Lunch Break: Chris Hayes uncomfortable about calling military “heroes”
by LauraLoo
Yesterday Chris Hayes of MSNBC (in his infinite wisdom) explained why he cannot call members of the military ‘heroes’.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHQluNyJgxQ[/youtube]
Well, I can think of a few reasons not to call you an American, Chris. The term traitor fits folks like you who desecrate our selfless and sacrificial military!
I wish everyone a blessed Memorial Day.
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
[HT: 89 WLS Chicago]
May.28, 2012 11:45 am |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Clearly, they only hire the best and brightest at MSNBC. [/sarcasm]
Really? It’s traitorous to ask whether or not all military involvement counts as heroic? He’s not discounting soldiers. He’s not dishonoring anyone. He’s just asking, “Does joining the military automatically make someone heroic?” We shouldn’t be afraid of questions like that. They’re important to ask. Maybe the answer ends up being “yes,” but maybe the conversation that can come from that question is far more useful than the conversation that comes from automatically calling anyone who questions the cultural rhetoric of heroism a traitor.
I appreciate your pro-life work, Jill, but I cannot agree with your political views. The American military has committed countless atrocities and fought in wars that are hard to justify to the neutral observer. As a matter of fact, few military interventions over the last 50 or so years were justifiably or turned out in a good way. Soldiers do what they are ordered to do, but that doesn’t make them heros per se. Some are heros, some are monsters, but most of them just do their job.
In general, I am under the impression that the pro-life movement limits itself by espousing these conservative views. I (politically on the left, but pro-life) partly turned my back to the Occupy-movement because I see more and more support for pro-choice positions at Occupy rallies/statements (and I criticize these folks for mixing their basic message with elements that have nothing to do with their core values); in a way, I feel the same about huge parts of the pro-life movement.
I think we are strongest if we just focus our attention on our fundamental aim, stopping abortion. It distracts and alienates people who are otherwise open to the pro-life position to make it sound as if you have to be a conservative in order to be genuinely pro-life. Having said this, I know that you, Jill, are free to post whatever you want on your website, but I think it would be of service to the pro-life community to be as inclusive as possible.
Didn’t watch the full segment (elsewhere), but he’s raising an important issue. And I say that as a veteran who saw no action during my 8+ years, who has genuine, tremendous admiration and respect for the many vets I’ve met and known who, since my days casually winding down the cold war, have seen hot action and suffered for it.
I think we use language carelessly, and “hero” is no exception. But it’d be difficult to be really clear in how we speak about fallen military men and women. That’s in part because there’s an act of heroism just in taking the oath of enlistment or oath of office. Dying as a consequence can prove you were sincere in your oath, just as a faithful marriage can prove one’s wedding vows were sincerely given. There are heroics in deeds, but these deeds often tie back to heroic commitments.
Of course, there are people who make no commitments who are heroic — “above and beyond the call of duty.” This is true in all of life, and as a Christian going the second mile or giving my cloak is what I’m called to.
At any rate, I think we should cut people some slack in discussions like this, because if you think about the huge range of possible thoughts, there’s a lot of room for misunderstanding just what people mean. Hero to whom? One’s grieving widow? One’s mayor, leveraging the memorial service for good PR (dittos for Congressmen or Presidents)? One’s child — who’s not much consoled by whether mom died as a hero for someone else; why isn’t she here for ME?
“Some are heros, some are monsters, but most of them just do their job.”
You must be a vet too. ;-) One of the Navy’s PR things was “It’s not just a job, it’s an adventure.” Well, I did have some adventures, true enough. Good ones! But we were fond of saying that “it ain’t just an adventure, it’s a job.” So true. ;-)
Hi Phillip:
All the words in this post are mine. Lunch Breaks cover a variety of topics not limited to prolife and abortion.
Though I have the right to free speech, this is Jill’s site and she is free to censor any of my posts.
Thank you for your comments. Though we disagree, we both have the right to voice a difference of opinion because of the greatest of our country and the military who defend our freedoms and liberties.
