the evil of moral relativism
Jun. 26th, 2007 06:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyI read LJ despite my busy life because it provokes my thoughts. I privately believe that I am overeducated. I have read tens of thousands of books. I have a particular focus in history of warfare. So it caught my attention when a LJ user accused me of knowing nothing of the history of torture in relation to Gitmo.
It is true, and not really debatable, that our treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and in the CIA's secret prison network is relatively mild compared to that of every dictatorial and totalitarian regime that has ever existed.
Ancient Rome gave you only the choice of deaths: death by impalement for treason, by crucifixion for rebellion, by sword for resistance, and by starvation for compliance. In Hungary, NKVD agents beat prisoners with rubber hoses. In Egypt, electricity applied to nipples and genitals was a favorite. In Vietnam, bamboo shoots under the fingernails. Russian Spetsnaz were fond of filing down teeth. In China's prisons and re-education camps, a richly developed and horrible history of torture dating from the early emperors, taking full advantage of thousands of years of forbidden knowledge, is daily written in living flesh.
NONE OF THIS JUSTIFIES TORTURE COMMITTED BY, OR IN THE NAME OF, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Note the word in bold, above and here. Relatively.
Of such moral relativism are the worst evils made.
The only justification for the deliberate and willful commission of an evil act is necessity.
Destroying someone's beating heart with pistol rounds. Necessity. Shoving fifty thousand volts through their skin and making them flail like a puppet. Necessity. Spraying what feels like acid in their eyes, or breaking their bones with a heavy club. Necessity. And we authorize our society's agent of force, the police, to do all of this and more. WHEN IT IS NECESSARY, and never otherwise.
Terrorist crimes, such as the bombing of civilians and murder of women and children, have no conceivable necessity behind them. So we have no trouble recognizing them as monstrous.
War is sometimes necessary. That does not make it any less vile. Blowing up buildings from which fire is received; destroying infrastructure; killing not just enemy soldiers, but on occasion neutrals, noncombatants and even your own soldiers. Creating the conditions which allow the Four Horsemen to walk.
"It is well that war is terrible, or else we should be too fond of it." General Lee.
Torture is unnecessary. Simply put, torture is an ineffective and unreliable method of interrogation. You don't get good intel from locking people up in cages 23 hours a day, beating them, depriving them of basic necessities of life, and exposing them to constant sleep deprivation which is neither medically supervised nor tactically necessary.
Therefore, I have no shame in announcing to the world that Torture Is Evil.
The only circumstance in which I would countenance torture is when it is clearly necessary to save lives. Preferably lots of lives. And in NO other way.
I have said repeatedly, and will say it again, that any government agent who resorts to torture under such clearly necessary conditions should carry through their duties and then resign their commission at the first opportunity. As they have, by engaging in what may be necessary but certainly is a morally reprehensible and obscene act, established their unfitness to further serve this country in any capacity of trust or honor.
Give them a pension, yes. They gave their honor for this country, in the same way that they might have preferred to throw themselves on a grenade or taken a blast in the face.
But never, never, NEVER hold up their use of torture as morally right, or correct, or an example to others. Because if one once grasps the nettle of torture, one is tempted to use it again and again, allowing the subtle whisper of "necessity" to corrupt.
That way lies gulags, and concentration camps, and the screams of the helpless inflicted by the powerful.
That Way Is Not America.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 07:36 am (UTC)Camp 6, which became operational in December and cost $38 million to build, now houses roughly 160 of the 395 or so detainees at Guantanamo Bay . . . The air-conditioned facility, modeled on the most modern and efficient prisons in the United States, is more comfortable for detainees.
In 2006, detainees assaulted guards with bodily fluids more than 400 times. The cells in older camps were made of mesh fencing, which made it possible for detainees to pelt guards with feces, urine and other bodily fluids. “Assault by bodily fluids is a serious issue,” Harris said. “Just last month we had a guard get hit directly in the mouth with a feces-vomit cocktail.”
He called such assaults “serious health business” for the guards, and said Camp 6’s enclosed cells make it much harder for detainees to commit them.
“Camp 6 gives the detainees more privacy, a larger living space and a much better air-conditioned environment. So Camp 6 is better for the detainees, which … falls in line with our principal mission of safe and humane care and custody,” Harris said. “And at the same time, it falls into our mission of safety and securely of the Americans who work inside the wire.”
The most dangerous detainees and those who have been charged under the military commissions process are held in Camp 6, Harris said. About 100 other dangerous detainees, including those who hold the highest intelligence value, are held in Camp 5.
