(no subject)

[armb]

We in the UK might detain people indefinitely without charge, but at least we aren't considering outsourcing torture. What sort of moral code comes up with the idea that it's ok to torture suspects so long as it's done somewhere else?

Comments

Re: But, indirectly...

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

I gave you a snotty reply to this previously because you used a debating trick that has always irritated me.

The "I could say this but I won't because..." trick. This, in my opinion, is just a way of making a cheap shot without getting a reputation as someone who makes cheap shots.

Of course that may not have been deliberate on your part so sorry for the less than polite reply i sent previously.

The rest is a more constructive reply, hopefully.

Guantanamo is obviously not a pleasent place to be sent to. I personally think it is immoral, counterproductive and should be closed down. However I suspect standards of treatment there are orders of magnitudes better than the standards at some of the places the US is considering deporting people to.

As far as I am aware nobody at Guantanamo has been electrocuted or drowned in shit. So we are talking about different levels of abuse.

Any abuse is bad and should be opposed but the levels potentially involved here are different and likely to cause different levels of public outrage.

Guilty as charged, m'lud

[muninnhuginn]

Yup, very irritating (I tries, I does: one day I'll rise to immensely irritating!). Which is why I didn't post a cross reply.