US legalizes some torture, overturns hab.corp.?

[mad4u689]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5390848.stm

 

 

 

I'm curious on thoughts about this article about a recently passed bill. It makes me sick, but I'm curious what other people have to say before ranting my opinion. :)

 

 

 

 

 

Important edit: tip.it cut off my intended original title. It's very important to me that there is a question mark at the end - I am not saying that the US legalized some torture and overturned the writ of habeus corpus, but trying to prompt a discussion QUESTIONING whether this is or is not the case. So I apologize for the previous title, and hope this new one better suffices!

[bacab]

Well, I dunno. If someone isn't a citizen of the United States, then they don't have protection under United States' laws/consititution.

 

 

 

But if they're not citizen's then the U.S. has no right to hold them prisoner I guess.

 

o.O

 

 

 

I think that the U.S. is going down hill and losing it's mind, that's all. I blame minivan pollution.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Well, I dunno. If someone isn't a citizen of the United States, then they don't have protection under United States' laws/consititution.

 

 

 

But if they're not citizen's then the U.S. has no right to hold them prisoner I guess.

 

o.O

 

 

 

I think that the U.S. is going down hill and losing it's mind, that's all. I blame minivan pollution.

 

 

 

Why would we not have the right to hold a prisoner of war captive?

 

 

 

@Mad: I'm curious. I sometimes have a hard time following your code of moral relatvism so I need to ask you some questions... :P Do you believe that terrorists commit truly evil acts? If yes, what do you think the worst thing that should happen to them is? And also, do you think that the pain/death of one person is worth the lives of thousands?

 

 

 

These aren't questions that I'm meaning to be pointed in any way - nor am I trying to take a side. I'm just always curious as to how your mind works. :P

[Not]

Well, I dunno. If someone isn't a citizen of the United States, then they don't have protection under United States' laws/consititution.

 

 

 

But if they're not citizen's then the U.S. has no right to hold them prisoner I guess.

 

o.O

 

 

 

I think that the U.S. is going down hill and losing it's mind, that's all. I blame minivan pollution.

 

 

 

Why would we not have the right to hold a prisoner of war captive?

 

 

 

@Mad: I'm curious. I sometimes have a hard time following your code of moral relatvism so I need to ask you some questions... :P Do you believe that terrorists commit truly evil acts? If yes, what do you think the worst thing that should happen to them is? And also, do you think that the pain/death of one person is worth the lives of thousands?

 

 

 

These aren't questions that I'm meaning to be pointed in any way - nor am I trying to take a side. I'm just always curious as to how your mind works. :P

 

 

 

I thought they were "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Well, I dunno. If someone isn't a citizen of the United States, then they don't have protection under United States' laws/consititution.

 

 

 

But if they're not citizen's then the U.S. has no right to hold them prisoner I guess.

 

o.O

 

 

 

I think that the U.S. is going down hill and losing it's mind, that's all. I blame minivan pollution.

 

 

 

Why would we not have the right to hold a prisoner of war captive?

 

 

 

@Mad: I'm curious. I sometimes have a hard time following your code of moral relatvism so I need to ask you some questions... :P Do you believe that terrorists commit truly evil acts? If yes, what do you think the worst thing that should happen to them is? And also, do you think that the pain/death of one person is worth the lives of thousands?

 

 

 

These aren't questions that I'm meaning to be pointed in any way - nor am I trying to take a side. I'm just always curious as to how your mind works. :P

 

 

 

I thought they were "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war.

 

 

 

That's a very good point. They aren't prisoners of war, are they? They fight for no country, and so we can't actually declare war against them.

[Not]

Well, I dunno. If someone isn't a citizen of the United States, then they don't have protection under United States' laws/consititution.

 

 

 

But if they're not citizen's then the U.S. has no right to hold them prisoner I guess.

 

o.O

 

 

 

I think that the U.S. is going down hill and losing it's mind, that's all. I blame minivan pollution.

 

 

 

Why would we not have the right to hold a prisoner of war captive?

