On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:32:06 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:44:07 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Aragorn wrote:
It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out
of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when
another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a
warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human
rights".
All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of
criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of
protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest
scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of
what you are arguing, shouldn't you?


I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply stating that people (perhaps men
mostly) find the rather violent reaction to one man doing something
that comes rather naturally and a different man doing something that
caused (and don't think it didn't) considerable loss of face for the
nation. How can a country that advocates justice and the rule of law
to foreign countries turn around and carryout the excesses that
happened?

It isn't that you tortured the people, it is that you preach justice
and rule of law to all the developing countries. Do as I say, not as I
do.

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.

Now having said that, lets contrast the US response, compared to those
we are fighting. The entire country was and still is up in arms for
years in questioning the morality of dunking vicious criminals in water
and scaring them. We may have done it, but we are concerned about doing
it and spend much time trying to figure out if it is over the line so we
can stop. Meanwhile, as a recruiting tool, the enemy makes videotapes of
themselves cutting off innocent kidnap victims heads in order to attract
more people to their cause. No remorse of any sort, only further
celebration and congratulations have ever been evident. See the massive
difference? So we haven't really sunk anywhere at all, morally.

Meanwhile, if we've got a line on someone who we've discovered is about
to murder another few thousand people, what actions are justified to get
him to reveal information that can stop it? Harsh language only?

Stephen

You don't seem to see what I was saying. the US advocates and attempts
to influence countries around the world toward a democratic government
that operates under the rule of law. An admiral aim.

Countries that perceive themselves to the threatened by outside forces
often act in violent ways to combat that perceived threat. the US
frequently condemns these countries for violating human rights, not
following lawful means, etc.

The US has supported a substantial number of autocratic and despotic
governments at various times. The various Vietnam governments, the
Indonesian government, the Singapore Government, the Iraq government,
the Iranian government.....

Then the US is threatened and suddenly is seen to be engaged in
organized torturing, entering and searching without warrant, tapping
of telephones, etc., all authorized by the elected President.

Now, what do you think other countries believe about the US? You
critique Burma (Myanmar) for example, for doing the same things that
you do yourself - except that the Burmese don't seem to have embarked
on an adventure of unrestricted torture.


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)