Classic Amanpour

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Tex 1
Cali and everyone else 0

Now I know how Bronco feels with Pac 10 refs.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indeed. In fact, what Cali is arguing is a corrollary of what I am arguing. He says the protection of American lives does not grant de facto moral authority to commit any given act of torture. Well enough. In like manner, Pol Pot's use of any given technique does not de facto make us morally equivalent to him (which is Amanpour's unspoken--or spoken--intent with this piece).

Each technique must be evaluated--and permitted or disallowed--on its own merits, or lack thereof. I refuse to accept the canard that the use of waterboarding puts us on the fast track to Cambodian-style genocide.

Tex, nobody but you has argued that anyone is saying the US is on a morally equivalent plane with Pol Pot. The article linked certainly didn't advance that claim, nor has anyone on CG. To that end, your first paragraph is something I can agree with. The US does not equal Pol Pot. And protecting American lives does not grant de facto moral authority to torture.

As to your second paragraph, waterboarding should be disallowed on its merits. It is barbaric, and the US has claimed it to be barbaric when used on our own soldiers. Those who have suffered waterboarding decry it as barbaric and push for its banishment. Then there are those, like you, who watch too much 24 and feel that it is fine and dandy as long as it saves "lives." How many lives must it save to be worth it? Must it be directly responsible for saving lives? What likelihood of success must exist before its use is merited (with success=saving that number of lives you say must be saved to be worthwhile)? If its use actually engenders hate against America that poses an additional threat to America and its citizens, how should that be factored into the argument? In which instances should waterboarding be permitted? You and others here want to keep saying that waterboarding is necessary, but fail to address the very issues that must be addressed to have the "evaluation" on the merits you call for.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tex, nobody but you has argued that anyone is saying the US is on a morally equivalent plane with Pol Pot. The article linked certainly didn't advance that claim, nor has anyone on CG. To that end, your first paragraph is something I can agree with. The US does not equal Pol Pot. And protecting American lives does not grant de facto moral authority to torture.

I submit that is exactly what Amanpour is arguing.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As to your second paragraph, waterboarding should be disallowed on its merits. It is barbaric, and the US has claimed it to be barbaric when used on our own soldiers. Those who have suffered waterboarding decry it as barbaric and push for its banishment. Then there are those, like you, who watch too much 24 and feel that it is fine and dandy as long as it saves "lives." How many lives must it save to be worth it? Must it be directly responsible for saving lives? What likelihood of success must exist before its use is merited (with success=saving that number of lives you say must be saved to be worthwhile)? If its use actually engenders hate against America that poses an additional threat to America and its citizens, how should that be factored into the argument? In which instances should waterboarding be permitted? You and others here want to keep saying that waterboarding is necessary, but fail to address the very issues that must be addressed to have the "evaluation" on the merits you call for.

I don't know I've ever said it's "fine and dandy." I do think it may occasionally be necessary under exceptional circumstances, and so far as we know, those are the only times it has been employed. It's not as though Joe Traffic Ticket is being waterboarded.

But this is all really beside the point of me posting this article. Our use of waterboarding does not make us morally like Pol Pot, which statement it appears you agree with. So there ya go.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I submit that is exactly what Amanpour is arguing.



I don't know I've ever said it's "fine and dandy." I do think it may occasionally be necessary under exceptional circumstances, and so far as we know, those are the only times it has been employed. It's not as though Joe Traffic Ticket is being waterboarded.

But this is all really beside the point of me posting this article. Our use of waterboarding does not make us morally like Pol Pot, which statement it appears you agree with. So there ya go.

Yes, you continue to submit that is what she is saying without any sort of actual quote to bolster your claim. Amanpour can definitely go overboard, but I fail to see what she did here that got you so riled up.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes, you continue to submit that is what she is saying without any sort of actual quote to bolster your claim. Amanpour can definitely go overboard, but I fail to see what she did here that got you so riled up.

I posted a link to the article.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I posted a link to the article.

Exactly. It didn't help your case.

[creekster]

I think Tex is correct, that there is no moral equivalency, yet I am deeply troubled by the use of water boarding. Neither of these are the real issue, in my mind however. The problem the USA faces is not whether we are, in fact, morally degenerate like Pol Pot, but that most of the world now thinks we are morally degenerate or at least no different from any other country. It is an issue of perception.

Due to water boarding and other aspects of the Iraq situation we seem to have lost all of the moral high ground we used to have in the eyes of the world. I realize the world may be wrong, and I realize we shouldn't base our policies or actions on the opinion of the rest of the world, but much of our effectiveness as a world leader came not just from our military might but also from the common perception that we were morally powerful, that we were, at least marginally, different from other political or military powers. I realize our enemies didn't believe this (or at least didn't acknowledge it) but now we have also lost most if not all of our friends. This is a very real problem in terms of effectively and efficiently advancing our interests in the world and it is likely to persist for a long time.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Now I know how Bronco feels with Pac 10 refs.

The simple fact of the matter is Tex hit the nail on the head. In a non-news, editorial piece a connection is drawn between acts of torture used in Cambodian prison camps and 'what many call' acts of torture used at Guantanamo Bay with the intent to state "the US is on a morally equivalent plane with Pol Pot"!

The opening paragraph of the story at CNN.com establishes the editorial intent of the story: "A recently disclosed memo gave U.S. interrogators the ability to use harsh methods -- what many call "torture" -- to extract information from terrorist suspects after 9/11. Around the world, critics saw it as another blow to American prestige and moral authority."

How does the reporter go on to support the summary statement: "Around the world, critics saw it as another blow to American prestige and moral authority"? ...

"Half a world away, the divisive debate over whether waterboarding constitutes torture comes into sharp relief at the infamous S-21, Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

This is where the genocidal regime of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge imprisoned and brutalized its enemies from 1975 to 1979. I visited the once secret S-21, now a museum, with Van Nath, a former inmate. He remembers being brought here blindfolded and terrified:

'I thought that was the end of my life,' he told me. 'In my room people kept dying, one or two every day.'

Van Nath was kept in a room packed with 50 other inmates, shackled together and forced to lie down.

"We could not sit. If we wanted to sit, we had to ask permission first. No talking, whispering or making noise," he told me."

Later in the article the editorial intent of the first paragraph comes into greater focus: "But I pressed him: Is it torture? 'Yes,' he said quietly, 'it is severe torture. We could try it and see how we would react if we are choking under water for just two minutes. It is very serious'.

By the way the first response to Texs' opening post:

Thank God for people like Amanpour who is not afraid to call evil what it is.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Around the world, critics saw it as another blow to American prestige and moral authority."

DO you disagree with this conclusion? You're sitting in another country, don't you think this tends to be correct?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

DO you disagree with this conclusion? You're sitting in another country, don't you think this tends to be correct?

In regards to this thread I agree with this statement:

In fact, what Cali is arguing is a corrollary of what I am arguing. He says the protection of American lives does not grant de facto moral authority to commit any given act of torture. Well enough. In like manner, Pol Pot's use of any given technique does not de facto make us morally equivalent to him (which is Amanpour's unspoken--or spoken--intent with this piece).

Each technique must be evaluated--and permitted or disallowed--on its own merits, or lack thereof. I refuse to accept the canard that the use of waterboarding puts us on the fast track to Cambodian-style genocide.

As a result of the disingenuous connections made by Amanpour it is a summary statement many regard as a conclusion.