Are they torturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and do you care?

In My Humble Opinion
41

Phlosphr- exactly why is Moral High Ground inapproriate? This has nothing to do with who started what. We claim to be a civilized nation, yet some of you reserve the right to inflict torture. This is hypocritical. Certainly we have the right to incarcerate this man, certainly we have the right to kill him, but we do not have the right to abandon our high principles over him. Whether we are actually committing torture or purchasing it from others is immaterial.

X~Slayer- the grief of the WTC survivors is immaterial. Sure, we grieve with them and empathize with them, but we should not commit atrocities in their name.

42

[Sarcastic Response]
No, of course not, nor should they be. Will beating the living shit out of a man, any man, even an sonofabitch bring their loved ones back?
[/Sarcastic Response]

43

I truly think of him as a soldier in a foreign army that we are at war with, and in war, there are no good guys. Even so, I would feel bad if it surfaced that he was tortured, since it would mean our government had lowered itself to his level. But, having said that, I wouldn’t feel bad for him. They can chop off his arms and legs for all I care, and I wouldn’t shed a tear for whatever suffering he personally endured. He’s earned it.
Realistically speaking, I doubt we are torturing him in any way that would be physically detectable. So, no beatings, privation, etc. But it wouldn’t surprise me if we were pumping him full of sodium pentothol and keeping him in the bottom of a well.

44

It may not bring the dead back, but it would make the living feel better. Especially if the beating prevents more needless death.

the sorrow of the WTC survivors are immaterial but the civil rights of the mastermind of their grief is paramount. Thats messed up.

45

Al-Qaeda would get a huge amount of mileage out of evidence that their prisoners were tortured. For that reason alone I oppose it.

46

Torture is always wrong, absolutely. There are no ifs and buts. This is one of the very few beliefs I would lay down my life for.

You might argue that in this case torture will result in information that may save lives - ie the “greater good”. But the “greater good” is constantly being redefined, as a quick look at history will show you. Stalin used torture to preserve the Revolution, Hitler and the Nazis used torture to rid the “Aryan race” of Jews, the Spanish Inquisition burnt people alive to save their souls. Most of these torturers would have argued that their actions were done for the greater good, as defined by them.

I’m shocked by some of the posts on this thread. 9/11 generated a huge amount of sympathy and goodwill for America over here. Remember what you are actually defending in the war on terror - democracy, free speech, the right to a fair trial. Torture one man for the greater good and where do you stop?

47

Ale,
The satisfaction of the victims or survivors has been used to argue for the death penalty as well, and it’s an argument that I just don’t buy. I don’t think any human being is entitled to any other’s death, or in this case, torture. Should we do it and will we do it under certain circumstances? Sure. If as you say “needless death” is prevented, even better, I am willing to condone torture to accomplish some ends. But I don’t think that makes it right, just the lesser of the wrongs.

I also don’t see revenge as some sort of balm that without which the WTC survivors suffer more. Their grief isn’t immaterial (although I suspect that comment was directed toward MSU 1978) I just don’t see the relationship between their grief and the morality of torturing this man. I’m not categorically against being cruel and/or unusual, but I think it is a cop-out to pretend that it’s right.

48

As someone else said, don’t know, don’t really care. When 9/11 first happened, my reaction was to want public hanging for the guilty with the opportunity for people to spit at them first or do anything else offensive and painful to them who wanted to. I still kind of like that idea even though I don’t think the rest of the world would think it was a cool thing to do.

49

Is it possible to maintain the moral high ground and still extract the information to prevent the next disaster in a timely manner?

I tend to think no and given the choice between being seen as “the shining city on the hill” or not having to sit through another 9/11 type incident, I’ll take the latter. I don’t like the idea that we may be torturing anyone, but if it prevents attacks against us then I think it is necessary. Prior to 9/11 we weren’t torturing Al Qada and they attacked us; not torturing them is not going to guarantee our safety - they’re going to attack us whether we torture them or not.

50

panache

You make a lot of sense.

but my point of view is this: What constitute cruel and unsual punishment for the most heineous crime of the century? Simple Imprisonment seems too comfortable a punishment for a man that meticulously planned the death of thousands of innocents. What can our prisons hold for a man that regularly sleeps on hard rocky floors, eat dried fruits, brain and meat, who can sleep in cold caves and travel in arid dessert heat? What sort of punishment would it be if we give him his food regularly everyday, give him a soft bed to sleep in everynight and allow him to pray to the God he blasphemes by killing defenseless civilians?

