He had to. There was no choice.
Why?
Because if he had signed the ban, then he would have been tacitly admitting that the practice was wrong. And Bush is psychologically incapable of admitting that anything he does, or that he endorses, is wrong.
The bottom line is that if the United States is going to preach high morality and ethics at other countries, then we must have clean hands. And as long as this country supports torture for any reason, then our hands are filthy.
I have no doubt that if, a year from now, a similar bill lands on Clinton or Obama's presidential desk, they'd sign it. What I'd be curious to know is if John McCain, who knows a thing or two about torture himself, would veto it. See, on the one hand, he talks a good game about deploring torture...but on the other hand, he voted against the bill. It's a duplicity that his opponents should be trying to highlight.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at March 10, 2008 08:30 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingAs much as I dislike Bush and what he has done to this country, I'm glad he used his veto power on this.
In my opinion, the interrogation limits should be set based on who you are interrogating and why and not some hard and fast rule. For example, if it's the difference between a US city being nuked or not, I'm not willing to set a limit on what can be done to get information.
Scott, that's essentially saying that there should be no rules against torture at all. If torture is only to be used against "bad people," then it's going to be used a lot.
And I have a problem with the idea that you get better information when you torture people. Has this ever actually been proven? Sure, it *feels* true. It feels like if you punch a guy in the face, he'll be more truthful.
But there are plenty of people who have confessed to crimes under duress and then been exonerated later by DNA evidence. I'm not sure that in this case what feels true is actually true. I think there's a possibility that if you torture people, they'll say whatever you want to hear to make you stop torturing them, whether it is true or not.
It is important to point out to those that are pro-torture (never in my life did I think we would actually have this conversation in this country.)
The US executed Japanese Officers after WWII for waterboarding American G.I.s.
I have not seen an argument so far that comes close to justifying what Bush is doing.
McCain was on 60 minutes and cleary stated that waterboarding was torture. Somehow I think he will pander to the desires of the Republican party on this on and veto any bill similar to the one that Bush vetoed.
It is important to point out to those that are pro-torture (never in my life did I think we would actually have this conversation in this country.)
The US executed Japanese Officers after WWII for waterboarding American G.I.s.
I have not seen an argument so far that comes close to justifying what Bush is doing.
Maybe America could allow waterboarding, but only for hands?
I think one of the basic issues we have is that our only exposure to torture is what we see in movies. Or when our significant others are going through PMS. :)
Seriously though, When I hear about this, my mind does flash to movies, and I think: hey it worked for Steven Segal or Mel Gibson. So as a "common person" I have to say that I have no *real* exposure to the issue to even know if it works or not. (and naturally if anyone has any real experience with this topic, I am not speaking for you)
I will say that our enemies have no issue using death/torture against us; So that if in reality it DOES work, I have no issue with it. Now are there better possibilities than waterboarding? Perhaps, but again, I am going to say I really do not have enough knowledge of torture in general to say: hey this is a better option!
Scott, if it came down to the ticking time bomb scenario is there any doubt that someone would be willing to take the heat for breaking the rules and going all 24 on someone's ass?
And it's just so unlikely a scenario that it isn't worth losing the moral high ground over.
It's like saying we would not initiate a first strike with nuclear weapons. Whether or not you think that's a good policy statement is irrelevant; if a president was actually in a position where there was no doubt that a first strike would save millions of lives, they'd probably do it, policy be damned. Ditto with torture; someone goes to President Obama and says they captured some guy with one of two missing nukes and they think the other one is in an american city and the captured guy knows where it is...President Obama, Clinton, McCain etc is going to just tell the CIA to get the info by any means necessary. If it results in the second nuke being found I doubt there will be any recriminations--I'd like to see anyone start impeachment proceedings based on having saved a city from nuclear annihilation. If the city is nuked the only complaints will be that he wasn't tortured enough.
So the only value of this law is to keep torture from being used in ordinary non-nuclear bomb in the city circumstances. Which is as it should be. When you allow something to be used it gets used.
The US executed Japanese Officers after WWII for waterboarding American G.I.s.
Edhopper, is this really the case? I thought that the ones executed had far worse offenses on their hands. Which ones were executed just for waterboarding?
Scott, the problem with what you say, and what Bush always says, is that torture doesn't work. The real world isn't an episode of 24 and the bad guys don't hold out just long enough to stop the nuke at 00:00:01 on the countdown clock.
Torture doesn't work. History, including the Bush era history of torture, is full of innocent people being tortured into confessions of crimes they didn't commit and people who did do something giving false information under "expert" torture sessions.
Besides, Bush can veto this law and it still doesn't change the fact that what he's authorizing is torture and that it's already against U.S. law codes to commit acts of torture. Hopefully, we can all look forward to the trial starting by the end of 2009 and then enjoy the looks on George and Dick's faces as they get carted off for a long prison stay.
Hey, a man can dream can't he?
Michael t,
Go rent Bravo Two Zero. Hell, go buy Bravo Two Zero.
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=2278182&style=movie
It's based on a true story of an SAS unit in the first Gulf War. They got caught and got some major torture smackdown put on 'em. They never broke their cover story and lied their butts off at each torture session. People can be trained to do that.
Then look at the real real world.
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_3655.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml
Michael t,
Go rent Bravo Two Zero. Hell, go buy Bravo Two Zero.
It's based on a true story of an SAS unit in the first Gulf War. They got caught and got some major torture smackdown put on 'em. They never broke their cover story and lied their butts off at each torture session. People can be trained to do that.
Then look at the real real world.
www.citynews.ca/news/news_3655.aspx
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml
Just because something is a law, or even in a Constitution, doesn't make it right. You can't change something just by using a different label. Getting "right-sized" off your job is still getting liad off at work, which is still just losing your job and income no matter what you call it. Using physical or emotional duress in order to get someone to tell you something they don't want to tell you is torture, somewhere along the spectrum of acts that constitute torture. It doesn't matter if what you're doing isn't normally fatal, or even normally injurious...it's still torture.
And it doesn't work. There's no information extraction method that can't be trained against, and in fact methods that use fear or pair are the easiest to overcome. Not that such training is easy, but for any individual willing to strap on a TNT vest, do you really think there's anything we can do here on Earth that's going to shake their faith?
And not to say that everyone commiting a terrorist act has the convictions of a suicide bomber. And sure, occasionally we'll catch that technician or contractor who might break under certain interrogation techniques. But as they say, a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Does torture sometimes produce reliable, valuable information? Sometimes. But the cost to our societal soul is too high. It reduces us to a savage brutality that we decry as evil everywhere else we see it. If we're truly to act as the World's Policeman, we have to embrace that our position puts limits on what we can, or would like to do, in fulfilling our role. That means playing by some rules. If we don't, then we're little better than the lawless warlords all over the world.
Just to be clear, the actual bill we're referring to here is not explicitly an anti-waterboarding bill. It was one that would have prevented the CIA from doing anything that is not allowed by the armed forces, including hooding and sleep deprivation, among other, more questionable techniques.
I thought that the ones executed had far worse offenses on their hands. Which ones were executed just for waterboarding?
From what I've read, waterboarding was considered a war crime, and Japanese commanders who used it or authorized it were sentenced up to 20 years hard labor, but I don't think this alone got anyone executed.
"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
-- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
How far our country has fallen since the boy emperor became president
A couple of corrections here:
1) the Japanese officer did NOT do what is now considered "waterboarding." The practice he did was, essentially, controlled partial drowning.
2) Waterboarding was done on exactly three people, it now seems, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the Ron Jeremy/Rosie O'Donnell lookalike who was the guy who plotted the 9/11 attacks), who gave up everything he knew in a couple of minutes.
3) The restrictions on the military were designed to cover guys in the field who don't undergo specialized training in how to use the more advanced techniques. The interrogators who would have been covered by this bill know a hell of a lot more about interrogation than the average GI, and can do a far better job.
4) By my last count, the number of people waterboarded for demonstrative purposes (journalists, protesters, and the like) in public outnumber those waterboarded for interrogative purposes by at least ten to one.
J.
If I may offer a foreign perpective, from someone that lives in a country that until twenty years ago lived under a dictatorship... In Brazil, torture was used against everyone that rised up against the establishment. Guess who trained the secret police here? Well... The CIA. Alright. i'm not making accusations or anything because it was another time, the Cold War was raging and the justification was that everyone could be a communist. Still. People were thrown out Airplanes into the ocean in Argentina. So, my point is: When tortures stops being justifiable and turns into a way to quash any kind of opposition? Wouldn't better if this question was never asked?
*shrugs* Just my two brazilian cents.
Mau
Jay Tea, there is no way to know how many people have been waterboarded. Your claims of just 3 can in no way be confirmed. And....
Waterboarding is EXACTLY controlled partial drowning.
Waterboarding was done on exactly three people
Do you honestly believe this, that our government has only waterboarded 3 people?
If so, I've got some land for sale...
Just use Google and have a look what freed British prisoners from Guantanamo Bay had to say about their treatment. I wish I could say I was surprised but no, unfortunately this is what I expected.
One of the men who returned is wearing an eye patch now. He told a reporter that he was held down and one guard poked his fingers into his eyes with quite some force. In an earlier appearance you could see clearly the damage done to one eye.
I am sure, there are many more horror stories going on we simply never hear about.
Bush and in general, the USA, has no moral right whatsoever to preach to other people about human rights! Also, THIS is not the way to fight terrorism. I think the world was a safer place before Bush started his crusade.
Hello All
Im New..
