Recently there has been widespread discussion and news coverage on two seemingly unrelated topics – euthanasia and torture. Taken together, though, they reveal our peculiar attitudes and moral reasoning on suffering and death.
The first story concerns the ethical requirements for treating war detainees. Earlier this week Sen. John McCain proposed to implement a single set of acceptable interrogation practices for foreign detainees that would ban not only torture, but also less severe "cruel, inhumane and degrading" practices. Although President Bush has repeatedly stated that the U.S. does not condone or practice torture, Vice President Cheney reportedly lead a behind-the-scenes drive to block McCain's amendment from becoming law.
The second item involves allegations of euthanasia in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The Louisiana attorney general's office is investigating the claim that terminally ill patients at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans were given lethal doses of medication by doctors or nurses in the days after Hurricane Katrina. A physician claims that he heard medical staff discussing the option of euthanasia for those patients who had no chance of surviving. He said that he listened to a discussion between other doctors about euthanasing the worst of the cases and then saw the area where he was working cleared of everyone except for the patients, the hospital administrator and two doctors.
While Cheney’s attempt to exempt the CIA from engaging in conduct that borders on torture has been roundly criticized, many people are less critical of the actions of the New Orleans doctors. “Whatever decisions they made, they made in prayer,” says Crispin Sartwel. “They made in the midst of what could only have been the deepest and most tortured encounter with their own consciences.” Radley Balko agrees and notes, “It would be absurd for anyone to pretend to know what they should have done, or to apply the law as it exists now to a time and place where social order, law, and probity were suspended.” “To prosecute these doctors and nurses would be barbaric and serve no purpose whatsoever,” adds Ed Brayton. “They did what they did out of compassion, not malice.”
While I don’t know where Sartwel, Balko, or Brayton stand on the issue of torture I suspect that they are against the practice. I suspect that they believe that torture is an illegitimate use of power but that mercy killing is, in certain cases, justifiable. This moral calculus leads to a peculiar standard: Inducing suffering to prevent death is unconscionable but inducing death to prevent suffering is excusable.
Admittedly, this may be a false dichotomy. Many people, including these gentlemen, would probably agree with Alex Tabarrok’s claim that, “Sometimes torture is necessary to prevent a greater evil.” The most common example in defense of this view is the "ticking time bomb" case. In this hypothetical situation a terrorist knows the location of a ticking nuclear bomb and is unwilling to disclose its location unless presented with “extreme duress.” Several pundits – including libertarian Megan McArdle and liberal Kevin Drum – seem to agree that under such an extreme circumstance torture would be acceptable.
But in general, most ethically sane individuals will agree that torture is immoral and should be illegal in almost all circumstances. Tabarrok offers an economic rationale for this position:
By making torture illegal we are raising the price of torture but we are not raising the price to infinity. If the President or the head of the CIA thinks that torture is required to stop the ticking time bomb then they ought to approve it knowing full well that they face possible prosecution. Only if the price of torture is very high can we expect that it will be used only in the most absolutely urgent of circumstances. [emphasis in original]
Because the torture victim must bear the cost of incredible pain and even death, adds Tabarrok, the benefits to the torturer must worth bearing some of the costs. “Torture,” he rightly notes, “must not be cheap.”
The same principle should be true of euthanasia. Brayton, Balko, and Sartwel contend that even if the doctors are guilty they should not be prosecuted. “Law can lead to injustice when it is applied mechanically, which is to say inhumanly,” argues Sartwel. “And it is worth saying that the context in which the law has force and in which alternative procedures can be specified had completely broken down.” The problem with this reasoning is that it could apply equally to the conditions conducive to torture. In fact, such a justification could be used by CIA agents inflicting torture in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. To prevent abuses, the price of torture must be raised to an extremely high level.
For this same reason, the state of Louisiana has a duty to investigate, prosecute, and convict any doctor or nurse who hastened the death of a patient in their care. I would also argue that given the circumstances, the governor would be justified in granting a pardon for these crimes. But under no circumstances should the legal process be circumvented.
As in the case of torture, the “mercy killing” of patients by doctors must be raised to a high – but not infinite – price. It must be clearly established that any such action by a member of the medical community will in almost all cases result in severe punishment. Before a doctor makes the decision to actively kill a patient they should be acutely aware that it may cost them everything. Euthanasia, like torture, must not be cheap.
* I have almost no reservations when it comes to opposing both torture and euthanasia; I think that they are immoral in almost all circumstances. But because I am neither a utilitarian nor a deontologist (my ethical view could best be described as a form of pneumatological virtue ethics), I cannot say that there are no situations where these actions would not be morally justifiable. In the absence of the relevant facts I do not want to prejudge the investigation in New Orleans. But I will admit that it is possible that the situation was ethically justified.
1
Perhaps the solution would be to apply Geneva Convention standards to the terminally ill and the Hippocratic oath to to captured terrorists. Doctors would be prohibited by law to deny basic sustanence (food and water) to their patients and the military would be prohibited by law to do "harm" to their prisoners. In the hard cases they could always revert back to the status quo.
posted on 11.17.2005 2:36 AM3
The utility arguments for torture are actually horse excrement.
The "ticking time bomb" scenario is nonsense, as bad guys plan for this (we do too). The only justification for torture is sadism, I'm sorry to say.
This is not to make an equal sign with assisted suicide; it's not, and if NOLA's deaths other than an assisted suicide, it's a homicide to me. With lots of culpability to go 'round.
posted on 11.17.2005 6:06 AM4
Excellent post, Mr. Carter.
I don't know what should be done with the alleged euthanists, or what our torture policy should be, but your argument of making the price of both extremely high makes a lot of sense.
It's similar to the civil disobedience campaigns of the sixties. Protestors had to be willing to endure the legal sanctions of their non-violent demonstrations in order to show their commitment both to reform and to the rule of law.
posted on 11.17.2005 7:48 AM5
Nice post. There's also a related case from Iraq that touches on similar ethical issues: the US solders who are accused of killing a badly wounded Iraqi teenager. The soldiers claimed it was a mercy killing (e.g. euthanasia), and the practice has sufficent historical precedent in western culture to have a specific term: the coup de grace. Others call their action premeditated murder.
Assuming that euthanasia did occur in Louisiana (an open question), it would be interesting to know whether those inclined to defend the doctors would also defend the soldiers. My guess is that you will find liberals who defend the doctors but not the soldiers, and conservatives who defend the soldiers but not the doctors.
posted on 11.17.2005 8:46 AM6
Lots of good thinking here, Joe. Mumom is wrong (unless he is omniscient, of course) to suggest that there could *never* be a moral justification for torture, but it certainly is a moral slippery slope.
The bigger problem is that "torture" and "pain" can be interpreted so broadly, to include emotional discomfort (flushing Korans or insulting your mother) or sleep deprivation or..., that a legal prohibition against torture would have to be written very carefully to prevent future court interpretations from ruling out a great many useful interrogation techniques.
Whereas with euthanasia, you're either dead or your not.
posted on 11.17.2005 9:49 AM7
To my thinking, there is a vast difference between actively inflicting suffering upon a person and ending a dying person's life (and suffering).
The only question in the NOLA case is whether the patients wanted to die. If they did not consent, either at the time or through a legal document, it's homicide. The doctors may have believed they were doing the right thing -- and given the circumstances perhaps it was -- but there is still a price to be paid.
posted on 11.17.2005 9:50 AM8
Charlie :
I guess the Golden Rule doesn't mean anything.
posted on 11.17.2005 10:34 AM9
I guess the Golden Rule doesn't mean anything.
It means a lot, but it's not a "suicide pact" and it doesn't exist in a vacumm. Under normal circumstances, I would not hit somebody with a baseball bat, because I would not want that person to do the same to me, but if that person is trying to abduct my daughter, my desire to apply the "Golden Rule" is superceded by my desire to protect my little girl.
posted on 11.17.2005 11:34 AM10
Torture, alas, is by its very definition always wrong, for torture basically is defined as the use of unacceptable methods of interrogation. The sticking point is that how people define torture is not uniform across all individuals or societies.
I agree with Joe that the legal case should be prosecuted, and if statutes were violated the doctors should be convicted. But that pardon by Ms Blanco or Mr Bush also might be encouraged.
posted on 11.17.2005 11:36 AM11
Inducing suffering to prevent death is unconscionable but inducing death to prevent suffering is excusable.
Of course, inducing suffering doesn't necessarily prevent death.
Inducing death does present suffering, however.
This happens every day in the United States, by the way. It's called "pulling the plug."
What do you think goes in hospices, nursing homes and hospitals every day? You think it's just people eating ice cream after they've had their tonsils taken out or what?
This whole euthanasia investigation in New Orleans is disgusting.
Any one here honestly think that in the course of invading and taking control of Iraq that none of America's finest has euthanized anyone?
