Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values? (view source)
Revision as of 15:59, April 17, 2008
, 15:59, April 17, 2008my 2 cents
::Also, the CIA which is the acronym for Central Intelligence Agency, has nothing to do with Christian values. This just in case anyone is confused with techniques of interrogation and Christian values. I'm afraid someone might be thinking of fighting a war based on Christian values. You must forgive me if I've burst someone's bubble. This might be another instance of the sheepdogs having to explain themselves to the sheep. You should read what Dave Grossman had to say on that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Also, the CIA which is the acronym for Central Intelligence Agency, has nothing to do with Christian values. This just in case anyone is confused with techniques of interrogation and Christian values. I'm afraid someone might be thinking of fighting a war based on Christian values. You must forgive me if I've burst someone's bubble. This might be another instance of the sheepdogs having to explain themselves to the sheep. You should read what Dave Grossman had to say on that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
==Ethical argument against==
After joining the army, I chose not to pursue a special forces career. I didn't want to put in an ethical [[double bind]] where a superior would insist that a captive had actionable intelligence which only torture could elicit. I would either have to disobey an order, or violate my conscience.
In general, military success comes about more from sapping the enemy's will to resist than from any other factor. Treating enemy POWs and civilian noncombatants well can turn the tide. Our failure in Vietnam stemmed from a lack of appreciation of the need to win the "hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese.
The ethical issue over [[coercive interrogation]] is no longer important, because the Bush administration banned it. There remains only the political issue of whether they were "right" or not to have done it. This is being used to bring legal and PR pressure, as well as to distract the public from the success of the "[[surge]]".
A more important issue is whether America's bipartisan decision to invade Iraq was ethically correct, or even effective on a military or political level. For Democrats, it may even have been a ploy to lure President Bush into a hasty decision that would erode his political capital. But he managed to get a 2-term presidency anyway.
I would have preferred to see the U.S. host a conference of religious leaders to discuss Middle East Peace, because military and political actions generally don't make much progress. Peace thrives in an atmosphere of voluntary cooperation. You can't make people be peaceful. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)