An ethical question

[STAGE 2]

I asked this in a previous thread that was closed and I think it has some merit.

People on this board, and those in the firearms/self defense industry have varied opinions on all sorts of things. However one commonality that I have found in their opinions and teachings regarding self defense is that when a person is presented with a deadly threat they can and should do everything in their power to neutralize the threat. That means a knee to the groin, and elbow to the face, throwing dirt, gouging eyes and all of the other things that have been "traditionally" viewed as fighing dirty.

No one here would look down upon a person who utilized the above tactics to ward off an attacker while they were minding their own business on their way home. Quite the contrary, we would say they were resourceful, and pat them on the back.

Why is it then that what we applaud on a personal level, we denounce on a national level? In modern times, America is the man on the street walking home, and terrorism is the thug trying to take our wallet, and our life if he can. Preventing the CIA from having secret prisons or conducting "forceful interrogations" is the same as telling the individual no matter what happens you can't use your elbows.

The common reply to this has always been, "we are better than they are", or "we're not going to stoop to their level" or "this is what separates us from the terrorists". I submit to you this is not what separates us from the terrorists. What separates us is that we don't start wars. We constantly, and sometimes to our detriment, strive for peace. Look back over the last 100 years and ask yourself what it took for us to become involved in all of our major conflicts. When we pick up the sabre, it has always been with reluctance.

For those of you that disagree, let me ask you this. If you were to protect your family, what kind of methods would you use? Would you temper your response taking into account how your friends viewed your action? Would you take into account what issues the attacker might be going through or what kind of adversity he has faced? Would you only limit yourself to a knife if that's what he was carrying?

Most of you here have already stated your answers to this question, in one thread or another. In fact, some of you have stated what would happen to an intruder or an attacker shouuld you find them, leaving little to the imagination.

Is it not complete hypocracy to on one hand say that you will show an attacker no mercy, but on the other hand mandate your nation deal with attackers in a far different manner.

 

[reils49]

I'd like to comment Stage, but I have a feeling theyre going to shut us down.

 

[STAGE 2]

No they shouldn't. I have faith that we can keep this out of the gutter. This is a philosophical discussion and as such responses like "nuke em all" are not welcome.

 

[jcoiii]

I'll offer this contribution:

Having someone in prison is not quite the same as grappling with someone on the street. Each individual on this board has an opinion of what is "too far" in terms of methods of information extraction.

I can give details of what my opinion is, but that would probably devolve into, "you're a barbarian" or "that's ALL you would do?" kind of stuff that would result in this being closed.

Now, to take it down to a personal level. If I had someone in my house in custody who was tied to people who had, say, kidnapped one of my family members, I can speculate to what ends I might attempt to get that information from them. I can also speculate as to where I would draw the line in terms of techniques. But that's all. just speculate.

 

[springmom]

It's an interesting premise

But I think the logic of the analogy is somewhat flawed. If I get mugged walking to my car, this is an instantaneous event in which my world goes from peaceful to deadly in seconds. I have only seconds in which to react. Nations, however, have much more wiggle room and lead time before a war even starts. Unless we look at an event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, where (to quote Toby Keith) "a sucker punch came flyin' in from somewhere in the back", most other conflicts have lead time. We can plan. We can mobilize our weaponry, stage our troops, and theoretically (one can always hope) have a plan for accomplishing our goals and getting out of the conflict at the end.

Within that, we have a range of options when we have a prisoner. That particular prisoner does not, in truth, hold the "knife to our throat" in the same way the mugger does. He has information we need, and we have ways of getting the information that range from psyops kinds of things to (in olden days) the rack, the lash, and nowadays the cattle prod and such.

One problem with torture (because that is what we're talking about) is that the info you get may or may not be reliable. If you just sit down with the guy and have a cup of tea, you'll be lied to. If you use a cattle prod on his privates, you may also be lied to, although the lies in that case are far more likely to be "tell you what you want to hear" kinds of lies just to get you to stop what you're doing.

Either way, you have unreliable information.

I'm not condoning tea and crumpets for al-Qaeda prisoners. But I think there's an assumption made that, um, forceful questioning will result in factual responses, and IMO that's an assumption that is fairly weak.

Now, in the global sense, "fighting dirty" against al-Qaeda, is just fine with me. I remember the criticism our guys were getting when we used the "bunker buster" bombs. Certain critics were hand-wringing about the death and destruction and misery being inflicted on those in the caves, and as far as I was concerned, it paled in comparison to the death, destruction, and misery inflicted on our citizens and our guests who were in the twin towers on 9/11. No crocodile tears, here.

