Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Slowly sawing a throat with a dirty knife; letting all blood come out of the neck before severing it - not torture; just following the traditions.

You can’t fight a ragin fire with teaspoons.

Posted by: kympa at January 12, 2005 03:46 AM

You don’t fight it like they fight it at all, American.

Piling them naked on a pyramid, asking them to masturbate in public, and making them eat feces isn’t acceptable in any way or form either.

Posted by: ciaran at January 12, 2005 05:26 AM

Since none of you has ever been tortured before, I suggest you avoid the Labels. John McCain thought it was torture and since he was really tortured in his time, I would follow his lead. Unless, ofcourse, you thought what they did to McCain was not torture?

Posted by: Aldous at January 12, 2005 05:33 AM

I think Aldous may have hit the issue - it’s all perspective. What do I, sitting in a chair in a warm office thousands of miles from Gitmo or the Mid East, have as a perspective on what is or isnt torture. If it were my squad pinned down by mortars who just captured an enemy combatant - how far should, can I go to save my unit? Or the person who blows up innocent civilians, should I give them the same latitude as a uniformed combatant? Obviously the Geneva Convention covers uniformed but over the years we’ve seen that thrown by some countries. In the case of uniformed - I can agree with Holsclaw. But we have a different ball game now.

If I had someone in a chair that evidence or strong suspicion pointed to thier involvement on a plot to blow up lets say a bomb in a crowded place in 3 hours how far should I go? Or do put that persons life above the potential lives of a few dozen innocents? My answer is simple, when I’m not directly involved you should treat them with the utmost respect. If me or a member of my family is involved or threatened - there are no limits.

I remember a scene in a Star Trek movie, the ship is threatened by a core melt down or the like. Everyone panics but then the ship is saved. Spock is then found in the core room burnt and near death. Kirk is asking him why - and spock replies -“the needs of the many out wiegh the needs of the few”. Now ask at what point do the needs of one out weigh the safety of the whole.

Posted by: Allium at January 12, 2005 08:39 AM

You can bet that anything we do to others will be done to our men and women in uniform. Is it worth it to “push the envelope”? No!

Posted by: Mike K. at January 12, 2005 08:41 AM

Different people have different standards. What would be torturous to me might be considered a fun Friday night for you.

You agree that beating, whipping, and raping are torture. I could argue that if someone would prefer being beaten, whipped, and raped to what you’re doing, you’re probably torturing them. That could include feeding pork to Muslims, feeding babies to Catholics, or even feeding coffee to Mormons.

Because of this, it’s next to impossible to write an accurate list of what is acceptable and what isn’t. It’s like pornography — “I know it when I see it.”

With that being said, here are some guidelines that would probably apply most of the time…maybe… :-)

TORTURE:
* Removing body parts
* Causing physical pain
* Forcing unwanted sexual contact
* Forcing eating/drinking of disgusting/harmful substances
* Withholding food/water for long periods (greater than 1 day?)
* Intense emotional/psychological distress (likely to have long-lasting effects)

NOT TORTURE — ACCEPTABLE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES:
* Providing false information
* Disorienting the subject
* Depriving sleep (to an extent)
* Providing only minimum food required for nourishment, but still leaving them hungry/thirsty
* Discomfort (hard chairs, sleeping on floors, small temperature shifts, etc.)
* Anything voluntarily given (offering them alcohol, sex, perhaps even illicit narcotics)

Many will disagree with me, but I don’t think that the military should be allowed any interrogation techniques that civil police aren’t allowed. Just because someone wasn’t born American doesn’t make them less human, and serving your country shouldn’t require sacrificing your human rights.

Our Constitution does not grant human rights — it protects human rights granted by the Creator. Does it not follow that those rights are held by non-Americans, too?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 12, 2005 08:55 AM

Okay.
So we are talking about protecting the civil rights of prisoners who could care less about them, belong to groups that chop off heads and train to blow themselves up while killing as many innocent people during the process as possible.
People who believe that the only way societies should be run is by dictative, oppressive, and barbaric rule.
If they get ahold of a Westerner they salivate at the idea of beating, starving, and beheading them.

Are these the people we are talking about?

Posted by: bugcrazy at January 12, 2005 09:09 AM

They will do the same to our soldiers if captured?

Are you saying they wouldn’t do it anyway? That things like beheadings weren’t happening before the Abu Graib incident?
If I was a soldier, I would rather be kept from sleeping, or have my clothes taken off and be put on a leash, than have my head chopped off.
Did someone on our side take a big rusty knife and behead a prisoner before a camera and send it to Al Jazeera to be aired?

Posted by: bugcrazy at January 12, 2005 09:16 AM

For Mike K. How can you say we are pushing the envelope? Last time I checked we do not cut an enemy’s heads off after days of harsh beatings, starvation and God knows what else. We do not string bodies of civilian contractors from bridges, we do not set fire to living human beings. In addition, aside from several isolated incidents of unacceptable behavior, torture is not an accepted practice by the US. We would have to go quite far to the extreme to “push the envelope” past the point of that which is considered acceptable and commonplace by the enemy we face. When we find out someone in our ranks commits torture, it becomes front-page news for months as we investigate and bring charges. When our enemy commits acts of horror, tapes it, and sends it out for their newscasts, it causes no outrage or cries for justice. It almost never lasts more than a day or two as passing comments in our media outlets. I would be interested in hearing some responses…

Posted by: Pete M. at January 12, 2005 09:17 AM

The Golden Rule applies. Now the problem arrises to what extent the rule applies. When you are faced with people who do not wear the uniform of a nation, people who take the matter of life and death as some whim or fancy, people who hate as a way of life, then you have to deal with it culturally. Get the intelligence you can from them and then because there is no Geneva Convention to protect them, kill them. That way they can no longer continue on the same path after you release them. I know this is antithetical to western beliefs, but we are in the middle east not the west.

Posted by: Tom at January 12, 2005 09:50 AM

Giving someone chocolate—apparently illegal but not torture, I don’t agree with the idea that you can’t offer preferential treatment to elicit information.

This is illegal? Yegads! I must be in trouble… I just gave chocolate to half a dozen people in my office in hopes of preferential treatment. Well, even if I’m jailed for my crimes, at least I’ll be able to sleep at night knowing I didn’t torture them.

Rob: Our Constitution does not grant human rights — it protects human rights granted by the Creator. Does it not follow that those rights are held by non-Americans, too?

I think Rob hit the nail on the head here. The key to understanding torture is that its prohibition does not stem from the Constitution or Geneva or the UN: it stems from the humanity of the subjects.

Bugcrazy: So we are talking about protecting the civil rights of prisoners who could care less about them, belong to groups that chop off heads and train to blow themselves up while killing as many innocent people during the process as possible.