 

 

 

@Mad: I'm curious. I sometimes have a hard time following your code of moral relatvism so I need to ask you some questions... :P Do you believe that terrorists commit truly evil acts? If yes, what do you think the worst thing that should happen to them is? And also, do you think that the pain/death of one person is worth the lives of thousands?

 

 

 

These aren't questions that I'm meaning to be pointed in any way - nor am I trying to take a side. I'm just always curious as to how your mind works. :P

 

 

 

I thought they were "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war.

 

 

 

That's a very good point. They aren't prisoners of war, are they? They fight for no country, and so we can't actually declare war against them.

 

 

 

They fight for what they believe in, and against what they percive to be wrong. I wonder how many of them being held were combantants versus how many were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Seahawk10490]

They are TERRORist meaning they cause terror. They fight for no country, have no rank, or serial number and are therefor not protected by the Geneva Convetion, and it should stay that way.

[Guest GhostRanger]

They fight for what they believe in, and against what they percive to be wrong. I wonder how many of them being held were combantants versus how many were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

 

 

Of course they fight for what they believe in: destroying America and freedom. That's still not a country.

 

 

 

Here are some things I wonder (since apparently we're listing them): I wonder if Hitler knew about the gas chambers or if those were just managed by people of lower rank them him. I wonder if JFK was shot by the CIA. I wonder if Bill Clinton had sex with that woman.

 

 

 

There are a lot of things I wonder - but I usually don't post them because there's really no discussion that can come from them. What kind of discussion do you expect to come from that? Someone says, "Well I don't think it happens." You: "Well I do." Them: "Well I don't."

 

 

 

Okay?

 

 

 

There's no responsibility in you saying that.

[Bubsa]

The whole Guantanamo Bay thing is so hypocritical it makes me laugh in disbelief. If any other country in the world had a Camp X-Ray equivalent the US would be all over them like German Measles.

[Guest GhostRanger]

The whole Guantanamo Bay thing is so hypocritical it makes me laugh in disbelief. If any other country in the world had a Camp X-Ray equivalent the US would be all over them like German Measles.

 

 

 

I actually looked up what German Measles were. I had no idea it was another name for Rubella... :P

 

 

 

Now - what's hypocritical about it?

[Not]

There's no responsibility in you saying that.

 

 

 

You are right, we should continue to let the administration keep the torture camp with detainees we know nothing about other than that the administration considers the "enemy combantants".

 

 

 

I know I don't want to be considered an enemy combantant and thrown into a military prison, for any criteria that the administration decides to come up with.

[Adam007]

Ugh, I hate how Bush has so much control. Especially his emotional rhetoric everyone falls for:

 

As our troops risk their lives to fight terrorism, this bill will ensure they are prepared to defeat today's enemies and address tomorrow's threats," President Bush said in a statement on Thursday.

 

If there was a breaking point showing that Bush definitely has too much control, I'd say it's here. I'd say I'd hope for a democratic senate when it comes to election time, but I don't think even that can change things enough. The guy's permanently destroying our nation's ideals. People are willing to sacrifice so much in terms of liberties just for temporary peace of mind and artificial security - and Mr. Bush just feeds on that fear.

[Not]

[edit]Huge lag...

 

 

 

Double post

[Seahawk10490]

If they were all nice and lovey dovey to abunch of violent radicals, then all freedom loving countrys would INDEFINATLY be attacked. Then youd be whining that they dont crack down hard enough. Quit being a hippy and go move to a covent were we dont have to smell you and you dont have to be around us.

[Seahawk10490]

If they were all nice and lovey dovey to abunch of violent radicals, then all freedom loving countrys would INDEFINATLY be attacked. Then youd be whining that they dont crack down hard enough. Quit being a hippy and go move to a covent were we dont have to smell you and you dont have to be around us.

[Tigra00]

They're not saying it's okay to torture, they are saying it's okay to use proper interrogation methods, which to pansies may seem like torture. Have you ever seen interrogation techniques? They're uncomfortable, but no where near torture. Things like having them hold their arms above their heads and if they drop them, they have to run a distance...crap like that. If that's "torture", then arrest my 3rd grade gym teacher, because we played games like that in gym class, lol.

