home

On Torture: The Will Of The People

Responding to Reuel Marc Gerecht's defense of his pro-torture position, Kevin Drum writes:

Sadly, I suspect that Gerecht is right: if torture had been put to a vote back in 2001, it would have passed. The language would have been prettied up, of course, but the intention would have been clear enough and the public would have approved. Even today, I'm pretty sure that a majority of Americans are basically OK with torture as long as it's mostly kept out of sight and they can go about their business.

Drum begs the question - since no such vote took place, torture remained illegal. And of course, if an open vote was held - torture could not have been "kept out of sight." The United States would have had to opt out of the UN Convention on Torture and repeal its codification of the Convention. Would we as a people have approved of this when forced to say "we approve of torture?" I do not know, but the illegality, indeed, the criminality, of what occurred remains manifest. In our names. The stain will never be removed.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | SEC Dropped The Ball On Madoff >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    it wasn't just after 9/11 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jen M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    Thirty years ago we were running into people that thought torture was ok. As long as it was done to communists.  

    I blame it on John Wayne but it could have gone back farther than that.

    More like 60 years ago... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    ...see the Dulles brothers, Allen and John Foster, in the Eisenhower administration.

    Parent
    I'm not convinced (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:34:57 AM EST
    legislation legalizing torture would've passed.  Does Gerecht honestly think the international community wouldn't have flipped their lids?  The memos authorizing it were kept secret for a few reasons but one is certainly because I don't think it has large-scale public approval, when looked at for too long.  

    Of course, Gerecht's hypothetical is as worthless as the rest of his scary hypotheticals.  If Bush had engaged in a "public discussion" on torture we would be looking at an entirely different Presidency altogether.  In reality, we have an Administration that pursued in secret and despite a lack of intelligence war in Iraq.  

    And again, TORTURE DOES NOT WORK.

    the international community (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Jen M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:36:46 AM EST
    has already flipped their lids before Iraq and after. Like we cared.

    Remember freedom fries?

    Parent

    Does not work, and, according (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    to Jane Mayer, U.S., before adopting these methods, was aware the methods were not effective for obtaining accurate information.  

    Parent
    This fact was (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BernieO on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:34:34 AM EST
    not made clear. The media rarely brought it up or had experts on to explain why torture leads to bogus info. The fact that a key piece of the bogus information that led us to war was obtained through torture has been glossed over in the MSM. Had the problems with torure been emphasized in the media, maybe the public would not have been so accepting of it. Maybe.

    Parent
    Though the facts of torture were- (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:38:48 PM EST
    glossed over in the media, the leadership was told on day one that torture does not having a  working track record.  They chose to ignore that point.

    Parent
    Right torture is only tolerable when out of sight (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    Public opinion turned against the Vietnam war (the "television war"), in no small measure, because moving images of the atrocities were being beamed into every living room on a daily basis. Consequently, after Vietnam, journalists would never again possess the same freedom of movement in a war zone.

    Ronald Reagan imposed some brazen restrictions on the press during the 1983 Grenada invasion. However, Bush/Cheney have taken press restrictions to unprecedented levels, beginning with the practice of "embedding" an already compliant press corps with the troops in Iraq. To this day, we see virtually nothing of Iraqi civilian casualties compared to the Vietnam era. A steady stream of images like this and this can end a war.

    The complicity of the press helped keep the Abu Ghraib photos from public view and still we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. So, let's see the rest of those Abu Ghraib pictures on TV, night after night during dinner; let's see uncensored video of Iraqi civilian casualties, especially the children; lets see US casualties in the field; let's see the caskets of the returning war dead.

    Most importantly, let's see the videotapes of the detainee interrogations. Then, and only then, will the American public completely lose its stomach for torture and demand a decisive and immediate end to the practice.

    Parent

    Foxhole... this response alerting (none / 0) (#83)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    you to more responses to your request last night for political films based on real life events...

    Parent
    Thanks, I'm on it... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 04:13:21 PM EST
    I'll check the thread regularly till it goes dormant.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:32:58 PM EST
    Ronald Reagan imposed some brazen restrictions on the press during the 1983 Grenada invasion. However, Bush/Cheney have taken press restrictions to unprecedented levels, beginning with the practice of "embedding" an already compliant press corps with the troops in Iraq.

    Let me see. Reagan kept them out, Bush brought them in and you condemn both. Are you running a fever with that BDS?

    Parent

    Both approaches are equally problematic in (none / 0) (#112)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:55:06 PM EST
    that the end result is a press corps that is not free to report on events in an unencumbered fashion. If that point eludes you, please take it up elsewhere.

    You have already made 32 comments here today, and that exceeds what Jeralyn considers a reasonable limit; even for comments that aren't overtly belligerent toward others. Over and out.

    Parent

    We are having a discussion (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:31:25 PM EST
    You don't have to join.

    Parent
    I Wonder About What the Will of the ... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by santarita on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:38:14 AM EST
    People really is on the issue of torture.

    If you ask the question in a certain way, won't you get different responses?  Most of the time the question is phrased will some variant of:  Is it ok to torture terrorists to get information that will prevent an imminent attack?  Knee-jerk response in the affirmative would be anticipated.

    How about if the question is posed as: Is it ok to torture people that we think might be terrorists but may just be innocent bystanders?  Or, Is it ok to torture people who may be terrorists if the information that may prevent an attack or may lead us down a false road and waste valuable time?  Or, Is it ok to torture people who may be terrorists if it is violation of treaty obligations?

    In the MSM the torture question is usually posed in a way that eliminates the thorny issues.  Posing the question in this fashion  pretty much determines the answer for many.  Determining the will of the people on the various aspects of the question may provide a different result.

    Torture would've passed (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    Have we all forgotten the mood post 9/11?  Come on, of course, depending on the verbiage (assuming it would be worded in quite cowardly and played down language), this kind of thing would've passed easily post 9/11.  Easily.  90% of Americans believe in heaven and hell, or some percentage close to that.  A country that grounded in puritanism would have no problem making metaphor literal (i.e., the virtually impossible ticking time bomb scenario made into marketed fear).  We are a puritan nation at heart, one easily tempted by false absolutes.  Maybe not as bad as other places, but still, for a nation purporting to be the most free on earth, we are grounded in religous fundamentalism.  And let's remember, the reason there aren't really any puritans left in Europe (our original "homeland") is because a long, long time ago they all got onto boats and sailed right here and founded a country.

    "founded a country" and brought (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:03:30 PM EST
    righteous torture with them.

