Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The real question for me on drone attacks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The real question for me on drone attacks

    is with people (like the entire legal arm of the Obama admin) who have managed to wrap their heads a morality that says

    (a) it's outrageous, immoral and totally unacceptable to apply the same enhanced interrogation techniques to known terrorists that we use to train our own special forces, but

    (b) it's totally cool to vaporize that same dude in a barrage of hellfire missiles and, as often as not, kill the goatherd's family in the adjacent mudhut and, occasionally, kill the goatherd's family without even touching the target.

    I can see three consistent positions here:
    1. Oppose both on ethical grounds
    2. Approve of both out of the need to pursue a vigorous counter-terrorism policy
    3. To approve of EITs of known terrorists while opposing drone attacks on the grounds that (a) EITs don't vaporize the targets or kill people generally and (b) EITs don't kill the goatherds family.

    But how in the hell do you arrive at the position that it's morally outrageous to dunk a guy's head underwater but it's totally fine explode his head into a fine mist?
    Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

    It can't all be wedding cake.

  • #2
    Becasue one of those is a video game.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

    Comment


    • #3
      If by EIT you mean torture, I can see a big moral difference between that and a predator missile (which, like any weapon, can cause terrible collateral damage).
      Last edited by RobinFinderson; 05-07-2010, 02:11 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm not sure I understand your position

        Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
        If by EIT you mean torture, I can see a big moral difference between that and a predator missile (which, like any weapon, can cause terrible collateral damage).
        You can see a 'big moral difference' between enhanced interrogation (not torture, though there is disagreement on where the exact lines are drawn) and drone attacks.

        Am I to understand that you do think both that (a) drone attacks that we know routinely kill innocent bystanders, sometimes without hitting their targets can be justified but that (b) aggressive interrogation techniques (you can call them torture if you want) directed at a handful of confirmed terrorists who are thought to be in possession of information that can save lives can't be?

        Do you think that?

        Also once again - even if it's JUST the terrorist targets who get vaporized by the drones, it is OK to explode the guy's head when he's in the Khyber Pass but it's not OK to dunk his head under water when he's in US custody?

        I don't get the logic.
        Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

        It can't all be wedding cake.

        Comment


        • #5
          Have we ever signed a document or participated in an agreement saying we wouldn't use drone attacks? Because we did that with torture.
          "I don't know the origin of said bitch booming."-Art Vandelay
          "Hot Lunch posted awhile back on this. He knows more than anyone except for maybe BO."-Seattle Ute

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by oxcoug View Post
            You can see a 'big moral difference' between enhanced interrogation (not torture, though there is disagreement on where the exact lines are drawn) and drone attacks.

            Am I to understand that you do think both that (a) drone attacks that we know routinely kill innocent bystanders, sometimes without hitting their targets can be justified but that (b) aggressive interrogation techniques (you can call them torture if you want) directed at a handful of confirmed terrorists who are thought to be in possession of information that can save lives can't be?

            Do you think that?

            Also once again - even if it's JUST the terrorist targets who get vaporized by the drones, it is OK to explode the guy's head when he's in the Khyber Pass but it's not OK to dunk his head under water when he's in US custody?

            I don't get the logic.
            The moral danger of predator strikes is that they essentially become a form of legal assassination. Assassination and torture are immoral. Yet the US government is apparently involved in both activities quite regularly.

            When predators are used for assassination, they are morally indefensible. When predators are used as a weapon in a necessary war of defense, they are morally acceptable, in spite of collateral damage.

            Torture is immoral. I don't know if I need to defend that statement, but if I had to, we would have create an outline for the basis of any morality. If your moral code is purely utilitarian, then torture might fit, but so would anything else that could be justified because it might bring about the 'greatest good for the greatest number.' Raping babies to coerce mothers to reveal information about terrorist husbands could be 'moral' under purely utilitarian terms. I don't find such moral views to be compelling.
            Last edited by RobinFinderson; 05-09-2010, 10:31 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
              Raping babies to coerce mothers to reveal information about terrorist husbands could be 'moral' under purely utilitarian terms. I don't find that such moral views to be compelling.
              You Kant know that!
              "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm not talking about "torture"

                Originally posted by BoylenOver View Post
                Have we ever signed a document or participated in an agreement saying we wouldn't use drone attacks? Because we did that with torture.
                I maintain that anything which (a) we know with near complete certainty that a thing will not inflict lasting physical harm and (b) which we are willing to use on our own personnel in training doesn't constitute torture.
                Last edited by oxcoug; 05-10-2010, 05:58 AM.
                Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

                It can't all be wedding cake.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Torture is immoral. I don't know if I need to defend that statement, but if I had to, we would have create an outline for the basis of any morality. If your moral code is purely utilitarian, then torture might fit, but so would anything else that could be justified because it might bring about the 'greatest good for the greatest number.' Raping babies to coerce mothers to reveal information about terrorist husbands could be 'moral' under purely utilitarian terms. I don't find such moral views to be compelling.[/QUOTE]


                  I'm certain that we agree that torture is immoral. I'm not certain that we agree as to what exactly constitutes torture.

