From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 08:22:07 MDT
[Merrmaid]
<snip>
In his new book, Why Terrorism Works http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300097662/qid=1031583350/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-0376452-5731206), Alan Dershowitz advocates collective punishment, torture and national ID cards. A staunch supporter of a hard core administration in Israel to replace the old windbag and softie, Ariel Sharon, Alan Dershowitz recommends shoving sterilized(how thoughtful) needles under fingernails as a form of torture. As reviewer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43691-2002Sep5.html), James Braford(Author of Body of Secrets - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385499086/qid=1031584018/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-0376452-5731206) opines - How Nazi-like...really...
<snip>
[Blunderov]
Maybe, ala Warren Zevon, a "Mr. Bad Example" list?
Some questions occur to me. Is torture always indefensible? Does it make a difference if the subject is a civilian or a soldier?
What if a cost benefit analysis shows that, by torturing one person, two might be saved? What is the precise ratio at which wrong turns into right, if any?
If the military torture a civilian in order to save other civilians, is this an act of justifiable terrorism?
Personally I don't believe that anyone should be tortured against their will.
[rhinoceros]
Well, there is the "point of view" point of view. There is also the quasiabsolute point of view defined by our morality. Morality is informed by the first one ("it could happen to me too") as well as by social experience (social effects of accepting a practice such as torture).
This is a goal/means issue. Take, for example, the hate memes recently tossed around. Millions of eleven year old kids are catching them. Although the hate propaganda may or may not succeed in achieving its goals in the short term, those kids will still be around after a few years. Statistically, some of them will become social rejects for completely unrelated reasons, and then they will turn against society as they have done in the past.
The same holds true for the morals of the international community and the recent trend to discard rules of behaviour which have been established through painful historical lessons. It seems Russia has already caugh on this new informal Holy Alliance (or is it formal?), according to an articla posted by Hermit on the BBS
Using the US' arguments
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid=11541;start=150
In an international environment defined by the rule of force, eventually more incidents will follow. Should one use rational thinking informed by history and social sciences or just wishful thinking to predict where the new morality in international relations is going to lead? I haven't seen much discussion about this.
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26445>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:57 MDT