    Salem (and other) witch trials...torture by the legal authorities to achieve confessions or pleadings and hanged a bunch, crushed one man to death.

    Parent

    Which (none / 0) (#65)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    is why the founders so clearly pushed for a check on the will of the people, a sepatation between those in power and the mob- and why the obsession with having leaders "just like us" is so unforgvably stupid.

    Parent
    Worse Than Worthless (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:07:44 PM EST
    George W. Bush defended harsh interrogations by pointing to intelligence breakthroughs, but a surprising number of counterterrorist officials say that, apart from being wrong, torture just doesn't work. Delving into two high-profile cases, the author exposes the tactical costs of prisoner abuse.

    [...]

    Officials who analyzed Abu Zubaydah's interrogation reports say that the reports were afforded the highest value within the Bush administration not because of the many American lives they were going to save but because they could be cited repeatedly against those who doubted the wisdom of ousting Saddam by force.

    [...]

    I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls "enhanced techniques"?

    "I'm really reluctant to answer that," Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: "I don't believe that has been the case."

    David Rose, Vanity Fair via war & piece

    You quote a journalist (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:38:25 PM EST
    I quote an actual agent..

    In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds....."The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."

    "From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

    ABC News




    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:34:46 PM EST
    Mueller was the head of the FBI,  not a journalist. In case your mind wandered while reading my comment above I will requote Mueller:

    I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls "enhanced techniques"?

    "I'm really reluctant to answer that," Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: "I don't believe that has been the case."

    Did you speak to Agent Kiriakou directly? Guess not since your comment is also a quote from Agent Kiriakou quoted by a journalist.

    Better increase your dose of ginko balboa, perhaps it will help your concentration and ability to think.


    Parent

    No, it was ffrom an (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:42:43 PM EST
    ABC News TV interview. My quote was from the transcript.

    If you want to say ABC faked it all please do so.

    Parent

    Trouble Staying Focused? (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    Here is the cliff not version:

    Your claim:

    You quote a journalist
    I quote an actual agent..

    My reply:

    Mueller was the head of the FBI,  not a journalist.

    Now that that is all cleared up, I would add that a statement by the head of the FBI trumps an agent who makes a vague and unsubstantiated claim.

    Parent

    Do you always fail to understand? (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:41:41 PM EST
    If used, the link will connect you to an ABC News site where you can read the actual words and see pictures (I'll see if I can also get crayons for you.) of the real sure enough CIA officer who did the waterboarding.

    If you want to claim he is lying and ABC News made it all up, please do so.

    Now, look back through the above and I am sure I misspelled something for you to blather about and try to change the focus.

    Parent

    An agent in that Vanity Fair piece (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    said that all Zabudayah told them under torture was what he thought they wanted to hear. It was all worthless lies.  They did not tell the analyst that it was obtained via torture.

    Parent
    You can use the link and see what (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:42:47 PM EST
    the CIA officer says. BION.

    Parent
    There's a (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by OldCity on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:13:56 PM EST
    reason the phrase "tyranny of the majority" exists.  

    The British, during the infamous Operation Demitrius tortured or, as they put it, "interrogated in depth" any number of Irish Republicans or suspected Irish Republicans.  Some say that internment was the best recruitment tool the IRA ever had.

    The fact tht Aemricans are so blind to history, not just our own, but world history, and the fact that we are so willing to compromise our principles in this volatile era is troubling.  

    Real patriotism is living up to the values on which the country was founded.    

    The "people" (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:29:54 PM EST
    Approve of a lot of stupid stuff, there's a reason the founders feared direct democracy/ rule of the mob, heck if we went by "the people" we wouldn't have a first amendment, the 4th would probably have to go as well and cruel and unusual punishment, ha?! This is a country that viewed a lynching as a family outing well into the 20th century so forgive me if I don't have too much faith in "the people".

    The rules for torture should be quite (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:36:45 PM EST
    simple. Anyone guilty of torturing a suspect, for any reason, should serve a prison term for the crime, no matter what the outcome.
    Because surely if it is worth torturing someone to save 10,000 lives, it's worth spending 20 years of your own life in prison,right?


    I wonder if you actually believe (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:46:18 PM EST
    we should punish someone who has saved, in your words, 10,000 lives.

    Yes, there are people such as you.

    Parent

    I believe that practicing torture (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:40:43 PM EST
    is a cost in itself, regardless of any hopeful outcome; therefore, anyone who tortures needs to be willing to pay the cost for debasing the foundations of our civilization.


    Parent
    I understand you believe that (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:31:41 PM EST
    On the other hand I object to terrorists acting in a  guerilla war fashion attacking people because they are not of the same sect, or not Muslims.

    I'm just funny like that.

    Parent

    I'm sure you're the last person to (none / 0) (#114)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 07:21:25 PM EST
    realize that your argument is identical in rhetorical structure to the arguments for the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003.

    Parent
    TOV, I get the impression that (none / 0) (#115)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 07:33:32 PM EST
    the person you're replying to probably thinks the Iraw War was/is a good thing. i.e. a pro Bush/Cheney Republican at heart.

    Parent
    Obviously.. I'm just pointing out (none / 0) (#116)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 07:39:38 PM EST
    that he has no original thought.

    Parent
    Agreed, that would have to be true (none / 0) (#118)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 07:53:34 PM EST
    by definition. Clearly this commenter is totally at odds with the progressive editorial stance of TL. So, why does s/he come here spewing belligerence and running amok on every thread, day after day? Is that what "trolling" means? To be fair, maybe there have been some reasonable and progressive-minded comments that I've not seen.

    Parent
    Please be accurate (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:40:12 PM EST
    I have not commented on "every" thread.

    I am not a Leftie nor am I a Conservative, and have supported many "liberal" positions over the almost 6 years I have commented here.

    Your problem is that I am pro national defense and think that Bush did the right thing based on the information he had at the time.

    I also think we made several strategic errors after the invasion.

    Perhaps if all you want is an echo chamber you should speak into a drum.

    Parent

    So based on Bush knowing that (none / 0) (#129)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:44:25 PM EST
    Iraq had no WMD, on knowing that Iraq had no nuclear program in particular, on knowing that Saddam was willing to cede power and leave the country---based on those pieces of information we know that the White House possessed in 2002-03, the invasion as strategically correct?
    wow.

    Parent
    No, we don't know that (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:10:45 PM EST
    But if you have some links that actually prove it, I am open to reading them.

