Torturegate, Gitmo, Pets and Strangers.

[smalll]

So recently there has generally been a great upswing, zeitgeist-wise, about torture, Gitmo, indefinite detention and what have you. Far more complicated issues than my brain is easily willing to make great attempts to comprehend fully at this moment in time (it's almost as bad as the bank stuff in terms of opacity really.)

And from what I understand, Obama has ended torture now. And from what I understand, his recent speech was reasonable, rational, and a skillful example of splitting the difference, triangulating, you might say.

Lay off him, Poutragistas.

The recent #1 Lounge thread of recent days was one asking whether, if it came to it, you would save the life of a stranger (fellow human being) or your pet: would you save the human or the animal?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8787726

Give them credit, many pet owners stepped up and said that though they'd mourn, they'd have to save their fellow man. But many, many others opted for the animal.

There was some theorizing from the misanthropic camp that tried to build a case on the idea that humans are equal to animals, and so, through a radical cross-species egalitarianism, tried to build on that a case for saving Fluffy or Fido over a person. But even that kind of theorizing only takes you so far -- instead, the main defense for the people-killing option was the idea that the dog or the cat (or for all we know, the parrot or the ferret) was "part of the FAMILY." Who cares about strangers? Who cares about people "I don't know?"

And so this is why I think all this torture etc. brouhaha will never go that far. Because who really cares? Who really cares what we do or rather HAVE done to NON-American, NON-citizen enemy combatants captured in military engagements half way around the world that were prompted (unfairly perhaps rather than fairly) by the 3,000 dead on 9/11?

The Constitution does not apply to the Gitmoistas. Does the Geneva Convention? That's a debate -- but even reaching for the "Geneva Convention" causes the eyes to glaze over amongst most of us who never got a J.D. with a concentration in International Law. And trying to take it further, and debate about the nature of these enemy combatants, and about whether they fall under some U.N. treaty (or is it a Resolution rather?) --- well, you lost everyone with that kind of baroque analysis.

Point is, they are not "FAMILY!" When America is ready to sacrifce a person for a DOG thanks to issues of personal affiliation, well, let me just say, I think you Torturegate poutragistas are barking up a wrong and hopelessly unfruitful tree.

I'm Just Sayin'. :shrug:

[Duer 157099]

1. Bullshit.

Having been one who responded that I would save my pet, I ALSO happen to be deeply concerned with the torture debate. These are not mutually exclusive.

What if the question had been: would you save your pet or your life savings that's under your mattress? I would still choose my pet. How many people put strangers before their life savings? Would you? If so, then quickly donate your life savings to some desperate hunger relief agency so that you can be consistent.

[smalll]

2. So what you're clearly saying there is that if the choice had been YOUR OWN MONEY

instead of a HUMAN BEING you "would still choose" the pet.

And this is supposed to make me feel better about you, how?