The story so far: My post on waterboarding has stirred quite a reaction on RedState. After Alexham linked to it approvingly, Thomas, Jeff Emanuel, Dan McLaughlin responded with their dissent. This spurred another round of discussion, including posts by ThomasErick Erickson and Ben Domenech, who, while not agreeing with my claim, defended my integrity. Although it was unnecessary (I have the skin of a rhino and don't take much too personally), I appreciated my friends stepping in to defend my honor.
In speaking up for me, they kindly overlooked the abrasive tone I took, not only in my original post but in the comment sections of RedState. I was unduly harsh. Despite the fact that I don’t think the issue is as grey as many people seem to believe, I can't fault my friends not finding it as black-and-white as I contend. I apologize for letting my emotions get the best of me.
This post is an attempt to further clarify why I think waterboarding is a form of torture and why it should be rejected. Yesterday, I resorted to assertions intended to appeal to the conscience of my fellow Christians. Today, I'll make a modest attempt to give reasons for my position. While we may not agree on all points, I hope to convince them that the harms that come from justifying waterboarding far outweigh any imagined benefits.
Before you read further, please educate yourself on what waterboarding by watching this video of the technique being done in a controlled environment and by reading this account by Erik Lomax, a British army signalman in WWII who was waterboarded by the Japanese:
"He directed the full flow of the now-gushing pipe onto my nostrils and mouth.… Water poured down my windpipe and throat and filled my lungs and stomach. The torrent was unimaginably choking. This is the sensation of drowning, on dry land, on a hot dry afternoon. Your humanity bursts from within you as you gag and choke. I tried very hard to will unconsciousness but no relief came."
The beating and the interrogation continued. "I had nothing to say: I was beyond invention. So they turned on the tap again, and again there was that nausea of rising water from inside my bodily cavity."
Should we tell Erick Lomax that he wasn't tortured?
1. Despite the attempts to muddy the semantic waters, this technique has always been treated under the legal definition of torture by American courts and military tribunals. To claim that waterboarding isn't torture is an attempt to dumb down the language to justify a repugnant practice. Are there varying degrees of torture? Of course. Just as there are varying degrees of "pain" and varying degrees of "suffering" there are varying degrees of "torture."
Some people seem to think that this variance means we can redefine the term in a more constrictive manner than we have historically done. In doing so, however, we are establishing a dangerous precedent. We are announcing that any nation can disregard the common meaning of "torture" and define it in any way that is culturally appropriate of suitable to the standards of that country's citizens (or at least bloggers).
2. Some people have claimed that appealing to military leaders on this issue is a false argument from authority. Perhaps. But shouldn’t the people who have the most knowledge and experience be given pride of place in expressing an opinion on this issue? Also, what does it say that not one high-ranking U.S. military leader has stepped forward to argue that this technique is needed or to deny that it is torture? As much as I respect bloggers, I'm rather stunned at the hubristic way in which they dismiss the experience of generals and admirals in favor of their own armchair theorizing.
3. By claiming that waterboarding is not torture, we are saying that it is not a violation of the Geneva Convention. That means that our enemies are legally justified in using this "interrogation" technique on American servicemembers. This fact was recognized by 29 former high-ranking military officers in a letter sent to Sen. John Warner about their opposition to the redefinition of the Geneva Convention statutes:
We have abided by this standard in our own conduct for a simple reason: the same standard serves to Protect American servicemen and women when they engage in conflicts covered by Common Article 3. Preserving the integrity of this standard has become increasingly important in recent years when our adversaries often are not nation-states. Congress acted in 1997 to further this goal by criminalizing Violations of Common Article 3 in the War Crimes Act, enabling us to hold accountable those who abuse our captured personnel, no matter the nature of the armed conflict.
If any agency of the U.S. government is excused from compliance with these standards, or if we seek to redefine what Common Article 3 requires, we should not imagine that our enemies will take notice of the Technical distinctions when they hold U.S. prisoners captive. If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners.
This is not just a theoretical concern. We have people deployed right now in theaters where Common Article 3 is the only source of legal protection should they be captured. If we allow that standard to be eroded, we put their safety at greater risk.
The counter to this is that Al Queda does not follow the Geneva Convention. While this is true, it is a short-sighted critique. As John McCain says, "…I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future." Once we open Pandora's box of torture, we can't close it.
4. While the technique fits into the public's impression--based on multiples seasons of 24--of what interrogation entails, waterboarding is not an effective means of obtaining information. Professional interrogators know that the carrot is more effective than the stick. The only claim ever made that this technique has been successfully used was made by ABC News in 2005 by CIA agents who were leaking information about "questionable confessions and the death of a detainee."
5. As Phillip Carter notes, "If there really were tactical or operational reasons for us to continue waterboarding, you might expect the military to favor it."
And yet the JAGs and the military oppose the technique in the strongest terms. They oppose it because they recognize it's not particularly effective, and because they have to worry about our soldiers being subject to such treatment if captured. Most of all, they oppose it because they recognize the value of clarity for maintaining the discipline of America's military. As one of us has written, "[T]here are few slopes more slippery than that from small war crimes to large ones. Any wartime action, no matter how heinous, can always be justified by some battlefield exigency."
6. The claim that waterboarding causes only "mental" harm misunderstands the nature of toture. John McCain, a man who became intimately familiar with such treatment, has not qualms in calling the technique torture.
[T]here has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth--causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.
7. The damage done by using such torture techniques is not only done to the prisoner. Psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, author of Achilles In Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, found that dehumanizing the enemy during the Vietnam war caused psychological damage to American troops:
Restoring honor to the enemy is an essential step in recovery from combat PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). While other things are obviously needed as well, the veteran's self-respect never fully recovers so long as he is unable to see the enemy as worthy. In the words of one of our patients, a war against subhuman vermin "has no honor." This in true even in victory; in defeat, the dishonoring makes life unendurable. (Achilles, pg. 115)
In our attempts to dehumanize our enemy we end up becoming less than human ourselves. It would be a Pyrrhic victory to save civilization and lose our humanity
As political scientist Glenn Tinder once wrote, the human being is both fallen and exalted, sacred and yet morally degraded. These two aspects of humanity cannot be separated. A fact, Tinder admits, that is "hard for common sense to grasp." Indeed, it is almost impossible to grasp when we try to apply this concept to our enemies. We often fall for one of two extremes.
The "liberal" position, for example, tends to be overly empathetic in an attempt to understand and "humanize" our foes. But this is just one of the ways in which we can err. The "conservative" position, which seeks retribution and dehumanizes our opponents in order to distance them from ourselves, can be just as dangerous, particularly for those who must carry out this war.
