I listened to Biden blast Asscroft a while ago.

[msmcghee]

He lectured him that the real reason we have laws against torture is to protect our military if they are ever captured by the enemy - and repeated it several times.

I understand what he was saying, and I agree, but it would have been nice to acknowledge some underlying (overarching) moral principle.

We on the left are often accused of having no moral compass, no sense of God-given morality and therefore - soul-less. Simply to say that torture is wrong because they might torture us seems lacking somehow.

I can't help but believe that the real reason is that it is wrong - immoral to cause severe pain to someone (or even an animal) in captivity.

Biden implies that there would be nothing wrong with torture if they always killed their prisoners afterward so they could never let anyone know they were tortured. I disagree. I think we, as a nation, are better than that. I believe we should not use torture simply because it is wrong and immoral.

End of rant.

[Francine Frensky]

1. Do unto others as they would do unto you: golden rule and Jesus'

Great Commandment.

I think you and Biden are on the same page -- he's just speaking Ashcroft's lingo.

[lastliberalintexas]

16. Actually,

the "commandments" handed down by Jesus were to love God and your neighbor. And "love your neighbor as yourself" is a stricter guideline for the Christian, with no implication of a revenge element as in the Golden Rule. Jesus very simply told his followers to love others as they do themselves, with no strings attached and no promise of any benefit from the act.

I do agree, though, that he probably was just bringing the discourse down to Ashcroft's level.

Welcome to DU!

[ibegurpard]

2. The moral principle of the Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is a moral principle. It may not acknowledge a directive from some higher power but it's pretty effective.

[Trajan]

3. DEMAND they observe the very morals they declare ...

Sexual Torture is performed by vicious sadistics on hapless victims, ... or by Bush's Defense Department ... Take your pick ...

They rail against men performing anal sex with men as an abomination: yet they feel no compunction about shoving objects up NONconsenting men's arses .... Violent anal rape is AOK with them ... But men who CONSENT to sexual activities are 'sinful' ...

Tis THEY who live in a slippery universe of relative morality ... NOT us ... THEY are hypocrites ... NOT us ....

It has ALWAYS been this way ....

SLAM them ....

[Submariner]

4. Well.....there is no god, so there is no soul,

but we do have a moral compass that is inherent in our species. As Democrats we don't use our moral compass the same way our brother christian right-wingers use it....with contempt.

[wndycty]

5. Join the drive

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1747458

[msmcghee]

6. OK, the Golden Rule.

Think about it.

It says that we should treat others as we expect to be treated.

But there's two sides to that coin.

On one hand, it means that being kind and considerate and respectful is a good idea - because if everyone did that, this would obviously be a much better world to live in. I like that a lot.

The other way to look at it is like Biden did. i.e. We shouldn't abuse people because they might abuse us out of revenge. If that were true, then torture would be justified if they did it to us first. I say it is not. Even if another nation tortures our POWs, it would be wrong for us to torture theirs. That's what war crimes trials are for.

I believe American principles are more honorable than that. I believe we shouldn't abuse people simply because it is wrong - and we are honorable.

This is a fine point but an important one, I believe, if morality has any place in world affairs.

[ladjf]

7. I agree.

While Biden's view is pragmatically correct, in stops far short of understanding the underlying universal immorality of torture. But, at least his position makes some sense.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Especially since they proclaim themselves to be

such good christians. I think their god's law is pretty clear, that their deeds are illegal and immoral.

[meti57b]

9. Biden is saying it in terms the administration can understand, ......

since they have no moral principles and wouldn't recognize morality if you hit them over the head with it.

[napi21]

10. Remember Biden was talking to the Atty Gen of the US!!!

Biden is talking about THE LAW! He is speaking to the AG who is SUPPOSED to be the highest level enforcer of the laws of the USA. Morality is a fine topic, and certainly has a place in the culture, but this questioning was taking place at a hearing before the Justice Committee. Not necessarily the time or place to be judging moral values, but the laws and the reasons for them.

[msmcghee]

12. I understand what you are saying . .

. . and I agree, up to a point.

