I waterboard!

Great Debates
261

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Funny, I was about to ask you the same thing:

Be sure to get absolutely no closer to any personal insults in this thread (or in this Forum), they are not permitted. (Sarcasm, ad hominem arguments, casual dismissals, leading questions, and such, unfortunately are, but insults are prohibited.)

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

I think we can all agree that oversimplifying crucially important issues in order to puff up one’s own moral self-image is objectively odious, yes? Having said that, I will agree with you that perhaps “most of the posts I read” was too blanket a statement.

262

Two simple questions:

  1. Why should the USA win this “war on terrorism?”

Is it because: “me, I’m American, and I have to win?” If so, if you were, say, a Sunni Arab, would you be perfectly cool with sending your boys out to blow up American soldiers, chop their heads off, etc, because “me, I’m Sunni, and I have to win?” Surely that is an equally valid argument.

Or is it because the USA is supposed to stand for something better than autocratic religious government? That it’s ideals of freedom and democracy and human decency mean something? If so, then if the USA stop behaving in accordance with those ideals - it tortures people and detains them without trial, etc - then does the USA still deserve to win? Or is it just another wannabe strongman empire, twisting arms and breaking legs to further its own interests?
2) What is the worst that Al Quaeda can do to us? Really?

They’ve got a few thousand members (less than 10), no tanks, no planes, no nuclear weapons, no cruise missiles, but lots of… well… AK47’s and some box cutters. I mean, so they took down two big buildings? The Nazi’s carpet bombed London for weeks, destroying way more each night than AQ has done over its entire existence together. But London is still here, right? And still thriving and going strong?

There’s this notion breathlessly repeated here that if we don’t start chopping ears off all these bastards we have in prison, then OMG! We’ll all die! Our Wiminz will be raped, oh noez!!! Let’s put this in perspective here: AQ had the luckiest strike it will ever have in its lifetime, it found a chink in the armor that was instantly closed, and it managed to inflict about a half hours worth of traffic casualties on the USA.

There is simply NO WAY AQ can overrun the USA. Seriously. The only thing it can do is make America so scared that it spends billions of dollars trying to secure every two bit landing strip in the nation, and start pushing around politically explosive countries in a desperate bid to feel safer. Those are enormous prices to pay, but they are only ones that the US can inflict on itself. It’s the wasp strategy: You can’t seriously hurt an animal 10,000 times your size by stinging it, unless you scare it into falling down the stairs by doing so.

263

[QUOTE=Chouan]
But the truth of the matter is, we’re fighting against an enemy who isn’t bothered by the niceties of theoretical and ethical debates. Do you think the Islamists ever gave Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg the kind of moral consideration that we give to them? No!

Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire. And in the case of Al-Qaida, that means suspending our usual code of ethics in order to save our civilization.
[/QUOTE]
I take it that you would agree that we need to destroy our civilization in order to save it?

The problem with the defenders of such logic as you have provided is that they appear to be more informed by 24 or Dirty Harry than they are by the real world. What we have in the real world are examples of actual decisions being made in error based on corrupted information extorted through torture. For those mistakes, we have paid with the easy recruitment of additional thousands of volunteers to the various forces opposing our occupation of Iraq who looked upon our torture as a reason to rise up and oppose us as monsters.

If one imagines that one must become a monster to fight monsters, the result is nothing more than that one becomes a monster.

264

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Okay, here’s a specific point. Do you believe that the danger posed to the United States by Islamic fundamentalism is greater than the danger that was posed by Soviet Communism? Remember that the Soviet Union was a sovereign nation with thousands of warheads targeted at American cities and American military bases. At any moment the leaders of the Soviet Union could have vaporized millions of our citizens. Nikita Krushchev was quite blunt about it: “We will bury you.”

And yet, during the entire Cold War we never adopted a policy of torture.

Are you seriously arguing that we should now change that policy because of a handful of religious nuts living in some caves in Afghanistan?
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think that’s a really valid point that deserves some thinking about. We certainly were in more danger then of being completely obliterated by nuclear war. But would interrogation of suspects in custody, if effective, be likely to make us directly safer? I doubt it. The USSR wasn’t looking to make individual strikes at US cities, for many reasons. So I’d say we’re safer now if you’re asking whether we’ll be destroyed and/or conquered. But safer now, in terms of likelihood that a given individual US citizen will be killed by the enemy? I’d argue no. What do you think?

