So we should not prosecute anyone for war crimes?

To address this directly though, I recently read a pop-psychology article, written by a journalist without any Psychology qualifications that I'm aware of, with a catchy title and a list, I'm a sucker for lists, that might speak to your question:

5 Ways to Turn a Liberal Into a Conservative (At Least Until the Hangover Sets In)

In particular it's fear that I think may be pertinent. I think fear is a huge contributor to the success of religious systems, fear of death, of the religious institutions themselves, of being ostracised by a community, of life having no meaning or purpose, of grief and loss etc etc etc

Fear can cause people to be more attracted to absolute, militaristic and conservative responses to problems. It fits what we see in that bar chart.

The winners get to do what they want and justify it any way they want. In war, who isn't guilty of war crimes? Plus I don't think this is simple issue. A declaration of war by a ruling power might appear to legitamise the 'crime' of killing, but does it really? For example, I despise the IRA for 'murdering' people, but does Thatcher giving the SAS 'legal' approval to go and find IRA members and kill them make what they're doing any different? Republicans call it state sponsored terrorism and would argue that their own killings are perfectly legal and justified and I see their point.


Can I point out that I'm far from settled on my view of this, I haven't examined the specifics in great detail, I have an intuitive stance but I'm very open to having it changed by a good argument and I've engaged for the purpose of seeing where this goes.

Just war theory places constraints on the actions that nations involved in wars can engage in. I think you are right that guilt is less important than winning but I still think we do better by placing those constraints.

It also allows those injured during the way receive some justice however lacking it may be. It was correct imo to charge Karadzic and Milosovic despite having little confidence that it will deter future leaders from engaging in the same acts.

I find this a ridiculous notion. I did some research on JWT and found myself disagreeing with what I was reading. Then I looked for counters to it and found that those made sense to me and some were the same objections that had occurred to me. It's a blueprint for something that can never exist in reality, but even the idea is something I object to because you can never get past the first condition, that all peaceful alternatives have been exhausted. There is always the peaceful option not to go to war at all.

And I think they simply encourage war by making it seem that it can occur in a civilised and honourable manner (despite ample evidence that this is simply not true), by appearing to limit potential harms (though they always occur anyway) and by appearing that the human cost can be lessened thereby making it seem like a more attractive option.

Far better that it never occurred in the first place and that anything that might facilitate war and make it seem like a good option be removed form the equation?

Is torture justified if you thought that the information that might be gained would help end, or prevent a war?

While it may be better to not fight wars once wars have been fought crimes should be punished. If you don't think that countries exercise restraint in war because then we disagree.

Let's say country A invades country B. then country B has the option to not go to war and cede but that seems an unreasonable demand. If country B is justified in going to war they are not licensed to engage in any practice they choose, if they engage in certain practices they also may be subject to charges. This seems better than not having any actions licensed by a legitimate response to an invasion.

Id also suggest that if you've researched just war theory and the responses in an hour it's quite likely that your responses are not subject to adequate reflection and are quite likely subject to expectation and confirmation bias.

I'm kind of surprised that no one is making what seems to be the crucial point here (unless I missed it?). Pretty much everyone agrees that torture is a bad thing, something we shouldn't do just for pleasure. In this way it is one of a collection of behaviors, such as killing people, rape, slavery, lying, and so on that are generally regarded as being bad. However, just as we can come up with genuinely difficult moral dilemmas about exceptional circumstances with those other behaviors, we can also come up with such dilemmas with regards to torture.

But that doesn't seem to me the question that we should be focusing on. The practical question is not, Are there instances when torture is not immoral? but, Should the government torture people to achieve some of its aims? This is where it seems to me that people within the liberal tradition of Mill, Locke, and Burke should almost all agree that it is too dangerous to allow government that kind of power. The reason why I was and continue to be somewhat shocked by some conservative rhetoric on this issue is that I would have thought previously that there was elite consensus* that government should not have that power, that it couldn't be trusted with it, that it would be abused and lead to, if not actuate, tyranny. So yeah, the primary moral question here I think is the political one. I'm much less concerned about whether some interrogator in the CIA did something wrong by torturing people than I am by whether we should allow leaders in government to direct their subordinates to use torture to gather information.

*I am not particularly surprised that a sizable amount of non-elite opinion would not be opposed to torture.

Do you think that all individuals in war exercise restraint? Clearly not, so where are the 'rules' when that is happening? However, I could come up with many examples of 'countries' (i.e. governments) engaging in acts that I doubt you would consider 'restrained' if required?

