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

In My Humble Opinion
81

Well, I’m not sure if the terrorists thought of it as a “sucker punch.” To them, the WTC was a legitimate target, the center of all that makes America “evil,” our love for money, and our willingness to subjugate other nations in order to make it. Their strike was sucessful in ways they may never have dreamed: our economy took a dive, the airline industry was damaged and, (so I’ve heard) foreign investment is down.

To make any progress whatsoever in their fight against the “great Satan” they have to hit us when our backs are turned. They do not have the resources to declare a “war” involving armies and tanks. If you think about it, in a way, the Boston Tea Party was a sort of economic terrorism, and it could be that they thought of their acts in a similar vein. Because we’re the “biggest kid on the block” there is no way they could succeed in hurting us through conventional means.

Not all wars are started with formal delarations, or fought through accepted means. Look at the Revolutionary war. To British eyes, we “cheated” by hiding our soldiers behind trees and rocks instead of politely marching them down the battlefield toward one another in neat rows. We ambushed their supply lines, and made surprise raids. This simply wasn’t “cricket” but it won us the war.

Now, I fully agree that attacking civilians is disgusting and reprehenisble in the extreme. But to them, every American is part of the “problem.” Every American, to them, is equally guilty of violating their principles. Just as they need no formal army to be a “soldier of Islam” we are informal “soldiers of ‘evil’.” * This is not in any way to excuse their actions, I just think that we should try to understand their motivations if we want to fight terrorism successfully. *

It also takes a special kind of person to volunteer for a suicide mission. All deeply religious people feel that they will have eternal reward if they die in their faith, Christians, Muslims, or whatever. Despite this assurance, I’d gander to say that 99.9% of Muslims and Christians still would not volunteer to go into certain death even if it means they’ll be in Heaven by lunchtime. Even with strong religious faith, many people still fear death, or feel that they have too much to live for, no matter what the reward might be.

82

Al Qaeda may be a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them.

The very first thing Al Qaeda did upon hearing of Mohammed’s arrest was to scrap all of the plans of which he was aware. Knowing that he will eventually “talk,” they’re no going to be dumb enough to go ahead with Plan A. I’m sure that they have already worked out contingencies for in case each person is captured. The “other guys” have already packed up and left, and abandoned any projects which Mohammed was working on.

Mohammed can happily sing his heart out knowing that nothing he says will in any way compromise current opperations. (He’ll hold out as long as he can just so it doesn’t look like he’s giving in too easily.)

The only info he has which can be useful is personal habits of his “co-workers.” For example, if it is known that Terrorist X likes to talk to red-headed women in bars, then this could possibly help capture him if red-heads can be planted in bars around the area in which he is known to be hididng. To an investigator, any tiny tidbit of personal habits, likes and dislikes may be very important.

The only question is whether this information can be verified. Mohammed may say that Terrorist Z likes Milk Duds and Budweiser, when he really likes Milky Ways and Coors. It would be almost impossible to check this kind of information in any reliable way.

83

[hijack]It takes a “special kind of person” to slash the throat of an unarmed, unsuspecting stewardess.[/hijack]

84

But it’s not.

85

Unless, of course, they don’t have enough cash and other resources to have a plan B.

I know the U.S. has tried very hard to sieze any al Qaeda assets that it can get its hands on, and it’s been somewhat successful in that endeavour.

But who knows whether it’s been so successful that the effort has seriously weakened the ability of al Qaeda to have more than one major plan in place. Sadly, there’s only one way to know this for sure and that will happen when the next big attack occurs.

86

How about a twist to the sleep deprivation. Let him fall asleep and then, every 45 minutes, play an audiotape of a crying infant. At 4:30 this morning, after my umpteenth trip out of bed, I would have given away classified information if I thought my reward would be uninterrupted sleep.

87

If it’s okay to torture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed on the basis of his (asserted) connections to Al Quaeda, is it also okay to torture Maher Arar?

88

Say on the news last night an “expert” who wanted to give him a drug that would paralyze his lungs, put him on a mechanical respirator, stick 'im under and MRI, and take him off the respirator everytime he didn’t cooperate.

:eek:

It was on FOXNEWS, amazingly, the hosts were outraged at the idea.

89

A madman.

90

**

Al Qaeda most likely expected the US to seize whatever assets they could find after the terror attacks. If they planned ahead, they already found a way to hide what they needed. Also, they still have loyal supporters, some of whom have deep pockets. Despite our best efforts, we’ll never entirely be able to cut them off from all of their funding, and depending on the nature of the next attack, not much money could be needed.

Plan B could simply be a change in dates and locations which wouldn’t be very difficult to manage. They wouldn’t necessarily need to change every detail.

The sad fact is that trying to prevent a terrorist attack is like trying to prevent a rodent infestation. You can get a cat, put out traps, and plug up the holes, but they will find a way to chew their way in if the prize is attractive enough. There is no possible way to ever be 100% safe from attack, no matter what we do. These people are smart, determined, and unafraid to die. It’s a very potent and lethal combination.

91

What an incredibly disturbing thread.

Torture is evil. Torturing people makes you an evil person. Advocating torture makes you an evil person, or at the very least a seriously misguided one. If America condones and practices torture in the name of security, then America becomes just another evil country among many. I don’t want to see that happen.

