November 08, 2007
Tortured Logic
On Wednesday, November 7th, Alan Dershowitz, no conservative icon, took a swipe at Democrats for their stance on the issue of waterboarding as, on consecutive days the Wall Street Journal dealt with the issue on their editorial pages.
Dershowitz believes that terrorism is potentially a losing issue for Democrats if the public really believes they are willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people to keep their consciences clean. What he knows is high-minded moralizing sounds wonderful to those who feel invulnerable. Many, many Americans do not feel invulnerable.
In November 6th's article ("Waterboarding and Hiroshima" by Bret Stephens) the comparison was with the moral dilemma involved with the massive aerial bombing campaigns of W.W.II, easily the most brutal example of anti-civilian warfare in human history. Sure, the Germans did it first. Then the allies saw their hand and raised it to a level of indiscriminate carnage unimagineable even in the earlier history of mechanized warfare. Stephens says it this way, noting the promise by Roosevelt and Churchill to bomb German cities in response to German civilian attacks was fulfilled-
"over Hamburg by 700 British bombers, in Mr.Valiunas’s telling, it was a scene from the Inferno: 'Oxygen starvation and carbon monoxide poisoning killed many; bomb shelters turned into ovens and roasted the persons inside, so that rescue workers days later found the bodies seared together in an indistinguishable mass; the molten asphalt of the streets engulfed those who fled the burning buildings.' An estimated 45,000 people died this way in Hamburg."
That, of, course was not the end. Hundreds of thousands more died in Germany and as many and more in Japan as well. The horror of these forms of warfare alone is beyond our early 21st century genteel ken. THEN we dropped atomic bombs. Stephens continues-
"Among historians, there is a lively debate about whether that result was achieved. In the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the evidence that the bombings ended the war and saved as many as a million Allied and Japanese lives is overwhelming."
Are there legitimate questions as to the value of such bombings, especially those conducted over Germany? Yes. War is a bad business. Good people do horrible things in war. But one can't reasonably disconnect some horrible things from others and say that bombing German cities didn't contribute to ending the war. It most assuredly did. Neither can one expect us, when many see real enemies presenting real dangers to real innocent people, to eschew a process that has produced actionable evidence and saved real people (and has not caused the streets to become molten tar pits or children's brains to boil out of their temples).
In Mr. Dershowitz's discussion of the feel-good morality of defining something that makes one feel as though they are drowning, but leaves them unharmed, as "torture" he makes the following point-
"Marginal Democratic candidates certainly benefit from moving to the left on national security issues, but serious candidates--candidates who want to have any realistic chance of prevailing in the general election--must not allow themselves to be pushed, shoved or even nudged away from a strong commitment to national security."
You may know a loving parent who would not do genuine harm to someone they knew had information that could prevent one of their children from coming to harm or being killed. Their willingness to enforce their morality at the sacrifice of the lives of innocent third parties would be quite remarkable- very Wilsonian, to venture into a discussion from a couple of weeks ago. I personally do not know a person who would so callously dispatch the innocent for the benefit of their value structure. Interestingly, as Dershowitz points out, neither would former president Clinton (to the recent chagrin, in a debate, of Mrs. Clinton). This he quoted from an interview on National Public Radio-
"'You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or waterboarding him or otherwise working him over.'"
"He said Congress should draw a narrow statute 'which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.' The president would have to "take personal responsibility" for authorizing torture in such an extreme situation."
Dershowitz also is troubled by the rampant "wisdom" that torture produces bad intelligence.
"This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives."
It is to be remembered, of course, that Nazis, used torture techniques that left people damaged.
That absolutist moralizing sells well on the far left is obvious by the twists and turns of the Democratic party in their attempts to stay on the good side of their best, and most vociferous, funders. That it scares the middle of the American electorate to death is obvious by polling and the fact that staunchly Democratic voices like Dershowitz's would raise alarms about the party's direction. In past wars, once we had realized the enemy presented real dangers, the petty moralizing in the service of feeling good about ourselves evaporated and we went about the grim business of doing horrible things in as measured a way as was humanly possible under the circumstances. Now, the nations to whom we did those horrible things are among our closest allies in the world.
As straw men go waterboarding-as-torture is as soggy as they get, and Democrats like Dershowitz are trying to let the rest of the party know it.
Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at November 8, 2007 10:11 AMThere is really no arguing this — either you think waterboarding is torture, or you don’t. I think it is, and so does “staunchly Republican” John McCain.
I don’t really care what Dershowitz has to say about winning elections. He has no particular expertise on the matter, and I would be ashamed if Democrats gave in on an issue like this simply to pander to voters. Wrong is wrong.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 8, 2007 11:55 AMThere is a bill being sponsored by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., that would unequivocally outlaw waterboarding and other practices most people would recognize as torture, but it sits there while some do political grand sanding for cheap political points.
Why does it sit there, why are there a lot of speaches given but nothing done. Because they don’t really care. Any Congressman that denouces the practise but doesn’t push for this bill is nothing but a cheap political hack.
If they can’t go on the record with a vote, then they don’t really mean what they say.
Posted by: Mutt at November 8, 2007 12:41 PMIn war, you can fight back. With torture, you’re stuck in a room with somebody who has absolute power over you. The ability to defend yourself distinguishes a battle from a massacre, a hand to hand fight from a torture session, an interrogation from an act of sadism meant to encourage absolute submission.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2007 01:13 PM The Isrealis have the best and only decent response to this issue. The also have the MOST experience,sadly, of having to deal with the circumstance. Torture is forbbiden by law and the Torah.When they are placed in a position of having to get information on imminent attacks,they break the law and are prepared to suffer the consequinces from both man and God. Torture is NEVER legitamized.
Another advantage to this approach is it limits torture to the rare circumstances of an imminemt attack and does not provide cover for tortue as punishment or deterent. Most cases of torture that go on in the world are for the purpose of political repression and terror. If you believe that could never happen here you are ignoreing history. We dare not venture down that road.
Actually, BillS, the approach you take is one I respect. In the example I gave of doing harm to prevent the death or injury to a child I fully expect such actions to be illegal and to own up to and accept the consequences for my actions.
Stephen’s rebuttal is laughable on the face of it. Children, dying in the face of a firestorm or in a bomb shelter can “fight back”? Nonsense. I suppose he would concede to the people who gave up information that foiled bomb plots in Europe and the U.S. the opportunity to kill some undefined number of innocent citizens to make up for their humiliation at the hands of our agressive questioning. (not totally dissimilar to the plot of “Fail-Safe” 1964, starring Henry Fonda, except WE drop the bomb on New York in the movie.)
How much time in prison is “rough questioning” worth? I think I could handle it to save many lives.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 8, 2007 02:00 PMThis is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives.
I can’t believe that Dershowitz, a Jew, would want his country to emulate the Nazis. He should be ashamed of himself!
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 8, 2007 02:47 PMWhat has striken me is the role reversal (again) on an issue just so that both sides of it can support their party…
For so many years, even recent ones, we’ve been told that Republicans see things too much in ‘black and white’ while Democrats understand there is reasoning behind many things and we need to evaluate in each instance.
Yet, here we are with Republicans saying that there are times and places to do certain things and the Democrats saying that ‘right is right and wrong is wrong’.
And those not partisanly motivated are sitting around scratching their heads saying ‘huh’? We certainly don’t wnat to use the torture tactics of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, but many people are a little more than uncomfortable with not trying to push information out of those seeking to kill Americans simply because they are Americans.
I agree with Dershowitz on this one, the Democrats are doing themselves harm, but if this is the stance they want to take for conscience reasons, who can fault them? It will most likely cost them election-wise, but if they truly believe in their principles, more power to them.
Of course, as this would be a first time, it does seem particularly strange to me…
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2007 02:48 PMYeah, Woody, that’s exactly what he was saying.
Hey, the Nazis built the autobahn too, we emulated it with the national highway system. Does that mean we want to kill all the jews as well?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2007 02:50 PMRhinehold,
Come on, there’s a difference between building roads and torture…
By the way, the Nazis did not officially “torture” people. They used “enhanced interrogation” (Verschärfte Vernehmung). No kidding. Andrew Sullivan shows a page from a Nazi interrogation manual.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html
Lee,
One thing that is not clear from your article: Do you think waterboarding is torture or not? You refer to “waterboarding-as-torture” as a “straw man”, but you don’t deny that it is. Neither does Dershowitz.
There are really two distinct questions here that are getting muddled.
1) Is waterboarding torture?
2) When, if ever, should we use torture?
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 8, 2007 03:19 PMObjectively, opposing water boarding would not put Democrats on the fringe. Here is a poll:
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
69% say waterboarding is torture, 58% say it should not be allowed.
Some thoughts on waterboarding:
Always been a crime. Always been torture.
This technique has been around for over a hundred years. It was used during the Spanish Inquisition. It has always been classified as torture in the U.S., even during the US - Mexican war, and any soldier caught doing it has always been decomissioned. There has never been any question that it is torture.
