US Politics VIII

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

I read your last post. And while I admire your ideals, and wish I had them. The bottom line (to me at least) ...is sometimes, hard times call for hard decisions, and sometimes...you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils. Ironicly, i have been doing this for everytime I have voted for President. Alas...the greater evil won this time...

You would do well to read this article. Yes, it's long. Read it anyway.

[EHK for Darwin]

You would do well to read this article. Yes, it's long. Read it anyway.

Thought it looked a tad long myself, but 3/4's of every page appears to be footnotes, so I might give it a shot.

[The_BlauerDragon]

You would do well to read this article. Yes, it's long. Read it anyway.

I'm on my way over to read it now, but I can already give my answer to the opening hypothetical. If you're an American, you stand on principle. Bush and his cabal might have seen torture as being somehow justifiable, but I do not. If, as a nation, we do not stand on our principles and refuse to do evil in the name of "the greater good" then it will not be long before those evils come back upon us in force.

[Lord O' Bones]

If you're an American, you stand on principle. Bush and his cabal might have seen torture as being somehow justifiable, but I do not. If, as a nation, we do not stand on our principles and refuse to do evil in the name of "the greater good" then it will not be long before those evils come back upon us in force.

Goddamnit! I knew there was a reason I liked you. It was like, "give him time, he'll take a breather from saying something awkward, and then say something awesome."

[TrackerNeil]

Sore spot, I understand. DG actually gave the reply I was expecting, when he called him a moron. I figured Tracker would get to it if he didn't, heh.

Oh, I would have! Reid is not in my opinion the canniest Senate leader the Democrats could have come up with, and I have little faith in his being able to shove anything through even a filibuster-proof majority.

[The Real Will]

For those people who feel that there are situations in which some form of torture might be acceptable, I wonder what kind of burden of proof you'd put in place? I assume that the torturer would be required to demonstrate that the torturee actually is withholding vital information before any torturing can occur. Surely you wouldn't just trust the CIA (or whoever) to know who has time sensitive security information that needs to be tortured out of them, and surely them simply thinking that the person knows something isn't cause enough to torture them. It seems to me that the kind of legal procedures that would need to be in place before you could institutionalise torture would be so arduous that by the time the torture was legally approved the impending disaster that necessitated it would be over.

Or were you thinking that the CIA ought to have carte blanche to do what they liked to people they find suspicious? Cos that sounds like it could lead to problems.

[Watcher]

On a lighter note there is a Baton Rouge native Stormy Daniels to run for United States Senate against ethically challenged Sen Vetter ®. Among other things his phone number appeared in a Washington DC brothel. He has since claimed it was a weakness and has gotten forgiveness from God and his wife. He also actively supports any bill that condemns sex outside of marriage. Stormy Daniels is a newcomer to politics but has name recognition as a famous porn star. She has some interest on politics as an outspoken activist against child pornography and has spoken at several conference and testified at several courthouses. She is seriously thinking about running due to the overwhelming support the independent movement has gotten. There is no indication if she'll run as a Democrat, Independent or with another party.

The movement's website is at DraftStormy

[Joanna vander Poele]

I'm on my way over to read it now, but I can already give my answer to the opening hypothetical. If you're an American, you stand on principle. Bush and his cabal might have seen torture as being somehow justifiable, but I do not. If, as a nation, we do not stand on our principles and refuse to do evil in the name of "the greater good" then it will not be long before those evils come back upon us in force.

Aw damn, this is one thing you've said that isn't totally insane or weird. Good going for ya :cheers:

[Commodore]

For those people who feel that there are situations in which some form of torture might be acceptable, I wonder what kind of burden of proof you'd put in place? I assume that the torturer would be required to demonstrate that the torturee actually is withholding vital information before any torturing can occur.

