The Subjective Nature of Torture
We’ve all heard talking heads pontificate about the “slippery slope of interrogation,” but never did I consider its silliest ramifications, i.e., allowing the interrogated to determine what the interrogator is and isn’t allowed to do — with the detainee’s personal preferences acting as the barometer. Such interrogations are bound to fail, if not on their face, then under the weight of their own self-destructive stupidity.
And yet, that is precisely what happened here: Zubaydah helps slaughter thousands of Americans — after all, for all their carnage, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev never took a chunk out of lower Manhattan — and our response is to first ponder the idea of using Zubaydah’s irrational fear of insects against him, and then wuss out at the last minute. What a vengeful, tortuous society we have become. Mr. Sullivan, save our democracy!
As for the more “physical” interrogation techniques — “facial hold,” slapping, and stress positions, etc. — they all have “jiu jitsu class” written all over them (sadomasochists would probably enjoy much of it). And getting water poured on your nose for thirty seconds? I had a college buddy who did that to get into Alpha Phi Delta — except, unlike Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he didn’t have a nearby physician handy.
Hyperbole aside, you get the drift. Exploiting an al-Qaeda detainee’s personal idiosyncrasies, cultural inclinations, religious superstitions, and psychological defects is not objectively torture. The harm inflicted exists only within the detainee’s mind.
Consider this context: the United States has the world’s largest prison population (which is terrible, but that’s a separate debate). There are 2.5 million inmates in the United States. Rest assured, in these prisons, nearly every day, someway, somehow, someone manages to get their ass kicked. Violence arises, fights occur, “stuff happens” — to quote a former defense chief. Punches are thrown, hits are landed, bones are broken, weapons are crafted, threats are issued, dogs are unleashed, solitary confinement is utilized, and riots are put down efficiently. The very premise behind the job application for a correctional facility officer, if applied in another context, would likely lead to a war crimes tribunal.
And yet is this torture? Does this represent an end to the American way of life, the demise of our democracy, the upheaval of our social fabric, and downfall of our liberty? Are op-eds written about the “harsh” and “grotesque” nature of domestic imprisonment? Do uppity politicians go on cable channels, decrying and yelping from their soapbox? Does Sen. Durbin castigate U.S. prison guards as the moral equivalent of the Nazis and the Pol Pot regime, as he did U.S. soldiers?
Pardon the levity. True torture is, in fact, a serious issue. In the few instances where torture was committed — Abu Ghraib, for instance — the United States was correct in punishing the culprits. But that was an exercise of individual juvenility and cruelty, not official, state-sanctioned intelligence gathering of high-value targets.
We will never have a mature national discourse regarding proper interrogation and what does and does not constitute torture until we can differentiate between the two, embrace the “slippery slope” dilemmas as necessary points of contention, and move past the slanderous pastime of political posturing.
After the reaction to these memos, my money’s on that not happening anytime soon.
Thanks for a serious and light hearted take on the nature of the torture discussion. One point you raise about prisons is one that I worry about and believe that DHS, in-spite of their fears of “right wing extremists” should pay attention to. And that is the number of prisoners who are being coverted to Islam and recruited by “real” terrorist” organizations. Talk about a population plump for the picking. And this is being allowed right under our noses!
But I think if anyone studied some history and would take the time to learn about how different civilizations have used torture over the millennia, they might be surprised at how relatively tame the so-called torture techniques used by the CIA really are. It really pisses me off how self righteous the left is over this issue. They don’t know the meaning of the word “torture.” Maybe they should at least look up the definition.
“where torture was committed — Abu Ghraib, for instance”
Yes I cringed when the pictures of underwear was placed upon the head of a prisoner! oh the humanity!! I wonder what the Iraqi police would do to that prisoner? Our enemy would have removed our heads before placing the underwear upon it, at least that would save the personal anguish over such an act. And what about the horrible soldiers that had sex in front of the prisoner? What a horrendous crime that is, in some countries you need to pay top dollar to see such a thing.
I think it would be interesting to see how you would stand up to a little waterboarding and what you would say about torture after it.
Spot-on. The techniques used against these dirtbags could mainly be derived by reading Patai’s THE ARAB MIND and using their own fears and proclivities against them. In no way is that torture. On the contrary, it’s smart interrogation that has saved untold numbers of the world’s citizens.
I agree with most of your points except the line about true torture and Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib may have been a few officers misconduct, but nothing happened there that approaches anyone’s definition of torture. Putting panties on someones head, again, not torture. Real torture involves physically or mentally damaging someone in a permanent way that will cause them pain for the rest of their life. I can’t think of a single instance anywhere in the United States where we have condoned this activity. Coercive interrogation methods are not pretty, and really not what anyone wants to take part of on a Friday night for kicks, but they are an effective way of obtaining information in certain cases, and I truly don’t understand those that are opposed to making these terrorists a little uncomfortable towards this end.
Mr. Guariglia:
“We will never have a mature national discourse regarding proper interrogation and what does and does not constitute torture until we can differentiate between the two, embrace the “slippery slope” dilemmas as necessary points of contention, and move past the slanderous pastime of political posturing.’
Can we broadcast at Guantanamo, at ear-splitting volume and at all hours of the night, the sounds of pigs being slaughtered and Buddhist chants?
Can we shine super-bright spotlights in the inmates’ eyes whenever the mood strikes us?
Can we tear-gas them continuously until we get what we want?
The Clinton Regime did all these things to the Branch Davidians at Waco, and thereby did them to the children there also…
…before it burned their home down and killed them all.
Don’t waste your time trying to evoke pity from me about captured foreign terrorist suspects or the treatment of captured unlawful enemy combatants.
6 Bitchpump . . . Yeah! And can we waterboard someone every 4 hours 24 hours a day for 30 straight days?
BP, it’s not about sympathy for the detainees. It’s about the sad and despicable abdication of our principles as a nation. Maybe you should hold a Tea Party for American values instead of American money. Putz.