Always been totally ineffective.
Countries that have experience with waterboarding now outlaw it. It was used in the UK and in Israel against terrorists. It was later outlawed in both countries, because it was shown to be ineffective, on top of being morally repugnant.
I think many in the world used to think of the U.S. as the good guys, who stood for certain ideals. No more. The damage is done. People like yourself that supported and continue to support torturing people, not even giving them a trial or basis for doing so, have put this country in danger. You have turned countless thousands against us. I ask you - how much would you hate a country that indiscriminately tortured one of your relatives? What wouldn’t you do to even the score?
Yet you do support torture, not because it works, or brings any benefit at all other than give its supporters the chance to beat themselves on the chest, waive their flags, and call themselves real men.
Posted by: Max at November 8, 2007 04:31 PMLee said: “Good people do horrible things in war.”
No! Absolute polluted logic. Good people who do horrible things are no longer good people. We put people in prison for one horrible act, regardless of their past.
Some Republicans and Democrats want to have it both ways. Imprison a first time child molester or drug dealer as a bad person, but, say our military personnel who violate the rules of war, humanity, or treaty are still good people if they are OUR people. Pure BullPucky. There is no logical, ethical, or philosophical integrity in such cognitively dissonant reasoning.
Mahatma Gandhi proved that in war with an adversary one can remain a good person and win in their war. They threw off the yoke of British Empire peacefully and without violence on their part which embarrassed the British into capitulation. Violence or non-violence is a choice every good person must make when facing an adversary. But, having made the choice of violence, the very scriptures and codes of moral conduct dictate that the person who chooses violence is no longer a good person, unless and until, they cross back to the decision of non-violence.
But, the Democrats are rightfully working to restore world wide respect for America and American interaction with foreign people. Water boarding is an act that defeats that effort. It is torture, and nearly all the people of the world would view it as torture if applied to them.
Republicans are absolutely on the wrong side of this issue as is Mukasey and the Bush Administration. And it is just one of many reasons Americans continue to poll ever higher for Democrats to take more control of government and Republicans to take less.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2007 04:41 PMWow, you really got them flag waving, torture loving real men in a corner now.
Most people don’t know that the US “indiscriminately” tortures people for fun. Most people dont know that every one of those innocent muslims were picked up because some dumb hick GI’s were bored.
I know its hard to believe, but every single one of those innocent people have been tortured and waterboarded and NOTHING of value has come from them.
Come on Max, get the word out man. Tell those who refuse to see the light just how many of those innocent people there are down there. They need to know just how many people the US has tortured. They need to know just how many people have been waterboarded. They need to know that it was for pleasure and that no intel was given up.
Oh, could you please let them know just how many Americans have been tortured and waterboarded too. Going by what is on TV and my daily visits to kos and the daily show, I’m sure it has to be up in the thousands now, but I think those chest beating a-holes need an accurate number before they will shut up.
Posted by: kctim at November 8, 2007 04:53 PMkctim, thousands have been released from Guantanamo, renditioned out, or returned to their home countries. So, tell me. Did Bush commit treason freeing our enemies to strike us again, (since you seem to believe there were no innocents in Guantanamo), or was there not enough legitimate reason to hold them in the first place even under military law, or, did the Bush administration fear what they had to say about being tortured, should their stories get into the public view and become verified?
Or, all of the above?
Are you denying America has water boarded anyone? Is it all a left wing conspiracy? May I remind you that waterboarding’s most effective use, say current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States. A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.
Yet, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has said: “I have sought that result for years. [CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden’s banning water boarding as an interrogation technique in Sept.] Waterboarding is a form of torture. And I’m convinced that this will not only help us in our interrogation techniques, but it will also be helpful for our image in the world.” (Quote is from interview with ABC correspondent).
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2007 05:37 PMIt is to be remembered, of course, that Nazis, used torture techniques that left people damaged.
It is to be rememered, of course, that Nazis lost everything - not just their hunamity or morallity - in just a few decades.
And people wants to take the same path!?
David, its not that I believe there were no innocents sent to Guantanamo, but rather that I believe the majority sent there were there for a reason.
I know some want everybody to believe that the US is evil and sweeps up muslims to torture “indiscriminately,” but that is not the case.
And yes, if intel said somebody shouldn’t be released, but Bush did so for PR reasons, then he is negligent and should be held accountable.
And no, I do not deny we have water boarded anyone. The last I heard, we have used it 3 or 4 times when it was believed it would be the most effective way to get intel to our benefit.
But that is 3 or 4 out of thousands for a purpose, not “indiscriminately” as the left and its media wants the people to believe.
We also do it to our own when they go through survival training, just in case you didnt know.
And what is this about the CIA and KSM? Max says it has “Always been totally ineffective.”
Do you mean to say Max was wrong and that this technique may have actually prevented a number of ongoing plots against the US?
You wouldn’t know that from reading headlines or watching the news.
McCain is entitled to his opinion. In my opinion, he is not prepared to do EVERYTHING possible to protect the US and its citizens, so I will never vote for him.
What a totally screwed up world we live in today.
The bad guys waterboard and the good guys saw off heads.
kctim,
Oh, could you please let them know just how many Americans have been tortured and waterboarded too. […] I think those chest beating a-holes need an accurate number before they will shut up.
Hum, isn’t any number above zero will be enough?
Okay, let’s see… Salem’s witches. Soldiers captured during Vietnam War. Americans captured recently. Any american spy ever captured by US enemies.
Should give more than a zero already, nope?
But to get THE accurate number, nobody will tell, even under torture. Because nobody knows. Because nobody should know. Which is telling enough.
And quite ironic, let me add.
I know some want everybody to believe that the US is evil
No. It’s that we want everybody to believe that the US is good, but these bad policies make that a more and more difficult case.
Wanting to believe that the US is good doesn’t make unconscionable acts done in our name just disappear. They disappear only when the standards and beliefs we thought America stood for are once again honored.
Posted by: LawnBoy at November 8, 2007 06:38 PMDavid, its not that I believe there were no innocents sent to Guantanamo, but rather that I believe the majority sent there were there for a reason.
Yep. Which, for a majority of them, were not good enough to keep them there. So they were freed of any charge…
No charge, but no all without wounds…
McCain is entitled to his opinion. In my opinion, he is not prepared to do EVERYTHING possible to protect the US and its citizens, so I will never vote for him.
Yep. It’s called having a moral stance. Some people think that some means can’t be justified whatever the end.
Would you nuke half americans less one in order to protect the other half if you have no other choice (or can’t find one)?
What a totally screwed up world we live in today. The bad guys waterboard and the good guys saw off heads.
Nice straw man argument. Too bad nobody will fall in such obvious rhetoric trap.
BTW:
What a totally screwed up world we live in today. The bad guys waterboard and the good guys saw off heads.
Not really. It’s more looking like the good guys wateroard and the bad guys saw off heads.
Wait. Damned. You’re right, totally screwed up world!
Should the U.S. suffer another attack similar to 9/11 American’s would demand to know if we had the chance to thwart the attack by obtaining intelligence using any means necessary including water-boarding! And if so, why such means were not used. Many have been lulled into thinking another catastrophic strike against us is not possible. Perhaps our government has done such a good job of stopping threats that we have become complacent. We live in a country of law and order and some can’t or won’t believe we are targets waiting for opportunity. Should another strike be successful many of you will quickly change your view. It’s quite easy to advocate treating an enemy with tender love and caring from our comfortable homes, and quite another to put into practice when we are threatened with immenient destruction. Which of you would not kill an intruder in your home threatening your life and the life of your family? Is killing not a more severe punishment than water-boarding?
Posted by: Jim at November 8, 2007 06:48 PMJim said: “Should the U.S. suffer another attack similar to 9/11 American’s would demand to know if we had the chance to thwart the attack by obtaining intelligence using any means necessary including water-boarding!”
Jim, if any means necessary is justified then nuclear carpet bombing of the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia is justified.
How about sterilizing all Muslims? That would be a long term solution.
By any means necessary is and ‘ends justifies the means’ argument which is antithetical to our Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.
Thank you, though, for this rather typical Republican view which now has 74% of Americans agreeing Bush is the wrong president for this day and time.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2007 07:15 PMkctim said: “We also do it to our own when they go through survival training, just in case you didnt know.”
That is entirely voluntary, kctim, and you damn well should know that. A huge difference from being water-boarded without consent and without knowing if it will result in your death.
Get real!
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2007 07:19 PMIs killing not a more severe punishment than water-boarding?
Death vs Torture simulating death over and over and over. Hum. That’s tough decision. Let me see… Oh yeah, I’m against death penalty. So I guess I should agreed torture is legitimate…
Maye not.
Sorry, I’m not a “the ends always justify the means” guy.
David,
Jim, if any means necessary is justified then nuclear carpet bombing of the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia is justified.How about sterilizing all Muslims? That would be a long term solution.
