New at Reason

|9.27.06 @ 4:57AM|#

It is heartbreaking to read stories like that. And undoubtedly this story is about one of the lucky individuals. The author never mentioned what the wife went through. If the husband on a list as "a person of interest" because of a reference he made on a application, it's curious that his wife was left off that same list.

I am reminded of the hi-jackers on 9/11. Several had been in somebody's custody and had been able to slip through all security checks right up to, and including, airport security as they boarded the 4 airplanes that morning to accomplish their deeds. It will never be answered, but the question must be asked every day: Would they be able to slip through today the way they did back then?

I was recently asked on this forum if I regarded the life of someone more valuable than the liberty and freedom of someone else. It's a tough question to answer, and I didn't turn it back on the person who asked it. Maybe I should have. But rather, I just tried to explain as best I could that these are difficult times, and no one has more reason to experience that difficulty daily than the people we are depending on to keep us safe.

The tone of many people regarding "people of interest" and "suspected terrorists" is that they believe the liberty and freedom of each and every one of them is more important than the potential loss of life of others. I use the plural because if all the "people of interest" and suspected terrorists" are given carte blanche, as were the 9/11 hijackers, then we will surely have more 9/11's, (plural).

As the author said, even those security people with the best of intentions, (are there any other kind?), make mistakes. It is heartrending to read the stories that result from some of those mistakes. But on balance, which is more heartrending, those stories, or the stories of family members of the victims when the mistake, (and remember: there only needs to be one such mistake), lets a "persons of interest" or "potential terrorist" slip through and commit another 9/11 . . . or worse.

We have all heard the saying that "Freedom is not free. To me, Maher Arar's story is one of the best examples I have seen recently demonstrating the price of Freedom in real terms. I think we all owe a debt to Mr. Arar for the price he has already paid, and may pay again, for the freedom that the rest of us have never had to pay. Some will disagree, and they will think that freedom has no price, and certainly not a price such as Mr. Arar has paid. Maybe they're just selfish instead, and think that if they just refuse to acknowledge that there is a debt to be paid for our freedome, then they really won't owe anybody anything for their part of those freedoms. Maybe they think that instead of making errors on the side of caution, the security people should make their errors on the other side. Maybe they think there should not be any "people if interest" or "suspected terrorists", until they commit a terrorist act that kills or maims one of their family members. I wonder how long those same people would be willing to pay "that" price for their freedom.

Thank you Mr. Arar for the price you have paid for my freedom. Please don't let what has happened destroy your love and respect for my personal freedom, as I try to remember and thank you for it. Wear your badge with honor. Others will never see it, but you will undoubtedly never forget that you wear it. The best I can do now is tell you that if we ever meet I will want to shake your hand and tell you personally how much I feel I am in your debt. Not just for my freedom,. but for all my fellow Americans, and most especially my loved ones.

thoreau|9.27.06 @ 8:53AM|#

Wait, Arar gave a false confession under torture...um, I mean, frat pranks?

I thought that frat pranks always lead to reliable information. That's what I've been assured by various hawks.

Jennifer|9.27.06 @ 9:09AM|#

I wonder if anyone else was arrested based on the "information" tortured out of him?

|9.27.06 @ 9:24AM|#

There is a solution to the problem Elmo. It is called "due process".

Jennifer|9.27.06 @ 9:38AM|#

Thank you Mr. Arar for the price you have paid for my freedom.

What price are you willing to pay for his? And how exactly would you be less free today if he hadn't been tortured?

|9.27.06 @ 9:47AM|#

I think that he's implying that Arar is the exception, that he was one in a thousand and the other 999 persons of interest were tortured into giving good information that has kept Elmo and his safe. Therefore, Arar gets an "Oops, sorry. Thank you for understanding why we had to do this."

We might fail to see how giving to government the power to send people abroad to be tortured yields greater freedom for all, but that must be a failing of our weak-minded, naive libertarian philosophy.

9/11, 9/11, freedom, 9/11, etc.

|9.27.06 @ 10:03AM|#

As carrick said, the answer is "due process." We are a nation of laws -- the best parts of our culture and our successful economic system are built upon this proposition.

Elmo's argument is reasonable, but it loses some of its appeal if we admit that Islamic extremism is a greater problem than a few isolated terrorists at the airport. It's not just a security problem, it's a vast and growing social movement -- an increasingly popular alternative to Western liberalism. On the one hand, we could take the high ground and promote the virtues of Western liberalism, granting due process to all people who we suspect of crimes. On the other hand, we could reaffirm any cynical assumptions that he and others hold about the West -- that people like him aren't welcome here, and that our vaunted alternative is no different than, for instance, Egyptian 'democracy'.

|9.27.06 @ 10:06AM|#

"Thank you Mr. Arar for the price you have paid for my freedom. Please don't let what has happened destroy your love and respect for my personal freedom, as I try to remember and thank you for it. Wear your badge with honor. Others will never see it, but you will undoubtedly never forget that you wear it. The best I can do now is tell you that if we ever meet I will want to shake your hand and tell you personally how much I feel I am in your debt. Not just for my freedom,. but for all my fellow Americans, and most especially my loved ones."

Oh, for fuck's sake.

|9.27.06 @ 10:22AM|#

"I thought that frat pranks always lead to reliable information. That's what I've been assured by various hawks." - thoreau

When was the last time someone said that to you on this forum? You keep referring to it, but I haven't seen it on any of the threads you refer to it.

I'd posit that you probably CAN get accurate info through torture/harsh treatment/frat pranks.

Claiming such treatment doesn't produce useful intelligence is probably not a very sound position, if you examine it with a little common sense.

Caveat: While I think harsh treatment/frat pranks are legally allowed under the Geneva Conventions for unlawful combatants - and have argued this ad nauseum on this forum - it doesn't mean I think that they are a good idea.

|9.27.06 @ 10:27AM|#

Claiming such treatment doesn't produce useful intelligence is probably not a very sound position, if you examine it with a little common sense.