We must never hesitate to defend our culture, our future, and our lives against those who seek to destroy us. The liberals' appeal to tolerance and understanding in the face of such an enemy is suicidal. The conservative position, which is willing to face up to and address the evil of terrorism, provides a more adequate approach.
Yet the conservative position must never forget that the evil comes not just from the actions of "subhuman vermin" but from the heart of a fallen, sacred yet degraded, human being. If we are to preserve our own humanity we must not forget that our enemy differs from us in degree, not in kind.
Final Addendum: I have almost no reservations when it comes to opposing torture or saying that it is immoral in almost all circumstances. But because I am neither a utilitarian nor a deontologist (my ethical view could best be described as a form of virtue ethics), I cannot say that there are no situations where these actions would not be morally justifiable. But torture should always be illegal and the price of breaking this law should be so high that we can expect that it will be used only in the most absolutely urgent of circumstances.
Because the torture victim must bear the cost of incredible pain and even death, the benefits to the torturer must worth bearing some of the costs. Torture must not be cheap. But if the "ticking-time bomb" scenario is real, the interrogator should be willing to pay the price--even if it means his own death--to protect the lives of the innocent.
Fascinating clarification and expansion. Just a couple of comments:
#1 The "liberal" position that would not defend the U.S. is really more of a Leftist position. Let's not let the real Leftists off the hook.
#2 It seems you would tolerate torture for the greater good. I've not thought through those issues and am tending more toward an Anabaptist position, yet not pacifist. War is terrible. It is among the greatest destructions of human dignity. But it's not the final step in the breakdown (and this is where the Anabaptists fail). Failure to protect and defend others (from injustice) is an evil pacifism because here the Christian community (Body, Church, Household of God) itself breaks down.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
But because I am neither a utilitarian nor a deontologist (my ethical view could best be described as a form of virtue ethics), I cannot say that there are no situations where these actions would not be morally justifiable.
That is the same position--what was his name? Borondot?--ultimately wound up taking, and it essentially gives the whole game away. As far as I can tell, there is ultimately no practical difference between that and the position taken by most of those who disagreed with your first post, except that here you're advocating that someone trying to save your life (hypothetically, anyway) via a method you just said might be morally justified pay with his own imprisonment or even death in order to make sure that waterboarding doesn't become widespread.
I'd have to agree that--now that you've agreed that there might be some circumstances under which waterboarding might be morally justified--there would have to be some protocol in place to guard against its wanton usage, but I'm not sure criminalizing a genuine attempt to save lives is it.
I also can't help but note that for taking fundamentally the same position--that some circumstances might justify waterboarding--some of us were characterized as morally obtuse savages. As I said to Borondot, let me be the first to say: welcome to the dark side...you savage. :)
Joe, I really am not trying to address whether or not waterboarding is torture; I think it probably is. In you previous post you attempted to make the case that the default Christian position should be opposition to the torturing of terrorists to obtain information. I think that argument is far from settled. BTW--I attempted to address the use of the Golden Rule to oppose torturing terrorists in the prior post.
Some people have claimed that appealing to military leaders on this issue is a false argument from authority. Perhaps. But shouldn’t the people who have the most knowledge and experience be given pride of place in expressing an opinion on this issue? Also, what does it say that not one high-ranking U.S. military leader has stepped forward to argue that this technique is needed or to deny that it is torture? As much as I respect bloggers, I'm rather stunned at the hubristic way in which they dismiss the experience of generals and admirals in favor of their own armchair theorizing.
Joe, this statement alone is enough to silence those who are pushing this debate.
Thanks for having the courage to deal with this.
I don't get it... how is not condemning waterboarding as it might be used by our government telling Eric Lomax that he wasn't tortured. Are you equvocating our government to the Japanese army from WWII? Are you saying that our government would go to the extremes that the Japanese army did in WWII? Is this not the same equivocation that gets condemned when the lefties do it?
The counter to this is that Al Queda does not follow the Geneva Convention. While this is true, it is a short-sighted critique. As John McCain says, "…I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future." Once we open Pandora's box of torture, we can't close it.
Another point, so what? If the rule is you only follow the rules to the degree your enemy does then the lowest common denominator is given the right to write the rules. The Nazis and Japanese didn't follow the Geneva Convention either.
Also, what does it say that not one high-ranking U.S. military leader has stepped forward to argue that this technique is needed or to deny that it is torture?
Well one thing it says is that high-ranking military officers promotions are approved by Congress. What 1-star looking for his second is going to want to get bogged down in this debate. Also, it should be noted that most high-ranking military officers have very little experience in the interrogation of prisoners. Given that I don't know why their opinion should be given significantly more weight than other knowledgeable people.
Joe Carter
Final Addendum: I have almost no reservations when it comes to opposing torture or saying that it is immoral in almost all circumstances. But because I am neither a utilitarian nor a deontologist (my ethical view could best be described as a form of virtue ethics), I cannot say that there are no situations where these actions would not be morally justifiable. But torture should always be illegal and the price of breaking this law should be so high that we can expect that it will be used only in the most absolutely urgent of circumstances.
I can live with that, Joe. And the point is, so will a lot of other people. Not only those whose lives would be saved by "torture". I'm also talking about those of us who might sit in judgment (like maybe a jury or the court of public opinion) of someone who used aggressive interrogation techniques to extract life-saving information. Americans know the difference between someone who uses torture as "retribution" and someone who is doing it out of desperation.
I have a feeling that a few of the usual suspects are going to now change their minds about your view of waterboarding.
As I have said, there is at least as much of a case for torturing violent felons based on the standards and excuses put forth. The average American's life is far more threatened by most felons than by terrorists' actions; the odds of you being the victim of 9-11 Part 2 are significantly smaller than you being a victim of an armed robbery, rape or murder. Ergo quickly capturing and putting away violent felons is more important than dealing with terrorists. Yes, there is the "constitutional rights" issue, but considering how many abuses of constitutional rights the average advocate of torture has supported, their talk on constitutional rights is cheap.
I agree, Joe, that torture would be justified in a ticking bomb case, but that supposes two things. First, it supposes a scenario that is unlikely to ever happen in the first place. Second, it assumes that you have actually caught someone so close to the operation that they can give you enough intelligence to stop it. Really, should we be making policy based on something that is that rare? Odds are that everything would be classified as a ticking bomb scenario, and torture would be liberally applied.
McCain's comments are very appropriate here because if we do go to war soon against Iran, it is very, very possible that China will move on Taiwan. North Korea might also use that as a chance to stir up trouble on the Korean peninsula since they are already crazy as hell in every other respect. Odds are that within the next 10 years, we will face an enemy that we will want that protection for our troops when fighting.