Hello. What do you think of torturing captives for information?
PAD
So, my point is: When tortures stops being justifiable and turns into a way to quash any kind of opposition? Wouldn't better if this question was never asked?
And a very valid point it is.
Torture is the tactic of dictatorships and radical madmen. It may sound Yogi Berra-ish, but if we don't stand for something, then we don't stand for anything.
PAD
Jay Tea: "1) the Japanese officer did NOT do what is now considered "waterboarding." The practice he did was, essentially, controlled partial drowning."
Water is forced into the mouth/nose until need to breath overcomes the gag reflex and the lungs start to fill with water. Waterboarding is controlled, partial drowning.
Jay Tea: "Waterboarding was done on exactly three people..."
Ah, so it's okay if we only do it to three people. What about four? Is four okay? What about fifty? Are our hands still clean, can we speak with moral authority as long as we do it to "only" fifty people?
Jay Tea: "The interrogators who would have been covered by this bill know a hell of a lot more about interrogation than the average GI, and can do a far better job."
And large number of interrogators from WW2 onwards (who know a lot more about interrogation than the average anybody) are on record as saying harsh interrogation techniques do NOT produce reliable, useful information.
Jay Tea: ""By my last count, the number of people waterboarded for demonstrative purposes (journalists, protesters, and the like) in public outnumber those waterboarded for interrogative purposes by at least ten to one."
Oh, good! I think you may have answered my earlier question! It is okay to torture fifty people! As long as we demonstrate the practice on 500 journalists, etc.
(BTW, JT, you might want to check on just HOW those journalists, etc. described the experience. "Torture" was a common word.)
Yeah, gotta love that "On;y 3 people" argument. Because, god knows, this administration has been completely honest and forthcoming with information.
Please ignore the "lost" emails, sealed "public" records, the the fleet of peper-shredding trucks, thanks.
Being trained by the CIA, it's ridiculous to think these guys will hold any information worth keeping 24 hours after being taken into custody. Captured French resistance, for example, felt free to blab after 24 hours of being in nazi custody because what they knew would have been worthless then. Having gone missing for that long, the resistance would have changed their plans.
If the bill could be tailored to prohibit torture after 24 hours into custody, we could probably count on cutting into 99.99% of the wrongness that goes on.
I'm sorry... But aren't you guys splitting hairs? I mean... Torture isn't justifiable by any argument. What if next time, the waterboarding is done in criminals to get them to inform the polic? Is that justifiable? Again, I'm sorry. I don't want to flame anyone. Just... Being spontaneous (and making several grammar mistakes, which I apologize. It's my second language...)
Mau
1 must be so out of it. I saw the headline about waterboarding, and had to read half the article to understand why they wanted to ban it....! I thought it was about watersports.....! *blush*
PAD,
Do you really believe if Hillary or Obama was in office, there was a ticking nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, and she had a prime suspect who could tell where it was, she or he would refuse to use waterboarding?
I do believe there is good reason to fear the government (Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal). I do think in most ways we have to take the moral high ground. But scaring someone into talking is a far cry from cutting off a limb or removing their fingernails.
Waterboarding is simulated drowning. I would consider it a form of torture. But it is a radically different form than practiced by most dictators. It does not physically maim or harm the individual in the same way as other forms of torture. Does that mean I take it lightly? No. Should it be used in most cases? No. But I do think a moral argument can be made for its use in some extreme cases.
The issue is what keeps it from being a tool that is abused? Good question. But I think there is far more reason to fear the Clinton's of the world than George W. Bush for abusing power.
Bottom line, this bill was a farce. The Dems knew it would be vetoed. If it really had the moral authority you claim, the veto would be overridden. The reality is it is a farce. I believe most of you on this site sincerely believe in your opposition. But I do not think that is true for most of the politicians. This is political gamesmanship done for show. Nothing more, nothing less.
Iowa Jim
"2) Waterboarding was done on exactly three people, it now seems, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the Ron Jeremy/Rosie O'Donnell lookalike who was the guy who plotted the 9/11 attacks), who gave up everything he knew in a couple of minutes."
Nope. As far back as November 18, 2005 ABC News reports indicated that the CIA officials reported "debatable results" from that interrogation. When they finally revealed all that he "confessed" to, it quickly became a joke as a good chunk of it was hogwash.
Besides, Stalin tortured people who never did a thing to him and coerced confessions from them. Are you now ready to declare that all of those innocent people really were justly put to death and imprisoned for life? After all, Stalin's people knew a hell of a lot about torture and I'm sure they used proper technique. The confessions under torture must be true.
"2) Waterboarding was done on exactly three people, it now seems,..."
Nice backdoor there. "It now seems," you say? And you know this because of what top secret clearance? Oh, you're just saying that because Bush and crew have told us that? Hm... This is the same Bush and crew that was saying that we never did that until they couldn't deny it anymore, but I'm sure they're being completely honest now.
"3) The restrictions on the military were designed to cover guys in the field who don't undergo specialized training in how to use the more advanced techniques. The interrogators who would have been covered by this bill know a hell of a lot more about interrogation than the average GI, and can do a far better job."
Doesn't matter. It's against our laws and international laws to torture. It is an unreliable means of collecting information and serves no real purpose other than showing what a sadistic SOB some people can be.
"4) By my last count, the number of people waterboarded for demonstrative purposes (journalists, protesters, and the like) in public outnumber those waterboarded for interrogative purposes by at least ten to one."
Even if true, that's irrelevant. One person is too many. We do not sell our beliefs, our values and or souls down the river for convenience's sake or because some people are too stupid or scared to know better. America does not stand for torture when it is applied to our people our people allied to us. We better damned well stand up and denounce it when we're the torturers.
"But it is a radically different form than practiced by most dictators."
Only in so far as who's doing it this time. And if that's really the only true difference, then there's no difference at all.
I only know what I read and what's on TV, but from the technical approaches to waterboarding, isn't it more accurate to say that it's not controlled drowning, but creating the phsyical sensation of drowning, to capitalize on the fear that one is drowning? Anyone feel free to correct me, but I've seen several experts talk about how the subject is never in any real danger...that they are still getting oxygen, aren't going to drown, etc., but the boy reacts as though it is.
Which doesn't change my stance on it...whether conducted within 10 miuntes of apprehension, or 10 weeks, it's stil torture.
As for the proverbial ticking bomb scenario...I think that's a fallacy. Say our security does miss such a bomb being delivered and activated...and we have a high-level suspect in that plot with hours to go before the threatened detonation time. Honest, if someone's that connected that they know of the location, and know that millions of people are about to be killed, does anyone think that any level of torture, coercion, or bribery is going to get any response out of him? This isn't TV, where you can "break" someone in a short amount of time. Sure, maybe over months and years of torture you can so wear down their resolve that they do, in fact, break, but at that point, how reliable is anything you learn from them? But in that ticking time bomb moment? You're not going to break anyone, and they aren't going to tell you. They've already gotten the nerve to kill millions, or at least hundreds of thousands. It's a war to them, and they are a soldier...they've already signed away their life for their cause. All torturing them does is make the side of those holding him worse than animals.
I was watching Bill Maher a few weeks back, and the subject of torture came up. (If you get HBO, I highly recommend 'Real Time with Bill Maher' -- love him or hate him, he always has interesting guests from both sides of the political spectrum, which leads to some fascinating conversations.)
He made what I think was a valid point -- the CIA has most likely ALWAYS used torture in extreme cases (I'm talking rarely), we just never heard about it. I'm talking about past and present, not just the current moronic administration.
I'm not condoning it, just stating a fact. I think it's being a bit Pollyanna-ish to think that we've never tortured prisoners in this country.
Iowa Jim: "Waterboarding is simulated drowning."
No.
It is actual drowning. Water is forced into the mouth/nose until a need to breath overwhelms the gag reflex and the lungs start to fill with water. That is drowning. Nothing "simulated" about it.
That the victim is not actually killed doesn't make it any less of a real drowning. If someone held you under until you needed mouth-to-mouth to survive, would you not claim they were trying to drown you?
"I'm not condoning it, just stating a fact. I think it's being a bit Pollyanna-ish to think that we've never tortured prisoners in this country."
There's a world of difference between using it, and embracing it. I don't doubt that our government and armed forces have done many things that would be seen as repellant by society. As Col. Jessup says, we want people like him on the wall. At the same time, we must at times reign in those very same people for doing what we want them capable of doing. And I don't see anything wrong with that.
Dawn S.: "He made what I think was a valid point -- the CIA has most likely ALWAYS used torture in extreme cases (I'm talking rarely), we just never heard about it. I'm talking about past and present, not just the current moronic administration."
So what IS his (or your) point? Because it has been used in the past, we shouldn't condemn its use now?
Do you really believe if Hillary or Obama was in office, there was a ticking nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, and she had a prime suspect who could tell where it was, she or he would refuse to use waterboarding?
I think you've watched too many episodes of "24."
PAD
PAD: "I think you've watched too many episodes of "24.""
Seriously.
Can we just dispense with the "ticking time bomb" scenario, folks? Until someone can provide at least one example where this has actually been the case in real life (Go ahead. We'll wait.), let's just leave it out.
Speaking of war-crime tribunals: At Nuremberg (from which the main lesson we should take is "There is only one war capital crime - losing."), Admiral Doenitz was originally to be tried on capital charges for (primarily) ordering/permitting unlimited submarine warfare in the Atlantic, but:
In evidence presented at the trial of Karl Dönitz on his orders to the U-boat fleet to breach the London Rules, Admiral Chester Nimitz stated that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war.Basically, Nimitz (and, i think, Halsey) said "if you want to try this man for this as a crime, you'd better at least take back the medals you gave me for the same thing."