That's funny. I would have said, "Claiming such treatment produces useful intelligence is probably not a very sound position, if you examine it with a little common sense."

To quote Christopher Penn, "If you torture this guy long enough, he'll tell you he started the Chicago fire. That don't make it necessarily f--king so!"

Jennifer|9.27.06 @ 10:27AM|#

I'd posit that you probably CAN get accurate info through torture/harsh treatment/frat pranks.

Damn straight. Thanks to torture, Renaissance Europe was able to extract reliable confessions from the hundreds of thousands of evil witches who fornicated with Satan during their midnight masses, and Stalin could uncover the millions and millions of people who confessed to crimes they committed even though they were thousands of miles away from the crime scene at the time.

|9.27.06 @ 10:40AM|#

"I thought that frat pranks always lead to reliable information. That's what I've been assured by various hawks." - thoreau

When was the last time someone said that to you on this forum? You keep referring to it, but I haven't seen it on any of the threads you refer to it.

I'd posit that you probably CAN get accurate info through torture/harsh treatment/frat pranks.

That was too easy.

|9.27.06 @ 10:47AM|#

Brian24 - If Christopher Penn said, it MUST be true!

Brian24 & Jennifer - I'm not arguing that you can torture someone into a false confession if that's what your goal is.

But if your goal is to elicit verifiable intelligence it's probably fairly effective.

Example: You wring information out of the guy and you're right, you don't know if it's true or not. So then you find out if it's true or false (by going to see if the guys he teold you about have a house full of fertilizer and accelerant even tho they aren't operating a hydroponic farm in their suburban basement) and come back to the guy again with the knowledge of what what he told you last time.

That's how you tell if ANYONE is lying. Spot the logical fallacy:

A. Harsh interrogation makes people talk to avoid further harsh treatment.

B. People are capable of lying.

C. Therefore, anyone who has been harshly interrogated can only tell lies.

Just because someone tells you something under duress doesn't mean it is more or less true. Only that they are telling you something they might not tell you without the duress. You still have to verify the information...

Again, I'm only arguing against the utilitarian argument that harsh treatment rarely ellicits truth. I think that argument is shite, frankly.

|9.27.06 @ 10:50AM|#

I don't understand why Mr. Arar had to suffer torture from the Syrians. He was a supposed terrorist to the US rather than Syria. Why would the Syrians torture an enemy of the US? It seems to me that the Syrians would be supportive of Mr. Arar supposed terror activities. They have been doing so in Lebanon and against Israel for years.

I must say that a little more investigative reporting is needed to give a little more background about Mr Arar. I find it hard to believe that Syria, a terrorist harboring and sponsoring state, would object to terror activities directed against the US. If anything, they, that is the Syrian government, would give Mr. Arar a medal for his alleged terror activities.

Jennifer|9.27.06 @ 10:53AM|#

If Christopher Penn said, it MUST be true!

Mr. Arar's false confession suggests Christopher Penn was right.

|9.27.06 @ 10:53AM|#

Chris S - Funny, but not accurate. There's a world of difference between "will always" and "CAN."

You know like the difference between saying Chris S will always be a smug bastard and saying that you CAN be a smug bastard on occasion.

thoreau is beating a straw man with this argument like Ike Turner dreams of getting back together with Tina. You can tell this by the fact that he's responding to a claim that NO ONE on this thread has made.

I think thoreau is a wicked smart guy, but on this one he's missing his mark.

|9.27.06 @ 10:59AM|#

"Mr. Arar's false confession suggests Christopher Penn was right." - jennifer

It doesn't support the idea that all information obtained through duress will be false. If you've got anything else to say about the actual point I have made, please feel free.

Jennifer|9.27.06 @ 11:00AM|#

You can tell this by the fact that he's responding to a claim that NO ONE on this thread has made.

What if he'd removed the word "always" and merely said "frat pranks (torture) lead to reliable information?" That sounds like the claim you're making here, Arar's experience notwithstanding. If torture doesn't lead to reliable information, why defend it?

By the way, do you think we owe Mr. Arar anything beyond the words "Oops, our bad?" I'm thinking at the very least we owe him enough money to ensure he never has to work again if he doesn't feel like it.

I wonder how much time our security forces wasted on Mr. Arar and his tortured confessions, rather than tracking down actual bad guys who might actually hurt us?

|9.27.06 @ 11:03AM|#

Rob, you are thoroughly wrong on this topic. Coercive interrodation (without getting into flat-out torture) is morally and ethically wrong. The results are always suspect even if they are sometimes, even frequently, correct. And most imporantly, doing harm to the "interrogatee" corrupts the interrogator.

|9.27.06 @ 11:09AM|#

rob - That's a lovely scenario you paint, but the fact is, very little of the intelligence we're trying to get out of these guys is likely to be of the "the bombs are at 1140 Western Terrace" variety, the fever dreams of "24" notwithstanding. Intelligence gathering is like police work--you try and put together how the enemy network operates and who is in it by piecing together bits of intelligence from many different people. To the extent that torture makes your information less reliable, it can make the job harder, not easier. And most of this information is not easily corroborated by, say, going to a house.

The "24" scenario of beating the facts of an imminent attack out of somebody has always been a red herring, because (a) it's vanishingly unlikely because it requires both that you know that there is an impending operation and that you happen to get somebody in custody right then who knows about it and (b) prisoners who know they only have to hang onto a piece of information for a fixed period of time are notoriously good at not giving it up even under extreme duress.

|9.27.06 @ 11:12AM|#

Rob,

Suppose you round up 20 people with suspected links to terrorism. Ten are terrorists and ten are not. Under torture, you get confessions, more suspects plot details, from all of them. Now you have to follow up on all those leads, at least half of which are fictitious. What have you gained? What have the ten people who really didn't know anything lost?

|9.27.06 @ 11:20AM|#

At the risk of unjustly hanging the millstone of Elmo and his sanctimonious weeping around your neck, rob, what is your position on the torment of innocents?

