Krauthammer’s hypothetical is based on having captured someone who has just set a bomb or sent a suicide bomber on a mission. He doesn’t say how we know that. In that sense his hypothetical is unrealistic.
When you capture someone I don’t think you know for certain you have someone who has just set a bomb or sent someone on a suicide mission.
So all of his fancy justifications are just so much baloney in my humble opinion.
Bingo.
Torture will always be part of the hole card. In situations where it is warranted enough to break a law against torture, it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. For some damn fool reason, many are now putting the cart before the horse. You can’t torture people as a policy. Who cares if the enemy doesn’t think we torture. It won’t help him if he is caught by a John Clarkesque type who already has his forgiveness letter printed out. Bush and co are only feeding the trolls by wanting to moralize it.
Pul-eeze. By my informal count, Krauthammer has been shilling for the neo-conservative movement for at least the last five years. He’s only marginally more bearable than the monkeys at Fox News because he doesn’t yell to advance his talking points, but otherwise he has the same (lack of) credibility they do.
I thought it seemed familiar.
That’s easy for you to say because you won’t be the guy who has to make that critical decision within a few minutes.
I’d have more respect if McCain just said “no torture ever, period”. Instead he hems and haws a bit and says that under certain extreme circumstances it might be OK. If that’s true, then let’s not make sone low level CIA operative put his future on the line making that decision himself.
Here’s what I posted the previous time we did this:
Exactly. Torture should be utterly banned. If one of those “ticking time-bomb” hypotheticals ever actually occurs, then the President can pardon the heroic torturers afterwards while the public cheers at their ticker-tape parade.
CK’s argument is the equivalent that we should pass a law saying that sometimes it’s okay to steal because someone somewhere might have to break into a closed pharmacy during a natural disaster to steal bandages. Only a moral midget would fail to grasp that ANY LAW can be rendered inoperative given particular circumstances. Given the choice between allowing a man to bleed to death and breaking and entering, the moral thing to do is break the window and steal the bandage. If a person doesn’t have a strong enough moral sense to know when breaking the law is the right thing to do, they certainly don’t have a strong enough moral sense to be allowed to torture someone.
Question: Does McCain’s legislation prevent Americans from delivering suspect to allies for them to torture as well ?
I think the answer to the gedanken experiment set up by Krauthammer, is that you (the investigative police officer) do the torture – and then you take the legal punishment afterwards.
Blair recently had to face some critic for allegedly having had some prior (if very vague) knowledge of the bombings in London. However apparently the knowledge came about as a result of interrogation of al-Qaeda former second in command, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Interrogations which seems to have included forms which are by some considered torture. But the British judges have decided that all information obtained through torture are invalid and are to be discarded. So if Blair had followed the courts order and had the information been more precise, that would have prevented him from taking action to prevent the London terrorism. Everything has a price. The price of categorical denying the validity of information brought about by means that include torture might in this case have been 56 dead civilians on their way to work. By all means one can believe that torture is always and universally wrong and evil, but then don’t come and complain when the price is to be paid. Saying there’s no price to pay is dishonest. There’s always a price.
But that ruling by the law lords had not been made before the London bombings, thus Blair/security services was quite free to use this supposed torture intel. They still didn’t prevent the bombings did they?
Colour me as supporting the availability of torture. Sometimes it’s necessary. How many here read the second page of the article? That suitable cases are rare does not mean they don’t exist. Should the cop on the street or CIA agent be allowed to use it at his own discretion? No, but they should be able to ask for its use. Further, the mere fact that we can use torture will act as a deterrent.
Unfortunately, the mere fact that CK is a right-winger means that many people here will disagree with him by default.
Why shouldn’t the cop on the street or CIA agent in the field be able to use it? Surely there would be rare cases where time is so short that only a snap decision and instant application of thumbscrews would save the world, get the girl and roll credits! I find your lack of trust in the cop on the street, coupled with your faith in whoever-happens-to-be-in-the-White-House to be… disturbing. 
Oh, and cite please for the claim that it acts as a deterrent. I didn’t notice any drop off in the number of suicide bombers immediately following the Abu Ghraib mess. Maybe we (allied forces, I’m not an american) just didn’t torture those towelheads enough to deter everyone else. :rolleyes:
I will quote Krauthammer heavily in this post because I am directly referencing what he says and he says it better than I can.
