those hijackers before 9-11 when they were in Miami taking flying lessons, you could NOT defend yourself in court by claiming 3,000 people's lives were saved by your murders. That's what's real and true. No amount of FoxNews twistor theory changes it.
Besides, I've personally seen this government sentence way more people than that to gnarly death just because an industrial giant "important" to their good ol' Cold War was in trouble. 3,000 is pittance on the scale of "collateral damage" atrocities. Which you can only know after the fact. You can NOT know before the fact, without a time machine. Do you have one? Do you believe FoxNews or the gub'ment has one they haven't told us about?
This is an aptly named thread. I'll respect your fascist opinions when YOU come back from a war you didn't lose with some honestly earned medals and no war crimes charges. Until then, your opinions on this are worth squat.
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 10:22 pm
No amount of exageration or misrepresentation can hide behind FoxNews ad homs. Kill the hijackers? How about apprehending future ones in advance of their murder/torture spree. That's what American presidents and their administrations must do.
How many medals do you have? How many did Clinton have before Mogadishu? How many does Obama have? Do they have the right to their opinions despite their lack of military service? Or are their views worth squat? If medals are the standard then Bush One and Dole should be worth listening to.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Yeah, we all know about Mengele. I was talking about American soldiers who tend to be more classy.
As for the chickenhawks, they'll always be around. Bush Jr., Clinton, etc.
No matter, as an atrocity is an atrocity no matter who is behind it. Tooey Spaatz is one of the finest heroes this country has known, yet his air command were occasionally told to strafe farmers and herders. An army travels on it's stomach, and we wanted to beat them. War is ugly.
Lol! Spoken like a true Navy brat! (By the way, Joy, the Navy uses wmd's too. Big ones.)
Tell that to any bomber pilot who got bounced by a squad of Messerschmitts. War is ugly no matter the altitude.
This particular group of human beings didn't shoot at us until we invaded their little island off the coast of their Beloved Motherland. The war was practically done by this time and we could have just as easily blockaded the island and waited them out. The hard fact is that we wanted to go in there and cook thousands of humans alive so that we could build an airstrip. War is ugly.
Probably legal reasons. Who cares. It's an atrocity whether there's a psychologist there or not. Roasting a Japanese soldier in jellied gasoline would still be an atrocity even if there was a fireman and a counselor present. War is ugly.
Do you really believe that this is what I think of you?
I'm against torture. It's just that when we are busy cooking, skewering, and butchering people who in turn are busy beheading, dismembering, and filetting other people –
…pouring water down someones throat under the care and supervision of doctors and psychologists does not evoke outrage in me nearly as much as an army of terrorists who think my wife and children should have their heads removed like a trout simply because they don't bow down to their god.
I guess I've only got so much outrage to go around.
Comment by chunkdz — May 1, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Bradford:
Um… that's not torture, Bradford. It's murder. Just because it may never have been charged doesn't change the nature of the crime. Besides, you note "in contravention to operating procedures." Torture and murder are crimes. Even then. GW Bush telling you it's now okay doesn't change reality. Or the law.
??? I might be a "future hijacker" Bradford. Are you willing to torture and/or murder me if you imagine that I might be just that? Try it and I'll blow you away, which unlike your weird fantasies is perfectly legal the moment you step foot on my property. Which is why I live where I do, and know how to use Grandpa's shotgun.
I am not at liberty to say how many medals I have, where they came from, or who issued them. No matter, since it doesn't matter. But you can't escape your chickenhawk-ness by pointing to Obama or Clinton. Commander-in-Chief. When you get to where you are declaring wars and sending my kids off to die, I'll consider that you might have a point.
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Your pretense aside, waterboarding, stress positions, throwing people against walls, extreme temperatures, is torture, has always been torture, and prosecuted as such under American and international law.
Torture is illegal under all circumstances. There are no extenuating legal circumstances for torturing captured and unarmed people. That is per American law and American promises.
No. Of course not.
A formerly great nation, then. A cowardly bully that breaks its promises, and punishes weaker nations for the same acts of torture, for the same reasons of national security.
I have more confidence in the Americans than you do apparently. I believe their words and know that they will put an end to torture now that they have been made fully aware of it. That's because they are a great people and are not afraid.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 11:39 pm
The American Revolutionaries risked their lands, their families, their country, their lives. The military necessity of reliable intelligence was plain. Yet Washington's orders concerning prisoners were to "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road."
The British in WWII had a 9-11 every week, and were threatened with being invaded and enslaved. They didn't torture spies under color of law. This was a far more dire and existential threat than today's, yet they largely retained their values.
Western civilization depends on its values. Lose that and lose.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 am
No, not "to the contrary". You have, once again, restated "They made me do it": your position is that it is OK to do evil things simply because if you don't, someone else will do some other even more evil thing. So you claim you "have to" be evil.
Baby killers and people that are entirely innocent. Sounds like a great idea until you find yourself on the waterboard.
No, it's not easy at all to live up to a high moral standard, especially when lives are at stake. Jesus never said it would be.
Comment by don provan — May 2, 2009 @ 5:21 am
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Joy:
Right. A killing that enabled some GIs to survive the war. Moral issues like this are not black and white except to posturing ideologues.
I'd drop a few caterpillers on you without hesitating.
But it does. You raised the issue. Why would your views count for more than squat without at least and many medals as George Bush Sr.?
I can fly like an eagle and point out the hypocrites below who make military service an issue except when the target leans sufficiently to the left. Clinton used the military on a number of occasions. Obama the pirate killer and Taliban slayer is off to a good start. The polemical chickens are coming home to roost.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Zachriel:
You're being naive. Ask the Irish about the values of the SAS men.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
dp:
I claim one is adapting a most evil form of pretentious virtue by choosing to allow mass murder if a little hosing down could prevent it.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Zachriel:
Hmmm. Afghanistan is being punished by liberating that nation from the Taliban. Oh… You meant Iraq? Maybe we can do away with elections and representative government there and turn that nation back over to one of Saddam Hussein's relatives. Is mass murder on your list of moral no nos?
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Zachriel:
Oh, I have every reason to believe that if this administration puts people from the former one on trial while giving Nancy Pelosi Inc. a free ride then the American people will administer the appropriate remedy at the ballot box.
Incidentally, are you aware that Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security has fingered the real threats to America in an intelligence assessment report? Rest easy Zach. Veterans and Americans opposed to the social policies of President Obama, abortion and same sex marriages, have been mentioned as worthy of particular scrutiny.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Joy:
Keith Olbermann?
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
It doesn't matter. The United States has promised not to torture. Do America's words mean anything? Or do promises only apply when convenient?
Yes.
Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Please don't try to minimize the brutality of what you are advocating. You've already suggested that summary execution in front of other prisoners is appropriate and effective.
Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
You don't have to look at international treaties Zach. The presidents of the USA have been sworn to defend the people of this nation since George Washington. Allowing mass muder and torture of Americans is a violation of that oath or promise as you put it. Waterboarding is history but the defense of innocent Americans is not. We'll see where the virtuous critics are on the issue of torture the next time Americans are forced by the thousands to choose between a fiery death and a skyscraper fall. If it comes to pass I hope you'll have the integrity to criticize both the perpetrators and any incompetent office holders presiding over it.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Wrong. I told the story. I do not endorse the execution but on the other hand I recognize that some individuals regretably find themselves in difficult situations that individuals like you, whose biggest threat in life is a hungry summertime mosquito, are eager to criticize. I hope the sense of moral superiority is gratifying.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I wonder why no one has brought up the spanking new paper by Dembski and Marks Life’s Conservation Law: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information. There is a lively discussion of it on AtBC with yours truly weighing in here.
Comment by olegt — May 2, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
olegt:
Thanks for that Olegt. I'll look at it and probably post on it unless someone else does it first.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
A "no", then.
I strongly disagree. I believe far more in the American people than you do.
Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Zachriel:
Maybe, but that's not the issue. Do you have a grasp of what is required to get a hostile suspect to provide information he does not wish to give up? A name, rank and serial number approach may make you feel good but it will not produce anything of value. The American people like what they have- a prosperous and free society. Both need to be safeguarded. If they are not no amount of moral posturing will save the day for those in power.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
The issue was the value of American promises. You have said they aren't even worth looking at. I disagree.
Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Zachriel:
Not quite. What I've been indicating from the outset is that you do not have a clear cut moral imperative applicable to any and all situations. There are times when all options entail evil consequences. In such circumstances it is not good vs. evil but a choice of two lesser evils. To maintain that you would unconditionaly maintain your word regardless… is a foolish stance. I would not maintain a promise to drive within the speed limit if by doing so meant I would arrive at a scene of emergency too late to effect a remedial action. What fool would not open a private letter addressed to a family member if such a letter contained information about an imminent threat?
Obama has the authority to authorize a bland interrogation methodology which will be fruitless in terms of yielding useful intelligence. But if that euniqued approach results in Americans suffering and dying in large numbers he will be no moral hero. You believe natural phenomenon should be tested by tried and true methodologies. Ineffective intelligence gathering is a null result for needed data. Tests lie ahead. Results will unfold. Events are the parallel to empirical test results. To use a familiar adage, future disasters enabled by poor intelligence and a lack of effective responses indicate vacuous governmental policies. You do not have a win-win stance. With one disaster and thousands of tortured victims, the policy of namby pamby interrogation loses big time.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Is effective intelligence interrogation patterned after military procedures? We'll find out.
Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 (Manual).
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Here's the Army manual.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Bradford:
And had anyone present turned in the perp, he'd have been charged with murder. Not that this sort of thing doesn't happen in war, but that still doesn't make it what it's not. You can be pro-torture and pro-murder all you like. It's just loudmouthed macho posturing. If you do it and get caught, you will (hopefully) face judgment.
Wouldn't work. Caterpillars don't bother me. Neither do tarantulas, snakes, giant centipedes or hand-size garden spiders. Slugs and grubs don't bother me, nor earthworms, beetles, flies, bees, wasps, etc. But if you subject a prisoner to insect or reptile venom and they die (of snakebite or allergic shock), you'll still be guilty of murder complicated by having tortured that prisoner to death. Courts tend to frown on that sort of thing.
I care not a whit how many medals Poppy has, he's not involved in this and has not opined about it that I'm aware of. My views count exactly as much as yours do.
Bradford to Zach:
When you have no clear moral imperative, a legal imperative will do. Or, it'll generally keep you out of prison and away from the gallows.
For the record, here is what's REAL about the U.S. position and responsibilities in this matter:
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment [CAT]
The CAT is an international treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1984. Following ratification by the 20th state party it came into force on June 26th, 1987. As of December of 2008 146 nations are parties to the treaty and another 10 have signed but not ratified it.
The treaty defines torture and ensures that it is a criminal act. It establishes that torture is an extraditable offense (Article eight) and it establishes universal jurisdiction to try cases of torture where the act occurred if the alleged torturer cannot be extradited. Victims of torture must have an enforceable right to compensation (Article 14), and parties must ban the use of evidence obtained by torture in their courts (Article 15). Part II governs reporting and monitoring of the Convention and the steps taken by the parties to implement it. It establishes the Committee Against Torture (Article 17) and empowers it to investigate allegations of systematic torture (Article 20).
Article 2 is short and terse:
Article 16.1 extends the treaty to cover treatment that does NOT fall under strict definitions of torture:
Article 10 pertains to education, training and information regarding the prohibition against torture for all law enforcement personnel civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and anyone else who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of prisoners.
Article 11 requires systematic review of interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices for the purpose of preventing torture from occurring.
Article 12 requires parties to conduct prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable suspicion that an act of torture has been committed.
Article 13 establishes the right to compensation, prompt trial and protection of victims and witnesses from ill treatment or intimidation for making a complaint.
** The United States officially became a signatory to the Convention on April 18, 1988 and ratified the treaty on October 21, 1994.
Then there are the four Geneva Conventions that outlaw torture, inhumane and degrading treatment in times of war, covering combatants and non-combatants. The Bush-II administration tried to get around Geneva by codifying a new class of prisoners for its forever-war on terror, called an "unlawful combatant." However, all the provisions for treatment of POWs of all the treaties to which the US is signatory must be afforded to ALL detainees "until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal (GC III, Article 5).
The United States is signatory to all the conventions, they have all been ratified, thus are under Article IV, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the supreme Law of the Land with the sole stipulation that the U.S. reserves the right to impose the death penalty in any nation where it is an occupying power even if that nation's own laws have no death penalty provision. This is what allowed us to execute Nazis and Japanese for war crimes and crimes against humanity following WW-2. Note that the death penalty Bradford describes did not come about by judicial process, but was simply murder. Murder is still a crime (even in war, though not in battle), for which there is no statute of limitations.
Comment by Joy — May 2, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:58 am
Yes, I understand that's what you claim. But I say you're being evil, and the rest is just excuses.
Do you understand that the terrorists are saying, "they made me do it", too? Or do you think that you're the only one that makes up excuses for being evil and pretends that the excuses make being evil OK?
Comment by don provan — May 3, 2009 @ 5:58 am
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:04 am
When I asked whether America's words mean anything, you said you don't have to look at international treaties, treaties which are the embodiment of America's promises. But the content of those promises are important because pointing to extenuating circumstances concerning torture is not an argument—the promise included the provision that there would be *no* extenuating circumstances. Every tinhorn dictator claims national security as a justification, and often rightly so.
There is no fundamental argument against the balance you strike between your advocacy of brutality and your personal fears. Every generation, every nation has people like you who would grant the government the power to torture. Ultimately, the erosion of the rule of law and the lost credibility of the American people is far more dangerous and destructive to freedom.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2009 @ 9:04 am
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
Convention Against Torture, signed by Reagan (1988), ratified by two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate (1994).
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" and "an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture"
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2009 @ 11:27 am
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Joy:
I answered Zach when he raised the same complaint with different wording so to repeat:
I do not endorse the execution but on the other hand I recognize that some individuals regretably find themselves in difficult situations that individuals like you, whose biggest threat in life is a hungry summertime mosquito, are eager to criticize. I hope the sense of moral superiority is gratifying.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
And I say… You're being evil when you allow a mass muder you could prevent with a hosing. Passivity does not get you off the hook.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Zachriel:
Oh no you don't. These are not personal fears. 3,000 plus dead Americans are very real. The widow of one of the victims lives in the next town over. I live in NJ and terrorism is not a subjective imagined thing although I have no doubt that if the evidence of the events were not so obvious extreme leftists would argue that it was imagined.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
By the way, since the rest of you are so law abiding kindly explain to me why in a country as large as the USA we must have a tax cheat as Treasury Secretary?
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Summary execution is a criminal act.
Please don't minimize brutality.
Yes, they are very real, and the perpetrators are criminals.
You may consider torture justifiable. I suppose that you consider it justifiable when other national governments use torture against those who would use violent rebellion to overthrow the government, or against foreign occupiers to garner intelligence, and you would object if they were tried for doing so. Is that correct?
But you continue to ignore the argument. The United States promised not to use torture *even if attacked*. Are American promises meaningful?
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Zachriel:
I might never authorize its useage if I were in a position to do so. But I would not rule out the possibility of scary but non-disfuguring procedures like waterboarding if presented with overwhelming evidence that an individual possessed the knowledge needed to avert a mass murder.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
But, of course, even if this weren't true, it would just be a technicality. We don't condemn torture because we promised not to do it: we promised not to do it because we consider it a fundamental evil that no one should do. Breaking promises is bad, too, of course, but of more concern to me is that over the last decade or two, we've decided that torture is OK. (As long as we're not the victims, of course.) In other words, we've decided to be evil. The rest is just noise.
Comment by don provan — May 3, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Do you understand that this condition can never really be met? At the very best, you might, in a very special case, have overwhelming evidence that an individual was in a position to gain such knowledge, but it's essentially impossible to prove he actually does have it. Besides, the cases we're talking about don't come anywhere near such criteria. Heck, we can't even make a case that can stand up in court against any of these people, so there's not even a dream of overwhelming evidence that they have anything to do with some future terrorist plot.
Comment by don provan — May 3, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Did you get that from the Bible? I recall it says exactly the opposite, in fact.
I can choose whether or not to be evil. I do not choose for anyone else whether or not they do evil. The evil I do remains evil even when it prevents them from doing something evil.
While one might imagine other cultural standards, this is the one we've adopted in both our religious and our secular traditions. And I claim there are very good reasons for this position beyond tradition.
And even if there was some doubt on that, there are simple practical matters that make your position faulty. Two things that come immediately to mind. First, there's no guarantee that your evil will actually result in stopping some other evil. You are being evil on speculation that it will reduce over all evil. In particular, as I already mentioned, you don't even know for sure whether the person you're torturing knows anything about any evil plot.
Second, you justify your evil by declaring whatever it is you're trying to stop as evil. By what right do you judge someone else's evil? Why are you the one that gets to say ramming a plane into an office building is an evil act and not an act of war?
The odd thing about this conversation is that I could have sworn you've argued with me about whether religious morality is arbitrary or rational morality is possible, yet here you are ignoring several edicts that both religious and rational morality are 100% in agreement with, such as the golden rule, turning the other cheek, innocent until proven guilty, judge not, he who is without sin cast the first stone, and probably others that don't immediately come to mind.
Comment by don provan — May 3, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 10:21 am
This brings up an interesting point. If torture is a grave concern of the left then why the silence about the abundant torture that goes on in regimes like that of Castro's Cuba. Why are the moveon.org types silent about this? There is no reservation about its useage. It is not done to preserve the lives of Cubans but rather to keep Castro in power.
But I would not rule out the possibility of scary but non-disfuguring procedures like waterboarding if presented with overwhelming evidence that an individual possessed the knowledge needed to avert a mass murder.
I suspected from the outset that this would be the unspoken fall back position. There are ways to prove everything except hypotheses related to a mass attack on the USA.
One can easily envision ways in which an individual can be implicated. Position within a chain of command supported by statements obtained from underlings, by wiretaps, by contradictions of that individuals's own testimony, forensic evidence placing the individual at a known meeting at a known place and time and more.
