Giuliani and McCain on Waterboarding
October 27, 2007
Rudy the moral relativist:
“I’m not sure it is either [whether waterboarding is torture]. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.”
McCain knows better:
”Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak. People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”
And yet, twice as many Republicans prefer Giuliani over McCain. Very telling.
8 Comments
Comments are closed.
I saw that Giuliani quote the other day and I of course focused on the line “It depends on who does it.” He couldn’t have been more honest. When we do it, it’s not torture. When “they” do it, it’s torture. In the mind of Giuliani (and many/most Americans), America is the entity that has the right to define torture, terrorism, and war.
It is telling because McCain is sinking like a stone. How about coparing Giuliani to Ron Paul? probably 20 times as many like Giuliani than Ron Paul.
Heck, MM, a we have to think “more broadly” about our candidates, don’t we? Don’t concentrate on one thing.
Someone once said: “We will not even get a foot in the door by callously dismissing broader life issues. If we are respected as staying above the political fray on the gospel of life, they will listen.”
Look at the bright side: Giuliani doesn’t rend the seamless garment. He tosses it in the dumpster whole.
Giuliani may be execrable, but most of the present possible successors are guaranteed to continue waging perpetual war. McCain is merely the candidate of “competent” imperialism.
Quite simple, really. America is doomed.
(Although, Tony’s right about one thing. MM commits a fallacy by assuming that McCain’s decline is attributable to his position against torture, when really the base of his party has loathed him and believed him a closet liberal for years, well before 9/11. Of course, they also loathe him for opposing torture, but that’s just the icing. It was the immigration bills of the last two years that sealed the deal and killed his candidacy.)
It doesn’t depend on who’s doing “it”. It depends on why they are doing “it”. Terrorists and dictators use “torture” to eliminate freedom and put down those who would oppose their dictatorships, resultant death squads and atheist policies. The U.S. would attempt to get prisoners to provide information that protects our freedom and safety and more importantly in the situations referenced, the U.S. is protecting those in Muslim countries who can’t protect themselves.
What I always see as lacking in these discussions is who the moral responsibility for the situation falls on, and why. If there is a person bent on decapitating/carbombing/shooting those who simply worship differently and we can get information from that person the moral responsibility falls upon that person to provide the information we need.
-If we can’t get the information before people die, the responsibility is ours because we did not do what we needed to do in order to save them.
-If they will not provide the information in the furnished, 3-meal-a-day, with reading material and playtime “torture” prisons then maybe it is our moral obligation to try to save those that person wants to kill. After all, they are the person who struck first, has the ill intent, and will not have the slightest hesitation in torturing someone in manners we would never even dream of imagining.
If you honestly put the emotional wellbeing of someone who is a known murderer, criminal, and torturer above doing what is in your power to protect those they target, then you need to examine your moral compass.
If you honestly put the emotional wellbeing of someone who is a known murderer, criminal, and torturer above doing what is in your power to protect those they target, then you need to examine your moral compass.
This claim presupposes a number of points that are dubious:
1. Torture is used to protect those who are possibly targeted by suspected criminals.
2. Torture is effective in extracting information that can protect those who are targeted by suspected criminals.
3. The use of an intrinsically evil act (torture) in actuality that is used in order to secure information about potential evil acts is morally acceptable, despite the possibility that no information is acquired.
4. There is certainty that there will be attacks that are certain to occur.
5. One intrinsically evil act (torture) is less immoral than other intrinsically evil acts (murder and terrorist attacks), and is therefore justifiable.
My moral compass works just fine. How about yours?
I am not so sure how “telling” this is. Most Republicans are like most Democrats. They view politics as a distraction and are not tuned it. They hear RUDY and go yeah Mayor of New York did good job yeah sounds good. THey are not engaged yet. As much as we want 24/7 election cycles that never stop Americans seem resistant to that. So I am not sure how telling that is.
I suspect that Democrats like Republicans have not thought a lot about the moral implications of torture. I am really to bet in both groups 9 out of 10 people watching Jack Bauer in 24 thinks it is a darn good idea to torture someone to get info before a Nuclear bomb explodes in LA. Besides that I think most Americans have not thought about it a lot.
“This claim presupposes a number of points that are dubious:
1. Torture is used to protect those who are possibly targeted by suspected criminals.
2. Torture is effective in extracting information that can protect those who are targeted by suspected criminals.
3. The use of an intrinsically evil act (torture) in actuality that is used in order to secure information about potential evil acts is morally acceptable, despite the possibility that no information is acquired.
4. There is certainty that there will be attacks that are certain to occur.
5. One intrinsically evil act (torture) is less immoral than other intrinsically evil acts (murder and terrorist attacks), and is therefore justifiable.
My moral compass works just fine. How about yours?”
The original post was regarding how the U.S. would use so-called torture, so #1 is not a supposition, it’s a fact.
#2 – It is well known that the techniques of sleep deprivation and isolation (neither of which should be considered “torture”) are effective in extracting information.
#3 – The definition of torturing cannot be separated from it’s intent. Sadistically and randomly coercing someone via actual torture is morally unacceptable. Coercing those who are evil incarnate to save others, especially using the “techniques” that we would use is acceptable. The person planning and executing the attack is the one who holds the responsibility for his anguish. This all besides the fact that we do not watch movies to get the ideas for our coercion techniques. Relativity will always make the just look as bad as those they fight. Rest assured that we do not amputate, shock, whip, scalp, behead friends, burn, torch, or crush like those we fight.
#4 – There is certainty that bad acts will happen all around the world. Does that mean that we shouldn’t target those who commit those acts?
#5 – As the definition of “torture” cannot be separated from its intent, additive to the fact that we do not practice what people would actually consider torture (barking dogs, sexy women, lack of sleep, do not count as these are conditions everyone deals with) I don’t understand how we would practicing an intrinsically evil act. The acts that we are trying to prevent and could be prevented if only the person told the truth are the responsibility of the prisoner, as are the consequences of his inaction.