A Larger Problem and an Old Problem

[The Smoking Man]

Smoking man, I acknowledge that! I agree with you! I was merely pointing out your inconsitancy in your argument.

Hence our need to cling to the rule of law even if that law ties our hands at times.

 

[Townsend]

There's not too much you can constitutionally do to eliminate rhetoric, even if you're disgusted by it.

As it should be... freedom of speech comes in all forms and should be protected no matter what.

 

[AKG]

Sure is and you have.

All this is from the perspective of YOU making the decisions.

You'll be really surprised when it is decided by someone else that YOU are the one to lose your life just how much things change.

At that point, you don't give a rats keester about 'philosophy'.

Why would things change? I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't cover every possible thing that we might talk about with respect to morality. But nothing I said suggested that, say, laws are bad for society, or anything like that, did I? Again, since I have no idea what you're talking about, I don't know whether what I just said about laws covers your objection (if that's what it was, I can't tell).

 

[AKG]

We do? Please explain why you can kill a person to save another from torture? This is neither utilitarian nor individual. Although you could make the argument for negative utilitarianism.

If the police break into a house where they see a man about to take off a man's arms with a chainsaw, you'd have a problem with the police shooting the man?

 

[Informal Logic]

Without reading this thread (sorry, but it seems rather predictable), I'll respond to the OP and one glaring statement in it:

...the ends do not justify the means.

To quote Condeleeza Rice when questioned about the invasion of Iraq...

I do not condone terrorism of any kind. However, I also dislike the hypocrisy in this country regarding our foreign policy, and so does most of the rest of the world. If the US stops the hypocrisy and policies of self interest, then hatred of the US (and terrorism) will fade away. It is really simple--what is the problem?

 

[Townsend]

If the US stops the hypocrisy and policies of self interest, then hatred of the US (and terrorism) will fade away. It is really simple--what is the problem?

You say we should stop policies of self interest? Who's interest should we be looking out for then?

 

[The Smoking Man]

You say we should stop policies of self interest? Who's interest should we be looking out for then?

Were you asking him to speak for Condoleeza?

 

[Townsend]

Were you asking him to speak for Condoleeza?

I have no idea what you're getting at...I don't study news like you clearly do so please fill in the gaps.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Why would things change? I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't cover every possible thing that we might talk about with respect to morality. But nothing I said suggested that, say, laws are bad for society, or anything like that, did I? Again, since I have no idea what you're talking about, I don't know whether what I just said about laws covers your objection (if that's what it was, I can't tell).

Well, drawing straws is one way of solving the 'lifeboat' problem although a game of chance is hardly a fair option.

When dealing with 'food and water' in a lifeboat scenario it may be more logical to say that the 300 pund man will consume far more than the 6 year old girl so she would be less of a tax on the resources and the 'collective' would survive a lot longer.

The fact is that no matter how the process is decided, all parties are in agreement until they see 'who gets the short straw' or 'why the fat guy get's ousted'.

Then it becomes an enforcement issue with the 'selectee' presenting every logical argument and illogical argument to the contrary.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I have no idea what you're getting at...I don't study news like you clearly do so please fill in the gaps.

Study his post then. He blatantly stated he was quoting Condeleeza Rice.

 

[Townsend]

Study his post then. He blatantly stated he was quoting Condeleeza Rice.

oh...sorry...

I just assumed that quotes are at least put in quotes. I don't want him to speak for her...

On another note...
I can't believe she said that,

 

[Art]

Study his post then. He blatantly stated he was quoting Condeleeza Rice.

It's hard to believe Rice said that. I suspect there is a link to Rice missing from the post??

 

[Townsend]

It's hard to believe Rice said that. I suspect there is a link missing from the post??

Thats why I never realized it was suppose to be a quote of her...

 

[SOS2008]

You say we should stop policies of self interest? Who's interest should we be looking out for then?

Umm...maybe take the 'moral' high ground and really be concerned about human rights, poverty, etc. This thread, along with a few others (how the people of Iraq could be freed from a dictatorship) inevitably miss the mark.

First, is it our foreign policy to play a police role? Source this. And if so, how should we do it--within international laws or not? Make your case. And if so, shouldn't we do it across the board and pursue regime change where ever there are oppressed peoples in the world? And if so, how can we prevent over extension militarily, financially, etc. Provide evidence.

In general, if you're going to claim morality, than be moral, and be consistent, and realistic, and please do some research and provide evidence accordingly (another common factor lacking from conservatives in these threads). Otherwise, how can anyone debate intelligently?

