Comments on: Moral Relativism http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:40:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Rudy, the Values Slayer — 2008 president candidates http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-362488 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:16:31 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-362488 [...] After years of hearing the right-wing decry the moral relativism of liberals, I was at a loss for the proper description of Rudy Giulianis approach to waterboarding. Linda Gustitus, who is the president of a group called the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, began her question by saying that President Bushs nominee for attorney source: Moral Relativism, The Mahablog [...] […] After years of hearing the right-wing decry the moral relativism of liberals, I was at a loss for the proper description of Rudy Giulianis approach to waterboarding. Linda Gustitus, who is the president of a group called the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, began her question by saying that President Bushs nominee for attorney source: Moral Relativism, The Mahablog […]

]]> by: Doug Hughes http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-359281 Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:59:22 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-359281 The key point and the vital one that anyone should be able to see is that we should not torture to protect our troops. This is obviouls to McCain and Powell and a host of retired generals. How? This is not the last military confilct we will be in. Americans who are captured by militias or jihadists will be mutilated and beheaded. That's a brutal fact of this war. But if WE abandon the rules of civilized conduct regarding 'detainees' it's global news, and the worst actions we publicly sanction and practice and condone will be the least our captured military can expect in future conflicts in other parts of the globe. Want to support the troops? Ban Torture! The key point and the vital one that anyone should be able to see is that we should not torture to protect our troops. This is obviouls to McCain and Powell and a host of retired generals. How?

This is not the last military confilct we will be in. Americans who are captured by militias or jihadists will be mutilated and beheaded. That’s a brutal fact of this war. But if WE abandon the rules of civilized conduct regarding ‘detainees’ it’s global news, and the worst actions we publicly sanction and practice and condone will be the least our captured military can expect in future conflicts in other parts of the globe.

Want to support the troops? Ban Torture!

]]> by: erinyes http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-358139 Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:35:09 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-358139 http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory149.html This is a bit long, but worth the time. http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory149.html
This is a bit long, but worth the time.

]]> by: Doug Hughes http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354389 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:37:41 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354389 Regarding the American atrocities in the Philippines, there is not better article than the one written by Mark Twain (who considered himself a journalist) Almost all the issues he discusses have their counterparts in our situation in Iraq. See "To the Person Sitting in Darkness" Sam Clemons If we only had writers of his stature today... http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/twain.htm Regarding the American atrocities in the Philippines, there is not better article than the one written by Mark Twain (who considered himself a journalist) Almost all the issues he discusses have their counterparts in our situation in Iraq. See “To the Person Sitting in Darkness” Sam Clemons If we only had writers of his stature today…

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/twain.htm

]]> by: goatherd http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354319 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:20:21 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354319 My father-in-law was a flag rank Naval Intelligence Officer. During part of his career, he planned operations involving Navy Seals. When he assumed that duty, it was required that he go through some of the training that Navy Seals go through, so that he could have a better understanding of who they were and their capabilities. He described the "worst part" to me and after several years, hearing the descriptions, I realized that it was waterboarding. He said that it was as close to unbearable as you can imagine and that the only way he made it through the experience was that he knew it was only an exercise, they did not want to kill him and that even if he passed out, he would get medical attention. With or without this thread of support, I don't see how anyone could deny that it is torture. My father-in-law was a flag rank Naval Intelligence Officer. During part of his career, he planned operations involving Navy Seals. When he assumed that duty, it was required that he go through some of the training that Navy Seals go through, so that he could have a better understanding of who they were and their capabilities. He described the “worst part” to me and after several years, hearing the descriptions, I realized that it was waterboarding. He said that it was as close to unbearable as you can imagine and that the only way he made it through the experience was that he knew it was only an exercise, they did not want to kill him and that even if he passed out, he would get medical attention.

With or without this thread of support, I don’t see how anyone could deny that it is torture.

]]> by: Jeff r http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354213 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:12:19 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354213 http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/rare/witchcraft/w-england16&17/w-england16.html Those interested might check out the above link to an exhibition on "Witchcraft, Demonology, and the Inquisition" at the Univ. of Sydney. On this page is a rare book about a series of English witchcraft trials from 1645 featuring the infamous “Witchfinder-General” Matthew Hopkins. The on-line commentary states “Most of the [witches] made confessions; this is not strange because Hopkins and his associates used techniques such as swimming, starvation, prolonged sitting cross-legged upon a stool, solitary confinement, prevention of sleep and forced continuous walking until the feet blistered to obtain a result. None of this was regarded as torture!” Note carefully the last line. George Bush and his enablers in the Executive branch of course say exactly the same thing about what they are doing now. And much of what they are doing matches the description above of the "techniques" used by Matthew Hopkins to extract confessions from "witches." Torture of witchcraft suspects was in fact illegal in Matthew Hopkins’s England. His answer to a query about the treatment of accused witches would have been the same as George Bush’s answer today about the treatment of detainees: “We don’t torture.“ The next question might be: “Why is your treatment of these witches/detainees not torture?” Answer: “Because torture is illegal.” Q.E.D. Now the United States has adopted interrogation “techniques” virtually identical to those used by Matthew Hopkins (“swimming” is a Medieval witch hunter’s euphemism for simulated drowning; sitting cross-legged on a stool is another kind of “stress position”). Hopkins, of course, was a person of a late Medieval mindset. . . . Which pretty much tells us what we need to know about George Bush and the pro-torture crowd. Does anyone find it at all reassuring that our President and his Justice Department advisers are throwbacks? http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/rare/witchcraft/w-england16&17/w-england16.html

Those interested might check out the above link to an exhibition on “Witchcraft, Demonology, and the Inquisition” at the Univ. of Sydney.