I think this is a limited view point. Countries A and B are not the only countries in the world, and the international community can act jointly to 'encourage' A not to invade B, or to withdraw, without a war needing to be fought.

I was only giving you my initial impression, since I readily admitted to only just having read up on it, it seems churlish to then point that out. The reflection will come when I have more to reflect on, that's kinda the point of me getting involved.

As for your bias comment, the reason I read the JWT first, and then looked for contrary views was a deliberate effort to counter confirmation bias, and I had no real expectations when I started. As I said right at the start of this exchange, I'm ok with the idea that my intuitive position might be changed by a good argument so my expectation that I might find one could work in your favour.

However, this is getting quite aways from the OP topic, I'm not sure we should continue with it.

No I don't just as I don't think all people who live in a jurisdiction exercise restraint. That's why we have laws. I don't see why we would allow all activity under war without sanctioning certain acts when we can sanction those acts. Not as fairly as is appropriate but there are penalties for actions taken even in war and I think this is correct.

How do you think this is working out. This seems similar to your objections to charity, you seem to object to charity being necessary but fail to acknowledge it is. In the same way you object to wars, as do I generally, but then concede that if the wars are fought there should be no constraints on the actions that are taken during the war. It seems to me that you are comparing the idea of fighting a war within boundaries to not fighting a war and deciding not fighting is best. I may agree but if there's a war being fought I would prefer to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, you don't seem to see that need.

If you have read up on JWT in such a period of time and found that your objections are confirmed there is very little for me to do that will make you change your mind. We don't change our minds as often as we think.

So the rules aren't really worth paper that they're written on and perhaps all that they really achieve is to sanitise the idea of war and make less unappealing to the public, more palatable. The people involved in the wars know better but the media chooses what is reported and massively influences public opinion.


And I don't think that your wishes are being met either, do you know how many civilians have died in the various wars going on around the planet at the moment? I think what you're saying is just as much pie in the sky as what I'm saying. The idea that a global community would pull together to prevent an aggressive country from succeeding in it's aims is about as realistic as the idea that some rules somewhere are going to stop civilians being killed or are going to in some way make the act of killing and subduing another country through violent and deadly means more 'civilised'.


I didn't say that I'd made up a position on the spot, I said that it was an intuitive stance, i.e. it's something I feel after 30 years of general observation but I've never studied the philosophical arguments for and against it. At least I recognise that my position is just intuition, a feeling that might be subject to all types of biases, and is potentially not very well informed.

As usual we seem to be wasting each other's time discussing the discussion. Maybe we could just have it instead?

Do you think that it is better to minimise civilian casualties during war, is it better to reduce the total number of casualties during war?

leave aside whether it is possible to do this, I believe it is I don't think that countries even at war always engage with the full force at their disposal, but in principle do you think it would be better or worse for a war to result in fewer casualties.

Do you think that the idea of having constraints placed on the acts allowed in war have any effect at all and if so what?

Do you think it was appropriate to charge people with war crimes at the end of the second world war.

I think it's somewhat ridiculous to even be talking of 'countries' making decisions in war because they don't, small groups in governments, or even individuals do. How much say did you have in how the war was prosecuted in Afghanistan? Did you make many decisions? If you objected, did it make any difference to how the war was fought?

Governments do what they think that they can get away with and sometimes they do what they think they couldn't get away with if they did it publicly and do it anyway but try to keep it secret. Again, I can give you examples of what I'm talking about if required. I'm making sure that I have them in mind before I raise these points.

I don't think they have much practical impact at all, no. Atrocities have been committed in virtually every war we've ever had and it never changes. How much difference do you think treaties like the Geneva Convention have actually made since it was agreed? Did it prevent atrocities in Vietnam? Bosnia? Somalia? Iraq? WWII? Or any of the 150+ wars that have happened since WWII?

Yes, how could it not be but do you think that fear of prosecution actually acts as a deterrent of any kind for those who would carry out atrocities? More pertinently, do you think that everyone who was guilty of war crimes was actually charged?

Perhaps the right question isn't 'how can we prevent atrocities in war and make it civilised', but, 'how can we prevent war?'. A paradigm shift is required.