Not that i think it was a Good Idea to turn the subs loose in either theatre...
Your initial post sort of put me in mind of the bumper sticker that says "Be nice to the US or we'll bring democracy to *your* country."
While I have no intention of voting for McCain, I think it's important to point out that McCain voted against this bill because it requires the intelligence services to adhere to Army field manual regulations in interrogations. And while McCain is absolutely opposed to waterboarding and any other form of torture, the field manual is more restrictive than simply banning torture (it was designed for the handling of ordinary soldiers in conventional wars).
What measures should be allowed is an important issue to be discussed and debated, but I wouldn't slam McCain as being wishy-washy on torture due to this vote. He's been Bush's most consistent opponent on that issue.
PAD,
Actually, I have only seen 3 episodes of "24." I liked more realistic shows like "Alias."
Iowa Jim
PAD,
Actually, I have only seen 3 episodes of "24." I liked more realistic shows like "Alias."
Iowa Jim
Captured French resistance, for example, felt free to blab after 24 hours of being in nazi custody because what they knew would have been worthless then. Having gone missing for that long, the resistance would have changed their plans.
Actually, one of the main bits of info the nazis wanted was the identities of other resistors; information which would not change after 24 hours or 24 years for that matter. I seem to recall a recent official who was brought up on charges of having tortured some resistors and used the information obtained to capture and kill others.
Sure torture can work, especially against ordinary people (like those resisting an occupation). That isn't relevant. Lots of things work but unless one takes a strict utilitarian view of morality this should not be the guiding factor.
Iowa Jim--the problem with the ticking time bomb scenario is that it requires a highly unlikely set of circumstances--life isn't an episode of 24. But imagine we do have a terrorist who knows where the bomb is. We torture him and he talks. Why the hell would he tell the truth? As soon as he says "It's in the Holland tunnel" the torture stops and we waste time going to the Holland tunnel while the real bomb ticks away on the Staten Island ferry. Since all he has to do to stop the torture is talk what incentive does he really have to tell the truth? And if the terrorists know he's been captured why would they not just detonate the bomb right then and there? A bomb exploded anywhere on US soil will do the trick, it doesn't have to be the White House.
PAD: Do you really believe if Hillary or Obama was in office, there was a ticking nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, and she had a prime suspect who could tell where it was, she or he would refuse to use waterboarding?
I think you've watched too many episodes of "24."
PAD
Yeah!... Next thing you know he'll be comparing it to a ridiculous senario involving jet planes and flying them into skyscrapers.
Just for clarity.... The Terrorists (Yes.Terrorists) are not drown during water boarding, they are put into a state of near drowning. A drown Terrorist, is a dead Terrorist and you cannot get info from a dead Terrorist.
I say, if it will save lives, do what you need to do to get info. Times have changed.
"I say, if it will save lives, do what you need to do to get info. Times have changed."
No, they haven't. History shows that there have almost always been people willing to do anything to kill everyone else not like themselves. That's what we have today. It's what just about every corner of the world has had to deal with at one time or another.
Which is a trick that works exactly one time, and that pony's been paraded around now, so everyon knows what it looks like. I'm firmly of the belief that such an attack cannot happen again...passengers won't let it, and once the air fleet goes GPS, the military won't let it, either.
Which is not to say that we should relax airport security efforts. We still have the safety of those passengers to worry about, so we don't have to decide to shoot down our own planes.
As for the ticking nuclear bomb scenario...yeah, it's far fetched. Making a nuclear bomb is not easy. Neither is setting one off. Transporting it is a trick, too. It requires a level of technical expertise that it's difficult to conduct in secret. And as I and others have pointed out, in the event one is shipped, deliverd, planted, and armed, it's not torture that's going to reveal the location. It'll be comprehensive data study.
Here's another thing that TV has mislead people on...court trials are not usually decided by witness testimony. Just about every study will show that first hand visual observance is highly unreliable. Flatly put, people's memory is bad, and it degrades significantly with even a slight passage of time. Given that, torturing information out of someone is subject to that same questionable quality. Even if what you get is the truth as the prisoner knows it, that still doesn't make it accurate. That's before you take into account that many operatives are taught to provide false, or old, information. The best you could hope to do is acquire information to check against other sources to look for similarities and patterns.
Bear this in mind...you're questioning your enemy. He has little incentive to help you, because to them, it's war, and they are ready and willing to die. Why you would trust anything they say under any circumstances defies logic.
I'm deeply suspicious of any arguments about whether torture really works or not, pro or against.
It's one of those issues that cause strong emotion and there is so much ideology involved. "It's so disgusting and horrible, then of course it must not work".
It's like sexual mores or abortion or gun control. I can imagine, without looking it up, which specific groups will present studies showing how gun control is good for crime prevention and which groups will present studies saying the very opposite.
Who can we believe?
I'll have a lot more respect for the guy who says: "Even if torture does work, we still shouldn't use it, because it's morally wrong."
Well, I don't really believe that governments or states are moral entities and for that reason I do my best to drown out or ignore any idea that "we shouldn't torture because it's wrong and we're the good guys so we should stand on higher ground". Of course I don't believe in more moral human beings or less human beings, strictly speaking. With the same strictness I believe different human beings are more or less scumbags and others have different qualities. So what makes an American better than a Terrorist is a philosophical issue that I am not going to fly down.
What's important is not that torture is morally wrong except under certain scenarios. We shouldn't torture people as rule 1 for the only reason that we don't have ends that justify those means. Rule 2, of course, in a civilized society is that there are some means which can be justified by certain ends (and some means that can never be justified by ends.... probably).
I think Rules 3 and 4 are more important than 1 and 2. Rule 3 is that you don't tell bad guys that you have ruled out stuff that you are going to do to them. Rule 4 is don't make it open what sort of interrogation tactics you have remaining in your Allowable Book, even through Process of Elimination.
Therefore.... rather than Sign a law disallowing a method of interrogation that you believe you (or one of your successors) may end up breaking in the future (the dumb-assiest approach to Constitutional Law)... it's better to make a policy of simply not doing the horrible thing as a general rule, and don't sign any laws that you intend to stick to which would send a signal to Horrible People as to what we refuse to do to them. NRO put it as thus: "First, we know that al-Qaeda operatives are trained to resist known questioning methods, so it makes no sense to help them by making our methods literally an open book."
"These uncontroversial facts make it difficult to understand why congressional Democrats want to hand our enemies the playbook — literally, an actual manual — that details the full menu of U.S. interrogation practices and ensures gentle treatment for captured jihadists. President Bush, to his credit, would rather keep al-Qaeda guessing. That necessity, and not torture or waterboarding, is the reason for the president’s sound veto Saturday of a bill that would have restricted intelligence interrogators to the tactics set forth in the Army Field Manual."
Besides that, the Bill was not only about water-boarding or torture, and if it was a bad bill to should Vetoed, regardless if there is something in it that I like or if the main thrust is unquestionably good.
Regardless of why Bush-43 vetoed the bill, he did the right thing.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3YmEwODc4ZjVhMWUxYTRhMTFiMWI0NzZlOGFmNmU=&w=MA==
I am against water-boarding, for what it's worth. But if the CIA or whoever does have a list of things we don't do to bad guys, I don't want to know what's on the list.
Pat Nolan: "Yeah!... Next thing you know he'll be comparing it to a ridiculous senario [sic] involving jet planes and flying them into skyscrapers."
If the 9/11 plot was to be stopped ahead of time, it would have been because the numerous clues from the months leading up to the attack had been recognized, evaluated and acted on. Not because we lucked out and found some guy with info on an attack we knew was going to happen soon but knew nothing else about. The ticking bomb scenario in all it's forms is the stuff of TV and movie thrillers ONLY.
Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one.
Pat Nolan: "Just for clarity.... The Terrorists (Yes.Terrorists) are not drown [sic] during water boarding, they are put into a state of near drowning."
Correct. They are not actually drowned as in "He drowned, He's dead." But they are being drowned. Water is being forced into their lungs and they are being drowned. That it is stopped before a lethal conclusion makes it no less of a drowning.
Pat Nolan: "I say, if it will save lives, do what you need to do to get info. Times have changed."
But people have not. And the nature and efficacy of torture have not. It is not an effective means for getting reliable information, especially under the "ticking bomb" scenario which advocates love to trot out so much.
For a lengthy discussion on this very topic, I respectfully direct your attention to this thread on Making Light. In which even people in the Armed Forces acknowledge that torture doesn't work, and the "ticking bomb" scenario is a bogus rationale.
Rene, I think you have totally hit the nail on the head. It's a bad argument to say that torture is wrong because it doesn't work.
For starters, I think it can be demonstrated repeatedly that torture does indeed work, especially in certain circumstances. Ironically, the ticking time bomb scenario most often used to justify torture is one of the least likely scenarios to yield good results, for reasons I and others have already mentioned. As a means of inducing fear and obedience among a population it's pretty good. As a way of getting people to give up accomplices it's great. Hell, some folks would sell out their won mother for a klondike bar. Just threaten someone's career and many will fold like a cheap suit; nobody had to pull out Elia Kazan's fingernails to get him to name names.
Secondly, suppose a new and improved method of torture was devised that would, with near 100% efficiency, get anyone to spill their guts anytime, a torture so hideous that they would not even dare lie to their interrogators for fear of repeating the experience. Would this in any way alter the morality of the technique's use?
