Charles Krauthammer is a disgusting human being

[crimsonblue]

In his most recent Washington Post Editorial, Krauthammer goes farther than anybody else thus far in his indefensible defense of torture. He states that "Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances." He lays out the two excuses as the "the ticking time bomb" and "the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives".

Both of these morally repugnant excuses are specifically invalidated by the UN Convention Against Torture, of which the United States is a signatory. Article 2 of the Conventions states thus:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

How can Krauthammer continue to justify torture, when a binding treaty of which our country is party to specifically prohibits torture in any and all cases?

Only a person of barbaric mentality could possibly find any "good" in torture. The rights of all humanity are basic and inalienable. Every person has the right to be free from torture.

Krauthammer also suggests that torture is okay because it works. That is irrelevant. Torture is still a crime against humanity even if it may lead to valuable information. There no possible reason any rational person with any knowledge of The Convention Against Torture could find a loophole that allows torture. May torture prevent a "ticking time bomb" scenario? Maybe. Does that make it legal? Hell no.

[sharp_stick]

1. I'd push that prick and his chair

down a flight of stairs, and then because he's rich and can of course own the best chair available, I'd be able to bounce it and him back up the steps just to shove him down again.

He is a miserable excuse for a human being, absolutely worthless and despicable pile of shit IMO.

[Bucky]

2. More moral relativism from the Right. How surprising.

[gcomeau]

3. Please don't do that.

Morals ARE relative. Krauthammer is in the wrong because his arguments are baseless and contemptible, not because morals somehow exist as some kind of absolute universal property of nature.

[crimsonblue]

5. No, I disagree.

There are universal truths that all men must abide by. Every human being has the right of human dignity and the freedom from torture. Our global community has determined that the freedom from torture is a universal right, as is evident by the 129 signatories to the UN Convention Against Torture.

[gcomeau]

8. Disagree all you want.

Facts are facts. And morals being a subjective value judgement? That's a fact.

If you want to argue otherwise, show me your "rightness" meter that can objectively register how moral or immoral an action is. Lacking that "this is a universal absolute 'cause I say so" doesn't cut it.

The global community has not "determined" that freedom from torture is a universal right. It has declared it is. That's a completely different thing. That doesn't make the morality of the action some kind of universal absolute, it makes it a LEGAL absolute. There's a difference.

[crimsonblue]

12. you don't have any facts on your side

How is there not any moral certainty? Relativism is a debunked philosophy, buddy.

How is a declaration any different than a determination? After WW2, did not all of global society determine and declare that the atrocities of the Holocaust were morally repugnant? I'm sure you'll throw out the whole "but some people doubted it even happened" bullshit to try and cover your ass.

[gcomeau]

21. I have all the facts on my side.

Starting with the definitions of http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=51857&dict=CALD">"morals" and http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/orexxlative?view=uk">"relative".

How is a declaration any different from a determination? A determination is a FINDING. A DISCOVERY. A declaration is a statement.

"Kicking puppies is wrong", even though every single person you ask might agree with it, is not in the same category as, say, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latter is a universal absolute. It is a fundamental emergent property of the universe. The former is a judgement call. And no matter how widely agreed upon that judgement call may be, no matter how compelling an argument you might make for why everyone should agree with it... that does not somehow transform it into a law of nature. A universal absolute. An objective fact. It just doesn't. And I guarantee you there is no chance in hell you can present any legitimate argument that establishes otherwise.

[crimsonblue]

26. I'd like to see you explain how the Holocaust or genocide in general

is not universally immoral.

[gcomeau]

27. It is explained by, once again...

...pointing you to the definition of the terms. There is no such thing as a "universal moral" or a "universal immoral".

Pointing out that moral universal absolutes don't exist is not somehow saying "oh, that means the genocide was ok". You do get that right? Accurately characterizing the nature of morality only undermines the strength of moral condemnations if you don't understand how morality works in the first place.