It's not about burden of proof per se. It's a judgement call, based on the likelihood of a desirable outcome (information about future attacks), and the consequences of an undesirable outcome (torturing/waterboarding an Al Quaeda leader). In this instance, the determination was made that causing temporary extreme discomfort to KSM, but no permanent harm, was worth it because he was the mastermind of 9/11 and very likely had knowledge of future attacks. They were right in this instance, we obtained information about a jetliner attack on Los Angeles from KSM.

It amazes me that the left, which always claims to see moral issues in shades of gray, is so dogmatic in this instance. If only life were so black and white. This is not a choice between good and evil, this is a choice between two evils (the true definition of a moral choice).

Wiping out tens of thousands of Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible act, an evil act. But the alternative (a land invasion of Japan) would have cost far more allied soldier and Japanese civiilian lives. It was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Does that make Harry Truman a war criminal?

Causing KSM temporary discomfort but no permanent harm in exchange for information that saved thousands of lives is a tradeoff that doesn't even compare to the choice we faced with Japan in WWII.

Roughing up a terrorist and doing nothing while civilians die are both evil acts, but one is far worse, it's not even close. It shouldn't be our policy, but neither is dropping nukes on enemy cities.

[CryHavoc]

no permanent harm

You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

No permanent physical harm, maybe. But torture often causes lasting psychological and emotional damage. I hate to pull the whole "I know someone who x" thing, because it's of course anecdotal, but I have family members who were tortured. One suffered little permanent physical damage, but to say that he suffered no lasting harm would be utterly absurd. He's still in a great deal of pain more than thirty years later.

If you think it's okay to torture terrorists when the chances of finding something useful are very high, you are of course entitled to your opinion. But let's not pretend that everything is all sweetness and light afterward. Torture can and often does destroy people, even when it leaves no physical scars.

[Annelise]

It shouldn't be our policy, but neither is dropping nukes on enemy cities.

I'm content with it shouldn't be our legal policy or our secret policy. Policy is my concern as a US citizen, not the hypothetical actions of an individual.

It amazes me that the left, which always claims to see moral issues in shades of gray, is so dogmatic in this instance.

I think it's because many view it not only as morally wrong but also ineffectual, so what is there to tempt them to set aside their moral viewpoint on this issue? Additionally, they're skeptical of the scenarios (like the ticking time bomb), which commonly leads to justification. That article Max the Mostly Mediocre posted up the page does well discussing this I think, if you want to try to understand the opposing POV better.

In this instance, the determination was made that causing temporary extreme discomfort to KSM, but no permanent harm, was worth it

I'm not sure why no permanant physical harm is even relevant, in the context of the moral obligation you advocate... if you think one's moral obligation is to torture if one believes it will save lives, there really should be no limit to technique.

[Inigima]

It's not about burden of proof per se. It's a judgement call, based on the likelihood of a desirable outcome (information about future attacks), and the consequences of an undesirable outcome (torturing/waterboarding an Al Quaeda leader). In this instance, the determination was made that causing temporary extreme discomfort to KSM, but no permanent harm, was worth it because he was the mastermind of 9/11 and very likely had knowledge of future attacks. They were right in this instance, we obtained information about a jetliner attack on Los Angeles from KSM.

I'm trying to find a link but having trouble (any help anyone?) -- I know I read that this is false and that we didn't get that "information" until well after we'd thwarted the attack on LA.

It amazes me that the left, which always claims to see moral issues in shades of gray, is so dogmatic in this instance. If only life were so black and white. This is not a choice between good and evil, this is a choice between two evils (the true definition of a moral choice).

I'm not clear on this. What moral issues have we claimed to see in shades of grey? In any case, if it helps, don't look at it as inflexibility on moral issues -- look at it as inflexibility with respect to violations of federal law. It's a violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which we are a signatory, and under our constitution, treaties to which we are signatories have the full effect of federal law.

Wiping out tens of thousands of Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible act, an evil act. But the alternative (a land invasion of Japan) would have cost far more allied soldier and Japanese civiilian lives. It was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Does that make Harry Truman a war criminal?