Genocide isn't wrong because it doesn't work (there will always be a few Gypsies, Jews or Armenians who slip through the cracks after all). It's wrong because it's genocide.
Now someone can certainly ask whether if, God forbid, I were in a position where one of my kids was kidnapped and buried alive somewhere and I had one of the kidnappers at my mercy, would I entertain the notion of plunging broken glass rods into the fleshy parts of his anatomy until he decided to voluntarily do the right thing? Well, sure. But I have faith in my ability to not abuse such options. I have no such faith in anyone else. Nor should they have that faith in me. And I don't pretend that such actions would be ennobling or even morally defensible. I can understand how individuals may be driven to it but I don't want any faceless entity like a government feeling they have the option at the ready.
I really don't know why he didn't sign this bill. How many of us really think our security services respect all the laws of our country. To save face say one thing do another. Also we know that many terror cell are training there men to resist water boarding.
Simply put its usefulness is becoming more limited all the time and it would be a good sign to world if we stopped it. Always to lead by example in my mind.
I've heard the same arguments for torture before. In the mouth of Bigeard, Massu, Aussaresse, and many french soldiers who used it in Algeria. Ironically, some of them had had those same tactics used on them by the Nazis and/or the VietCong (although, at the time, it was called the VietMinh). If I remember well, the United States were pretty much against those methods. My take is that if it was wrong then, it is wrong now. If it was wrong for the French to do it, it is wrong for the United States to do it. And yes, it was wrong to do it then, regardless of what the other side was doing (and they were indeed doing very gruesome things. Philippeville comes to mind).
Captured French resistance, for example, felt free to blab after 24 hours of being in nazi custody because what they knew would have been worthless then. Having gone missing for that long, the resistance would have changed their plans.Actually, one of the main bits of info the nazis wanted was the identities of other resistors; information which would not change after 24 hours or 24 years for that matter. I seem to recall a recent official who was brought up on charges of having tortured some resistors and used the information obtained to capture and kill others.
Sure torture can work, especially against ordinary people (like those resisting an occupation). That isn't relevant. Lots of things work but unless one takes a strict utilitarian view of morality this should not be the guiding factor.
What I've said is relevant because the justification for torture has been framed by urgent life-or-death scenarios, and you haven't contradicted this. I'm saying terrorists can adjust their destructive plans if one of their key players is picked up, and you're example wasn't one of the imminent life-or-death scenarios cited to justify torture.
Mike: "What I've said is relevant because the justification for torture has been framed by urgent life-or-death scenarios, and you haven't contradicted this. I'm saying terrorists can adjust their destructive plans if one of their key players is picked up, and you're example wasn't one of the imminent life-or-death scenarios cited to justify torture.
But the life-and-death scenarios used to justify torture are bogus. They don't happen outside entertainment thrillers. I've yet to see anyone provide even one example of where a "ticking bomb" situation existed and torturing someone saved the day.
So framing the discussion by these scenarios, using them as a basis to justify allowing torture as standard operating procedure doesn't make sense.
Do you really believe if Hillary or Obama was in office, there was a ticking nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, and she had a prime suspect who could tell where it was, she or he would refuse to use waterboarding?
That classic hypothetical is as relevant as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The odds that there would ever be such a scenario with the perfect storm of elements to make the hypothetical a reality (a bomb successfully smuggled in, no one knowing about it until it was almost too late to do anything, somehow finding someone who absolutely knows the relevant details, us knowing for absolutely certain that he knew and yet despite knowing all that not knowing where the bomb was, etc) are too darn long to fathom. Using an extremely remote possibility to determine policy is, at best, ridiculous and very probably dangerous.
And even if torture is deemed "necessary" in such a scenario, it should never be condoned, let alone considered a noble act. Those involved would still need to be investigated and tried for crimes committed. They may be found innocent, but they still would need to face justice like any other person.
I do believe there is good reason to fear the government (Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal). I do think in most ways we have to take the moral high ground. But scaring someone into talking is a far cry from cutting off a limb or removing their fingernails.
Torture does not scare someone into talking, it coerces them to talk and say anything to have it stop. Waterboarding coerces talk and is de facto torture.
Waterboarding is simulated drowning. I would consider it a form of torture. But it is a radically different form than practiced by most dictators. It does not physically maim or harm the individual in the same way as other forms of torture. Does that mean I take it lightly? No. Should it be used in most cases? No. But I do think a moral argument can be made for its use in some extreme cases.
Enough people have commented that waterboarding is not simulated, but rather, controlled drowning so I won’t belabor the point. The one point I want to address is a position I’ve noticed many pro-waterboarders embrace: That waterboarding is somehow acceptable because it doesn’t “physically maim or harm” the subject.
The ultimate goal of torture is not to break the body but to break the spirit. Physical pain is one way of doing that, but you don’t have to physically hurt a person to crack his soul. The ability to inflict mental and spiritual pain without physically injuring someone doesn't mean it's not torture or more acceptable torture, it just means it's more clinical and efficient torture.
(And as an aside, thank you for conceding that waterboarding is, in fact, torture. If there is one thing that drives me nuts, it’s folk who claim to be against torture, but are completely for waterboarding on the premise that it isn’t torture – despite waterboarding being considered exactly that for literally centuries.)
In extreme circumstances, almost any abhorrent act can be argued for, but that does not mean that abhorrent acts should be given legal sanction just in case an extreme circumstance somehow arises.
The issue is what keeps it from being a tool that is abused? Good question. But I think there is far more reason to fear the Clinton's of the world than George W. Bush for abusing power.
W. has argued for and acquired the affirmed right for the President to arrest and detain anyone (citizen or foreigner) without cause or possibility of review and use “coercive interrogation” if he (or, presumably, his appointed proxies) deems a person to be an “enemy combatant.” Clinton has not ever suggested such a radical position. Why is she more dangerous?
Bottom line, this bill was a farce. The Dems knew it would be vetoed. If it really had the moral authority you claim, the veto would be overridden. The reality is it is a farce. I believe most of you on this site sincerely believe in your opposition. But I do not think that is true for most of the politicians. This is political gamesmanship done for show. Nothing more, nothing less.
What makes it a farce is that waterboarding is already, unequivocally, against the law as any plain, common sense reading of the US Code will tell you (TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113C § 2340) and that the Bush Administration needs to be reminded so bluntly. The fact that W. will still not take the hint (and the moral cowardice of the GOP in Congress who cannot/will not break the lockstep they have fallen into) makes this farce into a tragedy.
Posted by Bill Mulligan
Captured French resistance, for example, felt free to blab after 24 hours of being in nazi custody because what they knew would have been worthless then. Having gone missing for that long, the resistance would have changed their plans.
Actually, one of the main bits of info the nazis wanted was the identities of other resistors; information which would not change after 24 hours or 24 years for that matter. I seem to recall a recent official who was brought up on charges of having tortured some resistors and used the information obtained to capture and kill others.
Part of that 24 hours was to let the others whom he knew go under. And, in the *real* Resistance (Rather like the Dublin GPO in the Easter Rising, of which it's been said "Fifty men* marched in and five thousand heroes marched out," a lot of people - both at the time and later - *claimed* to have been in the Resistance. And at least some of *those* were, in fact, active collaborationists.), you might be abl;e to recognise the othe rmembers of your Action Group - but unless they were members of your immediate cell (generally five or fewer, i believe) you didn't know their names or addresses.
Posted by Sean D. Martin
Pat Nolan: "Just for clarity.... The Terrorists (Yes.Terrorists) are not drown [sic] during water boarding, they are put into a state of near drowning."
Correct. They are not actually drowned as in "He drowned, He's dead." But they are being drowned. Water is being forced into their lungs and they are being drowned. That it is stopped before a lethal conclusion makes it no less of a drowning.
Actually, the descriptions i have read indocate that they are, in fact, strapped head down, a plastic bag covers the mouth and nose, preventing breathing, and then water is poured over their faces, which gives the sensation of drowning.
The technique you describe would result in actual physical damage to the lungs - probably leading to pneumonia - which (at least, if you believe the waterboarding advocates) does not occur.
Posted by matt
I really don't know why he didn't sign this bill. How many of us really think our security services respect all the laws of our country. To save face say one thing do another. Also we know that many terror cell are training there men to resist water boarding.
Possibly because *someone* in the Current Ruling Junta in Washington DC is smart enough to foresee that someone might want to bring charges of one sort or another against the architects of our current brilliantly successful policies, and advised vetoing it so as to not give further ammunition for such charges.
*Or however many actually followed Connelly and his fellow Socialists.
One of the problems I have with torture is that with certain groups, when you torture them, you're giving them what they want. You're making them into martyrs. Also, in the increasingly-thought-to-be-crap time bomb scenario, you catch the Bad Guy. Threaten to torture the living crap out of him. The Bad Guy knows when the bomb is going to go off. He knows how long he has to hold out before the explosion.
mike weber: "Actually, the descriptions i have read indocate that they are, in fact, strapped head down, a plastic bag covers the mouth and nose, preventing breathing, and then water is poured over their faces, which gives the sensation of drowning."
Different than the descriptions I've read, but I certainly wouldn't argue that there might be more than one technique used.