But "fighting dirty" against an unarmed opponent who sits under your total control in a cell? You may not get what you want in the end, and as there are better (read, effective and less violent) ways to get what you want, those are the better ethical choices.

Your mileage may vary. My $.02, highly overinflated, as always.

Springmom

 

[tegemu]

There are four letters that are guaranteed to raise my hackles, ACLU. Sounds like a good chance for them to be on our side for a change.

 

[STAGE 2]

I'm not condoning tea and crumpets for al-Qaeda prisoners. But I think there's an assumption made that, um, forceful questioning will result in factual responses, and IMO that's an assumption that is fairly weak.

Whether or not torture results in reliable information is beyond the scope of this topic. However I will say that most of those who advocate that torture should not be used because it can be unreliable are merely using this as a mask to cover their true feelings, namely a complete prohibition.

My overall point, which applies to more things than torture is that we allow a take no prisoners attitude for our own personal safety, yet we don't allow our nation the same privilege.

 

[TimRB]

"Preventing the CIA from having secret prisons or conducting "forceful interrogations" is the same as telling the individual no matter what happens you can't use your elbows."

Weigh the concept of secret prisons against the notion of innocence until proven guilty. Or in other words, what would you think about secret prisons if you were thrown into one? Since day one, the law in this country has been geared toward protecting the innocent and powerless individual from the all-powerful (and possibly abusive) government. I like it that way.

Tim

 

[springmom]

Whether or not torture results in reliable information is beyond the scope of this topic. However I will say that most of those who advocate that torture should not be used because it can be unreliable are merely using this as a mask to cover their true feelings, namely a complete prohibition.

I'd say that's a generalization that you have no evidence to back up. You certainly don't know my "true feelings" unless you are willing to take what I write or say at face value (which you should...that's what I think).

My overall point, which applies to more things than torture is that we allow a take no prisoners attitude for our own personal safety, yet we don't allow our nation the same privilege.

And that is because the analogy is flawed, as I said originally. They're not the same situation at all. It's far closer to that described by jcoiii...you've already captured the mugger, you have him disarmed, under your control. Do you NOW have the right to go at him with no holds barred? I think not. Once he's in the custody of the police, do THEY now have the right to go at him with no holds barred? No. There are ethical limits, for you with the disarmed mugger, for the police who have arrested the mugger...and for the interrogators who have a prisoner in a cell during a war.

Springmom

 

[STAGE 2]

Tim, unless you know of an American that has been thrown into one of these prisons, all of our guarantees don't apply. Therefore, any terrorist we capture can pre presumed guilty... that is unless you feel like extending the constitution to enemies on the battlefield.

 

[Coinneach]

Stage 2, that's a nice bit of circular reasoning.

Therefore, any terrorist we capture can pre presumed guilty...

By this logic, anyone we capture is a de facto terrorist. Who needs evidence?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Does anyone doubt that if terrorism of a homegrown nature, be it McVeigh-oid or American citizens of Islamic descent, started to occur on a frequent basis - folks would want to have secret prisions, use water boarding, dogs in the face, etc. to these Americans?

Would that be OK on the grounds of expediency? BTW, at a meeting of the American Society for Criminology, I attended a session run by a police officer and had a panel containing such. While the majority of agencies seem to be quite aboveboard, the panel pointed out quite a few that would try to extract confessions (and did) from the innocent to clear cases. The methods were questionable.

So I ask folks - if we had domestic terrorism of a significant nature, would you apply the same tactics you want to use on the foreign born terrorists to American citizens?

Is it a reasonable fear that a government that seems to have such a loose grasp on morality besides saying inarticulately that reasoned critics (who are articulate) have to get with the 'program' would apply the same to our citizens?

Waco, Watergate, J. Edgar, the dogs and hoses of civil rights, etc. illustrates to me that we have to keep the moral high ground even if we lose a touch of efficacy. However, I don't buy the claim that using such techniques really save our bacon - torture is thought to be not that useful and I don't trust the claims of all these plots for a second.

 

[STAGE 2]

By this logic, anyone we capture is a de facto terrorist. Who needs evidence?

No, but anyone we capture on the battlefield who isn't a US citizen (read: all of them) has no rights. Meaning they have no presumption of innocence.

 

[Coinneach]

anyone we capture on the battlefield who isn't a US citizen (read: all of them) has no rights.

And that justifies torture, how?

News flash, Stage 2: In this ill-defined and ill-conceived war, there is no battlefield. You can't identify the enemy by his uniform. There is no concrete, attainable goal. Do you seriously propose to order everyone in the entire world to fall in line or be "forcefully interrogated?"

