Torture Techniques Revealed at Gitmo

[ShadeHonestus]

You don't exactly see me applauding the practice, do you ?

Never said you did.

But it remains a fact they have to do it covertly; that already keeps a stigma of moral illegitimacy attached to the whole business,

The whole business meaning a lot more than simply interrogation techniques.

If it is as valuable as deemed necessary to the extent that it has been practiced, move it out of the shadows, legistlate it and as I've said before if our taste for these matters proves wanting the argument for it cannot be maintained. But dismissing it outright and keeping it where it is, does nothing to further anyone's moral highground as that itself is exhibiting neglect and is itself illegitimate.

I rather worry over how much some people seem willing to gloss over for their own moral convenience these days...

Such as...

[Lemur]

If it is as valuable as deemed necessary to the extent that it has been practiced,

Yes, well, that's a wide-open question, now isn't it? And I don't see any attempt being made by anyone in the administration to engage in a meaningful debate about whether torture is, in fact, valuable, and to what extent it is being practiced. The entire thing is a black hole, with only little snippets of information worming their way out.

move it out of the shadows, legistlate it and as I've said before if our taste for these matters proves wanting the argument for it cannot be maintained.

In this lemur's opinion, the torture debacle will only be ended when George W. Bush retires from office. Nothing less will accomplish this. And heaven help us if Mitt ("I'd like to double Gitmo!") Romney follows in his footsteps.

But dismissing it outright and keeping it where it is, does nothing to further anyone's moral highground as that itself is exhibiting neglect and is itself illegitimate.

The moral high ground is neglected and illegitimate? Speak for yourself, buddy ...

[ShadeHonestus]

Yes, well, that's a wide-open question, now isn't it? And I don't see any attempt being made by anyone in the administration to engage in a meaningful debate about whether torture is, in fact, valuable, and to what extent it is being practiced. The entire thing is a black hole, with only little snippets of information worming their way out.

The black hole analogy is well met, but without legal change it will remain a black hole.

In this lemur's opinion, the torture debacle will only be ended when George W. Bush retires from office. Nothing less will accomplish this. And heaven help us if Mitt ("I'd like to double Gitmo!") Romney follows in his footsteps.

I honestly don't see it going away, information privilege is not a party favorite. The only candidate I see as changing the status quo would be McCain on a point of integrity as he introduced an amendment amounting to such, but even then when his feet hit the pavement he may be hard pressed to own it.

The moral high ground is neglected and illegitimate? Speak for yourself, buddy ...

It is, as I stated...proved illegitimate by dismissing torture outright and keeping it where it is. That is moral neglect.

[Lemur]

It is, as I stated...proved illegitimate by dismissing torture outright and keeping it where it is. That is moral neglect.

Hm, if someone is utterly offended at the idea of torture, I don't know if I'd call them any names. There are people who are morally outraged by abortion in all instances, and they believe as they do from principle. Likewise, there are pacifists who reject violence. I don't necessarily agree with any of them, but they can certainly be principled, decent people, who are not necessarily subject to any moral decay or neglect.

I think your analysis should take into account people of good faith who arrive at different conclusions.

[ShadeHonestus]

Hm, if someone is utterly offended at the idea of torture, I don't know if I'd call them any names.

What names? I called that stance as I clearly defined as cheapening that argument which they wish to make.

There are people who are morally outraged by abortion in all instances, and they believe as they do from principle.

But they call for it in reference to the protection of life under the law. Abandoning the need for legal code in a cry against torture makes any moral high ground illegitimate imo. Saying no to torture in the absolute without discussions in an unmocking display does not further anything. Why would you not want this all to be moved under a legal house.

Likewise, there are pacifists who reject violence. I don't necessarily agree with any of them, but they can certainly be principled, decent people, who are not necessarily subject to any moral decay or neglect.

Of course there are, but they don't ignore the need for law. In fact most that I know argue the illegality of almost any violent action.

I think your analysis should take into account people of good faith who arrive at different conclusions.

I believe I have. Going so far as to explicitly state such.

[KukriKhan]

Temporarily closed, pending staff consultation.