_____________
In my case, the technique was so fast and professional that I didn't know what was happening until the water entered my nose and throat," Nance testified yesterday at a House oversight hearing on torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. "It then pushes down into the trachea and starts the process of respiratory degradation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html
Sean: "Also, in the increasingly-thought-to-be-crap [It actually is crap. - SDM] time bomb scenario, you catch the Bad Guy. Threaten to torture the living crap out of him. The Bad Guy knows when the bomb is going to go off. He knows how long he has to hold out before the explosion."
Exactly.
1 - The chain of events needed to have a viable "ticking bomb" scenario just don't happen. We'd have to find out about a plot too late to do anything about it, but happen to have (or get) someone who does know the details. We'd have to know enough to know the prisoner has the info we need, but not enough to know what that info is. It just doesn't happen outside books/TV/movies.
2 - Should the immensely improbable scenario occur, the person being questioned would only have to hold out for a brief period of time. And could easily declare all sorts of false answers ("The target is the Sears Tower!" when it's actually Met Life building.) that would send agents off on a wild goose chase while the clock ticks to 0.
Ticking Time Bomb Scenario - complete bogus. And beware those who use it to advocate for torture. They either are not thinking or are hiding their real motives.
Posted by Sean [sic] D. MartinCite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one.
Here's four:
1. First WTC bombing 1993
2. Oklahoma bombing 1995
3. U.S. Embassy bombings 1998
4. USS Cole bombing 2000
Pat Nolan: "
Here's four:
1. First WTC bombing 1993
2. Oklahoma bombing 1995
3. U.S. Embassy bombings 1998
4. USS Cole bombing 2000"
Seriously? Those were four suprise attacks, but hardly the "ticking bomb" situations we're talking about.
Are you saying we had someone in custody in the hours leading up to those incidents
- who knew about the imminent attacks
- who we knew had information about the imminent attacks and
- we would have been able to prevent the attacks if we'd tortured them for the info?
All four of those incidents were surprises. OK, there might have been some warning to the imminent attack on the Cole since they could see the boat coming. But even there who could we have possibly tortured to find out something that would have stopped the attack, what with the boat moments away from the Cole?
Pat, ticking bomb scenarios don't happen in the real world.
Pat Nolan: "Posted by Sean [sic] D. Martin"
And, yes, Pat. That is how may name is spelled.
Are you freakin' kidding me, Nolan? Are you taking us for simpletons?
You're completely ignoring what was asked:
I'll repeat the question:
"Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one."
And you give four examples where the terrorists attacked.
Not a single one of those played out like an episode of 24, where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and we managed to somehow justify torture.
It didn't happen in those instances, and it probably never will in any other potential future attack.
Your argument just jumped off a cliff.
my feelings are--do what ever you can to get what ever info you can to protect us.
Just as a pragmatic reason, I suspect that even if there are gains by using torture or similar methods against terrorism, the damage it does to the image of the US is far worse. Things like Guantanamo and the Iraq prison abuse are the best propaganda the terrorists could have hoped for.
Someone said that the CIA has probably used torture in secret since forever. So why has it become now such a big deal? I can imagine two reasons: Because it happens much more often, or because it is made known intentionally, for propaganda reasons. The second would be a very strange tactic, but nevertheless might have some psychological reasons. I'm going to totally speculate now, and am not sure if I seriously believe it, but I can imagine some psychological similarity to Ku Klux Klan lynchings being at work here: Something like keeping the black guys scared and showing them who's boss, even if the wrong one is hanged. Ignoring how ethically disgusting that is, in a brutally pragmatic way that sort of policy might, sadly, actually have produced results against the black population. But against terrorists, who are not a surpressed minority, but who's reason for violence is hurt national or religious pride in the first place?
Again, that was me totally speculating, and I admit I'm not American and shouldn't claim to know much about American psychology.
Anyway, I guess what's more important is that allowing torture is connected to getting rid of human rights and civil liberties. It has become fashionable to consider those things luxuries one just cannot afford anymore in our new harsh times. But I think those rights were introduced for very good reasons, and not because some tree-hugging do-gooders wanted to polish their halo. If you allow a government to abuse it's power, it will do that sooner or later. Maybe not this one, but the ones following. 9-11 was a very terrible thing, sure, but how many people died in WW2? What is so new about terrorism that one should give up the constitutional fundaments of a society?
And I think torture, in connection with the patriot act, provides a very real danger that this might happen. The problem is not so much that terrorists might be mistreated. It is that innocents might be suspected of being terrorists and imprisoned and tortured for years without legal procedure. That has already happened several times, if we can believe the news. For all I know, the CIA or whoever made honest mistakes here. But I'm very sure, if those things become standard procedure, even legal, they will be abused. First to cover their tracks to avoid bad publicity, then maybe to scare journalists they don't like, and then everyone who opposes them politically, and soon you have a reign of terror. Seems far fetched? Maybe, but after the first steps have been taken, maybe even without "evil" intentions, it might be to late to stop the ones who will be willing to abuse those kind of powers.
I'm aware of Godwin's law, but remember, Hitler had no problems in getting rid of the constitution and civil liberties because the german parliament building was burned down by a terrorist attack, and most people thought it a good thing to hunt down the communists everyone thought responsible (maybe even correctly, I think historians were never able to decide that) with all means necessary.
Captured French resistance, for example, felt free to blab after 24 hours of being in nazi custody because what they knew would have been worthless then. Having gone missing for that long, the resistance would have changed their plans.
Actually, one of the main bits of info the nazis wanted was the identities of other resistors; information which would not change after 24 hours or 24 years for that matter. I seem to recall a recent official who was brought up on charges of having tortured some resistors and used the information obtained to capture and kill others.
Sure torture can work, especially against ordinary people (like those resisting an occupation). That isn't relevant. Lots of things work but unless one takes a strict utilitarian view of morality this should not be the guiding factor.
What I've said is relevant because the justification for torture has been framed by urgent life-or-death scenarios, and you haven't contradicted this. I'm saying terrorists can adjust their destructive plans if one of their key players is picked up, and you're example wasn't one of the imminent life-or-death scenarios cited to justify torture.
But the life-and-death scenarios used to justify torture are bogus. They don't happen outside entertainment thrillers. I've yet to see anyone provide even one example of where a "ticking bomb" situation existed and torturing someone saved the day.
So framing the discussion by these scenarios, using them as a basis to justify allowing torture as standard operating procedure doesn't make sense.
As you can see from the thread of what's been discussed, when I responded to Bill with "you haven't contradicted this," "this" referred to "What I've said," not any "justification for torture." While you've pointed out the hypothetical scenarios have been bogus, I've pointed out torture is unwarranted even if that which we agree has been bogus were to play out in reality, so you have no apparent cause to challenge what I say.
If terrorists are competent enough to pull off even a suicide bombing, they are never, ever going to take the chance an agent taken captive won't give them away. If one of their agents taken knows anything, their first priority will be to take evasive maneuvers and cover their tracks -- and there goes your imminent danger. Therefore torture is always unjustified.
Are you freakin' kidding me, Nolan? Are you taking us for simpletons?
No Ries... I'm not freakin' kidding you. The question was asked and I,ll let you repeat it.
I'll repeat the question: "Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one."
Granted, Kiefer Sutherland wasn't there. An actual ticking clock wasn't played and there certainly weren't any commercial breaks.
Oh... I see, what you, and/or Mr Martin really meant to ask was:
"Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and we managed to somehow justify torture."
You know...Not all of "24" was about where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and they managed to somehow justify torture.
As a matter of fact, in the last dismal season (talk about torture) they actually managed to nuke LA.
So how about next time, Mr Martin, instead of spending your time pointing out my horrible spelling abilities, ask the FULL question your thinking, I dont read minds.
=== === ===
Posted by Sean D. Martin at March 10, 2008 02:13 PM
Dawn S.: "He made what I think was a valid point -- the CIA has most likely ALWAYS used torture in extreme cases (I'm talking rarely), we just never heard about it. I'm talking about past and present, not just the current moronic administration."
So what IS his (or your) point? Because it has been used in the past, we shouldn't condemn its use now?
=== === ===
Sean, Dawn said in her very next paragraph that she doesn't condone torture. Perhaps you missed it.
So, for all those who think torture is acceptable given the severity of the threat:
Should we let the police torture people? Do we put off that whole pesky Miranda law and give cops the leeway to go to town on a suspect? Do we allow certain amount of time based on the accused crime -- maybe 15 minutes to recover some money, an hour for a potential murdered, three hours to find a kidnapped person? And if the wrong person is tortured, do we just dust them off, put salve on their injuries, and offer them a "no harm, no foul" afterwards?
And if not, why let the government do what the police aren't allowed to do?
How nice of you, Pat, to change the argument to fit your 'facts'.
I say, if it will save lives, do what you need to do to get info. Times have changed.
Torture will never prevent imminent mortal danger to anyone's life. Such a notion has no fidelity to reality. It will never happen.
Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one.Granted, Kiefer Sutherland wasn't there. An actual ticking clock wasn't played and there certainly weren't any commercial breaks. Oh... I see, what you, and/or Mr Martin really meant to ask was:
"Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and we managed to somehow justify torture."
You know...Not all of "24" was about where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and they managed to somehow justify torture. As a matter of fact, in the last dismal season (talk about torture) they actually managed to nuke LA.
So how about next time, Mr Martin, instead of spending your time pointing out my horrible spelling abilities, ask the FULL question your thinking, I dont read minds.
What are you talking about? By your own admission, you can't answer neither Sean's literal question -- and you can't answer the question you fabricated for him. How is that anyone else's fault but yours?
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 10, 2008 11:19 PM
How nice of you, Pat, to change the argument to fit your 'facts'.
