ibenez wrote: What is the problem here? Can someone tell me what the problem is with beating the f@#$king shit out of people? As long as they don't dismember or kill the prisoners, they are enemy - treat them as such. I'm sorry but the first HEAD they chopped off threw the Geneva conventions right out the fucking window.
There are many problems here, my bloodthirsty friend. The first of which is that the Geneva conventions don't apply to loosely bound terrorists with no national affiliation. They *do* apply to signatory nations who agreed to abide by certain rules for some minimal civility in the conduct of military actions. They apply to us, or should, because we believe that certain actions are morally reprehensible and that performing them reduces us to the same base level as the butchers we're fighting. It may be that you belive that the end justifies the means, and that anyone's actions justify an equal, or even more severe, reaction, in which case, feel free to continue believing so... just don't make the assumption that the rest of America agrees with you. Second, you describe torture as "beating the fucking shit out of people", which I think minimizes the reality of the situation. We're not talking about a beating. We're talking about long term physical and mental anguish. These are not the same, and if a person is not cabable of facing the reality of what we mean when we say "torture" then they're in no position to advocate for it. I don't say that's your situation, mind you... I have no trouble believing you both know and favor exactly the kinds of duress implied by torture. This at least makes you not hypocritical. The most serious problem, though, with this particular case, is the secrecy of it all. McCain has some knowledge of POW camps, and believes that America should not the kind of place that condones or engages in similar activity. Likewise, I imagine, he feels that the American public agree, and regard torture as a repugnant and immoral activity. We can't really know, of course, because most of the public doesn't bother to face up to the issue. They have some vague notion of what torture is and base an opinion on that knowledge. The administration well knows that the american public, who *ought* to be in charge of this country, wouldn't stand for it if they knew the details, so the details are classified and tacked onto the Army field manual so as to comply with the letter of the law, but completely defeat the spirit of it. My fundamental belief is that we shouldn't be afraid to be honest about our practices. America is the greatest and strongest nation on earth... if the people of this country support torture, then lets say so, and tell our enemies exactly what they can expect if they're so foolish as to fall into our hands. If the people *don't* support it, then we shouldn't do it. But lets not tuck it away and feed everyone more pabulum about "achieving victory". We were founded on the notion that humans are capable of applying Reason to their own self-governance. Transparency is freedom's best friend... without it we are lost. I think McCain believes that America should be a nation that leads by example and, as such, doesn't engage in the same horrific activities as it's enemies. To do so requires more strenth and more resolve than acting on animal urges. Meeting torture with torture, hate with hate, and rage with rage ought to be below us. Rather than accepting this, the administration gave McCain a patronizing nod and then subverted his efforts without a blink. *That's* why McCain should be pissed. RE: New Army Rules May Snarl Talks With McCain on Detainee Issue - New York Times |