Navy Dentist Stays Busy at Guantanamo Bay Detainee Camp (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25854)
An active-duty dentist deployed from Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla., Tharp admits she was nervous about treating detainees. "My biggest fear was that I would get bitten," she said. In reality, she now says she's never even felt threatened while treating a detainee.
"I don't feel unsafe," she said, noting that guards are always present and detainees are shackled while she treats them.
Outdated Images of Detention Center, Mission Frustrate Guantanamo Troopers (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2272)
During the 12-month period that ended in August, JTF-GTMO cataloged 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct, including 432 assaults with bodily fluids, 227 physical assaults and 99 efforts to incite a disturbance or riot. “This is serious stuff,” Harris said.
In a 20-bed hospital, 100 medical personnel are available to care for about 450 detainees. Specialists are flown in from the United States when needed.
On average, five attorneys visit detainees every day.
The Kevin Kiley, MD (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/detmedopsrpt_13apr2005.pdf) (report on detainee conditions)
d. 28.6% (2 of 7) of present GTMO interviewees had a detainee directly report alleged abuse to them.
b. 2 presently deployed GTMO medical personnel were personally aware of actual or suspected abuse. Both stated they reported the actual or suspected abuse.
17-3. Findings -Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility
a. The earliest discovered theater policy specifically requiring medical personnel to report detainee abuse is dated 9 August 2004.~
b. 100% (2 of 2) of formerly assigned GTMO interviewees were aware of such
policies. Both reported their unit followed the policies.
c. 71.4% (5 of 7) of presently assigned GTMO interviewees were aware of such
policies. All five reported their unit followed the policies.
c. Despite the small GTMO interview sample, the Team is confident the results are accurate. Policies governing detainee procedures at GTMO were extensive, and based on the Team's personal observations, strictly adhered to.
18-2. Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility
a. The overall level of outpatient and inpatient detainee medical care is extremely high. [...]
b. Detainee medical records are extremely complete [...]
c. Detainee living conditions overall appeared very good.
d. All interrogations are videotaped. Medics randomly observe interrogations and have the ability to halt an interrogation at any point they deem necessary.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=17953
no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 07:38 am (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
http://cryptome.org/gitmo-report.htm
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2177
The following are drewkitty comments:
Clearly there has been inappropriate involvement of medical personnel in interrogation operations.
Shackling all prisoners during medical treatment, without regard to relative risks, is considered inappropriate in most prison health care settings.
The flinging of body fluids, known as "gassing" in California prisons, is typically an extreme prisoner revolt measure that results from being held in solitary confinement for extended periods. I find it difficult to reconcile claims of lenient treatment of prisoners in "Camp 6" with reports of widespread and systematic gassing.
Only five attorneys visiting daily for 450 detainees is clearly inadequate legal representation, especially given the serious allegations and consequences plus the groundbreaking nature of the legal issues facing the detainees.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 07:44 am (UTC)Rumsfeld torture suit dismissed
Donald Rumsfeld
Donald Rumsfeld apologised for abuse at Abu Ghraib
A US court has dismissed a lawsuit against former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld over claims prisoners were tortured in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The court accepted that the nine men who sued had been tortured - and detailed the torture in its ruling.
But Judge Thomas Hogan ruled the five Iraqis and four Afghans did not have US constitutional rights, and also that Mr Rumsfeld was immune from such suits.
Two human rights groups brought the suit against him and three officers.
Judge Hogan threw out the claims against retired Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the former commander of US military forces in Iraq, Col Thomas Pappas and former Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, both former commanders at Abu Ghraib prison.
In a ruling stretching to nearly 60 pages, the chief judge of the US district court for the District of Columbia said the allegations of torture were "horrifying".
Details of abuse
The nine men suffered abuse including being:
* hung upside-down and slapped until they lost consciousness
* stabbed with knives
* subjected to electric shocks
* deprived of sleep by loud noises and bright lights
* grabbed by aggressive dogs
They also were subjected to sexual humiliation.
None was ever charged with a crime.
All were released after detentions of one month to one year. Some were detained multiple times.
The complaint alleged that the three officers knew torture and abuse were occurring and were present when officers under their command were committing torture and abuse.
The complaint against Mr Rumsfeld - brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First - focused on an order he signed in December 2002 authorising new methods for interrogating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Both groups say he later ignored overwhelming evidence that the policies resulted in prisoner abuse.
Mr Rumsfeld has apologised for the abuse scandals.
He was removed as defence secretary following the defeat of President Bush's Republican party in elections last year.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 08:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-28 12:29 am (UTC)Why do you want to see America go to war against Spain?
You do realize that such would be the outcome, right?
