Originally posted by: TiptupAlright, but my point was that Lincoln went far, far further than Bush has gone.
Yes, and other elements of his time, notably (in this context) slavery, were far beyond the moral issues of today. So while I don't give the practice of slavery a pass, I grant it more leeway in the 1800's than I would today. Lincoln, same story. I cannot equally judge the actions of another era with the morals of our own. Not to say that Lincoln was right, or that slavery wasn't totally and utterly wrong then and now ... but I hope you get my drift that what may have been acceptable yesterday is not so today. Likewise, I hope some terrible things acceptable today are not accepted in the future.
Originally posted by: TiptupUnder our justice system, non-citizens should not have the same protections as we do (particularly captured enemies). That’s not to say that decency and ethics should not require us to protect their basic rights as human beings, but that foreign threats should not be given the extra protections we enjoy.
Funny, I thought our rights were "inalienable," not
granted to us by ANYONE. That's the whole point of the United States of America - - recognition of inalienable rights. And please feel free to point me to anywhere in the law where non-citizens have unequal rights to justice. The Bush administration made-up from whole cloth the notion of "enemy combatants" precisely so they could deny their rights to justice, and deny them the treaty rights under the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court has twice held that the legal limbo in which the "enemy combatants" have been placed is illegal, and the Bush administration has twice refused to comply with the orders of the highest court in the land. Tell me again how we're not sliding towards totalitarianism.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I also believe that under certain circumstances government should be granted temporary powers to properly execute a war.
And if war is declared to be permanent, what time limit should be placed on these extraordinary powers? Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex that would seek to establish a permanent state of war. What else would you call a war on the never-ending tactic of terrorism?
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Violence can be found almost anywhere. Stars are violent. Light bulbs are violent. Surgery is violent. Life is violent. Violence is unavoidable.
Don't insult both our intelligences. I'm not dissing the violence of birds to insects. If I wasn't crystal clear that I'm disparaging purposeful human acts of violence against other humans, let me be so now.
Originally posted by: TiptupIf a society launches an unjustified war against another, we can conclude that the violence is evil. If another society then seeks to destroy the society that began the unjustified war, that violent action can be considered justified and good so long as the response is properly measured.
And I would generally agree with that. Hence my point about two nuclear bombs not being a measured response - in my hardly unique view.
Originally posted by: TiptupTo equate the mobilized civilians of the US with the mobilized civilians of Japan during WW2, and then argue that both deserved the same treatment, is disgusting if you ask me. It’s a total lack of ethical judgment whatsoever.