I hope nobody is that naive.
posted on 11.17.2005 12:13 PM12
ucfengr:
[The Golden Rule] means a lot, but it's not a "suicide pact" and it doesn't exist in a vacumm...
Which of the terms apply: situational ethics or moral relativism?
I would not hit somebody with a baseball bat, because I would not want that person to do the same to me, but if that person is trying to abduct my daughter, my desire to apply the "Golden Rule" is superceded by my desire to protect my little girl.
Which isn't the same thing as torturing detainees.
The odd thing about this whole discussion, is that we absolutely, positively without a doubt know that war crimes and abuses have already taken place. It wasn't a ticking time bomb scenario; it certainly wasn't an abduction.
Not only then is the entire discussion on this useless - as stated above, there's far more effective and reliable ways to ferret out information- it's beside the point, and a distraction from, as Larry points out, the moral sewer into which George W. Bush and his regime have led us.
posted on 11.17.2005 1:04 PM13
There is also a pragmatic agrument against torture, that is does not produce reliable information. In a "ticking bomb" scenario, the terrorist would likely anticipate the risk of capture and have a well-prepared, misleading lie to offer. Plus, torture is costly in the battle for hearts and minds.
I also think that torture demeans the side that uses it. I'm trying to remember who said something along the lines of, "if we have to become like our enemy to defeat him, then we have already lost." I've wondered whether those who say the ticking bomb excuses torture conceive of any limits. For instance, if direct torture isn't working, would it be acceptable to apprehend and torture the suspect's wife or children? How does one determine that a degree of ruthlessness is acceptable, but no more?
posted on 11.17.2005 1:08 PM14
Mumon, "we absolutely, positively without a doubt know that war crimes and abuses have already taken place"
Refresh my memory: what are the war crimes and abuses you refer to? (and by "abuses" do you mean "torture"?)
I ask in seriousness, I'm not trying to entrap or be devious.
posted on 11.17.2005 2:19 PM15
It means a lot, but it's not a "suicide pact" and it doesn't exist in a vacumm. Under normal circumstances, I would not hit somebody with a baseball bat, because I would not want that person to do the same to me,...
Hmmmm, if you take the 'turn the other cheek' line from Jesus seriously it is just that. You can't hit your neighbor with a baseball bat EVEN IF he hits you.
Nonetheless, the 'ticking bomb' justification isn't at issue here. The Bush administration is not claiming an exemption for such unusual situations but they are claiming it is already their policy to prohibit torture....which means the military is violating orders if it engages in torture. The refusal to permit this to be encoded into law indicates that Bush wants to be dishonest about this (what else is new). If he honestly believes torture is sometimes necessary then support a law prohibiting it but allowing the President to personally override the prohibition if he deems it necessary. That solves your 'ticking bomb' scenero in one fell swoop.
16
I will give you credit for a plethora of knowledge in many areas but not on the account that the doctors and nurses euthanized those patients. These were patients that were dying!!
In the midst of a crisis situation they made a crucial decision to let them die with a lesser degree of suffering. When the electricity and supplies were depleted and there were no other options, other than to let the last few breaths be less agonizing, they did what was best for the patients. They allowed them to die a peaceful death. These were not awake and/or alert patients that could make a decision for themselves. They were on life support via IV medication drips/ventilators etc... To suggest
anything other than supporting the Doctors and nurses would be absurd, arrogant and highly unChristlike. That is my humble opinion.
17
My guess is that you will find liberals who defend the doctors but not the soldiers, and conservatives who defend the soldiers but not the doctors.
Nick, I'm not liberal.
I don't defend the soldiers that torture.
posted on 11.17.2005 2:49 PM18
Hmmmm, if you take the 'turn the other cheek' line from Jesus seriously it is just that. You can't hit your neighbor with a baseball bat EVEN IF he hits you.
But Jesus did use physical violence to drive the money changer out of the temple, so obviously the "Golden Rule" is not a prohibition against violence. It does have uses, and Christians and Americans have to be discerning about when it is applicable. When Jesus told people to "turn the other cheek", he probably didn't mean it if the slapper was using a sword or bomb.
posted on 11.17.2005 2:51 PM19
Inducing suffering to prevent death is unconscionable but inducing death to prevent suffering is excusable.
This ignores the significance of autonomy & consent (which is the difference between sex and rape, and I don't think that's a difference you'd want to level. I hope.).
The person that, even wrongly, thinks s/he is euthanizing another because s/he thinks that that is what the other would want him/her to do (constructive consent), still doesn't run afoul of the principle of consent/autonomy so much as the torturer.
So, there's no paradox: you just don't understand why we put such moral emphasis on autonomy.
posted on 11.17.2005 3:00 PM20
ucfengr:
. When Jesus told people to "turn the other cheek", he probably didn't mean it if the slapper was using a sword or bomb.
And what pray tell was he talking about when he warned that he who lived by the sword would die by it?
Again rather than try to answer the question, "Who would Jesus torture?" why not consider the fact that folks who are not god have already tortured people who weren't any threat at all, and they call themselves supporters of "conservative Christians." Why not talk about the thunderous silence on the part of the Hugh Hewitts and James Dobsons? Why not talk about the conviction of sin they share through their silence?
Just wondering.
posted on 11.17.2005 3:02 PM21
(strike the above; the post is more nuanced than I thought initially)
posted on 11.17.2005 3:06 PM22
Bryan K Mills:
Well, lessee, there's Abu Ghraib. There's Maher Arar, "rendered" to torturers courtesy of the US.
Then, of course there's the white phosphorous WMD's we've used against Iraqis.
We know for a fact that Alberto Gonzales, current attorney general of the United States, has approved of torture; sure he calls it something else, and denies it, but it fits the dictionary definition like a glove, and so we can only assume he's lying.
This is just the tip of the iceberg (for example, the Bush regime is fighting in court to keep even more horrendous photos of Abu Ghraib, ones that allegedly show rape and murder from being made public). If you're not up on these things, I can only say you're woefully uninformed.
posted on 11.17.2005 3:08 PM23
I'm glad to see some Christians finally getting involved on the torture issue. Their voices have been conspicously absent on the subject. The religous right wing of the GOP certainly flexed it's muscle on Supreme Court nominations, but they have been almost silent about the torture.
If they had lobbied Congress and the President on this issue with the same intensity as they did over Harriet Myers, the issue would be settled. But I have seen no sign of any activity on their part. This blog is the first time I've even seen it even mentioned.
Below are some references on the torture issue. Yes, the link is from the ACLU. However all the documents you can access and see are from the military, FBI, CIA, etc.
Some of the more interesting documents are the letters from JAG officers protesting the new DOD policies on torture as directed from the White House. I've never been more proud of our military. And never more ashamed of their civilian leadership. The Bush Administration has turned the "War Crimes" charge from being a looney left-wing moonbat rant into a cold and accurate description of what this Administration has wrought.
The torture issue is a moral challenge facing Christian political organizations today. It is one that so far they are flunking. If they do not speak out, then it will show that they believe in moral expediency more than in an objective definition of right and wrong.
And the straw man of justifying torture if it saves lives is not acceptable. Christians, I would think, should be more worried about the next life than this one. How will they justify their silence on the torture committed in thier name when they are standing before God?
http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=torturefoia
posted on 11.17.2005 3:43 PM24
The first job of the Federal Government is to protect the Citizens. If the foe we face in this war on terror does not respond to conventional methods the government forces must use any means necessary to acomplish it's duty. Since 9/11 how many times have terrorists struck on American soil?
God bless our fighting men and women and God help us if those who are weak and unable to make the hard decisions get back in power.
25
Seems like we have a real definitional problem here. Some people define putting naked prisoners into a pile and taking pictures as "torture." Others of us might define it as "fraternity prank." Which would you rather have done, be humiliated in public or have your head sawed off with a knife in front of a video camera? (obviously the answer is "neither," but there is a difference in degree here that calling both "torture" hides rather than illuminates.)
Some people define white phosphorus as a "WMD." Others think it's a local weapon that can't possibly cause "mass destruction." (Not to defend white phosphorus, which is at best a highly unpleasant substance.) But in my opinion calling white phosphorus a WMD is not far from calling a knife a WMD--after all, there is no theoretical limit to the number of people I could kill with my Swiss Army Knife.
"Euthanasia" also is a loaded term. We get at cross purposes quickly. Is it "mercy killing" without the consent of the killed? Is it any "mercy killing" including physician assisted suicide of someone who asks for it? Is abortion euthanasia?
Our culture seems to be losing the ability to define differences carefully. It seems more important to load terms with as much baggage and weight as possible than to be precise. Anything to make Bush look as bad as possible, or to make the Iraq war effort look as good as possible.
posted on 11.17.2005 4:08 PM26
"Gipper":
Since 9/11 how many times have terrorists struck on American soil?
