Torture

Ain't it a bitch when moral authority starts to erode?

 

So, from a standpoint of actual practice, this entire discussion is academic, as the US government did end up tightening policy and learning from its mistakes.

That's all well and good, and I understand what you're saying, but everyone involved knew it was illegal to begin with. It wasn't something that was figured out after the fact. Waterboarding isn't something new. It was considered torture a long time ago and it still is today. Don't you understand that? It's remarkable that you basically confine yourself to an academic discussion of it, overlooking that for those who were waterboarded, they should be content to know that the United States has stopped doing it, nevermind that they should never have been doing it in the first place.

How could anyone in the United States government seriously believe that something practiced by the Khmer Rouge was okay to use? Let's be real, 44. They knew it was illegal going in, and just twisted the law to suit their perceived needs at the time. It's not enough to say that it has stopped being used as a practice when it should never have been used to begin with.

It's like that cartoon last year of Alan Greenspan testifying before Congress: "Oops." It's not enough to say "Oops" and then tell everyone that it's not being done anymore. Choosing to waterboard isn't the result of honest mistakes. It's the result of a knowing strategy to ignore international law and do just about whatever certain people felt was necessary.

For those people who commit crimes (particularly serious ones) and then are caught months or years later, do we just ignore what they've done because maybe they've changed their ways, are sorry and won't let it happen again?

 

The thing that amazes me here is that people really seem to think that blowing the whistle and saying "no" to the exposed methods will somehow bring an end to aggressive interrogation measures. Believe me, when there is information that our analysts want, they will find a way. If they do refrain from using the methods outlined in the memos, they will find other equally effective ones. And in the event of an imminent attack, the waterboarding will be at the top of the list, despite its banned status.

 

So, I take it the law is just for suckers then. You authoritarians are truly incredible.

 

Put away your outrage. I suppose it would be better, in your opinion, to let hundreds or thousands of people die as long as a terrorist isn't made uncomfortable.

 

Wasn't it already stated that this is a false choice? Why, I believe it was. There are better ways to get the info you want without torture.

 

I can't believe you just described waterboarding as "uncomfortable". Put away your ignorance.

 

And because someone stated it is a false choice, that makes it true? Perhaps you missed the latest release from Mr Blair's private memo saying that it was highly effective and yielded valuable information. His public statement that it's done more harm than good is debatable. How many people have died because we used waterboarding? It's a question that can not be answered. But if the memos Cheney wants released are, in fact, released, we may have an idea of how many lives were saved by waterboarding.

And when you can outline what those "better ways" are and can show they are more effective . . . well, please do so, by all means.

As for ignorance, when waterboarding is shown to cause agonizing pain or long-lasting or permanent physical damage to a person's body, I'll include that in the same league with electrocution, lopping off of limbs, or burning with acid. Waterboarding is a fear tactic. If it makes a terrorist afraid of the water for the rest of his life, well, then I say "Small price to pay for saving lives."

 

It does cause physical damage. The lungs can be significantly damaged, and bones can be broken from struggling against the restraints on the board. Not only that, waterboarding causes psychological damage which is just as debilitating as a physical injury.

The Japanese did it to American prisoners during World War II.

Did American soldiers deserve it? Was it a price they deserved to pay for attacking the Japanese?

 

And because someone stated it is a false choice, that makes it true? Perhaps you missed the latest release from Mr Blair's private memo saying that it was highly effective and yielded valuable information. His public statement that it's done more harm than good is debatable. How many people have died because we used waterboarding? It's a question that can not be answered. But if the memos Cheney wants released are, in fact, released, we may have an idea of how many lives were saved by waterboarding.

Well first of all I believe it's a matter of record that detainees have died in American custody on account of the interrogation techniques used. If the technique used was waterboarding, it's uncertain. But they have died.

Secondly the memos would only state what happened. There'd be know way of knowing that they could have tried something different and it would have worked.


But again we're back to the notion of does this work or doesn't it? I'm getting impatient with this question coming up again and again when it was supposedly resolved earlier becuase people just let the notion sit. Why hasn't Blair said something before now if he believed torture worked? And more importantly, why have people not disputed the claims of these interrogation experts that it does? And then justify how that was the case?