 

 

 

They're not saying you can go ahead and pistol whip an Iraqi, 'mmkay?

[Adam007]

If they were all nice and lovey dovey to abunch of violent radicals, then all freedom loving countrys would INDEFINATLY be attacked. Then youd be whining that they dont crack down hard enough. Quit being a hippy and go move to a covent were we dont have to smell you and you dont have to be around us.

 

So last week we weren't safe? It's not a black and white issue like that. Nobody's saying we don't need certain measures of security or whatever. We do. Just only to an extent.

 

 

 

The fact that Bush gets away with all of this stuff without any governmental challenges is what scares me. This isn't the straw that breaks the camel's back or anything, but he just keeps pushing things too far without any checks/balances.

[mad4u689]

Well, I dunno. If someone isn't a citizen of the United States, then they don't have protection under United States' laws/consititution.

 

 

 

But if they're not citizen's then the U.S. has no right to hold them prisoner I guess.

 

o.O

 

 

 

I think that the U.S. is going down hill and losing it's mind, that's all. I blame minivan pollution.

 

 

 

Why would we not have the right to hold a prisoner of war captive?

 

 

 

@Mad: I'm curious. I sometimes have a hard time following your code of moral relatvism so I need to ask you some questions... :P Do you believe that terrorists commit truly evil acts? If yes, what do you think the worst thing that should happen to them is? And also, do you think that the pain/death of one person is worth the lives of thousands?

 

 

 

These aren't questions that I'm meaning to be pointed in any way - nor am I trying to take a side. I'm just always curious as to how your mind works. :P

 

 

 

Ah... my mind works in fairly strange ways. I'll do my best to explain my general philosophy about morality, both personally and legally. Keep in mind I haven't taken any classes in ethics or political theory (yet), so my ideas aren't as fine-tuned as I'd like them to be.

 

 

 

I believe that morality is completely relative from person to person and from culture to culture. I do not believe there is one "right" and "wrong." In fact, I don't even believe there's a scale of right to wrong; I'm fairly nihilist and don't subscribe to any such system.

 

 

 

HOWEVER, by the nature of government, it must assume some system of morality as the basis of its legal system. What system of morality should this be? Can it be completely arbitrary? Surely it cannot; the purpose of the government is to regulate its citizens and act as a centralized "leader" for outsiders to speak to representatively. Therefore, the system of morality that a government adopts must reflect the systems of morality that the majority of its citizens agree on. HOWEVER, in something so definite as government, a mere 50% majority doesn't necessarily suffice. The system of morality should be such that it regulates only what directly affects other citizens (and not the single citizen in question). In addition, it's something of a numbers game - if there is a significant proportion of the population that believes Morality X, even if it's only 10% of the population, it should be considered. In this sense, religious and moral minorities must be protected... until two religious/moral attitudes held by citizens come into direct conflict.

 

 

 

I'm not going to go on, because this is getting a bit long, and you probably don't care to read all the rest of my specifics - I just want to emphasize again that PERSONALLY OR CULTURALLY, there may be no "right" system of morality, but LEGALLY, there should be, and it should be a system that incorporates all the major beliefs of its citizens, without regulating what affects only the self.

 

 

 

Then, internationally and beyond the realm of traditional government, there should be some standards of international basic human rights. I feel that the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a fantastic basis to go on and very well done. This is a type of government in itself, which is good... it establishes such ideas as no torture. And "no torture" is something most people throughout the world agree on in their various systems of morality.

 

 

 

(This is why I am an active member of Amnesty International, a human rights organization, despite disagreeing with some of their ideas and methods of execution of these ideas)

 

 

 

THUS: my personal system of morality finds, in my gut, terrorist acts to be "evil" because personally, murder of someone conscious who doesn't desire death is the worst "evil." Consequently, I don't think we should murder THEM in retaliation. However, you must consider "active" and "passive" murder - if killing one person will prevent the deaths of a thousand other people, then yes, it is something you should do. Passive murder is still murder, in my opinion (and personal system of morality).

