Torture and execution are different hings, and one is being done by the United States, who claims to be better than such actions.
The US executes, too, and I also think that is a barbaric practice and against human rights. tammuz's initial very long post is very accurate: at root level of human rights these things are wrong, period. When any party says one thing then does another, like the US does, that's another kind of wrong.
Xian, we are not talking about past wrong. It is a continual chain of wrongs continuing to date. We are talking about a continual torture by a colonizing state and, in response, the fight against it in the form of resistance. I am not a pacificist and I believe in the right to violently respond to a violent oppressor. In the Israel/Palestine analogy, it is Israel itself that plays the role of torturer, historical and current. This is why my stance is consistent...and this is why SeriousQuestion's stance is also consistent. I am against torture and oppression and with the right to fight against it. SeriousQuestion is with the use of torture and oppression and is against the right to fight against it.
Her or his example, meant to elicit a contradiction within my stance apropos this topic, is being deliberately presented in a decontextualized manner. Hamas were responding to a war against Palestinians (and not just against Hamas). That is a much more complex matter and context than the CIA torturing here and there and has a narrative of colonialism and resistance. It is also an argument better suited to another thread on this forum.
Finally, Donna is correct on that technical differentiation. Lets please keep on topic/
Eh... some Israelis might say that the Palestinians are torturers by refusing to live side by side with two independent states. But that goes back to my point about torture being a point of view. By your definition, anybody who goes through a bad experience where they were coerced into something can claim to be tortured. I was tortured once by state troopers to make me pay a five year old speeding ticket.
your convenient definition of torture below implies the side you pick to win has a right to torture by the way you limit the aggressor to a controlling authority. so the underdog doesn't have the same set of moral criteria to act by? in my opinion, picking the side you want to win is not adequate criteria to allow torture.
-the violent deliberate aggression of a person associated to the state/controlling authority against another's body
or, from google if it helps put this in a more relevant context:
tor·ture
ˈtôrCHər/
noun
noun: torture
1.
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.
“so the underdog doesn't have the same set of moral criteria to act by?”
Damn straight, which is why I grow so exasperated with people like Tammuz who always defend Palestine. You claim moral superiority because you're the underdog, yet you never seem to actually hold your side to any morals.
There’s no flag bumpersticker on our car these days; it’s a time of deep shame for Americans. And it should be. The Senate’s report on CIA torture is a landmark in the course of American status in the world. The report shows we can be brutal bastards, that the cruelty and sadism went well past even the official benchmarks of acceptable behavior set by the thugs at the top. It’s a national disgrace. Even Senator Feinstein’s courage in exposing it has been overshadowed by the absurd conversations from Americans who oppose its exposure: Wolf Blitzer saying it has aided ISIS. Thereby defiling the First Amendment, by which he prospers. John McCain’s great speech applauding the disclosure has been overshadowed by all the Republicans who oppose it and the reporters prevaricating about whether terrorizing a prisoner and dragging him naked through the cold is torture. White House press secretary Josh Earnest’s effort to restore “the moral authority of the United States around the world” at the White House press conference today looked like something out of SNL or South Park.
.........................................
Just a note though: There is nothing great about John McCain.
Im smiling because of the irony - what with various US authorities bleeding everyone's ears about its foes human rights track records.
. And, I do hate American foreign policy and i hate the dog eat dog economic system it spearheads. I hate its selfish murderous wars abroad -many in my region- and its hypocrisies. However, ive met fabulously friendly americans, and there are fantastic american authors, writers, poets, architects. So, stop being childish with your inane "you hate america" nonsense ...or go play with your Captain America figurine.
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Tammuz, I'd like to say please forgive the apologists in America, but I can't, precisely because they are too many to count. You are correct about American foreign policy; it's abhorrent.
thanks for the alternate definition beta, but i don't see how that's materially different in the context of the conversation from the one i gave. was there a nuance i'm not picking up?
You've got it backwards Tammuz. It's ironic that three of the world's worst countries (as far as human rights go) are condemning the U.S for OUR actions. That makes no sense whatsoever. Idiocy doesn't make me smile, Tammuz.
Curt, no, but I like citing legal sources, in case numb nuts feel like parsing crap. I've read a little Chomsky and he talks about terrorism, and how our government spells out and defined what is terrorism, and how based on our own definition, we're terrorists.