 

[SOS2008]

It's hard to believe Rice said that. I suspect there is a link to Rice missing from the post??

This is in reference to confirmation hearings. In response to questioning about the invasion of Iraq, Rice said the ends justify the means.

Per the interview George W. had on January 16th.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush says there is no need to hold anyone in his administration accountable for what has happened in Iraq because the voters have already spoken. "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

There were no WMDs we now know. There wasn't a nuke program in Iraq. Iraq wasn't an "imminent threat" to the United States. Bush was wrong. Tenet was wrong (it wasn't a slam dunk). Cheney was wrong. Powell was wrong. Rice was wrong. No problem; no accountability because 51% voted for Bush.

Bush and most of our politicians today fall into the "ends justify the means" theory of politics. Right or wrong doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is getting re-elected and retaining power. Promises that can't possibly be kept are made to the voters. Lies and half truths are told and retold until the have the mantle of believability. If you can vilify your opponent's character, you can win. Once you've won, the electorate absolves you. You are washed clean by the democratic process.

http://www.jumplink.net/blog/Jan2005/jan1805.htm

See how it works? And this should help explain some attitudes of some Americans (and some PF members).

 

[The Smoking Man]

oh...sorry...

I just assumed that quotes are at least put in quotes. I don't want him to speak for her...

On another note...
I can't believe she said that,

I've got to admit that I have looked high and low based on the whole 'quote', sentences and phrases and can't find a single reference.

Informal Logic, do you have a link?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

Bush created the American perspective 'If you're not with us, you're against us'.

And that perception is used against terror.

The Smoking Man

So how many of the people in Guantanamo are the defenders of a sovereign nation and how many were defending bin Laden? Perception, my friend.

By looking at Guantanamo's state, most people are able to extrapolate an abundant number and indeed a majority that collude with Bin Laden, so yes, I agree with perception.

The Smoking Man

America sees one foe gathered in Guantanamo when in reality, there are at LEAST three types.

The irony is these foes having conflicts with each other.

 

[The Smoking Man]

And that perception is used against terror.

Not entirely true. He said that of all nations who did not America's actions: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

By looking at Guantanamo's state, most people are able to extrapolate an abundant number and indeed a majority that collude with Bin Laden, so yes, I agree with perception.

And you know that how since there have been no trials?

The irony is these foes having conflicts with each other.

So now you acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other ... So like I said, you have Afghani patriots in cells beside Al Qieda. So do you still maintain that they are all Terrorists or people who wanted to defend their country from invasion as well as terrorists and that nothing has been done to identify who is who?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

And you know that how since there have been no trials?

Perception. Have you forgotten about it?

The Smoking Man

So now you acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other ...

Since when did I or didn't I acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other?! you're getting muddled. My last post to the thread was the first time I commented about different types of terrorist activists disagreeing and conflicting with each other.

The Smoking Man

So do you still maintain that they are all Terrorists or people who wanted to defend their country from invasion as well as terrorists and that nothing has been done to identify who is who?

And how would you know that? Are you inferring there is no terrorism in Guantanamo? that it's all about defending the country?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Perception. Have you forgotten about it?

Perception is great for personal views but it sucks for justice and legality.

That is, in fact why we have courts of law and frown on lynch mobs.

Since when did I or didn't I acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other?! you're getting muddled. My last post to the thread was the first time I commented about different types of terrorist activists disagreeing and conflicting with each other.

Pardon me for quoting you then "The irony is these foes having conflicts with each other." when you replied to my statement that there were at least three groups which include people merely defending the country.

Most people would consider than an agreement when you fail to make a correction but merely extend the thought.

And how would you know that? Are you inferring there is no terrorism in Guantanamo? that it's all about defending the country?

Nothing of the sort. I am stating that nobody knows what is there because there has not been a trial yet.

Knowing what you do of American law, are you going to sit there straight faced and say that America knows who are the terrorists and who isn't? What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

Perception is great for personal views but it sucks for justice and legality.

I see, no more opinions. Has it ever occurred to you that we can infer things and discuss them further? that it doesn't have to be about "justice and legality". This isn't a tribunal.

The Smoking Man

Most people would consider than an agreement when you fail to make a correction but merely extend the thought.

That terrorism is tangible in the country and the irony of these different activists conflicting each other whilst figthing American troops? What have I failed to correct?

The Smoking Man

Knowing what you do of American law, are you going to sit there straight faced and say that America knows who are the terrorists and who isn't?

You're misunderstanding things but since you address the problem, what are the solutions to distinguish terrorists from normal citizens?

The Smoking Man

What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?

