This may tip my hat, but I found one particular part of Obama's 100-day speech interesting on this topic. He retold the story of Churchill during World War II. England was being mercilessly bombed. It was horrible. And England had about 200 enemy combatants. However, instead of stooping to torture chose to take a long-term, moral approach by not allowing torture. His reasoning was that once taking a step like that a society could never go back. No matter what happened the rest of the war, there would be this long-term impact of choosing to treat people that way. He took the more difficult path.
Torture is easier. Is it worth it for the short-term or long-term?
18 comments:
I've censored one of your posts, because it was not leading to any discussion. I have left many of your other "anonymous" posts. If you want to have some healthy discussion, try moving away from labels, attacks and rhetoric and posting your own thoughts - preferably with your own identity.
Discussion is what it's all about.
Among my convictions are not only a right to free speech, but the obligation we all hold along with that idea that we respect one another. We listen, engage and discuss. A personal value I was raised this.
I also was born with convictions, first amendment and second amendment freedoms I cling to. My bible and faith I cling to. Family, marriage, church and guns. Dang most of these you are against! The difference between you and I seems to be. You are willing to sell your soul and freedoms you are currently not using to a government that promises not to misuse your trust.
I will fight to keep my soul, rights and freedoms. For you they are all open for discussion.
Any more?
plenty
keep it coming....
Post a Comment