Responsible Words

Just when you think you know a guy...

#1 Jonathan on 2007-11-02 09:47 (Reply)

He actually cares, to some degree, about the physical safety of his constituents.
My respect for him has increased multifold.

Though to be fair, it had no place to go but up.

#2 dsinope on 2007-11-02 09:50 (Reply)

I'm still waiting for any type of evidence that torture actually works. I guess it's nice and all that he can look at the issue from an opponent's perspective, that shows some maturity, but I don't feel like I should be celebrating a congressman's maturity.

#3 some girl from Chicago on 2007-11-02 10:44 (Reply)

>>I'm still waiting for any type of evidence that torture actually works.

Some Girl, that would be easy to arrange. After signing some legal statements, take some money out of my pocket and hide it. I will torture you till you tell me where the money is hidden. If you break, there is your evidence. If you don't, I will become an opponent of torture. Deal?

#3.1 Tom on 2007-11-02 11:20 (Reply)

I appreciate the threat, but seeing as I'm not willing to blow myself up at a cafe over money I stole out of your pocket, and you won't have to go searching through the desert to find it, I still think it's apples and oranges.

#3.1.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-11-02 11:32 (Reply)

To believe it doesn't, you'd have to come to the conclusion that we're so smart that we figured out what thousands of years of humans in various cultures and circumstances were too dumb to do.

Self-encouraging if it were true, but also extremely unlikely. It has been used because it works under certain conditions (like anything else). Saying it doesn't it just a way to avoid difficult moral questions and decisions.

#3.1.1.1 MlR on 2007-11-02 11:48 (Reply)

Personally, I think we've come a long way from torturing people into confessing to being witches so we can kill them for it.

Although if your definition of "it works" is getting someone to say whatever you want them to say, then I can't argue with the historical effectiveness of torture.

#3.1.1.1.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-11-02 16:06 (Reply)

Or you can simply look at the example of Kaleed Sheik Mohammed. He broke with only waterboarding, and that's not even true torture (in the sense that is causes no permanent damage).

#3.1.1.2 Kevin (Homepage) on 2007-11-02 13:12 (Reply)

Yes, Khalid Sheik Muhammed broke within three minutes of the start of waterboarding (which impressed the interrogators...it was evidently some kind of record) and spilled all kinds of details about his operation, leading to numerous arrests and (presumably) the saving of American lives.

The question is not whether it's effective, but rather whether the benefits of the intelligence yield outweigh the moral costs of the method. Critics of torture like to claim that it's ineffective because that relieves them of the dilemma of choosing between the comfort of terrorists vs. the lives of noncombatant potential victims. I would prefer to avoid that dilemma as well, but integrity prevents me.

#3.2 Jonathan on 2007-11-02 11:46 (Reply)

Does it really need to be a matter of integrity for me to ask the question? It would certainly be different if I were a politician parading around and declaring torture ineffective and immoral, but I'm just a shmuck, and I have to say I don't feel any guilt for asking. It seems to me to be a vital part of the moral debate.

From what I know, KSM confessed over 4 years into his captivity, so any weapons or figures exposed had plenty of time to be secured by enemy agents. It also makes it unlikely that he was able to expose a plot in the works, though it's possible since schemes like 9/11 tend to have a 5-year time frame. Of course, now I'm mainly being difficult. It's a good example.

But it illustrates one of the practical the practical issue: integrity. Legal and otherwise. While it seems pretty clear that KSM did what he said he did, because the confession was tortured out of him the confession has no legal integrity and there are plenty of people who don't believe it. To use Tom's example: if he started holding my head underwater to get me to confess to stealing his money, you better believe I'd beat KSM's 3 minute record whether I'd actually stolen it or not.

#3.2.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-11-02 12:20 (Reply)

I see where the problem is. You think these techniques are being used to get people to confess! That's not the case. It is only used to find actionable information like 'where are they hiding? Where is the bomb?' stuff like that.

"I hear that Israel doesn't use torture." You also hear they don't have nukes. Do you believe it?

#3.2.1.1 Kevin (Homepage) on 2007-11-02 14:22 (Reply)

How can information from a guy who's been imprisoned for nearly 5 years actionable? That's the biggest hurdle for me. He could name other terrorists and they could be intercepted, but he could just name names to get out of the session as fast as possible. He could describe plans that were in the works, but those would probably have been abandoned when he was captured. Any ticking time bombs would've already gone off; despite how fast they got him to crack under waterboarding.

I believe Israel, for logically backwards reasons. I assume that if there was any evidence at all of torture being carried out, I wouldn't be able to open a paper without seeing it.

#3.2.1.1.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-11-02 15:54 (Reply)

I agree. I'd bet no one is considering waterboarding a prisoner they've had for 5 years though.

#3.2.1.1.1.1 Kevin (Homepage) on 2007-11-03 06:51 (Reply)

"I'm still waiting for any type of evidence that torture actually works."

To believe otherwise requires one to also believe that everyone who has engaged in torture to obtain information is either stupid or simply a sadist who never really cared about the information in the first place.

The "torture never works" argument seems to be based upon the idea that the interrogator simply wants an answer and there is no additional effort made to verify the information. In the more common uses of torture (e.g. forced confession, intimidation) this may be so. In the context of using torture to obtain intelligence, though, the only reason to obtain the information is to take follow-up action. If terrorist A tells you about a weapons cache during torture it will be known very quickly if the information is reliable or not. It logically follows that the interogators will also know, from experience, if they are consistently receiving bad intelligence. Hence, if torture doesn't work and the goal of interogation is to obtain accurate intelligence, then torture will not be used as it would have been demonstrated ineffective. Unless, of course, the interogators are complete idiots or sadistic bastards, and I have a hard time believing that to have been universally true throughout the history of man and torture.