CdArch actually you have it wrong. We're the ones protesting their abuses, and we're claiming moral high ground, they're just pointing the finger back at us, saying we're no better than them, and if we're going to torture, then we can't claim moral superiority.
Seriouslee, I still haven't seen your example where torture is acceptable, why is that? I'll answer that for you; you don't have one that can stand a first graders scrutiny.
SeriousQ, I also feel comfortable saying that the U.S. system in its ideal form is morally superior to North Korea's. When we torture people, we are not operating under our own ideals, and therefore are not morally superior. How can you not agree with this logic?
Actually, I'm pretty secure in my knowledge that torture is illegal and should never be used. Now, go. Since you think you have an example where it can be used. I'll walk you through your simplistic and naive example.
I'm sorry you're so frustrated, Donna! Maybe you should remind me about how execution and torture are different and how the world fits into a neat set of analytical boxes. Whatever mental contortions you need to perform so that your "liberal" worldview isn't challenged.
A terrorist group has planted a powerful, destructive bomb underneath a large office building that houses several thousand private sector workers. Among those workers, 60% of them are parents, and there's also a day care center with a number of young children. If the bomb does explode, thousands will die. The bomb will go off in sixty seconds and you have one of the terrorists in your custody. He is the only person who knows how to disarm the bomb. The terrorist refuses to speak unless you inflict physical pain.
Is torture justified or unjustified in that situation?
jla, I know it's an outlandish fact pattern! But do you know about the multitude of actual fact patterns that exist in terms of global terrorism? All I'm getting at is that this isn't black and white.
probably shouldn't be comparing the US and North Korea's 'moral superiority.'
you would have to first establish what's moral. in the case of torture, i think it's a lot easier to say that it isn't moral. however, divorce is immoral for a lot of people, as is eating meat, and any number of other things that i might not be consider immoral.
also, i think your logic might be mistaken donna. "superior" implies there is a comparison. if we limit moral comparisons to torture, then you could say that if north korea tortures more people per capita, or tortures them more often, then the US would be morally superior right? We don't know much about North Korea, but i think the way they treat their citizens, including torture at prisons, is not good.
here's a source for korea's invovlment in torture, if you like cnn;
when we allow torture, the US is acting in an immoral way, and that's enough. saying that it's acceptable to compare our government to that of north korea is not the right direction to take the conversation, because we can do a lot better, and we are doing a lot better.
and lets be clear, there is a huge difference between justifications for human vs state sanctioned behavior. If someone hurt my kids I would kill them slowely and painfully but would not want that to be sanctioned by the state. the states power needs to be limited and its moral compass (as an idea or ideal) needs to be above that of an ordinary human. The state (as a structure) ideal must be uncompromisably humane even if it is run by ordinary humans.
Turn to Page 136 in After the Cataclysm in which Chomsky asserts that the death count during the Cambodian genocide was "inflated" by Western powers trying to absolve themselves of imperialism.
Enjoy your Friday doing bathroom details while listening to Democracy Now.
Yes and no. desent matter, depends on personal beliefs. Humans are variable, the state is designed to serve as the constant. Revenge is human, individualistic, emotional, and circumstantial. Its not part of a national protocol. thats very different.
right and wrong is morally and philosophically subjective among human beings which is why we have a state in the first place to act as a standard objective metric.
SeriousQ, you just deflected a very sincere question on my part by belittling and labeling me, and stating the nonsensical vocabulary position that torture and execution are the same thing.
Let me be clear and reiterate what I said: the U.S. *in its ideal state* is morally superior to states/forms of government that don't protect human rights as does our constitution. When we torture we're not living up to our own ideals and thus negate that superiority (and a whole lot of other shit we do negates it, too, but we're talking about torture right now.)
Wow....this is some visceral discussion isn't it! Not surprising eh? So let me chime in also. My view is that semantics are not too interesting here nor is the discussion of whether torture works or not. First semantics of what is torture and what is not is not interesting. The reality is that people were put into position of enduring pain in order to yield information. Call it anything you like...that was the plan. Whether it works or not is not interesting either. If someone is ok with causing pain as a way to get information then as long as they "think" it might yield information, why not do it?