Ironically, this is the exact same backdoor he used in the charity conversation.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...7&postcount=30

Unrealistic, hyper-aspirational, and it's far from clear that the observation carries any meaning or connects with reality in any way.

whatever once you start ridiculing points it makes me entirely uninterested in discussing with you especially when if you paid attention to the point I was making rather than your concern with it being ridiculous it may actually be possible to have a conversation.

Yeah noticed the similarity and then realised that the response you've posted was to me, I should have learned my lesson.

Or maybe you're just not seeing it from the same perspective that I am. What does it even mean to say that 'countries' do something. Apparently you can do that but when I say 'religions' I get lambasted for being too vague and over-generalising.

Whatever, here we go round the merry go round again right? All I'm trying to do is have a conversation with you and never do this to you, why do you constantly do it to me? Are you really this upset because I used the word 'ridiculous'? Did you even read the rest of my post?

As should I, but I just keep trying to talk with you, and be reasonable, and answer your questions knowing that this is what always happens with you.

Whatever, I was uncomfortable with how far off-topic it was anyway. Apologies to WN.

Louis Cyphre already won the thread on the main topic so I feel like just war theory, puppies, or really any topic is fine at this point

Although I think OrP also made a good political point about state power, although the reason I think I didn't bring it up previously is just because I was focusing originally on the religious/moral angle.

I don't understand why because his point doesn't address that it must matter to people who it is who's doing the torturing? It might be ok for god to eternally torment people (and he's not even trying to get information that might save lives) but is it ok for the CIA?

Doesn't the issue of killing innocent children in the other thread kinda hinge on that too, it would be wrong for anyone but god to do it. (Assuming it's not wrong when god does it) I don't want to bring that into this thread, I'm just using it as another example of what I'm speaking to.


Ok thanks, but it looks like Dereds bailed on me anyway.

I thought so too but as usual it left me so conflicted (confused?) that I had nothing to say about it. Maybe the current state of affairs reflects his point, that we're uncomfortable both with torture (some of us) and the idea of giving the government that much power (more of us), but at the same time, we want to feel safe and sleep well in our beds so we secretly hope that someone is doing a Jack Bauer somewhere. Dammit.

People do what they want and perform any mental gymnastics necessary to justify it. How did Columbus and company, as Christians, justify genocide? How did Christian nazis? How did Christians justify being slaveowners? Humans are the same species as we were back then, it's not like we evolved or became "more civilized". New year, same species, same **** happening as a result.

I guess it usually boils down to seeing the "others" as sub-human.

There is a lot in the following quote with which I disagree.

I seriously doubt if the presence of rules has any impact whatsoever on the frequency of war. If the rules are in any way inconvenient they are simply ignored so their impact is negligible at best.

The "rules of war" have nothing to do with fairness. They are intended to define legal and illegal. Of course since legality is a human creation you can certainly define legal and illegal ways or situations for killing someone.

This is a glib charge that gets tossed around a lot, but there is little doubt that the US goes to considerable effort to try to avoid civilian casualties. You could argue that the motive is not high and noble but is just to avoid adverse press, and I could not argue you were wrong. The civilian casualties that do result are do in no small part to the tendency of our current adversaries to try to use civilians as shields. That is despicable in my mind but hardly surprising given the asymmetric nature of the conflict.

This misstates my opinion. My objection to torture is largely based on morality. I think it is possible that torture does work in some cases, particularly when you are seeking information from poorly trained or motivated adversaries in a situation where that information can be verified. For extracting confessions of guilt I would agree that it is worse than useless.

I would agree that morality in warfare is not very meaningful. Still, the rules or laws of war are useful in some sense because it does allow one to differentiate between legal warfare and simple brigandage and murder. Given that, I have some question in my mind as to what protection is legally due to terrorists acting in the current global climate. They are not in uniform and acting under the authority of a legal state, so historically they would have been considered pirates and murderers. I believe that if you were captured under arms and out of uniform in a conflict area historically you were subject to summary execution. One could argue that the US was acting above and beyond the normal expectation by taking prisoners at all. Again, maybe expedient rather than noble because if it gets out that you do not take prisoners than people do not surrender and your own casualties go up.

The bolded is one of the things for which torture is quite effective. Maybe you meant true confessions of guilt?

no need to be picky

You are quite correct. I worded that poorly. I did indeed mean true confessions of guilt. If all you want is a confession, then you will surely get it.

I think it was meant to be read humorously. But I admit that it's hard to do that because he has so much high content posting that dwells on the careful articulation of important details.

I think I just inadvertently trolled you.