- Jan 6, 2008
I suppose you do have a point. Moral absolutism is a religious concept, not one that the government is to be expected to adhere to, much like the value of upholding the agreements that have been made with others. If we're to have separation of church and state, then by extension, we can't expect the government to abide by any sort of moral absolutism. If torture in one instance actually produced some useful information, and if we'ere fighting people who don't share our abhorrence of the practice, then it must be OK for the government to torture prisoners.
However, despite the one instance of useful information you cite, it seems to me that overall the practice is detrimental to the goal of bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East.
Or, is that really the goal of the war against Iraq?
Well honestly, I support a representative republic like our own. Pure democracy is just the tyranny of 51% of the people on the other 49%. Splitting hairs sorry.
I see that we are bringing about positive freedom and change in Iraq. I was lucky enough to get to hang out with a half dozen servicemen from Iraq recently, and their report was overwhelmingly positive. Cite some example of how our prior actions have hindered this? Because I can show many that indicate it hasn't.
Look at the number of districts in Iraq that have already been turned over to self rule! We are succeeding, and this issue, despite the doom and chicken-little 'sky is falling' mantra repeated about how this issue will embolden our enemies and ruin our chances winning... it simply is not happening. Like I said before, people who support an action, are not going to at the same time condemn it, and claim we're the devil for doing what they themselves do constantly.
Further, it wasn't one instance... it was three... three important instances. All three of the waterboarded Al Qaeda members revealed high value, accurate, life saving, terrorist stopping information.
Now like I said before, and I'll say again here, there is no point to 'torture' for 'tortures sake'. Of course, no one is going to go for the idea of just randomly taking people and beating them. No one is saying let's make the inmates draw straws and then beat the lucky one till he's black and blue for nothing.
You are trying to make a argument about a premise no one is expounding. If you want to simply tackle the idea of harming war captives randomly through beatings and so on, with no purpose, reason, or cause... Ok. Here's my answer: I don't support that. Good deal, discussion over, nice chatting with you.
On the other hand, if you want to discuss the use of waterboarding in the specific situation, where a known terrorist, is openly refusing to talk, and give information we know he has, that could save lives...
...then I'm not as certain about my answer, and you have yet to give a reason either way.