U.S. Interrogator: Torture doesn't work

[PixelPusher]

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html)

By Matthew Alexander
Sunday, November 30, 2008; Page B01

I should have felt triumphant when I returned from Iraq in August 2006. Instead, I was worried and exhausted. My team of interrogators had successfully hunted down one of the most notorious mass murderers of our generation, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the mastermind of the campaign of suicide bombings that had helped plunge Iraq into civil war. But instead of celebrating our success, my mind was consumed with the unfinished business of our mission: fixing the deeply flawed, ineffective and un-American way the U.S. military conducts interrogations in Iraq. I'm still alarmed about that today.

I'm not some ivory-tower type; I served for 14 years in the U.S. Air Force, began my career as a Special Operations pilot flying helicopters, saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, became an Air Force counterintelligence agent, then volunteered to go to Iraq to work as a senior interrogator. What I saw in Iraq still rattles me -- both because it betrays our traditions and because it just doesn't work.

Violence was at its peak during my five-month tour in Iraq. In February 2006, the month before I arrived, Zarqawi's forces (members of Iraq's Sunni minority) blew up the golden-domed Askariya mosque in Samarra, a shrine revered by Iraq's majority Shiites, and unleashed a wave of sectarian bloodshed. Reprisal killings became a daily occurrence, and suicide bombings were as common as car accidents. It felt as if the whole country was being blown to bits.

Amid the chaos, four other Air Force criminal investigators and I joined an elite team of interrogators attempting to locate Zarqawi. What I soon discovered about our methods astonished me. The Army was still conducting interrogations according to the Guantanamo Bay model: Interrogators were nominally using the methods outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the interrogators' bible, but they were pushing in every way possible to bend the rules -- and often break them. I don't have to belabor the point; dozens of newspaper articles and books have been written about the misconduct that resulted. These interrogations were based on fear and control; they often resulted in torture and abuse.

I refused to participate in such practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.

Over the course of this renaissance in interrogation tactics, our attitudes changed. We no longer saw our prisoners as the stereotypical al-Qaeda evildoers we had been repeatedly briefed to expect; we saw them as Sunni Iraqis, often family men protecting themselves from Shiite militias and trying to ensure that their fellow Sunnis would still have some access to wealth and power in the new Iraq. Most surprisingly, they turned out to despise al-Qaeda in Iraq as much as they despised us, but Zarqawi and his thugs were willing to provide them with arms and money. I pointed this out to Gen. George Casey, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq, when he visited my prison in the summer of 2006. He did not respond.

Perhaps he should have. It turns out that my team was right to think that many disgruntled Sunnis could be peeled away from Zarqawi. A year later, Gen. David Petraeus helped boost the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and signed up with U.S. forces, cutting violence in the country dramatically.

Our new interrogation methods led to one of the war's biggest breakthroughs: We convinced one of Zarqawi's associates to give up the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader's location. On June 8, 2006, U.S. warplanes dropped two 500-pound bombs on a house where Zarqawi was meeting with other insurgent leaders.

But Zarqawi's death wasn't enough to convince the joint Special Operations task force for which I worked to change its attitude toward interrogations. The old methods continued. I came home from Iraq feeling as if my mission was far from accomplished. Soon after my return, the public learned that another part of our government, the CIA, had repeatedly used waterboarding to try to get information out of detainees.

I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

After my return from Iraq, I began to write about my experiences because I felt obliged, as a military officer, not only to point out the broken wheel but to try to fix it. When I submitted the manuscript of my book about my Iraq experiences to the Defense Department for a standard review to ensure that it did not contain classified information, I got a nasty shock. Pentagon officials delayed the review past the first printing date and then redacted an extraordinary amount of unclassified material -- including passages copied verbatim from the Army's unclassified Field Manual on interrogations and material vibrantly displayed on the Army's own Web site. I sued, first to get the review completed and later to appeal the redactions. Apparently, some members of the military command are not only unconvinced by the arguments against torture; they don't even want the public to hear them.

My experiences have landed me in the middle of another war -- one even more important than the Iraq conflict. The war after the war is a fight about who we are as Americans. Murderers like Zarqawi can kill us, but they can't force us to change who we are. We can only do that to ourselves. One day, when my grandkids sit on my knee and ask me about the war, I'll say to them, "Which one?"
ad_icon

Americans, including officers like myself, must fight to protect our values not only from al-Qaeda but also from those within our own country who would erode them. Other interrogators are also speaking out, including some former members of the military, the FBI and the CIA who met last summer to condemn torture and have spoken before Congress -- at considerable personal risk.

We're told that our only options are to persist in carrying out torture or to face another terrorist attack. But there truly is a better way to carry out interrogations -- and a way to get out of this false choice between torture and terror.

I'm actually quite optimistic these days, in no small measure because President-elect Barack Obama has promised to outlaw the practice of torture throughout our government. But until we renounce the sorts of abuses that have stained our national honor, al-Qaeda will be winning. Zarqawi is dead, but he has still forced us to show the world that we do not adhere to the principles we say we cherish. We're better than that. We're smarter, too.

[email protected]

Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006. He is the author of "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq." He is writing under a pseudonym for security reasons.

[Anti.Hero]

Chop off their heads and I bet they'll talk.

[SnakeBoy]

Sounds like he's the greatest interrogator ever. Sucks how the greatest never get credit for being the greatest. Instead of promotions the poor guy has to go write a book about how much smarter he is than everyone else. Such an unfair world, but at least he's optimistic that Obama will change everything.

[doobs]

"I'm also thinking about getting a gun, and dealing crack. Being a crack dealer. Not like a mean crack dealer, but like... like a nice one. Kinda friendly like, 'hey, what's up guys? Want some crack?'"

[boutons_]

That torture doesn't work has been known a long time.

The assholes in dubya's Exec didn't care. They are just dickless sadists, as are the "good (US) Germans" in the CIA and military who actually do torturing.

Those fuckers would turn on the gas in Nazi death camps if ordered to.

Give people power/permission from the state, and they ALWAYS use it and abuse it.

[RandomGuy]

A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."


Never, never, never underestimate the power of simple moral authority.

The morons who advocate bullshit like Gitmo and torture do not realize that moral authority is the single greatest weapon in a war of ideas like the "war on terror".

You cannot shoot an idea no matter how many bullets you have.

You CAN discredit it, and this offers some pretty convincing first-hand evidence of that.

[LnGrrrR]

You know what? I don't care if torture worked. I still wouldn't approve. America was premised on the idea that humans have certain rights. With those rights comes a sense of dignity. Even if the person is not worthy of dignity, we should still treat them with a modicum of respect for the fact that they are a person. Torture breaks down the psyche, and any sense of self-worth in a person. It reduces them to less than a person. I don't want to live in a country that not only ok's that idea, but also actively encourages it.

There's a reason General Washington took great pains to ensure that captured British soldiers would be treated fairly. It's because he knew how important it was for America to be RIGHT, and not just victorious.

[desflood]

That torture doesn't work has been known a long time.
And yet, you continue to torture us with your profanity-riddled, hate-filled Republican bashing.

[Anti.Hero]

lol. Ideas blah blah blah, America blah blah blah

All fluffly bullshit to make Amerikans still feel like knight in shining armor good guys.


Do what you gotta do, by any means possible.




You're right, America was run on great ideas. You all disagree with torture then support the crooks in office who shit on America.

[doobs]

Is torture bad? Sure. Is torture reliable? No, it's not very reliable.

Can torture be effective sometimes? Hell yes, if you know the guy knows something. That's the trick. If you don't know that he knows anything, then torture is very unreliable. But if you know for sure that he knows something important, torture can be a very effective method for extracting that information. Don't you think?

Equally clear to me is the difficulty of discussing this issue when torture itself is so poorly understood. What constitutes torture? Is waterboarding torture? Is light deprivation torture? Is solitary confinement torture? Is peeing on the Qur'an in front of detainees torture?

Jack Bauer shot some guy in his knee because he knew something important. The guy ended up telling Jack everything he wanted to know. I saw it on TV. True story.

[chode_regulator]

"I'm also thinking about getting a gun, and dealing crack. Being a crack dealer. Not like a mean crack dealer, but like... like a nice one. Kinda friendly like, 'hey, what's up guys? Want some crack?'"

:rollin

that might be the funniest line from taht movie. that and when his wife says "if we had wanted us some sissies, we would have named them dr quinn and medicine woman"

hwoever i dont know from experience but i would think torture does work. i mean if some guy was about to stick somethign up my wang or yank off my fingernails i'd start talking. but i could also see people just saying what the interogator wants to hear. im mixed on the whole idea but i would have to lean more towards allowing it as an option then baning it as a whole. and if anyone really thinks that the american govt or other govt's dont use torture, get off your moms tit and welcome to the real world

[BlackSwordsMan]

Yes it does.

[LnGrrrR]

Is torture bad? Sure. Is torture reliable? No, it's not very reliable.

Can torture be effective sometimes? Hell yes, if you know the guy knows something. That's the trick. If you don't know that he knows anything, then torture is very unreliable. But if you know for sure that he knows something important, torture can be a very effective method for extracting that information. Don't you think?

Equally clear to me is the difficulty of discussing this issue when torture itself is so poorly understood. What constitutes torture? Is waterboarding torture? Is light deprivation torture? Is solitary confinement torture? Is peeing on the Qur'an in front of detainees torture?

Jack Bauer shot some guy in his knee because he knew something important. The guy ended up telling Jack everything he wanted to know. I saw it on TV. True story.

Good questions. I don't think peeing on the Qur'an falls into the 'torture' category, but I don't think it should be approved. I think that by being humane, we will be able to convince them to share information more effectively.

By legalizing torture, we make it far too easy to use that in cases where it will be ineffective. Better to keep it illegal, and if a CIA agent thinks it's necessary, then he should take the risk. He will be tried in a court of law, and the American public will determine if he crossed a line or not.

[DarkReign]

He is not the first interogator to say in no uncertain terms that torture does not work.

It just doesnt. I'd tell you anything, literally anything, you want to hear to make you stop.

[boutons_]

"hate-filled Republican bashing"

It's a nasty, filth-saturated job, but the Repugs deserve it, and somebody's got to do it.

Unlike a torture victim, you can put my "torture" on IGNORE, but you know my posts are too damn valuable, articulate, and accurate. :lol

btw, Go Fuck Yourself (you deserve it)

[byrontx]

Right you are, LnGrrrR.

[desflood]

assholes
dickless sadists
fuckers
Yes sir. Articulation at its best right there :lol

I'm sorry for teasing you, boutons. I forgot you lost your sense of humor during the war.

[The Reckoning]

id tell them anything if they had a fine ass chick laid out for me...or alot of money

[romad_20]

id tell them anything if they had a fine ass chick laid out for me...or alot of money

or if they were pumping you full of drugs and beatings the shit out of you:lol

[Yonivore]

He is not the first interogator to say in no uncertain terms that torture does not work.
Nor is his opinion on the matter definitive. Just ask the waterboarded weasel that gave up Khalid Shaihk Mohammed and other actionable intelligence that saved lives.


It just doesnt. I'd tell you anything, literally anything, you want to hear to make you stop.
Sure it works. And, you're right, you'd tell me anything to make it stop, including the truth if you know it. And, it works best on those who actually have information you need.

Aside for the aforementioned case of scrote sac Abu Zubayda giving up Khalid and other valuable information, there are historical examples of it working. (See, for example, some of the successful uses of torture by the French in Algeria, as recounted in Alistair Horne's A Savage War of Peace).

Unfortunately for you idiots, your argument against torture is only reasonable if you can claim it never works.

[The Reckoning]

or if they were pumping you full of drugs and beatings the shit out of you:lol

maybe if the fine ass chick was pumping me full of drugs and beating the shit out of me :hungry:

[DarkReign]

Unfortunately for you idiots, your argument against torture is only reasonable if you can claim it never works.

Thats very American of you. Thanks for the name-calling.

[Yonivore]

Thats very American of you. Thanks for the name-calling.
You're welcome.

[RandomGuy]

lol. Ideas blah blah blah, America blah blah blah

All fluffly bullshit to make Amerikans still feel like knight in shining armor good guys.

Do what you gotta do, by any means possible.

So you disagree with the interrogation expert then?

[RandomGuy]

Nor is his opinion on the matter definitive. Just ask the waterboarded weasel that gave up Khalid Shaihk Mohammed and other actionable intelligence that saved lives.


Sure it works. And, you're right, you'd tell me anything to make it stop, including the truth if you know it. And, it works best on those who actually have information you need.

Aside for the aforementioned case of scrote sac Abu Zubayda giving up Khalid and other valuable information, there are historical examples of it working. (See, for example, some of the successful uses of torture by the French in Algeria, as recounted in Alistair Horne's A Savage War of Peace).

Unfortunately for you idiots, your argument against torture is only reasonable if you can claim it never works.

Torture costs more lives in the long run than it saves. It is purely antithetical to the cause of making people believe you aren't an evil superpower.

You can claim otherwise, but the simple fact is that by being ethical enough not to torture, you gain more than you lose.

Cost to benefit is not some pansy, fluffy concept, it is really the ONLY way to really evaluate any tactic.

If modern "conservatives" are incapable of realistically assessing cost to benefit then they will continue to think that people like Palin are the solution.

[Yonivore]

Torture costs more lives in the long run than it saves.
You base this on what? A belief that our enemies only torture in response to our doing so? A belief they wouldn't be trying to destroy our cities -- and ALL the lives in them were we just nicer?

Hogwash.


It is purely antithetical to the cause of making people believe you aren't an evil superpower.
I don't buy that. These silly debates only demonstrate to our enemies that we're a bunch of idiots.


You can claim otherwise, but the simple fact is that by being ethical enough not to torture, you gain more than you lose.

Cost to benefit is not some pansy, fluffy concept, it is really the ONLY way to really evaluate any tactic.

If modern "conservatives" are incapable of realistically assessing cost to benefit then they will continue to think that people like Palin are the solution.
Tell that to the lives saved by waterboarding Khalid Mohammed and that other piece of trash.

[RandomGuy]

Hogwash.

I don't buy that.

Does the act of our interrogators torturing prisoners make the idea that we are evil more or less credible to the next potential recruit of the Al Qaeda ideology?

[Yonivore]

Does the act of our interrogators torturing prisoners make the idea that we are evil more or less credible to the next potential recruit of the Al Qaeda ideology?
I don't think it does either and I don't think they care...to them, we're infidels, and that's reason enough to hate us.

[RandomGuy]

Does the act of our interrogators torturing prisoners make the idea that we are evil more or less credible to the next potential recruit of the Al Qaeda ideology?


I don't think it does either and I don't think they care...to them, we're infidels, and that's reason enough to hate us.

That is not quite an answer to the question.

Either:

a) Torture makes the idea that we are evil more credible.

or

b) Torture makes the idea that we are evil less credible.

Which is it?

[Yonivore]

That is not quite an answer to the question.

Either:

a) Torture makes the idea that we are evil more credible.

or

b) Torture makes the idea that we are evil less credible.

Which is it?
No, it is an answer to the question.

It could be

c) It makes no difference at all.

Do you believe al Qaeda would stop it's efforts to kill us all if we renounced torture and never did it?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Unfortunately for you idiots, your argument against torture is only reasonable if you can claim it never works.

not true. what if some other technique (that doesn't put us in a moral/legal quandry) is more effective than torture at yielding good information? Wouldn't that a be a good argument against torture?

[Yonivore]

not true. what if some other technique (that doesn't put us in a moral/legal quandry) is more effective than torture at yielding good information? Wouldn't that a be a good argument against torture?
Sure. What is that technique?

And, the use of any technique is situational. In some cases, whatever technique you mention would be less preferable that torture, and vice versa. That we only employed the practice in three instances tells me our government recognizes that, even if you don't.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Sure. What is that technique?

nevermind. I thought you read the article.


And, the use of any technique is situational. In some cases, whatever technique you mention would be less preferable that torture, and vice versa.

Like the bomb-on-the-subway-Jack-Bauer-scenario that seems to only occur in fiction?

[Yonivore]

nevermind. I thought you read the article.
I did. Not every al Qaeda terrorist will respond to that technique. And, not every situation has the luxury of the time it takes to enact that technique.


Like the bomb-on-the-subway-Jack-Bauer-scenario that seems to only occur in fiction?
The scenario doesn't have to be that dramatic for actionable intelligence gained through waterboarding to have been worth it. Learning of a terrorist plot in the early stages is just as valuable.

Or, say, learning where Khalid Shaihk Mohammed is hiding could be another valuable piece of intelligence.

[RandomGuy]

No, it is an answer to the question.

It could be

c) It makes no difference at all.

Do you believe al Qaeda would stop it's efforts to kill us all if we renounced torture and never did it?

Which is the most plausible statement, based on what any reasonable person would say:

a) Torture makes the idea that we are evil more credible.

or

b) Torture makes the idea that we are evil less credible.

or

c) It makes no difference at all.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think it does either and I don't think they care...to them, we're infidels, and that's reason enough to hate us.

Do people that really hate us attempt to recruit new people to their cause?

Yes or no?

[Yonivore]

Do people that really hate us attempt to recruit new people to their cause?

Yes or no?
Sure, and you're saying they haven't been doing so, even before we waterboarded three terrorists?

I'm saying those that would join that cause would do so no matter what. Hell, they'll rise up and kill over silly cartoons.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think we should just capture and torture every muslim on the planet.

[Yonivore]

I think we should just capture and torture every muslim on the planet.

To what end?

[FromWayDowntown]

To what end?

Actionable information about muslim terrorists, but mostly, eradication of muslim terrorism, really.'

At that, it sounds like fun.

[Yonivore]

Actionable information about muslim terrorists, but mostly, eradication of muslim terrorism, really.'

