You misapprehend the weasely nature of evolution. If a mutation which brings about a change in human nature improves the chances of reproductive success, it will prosper in the population. There’s a lot of selection going on today.
I have seen no evidence that we “have” to “get our hands dirty.”
I have seen evidence that torture produced confirmation for erroneous conclusions supporting bad decisions by the administration.
I have seen no evidence that any information gathered by torture has been useful in any way.
I have seen our allies withdraw their support because we have decided to turn our backs on the limited improvements that society made throughout the 20th century.
I have seen our reckless actions used as extremely successful recruiting tools by our foes.
The idea that we have to be as evil as our foes is one that plays well on the movies and TV, but which appears to be absolutely bankrupt in the real world. When news of Abu Ghraib broke, numerous military intelligence officers were queried for their reactions, (the CIA refused to talk, of course), and I never saw a single military intelligence officer support or even condone the actions at Abu Ghraib. So, I have testimony from officers in the FBI and the Army that torture is a stupid way to gain information and a bunch of yahoos outside any genuine intelligence organization protesting “we gotta do it” and I am afraid that I do not find the protests of the yahoos in any way persuasive.
Frankly, aside from the emotional need to say “hurt them 'cause they hurt us,” I cannot figure out why anyone endorses or espouses torture given its pretty miserable track record for having garnered any information.
We have lots of choices. I find it interesting that you are willing to surrender to the terrorists. The primary motivation for terrorism is to goad a government or society into overreacting to the point where it will impose such draconian reactions that the overall populace will come to reject it and join the opposition. Harsh counter-terrorism begets more terrorism and eventually leads to a revulsion by the majority to the oppressive government. Your choice is a declaration that we must become sufficiently like the terrorists that we must ultimately fail. It seems an odd approach, this decision to succumb to the desires of the terrorists.
A quibble, Tomn. But you sorta imply rational motive to terrorists. When someone becomes that extreme, rational motives are but a distant memory.
Is revenge a rational motive ? And “terrorism” doesn’t always require that one be extreme, anyway. Just weak; the line that ‘terrorism is what the big army calls the little army’ has a lot of truth; a lot of what we do would be called terrorism if a small weak group did something similar.
Demonizing one’s enemies as stupid (GWB), insane (Hitler), possessed by the devil (pick your pope), or some other dismissal is a time-honored manner of setting them outside “us,” but it is bad strategy as it leads one to underestimate them.
The typical teen or tween recruited to blow themselves to smithereens in the hopes of kiiling a few people they hate may, indeed, be acting in a completely irrational manner. However, the people who buy and assemble the bombs and who pick their targets, wind them up, and send them to their doom are not so crazy as to actually engage in the same behavior.
I see no reason to assume that the planners and strategists among the terrorist organizations are behaving in ways that are irrational to accomplish their goals.
I think you underestimate our fundamental nature. Civilization is a very thin veneer; it only takes a momentary crisis to bring out the worst in people. This is why we need strong leadership to make sure civilization remains intact.
I’d like to hear you say that if the Islamists get control of the nukes in Pakistan! A real possibility, unless President Musharraf is strong enough and brave enough to reimpose military rule.
Ethics only matter in the realm of philosophy. Politics have nothing to do with ethics, and everything with taking decisive, even ruthless actions, in order to protect one’s society. We can sit here and debate ethics, but only because our security is guaranteed by a strong leadership backed up by a powerful military.
It can’t be a coincidence that these people are all Muslims. Before them, it was the communists. And what both of these groups share is a hatred and antagonism toward Western, Christian civilization. Those few who are motivated out of a personal grudge–because they think, rightly or wrongly, that an American was responsible for the death of a loved one–are just going through the grieving process. Once that’s over, they’ll either get over it and realize that America is offering them opportunities that Saddam never would have. Otherwise, they’ll have to turn to an ideology to keep those fires of hatred burning, and Islamic fanaticism is all too eager to supply that. When Islamism is dead and buried (just like communism before it), they’ll get a better historical perspective.
