How SHOULD we handle 'detainees?'

We aren't at war, we just caught what most of the rest of the world deals with. We lived so isolated for so long that we think one terrorist attack means war. When there aren't terrorist attacks here in the US, there are still people who would like to kill you, me, and anyone who is American. It was around long before 9/11.

The idea of claiming we are at war is bothersome to me. There are always un-educated poor 'have nots' who want to take it out on the 'haves'.
 
That's because you're a Millian Liberal who evaluates moral judgments via utilitarianism, Coelacanth.

I'm not a Millian Liberal....I'm not a big-L "Liberal" at all (or at least not near as big of a Liberal as Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Brown). Nor am I a utilitarian.

I'm a Thomist...as in St. Thomas Aquinas....when it comes to matters such as these.

I'm merely applying strict Thomism to the problem as it presents itself....nothing more, nothing less.

What lens you choose to employ in your analysis matters greatly for it predetermines your outcome.
 
TexasLongIsland, you may not be aware of the fact that John McCain is duty bound to follow the law of the land and, de facto, that could potentially mean OBL having the right of habeas corpus.

But just b/c you enjoy habeas doesn't mean the writ is going to be granted. I personally cannot imagine any federal judge, be it an Art. III judge or a magistrate, granting a writ to OBL....neither can you save your preconceived boogeyman judge that doesn't exist.

Politically, it's a winner for the U.S. on the foreign policy scene, too. Our ability to apply the law equally to all simply by following our own Constitution would do a lot to wipe away the stain left by the Bush administration.

So tell me, why the head banging? Why did insinuate that Obama is sympathetic to terrorists simply b/c of the President's oath of office makes him follow the law w/o recognizing that McCain has to do the exact same thing for the exact same reason if he becomes President?

Seriously, tell me the difference between the two candidates on the application of the law on this issue.
 
First, just war is not the issue before us (and for the record I'm not a proponent of just war theory). The issue before us is an ethical issue: we're debating how we should handle detainees, not whether this war is just or unjust.

How one treats another human being, whether the treatment is by an individual or by a government, is per se a question of ethics. And your reply indicated that 3000 deaths justified any retribution metted out by our government or those acting on behalf thereof. Whether it's legal or not is not the issue: whether it's morally right or wrong is.

So by Thomist I'm talking about how a Christian applies Aristotelian ethics....Nicomachean ethics....to the situation at hand, nothing more.

I'm certainly not framing this in a just war context which, btw, the Iraq war would certainly not be endorsed by either Augustine or Aquinas given indisputable fact that this was and is a pre-emptive war courtesy of "The Bush Doctrine."

Anyway, Thomas' ethics are the lens through which I'm looking at the problem, not Thomas' just war theory. Of course, you're free to do as you wish, whether that be sticking to your utilitarian analysis (yes, you are doing just that) or trying to wedge this entire Middle East venture into a just war framework when only one piece can be justified under the doctrine (Afghanistan).
 
Coelocanth:

You're obviously well-versed enough to know that no one is obligated to follow each and every precept or maintain the exact same position as someone simply b/c they profess an allegiance to their procedure. Being a Thomist does not commit me to being a just war proponent, just as Thomas' allegiance to Aristotle doesn't commit him to being a non-Christian.

One can declare their allegiance and still disagree. Why you see that as a moot move or a threat is beyond me...I suspect you don't, but choose instead to sophistically shift the conversation into an ad hominem against me. Why, I don't know....I merely pointed out why I believe you don't understand b/c you asked.

And ethics IS NOT mutually exclusive of law and public policy. A govt. has just as much of a duty to abide by ethical standards, both for the benefit and the benefit of others, as individuals do. In fact, I would argue that ethics can only be understood within particular communities who are able to recognize the habits and practices necessarily shape those who are either new to the community or are growing up in the community. And by community I mean polis...."city/state"....the root of our word "politics." In other words, "politics" doesn't have an ethical standard; politics is ethics. It's an inherent part of the concept and practice.

So simply begging out of it by saying "this isn't about ethics, it's about public policy" is not only wrong, it's a copout.
If you think that to be true, and you're representative of the modern-day conservative, then that explains an awful lot about the current mindset that have led to the problems we are facing at present and the ones we'll face in the future caused by those who think there is a dichotomy between ethics and politics.
 
If you argue that we are in a state of war and agree that there is not a formal declaration by Congress thereof, then it follows that the individual or institution that created the state of war unilaterally declared war on behalf of America.

That has implications that don't have to become real today to be extremely important.
 
Congress certainly shares in the blame for marginalizing itself. You might look into the Byrd amendment, which was soundly defeated. The gist of that was that the Authorization meant exactly what it said and that no other powers were given to the executive via the Authorization. Even apart from the argument that Bush lied to Congress to get the authorization, the undisputed fact remains that Congress willingly relieved itself of the duty to limit the powers of the executive and has since done nothing to stop the action in Iraq by limiting funding for ongoing operations. This tacit approval does not constitute a legitimate declaration of war. Congress has never acted to stipulate the executive's power in Iraq. Rather, they have surrendered to its will by allowing the executive branch to UNILATERALLY pursue a war while refusing to limit that power. I will be interested to see what a solid Democratic majority in both houses will do in 2009, though the experiment will be muddied by a Democratic executive.

I suppose my point is analagous to the argument that it's illegal for a husband to beat his wife even if she allows him to do it and helps him hide the bruises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top