At that, it sounds like fun.
Well, I think I'd support the strategy we've undertaken but, thanks for playing FWD.

[RandomGuy]

Do people that really hate us attempt to recruit new people to their cause?

Yes or no?


Sure...
I'm saying those that would join that cause would do so no matter what.


I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Your statement directly contradicts the interrogator's.

Do you know more about how they recruit people and what motivates people to join Al Qaeda than the interrogator?

[Yonivore]

Your statement directly contradicts the interrogator's.

Do you know more about how they recruit people and what motivates people to join Al Qaeda than the interrogator?
Well, the interrogator is mixing apples and oranges.

First, what took place at Abu Ghraib were abuses that were prosecuted and punished. Second, We're doing anything but torturing or abusing at Guantanamo.

And, you can thank our friends in the media for helping al Qaeda foment hatred over those issues.

I notice he didn't mention they were flocking to Iraq because of waterboarding.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, I think I'd support the strategy we've undertaken but, thanks for playing FWD.

Of course you do. But you have every desire to forego legal and even constitutional principles to fight a war that has no identifiable enemy -- no nation, no state -- and no discernable end point. My post was obviously absurd, but I'm not sure that the current strategy is any less absurd, quite frankly. I simply don't understand the willingess to cede personal liberties, our belief in the rule of law, or the moral highground in an effort to fight a battle that is, frankly, unwinnable because of the nature of the enemy we fight and the cause that they believe in.

Hatred of America and its ideals drives terrorists; ironically, the mode of dealing with that problem that you propose seems to suggest that we're better off if we act as they do. You'll deny that over and over, but if we cede freedoms and long-held beliefs about justice and morality, are we truly any better than they are? Is the difference between them and us our unwillingness to behead those we've first tortured?

If we're going to justify our actions by suggesting that they get results and that they're little different than what we face from the enemy, then why not just go all the way? Why not target anyone who might remotely be associated with ideology of terrorism (after all, terrorists target anyone who might remotely be associated with American ideology) and simply eradicate them to ensure that our ideology prevails?

[Yonivore]

Of course you do. But you have every desire to forego legal and even constitutional principles to fight a war that has no identifiable enemy -- no nation, no state -- and no discernable end point.
What legal and constitutional principles have I forgone?


My post was obviously absurd, but I'm not sure that the current strategy is any less absurd, quite frankly.
I am.


I simply don't understand the willingess to cede personal liberties, our belief in the rule of law, or the moral highground in an effort to fight a battle that is, frankly, unwinnable because of the nature of the enemy we fight and the cause that they believe in.
What personal liberties have you ceded? What rule of law is being violated? When did anyone ever recognize us as having the "moral highground." All that's ever happened is that our enemies try to get the rest of the world to beat us about the head with such an argument.

Bar none, we have prosecuted this war in the most humane manner possible under the circumstances of a just war.


Hatred of America and its ideals drives terrorists; ironically, the mode of dealing with that problem that you propose seems to suggest that we're better off if we act as they do.
Where have I ever suggested that?

Frankly, I would have preferred if the New York Times and the traitors in the NSA had never leaked our techniques. Then, who would have ever known that we even waterboarded three terrorists? No one.

You want to blame someone. Blame those that leak classified information about our intelligence technologies and techniques.


You'll deny that over and over, but if we cede freedoms and long-held beliefs about justice and morality, are we truly any better than they are?
Sure we are. We're a damn sight better than the animals that fly planes into skyscrapers, cut off the heads of innocent people, and kill just because we're not Muslim.


Is the difference between them and us our unwillingness to behead those we've first tortured?
No, it's the purpose of the torture that's different. And, while they do it to everyone they capture...we've done it to exactly three people. There is no moral equivolency here FWD.


If we're going to justify our actions by suggesting that they get results and that they're little different than what we face from the enemy, then why not just go all the way?
Because a) I never said it was "little different," there's a big difference between what we've done and what our enemies have done.


Why not target anyone who might remotely be associated with ideology of terrorism (after all, terrorists target anyone who might remotely be associated with American ideology) and simply eradicate them to ensure that our ideology prevails?
Because that is precisely where we differ.

[Yonivore]

Okay FWD; this just in:

BBC: 6 gunmen shot and killed at New Delhi airport (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94S454G0&show_article=1)


LONDON (AP) - The British Broadcasting Corp. is reporting that six gunmen have been shot and killed by Indian security forces at New Delhi's main international airport. The report on the BBC Web site Thursday was attributed to airport officials.

Airports in India went on high alert Thursday following fresh warnings of attacks as officials said India suspects two senior leaders of a banned Pakistani militant group orchestrated last week's deadly siege in Mumbai.
If the fresh warning was waterboarded out of the survivor of last week's attacks, was the technique worthwhile?

[johnsmith]

I bet if we tortured this guy he'd change his tune.:ihit

[FromWayDowntown]

Okay FWD; this just in:

BBC: 6 gunmen shot and killed at New Delhi airport (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94S454G0&show_article=1)


If the fresh warning was waterboarded out of the survivor of last week's attacks, was the technique worthwhile?

I don't think so. We have laws that prohibit torture and have agreed not to go there, even with those we capture in war.

Besides, we've been able to ferret out warnings for decades without resorting to torture to do so. Hell, we had enough information to stop 9-11 and didn't need waterboarding or torture to reach that point. If we hadn't had our heads up our bureaucratic asses, we might have never seen the horrors of that day.

[Yonivore]

I don't think so. We have laws that prohibit torture and have agreed not to go there, even with those we capture in war.

Besides, we've been able to ferret out warnings for decades without resorting to torture to do so. Hell, we had enough information to stop 9-11 and didn't need waterboarding or torture to reach that point. If we hadn't had our heads up our bureaucratic asses, we might have never seen the horrors of that day.
Now you're not answering the question. If waterboarding saved lives at the airport in New Delhi today, would it be worth it?

[FromWayDowntown]

Now you're not answering the question. If waterboarding saved lives at the airport in New Delhi today, would it be worth it?

If you're trying to get me to suggest that the ends justify the means, I'm not going to. I don't think torture serves any worthwhile purpose.

[Yonivore]

If you're trying to get me to suggest that the ends justify the means, I'm not going to. I don't think torture serves any worthwhile purpose.
Then we'll just have to disagree. Saving the lives of innocent people by waterboarding a terrorist is a worthwhile purpose, in my mind.

I'm cool with that.

[FromWayDowntown]

Then we'll just have to disagree. Saving the lives of innocent people by waterboarding a terrorist is a worthwhile purpose, in my mind.

I'm cool with that.

Well, not stooping to the sorts of abusive, normally-criminalized conduct that terrorists engage in is a worthwhile effort in my mind.

And I'm cool with that.

[Yonivore]

Well, not stooping to the sorts of abusive, normally-criminalized conduct that terrorists engage in is a worthwhile effort in my mind.

And I'm cool with that.
Waterboarding doesn't even approach the depths to which our enemies have stooped. And, we've only engaged in that technique three times in this conflict.

Your an idiot you actually believe our conduct has even approached that of al Qaeda's...which could only be characterized as savage on a grand scale. A bigger idiot than I ever imagined you to be.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Saving the lives of innocent people by waterboarding a terrorist is a worthwhile purpose, in my mind.

But you cannot point to an instance when us-sanctioned waterboarding saved lives of people in imminent danger. The three known instances of such waterboarding led to information about hideouts and prior acts, but no future plans.

we'll never know whether alternative techniques would have been just as effective in gathering that same info.

[Oh, Gee!!]

and didn't one instance of torture lead to a bogus claim that right-wingers used to verify the mythical link between al-queda and saddam?

[FromWayDowntown]

Waterboarding doesn't even approach the depths to which our enemies have stooped. And, we've only engaged in that technique three times in this conflict.

Is there some quantative point at which torture becomes unacceptable? If so, the number for me is zero.


Your an idiot you actually believe our conduct has even approached that of al Qaeda's...which could only be characterized as savage on a grand scale. A bigger idiot than I ever imagined you to be.

You can call me names all you want -- it doesn't particularly advance your argument.

My simple point has been that being less bad than the enemy doesn't make misconduct acceptable. I think torture is misconduct. I think it defies basic moral principles that I believe my nation should adhere to. With that said, I don't think there's some moral relativism that makes conduct that isn't as bad as al Queda's somehow acceptable. You clearly do, and that's your prerogative. I just think my nation is better than that -- and that it should always strive to be better than that.

[Yonivore]

But you cannot point to an instance when us-sanctioned waterboarding saved lives of people in imminent danger. The three known instances of such waterboarding led to information about hideouts and prior acts, but no future plans.

we'll never know whether alternative techniques would have been just as effective in gathering that same info.
Now you're re-writing history.

How CIA Water-boarding Saved Lives (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_/ai_n21197593)


Eventually, he [Zubaydah] was flown to another country where he was water-boarded for 35 seconds. John Kiriakou, a CIA interrogator who had failed to get valuable information out of Zubaydah by softer means [read: FWD's preferred technique. -Y] and who did not participate in the water-boarding, told the Washington Post that the water-boarding "was like flipping a switch."

Afterward, according to Kiriakou, Abu Zubaydah surrendered information that "probably saved lives."
I believe General Hayden put it in more direct terms during his Congressional testimony...detailing the acts that were prevented by 35 seconds of waterboarding.

[RandomGuy]

Your statement directly contradicts the interrogator's.

Do you know more about how they recruit people and what motivates people to join Al Qaeda than the interrogator?


Well, the interrogator is mixing apples and oranges...

You say that but I hear:

"Yes, Randomguy, I know more about why people join Al Qaeda than a guy who has spent hundreds of hours actually talking to people who join Al Qaeda"

That may be a bit unfair, but I find the gentleman in the OP to be pretty credible when he talked about the effacacy of his non-torture methods, and if you start implying that he is just a little mixed up, I find that a bit hard to believe that your understanding of the issue is great enough that you can credibly say that.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Now you're re-writing history.


there's no history to be re-written. a person who didn't perform the waterboarding commenting about how the waterboarding may have saved lives is not a historical event. nice try, db.

[Yonivore]

Is there some quantative point at which torture becomes unacceptable? If so, the number for me is zero.
Okay, then you can thank those who don't share your opinion on the matter when you happy ass is possibly saved by someone who sets the bar a little higher.

I'm okay with that.


You can call me names all you want -- it doesn't particularly advance your argument.

My simple point has been that being less bad than the enemy doesn't make misconduct acceptable. I think torture is misconduct. I think it defies basic moral principles that I believe my nation should adhere to. With that said, I don't think there's some moral relativism that makes conduct that isn't as bad as al Queda's somehow acceptable. You clearly do, and that's your prerogative. I just think my nation is better than that -- and that it should always strive to be better than that.
I think torture and abuse with no discernible purpose is unacceptable. I also think this administration has gone to great lengths to make sure waterboarding has been the technique of last resort.

By comparing our conduct to that of al Qaeda's, you're making the relativistic comparison not me. I don't see any comparison at all between the conduct of our military or intelligence officers (beyond that which has already been prosecuted in the courts vis a vis Abu Ghraib) and that of al Qaeda. None at all.

Waterboarding is an intelligence gathering technique. I've yet to hear you justify anything al Qaeda's done in a similar light.

[FromWayDowntown]

Eventually, he [Zubaydah] was flown to another country where he was water-boarded for 35 seconds. John Kiriakou, a CIA interrogator who had failed to get valuable information out of Zubaydah by softer means [read: the techniques permissible under agreed upon principles of law -FWD] and who did not participate in the water-boarding, told the Washington Post that the water-boarding "was like flipping a switch."

FIFY.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yoni is full of possibly's and maybe's but cannot point to a specific instance when us-sanctioned waterboarding did what its proponents claim it can do: save lives in imminent danger.

and probably's. he's full of those too.

[RandomGuy]

Waterboarding doesn't even approach the depths to which our enemies have stooped.


Ethics 101:

If Johnny sticks a knife into a store clerk to rob a convenience store, it is ok for me to simply grab a six pack and start running, because my act is less evil.

Epic Fail.


And, we've only engaged in that technique three times in this conflict.

To be able to say that definitively, you would have to be privy to 100% of the interrogation transcripts, public and secret. Your "three times" figure is probably culled from the public testimony of intelligence officials with every motivation to lie, and whose own knowledge of everything might very well have been comprimised by people not being honest to them.

It would be more accurate, and honest to say:

"We've only admitted to waterboarding three times since 9-11."

There is a fair possibility that the actual number is higher.

[Yonivore]

there's no history to be re-written. a person who didn't perform the waterboarding commenting about how the waterboarding may have saved lives is not a historical event. nice try, db.

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html)


The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I wasn't there but torturing that guy probably yielded trustworthy information that probably saved some lives.

[RandomGuy]

Which is the most plausible statement, based on what any reasonable person would say:

a) Torture makes the idea that we are evil more credible.

or

b) Torture makes the idea that we are evil less credible.

or

c) It makes no difference at all.

Yoni, I have not gotten a straight answer from you on this. I even added the extra possibility you suggested.

A, B, or C. I kept it nice and simple, so as to be as clear as possible.

[Yonivore]

Ethics 101:

If Johnny sticks a knife into a store clerk to rob a convenience store, it is ok for me to simply grab a six pack and start running, because my act is less evil.

Epic Fail.
No, but it is okay for you to stick a knife in Johnny before he sticks his knife in another store clerk.


To be able to say that definitively, you would have to be privy to 100% of the interrogation transcripts, public and secret. Your "three times" figure is probably culled from the public testimony of intelligence officials with every motivation to lie, and whose own knowledge of everything might very well have been comprimised by people not being honest to them.
You have no evidence it occurred more than those three times.


It would be more accurate, and honest to say:

"We've only admitted to waterboarding three times since 9-11."

There is a fair possibility that the actual number is higher.
Why is that a fair possibility?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html)

and KSM never gave up info on any future attacks, only stuff he himself did and stuff other people did. the info didn't prevent anything. again, nice try.

From the same blogger:
But in many cases, the harsh intelligence techniques led to questionable confessions and downright lies, say officers with firsthand knowledge of the program. That included statements that al Qaeda was building dirty bombs.

and this:
"If in fact it's true that they water-boarded him once and then he (KSM) started talking and provided reliable information, then he falls under the category of the small minority of people on whom it works. But torture seldom works. Most people start talking...to get the pain to stop," Garrett said.

[Yonivore]

and KSM never gave up info on any future attacks, only stuff he himself did and stuff other people did. the info didn't prevent anything. again, nice try.

From the same blogger:
But in many cases, the harsh intelligence techniques led to questionable confessions and downright lies, say officers with firsthand knowledge of the program. That included statements that al Qaeda was building dirty bombs.


...confessed to a number of ongoing plots ...

[Yonivore]

Yoni, I have not gotten a straight answer from you on this. I even added the extra possibility you suggested.

A, B, or C. I kept it nice and simple, so as to be as clear as possible.
C. It makes no difference. Those who believe we are evil will believe so no matter what.

[clambake]

That included statements that al Qaeda was building dirty bombs.

have to disagree with this.

i would suspect they were in filthy working conditions.

[Yonivore]

and KSM never gave up info on any future attacks, only stuff he himself did and stuff other people did. the info didn't prevent anything. again, nice try.

From the same blogger:
But in many cases, the harsh intelligence techniques led to questionable confessions and downright lies, say officers with firsthand knowledge of the program. That included statements that al Qaeda was building dirty bombs.

and this:
"If in fact it's true that they water-boarded him once and then he (KSM) started talking and provided reliable information, then he falls under the category of the small minority of people on whom it works. But torture seldom works. Most people start talking...to get the pain to stop," Garrett said.
From their own admission, it garnered actionable intelligence from 2 of the 3 it was used on.

[clambake]

C. It makes no difference. Those who believe we are evil will believe so no matter what.

there it is, in a nutshell. this is what yoni considers to be the "green light".

[Oh, Gee!!]

funny that there's no details whatsoever about those "ongoing attacks." the only detailed info we have is about prior acts. and it's funny that KSM also confessed to almost every al queda attack. that sounds like reliable information.

[RandomGuy]

No, but it is okay for you to stick a knife in Johnny before he sticks his knife in another store clerk.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

A more apt analogy would be:

Since Johnny stabbed a convenience store clerk, it is acceptable to pull out a few of his fingernails to get him to confess.


You have no evidence it occurred more than those three times.

Indeed not. That is my point. You have some corroberrating evidence that provides a figure for waterboarding, from people who may not be in a position to 100% know everything, and who would have every motivation to downplay the figure.

If you want to assign that enough credibility to be able to state with 100% certainty that it only happened 3 times, that is your business, but do not expect me to suspend my skepticism based on your judgement of credulity.


Why is that a fair possibility?

1) Waterboarding might not be in every transcripted session. It is fully conceivable that it might have taken place without full authorization and without formally being recorded.

2) Intelligence is compartmentalized. Not all officials know evergything there is to know about what goes on and where.

3) There were and, I am sure, are numerous secret detention centers for the US intelligence community worldwide. This indicates to me that we are not being told 100% of what is going on. I would hope that is the case, but it is just as easy to hide illegal interrogations as it would be to hide simply secret ones.

Again, it is reasonable to assume there is at least a possibility that it is greater than three.

[2centsworth]

If someone had information about my missing daughter, but didn't want to share it. I would skin them alive until I got that info.

Question FWDT: If there was a plot to kill your kid, if you had a kid, and there was someone with that info but didn't want to divulge it. To what extent would you go to extract that info? Also, would abiding by your sense of morality be worth the loss of your kid?

[Oh, Gee!!]