No needs. Nukes will do that for free.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 8, 2007 07:50 PMFrom some pro-torture posters, I’m for changing this thread title into “Tortured ethic”, BTW.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 8, 2007 07:53 PMI’m a little confused (happens a lot lately, I’m afraid) but…
Since the US doesn’t waterboard and reports show that the US has only used the method 3 times between 2002 and 2003 (at a time of highented fears of other attacks, anthrax scares, etc, when the administration easily could have just declared martial law and did what it wanted for that time), and has since signed into law an executive order that all torturem as defined by 18 USC 2340, which includes “the threat of imminent death”…
What is the real point here? Does anyone think that waterboarding is still going on or has gone on since 2003? Why is an issue now when it looks like, to me, that it has been dealt with?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2007 09:45 PMRhinehold-
How about having water in your lungs?
Rhinehold,
As far as I know, the US has never denied that it is still waterboarding. The practice is against military law, but there is no explicit law against non-military personnel like CIA agents doing it.
Of course torture is against the law, but what is torture, exactly? That seems to be the $64,000 question. If Bush would just flat out say that waterboarding is torture and a crime then we could drop the argument.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 8, 2007 09:52 PMWoody,
Well,
On July 20, 2007, U.S. President George W. Bush signed an executive order banning torture during interrogation of terror suspects. The executive order refers to torture as defined by 18 USC 2340, which includes “the threat of imminent death”.
On September 14, 2007, ABC News reported that sometime in 2006 CIA Director Michael Hayden asked for and received permission from “the White House” to ban the use of waterboarding in CIA interrogations. The source of information is current and former CIA officials. ABC reported that waterboarding had been authorized by a 2002 Presidential finding.
On November 5, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that its “sources confirm… that the CIA has only used this interrogation method against three terrorist detainees and not since 2003.”
On September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding.
So, I guess I would ask you, where do you have the notion that the US supports waterboarding beyond what they have admitted to and opposed to the executive order and military law?
And no, I don’t support torture. In fact, I don’t think we should be removing our shoes and belts just to board a freakin’ plane, but I’m one of those personal rights nuts.
But it just seems to me to be such a non-issue, since no one has reported that this is going on in any real practice, in fact only 3 times that we can tell.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2007 10:11 PMLee Jamison-
War is torture, torture is war… Anything to justify crossing the lines you want to cross.
It’s sort of like the time Bill O’Reilly confused Nazis murdering defenseless American Soldiers with American Soldiers shooting unarmed SS officers. I guess we needed to justify Americans committing war crimes so nobody would question the quality of leadership that allows discipline and adherence to American standards of behavior to slip.
This is about lowering the bar on what we expect of ourselves. This is not rough questioning, it’s torture. You might feel it’s more manly to inflict pain and suffering on suspects, but the evidence demonstrates the unreliability of these “tough” approaches.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2007 11:01 PMRhinehold-
If it’s such a moot point, why did Alberto Gonzales essentially fire a guy who defined it as torture?
People don’t go so far to defend practies they’re not planning on using.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2007 11:30 PMIt is ideal to think we should avoid torture. The line of reasoning within this thread that the crys against torture and supposed torture are hollow. Someone, some individual will be in a position to use whatever is at their disposal to extract information. Because in their mind they are out of options. As uncertainty mounts, as fear builds, options that we said should “never” happen are 1st to reappear. Having this discussing is an academic exercise in punishment, because prevention is something that will never happen. The Israeli example above is great because it shows that they knowingly step outside of their societal and religious rules.
Posted by: Snickers at November 8, 2007 11:36 PMSources said he was forced out of the Justice Department when Gonzales became attorney general.
So, where is your evidence that the reason he was ‘forced out’ was because he defined waterboarding as torture and not some other issue, including a targetted housecleaning by a new AG?
And Levin did not say that it was illegal in all cases. “waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision”. There’s no evidence that I’ve seen that it was used in any legal way.
I’m sorry Stephen, but I’m going to have to ask for more than you’ve provided.
The link you provided does not show evidence to what you suggest, got anything else?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2007 11:52 PMErr, in any ‘illegal way’. Sorry if I caused confusion.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2007 11:55 PMAndrew Sullivan did some digging recently, and found that our “enhanced interrogation”, in both name and description differs little from that which the Gestapo employed. As Sullivan writes:
Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I’m not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn’t-somehow-torture - “enhanced interrogation techniques” - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.
The thing you have to understand is that most of these enhanced interrogation techniques are reversed engineered from the SERE program. Which happens to be based on modern torture methods designed by the Nazis and Soviets. This article offers an account of that.
Waterboarding is torture, and our soldier have been taught as much for a very long time.
Since torture is illegal, the answer to the question Democrats have asking should be an obvious yes. Unfortunately, there are many obvious things that seem to get muddled when it comes to this administration.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2007 12:20 AMStephen,
I am not arguing if waterboarding is torture or not. I’m just saying if it is currently not allowed, and was only employed 3 times during 2002 and 2003 when it was allowed, why is this a big issue?
Can you show me that we are actively waterboarding anyone? With all of the leaks that pop up and have already come out that show us what we already know, there is no one suggesting that this practice is being used by the CIA or military since last used in 2003.
So again, I ask, what is the issue that has many on the left in an uproar? I’ve been out of the loop for a few months so I may just have missed something, but it seems like a huge waste of time, other than an attempt to use it as a wedge issue/political gain. And I don’t see that as working out well for Democrats if they continue to push it.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 9, 2007 12:30 AMSo is “enhanced interrogation” torture? One way to answer this question is to examine history. The phrase has a lineage. Verschärfte Verneh-mung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the “third degree”. It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation. The United States prosecuted it as a war crime in Norway in 1948. The victims were not in uniform - they were part of the Norwegian insurgency against the German occupation - and the Nazis argued, just as Cheney has done, that this put them outside base-line protections (subsequently formalised by the Geneva conventions).
From The Sunday Times
October 7, 2007
So is waterboarding torture, of course it is. It was defined as torture as far back as WW II, when several Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for utilizing waterboarding against U.S. soldiers. An American soldier was court-martialed during the Vietnam War for waterboarding a Vietnamese soldier. The argument that waterboarding is not torture when experts apply it makes the argument that some Germans were wrongfully prosecuted after WW II. Waterboarding falls within the definition of torture by our own laws and the Geneva Convention. The raising of the question whether waterboarding is torture or not, is just misdirection in order to raise doubt about its illegality.
So is three the magic number? Just because one source mentions he is aware of three prisoners of being subjected to waterboarding, can we be certain more instances have not taken place? Or is three a small enough number that we can feel self-righteous about not using it more? Is this unnamed source quoted by everyone to a point of certainty speaking also for the military, contractors and countries that received prisoners through rendition? Certainly the right believes that every one of these prisoners is guilty and evil, but at what number do we become the evil one? While we have the right to defend our home, do we have the right to torture an incapacitated criminal before the police arrive? Finally, if we are no longer torturing prisoners are we still not guilty, and specifically is President Bush no longer guilty of war crimes?
On November 5, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that its “sources confirm… that the CIA has only used this interrogation method against three terrorist detainees and not since 2003.”
Rhinehold,
If an anonymous source gave The Nation some favorable information about Hillary Clinton, would conservatives believe it and end the argument?
I don’t think you can accuse the left of dragging out the argument. It is Michael Mukasey who didn’t want to say whether waterboarding is torture.
If you are looking for evidence of ongoing use, consider this interview with Dick Cheney in 10/06:
Hennen: “…And I’ve had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we’re all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?”Cheney: “I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that’s been a very important tool that we’ve had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we’ve learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that.”
There is a good reason not to torture, beside the whole love-thy-neighbor thing. A person being tortured will say anything to make it stop, including very truthful sounding lies. All torture does is make people talk. Lots. About anything that they think will make the torture stop.
L
Posted by: leatherankh at November 9, 2007 08:55 AMThis technique has been around for over a hundred years. It was used during the Spanish Inquisition.
Really…and the Spanish Inquisition was in which century???? Much more than 100 years ago…and hopefully we should’ve become much more enlightened since then…but religion was a procurer of torture then and continues to be be even over 500 years later…
Posted by: Rachel at November 9, 2007 08:57 AMPhilippe
I was speaking of Americans who have been tortured by our own govt. That and our govt listening in on every American phone call are major speaking points right now for leftist.
“Yep. It’s called having a moral stance. Some people think that some means can’t be justified whatever the end.”
I have no problem with that at all.
In the real world though, the ends do justify the means when it comes to protecting lives.
“Would you nuke half americans less one in order to protect the other half if you have no other choice (or can’t find one)?”
Nope. But I would nuke any other country to protect my own, if it came down to that.
LawnBoy
Valid points. But it is true only half of the time really.
It is politics, not the need for intel which determines whether the US is good or not.
Wow. Has this stirred up a hornet’s nest or what?