Several times, actually. The anthrax terrorist comes to mind.
Conservatives like to mention eco-terrorists, and of course, there's the militia movement.
But you talk about people who are "weak;" aside from the fact that the principals associated with the current regime either never had a uniform on or cannot prove they successfully were discharged, the fact is, you're talking about a regime in which they're so cowardly they don't even go on record for speaking with the media.
They're so cowardly they have to out CIA NOCs and jeopardize the security of this country.
They're so cowardly they have to hand pick crowds of supporters, and arrest people who even wear clothing that is pro-peace!
Torture is a sign of weakness. Again, if you're even asking "Who would Jesus torture?" you're already far depraved beyond what major religions teach.
posted on 11.17.2005 4:24 PM27
jim:
Seems like we have a real definitional problem here. Some people define putting naked prisoners into a pile and taking pictures as "torture." Others of us might define it as "fraternity prank." Which would you rather have done, be humiliated in public or have your head sawed off with a knife in front of a video camera? (obviously the answer is "neither," but there is a difference in degree here that calling both "torture" hides rather than illuminates.)
We're not talking embarassment. We're talking murder.
We're talking real torture.
This is what Bush gave us. This is "Republican Christian values."
You have a choice: you can either repudiate it, and reclaim a moral position, or you can minimize it or ignore it. Remember the "what you do to the least of these you do to Me" thing?
You have a choice.
posted on 11.17.2005 4:30 PM28
Then, of course there's the white phosphorous WMD's we've used against Iraqis.
I really wish you all would give this a rest. WP is not a WMD. It is not outlawed by any convention to which the US is a signatory. It is used in illumination rounds mostly, but can also be used as an incindiary round.
The Army artillery journal that describes the use of WP in Fallujah talks about using it to minimize the possibility of killing anything but the intended target, since they otherwise would have had to blanket a large area with HE (high explosive) rounds whereas with WP they could hit a specific target to kill or otherwise flush out the terrorists hiding there.
And whereas the possibility of civilians being killed by WP can't be ruled out, to say that the US deliberately targeted civlians is a vile lie. I know a young Marine lance corporal in 5th Marines, the unit involved in the first Fallujah attack, who describes the extraordinary lengths Americans went to to avoid civilian casualties, to the point that one Marine likely was killed because he would not shoot what he thought was a civilian but turned out to be a terrorist. (You don't have to take his or my word for this either; read the July/August edition of "The Atlantic Monthly" that describes this as well.) He describes the terrorists firing small arms and mortars indiscriminately across the city and hiding behind women and children to cross streets. (The Marines, of course, held their fire.)
There are many people whose hatred of Bush is so strong and so irrational that they're willing to perpetuate a lie and damage the cause of the United States (and endanger American troops in the process) just out of political spite.
posted on 11.17.2005 5:03 PM29
Since we seem to be tossing the Golden Rule around like a frisbee at a beach party, I thought I'd mention Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
The point is that when you look at the entire Bible, and 2000 years of debate by Christians on its meaning, it is possible for devout Christians to come to believe (as I do) that there are Just Wars, and that they are necessarily untidy and bloody enterprises. But Just. And sometimes, they are the only way to protect the innocent from evil.
posted on 11.17.2005 5:32 PM30
tom:
WP is not a WMD. It is not outlawed by any convention to which the US is a signatory. It is used in illumination rounds mostly, but can also be used as an incindiary round.
It depends on how it's used, of course, and it's indisputable by now that civilians, were definitely killed.
It's not out of hatred of Bush that people like me say these things, though I'm sure there's places now Bush can't go for the same reason that Ariel Sharon can't really travel to places like Belgium.
Look, he supports torture, despite his denials. All Americans of good will want that to stop.
Bush is a very unpopular president right now in America, but I guess some folks will support him no matter what. Which I don't understand.
Charlie:
Clearly the sword wasn't meant for Jesus' followers to wield.
posted on 11.17.2005 5:42 PM31
Bush is a very unpopular president right now in America, but I guess some folks will support him no matter what. Which I don't understand.
But I don't support Bush unequivocally. As with most people here, I think torture is both immoral and just plain stupid.
I do, however, hate to see lies perpetrated (and perpetuated), knowing that Americans have died to prevent the very thing they're accused of.
And there is doubt as to whether civililans were deliberately targeted by WP, as is the charge made by many. The photos shown on al Jazeera and other places can't even substantiate whether those people were killed by Americans, much less by WP.
posted on 11.17.2005 5:51 PM32
"Clearly the sword wasn't meant for Jesus' followers to wield."
So Christians can't be soldiers?
Christians can't be in government leadership positions?
I don't see that in Scripture. Where some see Christianity as necessitating pacifism, I do not agree with that position. There is such a thing as a just war.
posted on 11.17.2005 6:22 PM33
Where some see Christianity as necessitating pacifism, I do not agree with that position.
Indeed. The Pacifist position may be legitimate for an individual, but governments have an obligation to protect their citizens.
To say that nothing is worth dying for is to say that there is no person and no cause you wouldn't betray to save your own skin.
posted on 11.17.2005 6:59 PM34
tom:
To say that nothing is worth dying for is to say that there is no person and no cause you wouldn't betray to save your own skin.
Of course, that's not what a pacifist would say. A pacifist believes nothing is worth killing for. There may be many things worth dying for.
posted on 11.17.2005 7:26 PM35
Joe,
I want to compliment you on a find and distinctive post even while disagreeing with some of your points. But it is a great breath of fresh air since I had felt you had gone over to the dark side with the quote mining and twisted logic in many recent offerings.
If you offered a link like some of the search engines that said "more like this one" I'd click it.
Andy
posted on 11.17.2005 8:08 PM36
Hey Tom, blast from the past, from over in the Jarhead thread.
Someone asked:
"Just curious -- any Marines here want to comment on the use of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, e.g., dropping it on places in Fallujah where lots of civilians are running around?"
To which you replied:
"Your mistake is believing al Jazeera. White phosphorus is a key element in illumination rounds and flares. Illum rounds detonate in the air and glow brightly, brighter than daylight. Used at night, they make it hard for an enemy to hide. The WP burns up before it hits the ground. Same with flares. It is not used against people, enemy or civilian. I've seen the photos on al Jazeera's web site, and there's no proof these people were killed by Americans period, much less WP."
Well...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm
"US used white phosphorus in Iraq"
"The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja."
"'It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants,' spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said."
"The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all."
"Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon."
"The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes."
"Col Venable said that statement was based on 'poor information'."
"Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions 'primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.'"
"'However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants.'"
"And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a 'conventional munition', not a chemical weapon."
"'It is not outlawed or illegal', Col Venable said."
Now Tom, would you please, preferably humbly, acknowledge your misstatement about the use of white phosphorus being used as a weapon in Fallujah? Once pressed on it, the Penatagon did.
Of course, even when it is clearly-documented that the Pentagon has lied and denied its use as a weapon AT ALL... just as you did a few days ago... and has been called out on it, we are NOW supposed to find them (and I suppose you) credible when you both claim that innocent civilians could never have been victimized by it at the hands of US Military personnel? On what reasonable grounds, give the unreliability of the prior claims it presented that were shown to be false?
Does anybody remember anything about CREDIBILITY? If you are caught LYING, especially REPEATEDLY as in the case of the Pentagon, you no longer HAVE ANY. How difficult is this to understand? That people still give any credibility at all to such documented liars is perhaps the single-biggest reason why we're in the mess we're in there. Once upon a time, heads could be expected to roll for this. Not in this administration. Hell, this is trivial.
posted on 11.17.2005 8:40 PM37
Just out of curiousity, does anyone on this thread remember how Wesley Clarke deposed Milosevic in the Balkan War? He targeted civilian infrastructure to anger the population of Yugoslavia until they deposed him. Problem is, targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Michael Moore endorsed Wesley Clarke's bid for the democrat presidential nomination. Says a lot about Michael Moore's moral compass, doesn't it?
No one who wins a war gets prosecuted for war crimes so I guess ol' Wes is safe.
38
Joe
A thought-provoking post; but as usual, those tempted to play rhetorical games seem to be missing the real point. (Seems to me, though, that they need to ask and coherently answer a key underlying question -- relative to the implications of their often declared and loudly asserted worldviews, where do they get their moral claims from, beyond emotional manipulation? In short, there is a comparative difficulties issue that is being dodged as usual. And, just oin case anuyone wants to run down the problem of evil rabbit trail, here is a useful summary on it and its cognates.)
On the main point at issue, I suggest that we are again looking at the implications of the injection of the so-called quality of life ethic, and how it corrupts the ethics of the medical profession and the duty and oath to avoid harm.