    Parent
    Except for the offer of surrender, which (none / 0) (#143)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:45:11 PM EST
    I've only read about once or twice, the others are well-documented and obvious.
    Since US troops were not equipt with protection against chemical weapons, we know that intelligence had ruled them out, for one.
    Anyway, this is beside the point, which is your immoral and illogical stance on torture.
    You want to torture people, but not too far---even if that torture is not effective. The  reason? Because you feel  safer. What an idiot.

    Parent
    If you can't prove it, you can't (2.00 / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:47:25 AM EST
    prove it.

    And I don't believe it.

    Parent

    With apologies to Shakespeare... (2.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:24:57 AM EST
    To torture or not to torture? That is the question. I mean we all know that only the evil ones of the world torture. And torture is immoral. Right?

    Oh, really?? Let me pose a scenario to you. This afternoon you drive over to your local shopping center to shop. As you get out of your car you see an elderly lady walking towards her car one row over. You can also see two young thugs semi crouched between two cars, obviously waiting to mug her. As you start to move, one of the thugs sees you and makes a threatening gesture. Do you yell at her? Run at the thugs? Honk your horn? Dial 911? Or stand frozen in place, watching them jump out, grab her purse, knock her down and dash off leaving her dazed and injured on the pavement.

    If you chose to do nothing, I submit that you have just committed an immoral act. You have committed a sin of omission. We are our brother's keeper.

    If you knew a prisoner had information that would save lives, would you agree that it would be okay to aid questioning him by depriving him of sleep, playing loud music, insulting his cultural mores, exposing him to temperature extremes...?

    If you knew a prisoner had information that would save thousands of lives would you agree that pouring water down his nose to make him talk is okay?

    The Left in particular, and some fuzzy headed Republicans are currently bent out of shape over waterboarding. I'm not.

    This is purely an issue that must be decided in context. We elect people to do such things. To tell them that they can't do all they think is necessary is just dumb.

    What is even dumber is the claim that if we don't take extreme measures, others won't. There is not one shred of evidence that proves that. In fact, all the available evidence shows the opposite.

    What is dumber still is the claim that such information cannot not be used because the prisoner will say anything he thinks the questioner wants to hear. That is nonsense. Coerced information can, and has been, vetted for years by comparing it to information known to be true and various other techniques.

    And what is torture? I do not think the above methods are torture. But even if you do, you must recognize that sometimes things must be done to save others.

    How we do that, how we authorize it and control it are valid questions and should be addressed.  But blanket denial is ridiculous.

    There you go (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:29:01 AM EST
    Fantasyland.  The ticking time bomb scenario.  "You know the prisoner has information that saves thousands of lives."  No matter how many actual interrogators explain that this never happens in the real world, people like you will never stop clinging to it.

    Parent
    the other part (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Jen M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:35:05 AM EST
    of the "ticking time bomb" nonsense is the short amount of time supposedly left. All the guy has to do is lie. Once. By the time you find out its a lie... bomb done blown.

    Parent
    I did not advance any (2.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    ticking time bomb scenario.

    That you do so to try and reframe the discussion is a typical response from those on the Left who do not want to have a reasoned debate on the various moral issues.

    Parent

    Oh (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:14:10 AM EST
    You "know the prisoner has information that will save thousands of lives."  But there's no ticking time bomb!  Ah, reasoned debate.

    Parent
    No, that is called context. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    Without context thousands of actions. etc., cannot be judged, or discussed.

    And I refer you to the last paragraph in my comment.

    Parent

    Well then (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:52:59 PM EST
    explain to me the real-world context in which you would "know the prisoner has information that would save thousands of lives."

    I mean, if you don't care whether the situation actually arises in the real world, we can play this game all day, like "would you shoot a child in the head if it was the only way to prevent a city from being destroyed?"  And I guess if someone says yes then you could take the next step and say "aha, so we both agree that it's sometimes necessary to shoot a child in the head, now we're only arguing about context!"  But in reality it's a pointless argument because the situation never occurs in the real world.

    Obviously you have in mind some hypothetical scenario which does not involve a ticking time bomb, but where we know that torturing a prisoner will save thousands of lives nonetheless.  So tell us what it is.

    Parent

    Precisely. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by JamesTX on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:14:00 PM EST
    It has been the strategy of the conservative movement in general to use extraordinary hypothetical scenarios to justify dismantling of individual rights, always with the full knowledge and foresight that the powers would be routinely used in situations not even approximating those circumstances.

    Parent
    Well, this is not a theoretical (none / 0) (#54)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:17:31 PM EST
    discussion about theoretical possibilities.. if you get my meaning. When the ideology of Catholicism held sway over Europe, arguments about saving a man's soul by killing and/or torturing him were considered perfectly legitimate.  

    Parent
    And I don't think they (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    were discussing such things as loud noises, temperature extremes, insulting cultural mores, sleep deprivation and/or waterboarding.

    If you get my drift.

    Parent

    I get your drift---you're a monster. (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:06:09 PM EST
    This Is Less For Your Benefit (none / 0) (#117)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 07:41:26 PM EST
    jimaka, because I know you can't be bothered with those nasty little things called facts, but for the benefit of others, I inlude the following link to autopsy reports of those who have been torture../er, I mean, interregated in the war against terror:
    http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/
    I hope it helps to shine a light on our immoral treatment of other human beings, who haven't even been formally charged with a crime.

    Look, the USA can pretty well do whatever they damn well please. But please don't hold yourself up as:

    1. a Christian Nation, when you engage in activities totally antithetical to the teachings of Christ, and
    2. a Shining Bastion of Morality and Ethics.

    You're not kidding anyone except yourself!

    Parent
    In the spirit of not letting you (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:17:46 PM EST
    upset me by your willful not reading what I wrote, I will note that nothing I wrote in my comment this AM, No. 6 in this thread, would yield this.

    I think you understand that.

    So your intent here is not to debate, but shock and make false claims so as to bolster your position.

    Please do so. But don't believe that people can't see right through you.

    Parent

    Sorry, missed yours (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    I could list hundreds of scenarios and all you would do is pick at them with such silly things as shooting a child in the head.

    The premise is simple. You have a prisoner that you know has information that, if you can get it, will save lives. The prisoner refuses to cooperate.

    I maintain it is then morally wrong for you to not take the actions I described in my original comment in an attempt to get that information and save lives.

    I also again note the last paragraph of my originl comment.

    Parent

    List one (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:34:29 PM EST
    Against the weight of many professional interrogators who have said that the ticking time bomb scenario doesn't happen in the real world, you insist that you can envision hundreds of scenarios that don't involve a ticking time bomb but are exactly the same in that "you know this prisoner has information that will save lives."