Leaving aside the question of effectiveness, do you concur with the notion that torturing some unspecified number of innocent people is justified by the "freedon isn't free (at least for some other poor bastard)" argument?

What would you say, lying on the cracked and flaking concrete floor of some Romanian mountain hideaway, between rounds of having your genitals cooked from the inside out with electric current by men who learned their craft at the knee of Egon Krenz (or possibly Vladimir Putin)? What happens, after you tell them not only everything you know, but everything they want to hear, and they keep asking you the questions?

Could you console yourself with your love of the Greater Good?

|9.27.06 @ 11:24AM|#

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

|9.27.06 @ 11:25AM|#

"What if he'd removed the word 'always' and merely said 'frat pranks (torture) lead to reliable information?'" - jennifer

Uh, then that would be the OPPOSITE of what he said. Regardless, he wrote what he wrote. If he were claiming that an argument that harsh treatment OFTEN produces reliable information, I'd be willing to see what evidence he has to the contrary. I'd also be willing to see what evidence there is to support the reverse idea that you might be able to get reliable info through harsh treatment.

I think that the answer would probably be something like: "Harsh treatment can produce information that would not be produced through tender, loving care. However, ANY information produced, through duress or not, still has to be verified. Any information provided by unlawful combatants, regardless of how it is elicited, is highly suspect pending outside confirmation."

"That sounds like the claim you're making here, Arar's experience notwithstanding." - jennifer
Uh, no, that DOESN'T sound like the claim I'm making here.

"If torture doesn't lead to reliable information, why defend it?" - jennifer

I'm not defending torture. Please re-read my posts. I do point out that harsh treatment of unlawful combatants is legal under the Geneva Conventions, ang I argue that the idea that it is either ALWAYS or NEVER useful is almost certainly false. I do try to point out that attacking a straw man argument that hasn't been made is pointless.

I HAVE said that I think the utilitarian argument is shite - in other words, I think it is much weaker than the argument that the U.S. should set the example by not torturing. I don't think harsh treatment fits that mold, but apparently, torture is in the eye of the beholder as we struggle to re-define the term to include "unlawful combatant detainee didn't get an after-MRE mint on his pillow."

"By the way, do you think we owe Mr. Arar anything beyond the words 'Oops, our bad?' I'm thinking at the very least we owe him enough money to ensure he never has to work again if he doesn't feel like it." - jennifer

Now THERE is something we TOTALLY agree on. That guy has got millions coming to him, just like the family of every guy who has been wrongly executed in this country and the guys who have served prison sentences for crimes they were later cleared of.

"I wonder how much time our security forces wasted on Mr. Arar and his tortured confessions, rather than tracking down actual bad guys who might actually hurt us?" - jennifer

No idea. But it certainly speaks volumes to the idea that these guys should do the "identifying international terrorists and terrorist sponsors" bit better. But that is certainly a different question than harsh treatment.

Jennifer|9.27.06 @ 11:31AM|#

Something else occurs to me: right now it's Muslims and Arabs who are officially the scary evil guys threatening freedom, according to our media and the government. But in the mid-90s, after the Timothy McVeigh bombing, the big scary threat was the right-wing militias, and the anti-government gun-rights advocates.

White guys who don't trust the government but are very, very fond of their guns; I wonder how many regular posters here fit that description? And how many would have been tortured--whoops, I mean "subjected to rough interrogation"--if our current "rough treatment" guidelines were in place ten years ago?

|9.27.06 @ 11:45AM|#

White guys who don't trust the government but are very, very fond of their guns; I wonder how many regular posters here fit that description?

"They can have my gun when they declare me an enemy combatant, ship me overseas, and let foreigners torture me for a year or so."

Hmm. I think it still needs a little work before it'll fit on a bumper sticker.

|9.27.06 @ 11:51AM|#

rob-

Yes, I recognize the difference between �always� and �can,� and my comment was, like thoreau�s comment, partly humorous and partly serious. To me, thoreau�s comment sounded like sarcasm and humor rather than rhetorical dishonesty (e.g., creating a strawman), but his general point � that proponents of torture overestimate its efficacy � is exactly on the mark.

You�re perfect example of someone overestimating the efficacy of torture. Your verifiability argument is much weaker than you care to admit. It�s true that some claims are verifiable, but wouldn�t most subjects of torture account for this while making imaginary confessions? Why confess that your friends have tons of fertilizer when you can confess that your enemies met with members of Al Qaeda in April of 2000. Of course, no one would ever take such a self-serving confession seriously � unless they wanted to.

|9.27.06 @ 11:53AM|#

"Rob, you are thoroughly wrong on this topic." - carrick

Uh, read the caveat in my first post on this thread, and stop arguing with me until you understand what I wrote.

"Coercive interrodation (without getting into flat-out torture) is morally and ethically wrong. The results are always suspect even if they are sometimes, even frequently, correct. And most imporantly, doing harm to the 'interrogatee' corrupts the interrogator." - carrick

I find that to be a much more effective - and convincing - argument than thoreau's utilitarian argument. (As I pointed out. Please RMP.)

However, the Geneva Conventions allows such treatment, tho the purpose of the GC is to ensure that wars are fought with more civility to noncombatants and combatants alike. Would you like to expound on why you think that would be so? (Hint: It's practically Pavlovian.)

"That's a lovely scenario you paint, but the fact is, very little of the intelligence we're trying to get out of these guys is likely to be of the 'the bombs are at 1140 Western Terrace' variety, the fever dreams of '24' notwithstanding." - Brian24

Nice strawman. Did I use a "ticking time bomb scenario? Did I mention "24"? Nope. So... Surprisingly, I agree with you on this point. "24" is a crap TV show, and so is the "ticking time bomb" scenario. But that was not my argument. Thanks for playing...

"Intelligence gathering is like police work--you try and put together how the enemy network operates and who is in it by piecing together bits of intelligence from many different people." - Brian 24

Thanks for the primer on how it works... Your expertise is valued, since your in-depth knowledge of intel-gathering comes from your part-time job as Jack Bauer's sidekick. (Sorry, the sarcasm sometimes overwhelms me in the face of inanity.)

