Oddly silent

ZHawke wrote: Apparently, Rick, you've successfully side-tracked this discussion of torture.

Thanks, Obama!!!!!

NO, he has NOT succeeded.....the hypocrisy present is just SSDD, and as BB pointed out (oh so succinctly)
it's on going since the history of America.

PrintSmith wrote: The killing of an enemy while prosecuting a war is not murder, even when the person killed happens to be a non-combatant that was killed, or so-called "collateral damage".

Where Renegade's analogy gains accuracy is in the fact that waterboarding the accomplice in your own child's abduction would be a violation of their rights, and a violation of the laws protecting those rights, even if the results of that illegal act saved the life of the child. The one waterboarded to obtain the information would have the protection of the law and any results of the act barred as evidence that could be considered in their trial. They would have a civil cause of action against the person who did the waterboarding as well.

The difference, near as I can tell, is that some would not hold it against the waterboarder because it saved the life of the child, but they do hold it against members of the CIA even though it resulted in the lives of those serving in the military being saved. Do I condone the practice as a normal, everyday method to be used by the CIA? Of course not, no one that I know would either. When we are talking about getting UBL who was ultimately responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people and an ongoing war that puts those who have pledged their lives to protect every citizen in the Union in peril? Not even a close call.

Edited to add: It's called situational ethics, something that all of us are guilty of practicing at one point or another in our lives.

So, let me get this straight: you've basically said the same thing I did using different wording to get to your point regarding "situational ethics". Is that a fair assessment? Not only did the CIA admit to using methods of EIT that went "beyond" those legally allowed under the clarification provided by the Bush Department of Justice at the time, but the CIA also admitted to a "death" of a detainee using EIT. If we are, in fact, discussing what constitutes "murder" in this thread alongside what constitutes "torture", would that "death", then, constitute "murder"? I ask this because the circumstances surrounding this death are, apparently, still being investigated (I haven't found anything yet that contradicts this assertion), as stated in the CIA Report, not the Senate Committee Report, for possible criminal charges against those who allegedly "caused" that death.

The problem I see with using situational ethics as a defense regarding government sanctioned torture is that it also basically boils down to a "do as I say, not as I do" mantra for the U.S. as applied by the U.S. to other nations of the world. Even George W. Bush put it out there the U.S. does NOT use torture. Where does that put the U.S. now that the CIA has openly admitted the U.S. did, in fact, use torture (EIT that went beyond what was legally allowed)?

You conflate the issue here Z. The United States does not condone, nor use, torture. That is the official position of the federal government. The CIA doesn't condone, nor use, torture. It appears that a couple of employees of the CIA may have gone beyond what is officially sanctioned. To say, then, that the entire population of the United States and their government condone the use of torture is, quite simply, an erroneous statement.

It would be akin to another person saying that all Muslims condone the beheading of journalists because a couple of Muslims have done it.

Now, you and I, as reasonable people, quickly see the fallacy in the latter example, so the question is why you, as a reasonable person, don't see the fallacy of your position in the former one as well.

PrintSmith wrote: You conflate the issue here Z. The United States does not condone, nor use, torture. That is the official position of the federal government. The CIA doesn't condone, nor use, torture. It appears that a couple of employees of the CIA may have gone beyond what is officially sanctioned. To say, then, that the entire population of the United States and their government condone the use of torture is, quite simply, an erroneous statement.

It would be akin to another person saying that all Muslims condone the beheading of journalists because a couple of Muslims have done it.

Now, you and I, as reasonable people, quickly see the fallacy in the latter example, so the question is why you, as a reasonable person, don't see the fallacy of your position in the former one as well.

So, now you "trust" the government not to use torture because they say they don't do it, nor do they condone its use? And you trust the CIA not to use torture because they say they don't do it, nor do they condone it?

By their own admission, the EITs used in interrogation of detainees was in questionable status right from the start. Otherwise, why seek legal counsel on what "meets" a torture standard or not?

The Muslim analogy is disingenuous. Our government speaks for us, their constituents, nationally and internationally. That's a bit different than your assertion regarding all Muslims.

And our government, in speaking for us nationally and internationally, says that we don't condone the use of torture, which is why the CIA wanted to be sure that they weren't in violation of law and policy and sought clarification on the issue before proceeding. As described, from a legal perspective, the clarification they sought was deemed to fall below the threshold of what would constitute torture. If a couple of CIA employees exceeded that threshold in practice, or misrepresented the nature of what they were doing, that doesn't change the law, or the policy, of the United States and its people.

As far as "trust" goes, of course I don't "trust" the government not to use torture because it is against the law and against official policy. I "trust" that they will torture when they believe torture is necessary and refrain from using it when they feel it unnecessary, just as I trust that you would use it when you felt it was necessary and refrain from its use when you felt it unnecessary.

