Tête-à-Tête-Tête

I reject the question because it’s a false dilemma (and let’s not even get started regarding the usefulness and credibility of information garnered through the use of torture).

You’re venturing out onto a very slippery slope. Torture is never acceptable in a civilized nation.

I’m with Alice on this one; I really am repulsed.

Torture is never acceptable in a civilized nation.

That is exactly the way I feel about it. What confuses me most is how this sentiment is not a slam dunk in our society.

I really am repulsed.

And that is putting it mildly.

I used to think that we had advanced beyond the mentality of the medieval. But nowadays I am not sure that we have.

Nowadays I am not sure of anything anymore.

Like Alice said - phrased that way it is a false dilemma - you’re not going to save any children’s lives this way… I read that line as more a rhetorical flourish than anything, and judging by your following comments I think I was right. Then again, you can get into some interesting ethical questions if you create a crazy hypothetical like that - If you’re 95% sure this dude is guilty, and a child’s life is at stake and the only way to save it is to do these awful things to the dude - what then? First, you have to get yourself emotionally past the horror of the situation to think clearly about the answer. Then you have to have a pretty well defined ethical system to analyze the question under, in order to get anything like a satisfying answer. But answering a crazy hypothetical like this systematically based on a well-defined ethics may shed light on how to think about actual real-world ethical dilemmas… or maybe not. I can’t say I’ve really done it.

If you’re 95% sure this dude is guilty, and a child’s life is at stake and the only way to save it is to do these awful things to the dude - what then?

Guys, our soldiers are facing situations where they have people that they’re 100% sure of being guilty & if they can get intel from them it won’t save the life of a “child”, it will save the lives of other soldiers. I honestly don’t know what I’d do, so I won’t pretend to play Jack Bauer.

I do know that torture is wrong, but then again is something like waterboarding torture? And if so, were we wrong to save many lives by waterboarding KSM (no arguments, it happened and the info from him saved MANY lives)?

Torture is never acceptable in a civilized nation.

I’d posit that in 1944 a lot of people would say that dropping an atomic bomb on major cities would never be acceptable, either…..until it came to light that scores of thousands of American GIs would return home & the war would end if we did it twice.

War is hell, folks. Doubly so when you’re fighting terrorists instead of nations.

Should we have NOT gotten the intel from KSM that saved lives?

Should we have NOT gotten the intel from KSM that saved lives?

Should have gotten it by legitimate means.

I’d posit that in 1944 a lot of people would say that dropping an atomic bomb on major cities would never be acceptable

There were many in the military at the time that saw the dropping of the bomb as immoral and unnecessary.

but then again is something like waterboarding torture?

But hasn’t it always been considered torture up until we started authorizing it? And I am not naive enough to believe that the United States government was not using torture as a means to an end long before Bush was even born. They just were not as open about it because it was considered wrong.

My primary concern is how do you insist that other governments not resort to waterboarding if you yourself waterboard?

Should have gotten it by legitimate means.

Isn’t that a false dilemma? “I want the outcome, but I don’t want the means to get it” is trying to have it both ways, akin to my saying “oh, I want my kids to be polite and behave, I just don’t want to punish them for anything they do wrong during their formative years”. Sorry, we got the intel after waterboarding; it’s a tough question but it’s pertinent. You cannot choose option C because there isn’t one. A is holding him and asking him over & over and him staying quiet, B is finally waterboarding and it saving lives. Yes, the argument that it being done & getting wrong intel is absolutely credible and I acknowledge it. Now that I’ve admitted that, can we get someone else on board with the notion that, although we may not like it, waterboarding KSM ended up being the right thing to do because it saved the lives of many American soldiers?

My primary concern is how do you insist that other governments not resort to waterboarding if you yourself waterboard?

Same way we take people from their homes & hold them in cells against their will while still outlawing kidnapping: designate them as those who qualify. Qualify them as enemy combatants who are NOT soldiers of any country. I don’t want some person who was named by an Iraqi citizen as a terrorist to be taken from his home & hauled off to Gitmo any more than the next guy, but someone who our soldiers overpower & who has an RPG in his possession that was aimed at one of our humvees……sorry, I’m not a fan of giving him Miranda rights and an attorney. IMO, of course. And I’ll have that same stance if Hillary is commander in chief, too.

There were many in the military at the time that saw the dropping of the bomb as immoral and unnecessary.

So, it was wrong to drop the bombs and we shouldn’t have done that? Truman, his cabinet & everyone down to the pilot of the Enola Gay should’ve been arrested and tried for war crimes & then sentenced to life in prison?

Related and fairly non-partisan, IMO.