And I say… You're being evil when you allow a mass muder you could prevent with a hosing. Passivity does not get you off the hook.
Where would defense of innocent third parties be proscribed? Interestingly Jesus (and Paul in his epistles) did not tell Roman soldiers to abandon their profession. The advice given was that they be content with their pay.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 10:21 am
May 4th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Values are subjective by nature. Because values are subjective, they are not arguable, only their implications. I'm sure Bradford agrees that torture is regrettable, but he strikes a different balance between security and torture as a necessary evil.
You make the argument that torture is not effective and often misdirected (through error or abuse), a reasonable argument. Though Bradford would agree that unnecessary torture is evil (mistakes will happen), he continues to strike a different balance.
But a consensus has been reached that resulted in specific promises; a ban on torture regardless of nation or circumstance. Any violation of these promises would erode confidence in the rule of law and America's credibility as a world leader. And this leads to the loss of the very stability that Bradford places such a high value on. We have reason to believe that Bradford understands this because he continues to avoid answering the question.
Are American promises meaningful?
Comment by Zachriel — May 4, 2009 @ 10:27 am
May 4th, 2009 at 11:02 am
If this discussion about torture makes one thing clear, then it is the fact that morality can and should not be legislated.
While people might disagree with each others argument, each side has (at least in their mind) perfectly rational arguments why they think the other side is morally wrong or even evil.
And the positions continuously switch. People who think that the current laws on abortion are morally evil might think that the currently laws on the death penalty are not. People who think that the current laws on detainee treatment are evil might think that the current laws that allow a nation to go to war are not.
In the end, it shows yet again that morality is completely subjective and that there is apparently no way one convince somebody of the wrongness of their own or the rightness of another person's morals.
So while it is perfectly reasonable to support or oppose a law, initiative or action on the grounds of someone's own morals, the declaration of a law, action or initiative as morally good or evil can never be sufficient grounds for its implementation.
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2009 @ 11:02 am
May 4th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Amnesty International: Amnesty International has today sent a letter to the Cuban authorities expressing its concerns at the recent serious escalation in the arrests and harassment of political opponents in Cuba.
European Liberal Youth: In the shadow of the war in Iraq the Cuban regime tries to strengthen its grip of the democratic movement.
Comment by Zachriel — May 4, 2009 @ 11:08 am
May 4th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Yes and they include the promise to protect against mass murder.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 11:15 am
May 4th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Good luck with that hrun. Efforts to legislate morality come from both the left and right. But you have given me the opportunity to make an important distinction. The enhanced interrogation debate is not a legal issue for me although the legal implications are obvious. It is a moral issue. There is a long tradition in the USA of placing moral values above legal ones. It includes Thoreau and more recently Dr. Martin Luther King. I would hope to have the courage to place human life ahead of treaty strictures if put into a position wherein a choice was necessary.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 11:21 am
May 4th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Well, of course they do. As I said in the post you quote: "So while it is perfectly reasonable to support or oppose a law, initiative or action on the grounds of someone's own morals, the declaration of a law, action or initiative as morally good or evil can never be sufficient grounds for its implementation."
Public measueres are driven by opinions on morality. But declarations of morality, one way or another, can never be sufficient grounds for implementation of such measures. For example, just because somebody says torture is a moral evil it should not be outlawed.
Just like it is a moral issue for the ones who disagree with you, Bradford.
Sure. Just like you hope people will place their moral values above legal ones, so do others. That's why, for example, some people want specific prosecution and punishment of people who ordered and implemented the waterboarding of detainees, even though the technique might have been legal at the time.
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2009 @ 11:48 am
May 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
People frequently share common values. By understanding what values people have, we can argue the implications of those moral positions, then we can sometimes show where a particular position is faulty or leads to bad results by the agreed criteria.
When people share a common morality, then such declarations can be reasonable and appropriate. But I agree that just making the claim is not very persuasive if others don't already share the position.
Comment by Zachriel — May 4, 2009 @ 11:57 am
May 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
hrun:
That's an interesting take. Prosecuting one for something that may have been legal but is considered immoral by the prosecuting party. I think the Obama administration is conscious of this pitfall and is consequently unethusiastic about prosecutions.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 11:57 am
May 4th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
America promised to never use torture admitting of no extenuating circumstances. It's not as if terrorism is a new phenomena, or that America is the first country to feel threatened. We're in agreement, then. Or not …
You just cited King to support torture!!!!????!!!!
Comment by Zachriel — May 4, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Quite the contrary. They're worried that the previous administration demonstrably broke the law. And that would require people such as yourself having to confront the truth.
Comment by Zachriel — May 4, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
To support saving lives. Use of the word torture is revealing. It is applied to waterboarding by those reluctant to apply it to burning people to death in fires deliberately set in the act of destroying buildings.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
You've painted yourself into a corner Zach. If the Obama administration now declines to prosecute, by your logic they would be shirking their duty to prosecute lawbreakers. But if they go in that direction, rather than start with low level GSers, why not go for the big fish? They include very high level congressmen and women who were briefed on enhanced interrogation before it was initiated. The trouble with being self-rightous is it can lead to embarassing exposure.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Yes, they would.
Too bad. People were tortured under color of law.
Attacking civilians is a war crime. If Americans prisoners are waterboarded, it would be considered torture.
You cited King to support torture!!!!????!!!!
Comment by Zachriel — May 4, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I absolutely agree.
And yet again, I agree. The declaration of something as immoral or evil is utterly unpersuasive. Discussing the consequences of an action (moral or immoral) on the other hand, can be very fruitful. People may still disagree, but at least a dialogue can be established, rather than dueling monologues of "You are evil." — "No, you are evil."
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Note this now because those who were in the know included Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats.
Some of them were- by Americans and after having submitted to the procedure of their own volition. Being waterboarded is part of the training some CIA and military personal must endure when they apply for assignments. The purpose is twofold- prepare them if taken captive and familiarize them with a procedure they might administer. Unlike burning, nail extraction etc. the procedure leaves no injuries or scars- but it does scare people. Linguistic precision is revealing. Torture is a useful phrase for making political points.
The enhanced interrogation issue has been politicized from the outset. Obama selectively disclosed memos and in doing so revealed to our enemies the parameters of our interrogation efforts. This makes future intelligence gathering from hostile sources virtually impossible. Congratulations. It makes suffering and death more likely too.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
When we entered this war, 1000 Americans were braised alive in a bath of flaming jet fuel. 2000 more were puree'd alive in the world's biggest cuisinart. – And you want me to be outraged because someone is having water poured in his mouth?
When our enemy isn't cutting off the head of some woman who had the audacity to show too much ankle, they are busy improvising new and creative ways to dismember and de-bone citizens and soldiers alike. Our men and women in uniform, meanwhile, are busy trying to find ways to turn our enemies into throbbing mounds of human hamburger. – And you want me to be outraged because some guy in a jail cell didn't sleep for 72 hours?
We are fighting an enemy who's stated goal is the conversion or summary beheading of the 5 billion people who won't bow to their god. They have vowed to never stop, and they are freely planning their attacks right here in my home county in California – And you expect me to be outraged because some guy in Guantanamo has a caterpillar in his bed?
Torture is wrong. Murdering people is wrong. Roasting, grinding, chopping, frying, skewering, and slicing people is wrong wrong wrong – no matter who is doing it and what their political affiliation is. War is wrong. It's wrong even when the President calls it something else. "Man Made disaster"? How about "Man Made atrocious disgusting horrifying carnival of human dismemberment"?
This is war, people. It's ugly, it's horrific, it's wrong. We do what we have to do to win. Don't tell me it's ok to field dress some guy with a bayonette and let the coyotes eat his entrails then insist that I be outraged if the guys brother is kept awake for 3 days. Don't tell me it's ok to drop a grenade in some guys spider hole turning him into sizzling hamburger, but don't dare drop a caterpillar in there.
It's all wrong. It's all disgusting. It's all horrible and outrageous. Anybody who can only muster outrage for Bush and Cheney right now reveals themselves transparently to be nothing but a partisan sycophant. This is a war. An ugly, disgusting war that apparently will not end until one side or the other is dead.
So grow some testicles and show some outrage for things that are really worthy of outrage. I'm outraged that my kids are coming of age right when this war is starting to heat up again. I'm outraged that my kids might someday have to go over there and roast human beings alive because these idiot terrorists won't stop their Islamic jihad. I'm outraged that these jackasses were planning to blow up my city (LA). I'm outraged that there is no outrage being expressed on this thread for this outrageous war.
Sorry, but there's a whole lot to be outraged about, right now. When human beings are regularly being ripped limbed from limb in the most excruciating way, I just can't seem to care about waterhoses and caterpillars. I'm sure I'd feel way different if we were in peacetime, but we're not. I sure hope nobody's forgotten that fact.
Comment by chunkdz — May 4, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Bradford, I am really curious. In multiple posts you seem to imply that for some people debating here the torture question is political. I can not say this for certain for other commenters here, but for me this question is completely divorced from the political party system.
If torture was perpetrated and if it is found that torture as it was perpetrated was illegal, then everybody who enabled these actions should be punished according to their respective responsibilities in the crimes.