So, I think the issue is simple. Do you condone hurting people to get what you want, no matter what it is you want? If you do then this stuff is ok. If you don't then it is reprehensible.
I would submit that many people are perfectly happy causing pain to get results....sometimes it is physical pain (ever get beaten with a belt as a kid?) or mental anguish (I don't like what you did so I'm not going to speak to you anymore...so take that!). As soon as someone is put in a position of power where they can do these things and have no consequences they most likely will.
They only thing stopping them is morality....and let's face it as a group we are not on a moral high ground. So, only our laws stop us (corporately) from behaving this way. When the laws fail, the morals fail. The CIA became above the law and it appears it will remain above the law. Very sad.
Getting back to the legal issues, what we have here are gross violations of both domestic and international law.
The US is a signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which specifies (among other things):
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Under domestic law we can refer to U.S Code Title 18 Part 1 Ch. 113C: TORTURE
§2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.—Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.—A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
Thus those who set the policy are as complicit as those who directly committed the acts.
Responsible thing to do as a US citizen or as a civilized person would be to hold a mirror to US government and look into that mirror as a society. I never thought of comparisons. Finding worst abuses in other countries, places or regimes is not going to exonerate our behavior as a civil society. The civility we claim is not an automatic entitlement. In my experience as an American citizen for thirty years I observed and lived with.., that our government's actions aren't necessarily reflecting what many Americans would like them to be. The problem is really our inability as a society to change or be represented in our political system. No matter what the people think, at the end it is usually "business as usual." Many Americans are comfortably pacified and have chosen peripheral life under the policies and actions taken by our own market and special interest driven political and economic machinery that is trying to swim and protect its hegemony against the unprecedented changes entire world is going through.
Theoretically, the so called enemy is much more adapt, resilient and contemporary in fighting for their cause. They have the new ideas for fighting a 21st. century war unlike our exterminator type military industrial 'complexed' armies.
USA's brut and clandestine forces are not interested in making the world better place but imperially control it for the benefit of our faltering and vulnerable economy that is far gone from from fair profit to siphoning from the working class under the disguises of 'lifestyle / the way we live' marketing and 'democracy.'
We have no right to go in and destroy cities, communities and lives for our interests in places most of our population is not capable of pointing on the map. I don't want my tax dollar to go into financing such policies I am opposed to. I rather live a much less materialistic life in America with our local and national resources. As a society that is what we should be concentrate on making it happen. That is where the new ideas are going to come from and that is how we are going to make lives better. Americans are kept away from seeing the facts as they are manipulated and twisted by the experts in the media. We don't even know how unfair and brutal we are to many societies and nations of the world. Look how we are obsessively punishing, for decades, a beautiful island nation of Cuba.
Did we put any tangible infrastructure in Iraq for its people starting a new happier future? No. The place is a divided country with internal wars. How about Afghanistan? Libya? This how the world seeing us through our actions in those places. Did we ever attempted to "really" resolve Israel Palestinian situation other than automatically vetoing every security council and general assembly resolution of the UN? No, because all we want from that region is cheap oil and keep it unstable for easier manipulation. The reason we went to war in Iraq was not because Saddam was a brutal dictator who persecuted his own people and was going to spray Americans with poison gas hidden in black and white satellite photos, no, but he wanted to make sure he controlled his nation's oil wealth and raise its market value. He was originally encouraged to invade Kuwait because that was going to make him the clear and marked enemy to dispose for more lenient puppet regime. Coalition of the willing was quickly assembled rather flawlessly. Everybody was interested for the cheap oil. Interestingly, European nations who participated in those 90's decided to go and concentrate on petroleum free production of energy even more rigorously. They learned. Europeans are much more educated and better off than we are. They are ultimately less of a consumer society than we are, and always investing all they can in their more sustainable life choices both now and in the future, both technologically and culturally.
Right now we are pretty much fuck'd and surviving on borrowed money and time which we are fast running out of.
