Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:32:06 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:
Again, there is a level of immorality that justifies treating people
badly. Recently the badness of human took a big step downward with the
advent of extremists who actually target and are able to murder large
groups of innocent people. This new level of badness requires a
modification of the normal response. In other words, if you strongly
suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people,
there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if
it helps you stop it from happening.

That's a big load of hogswaller used to justify sadistic tendencies.
Antithetical to concepts of law we cherish, most importantly "innocent
until proven guilty."
It is absolutely amazing to me that Americans - who grew up with a
menu of films and print where sadistic Nazi's, Japs and mobsters
tortured innocent people and are reviled for it - fall for this 24
Hours and Dirty Harry TV crap to make decisions.
"Strongly suspect."
What the **** does that mean?

You're right that my wording is not objective enough. There must be
actual evidence, reasonable, to justify violence. For example, if
someone is about to invade your home and you have a pretty good idea
that they want to hurt you, aren't you justified in using violence to
stop them?

Is that less or more suspicion than there was about the weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq?
So who decides who gets tortured?
You?

Someone has to decide, and they have to be right, or close. But if moral
people decry all violence then the immoral people will take over. That's
obvious, isn't it? Aren't you glad we have a police force prepared to
use violence to stop criminals? Aren't you glad we have weapons and an
army who can take out people targeting places like the WTC?

I'm going to let you decide who to torture based on your "morality?"
You, a torturer?
Why would anybody trust the moral judgement of a torturer?
**** you pal.

What matters is not whether someone is using violence, but why. I'm sure
you agree now, if they have a good reason, they should use violence.

You are too stupid to even understand what I just said, or you
wouldn't have even made those lame-ass comments.

We'll see who's too stupid to understand the other person's comments.

I've got no problem with GI's shooting and killing just about anything
in sight on the battlefield. Even when their hands are up.
It's the warrior's call. Spare the girls and babies.

So you *will* let them decide. Good.

But even less of a problem for a bullet to the head of a torturer.
That's the guy who might "strongly suspect" and torture my son
when his only crime was to get the girl the torturer wanted.
We call this end result "the slippery slope of taking a stroll outside
the rule of law."

Of course that concern is incidental if we just change the law, and we
should. We should allow "pressure" or even "torture" for a good enough
cause. That should be the new law. No more slippery slope.

Ever hear the term "banality of evil?"
You exemplify it. You are one banal dude.
Did I mention you're stupid?

I should mention that people resort to name calling when they have weak
arguments. Usually they are calling the names that apply more to
themselves than anyone else. Sweet irony IMO.

Of all the ****-ups of the Bush administration, getting saps to
believe that torture is acceptable conduct is the worst by far.

So here's your argument: Bullet to the brain on the battlefield even if
you mistakenly hit innocents, but if you have a prisoner who is part of
a group of mass murderers, and they have information you can use to stop
it, hands off! --Hopefully you're smart enough to see that makes no sense.

Stephen