Bug, did the concept of innocent-until-proven-guilty ever occur to you? And while those *guilty* of such crimes may in fact deserve to be punished brutally, wouldn’t doing so simply lower us to their level? I could not support America if it did not stand for some level of decency - even for its mortal enemies.

Posted by: Chops at January 12, 2005 10:00 AM

I’m hearing a lot of “we aren’t nearly as bad as our enemy” comments. The reason they do those types of things is the reason that they are our enemy. We, who promote human freedom, who have a constitution protecting our human rights and who certainly consider ourselves the model for the world to follow, should have a higher standard. Justifying our own torture because our enemies are worse just brings us closer to being them. Remember that we do not know that all of these people are terrorists who hate us. Most in Abu Gharaib were just petty criminals or people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Being known as actually sticking to our morals has served us well, not only in keeping our own national character, but in practical ways.
The US has (or had) a long and honorable tradition of treating prisoners humanely. In both Iraq wars, massive numbers of enemy soldiers surrendered rather than fight, in large measure due to the knowledge that they would be treated humanely. If these soldiers were afraid of being raped, humiliated and tortured, they would not have surrendered and we would have had many more casualties.
I honestly can’t believe we’re talking about how it may be justified to torture people. Our own constitution specifically prohibits the refusal of a writ of habeus corpus and cruel and unusual punishment. Those rules are there for a reason-namely to prevent the exact kind of things that we are now engaged in. We are better than our enemy because we respect life and liberty. If we change that, then not only have the terrorists won already, we have no chance of ever defeating them permanantly.

Posted by: brian at January 12, 2005 10:17 AM

One of the first jobs I had in management was working for a company that regularly cheated employees out of overtime, forced them to pay for capital equipment, hired immigrants to ensure that they could get away with these abuses.

I bought a book called Moral Leadership. I could not file complaints with the wage board for the employees. I did advise them of the wage board phone number and how to file a complaint. Every day I worked there was a moral delima. Needless to say, I did not work there long.

Moral Leadership is what the Bush administration is lacking. GW was reputed as more vindictive than his father and has shown this side of himself. Some Americans in the face of evil and devious enemies have chosen to abandon their moral underpinnings. After all “those people” aren’t human anyway, right?

Torture is evil. Pure and simple. I congratulate Sebastion for recognizing that. In life you have a choice to behave morally or behave imorally. It is often easier and more fulfilling in the short term to make the easiest choice.

As to interrogation. Torture is not, in general, productive. It may satisfy a rage within those administering the torture, but typically produces any response to appease the torturer, not truth. Military culture believes that “breaking down a subject” makes him pliable. It is a basis of basic training. It does. However, it is not truth serum. It simply creates an obediant servile attitude.

Any animal trainer will tell you, reward is a far better method of inducement.

Should we allow torture of murderers, too?

Democracy is a constant vigil, not from the enemy without, but the enemy within.

Posted by: Greg at January 12, 2005 10:23 AM

Listening to naive pacifist liberals pontificate about standards of war and treatment of terrorists….TORTURE.

Listening to drunken, adulterous murderer Ted Kennedy moralize about treatment of terrorists while berating a rags to riches immigrant turned american dream, Albert Gonzalez…..TORTURE.

Listening to historically ignorant talking heads trying to put terrorists on the same stage (Geneva protections) as national soldiers drafted into a war….TORTURE.

A nation of pansies and morons…..completely lost in a dreamland of utopian hopes, with little regard for dealing with evil in the world. We’d be slaves if they ran this country.

Posted by: Mat Goldseth at January 12, 2005 10:31 AM

Bugcrazy:

Did someone on our side take a big rusty knife and behead a prisoner before a camera and send it to Al Jazeera to be aired?

Last I checked, brutality like this was half the reason we’re over there in the first place. Hussein’s regime tortured and executed people on a regular basis. If our goal is to rid Iraq of this evil, and bring freedom and democracy to the region, maybe we should start by respecting the human rights of those we’re trying to free.

So we are talking about protecting the civil rights of prisoners who could care less about them…

So why are we even bothering to help these people build a free and democratic society that will protect their rights, if they don’t care about those rights in the first place? Are you suggesting that the Bush administration was wrong to wage this war?

…belong to groups that chop off heads and train to blow themselves up while killing as many innocent people during the process as possible.

The only “groups” they’ve been shown to belong to are the Iraqi people, since they haven’t had a trial to prove otherwise. So by that logic, I belong the the same groups that blew up the Oklahoma City federal building, stockpiled weapons at Waco, and made poisoned Kool-Aid at Jonestown. Does that mean that I’ve given up my human rights, too?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 12, 2005 11:00 AM

“A nation of pansies and morons…..completely lost in a dreamland of utopian hopes, with little regard for dealing with evil in the world. We’d be slaves if they ran this country.”

The neo-con pundits of this country have taken quite a bit of time to attempt to de-humanize our “enemies”. “We’re not as bad as they are”. “We don’t cut of peoples heads”. “We’re fighting animals”.
Well, sorry guys, their forms of “capital punishment” are a bit different than ours. If you are caught stealing, they cut off your hand.
This isn’t just a war on terror, this is also a culture war.
Oh, and by the way, they also think that they are fighting a war against evil.

Torture?
Unless we are starting a football league with naked cheerleaders forming pyramids, I see this as just another way to de-humanize these people.
They are people after all.

We’re supposed to be the good guys. We’re supposed to be the bright, shinning light of Democracy. We’re supposed to be that which all people of the world aspire to.

Just because we don’t have to treat these people according to the Geneva Conventions doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2005 11:12 AM

Conscripted Nation Soldier: This is someone who is drafted and forced against their will to fight in a war and is subject to the orders of their government in fighting the military of other countries.

Terrorist: Individual groups or persons with no national identity or affiliation…..They CHOOSE to take up arms , they are not forced and they target not only percieved enemies, but also innocent unrelated groups when convenient or expedient.

Therefore, terrorists are not subject to the same protections granted by Geneva or any other international standard.

If you cant see the difference, I pray you dont have children as you’re likely incapable of protecting them.

>>>>
>>>>For those who hold the , Im curious as to how they’d handle the interrogation of a kidnapper taken into custody.

Knowing your child was possible alive, I suppose they’d plead with the captured kidnapper to reveal the location….and maybe give them cable TV, porn mags, some ice-cream, and whatever else it takes to win their loyalty.
>>>>
>>>>

Personally, I’d probably start with fingers….guess Im not much of a humanitarian.