I disagree with the whole insipid before and after mythical rhetoric (before we were good, now we are bad) especially given the very short life of American "democracy". I mean, there was a lot of rottenness in the fight against communism (or more precisely, for American hegemony in that era) to say the least, and that preceded 9/11 and the red herring fights against terrorism and yet another threat to Captain America's big phallus. Nonetheless, some good points
Can we quit pretending torture is some huge aberration? It fits into a larger pattern of America's imperial decay
Torture apologists fall into the same epistemological error — and the same existential nihilism, you might say — when they announce that they don’t care how many eggs get broken as long as we are kept safe. (Then there’s the wimpier, “moderate” Obama administration version, which is every bit as offensive: Without quite endorsing what did or did not happen, we’re going to agree never to think about it again.) First of all, we’re almost certainly less safe. More important than that, the criminal acts meant to keep us safe have stripped us bare before the whole world as a lawless and decadent empire that doesn’t look as if it’s worth saving.
In order to save democracy, the torturers had to destroy it.
As if a response to the above, this is good reading, especially for you if you hold that the US underwent some kind of plastic surgery to make it more ugly, and if you maintain that there is some sort of ideal America that is being compromised (as if, thus, America were inherently a better country -and an ethically better defined country- than many others): a liberal version of American exceptionalism - if, to contrast, the neoconservative version of American exceptionalism views torture and the like as necessary to protect this so-called idea of America. In my opinion, imperial hubris on both sides of the divide.
I have been keeping out of this one, but the happening of today made me have second thoughts.
132 children and nine staff members, including the principal of Army Public School died. The death toll is now at 141, making it the deadliest terror attack in the country's history.
Do you think these terrorist were thinking about how they would shake anyone down, to gain more access to information?
Snooker, do you think terrorists are likely to give up information, in a scenario, where a bomb has been placed under a school occupied by 132 students, and 60 faculty? If their goal is to kill many, what possible means could one use, to dislodge the code, or wire cutting pattern, to disarm the weapon? How long would that take, how many people??
Barbaric
Torture and execution are different hings, and one is being done by the United States, who claims to be better than such actions.
The US executes, too, and I also think that is a barbaric practice and against human rights. tammuz's initial very long post is very accurate: at root level of human rights these things are wrong, period. When any party says one thing then does another, like the US does, that's another kind of wrong.
Xian, we are not talking about past wrong. It is a continual chain of wrongs continuing to date. We are talking about a continual torture by a colonizing state and, in response, the fight against it in the form of resistance. I am not a pacificist and I believe in the right to violently respond to a violent oppressor. In the Israel/Palestine analogy, it is Israel itself that plays the role of torturer, historical and current. This is why my stance is consistent...and this is why SeriousQuestion's stance is also consistent. I am against torture and oppression and with the right to fight against it. SeriousQuestion is with the use of torture and oppression and is against the right to fight against it.
Her or his example, meant to elicit a contradiction within my stance apropos this topic, is being deliberately presented in a decontextualized manner. Hamas were responding to a war against Palestinians (and not just against Hamas). That is a much more complex matter and context than the CIA torturing here and there and has a narrative of colonialism and resistance. It is also an argument better suited to another thread on this forum.
Finally, Donna is correct on that technical differentiation. Lets please keep on topic/
Eh... some Israelis might say that the Palestinians are torturers by refusing to live side by side with two independent states. But that goes back to my point about torture being a point of view. By your definition, anybody who goes through a bad experience where they were coerced into something can claim to be tortured. I was tortured once by state troopers to make me pay a five year old speeding ticket.
your convenient definition of torture below implies the side you pick to win has a right to torture by the way you limit the aggressor to a controlling authority. so the underdog doesn't have the same set of moral criteria to act by? in my opinion, picking the side you want to win is not adequate criteria to allow torture.
-the violent deliberate aggression of a person associated to the state/controlling authority against another's body
or, from google if it helps put this in a more relevant context:
tor·ture
ˈtôrCHər/
noun
noun: torture
1.
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.
synonyms:infliction of pain, abuse, ill-treatment, maltreatment, persecution;sadism
"acts of torture"
great physical or mental suffering or anxiety.
"the torture I've gone through because of loving you so"
synonyms:torment, agony, suffering, pain, anguish, misery, distress, heartbreak, affliction, scourge, trauma, wretchedness; Morehell, purgatory
"the torture of losing a loved one"
a cause of suffering or anxiety.
plural noun: tortures
"dances were absolute torture because I was so small"
verb
verb: torture; 3rd person present: tortures; past tense: tortured; past participle: tortured; gerund or present participle: torturing
1.
inflict severe pain on.