#6:
What Clinton authorized at Waco was horrible beyond belief. Just as horrible as Bush authorizing these anti-christian techinques. So much for pro-life…
Thanks for the good article. To me, the memos prove two points: One, it proves that great concern was taken to ensure we did NOT torture the detainees. Secondly, it proves the continual feminization (or pussification) of our society by the effete, intellectual, soft-bellied lifestyle, NYT/Hollywood crowd values has become our prevailing culture. To extrapolate “discomfort” to torture is absurd. Their concerns that these actions lead to recruiting more terrorists dismiss the point that they are the ones creating the recruiting materials. It really shows how unserious our current administration, state department & congressional leadership is about defending the US and freedom from world-wide spread of radical Islam. No more “enemy combatants”. No more Guantanamo. No more military tribunals (replaced by US Federal Court proceedings with habeas corpus). No “war on terror” (now “overseas contingency operations”). And now, no “torture” or even discomfort allowed if you are a captured sworn enemy of jihad.
7. one of my own:…. thanks for making my point!
#7 mutant little blog-slave:
“BP, it’s not about sympathy for the detainees. It’s about the sad and despicable abdication of our principles as a nation.”
You have principles. grody freak-child?
DO tell.
Let’s hear them.
This oughtta be good…this might be the best act of public self-debasement you have yet performed.
Begin, your Blog-Master awaits.
#8 RV:
“Just as horrible as Bush authorizing these anti-christian techinques. So much for pro-life…”
Nice try, but a feeble attempt at equating Clinton and Bush II.
Which Guanatnamo detainee or terror suspect has been directly killed by actions of agents of the US government?
Clinton’s goons killed over 80 at Waco, including 20 or so children, (these were the under 18 variety, not the bogus “25 years and under” the left tries to define when it’s trying to score some pork).
Bush’s crew at Gitmo didn’t kill one.
So your attempted parallel is false on its’ face.
In fact, it’s probably a “pro-life” stance that allowed those unlawful combatants to be allowed to live to enjoy their extended stay at Gitmo.
The smart thing to do with captured out-of-uniformed combatants would be to stand them against the nearest wall and shoot them.
You should have given the example of Monty Python’s The Spanish Inquisition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o
Trying to torture the old lady with Soft cushions!! (6:20)
If you come into my homeland and hurt mine, I will hunt you down like the dog you are and kill you…..nuff said
quid pro quo
TORTURE ! YOU WANT TORTURE ! I’ll give you torture !!! That left wing nut case who occupies the position of Speaker Of The House, just try to listen to her and tell me you don’t feel the painful horror.
Last I looked, violently sacrificing the individual for the greater good is an American principal, nay a Western moral principal of the left, right, and center. Certainly being forced to wear panties on your head is only an issue if it’s not a panty raid, the panties are uneatable, or they haven’t been washed yet.
Daniel Pearl was a perfect example of how other nations/groups follow the UN torture agreements. I would certainly be against beheading a detainee but short of that….LET ‘ER RIP! Carter II will gone down in history as the time when the pantywaists were in charge. God Help Us All.
The discomfort argument is nothing more than a hollow strawman. Police use the same methods all the time when interrogating suspects to make then uncomfortable and slip up.
The best example I can think of is in “Mindhunter” by John Douglas. He was a profiler for the FBI. He was working a case were a young girl was murdered. When the police brought in a man for questioning, Douglas and the local PD noticed he was reflecting most of the details from the profile, so Douglas had the PD put the rock that he used to stave the girl’s head in right there into the interrogation room. Douglas suspected from the positioning of the body and other elements found at the crime scene that the unsub panicked when he tried to molest the girl and killed her in a panicked state and then felt overpowering guilt and remorse. Turns out Douglas was correct, the suspect kept staring at the rock and the blood on it and finally confessed to his crime.
According to the Dems and Libs, Douglas tortured this man. I say he used his education and insight to human nature to bring a dangerous person to justice and very likely save future lives.
Our men & women at Gitmo are doing no different. Using their cultural norms against them is a brilliant way of getting what we need with little to no violence and very little psychological trauma. I speak from experience, I used to also be terrified of insects but I’ve grown out of it. If only the Dems could do some growing up of their own.
Way to flippantly brush aside this issue without addressing any of the actual problems. When a memo uses the term “slapping,” it’s not referring to a five year old girl on the playground; if I were to tie you to a chair and have my well-trained military buddy come in and “slap” you around for a few hours (and do you really think anyone is in the room making sure that no punches or kicks are thrown in to the mix?), I guarantee that he could do some serious damage to your restrained body.
Your comparing stress positions to jiu jitsu holds is ludicrous. A hold is something that is meant to disable an opponent quickly. How often do you hear of someone keeping his sparring partner in a hold for a day or maybe two days? Forcing the human body to remain in positions that it was not meant to ever be in for long periods of time can cause extreme pain and, often enough, irreversible injury.
And did your college buddy pour water down someone’s nose and throat 185 times in a single month? If so, you sir need to be brought up on charges as a coconspirator in torture for your inability to speak up.
As for your prison argument.. No we don’t call the terrible things that happen daily in prisons across America “torture”; but if orders were to come down from some of Obama’s top people instructing prison guards to commit these aforementioned acts against inmates, I can guarantee you that everyone on this board would be up in arms about it.
The point is, there are international standards when it comes to how we treat our prisoners of war, and just because our enemies choose not to abide by these standards does not give us the moral and ethical right to do what we will to those we capture. Remember Jesus and the Golden Rule? We must treat our prisoners with the same rights and respect that is due to any human being – “enemy combatant” or not – just as we would wish for our captured soldiers to be treated. If we say that everything that was done to Abu Zubaydah is fine, then we also must accept that the same treatment used against American POWs is fine as well.
