US Politics Balboa (VII)

[Tempra]

What impending attack? What evidence was there of this attack? When and where was it going to happen? Given that al-Qaeda was arranged in cell formations with no one cell privy to the operations of others, what was the US government's basis to believe that any al-Qaeda operatives they captured would know about such plans in the first place?

What impending attack? Al-qaeda has vowed to hurt the US wherever, and however, it can. Are you seriously asking why we might interrogate/torture al-qaeda members about impending attacks?

What you are saying is that the United States government has no responsibility to uphold international treaties it has signed such as the Geneva Convention? It can just trot out a very vague, "Something is going to happen unless we do this!" line and then do whatever it likes?

Interesting. I think Cheney and Bush really make a mistake in basing their international and domestic policy on the question, "What would Jack Bauer do?" every time a problem arose.

I see your point. The USA could just say, "Torture is okay when we do it. No-one else is allowed. We are special." That should work.

Your logic has gone from stupendous to absurd. Just because I do not equate putting a person in a cell with a catepillar to be the same as feeding an individual to the lions, or an open handed slap to be the same as putting bamboo shutes under a person's fingernails, or shackling person to a wall to be the same as electrouction, or waterboarding to be the same as flaying an individual, does NOT mean I think what we did is acceptable or legal.

[Tempra]

You may not personally be impressed, but it does matter how the world perceives us. I could be wrong, but that's how I read what Wert said.

You agree this was damaging to our international credibility, don't you? I'm guessing that you may feel putting the US on level with Iran and N. Korea is overreacting* but I think it's important to accept what that says about the damage to our international reputation.

*I instinctually bristle, personally, I can't help it. That is not a comment about whether I think Wert is right or wrong to do so, that is not a debate I care to enter.

Absolutely it was damaging to our credibility. And one of the large reasons this whole mess has hurt our credibility so badly (and this is not to shift blame) is nicely pointed out by Wert's inability to draw meaningful distinctions.

[mcbigski]

The whole idea was to break these people till they would do ANYTHING to please their captors.

Do I need to explain why this would result in faulty intelligence?

Perhaps you do. If waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation, properly applied, can break someone until they are willing to do ANYTHING to please their captors, that presumably includes having them tell the truth, especially when what is being told can be verified against data from other sources, and the captors can express further displeasure if lied to. Which would mean that it can, in fact, result in useful intelligence. It could also result in faulty intelligence to be sure, but the data collected can checked out other ways. Even if intelligence collected via interrogation must be taken with a helping of salt, it can still be useful.

[Tempra]

That did seem like his point, which if it is, strikes me as rather relativist.

No, no, it was not. See my post to Wert.

[Shryke]

Perhaps you do. If waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation, properly applied, can break someone until they are willing to do ANYTHING to please their captors, that presumably includes having them tell the truth, especially when what is being told can be verified against data from other sources, and the captors can express further displeasure if lied to. Which would mean that it can, in fact, result in useful intelligence. It could also result in faulty intelligence to be sure, but the data collected can checked out other ways. Even if intelligence collected via interrogation must be taken with a helping of salt, it can still be useful.

No, they will tell you anything TO MAKE IT STOP. And that's the problem. They will lie their heads off and tell you what you want to hear because they don't care about the truth anymore, they only care about pleasing you and about making it stop. The very man who's work they based it on said learned helplessness would be unreliable in gathering intelligence.

[Tempra]

A pretext can come at any time. The war criminals of BushCo were already telling us up and down that Saddam was involved. The fact that they were still trying to find corroboration, days before their invasion began, tells us more about the dishonest and pernicious way in which they operated than it does about unlikely timing. Your timeline just tells us that the administration operated like a bunch of lazy college kids rushing to get their work together at the last minute, not that they weren't after Iraq-al Qaeda ties when they were torturing KSM.

The fact remains that Cheney and Rumsfeld instituted the torture program with specific interest in finding links between Saddam and al Qaeda.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/66622.html

Interesting read, thanks. That changes my opinion a bit.

[Shryke]

Apparently is DOES damage the US's credibility, according to Tempra. It's just that this is only because people can't understand the distinction that America is allowed to torture.

[Annelise]

Apparently is DOES damage the US's credibility, according to Tempra. It's just that this is only because people can't understand the distinction that America is allowed to torture.

I don't believe that's what he's saying.

Just because I do not equate putting a person in a cell with a catepillar to be the same as feeding an individual to the lions, or an open handed slap to be the same as putting bamboo shutes under a person's fingernails, or shackling person to a wall to be the same as electrouction, or waterboarding to be the same as flaying an individual, does NOT mean I think what we did is acceptable or legal.

As I read him, he's not saying that any of it is acceptable or legal, just that there's degrees, x is not as bad as y.

And one of the large reasons this whole mess has hurt our credibility so badly (and this is not to shift blame) is nicely pointed out by Wert's inability to draw meaningful distinctions.

Not that you said this, but I don't think we should expect other countries to make such distinctions. Bottom line: we tortured. It freakin' smarts to be lumped in with torturers but it's not wrong, is it? I think the main worth in making distinctions is so we feel a little better, honestly. "Well, yeah, we did that but give me a break, we're not as bad as those guys."