    Tell us what that scenario is.  The professional interrogators are in agreement that it doesn't exist.

    Parent

    Please note that I did not suggest a (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:30:49 PM EST
    ticking time bomb scenario.

    That you do so to try and reframe the discussion is a typical response from those on the Left who do not want to have a reasoned debate on the various moral issues.

    Parent

    Right, you are proposing a broader (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:49:27 PM EST
    use of torture, under conditions which include the ticking time bomb scenario.
    What's your point again?

    Parent
    Okay. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:19:24 PM EST
    You find out someone is HIV+.  You know they have a history of promiscuous, unprotected sex. You know they may have infected other people.  You insist they provide of a list of their sexual partners.  They refuse.

    Now, by your logic, that person has information that could "save lives" and torture is now justified to obtain that information.

    Isn't that right?

    Parent

    Psst.. don't post that on Redstate-- (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:23:49 PM EST
    they'll think it's a brilliant idea.
    It goes further, of course. A friend of the person may know some of the names, but refuse to talk, for his own reasons. That person would need to be tortured, as well.
    And of course, if waterboarding or sleep deprivation don't work, you really need to start cutting of toes and fingers; otherwise, what's the point?

    Parent
    Not at all (2.00 / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    Dead is dead. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:25:18 PM EST
    Does it really matter if it was an gun, a bomb, a drug, a disease, contaminated food, lack of food, poor maintenance & safety practices?

    Does it really matter if it is on the battlefield, in a mine, in a hospital, in a gulag, on a highway?

    Are some deaths more significant than others?

    If there is such a thing as "innocent victims" then do you believe there is such a thing as "guilty victims" as well?

    Parent

    That's because (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by cenobite on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    Having a "reasoned debate" on torture is ludicrous.

    Torture is wrong, period, end of discussion. There is no justification for it, and "debating" it gives it a false air of legitimacy.

    What's next, a "reasoned debate" on genocide?


    Parent

    Your extreme position (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:27:34 PM EST
    is typical, but it doesn't address my first moral position.

    If you know that your actions can save lives, then your failure is a sin of omission.

    Is it your right to let others die because you don't want to do something?

    Parent

    What is it the wingnuts say? (none / 0) (#62)
    by cenobite on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    "Freedom isn't free"?

    Yes, we must accept some risks, tiny as they are, to be free americans.


    Parent

    That worked quite well (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:13:41 PM EST
    before the radical Muslim terrorists made us targets.

    Parent
    Oh come now (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by cenobite on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:46:43 PM EST
    A bunch of goatherds living in caves is more dangerous than having 6000 or so nuclear missiles on a hair trigger pointed at us by the Soviet Union?

    Get a grip, please.


    Parent

    Those wingnuts supported a strategy called (2.00 / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:50:57 PM EST
    Mutually Assured Destruction - MAD - that worked quite well preventing nuclear war. There is no similar strategy against guerrillas.

    Parent
    I saw that movie (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    Here you are taking up space (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    in the comments section again.

    Parent
    Life is cruel, eh? (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:01:00 AM EST
    But let me assure that my reasoned comments are not meant to torture or teach you, the latter being impossible.

    Parent
    Your reasoned comments---where? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    The real problem with the ticking time bomb scenario is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON is a potential ticking time bomb, and unless you torture them---according to your "reasoning"---you won't  know what kind of threat they possess.
    Torture actually works, btw: it is a necessary mechanism of the totalitarian state. It's also a key ingredient in many very silly works of fiction.


    Parent
    Please read carefully (2.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    Nowhere did I advance a "ticking time bomb" scenario.

    Please see my response to Squeaky.

    Parent

    You have reading comprehension (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    problems---with your own posts.

    Parent
    Well, guess we'll just have to do the old (2.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    quote trick.

    If you knew a prisoner had information that would save lives, would you agree that it would be okay to aid questioning him by depriving him of sleep, playing loud music, insulting his cultural mores, exposing him to temperature extremes...?

    If you knew a prisoner had information that would save thousands of lives would you agree that pouring water down his nose to make him talk is okay?

    Show me the ticking time bomb scenario.

    Parent

    I like to think... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:36:22 AM EST
    I'd get involved and stop those muggers...and if I did so before they actually struck the woman I'd be more than willing to stand up for my actions in a court of law, and if the jury found that I acted too soon and punished me I could live with it.

    That's the difference...I'd make these CIA motherf*ckers stand in a court of law and defend their torturous actions and let a jury decide.

    Parent

    Difference (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CST on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    There is a wide range of things in between "doing nothing" and "torture".  Now, I am sure you would chase after them, try and get the purse back, maybe even throw a punch to "subdue" the suspect.  I doubt you would waterboard them though to find out where they were keeping all the other purses.  Cops are allowed to use force to "apprehend" a suspect (within limits).  They are not allowed to torture them after they've been apprehended.

    Parent
    Who knows... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    unless it happens, but if I saw some dude beating on an old lady I might go beyond simply subduing them...I might go overboard and pound the sh*t out of him.  Rip his n*ts off.

    But I'd totally expect to possibly be charged with assault.  And I could live with that.

    Parent

    That happened to a guy I knew (none / 0) (#34)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    This guy is an ex-marine, and he subdued another guy escaping from a crime ( I don't remember what) by force, and was charged and convicted with assault. He wasn't too happy about that.


    Parent
    Ha ha, I know this police officer (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:44:51 PM EST
    who was having a fling with this wild crazy married girl.  She got mad at him about something I long forgot, ran his fence over with her truck, ran into his house and started beating the snot out of him.  He handcuffed her to something and ran to call "the police" and he ended up getting charged for restraining her :)

    Parent
    Self Defense (none / 0) (#64)
    by CST on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:48:48 PM EST
    You can't restrain someone in self defense???  I sure didn't know that...

    Parent
    He used his police handcuffs (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    I guess in a nonprofessional not at work way......I don't know.  I do know his bosses were not all that happy with him having the fling so perhaps that had something to do with his troubles :)  She was a crazy girl though, you would have to be crazy to go there :)  And he lost a perfectly good fence to boot :)

    Parent
    Of course... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    I wouldn't be thrilled either in the old lady/mugger scenario...but I'd still do the same all over again knowing the consequences, and my conscience/heart/soul would demand nothing less.

    Parent
    No offense (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    But if I was on a jury where you ripped a guys n*ts off for stealing a purse, no matter whose purse, I would probably convict you...