However, is not the underlying basis for all law, morality?

I just wish he had acknowledged that - on the side - while he was delivering his lecture.

I suspect his intention was to illustrate to anyone listening how that policy puts our military in danger. It does. He is right. I agree 100%.

I was just hoping for a double whammy - he also could have illustrated to anyone watching that liberals are actually the ones who are concerned with morality here.

[kiahzero]

15. No, not really

However, is not the underlying basis for all law, morality?

The underlying basis for all law is protecting the rights of the governed whose consent allows for the law to be created.

[lastliberalintexas]

17. No

Very simply, you cannot legislate morality. As much as the RWers don't like to admit it, what is moral really is rather relative.

I admit, there are some absolutes that are accepted by every society as law, such as the prohibition of murder. But even what constitutes murder varies by societal norms. In some countries, it is not murder for a man to kill his wife if he discovers she had an adulterous relationship, or for a man to kill his daughter or sister if he discovers she has had pre-marital sex. Certain societies of the world consider those killings to be (in American legalese) justified homicide, not murder. I am not saying that I agree with this, just that it is so.

While at times what is legal may parallel what is moral, they are actually very different concepts.

[kcwayne]

18. Not all societies prohibit murder

The Aztecs tolerated it as long as it was done to fellow ball players or performed by a high priest.

And alot closer to home, the first Christian tried and convicted for murdering an American Indian in the US did not occur until the 1880's. I am not sure about prosecution of slave owners for murdering their slaves, but my guess is its similar.

[lastliberalintexas]

21. But that is my point

In the law, a killing is only murder if it is not excused by society for some reason. By today's standards, killing a Native American or African American slave would be considered murder, while in the 18th century it was not. Both are *killings*, but in today's society they are also considered to be murder.

You are confusing killing with murder- but they are not the same in their *legal* meanings. The two words can't be used interchangeably.


I've never heard of a society which did not prohibit murder, ie the killing of another without legal excuse- but maybe there is/was one. :shrug:

[kcwayne]

27. Honor Killings, Gun Duels, Vigilante lynching

According to the law practiced in the US from 1609-1880, it was illegal to take the life of any person. There was no exclusion in the law or Constitution that said "except for Indians or Negroes". That is why there was no new law needed to prosecute a white trader for killing 2 American Indians in French Lick Indiana in the 1880s. In this case, the law clearly stated that murder was illegal, but it was in fact ignored. The lack of application of the penalty of the law did not change the definition of murder. The fact that the law was not enforced is a prime example of a society that tolerated what it defined as murder.

There are "honor killings" in some Muslim countries that go unpunished, although once in awhile they prosecute (probably because the killer was not in favor with the local priest or mayor). A Muslim man is allowed to kill his daughter if she is raped to save the honor of the family. Again, you might call this "killing" as distinct from murder, but ethically and morally, these acts are murder that are tolerated by the culture. The same father cannot kill his son for raping a woman. So murder is tolerated in one instance, and not another.

Similarly in India, a groom is traditionally allowed to set fire to his bride if he is unhappy with the dowery or any other issue. This practice has been a focal point for women's rights group in this century.

In the 17th and 18th centuries dueling was another form of murder that was tolerated. There were cases of gun duels in the Old West such as the shootout at the OK Corral by Wyatt Erp, which stands out as a stark example of tolerated murder.

Vigilantes that roamed the West and the South in the post Civil War years murdered hundreds of people, and made postcards of their feats.
Lynching in America
When an entire town rolls out to celebrate hanging some unfortunate soul, which is specifically against the law but disgustingly tolerated, it is murder. The fact that the legal system only stepped in haphazardly is secondary. Those people that did not enforce the law built an island society that tolerated murder, and would have continued to do so if not for large forces that eventually stopped them. Nevertheless, they had a 100-year run, so it wasn't an aberration.

The Romans killed massive numbers of people in the gladiator contests. I don't know what the laws were, but it is not my understanding that a gladiator could walk up to someone on the street and murder someone.