No opinions permitted, remember?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I see, no more opinions. Has it ever occurred to you that we can infer things and discuss them further? that it doesn't have to be about "justice and legality". This isn't a tribunal.

No but a prison with inmates should be.

That terrorism is tangible in the country and the irony of these different activists conflicting each other whilst figthing American troops? What have I failed to correct?

A person in the USA who fights back while on his property is considered a good citizen with a second amendment. Do you consider THEM activists? Your bias' are showing.

You're misunderstanding things but since you address the problem, what are the solutions to distinguish terrorists from normal citizens?

The subsequent trial.

No opinions permitted, remember?

Funny, I was asking if you knew facts.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

A person in the USA who fights back while on his property is considered a good citizen with a second amendment.

I'm discussing terrorist groups fighting American troops, you're interpreting it as the USA fighting back and being good citizens with a second amendmnet.

The subsequent trial.

And that distinguishes a terrorist from a citizen? After it has been killed or blown up? How will trials eradicate martyrs and terrorists of all sorts?

The Smoking Man

Funny, I was asking if you knew facts.

"What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?"

Really?

 

[AKG]

Well, drawing straws is one way of solving the 'lifeboat' problem although a game of chance is hardly a fair option.

When dealing with 'food and water' in a lifeboat scenario it may be more logical to say that the 300 pund man will consume far more than the 6 year old girl so she would be less of a tax on the resources and the 'collective' would survive a lot longer.

The fact is that no matter how the process is decided, all parties are in agreement until they see 'who gets the short straw' or 'why the fat guy get's ousted'.

Then it becomes an enforcement issue with the 'selectee' presenting every logical argument and illogical argument to the contrary.

Your first post to me seemed to have nothing to do with what I said. I responded anyways, and this seems to have nothing to do with either what I initially said or what I said in my response. I haven't said anything in this thread so far about the lifeboat scenario.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm discussing terrorist groups fighting American troops, you're interpreting it as the USA fighting back and being good citizens with a second amendmnet.

No, I am paralleling. Most of the people who fought back in Afghanistan were not terrorists and received no terrorist training. They were an invaded nation fighting back just like an American would if the same thing happened there.

And that distinguishes a terrorist from a citizen? After it has been killed or blown up? How will trials eradicate martyrs and terrorists of all sorts? By looking at Guantanamo's state, most people are able to extrapolate an abundant number and indeed a majority that collude with Bin Laden, so yes, I agree with perception.

Funny, I thought we were discussing the people interred in Camp X-ray. You just declared them Martyrs and terrorists again by 'extrapolation' and you know damn well they have determined as neither legally or in fact.

"What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?"

Really?

Yes, really. Where you live, you have the rule of law don't you or are you saying you would prefer to abandon it completely? Unless you're actually living in France ... Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

 

[BobG]

Well, drawing straws is one way of solving the 'lifeboat' problem although a game of chance is hardly a fair option.

When dealing with 'food and water' in a lifeboat scenario it may be more logical to say that the 300 pund man will consume far more than the 6 year old girl so she would be less of a tax on the resources and the 'collective' would survive a lot longer.

The fact is that no matter how the process is decided, all parties are in agreement until they see 'who gets the short straw' or 'why the fat guy get's ousted'.

Then it becomes an enforcement issue with the 'selectee' presenting every logical argument and illogical argument to the contrary.

Or, if it was 300 pounds of muscle instead of 300 pounds of fat, one could say the 300 pound man will be able to do much more rowing and do a lot more work than the 6 year old girl and toss the girl overboard. Or maybe that idea should be amended to only throw the girl overboard if the girl's mother decided the girl was uneccesary.

The premise that any society's laws would be based solely on moral issues is flawed. Often, customs that increase a society's prospects become 'moral values' - Thou shalt not kill, except if it's in self defense, or if it's someone from a different tribe that has horses or food we could use, or if we feel the person would be a danger to our society, or to discourage others from doing the same thing that guy did, etc.

The value of of certain actions to the community very definitely plays a significant role in defining 'morality' and a person's view of a specific group's morality very much depends on individual perspective.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Your first post to me seemed to have nothing to do with what I said. I responded anyways, and this seems to have nothing to do with either what I initially said or what I said in my response. I haven't said anything in this thread so far about the lifeboat scenario.

That was the point of MY post. If you read through what you said it was all from the point of view of the morality of the decisionmaker and completely omitted the point of view of the person on the receiving end of the decision.

You expressed doubt if you had covered all aspects in your "rant" and I agreed and expanded. "This was a bit of a rant that's coming off the top of my head, I might have missed something."