PrintSmith wrote: And our government, in speaking for us nationally and internationally, says that we don't condone the use of torture, which is why the CIA wanted to be sure that they weren't in violation of law and policy and sought clarification on the issue before proceeding. As described, from a legal perspective, the clarification they sought was deemed to fall below the threshold of what would constitute torture. If a couple of CIA employees exceeded that threshold in practice, or misrepresented the nature of what they were doing, that doesn't change the law, or the policy, of the United States and its people.

As far as "trust" goes, of course I don't "trust" the government not to use torture because it is against the law and against official policy. I "trust" that they will torture when they believe torture is necessary and refrain from using it when they feel it unnecessary, just as I trust that you would use it when you felt it was necessary and refrain from its use when you felt it unnecessary.

Has anyone ever indicated to you how "circular" your arguments are?

ZHawke wrote: Apparently, Rick, you've successfully side-tracked this discussion of torture.

Thanks, Obama!!!!!

I don't agree, as usual it's a painful process to try and relay my point to you where you can understand. My point, again, is that for me to tell you whether or not I believe in torture, we must first define what torture is. If your definition of torture is different than mine, then we have no common basis to start from. Remember when Clinton said that oral sex wasn't sexual relations and "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

So if it's not murder when Obama targets an American for death overseas, no trial, no warning... what is it? If hunting down a US citizen with a drone is ok because we are at war and killing this man is the righteous thing to do, and it's not murder, then giving a terrorist the temporary feeling of drowning should not be considered torture if it's for the greater good during war time. Which is more immoral in your opinion? I've never been able to get this question answered by anyone on the left and I don't expect one here.

Rick wrote: I don't agree, as usual it's a painful process to try and relay my point to you where you can understand. My point, again, is that for me to tell you whether or not I believe in torture, we must first define what torture is. If your definition of torture is different than mine, then we have no common basis to start from. Remember when Clinton said that oral sex wasn't sexual relations and "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

So if it's not murder when Obama targets an American for death overseas, no trial, no warning... what is it? If hunting down a US citizen with a drone is ok because we are at war and killing this man is the righteous thing to do, and it's not murder, then giving a terrorist the temporary feeling of drowning should not be considered torture if it's for the greater good during war time. Which is more immoral in your opinion? I've never been able to get this question answered by anyone on the left and I don't expect one here.

Rick, your original question was with regard to defining murder. I indicated then I though that subject deserved its own thread. I still feel that way. That being said, when you now bring drones into the equation, it appears you're trying to conflate "situational ethics", as PrintSmith put it, with murder, torture, and now drone strikes.

Torture, for me, is already defined by codified law, both nationally and internationally. The Geneva Convention discusses "torture" in what some might consider to be limited terms because when the conventions were agreed upon terrorism, by definition, didn't exist if I understand correctly. The military has defined torture and what is and is not permitted. The Department of Justice weighed in on this issue, too. When reading their definitions, it appears that now, today, right here and now, we seem to be trying to split hairs on what does and does not constitute torture. For me, a simple admission, which the CIA has given, is adequate. Based on the report they provided, even though it is heavily redacted, the descriptions alone are enough to send chills of horror up and down one's spine. When I listened to the video you provided, the "accused" said nothing about whether torture, in and of itself, was the issue. Rather, he seemed, as do the dissenting views of the other members of the Senate Committee, to focus more on the "procedural, analytical, and methodologies" of the report than whether or not torture was perpetrated. That, to me, is problematic.

As I said, there are already plenty of "definitions" of torture out there. For me or you to try to "re-define" what it means for purposes of this discussion isn't something I'm going to even try to do because it serves no purpose, really, other than to argue about whether or not the government is doing something wrong (which I believe it, in fact, is). If we can discuss that, I'll continue. If we keep focusing on what actually constitutes torture, which has already been admitted to by the CIA, I'll step out of the conversation and ask ScienceChic to delete this thread entirely. I won't do this out of spite, but, rather, out of an acknowledgement there can ultimately be no agreement on this issue between, or among, posters here.

And, it really doesn't matter if you can or cannot relay your point to me where I can understand. I certainly feel the same way about you in that regard. And, there is no disrespect intended by this remark of mine.

ZHawke wrote: [ Rather, he seemed, as do the dissenting views of the other members of the Senate Committee, to focus more on the "procedural, analytical, and methodologies" of the report than whether or not torture was perpetrated. That, to me, is problematic.

.

Isn't that about the same logic you use to give credence to another Ferguson investigation? Procedural issues with how the DA handled it?

BlazerBob wrote: Isn't that about the same logic you use to give credence to another Ferguson investigation? Procedural issues with how the DA handled it?

Hardly.