265

[QUOTE=Ecks]
Two simple questions:

  1. Why should the USA win this “war on terrorism?”

Is it because: “me, I’m American, and I have to win?” If so, if you were, say, a Sunni Arab, would you be perfectly cool with sending your boys out to blow up American soldiers, chop their heads off, etc, because “me, I’m Sunni, and I have to win?” Surely that is an equally valid argument.

Or is it because the USA is supposed to stand for something better than autocratic religious government? That it’s ideals of freedom and democracy and human decency mean something? If so, then if the USA stop behaving in accordance with those ideals - it tortures people and detains them without trial, etc - then does the USA still deserve to win? Or is it just another wannabe strongman empire, twisting arms and breaking legs to further its own interests?
[/QUOTE]

I’d argue that your first paragraph makes an indefensible moral equivalency, but I do agree with your basic premise here, that it’s only the superior morality of ideas (note, I did not say people) that makes the US deserve to win the struggle with the Islamists.

[QUOTE=Ecks]
2) What is the worst that Al Quaeda can do to us? Really?

They’ve got a few thousand members (less than 10), no tanks, no planes, no nuclear weapons, no cruise missiles, but lots of… well… AK47’s and some box cutters. I mean, so they took down two big buildings? The Nazi’s carpet bombed London for weeks, destroying way more each night than AQ has done over its entire existence together. But London is still here, right? And still thriving and going strong?

There’s this notion breathlessly repeated here that if we don’t start chopping ears off all these bastards we have in prison, then OMG! We’ll all die! Our Wiminz will be raped, oh noez!!! Let’s put this in perspective here: AQ had the luckiest strike it will ever have in its lifetime, it found a chink in the armor that was instantly closed, and it managed to inflict about a half hours worth of traffic casualties on the USA.

There is simply NO WAY AQ can overrun the USA. Seriously. The only thing it can do is make America so scared that it spends billions of dollars trying to secure every two bit landing strip in the nation, and start pushing around politically explosive countries in a desperate bid to feel safer. Those are enormous prices to pay, but they are only ones that the US can inflict on itself. It’s the wasp strategy: You can’t seriously hurt an animal 10,000 times your size by stinging it, unless you scare it into falling down the stairs by doing so.
[/QUOTE]

Other than the straw man mocking of the second paragraph of this point, I think your basic idea is that Al Qaeda is not a threat to conquer the US (at least not for quite some time, I’d add). I can agree with that.

266

[QUOTE=Mad Max]
Actually, I think that’s a really valid point that deserves some thinking about. We certainly were in more danger then of being completely obliterated by nuclear war. But would interrogation of suspects in custody, if effective, be likely to make us directly safer? I doubt it.
[/QUOTE]
Come now. Consider the damage that Soviet spies like Kim Philby inflicted. They directly undermined the security of the United States and made us much more vulnerable to attack. Better Western intelligence would have made a big difference in the Cold War.

So if you merely leave out the threat of nuclear annihilation, we were safer then, eh? :rolleyes: One doesn’t get to pick and choose risks like that.

In any case, this particular line of argument is moot. Because torture is NOT an effective way of gathering intelligence. Someone who is being tortured will say whatever it takes to make it stop. Yes, it’s possible to construct bizarre hypothetical scenarios where it’s a matter of life or death to extract one vital bit of information while a clock is ticking, but that’s not how intelligence gathering typically works. The goal of interrogation is to build up a database of reliable information so you know what leads to pursue in the future – where is the funding coming from, where are the training camps, who is doing the recruiting. Bad intelligence in those circumstances is worse than no intelligence at all because it wastes limited resources and confuses the landscape. Bad intelligence garnered from torture is part of the reason we invaded Iraq.

So, in a nutshell:

  1. Torture is morally wrong. We shouldn’t be doing it, period.
  2. Torture is an ineffective intelligence-gathering technique in almost all real-world situations.
  3. Torture damages our international reputation, making it easier for our enemies to gain allies.
267

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Come now. Consider the damage that Soviet spies like Kim Philby inflicted. They directly undermined the security of the United States and made us much more vulnerable to attack. Better Western intelligence would have made a big difference in the Cold War.
[/QUOTE]

You may be right; I’ll concede I’m not an expert on intelligence and the Cold War. It’s an interesting point.