Last week the former Judge Advocate General put out a statement stating waterboarding was torture and illegal. (I am sure you could pull it up by googling ["Judge Advocate General" waterboarding torture])
No, of course we shouldn't tell Mr. Lomax that he wasn't tortured. But someone should tell him that he was not waterboarded if that is what he, and not merely you, believes.
What he underwent is called "water torture" which is fatal through both the toxic effects of overconsumption of water and through the aspiration of water.
If you are going to argue against a technique couldn't you take the time to at least understand what you are arguing against?
streiff If you are going to argue against a technique couldn't you take the time to at least understand what you are arguing against?
Actually, I was going to encourage you to do the same thing. At RedState you wrote:
That is exactly what waterboarding is.
Watch the video I linked to and you'll see that is exactly what is being done.
I'm still trying to work the whole topic of torture over in my head.
If I'm ok with killing a murderer, why do I have a problem with inflicting pain on a would-be murderer to stop the murder?
Also, it should be noted that most high-ranking military officers have very little experience in the interrogation of prisoners..
Hmmm, like basement bloggers are more experienced.
Chris: The murderer has presumably been arrested, tried, and found guilty by a jury of his/her peers. The torture victim has not. I keep asking the question but no one answers. How many innocent torture victims are acceptable?
Is being "safe", our highest goal as Christians or Americans? It hasn't always been.
I think it would help tremendously this conversation along if we knew a lot more...for instance ,what is the ration of usefull versus useless intel being produced by these interrogation technique...how many of the people subjected to them turned out to be innocents mistaken for terrosists and rounded up along side them on the balltefield (the tipton three come to mind here) and are then released without so much as an appology, thus soiling our image abroad even further. In short,we need to know if it really solves more problesm than it causes.
Reading this thread, and the xenophobic, cowardly comments from the "Christian" conservative apologists for torture makes me long for the Rapture.
What's the good thing about the Rapture?
All the "Christian" conservatives vanish, and we get their stuff.
What's the bad thing about the Rapture?
All their stuff is from K-mart.
Bill: The murderer has presumably been arrested, tried, and found guilty by a jury of his/her peers. The torture victim has not.
So it's okay if someone is tried and convicted to life in prison plus information extraction by torture? I doubt anyone's going to say that.
I'm trying to get at the reason torture is "evil" not illegal. That is evil seems to be assumed by Joe, and I'm not sure why.
Ludwig: what is the ration of usefull versus useless intel being produced by these interrogation technique
It might be an interesting tidbit, but it has little or no bearing on the moral question.
Hi
Newbie here just looking for some info about - http://www.globalsteroids.com
I have a few friends that are interested in them.
See you
His statement (if it was truly made) is patently untrue. It will not be illegal until Congress critters unite enough to actually make it illegal. They have so far declined to do so. Until it is written into law as illegal, it is still legal no matter what some ex-JAG's opinion of it is.
Joe, I can only conclude from your post and your comment that you are being deliberately disingenous here, in a best case scenario.
Having been waterboarded (SERE School, Fort Bragg, NC) I can tell you that you can't ingest water because you mouth and nose are covered with cellophane.
When you decide to actually understand what you're talking about, assuming the mood ever hits you, let me know.
By the way, you made quite a ass of yourself yesterday. Congrats on a rare performance.
If the pro-waterboarder rationale holds, then we should waterboard murder suspects, should we not? Or child molestation suspects. We should torture anyone suspected of being a dangerous criminal to find out what they know. If torture is ok as long as it is being used to keep us safe, then we can find a thousand more uses for it in our own criminal justice system. After all, if we arrested them then surely they are guilty.
It is simultaneously amusing and sad to see evangelicals debating whether waterboarding is torture and whether torture is wrong. The take-home lesson from yesterday's and today's threads is that Christians can use the Bible and divine guidance to justify just about anything. It is odd that humanists, using only reason and experience, can find more common ground on ethical issues than can Christians using a book of divine instructions and communication with the sovereign of the universe. It almost makes you wonder if the whole religion thing is man-made.
[Sorry for the lengthy paste, but here is the text of a letter sent to Senator Patrick Leahy by former leaders in the military justice system regarding waterboarding being torture]
Dear Chairman Leahy,
In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write Because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.
In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well-established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.
The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules yhat can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - as long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.
We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.
Sincerely,
Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000
Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88
Ex-preacher,
Yes this whole discussion seems quite odd.
If respecting my fellow man enough to not condone torture done by the government and recognizing the humanity of others who don't believe like me makes me at odds with the bible and not a true christian-Guess What?, I'll just have to be come an Ex-Christian because that's the right thing to do.
from ANON:
All that and those ex-JAG's failed to prosecute the trainers at SERE who used it on all those trainees all these years. Weird, eh?
Those ex-Jag's are just a bunch of Godless left-wing america haters, right? Obviously, George Soros paid them off to embarass the President's nominee....
We might all like to believe that imperfect human beings can make perfect judgments, but both history and common sense tells us this is not true. So I am more than a little surprised to see so many here make the argument that it is not only acceptable but necessary to torture “terrorists.”
First, we do not know have any foolproof means of identifying “terrorists.” We do know that many, many innocent people have been captured, labeled as terrorists, and, in some cases, tortured for information. Who here would endorse the torture of innocent people? Or, to make it a more utilitarian argument, how many innocent people are you willing to see tortured in order to get some useful information from a “real” terrorist? Ten? One hundred? As many as it takes until we find a “real” terrorist, as long as the tortured are foreigners who aren’t like us?
Second, how much false information are you willing to see obtained under torture, both from the innocent and the guilty, and how will we know what information was true and what information was given just to stop the torture? Because that happens frequently, especially when the innocent are tortured. They give any story that they think will make the torture stop and, if they don’t have real information, they will make something up. Of course when those responsible discover the tortured have lied to them the only sensible thing to do is engage in more torture since the “terrorist” is being deceptive and must be forced to reveal the truth. And then you (or your designated torturer) is on a never ending descent into degradation both for themselves and for the poor soul being tortured.
But why worry about such things just because they are done with our tax dollars and our authority and endorsement? Just rely on the government, which never makes mistakes and you can sleep well at night.
Streiff -
Having been waterboarded (SERE School, Fort Bragg, NC) I can tell you that you can't ingest water because you mouth and nose are covered with cellophane.
