At one level the debate over the use of torture in the War on Terror is moot. The United States military has a long operational history of forgoing possible practical advantages in favor of upholding certain national values. The most obvious modern example are rules of engagement in the use of fires. During the recently concluded assault on Fallujah and in current operations in Iraq, military restrictions on the use of firepower around mosques or populated areas are enforced with the foreknowledge that such steps will result in statistically higher casualties to troops. This practice follows long historical precedent. The policy of precision daylight bombing during World War 2; the tendency toward 'No First Strike' during the Cold War and even the restriction on political assassinations in the Carter years are all examples of unilateral renunciations of military advantage.
As Eugene Volokh pointed out, framing the debate over torture in purely moral terms blinds us to other issues that it raises. Unless it is wholly pointless and sadistic, torture is the act of substituting the torment of one person for another; the suffering of a suspect to prevent the suffering of the presumed victim. This characteristic makes the legalization of torture appealing even to intelligent people like Alan Dershowitz. His characterization of the need for a 'torture warrant' to find a way out of the predicament of the 'ticking time bomb' underscores the fungibility of suffering in the starkest terms. The absolute refusal to employ torture under any circumstances is inevitably the acceptance of the suffering of victims whose death or dismemberment could have been prevented by its use. Yet accepting the legitimacy of torture, however extreme the circumstances, carries with it the danger of what Eugene Volokh called the 'slippery slope': the embrace of an abhorrent principle to satisfy the exigencies of the moment.
The way out of this logical prison may lie in appreciating the similarity between restraints on torture and restrictions on dealing out death on a battlefield on which innocents may be present. Time and again a military commander must give orders which will result in the statistically certain death of civilians in order to combat the enemy. He never admits to its desirability -- never embraces the abhorrent principle -- but instead binds himself to a process designed to reduce these evils to the practical minimum. It is a position made tenable only by the rejection of absolutes: on the one hand to maintain the principle against harming innocents while at the same time accepting the existential need to defeat the enemy. It is often a world of compromise and sometimes of fiction. But it is real enough. Americans pay the price of humanity with actual red blood. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
01/06/2005 8:46:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
"The Islamic world needs a Martin Luther, someone to usher in an Age of Reform that will radically alter some of the fundamental values of Islam that are retrograde, archaic, primitive and must be discarded into the dustbin of Muslim history so that Islam can regain its position as a culture of enlightenment rather than darkness."
What Islam needs to do is actually rather simple: it needs to undertake the transition Christianity and Judaism made a long time ago, to a point where "submission to God" no longer means "submission to man". In other words, no more Shariah.
Do that, and we'll all get along just peachy.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/06/2005 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
...following the Christians in the sexual exploitation of boys and girls.
What was the age of Mohammed's youngest wife again? What was that you say? 6? Oh, but it didn't matter because they didn't have sex til she was 9?
This article is a mixture of interesting ideas and total nonsense.
#4
I may know Islam's Martin Luther - or at least one of them.
Just give him time to reach at least his mid-20's....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/06/2005 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I have no issue with Martin Luther's theology, but all those hoping for an Islamic Martin Luther to arise don't seem to understand that the aftermath of ML's revolution in religious thought was a couple of centuries of violent religious strife, including what was probably the bloodiest war fought in Europe since Caesar did in the Gauls.
What do these commentators think? That someone will just come up with a kinder, gentler Islam and that all of the Muftis, Sheikhs, Maulanas and other high poobahs are just going to convert and walk away from their source of power and income? Not bloody well likely.
#7
Islam needs a big, bright light shined on it -- so the real story of Mo and company can be told.
Why are there so many stories about the life of Jesus (even produced outside the church) but none about Mo? Is it because anyone telling the truth about him would be murdered?
There should be enough murder, rape, piracy, pedophilia, violence, and sex to make even the most hardcore hollywood producer blush....
#8
Islam had a Martin Luther - it was Wahabi who took the religion back to its basics.
What Islam needs is the Sakarovs and other dissidents and, actually it has them. Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and many other Murtads (aka apostates, aka Murtadim). These folks are willing to appear on TV and have their ideas compete in the marketplace of ideas.
As if it didn't have enough to worry about, the United Nations now is under attack from New York officials who threaten to stop a necessary refurbishment and expansion of the complex on the East River. These officials should stop pounding their chests before they make Kofi cry hurt themselves and the city. Trust me, it gets better...
At issue is the United Nations' plan to build a 35-story building on a neighboring one-acre public space called Robert Moses Playground. I guess there's too much green space in downtown NY?
Diplomats and staff would move to the new building while the landmark Secretariat tower is cleaned of dangerous terrorist apologists asbestos and gets security and other upgrades. When that's done, the new building would become office space for workers who are scattered in other buildings, including two that the cash-starved city would be able to sell for perhaps $200 million. Sure....
To replace the park, the United Nations would build an esplanade park along the river for public use. Right after they finish the remodeling projects in Gaza....
The plan could be sweetened. No sh-t, Sherlock!!
U.N. officials should consider opening up their books for public inspection some of the organization's green acres for public use. But that's not what blocked the plan last month in the State Senate. The majority leader, Joseph Bruno, reportedly took issue with diplomats' unpaid parking fines. Legislators also expressed anger over anti-Israel votes in the General Assembly and the oil-for-food scandal. Some members of the City Council joined in. Such tiny, little piddling details....
The failings of the United Nations, large and small, don't make a case for threatening action tantamount to an eviction notice. For all their disagreements and unhappiness with the United Nations, the Bush administration proposed and Congress approved a $1.2 billion loan for the construction. The symbiotic relationship between the city and the world body has been a good one. New York receives an economic boost of some $2.5 billion a year. Prove it, pal....we want details. Third-world wankersClowns who can't get a real job in their home countries Diplomats get to live and work in a place as diverse as their ranks, unmatched as a world center of business, media, culture and learning. Gee, what did NYC do before the UN came to town? It must have been a complete cultural wasteland....
As global institutions go, the United Nations remains the most incompetent without peer, and as such, it should be nowhere but in New York. The groveling apologists obstructionists need to get out of the way.
#3
1. thats midtown, not downtown. Though Id really like the idea of having UN workers downtown. Like in the World Financial Center. Think about it.
2. The UN open space used to be open to the public, but was closed when somebody tried to take a bomb in their - this was like 20 years ago I think. It was a great space, with a great view of the East River.
3. Note please that most member of the New York City Council are DEMOCRATS, as is Bruno. Good for them.
#6
To replace the park, the United Nations would build an esplanade park along the river for public use
Guess who'd be paying for that? Yep. Uncle Sucker
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/06/2005 20:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Here's the perfect spot for the new UN headquarters. It's partially complete and will have 3.9 million sq. ft. of floor space. Kofi can have a spacious private office with a great view on the 105th floor. There's even space for a private office for Hans Brix.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
As if it didn't have enough to worry about, the United Nations now is under attack from New York officials who threaten to stop a necessary refurbishment and expansion of the complex on the East River. These officials should stop pounding their chests before they 