 

 

 

Legally, now, we have to have some standards. To adjust for people's differing views of morality, we need a legal system that has clearcut rules and laws, and allows people to appeal and clarify WITHIN the system. Habeus corpus is a vitally important feature of the American legal system, then! It guarantees that anyone who is accused has the right to appeal, within the legal system!

 

 

 

In essence, the American government as it is currently laid out, is balanced by three separate branches. One branch (the administrative) has become particularly powerful as of late, pursuing its own specific agenda and ruining this "balance" that had previously existed. In getting more power, it is consequently TAKING more power from other branches, such as by taking away basic aspects of the judicial branch like the writ of habeus corpus.

 

 

 

I am terrible at arguing, but I hope that better serves to explain my position :D

[jak722]

[sarcasm]

 

 

 

Sweet!

 

 

 

Ive always wanted to see what the Dark Ages looked like!

 

 

 

[sarcasm/]

[insane]

Mad, your relativistic/nihilistic philosophies preclude any kind of objective argument coming from you, in my opinion :P.

 

 

 

Since you believe in relativism/nihilism, I find it hard to believe that you can take an objective stance on anything, and let alone care about anything. If you truly are nihilistic, why do you care? If you truly are relativistic, then why do you think that this is morally wrong? I read your argument, but an objective argument from subjectiveness just doesn't work.

[VOV]

If the US government allows torture they will be giving up the moral high-ground.

 

 

 

The entire premise behind the war was one of moral superiority. The "war on terror" is a war of ideals. It's not a war the US can win on it's own. They've already had a hard enough time getting internation support and, if they choose this route, the US government will never regain its credibility.

[Barihawk]

In almost any poll on the subject, Abraham Lincoln was the most popular president of all-time.

 

 

 

He completely suspended Habeus Corpus for ALL Americans, and thousands of "Confederate Spies" were tortured, beaten, or outright killed without a trial.

 

 

 

This isn't so bad in comparison.

[jak722]

In almost any poll on the subject, Abraham Lincoln was the most popular president of all-time.

 

 

 

He completely suspended Habeus Corpus for ALL Americans, and thousands of "Confederate Spies" were tortured, beaten, or outright killed without a trial.

 

 

 

This isn't so bad in comparison.

 

 

 

Yeah, americans were keen on killing each other back then.

 

 

 

Of course, timelines and historical context doesn't really matter...

 

 

 

Or basic human rights for that matter either...

 

 

 

 

 

Let's apply the past to the present and worry about things later.

[apinagez]

Mad, your relativistic/nihilistic philosophies preclude any kind of objective argument coming from you, in my opinion :P.

 

 

 

Since you believe in relativism/nihilism, I find it hard to believe that you can take an objective stance on anything, and let alone care about anything. If you truly are nihilistic, why do you care? If you truly are relativistic, then why do you think that this is morally wrong? I read your argument, but an objective argument from subjectiveness just doesn't work.

 

 

 

Insane, I believe Mad is much more flexible on her beliefs than what you are saying nihilists are. After all, there's no need to get bipolar and blind to other points of view in order to be a nihilist.

[insane]

Mad, your relativistic/nihilistic philosophies preclude any kind of objective argument coming from you, in my opinion :P.

 

 

 

Since you believe in relativism/nihilism, I find it hard to believe that you can take an objective stance on anything, and let alone care about anything. If you truly are nihilistic, why do you care? If you truly are relativistic, then why do you think that this is morally wrong? I read your argument, but an objective argument from subjectiveness just doesn't work.

 

 

 

Insane, I believe Mad is much more flexible on her beliefs than what you are saying nihilists are. After all, there's no need to get bipolar and blind to other points of view in order to be a nihilist.

 

 

 

Is your understanding on Nihilism sound? Because, technically speaking, a Nihilist doesn't care about anything. If Mad was consistently Nihilistic, then she wouldn't be so passionate about any view whatsoever.