1. This does not match other descriptions of waterboarding at SERE school, either in the MSM or blogs. Here's a blog entry by someone claiming to have been waterboarded at SERE school and who supports your ultimate position, but who disagrees with the factual claim stated above:
http://cajunhuguenot1.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-is-water-boarding-first-hand_06.html
2. Your specific factual claim is quite narrow, viz., at SERE school waterboarding [always] employs cellophane over the mouth such that one cannot ingest water. Do you have any factual basis to support your claim that all of the techniques that have been practiced at SERE school? Is the above quote false? Are you confident that they are identical to the techniques that have been used on three detainees?
3. I respectfully submit that if consider #1 and #2 carefully, and also consider that you (like Joe) do not have all the facts, you may reconsider your decision to call Joe names.
x-p,
All humanists or just select humanists? I'm reading Peter Singer these days. He is mainstream and at the same time quite radical. It that the popular Humanist ethic?
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Is that really what you think JohnW? I can just imagine what you would say if anybody noticed an even bigger contradiction.
No, we don't KNOW that. You may believe it, but we don't KNOW it is true.
You obviously believe that tortures done by the Japanese sadists to Lomax (assuming he told the truth) and the techniques used by "the good guys" are the same.
You ignorant sot. Shame on you for your pseudo-pious, pseudo-intellectual hubris. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I'm not going to reveal any classified material; but you are wrong about the morality issue, wrong about the technique, and wrong about the men and women who interrogate prisoners.
Evangelical Christian? More like Narcissistic Moron.
I don't have much to add to all this, except to say that the Bush administration seems to be wanting to be able to use this procedure, or at least not let the judiciary and/or the legislature rule it out, because of its peculiar view of executive power, and also to appeal to part of its political base.
We do know that many, many innocent people have been captured, labeled as terrorists, and, in some cases, tortured for information.
"No, we don't KNOW that. You may believe it, but we don't KNOW it is true."
Actually the only way to believe it is not true is to avoid acknowledging the extensive evidence. You should look into the case of the Uighur refugees from China who were held, for years, at Guantanamo even though they had no terrorist ties.
Other examples include Khaled Masri, the German citizen, who was kidnapped by the CIA, beaten, held for months, then released in Albania. See this article in the Wash. Post, details of which have been confirmed by the German gov't.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476_pf.html
"The CIA inspector general is investigating a growing number of what it calls "erroneous renditions," according to several former and current intelligence officials.
"One official said about three dozen names fall in that category; others believe it is fewer. The list includes several people whose identities were offered by al Qaeda figures during CIA interrogations, officials said. One turned out to be an innocent college professor who had given the al Qaeda member a bad grade, one official said."
Then there's the case of Moazzam Begg. "Moazzam Begg is a British Muslim who was working for an aide organization in Pakistan when he was abducted in January 2002 and held for three years, first in U.S. prison camps in Afghanistan, then in Guantanamo... During his imprisonment, Begg was interrogated more than 300 times, threatened with death, shackled and kept mostly in solitary confinement. He was never charged with a crime. His book Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram, and Kandahar is a shocking firsthand account of how Muslims were seized by the U.S. military, mostly based on rumor and conjecture, and kept in inhumane conditions while they were tortured and psychologically abused."
Author: Cheryl L. Reed The Chicago Sun-Times
Date: September 10, 2006
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
There's much more evidence out there. But, it is more comforting to ignore it.
We do know that many, many innocent people have been captured, labeled as terrorists, and, in some cases, tortured for information.
"No, we don't KNOW that. You may believe it, but we don't KNOW it is true."
Actually the only way to believe it is not true is to avoid acknowledging the extensive evidence. You should look into the case of the Uighur refugees from China who were held, for years, at Guantanamo even though they had no terrorist ties.
Other examples include Khaled Masri, the German citizen, who was kidnapped by the CIA, beaten, held for months, then released in Albania. See this article in the Wash. Post, details of which have been confirmed by the German gov't.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476_pf.html
"The CIA inspector general is investigating a growing number of what it calls "erroneous renditions," according to several former and current intelligence officials.
"One official said about three dozen names fall in that category; others believe it is fewer. The list includes several people whose identities were offered by al Qaeda figures during CIA interrogations, officials said. One turned out to be an innocent college professor who had given the al Qaeda member a bad grade, one official said."
Then there's the case of Moazzam Begg. "Moazzam Begg is a British Muslim who was working for an aide organization in Pakistan when he was abducted in January 2002 and held for three years, first in U.S. prison camps in Afghanistan, then in Guantanamo... During his imprisonment, Begg was interrogated more than 300 times, threatened with death, shackled and kept mostly in solitary confinement. He was never charged with a crime. His book Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram, and Kandahar is a shocking firsthand account of how Muslims were seized by the U.S. military, mostly based on rumor and conjecture, and kept in inhumane conditions while they were tortured and psychologically abused."
Author: Cheryl L. Reed The Chicago Sun-Times
Date: September 10, 2006
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
There's much more evidence out there. But, it is more comforting to ignore it.
Narcissistic Moron I like it.
All I got was "paranoid", "crank", and "slug".
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Narcissistic Moron I like it.
All I got was "paranoid", "crank", and "slug".
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Narcissistic Moron I like it.
All I got was "paranoid", "crank", and "slug".
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
First of all SteveH, I find it hard to believe that he was abducted from Pakistan, by the military. Now if it was a rendition, the CIA would have taken him back to Britain. That's the way rendition works.
I also find it hard to believe that the CIA would grab somebody just on a heresay quip from a terrorist that is being questioned without some sort of corroborating evidence. If you believe that CIA agents are really that moronic, then more power to you. Do I have evidence that shows the author is just some whiner looking to make a quick buck off of a sensationalist story that's been embellished into the realm of fiction? No, but then neither do you have evidence that the opposite is true. If you choose to call that ignoring the evidence, goody for you if that helps you sleep better at night. I have a tendency to be a skeptic.
All that and those ex-JAG's failed to prosecute the trainers at SERE who used it on all those trainees all these years. Weird, eh?
Along with all those hand-to-hand combat instructors whom they failed to prosecute for assault.
There seems to be an awful lot of information that the far better way to get intelligence is not by torture. The little bit one may get can't really be worth the extra costs it gave. What the torturing does to the torturer for example, or the real possibility the guy is innocent. The guy who tortured KMS, I read, doesn't sleep well.
I also find it hard to believe that the CIA would grab somebody just on a heresay quip from a terrorist that is being questioned without some sort of corroborating evidence.
If the CIA was told someone was a terrorist by a terrorist and that any delay could mean bad happens and they get torn a new one for failing to stop it, its not too hard to believe at all.
