Where's The Outcry Over Torture And Murder Of Our Soldiers?

[Dror]

Look, I am not giving soldiers who do bad things a pass. But I will say that trauma can cause people to do things completely outside their character.

You're right, trauma can cause people to do things outside their character. Unfortunately, I know that all too well, having personal experience with it. (Sorry, but I don't feel up to going into details.)

Cop does job and hands out a citation and gives directions to a lost tourist.

Soldier goes on patrol, finds and disarms three IED's.

Priest delivers communion and nice Sunday service, helps teen who has crush on girl.

Firefighter goes to a call where a woman thought she smelled gas. Goes out of way to make her not feel embarrassed when there is no gas leak.

These daily events are not newsworthy or sexy, but they are done by many soldiers, cops, priests, and firefighters...many more than the bad deeds.

Yeah, those good deeds are not perceived by many as 'sexy' or newsworthy. However, I am getting tired enough of the bad news, and depressed by it, that I am becoming more interested in stories like those you listed. Sometimes I get depressed by how bad the world seems, other times I'm amazed that it's doing as well as it is (at least where I live), and that so many people do so many kind things, all over the world.

You seem like a genuine person, CaptainTux, and a good one.

Dror

[Dror]

I won't pretend to be an expert about healthcare policy. It's incredibly complicated. My only point is that you don't see people rallying to a particular solution, because there are no simple ones out there. I'm one of the blessed ones. I pay roughly $2400 per year, my agency pays another $7600 for my family's health insurance. And, as decent as it is, I took at $1200 in an untaxed health account this year, and it's already almost gone (for copays and otc meds). What a mess we're in, but what to rally around?

That's a copout: "It's too complicated, we can't do anything about it." The thing I probably like the most about FDR was his pragmatism and willingness to experiment. Rather than giving up, he would try something. If it didn't work (which it frequently didn't), he would move on and try something else, until he found something that helped. The Depression was terribly complicated, but FDR had a "can do" attitude. Some of the things he brought about were good, and others were duds. Ultimately, it was WWII that brought the country out of the economic depression, but before that FDR made a good-faith effort to turn things around, and he gave the people hope. We need a leader like that today, not someone who relys on fear to get people's support.

You asked why abortion stirs the hearts and emotions of many conservatives, and healthcare does not--there is no easy, emotionally compelling solution to rally around.

Maybe we should vote in leaders who are willing to come up with a solution. The potential for a solution to rally around is certainly there. Plenty of Americans are aware of, and personally affected by, the healthcare crisis, and should someone come up with a plan, surely people would be interested.

Does human life begin at conception?

It's a pretty safe bet. Once the life form begins to grow, we know how it comes out. Arguments for a later date--viability etc. are based on convenience. Most agree we ought to give life the benefit of the doubt.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. If by "most agree we ought to give life the benefit of the doubt" you mean that most Americans are against abortion, I don't think you get out much. There's a reason why abortion is legal--people want the option.

I find it frankly evil to say that an unborn child is in competition with his/her mother. In what % of cases is this actually so? Likely less than one. Furthermore, most prolifers would be willing to concede that if a mother's life were at risk, then yes, the child could be aborted to save hers. But, again, such instances are incredibly rare.

I find it frankly evil to arbitrarily save the life of a fetus while ignoring the mother's well-being. Why do women always get shorted? Many "pro-lifers" probably do agree that abortion should be allowed in certain cases. However, I've met too many who would not allow for it under any circumstances, claiming that abortion is murder, period. Your assertion that instances where the mother is actually in danger are incredibly rare seems to me like an assumption. Having said that, I do recognize that abortions of convenience are too common, and we should work to reduce them. However, I do not think a ban is the way to go about it. Rather, we need to eliminate the reasons people have abortions, and offer viable alternatives to abortion, including making adoption easier. I think that sometimes what we call "abortions of convenience" are acts of desperation, when a woman doesn't have the support she needs, feels unable to see the pregnancy and birth through to the end, feels incapable of taking care of the baby after it's born. While abortion may not be the best choice, I think compassion for women in difficult circumstances is in order, and help dealing with their problems, rather than condemnation and taking their choice away. That may even help reduce the abortion rate, if women feel they have an adequate support system.