Paul's statement of the Golden Rule is very relevant, and in light of an ealier remark on the universality of the law written on our hearts, it brings out the implications in a way that speaks to the issue of the corruption of medical ethics that has become so evident in the aftermath of the Terri Schindler Schaivo case:
Rom 2:14 . . . when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law . . . they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them . . . .RO 13:8 . . . he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Key point: love does no harm, but rather good to the neighbour. But instead, inch by inch, the medical profession is visibly sliding down the path of making the threshold of "life unworthy of life" ever higher and higher. Let us not forget, it was corrupted doctors who played a leading role in the nazi policy, starting with the creatrion of euthanising centres. before there were the death camps, we had the mass euthanising of the crippled, the paraplegics and the retarded or insane. Down the end of that road lies Mengele and his experiments. Let us not ever forget.
The case of torture is of course emotionally laden and provides a propaanda windfall of such magnitude that it is plainly not even a utilitarian andvantage in the case in view. It does seem though that under exceptional circumstances, the infliction of non-lethal pain that prevents mass slaughter may, just may, be reasonably excusable. But, are there not effective alternatives such as so-called truth serums and non-harmful sensory deprivation and disorientation that break down the will? I cannot say for sure, but there is a plain issue here in a post Abu Ghraib world. (of course the hypocrisy of posting up photos of degradation as horrors whilst not responding properly to boastful sawing off of people's heads is itself a telling commentary on the breakdown of the moral climate of hte international arena.) i do not claim any expertise on torture, so I will go on.
Where I think I can suggest a further bit of clarification is on the distinction properly to be made between the personal ethics of turning the other cheek in response to insults and the governmental duty to support and enforce justice, for which the governor legitimately bears the sword. For the former, turning the other cheek is indeed the Christian response. But, the situation of one who becomes an enemy to the peace and justice is a governmental one, and the biblical principle here is also quite plain:
Rom 13:3 . . . rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
In short, the task of protecting the community from injustice, given the existence of violent evildoers, requires the bearing of the sword. (In turn, the authority can become an abuser of that trust, that is turn tyrant. Ever since the reformation, that has been understood as leading to the implication that he forfeits his office and is subject to removal, forcible if necessary.)
By reasonable extension that power of defence of the innocent exptends tot he family and the individual as well, and certainly we see much in the way of biblical example and instruction to back that up.
Trust that helps.
Grace open eyes
Gordon
39
Of course, that's not what a pacifist would say. A pacifist believes nothing is worth killing for. There may be many things worth dying for.
You're right, Nick. I conflated two ideas in my post that I did not intend to.
posted on 11.18.2005 9:25 AM40
Now Tom, would you please, preferably humbly, acknowledge your misstatement about the use of white phosphorus being used as a weapon in Fallujah? Once pressed on it, the Penatagon did.
I did acknowledge it in a post several higher than yours, Windbag. (Are you sure you want to use that handle?)
And I still feel confident asserting that civilians were not deliberately targeted because I have talked to people who were actually in Fallujah, people I trust. That is backed up by an article in "The Atlantic Monthly," which can hardly be claimed to be a friend of the Bush administration.
And you're leaping to a conclusion that the Pentagon spokeman lied when in fact perhaps he didn't have all the facts.
And I reiterate: WP is not a WMD or a chemical weapon. When not used as for illumination or as a smoke round, it is an incindiary--not banned by any international treaty.
posted on 11.18.2005 9:31 AM41
Mumon,
Your predilection for making sweeping judgments of entire groups of people (This is "Republican Christian values") is so tiresome and boorish. Should other readers similarly dismiss all Buddhists in the same way, because it seems there are a good billion of them or so who might not want to identify with your constant pomposity.
posted on 11.18.2005 12:24 PM42
Tom, you said:
"And you're leaping to a conclusion that the Pentagon spokeman lied when in fact perhaps he didn't have all the facts."
If the Pentagon spokesman "didn't have all the facts," then he clearly had no business unequivocally asserting, just as you did in your original post, that WP isn't used in this way.... thus deflecting what now turns out to be very legitimate criticism of this use of WP, and the consequences for innocent civilians.
This is, of course, the ever-adaptable face of the modern lie. Very effective.
Do you suppose that, if news reports (including those prompted by al Jazeera's pics) hadn't forced the Pentagon to acknowledge the use of WP as a weapon, those "facts" about its use would have emerged? Surely, once the Pentagon became aware of them, they would have told us all about that, right?
Just like Iraqi prisoner abuses.
Just like the actual circumstances surrounding Pat Tillman death, vs. the myth sold to the public, and the guy's family.
Just like the "rescuing" of Jessica Lynch.
Honesty, credibilty. Can't have one without the other. The Pentagon's is long gone. So is this adminstration's. Why is this fact so hard to accept?
posted on 11.18.2005 12:48 PM
43
Why is this fact so hard to accept?
Because as I've said a few times, I know people who were at Fallujah, and the only civilians being killed were being killed by the terrorists.
And, by the way, the Pentagon finally acknowledged the use of WP when people within the Pentagon itself pointed out that it had in fact been used, particularly mentioned in an Army field artillery journal. So much for a Pentagon coverup.
44
By coincidence my brother, a philosophy major, emailed me this question yesterday and I thought it tied in well with this discussion.
"You are a person who
> rejects "moral relativism" and insists on the
> black-and-white difference between good and evil -
> for
> example, in cases of abortion."
For the last several months, I have been debating with a slew of "moral relativists" at the Evangelical Outpost. My observation has been that they are usually far more predictable than the moral absolutists. They are not only absolutist in their moral relativism, but in all that it entails. Recently not one of them, when pressed, could unequivicably state that it was "absolutely morally wrong to torture babies." In fact some could not agree that it was even "evil" because that is a religious construct. It was not they would not admit that this seemed wrong, but their philosophical presuppositions would not allow them to make any further commitment than that.
Torturing babies, of course, would represent to me a prime example of a "black and white" issue, though seldom in my experience are issues so clearly defined. Abortion to save the life of the mother is not a black and white issue, nor is euthanasia. There are rare circumstances that may warrant either. The important difference in approach is that I could say that both euthanasia and abortion are morally wrong because of certain absolutes -- not that their wrongness is an absolute in and of itself. The relativist would say that neither I, nor the government has a right to say this is "morally wrong" because there are no such thing as moral absolutes.Therefore any and all laws prohibiting abortion and euthanasia are not only tabu, but the practice of them is encouraged. This is a moral travesty.
"Context doesn't
> matter.
> No end justifying the means. So how can you argue
> for
> moral relativism, for making exceptions about good
> and
> evil, when it comes to torture? Why are decisions on
> torture different from decisions on abortion?"
The same situation applies here. There are certain absolutes that would teach us that torture is morally wrong. But the wrongness of torture is not in and of itself a "moral absolute" any more than the wrongness of abortion is. If there are rare exceptions, such as the "terrorist's ticking time bomb," perhaps it could be justified. But it should not be the status quo as abortion now is.
What if the same standard of moral relativism which has been applied to abortion were applied to torture? Since we can't say absolutely under every circumstance it is wrong (because there are no absolutes), let's make it the settled law of the land. Because we are a moral society, we will keep it "safe, legal and rare."
45
"...I have been debating with a slew of "moral relativists" at the Evangelical Outpost...not one of them, when pressed, could unequivicably state that it was 'absolutely morally wrong to torture babies.' "
I think it's disingenuous of you to feign shock when moral relativists don't acknowledge your claim of a moral absolute. When someone like me states that morals are subjective, that precludes the possibility of moral absolutes; there is no objective standard. I can (and did) tell you that for me torturing babies is wrong. It doesn't comport with MY moral standards. Fortunately, humans have enough commonality of morals to formulate laws and social mores sufficient to prevent society devolving into chaos.
It's silly to expect moral relativists to be other than what they are, especially when so many moral absolutists here are ready with the "gotcha" the moment any of their statements smack of inconsistency.
posted on 11.18.2005 3:00 PM46
When someone like me states that morals are subjective, that precludes the possibility of moral absolutes; there is no objective standard. I can (and did) tell you that for me torturing babies is wrong. It doesn't comport with MY moral standards.
That's not morality at all. It's merely personal preference. What would you say to a person who says his moral standards say torturing babies is just fine--indeed, desirable?
posted on 11.18.2005 4:21 PM47
I agree, Rob. The eye-opening realization this website provided me was that not believing in God is to not believe in an absolute moral standard. But the moral absolutists seem to want to equate that to saying moral relativists believe that everyone should act as ruthlessly as they please (or at least, as ruthlessly as they can get away with). It doesn’t. At the risk of using the “e” word (please, let’s not start another debate on it here), Homo sapiens' evolution included a predisposition for reciprocal altruism. And cultural evolution has expanded upon it. We all innately feel that ruthlessness is wrong and that the Golden Rule is right. Moral relativism lacks the lustre of a Divine sponsor but the feeling is just as sincere.