What in the Hell are you talking about, Craig?
I answered the question both times. You don't like the answer, thats fine, I can live with that.
How did i change what argument?
"I'll repeat the question: "Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one."
"Granted, Kiefer Sutherland wasn't there. An actual ticking clock wasn't played and there certainly weren't any commercial breaks.
Oh... I see, what you, and/or Mr Martin really meant to ask was:"
"Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and we managed to somehow justify torture."
"You know...Not all of "24" was about where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and they managed to somehow justify torture.
As a matter of fact, in the last dismal season (talk about torture) they actually managed to nuke LA."
_______________________________________________
"What in the Hell are you talking about, Craig?
I answered the question both times. You don't like the answer, thats fine, I can live with that.
How did i change what argument?"
Come on, Pat. You seriously have to ask? The scenario that was being discussed was the 24/ticking time bomb argument. You gave as "real world examples" of that scenario examples that aren't even close. You got called on that and then you said that they weren't really the ticking time bomb examples, weren't really the examples of the argument being made and then stated that they were basically still right because that's not the only storyline in 24.
Nope, nope and nope. The challenge at hand, in the context it was presented to you in, was to show a real world example of the ticking time bomb/we have the bomber and have to torture the location out of him example that is a favorite amongst the right wing talking pinheads. You gave bad examples that didn't come close to that. You didn't answer the question or, at best, you did so extremely poorly.
I'll repeat, for the last time:
"Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one."
Your response so far has been:
"As a matter of fact, in the last dismal season (talk about torture) they actually managed to nuke LA."
Last I checked, no terrorists have nuked the US. Nobody's been tortured to prevent a nuke from going off at the last second, etc, etc.
So, I guess then you have no examples after all?
Rene - "Who should we believe?"
How about professional interrogators who have gone public in stating torture simply doesn't work and is, at the very least, a waste of time and effort best otherwise spent?
As for those pointing out Japan used to do 'waterboarding'. No, no, no, you've got it all wrong.
Seen, when 'they' do it, it's 'bad'. When 'we' do it, it's 'good'. Same thing as when 'they' fingerprint visitors, or issue travel papers, or ... See it's 'bad' because 'they' did it and we could wag fingers at them. But now it's 'us' doing it, so it's 'good'. All a matter of perspective really.
Now excuse me while I go throw up in disgust.
My main problem is the continuing downward definition of "torture." I've never really had a Webster's-style definition, but to me, "torture" requires certain elements -- some or all of these:
1) Serious physical injury
2) Permanent or long-lasting psychological trauma
3) Maiming
It's a heavy-duty word, and the criteria for using it should be strict as hell.
Waterboarding, as I understand it, places the subject (OK, victim, if you prefer) in NO physical danger and causes NO injury. (I'm going with the "plastic over the face and water poured over it" version I've heard and seen.) It creates the sensation of drowning, triggering the normal reflex responses to drowning, but NO water enters the mouth and lungs. It's an express lane to primal terror that ends in seconds -- and it cannot be ignored or overcome through experience.
But in the end, the victim is utterly uninjured (although their upper body -- and undergarments) might be wet) and suffers no permanent damage or trauma.
I'll reserve "torture" to things such as actual torture. When we're talking about putting CIA interrogators on trial for doing their duty, I want a very clear, very precise definition on the books -- none of this "I don't like it, so it's bad and illegal" crap like we've had covering concepts like obscenity and pornography.
J.
Jay, the need for a good definition of torture is probably wise. Some of the things I've seen thrown around hardly qualify. In fact, by those standards virtually everyone in prison in most parts of the world are undergoing torture.
But I'd disagree that waterboarding, even if its the type that covers the face in plastic wrap and does not allow water to enter the body, does not result in trauma. Psychological tortures may leave the most long lasting wounds.
Scott, if it came down to the ticking time bomb scenario is there any doubt that someone would be willing to take the heat for breaking the rules and going all 24 on someone's ass?
Unfortunately, 24 may actually be encouraging interrogators to use harsher techniques than they ordinarily might. If it's done on television and it looks okay, then surely it can be done in real life.
First, we have the CSI effect creating havoc in the criminal justice system, and now 24 encourages soldiers and interrogators to torture. Is American society simply unable to discern the difference between reality and fantasy anymore?
Waterboarding, as I understand it, places the subject (OK, victim, if you prefer) in NO physical danger and causes NO injury.
Waterboarding is torture because the US prosecuted it as torture. It ain't Rocket Surgery.
Therefore torture is always unjustified.
I guess it comes down to one simple question about torture. I will preface that question with the comment that torture is presumably to obtain information, and not to "punish" an opponent, or teach their people a lesson or any such (because God help the USA if that's why we're doing it...)
Torture will obtain information from a victim - but why would ANYONE assume that it's intelligent information? I'm a man - not a brave or heroic one - and if I were being tortured, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have the guts to stay silent, and I'm just as certain that I would say ANYTHING, sign anything, to get the torture to stop.
So why would anybody think to use it to get valid intelligence? And if it's NOT used for that - why torture? Isn't that taking the LOWEST moral ground?
It's impeachment time. There's enough evidence, even without terminal stupidity and uncontrollable lust for power and money being impeachable offenses.
I remain,
Sincerely,
Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
I think torture is always bad, Starwolf.
Perhaps you misunderstand my point? My point was that it is a complete waste of time to argue about the effectiveness of torture. What truly matters is that it's morally wrong. Period.
I don't care one whit if torture works or not. Let's NOT use it, even if it works.
Forgive me if I'm cynical. Living in a society where everyone has an agenda and is ready to manipulate data in their favor does it to you. I find it hard to believe anyone anymore when a hot button issue is involved. Give them time, and I'm sure conservatives could find interrogation specialists that say that torture works. Or they can get some specialists to lie, whatever.
Rene, when you and Bill say to disregard the effectiveness of torture, you seem to treat the notion that torture can prevent an imminent attack as plausible. Is that what you had in mind? Because torture will never, ever prevent an imminent attack.
Craig,
By way of some explanation to last nights words, not an excuse but an explaination, I didnt realize you and Mr Martin were reiterating a fully asked question. I took the question from Mr. Martin at face value and ran. It wasnt until Jerry voiced his opposition that I went back and reread the whole thread and saw my error. So again, My apologies to you both.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 10, 2008 03:59 PM
Do you really believe if Hillary or Obama was in office, there was a ticking nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, and she had a prime suspect who could tell where it was, she or he would refuse to use waterboarding?I think you've watched too many episodes of "24."
PAD
Yeah!... Next thing you know he'll be comparing it to a ridiculous senario involving jet planes and flying them into skyscrapers.
...
Posted by Pat Nolan at March 10, 2008 10:24 PM
Granted, Kiefer Sutherland wasn't there. An actual ticking clock wasn't played...
So how about next time, Mr Martin, instead of spending your time pointing out my horrible spelling abilities, ask the FULL question your thinking, I dont read minds.
...
Posted by Pat Nolan at March 11, 2008 09:34 AM
I took the question from Mr. Martin at face value and ran. It wasnt until Jerry voiced his opposition that I went back and reread the whole thread and saw my error.
It doesn't sound like standing up too quickly will be good for you today, Pat.
My main problem is the continuing downward definition of "torture." I've never really had a Webster's-style definition, but to me, "torture" requires certain elements -- some or all of these:
1) Serious physical injury
2) Permanent or long-lasting psychological trauma
3) Maiming
It's a heavy-duty word, and the criteria for using it should be strict as hell.
One of my peeves is the insistence of many on the Right to redefine torture techniques (in this case waterboarding) as not torture.
I cited the relevant statute from the US Code earlier (TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113C § 2340), but for convenience I’ll quote the entire legal definition here:
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Waterboarding, as I understand it, places the subject (OK, victim, if you prefer) in NO physical danger and causes NO injury. (I'm going with the "plastic over the face and water poured over it" version I've heard and seen.) It creates the sensation of drowning, triggering the normal reflex responses to drowning, but NO water enters the mouth and lungs. It's an express lane to primal terror that ends in seconds -- and it cannot be ignored or overcome through experience.
I think you need to do more research. Waterboarding does place the subject in physical danger as careless administration could lead to asphyxia and brain damage or actual death by drowning. The procedure causes minute amounts water to trickle into the throat and nose, exacerbating the effect. (The most effective method calls for a small hole to be punched into the plastic wrap around the mouth. The water that drips in is aspirated directly into the lungs -- thanks to the vacuum the plastic creates.) The effect is profound and like any other torture technique, the victim suffers psychological trauma.
But in the end, the victim is utterly uninjured (although their upper body -- and undergarments) might be wet) and suffers no permanent damage or trauma.
Like I stated before and will state again, the ultimate goal of torture is not to break the body but to shatter the soul. The ability to inflict mental and spiritual pain without physically injuring someone doesn't mean it's not torture, it just means it's more clinical and efficient torture. The ability to not leave marks is just gravy. The lasting psychological trauma is profound and often leaves permanent scars. (Among testimony I’ve read about is a former POW who became a hydrophobe as a direct result of his experience – he is terrified of rain and cannot take showers even decades after his waterboarding.)
I'll reserve "torture" to things such as actual torture. When we're talking about putting CIA interrogators on trial for doing their duty, I want a very clear, very precise definition on the books -- none of this "I don't like it, so it's bad and illegal" crap like we've had covering concepts like obscenity and pornography.