You're conflating "war crime" with "nasty thing." You can't have a crime, war crime or otherwise, without a violation of law. Did Truman violate a law I'm not aware of? The Geneva Conventions weren't signed until '49, and in any case they don't say anything about such an act. Furthermore, we were actually at war with Japan, were we not? Distasteful though it may be, it seems self-evident that that's a different situation than the torture of detainees. We didn't torture Japanese detainees in this country, and their internment during that period is generally regarded as a tremendous wrong.

[Usotsuki]

I'm trying to find a link but having trouble (any help anyone?) -- I know I read that this is false and that we didn't get that "information" until well after we'd thwarted the attack on LA.

Here or here.

What clinches the falsity of Thiessen’s claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen’s argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush’s counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and “at that point, the other members of the cell†(later arrested) “believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward†[italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, “In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.†These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush’s characterization of it as a “disrupted plot†was “ludicrousâ€â€”that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t captured until March 2003.

Edit: because apparently I can't even copy and paste correctly.

[Commodore]

I'm trying to find a link but having trouble (any help anyone?) -- I know I read that this is false and that we didn't get that "information" until well after we'd thwarted the attack on LA.

It comes from one of the memos released by the Obama Justice Dept., that the administration has not disputed.

I'm not clear on this. What moral issues have we claimed to see in shades of grey? In any case, if it helps, don't look at it as inflexibility on moral issues -- look at it as inflexibility with respect to violations of federal law. It's a violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which we are a signatory, and under our constitution, treaties to which we are signatories have the full effect of federal law.

from Common Article 2 of the GC:

That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

As I read that, if a non-signatory violates the GC, a signatory in conflict with said non-signatory is no longer bound by the GC in dealings with such an enemy.

You're conflating "war crime" with "nasty thing." You can't have a crime, war crime or otherwise, without a violation of law. Did Truman violate a law I'm not aware of? The Geneva Conventions weren't signed until '49, and in any case they don't say anything about such an act. Furthermore, we were actually at war with Japan, were we not? Distasteful though it may be, it seems self-evident that that's a different situation than the torture of detainees. We didn't torture Japanese detainees in this country, and their internment during that period is generally regarded as a tremendous wrong.

We did something far more heinous than torture Japanese prisoners, we obliterated tens of thousands of Japanese civilians in two Japanese cities. A decision made because the alternative would be far worse. The same rationale Bush had for waterboarding KSM.

Bush was willing to cause KSM some temporary discomfort (and possibly long term psychological damage) if it meant saving the lives of thousands of American civilians (Truman was willing to do far worse). He took an oath to do everything in his power to protect Americans from foreign threats. If another attack occured, would he be able to tell the American people that he did everything he could to protect them. It is clear from the released memos that he consulted the Justice Dept. to determine the legal extent of his power, to determine what he was legally able to do to protect the country.

[Inigima]

Interesting, thanks. I will review.

[Starkimus]

You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

No permanent physical harm, maybe. But torture often causes lasting psychological and emotional damage. I hate to pull the whole "I know someone who x" thing, because it's of course anecdotal, but I have family members who were tortured. One suffered little permanent physical damage, but to say that he suffered no lasting harm would be utterly absurd. He's still in a great deal of pain more than thirty years later.

If you think it's okay to torture terrorists when the chances of finding something useful are very high, you are of course entitled to your opinion. But let's not pretend that everything is all sweetness and light afterward. Torture can and often does destroy people, even when it leaves no physical scars.

CryHavoc. You bring up a valid point. In a few posts I brought up the ideal of "No permanant harm" and in fact, ment that in the physical way. Short answer... I really dont give a crap what mental state these terrorists are in. At the end of the day, if they are convicted..they should be hung anyway. Yes, that is a pretty rough answer. But this asumes that the person who may (or may not be) subject to a little "physical persusion" has already done some really dastardly deads..or plans too..and really has no right to live anyway in my book.