David, I lost some sleep over your retort- “Good people who do horrible things are no longer good people. We put people in prison for one horrible act, regardless of their past.” The very act of participation in war is a horror. You are trying to split a hair here, as though something being legal makes that thing good, or at least not evil. Hunting human beings is a horrible thing no matter what the legal auspices of doing so are. It scars good people. My late neighbor, Pete Fowler described to me some little bit of what happened on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The MEMORY of it was torture to him.
Several people in my community who didn’t go to war held a grudge against another of my neighbors who hid out in the Big Thicket to avoid conscription. Strangely, though, the ones I knew who DID go didn’t hold such feelings. Their service had been so awful they wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
What I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that full-fledged war is worse than torture. When leaders, in the service of some idolatrous image of “morality” and “peace” display weakness to valueless regimes they invite conquest.
David wrote-
Mahatma Gandhi proved that in war with an adversary one can remain a good person and win in their war. They threw off the yoke of British Empire peacefully and without violence on their part which embarrassed the British into capitulation. Violence or non-violence is a choice every good person must make when facing an adversary.
Ghandi was not fighting Hitler. Ghandi was not fighting Stalin. Ghandi was not fighting Mao. The violence-free opposition in each of those instances won the peace of the grave- to the aggregate tune of nearly 100 million people.
War is the immoral choice left to us when our courage to stand up for difficult things in peacetime fails us. European vengefulness, American isolationism, and the namby-pamby pacifism of Neville Chamberlain plowed the fields and sowed the seeds of W.W.II. Hitler would have been powerless without our reticence to do difficult things in the aftermath of W.W.I.
For the sake of the discussion I’m going to state that waterboarding IS torture. OK it is evil. That is a sort of infinity in human moral conception. Bombings and killings are more evil. In a world of infinities of darkness I will opt for the infinities of prime numbers rather than the infinities of whole integers if one can reasonably be expected to interdict the other.
I believe that, to this point, waterboarding has been used as though it was thought to be an evil process even in the administration. I further believe it has prevented acts of war and many deaths. Finally, I believe the left is now willing to let those innocent people die to score political points, keep their hands clean, and again raise the banner “Peace in our Time!”.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 9, 2007 09:27 AMDavid
“Get real!”
You are right, I do know damn well that there is a difference. But my intent was not to say “we do it to our own, so we can do it to them.”
I was only mentioning something that most do not know.
You read what Max and others have said about the US torturing and waterboarding Americans and innocent muslims indiscriminatly and for the hell of it. How it NEVER works and how it somehow makes us worse than our enemy and YOU know damn well that is not true.
We have used this technique a FEW times to get intel. There is no need to make it seem like it is an hourly occurrence, done at random for the hell of it, just so one can make their country look bad because their President is a Republican.
Posted by: kctim at November 9, 2007 09:39 AMkctim, I agree with you that many on the left have engaged in reprehensible hyperbole to raise awareness of this issue. It is part of a bigger picture though, Abu Ghraib, rendition, and a policy of torture by the Bush Administration that has indeed made America appear as bad as our enemy in the eyes of many in the world. That is not hyperbole, that is documented testified fact in Congressional hearings.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2007 09:46 AMLee said: “You are trying to split a hair here, as though something being legal makes that thing good, or at least not evil.”
I did not even suggest such a thing. I suggest you reread my comments. Legality has never made an action good. Killing 6 million in Nazi Germany was legal by German law. I would never subscribe to the postulation that you somehow interpreted from my comments.
In fact, your comments reinforce mine. Post Traumatic Syndrome Disorder is in large part a reaction by people with conscience for having committed unconscionable acts. They may overcome their PTSD, but, most will never shed the guilt they experience for having committed acts they would normally attribute to “bad” people. This is not only documented in PTSD research, but, I have first hand knowledge of it having listened to Viet Nam War vets, 2 of them decades after that war was over.
But, you don’t have to be a war vet to experience this. Most of us carry guilt with us for having acted wrongly toward someone we thought we should have, and thought we cared about. Guilt is a painful experience. It is the mechanism by which evolution allowed our species to develop a sense and codes of morality and ethics.
Any person who experiences guilt knows their guilty action is painful, precisely because it made them a bad or unworthy person in their own eyes. Forgiveness comes when, as I said originally, the person crosses back over to the “decision of non-violence.” (Violence is not just physical).
This is one of the basic tenets of Christianity and all the major religions for that matter. We all sin. Sin makes us bad people not only in the eyes of our god, but, our own. Redemption is achieved by ceasing to be that sinner and acting as to avoid that sin, again.
The heart of treatment for soldiers with PTSD caused by acts they committed which they abhor, is helping them understand that they are no longer that person in that situation committing that act.
The reason many, not most, can never heal, is because they know that if they had it to do all over again, they would. Hence, they know they are not forgiven, for they are still the person they were when they committed the acts that fostered guilt in the first place. Hence the perpetual reliving of the act in their dreams, flashbacks, and preoccupied subconscious thought. Which is a horrible state for the civilized human mind to live with. It is in fact, a mental health disease.
Many more get on with their lives by employing the denial defense mechanism, never thinking about, discussing, or reliving the events, ever again. This measure only carries various degrees of success depending on the individual.
Violence in defense of a direct attack on oneself or cared for, carries forgiveness and redemption within it. Violence one volunteers for against others who did not directly threaten oneself, does not carry forgiveness and redemption without some expensive mental and emotional gymnastics, or the forgiveness that comes with the acceptance that one is no longer that person, capable of those actions.
Adam Smith explores this, which is quite remarkable and genius, since his writing of the Theory of Moral Sentiments predates all modern psychology and psychiatry.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2007 10:19 AMLee said: “Ghandi was not fighting Hitler.”
Quite right. He was fighting the British who wholesale slaughtered thousands for the crime of peaceable assembly and peaceful discourse, and enslaved millions in their own country. You find this morally elevated, do you?
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2007 10:25 AMLee said: “Finally, I believe the left is now willing to let those innocent people die to score political points, keep their hands clean, and again raise the banner “Peace in our Time!”.
Lee we all die. Dying is natural. Torture on the other hand, is not a natural experience. That is a deliberate infliction of suffering. Your relativism on this I find peculiar.
And I can think of no more humane nor civilized goal than Peace in our Time. I am little surprised such a banner raising takes you to opposition of those raising it, even if you are a Republican supporter.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2007 10:35 AMLee,
This may be out of left field, but the Nazis were not a result of Chamberlain’s weakness or strengths.
Hitler, and his Nazis were a result of the deprivation forced upon the whole of the German people after WW1. Hitler merely took advantage of that situation.
Perhaps if the actions of the Allies had been a bit more enlightened, Hitler could have been barely a footnote in history.
David,
I’m sure you recognize the jab at Chamberlain.
This is not really an argument over who is the moral relativist, but one over what brand of relativism we choose. I see a Wilsonian relativism as one that refuses allow anyone to be drawn into the sewer, and thus fails to maintain the sewer until after its contents have inundated the town square.
I prefer a T.R. relativism that accepts we will have people who labor daily in the sewer to keep what belongs there in the sewer.
kctim-
Is mere survival all that matters? I would rather die a free man in a terrorist attack than live under a police state free from the threat of the terrorists.
That is the direction we’re heading.
The fantasy is that the government can determine arbitrarily, without recourse to any due process, or at least solid intelligence, whether a person is a terrorist. The fantasy here is that we can distinguish the guilty from the innocent when we take this “enhanced interrogation” approach. The fantasy is that people are like computers who can be “hacked” by torture to give pure information. Torture can not only compel people to lie or tell people what they want to hear, it can create false memories as the torture pushes people to remember things correctly from the interrogators point of view. Torture is unreliable for the same reason hypnosis is unreliable: it makes people suggestible, and suggestible people can be made to believe things are true that are not.
Furthermore, it makes legitimate interrogation more difficult,making it more difficult to notice the stress responses that give away the lies of the subject, among other things.
So what are we gaining for the infamy these techniques bring us? Not much really.
As for how many times this technique has been used? I really don’t trust this administration to say. This report of yours of it only being used three times flies in the face of a number of well known facts. First, other enhanced interrogation methods do not seem to be so rare. Blaring music and sleep deprivation do not seem to have been so limited. Neither have stress positions. Second, your source is anonymous, and only speaks for the CIA, an organization not exactly known for it’s sunshine policies. Trusting the CIA not to keep embarassing information secret seems naive to me.
Third, the CIA often contracts out such interrogations. We know about this. There have been tons of stories about secret prisons. The question is not how many people the CIA has tortured, it’s how many have they allowed to be tortured by others.
Fourth, stories from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo have indicated that the notion that interrogators would magically behave in consistence with the rules as to when interrogation is permitted is flawed at best.
The leadership on this issue has been abominable. Even if Waterboarding is as rare as you say, Other enhanced interrogations methods, pioneered by the Nazis of all people, remain not only in common use by interrogators, but are also being touted as America’s salvation by the right. The Irony is sickening.