My favorite example of local knowledge being critical came, in I think it was interrogation by the Syrians who do torture prisoners for the hell of it, when the interrogators brought in the interrogee’s mother to give him hell for going on jihad against her express orders. This vehement maternal disapproval allegedly got the prisoner to confess everything.
IMO rendition to the Syrians should be forbidden because they really do torture prisoners, but they are also pragmatic about getting results as shown by this example.
Having a prisoner’s mom tell him he was really adopted might be cruel, but it ain’t torture.
stevent12x,
The Geneva conventions have done diddly-squat to protect our POW’s since World War Two. Diddo for Israeli POW’s.
That argument is dead on arrival. Repeating it harms the credibility of your other points.
1. It’s interesting to see the goalposts being constantly moved by the Right about torture. First, it was “we don’t use illegal techniques”. Then it was “we only did it a few times, and they cracked quickly”. Now it’s “well, sure we used this technique (that was still illegal) on a prisoner literally every four hours for thirty consecutive days, but so what. If a person is a bad guy, we get to torture them?”
2. If you have no problems with torturing prisoners, then why was there a nearly 8 year effort by the Right to cover up and conceal that this was going on? Just how many “enhanced interrogation” tapes were “accidentally” destroyed anyway? Why all the efforts to pretend that we weren’t doing it if you ultimately had no problems with torturing prisoners.
3. I second that poster who said that if we decide that toturing prisoners is acceptable, then every other country gets to torture our citizens as well. That means we don’t get to EVER criticize the human rights record of anyone else ever again.
4. The Branch Davidians were killed because their leaders herded everyone into one spot and set the room on fire. Clinton didn’t kill them, they killed themselves.
I have a great idea – lets do a scientific study. Waterboard Mr Guariglia and then see if he thinks waterboarding is torture
I am still waiting for Mr Guariglia to agree to be waterboarded about 100 times
Except these techniques weren’t illegal until Obama banned them. Since ex-post facto laws are illegal, they are irrelevant.
myth buster,
They still aren’t illegal. Both President Obama and CIA Director Panetta have said that those techniques might be used in appropriate circumstances, i.e., more layers of approvals would be required than under the Bush administration.
Tom, no offense buddy, but it seems that you are arguing that because other people don’t follow the rules about treatment of prisoners, then neither should we? I guess people on the right are into moral equivalency when it suits their needs, eh what?
If the US goes down the road where the torture of prisoners is considered acceptable, then we cease to be a beacon of freedom and become just another two-bit police state. REAL Americans don’t torture.
25. Waterboarding is still torture, and I do believe that it was always illegal. If it wasn’t, then the Japanese officers who were executed for waterboarding prisoners during WWII might have a beef from beyond the grave.
Semantics aside, what possible reason would we have to strap a prisoner on a board and simulate death by drowning literally every four hours for thirty consecutive days. Do you honestly believe that such a regiment would actually produce legitimate intelligence? Moreover, if the technique was so ineffective that it was necessary to do it every four hours for thirty consecutive days, at what point does such a practice migrate from being an intelligence gathering device to straight up sadism?
Remember, if our society accepts torture as legitimate, then one day the state might use those techniques on people like you.
The extraction of useful intelligence.
yes
Remember, if our society accepts imprisonment as legitimate, then one day the state may use thoses techniques on people like you.
For more on this debate, check out http://volokh.com/posts/1240065601.shtml
“If the US goes down the road where the torture of prisoners is considered acceptable, then we cease to be a beacon of freedom and become just another two-bit police state.”
LOL. Same old story. Liberal Democrats (intentionally) kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with napalm and atomic bombs. No big whup. They’re big heroes.
Republicans then splash water in faces of terrorists. Not splash water into the faces of Japanese children, but into the faces of terrorists. Crime of the century.
Donnez-moi une break.
I think what some call torture is crazy. We have people signing up for reality shows that do the same types of things. It’s perhaps a hard line to drawn, and I certainly want our guys “tortured” but some of this is nothing but insanity.
Bugs? Heat and cold? Sleep deprivation? Give me a break.
Jack
Pete,
Your 1:39 pm point No. 2 established your cluelessness. Interrogation techniques which are known to the enemy are less effective than those which aren’t. Release of the details was material.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html
“… And the Obama administration’s decision to share this secret with the terrorists threatens our national security. Al-Qaeda will use this information and other details in the memos to train its operatives to resist questioning and withhold information on planned attacks. CIA Director Leon Panetta said during his confirmation hearings that even the Obama administration might use some of the enhanced techniques in a “ticking time bomb” scenario. What will the administration do now that it has shared the limits of our interrogation techniques with the enemy? President Obama’s decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war — and Americans may die as a result.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122731301791449521.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
#11 Bilgeman – Just out of curiosity, what did you think the right thing to do in Waco was? I’m not pre-judging your answer (or Clinton’s for that matter, although I do have an opinion). I’m just wondering whether the success or failure (or merit or lack thereof) has to do with Dem or Republican?
For me it doesn’t. I laugh at what some people are calling torture. I’m sure we can discuss one thing over another, and personally I might end up differing from you, but certainly some of the “torture” talks are just dumb. To me it’s not about party, it’s about your sense of right and wrong. I’m just wondering your thoughts (since we’ve had such fun discussions before!!).
Jack
These left wing liberal idiots don’t know what torture is.What a bunch of wimps. I wonder what they would think if they were about to get their head cut off.That would be torture.
“It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.”–Holder.
Yeah, that’s pretty much the way a lot of us see it.
You highjack airplanes with little American girls on them and then murder those little girls by crashing the planes into the side of buildings…then the rulebook went right out the window.