Posted by: goldseth at January 12, 2005 11:22 AM

goldseth,
Our soldiers are volunteers, they don’t have to take up arms, and have killed 30,000 innocent Iraqis who happened to be in the wrong place when our bombs hit. Do you think that because we have a volunteer army, our soldiers are terrorists who are not entitled to Geneva convention protection?
Even if the prisoners aren’t technically covered, or can be excluded by legal maneuvering, shouldn’t we treat them as human beings?
For years, our main deterrence has been the threat of eliminating every innocent civilian in every city in any country that attacked us. We’ve actually dropped nukes twice. If we throw away our belief in human rights and dignity, how are we better than them? It’s also kind of ironic to destroy their government, then say that because those who continue fighting aren’t fighting for a government, they are not covered by international law.
I understand the emotional response, but it is a false situation. The people that are being held with no trial do not have information that would prevent an imminent attack—they’ve been there for years now. Likewise the people in Iraq. So, you are very persuasive on an emotional level, but not in real situations. It’s easy to hate and want to hurt, but less easy to REALLY defend freedom and the idea that ALL men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

Posted by: brian at January 12, 2005 11:43 AM

Brian,

I dont find that to be good logic. You cannot use the deaths of innocent people to qualify American soldiers as terrorists unless you believe those soldiers to have killed them knowingly and purposefully.

Innocent deaths are an ugly fact of war…an indirect result of evil in the world. However, that’s a huge difference from terrorists who KNOWINGLY kill innocent people as part of their strategic goal of creating TERROR in a population as a means of effecting change.

In addition, America spends more money on technology that will reduce incidental casualties than any nation on earth. We also exercise more restraint than any nation on earth, often endangering the very soldiers because of it.

Now, on the other hand, I would say I generally want humane treatment of prisoners and wouldnt doubt that some abuse exists. I would expect such abuse to be dealt with.
I also do not want to set standards that would allow a slippery slope for the abandonment of human rights.

But I think its important to draw distinctions. Torture isnt being used on any old Arab who happens to be suspicious. It was discussed as a method to be used on known captured terrorists who were intimitely involved in operations focused on civilians or were captured in actual miltary confrontation.

If a captured terrorist had information about impending attacks or those planning them, I would find torture to be an acceptable method to extract information that would possibly save innocent lives.

Granted, this is often a fine line……so I accept the scrutiny in the media and the public eye…THAT is the best way to ensure accountability.
But it seems we’ve gone way beyond that as a culture and are speaking in innaccurate general terms which dont reflect the harsh reality of what war is about.

Thats why I used a simplistic emotional example….because it has the same underlying principles. You may not justify shooting or torturing some teenager breakin into your garage, but you might if someone had information about your child that could save their life.

Posted by: g at January 12, 2005 12:02 PM

Terrorist: Individual groups or persons with no national identity or affiliation…..They CHOOSE to take up arms , they are not forced and they target not only percieved enemies, but also innocent unrelated groups when convenient or expedient.

“Percieved enemies”… innocent civilians have been intentionally targeted as a way to break the will of an enemy in most wars - we have done it to our enemies, but we condemn people who try to use the same tactics against us as sub-human and not deserving of the same rights we would expect if the situation was reversed. We should hold all people to the same standards we use and treat all people in the way we would expect to be treated (2000 years ago a smart guy said something like that - I think it got written down in an important book of some kind…)
By your definition, any soldier who volunteered for an air force that intentionally bombs civilian targets is a terrorist and should not be treated according to the rights of the Geneva convention if shot down and captured (that list includes the USA, Great Britain and Germany in WWII)

Posted by: Mark at January 12, 2005 12:11 PM

goldseth,
I agree with quite a bit of what you said. Please don’t get the impression that I think our soldiers are terrorists. I most certainly don’t. I am just using examples from our own actions and history to demonstrate that people should not easily be characterized as terrorist animals who deserve whatever torture they get. I agree that there is a distinction between a terrorist and a soldier who accientally kills innocents, and I greatly applaud our effort to limit civilian casualties. However, when you look at the effects alone, we have killed many times over the number of innocents that were killed on 9-11. It’s easy to demonize your enemy when you don’t look too hard at yourself.
Although “torture” may not be being used on the mass of prisoners, it was apparently widespread at Abu Gharaib. Torturing all those captured in “actual miltary confrontation” still leaves the door wide open. Although I’m very concerned about the individuals involved, I’m more concerned that our putative AG is defining torture as only pain that leads to organ failure, the administration wants to hold detainees without trial or charge indefinitely, and that the lawyer who figured out ways for them to legally do that is being promoted as our model of law and order. I don’t see the beginning of a slippery slope, I think we are already on it.
I think everyone agrees that self-defense is reasonable justification for many things. I hope that torture is not one of them, but I can see cases where I would probably WANT it used. That doesn’t mean it should be used. We need to ask ourselves how far we are willing to reject our own ideals to keep those ideals safe.

Posted by: brian at January 12, 2005 12:31 PM

I find it interesting that in all this discussion I find very few hitting the point that those being tortured are ALLEDGEDLY terrorists and that there have been MANY stories that a MAJORITY of those held and abused at abu Ghraib were subsequently released as NOT having anything to do with terrorism nor the insurrection (but I wonder if that applies after they get home after our wonderful hospitality)
The talk is about “THEY are terrorists, so why should be care about THEIR civil rights” — WRONG
They are people who have been rounded up as being SUSPECTED - and many of them were fingered by others with a grudge, or their own personal reasons —
Yes there are those who are KNOWN to be active terroists or insurgents, but that is the minority and still does not excuse the use of torture — besides most of the torture does NOT result in info that “saves another soldier” — nice emotional arguement, but one that does not hold up to reality.
Our principles are to treat SUSPECTS HUMANELY because they just might be INNOCENT.

Posted by: Russ at January 12, 2005 12:34 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/12abuse.html

An interesting article from the Times today. I only bring this up because I think there is misconception among some people on this thread that those of us against torture some how lack the will, or the desire to do what is needed to combat terrorism.

If you read down you’ll find this:

But several military investigators and the detainees themselves testified Tuesday that the detainees in the photographs were at most common criminals, not suspected terrorists, and none were interrogated by military intelligence.

“No one questioned us,” said Mr. Mutar, who said Iraqi policemen had taken him at night from his house in Baghdad because they believed he had stolen a car, then transferred him to the Americans. “They took us and tortured us.”

The problem with what happened here, and this not isolated, is that this pattern can be seen throughout countries, and across cultures, again and again: once we cross the line, once we say torture is okay, we don’t only torture the guilty.

And of course, we got nothing out of this. There was no intelligence to be had, they knew nothing.

Posted by: justin at January 12, 2005 12:45 PM

Oh, by the way, was it just serendipity that we chose to use the prison known for Saddam’s worst abuses of his own people?

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2005 12:46 PM

The fact is that straight out physical torture is not an efficient way of eliciting information. Enough pain will make you say anything, true or not. You will say what your torturers want to hear. Moreover, it is an inherently corrupting act. I believe, harming, no, degrading the torturer morally as much as it does the torturee.