(that is, assuming that one of these countries was dumb enough to actually try the snatch).
no subject
Date: 2007-06-28 01:21 am (UTC)When I get a break (the queue feels huge right now), I should write something about the US's ambiguous diplomatic position regarding universal jurisdiction.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-28 01:43 pm (UTC)Such is our official policy, should a third-party foreign court attempt to try an American for war crimes in the manner you suggest. Now, this policy might change under a Democratic Administration, but if it did, it would cause massive political damage to that Administration.
For a sitting President, obviously yes. For an ex-President? Or even more clearly, for an executive branch official other than the President?
The threat to our decision-making capabilities would be obvious, so I would still say "yes." Note that one of the causes of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was Saddam's attempt to kill George H. W. Bush, after Bush's term in office.
Go to war against a fellow NATO member?
One of the effects of the proposed Spanish action would be to risk rupturing the NATO alliance, probably beyond repair if the other NATO powers were foolish enough to back Spain on this.
I wonder. No, I not merely wonder, I actually doubt it.
Even if America chose to avoid war (by which I would include covert violent actions, blockades, etc.) against Spain, every week that the Spanish held these former officials hostage would further damage the relationship between America and Spain, America and NATO, and America and the European Union.
What makes matters worse is that the country you chose to carry out the hostage-taking (Spain) happens to be one of the states specifically targeted by the Islamofascists, because it used to be Muslim territory. This means that America's relations would be damaged with a country likely in the future to need American assiatance, and likely not to get it because of its unwise action.
If Belgium or the Netherlands were responsible this might in some ways be even worse: it would convert America from an ally of the European Union to at best a hostile neutral. It would shatter the unity of the West at the precise moment when the clash of civilizations loomed.
I am, frankly, amazed that you can propose this scenario in a mood of mild spite at your partisan rivals, without realizing how terrible the consequences would be for the West, and for Europe in particular. That is an act of blindness to history surpassing anything I've seen lately -- you seem to have found the worst possible situation possible for the unity of the West, as if you were some demented time traveller trying to ensure a Dystopian future!
no subject
Date: 2007-06-28 08:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-28 11:57 pm (UTC)You are trying to restore them against America alone, out of an anti-American sentiment. The proof is that, when you envision such actions, the first people on your list are members of the current Administration.
If you were simply going by the severity of criminal actions, your list would start with the dictators and their henchmen. I notice, for example, that you did not recommend Ahmenijihad, Qadaffi, or Chavez for such attention.
As for driving a wedge between NATO and the US, that job is pretty much done already.
A Vice-Presidential Hostage Crisis, with the Spanish claiming the right to imprison Cheney for years, would drive a far more severe wedge between America and NATO than anything we have seen. Essentially, NATO would either have to expel Spain, or America would have little choice but to leave NATO. At a minimum, America and Spain would sever diplomatic ties.
We might try to simply ignore the affair, but in that case whatever party was in power at the time would suffer a disastrous defeat at the next elections. Since you seem to be envisioning the Democrats in power when this happened, the result would be to sweep the Republicans back into office. It is very unlikely that the Republicans would put up with any such actions.
It may not have occurred to you, but any Administration of either party would have a strong motive to punish Spain for this action. After all, they might be next if the winds of international political fashion turned against them!
Severe war crimes would not be necessary, as America has fought this war more humanely than is the historical norm, and obviously you are not basing your criticism on human-rights grounds, as you are notably failing to indict far worse violators, simply because they are not Republicans or Americans.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 04:35 am (UTC)But Gonzalez actually signed the damned torture memo, and there's ample eyewitness testimony that this was on orders from Bush and Cheney, and that Rumsfeld acted on those orders. A conviction for crimes against humanity on them would be slam-dunk easy. And it's not anti-American of me to say this; it's anti-American for them to have done it.
This isn't about "the winds of political faction," this is about tortured prisoners of war, with responsibility demonstrably going all the way to the top. In Germany, we sentenced to people to life in solitary confinement in Spandau, some of them on no worse crimes than this administration boasts of. I don't think any future American president, no one with even the slightest morality or respect for the rule of law, will commit the same crime and therefore have to worry about it happening to them.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 09:24 pm (UTC)If they violated American law, let them be appropriately punished for it under our due process. If some foreign country wants to impose their laws on our citizens for what they did in third countries ... well, then that Power had better be prepared for some unpleasant consequences.
This isn't about "the winds of political faction," this is about tortured prisoners of war ...
This is entirely about "the winds of political faction," because what we have done in this war is no more and considerably less than what Powers normally do in wars to unlawful combatants. The only reason why you are suggesting doing this to our current Administration is that you don't like them.
Will the leaders of most Third World countries be able to travel freely? Many of them came to power in revolutions or civil wars in which they ordered atrocities against the adherents of rival factions. Or do they get a free pass?