"most of the victims had been brutally tortured"
synonyms:inflict pain on, ill-treat, abuse, mistreat, maltreat, persecute
"they have tortured suspects in order to extract confessions"
“so the underdog doesn't have the same set of moral criteria to act by?”
Damn straight, which is why I grow so exasperated with people like Tammuz who always defend Palestine. You claim moral superiority because you're the underdog, yet you never seem to actually hold your side to any morals.
Enter tammuz, exit reason and sanity.
Enter Miles Jaffe, enter snarky vapidity
........................
A read:
There’s no flag bumpersticker on our car these days; it’s a time of deep shame for Americans. And it should be. The Senate’s report on CIA torture is a landmark in the course of American status in the world. The report shows we can be brutal bastards, that the cruelty and sadism went well past even the official benchmarks of acceptable behavior set by the thugs at the top. It’s a national disgrace. Even Senator Feinstein’s courage in exposing it has been overshadowed by the absurd conversations from Americans who oppose its exposure: Wolf Blitzer saying it has aided ISIS. Thereby defiling the First Amendment, by which he prospers. John McCain’s great speech applauding the disclosure has been overshadowed by all the Republicans who oppose it and the reporters prevaricating about whether terrorizing a prisoner and dragging him naked through the cold is torture. White House press secretary Josh Earnest’s effort to restore “the moral authority of the United States around the world” at the White House press conference today looked like something out of SNL or South Park.
.........................................
Just a note though: There is nothing great about John McCain.
this draws a smile though
You would smile. You hate America.
Im smiling because of the irony - what with various US authorities bleeding everyone's ears about its foes human rights track records.
. And, I do hate American foreign policy and i hate the dog eat dog economic system it spearheads. I hate its selfish murderous wars abroad -many in my region- and its hypocrisies. However, ive met fabulously friendly americans, and there are fantastic american authors, writers, poets, architects. So, stop being childish with your inane "you hate america" nonsense ...or go play with your Captain America figurine.
Torture, not Webster
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Tammuz, I'd like to say please forgive the apologists in America, but I can't, precisely because they are too many to count. You are correct about American foreign policy; it's abhorrent.
Ok, I might have exaggerated a bit with the 'great architects'. Joke. Maybe...
Tammuz hating America and me being an apologist are not part and parcel.
I'm critical of US foreign policy. Tammuz still hates America.
thanks for the alternate definition beta, but i don't see how that's materially different in the context of the conversation from the one i gave. was there a nuance i'm not picking up?
Here comes the Chomsky cite. Everyone bow to the infallible scholar.
I feel comfortable in asserting US moral superiority to North Korea, but who's asking?
Why don't you offer a hypothetical and we can work through the analysis together? I know you'll need some hand-holding.
SeriousQ, I also feel comfortable saying that the U.S. system in its ideal form is morally superior to North Korea's. When we torture people, we are not operating under our own ideals, and therefore are not morally superior. How can you not agree with this logic?
I'm sorry you're so frustrated, Donna! Maybe you should remind me about how execution and torture are different and how the world fits into a neat set of analytical boxes. Whatever mental contortions you need to perform so that your "liberal" worldview isn't challenged.
Here's a hypo:
A terrorist group has planted a powerful, destructive bomb underneath a large office building that houses several thousand private sector workers. Among those workers, 60% of them are parents, and there's also a day care center with a number of young children. If the bomb does explode, thousands will die. The bomb will go off in sixty seconds and you have one of the terrorists in your custody. He is the only person who knows how to disarm the bomb. The terrorist refuses to speak unless you inflict physical pain.
Is torture justified or unjustified in that situation?
I'm also comfortable saying that the U.S., even with these instances of torture, is still superior to North Korea. And I don't support torture.