‘Less than torture’ techniques including use of whatever pharmaceuticals are in general practice is likely to yield better results.

We cannot and should not use full-on physical torture as a regular practice in the war on terror. Mainly because it harms us more than it defeats the enemy.

On the other hand I don’t have much sympathy for someone like Mohammed Atta & friends. who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. If we had captured him and he were tortured in order to prevent 9/11, well, it wouldn’t bother me that much to be honest.

Under no circumstances, however, should regular soldiers be in the position of ‘torturing’ anyone. I don’t personally believe that Abu Graib was officially or even un-officially approved by anyone in the administration, and should never be. There is a huge failure there.

I find myself agreeing in large part with Alan Dershowitz on this issue. Physical torture might be an option, but should be tightly controlled, rigidly administered, and openly approved in the rare instance it might be thought needed.

My basic point, though, is we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice. I don’t think we’re in that situation in this case. cnn

Posted by: ericsimonson at January 12, 2005 01:03 PM

However, that’s a huge difference from terrorists who KNOWINGLY kill innocent people as part of their strategic goal of creating TERROR in a population as a means of effecting change.

But isn’t that what the US did in WWII, with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Didn’t we KNOWINGLY kill innocent people as part of our strategic goal of creating TERROR in the population as a means of effecting change?

Americans don’t have a monopoly on patriotism. And a soldier fighting for a cause is no less of a soldier simply because his side doesn’t have land anymore.

I’m getting sick of the double-standard — when Americans do something, it’s patriotic, but when others do it, it’s deplorable. We say it’s horrible that the French wouldn’t help us oust a dictator that gassed his own people, yet we funded that same dictator WHILE he was gassing his people, and that was ok. During the invasion of Iraq, we complained that Arab news networks aired pictures of slain American soldiers, but then we aired pictures of Saddam’s slain sons, and that was ok. We oust a regime known for torture, and then proceed to torture Iraqi citizens in the same prison — sorry, but that’s NOT ok!

Human rights aren’t reserved for Americans. They belong to everyone.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 12, 2005 01:28 PM

Brian,

“Although “torture” may not be being used on the mass of prisoners, it was apparently widespread at Abu Gharaib. Torturing all those captured in “actual miltary confrontation” still leaves the door wide open.”

I would disagree. If the events at Abu Ghraib are considered torture, then we’ll have to start giving retirement benefits to prisoners. Mistreatment would be an accurate term, not torture.
I think such is expected….you put 19 year old kids into an atmosphere with no friends, no family, little to no recreation and living in an atmosphere of violence and killing. Its not a suprise that some of them will go too far occassionally. There have been reprocussions, so Im satisfied that justice was done.

The other issue at Abu Ghraib was holding prisoners who may not have been guilty…they werent caught in the act of anything. After the media circus, the military released almost all of those prisoners. That I applaud.

But focus here…we’re talking about Guantanamo prisoners.
I keep hearing about all these hypotheticals, but havent seen any actual evidence that the prisoners are innocent or random capture……your rights to life/liberty are confiscated the second you infringe on anothers’.
These are guys caught in act of war or known terrorists already on watch list. And Im sorry, but if you’re shootin at military personel, whatever happens to you is your own damn fault, even if you arent a terrorist.

Posted by: goldseth at January 12, 2005 02:36 PM

Let us try to bring this close to home. It is 1:30 in the morning. The dog has roused you from your sleep. You pick up your gun. You look outside the window and find a person that you can tell from the outline that he has at least one weapon. How do you protect and defend you and your family. If you have training in martial arts, that is one approach. If you were in Nam you learned another approach. If your training was just NRA classes in the use of your firearm, the that would be your option. Is it warfare? YES! The intruder is there to commit mayhem with your body and property. My choice is to do it to him because MY LIFE IS IN DANGER!
The same thought process should be applied to terrorist attacks. Period.

Posted by: Tom at January 12, 2005 02:40 PM

hey “bugcrazy” (I notice you believe so strongly in your views you don’t even use your name)…you and others like you have been listening to the administration’s propaganda far too long. Use your brain and go find some unadulterated info. Most of the detainees were NOT “picked up off the battlefield”…they are held because someone didn’t like them personally, they “looked” suspicious, etc…hence, ONLY FOUR HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING! The majority of “insurgents” are acting just as you would—providing you have the cajones—if your country were invaded by foreign forces! Yes, there are some “radicals” taking advantage of the situation to forward their own agenda. BTW…we are there to “repair” the damage WE did in the 1st/2nd Gulf Wars..although not much repairing is going on. A lot of wasting away our tax dollars painting buildings and driving trucks back and forth in order to “look busy”. The US pretends we have some moral authority…no more so that Sadaam Hussein himself, as we seem to be following his playbook…only worse.

Posted by: carri at January 12, 2005 02:52 PM

Tom,
Therein lies the rub. If you kill that guy out in your yard you could be tried and convicted of murder.
Your life isn’t in danger until he’s in your house.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2005 02:54 PM

Tom:

Self-defense in a hostile situation is a much different matter than dealing with someone who is already in custody. He is no longer a threat to your life.

We’re not talking about front-line combat morals here. We’re discussing treatment of prisoners after capture.

Goldseth:

Your right to life/liberty are confiscated the second you are found guilty of infringing on anothers’. There’s a distinct difference. No matter how serious the alleged crime, you still deserve a trial, and your rights should not be denied without it.

Our democracy was founded on ideals of due process, speedy trials, and innocence until guilt is proven. In our crusade to spread democracy to other parts of the world, we shouldn’t forget that.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 12, 2005 02:54 PM

This is just the sort of slippery slope arguing that started in the White House, and led to Abu Ghraib. Start with the question - which of these things would I find acceptable if they were done to an American soldier? or let’s be concrete - which would be acceptable if they were done to your son or daughter?

And yes, I know that our enemies are doing horrible things. That doesn’t change at all what’s morally right for us to do. God damn it, we are supposed to be the Good Guys.

I have a feeling that this turning into a partisan issue. This makes me feel deeply, deeply, disgusted. There is a recent widely-blogged article How to Interrogate Terrorists that talks “Bush-administration critics” that are “ignorant of the actual interrogation techniques”. I’ve been reading an awful lot about them, and believe me, I don’t like what I hear. Abu Ghraib was only a dip in a steady plunge down a slippery slope that we continue to travel. Don’t believe me? if you have any balls and/or morals, do your own reading. It’s not so hard to do.

The city-journal paper says a lot of things, unsupported, that contradict other things I’ve read. Chocolate bars might be illegal for POWS - who are not supposed to be interrogated at all - but certainly are not off limits for enemy combatants. Everything from waterboarding to organ transplants seems to be in play.