"To the extent that torture makes your information less reliable, it can make the job harder, not easier. And most of this information is not easily corroborated by, say, going to a house." - Brian24

Possibly. But I don't think either of us have sufficient evidence to rule out the possiblity that duress can produce information. I used the example because it is simple. I could have used Swiss bank account #'s used to transfer funds to terrorsit training camps in Sudan, if you prefer.

"The '24' scenario of beating the facts of an imminent attack out of somebody has always been a red herring, because"
Uh, because it's a FREAKING TV SHOW?!? No kidding. And a crappy one at that.

"(a) it's vanishingly unlikely because it requires both that you know that there is an impending operation" - Brian24

I can tell you with some certainty from watching CNN once a week that there is a HIGH likelihood of an impending operation. If I can discenr that from open source news programs, imagine what the CIA knows... amazing.

"and that you happen to get somebody in custody right then who knows about it" - Brian24

Because arrests of suspected terrorists and their collaborators are never made prior to stopping an operation? Uh... London, LA, etc., anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

"prisoners who know they only have to hang onto a piece of information for a fixed period of time are notoriously good at not giving it up even under extreme duress." - Brian 24

I know I would be good at it, so from my personal perspective this is correct - especially since I've seen the playbook of acceptable tactics. If you've been through basic SERE-type training your probalby fairly good at putting up with it.

But again, while I think both a) and b) are not points that work in your favor. I can grant you c) - but only in the "ticking time bomb scenario" that you refer to as highly unlikely. So in that unlikely event, you'd be right. But I agree with you. Long-term operational intelligence tho, is verifiable, and might actually be wrung out of someone over time and verified. The thought that it cannot be seems counter-intuitive to me, at best.

"rob, what is your position on the torment of innocents?"

It's heinous.

"Leaving aside the question of effectiveness, do you concur with the notion that torturing some unspecified number of innocent people is justified by the 'freedon isn't free (at least for some other poor bastard)' argument?" - P Brooks

Ask Elmo.

"What would you say, lying on the cracked and flaking concrete floor of some Romanian mountain hideaway, between rounds of having your genitals cooked from the inside out with electric current by men who learned their craft at the knee of Egon Krenz (or possibly Vladimir Putin)? What happens, after you tell them not only everything you know, but everything they want to hear, and they keep asking you the questions?"

I'd say I was being tortured in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions. As for what happens next? I'd say they'd undoubtedly continue to torture me. There's a world of difference between harsh treatment of unlawful combatants in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and torture of a lawful combatant.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

You can have my soul. If my family dies in a terror attack, I'm not going to be needing it anyway.

Seriously, sorry for the long posts, but the dog-pile here is impressive. I can't wait for thoreau - the guy I actually responded to - to stop back by here.

|9.27.06 @ 12:09PM|#

"To me, thoreau�s comment sounded like sarcasm and humor rather than rhetorical dishonesty (e.g., creating a strawman)"

Sure. But it's comment he keeps making and it's a BAD argument. I'd want him to point it out if I were doing it.

"his general point � that proponents of torture overestimate its efficacy � is exactly on the mark."

And you know this to be "on the mark" how? Evidence to support your claims regarding the efficacy of harsh treatment in elicitng information would be welcome here.

"You�re perfect example of someone overestimating the efficacy of torture." - Chris S.

Uh, no, I'm a perfect example of a guy who thinks it might be possible. You're the guy who - without presenting any evidence - believes it's never worth it. I'm the guy who thinks that a utilitarian argument is shite in the face of an ethical one in this instance.

"Your verifiability argument is much weaker than you care to admit."

Well, if you say so. I however, think it's pretty good. I guess that settles that.

"It�s true that some claims are verifiable, but wouldn�t most subjects of torture account for this while making imaginary confessions?"

Gee, maybe if the point is to gain actionable, verifiable intelligence rather than get a bogus confession you can verify that information. Although you could probably verify a confession by Chandra Levy's killer by going to where he says he hid the body. You act like no information could ever be verifiable. Because of this, I think your claim that information elicited under duress is "much weaker than you care to admit."

"Why confess that your friends have tons of fertilizer when you can confess that your enemies met with members of Al Qaeda in April of 2000. Of course, no one would ever take such a self-serving confession seriously � unless they wanted to."

Gee, maybe if the point is to gain actionable, verifiable intelligence rather than get a bogus confession you can verify that information.

"White guys who don't trust the government but are very, very fond of their guns; I wonder how many regular posters here fit that description?" - Jennifer

I fit that description. But I'm a citizen of the United States and therefore I have the rights of a U.S. citizen to protect me from the gov't. Duh. Not an unlawful combatant as described under the Geneva Conventions.

"And how many would have been tortured--whoops, I mean 'subjected to rough interrogation'--if our current 'rough treatment' guidelines were in place ten years ago?" - Jennifer

None of them. Because they are U.S. citizens, not unlawful combatants who, as described under the Geneva Conventions, do not have the protections of lawful combatants. And there's a reason for that. If you can answer the question I posed to carrick, please feel free to chime in:

"However, the Geneva Conventions allows such treatment, tho the purpose of the GC is to ensure that wars are fought with more civility to noncombatants and combatants alike. Would you like to expound on why you think that would be so? (Hint: It's practically Pavlovian.)"

|9.27.06 @ 12:22PM|#

I fit that description. But I'm a citizen of the United States and therefore I have the rights of a U.S. citizen to protect me from the gov't. Duh. Not an unlawful combatant as described under the Geneva Conventions.

Several issues here.

An unlawful combatant would be a person on or near a field of battle or in occupied territory that is carrying a weapon or munition of some kind. A person standing in customs/immigration line in a airport is not an unlawful combatant. What the geneva conventions say is completely irrelevant to Mr. Arar.

The US Constitution covers "persons" within the borders of the US, not just citizens. Someone in transit from one country to another via an US airport is fully deserving of all the protection of due process under US and state laws.