                  I think waterboarding is marginal for the two reasons I stated in my response to BoylenOver.
                  Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

                  It can't all be wedding cake.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by oxcoug View Post
                    I maintain that anything which (a) we know with near complete certainty that a thing will not inflict lasting physical harm and (b) which we are willing to use on our own personnel in training doesn't constitute torture.
                    Originally posted by oxcoug View Post
                    I'm certain that we agree that torture is immoral. I'm not certain that we agree as to what exactly constitutes torture.

                    I think waterboarding is marginal for the two reasons I stated in my response to BoylenOver.
                    I think that rape and waterboarding have a lot in common. Both happen against the will of the recipient. If conducted carefully, both can be conducted in a way so as to guarantee no lasting physical harm. In both, the long-term damage is psychological. Both have been used for centuries as part of interrogation.

                    But we don't rape our troops, nor could we. Why? Because it is only rape when there isn't consent. When our troops consent to be briefly water-boarded, one time, as a part of their training, that is fundamentally different than what happens to a detainee who undergoes the same experience.

                    Moreover, we don't know that the water-boarding experienced by our troops is the same thing performed during interrogations. What we do know is that videotapes of water-boarding were deemed to be such a liability to America's interests that the CIA had them destroyed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                      I think that rape and waterboarding have a lot in common. Both happen against the will of the recipient. If conducted carefully, both can be conducted in a way so as to guarantee no lasting physical harm.
                      You could say the same about getting your kids up early for Seminary.
                      Everything in life is an approximation.

                      http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                        I think that rape and waterboarding have a lot in common. Both happen against the will of the recipient. If conducted carefully, both can be conducted in a way so as to guarantee no lasting physical harm.
                        I can see your point. After being waterboarded in interrogation a terrorist will never be able to enjoy waterboarding again, and his ability to be intimate through waterboarding will be permanently damaged.
                        sigpic
                        "Outlined against a blue, gray
                        October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
                        Grantland Rice, 1924

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Robin, you've done better

                          Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                          I think that rape and waterboarding have a lot in common. Both happen against the will of the recipient. If conducted carefully, both can be conducted in a way so as to guarantee no lasting physical harm. In both, the long-term damage is psychological. Both have been used for centuries as part of interrogation.
                          than this drivel.

                          Who is getting waterboarded? Well of the handful of known/approved cases all were 100% confirmed terrorists who already had blood on their hands and in at least one case it yielded actionable intelligence that almost certainly saved lives, which standard interrogation practices wasn't getting.

                          Who gets raped? Innocent women.

                          What can waterboarding achieve? It can save lives at the cost of a bit of psychological trauma for one guy.

                          What can rape achieve? Transmission of STDs, unwanted pregancies, physical damage and a whole lot more - and all to someone who did absolutely nothing to deserve anything and who possesses no information that can serve the public.

                          Why is waterboarding done? To extract life-saving information. Why is rape committed? Out of animal lust and a dehumanized view of women.

                          Please, that's some sophomoric stuff from a guy as smart as you are.
                          Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

                          It can't all be wedding cake.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by cowboy View Post
                            I can see your point. After being waterboarded in interrogation a terrorist will never be able to enjoy waterboarding again, and his ability to be intimate through waterboarding will be permanently damaged.
                            Yeah imagine if your first time waterboarding was with some pissed off American special forces guy and not a loving partner.
                            Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

                            It can't all be wedding cake.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by oxcoug View Post
                              Who is getting waterboarded? Well of the handful of known/approved cases all were 100% confirmed terrorists who already had blood on their hands and in at least one case it yielded actionable intelligence that almost certainly saved lives, which standard interrogation practices wasn't getting.
                              Are you saying they were asking for it?
                              "In conclusion, let me give a shout-out to dirty sex. What a great thing it is" - Northwestcoug
                              "And you people wonder why you've had extermination orders issued against you." - landpoke
                              "Can't . . . let . . . foolish statements . . . by . . . BYU fans . . . go . . . unanswered . . . ." - LA Ute

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X