Tom, I would say to the advocate of baby torture that his view is abhorrent both by my standards and those of the community, and that he will earn harsh punishment if he acts on his views. I'm not going to quibble about whether I'm entitled to call my stance "morality".
posted on 11.18.2005 4:37 PM48
But what "community" would that be, Don? Remember, in Nazi Germany killing Jews was not illegal or immoral.
And the community punishing someone without an absolute standard to appeal to (i.e., Natural Law) is not justice; it's vengeance, merely the exercise of raw power.
When people like the Communists or Nazis then become the majority, to what do we appeal?
Homo sapiens' evolution included a predisposition for reciprocal altruism
Like so many evolutionary "just-so" stories, this takes an existing fact, i.e., all people have a moral sense, and shoehorns it into an existing presupposition. There is zero times zero to the zero-th power evidence of any such evolutionary occurances.
posted on 11.18.2005 5:13 PM49
tom
And I still feel confident asserting that civilians were not deliberately targeted...
Wow, just take that goalpost and shoot it into space, tom.
because I have talked to people who were actually in Fallujah, people I trust
Do they move goalposts too?
posted on 11.18.2005 6:53 PM50
Tom
By the way, you didn't acknowledge jack about your statment regarding white phosphorus. You merely changed your line about its use, from your first claim that contradicted the known record, which could no longer be denied, to one that didn't... seamlessly, without making any reference to the fact that earlier you'd claimed rather unequivocally and dismissively something entirely different (WP is "not used against people, ENEMY or civilian"). Big difference. Key difference. Credibility. It matters. Clearly not for some on this weblog. But at the highest positions of public office, it sure as hell should.
posted on 11.18.2005 8:07 PM51
Windbag (I think that's Larry, but I couldn't find where that transition happened - maybe it was in a different thread and I forgot)...anyway...
Windbag - where did you get the following quote from Tom - I really can't find it in this thread. I searched for it, but it didn't come up.
Thanks.
"Your mistake is believing al Jazeera. White phosphorus is a key element in illumination rounds and flares. Illum rounds detonate in the air and glow brightly, brighter than daylight. Used at night, they make it hard for an enemy to hide. The WP burns up before it hits the ground. Same with flares. It is not used against people, enemy or civilian. I've seen the photos on al Jazeera's web site, and there's no proof these people were killed by Americans period, much less WP."
posted on 11.18.2005 9:00 PM52
#45
"I think it's disingenuous of you to feign shock when moral relativists don't acknowledge your claim of a moral absolute. When someone like me states that morals are subjective, that precludes the possibility of moral absolutes; there is no objective standard. I can (and did) tell you that for me torturing babies is wrong."
If I recall, I asked you specifically that question and did not receive a reply. I was particularly interested in your answer because you were the most articulate and outspoken advocate of relativism. If you "can (and did)" respond that torturing babies was wrong, then it is in no way inconsistent with anything I said previously. What it does reflect, however, is an avoidance of the central issue. Can the moral relativist even articulate the words, "it is absolutely wrong to . . ." And if they can't, then there is either a language breakdown, or a moral breakdown. If morality is subjective, then any thing from Hale Bop to Pol Pot has a legitimate platform.
"It doesn't comport with MY moral standards. Fortunately, humans have enough commonality of morals to formulate laws and social mores sufficient to prevent society devolving into chaos."
This so called "commonality of morals" is precisely what we all have seen breakdown within our lifetimes. By the ever changing standards of the day, it is morally wrong to blow up a wedding feast in Jordan, but not in Jerusalem. It is morally wrong to dismember a child after it is born, but not moments before it is born. It is morally wrong to deny a person food and water if they are healthy, but not if they are infirrmed. If you don't believe this is the standard, just ask the average college professor his opinion on these matters. These examples are not obscure "gotcha moments" used to chide the relativist. They are only a few of many social pathologies that find their roots in moral relativism.
"It's silly to expect moral relativists to be other than what they are, especially when so many moral absolutists here are ready with the "gotcha" the moment any of their statements smack of inconsistency."
It is silly not to expect moral relativists to be at least responsible. They can believe whatever they want, but when their poorly reasoned, touchy-feely, I am who I am, sense of right and wrong becomes public policy, they have crossed the line. Is it absolutely wrong to expose children to retarded, naked gang bangers on the Howard Stern show? Most of us would gladly settle for just plain "wrong," but the FCC and the intelligentsia apparently don't see it that way. Is moral relativism responsible for this? Of course. Nothing else could explain such abject stupidity.
posted on 11.19.2005 1:40 AM53
#36
The bottom line appears to be that windbag alledges that white phosphorous was us as a "chemical weapon" on Fallujahian civilians. Tom contends that it was not. Windbag uses to support of his arguments the following quotes. (Emphasis mine)
"'It was used . . . spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though NOT against civilians, he said."
(Why would any military in their right minds use a common illumination devise as a chemical weapon?)
"Col Venable denied that the substance - which CAN cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon."
(Dirty diapers CAN can cause burning flesh too. The clear implication here is that it is white phosphorous, a banned substance, has been used and that the Col misleadingly denied that it constituted an outlawed "chemical weapon." This is obviously misleading. )
"Col Venable said that statement was based on 'poor information'."
(What specific statement and what information? )
"'However it is an incendiary weapon and MAY be used against enemy combatants.'"
(Either it has or it hasn't been used as an inciendiary devise. No evidence was presented that it has.)
"And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a 'conventional munition', NOT a chemical weapon."
"'It is NOT outlawed or illegal', Col Venable said."
What evidence is missing here that makes this worth discussing?
54
Seriously, windbag - where did you get the direct quote that you've used twice:
WP is "not used against people, ENEMY or civilian"
I've searched in this thread for Al Jazeera, for WP, for white phosphorous, for civilians, and for Tom (so I could read every post he made in this thread). I can't find that quote so I can read it in context. I evidently came from another thread, please post a link.
windbag, you said, "Does anybody remember anything about CREDIBILITY? If you are caught LYING, especially REPEATEDLY as in the case of the Pentagon, you no longer HAVE ANY." (comment 36)
You also said, "Credibility. It matters. Clearly not for some on this weblog.
Windbag, you used a quote from Tom twice, WP is "not used against people, ENEMY or civilian"
In Tom's first comment in this thread, he said, "It is used in illumination rounds mostly, but can also be used as an incindiary round. and And whereas the possibility of civilians being killed by WP can't be ruled out, to say that the US deliberately targeted civlians is a vile lie.
Windbag, I'd really like the source of that quote from Tom. If it's in another thread (or even on another blog), I'd like a link please.
Thanks.
(By the way, wikipedia says:
Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty to which the US is a signatory...
The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. [5] However, the protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III.
US Military protocol restricts but does not absolutely prohibit use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
55
As far as the "mercy killing" in New Orleans, there are not a lot of stories out there.
We do know that one of the hospitals whose employees have been subpoenaed is Memorial Medical center, which is not a hospice (but does rent space to a long term care center) and the patients were not necessarily terminal, as has been implied.
Tenet Healthcare, the company that owns Memorial, told CNN that most of the 45 patients who died were critically ill. http://www.unknownnews.org/0510141013KatrinaMorphine.html
Did you catch that "most? And not so long ago, my dad was critically ill - he's enjoying the sun in Florida right now. Tenent also did not elaborate in this quote on how many of the 45 were killed out of mercy.
One of the few quotes from employees (and I'm not familiar with this source) says:
(the implication that I took from this quote, and the one below) is that
1) not all of the patients were terminal
2) they were "distressed", not dying
3) the danger was from drug addicts looking for a fix, not the hurricane.
I don't know if the health care givers were right or wrong - if the patients were on life support, when the power went off, there would have been no need for mercy killing and if not the patients were not on life support, normal paliative care could have been used.
"We divided patients into three categories: those who were traumatised but medically fit enough to survive, those who needed urgent care, and the dying.
"People would find it impossible to understand the situation. I had to make life-or-death decisions in a split second...
"Some of the very sick became distressed. We tried to make them as comfortable as possible.
"The pharmacy was under lockdown because gangs of armed looters were roaming around looking for their fix. You have to understand these people were going to die anyway."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0913-01.htm
56
Tom: "That's not morality at all. It's merely personal preference. What would you say to a person who says his moral standards say torturing babies is just fine--indeed, desirable?"
I tell him I disagree, Tom. It doesn't come up often. ;-)
Don: "Homo sapiens' evolution included a predisposition for reciprocal altruism. And cultural evolution has expanded upon it."
Seems obvious to you and me, Don, but it's a hard sell here.
Terence: "What it does reflect, however, is an avoidance of the central issue. Can the moral relativist even articulate the words, "it is absolutely wrong to . . ." And if they can't, then there is either a language breakdown, or a moral breakdown."