Keep the execution of unborn children safe and legal??? I think not. Again, most prolifers would allow exceptions for preserving the mother's life. Most would also grant exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. That's the "middle ground" for most prolifers.

It seems to me that calling abortion the "execution of unborn children" would disallow any exceptions to a ban on abortion. Maybe you'd like to change your wording?

You sweep over the legitimate debate over which proposals to regulate actually would significantly reduce pollution, which proposals would prove too expensive, how much of a break do developing countries get, how much of global warming is really caused by humanity vs. normal cycles, etc. You want to conserve, conserve. Buy a smaller car, recycle, etc. But, when you start proposing increased taxes, regulations that will cost jobs, etc. you've got some proving to do, and the rallying gets muddled.

That's what it always comes down to, isn't it?--life in exchange for money. I don't know that anti-pollution measures would cost jobs, anyway--it may even create jobs.

I don't know where you've been, but the issue of mankind's contribution to global warming is pretty much settled. The only people I hear claiming otherwise are non-scientists who are driven primarily either by ideology instead of evidence, or by money.

Considering how many people kill each other with guns, I think this is a prolife issue. Dynamite is easier to use than cars, too. So is arsenic. Do you let your kids use them? Is it too much to ask for background checks at gun fairs? Why have background checks at stores, but not at fairs? Guess where the criminals will go to get their equipment!

You said license and compared it to driving. I assumed you were wanting to require classes and testing to get the gun. Background checks do seem reasonable imho, and you'll win some conservatives to your side on this issue (mostly urban ones like myself).

Classes and testing on gun safety certainly wouldn't hurt. Actually, when I was in middle school, we had an assembly during which they taught us some basic gun safety. (Never point it at people!)

I hate to say it, but those are rather drab and unsatisfactory answers to serious problems. Do you think the victims would be reassured by them? Do you think those are the only times such things have happened? What about the secret facilities in Eastern Europe? If nothing else, those sorts of "scandals" undermine the "war on terror" by fueling the insurgency and possibly other terrorists, and alienating potential allies. But, if you want to try passing it off as "foolishness that got way out of hand"...

Again, in a war against an enemy that threatens to inflict mass casualties on civilians, and will use any means necessary, including public beheadings, the fact that some soldiers went overboard and took dirty pictures, and humiliated prisoners in unprofessional manner, pales in comparison--especially since authorities are prosecuting those responsible.

Minimizing. Also, it seems the easiest way to justify poor behavior is to demonize the enemy. Yes, the enemy does horrible things, much more frequently and generally much more serious stuff than our people do. But that's not an excuse. "They did that, so it's not so bad if we do a little of it, too." It's not about them--it's about us. We cannot control what they do, but can control our own actions.

The issue of using "extraordinary measures" to extract intelligence that may save mass civilian populations is a tough one. None of us is privy to the information our services have. We keep watch, but give them the benefit of the doubt vs. the Middle Eastern press, which is looking for any excuse to berate us.

"Extraordinary measures," eh? Convenient euphemism. Hope it makes you feel better.

IMHO the Revolutionary War was extreme, and worth the price. Nobody relishes employing painful methods to gather information that will save 1000s of lives, but, yes, it may be a necessary and acceptable.

Any war is extreme, and some are worth the price. BTW, are you suggesting the Founders employed torture? And that therefore it's ok? I am aware that the colonists did participate in some pretty barbaric acts. No matter how just the Revolution was (and I do believe it was just), that doesn't condone acting like savages. No matter how just the invasion of Iraq might have been (I believe it was NOT just), that doesn't condone acting like savages, either. Pressing them for information is one thing--torture is another. If McCain, who was a POW and himself suffered torture at the hands of others, is so vehemently against torturing our enemies, why can't the rest of us be against it? He could easily have turned bitter and had no problem torturing America's enemies, even just for revenge, but he is a man of principle, and I admire that.

