The torture debate after Bush

Remove all ads!

Well, on this topic, we will always disagree then T2. When two nations have a border dispute and rise to arms to prove they are right, any captives taken should be held with the respect that any human deserves, including no torture for info. But to me, terrorists remove themselves from the scenario when they try to take innocent lives. It's not just war, it moves to another level, called survival. If it gives us the remotest chance of gaining useful info, and to argue that it "can't" does not seem logical, to help protect ourselves versus their evil-ways, I think it is not only justified, but the best only way to go when all else is failing. Again, that's just my opinion.

 

Sacrilege! Infidel! Die! DIE! DIE!

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elder berries!

... I just thought I'd join the discussion in traditional political debate fashion and express my disagreement with NOG on this issue.

Blades: War has always had collateral damage. When we did Shock and Awe we targetted power supplies, transportation hubs, communication networks -- all of which were manned by civilians. In previous wars one major target is the manufacturing network which supplies the war machine.

To many in the world our economic network is part of our war machine and targetting our economic viability is valid. The World Trade Center was a shining beacon of capitalism throughout the world -- even its name implied capitalism. The attack was both to inspire fear and to damage our economic power over the world. How is that target different from the power supplies that feed schools and hospitals?

A follow on question is how would torture help? "24" is fiction, you don't get timely information by beating it out of someone.

 

I am explaining, not excusing. Don't confuse the two.

 

How would it help???? So what do we do, just sit the prisoner in his cell? That gets info from them? That speeds up the process?

Is it okay to tell them they are losing the war, that we just took over their strongholds, bombed their cities and morally deflate them, destroying their beliefs? That's not a form of torture? We can go there, but we can't water-board them? Which is border-line torture, depending on what expert you are talking to. That's what throws me, is where we draw the line in determining what is more important, our face to the rest of the world compared to the safety of our loved ones. I'll take safety 1st anyday... ANYDAY... many of you on these boards have many valid points about this issue, but I believe that you've missed the mark of what the end result should be on this policy...

 

Tal - Why does America always have to be the "Teacher" or "Big Brother" and be judged to that higher standard and the enemy isn't? How does bombing the Trade Center become the equivilant to torturing those who will do it again to stop it from happening again?

 

Blades, people can believe many things are torturous -- for me rap music falls into that category. However, playing rap music is not a form of torture, unless it's at extremely high decibles and constant (sleep deprivation is a form of torture). People may think incarceration is torturous -- but it is acceptable worldwide. Giving information, in fact lying to a prisoner, is not torture -- there are strict guidelines as to what is and is not torture.

I believe in safety first as well. I'm a retired Naval Officer (I spent seven years active and the remainder of my career in the reserves) and have devoted a significant portion of my life to the safety of this country. I recognized several names on the list from the Pentagon and attended the memorial service of a reservist from this area. But I do not believe torture, in any way, helps make this nation safer. As I mentioned before, any information obtained from a captive must be timely and accurate -- history has shown that torture fails in at least one of those requirements. A strong individual can hold out until plans change and allies are safe; while a weak person will never have accurate information.

From every account I have heard, far more information was obtained by trained FBI agents using standard interrogation techiques in the early parts of the "War on Terror" than later when the CIA was handling the issue with more questionable techniques. Torture has been proven to be ineffective in criminal cases. You can break people, but the information you gain is always questionable -- you break them by making them insane and they often become delusional. They will admit to things that never happened just to get the torture to stop -- we see cases nearly every week where DNA has proven someone innocent, even someone who confessed while undergoing harsh interrogation. Information from torture is unreliable.

The only thing torture accomplishes is putting our troops at risk. As Old One stated earlier, this kind of tactic is returned and our troops in the field can expect no different treatment at the hands of an enemy than we ourselves give that enemy.

 

Many good points there T2 (and others). You always give a solid argument for your posts, which I commend. Combined with the torture I have been receiving(sleep-deprivation due to lack of sleep because of our newborn not willing to sleep at nights!), I am not looking forward to the ensuing headache I will have mulling this one over and over in my head today! Maybe you guys have swayed me a little on this topic....I have felt like i've been swimming against the current in this thread.

 

You have to consider the context. To some, the first is much more serious than the second. For others, the first is ridiculous and the second is a policy issue. For those dependant on Medicare, though, the second is a threat to their lives (assuming it's taken seriously), while the first may or may not be something they take serious.

And remember, the claim of "He'll cut medicare" wasn't on commercials, it was on fliers handed around assisted living facilities and in the mouths of people going door-to-door. That's the same as Sarah Palin talking about Obama 'palling around with terrorists' to a crowd of raving hill-billies.