Is it different for you? Would you support 'enhanced interrogation techniques' executed by one administration and not by another? I would presume not. Why then do you believe that it would be different from people who disagree with you on the morality on this matter? Why would you not think that they would vehemently oppose 'enhanced interrogation techniques' executed by any administration?
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
For some reason you think that matters one whit.
Torture is defined under the Convention 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."
Gross overstatement.
Perhaps the United States should withdraw from the Convention on Torture and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But most Americans are not quite so cowardly that they would sacrifice their most sacred values.
Comment by Zachriel — May 4, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
hrun:
I believe you are sincere but think the Pelosi et. al. matter is a litmus test for others including Obama.
The operative word is illegal. One of the purposes of the congressional briefings was to provide a legal opinion on the parameter of using enhanced interrogation techniques. If high level Justice Department attorneys issue an opinion citing its legality and without congressional leadership objection how do you prosecute a low level military or civilian interrogator? If you do then how do you avoid prosecuting those running the present government within the legislative branch? A litmus test indeed.
My opinions are clear. With clear and convincing evidence of an imminent attack I would support using enhanced interrogation to stop it barring other options. I would support Obama's use of such techniques in such circumstances even though I disagree with most of his policies. There is no political discrepency in that stance. I do not doubt Zach's sincerity either but he must live with the consequences of his moral advocacy. If that means explaining another preventable disaster or a willingness to attack those who he normally agrees with then so be it. If Bush were put in the docket he should have Nancy next to him. I would place neither one in legal jeopardy.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Why? An experienced Al Qaeda operative will reveal information based on a persuasive talking to?
I see nothing sacred in allowing a preventable mass murder.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Again, surprising, no? While you seem to have no problem supporting Obama's decisions if you agree with them, you apparently do not automatically think the same holds true for others. Or, put another way: Zach stance has been clear the whole time. Why would you expect him to have any qualms about, for example, persecuting Nancy Pelosi if it turns out that she was complicit in enabling torture in Zach' eyes?
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
hrun:
Zach and I have no dog in this fight other than our own views of right and wrong. But what are the powerful people running this nation going to do- eat their own? I doubt it. Actually I'm more willing to critique someone "on my side" than are most of the resident critics. But we'll see. Will Obama be hammered if he does not prosecute? I find it hard to fathom that he will be based on my observation of realpolitik.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
By Zach? By people who expressed their opinions here on this board? Or by the news media who always wants to maintain access to the newsmakers? It seemed like you were implying something about the people commenting in this thread, rather than about the population or media in general. But maybe I misunderstood.
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
No. He's already made a commitment.
I dunno about some of them. But you can bet I'll press the issue with them.
The commentators will provide predictable reactions. I do not expect most reporters to go after Obama.
There is a commitment from Zach. I'll let dp and Joy speak for themselves.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Bradford:
You know nothing about my life except for what I've said here, which you obviously never believed. You have in this thread deliberately insulted me and belittled my opinion (and the law) because you feel you must support those who engaged in egregious torture to establish a link between bin Laden and Saddam that simply never existed, and I call bullshit. It was wrong, illegal and evil. Period. Obama would like not to prosecute. We the People will insist.
Bradford to dp:
"Passivity" in the face of threat is not and never has been the position of the US government or law enforcement. NSA listens to everything said on telephones, both land line and cellular. It follows everyone around on the internet. The 'authorities' engage in illegal spying, infiltration of groups, and (too often) acts as agent provacateur so it can bust people who weren't planning anything illegal. Got to justify the budgets and all. Deal is, most know that evidence obtained illegally isn't actionable in court. Denying arraignment and trial to people you keep incarcerated without charge for years isn't the best or most laudable method of avoiding the law, but that's been tried too.
…along with blowing the cover on the whole Brewster-Jennings antiproliferation op [CIA] because they got in the way of your plans for planting WMDs in Iraq in order to justify finishing Poppy's war. We shouldn't ever have had to foot the bill or pay the blood price of Junior's Freudian issues, but we did. Now the best we can do is reaffirm the checks and balances established in the Constitution to prevent just that sort of thing.
Bradford to Zach:
Bring it on! I'm even more jaded about politicians than I am about nuclear power and the WMD industry. Have more than once called them on this very website "professional paid liars" and "whores." There's nothing I'd like better than to sweep Congress of both RINOs and DINOs, those opportunistic, mealy-mouthed, bribe-taking sleezebags who are there only because they can buy votes. And yes, that most certainly does include Pelosi, Reid and a double-handful of other Dems who need to be primaried out of existence at the first opportunity. You guys willing to clean out your own closet too, or do we still have to wait for the rusty wheels of justice to indict and convict?
Bradford to Zach:
Garbage. We have had much more reliable ways of extracting useful information from prisoners for decades. If you don't know that, maybe you ought to familiarize yourself with "enhanced interrogation techniques" using pharmaceuticals. The desire to disappear, imprison, render and torture people for no good reason comes now exactly where it came back in the '80s – folks like Negroponte and Poindexter, that not even Cheny could get past oversight no matter how hard they tried. Been there, done that, and found that raping, torturing and executing nuns and priests and tribal leaders and democracy advocates just didn't work that well for turning human populations into obedient trained monkeys. It's a form of state-sponsored TERRORISM against its own citizens. Wannabe Mind-Tyrants doing tyrannical things.
I don't support that kind of crap.
Zachriel:
Well, that's the bottom line, isn't it? People who are so afraid of death that they can hardly function, versus those who know what it means to "water the tree of liberty with blood" because they're NOT afraid. Sure, both sorts of people end up dead in wars and by terrorist attacks against civilians, but more people die in this country every year in car accidents or a single annual flu season than on 9-11 or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (our folks) put together. We choose what fears we can tolerate on a day-to-day basis.
It must be awful to be so afraid of death that one forgets to live, and is willing to sacrifice everything – including faith and morality and law – for an imaginary "security" that's the biggest lie of all.
Comment by Joy — May 4, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Hey, did Raevmo have his baby yet? I never got my cigar, but I think congratulations and best wishes should be in order all the same.
Comment by chunkdz — May 4, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Sorry, but calling the kettle black does not change the pot's color.
How do you prove someone remembers what happened in a meeting they attended? How do you prove that what they remember from the meeting they attended is still accurate? This is, of course, assuming you really could prove attendence in meetings with desired content to begin with.
Is your position that it's OK to torture them as long as they're implicated? Should we add "cruel and unusual punishment" to the list of moral standards you are prepared to ignore?
Besides, what are you implicating them in? Nothing criminal, just knowing something they don't want to tell you. You are recommending torture even in the case where they strenuously objected to the proposed terrorist activity.
And you're ignoring the difference between "implicated" and "convicted", of course.
Sorry, again, but two wrongs do not make a right. How many fundamental moral standards are you willing to plow through?
Defending others is highly regarded, but it is not carte blanche to commit atrocities or harm other innocent parties.
Yes, torture is one of the highest forms of evil, placed well above waging war in both Christian and secular morality.
Comment by don provan — May 4, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Not an argument that I have made. Fight with those promoting it. That goes for the Negroponte and Poindexter etc. mantra as well.
Garbage. I'm not the one trying to scare us into bailing out some of the biggest corporations in the world with money that will be footed by posterity. The politics of fear has presided over our nations biggest transfer of wealth. Better keep the money flowing into corporate coffers or we might have a depression. Politics of fear indeed.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
This is not very insightful dp. You don't have to be a detective or a forensics expert to imagine how evidence can come forth. It is a lot easier to prove x attended meeting y then it is to show a cell arises from prebiotic soup.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
No. I want you to be outraged because your government is being intentionally and systematically cruel.
And you should be concerned, if not outraged, that the cruelty is being directed at someone that might be as innocent as you or I, since that means your government is perfectly capable of being cruel to you and I if someone somewhere based on similar moral equations decides that's a good idea, too.
Comment by don provan — May 4, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Please explain how such evidence could come forth in a place where we can't find out about meetings to begin with.
The problem is imagining how we can know Z was discussed at meeting Y without knowing what Z is. That's like saying something intelligent did it, but we don't know anything at all about that intelligent something except that it definitely wasn't what scientists say it was.
Comment by don provan — May 4, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Seriously dp are you trolling?
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
In a metaphysical sense, we can say values are subjective in the same way we can say that reality is subjective. The edict against torture is based on values that are fundamental to western society. For example, I claim advocating torture is inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity.
Finding excuses to do something you know is evil is an even higher evil.
That's not an argument, it's an observation. And I make it by way of saying, "And even if torture weren't incompatible with every moral position you hold dear, it would still have practical problems that your arguments are not addressing."
The problem with Bradford's "balance" is that it would instantly change if he were the one on the waterboard.
If you think that's important. I do not: I think the moral evaluation would be equally clear even if the US had never entered into any such agreement.
Comment by don provan — May 4, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
No, but don't bother answering. This is about the sixth level of things wrong with your position, so it would be really pointless for you to go into how you imagine such unlikely evidence might be gathered and shown to be reliable.