Lee Jamison-
Have you
1)ever fought in a war,
2)tortured somebody, or
3)been tortured yourself?
Knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt? I doubt you have the personal experience to match that conviction.
You talk about the supposedly namby-pamby pacifism that lead to WWII. Truth was, Europe had just been through one of the bloodiest, most atrocious wars in its history. It’s easy to call these people cowards safe in the states in the beginnings of the 21st Century, but if you just had the first truly mechanized war in your backyard, having seen millions die, and millions more disabled, you’d be a bit reticent about starting the next war, too.
More to the point, Chamberlain’s approach was the result of Europe’s gradual loss of will to continue imposing wartime penalties on the defeated Germany. Having not taken the firm but forgiving approach we took post WWII, which was sustainable, yet provided security, the European powers ended up having their victory and punishing vengeance gradually undermined into a weary permissiveness.
In short, your people are leading us down the same path.
Waterboarding is torture. It is evil. There’s no purpose for it besides inflicting simulated death on somebody. What’s more for the power it gives you over that person, it takes away their reliability as an informant, allowing your own preconceived notions to become truth for the captive.
It will not prevent another war. It will only ensure that we are barking up the wrong tree when we get blindsided by the next attack.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2007 12:00 PMkctim,
In the real world though, the ends do justify the means when it comes to protecting lives.
Oh really? Death Penalty?
This time you can’t hide behind “i’m talking of protecting AMERICAN lives”.
Would you nuke half americans less one in order to protect the other half if you have no other choice (or can’t find one)?Nope.
Why not?!
After all, you said you will never vote for someone that is not prepared to do EVERYTHING (emphasing being yours) possible to protect the US and its citizens! But when facing between killing half americans minus one or losing all, you seems to have… how weird, some restrain to do it. Strange, isn’t it.
I’m glad you have some. The ends doesn’t justify always the means.
But I would nuke any other country to protect my own, if it came down to that.
So will these “any other” countries. Hence the renewed nukes race everywhere. A MAD race.
That why I’m opposing the first strike doctrine, BTW. It breaks MAD peaceful deadlock.
Stephen
The survival, success and safety of the US and its people should be the number one priority. If ensuring that hurts some feelings, so be it.
“I would rather die a free man in a terrorist attack than live under a police state free from the threat of the terrorists”
So would I! Funny you don’t take that same attitude with the 2nd Amendment though. But that is off topic.
I fail to see how using any means necessary on foreign terrorists means we are living in a police state.
Waterboarding being used 3 or 4 times was not a report I quoted. It is nothing more than a number I have heard or read and I stated that. IF you can refute it with facts, then please let us know. But you saying its higher because of your partisan distrust of this admin does not make it so.
“Third, the CIA often contracts out such interrogations. We know about this.”
Yes, we have known about this for quite some time now. So why is it just now that it is so important? If it is such an evil and terrible thing, why was it not such a big deal in, say, 1996 or 2000?
This issue has nothing to do with “machismo” or feeling more “manly” about having power over someone Stephen.
I do not support these techniques because I get a kick out of them, I support them because I believe we should use all available means to protect ourselves from our enemy who is trying to do us harm.
Philippe
I say what I mean and I don’t hide behind anything.
Death penalty huh? Talking about American lives, right? Ok.
As an American, if you commit murder, you are entitled to your rights and once that course has run and you are found guilty without a reasonable doubt, you deserve the death penalty.
Why not, you ask? Because you are dealing in fantasy extremes which pit American against American and I am not. The only thing strange is you having to use “24” scenarios to try and make your point.
Now this may be a shock to you, but I believe “any other country” has just as much right to love their country more than others and to defend their country as needed.
I’m not a liberal PH, I don’t hold hypocritical views.
kctim-
Funny that you mention the Second Amendment. Used to be that people were reasonable about it, rather than knocking down even bills that merely delayed getting the weapon, limited the types available, or confirmed that the person making the purchase wasn’t a criminal.
Now, though, your people talk about how any regulation, however minor, will have jackbooted thugs knocking down our doors taking away our guns. And why? Because Gun rights has all become about free floating fear and anxiety concerning the world around you.
I mean, how many people are actually victims of a crime? It’s about ten times less than the media makes apparent. Crime rates go down, but people don’t feel any safer. Why? Because they see in the media a world infested with crime. Our stone age senses are overwhelmed by modern media’s concentration of these events.
What’s really going on here is that people play on such anxieties to avoid talking about the much more complex issues of governance. They tell what to fear, who to be scared of, and then tell you their opponents will be too soft on it. Or that they’re the source of the problem.
Torture doesn’t produce reliable information. Even if you get some truth, there’s no way to tell whether they’re telling you the truth or just what you want to hear without actually going out there and finding it out for yourself. This one Guy, al-Libi, tortured by our CIA’s friends, had us going on tons of wild goose chases. Then somebody talked to him about the Koran, and he gave us some actually useful information. Our interrogators in WWII didn’t employ torture, and managed to get reams of information.
The truth of the matter is, if torture is not a dependable means of extracting information, all this talk about using all available means to protect America becomes foolish, because at its essence, such an approach is wasteful. We use the methods that produce positive results. On many levels, torture doesn’t. We’re better off, safer, without it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2007 01:41 PMStephen
You are aware that everything you just said about pro 2nd Amendment people is also true about anti 2nd Amendment people, right?
Used to be that people were reasonable and respectful of individual rights enough that they did not want that right taken away because of the actions of a few.
Now, though, your people talk about how without strict regulation, we will have wild west shootouts on our streets every second of the day. And why? Because gun rights have all become about free floating fear and anxiety concerning the world around you.
And even though very few people are actually victims of crime, your people want to take away the rights of all, because of the actions of a few. Why? Because they see in the media, that guns cause all crime and the only way to stop crime is to ban guns.
You are correct, people do play on such anxieties. They tell people to fear guns. To fear their neighbor who owns guns. And then they tell people that everybody who supports their 2nd Amendment right, are nothing but wild west cowboys who fear.
You say we are fearful because we wish to protect our right, while at the same time, you are using fear to convince people to give up that right.
But thats not whats funny. The kicker is you do a complete 360 when it comes to a right you care about. You fear the evil Republicans are passing legislation, no matter how helpful or little, so that they can monitor all your private conversations. And then you claim they are using fear to get people to agree with giving up this right.
Why is it ok for govt to use fear to give up one right, but not another?
Regarding torture, you say “even if you get some truth” by torturing and “on many levels” torture does not produce positive results.
IMO, some truth on any level, is enough in order to protect the US and its people.
Besides, its not like some evil Republican walks down the line saying “this one is waterboarded” “this one dies” “this one gets his koran” “this one is set free” etc…
The coddling and soft interegation techniques are used on the vast majority of prisoners, while the harshest techniques are used on those who are deemed to have useful intel.
You guys know this and its pitiful how you are making your own country out to be monsters who torture and kill everybody, for political points.
I’m fine with you thinking we would be better off and safer without it. I have no problems with that at all. But for me, I agree with clinton and gore and believe it is in our country’s best interest to use it when needed.
Posted by: kctim at November 9, 2007 03:01 PMStephen,
Let me remind you-
Dershowitz also is troubled by the rampant “wisdom” that torture produces bad intelligence.
“This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives.”
-and even President Clinton sees the “wisdom” in this. Intelligence need not be perfect, or even consistently good, to put people onto new trails that lead to success. Ask the Free French.
You say it does not produce results. It has produced results, though, some of it good. People didn’t die who otherwise would have, which, inherently is not news- to touch on your media angle.
From a news standpoint people not dying is not “good”. It’s just not “bad”, which is essentially neutral. We don’t get to hear about people not dying which is why we hear so little from Iraq these days.
“This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives.”
What is not mentioned is that many innocent people who weren’t involved with the Resistance were killed or apprehended because people gave up their names while being tortured. The Germans didn’t care if deadly mistakes were made because of faulty intelligence. Nowadays of course, we consider all the victims of Germans brutality as innocent. So shouldn’t we with the fine brush of morality try to separate ourselves from their example?
President Clinton never endorsed torture as Dershowitz implies. You should read Clinton’s exact comments. He did said in the narrow case of a “ticking time bomb” scenario:
“We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don’t need blanket advance approval for blanket torture. They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”Clinton was then asked whether he was saying there “would be more responsibility afterward for what was done.” He replied: “Yeah, well, the president could take personal responsibility for it. But you do it on a case-by-case basis, and there’d be some review of it.” Clinton quickly added that he doesn’t know whether this ticking bomb scenario “is likely or not,” but he did know that “we have erred in who was a real suspect or not.”… “But I think if you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Convention and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we’re gonna be in real trouble.”
Posted by: Cube at November 9, 2007 06:23 PM
Experts say the kinds of ticking bomb scenarios shown on 24 have never happened. I would love for this president to take responsibility for his actions, and I do hold him responsible.