I don't think any future American president, no one with even the slightest morality or respect for the rule of law, will commit the same crime and therefore have to worry about it happening to them.
Practically every Great Power leader, including our past and future Presidents, has "committed the same crime." It is only your extreme and perhaps comforiting ignorance of history which blinds you to this fact. And the reason why they don't "have to worry about it happening to them" is because they know that America would treat it as an act of war, and so do the foreign countries who might otherwise consider doing it.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-30 01:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-30 08:23 pm (UTC)Killing or otherwise harming illegal combatants is not a "crime against humanity." A Power has no obligations to respect the rights of people who are caught fighting out of uniform, not in the service of a recognized state.
Standing up for that idea is standing up for what's write about America. Opposing it is standing up for what's wrong with the Republican Party.
It's not actually a Democratic / Republican thing. Taking only the post World War II American Presidents: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush would be guilty of "war crimes" if the rules as agreed to be the European Union and the International Court were applied to them. So, amusingly enough, would be a number of postwar European leaders, including several British Prime Ministers and French Premiers and Presidents. And, of course, every single Russian head of state from Krushchev down to Putin.
This -- and the fact that it has only been proposed for application to the current Administration -- is what clues me in to the fact that your motives are partisan. But it would boomerang, because you would have no way to ensure that it was only applied to American Republican leaders, especially when the Republicans happened to be in power.
The leadership of the US Democratic Party not being as naive as yourself, they would oppose this because they would not want to, themselves, wind up in the dock.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-01 10:06 am (UTC)You state, "Killing or otherwise harming illegal combatants is not a "crime against humanity." A Power has no obligations to respect the rights of people who are caught fighting out of uniform, not in the service of a recognized state."
A power does have an affirmative obligation to adjudicate the status of a person, and in the meantime to hold them as if they were a protected person, suspending their right of communication in cases of espionage or sabotage.
By your standard, well below that of the Geneva Conventions to which the United States is a signatory, any captured US Special Operations troops could be shot out of hand by any party who captured them. They often fight out of uniform and bear nothing to show that they are in the service of a particular state.
However, this is not a question of international law. This is a question of whether the evil of murder or torture is justified by necessity, whether operational or strategic.
It may be sometimes that it is better to kill soldiers in combat than to take prisoners who are inconvenient. This is a necessary evil. So is the ruthless measures sometimes necessary in capturing and transporting exceptionally dangerous prisoners.
However, since torture is widely known to be ineffective and furnishes the enemy with considerable propaganda value, there is no "necessity" defense to the use of torture, whether on the battlefield or in later custody.
Interrogation is not torture. Effective interrogation makes more effective use of kindness and human decency, as distinguished by the "good cop, bad cop" routine and/or silent guarding.
I don't expect you to understand any of this, because your frequent use of strawman arguments and the doctrine of relative filth blinds you to the very real consequences of throwing out the laws of war whenever they are politically inconvenient.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-01 11:06 pm (UTC)I believe that if you actually examine my arguments, you will find that I have never argued in favor of torture, either legally or morally. What I have done is argued against the enforcement of very high standards of conduct, higher both than the historical conduct of warfare and than its conduct by our enemies, one-sidedly against America.
Will jordan179 please quit being silly?
Date: 2007-07-03 05:01 am (UTC)Many people here have attempted to have a reasoned discussion where different views are aired... great! Debate is a healthy way to exchange views. And this is complex, ethical stuff!
It seems to me that whenever you are starting to get stuck on a point or disagree with what's being said, you start to channel one of the above commentators. A bit is fine (again; debate's good), but you're starting to look silly (at least to me). Blindly classing an opposing view as if it's just a partisan thing isn't very thoughtful or creative... and isn't very interesting. And it's no way at all to learn an opposing view.
I'd love to hear your opinions, if you've got an original counter argument of your own. Please come up with something interesting soon?
Oh, and Jordan? don't bother to rant more unoriginal "thought" directed at me. If you have something to talk about, please do. Otherwise; please don't waste my reading time. You bore me.
Re: Will morganhillchris please quit being silly?
Date: 2007-07-03 11:14 pm (UTC)I consider these fairly serious flaws in the proposal, and consider you more than a little "silly" for apparently perceiving them as trivial.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-28 05:38 am (UTC)It would certainly be another nail in the coffin for Euro-American relations, such as they are. Who'd have thought that Europe would get along better with Russia than with us?
Exception: ex-Presidents. They can be killed but not held hostage, as Jimmie Carter explained to the Haitian junta while the 82nd Airborne was on the way to provide further, more pointed explanations.