Comment by don provan — May 4, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
May 4th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
It really would be pointless if you don't have a basic understanding of evidence, technology and forensics.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
May 5th, 2009 at 7:39 am
The balance would depend on the relative values of the parameters involved; the moral repugnance to torture against the effectiveness of such a strategy at safeguarding a "prosperous and free society". And my point is that even if torture has some temporal effectiveness, this must be balanced against the long term erosion of the rule of law (and values) and the attendant defection of support. Furthermore, because torture is illegal (and immoral), it has to be done in secret and that means unchecked governmental power, accelerating the defection. This is what makes civilizations rot.
I'm quite sure of that. Two plus two equals five.
Comment by Zachriel — May 5, 2009 @ 7:39 am
May 5th, 2009 at 9:03 am
That arithmetic sums up the efficacy of dp's logic. The problem with your imbalanced thinking is that it would change instantly if your wife and family were about to be incinerated because a mass murderer would not give up vital information needed to stop an attack. Allowing mass murders rots great nations. Ask the Germans.
Comment by Bradford — May 5, 2009 @ 9:03 am
May 5th, 2009 at 9:37 am
You know, at least for me personally that might even be true. If I were alone with somebody who I was convinced held the key to saving the life of my wive or kids, I do not know what I would be capable of. But here's the kicker, I would do whatever I would do, fully knowing that I should be punished for my actions.
Allowing torture rots great nations. Ask the Germans. (Both statements are equally pointless.)
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2009 @ 9:37 am
May 5th, 2009 at 9:47 am
People will do all sorts of things. They might publicly skin a killer alive for revenge, or torture their enemy's children for information. Mobs may burn villages out of fear or hatred. Invaders may slaughter every inhabitant of a city as an example to other rebels.
But society as a whole has reached a basic understanding that torture is wrong. Slaughtering civilians is wrong. And society has reached an understanding of egalitarian justice. If America considers it justice to prosecute torture in one instance, then formalizes this as an international agreement among nations, while demanding that other nations will abide by the agreement, then America too will abide by those promises.
All you have said is that it doesn't apply in your case, even though your case is no different than other self-justified brutalities around the world.
The Nazis didn't "allow" mass murder. They perpetrated it.
Comment by Zachriel — May 5, 2009 @ 9:47 am
May 5th, 2009 at 10:08 am
That's why friends hold friends back when confronted with those who have done evil to them. Revenge is a two-edged sword and bloodies those who inflict it.
Comment by Zachriel — May 5, 2009 @ 10:08 am
May 5th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Agreed. I simply wanted to make the point that if things strike close to home, rational thought sometimes gets thrown out of the window. I am actually German, and in Germany people often talk about 'The blessing of a late birth.' describing the generation that was born after the Nazi era. It is supposed to signify that this generation can (self-righteously) say that they would have never participated in the atrocities. Yet, their parents and grandparents generation (for the most part) took part in the atrocities for some reason or another.
Likewise, I don't want to make a pronunciation on what I would do when confronted with such a situation. Yet, I would want the society I live in to function in a way that if I were to perpetrate torture (be it even to save the lives of wife and kids) that I would be punished to the full extent of the law.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2009 @ 10:57 am
May 5th, 2009 at 11:41 am
People often take the wrong lesson from the Holocaust. It's not that the Germans were intrinsically barbaric. Rather, in many ways they were the very flower of civilization. If they were capable of such terrible things, then anyone is.
Comment by Zachriel — May 5, 2009 @ 11:41 am
May 5th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I watched a televised exchange between an Obama supporter and a commentator discussing recent bombing foreys along the Afghan/ Pakistani border. The US had good intelligence sources indicating the location of Taliban within villages which were subsequently bombed. The defender of the bombing acknowledged that some children and innocent adults would be killed or badly injured but stated this was accceptable collateral damage made necessary by the need to target Taliban insurgents. He was on record as opposing waterboarding. Somehow I miss the logical subtlty that allows for death and injury in the one instance but not a scary procedure not resulting in death or injury. The power of labels. When bombing becomes torture maybe it will cease.
Comment by Bradford — May 5, 2009 @ 11:43 am
May 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
One can only hope you are right, Bradford. Even though I'm not holding out much hope.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2009 @ 11:54 am
May 5th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
The laws of war prohibit the targeting of civilians, indiscriminate attacks, and requires reasonable precautions against civilian casualties.
Torture is defined under the Convention as an "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 …"
Comment by Zachriel — May 5, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
May 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Bradford: He was on record as opposing waterboarding. Somehow I miss the logical subtlty that allows for death and injury in the one instance but not a scary procedure not resulting in death or injury. The power of labels. When bombing becomes torture maybe it will cease.
This response illustrates the problem with allowing structured "supposed to" thinking to guide the formulation of moral imperatives. Since a stressful non-lethal, non-injurious procedure is defined as torture there is no longer any purpose to analyzing deeper meanings and related events. One can put the mind in cruise control and simply say the law says… But common sense and a higher moral law would indicate that something is amiss when death and severe injuries to children and other innocents can be excused while non-lethal procedures administered to admitted terrorists are proscribed.
Comment by Bradford — May 5, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
May 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Torture means intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on prisoners.
In other words, you consider it a moral duty to torture prisoners. Perhaps you should push to have your government withdraw from the Convention on Torture, the Geneva Conventions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The importance of this discussion has been to highlight the consequences of such a view.
Comment by Zachriel — May 5, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
May 5th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Bradford:
Are you actually trying to tell us that dollars count more to you than the lives of human beings? If so, I have to wonder why you aren't promoting expanded fronts in the so-called "War on Terror" to include the whole of the Middle East and Central Asia, much of the Balkans and Northern Europe, all of South America and a huge swath of Southeast Asia. Oh, and a draft, since you'd need to start conscripting teenagers to fight these wars because not enough chickenhawks are willing to sacrifice.
Your abject fear of being killed by a terrorist is vastly overblown, given the reality of life and death on planet earth. Here's some statistics that may help to put things into perspective, for those who care about context -
In the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 a total of 2,678 people were killed, excluding 19 hijackers, for a grand total of 3005. 2 Israelis were killed in the 2002 terrorist attack at Los Angeles International Airport, no U.S. citizens. 1 U.S. citizen died in a 2006 shooting attack at the Jewish Federation in Seattle. 3 terrorist attacks on the 'homeland' in 8.5 years, 3,008 "innocent civilians" killed.
In regular old everyday life and death in the United States in the last year for which CDC has published final statistics [2006], 2,448,017 people in the U.S. died, for an average of ~826 deaths per 100,000. This is HOW they died:
652,091 died of heart disease.
559,312 died of cancer.
143,579 died of stroke.
130,933 died of chronic lower respiratory disease (all types).
117,809 died of accidental/unintentional injuries, including auto accidents.
75,119 died of diabetes.
71,599 died of Alzheimer's disease.
63,001 died of influenza [flu] and pneumonia (a complication of flu).
43,901 died of nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis.
34,136 died of septicemia.
Notice that the total of deaths from the lowest-ranked cause on the list (septicemia) is more than 10 times the number killed in nearly 9 years' worth of terrorist attacks.
Now, the fact of the matter is that a full 50-90% of the major causes of death in the United States every year are basically attributable to causes that we humans do have a certain amount of control over and could mitigate if we tried. This works out to nearly 2.5 million deaths per year as a primary result of poor dietary and lifestyle choices, bad public health follow-through and a lack of access to basic medical care. Versus 3,008 deaths over a total of eight and a half years from non-native terrorist attacks in this country.
Thus your fears are not a reasonable justification for torture of suspected terrorists who haven't even been charged, much less convicted in any court of law. You are far more likely to die of your own stupid decisions or inattention than by terrorist attack. You're far more likely to die of natural disaster or some type of accident-accident (like an airliner crash) than terrorist attack. Heck, you're about as likely to be killed or injured by lightning strike as terrorist attack!
Your personal fears are NOT a good reason for the United States government to violate its word, its binding oaths and formal laws against torture so it may abuse prisoners with impunity. You simply don't count that much, and as someone who so easily discounts the intrinsic value and opinions of others, that shouldn't bother you at all. If you must have law to fall back on in lieu of clear moral mandate, law is there so that you can do just that. If you violate it on moral principle you believe supersedes the law, you are still subject to sanctions under the law just like those involved in civil disobedience on other issues. Those engaged in deliberate circumvention of the law should be willing to pay the legal price for their deliberate flaunting of the law. That's how laws get scrutinized and sometimes changed on the example of superior moral mandates.
If you're too chicken to go to jail for torturing your prisoner – believing that torture was necessary and morally correct – you've no business telling the rest of us what laws should be abrogated so your personal fears can be comforted.
Comment by Joy — May 5, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I'm explaining to you that the left uses the fear tactic all the time to promote their agenda even to the point of funneling billions of taxpayer money to huge corporations.
I have no personal fear. I don't even live in an area that would be a likely target. My concern is for the nation I live in and for those innocent victims who would be targeted.
Since I did not interrogate anyone I do not face that dilemna. Do try and dispense with this silly notion of possessing bravery propagated by leftists who have never faced danger except in their imaginations.
Comment by Bradford — May 6, 2009 @ 11:59 am
May 6th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Your distinctions, based on intent, are of little comfort to mothers in Afghanistan mourning dead bombed children.