It's not at this point that I'm worried about harming a detainee or anything. It's that what I've heard from numerous sources is that torture does NOT work. Or that if it does it's only when other less extreme techniques could be used instead. Well is this the case or doesn't it? It's a binary bloody question, yes or no. If you're saying "only torture will work depending on the information you're trying to get" then that's a YES. And if you answer is YES, I would appreciate how you know that in contrast to the many interrogators who dispute you that work in the field.

If it's a NO then I'd ask what your sources are for a matter of record (although I think they've been posted here), to confirm that by extention there cannot be ANY exceptions to this rule that it will ever work without preferrable alternative because it's a blanket negative as opposed to the singular nature of the former answer of YES, and ask you why we are continuing to have this debate.

This War on Terror may not be an actual war, but it's potentially dangerous and if we were to characterize this in terms of a war it's like two commanders breaking out into an argument on the middle of the battlefield. Whether the answer is yes or no we're better off with the wrong answer at this point than none at all, because it's wasting time. Let's stop with getting the answer and then revising later at a more oppertune time: can torture work without any alternative? John McCain, you're on the record as saying no. Dick Cheney, you're on the record as saying yes. Fine. Anyone else?

 

So, you are equating American soldiers in WWII with modern-day terrorists. That is your first disconnect, but I'm glad to know you hold the American WWII former POWs in such high esteem as to consider them on equal footing with terrorists. Perhaps you work for the Department of Homeland Security. Oh, that's right -- only applies to vets of the Iraq and Afghan wars.

It's not a question of "deserve" it or not -- if it is used to gather information to prevent future attacks, then it is a matter of necessity. If it is used simply to inflict mental duress with no other goal, then it is sadistic. If Japanese interrogators were using it to try to get information from U.S. soldiers, they probably felt justified in doing so. We would have felt justified, as well, had we been doing it.

As for your "pain and damage" assessments, saying it "can" cause pain or damage is a lot different than saying it "does." Somehow, I imagine that if we released the three terrorists who were waterboarded, they wouldn't be "so damaged" that they'd be forced to retire from their terrorist ways. As for mental duress -- against terrorists, I'm ALL FOR IT. Are you forgetting that these are guys who will blow themselves up in order to kill people. They will send the mentally-handicapped or children to blow up people.

 

EDIT:

Gonk,

I deleted my response to your post, because I think I gave a little too much detail in it with regard to my current line of work.

Sorry.

BoC

 

You got that backwards, BoC. The equation isn't between our troops and the terrorists; it's between our torturers and enemy torturers.

We hanged the Japanese torturers after the war. We called their torture reprehensible, and worthy of death. If we decide, as a nation, that that exact same torture is perfectly acceptable as long as we're the ones using it, we lose the moral high ground.

And after all, isn't the moral high ground what some say we're fighting for?

 

You and me both. Sadly, the left is too far gone with Bush Derangement Syndrome to think that way. They are so far gone that they will side with the likes of Zubaydah and KSM.

They may say they love this country, but their actions indicate otherwise. I can no longer really give a liberal the benefit of the doubt on the patriotism question.

 

You want to question my love for this country, Smuggler, say it to my face.

 

There's an old saying: If you toss a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hit.

Congratulations on the yelp.

 

I deleted my response to your post, because I think I gave a little too much detail in it with regard to my current line of work.

PM me if you like. Or don't if you also like. The primary thing I'm looking for is a yes or no.

Assuming you say yes, if you're really in a situation where you think too many details would suffice, just answer another yes or no if you're in a position to KNOW... not think "probably yeah" but KNOW that this stuff could work when nothing else would in a given situation.

It's something of needing a truthful response over politics. If you just THINK it could work, that's a No. You could still be right, but it would have to be a no.

We just should get to the bottom of if this stuff works or not becuase it's clouding the air. If it possibly could work then we've got to stop saying it doesn't because it's impeding and mixing up the reasoning for the other questions. If they never would, we've could to stop saying they could becuase of the same resons.

Think of it this way: I'm buying a car from you (and everyone else) and asking a question to it's functionality. At the moment I don't care if has the functionality or not, but man -- I gotta know if it does or not becuase I have to plan around that fact. You may have a desire for whatever reason to say it has this functionality. You may have a desire for whatever reason to say it does not. But whatever your desire is, I'm saying you have to be adult about it and put it aside whatever those desires are and tell me what you feel you have the authority to say because we're both putting our necks on the line here in terms of safety and money. Because if I start taking this car out and find out on the road it's capacity is the opposite as described, someone's going to get sued and it could be avoided right now.