On this page is a rare book about a series of English witchcraft trials from 1645 featuring the infamous “Witchfinder-General” Matthew Hopkins.

The on-line commentary states “Most of the [witches] made confessions; this is not strange because Hopkins and his associates used techniques such as swimming, starvation, prolonged sitting cross-legged upon a stool, solitary confinement, prevention of sleep and forced continuous walking until the feet blistered to obtain a result. None of this was regarded as torture!”

Note carefully the last line.

George Bush and his enablers in the Executive branch of course say exactly the same thing about what they are doing now. And much of what they are doing matches the description above of the “techniques” used by Matthew Hopkins to extract confessions from “witches.”

Torture of witchcraft suspects was in fact illegal in Matthew Hopkins’s England. His answer to a query about the treatment of accused witches would have been the same as George Bush’s answer today about the treatment of detainees: “We don’t torture.“ The next question might be: “Why is your treatment of these witches/detainees not torture?” Answer: “Because torture is illegal.” Q.E.D.

Now the United States has adopted interrogation “techniques” virtually identical to those used by Matthew Hopkins (“swimming” is a Medieval witch hunter’s euphemism for simulated drowning; sitting cross-legged on a stool is another kind of “stress position”). Hopkins, of course, was a person of a late Medieval mindset.

. . . Which pretty much tells us what we need to know about George Bush and the pro-torture crowd. Does anyone find it at all reassuring that our President and his Justice Department advisers are throwbacks?

]]> by: The American Street » Blog Archive » The Torture record http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354180 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:43:36 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354180 [...] Barbara O’Brien provides a little known part of the historical record of our country’s use of torture. As much as I pride myself on knowing US history, that’s a chapter I knew nearly nothing about. Pretty ghastly…. but is Rudy educable? [...] […] Barbara O’Brien provides a little known part of the historical record of our country’s use of torture. As much as I pride myself on knowing US history, that’s a chapter I knew nearly nothing about. Pretty ghastly…. but is Rudy educable? […]

]]> by: Kevin Hayden http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354174 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:36:06 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354174 Great research! I was wholly unaware of the record in the Phillipines. That adds a lot of context to the current debate. Thanks! Great research! I was wholly unaware of the record in the Phillipines. That adds a lot of context to the current debate. Thanks!

]]> by: Redwretch http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354173 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:34:48 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/26/moral-relativism/#comment-354173 Isn't is always the supposed defenders of civilization who so robustly argue in favor of torture? I maintain that people who are civil to others treat them humanely...no matter what horrible acts they've alleged to have committed. It separates us from the wild kingdom. While I personally have an exception for the assassination of OBL, he has proudly (and repeatedly) admitted his involvement in mass murders, and his distance from our reach IMHO justifies his killing. I certainly wouldn't suggest he be tortured. I wouldn't cry if his demise was painful, either. Those who practice (or advocate) inhumane behavior surely cannot claim to be protecting Western civilization, nor its principles. Our justice systems are built upon the foundation that 10 guilty persons walk free before 1 innocent individual is punished. We know this isn't how it functions in practice, sadly, but we do aspire to proving guilt beyond reasonable doubts. Despite this we also know about hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people being convicted, incarcerated or executed, and then exonerated. If we can justify torturing terrorism suspects, what prevents us from treating criminals differently? Rationalization is too flexible for such serious issues with finite consequences. There can be no slope here for civil persons. Rudy is an animal. Isn’t is always the supposed defenders of civilization who so robustly argue in favor of torture?

I maintain that people who are civil to others treat them humanely…no matter what horrible acts they’ve alleged to have committed. It separates us from the wild kingdom. While I personally have an exception for the assassination of OBL, he has proudly (and repeatedly) admitted his involvement in mass murders, and his distance from our reach IMHO justifies his killing. I certainly wouldn’t suggest he be tortured. I wouldn’t cry if his demise was painful, either.

Those who practice (or advocate) inhumane behavior surely cannot claim to be protecting Western civilization, nor its principles. Our justice systems are built upon the foundation that 10 guilty persons walk free before 1 innocent individual is punished. We know this isn’t how it functions in practice, sadly, but we do aspire to proving guilt beyond reasonable doubts. Despite this we also know about hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people being convicted, incarcerated or executed, and then exonerated. If we can justify torturing terrorism suspects, what prevents us from treating criminals differently? Rationalization is too flexible for such serious issues with finite consequences.

There can be no slope here for civil persons. Rudy is an animal.

]]>