Begg is a murky figure. He ran a bookstore in Birmingham, England that was raided in 2000 for terror ties. He went to several camps in Bosnia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and tried to go to Chechnya. He was in Afghanistan in 2001 [his story] building a school or [gov't story] supporting and getting terrorism training. He was captured by Pakistan and turned over to the U.S. He was eventually sent to Guantanamo and faced an enemy combatant tribunal where it was determined he was an enemy combatant. Now the Wikipedia article has some nice links to documents that highlight some aspects of the case. Regrettably, I couldn't find the exhibits used by the tribunal to determine his combat status. I assume they are still classified.
Simply put, if Begg is the best case you can put forward, it's not too good. He's not pure as the wind driven snow. His situation did follow the legal requirements of the Geneva Convention. Those are that the power holding the person must have a system that determines if the person is a POW or non-POW base on the GC guidelines. He faced a military tribunal, with a personal advocate, which found him to be a non-POW and hence an enemy combatant. As such, we get to set the rules for what we do with him per GC guidelines. He could be dead right now. That is what we used to do with illegal combatants. Only British pressure got him released.
So hand-to-hand combat now falls under the heading of torture? Will wonders never cease.
So hand-to-hand combat now falls under the heading of torture? Will wonders never cease.
"I also find it hard to believe that the CIA would grab somebody just on a heresay quip from a terrorist that is being questioned without some sort of corroborating evidence."
Fortunately, no one's standard is not what you find "hard to believe."
Take this example of a prisoner at Guantanamo:
"Tumani's denial was bolstered by his American "personal representative," one of the U.S. military officers -- not lawyers -- who are tasked with helping prisoners navigate the tribunals. Tumani's enterprising representative looked at the classified evidence against the Syrian youth and found that just one man -- the aforementioned accuser -- had placed Tumani at the terrorist training camp. And he had placed Tumani there three months before the teenager had even entered Afghanistan. The curious U.S. officer pulled the classified file of the accuser, saw that he had accused 60 men, and, suddenly skeptical, pulled the files of every detainee the accuser had placed at the one training camp. None of the men had been in Afghanistan at the time the accuser said he saw them at the camp."
Hard to believe isn't it?
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj4.htm
And in the other comment thread you as much as said you don't believe that type of situation would ever happen, but you think CIA agents are moronic enough to believe it just because... a terrorist says it?
And in the other comment thread you as much as said you don't believe that type of situation would ever happen, but you think CIA agents are moronic enough to believe it just because... a terrorist says it?
The point I was making in the other thread was that although such a scenario is highly unlikely, the current policy is being defined around the inevitability of a most improbable event. Responding to one-in-a-million possibilities as if they were 100% certainties is bound to lead to ridiculous and unfortunate things happening.
Where I can find good quality films?
Can anyone help me?
This thread demonstrates the danger of the idea that any action is good if done by a favored group. The xenophobes and cowards commenting here twist themselves into knots to excuse torture because they subscribe to the view that if the United States - or at least elements in the United States that they favor do something it is good. Of course, liberals believe that the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the nature of the act, rather than who does it.
I think we can also see why conservative "Christianity" is such moral failure. It's because to conservatives, Christianity isn't a religion, it's a mechanism for group identification. To real Christians, Christianity means acting like a Christian. To conservative "Christians," Christianity means reciting a set of propositions about Christ and the Bible. The propositions don't have any meaning or carry any weight in the lives of conservative "Christians," they are just mechanisms to define who is included in the favored group. The fact that conservative "Christians" don't act like Christians doesn't matter. They recite the slogans that make them "insiders", and that's what they care about and that's all they care about.
1st: No one has done a very good job of convincing me that water boarding is torture. The best they can do is say, "Well, other people believe it is torture and you should to" or "You don't really know what it is and therefore, if you did, you'd know it was torture just like we do." I reject both arguments. Joe, feel free to call me brother and evil again.
2nd: Far worse has been done to people by the Lord. Joseph comes to mind, as does Job, as does the entire nation of Israel. In the case of Joseph specifically, in Genesis:20
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."
The same applies to Job. Satan meant evil against Job but God allowed it to happen to Job because He meant it for good. Just as waterboarding is not meant for evil but for good.
Does anyone here wish to argue that waterboarding is meant for evil, to gain the pleasure of hurting our enemies, by the United States Government? If you can convince me of that then you will have succeeded in convincing me that waterboarding is evil.
3rd: I gave some pretty harsh pain to my child today. Pain that I hope he carries with him for a good deal of his life. We parents give pain to our children quite often but not because we enjoy giving them pain, just the opposite is true! It gives me great pain to watch and participate in any punishment of my children and see their anguish (Usually greatly exagerrated) at their punishment. But it is meant for their good.
Do you have any children Joe to understand what i'm talking about? Have you ever had to cause pain to someone and while you did, you meant it for good?
There is a reason we are called to gather together in His name (Go to Church). Follow me for just a moment here as this might seem like i'm getting off topic. Joe, we go to Church because we cannot rely on ourselves, we need the community of believers as a sort of compass that keeps us on track.
Notice Joe that the community of believers disagrees with you on this. Not only that, Joe, but His enemies agree with you. That should give you pause, I would think.
No one has done a very good job of convincing me that water boarding is torture.
It suddenly occurs to me that the entire question is backwards. We shouldn't be arguing why waterboarding is torture. It's been considered torture since the Inquisition. The U.S. Government has tried and convicted people for waterboarding for goodness sake.
Rather, those in favor of waterboarding should explain to the rest of us why, after centuries of it being accepted as such, waterboarding is suddenly "not torture."
So, to all who believe that waterboarding is acceptable, I ask you to please convince me why this technique should not be considered torture.
(And if your belief is that the US Governement has the right to torture people when necessary and that no consequence should befall upon those individuals involved in the act, please simply say so. If that is truly your position, then defending waterboarding as "not torture" is superfluous.)
Sasha,
I watched the video of the Fox News guy being water boarded. Did you?
Just like Justice Potter Stewart once said of pornagraphy
"In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it."
It's the same with torture. If I can watch the guy on Fox News being water boarded and say to myself, "I'd go through that for a college hazing or to be in an elite group in the military" then it aint torture.
I'm amused by evangelicals who argue that torture is ok because God does a lot worse things in the Bible. Certainly they wouldn't be arguing that George Bush is equal to God are they? Certainly they are not going to seriously tell us that Christian theology holds that individual humans can be equal to God.
Unless I missed it, no one has answered the "How many innocent torture victims are acceptable" question.