To illustrate the point, I reintroduced the concept of the lifeboat, a common theoretical framework in institutions of higher learning for the discussion of moral issues in ethics and philosophy and already in use on this thread.

Your concept of 'good and bad decisions' based in paragraph 4 tends to change when the decision is actually made. Hence the lifeboat situation. People tend to agree with 'drawing straws' for instance because they compute the odds in their heads and see a slim chance of them being on the end of a wrong decision. Regardless of who it is that is selected, mentally they can not rationalize their fate to chance.

In a parallel discussion here, we are discussing the fate of the Guantanamo detainees for instance who are subject to the moral decision of an external force that has ruled that law shall not be used to determine guilt because they have established an alternate morality based on 'battlefield decisions' and yet although hostilities have ended, the Geneva Conventions have not been applied.

I see a kneejerk morality being applied outside of the agreed framework in Human Rights, UN and US law and the attempt of a previously 'moral' people attempting to enforce means that seem to have no ends.

It is the simple application of 'means' because there is no process of enforcing the morality on a superior military force operating outside of all known moral structures.

Indeed, a false moral structure has been created for this specific event to which the people of the United States are now seemingly in agreement.

However, ask any of them if they would like to be held in Maximum security conditions without charge for 4 years enduring 'interrogation' and psychological breakdown techniques.

You will note that the only two Americans caught up in this were charged in American Criminal courts, tried and sentenced while the rest have been left in legal limbo.

Hence there is a perception that this 'new morality' this 'new means' is being used against people perceived not to be covered by the constitution or human rights issues because of their point of origin and citizenship.

Justice is no longer blind ... It seems to check if you wear a turban first or or have an American birth certificate.

Where is this morality of which you speak and who are the custodians?

It certainly does not seem that society is trying to achieve higher ideals which you describe but backsliding into something heinous.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Or, if it was 300 pounds of muscle instead of 300 pounds of fat, one could say the 300 pound man will be able to do much more rowing and do a lot more work than the 6 year old girl and toss the girl overboard. Or maybe that idea should be amended to only throw the girl overboard if the girl's mother decided the girl was uneccesary.

The premise that any society's laws would be based solely on moral issues is flawed. Often, customs that increase a society's prospects become 'moral values' - Thou shalt not kill, except if it's in self defense, or if it's someone from a different tribe that has horses or food we could use, or if we feel the person would be a danger to our society, or to discourage others from doing the same thing that guy did, etc.

The value of of certain actions to the community very definitely plays a significant role in defining 'morality' and a person's view of a specific group's morality very much depends on individual perspective.

Bravo.

Hence we have the conflicting values of differing societies and religions.

Are we to presume that a person who likes the comfort of being brought up by Imam with Shariah law rally WANTS democracy?

Judging by the activities of the Iraqi government subject to the legislation enacted so far, there does seem to be a discrepancy between 'American style democracy' and 'Iraqi democracy'.

There seems to be a 'contradictory morality' that has them currently negotiating with the Iranians ... which I applaud. Maybe this hybrid can bridge the massive moral gap and eventually lead to understanding between two extremes.

 

[AKG]

That was the point of MY post. If you read through what you said it was all from the point of view of the morality of the decisionmaker and completely omitted the point of view of the person on the receiving end of the decision.

When you make moral decisions, I don't think you can omit the point of view of the other people. Most people have feelings, and don't like hurting others. Most people are also aware that if they hurt others, others may try to respond in kind. So any smart moral decision must take into account the views of others' in some respect. My rant was short, and like I said, I didn't cover every possible aspect of morality, obvious facts like the above were naturally omitted. I was trying to give a general appraoch to morality that was more sensible, not to explain every little obvious detail.

Anyways, I have nothing to say in regards to the rest of your post. Are you just trying to get your post count up or something?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

No, I am paralleling. Most of the people who fought back in Afghanistan were not terrorists and received no terrorist training.

Fair enough, I accept this comment but I still fail to agree with you.

The Smoking Man

They were an invaded nation fighting back just like an American would if the same thing happened there.

Wrong. The Americans, and I keep reiterating this, would not blow themselves up! you persist on stating that these terrorists "defend" their country. They are committing terrorism in the name of their religion. Perverted ideologies cannot be seen as defending the country.

The Smoking Man

Funny, I thought we were discussing the people interred in Camp X-ray. You just declared them Martyrs and terrorists again by 'extrapolation' and you know damn well they have determined as neither legally or in fact.

