Leviathan's Boring Sorta-Blog

ok... you know i'm hopeless at this stuff.

but my honest answer?

DUH!!!

honestly? i think that your nation's government lost it's claim to having a 'moral high ground' a LONG time ago.

Are you messing with poor Condoleeza Umbridge again? It's the Imperius Curse, must be; I can't deal with the possibility that any Black woman has time to be that stupid.

But what did you expect? This country is divorced from reality. *shakes had sadly*

I really need to renew my passport. Just in case.

There are so very many things wrong with this...yes, in this country we are asking people to please define "torture" but the biggest problem is that people like Rice, Cheney and Bush are being seen around the world as great legal minds...

But what really pisses me off, is they have actually convinced me that just questioning them makes me unpatriotic...just making this comment makes me feel that I am letting my country down...how the hell did they do that!!

Problem number one with this, in my opinion, is that no nation in the world has the right to declare themselves 'moral leader' (or, as is more apt, 'moral police'). Doing so is arrogant, pompous and, well... immoral, actually. Morality is subjective to cultural values and traditions. Things that offend our sense of morality (yes, I said our, because it's kind of silly to pretend we aren't talking about the United States, isn't it?) may be fully within the realm of acceptable, expected or even honourable in other cultures. And, of course, the opposite is true as well. Do we, as a nation, ever stop to consider this? Of course not. We're almost comically ethnocentric. It might be funny, if it weren't so damn sad.

Problem number two with this is that we apparently can't even define our own moral standards. If we can't do that - even if we had the right to impose our values and beliefs on other people (which we don't) - we have no place whatsoever in dictating what is 'right' to others.

Problem number three is that the "great legal thinker" apparently had a public relations specialist write his answers for him. That's the biggest cop-out I've heard since I worked PR.

But to answer the questions you actually asked - yes and hell yes.

I really don't see how we can be doing something when we DON'T KNOW if it is torture. We promise that we don't do torture. Do we need to change it to 'well sometimes we do, do torture but only until we know for sure that it is torture then we stop'. If there is a question the ethical thing is to not do it. We are really talking about Human rights here. We really can't say sorry for torturing someone later on, sorry just does not cut it in that situation.
Not to mention that they should know what they are doing at all times when people’s lives are in the balance. “I don’t know” is a cop out and a ‘cover my ass’ statement.

It probably is.

The dilema for the security forces is:

Is the abuse of the rights of one individual worth the lives of a thousand others?

Does your responsibility to your law abiding citizens overide the person rights of some one who's clearly indicated that he has no respect for those rights in others.

The function of society rests on the notion that everyone respects the rights of others. We remove people who don't respect the rights of others are removed from our society and their rights are normally curtailed in (one hopes) a severity which reflects their crime.

Petty criminals lose their freedom and franchise. Murderers forfeit their lives.

Terrorists attack not only the physical, they also attack the fabric of society, they effect our ability to pursue happiness.

What rights should they forfeit?

The devil is of course in the detail, who becomes the warden, the executioner?

And then there's the issue of due process.

It's a buggering ethical minefield.

I don't think torture does work.

To answer your question in the absolute. No, you don't become Stasi in defence of liberty.

However you need then to ensure that those freedoms you're defending aren't eroded by appeasement.

To protect your freedoms, don't let anyone impede your exercise of them.

Sometimes I feel like Bush and DarthVP read too many Tom Clancy novels, and now fancy themselves in the Jack Ryan role. *Shakes head despairingly**
I agree that if you are going to stand where our nation historically has, then the answer to the question is an emphatic Torture is wrong.
Your last sentence said it best 'an ethical government should eschew it?'.
We have not had an ethical government since Bush bought his first term in office. The AG we just got rid of was a moral three year old, who thought he should be able to grin and say I don't remember". The party that proclaims its' family values is riddled with pedophiles, high risk sexual habitues, and good old fashioned brothel regulars.
Ethical Government has been off the table for some time. I'm not saying the Democrats are all angels. Far from it, they recall Macdonald; 'the best lack conviction, given some time to think, and the worst are full of passion without mercy'. The thing that heartens me the most; reading all of the comments and knowing I'm not the only one here watching in numb disbelief. I'm writing the Democratic leadership of the house and senate today, and telling my local legislators (for whom I did not vote) what I think of their leader and their policy.
Ooo, big, bad housewife writing a letter, you say? You bet your ass I am. These are the tools I have, and I will by God use them. Evil prospers when good men say nothing, so lets start shouting!!! I don't want to see more service people die so Bush can live in Pretty!Republican World. I am terrified that our country will go to war with Iraq. I'll start with the tools I have, raise my voice, and scream with all my might until the silence me. Come on, y'all. How hard is it to google your representatives and shoot 'em an email? Not violent, well written, strong vitriol that gives them clear definitions to work with? Wanna get started on your own FBI file?