Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Can you answer specifically about these five techniques?> Without knowing all the details, I'd guess the first three are definitely out. The last two would depend upon how they are executed. As I've already discussed, some forms of waterboarding are definitely torture, while others aren't. <I'd really like to know which you believe justifiable since your recent argument has hinged upon "it worked".> I disagree that my argument has "hinged" on that. There would be no justification for these techniques if they didn't yield valuable intelligence - I'm not for subjecting detainees to these kinds of harsh measures as punishment. But at the same time, I wouldn't completely rule out torture in an extreme case if it was believed to be absolutely necessary. In this case my argument was multi-faceted - these techniques were limited, regulated, well-considered, effective, and fell short of most definitions of torture, in that they did not cause extreme physical or mental suffering.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What gives YOU the right to decide who is reasonable?> The same Supreme Being who gave you the right to decide who you think is reasonable. If you don't think I am, you can decide not to answer my questions, or deny my requests.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Without knowing all the details, I'd guess the first three are definitely out.*** How about if we knew for CERTAIN that a detainee had information about an imminent attack. Would the first three still be out of bounds?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<I'd really like to know which you believe justifiable since your recent argument has hinged upon "it worked".> I disagree that my argument has "hinged" on that.*** Well, it's a new angle you are using, anyway. You've included it in many posts. That's why I'm asking what I'm asking, I'm curious to know to what extent "it works" makes performing such things more acceptable to you.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Without knowing all the details, I'd guess the first three are definitely out. The last two would depend upon how they are executed.*** Interesting. This would seem to reflect a Western value system more than anything. You ruled out "Mock Execution", which I imagine means you consider it to be "definitely torture" and thus unacceptable. And yet, for religious fanatics such as these guys, it might not bother some of them one bit. Many have a martyr complete, and believe that the next step after death is being pleasured by one of their allotted virgins. They fly airplanes into buildings and strap bombs to their chests. If anything, the only "torture" would be the fact that we didn't actually pull the trigger. And yet I would imagine having your fingers crushed would bother pretty much anyone the same way. A traditional use of "torture" indeed. But to THAT one, you pause. Interesting.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Would the first three still be out of bounds?> I think I answered this in post 61, but I'm willing to clarify. If I was President, and knew that an attack similar to 9/11 was imminent, and the only way to prevent it was to torture a terrorist, then yes, I'd authorize it. If I wasn't President, and learned that someone in our government did it, under those situations, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And yet I would imagine having your fingers crushed would bother pretty much anyone the same way. A traditional use of "torture" indeed. But to THAT one, you pause.> I was considering that the use of thumbscrews could stop short of finger crushing.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If I was President, and knew that an attack similar to 9/11 was imminent, and the only way to prevent it was to torture a terrorist, then yes, I'd authorize it. If I wasn't President, and learned that someone in our government did it, under those situations, I wouldn't have a problem with it.*** Okay then, why not make that a law? Why all the denial from U.S. officials? Bush and everyone else said "we do not torture", right? I say call a spade a spade. If we're going to do it anyway, I mean.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Okay then, why not make that a law?> How would you write it? How would you enforce it? <Why all the denial from U.S. officials? Bush and everyone else said "we do not torture", right?> Because we didn't torture.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh We need to leave a little wiggle room in the law, so that things like Abu Grahib can be prosecuted, but CIA interrogators aren't so worried about CYA'ing that we're unable to get information from a creep like KSM that saves innocent lives.
Originally Posted By piperlynne <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/</a> Guys, gotta give this to Doug a bit. Obama's Intel Chief is even saying that the torture of these people garnered "high value information" And that they empathize with the position that the previous administration was in. Though it also says they would not have sanctioned the "tactics" Also another article out citing a Senate Armed Services report that says that these did not appear to be a tactic of last resort for the administration and that they quickly made the decision to resort to these tactics (IMO Torture) Mark empathizing with an administration that would sanction these things down as something I disagree with the Obama peeps on.
Originally Posted By ecdc I've never doubted that torture can get us legitimate intel. But it's also proven to get us illegitimate intel. And we've demonstrated that we can get the legitimate kind without torturing. Torture is a moral issue. It's about our morality, not there's. We frequently hear about how horrible they are, and we're reminded of their godawful misdeeds. I don't disagree. But right and wrong is often about our internal integrity. IMO, the Bush administration thought it was acceptable to put our values on hold because we faced a very real threat. I don't agree with that approach. This isn't about them - it's about us. We're more than entitled to our righteous anger. I personally would love to do some pretty appalling things to bin Laden with a smile on my face. I'm still angry as hell, 8 years later. But that's now how we operate. We've all seen the movies where the good guy has a chance to inflict his own brand of justice on the bad guy, but doesn't. He let's the authorities take care of it. And we're all happy he did the right thing. We need to do the right thing.
Originally Posted By piperlynne >>I've never doubted that torture can get us legitimate intel. But it's also proven to get us illegitimate intel. And we've demonstrated that we can get the legitimate kind without torturing. Torture is a moral issue. It's about our morality, not there's. We frequently hear about how horrible they are, and we're reminded of their godawful misdeeds. I don't disagree. But right and wrong is often about our internal integrity. IMO, the Bush administration thought it was acceptable to put our values on hold because we faced a very real threat. I don't agree with that approach. This isn't about them - it's about us. We're more than entitled to our righteous anger. I personally would love to do some pretty appalling things to bin Laden with a smile on my face. I'm still angry as hell, 8 years later. But that's now how we operate. We've all seen the movies where the good guy has a chance to inflict his own brand of justice on the bad guy, but doesn't. He let's the authorities take care of it. And we're all happy he did the right thing. We need to do the right thing.<< I agree 100% ecdc! I just wanted to post the link above out of fairness as some were saying that it didn't garner valuable intel. I also believe that we should hold ourselves - our country to a higher standard. Its not about, if they do it to us, we can do it to them or even if we do it to them, they may do it to us. Its about the fact that I do not like living in a country that tortures (and I believe that if it were investigated by an international court, it would be considered torture (again, my opinion)). And that's not the America I grew up believing in.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>there's<< My egregious misuse of the word "theirs" practically qualifies as torture. And here I consider myself a "righter."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh As long as you don't use "your" for "you're". That causes me extreme mental suffering, and I'd have to sic the Red Cross on you.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>As long as you don't use "your" for "you're". That causes me extreme mental suffering<< Noted. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! (Your in trouble now.)
