18 responses for this post

1. Peter on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 11:17 am

   The Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed soldiers legally affiliated to a specific country. Generic Al Qaeda terrorists have NEVER been protected by these conventions.

2. GeekBoy on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 11:23 am

   Whatever makes you feel better, Peter.

   I’m one of those people who believe that human beings have a basic right not to be tortured regardless of their military affiliation. But I’m silly that way.

3. freakgirl on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 11:30 am

   The point of the satirical video and Mr. Olbermann’s essay is that Cheney, Gonzales et al claim that waterboarding is not torture, that we as a country do not torture.

4. Sandy on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 12:13 pm

   Peter, while you’re technically correct because Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, your approach misses the point. People who are believed to belong to Al Qaeda are still human beings, and we should treat as we would want our soldiers treated if they were to fall into enemy hands. To me, that’s what makes a country civilized: the ability to both preach the Golden Rule and live it.

   If we accepted your implied argument only soldiers fighting on behalf of a state were eligible for humane treatment (and if the Geneva Convention had been around in the 1770s), Patriots fighting on the American side in the Revolutionary war could have been freely tortured. I don’t think that’s the result any of us would want.

5. Hugh on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 12:56 pm

   You had me at “we should treat as we would want our soldiers treated if they were to fall into enemy hands.”
   I have two nephews in the Marines and a close friend in the Massachusetts Guard. I don’t want them mistreated because some idiot in Washington watched too much 24.

6. GeekBoy on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 1:07 pm

   To Sandy’s point, let’s also not forget how many “independent contractors” there are in the Mideast right now — both of a civilian and a military nature. By Peter’s definition, none of them are covered under the terms of the Geneva Convention. But I have a feeling this would offer little solace to their families if one of them was tortured by somebody who happened to be wearing a uniform at the time. The knife cuts both ways.

   We all know what the spirit of the Geneva Convention is: “Don’t torture people!” And we all know what torture is when we see it. Hiding behind strict definitions is just a torturer’s (or a torturer’s boss’s) way to justify inherently unethical activity.

7. freakgirl on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 1:59 pm

   Hiding behind strict definitions is just a torturer’s (or a torturer’s boss’s) way to justify inherently unethical activity.

   Exactly. And the lying and denying is just disgusting. We’re talking about human beings, here.

8. Jill on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 2:18 pm

   I just wish they would stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. First they say waterboarding is not torture, therefore, we don’t torture. In the same breath, they’ll give Peter’s semantic argument about whom the Geneva Convention was meant to protect, so waterboarding IS torture, but no one getting waterboarded is protected by the GC. Makes me want to rip out my pancreas…

9. Peter on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 2:27 pm

   Hiding behind strict definitions is just a … way to justify inherently unethical activity.

   Sounds similar to a “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it” sort of thing. I like and hate that mindset because of its open-ended nature. If more and more things become classified as torture, pretty soon we won’t be allowed to hurt an enemy soldiers feelings (slipper slope fallacy, I know, but seriously, where will it end?).

   Sandy, good stuff here: To me, that’s what makes a country civilized: the ability to both preach the Golden Rule and live it. Here’s my problem with it: while I wouldn’t want to be waterboarded, even more pressing is my desire to not be attacked my bomb-laden children and virgin-seeking terrorists. If I could save lives by volunteering to be subjected to waterboarding, I’d raise my hand. (at least, I’d like to think I’m brave enough to)

   Geekboy, you see things awfully black and white for a lefty. What if you could save a life by interrogation through waterboarding? 10 lives? 1000? What if you could save your family? Be creative and think of the best possible reason to consider using “torture” and then tell me whether or not you think it would be worth it. I’m curious to see what you come up with.

10. freakgirl on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    Please refrain from phrases like “you’re awfully ___ for a ___” unless you are willing to be generalized yourself.

    Also, this isn’t an essay-writing class. We can all think up scenarios where the greater good would be served by torturing one person, but that’s not what this post was about.

    I agree with Jill. Ripping out my own pancreas as we speak.

11. Peter on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    I’m one of those people who believe that human beings have a basic right not to be tortured regardless of their military affiliation. But I’m silly that way.

    If I’m not mistaken, I think I was generalized as one who thinks opposing selective torture is silly.

    Freakgirl, I suspect you think you’re pretty fair in moderating any debate that happens here, but I think you inadvertently favor GeekBoy for political (and other? wink-wink) reasons.

12. GeekBoy on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    Just don’t know when to stop, do you, Peter?

    The point when you decide to piss on the leg of the host of the party is the point when I decide you’re not worth the energy it takes to have a discussion with you.

    Please go find another non-receptive blog to annoy. Or better yet, create your own blog, and see if you can get half as many people to read it as Freakgirl gets to read hers. Then come back and tell us all how fair of a moderator you are.

13. GeekBoy on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    For the sake of the room, I’d like to amend my previous statement:

    Hiding behind strict definitions and circular logic is just a torturer’s (or a torturer’s boss’s) way to justify inherently unethical activity.

14. Peter on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    GB,

    I think I’ll stick around as long as I’m not banned and still enjoying the blog. I’m just trying to stimulate some dialogue. Nothing personal here, really. My apologies if you or anyone has taken offense.

    I agree that you and I haven’t had any fruitful conversation yet, but I’m hoping that will change with time.

    With that, I’m done with this post as all productive conversation seems to have come and gone.

15. Hugh on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Aaaaaaaaand the 101st Fighting Keyboardists cut and run again.

16. freakgirl on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    You know what’s TORTURE? This CONVERSATION is torture!

    

    What?

17. girard31 on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    Is it possible for me to hate this song for aesthetic reasons and not enter the political debate? God, I used to like Harry Shearer so, but this song sucks and is not funny.

18. freakgirl on Friday, November 09, 2007 at 12:00 am

    It’s not his best work, I’ll give you that. But I enjoyed the effort.

Comments are closed.