Waterboarding involves no physical torture because no water goes into the nose/mouth, there’s a sheet of plastic over it. It ‘fools’ the brain into thinking that you’re drowning, while in actuality, you’re completely dry. An argument could be made about ‘mental’ torture because you think you’re dying, but the counter-argument that almost every detective tells a murder suspect that if they don’t comply then they’ll get the needle because they want to fool them into confessing/helping would also apply.

But, it’s not physical torture.

I think Steve Centanni from FNC underwent waterboarding on-air & there may be a youtube of it floating around. It may be enlightening.

I don’t think this should be partisan issue; there should be straightforward guidelines as to what constitutes coercive techniques for our guys to administer & then everyone else should stop trying to capitalize on the subject in a political manner (not here, I’m talking about in the ‘big’ media….we’re just chattin’) because it pertains to our troops.

1) We didn’t know the outcome ahead of time with KSM
2) We can’t know in retrospect whether proper methods would have worked
3) We did know ahead of time that waterboarding was less likely to work.

It’s like saying that driving while intoxicated was the right thing to do because I did it last night & it worked, and I didn’t even have a big wreck on the way. Well, no - it doesn’t work that way.

1. We didn’t know the outcome ahead of time with KSM

According to our soldiers (the source of the news that he was waterboarded) they knew he had intel on several planned attacks, but didn’t know the locations & time; he gave them up quickly immediately after caving in from the practice. Nothing else worked.

2) We can’t know in retrospect whether proper methods would have worked

True and I agree in the general. In this case, nothing else worked. All those on record state just that.

3) We did know ahead of time that waterboarding was less likely to work.

From what I’ve read, that’s generally true……not in this case, though.

It’s like saying that driving while intoxicated was the right thing to do because….

If every other trip home resulted in deaths while the time you were drunk allowed lives to be saved, THEN the analogy would be apt.

What’s wrong with someone saying “in this case it worked, however I’m still against it being practiced by our soldiers”? It doesn’t make one acquiesce to what they abhor to admit that. Heck, I’ll admit that Clinton’s tax hikes didn’t cause the recession that many GOPers predicted in ‘93, but it doesn’t mean I’m for tax hikes.

It worked, in that case. It saved lives, in that case. Why is that so difficult for a lot of people to admit?

So, it was wrong to drop the bombs and we shouldn’t have done that? Truman, his cabinet & everyone down to the pilot of the Enola Gay should’ve been arrested and tried for war crimes & then sentenced to life in prison?

I didn’t mean to imply that. I only said that there were valid disagreements on whether or not to take that course of action.

I think it was Curtis LeMay who once said that had the United States lost the war he would have been tried and convicted of being a war criminal. So is victory the only thing that separates us from those who were tried as war criminals?

I can admit that it worked - I can’t admit that it was the right thing to do, though.

Good question, Buck!

So is victory the only thing that separates us from those who were tried as war criminals?

As with most everything, it depends on the situation & who the winners are. Do you think, for instance had we lost WWII, that Hitler would have gone forward with the Nueremberg trials?

On the other hand I do recall the folks from Abu Graib being tried & convicted and sitting in a cold cell as I type & other soldiers being investigated & tried for possible war crimes, whenever evidence presents itself.

(1) There is an established body of international law commonly referred to the “Law of Armed Conflict” or “LOAC” — perhaps we should ask ourselves why our nation’s leaders see the need to ignore established international law (e.g. Geneva Convention, Hague Conventions, etc).

(2) For anyone who doesn’t feel that waterboarding isn’t a form of torture, can I waterboard you? The description of waterboarding on Wikipedia may help you with this decision:

“Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding’s use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure. Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.”

This sounds like it’s more than a fraternity hazing and it sounds like it meets the international law defininition of torture. And I suspect that most of our wanna-be Jack Bauers will take a pass on this offer.

(3) Andrew Sullivan’s blog reported about a 1926 Mississippi Supreme Court that ruled waterboarding a form of illegal torture and a confession obtained through waterboarding wasn’t admissible in court.

Here’s the link to this article:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/waterboarding-i.html

According to Sullivan’s blog, the Mississippi Supreme Court “overturned a guilty verdict for murder by an African-American man against a white man because such methods invalidated any notion of a reliable confession.”

One would hope that our nation’s leaders in 2007 could live up to the social justice standards of the 1926 Mississippi legal system.

There is an established body of international law

You’re referring to conventional warfare. Al Qaeda doesn’t fall under the Geneva conventions as they’re not soldiers of any specific country; hence the need to define the parameters, no? They’re not POWs because there is no actual declared war against any specific country….

For anyone who doesn’t feel that waterboarding isn’t a form of torture, can I waterboard you?