The same article closes: “it is the necessity of this fallen world that we must oppose evil with force; and we must use all the lawful means necessary to ensure that good, rather than evil, triumphs.” Fine. (Of course like much of what Bush did in Iraq, the torture is arguably not even effective - for instance high-value suspects are not interrogated by FBI or law-enforcement professionals who might know what works.)

What I cannot accept is that this particular struggle requires us to become evil in order to triumph.

Posted by: William Cohen at January 12, 2005 03:10 PM

Tom,
The case is clear-cut when there is someone with a gun in your house. However, what if you just think the guy on your lawn might have a gun? What if he isn’t coming at your house? Just recently in the paper where I live was an article written by someone who almost killed someone in his home, but it turned out the guy was just confused and went to the wrong house. The example you use is simplistic and bears no relevance to the actual guilt or innocence of those we have detained. You seem willng to completely strip people of all human rights or dignity on suspicion. If you want to live in a country where suspicion is king and if you go to a mosque you are guilty of terrorism until proven innocent, you go right ahead, but don’t try to make it mine.

I would disagree. If the events at Abu Ghraib are considered torture, then we’ll have to start giving retirement benefits to prisoners. Mistreatment would be an accurate term, not torture.

Forcing people to do things that violate central tenents of their religion for the purpose of breaking them down or humiliating them is just as much torture as physically beating them. I’m not saying we have to treat them like kings, but how about how we accept our POWs to be treated? You saw the pictures, do you think that treatment was in keeping with american ideas about human dignity?

The other issue at Abu Ghraib was holding prisoners who may not have been guilty…they werent caught in the act of anything. After the media circus, the military released almost all of those prisoners. That I applaud.

Yes, after they had been tortured, abused, and humiliated for no reason, letting them go was probably the least we could do.

But focus here…we’re talking about Guantanamo prisoners. I keep hearing about all these hypotheticals, but havent seen any actual evidence that the prisoners are innocent or random capture……

Actually, we’re talking about torture in general, and guantanamo and Abu gharaib as specific instances of US-government run torture.

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. They don’t have to prove their innocence to not be held by the government. The purpose of a trial is to establish whether someone is guilty or not. If there is evidence that these guys are guilty, why not give them a trial? If they are guilty, by all means, lock them up for life, execute them as war criminals, whatever.

your rights to life/liberty are confiscated the second you infringe on anothers’.

It all comes down to due process. In America, at least the pre-Bush one, the government cannot pick you up off the street and hold you indefinitely on suspicion, or even on evidence that is not presented in a lawful way. We are a nation of laws, and everyone in the nation is subject to those laws, including those who make and enforce them. Throwing that away ls the way to tyranny or anarchy, depending on which way the dice rolls.
I am actually amazed at this discussion. I know that most conservatives consider themselves staunch defendants of the constitution, as evidenced by their support of the second amendment. Bush and co. have thrown away due process, right to a jury trial, right to a writ of habeus corpus, and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, and he is still defended and admired by conservatives. I don’t get it.

Posted by: brian at January 12, 2005 03:18 PM

Your right to life/liberty are confiscated the second you are found guilty of infringing on anothers’. There’s a distinct difference. No matter how serious the alleged crime, you still deserve a trial, and your rights should not be denied without it.

Sometimes each man must be his own judge, and exercise justice, lest the crime be worsened.

If someone breaks into my home, I make a judgement. My ShiTzu isnt likely to scare off too many criminals.
I have a couple years of martial arts training and would rely on that if I felt safe doing so. If there were 3-4 people, or if there were weapons, I’d likely grab my own firearm instead.

Usually, mere brandishment of a weapon will discourage criminals…however, if they raised up their weapon or failed to leave, I would feel extremely threatened and would probably make a judgement in my best interests considering their violation of property rights and threat to safety.

There isnt always time for diplomacy.

Granted, Im not talking about ALLEGED crimes. Im talking of crimes that are witnessed and whereby the witness stakes their reputation on their testimony.

In such cases, there is no RIGHT to a trial if other lives are potentially at stake.

Posted by: goldseth at January 12, 2005 03:19 PM

goldseth,
I don’t know what the first part of your post was about, except perhaps strategy to defend your home. Maybe I just didn’t catch the allegory.
As for:

Granted, Im not talking about ALLEGED crimes. Im talking of crimes that are witnessed and whereby the witness stakes their reputation on their testimony

Every crime is ALLEGED until proven in a court of law. Do you have trustworthy witnesses lined up? let them stake their reputations in a courtroom.

In such cases, there is no RIGHT to a trial if other lives are potentially at stake

The detainees have been there for years, and the administration wants to keep them there forever, without trial. How does that prevent imminent danger to other lives?

Posted by: brian at January 12, 2005 03:31 PM

I guess the problem here is that if you assign a need, like say a prisoner you have knows the secret code to stop the gian bomb from going off and killing millions, and you can only use mild coercion (and he knows it) then what, honestly, can you expect to get out of the hypothetical prisoner? Should teh guidebook read “Harshly rationalize with the prisoner, but nothing more.” Maybe it should, but is everyone comfortable with the consequences of that?

Posted by: Damon at January 12, 2005 03:48 PM

Damon,
You can use all the hypotheticals you want, but it still comes down to what have these guys actually done. That ain’t it.
The Bush administration isn’t going to tell us what they plan on doing, and holding prisoners for years without charging them is criminal. To hold a man without end is the ultimate form of torture.
In America, every man gets their day in court, even undocumented aliens get that much. This has gone on far too long.
It’s time to put these guys on trial and convict them, or cut them loose.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2005 04:06 PM

Of course we hold America to a higher standard than our enemies. But it is good to discuss what that standard means. The definition of torture is becoming very vague; it ranges from beating and beheadings to many things all of us have suffered in a game of dodge ball. Sebastian took a sensible step by addressing some of the possibilities.

We have to start talking about this issue and not shut the door in righteous indignation. That does no good and only allows the most ruthless individuals to dominate. One important distinction depends on what you are trying to accomplish. It is clearly wrong to torture anyone to punish him or to make him confess to something for political reasons. That is what the Vietnamese did to John McCain and POW.

But there is another circumstance. If kidnappers had my daughter and I had one of the kidnappers who knew where she was, I would torture that person and maybe even kill him if I thought it would help extract that information. Those of you who want to believe you would do otherwise can call this monstrous, but I think you are deceiving yourselves. Actually, I believe that a person who refused to take that action is a moral coward. The only question would be its effectiveness and if I could trade an innocent life for that of the perpetrator, I would consider it a moral bargain.

There are also some technicalities we need to address in the current situation. The prisoners at Guantanamo are not POWs in the sense most of us understand the term. They were captured out of uniform and behind the lines. They would be classified as spies or saboteurs and subject to execution. Some of the prisoners in Iraq were POWs, but not all, for the same reasons.