Ain’t no rules no more. This is war to the death…no mercy..no deals…torture 100% justified. And, I mean REAL torture, not splashing water into the faces of captured terrorists.
#32 Jack:
“Just out of curiosity, what did you think the right thing to do in Waco was? I’m not pre-judging your answer (or Clinton’s for that matter, although I do have an opinion). I’m just wondering whether the success or failure (or merit or lack thereof) has to do with Dem or Republican?”
I stand by what I suggested at the time. De-escalate the situation at Mt. Carmel.
These people weren’t criminals, and they certainly weren’t terrorists; only one was wanted by the law, and yet the ATF had conducted a home invasion, guns blazing, against them.
So what I suggested was send the FBI Ninja Squad home, get a few buldozers to heap up some 10 foot high berms around the perimeter of the place, turn their lights, water and other utilities back on, and erect double rows of 12′ high fencing topped by concertina wire, except for the one gate. Add some sturdy surveillance gear,
Post a modest, but well armed round-the-clock guard force, and erect a sign reading:
“Waco Texas Federal Pre-Custody Suspect Containment Facility”.
Then wait…eventually, they would have come out.
But meanwhile, publicly prosecute the ATF Ninja Squad and the Bozos who sent them, to the fullest extent of the law. And make sure the Davidians see that justice is being done.
“The faux outrage and response to the memos recall an old international law class, from some years ago, where the discussion turned to the immorality of coercive interrogation. The United States was torturing prisoners, the professor suggested, because the al-Qaeda detainees were subjected to female interrogators, barking dogs, and loud music…”
Yeah? They’re lucky they aren’t German POWs held by the liberal Democrats after the end of WWII. We took a bunch of them and handed them over to the French so that the French could employ them as slave labor clearing minefields (including minefields laid by the French). Instead of being subjected to the sounds of barking dogs and loud music, they were subjected to the sounds of exploding mines and the sound your body makes when it’s being blown to pieces. Of course, the ones who were killed didn’t have to worry about being bothered by loud noises any more, so I guess that’s a plus.
Wait them out. There was nothing to lose by doing that. OTOH, it was easy to predict that an assault would end in catastrophe one way or another.
I’ve been out to the site. It is a long ways from anywhere… the BD’s presented no threat from their compound. A survivor of the fiasco has written an interesting book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Place-Called-Waco-Survivors-Story/dp/product-description/1891620428 .
Robert…. there is a differance between physically damaging someone and getting them to give you inforamtion because they are scared. Would anyone be scared being waterboarded? Certainly…including you, me and Mr. Guariglia. That is why waterboarding worked and got us a lot of information that kept your butt safe. Pete and Robert…both of you need to do some major research on exactly what happens to the human mind during waterboarding and also what intelligence we did indeed collect from some measures. There is a reason why we have not been attacked since 9/11 and trust me, it isn’t just sheer luck. We are a way less safe now that we have shown our hand. We all have heard of the “ticking bomb” scenario, right? What would happen under Mr O’s watch if we had a terrorist (opps sorry politically incorrect word) that knew where a nuke was going to go off in Chicago? Would waterboarding be ok to save 100,000 innocent civilians? 1 million? No coerced interogation? I feel embarrassed at times for how wimped out we have become.
I think that a a big point is being missed in this debate. And that is about America’s justice system being applied to it’s own citizens and not necessarily the international community at large. Especially if criminals are involved. DHS as well as the military and the President, are sworn to protect the USA against foreign and domestic threats. Libs like to apply international law in the USA.
Well my thinking is this: If someone threatens my family or my own life, I will do what needs to be done to defend it. By extension, the USA is my family, and foreigners who threaten it will also receive the same treatment. And I for one, EXPECT my government to do whatever is necessary to protect this family. Should the threat be homegrown, i.e. a US citizen who has gone off the reservation, in my mind they have relinquished their rights should a terrorist threat exist. The point is, a threat is a threat, foreign or domestic and I expect the government to protect this country. Liberal simplicity of saying ” but it is wrong to torture” ignores the realities of a world history full of violence and hatred. And a man who will not protect himself or his loved ones, including country doesn’t deserve to live. How quaint to be against torture. I wonder what you will say as the blade is slicing through your neck and your last thoughts are “… I’m against toture. They can’t do this to me!” Yikes!!
It would appear the American left is just trying to look morally superior to impress the elitist snobs in Europe. Possibly you have forgotten about the lefts most revered hero, Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara who once said ‘at the smallest of doubt we must execute’. ‘Che’ would call todays leftist cultist ‘a bunch of pussies’.
I think this issue just shows how weak,cowardy,and stupid the liberals are. The terrorist are laughing at us.
I think they’re trying to impress themselves, too.
Robert Hurley, your challenge is pretty dim witted. If undergoing torture training was part of a job requirement such as in the military, I would accept that challenge and hopefully be able to withstand it. But fortunately, I am a law biding citizen. If on the other hand, I was a terrorist and involved with putting Americans in a life or death situation, I’d better expect to be water boarded, or worse because law enforcement would have an obligation to try to find out as much as they can as quick as they can in order to prevent an attack. This would have a sense of urgency because time is always critical. So stop making lame challenges to others who disagree with you. You sound like a real putz.
#35 Bilgeman – So my opinion is a mix of yours and what happened. All of the fences and guards, but still blare the music, keep the utilities off, and make things as generally uncomfortable as possible. Let’s be honest, Koresh was a nut who was likely going to end up killing all of those people anyway if given enough time. Toss in some pedophilia and other bad behavior and those kids in that compound were in danger as time wore on. When Koresh got to his final breaking point, whether after 2 years or if it could be caused after 2 weeks, what precisely he was going to do remains a mystery, but it may not have ended any differently.