The ends do not justify the means.

[prisonchaplain]

That's a copout: "It's too complicated, we can't do anything about it."

Not at all. Keep in mind your question: Why conservatives don't get excited about healthcare failures like they do abortion? My answer: the solution to abortion (if it's murder, as conservatives believe it is) is simple. Healthcare offers no moral right/wrong simple answers. I'm not saying we shouldn't address the problem, just answering why the abortion issue draws so much more passion from conservatives.

Maybe we should vote in leaders who are willing to come up with a solution. The potential for a solution to rally around is certainly there. Plenty of Americans are aware of, and personally affected by, the healthcare crisis, and should someone come up with a plan, surely people would be interested.

A counterargument to your FDR example is that with an industry that comprises 17% of the GNP, the devil we know (current system) may be preferable to the devil we don't know (various 'socialized healthcare schemes').

Well, that's a matter of opinion. If by "most agree we ought to give life the benefit of the doubt" you mean that most Americans are against abortion, I don't think you get out much. There's a reason why abortion is legal--people want the option.

Abortion is legal because a few guys in black robes said it must be.

I find it frankly evil to arbitrarily save the life of a fetus while ignoring the mother's well-being. Why do women always get shorted?

EH? No matter how you frame this, the MOMMY VS. BABY scenario is absurd. Unless that baby threatens mommy's life, or the dude raped her or was her daddy/uncle etc., she had some say in the unborn child's existence. I'm not saying it's all her fault, but she's not being shorted if we say "finish what you started."

Many "pro-lifers" probably do agree that abortion should be allowed in certain cases. However, I've met too many who would not allow for it under any circumstances, claiming that abortion is murder, period. Your assertion that instances where the mother is actually in danger are incredibly rare seems to me like an assumption. Having said that, I do recognize that abortions of convenience are too common, and we should work to reduce them. However, I do not think a ban is the way to go about it. Rather, we need to eliminate the reasons people have abortions, and offer viable alternatives to abortion, including making adoption easier. I think that sometimes what we call "abortions of convenience" are acts of desperation, when a woman doesn't have the support she needs, feels unable to see the pregnancy and birth through to the end, feels incapable of taking care of the baby after it's born. While abortion may not be the best choice, I think compassion for women in difficult circumstances is in order, and help dealing with their problems, rather than condemnation and taking their choice away. That may even help reduce the abortion rate, if women feel they have an adequate support system.

If something is wrong, society does not have to make it easy or convenient for would-be violaters to not do the wrong thing. I don't disagree with helping young people who need guidance and assistance, but what I react against is the idea that society owes it to them. Society did not get her pregnant. Any help we give is a gift, a good deed, a mitvah, to use the Hebrew term. BTW, imho such helps are more effective when they come from churches.

We cannot control what they do, but can control our own actions.

And we are and do. That's why we punish our soldiers when they cross the line.

"Extraordinary measures," eh? Convenient euphemism. Hope it makes you feel better.

When do extraordinary measures become torture? I'm not certain, that's why I used the term. I'm trying to be serious here about serious issues that may well involve many thousands of civilian lives. Would you pull a fingernail to save a city?

The ends do not justify the means.

Sometimes they do. It's not nice to pull a fingernail off someone. It hurts terribly. But, I think I'd do it to save a city.

[CaptainTux]

Yeah, those good deeds are not perceived by many as 'sexy' or newsworthy. However, I am getting tired enough of the bad news, and depressed by it, that I am becoming more interested in stories like those you listed. Sometimes I get depressed by how bad the world seems, other times I'm amazed that it's doing as well as it is (at least where I live), and that so many people do so many kind things, all over the world.

You seem like a genuine person, CaptainTux, and a good one.

Dror

Actually, I am quite the reprobate, I merely have good moments .