One more repeat question. If torture is ok if used to keep people safe, then why not torture criminal suspects, like for murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, etc. Or, if you are in the "waterboarding isn't torture" camp then why not waterboard criminal suspects? If it is indeed effective, safe, with no real harm done to the victim, then it seems like we should be using it more. If it isn't wrong, why not expand its use?
For those debating about whether waterboarding is torture under the laws of the United States, here's a definition of torture in US law (US Code, Title 18, sect. 2340):
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
So, to all those claiming that waterboarding isn't torture: The above is current US law. If you really want to claim that waterboarding isn't torture, you have to be able to demonstrate that it isn't covered by this description. Can you? (And more to the point, even if, like any good lawyer, you _can_ construct an argument, do you really think it's more persuasive and reasonable than the opposite position?)
Regards,
Beren
Baggi, shame on you-God's enemies don't support torture, so it must be ok? I suppose you know who is and who is not God's enemies?
With word like this, you may as well be throwing your bible on the ground and pissing on it. Shame on you.
Torture is evil...the people who use it are evil...the people who defend its use are evil...the goals for which it is used are evil...end of discussion.
Maybe I should be more understanding of Baggi's mindset, but I find it very difficult to stomach. Perhaps he shares the views of Bob Jones Jr. who said of President Bush following the 2004 elections: They hate you, because they hate your Christ.
Christ died in part to make a statement against unjust empires and the conservative religious establishment's collaboration with them. Now it seems some of his followers want to embrace Empire and call anyone who would dare question any of the policies of the world's remaining Super Power an enemy of God. This is truly the spirit of Anti-Christ.
Great discussion, Joe. I appreciate your encouraging us to think and live virtuously, to think beyond the urgency of the moment to how we might live a good life.
The following questions just came to me: Does God practice torture? Was the cross torture? Is Hell a place of torture?
These aren't mere rhetorical questions. I'd love to see these concepts explored.
Of course, we are not God. We are not blameless. Ultimate justice belongs to the Lord, and not to us.
But if God does practice torture, then it tells me that torture is not *necessarily* evil. (Though it may be if practiced by non-perfect beings.)
Joe,
Your post today is much more convincing than the overheated, imo, first post. I'm still not sure about waterboarding, but if it is to be defined as torture then I think your final point is critically important. If the law is broken to attain information to save lives, then there should be consequences.
As for Mike Toreno, no offense, but who the hell are you (obviously a liberal) to tell me that my Christianity, because I am a conservative, is "just [a] mechanism to define who is included in the favored group." What do you know about my Christianity, my journey in the faith, my theological convictions. I could argue your points, but I make it a policy not to argue with jackasses.
Mike D.,
I come from a conservative christian background and as much as what Mike T. said might offend your sensibilities, I am afraid it rings true with me.
What he is referring to in his comments is "right-wing authoritarianism". This is not a political term or insult, but a socialogical term researched extensively by Bob Altemeyer (he has a book on the subject that is available for free on the internet). I'd recommend reading up on it as it really explains alot of the tone of the comments when Joe Carter actually said something that went against the so-called "christian" status quo. For an example, see Baggi's comments.
In a nutshell, right-wing authoritarian followers feel the need to always strickly follow the status quo and demonize anyone who would think differently. They base their opinions on what their group believes and don't engage in independant analysis-I am oversimplifying, but that's what it means.
"But if God does practice torture, then it tells me that torture is not *necessarily* evil."
Even if God did practice torture (which i dont believe IT does for an instant) it would still be evil...an action is good or evil based on how you react when its done to you. This is the only description that carries any worth.
Is WBing torture, YES, without a doubt. I read this on T.H. by one of their bloggers.
Try this out, ,,,. Hold your breath for as long as you possibly can. Hold it, hold it. Now just imagine some sorry SOB is actually going to keep you from taking that breath you so desperately need. You may not feel intense physical pain, but the likelihood of you crapping your pants is good. And the likelihood of you panicing like never before is equally as good. Now imagine that SOB lets you take a breath, then asks if you want him to do it again; and again, and again. Not torture. Sure would be for me.
Ignore Mike Toreno. His name is from the main character in Grand Theft auto, who slaughters innocents. This is who he worships, yet has the audacity to criticize. Hypocrite.
Moomom, let me clue you in on something. GTASA is a game. It isn't real. Mike Toreno doesn't actually do any harm to anyone, or do anything at all, or have any genuine existence.
And Mike Toreno is not the main character. He is a side character, although a very interesting one. This didn't occur to me before, but he works for the government, in some shadowy agency, I think like the CIA, only even more secret. He harms people in order to "achieve a greater good", on the orders of the government officials of the United States. So basically, he does what you and the other cowards and xenophobes making excuses for torture advocate. The difference between Mike Toreno and you is that he presents a fantasy depiction of evil and amorality, while you and the other cowards and xenophobes making excuses for torture ACTUALLY ADVOCATE evil and amorality.
I said above that conservative "Christianity" has nothing to do with real Christianity, and that conservative "Christians" don't let thoughts of Christian morality actually influence the way they live their lives.
q.e.d.
Hey John W,
Thanks for the clarification. No doubt what you say is true. But I think what you are saying applies not only to conservative Christians, but is more likely a sociological phenomenon of group interaction. If I think about it I'm sure it rings true with me as well. However, to imply, as Mr. Jackass does, that this is somehow endemic to conservative Christians is ridiculous. The most narrow minded, group think, reactionary, and you can throw in authoritarian if you want, people today are liberal left-wingers. Not all of them, mind you, but a huge chunk of them.
Too bad Mike T can't make his point more artfully and without insult.
Mike D,
There are in fact Left-wing authoritarian followers (and leaders), but they are very rare in this country and don't control the republican party and the whitehouse (like the right-wing authoritarian's currently do). Generally speaking the left-wing authoritarians want to tear down the status quo (regardless of who is in power). The problem with both is the lack of independent thought/analysis and blindly following their group or leader. Both are bad.
Unfortunately, right-wing authoritarians control the "religious right". That's what makes Joe's statement against torture so amazing. He evidently has very strong personal convictions on the matter to be able to speak out against the status quo. Who knows, he may soon be calling for the impeachments of Bush & Cheney for war crimes and dishonouring the constitution.
A thoughtful article by Stuart Taylor:
http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm
Here's a snippet:
But, one might reasonably ask, isn't torture by CIA interrogators already a crime? And isn't waterboarding a form of torture? The answer to the first question is yes, under a 1994 criminal law implementing the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The answer to the second question is more debatable.