Even if Geneva allows harsh treatment of unlawful combatants, the morals and ethics of the US culture should not allow its citizens to abuse unlawful combatants taken prisoner in war zones.

|9.27.06 @ 12:23PM|#

An argument that torture or interrogation under duress CAN be successful, is not the same as claiming it is an effective strategy, in general. It is also far from claiming that it is the most effective strategy. In the end Rob's claim can be both true, and unimportant. Even if we stick with the utilitarian argument against torture, to advocate for it would require that it was the more effective strategy... and that would be much harder to demonstrate.

Add on all the other moral baggage and it is not even worth considering.

The "redefining" torture argument that Rob has made here and before is the real red herring in his position. Torture is a bright line. That line may have moved, but it is still bright. No one claims that "not being nice" is torture. If you wonder what you are doing could be considered torture, it probably is. It is a simple test.

|9.27.06 @ 12:59PM|#

"What the geneva conventions say is completely irrelevant to Mr. Arar."

Agreed.

"The US Constitution covers "persons" within the borders of the US, not just citizens. Someone in transit from one country to another via an US airport is fully deserving of all the protection of due process under US and state laws."

So now there's a bunch of international law questions about who is really to blame for what happened to Mr. Arar.

But the question of whether harsh treatment can lead to useful intelligence is an argument I would say is one that most of the folks posting here should avoid entirely as an "anti-torture" position.

Most of the folks posting here would not want the answer to whether it is effective or not to be revealed if it were shown to actually WORK.

Which I suspect is the case at least some of the time. When someone gets lucky and it works to stop a major attack, you end up with a utilitarian argument FOR torture. That's a bad plan, even the folks who are dog-piling me would probalby agree with.

So stick with the ethical argument, it's actually the stronger of the two.

"The US Constitution covers 'persons' within the borders of the US, not just citizens. Someone in transit from one country to another via an US airport is fully deserving of all the protection of due process under US and state laws." - carrick

Yup. Agreed.

"Even if Geneva allows harsh treatment of unlawful combatants, the morals and ethics of the US culture should not allow its citizens to abuse unlawful combatants taken prisoner in war zones." - carrick

Yup. I'm still with you.

"Even if Geneva allows harsh treatment of unlawful combatants, the morals and ethics of the US culture should not allow its citizens to abuse unlawful combatants taken prisoner in war zones." - carrick

Yup. That's definitely a better argument than the unsupportable utilitarian argument that "torture or harsh treatment never yields useful information so we shouldn't bother." It makes sense, and it goes beyond what Geneva requires making the U.S. look downright saintly in comparison to the entire rest of the world.

But, carrick, do you have an answer for my question? It's only ONE question, and you've responded to just about everything EXCEPT my question:

"However, the Geneva Conventions allows such treatment, tho the purpose of the GC is to ensure that wars are fought with more civility to noncombatants and combatants alike. Would you like to expound on why you think that would be so? (Hint: It's practically Pavlovian.)"

|9.27.06 @ 1:00PM|#

CIA Chief Admits To Torture After Six-Hour Beating, Electrocution

|9.27.06 @ 1:12PM|#

"An argument that torture or interrogation under duress CAN be successful, is not the same as claiming it is an effective strategy, in general. It is also far from claiming that it is the most effective strategy." - Neu

Agreed. Neither have my ongoing arguments regarding the legality of harsh treatment of illegal combatants been an argument that it's a good idea to do so. Just that it's not illegal and it MAY provide useful info.

"In the end Rob's claim can be both true, and unimportant." - Neu

Not so. If the goal is to outlaw torture, then that has been achieved. If the goal is to include harsh treatment under the definition of torture, then a utilitarian argument is a sucker's bet... As you point out:

"Even if we stick with the utilitarian argument against torture, to advocate for it would require that it was the more effective strategy... and that would be much harder to demonstrate." - Neu

"Add on all the other moral baggage and it is not even worth considering." - Neu

Actually, I totally disagree. I think whay you call the moral baggage - the ethical argument - is the stronger anti-torture argument. I think it's the stronger anti-harsh treatment for unlawful detainees argument, as well. It's just tougher to make than claiming without anything resembling evidence that it's ineffective.

"The 'redefining' torture argument that Rob has made here and before is the real red herring in his position." - Neu

Nope. When people start to claim that things I experienced during basic training in two different military branches is torture, then we have a disagreement about what torture really is.

"Torture is a bright line. That line may have moved, but it is still bright." - Neu

If it is moved, it is no longer bright.

"No one claims that 'not being nice' is torture." - Neu
Really? I get the impression that no matter how many kindnesses are lavished on detainees, and how little harsh interrogation they actually experience, there are political points to be scored by people who want to make the U.S. look like the bad guys.

"If you wonder what you are doing could be considered torture, it probably is. It is a simple test." - Neu

Blatantly false. If I sit and wonder about whether my military training was torture, it doesn't mean it actually WAS torture. Just like when you sit and think about the torture you went through before your girlfriend/boyfriend consented to have intercourse with you, it's not really torture.

|9.27.06 @ 1:12PM|#

rob,

Good on you. Would that I could call on your qualities of debate during such a dogfight.

I think I would then wonder if any of the antagonists have ever:

1) Worn a uniform requiring mental skills to provide security to any other person? i.e. Among them is there one, , , , even one, , , previous clean sleeve Private on a police or military force?

2) Worked as a security "anything". i.e. developer of computer software, tracing weblink hits, school yard monitors, neighborhood watch, , , , CIA operative, etc?

3) Adhered to any maxim in the face of peril, whether real or imagined?

4) Most importantly, . . Realistically, repeat , , realistically, , , considered the results if someone were to begin "not taking suspect activity seriously" and following up on it? or

5) Actually "do" believe that: a) freedom has no cost, or if it does, then b) that cost is spread equally among those who benefit the most from that freedom, because c) they can point to their individual and identifiable costs? and

6) Those costs are too high and would preferrably not be paid, so that

7) Let's all go back to the pre-9/11 days or utopian dissent and the fact of aome musunderstood forces wanting to kill as many "non-believers as possible will go away.