Heck, I think having to listen to boy bands or rap music is torture, but that’s anecdotal. BTW, water isn’t poured over the face, a sheet of plastic is placed over the face & then water is poured over THAT. There is no physical danger during waterboarding, as it’s controlled. It’s a fast resource, but really, wiki isn’t the best place to get accurate info. And, no, you can’t waterboard me. Neither can you book me, fingerprint me or hold me in a jail cell for 24 hours, none of which is torture.

Andrew Sullivan’s blog…

Andrew Sullivan? And at that point, you lost me.

Would you agree that government agents blowing up a car driven by someone in Mississippi who doesn’t stop at a check point & who refuses to acknowledge the police would be considered a national travesty? Would you agree that while in warfare & in the war zone, the same act would be an act of heroism that saves the lives of soldiers, in this case my nephew?

I know that Andrew Sullivan has completely ‘lost it’ and is relegated to the outskirts of reality & dealing with his oozing case of BDS, but honestly……Mississipians follow different rules than our soldiers during wartime. No joke. If your superior at work tells you to drop & give him 20, you don’t have to do pushups and won’t get KP on the weekend if you refuse to jog 10 miles at dawn.

One would hope that our nation’s leaders in 2007 could live up to the social justice standards of the 1926 Mississippi legal system.

And, we come full circle. This isn’t about war, it isn’t about what’s best for the country or our soldiers; it’s political. It was just a matter of time…..

BTW, Steve, I don’t want to give you the wrong impression; I’m not carrying water for this administration (pun intended)…I’ve written them off & the second Bush term has been a complete disaster. Seeing that the surge has been a success highlights that the previous three years or so were shown to be a war run on the ‘cheap’, while costing us billions & many lives.

This is about putting forth guidelines for the folks on the front line who are actually doing the ‘dirty work’ for all of us & making sure that they’re given all the tools that they need & that they’re not doing the wrong thing in hopes of getting the best outcome. I couldn’t care less who sits in the oval office when it comes to this subject and I couldn’t care less who comes out “on top” of the political debate and I couldn’t care less about trying to capitalize on the “oh, woe is me and what those @#$s have done to my country, which will be righted if only you vote for MY GUYS” mentality that is nothing but mindless emotion driven by political pettiness & hatred.

Which, obviously, is the minority position…

Yeah, that source/quote makes no sense:

“…Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.”

…because it sounds like they’re making it up like they believe it must be like. How could they say, “can leave no lasting physical damage” and then say it could cause lung damage or brain damage? How can anyone read something like that and not immediately be suspicious of the source?

Yet there are probably hundreds or thousands of people that might read the article, not consider the logic of the statements, and shake their heads sadly while saying, “Oh, terrible…horrible…inhuman….” This is why we have to read what we read, and consider the logic of the statements - not just the source.

From every description I’ve read of it (that seems reasonably accurate) I don’t consider waterboarding “torture” any more than solitary confinement or humiliation.

I don’t consider waterboarding “torture”

And this is what fascinates me the most about the discussion. I am more like the 1926 Mississippi Supreme Court. It would have never occurred to me that there would ever in this country be an argument that waterboarding is not torture. The fact that waterboarding is torture is as self evident to me as the hand in front of my face on a sunny day.

But while it might have been torture back in 1926 the government and many, many, many Americans do not believe it is torture in 2007.

I guess it should not be surprising that over time standards and definitions do change.

Maybe in the question “is waterboarding torture?” it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Good comment, Buck. I respect your opinion & that’s why I think we should map out the guidelines. Like I typed earlier, I don’t want us putting the screws to some Iraqi that we picked up off the street based on intel that we got from some gnark. However, if we ever do get Osama…….I have no qualms about certain enhanced techniques to get info from him, as long as we don’t torture him. And, personally, I have no problems with waterboarding Osama Bin Laden in order to get Al Qaeda’s latest plans. I personally don’t think that a terrorist enemy combatant is to be offered the same accordances as a common criminal or a legitimate prisoner of war, but I could be wrong….let’s have that discussion. Lord knows I’ve been wrong before.

That said, I, for one, am loving the notion that Andrew Sullivan is pointing to 1926 Mississippi for what constitutes proper legal precedent (guess what was happening to gay males practicing sodomy back then, LEGALLY?). The guy really does latch onto the first thing that fits his emotional needs, doesn’t he?

I personally don’t think that a terrorist enemy combatant is to be offered the same accordances as a common criminal or a legitimate prisoner of war, but I could be wrong….