At Yahoo news:
Comment by Bradford — May 6, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
No doubt. The Laws of War, imperfect as they are, are instituted to minimize such casualties. When nations have egregiously violated the Laws of War, their leaders have been tried and punished. When the United States ignores the strictures it has advocated, it is the most destructive form of hypocrisy. What little restraint that exists is lost, and mourning mothers will become more common, not less. And worse, it undermines the very legitimacy of civilization. If the United States practices torture, they will create enemies of their friends.
Comment by Zachriel — May 6, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Nations have agreed to minimize civilian casualties in war. That doesn't mean all civilian casualties can be avoided. And it doesn't speak to whether U.S. tactics reasonably meet that standard. Undermining the Laws of War will only make the situation worse and result in even more casualties.
Comment by Zachriel — May 6, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Looks like the fearmongering Joy was railing against. How many friends do you think are bombers are making?
Comment by Bradford — May 6, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Your comments have been characterized by an intense devotion to legalism, not to be confused with moral positions.
Comment by Bradford — May 6, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Actually, I think you will find that this is historically incorrect. As far as I can see, only the leaders of the losing nations have been tried and punished for egregiously violating the laws of war. In this case, might does make right.
Comment by hrun — May 6, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
hrun:
Point well made.
Comment by Bradford — May 6, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
My original argument concerned whether the United States is willing to live up to its promises. Laws are only an imperfect embodiment of human morality, but they are a prerequisite to civilization.
In any case, I note you have consistently refused to engage the issues I have raised—even when I try to be very explicit.
Nations, including the United States, have tried and punished their own soldiers for violating the Laws of War. But you are right in that justice has been very uneven. The question is whether the rule of law will prevail in the present circumstance.
Comment by Zachriel — May 6, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
My moral position has been consistent- the minimization of suffering. That's why I have little pateince with those who are so morally outraged by waterboarding and so callous to suffering and death when it is acceptable collateral damage.
Comment by Bradford — May 6, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
As long as war exists, there is going to be collateral damage. That doesn't mean torture should be allowed. Your argument is that torture reduces the overall incidence of suffering. Is that correct?
Can you state my position?
Comment by Zachriel — May 6, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Bradford, would you be so kind as to create a Guest Host Thread?
I suspect this would generate some interest in other TT readers including Joy and Oleg.
Which Theory is in Crisis?
I, and others, have suggested the Theory of Evolution is as strong, if not stronger, than the Theory of Gravity. This has as much to do with the known problems in the latter as with the supporting evidence of the former.
From Physorg.com, Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 6, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
May 6th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Bradford:
You are the one using this forum to spew your petty partisan politics around, not me. You see a "threat" of terrorist attacks in this country from foreign terrorists as immediately horrendous, so much that you feel we must reject our national identity, moral standing, sworn oaths and binding treaties as well as national and international law to torture individuals someone only SUSPECTS might know something about something somewhere, somehow.
I don't see the "threat" as particularly threatening given statistical reality on what Americans actually die of in any given year. You keep wanting me to be afraid, but it's not working.
If you've got no fears then you should be a happy man. Why not volunteer at a local food bank or soup kitchen? Go door to door collecting old blankets, winter coats and other clothing for a local mission's free-box? Why not volunteer to become a court-appointed advocate for children who really need an advocate? You could become a foster parent, do night duty at a group home for adult disabled, or just offer your sitting services through a local support group for at-home caregivers so they can have a night out. You could teach a struggling someone how to read and write. You could collect goodies and pack care boxes and send 'em off to the troops. You could take the free training to become a suicide prevention hotline volunteer, a domestic abuse intervener, a counselor for troubled teens.
There are many things concerned people can do to make the world a better place, right in their own neighborhoods. You don't get to torture any POWs, so your opinion is worth precisely zip on that. And it's been halted by EO anyway. The law will take its inevitable course on past violations, painfully slow as it is. You aren't fighting those wars either, you just get to pay for them (or, your children and grandchildren will). And you aren't on the bonus board of any giant bank, investment house or insurance company that's getting bailouts none of us think they deserve. Tough titty, we don't have a say in all that. Rather than get all worked up about it, do something nice and/or needful for someone in your real-life sphere today instead.
I've never claimed to "possess" anybody else's bravery, Bradford. This sentence honestly makes no sense at all. I've told you I am not so terrified of POWs from Iraq and Afghanistan that I'd sacrifice my moral values to violate their human rights as well as national and international law. Nor do I support our country's military or intelligence agencies violating human rights as well as national and international law just because you're afraid (for yourself or for imaginary "innocent victims").
Comment by Joy — May 6, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Sayeth Joy:
OMG! LOL!
http://telicthoughts.com/14-im...
http://telicthoughts.com/take-...
And that's just the beginning of your first comment on your first thread on the issue.
Your second thread was a wonder as well:
This was before you accused McCain of releasing his attack hounds on innocent worshippers in a mosque, suggested he ought to have censored the free press, asked why we conservatives supported such acts of terror, and then tried to tie McCain to a church bombing half a century ago.
It was also before you titillated yourself with your imaginings of tea-bagging a few threads ago and then plunged this thread into the abyss of your juvenile ranting by accusing Bush et al of masturbating watching torture footage.
Is your hypocrisy second only to your immaturity?
Comment by Pez — May 7, 2009 @ 12:20 am
May 7th, 2009 at 3:29 am
I used to think the standard cosmology was a solid theory, but I have sensed a growing dissatisfaction among physicists and mathematicians. I would sooner throw out Dark Matter than Newton (well, Newton's theories have already been amended by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics).
A growing number of physicists quietly consider the Dark Matter hypothesis false.
For sure there is probably lots of Dark Matter (as in matter we can't see), but maybe not anywhere near as much as suggested. The criticisms of the Dark Matter hypothesis are well founded, not to mention increasing criticisms of many other cosmological theories.
I think what will cure this is not necessarily more theories but better experiments and observations, particularly space probes that can measure distances via parallax versus standard candles.
Also, it would be good to apply old fashioned Astrometry to objects long considered to be distant, but which may be actually close, like:
1. galaxies
2. quasars
There has been rising sentiment in secular quarters over standard cosmologies. I don't think it will end any time soon.
There have been some issues with Quasars possibly being close:
Proper Motion of Quasars
and from Wiki:
In light of the "Axis of Evil", and if you want a really fringe theory, consider Small Universe Hypothesis.
'Cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt.'
– Lev Landau
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 7, 2009 @ 3:29 am
May 7th, 2009 at 7:37 am
What is the "Theory of Evolution?"
Comment by MikeGene — May 7, 2009 @ 7:37 am
May 7th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Like most scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is a *set* of interrelated, testable claims that comprise an explanatory framework. The Theory of Evolution is a theory of biology and includes components about inheritance, variation, selection, adaptation, speciation, and related studies. It also includes historical claims, such as Common Descent and the specifics of that history.
Dinosaurs, cousins to the common sparrow, once roamed the Earth.
Comment by Zachriel — May 7, 2009 @ 8:35 am
May 7th, 2009 at 8:44 am
I'm explaining to you that the left uses the fear tactic all the time to promote their agenda even to the point of funneling billions of taxpayer money to huge corporations.
You quote me truthfully citing the billions of dollars that have been transferred from the US Treasury to some of the largest corporations in the world in a comment made in an open thread and then accuse me of using this forum to spew petty partisan politics. But it was you who initiated the name calling and accusations to further your own petty political views:
Why would I have to go to jail? Has expressing my First Amendment right now become a crime? Hrun first brought up the issue of torture. That's his privilage in an open thread. I responded and indicated that I would not rule our waterboarding in all cases particularly when many lives were at stake and there was compelling evidence that an individual had critical information that could prevent mass murder- very constricted circumstances..
Incidentally, you were the one who created the politics category when you frequently engaged in political comments in and out of open threads. It was OK to do so when Bush was in office but now that he is gone it becomes petty politics to mention that a huge amount of money was transferred from the government to private corporations. I have acknowledged on multiple occasssions Bush's responsibility for initiating that ill-advised policy. I'm not the one playing petty politics.
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 8:44 am
May 7th, 2009 at 8:59 am
So inflicting great pain and suffering and even death on children and innocent adults can be described as collateral damage. Orwellians are proud.
Of course not. After all you've described torture as relating to prisoners. Children are not taken prisoner.
My argument is that waterboarding in a very constrained circumstance should not be removed from a set of options if that means thousands will perish and suffer far worse pain than can be inflicted by a temporary drowning sensation. I wrote this in a previous comment:
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 8:59 am
May 7th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Salvador T. Cordova wrote:
Huh? How do you know that? Particularly if they keep it to themselves?
What are they? Can you perhaps point out a reference or two?
Just you wait, Sal. In 2011, the European Space Agency will launch Gaia, an observatory that will be able to measure distances up to 30,000 light years with an accuracy of 20% via parallax. There is little reason to doubt that it will confirm the results of existing distance measurements based on other methods.
So how close is the Andromeda galaxy in your opinion?
