MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Quote from MMMMMM:

[ QUOTE ]
I DO think many things our government has done are wrong. However there is no way to judge such things in a vacuum; hence relative morality must be applied. We live in an imperfect world at best, and the only moral judgements that matter are usually relative ones; unfortunately, the real-world choice usually comes down to: which is LESS BAD, not which is IDEAL

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean by this that there is no way to combat terrorism without using some unacceptable methods, if not US will lose? (I personally think that is the way Donald and many other Bushies think)

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I DO think many things our government has done are wrong. However there is no way to judge such things in a vacuum; hence relative morality must be applied. We live in an imperfect world at best, and the only moral judgements that matter are usually relative ones; unfortunately, the real-world choice usually comes down to: which is LESS BAD, not which is IDEAL



[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean by this that there is no way to combat terrorism without using some unacceptable methods, if not US will lose? (I personally think that is the way Donald and many other Bushies think)

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not what I meant but I would not entirely disageree with it. I don't agree with it fully though.

What I meant was that some things which would be condemnable in a vacuum, or in an ideal utopian world, are considerably less condemnable in the real-world, because complexities and conflicting interests generally make it impossible for countries to always act 100% ethically or morally. It's just a fact of life.

For instance, countering the USSR during the Cold War involved some nasty activities, some of which were condemnable even given the circumstances, but others of which would only have been truly condemnable in a vacuum--not so much so in the real world.

Unfortunately, the pressures and conflicting interests present in the real world often force some moral or ethical concessions in the form of less-than-ideal behaviors or activities. And the grander the scale, the more this is generally so.

Therefore, in matters of grand scale which often involve complex and conflicting interests, I believe that relative comparisons are more meaningful than absolute evaluations.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

The list is long so I will start with only a few things (source: Amnesty International):

[ QUOTE ]

By the end of the year, more than 500 detainees of around 35 nationalities continued to be held without charge or trial at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay on grounds of possible links to al-Qa’ida or the former Taleban government of Afghanistan

[/ QUOTE ]
Necessary?


[ QUOTE ]

However, the released documents showed that the administration had sanctioned interrogation techniques that violated the UN Convention against Torture and that the President had stated in a central policy memorandum dated 7 February 2002 that, although the USA’s values “call for us to treat detainees humanely”, there are some “who are not legally entitled to such treatment”. The documents discussed, among other things, ways in which US agents could avoid the international prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including by arguing that the President could override international and national laws prohibiting such treatment. These and other documents also indicated that President Bush’s decision not to apply the Geneva Conventions to detainees captured in Afghanistan followed advice from his legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales, that this would free up US interrogators in the “war on terror” and make future prosecutions of US agents for war crimes less likely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Necessary?


[ QUOTE ]

Saudi Arabia:
Five suspected critics of the state were brought to trial in three separate cases. One case involved two university professors, Dr Matrouk al-Falih and Dr Abdullah al-Hamid, and a writer, Ali al-Damayni. The three were among 11 academics and intellectuals arrested in March for calling for political reform and criticizing the government. Eight were released reportedly after signing an undertaking not to repeat such calls and criticisms. The three reportedly refused to sign the undertaking and remained in detention. In a rare departure from the usual practice of secrecy, the three men were allowed access to families and lawyers and in August were brought before a court whose hearings were scheduled to be public. AI planned to send an observer to the trial but its delegate was not granted a visa. The first session of the trial was held in public but was postponed half way through reportedly on the grounds that members of the public were disruptive. Subsequent court sessions were planned to revert to secret hearings. The other two cases involved Dr Said bin Zu’air and his son, Mubarak, both of whom were arrested in 2004. Dr Said bin Zu’air was convicted of vague charges that included disobeying the country’s ruler, and sentenced to five years in prison. In a separate trial his son Mubarak was sentenced to 10 months in prison on similar charges. The legal status of another son, Sa’d, who was arrested in July 2002, remained unclear. Dr Said bin Zu’air had previously been detained without charge or trial for about eight years for being a critic of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]
Necessary?


[ QUOTE ]

Israel:
Ten-year-old Walid Naji Abu Qamar, 11-year-old Mubarak Salim al-Hashash, 13-year-old Mahmoud Tariq Mansour and five others were killed on 19 May in Rafah in the Gaza Strip when the Israeli army opened fire with tank shells and a helicopter-launched missile on a non-violent demonstration. Dozens of other unarmed demonstrators were also wounded in the attack

[/ QUOTE ]
Necessary?

