9th Circuit Judge: "Protecting freedom justifies the harsh means - and always has"

[IDemo]

A justification for torture which includes a conflation of the actions of passengers on Flight 93:

"The ends do not justify the means." How often do we hear or read this misleading argument in connection with the wisdom of a government program or initiative that has come under public scrutiny, as we did recently in my friend David Adler's opinion piece (Dec. 18) about "torture." The statement, unfortunately, has come to mean to most of us that if the means themselves shock us or make us uncomfortable or queasy, it matters not what the "ends" are, whatever it is that is under discussion is necessarily "wrong," or in the case of "enhanced interrogation techniques" is "not who we are." But is this so-called Machiavellian meaning correct?

The means of ending WWII included firebombing Tokyo and incinerating thousands of Japanese civilians followed by the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Earlier we sent waves of bombers over Germany to demolish many of its cities. Thousands of American and German soldiers died during the invasion of Europe to stop Hitler and his extermination of millions of Jews, ending his deranged, genocidal plan to dominate the world. We cheered when it was over.

The gory means we used to defend ourselves from the Nazis and the Japanese Empire examined blindly in isolation certainly would give us pause. The loss of our soldiers in the European, Pacific and North African theaters and the use of nuclear bombs on civilians are difficult to contemplate - difficult, that is, until we examine also the ends to which they were employed. Then the issue becomes more complicated.

The ultimate ends of these means during WWII were to protect freedom and democratic institutions from extinction at the hands of totalitarian madmen who were hell-bent at any cost on making sure that government of the people, by the people and for the people would perish from the Earth, vanish along with our cherished concepts of human dignity and inalienable rights. In short, we are still in the democratic republic established by our Constitution because of our use of these means, a government that honors and protects our individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Did these ends not justify the means?

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/01/04/3572584/protecting-freedom-justifies-the.html?sp=/99/106/#storylink=cpy

[belzabubba333]

1. ben franklin ,perhaps youve heard of him , would disagree

in 'perhaps youve heard of him' the word 'youve' is not pointed at the poster

[enlightenment]

2. Is the apostrophe key

on your keyboard/pad broken?

Just wondering . . .

[belzabubba333]

3. no it is not.

do you pose similar questions to people who spell the word 'the' teh or kitten, kitteh?

[enlightenment]

5. Ah - so that was deliberate?

So hard to tell the difference between being silly and being lazy.

[belzabubba333]

6. as thin as the line between inquisitive and petty

do u have a similar problem with people with people who spell the word the as teh or kitten, kitteh. i noticed you didnt answer

btw dont read ee cummings' works (or is it just apostrophes you have a thing for)

[PeoViejo]

4. J'attend 9 Thermidor. n/t