    But I would definitely let you off for what they find in your pocket when arrested :)

    Also, assault is not torture, illegal, but not torture.  It may not be the legal definition, but for me, in order for it to be torture, and not just a fight, the person you are abusing must already be in custody of some kind and unable to properly defend themselves.  

    I don't know you personally, but I have a sneaking suspision you might take the cuffs off before beating the cr@p out of the purse-snatcher, you seem like someone who likes a fair fight.  Torture is not a fair fight.

    Parent

    You've got me pegged... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    CST, I couldn't harm a defenseless person no matter what they'd done.  

    And I've had only one physical altercation in my adult life...I'm a lover, not a fighter:)

    Parent

    That's why you got "pegged" ;-) (none / 0) (#73)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:02:59 PM EST
    My example was provided (2.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    to show that a lack of action can be a sin. A sin of omission. It wasn't comparing it to anything else.

    Parent
    My point was (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:54:15 PM EST
    There is a wide range of options in between "lack of action" and "torture".  I think it is perfectly reasonable to say one must act, while also saying, one must not torture.

    Parent
    I would agree that you have that (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    right, and that there is a wide range, as you noted.

    You should also note that I do not consider the actions described in my first comment to be "torture."

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    We certainly disagree about what constitutes torture.


    Parent
    You have the right to be wrong. (2.00 / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:56:01 PM EST
    You don't have the right to your (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:07:36 PM EST
    own definitions.You propose legalizing torture, according to  existing law, and yet you repeatedly deny doing so.
    If you would write "I support torturing captives to extract vital information", it would create a better debate, because you wouldn't be wasting time denying facts.

    Parent
    Well then, I guess you won't be (none / 0) (#81)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:54:21 PM EST
    filing any complaints when some government (including ours) does it to you.

    Parent
    I remind you of what I wrote (2.00 / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:56:43 PM EST
    How we do that, how we authorize it and control it are valid questions and should be addressed.  But blanket denial is ridiculous.



    Parent
    Uh huh. Rules for Torture. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    Riiiight.

    It is Pandora's Box.

    It is a mistake to think that torture can be controlled.

    Parent

    Your true colors (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:28:17 PM EST
    I understand the Left is reluctant to discuss issues and trust them to the people.

    This you prove again.

    But interrogation can be controlled.

    Parent

    Never reluctant to discuss issues. (none / 0) (#135)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:44:57 PM EST
    Spent my lfe doing that!

    As for 'trusting the people,' it depends on the people.  I'm with Ronald Reagan:  "Trust but verify!"

    Sorry, Jim.  When you are older, you will learn that very little in life involving human beings can be controlled.

    Do you have children?

    Parent

    I am most likely older than you. (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:38:54 PM EST
    And if you believe in debate, I withdraw my snark.

    I confess that my view may have been influenced by others..

    ;-)

    But I still say the use of extreme interrogation tactics can be controlled.

    Note that my comment is specific.

    Parent

    Your comments on torture are (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:49:53 PM EST
    vague,hypothetical and worthless.
    You cannot offer one example in which torture provided crucial information, under your "scenario", yet there are countless examples of torture providing misleading information, as in the run-up to the Iraq war.

    Parent
    Believe? No. I'm not a (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:22:55 AM EST
    believerperson.

    I do, however, have a 2nd-place trophy from high school from the state debate tournament in 1954.  (Those lst-place boys from O'Dea were murder).

    So, you're older than that?  I'll be 73 this year.  You?

    Parent

    Seattle?! (none / 0) (#146)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:26:16 AM EST
    Right state, (none / 0) (#149)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:20:14 AM EST
    wrong city (for me).  O'Dea, yup...Seattle.

    Parent
    I did a little debate in (none / 0) (#150)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:27:51 AM EST
    h.s in the 70s.. O'Dea was still a big name.

    Parent
    Big talkers, those Catholic boys! (none / 0) (#151)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:31:33 AM EST
    Yeah, like Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan, (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:44:01 AM EST
    and the late Tim Russert to name a few.

    Parent
    Yout got me by two years (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:04:50 PM EST
    A contest I am glad to lose...

    ;-)

    Parent

    Thought so. (none / 0) (#164)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    I'll be pulling rank at every opportunity and insist that you respect your elders as your mother no doubt taught you, coming from 'that generation.'

    At your age, though, I suppose it's unlikely I could threaten to call her when you get out of line.  

    FYI..."Don't make me call your Mom!" is my final word in any argument when I am just about to blow my Irish stack.  Works on most people over 40...none under 30!

    What does that tell you?

    Parent

    It tells me (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:39:56 PM EST
    that we are in a world of hurt..

    And you could call my Mom. She is 93 and still lives by herself. Sharp as a tack and plenty feisty.

    BTW - Lived in Seattle for 4 years in the 80's then moved to Denver... took me weeks to figure out what that round orange thing in the sky was.

    And I know 50 year old's that are older than me, and I suspect, you. If you know what I mean.

    Parent

    People under 30 (none / 0) (#165)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:11:35 PM EST
    Rebel against our parents to their faces?

    Maybe if you tried Grandma... she still thinks we're sweet and innocent :)

    Parent

    Doubt it...not unless Grandma (none / 0) (#171)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:07:24 PM EST
    has Alzheimers or only sees you once a year or less.

    Most grandmas I know are exasperated or fed up with their own children's 'parenting' of the ME generation.

    I'm hoping you are the exception and that your Grandma is right...I know some exceptions but far too few...

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:44:23 PM EST
    I hope I am an exception.  Although I think as a whole we will redeem ourselves in other ways.

    To be honest, I am already worried about the next generation of over-protected little kids whose parents won't let them trick or treat or skin their knees.

    I had to ask my mom not to help me network for a job, just b/c I want to avoid the "over-parented" stigma whenever possible in the worforce.

    Parent

    I have no doubt that you would (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    and I like to think I would.

    And I closed my comment with this.

    How we do that, how we authorize it and control it are valid questions and should be addressed.  But blanket denial is ridiculous.

    Aren't those the questions?

    Parent

    Why not boil dangerous people (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:20:58 AM EST
    in oil? If we boiled every dangerous person in oil, then there would be no possibility of any terrorist acts. Only a moral coward would back away from the Uzbekistan option, don't you agree?

    Parent
    No, I don't agree (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    and here again we see a member of the Left trying to reframe the question.

    The situation I defined is that "if you knew."