From their own admission, it garnered actionable intelligence from 2 of the 3 it was used on.

from the "admission" of the people justifying the use of torture, it was justified because they got actionable information. that adds so much to the convo. quick yoni find another blog where some guy heard that some other guy tortured another guy, and that the torture yielded some unverifiable results.

[Yonivore]

from the "admission" of the people justifying the use of torture, it was justified because they got actionable information. that adds so much to the convo.
Yep. If it gets actionable intelligence, it's justified.

Oh, and that CIA agent also said this:


"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."

From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yep. If it gets actionable intelligence, it's justified.

circular logic 101



Oh, and that CIA agent also said this:

the same CIA agent that didn't participate and wasn't present?

[Yonivore]

circular logic 101




the same CIA agent that didn't participate and wasn't present?

He said he wasn't present for the waterboarding but, he was present when the guy started singing and said that it was because of the waterboarding that he was talking.

[Oh, Gee!!]

He said he wasn't present for the waterboarding but, he was present when the guy started singing and said that it was because of the waterboarding that he was talking.


no he didn't. you may have inferred that fact, but the article never makes clear whether the agent was present at all when the terrorist started singing. again, nice try. you used to put up a better fight than this.

[doobs]

If waterboarding works, American interrogators should use it. I don't know, waterboarding just doesn't seem that bad. It sounds a lot better than having my fingernails ripped off. Or getting electrocuted. Clearly waterboarding is a close case, otherwise we wouldn't be debating it.

You gotta balance two things: (1) the extent to which waterboarding actually works, with (2) the extent to which waterboarding inflicts pain on a prisoner.

I still think the gunshot to the knee, Jack Bauer style, is perfectly acceptable in a "ticking bomb" scenario.

[DarkReign]

I still think the gunshot to the knee, Jack Bauer style, is perfectly acceptable in a "ticking bomb" scenario.

Less 24, more reality please.

[Yonivore]

no he didn't. you may have inferred that fact, but the article never makes clear whether the agent was present at all when the terrorist started singing. again, nice try. you used to put up a better fight than this.
Yeah, I guess I'm losing interest in you assholes.

[clambake]

Yeah, I guess I'm losing interest in you assholes.

now you know how we feel.

[doobs]

Less 24, more reality please.

Dude, that's precisely what's at stake. Shooting a guy in the knee is clearly illegal. But in a "ticking bomb" scenario, EVERYONE would support the interrogator who shoots the guy in the knee. It's not that farfetched. I'm just trying to show that there is a great deal of nuanced balancing to be done when discussing interrogation techniques. You can't just spit platitudes about America's greatness or the "moral high ground."

But way to ignore my main point about waterboarding, cochise.

[DarkReign]

Dude, that's precisely what's at stake. Shooting a guy in the knee is clearly illegal. But in a "ticking bomb" scenario, EVERYONE would support the interrogator who shoots the guy in the knee. It's not that farfetched. I'm just trying to show that there is a great deal of nuanced balancing to be done when discussing interrogation techniques. You can't just spit platitudes about America's greatness or the "moral high ground."

No, there is no "ticking time bomb". That only happens to Jack Bauer. There has never been a situation in US history like the situations in 24.

Sorry.

I watched that documentary on US military and intelligence interrogators. Former guys willing to release their identities and current guys with voice masks and shadowed, thats sort of stuff.

The one retired guy made a direct reference to the TV show 24 as having no basis in reality and that there has never been any "ticking time bomb" situation where the use of those means of interogation have ever been necessary (to his knowledge, and he was in his senior role since Iran took hostages in the 80s).

So no, those situations and that sort of needed torture is unrealistic and strictly reserved for Hollywood.


But way to ignore my main point about waterboarding, cochise.

When you make a point that isnt based on fictional television shows, I'll be sure to pay attention next time.

[DarrinS]

I'm for whatever WORKS. If it's torture, so be it. If it something else, fine. It would be negligence of the HIGHEST ORDER to NOT use every means imaginable in a ticking timebomb scenario.

[DarrinS]

No, there is no "ticking time bomb". That only happens to Jack Bauer. There has never been a situation in US history like the situations in 24.



Before Sept. 11, there was no "airplanes into buildings" scenario. Doesn't mean it is not plausible.

[DarkReign]

Before Sept. 11, there was no "airplanes into buildings" scenario. Doesn't mean it is not plausible.

Thats weird, because NORAD had run multiple tests befre 9.11 happened in anticipation of that exact sort of attack.

Their response time was ridiculously fast and efficent. Something like less than 10 (15?) minutes they had fighters at the wings of any unidentified (hijacked) aircraft.

Took them 45 minutes to even scramble planes on 9/11.

And tell me, when the planes were hijacked, exactly what information does one need to shoot them down? Who cares who it is (at that point)? Scramble and shoot down. Sort that shit out later.

[DarkReign]

I'm for whatever WORKS. If it's torture, so be it. If it something else, fine. It would be negligence of the HIGHEST ORDER to NOT use every means imaginable in a ticking timebomb scenario.

There are no "ticking timebomb" scenarios. Seriously....Jack Bauer is not real. There is no Jack Bauer equivalent in the real world, either.

24 is fiction.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I'll Just highlight some important thoughts from IR and Legal scholars I think this thread would appreciate

Kim Lane Scheppele, Professor of Law, Political Science and Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania;

“Fighting Terrorism With Torture: Where To Draw The Line?: Hypothetical Torture In The "War On Terrorism"”; McGeorge School of Law Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 2005


[*293] The normative force that seems to emanate from the hypothetical case of the nuclear terrorist cannot be invoked as a justification for an actual policy to engage in torture and other abusive interrogation if the hypothetical does not track the real-world problems. To demonstrate this, I will deconstruct the nuclear terrorist hypothetical that has convinced so many that torture is thinkable. Hiding behind this hypothetical is an implicit consequentialist argument that torture would be justified if the consequences of not torturing were serious enough. Torturing one person to save thousands - even hundreds or perhaps only two people - appears justifiable if the balance of consequences in terms of lives saved, taken alone, determines the moral acceptability of a course of action. But the hypothetical involves more than a simple balancing of lives. It makes a series of flawed assumptions about what the potential torturer would know and what torture could accomplish. These assumptions are crucial to assessing whether torture would have the promised consequences. Deconstructing these assumptions and comparing them in a hard-nosed way to what we know about real decisions to engage in coercive interrogation allows us to judge whether the decisions are justified by the moral argument implicit in the hypothetical. Why challenge the hypothetical? Hypotheticals are often used to frame a complicated moral question in a way that makes it easy to grasp. But if hypotheticals are to have the moral force that they are intended to generate, they must provide usable intuitions that are transferable to real-world decisions. The value of hypotheticals depends on the extent to which they track the critical features of the problem that a moral agent actually faces. To argue from a case that does not track the critical moral features of the relevant context disorients both the moral and the legal issues that the hypothetical is designed to illuminate. Taking apart the hypothetical allows us to see more precisely why it is a mistake to use an extreme and imaginary case to develop policy. As I will show, the decision to torture will never, in the end, be simply a judgment about how many lives will be saved if torture is used......
Second, the hypothetical assumes an extraordinary degree of clarity about the situation in which you (now an institutional "you") find yourself when the question of whether to torture arises. You know with reasonable certainty both that there is a nuclear bomb in the middle of Manhattan and that the bomb will explode and will kill many people absent your intervention. Such certainty may be hypothetically possible, but it will likely never exist. Instead, it is far more likely that you will wonder whether there is a bomb in the first place and, if there is, how dangerous it might be. Third, the hypothetical assumes that the person to be tortured is the one (perhaps even the only one) who knows where the ticking bomb is. The "war on terrorism" being what it is, however, it is highly unlikely that any person faced with the decision to torture will know whether the suspect either has the relevant information or provides the only or the best avenue through which to get the information. Instead, the more likely question will be whether the person to be tortured really knows anything useful at all. Finally, the hypothetical assumes that if the captured person gives you the information after being tortured, the information will in fact be true and useful in defusing the bomb. Yet torture produces results that are highly unreliable. I will challenge each of the elements of the hypothetical in turn, because in the real-world situations in which the use of torture is being considered today, none of the elements that make the hypothetical so persistently persuasive is present, except the hypothetical balancing of lives. I am going to argue that the farther away we get from the hypothetical in a real-world situation, the more reluctant we should be to condone torture, or even to entertain the possibility of it. Even if the hypothetical persuades us that torture would be justified in some extreme cases where many lives would be saved by immediate action, the anti-terrorism campaign has not yet and most likely never will present such a case. As a result, I will argue, the pitched debate [*295] over this hypothetical and its logical entailments obscures rather than identifies what the real choices are in the present situation. We should look instead at the position in which the United States actually finds itself and assess the arguments for and against torture against this background. The arguments for torture, I submit, are not convincing in the real world, however compelling they may appear in the imagined world of the torture hypothetical.


Henry Shue, Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, “TORTURE IN DREAMLAND: DISPOSING OF THE TICKING BOMB” 2006

Thinking that America can use torture sparingly is quixotic


Torture is wrong. But sometimes we feel justified in doing what we know is wrong because the stakes are so very high. So the next question is: is torture so wrong that it is inexcusable no matter how high the stakes are? I will argue that all actual arrangements for torture are inexcusable, in spite of the fact that we can imagine hypothetical cases, like the notorious ticking-bomb cases in which it seems excusable.' Why are imaginary examples like ticking-bomb hypotheticals so badly misleading about how to plan for real cases? They mislead in two different ways that compound the error: idealization and abstraction. Idealization is the addition of positive features to an example in order to make the example better than reality, which lacks those features. Abstraction is the deletion of negative features of reality from an example in order to make the example still better than reality. Idealization adds sparkle, abstraction removes dirt. Together they make the hypothetical superior to reality and thereby a disastrously misleading analogy from which to derive conclusions about reality.



Here, then, is the really bad news. The moderate position on torture is an impractical abstraction-it is torture in dreamland. The only operationally feasible positions are toward the extremes. Gross and I (in 1978)-doubtless because we are moderate and reasonable people-have been trying to have it both ways.25 I-and I leave Professor Gross to speak for him self-was like the recovering alcoholic dreaming of avoiding the extreme of total abstinence through the `moderate' strategy of only a drink or two a night. That is not an option, and the alcoholic has only the extremes between which to choose. In the quarter-century since 1978 we have also learned that there is no moderate position on torture either. Torture is now rampant, and high-officials in the U.S. government are its poster-children. You cannot be a little bit pregnant, you cannot-if you are an alcoholic-have a drink only on special occasions, and you cannot-if your politicians are not angels-employ torture only on special occasions.




The second possibility is the capture of someone who is passive toward both sides and essentially uninvolved. If such a bystander should happen to know the relevant information-which is very unlikely-and to be willing to provide it, no torture would be called for. But what if the victim would be perfectly willing to provide the information sought in order to escape the torture but does not have the information? Systems of torture are notoriously incompetent. The usual situation is captured with icy accuracy by the reputed informal motto of the Saigon police, "If they are not guilty, beat them until they are."13 The victims of torture need an escape not only from beatings for what they know but also from beatings for what they do not know. In short, the victim has no convincing way of demonstrating that he or she cannot comply, even when compliance is impossible. (Compare the reputed dunking test for witches : if the woman sank, she was an ordinary mortal.)

US torture is used to justify far more gruesome forms of torture globally, it is reasoned that if the lone superpower cannot maintain its security without torture, smaller states cannot either.


The Alice-in-Wonderland character of the assumption that the use of torture will not be widespread throws into doubt the location of the catastrophe. Gross, along with most people who appeal to the ticking-bomb hypothetical, take it to be beyond dispute that the catastrophe lies on the side of not torturing: we are too squeamish to torture the terrorist who planted the bomb, and the bomb explodes, bringing the catastrophe of death and destruction. One other possibility is that catastrophe lies on the side of undermining the taboo against torture. Then other nations will reason that if the superpower with its thousands of nuclear weapons and high-tech conventional forces cannot maintain its own security without the liberal use of secret torture, they can hardly be expected to defend their security without far more torture. And what currently passes for civilization may then slide backward in the general direction of the eighth century. That too would be a catastrophe, a civilizational catastrophe. I am not predicting a full return of barbarism. Yet it is clear that idealizations that cause the epidemic nature of torture to evaporate from view are no guide for practical action. My honest judgment is that stories that are too good to be true are not true rarely, but false. The ticking-bomb hypothetical is too good to be true-it is torture conducted by wise, self-restrained angels.


Some of the Shit we actually do:


Physicians for Human Rights, Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by US Forces, 2005


According to CVT clinicians, mock executions and other situations where death is threatened force victims to repeatedly experience their last moments before death, create a sense of complete unpredictability, and induce chronic fear and helplessness. Victims who were threatened with death speak of feeling a sense that one is already dead. They often relive these near-death experiences in their nightmares, flashbacks, and intrusive memories. Reliving these near death encounters can provoke feelings of intense anxiety that cause victims to act inappropriately in work and family settings and, in more extreme cases, cause injury to themselves. Staff members at CVT have dealt with victims of this sort of torture who have pleaded with torturers to kill them, preferring real death over its constant threat and continued intolerable pain.


The use of psychological torture followed directly from decisions by the civilian leadership as well as high ranking military officers, including those in the Executive branch, and their support of decisions to “take the gloves off” in interrogations and “break” prisoners by employing techniques of psychological torture including sensory deprivation, isolation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, the use of military working dogs to instill fear, cultural and sexual humiliation, mock executions, and the threat of violence or death toward detainees or their loved ones. These kinds of techniques have extremely devastating consequences for individuals subjected to them and can be just as harmful and are often more long -lasting than physical torture.


An internal FBI e -mail documenting incidents observed by agents at Guantánamo states that during the second or third week of February 2004 a detainee was short shackled, the room temperature was significantly lowered, and strobe lights and possibly loud music were used. The detainee was left in this condition for 12 hours, during which time he was not allowed to eat, pray or use the bath room.


Psychological torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment can have extremely destructive health consequences for individuals. Short and long -term effects can include memory impairment, reduced capacity to concentrate, somatic complaints such as headache and back pain, hyperarousal, avoidance, irritability, severe depression with vegetative symptoms, nightmares, feelings of shame and humiliation, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Sources with knowledge of interrogation at Guantánamo told PHR that some detainees there suffer from incoherent speech, disorientation, hallucination, irritability, anger, delusions, and sometimes paranoia. Some detainees who have been released from US run detention facilities after being subjected to a combination of psychologically abusive interrogation techniques report that they suffer from depression, thoughts of suicide and nightmares, memory loss, emotional problems, and are quick to anger and have difficulties maintaining relationships and employment. Based on past experience, post traumatic stress disorder is likely to be common.


At Guantánamo, detainees’ accounts of forced nudity and sexual humiliation were confirmed by FBI reports. An FBI letter to an Army official states that during late 2002 an agent witnessed a female interrogator at Guantánamo rubbing lotion on a detainee’s arms during Ramadan, when “physical contact with a woman would have been particularly offensive to a Moslem male.” News reports confirmed that the use of female interrogators violating Muslim taboos regarding sex and contact with women occurred at Guantánamo in 2003 as well. These accounts were confirmed to PHR by a source familiar with conditions there. According to the source, in 2003 female interrogators used sexually provocative acts as part of interrogation. For example, female interrogators sat on detainees’ laps and fondled themselves or detainees, opened their blouses, and pushed their breasts in the faces of detainees, opened their skirts kissed detainees and if rejected, accused them of liking men, and forced detainees to look at pornographic pictures or videos. Although the use of female interrogators appeared to decline in 2004, a source told PHR that humiliation and violation of cultural and religious taboos, including forced shaving, persisted.

[DarrinS]

There are no "ticking timebomb" scenarios. Seriously....Jack Bauer is not real. There is no Jack Bauer equivalent in the real world, either.

24 is fiction.




So, the 1993 attack on the WTC wasn't real? The bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building wasn't real? The bombs that blew up trains in Matrid -- were they real?

Is the phrase "ticking" that you object to? Is it the size of the bomb? Help me understand.

[doobs]

So, the 1993 attack on the WTC wasn't real? The bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building wasn't real? The bombs that blew up trains in Matrid -- were they real?

Is the phrase "ticking" that you object to? Is it the size of the bomb? Help me understand.

Don't bother with this guy. He took the least relevant part of my post--the Jack Bauer "ticking bomb" scenario--and decided to go after it "because 24 is fiction." OK, I admit it, 24 is fiction. So the fuck what? Just because something is fiction doesn't mean it's unbelievable. In fact, most good fiction needs to be believable.

But none of this changes the hypothetical. If you were presented with a "ticking bomb" scenario--and the guy you had in custody knew vital information about that "ticking bomb"--wouldn't you do anything to extract that information? I sure as hell would. Does anyone really think a "ticking bomb" scenario is out of the realm of possibility?

As a practical matter, it's probably not necessarily to codify any exception for a "ticking bomb." Hopefully the interrogator will just act on his instincts, thereby averting a catastrophe, and a grateful nation will see to it that there will be no prosecution for this heroic act of patriotism.

[RandomGuy]

C. It makes no difference. Those who believe we are evil will believe so no matter what.

Do all people who beleive we are evil actively attempt to kill Americans?

[RandomGuy]

This thread is where Yoni and the "pro-torture" people always fail:

They assume that when I say "torturing is against our long term interests because it makes us look bad" I am worried about the opinion of current "terrorists".

I am not. I have repeatedly said that I am not.

Yet, a lot of short-sighted conservatives continue to distort this position, in the hopes that most people are too stupid to recognize the distinction between current murderous thugs and future murderous thugs.

They seem to be mired in the thinking of a bygone era, in which enemies are conveniently labeled and line up in formal armies with uniforms that can be quantified, categorized, and killed.

They cannot adapt to the new reality of more diffuse movements based on ideas even though the Cold War was won without killing every communist in the world and very clearly parallels our current conflict.