But you were just saying how impotent these terrorists are! What does it matter if a few more join their hopeless cause? Those kind of people are beyond our reach. People who already have an investment to protect–e.g. middle and upper-class Muslims, with property and political positions–THOSE are people who are less likely to join the jihad, and THOSE are the people who America needs to reach. It’s already working that way in Iraq, if you’ve kept up with the news.
Only to those who have the luxury not to lead their nation. In other words, they’re purely academic.
Only the CIA and the administration knows for certain who, if anybody, was subjected to waterboarding… and the likelihood is that those suspects were always high-value suspects like KSM. I don’t think we’ve ever subjected someone to enhanced interrogation without already knowing that they know something that we need to know…and whatever has been extracted from those interrogations HAS worked. Look at the 31 plots that KSM was involved in! BBC NEWS | Americas | Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's '31 plots' Some of those who succeeded in carrying out, but because of his confessions, we can prevent any of his other plans from ever developing. I hope it goes without saying that the administration CAN’T reveal all the terrorist plots have been foiled–otherwise, the terrorists would stop working on them and turn to something else!
A very good question, but I think I wasn’t clear with my earlier description of humanity. I never said that people were irredeemably evil demons–just that, without guidance, they would act as brutal animals–we’d live in a savage jungle state. Now, in some parts of the world (i.e., the West), we have societies that harness the animal instincts, and channel them towards something productive, all under a strong leadership that protects society from various threats–including threats from less developed societies who allow their people to run around like crazy because of a teddy bear named “Muhammed”. It doesn’t take a whole lot of research to realize that Western society–principally, European and North American–have produced a qualitatively better way of life in terms of cultural advancements and economic prosperity than most other societies. A few societies have, out of jealousy or religious/anti-religious hatred, have tried to tear down the achievements of the West. But they will never succeed as long as our leaders have the guts to protect us and ensure our continued prosperity.
Throughout history, politics show us that the most capable leaders are those who are able to act decisively and powerfully while providing for the security of their people. They (the leaders) can’t fulfill this role if they are constrained by problems of ethics. The only time they should be concerned with ethics is just to keep society happy–so in American society, our leaders make token gestures about ethics and morality, and the people stay happy and watch TV or whatever entertainment they like. The important thing is the people are happy and safe, because the leaders are acting like real men.
In other words, it’s really not our business what happens behind these closed interrogation doors, just so long as our society is safe. Harsh words, I know, but true.
Whatever evidence that has been extracted has apparently been useful, because we haven’t seen any more terrorist attacks since 9/11. After our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the rest of the world knows that America won’t just sit back and take it anymore.
And which allies have withdrawn their support? France? Who were upset primarily because they’d lose their oil deals with Saddam (not because they were outraged over American imperialism)? Now that Sarkozy is president, the French are moving back to our way of thinking.
If you have a pure sadist at the wheel, of coursre you’ll get worthless intelligence. But if you’ve got a skilled interrogator (operating within set guidelines) and a high-value suspect in the same room, you’ll be sure to get actionable intelligence. As Alan Dershowitz pointed out, members of the French Resistance provided the Nazis with actionable intelligence (http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010832). So there are historical precedents, although such methods are probably best used in very circumscribed conditions.
I disagree. The desires of these terrorists are to impose Sharia law under a worldwide caliphate. They will always fail, so long as we strike back against them to teach them a lesson. And obviously, they’re learning, since they’ve given up on attacking Americans on US soil and now are just trying to kill each other.
But I will admit that half-hearted measures will backfire. If you’re trying to quell an insurgency, you have to destroy it utterly. Full commitment is the only way to ensure success. If we fail, it won’t be because we instituted counterterrorist operations, but because we didn’t go far enough.
Interesting logic there, but aren’t you forgetting the anthrax attacks?
Last I checked, 9/18 comes after 9/11, or is it that we just hadn’t gotten around to torturing folks yet? 
Piffle. That arguemt is equivalent to the guy standing on the corner snapping his fingers to keep away elephants who reponds to the statement “There are no elephants here” with, “Of course not, I’m snapping my fingers.”
al Qaida has a tradition of investing a lot of preparation time in order to pull off a relatively few large events. From the first WTC attack to the second there were no other attacks on U.S. soil. It took eight years for them to mount the second WTC attack. It has only been six years since the last one. Meanwhile, tell the people of London and Madrid just how successful we have been. (And provide evidence that any thwarted attack was stopped by torture and not the more effective procedures used by the FBI which is actually in charge of domestic security.)
France, Germany, and Spain to name a few. (And your French comment is silly: they did not withdraw from the support on the War on Terror over contracts with Hussein. They declined to encourage our abandonment of the War on Terror to go invade a non-aligned country for the purpose of playing neo-con games based on Wolfowitz’s idiotic term paper.)
France is not “moving back,” so much as continuing the support they had always offered for the real anti-terrorism effort in Afghanistan now that it looks like we have so badly screwed it up that we may need help to keep from losing that country all over again.
To the extent that France is involved with Iraq at this time, it is for the purpose of ensuring that Iraq remains a single country and not splintering into three states. They have specific national goals in the diplomatic/foreign arenas that they are working toward rather than carrying out any plans set forth by Bush.
“Strong leaders” like Hitler or Stalin ? I see no reason to believe that leaders are much use in making people behave in a civilized fashion. Civilization is built bottom up much more than top down.
< Yawn > Even with a few nukes, they STILL aren’t strong enough to destroy us. Nor would they dare to use them. Yes, yes, they are all crazy suicidal loons who all can’t wait to die. Prove it. So far, it’s only the cannon fodder that gets themselves killed for the cause; not the people in charge.
None of which would make us the slightest bit safer without ethics. If you magically eliminated ethics, 90+ percent of the population would be dead in less than a year, and our civilization would collapse utterly. It would be the war of all against all.
What makes you think they ARE ? Of course most of them are Muslim; in that area of the world, most people are.
We are much worse for Iraq than Saddam was, and offer them less of everything. Less freedom, less prosperity, less health, less hope. And why would they EVER get over our mass murders ? It is the clear duty of all Iraqis to hate Americans, and hurt us as much as they can. It is the right and duty of any Iraqi to kill an American in Iraq, whenever the opportunity arises. Just as you have the right to kill a knife wielding murderer who’s just raped and murdered you wife, standing over the body knife in hand.
Who said anything about terrorist ? We are busy alienating the entire world. And they become less impotent the more we help them.
Garbage. They left. There is no hope in or for Iraq.
They are relevant to anyone. If someone has none, then they are the enemy of all humanity.
Pure garbage. We tortured random people, with zero evidence that they were guilty of anything.
Except that they are liars, and I see no reason to believe that they have stopped any such terrorist attacks with torture. Or that they are interested in trying.
Pure garbage. Without ethics, they won’t even bother to try.
Like Hitler ? He sounds like your definition of a great leader and ‘real man.’
No, it’s not. Anyone who engages in torture for any reason is a monster who should be killed. We need to know what’s happening behind those doors in order to identify and kill them.
No, they know that we are weak and easily manipulated. and we are doing what they want, so why would they try to change our behavior ?
Unlikely. First, because “skilled interrogator” and “torturer” are fairly close to exclusive things. And second, because torture tends to produce bad data, and corrupts any further data from the victim, and closes down alternative sources from all the people who refuse to deal with torturers. It’s those pesky ethics you don’t want to believe matter acting up again.
In other words, genocide. You want to kill of the Iraqis as a people. Because as a people they hate us, and will for generations, thanks to what we’ve done.
And related to my claim here : Iraq Slashes Food Rations, Putting Lives at Risk
Sounds like a real land of opportunity we’ve created. I’m sure the Iraqis will forgive our slaughter of them any . . . time . . . now. :rolleyes:
Spare me the sarcasm. I was subtly tying to make you realize your prior absolutist claim had little bearing on the majority of humanity. Sure, if you deliverately dismiss at least 2/3 of it things are bound look rosy. But that’s an unrealistic claim to make in light of the current state of affairs worldwide.
What with the newly and needed qualifiers your original statements differs quite a bit from your original and unfounded claim.
Now, if you had started off like this:
I wouldn’t have made an issue out it.