I also think Mr. Arar deserves better than he is getting from some, (the usual suspects), here. As do the people who were instrumental in his (although belated), release.

Keep on keeping on rob. Keeping your head when everybody around you . . . . . but you know that drill.

|9.27.06 @ 1:24PM|#

Something about this whole story doesn't pass the smell test. Why would the US send a guy to be tortured by Syria?

"Hey Bashar, good buddy! Could you put the thumbscrews to this guy? And if he gives up any info that might be helpful to your ol' pal the US of A, would you mind letting us know?"

I have a hard time swallowing a scenario like that. Seems like there is something we're not being told, or something being told very wrong.

|9.27.06 @ 1:25PM|#

Rob,

Sorry, I am referring to the doubt that enters your mind as you are about to interact with a prisoner. You were not tortured during basic because you were there voluntarily. Once someone has lost freedom and is in an interrogation, then you need to ask the question... If you think "this might be too harsh" don't do it. Keeping the bar low on these decisions avoids the ever slippery slope that leads to torture. It is the opposite of saying, "well this is harsh, but its not 'torture.'" which can lead to greater and greater levels of cruelty passing the test.

|9.27.06 @ 1:36PM|#

"However, the Geneva Conventions allows such treatment, tho the purpose of the GC is to ensure that wars are fought with more civility to noncombatants and combatants alike. Would you like to expound on why you think that would be so? (Hint: It's practically Pavlovian.)" -- Rob

Your question is so poorly written that I don't understand what you are asking.

I haven't read the text of the Geneva Conventions, and I am too busy right now to look them up.

We do know that the Bush adminstration said that unlawful combatants are exempt from the protection of Geneva. The Supreme Court said "bullshit".

What more is there to answer?

|9.27.06 @ 2:01PM|#

>>>>I haven't read the text of the Geneva Conventions, and I am too busy right now to look them up.

We do know that the Bush adminstration said that unlawful combatants are exempt from the protection of Geneva. The Supreme Court said "bullshit".>>>>>

. . . . carrick

Point 1. Many, many people with "opinions" fall into the very same category. It's very akin to: "My mind is made up, so don't bother me with any facts".

Point 2. I don't believe that's what SCOTUS said at all. I think they said POTUS "needs enabing legislation" to contimnue on the same road regarding unlawful combatants.

I believe that is the very thrust of the work undereway in the Senate today, the House having already passed the measure out in a 283/138 vote.

James Anderson Merritt|9.27.06 @ 2:01PM|#

Earlier this morning, I read Eric Margolis' account of his post-Cold War visit to Lubyanka (prison) in the former USSR: http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis51.html

Margolis described the methods used by Stalin during his great purge, at Lubyanka and elsewhere. In many cases, these were the same tactics that are now being considered "rough interrogation," and not "torture." But when I was growing up, I heard the word "torture" be applied routinely to the treatment of purge victims in USSR gulag prisons. Please, let'ss not redefine English to suit this administration's agenda.

Mr. Bush seeks "clarification" of the Geneva Convention prohibitions. Mr. President, if in doubt, leave it out. If you have to ask, you're probably over the line already.

I think the Congress needs to rescind the authorization of the use of force, as this is the instrument the administration is using to pursue its power-grab under the unitary executive theory. Pay no mind to the fact that we really aren't in a declared war at all; the President thinks we are, and so do millions of his supporters. But if the use-of-force declaration were rescinded, that would remove a lot of justification for the trampling of our rights over the past several years. We can pursue international gangsters such as OBL and Al Qaeda through the channels and methods we used to use to chase the Mafia and other gangsters. Let's declare war only when there is a real war to fight against another nation.

I am beginning to think that, in not declaring war since WWII, Congress mave have tried to limit the power of the executive, which grows exponentially in war time. FDR's power was broad and vast during WWII, and just as we passed a constitutional amendment to provide term-limits for the Presidency, in an attempt to prevent further FDR-like administrations from outliving their usefulness, we similarly have not declared a war, which would have conferred emperor-like authority on a nuclear-empowered President with a large standing army. Look at the authority that Mr. Bush asserts from the lame "authorization for the use of force," not to mention the authority that accrued to LBJ and Nixon while we were fighting the undeclared war in Viet Nam.

Unfortunately, the semantic dodges of fighting a war without declaring it, or pursuing torture without admitting it, don't fool anyone but the most obstinately self-blinded. If Congress was aiming to rein in the Presidency, by approving only "non-war-wars," we can see that it has failed dismally. If the President sought to mitigate or redeem torture by calling it "rough interrogation," he has likewise failed. Enough.

|9.27.06 @ 2:34PM|#

This summary of the relevant Geneva Conventions is from the Society of Professional Journalists at
http://spj.org/

Note the text in Bold. Unlawful Combatants are either civillians subject to existing penal law or are soldiers subject to the protections of Geneva.

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy's own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

|9.27.06 @ 2:43PM|#

"Your question is so poorly written that I don't understand what you are asking." - carrick

Allow me to clarify for you:
1. The Geneva Convention does not provide protection for unlawful combatants, and it does for lawful combatants.
2. The purpose of the Geneva Convention is to to encourage the opposing forces in a war to conduct themselves with more civility to noncombatants and combatants alike.

Question: Given those two pieces of information, why do you think the Geneva Conventions specifically DO NOT provide the same protections for lawful combatants and unlawful combatants alike?
Hint: It's practically Pavlovian.

"I haven't read the text of the Geneva Conventions, and I am too busy right now to look them up." - carrick

Staggering ignorance is not a good position to argue from. Now that you've done a fine job of destroying your own credibility, where will you go next? Disneyland?