But, because the ATF/FBI flubbed it so badly, we’ll never know. I’m just not willing to think that Koresh wasn’t homicidal and out of his gourd, there are just too many signs. I think it reasonable for the authorities to assume he was capable of a Jonestown, but what they did with that assumption was clearly the wrong way to go.
Jack
#44 Jack:
“So my opinion is a mix of yours and what happened. All of the fences and guards, but still blare the music, keep the utilities off, and make things as generally uncomfortable as possible.”
Jack, do you realize that you would then be doing to American children what would be considered torture if done to a captured unlawful combatant or terrorist suspect?
You can’t put a caterpillar down the shirt of a terror suspect, but you CAN leave American children in a house in central Texas where you’ve cut off air-conditioning? And disrupt their sleep patterns by sonic psywar techniques?
C’mon Jack…you’re more honest than that.
“Let’s be honest, Koresh was a nut who was likely going to end up killing all of those people anyway if given enough time.”
Just out of curiosity, how old were you when Waco went down?
How could he have “killed all those people”, when all those people were armed to the teeth, and he himself had been shot in the hip during the ATF assault?
“Toss in some pedophilia and other bad behavior and those kids in that compound were in danger as time wore on.”
The pedophilia issue was never proven, only alleged by ex-husbands and ex-wives of members, (not the most reliable of sources for truthful affidavits), although FWIW I DO think Koresh had some “evil penis issues” in that regard, but that ain’t cause to shoot up a house full of children because he’s inside of it.
As it stands, now and forever, the guy was guilty of…nothing.
The fact of the matter is that all of them, the children included, were “tortured” and killed by the actions of agents of the Federal government.
#45 Bilgeman – In a hostage situation, the police do what they have to in order to get the hostages out…even if it means the hostages have to go without electricity too.
Now, this may not have been an according to Hoyle hostage situation, but those kids were not safe and their parents weren’t taking good care of them by not getting them out of harms way (good parents wouldn’t have wanted their kids on that compound given the situation). They abrigated their rights and the state steps in to do what’s right for the kids.
Now, what they ended up doing didn’t turn out to be “right” for the kids, clearly. But the principle is still there. Again, I’m not saying they should have gone in guns blazing unless they saw an immediate threat inside the house (to the kids for example) but they had to be prepared for that. At Jonestown there were lots of guns and if you didn’t agree to drink the kool aid you were shot. No reason to think that wasn’t a possibility in Waco. With the benefit of hindsight you could argue (perhaps) whether Koresh would have ultimately just given up, but you could just as easily see it going the other way.
For the moment I’m not comparing what we can do here vs. what we can do to terrorists, because to a point they are separate issues (in one case you are trying to get info and in the other you are trying to stop a hostage situation…one much more tangible than the other).
And Koresh was not “found” guilty simply because he didn’t live to see trial. He was however guilty of plenty of things, the very least of which was not complying with authorities and weapons violations (plus I suspect pedophilia charges would have had plenty of evidence to back them up). And if it wasn’t for a mistrial, he would have been in jail already.
I was in my early 20′s when this happened, btw.
Jack
45. Bilgeman wrote:
As it stands, now and forever, the guy was guilty of…nothing.
Peter writes: Normally I agree with what you write, Bilgeman, but the same (the guy was guilty of…nothing) could be said of Jim Jones on November 17, 1978.
The current resurrection of the “torcher” (can’t help the spelling) topic is an absurd exercise, dredging up the phony “moral compass” of a President and giving the media more grist for a tired old mill.
When a religion’s Holy Book deems appropriate punishment for thievery as removal of a foot from one side of the body and a hand from the other side of the body and when beheadings of innocent reporters/contractors and any other infidel conveniently at hand are the standard behaviors du jour, I could care less about any discomfort or even pain inflicted on individuals who are in any way associated with that.
KSM has recently said he wants to die as a martyr. I’d guess he doesn’t event want those lawyers around, agitating on his behalf. Maybe he’s even offended by their disgusting legalistic gymnastics.
The self-righteous declarations of “America doesn’t torcher” (again, that awful spelling), make me want to throw up.
I’m ashamed of the idiocy of this country.
#47 peter:
” Normally I agree with what you write, Bilgeman, but the same (the guy was guilty of…nothing) could be said of Jim Jones on November 17, 1978.”
It’s a fair point to make, Peter, but the situations were rather vastly different.
It wasn’t a Ninja Squad that popped up shooting from a cattle car in Guiana, but a Congressman, a staffer or two, some reporters and an NBC camera team, plus some family members of People’s Templars.
And as I pointed out to Jack above, just HOW Koresh would have killed all his members when they all had rifles and he had been wounded does rather present a conundrum, doesn’t it?
At any rate, I spent a good part of the 1990′s ranting about what was done in our name to our fellow citizens at Waco.
The point that I was trying to make, and I think it is established, is that what we might do to foreign unlawful combatants is called “torture”, but doing similar to the children of our own citizens, is called “law enforcement”.
I think true torture is forcing someone to sit through a press conference given by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Now THAT is torture! Just force anyone from al Qaeda to sit through one of those and they’ll be singing like a bird in no time.
Well with Obama and bleeding heart liberals kissing the butts of those that want to destroy us we really don’t need to be concerned about the economy.
…sit through a press conference given by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
Man, that is torture, listening to that guy try to explain Barack’s response to the Tea Partiers disgusted with exorbitant spending…(“we’ll save X million in office supplies”) and Gibbs saying that X million is “big money” where he comes from ! (ouch, major pain)
Or watching Gibbs completely unprepared to explain his boss’ reversal on reviewing Bush administration measures and saying yesterday he’d toss a torture review to the Attorney General.
The ultimate torture, put Robert Gibbs and Janet Napolitano in KSM’s cell…that foul assassin would quickly find a way to get around his suicide watch guards !
The moral of the story. Liberal Democrats can not be trusted with national security.
