unspeakable horror in pakistan.

[rubato]

....
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/world/asi ... ol-attack/

I sure hope if the Pakistani's find the people who were behind this that they don't water board them to try and find out what similar plots may be planned...

Since that would make them even worse then the people who did this....

Since the population of Pakistan is 182 million, 132 murdered children is really tiny; infinitesimal in fact...

Nothing to get worked up over...

Perhaps you have a mental defect which makes you unable to understand?

If the 9-11 acts had been performed by a group which has held the territory of several states for decades (as the Taliban does in Pakistan) and governed them as local warlords and killed any federal officials who tried to enter them and further killed medical workers vaccinating children against polio (as the Taliban does in Pakistan) and further bombed schools on a regular basis then there would be a better defense of the use of torture based on necessity. Not enough, because there is no evidence that torture ever works, but at least plausible.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

I forgot to mention that the Taliban had also corrupted a large part of the Pakistani military.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Perhaps you have a mental defect which makes you unable to understand?

[wesw]

do you think rube? considering Osama bin laden was found in a walled compound near a Pakistani military training facility, I say that, that is a safe bet.

that is one reason why the islamists are not a minor irritation. a couple Pakistani nukes and they are an existential threat. confronting them could be also. so what do we do?

[Big RR]

I absolutely assure you I was not attempting to be funny ...

It appears to me that you were attempting to use humor in a satirical manner, which is IMHO is attempting to be funny. And while I understand your point, I think the humor was misplaced here.

[Lord Jim]

I think the humor was misplaced here.

-Big RR, not all satire is intended to be humorous...

There was no "misplaced humor" here because there was no humor intended...

I certainly wasn't mocking the deaths of these children... I frankly don't see how anyone could get that as the take-away from what I said...

I was mocking the attitude of those who claimed in the other thread that using enhanced interrogation against a handful of very bad actors to prevent further loss of innocent life somehow had us, "stooping to the level" of those who carried out the deliberate slaughter of innocent people...

I certainly don't find that attitude "funny"...

I find it puzzling, wrong-headed, morally obtuse, and sad...

I used the story of this horrific attack to illustrate just how wrong-headed, morally obtuse, and sad it is...

[MajGenl.Meade]

He knew who you were taking the piss out of. Don't be obtuse

I find it puzzling, wrong-headed, immoral and pathetic that supposedly civilized person would endorse torturing anyone... for any reason.

It's stooping lower

[Lord Jim]

It's stooping lower

And I find that position even more puzzling, wrong-headed, morally obtuse, and sad...

And I'll be happy to add "pathetic" to that list...(In fact, I'll see your "pathetic" and raise you "bizarre")

I have absolutely no problem being able to see that the mass murder of innocent people is exponentially morally worse than using enhanced interrogation techniques against the perpetrators of that mass murder of innocent people for the purpose of preventing further mass murders of innocent people...

I have absolute and complete moral and intellectual clarity on that score. It is a total mystery to me how anyone would not.

He knew who you were taking the piss out of.

Well, I assume Big RR was being sincere in his criticism, which would indicate that he misunderstood what I was doing. In any event, hopefully now I've cleared that up.

[Big RR]

Jim--I understood what point you were trying to make, I just think it was done in an insensitive way. However, no need to belabor the point, we both spoke our pieces and can move on to the next discussion.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I guess we'll just have to agree that I'm better than an evil terrorist and er... you think that because person (A) has killed X number of people, you are justified in torturing person (B) just in case they know something or other. No confusion about morality there

As Big RR said, your point is understood. We've said our bits and we'll move on.

[Sue U]

I have absolutely no problem being able to see that the mass murder of innocent people is exponentially morally worse than using enhanced interrogation techniques against the perpetrators of that mass murder of innocent people for the purpose of preventing further mass murders of innocent people...

I have absolute and complete moral and intellectual clarity on that score. It is a total mystery to me how anyone would not.

That assumes that torture (not the repulsive euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques") will actually produce truthful and useful information in a timely manner that could not be gotten any other way. All of which has been proven wrong in this instance and every previous use of torture.

And it is not just "very bad actors" who were tortured. At least one who was tortured to death was completely innocent.

To endorse torture, no matter what the supposed justification, is to embrace depravity.

[Crackpot]

You know he just died so he wouldn't have to give us that damning information we know he had.

[MajGenl.Meade]

...to embrace the same depravity as does the "terrorist" we all think is reprehensible. Sue, I know that you too do not think that to murder three people is more moral than to murder seven. Apparently some people confuse the physical quantity of an act with the moral quality of it.

[Lord Jim]

.to embrace the same depravity as does the "terrorist" we all think is reprehensible.

Absolutely. Which is something, thankfully, we have not done.

Apparently some people confuse the physical quantity of an act with the moral quality of it.

No, the problem is that some people apparently can't distinguish the glaring differences in moral quality between completely different acts done for completely different reasons, or the moral difference between innocent and guilty people, or the moral difference between killing innocent people and trying to prevent the killing of innocent people....


But your point is understood. We've said our bits and we'll move on.

[Big RR]

No, the problem is that some people apparently can't distinguish the glaring differences in moral quality between completely different acts done for completely different reasons, or the moral difference between innocent and guilty people, or the moral difference between killing innocent people and trying to prevent the killing of innocent people....

So it's the ends justifying the means then?

[MajGenl.Meade]

A person who tortures another person is morally guilty... end of story. What the other person may know or may have done is irrelevant. Expedience is not excuse, is it Big RR?

[Lord Jim]

That depends entirely on what the "ends" are and what the "means" are...

There's no one size-fits-all answer to that question. There never has been, and there never will be.

Waterboarding a handful of senior terrorist operatives who we know were involved in planning a prior mass murder of innocent people, and who we also have very good reason to believe would have operational knowledge of future planned mass murders of innocent people?

Yes, absolutely, the ends/means standard is fully met, no problemo. Not even remotely a close call.

[Lord Jim]

A person who tortures another person is morally guilty blah blah...

You know, for a guy who said three posts back that he had said his bit about this and was "moving along" you're awfully verbose...

I'll let you in on a secret:

The best way to actually achieve that "moving along" thing would be to stop posting about it...

[Big RR]

Meade--I agree with you; even if torture were a useful means of obtaining useful and accurate information (and I don't think it is nor have I read anything that would change my mind) it would be immoral.

Jim--the real problem I have with your approach is the focus on the ends is entirely dependent on the viewpoint of the actor; for example, those who attacked the WTC and pentagon on 9/11 might have believed they were deterring attacks by the US and it allies (such as Israel) from targeting innocent persons, but I don't see the moral justification (even if it were true). At some point we have to say that there are things that we just will not do, and IMHO torture is one of those things.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Goose/gander. Anyway, I was discussing something with Big RR and CP and Sue (and it wasn't the occasional waterboarding of one or two chaps who might have known something about something or not but let's torture them to see what happens).

I think it was about the moral responsibility of the moral preaching individual to not perform an immoral act, no matter what the expedient excuse might be. It's the old Jimmy Swaggart paradox.


"Because I had the means, I could justify the ends too"

And there's a little devil inside of me that wants to see if you stop first