Don’t.

That about sums it up, doesn’t it? While the religious conservatives running the country seem to value the US Declaration of Independence for Jefferson’s religious language within the document, they have by their actions de…

I still maintain that we can’t claim to be the nation and culture of laws, and then seek ways to exonerate ourselves from the misuse, abuse or infringement on them. We can’t maintain that our constitution sets forth universal truths, and then exempt certain men. Universals apply to each (individually), not just to all (in the aggregate). And its even more hyperbolic and hypocritical if we allow the rational of bringing our legalistic and principled society to these afflicted areas as the impetus for our military action- which then perpetrates the transgressions being discussed.

If we stand for human values, if we stand for righteousness we can not engage in the abuse of those principles for the sake of (or on the premise of) their very defense. Standing for these things has some costs — in every respect.

Laws universally (to my knowledge) affirm that sometimes force, even deadly force, may be used to defend oneself or others from threatened or actual illicit use of force. On the moral level, self defense is not only permissible; in some circumstances morality demands it. “Torture� connotes the infliction of severe pain or injury because of the pleasure derived therefrom by the torturer. Nothing could be more reprehensible. Yet if the infliction of severe pain or injury could be reasonably expected to result in saving the lives of others, it might be just as reasonable to inflict pain or injury as to use deadly force.

Although sometimes legally and morally acceptable or necessary, self defense is fraught with difficulty. Many circumstances have to be taken into account, including past dealings of the parties, the appearance of threat, the imminence of the danger, etc. Infliction of pain or injury on suspected terrorists in self defense will involve even more difficulty than the usual forms of self defense. The stakes have been raised sufficiently by 9/11 to require looking at this matter anew. National and international law should delineate exactly what specific factors would possibly bring this form of self defense into play. Leaving the CIA to its own devices just won’t do.

As mentioned, one must never forget that torture, not used strictly for self defense, is totally immoral. Anyone who would derive pleasure from torture should be removed forthwith from all possibility of inflicting pain or injury, even in self defense. I believe the U.S. could earn respect internationally through strict adherence to these principles.

http://www.justicetalking.org/viewprogram.asp?progID=507

Not everyone who is captured is a terrorist. The US used to be better than this.

2) I understand to keep the pace of discussion moving along, and appreciate the host’s level of interest in prodding the guests to be forthcoming. But I’m afraid this is one of the only times I’ve wished he would check his eagerness just a bit. Cloonan did speak a bit slowly and at length, but his words and statements were laden with content and for me, formed the main substantive content of the show. The interruptions were a little distraction.

3) I can’t believe the whole hour passed without a discusion of the War Crimes Tribunal and the extent to which U.S. military and governmental officials could — in theory and in practice (recognizing they are difernt) be held accountable for transgressions against Geneva and/or humanity. It was a rich subject as presented, but the U.S.’s recalcitrance when it comes to signing the treaty, and the extent to which its behavior might be construed as consistent with other nations that won’t sign, or where the ICC has endicted individuals would’ve been illucidating.