The genocide was immoral because we, collectively, as a society, made the decision to declare that such abuses were contrary to our beliefs of how human beings should be treated, and that it was contrary to them to such horrendous degree that we are willing to take steps to enforce that opinion on anyone who dissents from that judgment and tries to act on it. That is not some minor trivial thing you know. It is, quite frankly, more meaningful than saying it's immoral "just because that's how the universe is... somehow...".

[crimsonblue]

28. You are mixing up "universal" with "absolute"

Murder is universally wrong, but not absolutely wrong. Murder is accepted across all peoples to be wrong, but sometimes justifiable murder a la self-defense occurs.

[gcomeau]

31. No... I am not.

First of all "murder" is a legal term, not a moral one. And it is universally "wrong" in that legal context only in that it is defined to be. If you committed murder it is already established you violated the law by definition. If you didn't, it wasn't murder, since that's what murder means.

It's rather like saying "wrong" is universally wrong. Well, sure it is. "X" is universally "X". But that says nothing about what is wrong in the judgment of any given person, it's a meaningless statement. you say "murder" is universally wrong, while skipping right over the fact that within that universe you're talking about there are all kinds of different criteria for what the heck actually constitutes murder.

You're arguing for universality by presenting tautologies. Sorry, not going to fly.

[crimsonblue]

33. here ya go

Morality, is relative in the sense that it is relative to the universal needs of human nature. But it is not relative to the particular needs of particular nations, ages, or social groups. Consequently it does not vary from place to place or from time to time. Morality is universal, but it is not absolute.

- Walter Terence Stace

[gcomeau]

37. Self evidently incorrect.

Consequently it does not vary from place to place or from time to time.

did you manage to copy that into your post with a straight face? Nobody who has ever read a history book or watched an international news broadcast could possibly not realize that that statement is preposterously false.

Try asking (given a time machine of course) the average Egyptian citizen circa 15th century BCE if slavery was immoral.

Let's see how invariate opinions on arranged child marriages are across geographical zones.

There's no way you can argue moral values don't vary across either time or place.

[crimsonblue]

34. Also,

If you don't think moral universalism exists, you might want to check out the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[closeupready]

30. No, it is most assuredly not a fact that morals are subjective.

Some are, but some are universal.

[gcomeau]

32. Yeah? Name one.

One single universal moral that I can't tear apart. Give it your best shot, considering all that is required to disprove it's univerality is to find a dissenting opinion.

[closeupready]

35. I'll give you two: incest and cannibalism.

n/t

[gcomeau]

36. Two strikes.

People who practice either would beg to differ with your judgement that they are immoral.

And since morals ARE value judgements if the conclusion reached in that judgement is not universally held, then it's not a universal moral principle. By definition.

[closeupready]

38. I'll find the cite if you wish, but there has been sociological research done on this question,

of whether or not there are universal moral precepts, and those two are the two I recall from my college days.

So yes, there actually is data supporting the notion of universal morality.

[gcomeau]

39. By all means.

Please do present me with the reasearch that shows even a single moral principle that has been commonly held by every human being who has ever lived. I'd be FASCINATED to see it.

[closeupready]

40. That's your personal standard, and it is not shared by reasonable people.

The standard of what is a universal moral principle is less absolute, since we are not talking about physics here.

[gcomeau]

42. No, that's the definition of "universal". -nt

[Bucky]

16. I respectfully disagree

If you knew the real me, you'd understand what a rare occurance this is. But you were polite.

I suggest to you that even the relativity of morals is relative--which is to say that there are certain values that I suspect even you would not compromise on, regardless of situation. You wouldn't sacrifice your own child to save your life; you wouldn't visit harm on innocent bystanders for money; when a public official breaks the law, you'd want to see him prosecuted. If Al Franken went on a shooting spree or Charlie Rangel knocked over a Brink's truck or John Edwards cheated on his wife (for example) or Taxachusetts passed a law saying only college educated elites could adopt children--you wouldn't give them a pass because they happened to sit on your side of the political fence.