Also, beta (good name for you)-- Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge. Maybe you should read some history books and put down the pseudo-philosophy.
justified but that is never the case. thats a silly hollywood movie staring nicholas cage not real life.
jla, I know it's an outlandish fact pattern! But do you know about the multitude of actual fact patterns that exist in terms of global terrorism? All I'm getting at is that this isn't black and white.
probably shouldn't be comparing the US and North Korea's 'moral superiority.'
you would have to first establish what's moral. in the case of torture, i think it's a lot easier to say that it isn't moral. however, divorce is immoral for a lot of people, as is eating meat, and any number of other things that i might not be consider immoral.
also, i think your logic might be mistaken donna. "superior" implies there is a comparison. if we limit moral comparisons to torture, then you could say that if north korea tortures more people per capita, or tortures them more often, then the US would be morally superior right? We don't know much about North Korea, but i think the way they treat their citizens, including torture at prisons, is not good.
here's a source for korea's invovlment in torture, if you like cnn;
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/world/asia/north-korea-un-report/
when we allow torture, the US is acting in an immoral way, and that's enough. saying that it's acceptable to compare our government to that of north korea is not the right direction to take the conversation, because we can do a lot better, and we are doing a lot better.
and lets be clear, there is a huge difference between justifications for human vs state sanctioned behavior. If someone hurt my kids I would kill them slowely and painfully but would not want that to be sanctioned by the state. the states power needs to be limited and its moral compass (as an idea or ideal) needs to be above that of an ordinary human. The state (as a structure) ideal must be uncompromisably humane even if it is run by ordinary humans.
So vigilante justice is superior. Got it.
Arrogant and stupid. What a catch.
Turn to Page 136 in After the Cataclysm in which Chomsky asserts that the death count during the Cambodian genocide was "inflated" by Western powers trying to absolve themselves of imperialism.
Enjoy your Friday doing bathroom details while listening to Democracy Now.
Yes and no. desent matter, depends on personal beliefs. Humans are variable, the state is designed to serve as the constant. Revenge is human, individualistic, emotional, and circumstantial. Its not part of a national protocol. thats very different.
right and wrong is morally and philosophically subjective among human beings which is why we have a state in the first place to act as a standard objective metric.
On the khmer rouge...and purported moral superiority "How the US Backed a Regime of Unrivaled Barbarism Who Supported the Khmer Rouge?" http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/16/who-supported-the-khmer-rouge/
Wow....this is some visceral discussion isn't it! Not surprising eh? So let me chime in also. My view is that semantics are not too interesting here nor is the discussion of whether torture works or not. First semantics of what is torture and what is not is not interesting. The reality is that people were put into position of enduring pain in order to yield information. Call it anything you like...that was the plan. Whether it works or not is not interesting either. If someone is ok with causing pain as a way to get information then as long as they "think" it might yield information, why not do it?
So, I think the issue is simple. Do you condone hurting people to get what you want, no matter what it is you want? If you do then this stuff is ok. If you don't then it is reprehensible.
I would submit that many people are perfectly happy causing pain to get results....sometimes it is physical pain (ever get beaten with a belt as a kid?) or mental anguish (I don't like what you did so I'm not going to speak to you anymore...so take that!). As soon as someone is put in a position of power where they can do these things and have no consequences they most likely will.
They only thing stopping them is morality....and let's face it as a group we are not on a moral high ground. So, only our laws stop us (corporately) from behaving this way. When the laws fail, the morals fail. The CIA became above the law and it appears it will remain above the law. Very sad.
Ken
www.kenneslandlandscaping.com
Ken Nesland Landscaping Seattle
Getting back to the legal issues, what we have here are gross violations of both domestic and international law.
The US is a signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which specifies (among other things):
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Under domestic law we can refer to U.S Code Title 18 Part 1 Ch. 113C: TORTURE
§2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.—Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.—A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
Thus those who set the policy are as complicit as those who directly committed the acts.
Responsible thing to do as a US citizen or as a civilized person would be to hold a mirror to US government and look into that mirror as a society. I never thought of comparisons. Finding worst abuses in other countries, places or regimes is not going to exonerate our behavior as a civil society. The civility we claim is not an automatic entitlement. In my experience as an American citizen for thirty years I observed and lived with.., that our government's actions aren't necessarily reflecting what many Americans would like them to be. The problem is really our inability as a society to change or be represented in our political system. No matter what the people think, at the end it is usually "business as usual." Many Americans are comfortably pacified and have chosen peripheral life under the policies and actions taken by our own market and special interest driven political and economic machinery that is trying to swim and protect its hegemony against the unprecedented changes entire world is going through.
Theoretically, the so called enemy is much more adapt, resilient and contemporary in fighting for their cause. They have the new ideas for fighting a 21st. century war unlike our exterminator type military industrial 'complexed' armies.
