Carter: America tortures

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You've got it wrong. "Things that nobody disagrees is torture" is essentially the set of things that Al Qaeda does that we don't.

How is that not what's what I said. What AQ does, everybody agrees is torture. What we do, not everybody agrees is torture. The definers, such as Carter, call it torture in order to make the moral equivalency case.

Yay us that we aren't as bad as Al Qaeda, but it doesn't excuse the things that we do.

But your line of thinking "we are not as bad as Al Qaeda" contains the notion that "we are bad", and now that is your starting point and you're working to prove it. You could just as easily start with "Al Qaeda does much MUCH worse things than we do, 999 times out of 1000, ordered and instructed from the top, motivated by inhumanity as a part of their very nature... and that is what makes Al Qaeda bad and us good. That said, we are overdue for discussions and instruction about where the limits are and why."

But you didn't, and that suggests to me that you are shooting at that moral equivalency notion and I don't understand why.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

How is that not what's what I said. What AQ does, everybody agrees is torture. What we do, not everybody agrees is torture.

Only because it's us saying it's not. Before we were doing it we agreed that it was. That's why the Bush administration had to issue new definitions of torture.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Only because it's us saying it's not. Before we were doing it we agreed that it was. That's why the Bush administration had to issue new definitions of torture.

You can't think of any other reason why we might revisit the official definitions, other than there was a new administration?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You can't think of any other reason why we might revisit the official definitions, other than there was a new administration?

Because we want do do something that was previously considered torture, or because we've already started doing something that was previously considered torture. Those are the two possibilities that I see.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because we want do do something that was previously considered torture, or because we've already started doing something that was previously considered torture. Those are the two possibilities that I see.

As of 9/11, everything changed. We face a newly exposed enemy that has a quite different nature than any we've encountered before, requiring a different type of war.

The previous rules were set up for an enemy that didn't routinely use torture because we didn't want it used against us, and we wanted the strongest possible definition. The new reality is based on an enemy that routinely beheads people for their recruitment videos. There's no question that they'd torture, and our rules are not something they pay attention to.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

As of 9/11, everything changed. We face a newly exposed enemy that has a quite different nature than any we've encountered before, requiring a different type of war.

The previous rules were set up for an enemy that didn't routinely use torture because we didn't want it used against us, and we wanted the strongest possible definition. The new reality is based on an enemy that routinely beheads people for their recruitment videos. There's no question that they'd torture, and our rules are not something they pay attention to.

If they don't pay attention to our rules, why bother to change them then? Isn't that in effect giving them the power because we're obviously paying more attention to their rules.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If they don't pay attention to our rules, why bother to change them then?

Good point. That is how we would win IMHO.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

As of 9/11, everything changed.

...

The previous rules were set up for an enemy that didn't routinely use torture because we didn't want it used against us, and we wanted the strongest possible definition. The new reality is based on an enemy that routinely beheads people for their recruitment videos. There's no question that they'd torture, and our rules are not something they pay attention to.

Your reading of pre-9/11 wars must have been a lot less descriptive than mine. Vietnam and World War II, specifically.

Every war since the dawn of man has had this "new reality" and every culture in which torture has played a part in war found it fully justified. This time is no different, except that many in the US are turning a blind eye to the benefits history provides.

"The major means of getting intelligence was to extract information by interrogating prisoners. Torture was an unavoidable necessity. Murdering and burying them follows naturally. You do it so you won't be found out. I believed and acted this way because I was convinced of what I was doing. We carried out our duty as instructed by our masters. We did it for the sake of our country. From our filial obligation to our ancestors. On the battlefield, we never really considered the Chinese humans." -Uno Shintaro, former Japanese officer

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

As of 9/11, everything changed.

Not everything. Torture is still wrong.

We face a newly exposed enemy that has a quite different nature than any we've encountered before, requiring a different type of war.

The nature of the enemy is irrelevant. Torture is about the nature of ourselves. If that changed after 9-11, then we need to change it back.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Not everything. Torture is still wrong.

That didn't change, just the definition did. The government defined it up... and you're defining it down.