LL
Even if Chris Hayes is right–that “hero” does not necessarily apply to everyone who enlists, do we really need to make this point on Memorial Day? Actually, does that need to be uttered at all? It isn’t helpful, it isn’t edifying to anyone on a national holiday, and since “hero” does apply to so many of our soldiers, what the heck???? I know plenty of policemen and firemen who are cranky, cowardly, and downright lazy, yet those are heroic callings and they are often called upon to put their lives in danger–though many fail. Are we making a brilliant point here? Some of them fail to live up to their heroic calling. Brilliant. Some journalists are blatant water carriers for the President too.
Yeah, there’s something just weird about a merely academic conversation by talking heads on the day we’re ostensibly honoring people whose sacrifice wasn’t some propositional concession — it was their life.
Perhaps the take-away is something akin to Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan. “Who is my neighbor?” provoked the story, but the story ended with the question, “To whom was the Samaritan a neighbor?”
It’s not just about whether other people are heroes of one kind or another. It’s that mere memorializing is meaningless if one isn’t provoked to be heroic oneself. “Outsourcing” heroism — in whatever area of life, not just national defense — is cowardly.
By the grace of God, courageous Americans can build, preserve, and defend a virtuous civilization. Cowards? Not so much.
This guy cant call anyone a hero? And might I point out that he IS NOT one!
This guy seems not just “uncomfortable” with heroism, but uncomfortable being on TV at all. Where did they get him? (Don’t watch MSNBC, so never heard of him).
So far as I gleaned anything at all from his incoherent sputterings, it seems he’s not denying that soldiers are heroes; he’s saying it would look like you’re justifying war if you say it. In other words, someone might paint you the wrong color politically if you acknowledge military heroism.
That doesn’t mean he’s a traitor, it just means he’s a coward.
Move on, there’s nothing to see here.
(My Dad’s an Air Force vet, by the way).
Argh. I meant to add something that’s bugged me a long time. Poetic scansion has a way of obscuring meaning to some folk. This can be unfortunate.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
That’s not a question about whether the flag’s still waving. The question presumes that it is waving; the question is what kind of people occupy the land it’s waving over.
The only line common to all four verses is the last. Is it, and will it remain, a land peopled by those both free and brave?
The four verses are uncompromising patriotic bluster, but what they celebrate and extol are virtues which, however exaggerated in lore, are just those virtues worthy of our aspiration.
Heroes preserve freedom and bravery.
To celebrating such heroes, to some extent, it may be as important to shame those who would bring us to serfdom, and those who are cowards. That the presence of heroes in our world doesn’t suffice to this end among cowards, should lend zeal to our celebration of true heroes.
philipp “The American military has committed countless atrocities”
Name one.
Jamie: “are we making a brilliant point here?” and “do we really need to make this point on Memorial Day?” EXACTLY!!
rasqual: “hero to whom?” EXACTLY! If this guy doesn’t like the word in this context, don’t use it, but don’t criticize its legitimacy for others. Oh, that’s right – relativism is for morality only.
U-104: There’ve been a lot. The pattern is very similar, whether it’s WWII or Iraq. War is a transforming experience for many warriors. The psychic assault is unimaginable to those outside its experience. Professionalism and training help immensely — but as weapons against war’s assault on a person’s judgment and virtue they only go so far.
Alas, when many people speak of American war atrocities it’s an effort to tear down and to discourage patriots. Sometimes it’s an expression of their belief that “American exceptionalism” consists of America being on the tyrannical side of history — which is rot.
During my military service, I faced this view within myself — and it was as a pro-lifer that I entered my period of deepest disdain for America. I informed my command that I was considering declaring conscience objector status. I was relieved of all duties involving the potential use of deadly force, and given a month to think it over. I did so, and realized I could not, with integrity, declare myself a CO. That sincere reflection led me to other important truths and values, and I came out of the experience with some sympathies for those who may never quite escape the mindset I was in at the time, as well as with strong appreciation for the principles and process which, honestly engaged, can salvage a person from the confusion I was in.
When I explained this at the end of the month, my command restored me to full duties, with no further questions asked. I was fortunate to have a good command, and I remember specific persons up the chain of command to this day, nearly 30 years later.
Philipp says, “the American military … fought in wars that are hard to justify to the neutral observer.”