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
So if you merely leave out the threat of nuclear annihilation, we were safer then, eh? :rolleyes: One doesn’t get to pick and choose risks like that.
[/QUOTE]

No, you’re misunderstanding my point. Nuclear annihilation is of course the worst outcome imaginable, but because of a host of constraints the chances of it happening were remote, even during, say, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Sometimes a less horrible outcome with a greatly increased likelihood is actually a greater threat. Would you rather take a one in a million shot at losing all the money you have, or a two in three shot at losing a thousand bucks right now?

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
In any case, this particular line of argument is moot. Because torture is NOT an effective way of gathering intelligence. Someone who is being tortured will say whatever it takes to make it stop. Yes, it’s possible to construct bizarre hypothetical scenarios where it’s a matter of life or death to extract one vital bit of information while a clock is ticking, but that’s not how intelligence gathering typically works. The goal of interrogation is to build up a database of reliable information so you know what leads to pursue in the future – where is the funding coming from, where are the training camps, who is doing the recruiting. Bad intelligence in those circumstances is worse than no intelligence at all because it wastes limited resources and confuses the landscape. Bad intelligence garnered from torture is part of the reason we invaded Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

I think that question is far from settled. If it’s so ineffective, why do any agencies want to use it?

268

[QUOTE=Pochacco]

So, in a nutshell:

  1. Torture is morally wrong. We shouldn’t be doing it, period.
  2. Torture is an ineffective intelligence-gathering technique in almost all real-world situations.
  3. Torture damages our international reputation, making it easier for our enemies to gain allies.
    [/QUOTE]

I’d also be curious (honest-curious, not combative-curious) to know how you define torture?

269

So let’s get it straight: some complete moron thought that drowning wasn’t a big deal, then he drowned himself and realized that it was more disconcerting than a complete retard would have figured it. What a fucking hero.

Hey Scylla, try bamboo shoots under the fingertips next. I’m sure we will all be blown away with the research.

eta:some might consider you a stupid, self important jackass

270

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
So let’s get it straight: some complete moron thought that drowning wasn’t a big deal, then he drowned himself and realized that it was more disconcerting than a complete retard would have figured it. What a fucking hero.

Hey Scylla, try bamboo shoots under the fingertips next. I’m sure we will all be blown away with the research.

eta:some might consider you a stupid, self important jackass
[/QUOTE]
This is Great Debates and this is a Warning that you are not to fill up an entire post with insults when posting in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]

271

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
This is Great Debates and this is a Warning that you are not to fill up an entire post with insults when posting in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

Sorry. I thought that making light of torture was something to be castigated but clearly you think that entertaining that mockery sells – so hey, live it up!

272

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Sorry. I thought that making light of torture was something to be castigated but clearly you think that entertaining that mockery sells – so hey, live it up!
[/QUOTE]
You are the only one “making light” of anything in your sophomoric attempt at insults–something that a poster who has accumulated as many Warnings for personal insults as you have managed might have learned to temper.

273

I’m afraid that you are as wrong as you can be.
example:

I’m sorry tomndebb, regardless of how popular this thread is there can be no doubt as to how obnoxious the OP is, both in concept and presentation. Your defence of it is not much less obnoxious. It has been a form of torture since the advent of pressurized water but we need a Bush apologist to figure it out for us?

274

[QUOTE=Chouan]
We’re talking about people who we know are fighting a jihad against Western Civilization–whose professed aim is the destruction of our life and our way of life
[/QUOTE]

Ah, poor weak America, so frail and whimpy, could you believe that a bunch of wackos armed with box cutters brought it down?
Such a shame.

275

Let me put it this way. What if they didn’t give you a choice and smashed your fingers before they waterboarded you and say kneed you in the stomach. How well would you control your breath and panic? What if they didn’t promise to stop if you were close to death?

This whole goddamn exercise was ludicrous and admiration of same is akin to admiration of “Jackass”.

276

[QUOTE=Chouan]
We’re not talking about torturing innocent people.
[/QUOTE]

Yes we are.

277

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Is there any precedent that “punishment” has be interpreted as anything other than a sentence given to someone convicted of a crime?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, there is. The 8th is used to challenge inhumane prison conditions, for example. Presumably torture is an inhumane condition. The better argument is the citizen-based scope argument you’re making, but even that is not as strong as you think. The best interpretation, in my opinion, is that the BOR applies to the entire jurisdiction of the US, which includes Gitmo.