[ QUOTE ]


Do you mean by this that there is no way to combat terrorism without using some unacceptable methods, if not US will lose? (I personally think that is the way Donald and many other Bushies think)



[/ QUOTE ]

Let me give you an example of how an ex "Commie fightin' summbitch" kinda guy like me thinks.

First, I believe in strongly in God. I believe in the sanctity of life. Everyone's life. No matter when they are deemed as "alive."

There have been and always will be extremes. Good and bad. Yes, there are times when I would have and still will go in exactly the opposite direction many God-fearing folks would.

Fairly recent example: Colonel in Iraq gets "good intel" that he's on a hit list. He's got someone in custody who knows something. If I'm that Colonel, after I'd fired the round next to his ear, if he still didn't give up his compadres, I put my now re-cocked 9mm real close to his kneecap. I tell him I'm going to put a round in his knee if he doesn't talk. I explain how he won't ever walk normal on that leg again. Ever. He still doesn't talk, I pull the trigger. If that still hasn't gotten me what I want to know I repeat the process. And I answer to God.

And I'm not real proud of what those guys did with those bodies (the burning) but I've given it a lot of thought and I think I just might have done the same. Somebody's shooting at me I'm gonna get real testy about it and do just about whatever's required to stop tha' f***ers. The problem with what they did is they didn't have the good sense to do it off camera.

Life is tough. A lot of decisions are extremely tough. And you really need to be careful when you start condemning folks in nasty conditions and situations where you have no idea what tha' hell you're talkin' about.

[MMMMMM]

Arnfinn, you asked me a question which I answered and I don't have the inclination or time at present to delve into lots of specific instances, some of which would require additional reading and research to form a full opinion.

Is it not sufficient, in your mind, that I state that I agree that some US misdeeds have been indeed "bad", whereas some other US actions have been merely "less than ideal" given the complexity of the situations and the conflicting interests on grand scale? What is your purpose in moving from the general question, which I answered, to an asking for evaluation of many individual instances?

Also, you should realize that you and I cannot always know if something is justified or necessary, or if not, by virtue of the fact that we have less than complete information. Even with full information such questions can sometimes be very difficult to answer satisfactorily.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it not sufficient, in your mind, that I state that I agree that some US misdeeds have been indeed "bad", whereas some other US actions have been merely "less than ideal" given the complexity of the situations and the conflicting interests on grand scale? What is your purpose in moving from the general question, which I answered, to an asking for evaluation of many individual instances?


[/ QUOTE ]
I posted some examples of abuses as a direct or indirect result of US foreign policy which could have been prevented by GWB but he consciously acted otherwise, and I was interested if these are within your "less ideal"-definition or goes into unacceptable?


[ QUOTE ]

Also, you should realize that you and I cannot always know if something is justified or necessary, or if not, by virtue of the fact that we have less than complete information. Even with full information such questions can sometimes be very difficult to answer satisfactorily.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's why cultures and societes makes some absolute standards, to not allow the rulers to simply justify their actions with "it was necessary".

[ QUOTE ]


That's why cultures and societes makes some absolute standards, to not allow the rulers to simply justify their actions with "it was necessary".



[/ QUOTE ]

There are few "absolutes" in life. Learn to live with it.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted some examples of abuses as a direct or indirect result of US foreign policy which could have been prevented by GWB but he consciously acted otherwise, and I was interested if these are within your "less ideal"-definition or goes into unacceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you or I have complete enough information to make that determination unequivocally.

[ QUOTE ]

That's why cultures and societes makes some absolute standards, to not allow the rulers to simply justify their actions with "it was necessary".

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not only the standards that matter, but the specific details of the incidents and the context in which they took place. Many things of these types are very complex and I would hope you realize this. As an example, just look at the complexity of the discussions we had previously on this forum regarding whether it was necessary or justifiable to use the atomic bomb to end the war with Japan, or whether its usage saved lives in aggregate. Many such things are still being debated today. Things of lesser importance can be very complicated as well.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Yes, learn to live with it! No limits! Full power to the rulers! Accept Hitler's Holocaust since he perceived Jews as a threat to society! Accept Stalin't gulag since it was necessary to preserve communism!

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, learn to live with it! No limits! Full power to the rulers! Accept Hitler's Holocaust since he perceived Jews as a threat to society! Accept Stalin't gulag since it was necessary to preserve communism!

[/ QUOTE ]

You really are a butthead, aren't you?