The military does not choose the wars in which they fight. Their wars are chosen by elected officials. If you have a hard time justifying a given war, do not blame military men and women; save your disdain for elected officials.
rasqual “There’ve been a lot”
I said name one.
And actually, the Revolutionary War may be easily construed as unjustifiable. The Civil War as well. I wonder if Philipp would enjoy a spirited debate about whether the wars HE deems justifiable, are quite as much so as he supposes. ;-)
I agree that some may not ACT heroically, but I think this discussion could be done on a day that wasn’t to remember those who ARE heroes and those who HAVE sacrificed for others.
Yes, there are those who do things for all the wrong reasons, but that can be said about pretty much most occupations.
U-104: I don’t understand why you ask for “one.” Is there a rhetorical point of some kind?
OK, fine — at random: No Gun Ri.
@rasqual
60 years ago…
I don’t see anything wrong in what he said. He did it respectfully and politely, it’s just a question, and an interesting one at that.
And however much I feel sorry for those soldiers who lost their lives in a war and their families, I have to agree that US has gotten involved in a countless unjustifiable wars, who had NOTHING to do whith anyones freedoms and were the result of greed and hunger for power from the US government/corporations.
@Vita “were the result of greed”
Then how come we’re not rolling in oil?
U-104
Um…right.
And that’s relevant to where you first asked it…how?
War is damned dirty business. As much as we like to believe war has a “noble” cause, its just part of the ongoing conflict that has existed between the members of the human race since the dawn of creation.
Soldiers were not and are not social workers, they were sent and are sent to do dirty jobs. They slaughtered the innocent, destroyed, and conquered. They occupied and controlled. They captured and enslaved. What truly motivated a military action is anyone’s guess and always the subject of speculation.
War continues to solve nothing and to not resolve any issue. Soldiers will continue to go to battle when ordered to do so.
George Washington said that to preserve the peace we must be prepared for war.
I don’t see anything wrong with using “fallen hero” as a blanket term. The great majority were heroic just for being “in harm’s way”, if for nothing else. Who cares that some individuals may have been less than worthy of our respect?
Do we care how good or bad a baby will turn out to be? No. They are lives worth living. Let’s mourn for the many who risked their lives and lost them.
@rasqual
Just wondering why you chose one so old if “The American military has committed countless atrocities” hmm?
Mary “War continues to solve nothing and to not resolve any issue”
Yeah war never ended slavery or the holocaust, nope they were ended by a bunch of holier than thous who sat around talking about how great they were.
I said I picked one at random, U-104. Your “hmm” is jejune. Since there are more recent examples as near as a Google search or the Wikipedia, you might wish to dispense with whatever theory you apparently entertain that I had to hunt back into the recesses of history to scrape together an example.
Amid your ignorance, don’t lose track of who you’re talking with. I’m not the one who said “countless.” I find that claim absurd. But asking for “one” example suggests an opposite and equally absurd mindset.
I’m the exact opposite of a blame-America-first liberal. I’m also the exact opposite of head-in-the-sand fake patriots.
rasqual “I’m not the one who said “countless.””
You’re right i quoted the wrong person by accident, i apologize.
I actually did search first, funny i couldn’t find any, could you help me pull my head from the sand and name one that happened within the last 50 years?
Well, I think that even an enlisted man or woman who sits behind a desk all day is more of a hero than some greedy athlete (and this coming from someone who loves football).
U-104 11:59PM
You give war too much credit.
Historians debate to this day whether or not Lincoln was concerned with ending slavery. Some say that ending slavery was an attempt to give some “noble” cause to a very unpopular and horrific civil war that was becoming little more than a mass slaughter. Yes slavery ended, but the reasons for the Civil War were a complex mixture of economics, culture, and politics. The cause of most wars from the beginning of time.
The Holocaust? Are you aware the US coast guard was ordered not to allow a ship carrying refuge seeking German Jewish refugees into US waters? They would have no option but to return to Europe, and most would end up dying in Nazi death camps. Gee, why wouldn’t Roosevelt intervene on their behalf, or….did he give the order they were not to be admitted? The same Roosevelt who put American citizens in concentration camps. after confiscating their property and businesses. I bet you thought only HItler and Stalin did stuff like that. Speaking of Stalin, how quick we were to align ourselves with “Uncle Joe” who’s mass killing of his own citizens made HItler look like a rank amateur.