Of course, being strapped to a board with a cloth over one's face and enough water running over one's nose and mouth to create the sensation of drowning sounds horrible and has been deemed illegal in various contexts by past administrations. But not every interrogation practice that sounds horrible or has been deemed illegal in some contexts clearly meets, in all contexts, the vague but narrow definitions embedded in the 1994 ban on "torture," or in the December 2005 McCain amendment's ban on "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."
The 1994 law defines torture as including only practices "specifically intended" to inflict "severe physical ... pain or suffering" and certain other practices that cause "prolonged mental harm" (emphasis added). Under this definition, deliberately inflicting pain that is not quite "severe," or mental harm that is not quite "prolonged," is no crime.
To be sure, the 1994 definition is not so narrow as to justify the claim that only the pain associated with "death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions" would qualify as "severe," as the Bush Justice Department asserted in an infamous, now-repudiated August 1, 2002, memo. But the definition is certainly narrow enough to leave room for doubt whether it would be torture to waterboard a high-level terrorist for, say, 15 seconds. Indeed, U.S. military and intelligence agencies have reportedly waterboarded their own people as part of their training on how to resist interrogation.
Nor is it clear that all forms of waterboarding violate the McCain amendment's provision specifying that the ban on CIA use of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment (called "CID") extends worldwide. The amendment, passed amid much discussion of waterboarding, limited military interrogators to the list of relatively mild, traditionally approved interrogation methods in the new Army Field Manual, which prohibits all physical coercion.
But Congress quite deliberately chose not to limit the CIA to those methods, and thus tacitly gave the CIA approval to use unspecified forms of physical coercion. Moreover, Congress defined CID as limited to forms of coercion that would violate certain provisions of the Constitution, which the Supreme Court has held to prohibit only practices that "shock the conscience." The case law suggests that whether various interrogation practices shock the conscience depends on the importance and urgency of the information likely to be obtained and "exact analysis of [the specific] circumstances."
Waterboarding and some other highly coercive techniques would shock my conscience if used routinely or frequently on terrorism suspects. That's why I believe that, once confirmed, Mukasey will issue a legal opinion effectively banning waterboarding as CID in almost all circumstances.
But should Mukasey rule that waterboarding is always illegal? Even in the cases of those very few, if any, detainees who seem highly likely to have potentially lifesaving information? And even if it were done under rules requiring high-level, case-specific approval and prompt disclosure to the Intelligence committees? I don't think so.
"One nasty morning Comrade Stalin discovered that his favorite pipe was missing. Naturally, he called in his henchman, Lavrenti Beria, and instructed him to find the pipe. A few hours later, Stalin found it in his desk and called off the search. "But, Comrade Stalin," stammered Beria, "five suspects have already confessed to stealing it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700018.html
Mike,
You come by here every once in a while and lob some rhetorical handgrenades. Other than that why should anyone care what you think? What's your story?
Sasha wrote;
It suddenly occurs to me that the entire question is backwards. We shouldn't be arguing why waterboarding is torture. It's been considered torture since the Inquisition. The U.S. Government has tried and convicted people for waterboarding for goodness sake.
Rather, those in favor of waterboarding should explain to the rest of us why, after centuries of it being accepted as such, waterboarding is suddenly "not torture."
I tried to respond to this yesterday and found that my comments were being held for moderation. We'll see if the second times a charm here.
"In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[
As Potter said, when it comes to torture I know it when I see it.
I saw waterboarding on Fox News. If I can look at something being done to someone, as was the case on Fox News, and say to myself, "That sucks but that certainly isn't torture." then it aint torture.
When you compare what happened to the guy on Fox News with the Inquisition, you don't make waterboarding look any worse, you make the Inquisition look "not so bad".
Hyperbolic speech doesn't help your case.
Olarcki, no one should care what I think. The fact that I, you, or somebody else thinks a particular thing has nothing to do with anything. What's important is what I say, how well supported it is, and whether it comports with and helps explain observed phenomena.
The fact is that the excuses for torture we see here have their roots the same characteristics that render conservative "Christianity" a morally hollow phenomenon. Conservative "Christians" follow just a few guiding precepts, none of which are found in the teachings of Christ. Their guiding precepts are centered around fear and hatred of "those not like us". Those "outside the group" are the source of all evil, and those "inside the group" are the source of all good. The delirious advocacy of torture that we see has nothing to do with any real threat posed by terrorism, or any sensible means of preventing terrorist attacks, instead, it has everything to do with a dehumanization of "those not like us".
Conservative "Christians" call themselves "Christian" because of one historical event - the conversion of Constantine. The conversion of Constantine made Christianity the state religion, it moved Christians from outsider status to insider status. And what conservative "Christians" care about is thinking of themselves as insiders.
That's why the heretical "Rapture" obsession is so popular in conservative "Christian" circles. The "Rapture" and "tribulation" has nothing to do with any coherent theology, and it certainly has nothing to do with anything Christ taught. It has everything to do with invoking God to wreak vengeance on "outsiders" for being "outsiders".
Now, again, you shouldn't care about this because I think it. What's important is the reasoning and the factual support underlying what I said. Take it for what you will.
JohnW,
I'm afraid we just don't see eye to eye on who the "authoritarians" are. What "right-wing authoritarians control the religious right"? You use the word "control" as it if meant something. Using such phrasing belies a huge animus toward Christians of a conservative bent. And talk of impeachment means you have it. Yes, Bush derangement syndrome. It makes liberals say the darndest things, and destroys whatever credibility they think they might have.
I congratulate you on being civil, whereas MT doesn't seem to have that ability. But your view of conservatives as controllable little automatons, mind-numbed robots (in Rush's phrase), means you have such a deep-seated bias that objective facts mean literally nothing to you.
John W wrote;
"Baggi, shame on you-God's enemies don't support torture, so it must be ok? I suppose you know who is and who is not God's enemies?
John W, I have no idea what you're talking about. Of course God's enemies support torture.
As to who is and who is not God's enemies. I don't know the wolves in sheeps clothing, at least not always. The wolves though, yes, they are rather open about their evil intentions towards Christ and His followers.
Alright, since when did things in this country get so bent out of shape that we're trying to re-define torture so we can keep doing it?
Once upon a time we were better than that, we played by a more noble set of rules and held ourselves to a higher standard. It didn't matter if the enemy wasn't fighting fair, we would never stoop so low as to use unusually cruel methods to try to swing things in our favor. That's why, once upon a time, America was loved by most of the world... and the rest, for the most part, respected us and admired our principles.
Now look where we are... cowboy democracy, an unnecessary war, and our waivering morality has lead to even our closest friend nations shaking their heads in disbelief. I'm shaking my head in shame. I love this country but the path it has taken under Bush has led me to worry immensely for its future.