    Parent

    Ah, so you are ok with boiling (none / 0) (#46)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:45:56 PM EST
    people in oil if we know they pose a threat?
    It's rare that such a moral coward as yourself displays any courage of conviction.
    Bravo.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:48:04 PM EST
    Nope, I am not for boiling people in oil. But be advised that after that snarky comment and personal attack we might have a discussion as to your status.

    ;-)

    And I think it is you that is the coward. You want protection but aren't willing to step up and admit that my premise is right.

    I think hypocrite applies.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    So not supporting torture (none / 0) (#87)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    constitutes hypocrisy. You're an amazing piece of work.

    Parent
    Wanting protection (2.00 / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:52:47 PM EST
    and not supporting what it takes to do same is hypocritical.

    Parent
    ah, like the way you will not (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:55:45 PM EST
    support boiling people in oil.
    Your faux squeamishness is really quite odd.
    You propose making torture the law of the land, because that's "what it takes" to prevent terrorism (of course, you're just making that up), but you won't take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, which certainly is that any kind of torture is allowable to prevent acts of terrorism.

    Parent
    Your density (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:23:14 PM EST
    is exceeded only by certain rare metals.

    Go back and read my comment, No.6 in this thread, and you will see that I spelled out what I thought was reasonable extreme interrogation techniques that could be used in certain situations and under tight control.

    Your attempt to claim that I propose "boiling in oil" or other unstated means is inaccurate, and I think you know it is and done only to try and spread false information.

    Parent

    You know, I'm not afraid to call someone (none / 0) (#130)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:48:33 PM EST
    stupid, when it's appropriate, and it's appropriate now. You totally misapprehended my point.You spoke of an echo chamber? Yes, that is where you are commenting: reading only your own comments, and responding only to what you imagine is written.


    Parent
    I am not surprised at your attack (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:07:40 PM EST
    because I won't buy into your claims. My points were laid out in some detail yet you and others claim that I:

    1. Was using the ticking time bomb scenario.

    2. Advocated torture such as boiling in oil, shooting.

    And when I don't agree that my proposal would not lead to harsher actions you have the audacity to call me stupid.

    I see that you practice, "Insult'em when I can't beat philsophy."

    Congratulations.

    Parent

    Actually you're just lying now. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:02:47 AM EST
    1)You're using a variant of the ticking time bomb scenario. Except for the dubious rhetorical benefit you derive from claiming that your scenario is misrepresented, you have shown no material difference. As I said in another comment, you envision using torture in a broader range of circumstances than the ticking time bomb scenario; how this helps your position is mystifying.

    2) I said that if you held consistent beliefs, you would advocating any method of torture---for example, boiling people in oil---if that's what it takes to save lives.
    Again, it's quite stupefying that you cling to this "limited" vision of torture. What if waterboarding doesn't get the answer? What is the benefit of restraint, to this point, and no further?
    If you're going to show moral restraint, I suggest the line be drawn before torture.

    3) Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are torture---period. Your argument is weakened by insisting that they are not.

    Parent

    I see that you continue in your personal attack (2.00 / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    But I am a more mature, honest and intelligent person than you. And because of that, I will seek to educate you.

    Now. Put on your thinking cap.

    There are thousands of actions and beliefs that people hold that stop at some point.

    People believe that murders should be punished, but no executed.

    People believe that those violating the tenets and rules of their Church should be dismissed, but not harmed.

    Now, do you catch on? Do you see how ignorant your claim is that I must believe in the rack because I believe in the extreme interrogation techniques I listed?

    Now, lesson number two.

    I put no time frame on my scenarios. For you to claim otherwise when what I wrote is right there in front of you, and after it has been pointed out to you several times is ridiculous. But keep digging.

    I invite you to read the international treaty on torture we signed. Pay special attention to the word "severe."

    Parent

    Lying again. (none / 0) (#159)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:54:41 AM EST
    I explicitly allowed that you are not using the ticking time bomb scenario,exactly, but something similar which includes it.


    Parent
    Gesh (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:34:05 PM EST
    Let me get this straight.

    I have not used any time frame in my comment, yet you claim I have and am lying.

    Do they let you out of the building very often?

    BTW - Calling someone a liar is a serious charge and considered to be a personal attack. I urge you to cease doing so.

    Parent

    I suggest you stop lying. You have (none / 0) (#170)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    done it several times in this thread.

    Parent
    Please read and ubnderstand. (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:47:05 PM EST
    Disagreeing with someone's position is one thing.

    Calling someone a liar is a no-no.

    I again ask that you refrain from such.

    Parent

    Reading Problems? (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:53:06 PM EST
    No one called you a liar. The commenter accused you of lying.

    If you do not know the difference you need help.

    Parent

    I see you remain in form (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:14:31 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.



    Parent
    addendum: (none / 0) (#148)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:13:12 AM EST
    It's hard not to read
    Why not boil dangerous people (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:20:58 AM EST

    in oil? If we boiled every dangerous person in oil, then there would be no possibility of any terrorist acts. Only a moral coward would back away from the Uzbekistan option, don't you agree?

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]
    No, I don't agree (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:42:55 PM EST

    and here again we see a member of the Left trying to reframe the question.
    The situation I defined is that "if you knew."

    as supporting boiling people in oil "if we know" there is information that might lead to saving 10,000 people---but have it your way.  I already accepted in  another comment that your views on  torture are inconsistent and illogical, and moved on. You can too.


    Parent

    The rule should be... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:06:03 PM EST
    no torture of any kind under any circumstances...up to and including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other forms of psychological torture.

    Then, like all rules, there may come a time and place when it is righteous to break the rules.  At that point, the torturer and his/her superiors would have to defend their actions in a court of law.  If it really is an unlikely "ticking time bomb" scenario, no jury will convict.  Just like no jury would convict you or I from proactively preventing a violent crime.

    It's not perfect, but I think its the best we can do.

    Parent

    Some concepts are just lame . . . (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by wurman on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    "If you knew a prisoner had information that would save thousands of lives would you agree that pouring water down his nose to make him talk is okay?"

    Whatever led me to know that some "prisoner had information" would also mean I know the sources of knowing that the prisoner has such "information." I don't need the prisoner's statements.

    It would be essential to act upon the original source(s).  If some form of information caused me to believe or think on Sept. 10, 2001 that "jimakaPPJ" knew 3,000+ people would be killed on Sept. 11, it might make some sense to round up "jim" & ask questions, but my real focus would be to discover where the first lead came from & why the source knew what "jim" knew.

    If I had enough data to trust that the snitching out of "jim" was accurate, then my task would be to delve into that, rather than skipping ahead to the next, & more tenuous, link in the chain of knowledge & waste energy torturing "jim."