#4 submandave (Homepage) on 2007-11-02 11:08 (Reply)

Weapons caches move, submandave, as we all learned all too well in Iraq. What you've given me is a hypothetical argument, and while I sympathize that most of the proof you can offer is classified, I'm still sitting over here, waiting for some type of actual example.

"if torture doesn't work and the goal of interogation is to obtain accurate intelligence, then torture will not be used as it would have been demonstrated ineffective."
I hear that Israel doesn't use torture. They say they don't use it because it doesn't work. If anybody had a good reason for obtaining and verifying information quickly to save lives, it would be them. I don't think interrogators are sadists, not in general anyway, I just think they dramatically overestimate their ability to obtain accurate and timely information.

#4.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-11-02 11:18 (Reply)

Sheik Muhammed

#5 Khalid on 2007-11-02 11:21 (Reply)

In one of the Vince Flynn novels, Mitch Rapp delivered three Saudi terrorists to some Afghan allies working with US Special Forces. The Afghans had a special way to soften up the hard case jihadis prior to interrogation. They blindfolded and hog-tied them; and then threw them in a crowded pig sty for a few hours.

It's probably more illegal than putting women's panties on their heads, but as Al Gore said while promoting extraordinary rendition, "of course it's illegal, that's why it's covert."

#6 capitano on 2007-11-02 11:47 (Reply)

Here's what I can't figure out...

Somehow, we recovered from the "moral costs" of warfare, including plentiful actions in the Pacific Theater (and some in Europe) that would have easily been war crimes.

How is it, then, that there is so much hullaballoo (caneck, caneck) about the "moral costs" of waterboarding?

Anyone who writes about the procedure, AS IT IS ACTUALLY USED, doesn't know, and anyone who knows, isn't writing.

#7 MG on 2007-11-02 12:38 (Reply)

I still don't concede this is really about torture. It’s about coercive interrogations... and playing political games...

Torture is something I would never want done to me.

Waterboarding? After a few beers at a party I might say, 'lets see what all the hype is about, go for it, try it on me'... ergo, not torture...

Playing mind games on people for months on end... it works.. don't let them sleep, play loud music, keep it too cold, scare them, whatever... its not torture... Cutting things off, burning, routine beatings (vs a single one in response to the prisioner doing something to piss off a guard), things under finger nails... thats torture...

#8 Thomass on 2007-11-02 14:11 (Reply)

I've seen a college guy jump off a roof in a diaper-- so I don't think behavior after a few drinks at a party is going to be a good measure.

I don't really go in for the argument of "well it's not that bad so it isn't torture, but also it works". To me, that's a definite dodge of the moral problems.

#8.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-11-02 16:02 (Reply)

If we're going to start congratulating Congressmen just for understanding the perspective of their opponents (and in this case, a majority of Americans), I think we've set the bar too low.

Torture can be effective and necessary under some rare, extremely specific circumstances. However, I fail to see the need for a legal endorsement of it. Anyone who tortures a suspect should be convinced enough that it's necessary and dedicated enough to their country to risk their career. If they aren't willing to do so, then we know they aren't engaging in torture for the right reasons. Making torture legal would make it much more likely to happen when it shouldn't.

Now, if the evidence is clear that torture was justified in a specific instance, then either a prosecutor can decline to prosecute, or the President can issue a pardon. Torture should be rare enough that these remedies are adequate. If it becomes to commonplace for extraordinary legal remedies, we've gone too far down the road to becoming like our enemies.

#9 Nathan (Homepage) on 2007-11-02 16:34 (Reply)

I agree with 'some girl' that we can't escape the moral implications of torture by resorting to medium-grade semitorture like waterboarding. If the pain inflicted isn't too severe, you're unlikely to learn anything you couldn't have learned by other techniques. If the pain inflicted is severe enough to gain otherwise inaccessible information, giving it a name other than 'torture' doesn't change what it is.

#10 Nathan (Homepage) on 2007-11-02 16:40 (Reply)

I definitely agree on the sentiment of the above statements, from the sadness of applauding a congressman allowing that his opponent might be taking a position not simply because he's evil, down to where you agree with me.

But I'm not sure I could stand by the legal arguments. For one, the major problem about prosecuting torture seems to be that you only get the scapegoats, rather than the people who were [allegedly] ordering the techniques. In the end, you're making the people with the least power in the command structure make the choice between their careers, their orders, their instincts, and their morals, and you're punishing the wrong element.

The 3rd paragraph is also unsettling for me, because the goal should always be a system that works that we can rely on; the dependence can't be on the prosecutors, or back doors like Presidential pardons.

#10.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-11-02 23:12 (Reply)

The problem with people like Schumer is they are inconsistent. He won't allow waterboarding to save my platoon from an IED attack, but when its HIS city and HIS family, he wants an exception.

I'm for waterboarding terrorists. But if you're against it, have the moral courage to declare its illegal in ALL circumstances. Don't come running to me with the promise of future immunity if I violate your law to keep your city from becoming a valley of glass.

Our troops deserve better than that.

#11 Fen on 2007-11-02 17:42 (Reply)

Oy. This is actually the point where I always go cross-eyed in my moral argument, because the only time I think torture could be actionable or timely is if you're in the field and have an enemy who might know where the mines/snipers/car bombs have been placed. I end up supporting soldiers torturing people in the field, but not professionals trying to stop the next attack on civilians.

I think you're absolutely right that if torture is going to be declared immoral, it has to be declared immoral in all instances. No immunity for torture that's "not so bad" or really pays off. And while I don't agree with your decision on its morality, you probably know better than I ever will.

#11.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-11-02 23:28 (Reply)

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Friday, November 2. 2007

Search

Supporter