In a reverse situation, many if not most Republican opinion leaders like Krauthammer would let their politics dictate their commitment to the rule of law (e.g. Vitter's vices, Cheney's war crimes, and Ms Coulter's personal voting irregularities). You might take in a bunch of different factors in weighing your assessment of guilt or culpability when immorality presents itself. But the facts of extenuating circumstances still fall within what goes into making a moral judgment.

[gcomeau]

22. Definition of terms...

"Not being willing to compromise" does not mean "non relative". At all.

I can, myself, personally, hold to any number of moral principles that I absolutely 100% refuse to compromise under any circumstances. That does not, in any manner whatsoever, render those morals non-relative. My insistence on holding to those principles to that degree is my personal judgement call. A subjective evaluation I performed from my perspective... the very definition of something which is relative. It is not a universal property of the universe that applies to all people in all places. It applies to ME in all circumstances because I personally choose to make it so.

[Enrique]

4. North Vietnam could have justified torturing McCain with those conditions

high value as the son of an admiral (actually just being a bomber pilot would satisfy "high value").

Likely to save lives. Bombers in Vietnam killed tons of people. McCain could easily have information that would save people's lives.

[DebbieCDC]

6. He's always been a POS

Nothing more. :puke:

[lordsummerisle]

7. He was not only trained as an MD

he was a psychiatrist as well...:rofl: Good he's not practicing, I imagine he sees himself as a 'group' counselor now...

[TheCoxwain]

9. Tell me something new.

[Zen Democrat]

10. What's the name of the character in "Dick Tracy" that he looks like? n/t

[louis-t]

15. Hmm, let's see. There was Mumbles

and there was the guy with the hole in his hair and the guy with the disfigured face...........

[librechik]

11. accessory after the fact

we can't let these ideologues redesign our core principles as Americans just to cover their asses.

Fer Gawd's sake, even Reagan was sharply vocal about prosecuting torture, and never tolerating it.

Krauthammer is as hideous a monster as Goebbels.

[DrDan]

13. I think he has always tried to mimic William Buckley - but is not nearly as intelligent

[Marr]

14. Another Conservative who thinks the government's power should be nearly absolute.

Just how does this kind of thinking mesh with 'small government conservatism'? People like Krauthammer want the government to be able to spy on its citizens and torture people. I cannot think of a greater form of power to hand to a government.

What's more-- I'd like to know just what Krauthammer thinks history's other torturers were after if not information they considered vitally important. From the Inquisition to the Viet Cong, they were all after some kind of information.

Krauthammer's exceptions are the rule. It's like saying murder is wrong, unless you hate the person.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. I disagree.

I have seen no proof to his being human.

[spanone]

18. i'm glad that torture has now become part of the republics platform

[TahitiNut]

19. That there are MILLIONS who agree with his rationalizations ...

... is the best evidence that public prosecutions and convictions of those who promulgated such war crimes are required.

He and his ilk are the 'seeds' in our culture that will sprout again in the future, leading to equal or grater atrocities. Trials and imprisonments are the sole herbicide available.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Who cares if it's evil? It's illegal.

And not just because of foreign treaties.

[DS1]

23. Ugliest fucker on television, too

[COLGATE4]

25. Someone else said it best

He's as ugly on the outside as he is on the inside

[KamaAina]

24. Well, he is disgusting

the jury's still out on the "human being" part. :eyes:

[northernlights]

41. exhumed corpse?

that's how he (or it) always strikes me, anyway...

[freddie mertz]

29. Krapphammer is a horror, but he is far from alone...

The "don't punish the torturers" crowd includes virtually the entire mainstream pundit class, including, but not limited to, the likes of Tweety Matthews and the entire cast and regular guest list of Morning Joe, just for starters.

Krappy is just a little ahead of this unholy pack of cretins.