Tool Chamber Chat
I've mentioned James Yee and Murat Kurnaz in previous posts. Last night, the two of them appeared together for an interview on German TV, along with a couple of German politicians. During the show, Kurnaz revealed that he had become ill during his detention at Guantanamo, but said that he didn't request medical treatment because that required first signing a confession. Beyond the nagging detail of his innocence, which had been established by US intelligence officers years before his release, he also observed that detainees on occasion returned from the infirmary with missing fingers or limbs. Yee could not directly corroborate punitive amputations, but confirmed that Kurnaz's assessment was shared by many detainees. When Yee told the story of his own arrest, during which he was thrown in the back of a truck wearing the same black hood of the detainees he had previously ministered to, Kurnaz's eyes widened. It was closest thing to an emotional reaction shown by Kurnaz, who otherwise detailed his five years of detention and torture with a blank expression.
The US has spent its last dollar of international credibility on systematic torture, and what does it have to show for it? What fruit has this "valuable tool" (Dick Cheney) yielded? Exactly one conviction, that of deranged kangaroo skinner David Hicks. When Cheney called torture of suspects in the "War on Terror" a "no-brainer", I guess he wasn't kidding.
The US has spent its last dollar of international credibility on systematic torture, and what does it have to show for it? What fruit has this "valuable tool" (Dick Cheney) yielded? Exactly one conviction, that of deranged kangaroo skinner David Hicks. When Cheney called torture of suspects in the "War on Terror" a "no-brainer", I guess he wasn't kidding.
5 Comments:
Doctor:
"And what does it have to show for it?"
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Perhaps we have quite a bit to show for it.
The context is different but please click listen at the link and go in about 17 minutes:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11012130
Since you did not make a moral argument here ("and what does it have to show for it?") I won't either.
And, if we did have something to show for it would it be justified?
Thanks,
booger
No, it's not justified.
The fact it hasn't made us any safer nor unearthed terrorists threats just makes it that much more nauseating.
Bingo, Milfie-pups.
Ethics 101, Day 1, first topic: ends never justify means. Period.
Oh, Doctor:
Then why did you even mention the ends?
"And what does it have to show for it? What fruit has this 'valuable tool' (Dick Cheney) yielded?"
If the means aren't just, nothing else matters.
If it's wrong, it's wrong.
It's probably me, but this isn't how your post read to me what with your tally of the number of convictions.
Thanks,
booger
Did you hear about the bank robber who shot the teller to death, and then when they found him, he only managed to steal $1.45?
What a tragedy.
Of course, if he'd stolen more than a million dollars and gotten away with it, that would've been worth it. That's why I mentioned the end result, you see.
Post a Comment
<< Home