Comment by olegt — May 7, 2009 @ 9:05 am
May 7th, 2009 at 9:08 am
TP, you can send me a proposed guest post to the same address you previously used. I'd like you to answer Mike's question by rigorously defining evolution. The claims entailed by the ToE you have in mind should be specifed as well as the process producing the claimed results. Since ths is an ID forum you should specify whether or not your definition includes or excludes telic routes to outcomes. I also would like you to specify whether or not an evolutionary process includes a process of change involving chemical reactions leading to an initial replicating cell. Or is the existence of a replicating cell a prerequisite to the ToE.
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 9:08 am
May 7th, 2009 at 9:21 am
If it is intentional, then it's a war crime. You know that. Why are you misrepresenting the position?
Yes, they are. And torturing them in captivity to make their parent talk or to find their parent is a frequent tactic of 'enhanced interrogation'. That is also a war crime. Even if making their parent talk might save many lives or prevent a violent overthrow of the government.
That wasn't the question. I have no idea why you can't simply engage the issue.
If torturing someone will save many lives, should that be allowed by law? If that person is a child that might help find the parent who is about to blow up a bunch of people or to pressure someone to talk, should torturing the child be allowed by law? Or are these acts war crimes subject to prosecution and punishment?
Comment by Zachriel — May 7, 2009 @ 9:21 am
May 7th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Where is the misrepresentation in accurately describing the severe injury and death to innocents as being depicted by the Orwellian phrase collateral damage? That's how it has been described.
Bradford: My argument is that waterboarding in a very constrained circumstance should not be removed from a set of options if that means thousands will perish and suffer far worse pain than can be inflicted by a temporary drowning sensation.
Moral rather than legal sanction has been my focus. If waterboarding saved the Brooklyn Bridge and the lives on the people who would have been on it, then you can brand the operatives criminals. I'll describe them as having saved lives.
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 9:37 am
May 7th, 2009 at 10:35 am
You have avoided answering my points, so I thought I would build the argument in simple steps. I didn't ask how I brand them, but how you would treat them under the law.
If torturing someone will save many lives, should that be allowed by law? If that person is a child that might help find the parent who is about to blow up a bunch of people or to pressure someone to talk, should torturing the child be allowed by law? Or are these acts war crimes subject to prosecution and punishment?
Comment by Zachriel — May 7, 2009 @ 10:35 am
May 7th, 2009 at 11:06 am
They are closet in the sense that don't necessarily publish on the matter. See:
http://www.cosmologystatement....
I thought Thought Provoker just pointed to a resource at Physics.org. Is that a fair assessment that they provided here:
http://www.physorg.com/news160...
Which leads to this:
What good news! Maybe the problem of Hipparcos measurements of the Pliades invalidating standard candles will finally be resolved.
Physik Astronomie
Finally,
80% chance the mainstream is correct, 20% chance it's a lot closer, like the figures provided in the shapley-curtis debate.
But you're asking an opinion of a part-time student with just 2 physics classes under his belt in grad school. You know 1000 times more about these matters than I. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I've been wrong lots of times before…..
But no need to take issue with me, I told you, I felt more measurements, experiments and observations will settle open matters.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 7, 2009 @ 11:06 am
May 7th, 2009 at 11:22 am
The reason the small universe hypothesis is of interest to me is the consideration provided by physicist Dr. Stephen Cheesman at my old 2007 forum. The start of the analysis is here.
Briefly, if the speed of light has decreased over time, the inverse-square relation of brightness will be something like an inverse-quartic (or some non-inverse-square law)
The discussion was here: Walt Brown's Binary Star Prediction
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 7, 2009 @ 11:22 am
May 7th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Bradford:
Um… nope. Torture is a crime. So if you believe your prisoner is holding out on you and torture him so he'll tell you whatever you want to know, you have committed a crime. For which you should go to jail (too often that doesn't happen, but that's the prescribed punishment). Has nothing to do with the first amendment. Has to do with criminal law, UCMJ and international treaty.
As a side note, seems that now they can't 'disappear', incarcerate and torture Muslims and their children forever without charge or trial, they're turning it back on regular citizens per the so-called "Patriot Act." Case in point, 16-year old Ashton Lundeby of Granville County, NC. Here's the local news on this. Apparently this kid is being treated as one of those 'unlawful enemy combatants' you think need to be tortured.
Of course, sensible people would look at something like this as purely a matter for regular law enforcement, not the damned Patriot Act. I mean, law enforcement routinely deals with teenage bomb threats and such (I can recall quite a few of those when I was in high school way back in the '60s). Since the goons couldn't find any actual evidence against this kid, and there are dozens of witnesses that swear he was at church with his Mom and sibling when the alleged offense occurred, one might think he'd be arraigned and released to Mom's custody until and unless an actual case could be made against him. Alas, under the Patriot Act, the feds need afford him none of his supposed rights under the US Constitution. That's happening right now, not months or years ago.
Are you gung-ho for this sort of thing too, Bradford? Does it ease your fears of nasty dark-skinned terrorists and all those innocents they may target?
* Note: I rather suspect the kid may be a gifted 'hacker' type that the feds want to coerce into working for them, because under no reasonable scenario anywhere would this absurd situation be expected to fly – if they actually thought he was guilty of whatever threat he was supposed to have issued, they'd have simply charged him and had done with it.
Comment by Joy — May 7, 2009 @ 11:43 am
May 7th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Quoting from the link supplied by Joy:
His parents should have access to the 16 year old but what is the point in posting this link? Bush is no longer in charge. Republicans do not control the legislative branch. So if it is reform you are looking for then why not write to your elected representatives and get them to move on something other than corporate welfare?
Isn't this typical. The race card. I have family members whose skin color is a few shades darker than yours. My concern is with those who would bomb innocents without remorse. I recall that was a commmon occurence until recently in Ireland where the skin color of the bombers was as light as it gets among the homo sapien species.
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I would do what I expect Obama will do- decline to prosecute based on executive discretion unless I found that those engaged in waterboarding had objectives other than those given.
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
You still didn't directly answer the question. If torturing someone (perhaps a child) will save many lives, should that be allowed by law? You seem to be saying you think torturing prisoners should be illegal, but not enforced.
Comment by Zachriel — May 7, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
A testable prediction of CDK once we have good parallax measurements is that:
1. the farther we look out, the mean orbital periods will increase in spectroscopic and visual binary stars
2. the inverse-square law of brightness to to distance will be violated in favor of something like an inverse-quartic or inverse-cubic law (tbd).
These follow from Dr. Stephen Cheesman's calculations. Dr. Cheesman was a signatory of the DI's 700 dissenting scientists, but he is highly critical of YEC cosmologies. I wish to publicly thank him for his well-reasoned criticisms of YEC.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 7, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Bradford:
Alas, Lundeby's father – who was with the federal Bureau of Prisons – is dead. He lives with his Mom and 12-year old sister in Oxford, NC. He purportedly issued a bomb threat against Purdue University, but the family has ample evidence of identity theft going back years. The FBI has had this kid in custody for more than 60 days sans charge, plenty of time to have conducted the thorough investigation they should have conducted before they busted into his family's home in the middle of the night with guns drawn. This has nothing to do with Bush, it has everything to do with the decimation of citizen protections under the US Constitution perpetrated following 9-11 by operatives on both sides of the aisle. A situation Obama has shown no signs of attempting to rectify. You'll have this in the halls of power – unlimited expansion is hardly ever rolled back by the next wannabe king in charge.
How laughable. Writing to my 'elected representatives' is a complete waste of time, something I learned many years ago. Those people are ALL beholden to the corporate lobbyists who finance their power trips, not to any working class constituents they supposedly represent (and no, they don't). They know who butters their toast. It has always been thus. They are all about corporate welfare, Bradford. That's how they got the support to be elected in the first place.
By the way, this particular case has drawn the attention of every civil libertarian from Lew Rockwell (Ron Paul's former Congressional chief of staff) to Daily Kos (the infamous 'leftist' website). This kid is NOT Jose Padilla (who was subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" in eternal custody and whom the SCOTUS ruled twice had to be charged and tried in US courts, and who was never convicted of the crime for which he was originally detained indefinitely as 'enemy combatant').
LOL!!! Aye, the Irish. They've got freckles, you know – patches of dark that don't manage to run together to give them a nice tan no matter how much sun they get (I know, I figured it out in high school). The actual whitest of white-guys come from Scandinavia, like to call themselves Vikings. I've got one of those in the family, not quite albino but close enough to cause a lot of double-takes.
If it's not just about forcing this kid to work for the feds, then I'd have to guess it's all part of a power play on the part of some holdouts in the federal ranks who want to test the waters on whether or not Obama is planning to do anything about the previous administration/congress' overreaching of constitutional law. Being as Obama happens to be a Constitutional 'expert' and all. It will be interesting to see how this works out, though it's a shame they decided to pick on an apparently innocent 16-year old to do it.
Seems that "innocent victims" don't fit a certain profile anymore, nor are they all the victims of foreign terrorists. Some of those terrorists work for the US government.
