I'm suggesting they should receive the full legal rights and privileges due to persons.
I've made this point before in a discussion about torture very similar to this one (can't provide the link for you due to the search function being disabled), but I'll summarize it again for the benefit of those who didn't read that thread:
When this nation (or any nation, for that matter) goes to war with another nation or entity, the rights that we afford to the persons of that nation or entity are somewhat less than what you might consider to be the "full legal rights and privileges" due them under more normal circumstances. For example, in a "high-intensity" conflict with a uniformed, recognizable entity, the members of that entity are usually "declared hostile" and can be engaged and killed at will, without warning or provocation. Lacking that level of official declaration of hostilities, or the convenience of a uniformed and recognizable enemy (e.g., the current situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan), military forces may engage and kill enemies after witnessing that enemy commit a hostile act or display hostile intent. This is relatively uncontroversial ... killing enemies on the battlefield is, after all, why a nation maintains a military in the first place.
In short, we can inflict death on enemies of our nation based on a standard of evidence that is considerably less strict than that of a traditional criminal trial.
Given #1 and #2, why is inflicting minor pain or psychological pressure far short of death on those same enemies that could have just as easily been killed outright, had they not been captured, considered more immoral than killing them?
Consider the implications of #3 ... the unspoken message to those whose boots are on the ground (so to speak) is this: "It is more expedient and less objectionable (legally, politically, and morally) to simply kill an enemy on the spot rather than attempt to capture him."
It's an interesting thought experiment: if you (or anyone) would be in favor of dropping a bomb on Osama bin Laden if we found him, how do you logically justify the position that waterboarding him if he were captured is more immoral?
And a final side note:
The HRW and AI reports are a second source that completely contradict that one, and they've got better provenance - they're taken from actual interviews with detainees.
... he says as if those interviewed detainees have less of a motive to lie than the CIA.
Add a Comment
Email This
RSS
RE: Waterboarding: Not Much of a Slippery Slope
I'm suggesting they should receive the full legal rights and privileges due to persons.
I've made this point before in a discussion about torture very similar to this one (can't provide the link for you due to the search function being disabled), but I'll summarize it again for the benefit of those who didn't read that thread:
It's an interesting thought experiment: if you (or anyone) would be in favor of dropping a bomb on Osama bin Laden if we found him, how do you logically justify the position that waterboarding him if he were captured is more immoral?
And a final side note:
The HRW and AI reports are a second source that completely contradict that one, and they've got better provenance - they're taken from actual interviews with detainees.
... he says as if those interviewed detainees have less of a motive to lie than the CIA.
View Full Discussion