From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 11:40:35 MDT
On 12 Sep 2002 at 8:22, rhinoceros wrote:
>
> [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.
>
Henry Kissinger's article discussed the WMD-global terror nexus in a
mobile world as the necessitating impetus for the evolution of a
prevention rather than a cure model. A ton of prevention is far less
disastrous than a megaton of cure.
>
>
> ----
> 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;thread
> id=26445>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:57 MDT