    In literal, historical facts Bu$h xliii had a briefing read to him on Aug. 6, 2001, stating that bin Laden was "determined to strike."

    CNN reported:

    The names of countries that supplied the CIA with intelligence have been removed from the memo dealing with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and dated August 6, 2001.

    "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to secure the release of 'Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists," the memo says in part.

    As we now know, Bu$h did nothing.  The FBI, using the same level of understanding as "jimakaPPJ," went looking for the people & entities who the sources asserted had knowledge of this impending disaster (ticking bomb!).

    The intelligent action(s)would have been to track back to the countries that fed the initial ideas to the FBI.  Instead, our teams decided to get some silly Muslim mullahs & waterboard them.  The smart & logical approach would have been to sit down with the intelligence sources in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, & Pakistan (who were from the countries redacted in the version of the report made public) & find out how they knew this information about bin Laden.

    Parent

    Oh, please. Get serious. (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:28:51 PM EST
    "If you knew a prisoner had information that would save thousands of lives would you agree that pouring water down his nose to make him talk is okay?"

    Whatever led me to know that some "prisoner had information" would also mean I know the sources of knowing that the prisoner has such "information." I don't need the prisoner's statements.

    It would be essential to act upon the original source(s).

    Uh, the original source happens to be an organization called al-Qaida. And while we are trying to act upon them they aren't a nation state that we can define and attack. That's why MAD worked with Soviets but but not with the terrorists.

    If some form of information caused me to believe or think on Sept. 10, 2001 that "jimakaPPJ" knew 3,000+ people would be killed on Sept. 11, it might make some sense to round up "jim" & ask questions, but my real focus would be to discover where the first lead came from & why the source knew what "jim" knew.

    If I had enough data to trust that the snitching out of "jim" was accurate, then my task would be to delve into that, rather than skipping ahead to the next, & more tenuous, link in the chain of knowledge & waste energy torturing "jim."

    I notice you want to get into the ticking time bomb scenario. For at least the tenth time, my comments do not address that. What you posit is why. You can have a million and discuss them endlessly.

    In literal, historical facts Bu$h xliii had a briefing read to him on Aug. 6, 2001, stating that bin Laden was "determined to strike."

    Actually, you are 32 days late. As Rice said:

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Link

    And actually, "Bush" had been "looking" for quite a while.

    RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

    CLARKE: All of that's correct.

    Link

    BTW When you write:

    Instead, our teams decided to get some silly Muslim mullahs & waterboard them

    Are you claiming this was before 9/11 and is factual, or is it a "scenario?"

    If it is a scenario I note that you are again back in the ticking time bomb scenario, something I have not addressed in my comments so I feel no need to defend them.

    Parent

    Your example is the "essence" of (none / 0) (#163)
    by wurman on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:19:23 PM EST
    the ticking bomb scenario; it's literally how the people who discuss this define the scenario. "I notice you want to get into the ticking time bomb scenario. For at least the tenth time, my comments do not address that."  Jim, your comment IS THAT.  It's the verbatim definition of it. For example: I know that George W. Bush has information as to who authorized waterboarding by US authorities, so it's imperative that the Senate Judiciary Committee pour water down his nose to find out who actually violated the Geneva Accords.

    The original sources of information about the plan to fly aircraft into buildings was NOT al Quaeda (please try to read & comprehend the basic documents); the sources were the intelligence services of other nations.  The presidential daily briefing that was made public & became notorious to the world is dated & was delivered on Aug 6, exactly as I referenced.  Your quotations are tedious after-the-fact, historical blather about totally different topics.

    The ability to think logically & rationally seems to escape you (just as it is beyond the skill levels of any Bu$hInc types).  Clarke's stuff is interesting, but not on the topic.  Al Quaeda was not the source of info.; they were the group which the info. was about.

    How's this: if some snitch tells me that Jim is going to contract for a murder, I would "squeeze" the ratfink & follow Jim around for a while & see if he does something.

    But, apparently, you & members of the current administration would (& did) choose to grab Jim & torture him.  Or, more accurately, grab Jim's neighbor & torture him.  Real smart, hunh?

    Parent

    Good grief (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:00:26 PM EST
    Jim, your comment IS THAT.

    wurman, I didn't write so it isn't my comment. The use of extreme interrogation tactics has nothing to do with time. It has everything to do with obtaining important information that will save lives.

    In fact, waiting until an attack is imminent before you do all things possible to obtain needed information makes the extreme measures largely ineffective because you do not have time to vet the results.

    And I have seen none of the documents you keep referring to. Provide some links.

    And read what Rice said.

    Historical?? The meeting was on July 5, 2000 32 days before the PDB you love to swoon over.  Here, I'll make it easy for you.

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Link

    So Bush's NSA has told the FBI, Secret Service, FAA. Customs, Coast Guard and Immigration that the CIA says we are going to be attacked and to take special measures.

    Now, why did Bush even need the PDB? Heck, he would have been the one to tell Rice to do the briefing!

    Go back read Clarke's comments. He said Bush kept everything Clinton had going and increased resources 5 times starting a few days after he took office.

    Parent

    SecState Rice simply lied. (none / 0) (#177)
    by wurman on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM EST
    From your links.

    Q: Dr. Rice -- and that speaks to my last question. It was clear that he'd been demoted. And so can you see why people outside the process would look like -- that might look like terrorism was less of a priority since you demoted the terrorism guy.

    DR. RICE: He wasn't demoted. We had a different organizational structure.

    The Fox Noise interviewer asked a blunt, point blank question about Clarke's demotion which was widely known.  Rice simply contradicted him.

    Jim, that entire interview is a sequnce of lies about Clarke, his book, & his "60 Minutes" interview.  Dr. Rice fabricates her entire series of responses.

    Clarke was dismissed, & you know it.

    Her description of the so-called July 5, 2000, meeting is a fabrication, right up there with weapons of mass destruction, aluminum tubes, & the Easter Bunny.  As long as you read & believe this drivel, you can't discuss the problem.  Back at the time, before the Libby trial, there may have been a very small justification to at least pay attention to Dr. Rice; but now--she's merely another lying shill for Bu$hInc who we know just makes up the krapola & catapults the propaganda.

    "If you knew a prisoner had information that would save thousands of lives would you agree that pouring water down his nose to make him talk is okay?"-----Jim, this is a direct quote from your initial comment referring to Shakespeare.  And it is still & will always be the essence of the ticking bomb syndrome.  Don't go Condoleeza Rice on me & pretend you didn't keystroke what you did, in fact, write in your comment.