 

[STAGE 2]

You apparently didn't bother to read my entire statement. While torture/forced interrogation is a part, it is not the only part.

My premise is that it is hypocritical for people to advocate using lethal force with impunity to those who pose individual threats but at the same time we must be the "bigger person" on a national level.

This is not a piece on why the US should torture people. It's not even intended to advocate that the US should use tougher methods. It is simply to point out the disparity in thought and find out why.

The fact that you are so disturbed by it makes me wonder if you fit the mold that I am speaking of.

 

[rangermonroe]

Weigh the concept of secret prisons against the notion of innocence until proven guilty. Or in other words, what would you think about secret prisons if you were thrown into one? Since day one, the law in this country has been geared toward protecting the innocent and powerless individual from the all-powerful (and possibly abusive) government. I like it that way.

I worry that we fail to realize that the ones who "today" are allowed to "aggressively interogate" suspected enemies of the state, will someday come home and look for a job.

"Tomorrow" some of these decorated veterans, will become policemen.

When there is a "hard case", some will remember the "good ol' days", and how they got hadji to talk.

A few will do more than remember.

 

[Coinneach]

Stage 2, your analogy was bogus right from the start. A known assailaint committing a crime against a particular person bears no resemblance to your theoretical might-or-might-not-be-a-terrorist, therefore you cannot draw a comparison between them.

No, I don't advocate torturing people who are aggressing against me. I'll resolve the issue right there, on the spot, no need to commit further atrocities against them. Torture is pointless, barbaric, and inhuman, regardless of the flag being flown by the torturers.

 

[STAGE 2]

Coinneach, you clearly don't comprehend my argument because you are stuck on torture. I posed a philosophical question dealing with the use of force on a personal and national level and why they are so different.

Address the topic and get off torture. Thats not what this is about.


Since you can't seem to grasp this I'll dumb it down for you. Why is fighting dirty to protect your own life commendable but fighting dirty on a national level is a horrible thing.

 

[Epyon]

Stage 2...

Interesting post... I have to say though...

Tim, unless you know of an American that has been thrown into one of these prisons, all of our guarantees don't apply.

NPR did a report of a Canadian citizen stopped in New York on the way back home, and then forced to Syria to be tortured for a year. Turns out the man was never a terrorist, this is an innocent man who was punished for no reason. As for the CIA using these tactics, ever heard of ghost detainees? We don't know if or how many American citizens may have also been caught in this and thrown into black sites. Google the term black sites, ghost detainee, and extrodinary rendition. Do you think that such dirty tactics wouldn't be used on the American people themselves? It's suspected that about 4,000 American citzens have fallen victim to laws like the Patriot Act and other initiatives that allow the government to execute such actions with impunity. Obviously no one but the higher ups know the number and who are detained and tortured. If we excuse our government to carry out such acts, ESPECIALLY in secret, we are literally telling them that raping the Bill of Rights is okay because now they can use those same activities on us, for SUSPECTED terrorism, in the name of "national security". Is it safe to give a small powerful elite group control of OUR rights and safety? Would you hand a mugger your firearm willingly? I'm sure Benjamin Franklin is rolling in his grave, giving up essential liberty for security just means more security for the corrupt few in order to protect those few from the many.


Epyon

EDIT: Even though they are terrorists, if we are fighting a war, we must give them the basic human rights as stated in the Geneva Conventions, because we ARE a nation of better standards. If they are detained let them face a military tribunal, after all are they not combatants? They may have no nation, but they ARE enemy soldiers. (Whether they are part of an actual standing army or not.)

 

[Coinneach]

Coinneach, you clearly don't comprehend my argument because you are stuck on torture. I posed a philosophical question dealing with the use of force on a personal and national level and why they are so different.

Address the topic and get off torture. Thats not what this is about.

Since you can't seem to grasp this I'll dumb it down for you. Why is fighting dirty to protect your own life commendable but fighting dirty on a national level is a horrible thing.

Use of force on a national level, especially lately, DOES equate to torture. And your initial proposal is still BS.

You said:

Preventing the CIA from having secret prisons or conducting "forceful interrogations" is the same as telling the individual no matter what happens you can't use your elbows.

Forgot that part, did you? Unless the definition of torture has changed (and I'm well aware that there are some who think it has), that's exactly what it is.

Fighting dirty to neutralise an immediate, imminent threat is in absolutely no gorram way comparable to conducting TORTURE (onoes, I said it again!) against someone who MAY OR MAY NOT be a threat. Take your strawman and go home, thanks.