From what I can tell of article 4 of the Geneva conventions, you are probably right, depending on how narrowly you define terrorist. I don’t know the US law that covers that area, but I suspect there is some similarity. Here are my problems:

Historically, waterboarding is torture - it could likely even fall under the “mock execution” ban of the geneva conventions, since it makes the victim believe he is dying. Even if you want to do it to Osama to get info, after all other efforts have been given every due chance to work and have failed, and you are willing to take the chance of acting on bad information and suffering whatever consequences arise from that - I don’t think it’s right to try to define it down, away from torture. I don’t like Sully, but I do like the fact that the court case he cites has nothing to do with today’s politics. I think it adds weight to the precedent. I think that if you really see the need to torture under those circumstances then you should be sure the law allows it - only under those circumstances - and be honest that this is what you are doing.

Going back to what I quoted from you above, if you allow “harsh interrogation techniques” short of torture on “‘terrorist’ enemy combatants” (having been duly identified as falling outside of the article 4 definition of POW by a “competent tribunal” as required by article 4, then make that case. But watch out for schysters & shills getting on the T.V. and telling you that’s what we’re doing when we’re actually picking up people as described in your quote - conveniently labeling them “terrorists” - and sending them to Abu Graib or Eastern Europe or Egypt or wherever to be tortured.

and you are willing to take the chance of acting on bad information and suffering whatever consequences arise from that -

That’s the case even if you politely ask them and they answer, though, isn’t it? The goal is to get credible intel, yes.

I don’t think it’s right to try to define it down, away from torture

Fine by me. Big country, lotsa opinions.

Idon’t like Sully, but I do like the fact that the court case he cites has nothing to do with today’s politics. I think it adds weight to the precedent.

Mississippi state law in 1926 has zero bearing on USMCJ in 2007 or what constitutes war crimes. My point is that Sullivan will grasp for anything - in this case, the one law in MS in 1926 that he would dare to accept as non-bigoted (everyone who disagrees with St. Andrew is a bigot, you know) - in order to make a present-day political point against this administration. You know as well as I that we could throw the MS law book on the floor & pick out a law at random & Sullivan would decry its bigotry and hatred (I feel compelled throw in a ‘vile’ reference, too).

then make that case

I think it’s a sellable one. I think the nation at large (just a guess) is more in line viewing that it’s wrong to waterboard, say, a Russian soldier that was caught stealing CIA secrets while they’d be more willing to accept that waterboarding KSM in order to find out Al Qaeda’s plans is necessary part of the WOT. Like I said, a guess, but if someone can say that the Democrats’ maneuvering on the S-CHIP program is winnable, I guess I can say that waterboarding defined terrorists is winnable, as well.

Then again, I thought that George Allen would win re-election, so what do I know?

I really want it to be understood that I do not feel myself to be morally superior to those who disagree with me.

As I have said, I just marvel at the way two people can look at the exact same thing and see it so differently.

That’s fine, as long as you all know that I AM morally superior to all you heathens. Harrumph.

On 15 November 2007, RW wrote:
-snip-

This is about putting forth guidelines for the folks on the front line who are actually doing the ‘dirty work’ for all of us & making sure that they’re given all the tools that they need & that they’re not doing the wrong thing in hopes of getting the best outcome.

(1) Torture as a tactic does very little for winning of “hearts and minds” as we used to say. We also lose the moral “high ground” here by becoming just as evil as those we oppose.

(2) There is no evidence that torture “works” (if one means obtaining accurate information from a person being detained and interrogated).

(3) Please don’t lecture me about supporting the troops in Iraq — I served 20 years and 4 months in the US military.

I would recommend reading this column from the Washington Post by Anne Applebaum:

The Torture Myth
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

I personally find it telling that John McCain (the only Presidential candidate who has been tortured) is speaking out against it.

We also lose the moral “high ground” here by becoming just as evil as those we oppose.

Please. We hold kidnappers in cells against their will. That aside, thanks for saying that we’re just as evil as Al Qaeda. Your slip is showing….

(2) There is no evidence that torture “works”

You should’ve said that “there is evidence that torture doesn’t give accurate information on a regular basis”. The soldiers whose lives were saved thanks to waterboarding would disagree that there is an absence of evidence that it “works”.

Please don’t lecture me

No one lectured anyone. I went out of my way to make sure that you didn’t get the wrong impression by starting a new comment - just for you - specifically for that reason. Thanks for serving, but you guys really need to stop using that as an obvious crutch when you throw it in UNNECESSARILY (see: Kerry, John). Did you know he served in Vietnam?

Sorry, I will not go on the defensive. Your opinion means no more than mine and vice-versa. No one claimed you didn’t support the troops. You guys REALLY need to stop playing that “oh, they’re claiming that I don’t support the troops” game. Makes me take you less seriously than I probably should.

I personally find it telling that John McCain (the only Presidential candidate who has been tortured) is speaking out against it.

I do too.

He’s also speaking out against abortion. Does that make a difference, or does his opinion count more just on this topic?