The Germans created an incident on the Polish border to justify their invasion of Poland in 1939. Lyndon Johnson created the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to give him unlimited power to run the war in Vietnam.
To the grunt on the ground and in the air, war is dirty business. It doesn’t serve some noble cause, it offers no long term solutions, only creating the stage for the next war.
Courageous men and women who serve their countries will continue to be mangled, mutilated, and killed, as they have been since the time mankind fought with stones and arrows. Economics, power, greed, culture, and politics will continue to create conflict.
U-104: Abu Ghraib?
An instructive TED talk on what makes people heroes or monsters:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html
rasqual and Mary, I do hope you are not using No-Gun-Ri, Abu-Ghraib, or actions by Presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Johnson as indictments of “the military”. Maybe I am misreading what you are saying, but the atrocities committed by fewer than 1% of the military and the deplorable decisions of elected officials do not represent the actions/decisions of the vast majority of those who serve in uniform.
Hi Eric,
Absolutely not. I hold our military, past and present, in only the highest esteem. As I have said there is no greater source of pride to me than my father’s service in the 101st Airborne.
My point is that the soldier does the job he/she is told to do and it is a very dirty job, and I believe the vast majority of our soldiers do the most honorable job they can. There is nothing glamorous or noble about warfare, its not a Hollywood movie.
About the only thing “victories” have ever done is set the stage for future warfare, i.e. civil wars and WW1 being “the war to end all wars”.
I wanted to point out who and what all too often motivates the decision to go to war, and its certainly not the men and women of the military, though they will come home with the broken bodies and lost lives. Its all too often the politicians and their manipulations and misjudgments that forces our military into situations they had no say in. For instance I remain convinced that had we played our cards right in the early 1950’s, we could have had the friendship of and great influence with then Vietnamese leader in the fight against the French colonists, Ho Chi Minh. He and his followers actually looked to us for inspiration and assistance. But our political leaders, well that’s another story. These are communists! Yeah, but maybe they just don’t want to be a colony. Well, the world is black and white, us or them. Certainly no shades of gray. Lyndon Johnson was so sure the Vietnamese could be easily beaten, just give him free reign and he would show those little commie b—–s who’s boss. He would find out otherwise. A lot of political mishandling and manipulation, and our men and women are sent to fight and die by the thousands.
No Eric, I meant my post as a tribute to our men and women in uniform, past and present, and an indictment of the people whose bad judgment has all to often put them in harm’s way, where they nonetheless serve honorably.
@rasqual
You expect me to cry over the “humiliation” of people who would cut my head off with a sword for the crime of not being a Muslim? really? I at least thought you would use something horrible like My lai, oh wait the people responsible were court martialed and the people who stopped it were given medals.
@Mary
“Yes slavery ended” Score 1 for war.
“Holocaust” An isolationist president who wanted nothing to do with war sent the jews back to nazi germany to be killed.
“Roosevelt who put American citizens in concentration camps” Where they were subsequently not exterminated, i’ve know about that since i knew what WW2 was your point?
“Uncle Joe” General patton wanted to go right on and defeat the USSR once and for all in 1945, he was told no, to avoid another war, and that led to almost 50 year of oppression for the people of eastern europe, but hey not our problem right?
Thanks for the clarification Mary — your post is well written. I personally would lay the credit of ending Holocaust atrocities at the feet of your father and other Screaming Eagles, vice the President of the US.
“U-104 says:
May 28, 2012 at 8:25 pm
@Vita “were the result of greed”
Then how come we’re not rolling in oil?”
Well aren’t you? You have any shortages? Doesn’t every american household own an average of 2.28 vehicles? Did any pertol station you’ve recently been to has run out of fuel? No? Even with over 250mln passenger vehicles, not even counting the industrial ones….? When was the last time USA/NATO got involved into a war with a country that had no oil?
U-104
Please google “did the civil war end slavery”. Lots of conflicting opinions. Some claim it ended with the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. As with any conflict and its consequences, historians will be forever debating.