The things done at Abu Ghraib were illegal under American law and unauthorized. That is the reason it is in the courts today. Al Zarqawi evidently personally took part in torture and murder. When I see Al-Qaeda trying him or one of his lieutenants for their crimes … well that is absurd and it shows the difference.

Posted by: jack at January 12, 2005 04:33 PM

Good posts Rob, and William.

Unfortunately, I can’t help but feel that you are casting pearls of wisdom before swine.

“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Go ahead, keep trying to justify torture upon people being held in captivity, I’m sure it feels wonderful to join in with the New American Insanity.
Meanwhile, what are we sane people to make of the fact that Bin Laden’s bodyguard has gone free and is living in a witness protection program in Germany?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2005 04:34 PM

I think our disagreement comes from my allowance for degrees of judgement.
Many who are critical of the military on this issue are painting a black and white picture.

I think we could agree that people should not be detained on suspicion alone. However, such cases are a minority rather than the standard.
I am extremely fearful of my government, however, I havent seen enough convincing evidence to justify a complete change in the way we handle the thugs and terrorists we should be rough with.

Most of the prisoners are not random captures…they are known criminals and terrorists or they were caught in the act of conflict. Im not very concerned about them honestly…these arent people in the wrong place at wrong time.

I am pleased that we have a free press that exposes any abuse that does occur, but Im disturbed by the political agendas which misrepresent cases of abuse in order to undermine the overall military agenda.

Lets demand accountability for the wrongdoings, but lets not undermine the necessary methods of dealing with enemies. Such misguided principles are exactly what led to the lax security and poor enforcement allowing 9/11 terrorists to infiltrate the country and plan their attack.

A good compromise is possible if everyone lost their agenda politically

Posted by: goldseth at January 12, 2005 04:37 PM

“I am extremely fearful of my government, however, I havent seen enough convincing evidence to justify a complete change in the way we handle the thugs and terrorists we should be rough with.”

goldseth,

Fine, lets handle them and get it over with.

I can’t help but think that these “detainees” were put at Gitmo to stick a finger in Castro’s eye. If we truely wanted to hold them incomunicado, I would think that Diego Garcia would have been more appropriate.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2005 04:47 PM

We have to start talking about this issue and not shut the door in righteous indignation.

Here’s what I think are absolutely minimal requirements for US behavior.

One, POWs are treated as we would want our soldiers to be treated, whether or not we expect the enemy to reciprocate.

Two, everyone captured in a war zone, in uniform or out, is accorded the same treatment as POWs, until they are determined to be “enemy combatants”, spies, whatever, by a competent tribunal. (That’s in the Geneva convention - Jack - a tribunal. Someone must get a day in court before becoming an “enemy combatant”.)

If you’re not with me on that, then shut the door.

But there is another circumstance. If kidnappers had my daughter and I had one of the kidnappers who knew where she was, I would torture that person … I believe that a person who refused to take that action is a moral coward. The only question would be its effectiveness…

Well, you’re a tough guy, Jack. Very impressive. And laws and moral codes, do recognize extreme cases like this. I don’t know what your legal situation would be if you did this would be but I suspect it would be analogous to a self-defense plea - I did a bad thing, but I had to - and the legal standard would probably be similar: you’d get a pass, but you’d darn well better be right about things. Extreme actions can be taken, but require extreme justifications. Those are missing in lately - I see no justification for holding people for years with no evidence of crime.

In general “effectiveness”, expedience, is not the basis for morality, or law. We all act expediently - it’s hard to act morally. Law and morality are based on absolute standards of behavior that you follow, or try to follow, regardless of expedience. And there are good reasons why expedience doesn’t work at the level of a society.

Posted by: William Cohen at January 12, 2005 05:08 PM

Jack,
Your hypotheticals assume that we, the United States of America, have the right to hold these people.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2005 05:17 PM

That would be under the, I found them, can I keep them theory.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2005 05:58 PM

I don’t trust everything my government does, but I can’t think of any motivation it would have to round up innocent people and take them all the way to Cuba at the costs of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per prisoner.

The U.S. has released more than 150 prisoners. Some of those released have already gone back to terrorism, so those guys were probably guilty initially.

Most of the Guantanamo prisoners are non-Afghans picked up on battlefields of Afghanistan. The soldiers taking them prisoner believed that they were fighting against them. Okay, our soldiers might be wrong, but you have to stipulate that any non-Afghan not taking part in the fighting found on or near an Afghan battlefield would have to be very unlucky or very stupid. He would have had to go to Afghanistan while the Taliban ruled it or when the U.S was invading it. It is not easy to move around in Afghanistan under the best of conditions, but he would have had to wander in. He would have to go to the scene of the fighting. He would have to inadvertently get mixed up among anti-coalition forces. In war conditions, you have to assume the person shooting at you or standing with those shooting at you is the enemy. You might not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

William, I am not trying to be a tough guy. On the contrary, killing or doing grievous bodily harm to another human being is very repulsive to most civilized people. That is why I believe it takes moral courage to carry it out when it becomes necessary.

Re self defense. That is an American concept. Code law countries, which include most of continental Europe, do not recognize the right of self-defense.

But - Rocky - that is the reason we have the right to hold them. I do believe in the right of self defense.

Posted by: Jack at January 12, 2005 06:51 PM

“killing or doing grievous bodily harm to another human being is very repulsive to most civilized people. That is why I believe it takes moral courage to carry it out when it becomes necessary.”

If something is “necessary” that means it has to be done - like falling if you jump off a bridge. Doing something “for the greater good” - as you perceive it - is not necessary, it is merely expedient. Moral courage is doing what’s right, even when it’s not expedient.

It’s obvious that torture will sometimes be expedient. But that’s not how we should set law, or establish norms of behavior. You start out with what’s moral, and then make exceptions for expedience, if you need to. Like self-defense. But you make the exceptions carefully, and put in checks and balances, whenever you can.

Because what you call “moral courage” is really very common and natural. Lots of us would be willing to break fingers if we’re afraid for the safety of ourselves, or even more, for a comrade or a loved one. And when you’re afraid is just when you mistakes and break the wrong fingers, shoot the wrong guy in a mosque, bomb the wrong house.

Suppose the kidnapper is an insurgent, captured by the US army, who knows about a coming attack - is it morally courageous to torture him, to save the lives of American soldiers? maybe save your friends? Now turn it around - suppose a US soldier is captured in a real war - say by the French - and knows about an impending offensive on the French army. What makes this different?

Posted by: William Cohen at January 12, 2005 09:12 PM

Regardless of how you define torture, it’s use is risky and does not necessarily create dependable information.

It’s like hypnosis, in a way. How you ask the questions can affect what answers you get. If you ask a leading question, and the guy just wants to get it over with, there’s a good chance he’ll just go where you’re leading him, whether you’re going in the right direction or not. He may even end up believing it’s the truth. Such is memory.