Tera..always like your posts. Read it...and yes...in an ideal world, the US can stand up and say "we never do anything wrong to protect our interests and protect our way of life!" I wish I lived in that world..I wish everyone could. But it still goes back (and I know some folks responded to this earlier), that the enemy doesnt play by any rules..and sometimes our rulebook must be thrown out the window. The best we can do is hope that the people that make the rulebook decisions are of the utmost integrety and honor and use everything they can before resorting to "physical persusion" or some other such foul deeds. As long as the best people are guarding our borders and collecting the intel, and making the decisions...then their judgement should be trusted on how those decisions are made. (this is a whole can of worms if and of itself of course)

Hasta!

Stark Out!

[The Real Will]

It's not about burden of proof per se. It's a judgement call, based on the likelihood of a desirable outcome (information about future attacks), and the consequences of an undesirable outcome (torturing/waterboarding an Al Quaeda leader).

Actually, that's kind of what I was getting at. Obviously the state isn't required to demonstrate conclusively that a person has vital information before they torture them. The system you seem content to advocate is so shockingly wide open to abuse that it really ought to be dismissed out of hand. Under your argument an intelligence office really only has to be able to say that they believe a person has sensitive information and that torturing them could lead to a desirable outcome--at worst they would need to convince their higher-ups of this--and then they would be legally free to torture that person. You don't see how that could be problematic?

[Commodore]

Sorry to use the same analogy, but that's like saying using the atom bomb is wide open to abuse, Truman has the power to bomb any city he wants, so giving him the power to do so should be dismissed out of hand.

And there was no way for Truman to know if annihilating tens of thousands of Japanese civilians would lead to a surrender, that was very much in doubt. Just as Bush didn't know whether waterboarding KSM would lead to useful information. It's a judgement call, the kind of tough decision a president has to make.

By the way, if you haven't seen the movie Doubt, I highly recommend it. It touches this very issue. How do you know what the right decision is when you can't be certain about either present circumstances or future outcomes. What do you do when waiting, or doing nothing, has just as significant consequences as taking action does.

[Lord O' Bones]

there was no way for Truman to know if annihilating tens of thousands of Japanese civilians would lead to a surrender, that was very much in doubt. Just as Bush didn't know whether waterboarding KSM would lead to useful information. It's a judgement call, the kind of tough decision a president has to make.

Yet the one was not illegal while the other is.

[The Real Will]

Sorry to use the same analogy, but that's like saying using the atom bomb is wide open to abuse, Truman has the power to bomb any city he wants, so giving him the power to do so should be dismissed out of hand.

And there was no way for Truman to know if annihilating tens of thousands of Japanese civilians would lead to a surrender, that was very much in doubt. Just as Bush didn't know whether waterboarding KSM would lead to useful information. It's a judgement call, the kind of tough decision a president has to make.

By the way, if you haven't seen the movie Doubt, I highly recommend it. It touches this very issue. How do you know what the right decision is when you can't be certain about either present circumstances or future outcomes. What do you do when waiting, or doing nothing, has just as significant consequences as taking action does.

I probably should make it clear that I am against torture generally whether it is open to abuse or not. That being said, while I understand the moral comparison your trying to draw with nuclear weapons they aren't really open to the same kinds of abuse as torture. It is very very difficult to obliterate something the size of a city covertly and, in Truman's case, Japan and America were, at least, unambiguously at war. By their very nature nukes have to be used out in the open and if there were ever any indication that a president was being trigger happy with his nuclear arsenal, I think he'd find himself in very big trouble very quickly (actually, today, I think that if a president used a nuclear weapon at all, he'd have a hard time justifying it). Torture, on the other hand, is inherently covert. There is no reason to even let the public know that it is going on, let alone to justify or explain why any particular person was tortured. I don't think that it's the morally questionable nature of torture which leaves it open to abuse, but rather it's the fact that it can be hidden.