We are not fighting people. We are fighting an idea. YOU CANNOT SHOOT AN IDEA.

Let me say that again:

You cannot shoot an idea with bullets.

We didn't "shoot" communism, we discredited it, and it went away as a widely held idea.

The weapons of idea warfare are manifold, and chief among them is moral authority. We won our Cold War with it, and we will win this war if we are smart enough to use it, Yoni's insistance that we abandon it for short-sighted gains aside.

[Yonivore]

This thread is where Yoni and the "pro-torture" people always fail:

They assume that when I say "torturing is against our long term interests because it makes us look bad" I am worried about the opinion of current "terrorists".

I am not. I have repeatedly said that I am not.

Yet, a lot of short-sighted conservatives continue to distort this position, in the hopes that most people are too stupid to recognize the distinction between current murderous thugs and future murderous thugs.

They seem to be mired in the thinking of a bygone era, in which enemies are conveniently labeled and line up in formal armies with uniforms that can be quantified, categorized, and killed.

They cannot adapt to the new reality of more diffuse movements based on ideas even though the Cold War was won without killing every communist in the world and very clearly parallels our current conflict.

We are not fighting people. We are fighting an idea. YOU CANNOT SHOOT AN IDEA.

Let me say that again:

You cannot shoot an idea with bullets.

We didn't "shoot" communism, we discredited it, and it went away as a widely held idea.
A) We need to deal with the current murderous thugs before we can be assured of having the opportunity to deal with future murderous thugs.

B) I doubt future murderous thugs will inform their interrogation practices by what we do to current murderous thugs. (although, I'll grant you this, they'll make idiots like you believe our actions motivate them)


The weapons of idea warfare are manifold, and chief among them is moral authority. We won our Cold War with it, and we will win this war if we are smart enough to use it, Yoni's insistance that we abandon it for short-sighted gains aside.
We committed some of our greatest atrocities during WWI and WWII; both wars in which the United States of America was viewed as the saviors of the world.

[Yonivore]

Do all people who beleive we are evil actively attempt to kill Americans?
Not when they have proxies willing to do it for them.

[RandomGuy]

As I have said before you simply do not seem capable of truly comprehending the ultimate nature of our current conflict.

If you cannot understand the nature of the conflict, you cannot construct effective strategies for that conflict.

[RandomGuy]

A) We need to deal with the current murderous thugs before we can be assured of having the opportunity to deal with future murderous thugs.


If our actions in dealing with current murderous thugs create more future murderous thugs, would those actions be effective?

[Yonivore]

As I have said before you simply do not seem capable of truly comprehending the ultimate nature of our current conflict.

If you cannot understand the nature of the conflict, you cannot construct effective strategies for that conflict.
Okay, what is the nature of our current conflict.

Because what I see is that a large network of religious fascists have determined the United States of America, it Western allies, and just about every other non-Muslim on the planet are an existential threat to the re-establishment of a Islamic Caliphate and they are determined -- by whatever means necessary -- to either, eliminate non-Muslims, convert them to their fundamentalist view of Islam, or subjugate them in Dhimmitude.

What is your take?

[Yonivore]

If our actions in dealing with current murderous thugs create more future murderous thugs, would those actions be effective?
Just because murderous thugs are able to make you believe this is why they become murderous thugs doesn't make it so. Or, even, just because other murderous thugs are able to recruit more murderous thugs by demonizing the United States of America, doesn't mean they wouldn't have been recruited by other means.

Murderous thugs pre-disposed to be murderous thugs are easily convinced.

Remember the cartoon crap? It doesn't take much to make them murderous thugs, does it? And, you simple help the cause by taking their side in demonizing the actions of our government in a misguided attempt at taking the moral highground. RandomGuy, our enemy in this fight has no intention of ever taking the moral highground and they laugh at our angst over the issue.

But, more than laugh, they use it to turn us against ourselves.

[DarrinS]

This thread is where Yoni and the "pro-torture" people always fail:





LOL at "pro-torture" people



You know, I'm not a "pro-murder" guy, but I would not hesitate to kill someone that breaks into my house and tries to harm my family.

[Yonivore]

LOL at "pro-torture" people



You know, I'm not a "pro-murder" guy, but I would not hesitate to kill someone that breaks into my house and tries to harm my family.
That only makes you "pro-defense"

Just as torturing terrorists to extract information that could save innocent lives makes you "pro-life" and not "pro-torture."

[Yonivore]

Okay, here's food for thought...

While I think the "ticking time bomb" scenario is a legitimate reason to employ extreme measures -- including torture -- to extract information that could potentially save the lives of those in proximity to the bomb; that situation rarely presents itself. Well, that we know of. My comfort with extreme interrogation methods is more based on the fact -- yes fact -- that we have, from time to time, taken prisoners that are known to have information about the highest levels of al Qaeda planning and operations.

Using extreme interrogation techniques to learn about any ongoing al Qaeda operations -- of which I've got to believe there are dozens at any given time -- is an essential tool I'm not willing to throw out over some moral squemishness our enemy doesn't share.

It appears, from General Hayden's testimony before Congress, that using waterboarding on Khalid Shaihk Mohammed resulted in just such a trove of information. Good. Who knows, maybe some of those thwarted operations were ticking time bombs. He made it sound like they were.

I have no reason to disbelieve him. And, you have no evidence to the contrary. Absence of a terrorist attack is not evidence of your position...in fact, I'd say it supports mine.

[Oh, Gee!!]

now you know how we feel.

yet he keeps replying. weird.

[Yonivore]

yet he keeps replying. weird.
And this changes our opinion of me how, exactly?

[DarkReign]

Don't bother with this guy. He took the least relevant part of my post--the Jack Bauer "ticking bomb" scenario--and decided to go after it "because 24 is fiction." OK, I admit it, 24 is fiction. So the fuck what? Just because something is fiction doesn't mean it's unbelievable. In fact, most good fiction needs to be believable.

Right, except that situation has never presented itself in the real world.

Ever.


But none of this changes the hypothetical. If you were presented with a "ticking bomb" scenario--and the guy you had in custody knew vital information about that "ticking bomb"--wouldn't you do anything to extract that information? I sure as hell would. Does anyone really think a "ticking bomb" scenario is out of the realm of possibility?

Well sure, if you knew there was a bomb "ticking" somewhere, Jack Bauer's methods become more acceptable, of course.

But seeing as that has never happened, nor is that the context our current government performs waterboarding under, your analogy does not pertain to the current useage of "torture" this thread is dealing with.


As a practical matter, it's probably not necessarily to codify any exception for a "ticking bomb." Hopefully the interrogator will just act on his instincts, thereby averting a catastrophe, and a grateful nation will see to it that there will be no prosecution for this heroic act of patriotism.

In a Jack Bauer situation? I cant believe I am even having a conversation about about a fictional character, in a fictional role, doing fictional anti-terrorism interrogations.

Seriously, there has never been a situation like that in our history. Terrorism plots are broken up in the planning stages, not the actual execution stage. So torturing someone who may or may not have the relevant information for a plot that may or may not happen in the next couple months (not 24 hours) is far different from knowing some bullshit like "there's a bomb in the city, and only torture will tell me where it is and when" or some other fairy tale.

That is, in essence, the problem with your analogy. Its based on hypotheticals not actuals. Hypthetically, a 24-type situation might present itself. But seeing as that has never happened, using that extremely unlikely situation to justify the torture of someone who may or may not have info on plots that may or may not happen in months is flawed to say the very least.

[Yonivore]

Right, except that situation has never presented itself in the real world.

Ever.
That's not entirely true.


Well sure, if you knew there was a bomb "ticking" somewhere, Jack Bauer's methods become more acceptable, of course.
So, you'd find torture acceptable if you believe the "ticking time bomb" scenario were plausible?


But seeing as that has never happened, nor is that the context our current government performs waterboarding under, your analogy does not pertain to the current useage of "torture" this thread is dealing with.
Since you you don't know what "ongoing operations" were disclosed by KSM or whether or not any of them could be characterized as ticking time bombs, you don't know if it is relevant or not.

Now, has the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario ever occurred in real life.

Yes. The SMS Viribus Unitis


In October 1918, when it was becoming clear that the Central Powers would not prevail in the war, and that their navies would become subject to confiscation by the Allies, Emperor Karl I of Austria decided to turn over Viribus Unitis to the newly created Council of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs that would soon occupy formerly Austrian territories on the Adriatic. Italy, however, had designs on some of the Austrian territory that might be turned over to the Croats, and didn't like the idea of 3 modern dreadnoughts being in the possession of the Austrian successor state. Although the SCS declared that it was no longer at war with the Allies, this declaration was not immediately recognized on the Allied Accordingly, Italy dispatched a pair of young men named Raffaele- one a Lieutenant Paolucci, and the other a Major Rossetti- to infiltrate Pula Harbor on a modified torpedo and attach a bomb to the dreadnought's hull. This the Raffaeles succeeded in doing, but they were captured while escaping, and brought on board the Viribus Unitis.

When the Raffaeles were brought on board, they told Admiral Vuckovich (the new commander of the dreadnought) that they had affixed a bomb to the hull and that the ship should be evacuated. This put the admiral in an awkward position. He could evacuate, but that would ensure the loss of the battleship when the mine exploded. The Viribus Unitis class was notorious for its poor underwater protection, making the threat of the bomb particularly potent. While it could be argued that the admiral should have evacuated VU anyway, thus saving the lives of his men, the ship was an extraordinarily expensive piece of state property. The men onboard the ship expected that they might have to die or kill in its defense. It was reasonable at the time to believe that the ship might be used to fight or deter the Italians. As such, evacuation doesn't present a very compelling option. Instead, the admiral decided to keep enough sailors on board to allow the best possible response to the damage that the bomb would cause. Inevitably, it risked the deaths of many sailors, but at the same time held out the best chance for saving the ship.

But what of the Raffaeles? The Italian officers had already admitted that a bomb was attached to the hull, and that it would explode in a relatively short period of time. They begged Admiral Vuckovich to be allowed to escape, and he agreed to let them go. However, when they reached the water they were assailed by angry sailors, and then dragged back onto the ship. Fearing prosecution (and potentially execution) for what amounted to a legally questionable attack on what its owners presumed to be a neutral vessel, the Italians demanded to be treated as prisoners of war. Admiral Vuckovich made no determination at the time, but ordered the crew not to harm the Italians. Twenty-five minutes later the bomb exploded. Fifteen minutes after that Viribus Unitis rolled over and sank with 300 men, including Admiral Vuckovich but not including the Raffaeles, who were allowed by Admiral Vuckovich to escape, and who spent about a week as prisoners of war.
35 seconds of waterboarding would have left them with 24 minutes and 25 seconds of time to disarm the bomb.


In a Jack Bauer situation? I cant believe I am even having a conversation about about a fictional character, in a fictional role, doing fictional anti-terrorism interrogations.
So talk about real stuff then. Ignore the analogy. Could the Captain of the Viribus Unitis have saved his ship and himself had be been willing to torture the men who planted the bomb?


Seriously, there has never been a situation like that in our history. Terrorism plots are broken up in the planning stages, not the actual execution stage. So torturing someone who may or may not have the relevant information for a plot that may or may not happen in the next couple months (not 24 hours) is far different from knowing some bullshit like "there's a bomb in the city, and only torture will tell me where it is and when" or some other fairy tale.

That is, in essence, the problem with your analogy. Its based on hypotheticals not actuals. Hypthetically, a 24-type situation might present itself. But seeing as that has never happened, using that extremely unlikely situation to justify the torture of someone who may or may not have info on plots that may or may not happen in months is flawed to say the very least.
I've given you an actual...go for it.

[Yonivore]

Here's another question for you guys:

If a patrol is taking fire from a position in urban Baghdad and they know there are two shooters inside a building firing at them; is it torture to bust through the door and hold one of the shooters at gunpoint while demanding to know the whereabouts of the other?

Or, should they pull up chairs, offer him a cigarette, and politely ask where the other gunman is?

Frankly, holding a gun on someone while demanding he give up his compatriots position meets the literal definition of torture. After all, if I were him, I would deduce you intend to shoot me if I don't tell you where the other guy is.

Happened a lot in Iraq.

Oh yeah, that's a ticking time bomb scenario. More literally, if the missing gunman has an explosive device on him.

[Yonivore]

Another ticking time bomb scenario is the German case of September 2002, involving the kidnapping and murder of 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, and the threatening by the police of his kidnapper with torture.

Three days after Metzler's kidnapping, police watched a man collect the ransom and arrested him.

The suspect toyed with his interrogators about the location of the boy and the police chief allowed his officers, in a written order, to torture. After he was threatened with pain, it took only 10 minutes for the suspect to reveal the location of the boy, who was already dead.

The phrase "Ticking Time Bomb" is merely a moniker to describe a whole set of situations in which knowledge of imminent catastrophe could be useful in averting that catastrophe. It doesn't have to be a literal bomb.

[Yonivore]

In my opinion, to deny the use of extreme interrogation techniques in such circumstances may be as cold hearted and immoral as it is to permit torture in the first place. It is cold hearted because, in true catastrophic cases, the failure to use such techniques could result in the death of innocent people. Upholding the rights of the suspect will negate the rights, including the very fundamental right to life, of innocent victims.

To deny the use of techniques such as waterboarding, in such cases, is also hypocritical: experience tells us that when faced with serious threats to the life of the nation, government -- any government -- will take whatever measures it deems necessary to abate the crisis. An uncompromising absolute prohibition on torture sets unrealistic standards that no one can hope to meet when faced with extremely exigent circumstances.

Such unrealistic standards would either be ineffective or be perceived as setting double standards. To quote from Michael Walzer, sticking by the absolute prohibition on torture, no matter what, reflects a "radicalism of people who do not expect to exercise power … ever, and who are not prepared to make the judgments that this exercise … require[s]."

[DarrinS]

Well sure, if you knew there was a bomb "ticking" somewhere, Jack Bauer's methods become more acceptable, of course.


This is exactly my position on the issue.

[DarkReign]

This is exactly my position on the issue.

Then it is a fair one, in my very unimportant opinion.

But that isnt what is being discussed when people talk about Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, to be clear.

These people have been prisoners for months and years. They are out of the loop completely. Any info garnered from them is obsolete at best.

[DarkReign]

So talk about real stuff then. Ignore the analogy. Could the Captain of the Viribus Unitis have saved his ship and himself had be been willing to torture the men who planted the bomb?

In that particular and very unique event, yes. But only if what you say is accurate, and I'll trust that it is.

But see my response to Darrin. This Viribus Unitis is not Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo by any stretch. It isnt.

That particular situation arose during a war. We are not at war. Terrorism is not war actionable unless you plan on deposing every Muslim-based government in the world. Anything short of that very objective is not war, its an excuse. Thats where you and I differ immensely.

[DarkReign]

Another ticking time bomb scenario is the German case of September 2002, involving the kidnapping and murder of 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, and the threatening by the police of his kidnapper with torture.

Three days after Metzler's kidnapping, police watched a man collect the ransom and arrested him.

The suspect toyed with his interrogators about the location of the boy and the police chief allowed his officers, in a written order, to torture. After he was threatened with pain, it took only 10 minutes for the suspect to reveal the location of the boy, who was already dead.

The phrase "Ticking Time Bomb" is merely a moniker to describe a whole set of situations in which knowledge of imminent catastrophe could be useful in averting that catastrophe. It doesn't have to be a literal bomb.

So now youre going to torture criminal suspects that are citizens of your own country?!

Youre a goddamn monster, Yoni. You are seriously fucking deranged.

[Yonivore]

So now youre going to torture criminal suspects that are citizens of your own country?!

Youre a goddamn monster, Yoni. You are seriously fucking deranged.
I'm not German and I wasn't advocating their approach merely using it to demonstrate such circumstances exist and that extreme interrogation techniques can have results.

Nice try though...I thought, for a minute, you were sincere.

[DarkReign]

I'm not German and I wasn't advocating their approach merely using it to demonstrate such circumstances exist and that extreme interrogation techniques can have results.

Nice try though...I thought, for a minute, you were sincere.

Then I apologize sincerely. Honestly.

What I thought you were saying is exactly why this "War on Terror" scares the shit out of me. When your adversary has no country and is not limited to a certain region, the scope of its definition will expand to include what would be common criminals who "terrorize" their neighborhood.

I dont like that direction, and I am sorry to have characterized you that way.

[LnGrrrR]

Waterboarding doesn't even approach the depths to which our enemies have stooped. And, we've only engaged in that technique three times in this conflict.

Your an idiot you actually believe our conduct has even approached that of al Qaeda's...which could only be characterized as savage on a grand scale. A bigger idiot than I ever imagined you to be.

Remember, the important thing is not to be moral, but to be more moral than the enemies we're fighting. So if they start using mustard gas, we can use something that's slightly more moral, like a choking agent.

[LnGrrrR]

Another ticking time bomb scenario is the German case of September 2002, involving the kidnapping and murder of 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, and the threatening by the police of his kidnapper with torture.

Three days after Metzler's kidnapping, police watched a man collect the ransom and arrested him.

The suspect toyed with his interrogators about the location of the boy and the police chief allowed his officers, in a written order, to torture. After he was threatened with pain, it took only 10 minutes for the suspect to reveal the location of the boy, who was already dead.

The phrase "Ticking Time Bomb" is merely a moniker to describe a whole set of situations in which knowledge of imminent catastrophe could be useful in averting that catastrophe. It doesn't have to be a literal bomb.

And there's NO NEED to make this 'legal'. By legalizing the law, you allow for widespread torture, and people will relax the laws placed on them. Keep it AGAINST the law, and let the courts decide. If the courts feel what the person did was justified, then they can let him off. Or hell, even if they find him guilty, the president can pardom him. No need to make it legal.