I disagree. I think one may assume that most, if not all, moral reletivists are also moral subjectivists; otherwise, how could morals differ from group to group and individual to individual? And, why would you expect a moral subjectivist to make an absolutist statement, since he feels there is no objective standard of morality?
"If morality is subjective, then any thing from Hale Bop to Pol Pot has a legitimate platform."
Again, I disagree. As a society, we have the resposibility of determining what is and isn't legitimate. I'll call Pol Pot beyond the pale if you will. To the extent that our morals concur, we can form an adequate consensus to freeze out the bad guys. Obviously, both you and I would be happier if society followed our moral preferences right down the line, but it is unreasonable to expect it to do so lacking a mutually agreed-upon standard.
57
Oops! I almost forgot.
Terence: "It is silly not to expect moral relativists to be at least responsible."
I am very responsible. I vote, I do my job with passion and integrity, and I raise my children to be the best human beings they can be.
"They can believe whatever they want, but when their poorly reasoned, touchy-feely, I am who I am, sense of right and wrong becomes public policy, they have crossed the line."
No, they have exercised their rights.
"Is it absolutely wrong to expose children to retarded, naked gang bangers on the Howard Stern show?"
Yes, I think it's wrong. I don't do it, and I disapprove of those that do, parly for selfish reasons: I have to teach their morally warped children.
"Is moral relativism responsible for this? Of course. Nothing else could explain such abject stupidity."
Of course moral relativism is not responsible for it. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Freedom of speech is not responsible for flag burning; flag burners are. A moment ago you seemed to advocate responsibility. So do I. If enough of us wish reduce the influence of Howard Stern and his ilk, we may do so. Lacking critical mass, however we cannot impose our views on society. America rightly values its freedom. If you want a society to enforce your morals, you need to find or create one.
Aloha, Terence. Hope the weather is nice. Let me know if you want to trade Hawaii for Tennessee for a week or so. You'll like my neighbors!
posted on 11.19.2005 9:20 AM58
Don: "Homo sapiens' evolution included a predisposition for reciprocal altruism. And cultural evolution has expanded upon it."
Seems obvious to you and me, Don, but it's a hard sell here.
Individuals, maybe. Individuals within peer groups, definitely. But groups of people? That is a hard sell.
People can be altruistic. Civilizations, by and large, are not.
posted on 11.19.2005 9:22 AM59
Terence:
"The bottom line appears to be that windbag alledges that white phosphorous was us as a "chemical weapon" on Fallujahian civilians. Tom contends that it was not."
I "allege" no such thing. I merely point out that Tom stated unequivocally in the Jarhead thread a couple days ago that it was NOT used as a weapon, against *anyone*. Just as the Pentagon did, upon initial questioning about the matter. And they were both wrong. Please read, and comprehend,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm
and then get back to me when you've woken up.
In particular, part of the first story might be of interest, given the focus here (not by me, BTW) about WP's "legality":
"The debate about WP centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party.
The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:
"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.
"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
Ellen, Tom's quote is from the Jarhead thread a couple days ago, #57.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001689.html#more
Terence, BTW, your analogy of WP's melting of skin to diaper rash is particularly vile and despicable. Congratulations.
60
Thanks, windbag.
Is there any credible evidence that white phosphorus was used in Fallujah as a chemical weapon, targetting civilians?
Yes, I understand that it can be used as an incendiary device.
Yes, I understand that it has been used as an incendiary device.
I do have a history question. Tom made his comment in that other thread on November 11. You responded on the 15th. It was on the 15th that the pentagon admitted that they used white phosphorus as a weapon. It was only on November 8 that the allegation was made in a documentary in Italy (not the US).
Operating on information in the US at the time of his comment, could Tom have reasonably known (on the 11th) that the pentagon would admit on the 15th that they used WP as a weapon? Of couse, when you responded to Tom on the 16th, the story had broken.
Did he lie (was he able to see into the future and know that the pentagon was going to admit the use of WP) or was he operating on the information available in the US at the time of his comment?
This is important to the credibility factor.
The general argument is that Al Jazeera is not any more credible than the pentagon (in my opinion, both sources have credibility problems.) Any argument there?
posted on 11.19.2005 10:05 AM61
I don't know what should be done with the alleged euthanists, or what our torture policy should be...
You don't? Then Matthew, I'm pleased to inform you that you are not a human being - or if you are, you don't qualify to call yourself an American. Or if you do, you haven't earned the right to enjoin thoughtful adults in intelligent discourse.
Because when it comes to the matter of torture, the instinctive reaction of any American citizen ought to be immediate revulsion and condemnation. That's who we are as a people. We don't torture. Tyrants, dictators, communist regimes, banana republics, third-world hellholes - you can find official sanction of torture, but not in America.
See, we are the world standard for human rights. At least, we were before the Bush regime. But however we lost our way, we have to get back on track fast.
Y'know, when I was growing up, sometimes I'd watch these old black-and-white Westerns on TV. The good guys wore white hats. The Indians had these feathered headdresses, and the bad guys wore black hats. This made it easy to figure out who was who. Anyway, the rules were clear. If the good guys catch you, they might tie you up, but they always give you food and water. Might hand you over to the sheriff, but you always get decent treatment. It's the Indians and the bad guys who do the rape and torture bit.
Funny thing is, these values go all the way back to the Enlightenment. Notice that in early America, in New England especially, we still employed torture as a matter of jurisprudence, but by the time of the War of Independence we'd given that up in favor of humanistic standards. George Washington, to name a great example, explicitly forbade his troops from torturing or mistreating their Hessian captives, even though it was well-known that the German mercenaries had no such scruples. For us, however, it was a point of honor and the measure of our character and the rightness of our cause. And that's how things stayed all the way up to... George The Evil Torturing Sadistic Cowardly Bastard Bush. And his controller Dick Cheney.
Have we ever tortured any of our enemies? You betcha! Happens all the time in warfare. The battlefield interrogation is damned rough - you'd be lucky to survive it - but it isn't official policy. That's the difference. You get caught hooding and amputating the fingers and toes off the enemy, you get a court martial. If you are that worried about the safety of the troops you command, you risk it, knowing that you're risking your entire career. OK? Seems clear enough to me.
Joe: The facts aren't in from NOLA yet, but any doctor caught euthanizing patients should be stripped of his or her license. On the other hand, doctors euthanize patients every day. Probably happens a hundred times a day. Doctors make very difficult decisions, often at the behest of relatives, usually with consent, and from what I've read it scars their souls and it's something they agonize over. But sometimes it's the right thing to do.
You can't generalize it, because each case is unique. There can't be a policy for it. But if - just as with the battlefield interrogation analogy above - family members protest or assisting medical staff report it, then the case is not clearly and unambiguously justified and criminal prosecution is warranted. Are both of these cases (euthanasia and torture) related in that they may be permissible? I think so. The penalties for being caught (doing either) should be so severe that the only justification is that the alternative would be worse.
posted on 11.19.2005 10:11 AM62
I don't know what should be done with the alleged euthanists, or what our torture policy should be...
You don't? Then Matthew, I'm pleased to inform you that you are not a human being - or if you are, you don't qualify to call yourself an American.
I generally agree with Raven, but I would have the same comment about our torture policy.
Oh, I agree with Raven that any officer that employs torture should have his career and freedom at stake.
What we should have an official policy about (and this is what I'm not clear on) is the exact definition of torture.
Severe physical pain? Or less? Is having to listen to rap music torture? How about bagpipes?
There does need to be an official policy (and I'm not sure what our torture policy should be - in this regard) on what constitutes torture.
Yes, I'm sure that people have been tortured and I would support hanging the folks that committed it and condoned it and ordered it out to dry.
posted on 11.19.2005 10:20 AM63
Is there any credible evidence that white phosphorus was used in Fallujah as a chemical weapon, targetting civilians?
Hey Ellen you miserable dissembling rube -- why are moving the goalposts again?
The issue is quite plain and all the dust your kicking up only shows what a hypocrite you are -- of course, that's no surprise: you're one of those script reciting fungelicals who gives Christians (and religion generally) around the world a bad name.
The issue is that US forces appear to have used white phosphorous to attack the enemy (i.e., insurgents in Fallujah) in areas where civilians (i.e., women, children) are likely to be present.
Get it?
It really doesn't take a very big brain to figure it out, Ellen. But you have to actually use your brain to understand and appreciate what is being discussed, rather than sticking your head deep into the sands of fundie denial (I know it must be hard for you, given the hole there that fits your head perfectly because you use it so often).
Once again: US military uses white phosphorous to attack insurgents in a populated area, the white phosphorous inevitably gets on the skin of civilians.
It's not about "targetting civilians." It's about burning the skin of children and infants who happen to be living in Iraq. You remember Iraq, right? We're occupying that country now in part because of diaper-soiling cowards like so many of the script-reciters here thought Saddam was going to nuke Kansas.
