Posted under Political Philosophy & Terrorism
Back in 2003 Buchanan wrote a controversial article defending torture. A policy of torture not only weakens America’s image but also justifies the torture of captured American soldiers. Yet Buchanan defends it:
The morality of any act depends not only on its character, but on the circumstances and motive. Stealing is wrong and illegal, but stealing food for one’s starving family is a moral act. Even killing is not always wrong. If a U.S. soldier had shot Mohammed to save 50 hostages, he would be an American hero.
But is it wise to entrust the federal government with such power when it has proven itself irresponsible and possesses the ability to declare a political opponent, even an American citizen, to be an “unlawful combatant“? Some will respond here too that little useful information is gathered from torture, but the defense I stand on is that no government, especially our current federal government, can be entrusted with such a power.
The “public caning of young criminals” however might be a good idea provided the recipients have been found guilty in a court of law and are only punished publicly. But torture as punishment and torture for the sake of extracting information are two different issues.
Weaver on 26 Oct 2007 at 9:27 am #
Tancredo’s infamous defense of torture:
roho on 26 Oct 2007 at 1:45 pm #
There was a time when captured snipers were executed as assasins, and not combattants. The battle for Stalingrad brought sniping out of the “bad zone” of military conduct and into the forefront of military planning and training. When a “True Nation” of combatants in matching State Uniforms surrender to another nation, and insurgents of the defeated nation wear civilian clothes and continue to fight and inflict casualties in a terrorist fashion, is that within the Geneva Convention? Mercinaries that enter a conflict, not wearing an authorized uniform of either State continueing to inflict cassualties fall into what protection under the Geneva Convention? There was a time when simply being out of uniform and contributing to the war effort was classified as a spy.(And subject to execution) These are complex rules that I have wondered how they fit into 21st century warfare?
Weaver on 26 Oct 2007 at 2:58 pm #
I’d have to look it up, but I think they’d all fall under the unlawful combatants category. So execution would be fine.
—
The angle I’m taking is that under anarch-tyranny, such power is to be feared by Americans. Remember, “First, Anarcho-Tyranny Comes For The Extreme Right.”
Andrew T. on 26 Oct 2007 at 7:48 pm #
Congressman Paul is currently jockeying that, if passed, will reorient our policy on torture, detainment, and interrogation to the dictates of the Constitution. It is called the American Freedom Agenda Act.
Support the American Freedom Agenda Act (H.R. 3838): http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10449681
ERIC on 26 Oct 2007 at 8:06 pm #
This is part of what I call fight to win or don’t fight at all.
Use all means necessary to win, including torture, or don’t fight at all.
But I think we have won already, Sadam Huessein and his family are dead, now we are just nation building/spreading democracy, and I’m opposed to this.
Declare that we have won and get the hell out.
Andrew T. on 26 Oct 2007 at 8:25 pm #
ERIC,
Wait no that’s wrong. Fight to win IF the war is actually based on defense and moral on its premises, and if it is, fight as effectively as possible using ONLY morally acceptable methods. That means no violations of basic rights such as torture, illegal search and seizure, detainment without reasonable suspicion, or turning violence against the civilian population is allowable.
You sound like freaking Yaron Brook.
Lindy's Revenge on 26 Oct 2007 at 8:45 pm #
Buchanan was making a point that in come cases torture can possibly be justified. Whether it is a positive development in the hands of the current government is another story. Most of the time torture is more effective at controlling the ruled population than anything else.
Weaver on 26 Oct 2007 at 10:54 pm #
Roho,
What I meant is that execution is fine under the Geneva Conventions that we agreed to which is the currently accepted code for military campaigns. Resistance in Iraq would be complicated, though surely torture and execution (creating martyrs) don’t win over hearts and minds. Torture could currently be applied to anyone I think – even those who’ve done nothing wrong.
The US federal government reminds me of Lennie Small from Of Mice and Men: it can’t control its own strength.
Lindy’s Revenge,
I don’t think anyone can deny that torture is at times justified, as is stealing; Buchanan made an excellent case. However, I believe Buchanan was arguing that the federal government ought to have such a power.
Eric,
Don’t you also believe the US is headed towards a race war? I’m not saying we are, but which side do you think the federal government would take in such a thing?
ERIC on 26 Oct 2007 at 11:09 pm #
“Don’t you also believe the US is headed towards a race war? I’m not saying we are, but which side do you think the federal government would take in such a thing?”
Yes, a racial holy war.
The current federal government would side against white christians.
The one group that is considered extremists and are discriminated against are the white christians.
The sad thing is that the demographics of this country continues to go against white christians( the country is continuing to become less and less white christian).
That’s why I’m not a “power to the people” kind of person.
The government needs to become white christian, or we are doomed.
Andrew T. on 26 Oct 2007 at 11:27 pm #
ERIC,
You are a sad, strange little man. Statistically and historically, white Christians are the LEAST discriminated-against demographic in the United States.
Our government should not waste our tax dollars on “diversity” programs NOR should it do the reverse. Get the picture.
Buchanan Defends Torture Again | Conservative Heritage Times on 28 Apr 2009 at 10:31 pm #
[...] it to Buchanan to put principle ahead of popularity to defend something like this. I personally disagree with his conclusion, but I admire his willingness to take a stand. Buchanan previously defended [...]