Isn't the conservative mindset that power provided to those in government should be as limited as possible?

[Yonivore]

Remember, the important thing is not to be moral, but to be more moral than the enemies we're fighting. So if they start using mustard gas, we can use something that's slightly more moral, like a choking agent.
The important thing is to be the last one standing. The U. S. Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

[LnGrrrR]

Okay, here's food for thought...

While I think the "ticking time bomb" scenario is a legitimate reason to employ extreme measures -- including torture -- to extract information that could potentially save the lives of those in proximity to the bomb; that situation rarely presents itself. Well, that we know of. My comfort with extreme interrogation methods is more based on the fact -- yes fact -- that we have, from time to time, taken prisoners that are known to have information about the highest levels of al Qaeda planning and operations.


And what if they have the wrong guy? Or the guy doesn't actually know anything? Then what? Too bad? Sorry we tortured you? Our bad?

[Yonivore]

And what if they have the wrong guy? Or the guy doesn't actually know anything? Then what? Too bad? Sorry we tortured you? Our bad?

Yep. Next? Frankly, I'm not worried about the scum they've been picking up off the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[LnGrrrR]

Yep. Next?

Ah, so you don't believe in the ideals of America... gotcha.

Innocent before guilty? Throw that out the window, right?

And heck, who cares if the person is American... terrorism is involved! They don't deserve the right to have a fair trial, or strong representation. Heck, let's not even give them the right to challenge their detention.

I detest that view. It's simply unamerican.

[Yonivore]

Ah, so you don't believe in the ideals of America... gotcha.

Innocent before guilty? Throw that out the window, right?

And heck, who cares if the person is American... terrorism is involved! They don't deserve the right to have a fair trial, or strong representation. Heck, let's not even give them the right to challenge their detention.

I detest that view. It's simply unamerican.

Okay. We've done any of that to what American?

We've waterboarded three al Qaedans. Three. What's your point?

[LnGrrrR]

Okay. We've done any of that to what American?

We've waterboarded three al Qaedans. Three. What's your point?

Using your logic, couldn't we do the same to Americans?

Also, why not do more than waterboard? Why not amputate fingers? I mean, if that's what it takes right? Where do you draw the line?

Oh also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist) An American who was not waterboarded, but was denied habeas corpus.

Torture is not just waterboarding. Isolation, temperature extremes, and sleep/sensory deprivation can also be considered torture, especially when used in conjunction with each other.

[Yonivore]

Using your logic, couldn't we do the same to Americans?
What logic is that?


Also, why not do more than waterboard? Why not amputate fingers? I mean, if that's what it takes right? Where do you draw the line?
Waterboarding seems to work just fine. I'll draw the line there.


Oh also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist) An American who was not waterboarded, but was denied habeas corpus.
OMG! Wait...it's happened before. And that President's face is on Mount Rushmore. Habeas corpus has from time to time been suspended. Sometimes wrongly so but, that doesn't amount to torture; which, by the way, is the topic. Want to talk about Habeas corpus, start your own thread.

Who knows, we may even agree.


Torture is not just waterboarding. Isolation, temperature extremes, and sleep/sensory deprivation can also be considered torture, especially when used in conjunction with each other.
Okay. Your point?

[LnGrrrR]

Waterboarding seems to work just fine. I'll draw the line there.


My point is, why are you drawing the line there? I mean, if there WAS a ticking time bomb scenario, why would you stop at waterboarding?

[Yonivore]

My point is, why are you drawing the line there? I mean, if there WAS a ticking time bomb scenario, why would you stop at waterboarding?
Because it works?

[RandomGuy]

Do all people who beleive we are evil actively attempt to kill Americans?


Not when they have proxies willing to do it for them.

Do the proxies believe we are evil as well?

Is that not why they are willing to kill us in the first place?

[RandomGuy]

Which is the most plausible statement, based on what any reasonable person would say:

a) Torture makes the idea that we are evil more credible.

or

b) Torture makes the idea that we are evil less credible.

or

c) It makes no difference at all.



C. It makes no difference. Those who believe we are evil will believe so no matter what.


"I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

Apparently we can change minds.

Since your statement contradicts that of the interrogator, I must conclude it is likely false.

Unless, of course, you can provide some first-hand proof of your statement.


Further, most people's opinion of what a "reasonable" person would say differs from yours. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111433) That poll, while far from scientific does provide some anectdotal proof to support the thesis:

"If we do things that are perceived as evil, we will be veiwed as evil."

[Yonivore]

My point is, why are you drawing the line there? I mean, if there WAS a ticking time bomb scenario, why would you stop at waterboarding?
Well, I might not stop there but, from all accounts, waterboarding work (if anything will work), there is no permanent injury, and everybody lives.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, I might not stop there but, from all accounts, waterboarding work (if anything will work), there is no permanent injury, and everybody lives.

What if waterboarding DOESN'T work though? Are you saying that the interrogator should stop there? Even if hundreds or THOUSANDS of lives were on the line?

You said you would be willing to cross the line. Does this mean that you think the law should be able to go further as well? Or just that you think the law should stop at waterboarding, and that you personally would go further (against the law)?

[RandomGuy]

C. It makes no difference. Those who believe we are evil will believe so no matter what.

Let me know when you have some proof of this.

[ploto]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=212890&title=matthew-alexander

[RandomGuy]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=212890&title=matthew-alexander

Saw that.

Pretty much directly contradicts everything that Yoni has argued in this thread, including the ticking time bomb schtick.

[LnGrrrR]

Let me know when you have some proof of this.

I also love the idea that peoples opinions are forever unchanging/fixed. If that's the case, shouldn't we just pull out of the Middle East right now? lol

[RandomGuy]

Okay, what is the nature of our current conflict.

Because what I see is that a large network of religious fascists have determined the United States of America, it Western allies, and just about every other non-Muslim on the planet are an existential threat to the re-establishment of a Islamic Caliphate and they are determined -- by whatever means necessary -- to either, eliminate non-Muslims, convert them to their fundamentalist view of Islam, or subjugate them in Dhimmitude.

What is your take?

A large network of religious nutjobs have determined the United States of America, it Western allies, and just about every other non-Muslim on the planet are an existential threat to the re-establishment of a Islamic Caliphate and they are determined -- by whatever means necessary -- to either, eliminate non-Muslims, convert them to their fundamentalist view of Islam, or subjugate them in Dhimmitude.

Something we can 99% agree on. :lol

Within this statement however, lies the kernel of the limitations of your viewpoint, and the ultimate failure of your ability to adequately grasp the nature of the situation in any meaningful way.

"convert [non-fundamentalist Muslims] to their fundamentalist view of Islam"


Meaning that there is a potential population of recruits to this cause that are moderate in their views, and not willing to destroy the US "by whatever means necessary".

SO

If that population sees us doing evil things, like, say torture, then it makes it easier for that network of religous nutjobs to convert the moderates to the cause does it not?

The common sense answer is yes, and this common sense answer is supported by a lot of sources within the US defense community in a much better position than Yoni to make first-hand observations.

The OP is one example and there are others.

Torture of a prisoner/captive may yield some short-term gains, but in the long run is VERY counter-productive.

Yoni, feel free to offer some expert saying that torture is in our long-term interest. I will wait.

[RandomGuy]

I also love the idea that peoples opinions are forever unchanging/fixed. If that's the case, shouldn't we just pull out of the Middle East right now? lol

That is another failure on the part of Yoni:

He pretty much admits that there is a portion of the Muslim population that isn't committed to this fallacious jihad.

Opinion is not an either/or proposition, either love or hate us.

It is a full spectrum of those two extremes and everthing in between.

There is some undefinable but definite line past which an individual may help this network. It may not be joining up to be a suicide bomber or anything as active, but may be as simple as a sympathetic border gaurd looking the other way. Every act that helps them, either overt or covert, by definition, hurts us.

When you torture, you start moving people over that line that were not there before, and helping the enemy.

To suggest otherwise is to claim, as Yoni does, that ordinary people aren't repulsed by the act of torture. That is just stupid. Shame on Yoni for not having the intellectual honesty to admit he might be wrong at the expense of common sense.

Worse, he is actively advocating a line of action that HELPS the enemy.

Why do you hate America, Yoni?

[Oh, Gee!!]

ticking. time. bomb. jack. bauer. subway.

[sabar]

Yoni is off his rocker.

Torture is wrong, and I'll justify this from all over the place.

Torture violates liberties.
The basic human rights to life cannot exist with torture. Human rights apply to all people, nationality does not matter. These rights are never waived no matter what happens. The first argument against this is that a terrorist would waive these rights by being a terrorist and knowing the information that is seeked. Fallacy: you don't know what information they have. This means torture will take place with no purpose which is immoral in itself.

Torture gives too much power to government.
Any argument applied to the torture of people that are not citizens of the U.S. can be applied to the torture of it's own people. If it is moral to torture to obtain information that will save lives then nationality places no role. Thus the government must be obligated even to torture it's own citizens to save lives. This is obviously absurd. The state has no right to torture or kill its citizens under any circumstance. If it is immoral to torture it's own people then it must be immoral to torture others.

Torture cannot be universalized.
This answers the situation in which the desperate father tortures a thug to find his daughter. Assume this statement holds: "I find it acceptable to torture a suspect that I believe knows the information to find my child." Now universalize it: "I will that all people should be able to torture people they suspect that they believe know the information to find their child". This cannot be willed, for it means that anyone could torture another to locate their child. If a kidnapper runs by your house and you go outside, you will have signed away your life to the father chasing him who thinks you are the suspect, the father having lost sight of the kidnapper.

The ends does not justify the means.
Assume this holds: "It is moral to sacrifice the life of someone if the lives being saved by that action are greater than the lost life of that sacrifice." This creates so many problems that this is quickly shown to be absurd. Problem one is that it again justifies government to torture its own citizens to save lives. Problem two is that it creates clearly immoral situations. If a train loaded with nuclear waste is out of control and headed to the city, it is justifiable to push a fat man onto the tracks to derail the train, even if the man is maimed or killed. The counter-argument is that it is moral to sacrifice the life of an immoral person, not an innocent man, but why? If waterboarding a terrorist to save two people is worth it, then certainly leaving a man with some amputated limbs is worth 500,000 people getting irradiated. As a matter of fact the government would be obligated to do things like kill people for their organs if it saved more people than that one life was worth.

Revisit the ticking time bomb for a second. Is it justified to torture a terrorist to stop it? Is it justified to torture or kill his family in front of him to stop it? Is it justified to force an innocent person to throw their body on it? If you are going to use an extreme example that will never happen (ticking time bomb) then you cannot ignore the equally extreme examples of sacrificing the innocent. The pro-torture argument hinges on one assumption: that the guilty have no rights.

This is an extremely slippery slope and the forced sacrifice of one persons liberties or life cannot be justified in any situation without justifying things most people would consider horrific.

I find it quite funny that Yoni is so pro-torture when a true conservative would find this basic violation of humanity appalling. Don't bother arguing with the radical right anymore, they are dillusional. The true conservatives are the libertarians.

[Wild Cobra]

Yoni is off his rocker.

Torture is wrong, and I'll justify this from all over the place.

Torture violates liberties.
The basic human rights to life cannot exist with torture. Human rights apply to all people, nationality does not matter. These rights are never waived no matter what happens.
I hadn't been watching this thread, so I missed some of the dialog. Doesn't Yoni think as I do, that real torture is unacceptable. I think it's the practices that people are calling torture. You see. I don't call waterboarding torture, but many do.

Could this be where one draws the line at?

[RandomGuy]

I don't call waterboarding torture

Then you won't mind being subjected to say... half an hour of the procedure?

Surely if it isn't torture, it must not be that bad.


Waterboarding was used for interrogation at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition to obtain information,[7] coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. It is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[5][8] politicians, war veterans,[9][10] intelligence officials,[11] military judges,[12] and human rights organizations.[13][14]

7^ Shane, Scott (2007-11-07). "A Firsthand Experience Before Decision on Torture", New York Times. Retrieved on 18 December 2007.

5 ^ a b c d Various (April 5, 2006). "Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales". Human Rights News. Retrieved on 2007-12-18. In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales more than 100 United States law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and the use of the practice is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.

8^ a b Davis, Benjamin (2007-10-08). "Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff", University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Retrieved on 18 December 2007. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."

9^ a b c "French Journalist Henri Alleg Describes His Torture Being Waterboarded by French Forces During Algerian War", Democracy Now! (2007-11-05). Retrieved on 18 December 2007. "I have described the waterboarding I was submitted to. And no one can say, having passed through it, that this was not torture, especially when he has endured other types of torture—burning, electricity and beating, and so on."


10^ a b c "Torture's Terrible Toll", Newsweek (2005-11-21). According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal."

11^ Grey, Stephen (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York, New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 225–226. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'".

12^ a b Bell, Nicole (2007-11-03). "Retired JAGs Send Letter To Leahy: “Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.”", Crooks and Liars. Retrieved on 18 December 2007. "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.

-------------------------------------------

I will close with a simple question for Wild Cobra:


Is waterboarding an acceptable form of interrogation if it is perfomed on captured US service personnel?

[RandomGuy]

Has anyone else noticed that Yonivore has quit the thread?

Wonder why.

[Wild Cobra]

We will disagree on that. Fine. I don't care what other people say. I am not a sponge of liberal philosophy like many here. I was actually uncertain for some time if it should be considered torture, because it does push the bounds.

[RandomGuy]

Is waterboarding an acceptable form of interrogation if it is perfomed on captured US service personnel?


We will disagree on that. Fine. I don't care what other people say. I am not a sponge of liberal philosophy like many here. I was actually uncertain for some time if it should be considered torture, because it does push the bounds.

So you agree that it is perfectly acceptable if it is used on US service personnel?

[Wild Cobra]

So you agree that it is perfectly acceptable if it is used on US service personnel?

It's better than what John McCain went though, or a beheading.

[RandomGuy]

It's better than what John McCain went though, or a beheading.

That is not a "yes" or a "no". That is a dodge, and you know it.

Do you agree that since waterboarding is not torture it is an acceptable form of interrogation for captured US service personnel?

[RandomGuy]

Let me predict this:

Wild Cobra will not answer the question with a straight yes or no, no matter how many times I pose it.

He stated flat out that he does not believe waterboarding is torture.

Since it is not torture, it must therefore be acceptable to him for use in interrogations.

Simple logic would dictate then, if it were used on US servicemembers, he must find that acceptable as well. If he then denies that it is acceptable, he would therefore be implying that it might actually be torture, and that his position is horribly hypocritical.

Stop me here if I am wrong WC. I have kept the flaming to a minimum, out of a modicum of respect. Please earn that by proving me wrong with a straight yes or no answer to my question.

[Yonivore]

Let me predict this:

Wild Cobra will not answer the question with a straight yes or no, no matter how many times I pose it.

He stated flat out that he does not believe waterboarding is torture.

Since it is not torture, it must therefore be acceptable to him for use in interrogations.

Simple logic would dictate then, if it were used on US servicemembers, he must find that acceptable as well. If he then denies that it is acceptable, he would therefore be implying that it might actually be torture, and that his position is horribly hypocritical.

Stop me here if I am wrong WC. I have kept the flaming to a minimum, out of a modicum of respect. Please earn that by proving me wrong with a straight yes or no answer to my question.
I think your logic is flawed in that no matter who has captured our servicement we would want them to be treated humanely even though we know with some enemies there's no chance in hell of that...and, that would include those enemies we are on record as having waterboarded.

So, no, that I am willing to waterboard an al Qaedan does not necessarily translate to acceptance of the same treatment of Americans by al Qaeda. Period. If only we could expect such treatment of our service men captured by our enemies.

Name a potential enemy of the United States that abides by any of the Geneva Conventions that would be deterred from using harsh interrogations techniques on our servicemen or would be influenced by our treatment of their captives. Just one.

[LnGrrrR]

I think your logic is flawed in that no matter who has captured our servicement we would want them to be treated humanely even though we know with some enemies there's no chance in hell of that...and, that would include those enemies we are on record as having waterboarded.

So, no, that I am willing to waterboard an al Qaedan does not necessarily translate to acceptance of the same treatment of Americans by al Qaeda. Period. If only we could expect such treatment of our service men captured by our enemies.

Name a potential enemy of the United States that abides by any of the Geneva Conventions that would be deterred from using harsh interrogations techniques on our servicemen or would be influenced by our treatment of their captives. Just one.

You are a DUMBASS.

If waterboarding is not torture, then it should be morally ok for other countries to use it on our serviceman.

Since when is something ok if the enemy would do worse? Have you passed the 5th grade yet? "Mommy, he kicked me in the shin so I stole his candy bar!"

[Yonivore]

You are a DUMBASS.

If waterboarding is not torture, then it should be morally ok for other countries to use it on our serviceman.
There's no moral equivalence in war. We try to kill as many of enemy as we can in battle; does that make it "morally" right for them to try and kill as many of us?

No, in a just war, there is a right side of the conflict. In this case, I believe the United States in on the right side of the argument and, in that context, nothing the enemy does is justified...except surrender.


Since when is something ok if the enemy would do worse? Have you passed the 5th grade yet? "Mommy, he kicked me in the shin so I stole his candy bar!"
You keep trying to tie our actions to the enemy's. I'm saying we shouldn't predicate our actions on what our enemies would or wouldn't do but on what will achieve victory with the least number of allied and innocent deaths.

[LnGrrrR]

There's no moral equivalence in war. We try to kill as many of enemy as we can in battle; does that make it "morally" right for them to try and kill as many of us?

No, in a just war, there is a right side of the conflict. In this case, I believe the United States in on the right side of the argument and, in that context, nothing the enemy does is justified...except surrender.


You keep trying to tie our actions to the enemy's. I'm saying we shouldn't predicate our actions on what our enemies would or wouldn't do but on what will achieve victory with the least number of allied and innocent deaths.

I think you'll find that many minds agree with you. Including the military.

What will achieve victory with the least amount of allied deaths is to either nuke every country that disagrees with us, or not go to war with anyone.

Your idea that morality has no play at war is laughable, both for strategic and moral reasons.

Why do you think General Washington insisted we treat the British troops with respect, hm? Do you think he was foolish?

[Yonivore]

I think you'll find that many minds agree with you. Including the military.

What will achieve victory with the least amount of allied deaths is to either nuke every country that disagrees with us, or not go to war with anyone.

Your idea that morality has no play at war is laughable, both for strategic and moral reasons.

Why do you think General Washington insisted we treat the British troops with respect, hm? Do you think he was foolish?
Washington didn't fight al Qaeda. I suspect he would have had a different perspective.

[Yonivore]

What will the ACLU say and, I wonder what al Qaeda plays to their prisoners?

It’s official: Listening to Bruce Springsteen is torture. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,464685,00.html)

Also on the list is that torturous Barney Song: “I Love You.”

The Sesame Street song as well.

The Associated Press published the top songs that the military has used at Club Gitmo to get the guests to talk. I wonder if Henry Waxman will call a hearing to see if the Geneva Conventions cover this.

The Waterboard Top Ten:

• “Enter Sandman,” Metallica.

• “Bodies,” Drowning Pool.

• “Shoot to Thrill,” AC/DC.

• “Hell’s Bells,” AC/DC.

• “I Love You,” from the “Barney and Friends” children’s TV show.

• “Born in the USA,” Bruce Springsteen.

• “Babylon,” David Gray.

• “White America,” Eminem.

• “Sesame Street,” theme song from the children’s TV show.

Other bands and artists whose music has been frequently played at U.S. detention sites: Aerosmith, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Don McLean, Lil’ Kim, Limp Bizkit, Meat Loaf, Rage Against the Machine, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Tupac Shakur.

Now then, AP did not note in the story that these songs are not selected randomly. The army has what it calls a psy ops group that figures out how to psyche out the enemy.

Which explains why, sadly, Barbra Streisand did not make the cut.

Or the Dixie Chicks.

Or even Barry Manilow.

[Yonivore]

I guess it's adult swim time...

House Intelligence Chairman to President Obama: Keep the guys who supported waterboarding and the terrorist surveillance program.

Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, told Congress Daily: “There’s got to be some continuity, and the leadership of both the CIA and the DNI is going to be pivotal to keeping us safe and secure. I made a recommendation that they stay on during the transition so that there would be a period of time that there would be overlap.”

That means keeping Mike Hayden on at CIA and Mike McConnell as Director of National Intelligence.

Hayden has defended waterboarding, telling Congress it was necessary even if it is no longer legal. It was used on 3 al-Qaida members including KSM, the mastermind of the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

“There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we had limited knowledge about al-Qaeda and its workings,” he said. “Those two realities have changed.”

Jonathan Karl at ABC News reported: “McConnell has told colleagues that he intends to step down on Jan. 20. Hayden, however, has said that he would be willing to stay on the job for a while longer.”

Reyes may not know his Shia from his Sunni, but he does know that a politically correct war on terrorism is one-armed paper hanging.

The Congress Daily report is here (http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=41595&dcn=todaysnews).

The Hayden testimony story is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm).

The ABC report is here (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/12/top-democrat-to.html).

[Yonivore]

one-armed paper hanging?
Ever tried it?

[mookie2001]

well me like that show sesame street, why dont they make a version of that for kids?

[Yonivore]

i wouldn't know where to start

Exactly.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

• “White America,” Eminem.



Those...crazy....psychotic....heartless...BASTARDS !!

[doobs]

Torture doesn't work.

I'll literally say ANYTHING to make this thread disappear.

[Yonivore]

Al Qaeda arrested in Belgium (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Belgium-14-Al-Qaeda-Suspects-Arrested-One-Planned-Imminent-Suicide-Attack/Article/200812215177259?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15177259_Belgium%3A_14_Al_Qaeda_Suspec ts_Arrested%2C_One_Planned_Immine)


Fourteen alleged al Qaeda members have been arrested in a series of raids in Brussels. One of the fourteen was reportedly about to undertake a mission as a suicide bomber and had said goodbye to his family. Officials cautioned that they did not know the bomber's destination, but a European Union summit meeting is currently underway in Brussels, and one obvious possibility is an attempt to assassinate European leaders.
So, if it's discovered that the information used to capture these terrorists and thwart a possible attack on European leaders was gained through some extreme interrogation technique; would it have been worth it?

I say yes.

[ChumpDumper]

Euphemisms are fun.

So is torture to some here.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Al Qaeda arrested in Belgium (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Belgium-14-Al-Qaeda-Suspects-Arrested-One-Planned-Imminent-Suicide-Attack/Article/200812215177259?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15177259_Belgium%3A_14_Al_Qaeda_Suspec ts_Arrested%2C_One_Planned_Immine)


So, if it's discovered that the information used to capture these terrorists and thwart a possible attack on European leaders was gained through some extreme interrogation technique; would it have been worth it?

I say yes.


The year-long investigation "probably prevented plans for an attack from being carried out in Brussels," last year, it added.

sounds like old-fashioned investigative work, or one long waterboarding session.

[LnGrrrR]

Al Qaeda arrested in Belgium (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Belgium-14-Al-Qaeda-Suspects-Arrested-One-Planned-Imminent-Suicide-Attack/Article/200812215177259?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15177259_Belgium%3A_14_Al_Qaeda_Suspec ts_Arrested%2C_One_Planned_Immine)


So, if it's discovered that the information used to capture these terrorists and thwart a possible attack on European leaders was gained through some extreme interrogation technique; would it have been worth it?

I say yes.

If torturing Yonivore's mother would have gotten the terrorists to confess, would it have been worth it? I say yes.

The utilitarian argument is worthless.

[DarrinS]

torture = reading this thread

[RandomGuy]

There's no moral equivalence in war. We try to kill as many of enemy as we can in battle; does that make it "morally" right for them to try and kill as many of us?

No, in a just war, there is a right side of the conflict. In this case, I believe the United States in on the right side of the argument and, in that context, nothing the enemy does is justified...except surrender.


You keep trying to tie our actions to the enemy's. I'm saying we shouldn't predicate our actions on what our enemies would or wouldn't do but on what will achieve victory with the least number of allied and innocent deaths.

Opinion is not an either/or proposition, either love or hate us.

It is a full spectrum of those two extremes and everthing in between.

There is some undefinable but definite line past which an individual may help this network. It may not be joining up to be a suicide bomber or anything as active, but may be as simple as a sympathetic border gaurd looking the other way. Every act that helps them, either overt or covert, by definition, hurts us.

When you torture, you start moving people over that line that were not there before, and helping the enemy.

To suggest otherwise is to claim, as Yoni does, that ordinary people aren't repulsed by the act of torture. That is just stupid. Shame on Yoni for not having the intellectual honesty to admit he might be wrong at the expense of common sense.

Worse, he is actively advocating a line of action that HELPS the enemy.

Why do you hate America, Yoni?

[RandomGuy]

Torturing a prisoner may indeed prevent one attack in the short term, but as the professional interrogator in the OP noted, it causes more in the long term, because you create more enemies.

Not torturing a prisoner has more long-term benefits than torturing a prisoner, and prevents more attacks.

If your whole argument for torturing prisoners hinges on preventing attacks, that falls apart when it is shown that not torturing prevents more attacks than torturing.

Pretty simple, but we all know Yoni will never admit he is wrong. ;)

[Winehole23]

Al Qaeda arrested in Belgium (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Belgium-14-Al-Qaeda-Suspects-Arrested-One-Planned-Imminent-Suicide-Attack/Article/200812215177259?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15177259_Belgium%3A_14_Al_Qaeda_Suspec ts_Arrested%2C_One_Planned_Immine)


So, if it's discovered that the information used to capture these terrorists and thwart a possible attack on European leaders was gained through some extreme interrogation technique; would it have been worth it?

I say yes.Your reliance on counterfactuals and hypotheticals is telling IMO. If we can imagine some extreme case that appears to justify the policy, that is not a good argument for normalizing the policy.

Assuming arguendo that expediency trumps morality, or that the ends justify the means, it would seem there is a threshhold of certainty about about the detainee's state of knowledge that would have to be reached before we would be justified in torturing him.

So I put it to you, Yonivore: How certain would you need to be beforehand that the man actually has knowledge of an impending attack, before torturing him?

[Yonivore]

Your reliance on counterfactuals and hypotheticals is telling IMO. If we can imagine some extreme case that appears to justify the policy, that is not a good argument for normalizing the policy.

Assuming arguendo that expediency trumps morality, or that the ends justify the means, it would seem there is a threshhold of certainty about about the detainee's state of knowledge that would have to be reached before we would be justified in torturing him.

So I put it to you, Yonivore: How certain would you need to be beforehand that the man actually has knowledge of an impending attack, before torturing him?
I would use extreme interrogation techniques if there was a preponderance of evidence demonstrating the terrorist had information of an impending attack.

[Winehole23]

Translation: I would torture someone if I thought a terrorist attack was coming, like really thought.Preponderance of evidence is the civil standard of proof.

Translation: 51% of the evidence.

Of course, such a standard if honestly assumed requires that evidence is fairly weighed before we torture someone. The exigence of the ticking time bomb scenario puts the lie to this supposed scruple.

It's like you say, 4cc. To people slightly to the right of Genghis Khan, we're justified in torturing people based on mere suspicion. The precision of Yonivore's standard is bullshit, though I do appreciate his candor. At least we know where he really stands on the topic.

[Yonivore]

Preponderance of evidence is the civil standard of proof.

Translation: 51% of the evidence.

Of course, such a standard if honestly assumed requires that evidence is fairly weighed before we torture someone. The exigence of the ticking time bomb scenario puts the lie to this supposed scruple.

It's like you say, 4cc. To people slightly to the right of Genghis Khan, we're justified in torturing people based on mere suspicion. The precision of Yonivore's standard is bullshit, though I do appreciate his candor. At least we know where he really stands on the topic.
preponderance doesn't equal mere suspicion.

[Winehole23]

preponderance doesn't equal mere suspicion.The whole reason for torture in the described scenario is that exigent circumstances preclude an orderly inquiry.

Unless you're suggesting that evidence be weighed in advance by some competent authority and the exotic interrogation specifically authorized, your preponderance of evidence standard is puffery, as pointed out by 4cc.

[Yonivore]

The whole reason for torture in the described scenario is that exigent circumstances preclude an orderly inquiry.

Unless you're suggesting that evidence be weighed in advance by some competent authority and the exotic interrogation specifically authorized, your preponderance of evidence standard is puffery, as pointed out by 4cc.
The evidence has been accumulated before the opportunity presents itself. We didn't wait until KSM was in custody before we had accumulated all sorts of evidence he probably had a wealth of knowledge of ongoing al Qaeda operations..and that extracting that information could save live.

[ChumpDumper]

Al Qaeda arrested in Belgium (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Belgium-14-Al-Qaeda-Suspects-Arrested-One-Planned-Imminent-Suicide-Attack/Article/200812215177259?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15177259_Belgium%3A_14_Al_Qaeda_Suspec ts_Arrested%2C_One_Planned_Immine)


So, if it's discovered that the information used to capture these terrorists and thwart a possible attack on European leaders was gained through some extreme interrogation technique; would it have been worth it?

I say yes.Too bad there was no torture used in this case at all and you have no point whatsoever.

[Winehole23]

The evidence has been accumulated before the opportunity presents itself. We didn't wait until KSM was in custody before we had accumulated all sorts of evidence he probably had a wealth of knowledge of ongoing al Qaeda operations..and that extracting that information could save live.More conditional tense. Still no proof torturing saves lives. Only endless conjecture.

[RandomGuy]

The author of the book regularly had people who had direct knowledge of imminent attacks in front of him.

He still didn't use torture, and prevented far more attacks by taking a long term approach that emphasized long-term benefits.

Ultimately, his team was responsible for acquiring information that took down the head of AQ in Iraq. He is of the opinion that his decision not torture was more effective ultimately than any torture session would have been.

Cost

to

benefit.

That is what it is about in the end. Torture = high cost, low benefit. Not torturing = low cost, high benefit.

[doobs]

That is what it is about in the end. Torture = high cost, low benefit. Not torturing = low cost, high benefit.

OK, that's about the stupidest thing posted in this whole thread.

Anyone who says torture is always effective is an idiot. Anyone who says torture is never effective is an idiot. Anyone who tries to oversimplify the matter by stating, "torture = high cost, low benefit, not torturing = low cost, high benefit" . . . is an idiot.

In reality, we are talking about two different questions:
(1) Is torture--no matter how it's defined--ever permissible? This is a moral question.
(2) Should certain methods employed by the US--like waterboarding--be considered torture? This is more of a legal question.

My answers:
(1) However it's defined, "torture" should always be illegal. You can't just shoot a guy in the knee, or rip his fingernails off, or rape his wife in front of him, or electrocute him . . . and so on. This kind of behavior is disgusting. No argument from me there. In fact, the effectiveness of these methods is pretty much irrelevant, because they are so brutal. We should not condone our government resorting to these methods.

But some interrogators are going to break the law under extraordinary circumstances, no matter what. This is the "ticking bomb" scenario that you seem to think is so stupid. In that case, the risk of a catastrophic attack GREATLY outweighs the risk that the interrogator will be prosecuted for torture. I, for one, would be eternally grateful to that successful interrogator who broke the law. And if the attack occurred, and none of the interrogators undertook extreme, illegal measures to stop the attack, I would be furious.

In fact, I think an argument can be made that occasional disregard for the illegality of torture can actually preserve our ability to outlaw torture. I would rather an interrogator illegally torture a suspect pre-attack than for the government to change the law post-attack so that all interrogators can legally torture.

In other words, I agree that the law should be clear: torture, however it is defined, is illegal. But the moral question is entirely independent of the legal question. Is it morally justified to break the law--i.e., to torture a suspect--in certain circumstances? Yes, of course it is. And the law doesn't really need to reflect that. No interrogator who prevents a catastrophic terrorist attack will be sent to prison because he beat the dogshit out of a suspect.

(2) A separate question has to do with the legal definition of torture. Is waterboarding torture? I think this is a harder question. But it's also a small question. We're not talking about what John McCain endured as a POW. We're talking about simulated drowning. Emphasis on simulated.

Is waterboarding brutal? I don't know. It really doesn't sound that bad to me.

Is waterboarding effective? I don't know. According to the government, it has worked in the past. But that's the government. (Then again, why would the government want to use waterboarding if it hadn't worked? To fuck with Muslims? I don't think so.)

In other words, I don't feel comfortable either condemning or endorsing waterboarding. Basically, it's not so bad as to obviously be torture. So you have to consider its effectiveness. And who the hell knows anything about its effectiveness?

And, regardless, even if waterboarding is "torture", the moral question of (1) still lingers.

[Yonivore]

The author of the book regularly had people who had direct knowledge of imminent attacks in front of him.

He still didn't use torture, and prevented far more attacks by taking a long term approach that emphasized long-term benefits.

Ultimately, his team was responsible for acquiring information that took down the head of AQ in Iraq. He is of the opinion that his decision not torture was more effective ultimately than any torture session would have been.

Cost

to

benefit.

That is what it is about in the end. Torture = high cost, low benefit. Not torturing = low cost, high benefit.
And, I think if they had waterboarded the fucker on day one, they'd of know where Zarqawi was a lot sooner. I wonder how many deaths would have been averted then?

[LnGrrrR]

And, I think if they had waterboarded the fucker on day one, they'd of know where Zarqawi was a lot sooner. I wonder how many deaths would have been averted then?

Or they might have just killed him with torture, as they have others.

[Yonivore]

Or they might have just killed him with torture, as they have others.
You've been reading too much stupid shit. A) Waterboarding is non-lethal and B) Who have we tortured to death?

[ChumpDumper]

So which instance of torture has prevented an imminent attack on the US?

[Yonivore]

And, another thing while we're on the topic of Iraq. This interrogator you guys have been holding up as a saint because he befriended terrorists into giving up Zarqawi -- if he is to be believed -- has put the lie to one of y'all's biggest complaints about the war in Iraq.

Here's a paragraph from an article about how our "torture" techniques led to more deaths than it prevented (which, by the way, I don't buy for a minute but, again, this is your guy, not mine.)


He writes: "My team of interrogators had successfully hunted down one of the most notorious mass murderers of our generation, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq and the mastermind of the campaign of suicide bombings that had helped plunge Iraq into civil war. But instead of celebrating our success, my mind was consumed with the unfinished business of our mission: fixing the deeply flawed, ineffective and un-American way the U.S. military conducts interrogations in Iraq. I'm still alarmed about that today."
1) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

2) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before we invaded.

3) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was responsible for the suicide bombings that incited the sectarian violence in Iraq.

Therefore:

4) Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded and is responsible for the violence that escalated the war after we had successfully unseated the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein.

If these are true statements, what has all the fuss about al Qaeda not being in Iraq been about the past 5 years?

[ChumpDumper]

Damn Yoni, after all these years you still don't know the difference between Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq?

You are one stupid mother fucker.

[Yonivore]

And another excerpt from the interview:


MA: Well, the things that we used in Iraq is we took the methods that had been used prior to our arrival, and we changed them. The methods that the Army was using were based on fear and control, and those techniques are not effective. They're not the most effective way to get people to cooperate. My team was a little bit different, because we were made up of several criminal investigators who had experience doing criminal interrogations, in which we don't use fear and control. We use techniques that are based on understanding, cultural understanding, sympathy, things like intellect, ingenuity, innovation. And we started to apply these types of techniques to the interrogations. And ultimately, we were able to put together a string of successes within the al-Qaida organization that led to Zarqawi's location.