Posted by: Max at November 9, 2007 07:31 PMI think, so congress and our courts can take it easy for a while, we should reapprove each Bush cabinet appointee.
Just think of all the hard issues they can solve for us in hearings. Think of all of the free camera and news time the inquisitioners can have.
Democrats would be sure to sweep the elections.
They can ask questions to the appropriate cabinet member to define everything for us all. What really is poverty? What level of Co2 emissions will stop global warming? How many casualties lose a war? The subjects are innumerable.
Rhinehold is correct, this subject is a waste of time and inapplicable to the senate conformation process.
It is an interesting subject to blog about though.
kctim-
The very nature of the problem is that you don’t necessarily know when you’re getting truth or confabulation. Hence, unreliable. A person under torture will tell you whatever it seems will get you to stop hurting you.
Framing everything in terms of softness and toughness muddles the issue. This is not an athletic competition, it’s a battle of wits.
I believe in my country. I believe that civil liberties are an essential backbone of our nation, what distinguishes us and raises us above our enemies, what makes us better than the terrorists.
Our excellence, though, cannot merely be academic or philosophical. It must be carried out in practice. We can’t be Americans simply in nationality, we have to be American in our outlook.
We can’t point to the evils of other, justifying our own, then step back and claim to be better than them. We have to have firm limits to our behavior to truly claim that honor.
Political points are what you’re trying to score with arguments about “coddling” and “soft treatment” The realities are different from what you’re presenting, and the genuine aim of many talking about this is to redeem American foreign policy.
Lee Jamison-
Dershowitz can be troubled by the empirical evidence about the effectiveness of torture all he wants to be. It’s still the truth. Yes, you can get some information. But whether it’s the truth or not is another matter. Let’s recall how well the Nazis did in France: they lost.
It produces unreliable information. If you’ve confused somebody who can’t tell you anything with somebody who won’t, you have practically no chance of getting real information.
At the end of the day, constant false alarms only serve to make defending our country more difficult than it has to be for less benefit.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2007 11:17 PMConcerning torture;
Most liberals I know are not moral absolutists so torture would be defined by the circumstance. It would be torture for me to live in a jungle due to the bugs but it wouldn’t be so to a native.
If a man was beat constantly and lived in hardship like japanese soldiers in ww2. Waterboarding might not be so bad as long as you don’t beat or starve him like his own army did.
I however, am a absolutist or someone who believes in universal truths. Death and misery are absolutely bad. A man who breaks into my home to harm my family will die. I won’t enjoy the killing but protecting my family won’t make me a bad person. The death will be unfortunate but will be totally his own doing. A man who is plotting to kill scores of innocent people and holds back info so they will die, is completely responsible himself for being tortured to talk. The interrogators will consider it unfortunate but necessary.
To put enforcement by peaceful men on the same level as hateful pain inflicting evil men is a complete injustice.
Kruser-
Nobody acts in isolation, but everybody makes decisions for themselves, and if your decisions constantly add up to something else than what you profess to be, then you will be more what you do than what you say.
We cannot forever make war, then call ourselves peace-loving without some folks thinking that ironic or pathological on our part. We cannot torture, and be repeatedly exposed as torturers, and expect that stain not to show up on our nation’s reputation.
If a man breaks into my house and I kill him in self defense, it’s not his doing, it’s mine, my responsibility. He’s responsible for making the decision to break in, I’m responsible for shooting him or bludgeoning him. In that case, though, there is an immediate, obvious threat.
A captive is at your mercy. The only thing they can do to you is not talk, or lie to you. I don’t advocate this because I’m soft. I do it because I feel this makes us weaker as Americans, weaker as opponents to the kind of evil, violent nihilism these people support. If we match it, we haven’t won, we’ve validated it.
I want them to to have to lie to make us look bad. I don’t want us doing their propaganda job for them. If we have to do something that looks questionable to take care of a real problem, I’ll support that, because in the long run the things we don’t take care of for the sake of appearances will come back to haunt us. But doing inherently questionable things and not even reflecting that they are questionable, is setting yourself on the road to hell.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 10, 2007 12:53 AMI simply don’t agree that Jehadists give a rip about our morality or image.
It is an absolute truth that all men have a right to be free. You don’t free incarcerated rapists and shame their guards for holding them because of this absolute truth.
The evil they did to innocent people relinquished that right. We treat them as prisoners because of their own actions. It is unfortunate but necessary. It certainly don’t mean we have abandoned freedom as a truth.
A terroist doesn’t honor any principle of human dignity. They aren’t fine citizens like yourself.
To be obsessed with their comfort rather than the disgusting and abhorrent acts they commit towards innocents is a confusing contradiction. Torture is too good for them.
Overreaction to the awful behavior of terrorism shows a healthy sense of justice to the world. Let’s use tolerance toward political discourse but not toward evil destructive behavior.
Kruser, your argument misses the point entirely. It focuses on the terrorists and their actions, but, regarding torture, the issue is not who the terrorists are, but, who we are. Are we a more humane people than the terrorists? Torturing human beings says we are not. And torturing human beings without the safeguards of our Bill of Rights to establish their complicity beyond a reasonable doubt, before punishing them, wreaks of hypocrisy and lack of faith in our own beliefs. That is the issue.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2007 09:51 AMKruser-
The question is not whether the terrorists give a crap about our reputation or morality, but rather, do we?
Not all men have a right to be free. We are not violating the rights of somebody who’s raped a woman, robbed a bank or murdered someone by incarcerating them, so long as we’ve arrested them by a legitimate warrant or probable cause, convicted them based on admissable evidence and testimony, and afforded them the due process of the law. The point of our civil liberties is not smug prissiness about the rules, it’s about seeing things up so that innocent people who the law has no right to punish aren’t subject to prosecution or punishment.
Torture can take a person with no reason to confess, and make them confess anyways. Torture is the easy way out of filtering out the BS.
If we rely on such tainted information, we will waste resources that could have been better employed if we had not had such BS handed to us.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 10, 2007 10:43 AMkctim,
You say that torture has only been used a handful of times, but the Abu Ghraib pictures show mock executions, stress positions, etc. being applied indiscriminately. Quasi-official policies have a tendency to go undocumented. But let’s say you are right, why then do we need an official policy of torture. If it’s used so minimally, why not have the president personally review and assume responsibility for the decision to use torture on a case by case basis, like Clinton suggested?
You also say that torture is effective, referring to a couple exception cases where information was obtained. Let’s say that in those cases torture really was the only way to get at that information. Was it worth the collateral damage to our image here and abroad? In a war where winning the hearts and minds of our adversaries is critical, does it make sense to use the same methods our enemies do?
Or are you just making an intellectual argument along the lines of historically there have been a couple cases where torture has gotten information? How do you really feel about this policy? Do you really feel like it’s been helpful?
Posted by: Max at November 10, 2007 11:07 AMStephen,
When you’re dealing with terrorists EVERYTHING produces unreliable information. There is no technique, your above-mentioned anecdotes included, that produces better information than “enhanced interrogation”. Applying your standard I can think of half a dozen medical treatments that would be outlawed as torture though they produce better survival rates than forgoing any treatment at all. When one is dealing with a cancer one does what one can even if what one knows to do today is unreliably efficacious.
You write Dershowitz off as though he had never expressed a cogent thought in his life. You do the same for Clinton. You say the Germans lost in France as though the French had no help in the matter and won the day BECAUSE Germans tortured people. You pretend that the captive who is party to deadly conspiracy is conceptually and morally equivalent to the uniformed soldier innocent of high-level strategy (indeed, that the unlawful combatants of Al Quaida and the insurgency qualify as soldiers at all). You imagine that the terrorist who, by lying to us in “civilized” interrogation, abets the accomplishment of some abomination visited upon the western world will somehow have been diminished in the eyes of those whom he wishes to impress.
This last point is especially galling because terrorists (insurgents in general, Al Quaida, Hizbollah, M13, Crips, Bloods, etc. etc.) gain strength, whether in the camps of Palestine or the slums of America, by exploiting the fear and assurance among the people that the civilized world is powerless to control them. The idea that people merely trying to survive assess such behavior from a moral and ethical standpoint, and that they will side with the high-minded martyr against the brutal martyr, is foolish beyond redemption.
The notion that we can make the rest of the world like us is ridiculous. On this issue both sides have preposterously wrongheaded ideas as to what others think of us and why. The right is wrong to think we are hated for our freedoms. The left is wrong to think we would be loved if we were more generous or feeling or sensitive to other cultures. We are mistrusted because we are rich beyond the imagining of the vast majority of the people of the world- and they have not a clue why that is possible. We will not gain their trust by expressing virtues that do not exist in their cultures as being so important that we are willing to let THEM die so that we won’t look bad in OUR OWN eyes. (This not just me being a smartass, but is an insight drawn from several friends who have worked in the Middle East, including a career diplomat.)
