Ok, since I've announced that I've got a blog up now, I feel compelled to post something interesting.
Lately a matter has been on my mind with regard to torture. For some reason, killing in the battlefield does not feel as wrong to me as torturing a prisoner who is in our custody. Some might find that odd. I don't think my intuition is wrong, though. An armed soldier on the ground poses a certain threat to our soldiers. An imprisoned person may have information that would be helpful to obtain, but qua prisoner, he or she is not immediately putting our soldiers in danger. Plus, we would not want others to torture our soldiers, so we sign treaties and agreements to say that we will not perform such actions. When we contradict those treaties, are we not hypocritical? Isn't America a place that should always strive for the moral high ground? Surely we falter, but if our goals are less than moral, our actions can only follow the lowering of our standards. These are only initial thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Eric, I agree that torturing helpless people is non-sensical let alone brutal and useless (kind of like kicking a puppy around)....but I disagree with you on killing in a battlefield for very fundamental reasons...I don't feel that we should have battlefields to kill on! Now you may just say I am being a woman, and, if that is the case please point out to me 1 battlefield where the outcome was worth the blood-shed. P.s. America and moral high ground do not fit in the same sentence. America came to be by leaving moral high ground by the wayside....thanks for letting me vent on your blog!
ReplyDelete