benefits, too. I mean, after all, they're human beings!
The reason they don't get trials is simple; they're armed combatants and the war is still going on. You're expecting them to be treated as criminals, which is not what they are. They should be, and are being, detained until such time as deemed non-useful, or, from my post-Catholic atheist perspective, they should be killed. Preferably by beheading, and, ideally, this should be televised.
The other problem you're having understanding about "torture" (which is, and always has been, an effective means of getting information from people, despite what any number of college freshman psych students may think (and don't get me started on nutjobbery as a basic requirement for college psych students, after all, they're there to learn how to solve other people's problems in an effort to avoid dealing with their own)) is that the reason the government doesn't use Christianity's Rules of Engagement as their own guideline for interrogative procedure is because the government is not, nor should it ever be, a specifically Christian organization.
Before we all cry our little tears for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being kept up all night, then hung upside down while water is poured over his head, let's take a second to remember this, lest we become this.
You say we've gone too far. I say we've not gone anywhere near far enough. As such, you should be thanking God that George Bush is in office, and not someone like me.
Also, +10000000, CHULLAIN!
they're armed combatants and the war is still going on. You're expecting them to be treated as criminals, which is not what they are.
What war? Wars in my mind require: (a) declarations, (b) a defined goal, and (c) the possibility that they will end. Even in war, most countries have decided that captured enemies deserve to be held humanely until cessation of hostilities when they are repatriated (sometimes POW exchanges occur even during hostilities even). Or, if an individual (usually ones that have positions of authority) committed some heinous crime, they get a trial. In other words, the civilized world does normally treat armed combatants as a special class of criminal, albeit with some limitations due to the fact that it is impractical to have the exact same rules as other criminals when you are capturing so many and under a stressful situation.
There is also the question with this administration that for many people they are taking in, there is little evidence that they have done anything. Many picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan appear to have just been unlucky -- locals want to get US money for giving up "terrorists" and so they give someone up whether or not they have done anything.
The other problem you're having understanding about "torture" (which is, and always has been, an effective means of getting information from people, despite what any number of college freshman psych students may think
Um, sorry. Torture is not effective or at least not enough to sully ourselves with it. The vast majority of people will, under torture, either tell their torturer what they think he wants to hear or just never tell them the truth. The torturer might get lucky and get something resembling the truth, but shouldn't really trust the information. Also, there have been studies that show that individuals that participate in committing torture and other forms of degrading behavior themselves develop psychological issues that make them less capable of performing their job. It does not seem worth degrading both the prisoner and the interrogator by using torture, even disregarding the moral issue. There is also the practical argument that if the US tortures people, we lose our moral authority thus causing more people in the world to decide violence is the only response to grievances with the US.
BTW, I only used the "ask a freshman psychology student" joke because it is something covered in freshman classes not holding up psych students as some kind of authority. :) Also, granted there aren't a lot of studies because you can't setup an ethical study that involves torture. However, there are quite a few that study coercive interrogation techniques in general and less scientific surveys of interrogators in various conflicts.
...the reason the government doesn't use Christianity's Rules of Engagement as their own guideline for interrogative procedure is because the government is not, nor should it ever be, a specifically Christian organization.
I wans't suggesting that the government specifically use Christianity as its basis. I was using that framework because it is personally relevant (I was sort-of raised in it) and it is familiar to most Westerners. However, most modern ethical systems (religious and non-religious) share many similar moral principles. Respect for human dignity is definitely one of those. There is a reason that most nations of the world have signed onto the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions and it's not because everyone in the world is Christian!
Before we all cry our little tears for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being kept up all night, then hung upside down while water is poured over his head, let's take a second to remember this...
It does appear he's a bad guy. I still believe he deserves a trial, etc because (a) human beings deserve fair treatment and (b) we could be wrong. From a practical standpoint, it's not like the US can't afford to be careful about how it treats even the bad guys -- major superpower, rich, and so forth.
I'll stop there. :)
Rachael"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot[ Parent ]
torture is an effective way to et information quickly that can be verified (ie the location of a bomb). It's still not riht, but neither is blowin up 100's of people.
[ Parent ]
