Today (December 17th, 2008) in class we discussed what should be the rules of war. Two of the rules that seemed to get a lot of attention was: 1. Torturing is allowed. 2. You can go to war with another nation for the sake of vital resources. My opinion with #1... I agree with it. I believe that torturing would be very beneficial to CIA intelligence and could save millions of lives. I also believe that psychological torturing methods should be used more often over physical ones. However, I am not saying that the 8th amendment of the constitution - no cruel or unusual punishment - should be removed, I think it should be altered. Cruel and unusual punishment should be allowed for the gain of important domestic and/or foreign information on suspicion of terrorism or treason. Cruel and unusual punishment may not be a sentence for domestic civil or criminal cases ("criminal will obviously have fine print explaining the criteria of being a criminal."
#2. I am somewhat skeptical on which side to take but I am going to agree with this rule. If the would runs out of oil and only Saudi Arabia has some remaining but now they close their exports, I feel that the US has the right to invade and destroy Saudi Arabia for its oil. This wouldn't be such a bad rule because small countries, like Cuba which we have an embargo on all their trade, won't go to war with us because they know they will get destroyed instantly. This is a point that is easy to argue, I am just taking this side to see what ya'll have to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Phil, I think it's hard to agree with some of your points because there are shades of gray in each example. On torture, for example, you say that you would allow it if it can help save millions of lives. What about thousands? That's the problem. The rules have to be specific, and while I agree with you, its hard to put the rule in words.
I think there should be drugs that a prisoner can be given if they refuse to cooperate. if you ever saw "The Good Shepherd," they give a guy a drug that causes him to tell everything. I think this is the best way to maintain a good reputation in the world while saving American lives.
I agree with you on torture just on the fact that if the US has a suspicion that a detainee is withholding information they should have every right to try and garner this information. But I think we should start looking towards mental torture like you say because although you can beat someone to a pulp, you may not necessarily beat their spirit. I also agree with you on what you said about going to war for resources. Obviously if a country is withholding a certain product that it had previously been trading then it should be at least persuaded diplomatically and if that fails, military action would probably make more sense.
I don't understand why war is natural and necessary, but torture is inhumane and excessive. Doesn't war constitute killing the enemy, so isn't torture actually more humane because your not killing the person. If a war breaks out, the parties involved obviously cannot come to a peaceful resolution and blood and warfare are the only ways to solve the problem.
The idea of vital resources is debatable. Just because a country has a certain resource does not give us the right to declare war and take what we want. If the resources do not belong to us, what right do we have to take what is not ours.
i completely agree with your idea of altering the 8th amendment of the constitution, however like michael said there are some flaws in your example. I believe that if the torture of someone is justified (whether it be because it would save lives, discover vital information, ect). However someone is going to say how do you justify the torture??? There are many ways to get around that, the easiest would be to nominate someone to have to make the decision or you could have a committee decide.
The biggest flaw in your argument regarding torture is the vast amount of false information that can stem from torture. If you're torturing me, I will tell you whatever you want so you stop. I guess that's the point of torture, but what if I really don't know anything and I just make up a bomb threat so you stop torturing me. It really is a fine line.
PHL, I agree with mikey on this one. There are shades of grey within each point you make. I agree that torture should be allowed by the geneva convention, but for reasons other than what you mention. I think torture can be advantageous, and useful, I think it should be legal because it is an inevitably. Give me one instance where an enemy spilled the whole truth without being tortued. And if you can come up with one, give me three or four or five.
The second rule is quick, so I'll answer it first. There doesn't need to be a rule that says you can invade someone if you need vital resources. Nor should there be. That opens a real can of worms, how do you determine what you need? If 10 people can't buy food, probably not. What about 10 million? 100 million?
The first rule I agree and disagree. Torture is fine in moderation. We don't want to become known nor do we want to be a "nation that tortures a lot". There are some times when you just *know* someone did something when it would be okay, but like Mike said, shades of gray. I don't think the 8th amendment should be altered. Sure it protects criminals, but it protects innocents too. I don't think the pros outweigh the cons on that one.
There should be clear rules detailing what tortures are considered "cruel and unusual" because that is a very vague term. In addition, I think there are many forms of torture that cause no physically damaging or long lasting effects on the victim. In these cases, i support torture. However, as Paul said, one of the major problems with torture is that a victim will say anything to get out of it.
I agree with Mikey on this one, there is a lot of gray parts in your rules and in the rules we follow today. Rules were always made to be broken. We can not keep an eye on every country and you did not talk about what if those rules were broken, how should the people or country be punished? I think that physical torture would be one of the most miserable things ever experienced by an individual. Like i said rules are made to be broken and not matter how you enforce them, you have to be as detailed and described as you can be to avoid any mad situations.
Post a Comment