Joe Carter used to post apologetics for the invasion of Iraq once a week, when he wasn't accusing John Kerry of murdering children in Vietnam. I don't see much praise for the military genius of ChimpCorp lately, for some reason ...
posted on 11.19.2005 12:11 PM64
Larry - hello...
my comment was about whether or not Tom had been falsely accused of deliberately lying.
That's all. Windbag's comments have been largely aimed at Tom and I wanted to trace that back to the beginning, to Tom's actual statement, meaning and timing.
Apparently, those against the war (which I am, by the way) get to lie, about timing of posting and possible intent, to get their point across.
Those who support it are have to be psychic and know ahead of time what the pentagon is going to confess to. Right, Larry?
Hey Ellen you miserable dissembling rube
Thanks for the name calling. I 'preciate it.
posted on 11.19.2005 12:17 PM65
It really doesn't take a very big brain to figure it out, Ellen. But you have to actually use your brain to understand and appreciate what is being discussed,
Larry, Here's a concept that you don't appear to grasp.
WP was used in Fallujah, aimed at people.
If that is a crime, those responsible should be held responsible. If it isn't a crime, it should be.
(here's the part you don't appear to get) But let's not lie in order to get there.
posted on 11.19.2005 12:35 PM66
What we should have an official policy about (and this is what I'm not clear on) is the exact definition of torture.
Thank you for your kind comments, Ellen. I enjoy your posts also. Per your query above, there are some very sensible approaches that we (by which I mean our branches of the military) have historically adhered to. Namely, various international conventions on torture and the Geneva Conventions on Warfare. These agreements spell out a uniform code of treatment for prisoners of war that most countries have found acceptable.
When the Bush administration argues that terrorists are not prisoners of war, they're being a bit disingenuous, since the spirit of the aforementioned protocols embraces anybody that our armed forces captures and holds as part of a military action.
But back to your question. The Gold Standard of Conduct is simplicity itself: Imagine that your child has been captured by the enemy. Anything the enemy does to your child that would cause you to experience discomfort is what we ought to prohibit our troops from doing to the enemy.
That is, if you knew that your captured child (or spouse, brother, sister, etc.) was being treated reasonably well, fed, watered and given basic shelter, you'd still be worried, but within the realms of reason. What you would not want to hear about - or see - is your child being stripped nude. Sexually and physically humiliated. Assaulted, stomped, kicked, cut and bruised. Lit cigarettes in ears. Waterboarded. Subjected to excruciating levels of pain, noise, extremes of temperature.
You wouldn't want to think that the enemy was systematically breaking your child's will, turning him or her into a gibbering, crawling, mewling naked creature covered in its own excrement.
And that's exactly what we're doing to suspects that we're holding in custody. Suspects. Not convicted of anything. Possibly innocent. In many cases proven to be innocent. Just people in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And these prisoners are somebody's children. How we treat them is how we indicate to the rest of the world how we expect our POWs and MIAs to be treated.
I confess I don't lose too much sleep over what we're doing to some al Qaeda operative who was shooting at our boys, but I'm stressing very much over what our soldiers are going to face when they're in the hands of an enemy that has spent a long time staring at that picture of Lynndie England dragging a naked Arab around on a leash.
67
When the Bush administration argues that terrorists are not prisoners of war, they're being a bit disingenuous, since the spirit of the aforementioned protocols embraces anybody that our armed forces captures and holds as part of a military action.
I would say more than disingenuous.
If the administration has declared a "war on terror", it would follow that those who are prisoners as a result of that war are (by definition) prisoners of war.
posted on 11.19.2005 3:05 PM68
I stated:
"The bottom line appears to be that windbag alledges that white phosphorous was used as a "chemical weapon" on Fallujahian civilians. Tom contends that it was not."
Windbag plays the "who me?" card.
"I allege no such thing. I merely point out that Tom stated unequivocally in the Jarhead thread a couple days ago that it was NOT used as a weapon, against *anyone*. Just as the Pentagon did, upon initial questioning about the matter. And they were both wrong."
Now re-read post #36
"Just curious -- any Marines here want to comment on the USE of white phosphorous AS A CHEMICAL WEAPON, e.g., dropping it on places in Fallujah where lots of CIVILIANS are running around?"
The direct implication is that "chemical weapons" are being used against civilians. Its obvious that Tom was saying that its purpose was to illuminate the sky. In that respect, yes, it was an incendiary devise which was used against enemy combatants -- not as a chemical agent though, but a means by which to spot the enemy. Flares are incendiary devises used against enemy combatants that serves the exact same purpose. Extended exposure to many things including sulpher may burn the skin. But to suggest that they are "chemical weapons" rather than "chemical munitions" is sophistry.
"Terence, BTW, your analogy of WP's melting of skin to diaper rash is particularly vile and despicable. Congratulations."
I made no such comparisons. Re-read your quote:
"Col Venable denied that the substance - which CAN cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon."
The point, which seems to have alluded you, was that many, many things, including dirty diapers and sulpher can cause a burning of the flesh as well. But the important difference between "can cause "and does cause" is apparent.
You create a despicable picture of the US using the moral equivalent of napalm against hapless Fallujans. What evidence whatsoever have you provided that indicates that the Fallujans had their skin "melted" ? How many died? Are there photographs? Are there any mass graves, like those Kurdish children burned with Saddam's mustard gas?
If the US actually did use chemical weapons that rained down a substance that melted away the skin of the Iraqis, then prove it.
I am interested. But don't be one of those who spends most of their time and energy accusing others of lying and leveling personal insults. The facts man . . . just the facts!
69
Seriously, windbag - where did you get the direct quote [from Tom ] that you've used twice:
For what it's worth, Windbag is quoting me more or less accurately, from a thread from many days ago. (I don't even remember which one.) I was mistaken and "corrected" that later in this thread, although my mea culpa apparently wasn't as explicit as he would have liked. (He seems to be the only one who actually remembers that earlier post, which means he seems to go out of his way to remember everything I've said, which to me is borderline creepy.)
70
And since a lot of this discussion's charge and countercharge gets lost in the process, I also made the point that the US forces in Fallajuah (and throughout Iraq) go to extraordinary lengths to avoid hitting civilians, to the point of at least one US Marine is dead because he didn't shoot at what he thought was a civilian but what turned out to be a terrorist.
Read the July/August edition of The ATlantic Monthly for an account of the Marines in Fallujah, reporting on a time when a friend of mine, a lance corporal in Weapons Co., 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, was operating in Fallujah. That independent reporting corroborates what Daniel says about how the Marines operated.
Again, to say that US forces deliberately targeted civilians, as Windbag and al Jazeera do, is a vile lie. And if you'll read the article in the Army field artillery journal, you'll see that they used WP against point targets (the opposite of blanket targets) to avoid civilian casualties that would have resulted from having to use HE (high explosive) rounds against a dug-in enemy--an enemy that saw no problem with hiding behind women and children, which doesn't seem to bother Windbag.
posted on 11.19.2005 6:10 PM71
Tom, I didn't quote you "more or less accurately," I quoted you.
This in contrast to the dissembling and distracting bric-a-brac spewed back at me, claiming that I believe US forces *deliberately* targeted civilians, or that I think it's ok if insurgents hide behind civilians, blah blah blah. Spare us all the discrediting lies please.
And Tom's mea culpa here is fine by me, though at this late date a sprinkle of contrition would have been nice. And I'm only singling out Tom insofar as his originally-unflinching, dismissive, and deflecting statments about the use of WP *exactly* matched those of the Pentagon's, which, again, as we all know, turned out to be IN - COR - RECT.
Tom, so sorry you find it "creepy" that I noted your inconsistency and restated it upon request... you must find the relentless accountability demanded by our courts of law truly horrifying. Maybe just kinda "gross."
For pete's sakes man, the core issue here is with people-- in particular government officials-- who oh-so-confidently make statments of substantial import that serve to deflect and delegitimize what turns out to be legitimate criticism of policy... and then afterwards when they have been shown to have based their (often demonstrably deliberate) misstatments on "bad intelligence," they suffer *zero* consequences with respect to credibility and future public trust. The memory hole. This is why our democracy is crumbling. THAT is what's "creepy" and "despicable."
Old boy Terence is simply on Venus with the crap he spews at me, so I'll just repost his wonderful diapers analogy verbatim for everyone's reading pleasure:
"(Dirty diapers CAN can cause burning flesh too. The clear implication here is that it is white phosphorous, a banned substance, has been used and that the Col misleadingly denied that it constituted an outlawed "chemical weapon." This is obviously misleading. )"
This bears no resemblance to the reality of my comments, but who is surprised? Perhaps Terence sensed some allusion to an illusion that eluded him.