The points I’m making about FDR was that while we condemn the actions of other countries, we often need not look much farther than our backyard. The politicians with their wheeling and dealing, manipulating and maneuvering and the consequences it holds for our soldiers who they send to fight. For the most part our politicians aren’t a whole heck of a lot better than the opponents they send our military people to fight.
We didn’t exterminate the Americans we put in concentration camps. Well, that certainly made FDR a cut above Stalin and Hitler. I knew there had to be something different about us imprisoning men, women, and children based solely on their ethnicity.
It also makes one wonder how long leaders like FDR turned a blind eye to Nazi persecutions, he had to know what would happen to those people he denied admission to the US, then took credit for helping to end it!
Absolutely right about good old “Uncle Joe” who thankfully blew out a blood vessel in his brain before he could do any more mass murdering. Again our stupid politicians, including FDR, who gave him half of Europe.
Hi Eric,
…And thank you for your kind words. They mean a lot.
U-104: Your characterization of the prisoners at Abu Graib is gratuitous and uninformed. You’re obviously utterly ignorant of the population of the prison at the time. Among other things, mentally ill prisoners were terribly abused.
Why do you flee in ignorance to a default position of defending the actions by troops the military convicted of crimes against these prisoners? You’re siding with criminals against the courts martial that found them guilty. Do you consider it some patriotic duty in defense of the U.S. to be in such denial that you’d even dissent with the military you seem bent on defending?
Why should your ignorant and brutal opinion be given more credence than the military’s own outcome for these events? Take your pick, U-104: either the perpetrators were justly charged and convicted or not. If so, that’s a genuine atrocity. If not, then the military is committing grave acts of injustice against its members under the UCMJ.
The United States Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and March 2006, eleven soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer of all Iraq detention facilities, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was reprimanded for dereliction of duty and then demoted to the rank of Colonel on May 5, 2005. Col. Karpinski has denied knowledge of the abuses, claiming that the interrogations were authorized by her superiors and performed by subcontractors, and that she was not even allowed entry into the interrogation rooms.
I don’t think you are even capable of maintaining thematic continuity in a conversation. What the heck could you possibly mean by this? “I at least thought you would use something horrible like My lai, oh wait the people responsible were court martialed and the people who stopped it were given medals.” Actually, it didn’t go down quite that neatly. But the rhetorical force of your “oh wait” suggests to me that you imagine you’re making some triumphant point just there. What would that point be? The question was whether the U.S. commits atrocities — not whether those responsible escape justice. Are you moving the goalposts because you were seriously ignorant of atrocities committed, and are now wishing merely to defend the military on the grounds that justice is done?
If you had an original point you wished to make, state it clearly. If that point no longer seems worth making to you, just stop defending the indefensible.
Eric: Please read what I’ve actually written in this thread, and only infer what reason permits you. Introduce no gratuitous judgments.
Listen with your ears — not your fears.
Vita: I think the point would be that those who hollered “no war for oil” and such just look like jackasses because what they claimed the U.S. was doing “for oil” is risibly, demonstrably stupid in hindsight. For many of us, of course, their hysteria was stupid all the time. The U.S. “rolling in oil” is on account of the purchase of said oil from suppliers at market prices — not on account of them damn greedy oil companies going in like cattle rustlers and spiriting it out of victimized countries.
@Vita “Well aren’t you?” No “Doesn’t every american household own an average of 2.28 vehicles?” Not mine “Did any pertol station you’ve recently been to has run out of fuel?” They charge a lot more than they did before iraq
“When was the last time USA/NATO got involved into a war with a country that had no oil?” 2001 Afghanistan has no oil, the Balkans had no oil, somalia had no oil, Panama had no oil, Grenada had no oil well unless you count the olives, vietnam had no oil, korea had no oil, Japan had no oil, Germany had no oil, i don’t know if the barbary pirates had vast oil stock piles i’m to tired to look it up.
@rasqual
I was arguing against someone who said the US military “committed countless atrocities” i asked them to name one, then you jumped in with No Gun Ri, i pontied out that 1 atrocity in 60 years of war is a pretty good track record, then you came back with Abu Ghraib an “atrocity” in which only 1 person died and those responsible were punished by the military, as has everyone involved in any such actions, the military atrocity count in 60 years is maybe 1 not “countless”.