 

If you could shut off your partisan broken record for five seconds, you would realize that I was comparing Japanese torturers with ours (thanks Geist for all ready tackling this for me).

Again, thats a false choice.

Do you not see the problem with your argument? They use handicapped people and children to kill people, showing a disturbing disregard for human rights and human welfare. We cannot do the same in our response, or else we lose the moral high ground and our shining beacon is extinguished.

Thanks for playing. If a conservative despised torture, would they love their country?

 

Well, at least he's acknowledging that he's trolling these days. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Oh lovely, we're the terrorists now. Thanks.

 

Are you saying George Washington was not a patriot? Are you saying Abraham Lincoln was not a patriot? Are you saying John McCain is not a patriot? Each of these great people outwardly, vocally opposed torture, and each of them made it a case of American standards, Washington and Lincoln as Presidents and McCain as a US legislator.

You have not answered everyone's question: What do you say to countries who torture American prisoners? Do you think it's okay, or do you think that the US should say this is wrong?

 

They may say they love this country, but their actions indicate otherwise. I can no longer really give a liberal the benefit of the doubt on the patriotism question.

Smuggler, everyone deserves a benefit of the doubt. You know this. Geist may not as an individual, FID may not as an individual or I may not. But as a generalized group, everyone does.

And by the way since I'm in the business of binary answers today, we can take this as a "no" to Geist's question as you conceding the possibility he loves his country, right? Or admitting or whatever? No offense Geist, but it saves both JS the energy of reading and you the energy of typing up for a fourth time: you state that you believe he (JS) loves your country. JS does or doesn't believe that you love yours.

There, everyone's said what they think and whether it was for the sake of show or rhetoric on either side, at least the question's answered and we can move to whatever the next logical point is, if any exists. It doesn't looks good on you to keep asking him time and again since it reads like you're digging at him no matter your intent, and it doesn't reflect good on him to not respond every time because it looks like he's avoiding the answer whatever his intent is.

 

Again, not supporting torture is not the same as supporting terrorism.

---

I think Gonk has the right idea here. Breaking the topic into discrete elements could help get us away from this pointless "You are evil!", "No, you are evil!" back-and-forth. Here are what the main objects of debate appear to be:
[ol][li]What defines torture (e.g. is waterboarding torture)?[/li]
[li]How well does torture work?[/li]
[li]Is torture ever morally justified?[/li]
[li]Is torture ever legally justified?[/li]
[li]If torture is ever justified, what preconditions should there be for its use?[/li]
[li]In the past, how has the US responded to torture, both foreign and domestic?[/li][/ol]

Anyone got any others?

 

Torture works! I'm convinced. Or not

What?! No. ****! How'd that happen?! I was assured by those intellectual heavyweights, JediSmuggler and BandofClones, that torture worked. Well, now that sucks. I was totally convinced up until a few seconds ago that they were right. Don't I feel dumb.


Also, what?! you mean torture actually built up a wall? The very same wall that allowed 9/11 to happen. Amazing. So, Smug, Smuggler, whatever, how's it feel to support this technique that possibly hurts your country further?

 

Again, the underlying assumption you are injecting is that American prisoners are the moral equivalent of the terrorists.

If the American military were out there trying to kill as many people as it could, then I would think our enemies would be justified in using those methods to get information. If our military were trying to figure out how to poison a water supply or crash a loaded aircraft into a busy downtown area with the purpose of killing people, then you bet I'd say they're justified. But you know what: our soldiers aren't doing that. If they were, I'd expect our enemies to do all they could to get the information out of our personnel, because at that point, we would have lost the so-called moral highground.

Let me ask this . . . what methods do you consider acceptable means of gaining information from terrorists in captivity who may have a lot of knowledge about potential attacks? Or do you think it's okay to just let the attack take place so as not to cause any duress to the prisoner? And what happens when it becomes known that the attack could have been prevented had we used more coercive methods? Will people still blame it on Bush?

 

Does it ever get tiring doing moralistic gymnastics to justify your falsely assumed statement?


Also, to Smug, when did 'torture is wrong' become a liberal thing? I was always under the impression that everybody viewed it as wrong. Or at least anyone who's human.