    Parent

    Too much TV (none / 0) (#1)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    Sad to say, but I still think the majority of American's are fine with torture. I wonder if the tables start to turn around and it's our people being tortured (or held in prison for years without charges) how they'd feel. We entered into these treatees because they were the moral thing to do and they were to protect our own people also.

    I'm also really diappointed the the Christian Right hasn't been vocal against this practice.

    Gerecht writes (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 09:52:09 AM EST
    As I've written before, I'm strongly opposed to rendition. Would that the Clinton and the Bush administrations--especially the Bush administration--had started a public discussion of what we do with holy warriors who live to slaughter thousands.

    WTF?

    Does he understand what the word "opposes" means?  No one could ever read his NYT article and get that impression.

    These people just p*ss me off endlessly.  

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:13:01 AM EST
    He's "opposed" in the sense that he doesn't think we should render people to be tortured, we should just have a public vote and then torture them ourselves.

    Parent
    Xactly (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    He is against outsourcing.

    Parent
    I missed that (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:05:12 AM EST
    What is torture? (none / 0) (#14)
    by abdiel on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:52:30 AM EST
    The issue here isn't whether torture is illegal or not - it absolutely is.  That people think it's okay is irrelevant unless, like BTD said, it is put to a vote to make it legal.  Not even the Bush Administration is trying to argue that torture is legal.  

    But the question is what constitutes torture?  That the Bush Administration asked the question might be morally disgusting but it's a legitimate question, to ask where the legal line is and how far they can go in applying pressure for information.  In fact, Obama is probably asking the same question himself and his answer probably won't be as far from Bush's as you might like.

    It was criminal in the past (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    We executed Japanese prisoneers for the very thing we now call "enhanced interrogation". We could define torture then, what's changed? Changing the name doesn't change the action.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    you refer to waterboarding.

    And I believe there was more than just waterboarding involved.

    I invite you to prove me incorrect.

    Parent

    If you make the claim (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    then you show your proof...

    But your link proves nothing. I have never commented that I thought waterboarding was not very uncomfortable, I just don't think it is torture.

    And your link addresses only that portion. I believe there were many more issues.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    So we court-martialed our own soldiers for the practice of waterboarding, in multiple wars, why exactly?  For fun?  Because the Greatest Generation was squeamish and we are real men?

    Parent
    Dark Avenger (none / 0) (#120)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:02:01 PM EST
    PLEASE save your breath, or in this case, your fingers and time. No matter how well documented, no matter how flawless your arguement, if Christ Himself came down and testified on your behalf, our friend jimaka won't believe it. He can't be bothered by a little thing called the facts.
    It's all just "pearls before swine" my friend.

    Parent
    CDN Citizen (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:15:11 PM EST
    Save your breath, this is a loooooong time pastime round these parts. Been going on for years.

    Dark Avenger has undertaken the task of disinfecting the effluvial sputum regularly emitted from ppj's portal.

    Parent

    "Effluvial Sputum" (none / 0) (#124)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:25:18 PM EST
    Oh Squeaky, I simply love your command of the English Language!

    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:20:18 PM EST
    You shouldn't be nasty. Some of us keep records.

    Let's address your view of things.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    Why indeed?

    Parent

    I never said they weren't (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:33:07 PM EST
    My response was to a comment that we had executed some Japanese for it.

    My point was if they had been executed it was for more than waterboarding.

    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:16:41 PM EST
    The point was never disputed that the Japanese in question was put in prison.

    The point was that the other commentator claimed that we had put him/them to death for waterboarding.

    1. I said I was unaware of an execution for waterboarding.

    2. And if there was an execution, I suspected it was for more than waterboarding.

    Now. If you have information proving the above, let's have it.

    But there is no need to prove a point that is not in  dispute.

    Parent

    Since you came in late (2.00 / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:44:57 AM EST
    Go back and read comment No. 6.

    That was, is and will be what I wrote.

    My response re the Japanese was solely that I didn't think he had been executed for waterboarding.

    What you have done is prove what is not in dispute.

    Now you understand why many times I just ignore you.

    Parent

    You were about 7 hours late from (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    my original comment.

    My point remains. You are trying to prove something that isn't in dispute.

    Your nastiness is typical and why I have banned you from my blog.

    yadda yadda and goodbye

    Parent

    and gee I hope you stay gone (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:02:01 PM EST
    Who Says The Stain Will Never Be Removed? (none / 0) (#15)
    by john horse on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:53:30 AM EST
    Try Whitewash.  Its guaranteed to cover up those unsightly stains.  Void where prohibited by law or morality.  

    I wonder where our potus-elect (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    stands on water-boarding, specifically.

    I would like to know (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jen M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:14:11 PM EST
    too.

    Parent
    Here (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    From the NYTimes


    Parent
    Well, that seems pretty straight forward. (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    Good statement (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:59:55 PM EST
    Hope we can hold him to it. I wish the election cycle had been less about the economy and more about these issues.

    Parent
    I wish the election cycle (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:03:07 PM EST
    had been more about economic solutions.

    Parent
    Obama said that in October, 2007 (none / 0) (#85)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:03:42 PM EST
    To his credit when he condemned the use of "torture", at that time, he specifically named:
    "so called 'enhanced interrogation' techniques; like water boarding, head slapping, and extreme temperatures".

    He was far less specific in his post election interview with 60 Minutes, where he failed to say how he would define "torture" at this point in time and going forward as POTUS.  

    Parent

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    Is it possible his now daily AM threat assessment briefings have given him pause...

    Parent
    Doubtful. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 09:09:13 PM EST
    I think the problem is that the CIA is just a huge mess in every way and they are trying to figure out how to fix old programs, implement new ones, and send a message about our policies internationally.

    AP

    Parent

    I don't understand how that relates (none / 0) (#158)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    to Obama being
    far less specific in his post election interview with 60 Minutes, where he failed to say how he would define "torture" at this point in time and going forward as POTUS.


    Parent
    Indeed, one wonders... (none / 0) (#90)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:22:44 PM EST
    Although, I don't think Obama is even getting "threat assessment briefings" as President-Elect is he? Wouldn't POTUS Bush still be on the receiving end of those?

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:29:26 PM EST
    He has been receiving them as part of the new and improved transition process, or at least some classified information that he wasn't privy to before.

    Parent
    My understanding (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:41:08 PM EST
    is that he is getting the same one's Bush is getting, although I could google no support for it...

    Parent