USA's brut and clandestine forces are not interested in making the world better place but imperially control it for the benefit of our faltering and vulnerable economy that is far gone from from fair profit to siphoning from the working class under the disguises of 'lifestyle / the way we live' marketing and 'democracy.'
We have no right to go in and destroy cities, communities and lives for our interests in places most of our population is not capable of pointing on the map. I don't want my tax dollar to go into financing such policies I am opposed to. I rather live a much less materialistic life in America with our local and national resources. As a society that is what we should be concentrate on making it happen. That is where the new ideas are going to come from and that is how we are going to make lives better. Americans are kept away from seeing the facts as they are manipulated and twisted by the experts in the media. We don't even know how unfair and brutal we are to many societies and nations of the world. Look how we are obsessively punishing, for decades, a beautiful island nation of Cuba.
Did we put any tangible infrastructure in Iraq for its people starting a new happier future? No. The place is a divided country with internal wars. How about Afghanistan? Libya? This how the world seeing us through our actions in those places. Did we ever attempted to "really" resolve Israel Palestinian situation other than automatically vetoing every security council and general assembly resolution of the UN? No, because all we want from that region is cheap oil and keep it unstable for easier manipulation. The reason we went to war in Iraq was not because Saddam was a brutal dictator who persecuted his own people and was going to spray Americans with poison gas hidden in black and white satellite photos, no, but he wanted to make sure he controlled his nation's oil wealth and raise its market value. He was originally encouraged to invade Kuwait because that was going to make him the clear and marked enemy to dispose for more lenient puppet regime. Coalition of the willing was quickly assembled rather flawlessly. Everybody was interested for the cheap oil. Interestingly, European nations who participated in those 90's decided to go and concentrate on petroleum free production of energy even more rigorously. They learned. Europeans are much more educated and better off than we are. They are ultimately less of a consumer society than we are, and always investing all they can in their more sustainable life choices both now and in the future, both technologically and culturally.
Right now we are pretty much fuck'd and surviving on borrowed money and time which we are fast running out of.
I disagree with the whole insipid before and after mythical rhetoric (before we were good, now we are bad) especially given the very short life of American "democracy". I mean, there was a lot of rottenness in the fight against communism (or more precisely, for American hegemony in that era) to say the least, and that preceded 9/11 and the red herring fights against terrorism and yet another threat to Captain America's big phallus. Nonetheless, some good points
From
Dick Cheney’s dark victory: Torture and the demise of American democracy
Can we quit pretending torture is some huge aberration? It fits into a larger pattern of America's imperial decay
Torture apologists fall into the same epistemological error — and the same existential nihilism, you might say — when they announce that they don’t care how many eggs get broken as long as we are kept safe. (Then there’s the wimpier, “moderate” Obama administration version, which is every bit as offensive: Without quite endorsing what did or did not happen, we’re going to agree never to think about it again.) First of all, we’re almost certainly less safe. More important than that, the criminal acts meant to keep us safe have stripped us bare before the whole world as a lawless and decadent empire that doesn’t look as if it’s worth saving.
In order to save democracy, the torturers had to destroy it.
As if a response to the above, this is good reading, especially for you if you hold that the US underwent some kind of plastic surgery to make it more ugly, and if you maintain that there is some sort of ideal America that is being compromised (as if, thus, America were inherently a better country -and an ethically better defined country- than many others): a liberal version of American exceptionalism - if, to contrast, the neoconservative version of American exceptionalism views torture and the like as necessary to protect this so-called idea of America. In my opinion, imperial hubris on both sides of the divide.
Torture is who we are: A country, like a person, is what it does.
correction: so-called ideal
via intercept;
THE CHARMED LIFE OF A CIA TORTURER: HOW FATE DIVERGED FOR MATTHEW ZIRBEL, AKA CIA OFFICER 1, AND GUL RAHMAN
I have been keeping out of this one, but the happening of today made me have second thoughts.
132 children and nine staff members, including the principal of Army Public School died. The death toll is now at 141, making it the deadliest terror attack in the country's history.
Do you think these terrorist were thinking about how they would shake anyone down, to gain more access to information?
S-d-d, should we compare ourselves to these monsters? I think not. There is a good number of innocent people have been subjected to torture.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.