And it's also the easiest kind of deception to be made without anyone's intent. Haven't you ever played a game of telephone? Just one person not listening to carefully, or over-reacting, can lead to exactly this kind of thing. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people spreading these rumors (Senators included) didn't even know what was true and what wasn't. I still bet that most Senators and Representatives (Dem or Rep) haven't even read a comprehensive summary of the bills.

I hate to say this, Blades, but the idea that war doesn't involve innocent lives, even in this day of tactical strikes and smart weapons, is pure BS. War is madness, and innocents invariably die in it. Honestly, the only difference between a smart, ruthless military attack on the US and the 9/11 attacks was the targets, and even those could have been defended from an economic perspective (though they weren't particularly effective).

No, Ragusa, you were trying to come up with reasons why they weren't to blame for not standing up. And they were BS reasons at that.

Actually, the answer seems to me to be that no one else has really joined us. Most other nations have either decided to largely stay out of messy foreign affairs or only to put in a show-force. For the Iraq and Afghanastan wars, there are (were?) a few nations that put in real support, but in the 90's I don't really remember much. Maybe we're just idealistic idiots and everyone else is smart?

 

The French have been active in Africa (mostly its former colonies) for decades. It's just quite a bit less visible in the news since no one really cares about Africa and they don't actually do as direct interventions as Americans and try to change regimes. Plainly put they do more to prevent violence than they do to cause it.

 

... but if someone is stupid enough to cross them openly they'll kick his ass, secretly. Aah, the French, ....

 

This whole debate is silly. So now blowing cigar smoke in a terroist's face, staging mock executions, and making threats is considered torture? I don't agree with the idea of prosecuting the people who were trying to save American lives, whether their methods were questionable to some or not. That's a slippery slope if there ever were one. Any future CIA operatives are going to wonder whether their actions in the line of duty could potentially ruin their entire career. This is especially important when attempting to gather time-sensitive information and you might not be afforded the luxury of playing patty-cake with a known terrorist in an attempt to get him to talk.

 

@Ragusa
You are almost completely right. Something about US ways of doing things though, any dem could have "leaked" a bit of what was goiing on as is often done and our talking heads would have run it 24/7 for the next 6 mo or so until even the dumdest would start asking questions. Thus I have to stand on equal guilt. Think Watergate as an example. Worse then taking the cowards way out and standing quietly is later to come screaming back pointing fingers claiming never to have known what went on. Your points are good but there is always a way to get things out.

Once again a final comment, my over 80 year old mother has had her and her friends Medicare cut deeply. On ss she now has to pay a large portion of her check for medication to put in her breathing machine. Obama did this as part of his savings to pay for "health care". The company that checks her O2 machine and emergency O2 supply every 3 months (necessary, believe me!) now is only allowed to come once a year by government decree. Dems did this, not Reps. There is more but I'm afraid I'm getting to far off topic.

 

If you could cite the specific piece of legislation that Obama passed in this regard, or exactly how he enabled this, it would be helpful. I can bring this up at the next strategy session on health care reform. Not that it would do much in the end, only that we share individual stories with the Obama team that we hear about or experience, as part of his network.

 

KJ, the definition of torture is fairly explicit. Anyone who engaged in torture knew they were violating both US Code and International Law. They knew going in that they were doing something wrong and that they could be held accountable for their actions. It should not come to a surprise to them if they are. It should also be pointed out these people are not patriots, they are not heroes and they did nothing to save American lives -- they simply tortured people with nothing to show for their actions. I personally believe everyone in the chain of command involved in illegal torture should be held accountable.

You can read my previous posts in this thread about torture and time sensitive information.

 

@Chandos
Not legislation, government decree. Since Obama went in cuts were made. It seems no one noticed it happening until it was done even though it was reported on some news programs. Red pill VS blue pill is not funny anymore. Off topic too far for here.

 

Unpatriotic?

What do terms like 'unpatriotic' mean? Isn't Nationalism way down on the civilization tech-tree?
In Holland, you can use many kinds of fallacious arguments to shut your opponent up, but no one would use the term 'unpatriotic'. If you aren't outright laughed out of the room, then people will simply remain silent and wait till the nutter-has-left-the-building. Our prime minister tried it once or twice, but it didn't have the effect he hoped for. Fortunately he's the kind of guy who's used to being laughed out of the room.
It's like calling someone a blasphemor. Please tell me blasphemy isn't considered a serious argument in the States...

I think this torture discussion is indicative of what's been happening in the States over the past few years. The government engaged in a number of actions which couldn't be defended in a modern democracy, which resulted in a tremendous upsurge of nationalism. I'm not sure if this originated from government pressure, or the mere suggestion from Bush that it was a citizen's 'patriotic duty' to support their country (without question)... But it's certainly out of place in this day and age. Cries for nationalism have gotten weaker since Obama became president, probably because there's less skeletons in his closet. I can only hope that there will one day be no more need for this medieval civic: