Well, it doesn’t help that a lot of the tapes of these sessions were, uh, “accidentally” destroyed. :rolleyes:
Busted for what, being right? :rolleyes: Sorry, I can’t say I’ll won’t do that anymore…
This is not the same thing.
If all the bad guys ever need do to avoid getting bombed is sit in the midst of a few civilians that would effectively stop all efforts at getting anyone.
With torture it is shown to be ineffective and other means are available. To be on par with ordering a missile strike it’d be more apt to say Obama ordered some random village blasted on the hope that there might be some bad guy there. Then you’d have a point.
It’s OK to torture, as long as you don’t like it.
In the torture cases authorized by Bush, the interrogators knew the suspect had intelligence. They used torture to obtain that intelligence, not to punish the suspect for his alleged crimes. The objective (intelligence) was deemed important enough to justify the means(torture) to obtain it.
In the missile strike analogy, officials knew that civilian deaths would occur if they bombed a house. But the object (death to operatives) was deemed important enough to justify the means (indiscriminate death) to obtain it.
In the latter case, we are open to the world about our means and our objectives, and the results. Some people don’t like it, others do. We can have an honest debate about it.
Not doing the same for the torture memos presents a one sided case, similar to only announcing the civilian deaths in a missile strike, but not the military objects achieved.
Ok.
However. There is a multitude of evidence stating that torture was not needed at all in order to get the information, and (it may as well be mentioned again) torture is illegal.
I can anticipate your response: There are other ways to get the militants without a missile strike. In which case, I would agree.
Not trying to play gotcha or anything, but I think you might be assuming that I think one of the actions we’re talking about is morally above the other. I don’t think that at all. I don’t find the reality of collatoral military deaths and more appealing than I do torture.
But we are talking about the specific instances of torture that were authorized by the Bush administration. In those specific cases, they knew the suspect had intelligence that they wanted. They didn’t just randomly pick suspects to torture, and see what they could find.
Cheney is a torturer. He tortured the prisoners, the constitution, the law and Americas reputation on the power of his beliefs. I give him credit for self belief. i hate him for the damage he did to the reputation of America and that can never come back.We have been changed in a fundamental way. Those of us that see America as a place of laws and and principles are saddened by what he and his followers did. That is who we are now. We attack nations that are not a threat to us. We torture citizens. We bomb civilians and have no regrets.
Now Cheney says releasing the memos has damaged us. Torture did nothing to harm us. I suppose they think nobody knew it was going on. Except everybody did. It is so dumb.
No, they didn’t. They claimed to, but got far, far less from torture than they had with the previous methods, and then only when they happened to torture someone who did know something. Most of the people we’ve tortured have not been senior Al Qaeda officials.
They knew no such thing. There are examples in this very thread of people that were tortured that didn’t have any useful information.
My Google-Fu is strong…
Bush compounds “war on terrorism” lie with “foiled Los Angeles Terror Plot” story
Even without delving into the details, the claim that al-Qaeda planned to duplicate the same hijacking tactics used in the 9/11 attack doesn’t pass the giggle test – that’s clearly a trick that only works once (because it depends on the assumption that the best way to survive a hijacking is to wait it out).
Given that they recently felt the need to consult with Obama to authorize deadly force against known jack-boot thug pirates, I’m guessing ‘Yes’ would be the answer to this one.
Sinaijon - how do you feel about torturing a mass murderer to get a confession?
If torture is a routine and accepted part of war, doesn’t that mean it is okay to torture American soldiers? In other words, are we trying to be better than Al Qaeda or to emulate it?
But other methods to get that information exist. Provably better methods as has already been noted.
If Obama had another method, a better method, to achieve the goal that did not include blowing up innocent people but chose to blow them up anyway then maybe you’d have a point.
Why? I am NOT taking a position on the question. I’m pointing out that no one explicitly answered it.
Now, you’ve answered it with an objection I find reasonable, but it seems to me it would be answered by doing as you suggest: release ALL the information gained, both correct and incorrect, because that shows the true picture, as you say.
So is this what you propose?
See, even here I think you don’t directly answer the question. If I may infer from your post what I think your answer is, it would be:
No, we should not release the information gained, because there’s no way to judge whether particular pieces that were valuable could have been obtained without torture, so classifying a particular nugget of info as a “torture success” is simply not possible.
Is that correct?
That’s not the question. Obviously, if they don’t exist, they cannot be released.
If they do exist, should they be released?
Aside from the legality of torture, there is only one consideration to use when considering its use:
Are we willing to cede the moral high ground on whether or not our own troops’ hypothetical torture by the enemy is acceptable?
If not, if the thought of Al Qaeda torturing American soldiers makes you angry, then you have no moral superiority for advocating the use of torture by this country. American exceptionalism is demagogic bullshit and needs to stop.
So what does this mean in terms of what we do? Do we really say, “We’ve had successes, but publicizing them would mean taking Cheney’s argument at face value, so we will keep them secret?”
That doesn’t sound so good.
Do we find a less obvious way of saying the same thing, so it sounds better?
What?
I would find it refreshing if the conservatives who defend torture would admit that “ends justify the means” is the real argument in favor of torture instead of pretending that what happened wasn’t torture. That would at least be an honest debate. And I agree that one piece of that debate involves asking how effective torture was.
But I disagree that this means we ought to declassify memos on that subject.
First, given the political circumstances and the actors involved, I see no reason to believe any such memos would be accurate. How do you trust evidence from the people who deliberately destroyed other evidence they had on the topic?
Second, if the memos are true, then this is precisely the kind of information that should remain secret. There’s no point in keeping secret the legal justification for techniques that we don’t use anymore and which were public anyway. But there absolutely is an interest in not revealing what we learned about terrorist operations and when we learned it.
Third, the information on effectiveness is largely irrelevant to the political debate over torture. Our elected officials have made the decision that we aren’t going to torture even if it prevents us from getting valuable information. If people disagree with that decision–which assumes arguendo that we’re foregoing important intelligence–they are free to vote for different leaders.
Fourth, to the extent the information is relevant to torture policy, so is a lot of other information we don’t have. It isn’t actually leveling the playing field–it is a prejudicial stacking of the deck. We don’t know exactly how many people died under coercive interrogation. We know there are at least a handful, and probably more. We don’t know the effectiveness of other interrogation techniques against which to compare torture. We don’t know the exact costs of torture in terms of terrorist recruitment, etc. I could go on. It is fantasy to think that the one missing piece in the “ends-means” debate is the efficacy of torture. It isn’t. And we cannot release the rest of the information either because we don’t have it or because it would be too damaging.