Re: "Even if torture works."

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:10:10 +0000, hummingbird
<ZYLYDWINUSED@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:54:52 -0000, "TD" <tdefries@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>"hummingbird" <ZYLYDWINUSED@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:608ep1p1985vpcvb1upku4sp2lhj286114@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>>> It's a pity that some people find it easy to strongly support
>>>>> Bush/Blair and their war but then claim not to support the methods
>>>>> they use to carry it out: naivety and double standards par excellance.
>>>
>>>>Let's say the government of Madeupistan wants to reduce the number of
>>>>murders in that fine country. Now, torture is _one_ of the methods it
>>>>proposes to employ in order to do so.
>>>
>>> In this scenario, anybody who supports the policy is also directly or
>>> indirectly supporting the tactics. There is no pick 'n mix option.
>>
>>They are hardly directly supporting the tactics if they state their
> ^*directly or indirectly* I wrote.
>>opposition to them.
>
>Messrs Bush/Blair/Rice/Rumsfeld/Cheney say many times that they don't
>condone torturing suspects, but then go ahead and authorise it.

So you can't trust their words. Doesn't mean you can't support the
invasion of Iraq whilst condemning this aspect of their policies --
though it does mean you have to watch what they do as well as what
they say.

> Words come cheap, watch closely what people support and what they do.
>
>>> Governments do not permit their electorates to dictate the tactics
>>> used when they wage war.
>>
>>It's not really a matter of permission. Barring legislation, and a large
>>percentage of the population coming to London and unseating the Executive,
>>the Executive can use any tactic it likes.
>
>True. Thus, when one supports Blair in his foreign adventures one is
>also condoning (directly or indirectly) whatever tactics he chooses to
>use.

False. Supporting Blair's wars in no way involves condoning the
tactics he chooses to use, except perhaps where you give uncritical
thoughtless support to them. Only if those tactics are necessary to
waging the wars concerned can you make such a claim.

> I can assure you that's how Blair would see it/argue it.

Which is irrelevant to whether supporting OIF involves condoning
torture.

>>>>Must you then totally oppose the
>>>>government,
>>>
>>> IMO in such situations one has to decide which of the issues ranks
>>> highest in one's conscience and act accordingly.
>>>
>>>>or may you oppose the use of that one method while supporting
>>>>the general principle of reducing the number of murders?
>>>
>>> There is NO pick 'n mix option in such matters.
>>> If you decide to support the policy knowing that the tactics include
>>> torture, how can you argue with any moral strength that you didn't
>>> agree with those tactics? It's just an attempt to disown liability
>>> for the nasty bits of war which happen.
>>
>>What is wrong with saying, "I wholly support the aim of reducing the number
>>of murders in Madeupistan, but I am wholly opposed to torture being used
>>under any circumstances"?
>
>Nothing, but if you know or have a good idea that torture will be used
>to effect said policy,

Then you should speak out against and publicise such a practice in
order to bring pressure to bear to get the situation changed. If you
oppose the goal of the policy, then outright opposition is fine.

If you feel the tactics being used are so bad that you're willing to
risk the goal not being implemented then outright opposition until
they change the tactics to your liking is also fine.

If you feel the goal is important but you don't like some of the
tactics and they're unnecessary I don't see why it is a double
standard or hypocrisy to support the goal and criticise the offending
tactics, nor do I see how support for the overall goal involves
condoning the tactics.

There is also the issue of not realising the tactics are being used
until after the policy has been pursued past the point of no return as
well, and trying to improve the situation.

> then it rings rather hollow because as I said
>above: it's an attempt to distance oneself from the unpleasant parts
>of policy.

Surely it's more intellectually honest to say you support the war on
terror but not the use of torture against terror suspects, than to
oppose the whole project when you only disagree with that one part of
it?

And moreover you don't seem to be considering the possibility that the
person concerned might be trying to influence the policy in a more
palatable direction.

>
>>You seem to be claiming that you don't support the reduction of murders in
>>Madeupistan. Surely that's not true?!
>
>Not if torture will used to effect the policy, because I don't want
>to be associated with any policy cure which is as bad as the problem.

Why should anyone associate you with torture if you oppose torture and
propose ways of achieving the same goals without the use of torture or
point out that the use of torture is counterproductive to the goals
you support?

James

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Even if torture works."
    ... >indirectly supporting the tactics. ... If you advocate a particular policy, ... I therefore fail to see why support the "war on terror" entails ... Indeed if you regard the goals of the "war on terror" as goals that ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: "Even if torture works."
    ... >>support the fight against crime, you implicitly condone the attacks on ... >for the tactics they choose to use to effect that policy. ... If all you mean is that the government will ... >to the policy, you also give implicit support to the tactics. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: "Even if torture works."
    ... >>> indirectly supporting the tactics. ... >opposition leads the government to change its mind or restrain the use ... information used in a court has been obtained under torture - ie ... "I wholly support the aim of reducing the number ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: "Even if torture works."
    ... >> support. ... be it a policy or an old biro. ... >> You may have noticed how support for the Iraq invasion has dropped off ... >supporting specific tactics used in the course of it. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: "Even if torture works."
    ... >> I'm not sure they're even indirectly supporting the tactics. ... >> opposition leads the government to change its mind or restrain the use ... and their use of, or complicity to use, torture. ... >> support the reduction of murders in Madeupistan if it's a goal being ...
    (uk.politics.misc)