AG: What does that mean, sympathy, those kind of -- using that approach?

MA: Let me just give you one example out of the book. Let's go to the example where I convince one of Zarqawi's associates to give up a path towards Zarqawi. This man was a highly religious man. He was deeply schooled in Islam. He had spent 14 years studying Islam. And we had tried fear-and-control techniques on him for a period of about three weeks, and they didn't work. He had maintained that he had nothing to do with al-Qaida.

AG: What do you mean, "fear and control?"

MA: By fear and control, I mean using tactics that are basically intended to intimidate a detainee. You're not allowed, within the rules of interrogation, to threaten a detainee, but there's ways to create fear without threatening a detainee. And those methods, although legal, are not most effective.
So, according to this 'gator, they replaced "fear and control" techniques which, by his description, did not include waterboarding.

I think waterboarding would have been more effective in finding Zarqawi than were his techniques. Khalid Shaihk Mohammed was singing in less than 3 minutes. That other guy in a mere 35 seconds.

Now, that's results.

[ChumpDumper]

Now Yoni is an expert on torture, too. :rolleyes

[Winehole23]

1) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.Yes, but he wasn't affiliated with Al Qaeda until 2004, after the US invasion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263_pf.html


2) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before we invaded.In US protected Kurdistan. We had chances to take him out, but the President and the NSC vetoed them.

http://www.answers.com/topic/abu-mussab-al-zarqawi#Pre-war_opportunities_to_kill_Zarqawi


3) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was responsible for the suicide bombings that incited the sectarian violence in Iraq.Overstated, but this is minimally true. Sectarian atrocities and score settling were probably not avoidable in any case. To put them all down to Zawqawi is naive at best, misleading at worst.

The weakness of your premises makes your argument a parody of reason, YV. It is just pitiful.

[Yonivore]

Zarqawi allied himself with the Taliban and al Qaeda, in Afghanistan, and fled to Iraq via Iran after we invaded Afghanistan. His presence in Iraq wasn't confined to the North and there is evidence he was in Baghdad prior to 2003.

[Yonivore]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-o.htm

According to Globalsecurity.org, the CIA considered Zarqawi an al Qaeda operative as early as 2002 when they noted his presence in Kurdish Iraq and in Baghdad.

[ChumpDumper]

"Someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda."

- Donald Rumsfeld, 2004

[Winehole23]

Zarqawi allied himself with the Taliban and al Qaeda, in Afghanistan, and fled to Iraq via Iran after we invaded Afghanistan. His presence in Iraq wasn't confined to the North and there is evidence he was in Baghdad prior to 2003.Moving the goal posts, eh?

It's a nice bit of pettifogging. This isn't what you just argued, and even though it's true, it doesn't prove what you seem to think it does.

Instead of being so elliptical, why don't you unpack it, and say what you really mean?

[ChumpDumper]

He means they're still translating the documents!

[Yonivore]

Zarqawi was wounded during America's Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 and fled to Iraq when U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban. He received medical care for a serious leg injury and convalesced for more than two months in Baathist Baghdad. At minimum, Hussein's regime provided Zarqawi with safe harbor and free passage in and out of Iraq.

Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist camp in northeastern Iraq (with chemical weapons labs) and later arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan. While some analysts believe that Zarqawi is a rival rather than an associate of Osama bin Laden, he did have links to bin Laden and allowed his camp in Iraq to be used as a refuge for al Qaeda terrorists fleeing Afghanistan.

Zarqawi is not the only terrorist with ties to Hussein. In his report in the Hudson Institute's American Outlook magazine, Deroy Murdock explains how ``Baathist Iraq was a general store for terrorists, complete with cash, training, lodging and medical attention.''

Among the killers hiding in Iraq was Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. His Abu Nidal Organization killed or maimed more than 1,200 people in 20 countries, including the airborne bombing of a TWA airliner in 1974 and the attack on a TWA ticket counter at Rome's Leonardo Da Vinci airport in 1986. Nidal had taken refuge in Iraq since 1999. He reportedly ''killed himself'' with four bullets to the head in Baghdad in August 2002.

In April 2003, Khala Khadar al Salahat, another terrorist with ties to Nidal, surrendered to the First Marine Division in Baghdad. According to at least one published report, a Palestinian source claimed that Salahat and Nidal had furnished Libyan agents the plastic explosives that destroyed Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

U.S. Special Forces also captured terrorist Abu Abbas in April 2003 just outside Baghdad. He had been living there under Iraqi protection since 2002. Abbas planned the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in the Mediterranean in which the terrorists killed wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer, a retired 69-year old American.

Italian authorities had detained Abbas briefly at the time but released him because, according to Italy's then-Prime Minister Bettino Craxi, ''Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport.'' Abbas later died of natural causes in U.S. custody.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, indicted for mixing the chemicals in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and still on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list, fled to Baghdad after the WTC attack and lived there for years. Documents discovered by U.S. forces in Tikrit showed that the Iraqi government gave Yasin both a house and a salary.

Ramzi Yousef, the Iraqi who orchestrated the first WTC bombing, also entered America on an Iraqi passport.

Hussein supported Palestinian terrorists (''martyrs'') who also killed numerous Americans. In March 2003, eight days before the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq began, Knight-Ridder Newspapers reported about a ceremony organized by the Hussein-backed Arab Liberation Front in Gaza City in which ``the families of 22 Palestinians [suicide bombers] killed fighting the Israelis each received checks for $10,000 or more, certificates of appreciation and a kiss on each cheek -- compliments of Saddam Hussein.''

According to the State Department, the terrorists whom Hussein backed had killed or injured more than 3,500 civilians outside Iraq. U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 paragraph 32 (the 1991 Iraq disarmament resolution) called on Hussein to renounce terrorism. He clearly failed to do so.

Yet, another reason given for invading Iraq...and, given that al Qaeda was fleeing Afghanistan for Iraq, it made sense to go there next.

Zarqawi wasn't the only one. Hussein had a long history of aiding and abetting terrorists.

[ChumpDumper]

Now I'm Paul Crespo! Watch me steal!

[Yonivore]

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

[LnGrrrR]

You've been reading too much stupid shit. A) Waterboarding is non-lethal and B) Who have we tortured to death?

Links: http://www.counterpunch.org/phillips12022005.html
http://www.warcrimeswatch.org/news_details.cfm?artid=841&cat=1

And some pictures of abuse, with only one or two of deaths caused by interrogation along with Abu Ghraib: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

I fear that waterboarding goes over a certain line that, once crossed, will lead to inevitable other violations. If waterboarding doesn't work, then what? Do we step it up?

If you say no, then you and I differ on the line to draw. If you say yes, then I disagree with your thinking completely and disagree with the moral statement you're making.

[Yonivore]

Links: http://www.counterpunch.org/phillips12022005.html
Four Americans tried for murder in the case this website leads off with. Not exactly a support of sanctioned torture being the case. Do atrocities occur? Yes. The difference between us and most other countries of the world, including our enemies and non-state terrorists, is that we bring our offenders to justice when they are discovered.


http://www.warcrimeswatch.org/news_details.cfm?artid=841&cat=1
No support in the article for their claims. I read another article by a group critical of the U.S. used the same "eight killed by torture" figure. They too led off with the alledged murder of the Iraqi General for whose murder four Americans were tried. That this is the most agregious case, because it leads stories on our abuses, tells me they've been unable to find any cases where sanctioned torture led to death.


And some pictures of abuse, with only one or two of deaths caused by interrogation along with Abu Ghraib: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/
Abu Ghraib was punished. And, I'm not going to weed through the other images trying to place them in context.

Show me a death caused by sanctioned torture and, then, you have an argument.


I fear that waterboarding goes over a certain line that, once crossed, will lead to inevitable other violations. If waterboarding doesn't work, then what? Do we step it up?
Seems to the the other violations were perpetrated by people who never tried waterboarding. And, by all accounts, waterboarding works just fine.


If you say no, then you and I differ on the line to draw. If you say yes, then I disagree with your thinking completely and disagree with the moral statement you're making.
There's no evidence the use of waterboarding crossed any lines, everyone subjected to it is alive and well at Gitmo...free to use their U. S. Supplied laptops and Korans and enjoy 3 squares a day.

[LnGrrrR]

There's no evidence the use of waterboarding crossed any lines, everyone subjected to it is alive and well at Gitmo...free to use their U. S. Supplied laptops and Korans and enjoy 3 squares a day.

With no habeas corpus, of course.

So, do you believe waterboarding is acceptable because it is not torture? Or do you feel waterboarding is acceptable because of the 'ticking time bomb' theory?

[Yonivore]

With no habeas corpus, of course.
Not exactly torture. When have we ever extended habeas corpus to enemy combatants?


So, do you believe waterboarding is acceptable because it is not torture? Or do you feel waterboarding is acceptable because of the 'ticking time bomb' theory?
I believe waterboarding is acceptable because it produces results, quickly and non-lethally.

[ElNono]

Not exactly torture. When have we ever extended habeas corpus to enemy combatants?

Throughout American history? With the exception of the Civil War and parts of the World War II, where it was suspended, we always have. This administration sought to suspend it again for those in Guantanamo Bay, and as we all know, it didn't work.

[Yonivore]

Throughout American history? With the exception of the Civil War and parts of the World War II, where it was suspended, we always have. This administration sought to suspend it again for those in Guantanamo Bay, and as we all know, it didn't work.
You're nuts. The POW's of the Gulf War in 1991 had habeas corpus rights? Vietnam? Korea?

[ElNono]

You're nuts. The POW's of the Gulf War in 1991 had habeas corpus rights? Vietnam? Korea?

That the US captured? They sure did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

[LnGrrrR]

Not exactly torture. When have we ever extended habeas corpus to enemy combatants?


I believe waterboarding is acceptable because it produces results, quickly and non-lethally.

If waterboarding did not work to produce a result, would you approve of using more extreme methods?

[Yonivore]

If waterboarding did not work to produce a result, would you approve of using more extreme methods?
Only if I thought it would produce results. Which, if waterboarding didn't work, would be dubious at best. I might even try someting less extreme. I think interrogation techniques are situational, don't you?

[LnGrrrR]

Only if I thought it would produce results. Which, if waterboarding didn't work, would be dubious at best. I might even try someting less extreme. I think interrogation techniques are situational, don't you?

Surely, there are, but there are lines I won't cross. Is there a line you wouldn't cross? For instance, if you thought a terrorist had a nuke. Would you do something, say, like threaten his daughter in front of him? Perhaps even cause harm to her, if you thought it was necessary to obtain information?

[DarrinS]

You know what? All we need to do to stop terrorists is give them a stern "talking to". They are highly reasonable people.

[Yonivore]

Surely, there are, but there are lines I won't cross. Is there a line you wouldn't cross? For instance, if you thought a terrorist had a nuke. Would you do something, say, like threaten his daughter in front of him? Perhaps even cause harm to her, if you thought it was necessary to obtain information?
Well, if he had the nuke, that wouldn't be necessary. I'd just relieve him of it.

Seriously, I understand what you're saying and, back to my other answer, I'd do whatever necessary to secure the information. If the information is obtainable, I wouldn't rule out any technique so long as there was still time to avert a nuclear blast in an Ameican city.

But, again, it is situational in that there are experts that can make a judgement call on what technique to which the terrorist will best respond. I'm not an expert on interrogation so, I'd defer to the interrogator over the method.

But, if I were in charge and an interrogator convinced me a method, you might find objectionable, will work in extracting time-sensitive data that could result in saving innocent lives; I'm not much going to worry about what makes you squeamish.

You can always thanks me later.

[Yonivore]

More groundwork-laying for an Obama approach to terror that looks a lot like Bush’s?


”Mr. Obama will soon face the same awful choices that confronted George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and he could well be forced to accept a central feature of their anti-terrorist methods: extraordinary rendition. If the choice is between non-deniable aggressive questioning conducted by Americans and deniable torturous interrogations by foreigners acting on behalf of the United States, it is almost certain that as president Mr. Obama will choose the latter.

… [Everything in between is good, as well. – Y]

“If Mr. Obama’s Democrats get blown back into the ugly world that we live in, and resume rendition (and, of course, fib about it), then President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who have been vilified for besmirching America’s honor, may at least take some consolation in knowing that hypocrisy is always the homage vice pays to virtue.”
Odd NYTimes Opinion piece, if you ask me. It seems they’re trying, in advance, to excuse, what most of us already know, that Obama will soon resort to the same intelligence gathering methods used by the two presidents before him. And, unfortunately, because of his asinine assurances to close down Gitmo and end water boarding, he may be left with the more unsavory extraordinary rendition.

Way to go Democrats!

[Winehole23]

More groundwork-laying for an Obama approach to terror that looks a lot like Bush’s?I'd put the emphasis the other way. Not that Obama takes dictation from the NYT, but that the NYT is reading the tea leaves. The lefty blogosphere (notably, Greenwald and Digby) has been squirming about this for weeks. Obama already reversed himself on FISA and domestic spying. Pretty soon he'll be in charge of Gitmo. We'll see pretty soon what he does and what he doesn't do.



Odd NYTimes Opinion piece, if you ask me. It seems they’re trying, in advance, to excuse, what most of us already know, that Obama will soon resort to the same intelligence gathering methods used by the two presidents before him.Not sure I get you, YV. Are you saying you'll give Obama your full support, and defend him to the Nth, like you've done with Bush?

[Yonivore]

I'd put the emphasis the other way. Not that Obama takes dictation from the NYT, but that the NYT is reading the tea leaves. The lefty blogosphere (notably, Greenwald and Digby) has been squirming about this for weeks. Obama already reversed himself on FISA and domestic spying. Pretty soon he'll be in charge of Gitmo. We'll see pretty soon what he does and what he doesn't do.
You may never know if he decides in favor of extraordinary rendition.


Not sure I get you, YV. Are you saying you'll give Obama your full support, and defend him to the Nth, like you've done with Bush?
If he continues Bush's foreign policy, yeah, I'll support him in his foreign policy initiatives.

[ChumpDumper]

So which instance of torture has prevented an imminent attack on the US?

[LnGrrrR]

Well, if he had the nuke, that wouldn't be necessary. I'd just relieve him of it.

Seriously, I understand what you're saying and, back to my other answer, I'd do whatever necessary to secure the information. If the information is obtainable, I wouldn't rule out any technique so long as there was still time to avert a nuclear blast in an Ameican city.

But, again, it is situational in that there are experts that can make a judgement call on what technique to which the terrorist will best respond. I'm not an expert on interrogation so, I'd defer to the interrogator over the method.

But, if I were in charge and an interrogator convinced me a method, you might find objectionable, will work in extracting time-sensitive data that could result in saving innocent lives; I'm not much going to worry about what makes you squeamish.

You can always thanks me later.

Do you think it is morally justifiable to torture an innocent to save a great number of lives?

[RandomGuy]

OK, that's about the stupidest thing posted in this whole thread.

Anyone who says torture is always effective is an idiot. Anyone who says torture is never effective is an idiot. Anyone who tries to oversimplify the matter by stating, "torture = high cost, low benefit, not torturing = low cost, high benefit" . . . is an idiot.

In reality, we are talking about two different questions:
(1) Is torture--no matter how it's defined--ever permissible? This is a moral question.
(2) Should certain methods employed by the US--like waterboarding--be considered torture? This is more of a legal question.

My answers:
(1) However it's defined, "torture" should always be illegal. You can't just shoot a guy in the knee, or rip his fingernails off, or rape his wife in front of him, or electrocute him . . . and so on. This kind of behavior is disgusting. No argument from me there. In fact, the effectiveness of these methods is pretty much irrelevant, because they are so brutal. We should not condone our government resorting to these methods.

But some interrogators are going to break the law under extraordinary circumstances, no matter what. This is the "ticking bomb" scenario that you seem to think is so stupid. In that case, the risk of a catastrophic attack GREATLY outweighs the risk that the interrogator will be prosecuted for torture. I, for one, would be eternally grateful to that successful interrogator who broke the law. And if the attack occurred, and none of the interrogators undertook extreme, illegal measures to stop the attack, I would be furious.

In fact, I think an argument can be made that occasional disregard for the illegality of torture can actually preserve our ability to outlaw torture. I would rather an interrogator illegally torture a suspect pre-attack than for the government to change the law post-attack so that all interrogators can legally torture.

In other words, I agree that the law should be clear: torture, however it is defined, is illegal. But the moral question is entirely independent of the legal question. Is it morally justified to break the law--i.e., to torture a suspect--in certain circumstances? Yes, of course it is. And the law doesn't really need to reflect that. No interrogator who prevents a catastrophic terrorist attack will be sent to prison because he beat the dogshit out of a suspect.

(2) A separate question has to do with the legal definition of torture. Is waterboarding torture? I think this is a harder question. But it's also a small question. We're not talking about what John McCain endured as a POW. We're talking about simulated drowning. Emphasis on simulated.

Is waterboarding brutal? I don't know. It really doesn't sound that bad to me.

Is waterboarding effective? I don't know. According to the government, it has worked in the past. But that's the government. (Then again, why would the government want to use waterboarding if it hadn't worked? To fuck with Muslims? I don't think so.)

In other words, I don't feel comfortable either condemning or endorsing waterboarding. Basically, it's not so bad as to obviously be torture. So you have to consider its effectiveness. And who the hell knows anything about its effectiveness?

And, regardless, even if waterboarding is "torture", the moral question of (1) still lingers.

1) I never said torture was or was not absolutely effective, dipwad.
2) I have said before, if not in this thread then elsewhere, that torture is immoral, no matter what your motives are.