[BurtWorm]

11. Why is it better to appeal to "morality" than reason?

This seems to be what you're saying, that it's better to outlaw torture because it's immoral rather than because we don't want Americans tortured either? The basis for the more against torture is precisely the reason Biden cited. What else could it be based on? The word of God?

[msmcghee]

13. Please see #12 above, also . .

. . are you implying that the Christian fundies are right, that secular humanism is by definition, amoral.

I'd say the good side of the Golden Rule - being kind and considerate and respectful is a good idea - because if everyone did that, this would obviously be a much better world to live in - is a statement of practical morality that all laws are (should be) based on.

I don't know if God ever said it, but it makes no difference to me because I'm an atheist, but I suspect any civilization that lasts more than 10 years will develop a similar system of morality and laws.

[BurtWorm]

14. I was arguing that morality is based in reason, that reason precedes

morality.

On deeper thought, though, it seems to me that morality is actually based on principles of evolution, that what contributes to the survival of the species--or of the social group, in any case--becomes moral. It's immoral to kill because license to kill harms the group. It's similarly immoral to torture because license to torture is not conducive to the survival of the group or species. This I'm sure will be even less satisfactory to you than what I was arguing before, but I'll bet there's truth in it.

[msmcghee]

19. Actually, I believe . .

. . there's some truth in almost every possible way to look at things on this level. So, I'm not really intending to argue with anyone here. Just suggesting that there's another way I wish Biden had looked at it - along with the perfectly valid way he did.

But just to be argumentative a bit . . . what you are proposing is the evolutionary psychology view. And in that vein, it could just be, that torturing your enemies and making them fear you, and causing them to retreat to land that has fewer resources, could be an evolutionary advantage for the more aggressive group. After many generations, they would have a higher relative proportion of DNA in their environment. i.e. their DNA wins.


:shrug:

[msmcghee]

20. Also, after thinking about this some more . .

. . I think I disagree with Biden, even on the practical matter of preventing torture to our soldiers who may get captured.

First, most countries we have been at war with don't follow the Geneva Conventions anyway, although some countries might refrain from as much torture if we did not do it.

I think what is really important, when you are at war, is to get it over with as soon as possible so all the POWs can go home - on both sides.

And to do that, by treating prisoners humanely, even being very nice to them, would be more effective than simply not torturing them.

Hundreds of thousands of Germans surrendered to US forces during the last months of WWII because they knew they would not be mistreated. If they thought torture was in their future they well could have decided to fight to the death.

Now that saved some lives and ended the war sooner - and that's a damned good practical reason not to torture prisoners - in Germany in 1944 and in Iraq in 2004.

[Blue Gardener]

22. How about if the prisoner is really innocent?

How would our soldiers that have been dragged into this mess feel if they tortured or killed a suspected "terrorist", only to find out they were innocent? We've had inmates on death row that even had a trial by jury and were still wrongly convicted. Why even put them in this situation?

[buycitgo]

23. they just showed the steamy part on CNN!

where Biden makes his mouth into a sharklike SNEER as he explains to AssKKK why we adhere to Geneva

really stunning visual

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Thank you Joe Biden

I've said many snippy things about him, and made enough Neal Kinnock snipes to last a lifetime, but he really earned his pay today.

When he pointedly, vehemently and unequivocally pointed out how adherence to treaties is a method of protecting our own servicepeople who may be captured, he used perfect reasoning against a conservative: the "how it hurts you" argument. Liberals (like me) make the mistake of taking the "it just ain't nice" angle, but against conservatives, this is useless.

He was in bared-teeth, extreme performance mode; something tells me we'll be seeing this clip for a long time.

Ashcroft should be served for Contempt of Congress immediately. Anyone on the right who tries to obstruct should be tarred as pro-torture.

[damnraddem]

25. Golden Rule = moral compass.

Just turn it around, and you do nicer unto others so they'll do nicer unto you. It doesn't sound as moral, but it is sound morals.

[Disturbed]

26. Contempt

The entire cabal of BushCo has contempt for the American people and The Constitution of the USA!

This must not stand!!!! Tear down that wall of BushCo Criminals!!!