IMO, this is a becoming a meta thread, a hijack of the OP and one deserving its own.
Time permitting I’ll cobble something together and start one on this very topic.
Thus far I see nothing to belie Cervairce’s keen reply in his last post to Choan and his bull-headed militant attitude towards something as supposedly as clear cut and primitive as torture. He appears to have become what he hates while at the same time becoming a prime example of my hypothesis on human nature.
Lastly and unless we all go up in smoke (not Cheech and Chong like I’m afraid), history also tells us that there’s little intrinsically or extrinsically exceptional about current American Empire as compared to the any of the others that have become before it. If anything, at the moment all signs point to the fact that it’s likely to be a rather brief one…
What sarcasm ?
I didn’t say ‘rosy’. I said better than the past.
Only if you romanticize the past, or present primitive cultures.
You do realize that the only way you are going to eliminate Islam is through extensive use of death camps that would make the Nazi regime look like a kid with a magnifying glass?
There are over a billion Muslims, 19% of the world is Muslim.
To think that it will just go away is a pipedream, and is ignoring the realities of the situation.
Hell, the British couldn’t force the Catholics out of Northern Ireland, and that’s a tiny slice of real estate.
Note that Chouan said Islamism, not Islam.
I suspect that what he meant by Islamsim was the extreme factions on the edge of the (already pretty tilted) Wahabbist movement within Islam and he might be correct on that point.
Of course, ironically, I also suspect that his claim that we will face terror as long as Islamism survives, which I believe may be correct, argues very strongly against his methodology. We did not defeat communism by randomly killing or or torturing communists, but by holding up a lifestyle that was more successful and that better served its people. Engaging in the sort of no-holds-barred, be-as-evil-as-they-are, wasted earth policy that he advises does nothing more than create martyrs for their cause–and nothing encourages recruitment and strengthens a religious movement like lots of martyrs.
Had we maintained and extended our concepts of justice and fair trial and respect for those who are accused, we would have far fewer people opposing us in Iraq.
Obviously they weren’t trying hard enough. 
Thankyou for trying it. Ok, so it IS torture.
I can’t help but think of the old ticking clock scneraio where a nuclear bombs about to go off, you have the guy, but he wont tell you how to disable it. Would it be permissible to waterboard the guy?
Fine: The nuke’s ticking away; you’ve got some guy you think knows (a) where it is, (b) how to find it where it’s hidden, and (c) how to disarm it. Commence torture.
Assume the guy breaks within the first few minutes and begins babbling everything he knows in one terrified torrent. Takes a moment or two to get him coherent enough to tell you (a) and (b), especially since he’s kind of vague about (a) and can’t remember whether it’s Allen Street or Alvin Road. Another trip to the waterboard and you figure you’ve got that squared away.
But wait! It was his partner that actually set up the nuke, not him, and it’s his partner that knows (c)! Your vic – er, informant tells you what he saw his partner doing, but jeez, he’s vague about whether it was toggle A, then switch C, or vice versa. Another trip to the waterboard and this time he can’t be any clearer.
Never mind, it’s the best you can get, and you’ve already launched your crack team of nuke disarmers who just happened to be at hand. They’re racing toward the site, sirens blaring, determined to reach it before it’s too
BOOM.
Too bad you only had 10 minutes to stop the bomb, and the hiding place was an hour away.
Oh, well, at least you tried, right? Too bad real life isn’t just like a movie.
Well, yes, repeat, no. Methods may be rational but strategies can be quite mad. For instance, the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor was brilliantly rational, planned with excruciating exactitude and almost perfectly executed. It was still batshit pizza to attack a nation that they had no real possibility of defeating.
Terrorism, as has been remarked many times, is the warfare of last resort. The Islamoloons have no real chance at defeating America any more than the Geico Gecko can take down Godzilla, it is an irrational goal, however fleetingly rational the plots to attain that goal.
QFT.
I just registered to give my regards to you, Scylla, and wow. I can’t even imagine what pure, first-circuit panic is like.
I almost want to try it. I’m glad that desire is going to be fleeting and is never going to come to anything.
Good luck, and please don’t torture yourself anymore
~C