In the event that some undeniable evidence emerges indicating civilians *were* actually impacted by the now-admitted use of WP as a weapon against insurgents, will anyone here acknowledge the despicability of *that* (or at least shed a tear about how 'unfortunate' it is)? Or, will you predictably move to some other strategic argumentative vantage point of counterattack and futher distraction, away from the implications? ("Hell you should thank us, we could have just killed them ALL.")
Furthermore, the idea that innocent civilians may have been affected is far from *despicable,* I suspect that it's actually pretty freakin' likely, despite whatever efforts US soldiers may be making to minimize 'collateral damage' (why don't they use that one anymore?)
Again, given their record, on what grounds am I supposed to believe *anything* the Pentagon says again? I hope (no doubt in vain) that you all sometimes ask yourselves that same question.
posted on 11.19.2005 11:24 PM
72
#71
Windbag:
"Old boy Terence is simply on Venus with the crap he spews at me, so I'll just repost his wonderful diapers analogy verbatim for everyone's reading pleasure:"
{{Dirty diapers CAN can cause burning flesh too. The clear implication here is that it is white phosphorous, a banned substance, has been used and that the Col misleadingly denied that it constituted an outlawed "chemical weapon." This is obviously misleading.}}
Carefully re-read the direct quotations that you sent from the BBC interview at post #36 and perhaps you will understand the full implications of what the military was being accused of. Perhaps not. What is strange is your rightious indignation over an innocous metaphore, but the extremely serious accusations of US marines waging chemical warfare that you made, then denied, then glossed over, are no longer relevant.
posted on 11.20.2005 1:30 AM
73
Terence, WHAT are you talking about? Did you *read* and *comprehend* the BBC articles, from which I quoted? Apparently this slipped right by you, but the Pentagon has openly *admitted* that they used WP as an incendiary device.... not just for "illumination," but to snuff out people using WP's obvious *chemical* properties. Since you clearly missed this:
"'It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants,' spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC."
"The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination."
Get it amigo? Whether you choose to call this "chemical warfare" or not, the fact is that the US Military is not just lighting up the sky with this stuff, but shooting it directly at people as an incendiary device. This is not me talking, Terence, this is the Pentagon. The same Pentagon which originally denied that they were using WP in this offensive manner, but now admit it, which was the basis of my entire point. Holy crap but this is remedial.
And I didn't gloss over jack squat my man. Please start making some sense.
posted on 11.20.2005 3:54 AM
74
H'mm:
Took some time to look further through this thread. Several points come to mind:
1] Windbag
--> Last time I checked, this was evidently an alter ego of LL, just look up the back-forth with JCHF Fleetguy, who exposed. [Clue: compare the two email fake addresses to see the similar style. There are some other alter egos too.]
2] Chemicals & Weapons:
--> I think some perspective may help balance here.
--> At simplistic level, most modern weapons rely for their effect on chemistry [i.e. the sudden release of chemical potential energy], but in the main exert impact through PHYSICAL means, though of course they give off or use rather nasty chemicals. Chemical weapons by contrast, primarily act as poisons.
--> That is, for example, observed with: High Explosive: rapidly expanding gases], fragmentation: kinetic energy of fragments [shrapnel proper being seldom used today, except in I guess Claymore mines and suicide bomber belts loaded with nails and ball bearings], ballistic projectiles: impact and penetration leading to physical destruction [bullets, APDS tungsten shot, DU solid shot - also pyrophoric, i.e. a metal that burns].
-->These tear up or pierce or crush or concuss etc -- pretty awful. For instance, what a HEAT or HESH round does to a tank and its crew would make your stomach churn [think, roughly a mad eggbeater on steroids raging inside the tank, and also probably setting its ammunition and fuel alight into the bargain].
--> War is awful, period; and it cannot be prettied up -- which is why just war thought holds that in certain circumstances it is the least worst alternative, but shold be waged with proportionate means to an end that preserves justice. [AKA, if you think war is hell, wait till you see slavery for a few generations, as many of my ancestors did. But, the jihadis currently engaging in global war to subjugate dar al Harb -- that's the world not currently under "pure" Islamic rule [think Afghanistan under the Taliban's interpretation of Sharia here] -- under their hoped for new Caliphate would impose essentially that.]
--> Do not forget: 9/11, on the strength of remarks by UBL, was a long-planned strike evidently intended as a decapitation attack: he judged that sfter the 90's and with the controversies and evident weakness of GWB's position given the hanging chad election, the US was far weaker in governance than its physical and economic power would lead you to expect. Indeed, his current strategy is to hang on and wait for the W press to demoralise and force the US to withdraw its forces, "broken-winged," from the ME. Proverbially, a broken winged bird -- an eagle here that relies on air power -- cannot ever fly again. Judging by some of what I am seeing in your Congress and media, his judgement may yet prove right. Thereafter the UBL strategy is probably to capture/control ME oil and a nuke capability, reinstating the Caliphate and fully re-launching the global jihad. Last time around, that lasted 1000 years and was only stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Already, bat Yeor's Eurabia thesis is looking a whole lot more credible with the Paris intifada having surged up over the past several weeks, even if it is suppressed for a time.
--> Now, back to WP: this is of course an incendiary form of phosphorus that burns spontaneously on contact with air; which -- when used as a weapon -- mostly burns and sticks, generally similar to napalm. (The latter seems to have gone out of major use, in favour of cluster bombs, near as I can observe from a distance.) That seems to me to be a physical effect rooted in chemistry, not toxicity -- working as an indiscriminate poison, which is what gases are intended to do [and what is banned].
--> Above, too, it was pointed out that in some cases evidently using WP would reduce the risk of inadvertent killing of civilians, compared with say stonking the target with a HE barrage. That is, we are looking at a less destructive, less indiscriminate weapon under those circumstances. That would make them in such a situation the lesser of evils, however horrible they are. [The underlying fact is that war itself is horrible, but in a world in which there are those who would wage war on the vulnerable, defense is necessary. So the issue is justification and proportionality of means to ends.]
--> The reasonable question then is whether such a focussed use was credibly at work, or indiscriminate targetting. So far I have seen no credible evidence of the latter, and those who lightly toss around ad hominems should therefore first pause and think about their unmet burden of proof. [This is similar to the Bush lied chant, which to my mind is little more than cynical and grossly iresponsible slander, given the clear and widespread evidence on the consensus of Intelligence agencies across the world, not to mention troubling patterns with UNSCOM and the issue of the convoys to Syria and Lebanon. That mural behind Saddam's White Throne in his Justice Palace with 7 Iraqi nuke missiles heading out into apparently the setting sun is also telling as to intent. So, Mr Hussein, on this and other grounds, faced renewal of hostilities on persistent material breach of armistice -- not peace -- terms. Now, the jihadis are in an alliance of conveneience with the Tikritis, in the hope of seizing power inthe no 2 oil state, which has the intellectual and technical infrastructutre to become a full nuke power [if it did not actually already reach that state. I recall Alistair Cooke's cite of Sen Ted Kennedy, to the effect that as at 1990/1, Hussein was maybe as little as 6 moths out from having a nuke weapon. In short, the Israeli strike of 1981, which took out a Chirac-supplied reactor at Osirak, bought the world 10 critical years. of course they were duly roundly condemned for such a pre-emptive strike that arguably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.]
--> In short, it is time to do some serious thinking.
3] Euthanasia
--> If the cites Ellen has brought forward are accurate [and I see no good reason put forth so far that they are not], they are telling on just how rapidly the USA is going down the slippery slope to life unworthy of life:
"We divided patients into three categories: those who were traumatised but medically fit enough to survive, those who needed urgent care, and the dying."People would find it impossible to understand the situation. I had to make life-or-death decisions in a split second...
"Some of the very sick became distressed. We tried to make them as comfortable as possible.
"The pharmacy was under lockdown because gangs of armed looters were roaming around looking for their fix. You have to understand these people were going to die anyway."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0913-01.htm
4] Relativism and objectivity of morals
--> the point of "it's wrong to torture babies" is of course to highlight the inconsistency of relativism. So the attempt to have the cake and eat it by appealig to thre alleed consensus of decent people is an evasion of the poiint: there is an intuitively acknowledged principle of oughtness, and there is a gap that evolutioary materialism and its stablemate, relativism faces: the is-ought gap.
--> To wit, citing A F Holmes:
However we may define the good, however well we may calculate consequences, to whatever extent we may or may not desire certain consequences, none of this of itself implies any obligation of command. That something is or will be does not imply that we ought to seek it. We can never derive an “ought” from a premised “is” unless the ought is somehow already contained in the premise . . . .R. M. Hare . . . raises the same point. Most theories, he argues, simply fail to account for the ought that commands us: subjectivism reduces imperatives to statements about subjective states, egoism and utilitarianism reduce them to statements about consequences, emotivism simply rejects them because they are not empirically verifiable, and determinism reduces them to causes rather than commands . . . .
<