You continue to fall back on arguments raised by the left as some sort of dogma as though once they had been debunked God gives them a pass. Waterboarding is bad stuff. It is rare. It is not used on ignorant peasants and foot”soldiers”. It is more effective against the cancer of modern terrorists than your placebos even if it is not perfectly reliable. Finally it presents to our enemies and the people they would hold in the grips of terror the image of a country willing to prove we will not be powerless in the face of a determined foe who is more than happy to engineer our values into weaknesses.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 10, 2007 11:54 AMLee said: “The left is wrong to think we would be loved if we were more generous or feeling or sensitive to other cultures.”
Then to what do you attribute America’s high favorable ratings amongst world opinion prior to the Bush Administration? Dumb foreigners who didn’t know any better?
C’mon, Lee. There is a reputation to be cultivated or tarnished, and it has critical implications for our ability to lead and act as the shining beacon on the hill for the people of the world.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2007 12:09 PMLee,
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter who, or what the rest of the world thinks of us. We can think of ourselves as the “Greatest Country on Earth”, but if we don’t act that way, then what’s the point.
America has done some wonderful things for the rest of the world.
We have also done some truly awful things, and that is what we are judged on, and why we find ourselves in this situation.
Does it really matter how much aid we give to the downtrodden of the world if we have supported the despotic regimes that caused them to need that aid in the first place?
Both sides, as you see them, are wrong.
The people of the world don’t hate us for our freedoms, or that we’re rich, and powerful. They hate us because we lack the humility not to flaunt it. They hate us because we have backed some of the most repressive regimes on earth. They hate us because we rarely do anything that isn’t in our own self interests. They hate us because we are supposed to be the good guys, and we don’t act it.
On the other hand, if we were to allow the people of those countries that yearn to be democratic, and to find their own level, and not expect them to be a clone of America, I think it would go a long way toward the goals we supposedly seek.
A prime example was the elections held by the Palestinians a few years ago.
If we truly want to support those that seek democracy we must live with, and accept, the results of what those people want.
The bottom line is we either live the values we espouse to, or we are hypocrites, and no different than those we fight.
First, before anyone else does it I’m going to reprimand myself for directing my last comments so specifically at Stephen. I was trying to address just the arguments but, on rereading them, I think my comments were too personal.
Second, the rest of the world is mystified by and, thus, afraid of Republicans. This is particularly true of religious Republicans. I’m currently reading Richard Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” and he finds American religion in general and, specifically, religion in places whare it can influence policy deeply, deeply disturbing. From other Europeans I know this not to be simply an atheisT affliction. Europeans fear openly religious people. Consequently they are afraid of America when it appears to be in religious Republican hands.
Also, though I have not seen such polling, I would guess that we didn’t fare well during the Reagan Administration, particularly with the press constantly fretting over how we were going to precipitate a war with the Soviet Union. I would bet that, if Democrats got a reputation for being globally decisive that would be interpreted as adventurism and recklessness and we would be seen as a danger to all mankind.
A great deal of the worldwide public discomfort with the Bush Administration has as much to do, too, with the press organs of the world being perpetually outraged that he is president at all, treating him as though he is stupid (A 140 I.Q. doesn’t get much credit these days, after all he wasn’t smart enough not to be religious!), and reporting everything he says as though it were a lie.
Abu Ghraib, for example, on its worst day under American administration was an infinitely more humane place than it had been under Saddam. The point of reports about the place, though, was never to provide perspective or to locate failures in the military structures that ran it (and who provided the original reports anyway). It was always to find a way to weaken the Bush administration.
There are a lot of factors at work in foreign opinion of us. Hyperventilating reportage about TORTURE being on the front pages of the world in an effort to make us look bad is only a tiny part of it.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 10, 2007 01:04 PMRocky,
If you are right about why people hate us why would they bomb New York? By every account the most obnoxious Americans are Texans, while New Yorkers are fairly reserved and sophisticated travellers. When we travel abroad everybody knows we’re from Texas. We Texans ought to rate a good deal more hatred than America in general, shouldn’t we? We did give the world George W. Bush, didn’t we?
Again, I haven’t seen this polling, but I’d bet Texas fares better than America in general even rating as high as we do on the worldwide wierdness scale.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 10, 2007 01:18 PMLee,
Was there a more ostentatious symbol of conspicuous capitalism than the World Trade Center?
And, if you wanted to attack the “most powerful military” in the world, where would you head the plane?
Posted by: Rocky at November 10, 2007 01:34 PMA policeman who shoots a criminal isn’t instantly a criminal himself.
An interrogator who uses desperate means to save lives doesn’t become a terrorist.
The fact is we are not terrorists, are not cruel, are not killing innocents to prove a point.
Civil liberties apply to citizens. The word civil does mean something (civilians). In battle or terror, civility has gone out the window already. Then it becomes a matter of the military or anti terrorism agency. Of course they need to define parameters to avoid abuses. You cannot give combatants the same due process as an citizen suspect. A combatant has been caught in the process of killing our people (war). He is therefore already guilty. We just try to treat them how we want our prisoners treated. Unfortunatly the enemy we face beheads and mutilates ours so the example exchange is pointless.
The only ones you can impress with compassionate torture are your peers or the liberals in other contries.
Lee said: “Second, the rest of the world is mystified by and, thus, afraid of Republicans. This is particularly true of religious Republicans.”
No, not mystified at all. Lee. We have seen for years what they are about. NO mystery. As for afraid, that only applies to their having access to power. No problem if they live their lives and leave others to live theirs. The problem is when the religious, or Republicans, and especially religious Republicans, want to control how others live, how other nations govern, and who has access to world natural resources. They tend to want to kill and maim people to achieve their goals.
So, there is no mystery. No one I know is mystified. They just made up their minds about what is true and what was deception.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2007 02:56 PMLee, you actually believe GW Bush has an IQ of 140? Did they develop a special test to administer to just GW? Besides, stupid is as stupid does, one very wise movie character once said.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2007 02:59 PMLee, I don’t believe that people “hate” Americans for their often very boorish behavior while traveling oveseas. Annoyed, yes, and as a frequent traveler myself I’m often embarrassed to be around other Americans in foreign places. But hate or hate enough to choose a terror target based on where they think the most loud-mouthed fanny-pack wearing Americans might be congregated? I don’t think so.
No problem if they live their lives and leave others to live theirs. The problem is when the religious, or Republicans, and especially religious Republicans, want to control how others live, how other nations govern, and who has access to world natural resources.
And I suppose that religious Republicans, as opposed to other groups—like say, non-religious Republicans, liberal Democrats, or third party or independents—don’t try to control how others live their lives?
Religious Republicans have just as much right as anyone else to fight for their values in the arena of politics. If they don’t do so, then others are going to impose values that they don’t agree with on THEM. The only problem would be any attempts on their part to establish an official state religion, which frankly, I haven’t seen them trying. Personally, I see far more danger of the left wing in this country trying to impose itself on the rest of us. They want to decide virtually everything for the rest of us, from what we’re allowed to say or think and how much of our income we should get to keep (always less, in their view).
Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 10, 2007 09:06 PMThen to what do you attribute America’s high favorable ratings amongst world opinion prior to the Bush Administration?
David,
It didn’t exist. I don’t know why some people like to roll out this version of revisionism, but the US did *NOT* have high favorable ratings in 1998, 1980, 1970, etc. From Vietnam and Watergate, through Carter’s scatterbrained foreign policy, Reagan’s forceful cold war with Russia, Gulf War 1, Bosnia, Kosovo, 12 year long debacle in Iraq and decades of the ‘drug war’… There’s a reason that we were attacked in 1993 (WTC 1) and again the plans continued through the 90s to hit us on 9/11. It was NOT because we were loved.
To most foreigners, Bush II is just a continuation of the same distrusted unliked US since the death of Kennedy.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 10, 2007 09:57 PMRhinehold, you are referring to Islamic fundamentalists regarding the WTC 1 attack. They, for your information, are not representatives of world opinion.
America was highly regarded in the East, SE Asia, Europe, Australia, and even by the Russian people by and large after the Cold War ended. The only revision is in your comment.
Yes, foreign governments had peeves with the U.S. on this or that. But, in general, the people and nations of the world, Islamic fundamentalists and some African nations aside, were glad America existed and believed America was one of the best powerful countries on the world stage.
The libraries and many polls throughout the 1990’s demonstrate this. The polls after 2002 show a remarkable decline in world opinion about the U.S. role in world affairs. The evidence is there. Look it up, or keep your comment’s fantasies alive if you choose. Whatever floats your boat.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 11, 2007 03:01 AMLoyal Opp, there is a difference between fighting for one’s values in the way one chooses to live themselves, and quite another, to try to use the law of the land to force religious values on others, which is what the Religious Right has tried to do.
No ONE has tried to force abortion on the religious right, but, they have certainly tried to deny it to others on the basis of their own religious beliefs that a soul is imparted to the zygote upon fertilization. There is not one whit of evidence of that, and it is therefore, a religious belief. And America stands for religious freedom for all the world’s great religions, including freedom from religion, if one so chooses.