Controlled drowning & asphyxia has been considered torture for centuries. A common sense reading of the statute as well as decades of legal precedent has determined that the technique of waterboarding is indeed torture. The U.S. Government has tried and convicted people and court-martialed soldiers for waterboarding for goodness sake. Why some people have suddenly decided it isn’t torture is a determination I leave to you.
Quite frankly, the entire question is backwards. I shouldn’t have to explain why waterboarding is torture; no one should – it’s been established as such over scores of years. Rather, those in favor of waterboarding need to explain to the rest of us why, after all this time, waterboarding is suddenly "not torture."
(Unless, of course, you agree it is torture, then my question to you is this: Do you believe that the US Government has the right to torture people when necessary and that no consequence should befall upon those individuals performing the procedures?)
my feelings are--do what ever you can to get what ever info you can to protect us.
And how far should you (or anyone, including the US government) be willing to go? For instance, would you sodomize a child if it would help our security?
NB: This, unfortunately, is not as extreme a hypothetical as it sounds. I've read about a case in Egypt (IIRC) where agents from the government, attempting to get intel on radicals, kidnapped and raped the innocent son of one of the suspects. They threatened to reveal what happened -- a very serious shame in Arab/Islamic culture -- to get the child to entrap another kid (who was given the same treatment) and spy on the cell for them. Needless to say, it ultimately didn’t end well for the two unwilling informants.
Posted by: Mike at March 11, 2008 10:35 AM
It doesn't sound like standing up too quickly will be good for you today, Pat.
Not real sure what your talking about but I'll just go with: I dont think I was speaking to you.
I suspect when Rene and I say that it is irrelevant whether torture is effective or not it means just what it says; it's irrelevant. That applies to "imminent" attacks (whatever that means--24 hours, 24 days, "imminent" has no definite time frame that I know of) or torture used to get information or used as a means of suppression, or whatever.
The advantage of this reasoning seems obvious--if one's opposition to torture depends on the belief that it is never ever effective there is always the risk that one day you will be proven wrong--the right interrogator uses the right methods on the right terrorist at the right time. Far too unlikely a convergence of circumstances to base policy on but it can't honestly be dismissed as an impossibility.
It doesn't matter. Some things are wrong even if they work, whether all the time or rarely.
"Now someone can certainly ask whether if, God forbid, I were in a position where one of my kids was kidnapped and buried alive somewhere and I had one of the kidnappers at my mercy, would I entertain the notion of plunging broken glass rods into the fleshy parts of his anatomy until he decided to voluntarily do the right thing? Well, sure."
There's a point to be made here: Much is forgiven if an act is taken out of self-defense. If a kidnapper says they've abducted a child, and left them somewhere, where in 2 hours high tide will come along and drown them, using extraordinary means to reveal that location could be seen as defense of another, and allowed under the law. This is the ticking time bomb scenario.
But note the difference: the threat has to be real, or at least percieved to be real, and it has to be imminent. Under a ticking time bomb scenario, torturing a regular person/common criminal could yeild reliable results.
But bear in mind that in most cases, this is not what is happening. We're torturuing people just to find out what they know...without having a specific, real or percieved real threat, and with imminency. It's a fishing expidition. We're not even certain that the guy is actually guilty of something.
dave: "my feelings are--do what ever you can to get what ever info you can to protect us."
Great. We'll be installing the monitoring devices on your phone, computer and in your house today. We'll be reading every piece of mail you send or receive (postal or e-), tracking every financial transaction and reviewing every item on your credit card statements.
And then you'll be perfectly safe.
Jay Tea: "Waterboarding, as I understand it, places the subject (OK, victim, if you prefer) in NO physical danger and causes NO injury. (I'm going with the "plastic over the face and water poured over it" version I've heard and seen.) It creates the sensation of drowning, triggering the normal reflex responses to drowning, but NO water enters the mouth and lungs. It's an express lane to primal terror that ends in seconds -- and it cannot be ignored or overcome through experience.
But in the end, the victim is utterly uninjured (although their upper body -- and undergarments) might be wet) and suffers no permanent damage or trauma."
Oh, boy. Where to begin.
There is, apparently a version of waterboarding such as you describe, where the mouth and nose are sealed and no water actually enters them. But waterboarding technique can also involve not sealing the breathing passages, and water does then enter the lungs. How nice of you, to force the facts to fit the conclusion you want, to just dismiss that particular fact.
Even without the trauma, the physical trauma, that this involves, there are significant psychological issues that can and often do result. Let's be real here, Jay. People have needed counseling after getting mugged or having their purses snatched. Incidents measured in seconds which were over before the victim even has a chance to realize what is happening. Do you really think having several people wrestle you onto a plank, strap you down, forcibly stop your breathing, and very likely do it several times is something the victim will just forget about the next day?
"Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
Pat Nolan: "Craig,
By way of some explanation to last nights words, not an excuse but an explaination, I didnt realize you and Mr Martin were reiterating a fully asked question. I took the question from Mr. Martin at face value and ran. It wasnt until Jerry voiced his opposition that I went back and reread the whole thread and saw my error. So again, My apologies to you both."
Fair enough. No hard feelings from my side.
Rene, when you and Bill say to disregard the effectiveness of torture, you seem to treat the notion that torture can prevent an imminent attack as plausible. Is that what you had in mind? Because torture will never, ever prevent an imminent attack.I suspect when Rene and I say that it is irrelevant whether torture is effective or not it means just what it says; it's irrelevant. That applies to "imminent" attacks (whatever that means--24 hours, 24 days, "imminent" has no definite time frame that I know of) or torture used to get information or used as a means of suppression, or whatever.
It's relevant in that weighing torture vs lives saved seems to literally qualify as an arbitrary call. You are rendering the issue irrelevant at your discretion.
Torture will never, ever prevent an imminent attack, and therefore allowing the issue to be settled at the privilege of anyone's discretion should never, ever be tolerated.
I dont think I was speaking to you.
Nothing I've said depends on you otherwise addressing me.
"There's a point to be made here: Much is forgiven if an act is taken out of self-defense. If a kidnapper says they've abducted a child, and left them somewhere, where in 2 hours high tide will come along and drown them, using extraordinary means to reveal that location could be seen as defense of another, and allowed under the law. This is the ticking time bomb scenario."
And if I were the bad guy, I'd lie like a cheap rug and make you flush those two hours away running to pointless locations.
I agree with Rene that the primary objection to torture is that it's morally bankrupt, but I also object to the ticking time bomb scenario because it's such a fallacy of logic.
If we've picked up someone who really is one of Al-Qaeda's important operatives then we've picked up a highly trained killer. These guys have trained in techniques that they've learned from the CIA, the U.S. & British militaries and the Russian Spetsnaz amongst others. Have you ever seen films of Al-Qaeda training their men? I have. They're not the amateur hour "rag-heads" that some would like to make them out to be. You're not going to break one of those guys in two hours, two days or likely even two weeks. If you're in a ticking time bomb scenario with one of them... *BOOM!!!*
If we pick up some Al-Qaeda wanna be, then we have a whole other problem. He may know exactly Jack and $&!^ and it's pretty good odds that Jack stayed home that day. But the interrogator doesn't know that. You can't determine whether you're getting honest denials of knowledge or confirmable information in two hours. Hell, you can't do that in two weeks. So you break some dumb wanna be who knows nothing and he tells you whatever he thinks you want to hear to stop the torture. Now you can go and waste manpower, time and other resources following up your "solid lead" while the real bomb/attack/incident happens miles away.
So what have we accomplished through torture? Well, we've shown that we as a nation don't care about laws unless we wanna whine about how we're being mistreated or our captured soldiers are being abused. We've shown that we'll do anything we want while using the same techniques and tactics that we condemn others for and push for U.N. sanctions or full scale invasions against them. We've also shown the world that Osama Bin Laden won his war with America as of 10:28 a.m. EST., September 11, 2001. He won because America and its people have have become so fearful, so terrorized, that Americans will do anything, justify anything and sacrifice even their most valued freedoms and beliefs to "be safe" from whatever threat may be out there. He won because ideas and actions that would have been seen as insanely stupid by the majority of Americans up until 8:45 a.m. EST. that day are now being seen as justified and vital by almost half of America.
Torture is morally wrong. It's not something that you can justify or excuse by claiming that it's ok if we do it because we're doing it for the right reasons. It's wrong no matter who does it.
It's also wrong because it and other "patriotic" steps and measures being taken by this President and supported by mindless, fearful sheeple sends a clear message to the OBLs of the world and to anyone else who once thought that America was a strong nation. It says that we're scared little children who can be cowed into doing the immoral, the self destructive and the unthinkable if you hurt us. Great message to send out to the world guys.
I once thought that we were better than that. I thought that we were better as a nation and as a people. Bush and his crew in the halls of power and the Scotts, Pat Nolans and others amongst "the common man" are doing a lot to convince me otherwise.
Dave W: "my feelings are--do what ever you can to get what ever info you can to protect us."
And my thoughts are that you're a complete idiot. Drop OBL a note and congratulate him on his victory over you.
Hell, why stop there? Drop Bush a note and ask him when you can sign up for The Bush Youth or some other group. Maybe you can get lucky and they'll even let you torture someone yourself as a bonus.
Rene - Sorry. Only the first part of my comment was aimed at you. The part replying to your query. The rest was aimed at people generally, but I see I didn't make that clear. This is part of the reason why PAD makes the decent bucks as a writer and I don't. ;-)
As for Torture being bad, period, you're right, of course. But, if it can be empirically shown to not work, then maybe more and more people can be convinced not to bother using it as being a waste of time. The trouble is, we'll still have two groups who will: sadists, and those who just want revenge. You;ll not deter them any time soon. Trick is to have those in authority make sure they never get to where they can cause harm.