Comment by Joy — May 7, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Zachriel:
Zach, I'm tiring of the accusations and the pretend stupid tactics. Nowhere did I indicate that children should be tortured and nowhere have I specified a procedure other than waterboarding and then only under very extraordinary conditions. If the law were changed to accomodate my limited circumstance approach then of course I would support the change. The president would have to sign-off under a provision I think appropriate.
Since you are into hypotheticals would you prefer that a terrorist not be waterboarded if that meant the death of 3,000 people and excrutiating pain to many more than that?
Incidentally, the Justice Department declines many more prosecutions than it pursues. Selective prosecution has been part of our system since day one.
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
It's not an accusation; it's a question. Nor is torture under color of law a hypothetical. And you still didn't answer.
Comment by Zachriel — May 7, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Sal,
Consider your sources when you try to use them to back up your arguments. The statement you linked to was a letter Bucking the big bang published in the New Scientist, a pop science magazine. It was authored by Eric Lerner, a pop science writer and an "independent plasma researcher" with a BA in physics. (He did some graduate work, but that apparently did not come to fruition.) While Lerner dabbles in cosmology, he is an amateur, not a scientist. The vast majority of the signatories appear to be in the same mold. I have even spotted a few top-notch crackpots like Van Flandern.
Don't bet your house on the problem of the Pleiades cluster: the discrepancy between distances measured by Hipparcos and other methods is only 10%. We are not talking about orders of magnitude.
And lastly, by now I am allergic to Walt Brown. Please don't bring up his stuff. It's completely bogus.
Comment by olegt — May 7, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
That's the thing about carte blanche on blanket detention without charge [i.e., "disappearing"] and torture, Bradford. History has demonstrated this time and again, the script never varies, and Americans are not to be considered innocents in this particular display of ugly politics. Policies of torture are and always have been – from even well before the Church of Rome got enough power to turn it toward their own mind-tyrant ends – the primary tools of tyranny, terrorism of the state visited upon its own people in the service of more and greater absolute power. It simply cannot ever be used to "good" ends no matter how you try to twist it.
It always starts as a 'necessary' tool against the Other, the big scary threat to the body politic that the state must use in order to protect the citizens against whatever evil threatens their complacency. Then it moves inland to be used against 'subversives' hiding out in the people's own neighborhoods and towns that mean to do great harm to the very same body politic. Eventually, inevitably, it becomes the standard means of terrorizing ALL the citizens, any one or more of whom may be singled out for any and/or no reason for torture and death because the Big Threat against the body politic is now the people themselves.
You know Niemoller's verse –
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Comment by Joy — May 7, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Thank you for the info on New Scientist, I didn't realize the magazine was not a reputable source.
Is physorg.com reputable? TP quoted from there.
Thanks again for taking time to respond.
Fair enough, I'll try not to irritate you with it.
Thank you again.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 7, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I did answer the question but you did not answer mine. This is the last time I'll do this. After that it's the ban option. You can pretend it is because I do not answer your questions. Too bad. To repeat:
The circumstances have been previously alluded to so don't ask for a repetition The only procedure included was waterboarding and children have never been the objects of that although they obviously have been "collateral damage" but what the hell, it's inevitable right? I also asked you this:
Since you are into hypotheticals would you prefer that a terrorist not be waterboarded if that meant the death of 3,000 people and excrutiating pain to many more than that?
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Salvador T. Cordova wrote:
I wasn't talking about the magazine, Sal. Its writers, while not professional scientists themselves, consult closely with reputable researchers when they write articles. Lerner's open letter was not a regular article: it was published in the Opinion section. I just meant to point out that the signatories were not physicists.
I have not had much experience with physorg.com, so I can't say much about them.
Comment by olegt — May 7, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Justice would mean the terrorist would die 3,000 times in excruciating pain. Most people would do whatever it took to stop such an attack. Nevertheless, the law should ban torture.
The difference between your question and mine is that yours is hypothetical, mine is a specific question as what the law should allow. In other words, my question is *not* a hypothetical. It concerns a plausible legal exception to torture.
Let's see.
Zachriel: If torturing someone (perhaps a child) will save many lives, should that be allowed by law?
Bradford: If the law were changed to accomodate my limited circumstance approach then of course I would support the change. The president would have to sign-off under a provision I think appropriate.
You did not answer the question. You are talking about your "limited circumstances". I asked about torture. But you clearly want to hedge on the word torture. I have restated your position as best I could and asked for clarification. I have asked you to restate my position to see if you understood it. But you won't. Nor have you answered the simple question I thought would advance the discussion.
Yes, I'm sure people will find that quite convincing.
Comment by Zachriel — May 7, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Let's return to this. You seem to be saying per Mills, the least suffering for the fewest. Hence it seems rather a direct inference that torturing someone to prevent a terrorist attack would be justified, even torturing a child to find their plotting parent or to force their parent to provide information to prevent a terrorist attack. This is the implication of your position.
Yet you apparently recoil from this, as most would. Hence, your original statement about the minimization of suffering can't be your complete view. There are some acts you would never countenance—no matter the circumstance.
You have indicated that the leader of a nation could make an exception for waterboarding. So if Saddam Hussein authorized waterboarding a captured U.S. pilot, presumably to help protect his country from bombing raids, this would not be a war crime and he should not be prosecuted for it. And when the Japanese did it to American G.I.'s, it was not a war crime. Indeed, there doesn't seem to be any limit to prisoner abuse during war time as any manner of barbarity can be justified by military necessity.
You have not been very clear in your position, so much of this is necessarily guesswork. Please clarify where I have misread your position.
Comment by Zachriel — May 7, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
No, it's not the implication but you're deliberately misrepresenting my position. I've repeatedly stated that children are not in the mix. You place your hypotheticals around children in spite of this. Why? Retaliation for the collateral damage point? The waterboarding of children is totally unrealistic. They are not terrorists and would not be entrusted with the type of information used by a major terrorist organization. They would not have the emotional maturity to to be useful operatives.
In spite of specifying repeatedly that my focus is waterboarding and then only under extreme circumstances you substitute the term torture instead of using the term waterboarding. Of course you'll claim the reason is that international law defines waterboarding blah, blah, blah. But to a new reader, who has not followed the entire thread, the impression could be conveyed that I favor burning people with cigarette butts, pulling nails out etc. It's like using the term lawbreaker for both a thief and one who incurred a parking ticket. In scientific exchanges we go out of our way to be as precise as possible with words. You do the opposite and cloud clarity by avoiding the word which exactly describes what it is I am referring to.
You're done with this thread. Your Saddam Hussein analogy falls far short of the standard I set. He was a mass murderer. The path to lessened suffering would not entail propping up mass murderers. If you can't distinguish bombing Saddam's regime and bombing the WTC then further discussions are pointless.
Comment by Bradford — May 7, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
May 8th, 2009 at 1:37 am
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PA...
For whatever reason the 16 year old "detainee" is of relevance …
He has been charged.
The issue was investigated before his apprehension.
There were multiple bomb threats.
It is not related to the Patriot Act.
He is in a juvenile facility that his mother can visit.
His case is working its way through the courts.
Says the U.S. attorney
Comment by Pez — May 8, 2009 @ 1:37 am
May 9th, 2009 at 2:37 am
First they came for …
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PA...
Comment by Pez — May 9, 2009 @ 2:37 am
May 9th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Well, I'm quite happy to write a paper on:
how the current YEC CDK theory will be proven wrong by the Gaia observatory
I can put forward the paper in good conscience knowing that if Gaia comes forward with the results you expect, it will falsify at least one of the YEC cosmologies out there (there are about 5, one has made it through peer-review the Hartnett-Carmeli cosmologies).
I'm happy to have this reposited in the Cornell Archive under their minimal review standards.
I've never written nor published a paper, but I think I can put together a paper critical of YEC which I think even you would not be ashamed of. If you or one of your grad students or a prof of good reputation at our school will be willing to co-author a paper critical of YEC, I'd be glad to participate, but it must show how Gaia is expected to falsify a YEC cosmology.
If Gaia's results come in favor your hypothesis, then YEC CDK in it's current form can be considered falsified.
I've already stated publicly the YEC case is weak, so I know in good conscience I'm putting forward criticisms that I consider scientifically valid.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 9, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
May 10th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Sal,
There is a strict rule in my book: coauthor only those papers to which you have made a substantial contribution. Spending a significant chunk of time on Barry Setterfield's algebraic manipulations is not high on my list of priorities. So thanks but no thanks.
Comment by olegt — May 10, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Tax money for ACORN
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PA...
Comment by Pez — May 15, 2009 @ 10:04 am
May 15th, 2009 at 11:10 am
I'm just curious: Does YEC also have an explanation about continental drift akin to an explanation about the expansion of the universe.
It seems the for every process that is discovered, YEC has to posit that these processes were very much faster at a given time and have now slowed down significantly to make the facts fit their theory.
So, what is the theory that would explain that continents drifted extremely rapidly at some point but now slowed down to the pace we observe these days?
Comment by hrun — May 15, 2009 @ 11:10 am
May 15th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Of course it was YECs who first promoted the idea that the continents had come apart from one original land mass.
http://books.google.com/books?...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Here's Walt Brown's model.
http://creationwiki.org/Hydrop...
Comment by Pez — May 15, 2009 @ 12:23 pm