posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 10:29 AM
There are some things to add to my last posting.
Someone made a comment that if some information was gained that could save the lives of innocent Americans, then torture would be permissible (or even
Two wrongs reasoning is fallacious, unless:
1) One wrong is morally less wrong than the other, and
2) The lesser wrong eradicates the greater.
3) There is no other means that is less wrong than the lesser wrong.
So let's say for the sake of argument that the prisoners at Abu Ghrab have secret information about attacks on American soft targets.
Is degradation and humiliation of these prisoners the only way to obtain that information? Why not chemical interrogations or more sophisticated
methods? So, NO!
Will information held by servicemen of the Iraqi army be likely to contain any detailed information about attacks on the US, that is to say any more
than they could have just read on the internet? Impossible to say. My guess would be unlikely.
Is there any possibility that ANY ONE tortured detainee had no information whatsoever. Most certainly.
Is the real brutal humiliating (and how humiliating is it for a Muslim man in his traditional culture to just be stripped naked in public, let alone
covered in feces and stacked on other naked men . . . we have no idea.) torture of an actual innocent human being of another nation more morally
permissible than the potential deaths of a number of potential Americans. Think carefully on this one, we may not all agree.
Let me curtail the "those people" aren't innocent arguments. Ask yourself some questions.
1) Did all Iraqi soldiers choose to fight in this war or were some of them coerced? Naw, the Bathist regime was all flowers and sunshine, they'd
never force conscription.
2) Who invaded whom? Does a man have a right to defend his homeland?
3) Did the incidents at Abu Ghrab help or hurt the US war effort in Iraq? What was our agenda?
In favor of Bush, the plan was to win some hearts and minds over there, and that was a pretty good plan which sounded pretty fair to the American
people, I'd imagine. These incidents flew a big honkin' monkey wrench into those plans. It's doubtful that humiliation of POW's was part of the
Were the US personel involved in the torture following orders? We don't know but we can be damned sure they weren't ordered to take digital photos
of the whole mess or even allow cameras in if keeping this secret was the plan. On that level at least, they were almost certainly disobeying
Bush is, however, the commander in chief. He is ultimately responsible for what happened at Abu Ghrab. If his executive order was too vague that it
could be interpreted as using dogs to turture people, then it is the President's fault, at least partially.
Did this fiasco cost American servicemen their lives? You bet it did. If Iraqi resistance hadn't given safe haven to foreign terrorists before, they
certainly will now.