Wow Mike.
Your stupidity and desire to argue with Bill Mulligan just keeps getting funnier. Bill and Rene are on the same side as you in the argument and yet you still have to find things to pull out of Bill's posts and argue with him over.
Bill and Rene (And me for that matter) are saying that torture is never good under any circumstance for moral reasons. It's not ok if you have all the time in the world to get the information and it's not ok if you've only got one hour because it doesn't change the morality of the act. by that standard, it's irrelevant if there's a ticking time bomb scenario or not because their (and my) answer to whether or not torture is justified will always be a resounding NO.
Can't you put away your odd little psychosis even just long enough to realize that you're attacking the really rather rational arguments of two guys who are on the same damned side of this debate as you.
Oh, wait, you're Mike. What was I thinking? Of course you can't. Silly me...
"And then you'll be perfectly safe."
Sean--you forgot to mention the sample taking.
Bill's scenario keeps running around in my head. Someone takes either my wife or my kid. Would I torture them? Would I beat the ever-loving snot out of them? Would I make them watch the videos I've edited? (SURELY that's against the Geneva Convention!) I might. I really might, I'll admit it. But look at all the cop movies and military movies and so on. There's always, as Fairly Odd Parents puts it, The Renegade Cop Who Doesn't Play By The Rules. Now, as many of those characters as I've written, in reality they WOULDN'T WORK. First off, you get someone that breaks the rules often enough, unless his name is either Kirk or McLean, they're either going to end up in jail, a psyche ward, or some other unsavory place. Maybe politics. Second, organizations like police departments or the military run ON rules. Get someone who breaks them often enough, the people they run into won't respect their authority and might take matters into their own hands, creating total anarchy. Everyone has to play by the rules, otherwise the rules are worthless. Torture's against the rules. It won't prevent an imminent attack, indeed, it might CAUSE one.
Alas, Jerry, did you expect anything else?
At least he's on the right side, even if it's for a weak reason. We can only hope that no instance of torture being used effectively to prevent an imminent threat ever surfaces; while you, myself and Rene would still oppose it, those who argue against it for purely pragmatic reasons may have to re-evaluate their moral stance, such as it is.
Posted by Eric L. Sofer
I'm a man - not a brave or heroic one - and if I were being tortured, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have the guts to stay silent, and I'm just as certain that I would say ANYTHING, sign anything, to get the torture to stop.
As Lenny Bruce said "Whoa, man - ask me anything you want to know! If I don't know anything, I'll make stuff up! Just don't give me that hot lead enema!!"
Posted by Sasha
The water that drips in is aspirated directly into the lungs -- thanks to the vacuum the plastic creates.
Sounds unlikely (though if it does actually happen, this may be another case of "practice trumps theory"), since there isn't any significant airflow to push it along, and, if the "plastic wrap" technique is in use, the head is lower than the chest, so gravity can't do it, either.
Whether or not, though, the technique is about a four on a scale that runs from playing Barry Manilow in your cell at high volume 24/7 at "one" to Lenny's hot lead enema at 10, and isn't something anyone who claims to be a Good Guy ought be doing...
Posted by Bill Mulligan
We can only hope that no instance of torture being used effectively to prevent an imminent threat ever surfaces; while you, myself and Rene would still oppose it, those who argue against it for purely pragmatic reasons may have to re-evaluate their moral stance, such as it is.
Well, actually, since at least one genuine example seems to exist from the current not-a-war in Iraq (Special Forces officer who used "forceful interrogation" to get info that foiled an attack. And was subsequently in danger of court-martial, though i don't know if that ever happened.), if you accept that "one counter-example invalidates the postulate", then such peoples' arguments *are* already Pretty Shaky, at least.
I accept both arguments against torture, myself:
(A) It *usually* doesn't work, and, even if you *do* get info, the info is (at the very least) suspect,
and,
(B) It's morally *wrong*, especially if you're trying to present yourself as the Good Guy.
Your stupidity and desire to argue with Bill Mulligan just keeps getting funnier. Bill and Rene are on the same side as you in the argument and yet you still have to find things to pull out of Bill's posts and argue with him over....
Can't you put away your odd little psychosis even just long enough to realize that you're attacking the really rather rational arguments of two guys who are on the same damned side of this debate as you.
Alas, Jerry, did you expect anything else?
Jerry, you and Bill haven't been responding to posts directed at you. I've been responding to posts directed at me.
I don't know you, and your inability to leave me alone demonstrates you are a police-brutality inquiry waiting to happen. Jesus Christ.
So again, My apologies to you both.
At this risk of merely echoing Sean's response:
Fair enough, Pat. :)
The water that drips in is aspirated directly into the lungs -- thanks to the vacuum the plastic creates.
Sounds unlikely (though if it does actually happen, this may be another case of "practice trumps theory"), since there isn't any significant airflow to push it along, and, if the "plastic wrap" technique is in use, the head is lower than the chest, so gravity can't do it, either.
The water slowly draws up courtesy of suction. Apparently, only a tiny amount of liquid is necessary to acheive the effect. The plastic wrap technique is simply more effective in getting the subject to suck in water.
For interest, there's a post from the Straight Dope website by someone who apparently self-waterboarded himself (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717) to determine for himself whether or not it was torture. Although he offers no physical evidence (pictures, video, etc.), the description concurs with what I've read elsewhere about the technique so I'm inclined to believe him.
"And if I were the bad guy, I'd lie like a cheap rug and make you flush those two hours away running to pointless locations."
With a trained terrorist/soldier, that's probably what happens. But with a kidnapper...admitedly a bad guy...facing abuse at the hands of concerned parent who acts as those killing the kidnapper isn't beyond him...that might elicit a truthful response. The difference being that the terrorist usually won't kind being killed, while the kidnapper might actually still care about staying alive, and rather whole.
Which is exactly why we generally don't allow the families of victims to be in close proximity to the accused/convicted. Because I've got a very strong feeling...God forbid... that if I ever was presented with the opportunity to enact revenge upon someone that had taken one of my children away from me, I would, as much as I was able to.
Hey bobb, can you look at this?
http://jjchandler.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/and-this-is-why-my-job-sucks/
Micha threw your name out as someone who might be a good idea man here. Sucks #2 is the problem.
Thanks.
The main issue that most arguments over torture dance around, but rarely lands on, is the presumption of guilt. Every hypothetical says something along the lines of "You have a terrorist in custody" instead of the usually more accurate "You have a person you think might be a terrorist in custody." This isn't a simple semantic distinction, but a very important one.
Would you (torture/waterboarding supporter) support the use of waterboarding on a person that may in fact be a completely innocent bystander? That, in my opinion, is the core question that needs to be asked.
I dunno if there's much to be done. Since the states closed all the Mental Health Hospitals/Institutions, there's really not much the state can do for folks like this. If this guy's family could be tracked down, you could probably get a court to declare him incompetant and appoint a legal guardian. But I don't know where the funds to pay for his care would come from.
Posted by: Dustin Westfall
Would you (torture/waterboarding supporter) support the use of waterboarding on a person that may in fact be a completely innocent bystander? That, in my opinion, is the core question that needs to be asked.
But, see, we never torture anyone who's innocent - they all confess!
Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VIII and Edward VI (one of the three commemorated by the Martyrs' Monument in Oxford*; Latimer and Rdiley** were the other two.), recanted his Protestantism under torture during Bloody Mary's campaign against "heretics".
According to Wikipedia:
According to John Foxe, on 21 March 1556, Cranmer was brought in procession to St. Mary’s Church in Oxford, where he was to make a public statement affirming his recantation. Instead, Cranmer withdrew his recantation and denounced Catholic doctrine and the pope from the pulpit, reportedly stating, "And as for the Pope, I refuse him, as Christ's enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine." After this Cranmer was taken to be burned at the stake. According to Foxe's Book of Martyrs:*Which is right across the street from the "Eagle and Child" (or "Bird and Baby"), the pub where Tolkien, Lewis and their fellow Inklings met, BTW.Then was an iron chain tied about Cranmer and fire set unto him. When the wood was kindled and the fire began to burn near him, he stretched forth his right hand, which had signed his recantation, into the flames, and there held it so the people might see it burnt to a coal before his body was touched.
**As in, "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
But, see, we never torture anyone who's innocent - they all confess!
Indeed. A classic Soviet joke:
One nasty morning Comrade Stalin discovered that his favorite pipe was missing. Naturally, he called in his henchman, Lavrenti Beria, and instructed him to find the pipe. A few hours later, Stalin found it in his desk and called off the search. "But, Comrade Stalin," stammered Beria, "five suspects have already confessed to stealing it."
Jerry, if your jay-walker is autistic, he's not perceiving his environment conventionally. It might be worthwhile to devote some time to discern what he's actually interacting with and finding a way to provide him an alternative.
If your jay-walker is something like Parkinsonian, his condition may be framed in terms of "will." Parkinson's is conventionally considered a deficit of "will," like the frozen woman in the book and the film version of "Awakenings" who borrowed the will to walk forward from crumpled paper balls she dropped in front of her. Maybe your jay-walker is borrowing his very will to move forward from something like the painted line in the middle of the road. He may not consider sitting frozen as a statue all day an acceptable alternative behavior.
Hi.
If you are looking to make a little extra cash in your spare time, I need 3 people to help me with some online projects.