Many survivors of 9-11 who lost loved ones, and obviously many others across America, are still feeling shock and grief from those unimaginably evil attacks. That’s understandable. To feel hatred toward the perpetrators of such atrocities is certainly appropriate. There are surely many who would relish the chance for payback of some kind, any kind, to balance the scales at least a little. THAT’S TOO DAMN BAD. Here in America, you get free speech, you get a free press, you get the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don’t get the right to put a hurting on others just to make yourself feel better, no matter who they are or what they’ve done. That’s the way it needs to be here.

Frankly, I don’t buy the argument that torture is going to protect us from terrorist attacks at all. Even if it somehow did, though… if I had the choice of either living with the possibility of another attack, or of allowing our own government to use torture as an acceptable means of persuasion, I’ll take the threat of terrorism every time.

That’s just, you know, my humble opinion.

92

Y’know, I wasn’t really intending this to be a rhetorical question.

If the US government can get a foreign national thrown into a foreign prison (as with Mohammed, Arar and Bond) for unlimited periods without conviction or formal charges on the grounds that they “may” be criminals, where do we draw the line? And if it’s okay to torture one of them, does it follow that we approve of torture in any other case the government sees fit to use it, regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof) against the prisoner?

93

ALE>

How do you know that the person has the information you require?

Like I said. There are three reasons he will lie to you.

  1. He doesn’t know the answer (the interesting subset of “he’s the wrong guy” is included)

  2. He doesn’t want us to know the answer

  3. He told us, we didn’t believe him, he’s now making shit up.

We assume he will lie. If we didn’t assume he will lie, we would have no reason to torture him. The problem is, we do not know WHY he will lie. We do not know if reason 1, 2 or 3 is the reason.

Torture is very, very good at making people say exactly what you want to hear, and drastically inefficient at anything else.

94

I don’t think they’re torturing him. But if they are, it wouldn’t suprise me.
Torture is wrong. When a society starts codoning it, shows their on the fast track to becoming a total police state and abandoning moral values which seperate ‘us’ from ‘them’.
Did the US conduct open and accepted torture on Axis POW’s during WWII? No. And they were even responsible for more damage done than Osam, Inc. We even treated fairly the Nazi leadership after the war and let the legal system take it’s course.
Accepting torture done in foriegn countries now makes it easier to accept it here in our nation later.

95

Also read of the French using torture in North Africa during the 50-60’s(?). A lot of innocent people got caught up and abused.
Years down the road, would you like it to be possible that you get swept up in a arrest and tortured?

96

Dershowitz on torture:
http://counterpunch.org/nimmo03062003.html

97

(minor hijack)

X~Slayer:

The century’s not even three years old yet. While I appreciate the enormity of the 9/11 attacks (heck, I myself was five blocks away from it), I think it’s too early in the century to start legitimately using that term.

And surely by “century” you don’t mean “the last hundred years.” Because in a hundred-year period that included Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, Al Qaeda doesn’t come close.

98

I sure hope so.

99

Of the 3, the first one is compelling. However, getting the right answer is dependent on what the question is. To induce a person (thru torture) to be truthefull and cooperative, one must convince the person that lying is punished severely and cooperation is rewarded. Its basically programming him not to lie. They would start with information they know he has. If he lies, the torture is intensified. If he speaks truthfully then torture is suspended and a reward is given. After a certain amount of time modifiying his behaviour, the person becomes “trustworthy enuf” to be questioned on other things. They will still ve verified, and reward or punishment is given depending on outcome.

Yes in the beginning they will torture for the sake of torture. Behavioral modification takes time and a great deal of patience (for the torturer) but after a while, just the threat of torture is enuf to induce cooperation.

100

Are you listening to what you’re saying here? Seriously. Are you paying attention to the words as you type them?

It is. And, as I pointed out, we have no way of knowing if the victim is lying because of reason one or any of the other reasons. Are we absolutely guaranteed that whoever we arrest will be guilty and knowledgable about the issues we ask him about? If we can be, then we might as well get rid of that pesky judicial system, which is, after all, there to determine the guilt or innocence of suspects after arrest. Innocent until proved guilty, and other such archaic terms…

Oh.
My.
God.

Programming?
Behavioural modification?

Did you read 1984 and miss the point or WHAT?

This is absolutely the KEY issue why governments, why no authority, should be allowed to have torture. Because the methods you’re suggesting DO work. We know they work. They worked for thousands and thousands of years to get people to confess to crimes they did not commit, name accomplices they did not have, renounce their faith, give misleading information… in short, every bad, vile, obnoxious thing an authority can do to the people underneath it was achieved using these methods.

I’m so very glad that you have such absolute faith in not only your current administration but in all administrations that follow that they will only use these powers for Good, and only against Bad People. Tear up the Bill of Rights! Throw out the Geneva Convention and the Convention Against Torture! European Court of Human Rights, you can toodleoo, we don’t need you any more. Why? Because nobody’s going to arrest the wrong person or abuse their power ever again, thank the Lord!

You’ll excuse me, however, if the very thought of George W Bush, William Clinton, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder or Jean-Pierre Raffarin having the power to do such things scares the absolute living daylights out of me. What a good job all the countries these people lead have laws on their statute books making it illegal for such processes to be carried out. Call me insecure, but I feel much safer knowing that if my Prime Minister suggests such a thing there are a number of lawyers who will have him in the dock before the words have stopped making the air vibrate.