WATERBOARD EM ALL, LET ALLAH SORT EM OUT!!
Abu Ghraib had NOTHING to do with “torture”. It was the sexual humiliation by a couple of degenerates who had been getting their rocks off (against regulations) and send home photos of their earlier antics on their cell phones. Read DeSouza on this issue…the terrorists know how to administer real torture, it is a cultural art form. Abu Ghraib was not torture. That being said, after 2 deployments to the middle east I would still have 1,000 of those cretins wearing panties on their heads to save one American life…EVEN one of you gutless, Prius driving, maggot infested, long-haired, liberals.
Has anyone else thought that ‘torture’ is entirely at the option of the prisoner. He can simply give up the data.
#55 Paul – Unless you don’t know if he gave everything up and until you torture him and don’t find anything new can you (perhaps) assume he told you everything. If you don’t want to assume he did, just torture him some more.
That is why some people are against torture (however torture is defined). What if they don’t know anything…they will lie so you’ll stop torturing them. Everyone likes to use the example of “you know a guy knows about an nuke in a major city, so all bets are off on torture” and while in that case it would likely be a good idea. However, what if you only think he knows, or he might know, or me might know of someone who knows, or if he had lunch once with someone who we think might be a terrorist, or maybe he’s just middle-eastern. And what if the plot you are investigating is just to pull those little tags off of pillows and mattresses?
I’m willing to go to extreme measures in extreme situations, but not if it becomes common practice in every case and it’s a tough line to draw.
Jack
56. Jack wrote:
I’m willing to go to extreme measures in extreme situations, but not if it becomes common practice in every case and it’s a tough line to draw.
Peter writes: Which is exactly the point here. Everyone (especially the liberal loonies) are up in arms screaming about all the poor little terrorists that have been tortured by the big bad CIA agents.
You know how many terrorists exactly were waterboarded, the #1 worst form of torture (far worse than being beaten and beheaded, according to the left) the loonies are screaming about?
3
All of three.
And from that so-called torture, the sme ‘torture’ our own military members and interrogators go through in their training to they know what it is they are doing and how it feels, the Bush Administration saved thousands, perhaps MILLIONS of live and the entire city of Los Angeles, according to recently leaked reports.
I say, next time, forgo the ‘torture.’ Let the terrorists have their self-esteem. And let them wipe Los angeles off the map. It will probably do the rest of us a lot of good.
(On a side note, I would really like to know what the people out on the left coast [in all senses of the word] would say if they realized the only reason they are alive today is because of the Bush Administration and their intelligence-gathering means?)
#56. I hadn’t thought about his not giving up everything. The only way to be sure is to make him talk. BTW, I am not against torture. His miserable existance just doesn’t balance the lives of thousands of innocent people.
#57 Peter the Bubblehead – I don’t consider waterboarding torture per se. I wonder how many times they did it even after they gave up what they knew (how would we know for sure they were out of info), but given who they were, and what they clearly “could” have known, some extreme measures were justified. I think it might be a little pollyanish of you to believe they only did it to 3 people, but I have no facts, so take that for what its worth. The difficulty to me is that some measures are “extreme” (like waterboarding in my mind) and while sometimes warranted, if not very carefully governed history has shown that people will stretch the rules. There was a good article out the other day showing how a measure was approved in certain circumstances (and locations) and it was adapted by commanders on the ground to fit a much wider set of circumstances. For example, if it’s ok in Gitmo in case A, we should be able to use it in Iraq in “similar” cases. Not necessarily passing judgement, but the slippery slope principle in something this important can’t be overlooked.
And do you have a good link/source for the LA terror plot info? I’ve only heard vagaries about a plot and entry from Canada, but if you have a good source of what the deal was I’d sincerely like to take a look.
#58 Paul – Well that’s kind of my problem. If he doesn’t know anything, you can torture him until he says something, and if its proven to be a falsehood, you can torture him more but unless he accidentally stumbles across a truth by guessing your only other recourse is to torture him so much and for so long that you can guess that he probably doesn’t know anything or he would have caved by then. If we are talking about something we have “strong” reason to think he knows maybe, but that definition of “strong” differs per person. And frankly, that you mention his “miserable existance” (however true) is precisely the problem. If my job was to get info out of these people or else Americans might die, I’d probably cross the line.
Jack
If it were up to me, and fortunately for terrorists it isn’t, water boarding (not torture) would be followed by 4 inch nails through the feet, smashing of toes with a hammer, and whatever else I could dream up. The Islamonazis whose mission in life is to kill deserve no quarter and should be treated like the sub-humans they are. I can’t believe this debate is even happening. If the Left would get over its moral relativism mental disorder and understand the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, the choices required to protect our nation would come easily. Barack Obama and most of the Left are weak and cowardly and their weakness id going to get us attacked or dragged into a war resulting from our weakness such as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
#60 Eric – No offense, but that attitude is specifically why the left is as concerned as they are. You make it sound like you’d make muslim internment camps tomorrow and take every muslim-American and cut their toes off, just in case. Maybe that’s what you meant, maybe it isn’t, but the way you wrote that, you just gave ammo to the Left to fight against interrogation techniques. Are you trying to help or hurt this cause?
Jack
54 Your shrink . . . This won’t change your mind. Facts don’t have that effect on people like you . . . Forget Desouza, watch this . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyez4uBPC4I
59. Jack wrote:
And do you have a good link/source for the LA terror plot info? I’ve only heard vagaries about a plot and entry from Canada, but if you have a good source of what the deal was I’d sincerely like to take a look.
Peter writes: At this point, until Obama decides to release the unedited memos instead of just the cut & paste versions that prove the point he and his far-left base have been trying to make for the past 2 years, all that has been releaed about the LA attack is leaks saying the information was obtained from the 9/11 mastermind and that, if successful, would have been at least as devistating as the attack on the WTC. I have no actual links (yet) that give any clearer picture. It’s all up to Obama whether the American public gets to see the whole truth or just the facts he wants people to see.