We owe the survivors something from this man. They need closure and a sense of right and dignity that this man cruelly took from them. The living need their peace too.

51

My proposal: use any means to get what we want from him, then get him to confess his role in 9/11 on videotape…threaten him with the deaths of his family, and everyone he knows. I would also suggest that he be presented 9every day) with the photos of his victims-with their skin burned off, heats blown off etc.
Finally, announce to the other prisoners at gitmo , that he has become a collaborator …then, let allah’s will be done…
or, we ship him back to General Dostum, where he will recive some traditional afghan hospitality!

52

<-- Don’t know, don’t care. Hope they’re doing whatever’s most effective to extract info be it torture, drugs, bribery, sleep deprivation, etc.

53

I read a quotation recently, i can’t remember where, about the usefulness of torture. It went something like:

“A good method for getting confessions out of the innocent and lies out of the guilty.”

And, practical considerations like this aside, it is still morally reprehensible.

54

Those who think torture is alright in this situation, where do you draw the line? Is only OK for those responsible for greater than a thousand deaths? A hundred? Where’s the cutoff?

55

IMHO, a “cutoff” is inappropriate in this situation. It is warranted on those who plan the death of innocents, executed and implimented that plan and after that plan was “successful”, began to plan again. When his success is measured in number of dead, it is surely warranted when he shows no remorse.

Torture could very well illicit lies and deception, but truth can be verified and lies can be revealed, and lying will only prolong the torture. Cooperation will end it. The best punishment for this man is to force him to betray his comrades. It is his misguided spirit that encouraged him to kill. Let his spirit be broken so he kills no more.

56

On the contrary: what sort of punishment is it to execute a person who wants to be a martyr?

You may’ve heard the old joke about the masochist and the sadist who go on a date. The masochist says, “hurt me!” The sadist says, “no.”

I maintain that giving the man a clean bed and nutritious food and adequate health care, letting him die in comfortable old age in the cell of his worst enemy, would be the most just and most fitting punishment for him. It would prevent him from completing the macabre play that he so wants his life to be. And it shows the world that we really will NOT be defined by terrorists.

Daniel

57

So in your opinion, a person who murders a single person and shows no remorse should be subject to torture? Or would the torture only apply if it is felt that it would save more lives?

58

Seems to me that’s exactly what we want to do.

What better way to mess with their sense of righteousness by, in effect, saying, “Not only are we going to be victorious in the end, we’re going to do it without sinking to your level of barbarity. Here, you murderous fuckhead, have some hummus. This is how a civilized people conducts its affairs.”

59

ALE

Ah, yes, this old chestnut.

Let’s look, shall we, at the two uses of torture.

  1. to extract information.

The victim will lie to us. He will do this for one of any number of reasons. a) He hates us. He wants us dead. Why would he tell us anything? b) He doesn’t know the truth. “Is that all you know?” “Yes…owowowow…ok, here are some more names…” c) he told the truth, and we didn’t believe him, so now he’s lying.

If we can verify the truth, we don’t need to torture him. What’s he doing, shopping his buddies? Naming names? Yeah, ok, because NOTHING could go wrong with that. I mean, it’s not like he could just reel off a whole list of names and addresses and we could bring these guys into custody and do the exact same thing to them, is it? “Are you a terrorist?” “No.” “But The OTHER terrorist said you were. Will being stabbed in the leg make you change your tune?” “OK, I’m a terrorist, stop stabbing me.” “OK, now, who are your terrorist buddies…” ad nauseum.

So, getting information out of people. Pretty piss poor, really. We have far, far more accurate ways of doing it these days.

What’s the other use for torture?

  1. Getting everyone to toe the government line.

Effectiveness: REALLY GOOD. You can get anyone to say anything if you torture them long enough, true or not. The threat of torture is enough in most cases. Yes sir, black sure is white, no thankyou, no thumbscrews today.

For this reason, you CANNOT let a democratic government use torture, for whatever reason. It starts off, always, being “just to get information,” and soon it’s right there where it always has been, where it’s most useful - enforcing the correct ways of thinking. There is a damn good reason we outlawed it. “If you open the window a crack, soon the chill wind of the Dark Ages fills the room.”

60

Send him to Israel and let their interrogators work on him. Just being at their mercy should send him over the edge. In answer to the OP, I gotta say, “Hope so, nope”.