Anyway, the news is an industry now and you want to get ratings and you want sponsors. This is really nothing new. For decades, this paper has been a democrat paper and that one a republican paper. Editors not only did not hide the fact, but advertised and announced it to attract subscribers who wanted the news presented a certain way and advertisers who wanted to meet a certain demographic.

Today it is more prevalent in tv journalism. If you are a republican, you watch Fox. If you are a Democrat, CNN. If you are tuning in your radio and you are a conservative, you put on Hannity, if a Liberal, Frankin.

So now you have a place to get your news the way you like it, but both groups have to compete for different slants on the same story. The stories have to be attention getting, sensational, shocking, and has to be more twisted than last weeks kidnapping or mysterious spousal death.

I have found a great way to beat the news blues. I subscribe to all three of my local papers. It is awesome to read page one is about a local job fair or community picnic. The sports section will show you that 17 year old Tonya has made it to state in track and the Football team won the homecoming game-GO RAIDERS!

I keep up with current events, but I can tell you far more about the local events in my town than I can tell you about the nation and world. Do you know how good it makes a local to feel when I am buying coffee at the local diner and look at someone and say "Hey, congrats on your engagement. I saw your picture in the paper. I hope you and your wife to be are very happy."

You not only get to read the news, but you get to be a part of it. Even the bad news.

When I read about someone who had a fire, I hit the garage sales with some friends and ask them to donate to Bill Smith and his family on 124 Anystreet who just lost their house to a fire.

[sgallan]

I really resent that charge but I think PC did a good job pointing out the intention I had in starting this thread. This has nothing to do with a pro-war in Iraq v. anti war in Iraq political stance. I am angry that there are organizations that seem quick to condemn (i.e. anything that happens at Gitmo or make a huge issue out of anything negative -- real or perceived -- that our military does) yet don't use much resources in questioning or jumping on the acts of our enemies.

Shouldn't the United States be held to a higher standard than a bunch of terrorist thugs?

[Fiannan]

Shouldn't the United States be held to a higher standard than a bunch of terrorist thugs?

That depends, doesn't it? I'll bet that if a terrorist cell were raided and it was found that the members were going to shoot a stinger missile at an airplane your daughter was on you would be in favor of any sort of torture required to get the captured members to tell where the would-be murderers were at so they could be terminated.

And if we had to hire a group of head-hunters from the local Iraqi population to bring us the murderers of our servicemen then so be it.

[sgallan]

Hey, if you want to be come just like them then so be it. I don't really care. As a nation we've done some pretty horrible things in the past. What's a few more. I am on record - what with our high incarceration rates/treatment of our dissaffected/and so forth - as suggesting we are a pretty brutal nation of peoples ourselves. So if we want to be them..... I am cool with that. It's consistant. We would kinda lose the moral high ground though.

[prisonchaplain]

Sgallan, I'll ask you the same question I asked Dror: Would you countenance our intelligence officers removing fingernails if doing so might save a city?

Few people want our side to use "torture" or "extraordinary measures," but we are fighting an enemy that is willing to inflict mass casualties on unarmed civilians. How do you fight an enemy that recognizes no rules of engagement?

I still oppose "torture." But, I'd probably define the word more narrowly than I would have pre-9/11.

[CaptainTux]

If the removal of fingernails is a violation of the geneva convention, let the city burn.

This applies to a conversation I had with a friend of mine over a year ago on the prospect of wiretapping and certain provisions in the Patriot Act that me (a conservative) unhappy. Ben said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." He was also reported to have said, ""Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Is my privacy more important to me than a car bomb going into a pre school? Without liberty, we are already dead so what is the difference?

Just as I will risk my life and the life of my family in the name of liberty, I will willfully risk my safety if it means that we obtain information correctly and in accord with the principles of what we take pride in.

If we decide it is okay to tap phones an invade homes without proper checks and balances, if we decide it is okay to torture and we become machievellan as a nation...I may burn a flag...that is not my country. That is not my America. I have a contract. That contract is for freedom and liberty and happiness before safety and security. I do not believe that order was accidental.

[prisonchaplain]

If the removal of fingernails is a violation of the geneva convention, let the city burn.

First, I'm not sure removing fingernails would be a violation of the Geneva Convention. Let's assume it's not. Let's assume it's painful, but the GC would not consider torture. The European press will accuse us of barbarism, but that's it. Now, will you let the village burn?

2nd: Let's assume you're daughter's gone to summer camp, and you find out 15-minutes ahead of time that the city to burn is where the camp is. Our operatives tell us that five minutes of fingernail pulling (which we'll now assume is torture) will break the terrorist. He's on edge already. It's easy to say "Let the city burn, but hold your daughter's picture in your hands a few minutes first. Imagine her scream when it hits. You still might be right--it might be a slippery slope. But, these are not easy times.

This applies to a conversation I had with a friend of mine over a year ago on the prospect of wiretapping and certain provisions in the Patriot Act that me (a conservative) unhappy. Ben said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." He was also reported to have said, ""Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Beautiful and true axioms. But, in times of war--especially terrorist war, where civilians are targets--it is historic precedent that essential freedoms get redefined and signficantly curtailed.

Is my privacy more important to me than a car bomb going into a pre school? Without liberty, we are already dead so what is the difference?

Maybe my having two in preschool, and one a year away, gives me a different perspective. I can be free, and feel safer knowing that the bad guys won't use our freedoms to destroy us.

If we decide it is okay to tap phones an invade homes without proper checks and balances, if we decide it is okay to torture and we become machievellan as a nation...I may burn a flag...that is not my country. That is not my America. I have a contract. That contract is for freedom and liberty and happiness before safety and security. I do not believe that order was accidental.

I think what we're really debating is what proper checks and balances are. Perhaps the bad guys have had too many liberties, and the good guys have been hamstrung?

[sgallan]

Sgallan, I'll ask you the same question I asked Dror: Would you countenance our intelligence officers removing fingernails if doing so might save a city?

Who decides what is torture or not torture? They have decided that brutalization followed by beheading is okay. Who is to say they are wrong? You? Why?

"What if" questions, the various senarios, and the endless permutations, go both ways.

[CaptainTux]

First, I'm not sure removing fingernails would be a violation of the Geneva Convention. Let's assume it's not. Let's assume it's painful, but the GC would not consider torture. The European press will accuse us of barbarism, but that's it. Now, will you let the village burn?

If pulling fingernails is allowed by the terms of the Geneva Convention as proper interrogation and treatment of a POW, then peel away and to Jersey with the opinions of others.

2nd: Let's assume you're daughter's gone to summer camp, and you find out 15-minutes ahead of time that the city to burn is where the camp is. Our operatives tell us that five minutes of fingernail pulling (which we'll now assume is torture) will break the terrorist. He's on edge already. It's easy to say "Let the city burn, but hold your daughter's picture in your hands a few minutes first. Imagine her scream when it hits. You still might be right--it might be a slippery slope. But, these are not easy times.

Well, I am not an employee of our government any longer, so I will likely not know of our option in the heat of the moment. However, in that gut wrenching circumstance, I hope I can make the right choice. Twist the analogy a little and you have a real life event that has happened to many Russians for decades. All they had to do was deny God and their child or spouse would live.

I know it is a work of fiction, but the movie V for Vendetta had a wonderful sequence in which V teaches Evey that certain freedoms and principles were more important that her own life. Most of us do not think deeply about where that line is. Most of us do not know where we would stand when put to the fire. Maybe this sounds corrupt...as a citizen and a father I would have no problem sawing off his arm with a rusty butter knife to get the information. Heck, I might kill his own mother in front of him to save my child. After I have saved the day, I expect to be tried for my crime. As a government...no.

Beautiful and true axioms. But, in times of war--especially terrorist war, where civilians are targets--it is historic precedent that essential freedoms get redefined and significantly curtailed.

Sometimes things that are beautiful and true have a but more beneath the surface that makes them hard to swallow. It cannot only be beautiful and true when we are at peace and the sun is shining. Forgiveness is a beautiful and true axiom mentioned several times by our savior-but it is so hard to do when we are wronged, but we want that mercy ohhh sooooo baaaad when we goofed. It is easy to tell a woman she may not have an abortion...but what if we meet the rare woman who is a rape victim who got pregnant or a unborn child of incest. What about the self righteous teenager in youth group who just plain had an oops? Life is not as pretty as our principles, but we have to stay true to them.

Maybe my having two in preschool, and one a year away, gives me a different perspective. I can be free, and feel safer knowing that the bad guys won't use our freedoms to destroy us.

On the other hand, our forefathers signed their name to a document knowing the quest for freedom endangered the lives of their children. People defected to this country knowing they put relatives in physical peril just so they could say what they want. If you give up too much for the illusion of safety, you will wake up one day to find out you are not free and watch those precious children raised to not be allowed to say, think, and express themselves the way they want...oh, but they will not be assaulted from an outside enemy...they will be safe to survive, but not free to live. I say this as a father.

I think what we're really debating is what proper checks and balances are. Perhaps the bad guys have had too many liberties, and the good guys have been hamstrung?

Ain't that always the truth? If we good guys are poor, we have to try to get a minimum wage job, get government cheese, etc. If the bad guys are poor, they can rob a convenience store. If I am lonely while my wife is out of town, I gotta tough it out. The bad guy gets to hit the local bar and take his pick. When I am wronged, I have to call the police and wait for due process on my assailant...the bad guy can put a cap in his butt. There is a certain "freedom" you get from not having principles. When you became a Christian you gained freedoms and liberties you never dreamed of...the things you lost do not matter....the same applies here. We have the constitution and it grants us things you cannot get in Arab nations, but we have list the permission to do certain things...things we have been freed of.

[sgallan]

There is a certain "freedom" you get from not having principles. When you became a Christian you gained freedoms and liberties you never dreamed of...the things you lost do not matter....the same applies here. We have the constitution and it grants us things you cannot get in Arab nations, but we have list the permission to do certain things...things we have been freed of.

Here we go again..... the good guys (Christian) and the bad guys (everybody else). Oh well, I guess as a godless heathen I better get to torturing, raping, and pillaging. So much to do and so little time.

[prisonchaplain]

Here we go again..... the good guys (Christian) and the bad guys (everybody else). Oh well, I guess as a godless heathen I better get to torturing, raping, and pillaging. So much to do and so little time.

It'd be one thing if Pagans or agnostics were specifically mentioned, but this time you seem to be looking for something that's not there. Captain was explaining the limitations he sees placed upon people of his faith. Why does that have to automatically mean you would not embrace "secular" moral restraints? Save your guns for the big game, Sgallan.

Captain Tux:

Your arguments for embracing "just war"--even at significant loss of life--are persuasive. I agree that we must not lose our sanity or our honor in the heat of battle.

In some ways, this war is tougher than the WWII, when all we had to decide was whether to go nuclear or not. Ironically, we're reverting to moral discussions that are at the "hand to hand combat" level.

Good dialogue! Thanx.

[sgallan]

You aren't my bosses, I'll post as I want to post thank you. And I have my 'godless heathen' thing to fall back on if I go overboard.

[StrawberryFields]

You aren't my bosses, I'll post as I want to post thank you. And I have my 'godless heathen' thing to fall back on if I go overboard.

[CaptainTux]

Boy, I am torn on Fat Man and Little Boy. I do not know that I will ever not waffle on that one. The act saved far more lives than it ended and it ended the war swiftly. I have to wonder if we could have dropped one or two in a non populated area on their islands and said, "lookee what new toy we got...still wanna play?"

I am not a big fan of civilian casualties and civilian targets. I am not a big fan of enemies that hide in homes of civilians to force a very difficult hand.

I am not sure if it reduces the sting, but MacAuthur was the right man at the right time to come to Japan after the surrender. He offered the people of Japan a dignified surrender, he understood them and had compassion and respect and they in turn revered him.