"We do know that the Bush adminstration said that unlawful combatants are exempt from the protection of Geneva." - carrick

Actually, the Bush Memo extends the protections of the Geneva Conventions to all detainees. I know you're "not much of a reader" so I clipped the important bit for you:

"I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the Secretary of Defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in accordance with the principles of Geneva."
- Feb. 7, 2002: Memo Signed by President Bush
(You CAN read it for yourself - but probably won't - at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/020702bush.pdf)

"We do know that the Bush adminstration said that unlawful combatants are exempt from the protection of Geneva. The Supreme Court said 'bullshit.' What more is there to answer?" -carrington

Yeah, that memo cited is from 2002, so who is slinging BS at this point? Knowing that you haven't examined the Supreme Court decision any closer than you have the Geneva Conventions and that you are completely ignorant of anything about that beyond what you've heard other people say, I don't think you're really the poster child for rational discussion.

|9.27.06 @ 2:45PM|#

"Your question is so poorly written that I don't understand what you are asking." - carrick

Allow me to clarify for you:
1. The Geneva Convention does not provide protection for unlawful combatants, and it does for lawful combatants.
2. The purpose of the Geneva Convention is to to encourage the opposing forces in a war to conduct themselves with more civility to noncombatants and combatants alike.

Question: Given those two pieces of information, why do you think the Geneva Conventions specifically DO NOT provide the same protections for lawful combatants and unlawful combatants alike?
Hint: It's practically Pavlovian.

"I haven't read the text of the Geneva Conventions, and I am too busy right now to look them up." - carrick

Staggering ignorance is not a good position to argue from. Now that you've done a fine job of destroying your own credibility, where will you go next? Disneyland?

"We do know that the Bush adminstration said that unlawful combatants are exempt from the protection of Geneva." - carrick

Actually, the Bush Memo extends the protections of the Geneva Conventions to all detainees. I know you're "not much of a reader" so I clipped the important bit for you:

"I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the Secretary of Defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in accordance with the principles of Geneva."
- Feb. 7, 2002: Memo Signed by President Bush
(You CAN read it for yourself - but probably won't - at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/020702bush.pdf)

"We do know that the Bush adminstration said that unlawful combatants are exempt from the protection of Geneva. The Supreme Court said 'bullshit.' What more is there to answer?" -carrington

Yeah, that memo cited is from 2002, so who is slinging BS at this point? Knowing that you haven't examined the Supreme Court decision any closer than you have the Geneva Conventions and that you are completely ignorant of anything about that beyond what you've heard other people say, I don't think you're really the poster child for rational discussion.

|9.27.06 @ 2:54PM|#

You're a little late rob.

Either unlawful combatants are civilian criminals with due process rights under civil law. Or they are soldiers with protections under Geneva Conventions.

So sayeth those Geneva Conventions.

|9.27.06 @ 2:57PM|#

"Your question is so poorly written that I don't understand what you are asking." - carrick

Allow me to clarify for you:
1. The Geneva Convention does not provide protection for unlawful combatants, and it does for lawful combatants.
2. The purpose of the Geneva Convention is to to encourage the opposing forces in a war to conduct themselves with more civility to noncombatants and combatants alike.

Question: Given those two pieces of information, why do you think the Geneva Conventions specifically DO NOT provide the same protections for lawful combatants and unlawful combatants alike?
Hint: It's practically Pavlovian.

"I haven't read the text of the Geneva Conventions, and I am too busy right now to look them up." - carrick

Staggering ignorance is not a good position to argue from. Now that you've done a fine job of destroying your own credibility, where will you go next? Disneyland?

"We do know that the Bush adminstration said that unlawful combatants are exempt from the protection of Geneva." - carrick

Actually, the Bush Memo extends the protections of the Geneva Conventions to all detainees. I know you're "not much of a reader" so I clipped the important bit for you:

"I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the Secretary of Defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in accordance with the principles of Geneva."
- Feb. 7, 2002: Memo Signed by President Bush
(You CAN read it for yourself - but probably won't - at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/020702bush.pdf)

"We do know that the Bush adminstration said that unlawful combatants are exempt from the protection of Geneva. The Supreme Court said 'bullshit.' What more is there to answer?" -carrington

Yeah, that memo cited is from 2002, so who is slinging BS at this point? Knowing that you haven't examined the Supreme Court decision any closer than you have the Geneva Conventions and that you are completely ignorant of anything about that beyond what you've heard other people say, I don't think you're really the poster child for rational discussion. ("I heard from somebody that this is BS!" - just doesn't really cut it.)

|9.27.06 @ 3:17PM|#

"Your question is so poorly written that I don't understand what you are asking.

I haven't read the text of the Geneva Conventions, and I am too busy right now to look them up." - carrick

Arguing from a position of ignorance only destroys your credibility. You ADMITTEDLY don't even understand the topic of discussion...

You undoubtedly have examined the Supreme Court decision with an equal level of attention to detail - which is to say that you've heard something about it and you buy what that person said, but you don't remotely come close to understanding any of it.

Willful ignorance is just sad.

|9.27.06 @ 3:34PM|#

""" I think they said POTUS "needs enabing legislation" to contimnue on the same road regarding unlawful combatants."""

SCOTUS had three points, 1 as above, enabling legislation needed. The Constitution give the right to determine "captures on land and sea" to Congress, not the President 2. It must pass the GC which we are a signator to. It is a signed treaty 3. If must be inconcert with internationally recognized rights, which we not only recognize when we judge others, we helped to establish them.

I'm betting that if Bush's version of the legislation was approved, SCOTUS would shoot it down too. SCOTUS shoots down Congress approved legislation all the time.

The GC DOES apply to some at Gitmo and not to others. AQ combatants are not covered. Those who picked up weapons in the heat of the moment to defend against our invasion are. Those who were in support roles, not combat, may be covered by the GC.

Here's a question. If a country invades the US via Mexico and gun toting Texas citizens take up the fight, are they covered by the GC or unlawful combatants? They are covered by the GC. The same applies to any Afghan citizen that took up arms against us when we invaded.

Our problem is that we are trying to lump everyone in Gitmo into a single category.

In reality the OBL's driver was not a good one, for the government anyway, to bring to SCOTUS. If it was a gun toting member of AQ the outcome might have been different.