I think there's also some of what Israel gets going on... right or wrong, fair or not, expectations are just higher for the US.

[Tempra]

Apparently is DOES damage the US's credibility, according to Tempra. It's just that this is only because people can't understand the distinction that America is allowed to torture.

Did I miss something? Is there a competition to see who can make the most absurd leap of logic?

[Tempra]

I don't believe that's what he's saying.

As I read him, he's not saying that any of it is acceptable or legal, just that there's degrees, x is not as bad as y.

Not that you said this, but I don't think we should expect other countries to make such distinctions. Bottom line: we tortured. It freakin' smarts to be lumped in with torturers but it's not wrong, is it? I think the main worth in making distinctions is so we feel a little better, honestly. "Well, yeah, we did that but give me a break, we're not as bad as those guys."

I think there's also some of what Israel gets going on... right or wrong, fair or not, expectations are just higher for the US.

Yes, thank you.

I am not attempting to lessen our guilt. But distinctions ARE important. Murder is distinct from assault for a reason. Concentration camps are distinct from Japanese Interment camps for a reason. And Flaying someone sure as hell is distinct from an open handed slap to the face, from throwing someone against a FAKE wall, and even from wateboarding someone.

These things aren't distinct to make me, or America, feel better. They are distinct because they are in no way comparable by an honest, rational person. Yes, the person who assaults another human belongs in jail next to the murderer, and we will have our stain on our history, but to make moral equivalents of the two is absurd.

[Shryke]

Absolutely it was damaging to our credibility. And one of the large reasons this whole mess has hurt our credibility so badly (and this is not to shift blame) is nicely pointed out by Wert's inability to draw meaningful distinctions.

What "meaningful distinction" are you talking about here then?

[Starkimus]

Tempra and Annelise:

While I do not wholly agree with your views, I would say that your last few posts gives me hope that at least SOME people have a clue here...

Anyway...

I still stick by a few things though:

1) Torture: never the best option, option of last resort of the desprete (oh wait, we cant call it turtore anymore..its Physical Persusion!).

2) Its not legal

3) There are degrees to Physical Persusion, just like we have other criminal degrees (Murder, Manslaughter, accidental manslaughter, etc).

4) I'm not willing to pursue criminal investigation of the last administration..because it stinks more of a political witch hunt then real moral outrage. Hell, half the Dems who want to do this were briefed and didnt bat an eye at the time they were...do they really want to drag all that shit out in the open? I don't think so.

5) What was done, was probibly wrong, and did hurt US credibility in the world. But lets face it, the World hates us more for our success and just uses this as a "I gotcha United States...oh your so bad!" While never noting all the good we do in this world.

6) I will always find it hard to condem the military or intellegence agencies for doing things in the cause of National Security. Especially when no permanant physical damage was ever done.

7) Terrorists (Man made disaster makers) get what they deserve. Sorry...they made the choice to be what they are, and choices have consequences. Find them all, stick them on an island, and blow the damn thing up. End of story.

Lets see...is there any group on this board I have not offended yet? Hmm...dont think so. Love you guys, always fun to see how your brains work...even though it baffles the hell out of me :)

Hasta!

Stark Out!

[Inigima]

Stark et al,

I still can't believe we're having this conversation. Whether or not torture works is not the goddamned point. I believe that our basic decency and respect for human rights is what makes us the good guys. When we condone torture, we forfeit our moral authority and become little better than the people we're fighting against.

Stark, with respect to (4) above, I agree that there are plenty of complicit Democrats, and I want them investigated too.

[Guy Kilmore]

I don't think their intent was to use the evidence in court, but to stop an impending attack.

And your relativist argument is not very persuasive, let alone imaginative.

Not too be nitpicky, but Tempra you are the one making a moral relativist arguement, the others are not. They are applying a universal axiom, that all torture is amoral.

Here is a wiki link about moral relativism.

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

[Annelise]

I am not attempting to lessen our guilt. But distinctions ARE important.

I understand what you are saying as far as distinction between assault and murder. Is there a tenet of international law (the Geneva convention?) that isn't being recognized or credited, as far as differences in how we tortured and how other countries torture? Otherwise I'm not sure I see the importance, why anyone should be expected to make them, when the law doesn't.

These things aren't distinct to make me, or America, feel better.

For me, citing and arguing them serves that purpose. At root, that's what the urge is. Again, for me. That's why I generally stay out of those kind of arguments.

[Annelise]

Stark, with respect to (4) above, I agree that there are plenty of complicit Democrats, and I want them investigated too.

Yup. I think that's why there aren't more Dem pols clamoring for investigations.

4) I'm not willing to pursue criminal investigation of the last administration..because it stinks more of a political witch hunt then real moral outrage.

The problem is, I think it's impossible to ever pass that test. Every admin so inclined would get awaywith breaking the law, because investigations and prosecutions at that level involve a lot of politicians. And everyone always yells witchhunt, particularly when it's one's own side. Is that really enough reason not to pursue such matters, if the evidence is there?

Incidently, I don't think there's many subjects that produce moral outrage more than torture. I don't doubt Right to Lifers on that score, I'm not sure what reason there is to doubt that many people have a sincere moral objection to torture.