Damn right, I declare all of those who collude with Bin Laden as martyrs and terrorists.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's interesting that the day after the big London bombings that caused around 50 deaths, the so-called insurgents in Iraq set off bombs that killed hundreds of Iraqis, not foreigners. Talking about "legitimate resistance" ignores that the bulk of the bombings these days target Iraqis, and not even members of the government, but just random civiians. That is - I say this carefully - just Evil.

 

[alexandra]

Damn right, I declare all of those who collude with Bin Laden as martyrs and terrorists.

I don't know if you are aware of any of the facts concerning David Hicks, an Australian who has been illegally incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for about 3.5 years now. Here's an extract you may find interesting:

David Hicks, an Adelaide man, was captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in early December 2001 while traveling with Taliban soldiers who were defending their territory from the Northern Alliance. David's father, Terry, said his son seemed unaware of the September 11 attacks and extremely doubtful of their authenticity when they spoke on a mobile phone a few days after the American bombing campaign had begun.

...

David has not been charged with any crime in Australia. He has not been charged with any crime in Afghanistan. He is detained without charge, without trial and without access to family or consular assistance.
More: http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/documents/whyfairgo.htm

Hicks was very probably not even AWARE of the September 11 attacks - he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time!

Hicks is not the only one who is innocent. Here is information about another Gitmo detainee:

"My name is Les Thomas and I'm the brother of Jack Thomas, most often referred to as "Jihad Jack" by the press. Jack is facing 55 years in jail on trumped up terror charges with the government using tainted evidence that was obtained when Jack was imprisoned without charge in Pakistan for five months in 2003 where he was held incommunicado without access to a lawyer and tortured both physically and psychologically by a range of international agencies. Jack's torture has been independently confirmed by two separate psychiatric evaluations. " Reference: http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/main.htm#olderitems

And here's some information about Hicks' torture:

According to David Hicks' conversations with his father, he was abused by both Northern Alliance and U.S. soldiers. Even after incidents of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the Australian Government has consistently accepted U.S. assurances that David Hicks and another Australian at Guantanamo Bay, Mamdouh Habib, have been treated in accordance with international law.

On August 5, 2004 David Hicks filed an affidavit (SMH) declaring that he had been tortured, abused and ill-treated during his detention by US military authorities, and that he saw and heard similar treatment inflicted on other detainees. The affidavit was made public on December 10, 2004. US military authorities are investigating the claims.

Reference and more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

For those interested in finding out more about this topic, the homepage of "Fair Go For David Hicks" is http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/main.htm

 

[Art]

It's interesting that the day after the big London bombings that caused around 50 deaths, the so-called insurgents in Iraq set off bombs that killed hundreds of Iraqis, not foreigners. Talking about "legitimate resistance" ignores that the bulk of the bombings these days target Iraqis, and not even members of the government, but just random civiians. That is - I say this carefully - just Evil.

I fully agree. But I would go further and say the killing of civilians either deliberately or recklessly even if committed in pursuit of an overt military aim is evil.
I also believe it is important in Iraq to distinguish between 'terrorist' combatants committing evil acts in an attempt to provoke a civil war and genuine insurgents who are fighting against an army of occupation. Similarly I am sure the vast majority of the occupying forces are decent people but certain events suggest there are evil people amongst them too who should be rooted out and punished. It is good to see Britain once again showing the US the way in observing morals and the rule of law by indicting several of her own troops on war crimes chages. Sadly I suspect the example will be wasted on the Bush administration.

 

[DM]

Alexandra

I don't know if you are aware of any of the facts concerning David Hicks, an Australian who has been illegally incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for about 3.5 years now.

I understand your point. Very unfortunately these cases do indeed occur. I truly condemn all of those who incarcerate the likes of David Hicks without credible corroboration. Thanks for the references by the way.

 

[Art]

I don't know if you are aware of any of the facts concerning David Hicks, an Australian who has been illegally incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for about 3.5 years now. Here's an extract you may find interestingicks was very probably not even AWARE of the September 11 attacks - he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time!

Hicks is not the only one who is innocent. Here is information about another Gitmo detainee:And here's some information about Hicks' torture:For those interested in finding out more about this topic, the homepage of "Fair Go For David Hicks" is http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/main.htm

According to David Hicks' conversations with his father, he was abused by both Northern Alliance and U.S. soldiers. Even after incidents of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the Australian Government has consistently accepted U.S. assurances that David Hicks and another Australian at Guantanamo Bay, Mamdouh Habib, have been treated in accordance with international law.

Which is obviously self-contradictory because the fact he is being held there at all is in breach of international law.