I would define torture as any methods that break the will by mentally or physically traumatic means. This would include means that inflict terrible humiliation or which cause intense religious anguish. So what’s left?

Well, if I were to interrogate a person, I’d ask them questions they don’t realize the significance of, trap them, make them think we already know the answer. Let him lead you. If he leads you wrong, deprive them of luxuries, pare down necessities, mess with them a little bit. Be subtle. The key is to preserve their memories intact from your own manipulation of them, to get them to volunteer what they already believe is true.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2005 09:51 PM

William

There are times. One reason POWs are not subjected to such interrogation is that they often don’t know very much that is of immediate value. By the time the person is captured after a battle, the conditions and deployments have changed. It is just torture for torture sake or as punishment.

And I have no doubt that the French would extract what information they could. But I am not advocating widespread torture. My point is that all of us believe in it in some cases, so we should be clear about our motives. The atrocities at Abu Ghraib were not part of a U.S. strategy. They were just criminals who will be punished under U.S. law.

The guys in Guantanamo are not soldiers in the usual sense. That is why their information is more valuable. There is no indication that torture is a policy in Guantanamo. It is agressive interogation of the kind Stephen describes.

The U.S., no matter what malice you attribute to it, would not send ordinary soldiers across the world at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars per person. The camp at Guantanamo is obviously not designed as a POW camp. Tens thousands of Afghan soldiers were captured during the war. Most are currently free. Of those thousands, only hundreds went to Cuba.

Stephen

Some people consider the things you describe as torture. That is why we have to define what we mean by the terms.

Posted by: Jack at January 12, 2005 10:14 PM

Jack,
These guys at Gitmo have been there three years. Any information they would have is now useless. They can only be held now because they are either really good fighters, or hostages.

Posted by: Rocky at January 13, 2005 01:09 AM

Aggressive? If you mean effort wise, sure. If you’re talking about physically? No. Mentally? Yes, but not so much that these people simply tell us what they sense we want to hear.

Although I would sanction violent means under the most extreme circumstances, I think that the risk of corruption, both of the victim and the torturer, are too great under normal circumstance. What I speak of is trickery, subtlety, and persuasion. I mean, let’s take an al-Qaeda soldier. He might not tell us where the cell planning the next attack is, but he may give us information about stuff if we play on his pride, and his egotism about his deeds.

The myth is that torture is somehow a magic way to gain information, above and beyond normal interrogation. The trick with torture is that you alter a person’s state of consciousness to get the information, And by doing so you make it very difficult to separate your suggestions from his dreams or memories.

What you want is lucidity, not compromise.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 13, 2005 02:00 AM

Carri,

Because I choose to use ‘bugcrazy’ I am a brainwashed idiot whose opinion does not matter?

When is the last time ANY of us had an honest conversation such as this one with the Iraqi people who would like to get on with their new government and their lives?

Those that are in prison, who are innocent, are probably not refusing to answer questions.

Posted by: bugcrazy at January 13, 2005 07:33 AM

But cheerleaders form hooded naked pyramids in prison all the time. It’s just a control technique.

(Sorry, I just had to snark about that brilliant “defense.” Carry on.)

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at January 13, 2005 08:27 AM

Torture? Yup. Bring it on. More the merrier. Here’s a wee bit of information from someone who has worn the uniform and stood on th line to those that simply bitch about the freedoms they think are free: There is a price for everything. My right to say aload that I think you are a cool-aid drinking grass-eating sheep, adn you right to think I am a knuckle dragging war monger (we’re both right, btw), came at the expense of AMERICAN BLOOD shed over the last 2 1/2 centuries.

Don’t mistake what I am saying: Some lines like cutting off a head (or other body parts), rape, electrified nut sacks, etc. should NOT be crossed. (The last I heard, we’re clean on this so far). Naked pyramids? A big slice of humble pie? Yup, fair game. Then again, if a couple hundred Marines in Beirut could have been saved by turning one asshole fanatics nutbag into something resembling crisped rice treats to get the details of the plan, I say one thing: Alternating or Direct current?

Posted by: Tom at January 13, 2005 11:14 AM

I think the concept of what should be allowed and what shouldn’t be is actually very clearly defined in Americans’ minds. It’s only a few people in the military that don’t know the line.

———
Talk Politics at: http://undigested.net/d/zid/16.htm

Posted by: Lexor at January 13, 2005 01:05 PM

Lexor

Don’t put this on the military. The military, since the actually may have to fight and die, think these things through very clearly and consequently. That even after all that thought, things still go wrong tells you something about how hard the problem is to deal with in real situations.

The fact that most of the rest of us fall into easy platitudes and don’t seriously discuss definitions, limits and necessities is not helpful. The concept is not clearly defined in American minds.

Even the good cops on “Law and Order” engage in what could be called torture and most viewers accept this as necessary. At the same time they cry for perfect behvior in real life situations. But they want everything possible to stop terrorism. But they don’t want anyone to get hurt. It is anything but clear.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2005 03:09 PM

At the same time they cry for perfect behavior in real life situations. But they want everything possible to stop terrorism. But they don’t want anyone to get hurt. It is anything but clear.

I’m hesitant to even address this. The false dichotomy that one either
fully accepts torture, or else wants to give cookies to terrorists is
utterly ridiculous and insulting.

Just the fact that you would compare ‘Law and Order’ to real life
shows the inherent weakness of your point.

If what were doing to prisoners is fine, than why are journalist
restricted from broadcasting it? Why do we only find out about human
pyramids after a CD is leaked? These actions are wrong. They know
they’re wrong. I know they’re wrong. I cannot even begin to imagine to
degree of apeshitattude that this country would have gone into had the
American soldiers captured in China 5 years ago been hooded, and
forced to kneel while being chained up. Hell, Bush was upset that they
didn’t have bibles! BIBLES!

Believe me when I tell that I honestly don’t care what happens to a
terrorist. But at this point, we don’t even know whom we have
captured! You cannot tell me that every person subjected to this type
of treatment had the high level intelligence that these techniques
were designed for.

As soon as you can tell me that we’re not torturing innocent people,
that 100% of our prisoners are guilty, then we’ll talk. As soon as I
see the military send out video showing how awesome our hooded Iraqi
prisoner pyramid is, we’ll talk.

Posted by: justin at January 13, 2005 04:53 PM

My point was simply that American opinion (and opinion everywhere else) is not clear on the subject of torture. We are all against it in theory, but we are not all talking about the same thing even when we use the same word. That is why we have to discuss it and that it why Sabastian’s list was useful.

