I am often astonished by how when Republicans talk about the sanctity of human life they are only referring to the sanctity of unborn lives. For example, yesterday I heard a speech by Governor Huckabee saying that he defended the sanctity of human life (meaning he was in favor of prohibiting abortion), the theoretical Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, and hetero-sexual-only marriages.
Why do these God fearing Christianofascists (like most fundamentalist radicals) want to legislate the prohibition of sin in any form and impose some sort of in-this-lifetime and after-this-lifetime double jeorpardy. In this Christianofascist judgment fest, you can first be tried for the sin/crime by a judge and put in prison and then be judged a second time (for the same action) by God and thrown into hell. Why don’t they just make honest, faithful belief a legal requirement. If the law were to prohibit all sinning, then the Christians would see it get very competitive at the gates to heaven.
But seriously, think about it. How can you be in favor of life and at the same time prohibit restricting gun possession? How can you want to protect life and be in favor of the state taking life? How can you be in favor of life and be so overtly destructive to the environment? And same sex marriage? Who cares? Are you that afraid of your latent homosexuality that you need guns and a death penalty to protect you from gay temptation?
Talk about deathly sickening and synical, the CIA, the Republican president’s CIA, has admitted to using the mideavil torture technique of waterboarding on three occasions since 9/11. As you may know, waterboarding is considered an illegal torture method by the U.S. and the international community. The U.S. has frequently criticized and sited other nations as human rights violators for using the very technique is has been using since 9/11. The U.S. even prosecuted a Japanese military officer for using the practice against Americans during World War II and sentenced him to 15 years of prison.
Unlike the rest of his party, Republican front runner, John McCain has consistently stood against the Bush administration’s use of torture and its mistreatment of prisoners of war/enemy combatants. Nevertheless, Senator McCain is a staunch advocate of staying the course in the War in Iraq because winning is more important than any of the costs associated with it.
Grave Error 
Amen!!
Rule of Law what?
Pfffffttttt … this is wartime behavior, all bets are off, and all social contract, and thereby any extensions, are summarily null and void.
Victory at any cost. Besides, what’s a few “human rights” violations in the face of victory?
Although, I think you might find Giorgio Agamben’s commentary interesting, considering your line of thinking.
Hmmm, I am not sure that we have officially declared a war that relates to these violations. And even so, we condemn and have condemned the use of these methods in past wars. So why are we allowed to get by with it? Are we immune from war and other crimes against humanity? Even wars have rules.
Hmmm, really?
I think you should check history on that aspect.
Even with respect to the current … “military campaign”, do you think filling a vest full of Semtec and ball bearings and killing civilians in civilian settings is following international laws and conventions of warfare?
Tit for tat, ask and ye shall receive. I think it is borderline delusion to actually believe that anyone can regulate warfare. In the end, death resolves all disputes, unless you have an example I am unaware of?
We’ll U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq (a war completed unrelated to terrorism) than in 9/11, and more civilians have died in Iraq than Americans in 9/11. That’s a lot of death and I don’t see any resolution.
We sure support and promote war crimes tribunals from Nuremburg to Rawanda. We are disgusted when actors like Stallone, Gibson or Day Lewis get tortured in movies, and we criticize dictators for torturing. So where does that leave us? As a Nazi? A movie’s villianous regime? A dictatorship?
I’m well aware of the distortion Eric, but this is where objectivity comes in.
There are a couple of inherent problems with social contract, (which blindly includes the synthesised morality(ies) we call “law”):
1. Not everyone born into a society finds the default position of forced social contract and adherence to be acceptable; i.e. criminals, sociopaths.
2. Social contract is not a logic or reasoning position, it is a weak philosophical position because it is induced by fallacy; distortion is simple and often widespread.
3. The fact of the matter in light of history is pretty straightforward; he who is willing to ignore synthesised morality(ies) and/or law, wins the day.
4. “Rule of Law” is not uniform in definition, parameters or variables; consequently the claim of that position can take any form and still be found to be acceptable as per the initiating instance/government/society.
All humanity has made use of these fallacies to cover its tracks, while achieving its agenda. This is old hat human behavior, and due to its direct opposition to natural genetic inclination, it will continue to be fallacy, fantasy and error.
America has greater hegemonic power in the current period; but any of the other formerly powerful nations already had their turn; or perhaps I’m misguided in believing the number of formerly aboriginal/tribal nations that have come to be “Spanish speaking” nations in the modern time and having Catholicism as their religious mainstay, as opposed to their former espiritism.
Or maybe it is all just … hrmmm … “divine intervention” or “cosmic happenstance”???