I notice that none of you so far have dealt with one of Krauthammers central questions…
“Let’s Take An Example that is far from hypothetical. You capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan. He not only has already killed innocents, he is deeply involved in the planning for the present and future killing of innocents. He not only was the architect of the 9/11 attack that killed nearly three thousand people in one day, most of them dying a terrible, agonizing, indeed tortured death. But as the top al Qaeda planner and logistical expert he also knows a lot about terror attacks to come. He knows plans, identities, contacts, materials, cell locations, safe houses, cased targets, etc. What do you do with him?”
Indeed. This is where the ideological rubber meets the pragmatic road. How would those of you who are getting the vapors over the very idea! of coercive interrogation handle this scenario?
CK has also very effectively put into a few words how I feel about those that I disagree with about this issue…especially the last sentence.
“But that does not make pure pacifism, like no-torture absolutism, any less a form of moral foolishness, tinged with moral vanity. Not reprehensible, only deeply reproachable and supremely impracticable. People who hold such beliefs are deserving of a certain respect. But they are not to be put in positions of authority. One should be grateful for the saintly among us. And one should be vigilant that they not get to make the decisions upon which the lives of others depend.”
Which leads me to what I have been saying for the last couple of years…
“Have we learned nothing from 9/11? Are we prepared to go back with complete amnesia to the domestic-crime model of dealing with terrorists, which allowed us to sleepwalk through the nineties while al Qaeda incubated and grew and metastasized unmolested until on 9/11 it finished what the first World Trade Center bombers had begun?”
Apparently some of you are.
Oh surely not.
Show me a actual suitable case, and show me evidence that torture provided a solution to a potential problem.
I’ll have a bash…
Try, convict and then imprison him. The instant he is captured all his codes and plans he knows about will be cancelled or chaged anyway (assuming Al Quaeda is not moronically stupid). How can you possibly know that anything he tells you under torture is the truth? If you know this much anyway, without torturing him, there’s little or nothing of real value he can tell you that you can’t find out for yourself by other means.
My bolding.
What’s the matter, too squeamish to say the word torture? Or is there a substantive difference between torture and “coercive interrogation”? If there is, would you allow the latter and not the former?
Cite please for the claim that america “slept walked through the nineties” I seem to recall the Clinton admin doing quite a lot against Al Quaeda, and their warnings being essentially ignored by the incoming Bush admin. (I have no cite for that myself, in the interests of honest debating).
At the risk of answering for someone else, this is an impossible task. You know as well as I do that ordinary citizens do not have access to the inner workings of national security investigations.
That’s why you don’t announce his capture right away. It gives you a very short period of time to interrogate him before his friends know he’s been compromised. That’s also why these questions are so important. Quick decisions need to be made and pragmatism needs to rule the day. After his intelligence value has been exhausted, announce his capture and treat him accordning to law and custom.
I’m not squeamish at all. To me, “coercive interrogation” is exactly what it is. Torture is verbal shorthand. I also distinguish the two in my mind as this…torture is done to amuse the captor or punish the captured. Coercive interrogation is done to extract vital information.
This question had been debated ad nauseum here and elsewhere. How effective you think the Clinton administration was against terrorism depends on your ideological viewpoint. I will say in defense of Clinton and company that they did not have the 9/11 attacks as justification for the kind of policy shifts necessary to effectively fight AQ.
Fair enough. I’ll let you give a cite from any time during the last five hundred years, from anywhere in the world. How’s that?
Daniel
At the risk of repeating what has been asked before, can you give me just one example in U.S. history where torture was used to bring about information that prevented a tragedy? Surely, some information along those lines has been declassified by now, right?
What exactly are you asking for, Daniel? Are you asking me to prove to you that torture has worked sometime, somewhere in the last 500 years to provide someone with useful information?
If you are, I think you already know the answer to that.
Again, you are trying to give me an impossible task. Have I been present in interrogation rooms and taken note so I can relate an eyewitness account? No.
Do I have a high enough security clearance to know about such an incident and the courage to post it on the internet? No.
Knowing the governments penchant for keeping lunch menus classified, do I think that such information is in the public domain? No.
If it were, and I spent days finding it, do I think it would be discounted out of hand? That depends on the ideological fervor of the reader.