I chose “Law and Order” because it is on television almost all the time and people are familiar with it. If I used examples from Dostoyevsky or Flaubert even I wouldn’t know what I meant. Nothing wrong with chosing examples that mean something to people.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2005 05:02 PM

Well, how about this as an example:

How many innocent Iraqis would you hood and force to sit, chained and naked before you got a guilty one? Because we’re not only going to get the guy ‘who knows the code to bomb’. Like, whats a good ratio? 5:1? 10:1? 100:1? I’d just like to know. I think we can forget methods for now, what I’d like to know is, as Americans, how many innocent people are we willing to torture before we find a guilty person. Once we answer that, then we talk about torture techniques.

Posted by: justin at January 13, 2005 05:24 PM

The situation in the Iraqi prison was a crime and is being treated as such by U.S. authorities. You will find nobody to defend that. Beyond that, there is no indication that those perpetrating the crime were trying to extract any information. I will easily agree that was not a situation where torture was justified.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2005 05:37 PM

Well, assuming that torture is then sometimes justified, but also knowing that we WILL NOT only capture, and then only torture the guilty, my question still stands. Theres a lot of people on this thread questioning the heart of people agaisnt torture. I want to know what those of you who are for it are willing to put up with.

Posted by: justin at January 13, 2005 06:09 PM

If you read what I wrote above, I specifically rejected torture as a form of punishment or retaliation. The Abu Ghraib incident would hence be disqualified right off and that is why it is clearly a crime being prosecuted by the U.S.

Take a look at whatfamous liberal Alan Dershowitz has to say on the subject. It is very reasoned approach and I generally agree with him.

It would be employed in rare cases where the information extracted could save innocent lives and it would have to be used sparingly.

There is an important difference between torture and aggressive interrogation. We want to make things uncomfortable for the person. When does it cross the line? Sebastian gave some concrete cases. We all have to discuss that because there is no general definition.

Posted by: JACK at January 13, 2005 09:03 PM

Jack -

I’m surprised you brought up that article. I don’t see that Dershowitz makes a convincing case for torture all.

In fact, I think that article pretty clearly lays out what has happened again and again and again, and that is: once a country opens the door to torture, it never gets opened just a little. Because honestly, why would a country stop. How can you tell a person “we wont torture this person to find out where your kidnapped son is”? When they know full well you will torture a prisoner to find a bomb. Again, much like the problem of figuring out how many innocent tortured people are we okay with, we have to decide, what crime is bad enough that torture is necessary. How do we live with our selves when we realize the guy laying on the floor never knew the code to the bomb? What will that say about our society? The most important questions I think we have to be ready to answer are the ones we ask when its all gone wrong.

Posted by: justin at January 13, 2005 09:20 PM

Justin

Again, what constitutes torture? Some is clear, but some is not. Is solitary confinement torture? What about sleep deprivation or just verbal abuse?

I would not want to be put in the position where the prisoner could call the shot and just say he was sick of talking for the night and wanted his supper.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2005 10:40 PM

I’ve been pondering whether to post anything about this topic. When I was a B-52 aircrew member, part of the Survival School training included simulating the experience of escaping & evading in enemy territory, being captured, and interrogated. I have pretty strong feelings about this, and could go on and on. Suffice it to say, even though the ‘guards’ were on my side, and it was really only a simulation, it was still a pretty unpleasant experience.

One humorous note- most of the time there was a lot of jarring noise, a weird poem about ‘boots, boots, boots’ repeated over and over again, and very loud, very awful music. At the end, the last song they played over the loudspeakers was “Imagine” by John Lennon. I’m not sure it was meant to be that way, but it really was kind of cool.

To the credit of this country, we make it abundantly clear that we want our POW’s back in one piece. That works well with some countries, not so well in other cases. The assumption when I was in the military was that suicide would be preferable to being captured. I didn’t feel that way, but many people did.

The use of torture is not about ‘them.’ It is about us, and what we stand for. If the US represents nothing more than invasion, occupation, and superior military technology, then I suppose torture fits right in with the picture.

While it is understandable that each of us would have strong emotional responses when confronted with a violent enemy, as a society we reject the idea of acting as vigilantes. Every one of us knows this in our hearts; we want to stand for the rule of law, for ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’

Torture is wrong. A little bit is not ok. Delving into gradations of abuse, psychological stress, and physical torture is beneath every one of us. Torture is what ‘they’ do. Under no circumstances should it ever be something we do. As someone noted, we want to be ‘the good guys,’ and deep down, every one of us knows what is right in this case.

The Bush administration policies on this topic have deeply dishonored our country, and done great damage to our moral integrity as a nation, as well as our reputation in the world community.

Posted by: phx8 at January 14, 2005 01:14 AM

Great posting phx8

It disturbed me as well that this adminstration specifically apprears to want to deal with what is “legal” (and thereby subject to re-definition into something that is convenient for them) vs what is “right”.
I believe our principles are not “OUR” (American) principles, they are HUMAN principles
Civil Liberties, human rights are NOT just for Americans.
Yes, we fought and died and sacrificed so that we could live under a government that recognizes these principles — but that does not mean they only exist in and for Americans.
These Values apply to EVERY HUMAN —
and until a HUMAN is PROVEN GUILTY — their rights and liberties need to be defended.
Even AFTER being proven guilty, there are certain limits to the treatment that should be accorded to them —
If we act no better than “them” then we ARE no better than “them”.

Posted by: Russ at January 17, 2005 10:09 AM

phx8, you almost had me there, right up to the end about PRESIDENT Bush’s policies and our national honor. Just how do you think he personally, or his policies, are different from those of former Presidents in a time of war or peace? At least we agree on a couple things… war sucks, shitty things happen, and it is best for all if we stay above the sludge line on our actions. Again I say, however, that you do not reason with a rabid dog that has you cornered… you either climb a tree and evade or you kick the bastard in his nose and make him bleed awhile to think about it. Running away is not an option in an age of easy international travel coupled with suitcase nukes and Bio/Chem weapons. Yup. War sucks. They declared ‘game on’ and the only choices now are win/lose and whether it is fought in their backyard, or mine. Easy choices. Now then, what is your proposal for situations where an American (hell, it doesn’t need to be a Yank, where ANYONE) is brutally tortured, decapitated, and their body parts strung up at the four corners of the town?

Posted by: Tom at January 17, 2005 04:15 PM

Tom,
“… What is your proposal for situations where an American… is brutally tortured, decapitated, and their body parts strung up at the four corners of the town?”

It’s a good question. What should we do when faced with war crimes? In short, my solution is to stand for the rule of law, and bring them to justice.

Let’s look at the example of Fallujah. In this case, a group of Iraqis committed an atrocity, a war crime by any culture’s measure.

The initial US response was an emotional one. We attempted to respond with the military. That did not work. The US then attempted to rely upon a hastily installed local government to bring the perpetrators to justice. If that had been the initial response, perhaps it would have worked. We’ll never know. The resulting actions in Fallujah have obviously been a failure.

Posted by: phx8 at January 17, 2005 07:49 PM