It is not a subtle point. But, I couldn’t be more pleased to hear conservatives like Buchannan and Tucker Carlson agree that the Religious Right has fractured and splintered, and thus lost their political influence. Amen to that, brother, Amen.
I will ALWAYS defend their right to practice their religion amongst themselves. I will ALWAYS oppose any religious persons from trying to impose their religious values through government on other citizens.
Abortion was not forced on religious? One in four are aborted today and mostly for inconvience.
The argument really is weather a fetus is human upon conception; it is not a spiritual matter. Their dna is unique and the parent is a host.
The religious view is that all humans are made after God’s image and therefore valuable.
This should dovetail with the humanist view. Only the value is constructed in their minds.
A ban on torture would be considered a religious value.
Religiphobes are hard to reason with. The ultimate straw man when good sense won’t work.
Kruser,
You don’t have to have an abortion, therefore, unlike other countries in the world you are not forced to have one.
You assume that a fetus is a human at conception. That is your right, however you cannot force that opinion on others that don’t believe the way you do.
The mental gymnastics are yours. There is no straw man, except in your mind.
Do Republicans have no sense of history? Of the principles this country was founded on? Our forefathers believed that no one should be imprisoned without a trial, no one’s home should be violated without reason, no one should be treated inhumanely. Todays Republicans are traitors. I will not live in the fascist country you want.
Posted by: Max at November 11, 2007 11:38 AMOh really……
The “Religeous Right” is the only sector enforcing its values on others eh?
First of all….I love the way “Religeuos Right” has become an acceptable way to demonize Republicans…..has anyone attended church? They are filled with people of all political stances…but back to the first statement…
I guess noone believes that religeous people send there children to public schools??????? Talk about imposing values….their children are forced to agree that gay/lesbian should be not only accepted (which most people religeous or not already believe that they should not be tortured or killed) but that it should be celebrated and congratulated.
This list could go on but I chose to use the one example.
Whoa…wait…how about the fact that they are now letting minor children get abortions withought a parents consent….isn’t that forcing one persons values over anothers when their parents don’t get the chance to try and reason and work out another viable solution with them?
HHHHmmmmm….funny, funny, funny…
Posted by: Traci at November 11, 2007 12:36 PMTraci,
If you don’t like the laws, work to change them.
Posted by: Rocky at November 11, 2007 01:05 PMOh, and BTW, if you had a open line of communication with your children, abortions for underage children wouldn’t even be an issue.
Posted by: Rocky at November 11, 2007 01:07 PMGreat discussion Rocky u are a hard debater…lol..too freakin bad that your two lame statements can be applied to those who fear the “Religeuos Right” are taking over the world and forcing things upon them…
try again…
Posted by: Traci at November 11, 2007 01:35 PMLee Jamison-
When you’re dealing with terrorists EVERYTHING produces unreliable information. There is no technique, your above-mentioned anecdotes included, that produces better information than “enhanced interrogation”.
The mistake you make regarding the efficiency of these techniques concerns confusing specific approaches with the overall philosophy and approach. Empirical evidence, examined by the experts, often from the files of the torturers themselves supports the conclusion that Torture is an inferior approach to interrogation.
Part of your faulty assumption is that you see the human mind as a recording medium which can be made to spit information back perfectly, unaffected by what you do to the rest of the person. In fact, a person’s state of mind not only affects what they can remember, to start with, it also affects how they remember it and whether they rememember it correctly or even invent memory out of thin air to fill the gaps. Using torture to extract information is essentially like shooting somebody in the kneecap to encourage them to run faster.
Applying your standard I can think of half a dozen medical treatments that would be outlawed as torture though they produce better survival rates than forgoing any treatment at all. When one is dealing with a cancer one does what one can even if what one knows to do today is unreliably efficacious.
It’s irrelevant. Nobody’s trying to get information out of these people. Pain is not the objective here, but a necessary evil avoided if possible. A doctor may even take somebody off of a chemotherapy drug because of its toxic side effects. Meanwhile, people are often provided with drugs to dull the pain. Nobody’s intentionally trying to hurt these people.
You write Dershowitz off as though he had never expressed a cogent thought in his life. You do the same for Clinton.
That’s your interpretation of my write-off. In truth, I just simply think he’s wrong on this issue. We may agree on others. As a Democrat, I’m not in the habit of excommunicating people simply for having a difference of opinion.
Meanwhile, I believe Clinton clarified his points later to say he didn’t see the good in making it an institutionalized recourse.
You say the Germans lost in France as though the French had no help in the matter and won the day BECAUSE Germans tortured people.
Cruelties, perceived and real, were a large part of what motivated people to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese. Their atrocious behavior encouraged people to fight them harder, both on moral grounds.
You pretend that the captive who is party to deadly conspiracy is conceptually and morally equivalent to the uniformed soldier innocent of high-level strategy (indeed, that the unlawful combatants of Al Quaida and the insurgency qualify as soldiers at all). You imagine that the terrorist who, by lying to us in “civilized” interrogation, abets the accomplishment of some abomination visited upon the western world will somehow have been diminished in the eyes of those whom he wishes to impress.
First, we got to establish that the person is in fact affiliated with the group. In a perfect world, perhaps, we’d know that everytime, but this is not a perfect world. Second, you assume that this person would simply be allowed to continue lying. No, interrogators are not that stupid. You think they don’t have ways of confronting liars?
No, I am not assuming that this person would be innocent of higher level strategy, though al-Qaeda’s rather distributed model might make terrorists ignorant of those high level goings-on. The question is, is it possible to get this information out of people by regular methods? Yes! It’s been done! All the anecdotes I listed were from successful interrogations. We got good information out of people without torture. And how? We didn’t inflict one-size-fits all torture on them. Instead, we studied these people, and determined what would gain their cooperation, or trick them into revealing our desired information.
This last point is especially galling because terrorists (insurgents in general, Al Quaida, Hizbollah, M13, Crips, Bloods, etc. etc.) gain strength, whether in the camps of Palestine or the slums of America, by exploiting the fear and assurance among the people that the civilized world is powerless to control them. The idea that people merely trying to survive assess such behavior from a moral and ethical standpoint, and that they will side with the high-minded martyr against the brutal martyr, is foolish beyond redemption.The first sentence is revealing. Gang members as terrorists. I guess, then, you would be open to torturing them for information. Works for al-Qaeda, works for everybody, right?
Bit by bit, the rationalization would creep across the categories. Ultimately, it’s an insidious deal with the devil, and like many, it’s not worth the satanic parchment it’s written on. We’re not getting better intelligence, we’re getting worse. It may make us feel like we’re doing more, doing all we can, but it takes the priority off of more effective means of interrogation.
In the meantime, we blacken our reputation for no good reason. Our reputation is not the most important thing, but it is not a bad thing to be considered good, to be considered just. It’s also not a bad thing to be able to spread American values through persuasion, through the good it reflects on us and gains in the situations. Cooperation and long term relationships are not to be undervalued. They’re certainly a lot cheaper than perpetual warfare and a dependence on our own resources to deal with the problems of terrorism.
You continue to fall back on arguments raised by the left as some sort of dogma as though once they had been debunked God gives them a pass. Waterboarding is bad stuff. It is rare. It is not used on ignorant peasants and foot”soldiers”. It is more effective against the cancer of modern terrorists than your placebos even if it is not perfectly reliable. Finally it presents to our enemies and the people they would hold in the grips of terror the image of a country willing to prove we will not be powerless in the face of a determined foe who is more than happy to engineer our values into weaknesses.
Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back. I presented evidence, both here and in my own thread, backing my argument. And the left? It makes the argument because it’s an easy winner: it’s true. Is Waterboarding rare? We really don’t know, not the least because your assertion is based on anonymously sourced information, and doesn’t take into account the large role of military intelligence in these things.
You call the methods I talk about placebos. Trouble with that assertion is that they actually work. Torture itself is more the placebo. It makes certain folks feel more powerful, more in control, because we aren’t “coddling” our prisoners, or otherwise moderating our actions against them.
You think this is an image problem. You think the media’s giving us the black eye. The truth is, we’re the ones doing that. We’re the ones who shout to the heavens about the virtues of civil liberties and Democracy, who justify our war on the basis of the enemy’s cruelty, and then do what we did in Abu Ghraib.
We sold ourselves, and have sold ourselves for decades now as a nation of greater values. That’s how we sold this war. When we torture, it doesn’t matter that we’re not as openly vicious as our opponents. It just matters that we seem to be setting a double standard, and that will effect our ability to do good in the world.
As for Bush’s intelligence? Whatever it is, one can smart, yet be a fool, be ignorant, be obstinate. Clinton is reputed to have 160 IQ, but he did some pretty foolish things.
Kruser-
Are we better than these people, or just more powerful? That’s one important question. The other is, are we more interested in gaining information, or in being uncivil towards the terrorists. Fear and pain are not the only handles by which we can manipulate people.