Moral questions are hard to prove one way or another, and anybody who thinks it is ok generally lacks the morality to argue the point with.

What can be proven more conclusively is whether or not it is more or less effective.

If the purpose is preventing attacks, not torturing people works better in the long run. It is both the moral and more effective option. Oddly enough it is more effective because it is the moral option, and immoral people can't wrap their brains around that.

[Yonivore]

Do you think it is morally justifiable to torture an innocent to save a great number of lives?
Nope.

[doobs]

1) I never said torture was or was not absolutely effective, dipwad.


I never said you did, dipwad. I called you an idiot because of your stupid oversimplification: "torture = high cost, low benefit, not torturing = low cost, high benefit." Learn to read, dipwad.

[LnGrrrR]

Nope.

Given that you do not think it is morally justifiable to torture an innocent to save lives, do you think it is morally justifiable to torture someone who might be guilty of a crime, but might not be?

[Yonivore]

Given that you do not think it is morally justifiable to torture an innocent to save lives, do you think it is morally justifiable to torture someone who might be guilty of a crime, but might not be?
I'll let the vice president answer that...

In the video Dick Cheney defends himself and his defense of our nation, when asked by ABC News about the interrogation of terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

Vice President Cheney (http://thedailybeast.com/video/item/abc-cheney-comments-on-iraq)

The video clip comes from the Daily Beast, which headlines it, "Torture? I'm for it." Personally, I don't think waterboarding is torture but don't argue that point because -- in the situation in which it was used, it wouldn't matter to me if it were or not. In fact, as applied to the two or three terrorists in question, I'm in favor of it. The administration could have used more of this kind of straightforward defense of its policies over the last four years.

In answer to your question, that's too ambiguous. I think interrogations are all situational and the interrogator should weigh the risks against the potential rewards of whatever technique they choose to employ.

[LnGrrrR]

In answer to your question, that's too ambiguous. I think interrogations are all situational and the interrogator should weigh the risks against the potential rewards of whatever technique they choose to employ.

Certainly, the reason that we have laws are to define ambiguous situations as clearly as possible?

I thought conservative thought was to distrust those in power. Yet you seem to be explicitly trusting CIA agents to do the correct thing, or are at least willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do you agree with this assessment?

Additionally, did you read the bipartisan report on torture, which stated that some of the abuses of Abu Ghraib were signed off on by administration leadership such as Bush and Cheney?

Being for torture in 'certain instances' is the same, in my mind, as being against 'freedom of speech' in certain instances.

[Yonivore]

Certainly, the reason that we have laws are to define ambiguous situations as clearly as possible?

I thought conservative thought was to distrust those in power. Yet you seem to be explicitly trusting CIA agents to do the correct thing, or are at least willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do you agree with this assessment?
No, it's not. In the narrow instance described, I think the administration did the right thing.


Additionally, did you read the bipartisan report on torture, which stated that some of the abuses of Abu Ghraib were signed off on by administration leadership such as Bush and Cheney?
Nope. Bipartisan reports have a nasty habit of being compromised to the point of not bearing any resemblance to reality.


Being for torture in 'certain instances' is the same, in my mind, as being against 'freedom of speech' in certain instances.
D'okie dokie; fine by me. Frankly, the people we're discussing aren't entitled to any of our constitutional protections.

[LnGrrrR]

No, it's not. In the narrow instance described, I think the administration did the right thing.


Nope. Bipartisan reports have a nasty habit of being compromised to the point of not bearing any resemblance to reality.


D'okie dokie; fine by me. Frankly, the people we're discussing aren't entitled to any of our constitutional protections.

And how do you know they're guilty? I thought that courts of law were used to determine proof of guilt or innocence. Mayhaps we should just have these interrogators presiding over our court of law instead?

[Yonivore]

And how do you know they're guilty? I thought that courts of law were used to determine proof of guilt or innocence. Mayhaps we should just have these interrogators presiding over our court of law instead?
We're talking about a war not a criminal case. This has been the problem with lefties since Clinton held office. You don't prosecute wars at the courthouse.

And, in the narrow case we're talking about, 3 known al Qaeda operatives, guilt and innocence wasn't the consideration. Intelligence gathering was the aim.

[LnGrrrR]

We're talking about a war not a criminal case. This has been the problem with lefties since Clinton held office. You don't prosecute wars at the courthouse.

And, in the narrow case we're talking about, 3 known al Qaeda operatives, guilt and innocence wasn't the consideration. Intelligence gathering was the aim.

I'm not talking about an individual case. I'm merely looking for you to state that you would be willing to support torturing POSSIBLE innocents to obtain vital information, correct?

Because frankly, I'm sure you're aware that innocent people HAVE been captured, abducted, extradited and interrogated.

Do you accept the fact that some innocents will be tortured in order that we may obtain better intel?

[RandomGuy]

I never said you did, dipwad. I called you an idiot because of your stupid oversimplification: "torture = high cost, low benefit, not torturing = low cost, high benefit." Learn to read, dipwad.

That was pretty much the implication of your post. If you meant otherwise, you should have made that a bit more explict.

It isn't an oversimplification, it was a summary. The issue isn't really that complicated.

Torture has a high long run cost (credibility, cooperation, increased recruiting and funding for terrorists, more attacks), with limited short term benefits (preventing a short term attack).
High cost, low benefit.

Not torturing has a low long-run cost (the opportunity cost of perhaps not preventing one or two immediate attacks) , with a high long term benefit (increased moral authority and credibility, decreased recruiting and funding for terrorists).

It would take an idiot not to understand that. :p:

[RandomGuy]

Frankly, the people we're discussing aren't entitled to any of our constitutional protections.

If constitutional protections are really that optional, why not get rid of them altogether?

[Winehole23]

If constitutional protections are really that optional, why not get rid of them altogether?That's been the policy the last seven years.

Fortunately for us all, the courts are finally beginning to reel in the executive branch, and restore the Constitution our President and his men swore to uphold and protect, but trashed instead.

[Yonivore]

If constitutional protections are really that optional, why not get rid of them altogether?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing in there about foreign terrorists such as were interrogated.

[LnGrrrR]

Additionally, what are the boundaries of this war? Considering there's no uniform, and no specific territory for terrorists, I can only assume that this war is unending and universal. Forgive me for not wanting to try every assumed terrorist as a war criminal, as it defeats the very purpose of a 'war' trial (in which the person charged with the crime can not actively deny participation in that effort, due to wearing the uniform or other signifying details of the opposing force.)

[LnGrrrR]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing in there about foreign terrorists such as were interrogated.

And you know they're terrorists how again? Most haven't been tried in a court of law, after all.

What about non-foreign terrorists? Say, Jose Padilla? Shouldn't he have had those Constitutional rights?

[RandomGuy]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing in there about foreign terrorists such as were interrogated.

There is also nothing in there about the mating rituals of siamese penninsula orangotans. What is or isn't in there is beside the question.

I didn't ask if there was anyting in the constitution/declaration of independence about torturing terrorists.

I asked you what reason we have for keeping the constitutional protections around.

What is that reason?

[Yonivore]

There is also nothing in there about the mating rituals of siamese penninsula orangotans. What is or isn't in there is beside the question.
That's not true. What is or isn't there is the point. And, there is nothing in the U. S. Constitution extending its rights, privileges, or immunities to Khalid Shaihk Mohammed or anyone else that would be an enemy of this country.


I didn't ask if there was anyting in the constitution/declaration of independence about torturing terrorists.

I asked you what reason we have for keeping the constitutional protections around.

What is that reason?
To protect the citizens of the United States of America.

[Winehole23]

To protect the citizens of the United States of America.The oath of office requires that US officers protect our form of government, too.


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html

[Yonivore]

The oath of office requires that US officers protect our form of government, too.


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html

Your point? I would contend that interrogating Khalid Shaihk Mohammed and extracting actionable intelligence, from him, by whatever means necessary is precisely in accordance with that oath.

[Winehole23]

Lawless interrogation and detention are contrary the the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Doesn't an oath mean anything anymore?

[Yonivore]

Lawless interrogation and detention are contrary the the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Doesn't an oath mean anything anymore?
Show me where the Constitution says that.

The best I can find is that the U. S. Constitution invests, in the President, the position of Commander-in-Chief, and give him the authority to use that position to protect and defend the United States of America. You won't find, anywhere in the Constitution, a directive that he is to abide by the constitutional protections extended to U. S. Citizens in the prosecution of that duty.

[Winehole23]

Show me where the Constitution says that.

The best I can find is that the U. S. Constitution invests, in the President, the position of Commander-in-Chief, and give him the authority to use that position to protect and defend the United States of America. You won't find, anywhere in the Constitution, a directive that he is to abide by the constitutional protections extended to U. S. Citizens in the prosecution of that duty.Ours is a government of limited powers. The discretion of the Executive is limited by Congress and the Judiciary. The judiciary gets to say what the law is, not the President.

If the Supreme Court rules in Habeas Corpus (Boumediene) and Common Article 3 (Hamdi) for irregular detainees, then that is the law of the land.

[Yonivore]

Ours is a government of limited powers. The discretion of the Executive is limited by Congress and the Judiciary. The judiciary gets to say what the law is, not the President.
Limited powers with respect to the people of the United States of America



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And, one other thing. The powers of the executive are not limited by Congress or the Judiciary; a common misconception of the left. The three branches of our government are co-equal and their powers are only limited by the Constitution.


If the Supreme Court rules in Habeas Corpus and Common Article 3 for irregular detainees (as it already has), then that is the law of the land.
Now, you're talking about something completely different. Tell me where this administation has said it would ignore, and not comply, with these recent decisions.

[Winehole23]

Limited powers with respect to the people of the United States of AmericaThe branches are coequal by the plain meaning of the text, and so are the checks and balances.

What are you trying to say, YV?




Now, you're talking about something completely different. Tell me where this administation has said it would ignore, and not comply, with these recent decisions.I don't think I said so, so I needn't answer this. It's beside the point.

At any rate the relevant SCOTUS rulings, inasmuch as they bring Bush policy back into accord with the law of the land, only show how far amiss he wandered from it.

[Yonivore]

The branches are coequal by the plain meaning of the text, and so are the checks and balances.

What are you trying to say, YV?
What check or balance do either of the other two branches have, in the constitution, to the President's constitutional obligation to protect this country.


I don't think I said so, so I needn't answer this. It's beside the point.

At any rate the relevant SCOTUS rulings, inasmuch as they bring Bush policy back into accord with the law of the land, only show how far amiss he wandered from it.

The two rulings you mention were completely new in the law. Never before had either been contemplated by our constitution or the law. Otherwise, the President would have been in violation.

Further, I'm comforted by the belief that the level of threat to our nation's sovereignty is directly proportional to the number of idiots like you. The greater the threat, the fewer of you types that are around...and, vice versa.

Security gives you the luxury of being so pious.

[Winehole23]

Further, I'm comforted by the belief that the level of threat to our nation's sovereignty is directly proportional to the number of idiots like you. The greater the threat, the fewer of you types that are around...and, vice versa.

Security gives you the luxury of being so pious.And paranoia gives you the luxury of being so pompous. If the rain falls on the just and unjust alike, why do you assume that your adversaries will die while you will be spared?

Calling Al Qaeda a threat to US sovereignty grossly inflates their power and historical importance. They're common criminals and should be treated as such.

Just because terrorism makes you wet the bed doesn't mean the rest of us should tear up the US Constitution to make you feel safer. Sorry.

[Yonivore]

And paranoia gives you the luxury of being so pompous. If the rain falls on the just and unjust alike, why do you assume that your adversaries will die while you will be spared?

Calling Al Qaeda a threat to US sovereignty grossly inflates their power and historical importance. They're common criminals and should be treated as such.

Just because terrorism makes you wet the bed doesn't mean the rest of us should tear up the US Constitution to make you feel safer. Sorry.
How long did they close Wall Street and how much was our economy damaged by the 19 terrorists that flew those planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania landscape?

And, as far as tearing up the constitution, you've yet to show me where any constitutional protection has not been observed.

[clambake]

How long did they close Wall Street and how much was our economy damaged

:lol now thats just damn funny!

[Yonivore]

:lol now thats just damn funny!

You don't believe our sovereignty is tied to our national security and economic stability?

[FromWayDowntown]

What check or balance do either of the other two branches have, in the constitution, to the President's constitutional obligation to protect this country.

Congress's power to declare war comes to mind.

[clambake]

You don't believe our sovereignty is tied to our national security and economic stability?

not now. it was blown away by the enemy within.

nothing good can come from "W's" watch.

[Yonivore]

Congress's power to declare war comes to mind.
The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq comes to mind.

[Winehole23]

How long did they close Wall Street and how much was our economy damaged by the 19 terrorists that flew those planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania landscape?

And, as far as tearing up the constitution, you've yet to show me where any constitutional protection has not been observed.There was a scary moment, but it passed. The danger was real, but there was no chance the episode could've beaten us. A lot US officers could've been killed, but there was no existential threat to the republic itself. If the dome of the US Congress fell, we'd rebuild it and soldier on.

You seem not to have much faith in the durability and strength of the US republic, while wildly overrating the importance and potency of terrorists. They can't beat us, not in 1000 years, not even if you roll them all up in one big nasty ball. Not unless we lose our nerve, or go batshit crazy, like you seem to have done.

[FromWayDowntown]

The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq comes to mind.

I answered a general question you posed. I'm not sure what the point of your specific response is, other than to acknowledge that even this President, faced with a perceived need to use military force, still sought congressional authorization before engaging such force. Thus, it would certainly seem that President Bush -- willingly or begrudgingly -- understood that his powers as Commander in Chief are checked and balanced by the Constitutional powers vested in the Congress. I thought your basic point was that there was no check or balance that either of the other two branches have, in the constitution, to the President's constitutional obligation to protect this country. If that was your point, both my citataion and your anecdote pretty fundamentally disprove your point.

[clambake]

take away his fear and you've left him with nothing.

[Yonivore]

I answered a general question you posed. I'm not sure what the point of your specific response is, other than to acknowledge that even this President, faced with a perceived need to use military force, still sought congressional authorization before engaging such force. Thus, it would certainly seem that President Bush -- willingly or begrudgingly -- understood that his powers as Commander in Chief are checked and balanced by the Constitutional powers vested in the Congress. I thought your basic point was that there was no check or balance that either of the other two branches have, in the constitution, to the President's constitutional obligation to protect this country. If that was your point, both my citataion and your anecdote pretty fundamentally disprove your point.
Well, the next to the last proviso, leading to the resolution (HJR-114), from which the AUMF in Iraq was drawn specifically acknowledges the President's Article II powers in this respect:


Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40);

But, hey, let's look at the entire justification Congress used to authorize military force in Iraq, shall we?



Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
No Weapons of Mass Destruction mentioned in that paragraph.



Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
An agreement never adhered to and followed by 12 years of frustrating the international organization charged with insuring Iraq had lived up to that agreement.


Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Both houses of Congress, including a majority of both parties stated this.


Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
True statement and one both Houses of our Legislature felt important to include in this resolution.


Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President
‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’’;
Well, what do you fucking know, yet another Congressional resolution resulting in a law finding Iraq continued WMD programs and, not only that, ”urged” the President to “take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations”

Hmmm…let’s see, exactly what Constitutional powers does the president have to do as Congress urged, in the context of an authorization to use military force. Gee, that’s a hard question.


Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Again, Congress declaring the threat posed by Iraq, to the region and our own national security – not the President.


Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Not related to WMDs but to Iraq’s failure to abide by the cease-fire agreement and subsequent U.N. Resolutions related to suspending hostilities in 1991.


Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Yep, no one doubted his capability or willingness to use WMDs in 2002.


Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Not WMD related.


Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Congress was convinced al Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002.


Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, et. Al. Yet another reason to use military force against Iraq.


Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Taken together, it appears Congress believed Iraq capable of either using WMDs or enabling terrorist groups to use WMDs against us or our interests.


Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the
development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Wow, invoking a UNSC resolution authorizing the use of “all necessary means,” which, I presume includes military force.


Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’;
A recognition of continuing authority to use military force embodied in PL 102-1 and pursuant to the UNSC Resolutions listed.


Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress, ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’;
Again, not related to WMD’s but a continuing sense of the Congress to authorize the use of military force to achieve the goals of the UNSC as outlined in its various resolutions.


Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Once again, Congress has asserted its authority in making it the “policy” of the United States to support efforts to remove the Ba’athist Regime of Saddam Hussein from power. Funny, they don’t mention WMDs.


Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’’;
Seems a statement of support for the President and his determination to meet the challenge posed by Iraq.


Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that
all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Congress recognizes Iraq as a clear national security threat for reasons other than just their WMD programs.


Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Congress seems to be attaching Iraq to those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of 9/11 or, at the very least, harbored such persons or organizations.


Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Again with the “such” persons or organizations. It seems Congress wasn’t much concerned with whether or not Iraq had any direct connection to 9/11 as much as whether or not they countenanced the act.


Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40);
That seems to be a pretty explicit recognition of the President’s Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.


and, Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Pretty broad mandate, if you ask me.

Congress has neither amended nor rescinded any provision of either law PL 107-243 or PL 107-40. So, while there are a lot of Democrat politicians paying lip service to the rhetoric you espouse, none of them are introducing legislation that would indicate they desire an actual change in the current law under which this administration has operated since September 11, 2001.

[LnGrrrR]

Yonivore, still waiting whether you think it's morally justifiable to torture POSSIBLE innocents for intel that would save lives.

You said it is NOT morally justifiable to torture innocents to save lives. But you do think it is morally justifiable to torture alleged al Qaeda suspects.

To put these phrases together, you are willing to accept the risk that some innocent people will be tortured in order to gain information, correct?