Right, 104, and I’ve said I think the “countless” thing is absurd — but a challenge to find just one sounds as if someone’s in denial about the fact that there are, indeed, many such serious cases. It’s not just a few in 60 years. Nor is it surprising that there are fewer atrocities — and of less magnitude — in smaller actions like Iraq and Afghanistan, whereas wars with fifteen times as many casualties (Korea and Vietnam considered together) and far more conventional combat (a phrase already obsolete) saw much worse incidents on greater scales (and going back further to still larger wars — Civil War and the two WWs, with horrendous atrocities). Furthermore, our current volunteer force is much better educated and professional. That doesn’t prevent some people from running amok, but it sure helps.
104, it’s just foolish to ask someone to “name one” when 20 seconds with Google will get you a dozen. With a single Wikipedia link in the search results.
And your blanket judgment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib as having no claim to your sense of ethical conduct of our soldiers is horrendous. Whatever your feelings for the enemy — and a good number of innocents (some mentally ill) tragically caught up in the dragnet — that such contempt leaves you indifferent to what kind of people our own forces become and show themselves to be in those cases, shows you really, really miss the point.
I have to assume you’re not pro-life.
@rasqual
“it’s just foolish to ask someone to “name one” when 20 seconds with Google will get you a dozen” I did look believe me, i just couldn’t find any, maybe what you and i consider an atrocity is different.
“With a single Wikipedia link in the search results.” Forgive me for not counting something that can be edited by anyone at any time a reliable source.
I have a funny way of looking at things, i care more about my countrymen than i do about others, that’s not to say i don’t care or i hate them, it’s just they’re not as important to me, if even 1 american serviceman’s life was saved by the admittedly horrible things that happened at Abu Ghraib, then to me it was completely worth it.
“I have to assume you’re not pro-life.” You’re right, i’m not pro life, i’m anti abortion, save babies kill badguys.
U-104: “Forgive me for not counting something that can be edited by anyone at any time a reliable source.”
That’s just ad hominem nonsense. The entire history of edits is accessible — unlike editorially controlled sources you what, trust implicitly? The conversation and controversy regarding edits is also accessible with just a click. In short, the Wikipedia exposes the bases for contributors judgments, and traces the “minority report” as well. Furthermore, when an article cites primary sources, the credibility of THOSE sources is at issue. Dismissing the Wikipedia on the grounds you cite is ridiculous.
Needless to say, it’s obvious that I ought to ask: what sources would you cite that you’d consider authoritative for sound reasons, sources for which a case could be reasonably made that their record ought to suffice for arbitration between those having differing points of view on such a matter?
“if even 1 american serviceman’s life was saved by the admittedly horrible things that happened at Abu Ghraib, then to me it was completely worth it.”
But that kind of view doesn’t work as an ethic of how we should treat people, because you don’t know whether vile treatment of others will be rewarded with saving lives you happen to care about. You’re seriously confused about what hindsight means in historical reflection. You don’t judge past decisions with more recent past consequences on the basis of most recent perspectives. You judge those past decisions for what was known by the parties at the time.
Do you extend your ethic to, for example, family loyalty? For example, would you justify torture of strangers outside your own family on the mere hunch that it might save someone in your family? Mind you, you have no hint of knowledge that it WILL save someone in your family, and you don’t know whether some of these strangers might not themselves, be innocents.
It doesn’t matter, really. At some level, you’re talking like a sociopath.
Some of the myriad babies who’ve been aborted would have grown up to be murderers. That’s just statistically certain. You know that. So why isn’t aborting them justified — “admittedly horrible” though it is — if it saves the life of another American?
How many unborn children would you be willing to abort to save the life of an American serviceman (or civilian, whatever)? Insane question. But your ethic kind of invites insane questions.
@rasqual
“would you justify torture of strangers outside your own family on the mere hunch that it might save someone in your family?” If i had reason to believe doing so would save lives absolutely, a mere hunch probably not, i don’t believe in torture just for the fun of it.