And then I come onto an evangelical site, and see comments from fellow christians trying to justify torture... wow, just wow. As a Christian I know that this religion considers torture WRONG. Jesus himself would be saddened and appauled at the notion of his followers trying to justify a form of torture, much less carrying it out.
When it comes to torture, there is hardly a hint of grey... its mostly black and white. Alright, waterboarding isnt as bad as a lot of other forms of torture, but it is still overly cruel, inhumane, and, um, TORTURE. Just go ahead and ask prisoners of war who were subjected to waterboarding and see what they think it is. And yeah, I know we all like to sit around and talk in hypotheticals like, "Well, if there was a nuclear bomb in NYC and the only way to find its location to disarm it was to torture a captured terrorist... would you do it?" but hypotheticals like that add little to the real debate.
There are perhaps a slim few situations in which torture would be a last option if it was the possible difference between a radioactive NYC or not, but even then there'd have to be some serious certainty of immediate impending doom. And even in that situation, I would likely personally opt to forgo the torture unless numerous other factors were just right and it was the last chance to save an American city or something. Now, I'm sure to a lot of you more gungho types that sounds pacifistic (Im sure Rush would call it treason) but everyone should take into account the proven ineffectiveness of torture. Nearly always info gathered during torture proves to be worthless. Furthermore, 98% of the time(or more) acts of torture take place outside of immediate life or death situations.
Torture (water boarding for you hair splitters) is not only immoral and counter to all that Christianity and America stands for... its consistantly ineffective to boot. I don't care if you're liberal, conservative, or somewhere in the middle, you shouldn't condone acts of torture. We are (used to be?) more civilized and compassionate than those countries who would employ torture as an interrogation technique. Stooping down to the level where... where our politicians, and indeed some posters here, are trying to reclassify water boarding just so it may be employed to fight big, bad terrorism is nothing short of outrageous. Why do so many think we need some sort of brutal, inhumane interrogation technique all of a sudden? What, if we don't at least employ some basic forms of torture the terrorists win? We beat the Nazis and the brutal, inhumane Japanese military without torture, and the threat they posed was at least 4x the threat terrorism poses.
I'm a liberal, but I'm no pacifist, and I want the military to be able to utilize every method necessary to ensure the safety and triumph of our troops and ultimately of our citizens, but we don't need to add a form of torture to our repitoire in the hopes it might stop the next big terrorist attack. See, when we begin to condone even basic forms of torture out of fear not only do we begin to erode a core american principle, but we essentially give the terrorists a victory. And... if we start to condone a certain type of torture, where exactly does the buck stop?
We don't need any sort of torture, not to win WW2 and not to win the war on terror. It isn't Christian, it isn't American, it certainly isn't humane, and to me, its downright sickening.
I know I rambled on for days in my last post, but I just want to address one more thing had been mentioned quite a bit earlier on in this little debate.
Generals and high ranking officials coming out and saying "we need this" doesn't carry as much weight for me as it does for some of you guys. Granted, when it comes to knowing what America's army needs I usually leave it up to military officers, but in the case of torture I think we all have to do a little critical thinking.
First of all, no disrespect to high ranking military officers but there's at least good reason to suspect that some officers are a little more gung ho than necessary. You know that classic movie and literary stereotype of the gung ho 5 star general who recommends immediate nuclear strikes to his President at the first indication of a rival country moving more than one tank at a time? Well, thats at least partially grounded in truth. I'm sure certain officers want any brutal tactic they can get if they think it might make their job easier, and I think thats due to their military tradition causing them to lack objectivity. My point is: just because they are a high ranking military man doesn't mean their word is gospel.
Second... why do we now suddenly need torture? We saved the world from fascist rule in the 40s without utilizing torture, but suddenly, according to a few high ranking military men, we really need it to try and prevent, what, the terrorists from completeing and landing their fleet of mechwarriors at New York Harbor?
Yeah, I'd like to just trust the advice of our leaders and be done with it, but even though they may be closer to something it doesnt mean they are correct in their assesment. Torture is wrong, whether its water boarding or not, and America is above that.
Hello
G'night
Is waterboarding a terrorist conspirator torture?
Yes, very much so.
Is it justified if there is very strong reason to believe that the torture will save innocent lives?
Yes, it is.
And that is one very good reason why you and I should not become terrorists.
I don't want to torture anyone, and I don't want to authorize anyone to torture on my behalf. But if torture were called for, it would be a moral failure on my part to categorically refuse to participate in it.
When someone signs up to be a terrorist, they are also granting permission, under certain very special circumstances, for you and I to torture him in order to stop him. It's a very sad and scary state of affairs, but that's just the way it is.
Torturing terrorists is an excellent example of how the killing of innocent people by terrorists leads to all kinds of ugliness, brutality, and the worst kind of desperate measures. But in this case, the ugliness and the brutality and the evil tactics are justified.
Killing an army conscript because he is on the other side trying to kill you is also a terrible evil, but it too is an evil which is perfectly justified. Or rather, it too is an evil which, under certain circumstances, is overwhelmingly justified on balance.
War, and counter-terrorism, is hell.
I deeply hope that I will never, never have to torture anyone. But I also hope that I would choose to torture someone if I knew that that were the right thing to do.
BlakeB,
Did you get a chance to watch the guy from Fox News get waterboarded? That's not torture.
Did you see the guy in the link Joe posted in his original post? He lasted for over 20 minutes and was laughing about it afterward. Not only that, but he had already been through it before and paid people to do it to him again. Unless you think the guy is a masochist, its not torture.
People don't agree to be tortured because they are journalists doing a story. They do agree to put themselves in some dangerous and uncomfortable situations though. My guess is that Michael Yon goes through more torture in the heat of Iraq than those two guys who were waterboarded.
Defining torture down doesn't make new things torture. It merely makes torture look better than it is which is a real shame.
Let's not confuse folks by pretending undesirable interogation techniques is torture.
Does anybody who believes waterboarding is torture know the difference between waterboarding somebody with the intent of causing them lasting physical and mental harm just because you have power over them and waterboarding somebody with the intent to get information? (Yes, Beren, intent is written into that law... with an adjective no less that modifies that word intent). There are tons of people who haven't bothered to post comments here who understand that real torture revolves around the intent to cause severe and lasting mental and physical harm for the sake of causing severe and lasting mental and physical harm. If waterboarding were illegal to the extent that our government uses for training and uses or used it to question terrorists, then the SERE training technique would be also classified as illegal. But I have yet to see the ire generated over the technique used in training commensurate with the ire generated over using the technique to question the poor itty bitty terrorists.