278

It’s easy to take the moral high road and reject torture as always wrong, no matter what.

Part of what infects this debate is that when we (on the left) condemn torture, we do so because we have always thought of torture as something practiced against others because of their beliefs: in the old Soviet Union, for example, citizens were tortured for having unacceptable political views. In Egypt today, one might be tortured for having unacceptable religious beliefs. And so on. In these instances like those it’s easy to condemn torture as inhumane.

I’ve always scoffed myself at the “ticking bomb” apology for torture so popular among the woolly-headed denizens of the right, because it’s so completely unrealistic, right out of a TV show. But watching the interview with Kiriakou (sp?), the CIA agent who spoke recently about the torture of Zubaydah, I began to wonder. In this instance, Zubaydah wasn’t tortured because he was an “islamofascist;” if Kiriakou is telling the truth, he was tortured because the agents in charge of him believed he was a highly-ranked Al Queda operative with information regarding upcoming terrorist attacks. A more realistic version of the ticking bomb scenario, that is.

I wonder in all honesty how I might react in this situation myself, were I making the decision to torture, or not torture, Zubdaydah. I would have to weigh my moral principles against the potential loss of lives – the lives of innocent men, women, and children. I’m not 100% sure that my principles would outweigh the other side – and if someone, or many people, died in order for me to preserve my sense of moral integrity – well, shit, I just don’t think my moral integrity is worth the cost of single human life.

Kiriakou claims that they broke Zubdaydah with waterboarding, and were able to use the information gleaned from his interviews to interrupt al-Queda operations and save lives. And let’s not forget this fellow was a stone-cold killer who would probably consider the entire moral dilemma we face as nothing more than a hollow academic exercise. I know that there are other reports (via Suskind) that Zubdaydah was mentally unstable and useless as an informer, but that doesn’t change the basic moral equation. Of course its morally wrong to torture, but is it not a greater wrong to let innocent people die when, through the torture of a single person, you could have saved them?

279

[QUOTE=Mr. Svinlesha]
But watching the interview with Kiriakou (sp?), the CIA agent who spoke recently about the torture of Zubaydah, I began to wonder. In this instance, Zubaydah wasn’t tortured because he was an “islamofascist;” if Kiriakou is telling the truth, he was tortured because the agents in charge of him believed he was a highly-ranked Al Queda operative with information regarding upcoming terrorist attacks. A more realistic version of the ticking bomb scenario, that is.

< snip >

Kiriakou claims that they broke Zubdaydah with waterboarding, and were able to use the information gleaned from his interviews to interrupt al-Queda operations and save lives.
[/quote]
First, I don’t believe the CIA guy, because if he’s willing to work for Bush and torture people, he’s scum and utterly untrustworthy. Second, Zubaydah didn’t have “information about upcoming terrorist attacks”, because you can be sure they were automatically scrubbed when he was captured.

[QUOTE=Mr. Svinlesha]
Of course its morally wrong to torture, but is it not a greater wrong to let innocent people die when, through the torture of a single person, you could have saved them?
[/QUOTE]
No, because they are not innocent. They use torturers to enforce their will. And by doing so, you endanger others, because torture is so very good at making enemies and eliminating allies.

280

[QUOTE=Mr. Svinlesha]

Kiriakou claims that they broke Zubdaydah with waterboarding, and were able to use the information gleaned from his interviews to interrupt al-Queda operations and save lives. And let’s not forget this fellow was a stone-cold killer who would probably consider the entire moral dilemma we face as nothing more than a hollow academic exercise. I know that there are other reports (via Suskind) that Zubdaydah was mentally unstable and useless as an informer, but that doesn’t change the basic moral equation. Of course its morally wrong to torture, but is it not a greater wrong to let innocent people die when, through the torture of a single person, you could have saved them?
[/QUOTE]

We aren’t talking about the torture of one person. Practices that were considered torture in the past by the US have now become valid interrogation techniques that are used on prisoners. Some of the people that have been released from Gitmo say they were tortured (stress positions, waterboarding etc.) a lot of these men were never charged with anything and released back to their country of origin who then released them. By removing the torture definition from these acts the US have made them a standard tool that is used seemingly indiscriminately against anyone who falls into the net be they really dangerous people or just some poor unfortunate that has been given up by an enemy in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.