#63 Peter the Bubblehead – Well, I truly didn’t want to seem lazy, but I haven’t seen much about the LA attack claim. I was a bit afraid to ask (as a labeled liberal around here, even though I’m not one) as if I hadn’t “bothered” to look. I read Ron Suskind’s book that clearly seemed to show how Bush undermined our safety with regard to the trans-atlantic plot (I take that with a grain of salt) but I wanted to be fair and read more about the LA plot to try to counter balance things. I keep hearing how a major plot was averted, but I just can’t seem to find any concrete details of an iminent plot. I dont agree with the Obama release of memo’s and I am not in line with his idea of torture, but I keep hearing Cheney (who I have admittedly no respect for) saying that he saved LA. But, I just haven’t seen anything.
I’m still open to the idea that something was stopped, but all I’ve seen was political shenanigans by Bush/Cheney that made us less safe (transatlantic plot) and vague infrences about the LA “save”. I’m honestly not jumping through hoops to make Bush/Cheney look good, but if they saved us from something then I’d like to see it. They seemed pretty liberal about what they declassified when it made them look good, so I would assume they would have let something credible out if they had actually stopped something serious. And yet nothing, which is why I asked if you had a good source of info on what happened. Not trying to be artificially negative, but if there is nothing to indicate that the save on LA was real, why is anyone believing it? If Obama said they saved and attack on Houston is anyone going to believe it without some kind of “proof”?
Jack
64. Jack wrote:
If Obama said they saved and attack on Houston is anyone going to believe it without some kind of “proof”?
Peter writes: According to Cheney, the proof is in the parts of the memos that Obama has, to this point, refused to publicly release. If/when those parts of the memos do come out, we can probably have a better discussion of the facts and whether the actions of the previous administration did or did not make this country safer.
For the time being, I will be content with the knowledge that, as proof, this country has not suffered a major attack on its own soil since 9/11, and anyone would have to be stupid to propose the terrorists have not tried.
My fear is, with everything Obama has done in the three months he has been in office, the clock is once again ticking until the next attack, and I believe with almost certaintly we will see something happen before the end of this year and, regretfully, it will make 9/11 look like a minor incident by comparison.
#65 Peter – Ah, those memos, gotcha. In my thinking, it was 8 years between successful attacks last time (no credit given to Clinton of course), so we are due. I’m sure they are trying but even Bush said you can’t stop them all, and I’m sure if there is a successful attack, no one will care about any actual relationship to whether torture was used or not, they’ll just say Obama was personally responsible.
To be fair, the Left would have said that Bush took our civil liberties away and we still got attacked because he antagonized the world and gave talking points to the terror recruiters. Maybe both sides will be right, but since we didn’t learn from the last attack, I doubt we’ll learn from the next one.
Jack
Interrogators are still going to have to make captured terrorists disclose information. Now that terrorists will condition themselves against our “allowable” techniques, guess what?
Obama’s disclosures are going to force interrogators to ratchet up the methods.
Let’s say that a child molestor has kidnapped your little girl. He has her hidden away somewhere and she doesn’t have any food or water. The man is tied in a chair in front of you and if he doesn’t tell you where she is, she is going to die.
How far would you go to make someone like him tell you where your daughter is? Or would you “respect his rights”?
If you think that the rights of someone who doesn’t respect the rights of others is the way to go, then you are in serious trouble. Your daughter is going to die and the man who did it to her is going to have a big grin on his face as he watches you suffer. Making people suffer is what people like this love to do and people who resort to terrorism don’t deserve kindness or respect.
66. Jack wrote:
In my thinking, it was 8 years between successful attacks last time (no credit given to Clinton of course), so we are due.
Peter writes: And that is where your thinking is wrong. Things progressed almost exponentially during the Clinton years, starting with the first WTC bombing in 93, and with each incident that Clinton did little or nothing after, al Qaeda got worse and worse…
25 June 1996 – Khobar Towers Attack.
7 August 1998 – African Embassy Bombings.
12 October 2000 – Attack on USS Cole.
As you can see, each incident bolder and worse than the one that preceded it, and each that Clinton did nothing to either retaliate or prevent. All leading up to 9/11, the majority of the planning for which took place during the Clinton presedency.
Attacks on US targets since 9/11: None.
Attacks averted on US targets since 9/11: Unknown, because Obama will not declassify the information that would tell us this in detail. The only information we have is leaked by people who had access to that information at the time, who have stated as publicly as they can without breaking the rules of confidentiality that an attack on LA was averted precisely due to the special methods of interrogation legally used by the US in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
An addendum to my last posting; Perhaps it was inadvertant, but Jack has probably hit on another strategy of the left. When the next attack does come, and we know it will, especially with the way Obama and his administration are gutting interlligence gathering and the military, all the leftys are going to start shouting, “we were due! It was too long since the last attack! Bush’s policies angered the poor, disgruntled terrorists! It’s all Bush’s fault!”
I can see it coming, and I don’t even claim to be psychic.
That’s actually my concern. Next time we get attacked we will all descend into party politics and finger pointing and will be at each others throats and then the terrorists just might win…
Jack
#70 Jack:
“That’s actually my concern. Next time we get attacked we will all descend into party politics and finger pointing and will be at each others throats and then the terrorists just might win…”
Let’s go back to 2001, our “national unity”, along with the disgusting displays of candle-holding and chorusing congressmen, came crashing to dead stop over one simple and commonsense suggestion:
Arming the flight deck crews of passenger aircraft.
Do you remember that?
Do you remember the hoplophobes voicing their absurd fears that the pilots of aircraft essentially couldn’t be trusted with firearms?