“At some level, you’re talking like a sociopath” It’s a hard world
“So why isn’t aborting them justified” The day an unborn commits a murder or rape i’ll be the first to say abort it, until then there’s no reason to.
“How many unborn children would you be willing to abort” it would never save any lives so none, it is impossible for them to aid any enemy so they are a non factor.
@rasqual
I have a hypothetical question for you, let’s say a man has a daughter, she gets kidnapped, the man knows who did and goes to the kidnapper’s house, kidnapper’s not there but his girlfriend is, she had nothing to do with the crime but would never give up her sweetie, so the man hits her in the face breaking her nose and says he’ll do worse if she doesn’t tell him something useful, so she tells him the type of car the kidnapper drives and it’s license plate, the man finds his daughter barely alive and she would have died if he had not tortured the innocent girlfriend.
was he justified? or is the comfort of 1 innocent person worth more than the life of another?
Sure he was justified.
But that’s not what happened at Abu Ghraib. Investigations revealed that the vast majority of prisoners there were innocents — indeed, were never charged with a crime. The torture was not productive of information, nor could it have been. It wasn’t professionally conducted to maximize intelligence gathering, it was sadistically administered for sh|ts and grins.
This contrasts dramatically from the situation at Gitmo, where enhanced interrogation was indeed professionally conducted, and did maximize intelligence. And was never conducted on innocents.
“if even 1 … life was saved by the admittedly horrible things … then to me it was completely worth it.”
And since the torture of the wrong people (people incapable of giving useful information) did not result in saving even one life, then it was not worth it.
Military justice convicted as criminals those persons who, in your estimate, performed heinous acts that were “worth it.”
So what would be worth it to save unborn children? If you could save even one unborn child’s life, would torture be “worth it?” Dangerous question. I’d like to think your answer would be less dangerous. Perhaps you could start by moving toward a consistent view of things; if you would not torture to prevent abortion, you should not seek to justify torture of innocents during wartime. If you value innocent unborn life, you should value innocent born life wrongly incarcerated and brutally treated.
Were all at Abu Ghraib innocent? Certainly not. The question of how the guilty should be treated, though, seems probably beyond your ethical capacity to consider reasonably. This is why I’ve focused on innocents whose fate you seem to think “worth it” even when their torture was pointless and certainly saved no lives, American or otherwise.
104, it dishonors America to defend the indefensible. Just stop it.
Argh, missed an edit. The kidnapper’s girlfriend was hardly innocent — she’s an accessory after the fact. Why would you characterize her as innocent? Some feeble attempt to implicate innocents at Abu Ghraib by some kind of stream-of-consciousness free-associating faux logic? Dude.
@rasqual
“But that’s not what happened at Abu Ghraib. Investigations revealed that the vast majority of prisoners there were innocents — indeed, were never charged with a crime. The torture was not productive of information, nor could it have been. It wasn’t professionally conducted to maximize intelligence gathering, it was sadistically administered for sh|ts and grins.” Then we agree it was unjustified, i already told you “i don’t believe in torture just for the fun of it.”
“And since the torture of the wrong people (people incapable of giving useful information) did not result in saving even one life, then it was not worth it.” Agreed.
“Military justice convicted as criminals those persons who, in your estimate, performed heinous acts that were “worth it.”” I never said they were worth it, i said “if”.
“So what would be worth it to save unborn children? If you could save even one unborn child’s life, would torture be “worth it?”” Yes.
“if you would not torture to prevent abortion” I would if i felt it had a reasonable chance of saving lives.
“you should not seek to justify torture of innocents during wartime.” If i had 10 people and i knew all 10 were innocent i would not do a thing to them, but if i knew 1 was guilty and i couldn’t tell who it was then the temporary comfort and dignity of 9 people is not worth lives to me.
“If you value innocent unborn life, you should value innocent born life wrongly incarcerated and brutally treated.” Agreed
“This is why I’ve focused on innocents whose fate you seem to think “worth it” even when their torture was pointless and certainly saved no lives, American or otherwise.”
“i don’t believe in torture just for the fun of it.” Are you getting this yet?
“The kidnapper’s girlfriend was hardly innocent” She had no knowledge of his actions and no knowledge of his whereabouts, in a court of law she was innocent.