Instead of these buffoons being dismissed and ignored with a snort of derision, they were given standing in the MSM, and their phobia, which would place every other passenger on an aircraft in jeopardy in order to assuage the unfounded fears of one was unjustly elevated to the level of “a debate”.
This was pure partisan politics at the expense of national security at it’s worst.
Gun control advocates are an infestation of the Left.
This paragraph leads me to believe that you have not familiarized yourself with the nature of the activities carried out under Bush. The documents that are publicly available clearly show that torture was an exercise of official, state-sanctioned power, in direct violation and contravention of the law. Torture was used with official approval from the highest levels of the government, despite valid objections that it was illegal. True torture is a serious issue, and torture with direct approval from government agents demands punishment for the culprits.
There is not a debate about what constitutes proper interrogation, and what constitutes torture. These are well established categories, which the Bush administration knowingly and wantonly violated. Claiming that the techniques are not torture is simply ex post facto justification for illegal activity. There may be some debate about the details, but there is clear evidence that torture was used under direct authorization from the Executive, and the government must be held accountable for this activity.
Peace.
DS
The Attorney General, Eric Holder (pardon of Mark Rich, pardon of terrorists under Clinton, underling to Janet Reno) hardly has adequate credentials to conduct an inquiry into lawyerly opinions during the Bush administration relative to torture.
It’s a witch hunt, pure and simple, promoted by moveon.org and the ACLU. Briefly, yesterday, the President re-flipped and said no separate “truth commissions” will be set up.
Don’t hold your breath on the possibility of a re-re-flip flop.
John Conyers and Patrick Leahy are nuts. Nancy Pelosi has conveniently “forgotten” all the very specific briefings on interrogation techniques she received 2002-2006.
Has anybody considered that the detainees at Guantanamo, so called “high value” and otherwise, provide employment for an entire phalanx of otherwise unemployable ACLU lawyers ?
Some of those detainees have asked for martyrdom, but the crummy lawyers insist on endless paperwork to keep their meal tickets alive and breathing.
Rotten, foul infidels, I couldn’t ever imagine I’d be agreeing with KSM.
#71 Bilgeman – I do remember that and at least the right result came about (i.e. armed pilots). That said, I am a gun control advocate so you should still despise me.
Jack
#74 Jack:
“That said, I am a gun control advocate so you should still despise me.”
Depends, feel free to control your own guns, (if you have any), and I’d even join you to keep guns out of the hands of unsupervised children and mentally incompetent adults, (although that would bar most of your running-mates over on the Left).
I’m also very “down” with mandatory minimums for felons in possession of firearms, (a la “Project Exile”), but aside from that…
If your scope lies outside those broadly defined parameters, then you’ll just have to hope for the constitutional amendment process to break your way.
#75 Bilgeman – No that about covers it except for the one view that always gets me in trouble. I think guns should be tracked and background checks should be run. Gun shows seems to be the obvious loophole. Have whatever guns you want, but they should be registered so if something bad happens with them, we can track it back.
I know that triggers the “government is going to take my guns” response, but the instances of that happening are very few and far between and in the case of New Orleans (for example) the government lost that legal case and are having to make good.
Jack
#76 Jack:
“Gun shows seems to be the obvious loophole.”
Dealers who sell at gun shows already have to run the NICS background check.
When you HEAR “Gun Shows”, what they REALLY mean is private-party sales. I’d be in favor of having no-fee NICS background check facilities/booths at gun shows, and being a VERY responsible gun owner, I would use them.
I would not knowingly sell a firearm to one of the verboten classes above.
I will despise you THIS much…
Good luck with that one.
#77 Bilgeman – Well, I’m not exactly out picketing, but it wouldn’t break my heart if the loophole was closed.
Jack
Sullivan knows nothing about Conservatism or Catholicism.
@73. tanstaafl:
I’m not surprised in the least.
Peace.
DS
It’s simple to me… If I went berzerk and killed someone for no good reason, and was dangerous to the people around me, I would say I deserved to be put up somewhere. Would I say that I deserved to be tortured? Of course not. If I were withholding information that was perhaps dangerous to withhold, that in my mind might also be dangerous to provide, would I believe I should be subjected to torture? NO. I define torture as something meant to mess with your mind, by either physically violating you or mentally violating you. Just because I may have a phobia that is peculiar and that my torturers lack does not mean that it’s cool to use that to screw up my mind.
As a Buddhist, I believe that each of us wishes for happiness and the transcendence of suffering. Torture is the deliberate cause of suffering. It’s not just about making someone uncomfortable. It’s deliberately screwing with someone. Just because we can is not a sufficient reason to do something. Would I kill a stranger just because doing so could save my best friend? No; I don’t agree with killing strangers, therefore doing so is completely out of the question on a moral basis. I also don’t believe in torturing others, anyone, for any reason, therefore as far as I’m concerned it is not an existent option. For me, to torture someone would be to violate myself… to see someone else being tortured knowing I could prevent it would screw with MY mind. Only if I knew for a fact that that person was torturing others would it be acceptable to me because then I’d know LESS people were being tortured in the whole process. However, even then it still wouldn’t be totally acceptable. I believe there is always a better way; it’s a matter of finding the better way. Sadly, our government is less concerned with finding the best and most morally acceptable way than with finding the fastest one. I realize that sometimes you just have to make decisions because it’s all you know and time is limited… but I have severe doubts as to the government’s interests in anything besides.
hello there and thank you to your info ? I’ve certainly picked up something new from right here. I did alternatively expertise some technical issues the usage of this site, since I skilled to reload the website lots of occasions prior to I could get it to load properly. I were puzzling over in case your web hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, however sluggish loading circumstances occasions will very frequently impact your placement in google and can injury your high-quality ranking if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and could glance out for a lot extra of your respective fascinating content. Ensure that you replace this again soon..