Here is a link to the GC http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm.

|9.27.06 @ 3:37PM|#

Damn you server squirrels!

"Either unlawful combatants are civilian criminals with due process rights under civil law. Or they are soldiers with protections under Geneva Conventions." - carrick

You know this how? Because someone else told you? How about a quote and a link?

"So sayeth those Geneva Conventions." - carrick
Really? What article? The Conventions are online, so you should be able to find it...

|9.27.06 @ 3:38PM|#

. . . you are completely ignorant of anything about that beyond what you've heard other people say, I don't think you're really the poster child for rational discussion.

Good bye rob. You have just proven that you are not worth talkig to.

Jennifer|9.27.06 @ 3:45PM|#

Willful ignorance is just sad.

Excusing evil is far worse.

|9.27.06 @ 4:01PM|#

"However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)" - Geneva Conventions from the SPJ site under "combatants."

"Excusing evil is far worse." - Jennifer

Jennifer - I'm excusing evil? You're apparently excusing an inability to read what I've posted. Which part of "the ethical argument against torture is stronger" do you not get? I'm not excusing torture. I'm even open to re-defining torture to include "harsh treatment," tho currently those are not the same things.

Which part of arguing that torture isn't an EFFICIENT means to getting information is a weak argument but that the ethical argument that it is morally wrong do you not get?

Which part of "While I think harsh treatment/frat pranks are legally allowed under the Geneva Conventions for unlawful combatants - and have argued this ad nauseum on this forum - it doesn't mean I think that they are a good idea."

You know, maybe you should argue with someone who is
1) for torture
2) thinks harsh treatment is a good idea
3) wants to duke it out over whether it is wrong or right

Instead of arguing with someone who realizes
1) torture is wrong
2) doesn't think harsh treatment is a great idea, but realizes it is acceptable under the Geneva Conventions
3) doesn't want to duke it out over whether it is wrong or right

Boneheads. Learn to read.

|9.27.06 @ 4:06PM|#

First bit should have read:

"However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)" - Geneva Conventions from the SPJ site under "combatants" that carrick cites.

Which penal law do they fall under carrick? Taliban law? (Beheadings for everyone!) Or U.S. civilian criminal law? How do you decide? I can't wait for your informed legal opinion on the subject.

TrickyVic - Well said. Of course, that's just going to get you dog-piled by these knuckleheads, who won't even understand what you wrote. Sorry about that...

|9.27.06 @ 4:27PM|#

Thanks, T-Vic

I won't even try to parse what might come out of the Congress on this. And certainly not what SCOTUS may eventually do with it. I "will" give everybody thus far involved credit for trying to "do the right thing" by all sides.

To our credit, I really believe the loss of the high ground is being overblown and serves only some factions within ourselves. We have not, (to my knowledge), repeated any common WWII tactics such as flamethrower use. We haven't resorted to the tactic, (as a policy), of "taking no prisoners" immediately following, an intense firefight. (And I wonder what can be any more intense than a dog eat dog shoot-out where flat topped houses with parapets are the norm, and the close quarters of rooms, fenced-in patios, and alleyways are the arenas.)

As to harsh treatment, coercive questioning and torture, I believe the entire subject is one of relative subjectivity. As I posted on another thread, to one person, just being in a closed room with the door locked will fit all three situations. To others a dental drill into a tooth cavity can be tolerated, (though I wouldn't trust anything such a person said under any circumstances, drill or no drill).

Rob,

Kudos for a well rounded, and principled, position.

Me? This thread just re-enforces once again my belief that when this old Republic eventually falls, it won' be from the outside, but from forces within that effectively undermine all attempts to preserve it by claiming that somebody else's "rights and privileges" are being trampled on by some ethereal power known as "the government".

sigh . . . .

|9.27.06 @ 4:32PM|#

P. S.

I posted above some questions for the "anti" group. I notice they didn't draw a peep in response.

Typical of the type.

P. S. again.

- - - - sigh - - -

|9.27.06 @ 4:42PM|#

This thread just re-enforces once again my belief that when this old Republic eventually falls, it won' be from the outside, but from forces within that effectively undermine all attempts to preserve it by claiming that somebody else's "rights and privileges" are being trampled on by some ethereal power known as "the government".

The republic won't fall. It will be replaced by a totalitarian state that promises to protect the safety of all the concerned citizens like Elmo.

|9.27.06 @ 5:24PM|#

I posted above some questions for the "anti" group. I notice they didn't draw a peep in response.

If you question were remotely relevant to the discussion, I'm sure you'd have plenty of responses. That said, I'll give it a shot.

1) Worn a uniform requiring mental skills to provide security to any other person? i.e. Among them is there one, , , , even one, , , previous clean sleeve Private on a police or military force?

No. I'm sure that disqualifies me from having an valid opinion.

2) Worked as a security "anything". i.e. developer of computer software, tracing weblink hits, school yard monitors, neighborhood watch, , , , CIA operative, etc?

A few times in college, as event security, mostly breaking up fights. Checking ID's while managing a bar. I never had to torture someone's real age out of them.

3) Adhered to any maxim in the face of peril, whether real or imagined?

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

4) Most importantly, . . Realistically, repeat , , realistically, , , considered the results if someone were to begin "not taking suspect activity seriously" and following up on it? or

Is the alternative to disappearing someone to a secret prison for rough interrogation taking no action at all?

5) Actually "do" believe that: a) freedom has no cost, or if it does, then b) that cost is spread equally among those who benefit the most from that freedom, because c) they can point to their individual and identifiable costs? and

a)The cost of freedom is to defend it from those who would take it away. That might include you as well as religious fanatics who want to kill Americans. b) The cost of anything is rarely spread equally c) everyone thinks their own sacrifice is the biggest.

6) Those costs are too high and would preferrably not be paid, so that

If the cost of "defending freedom" as you put it is a society where the rights of citizens exist at the whim of the military and law enforcement, what are we defending again?

7) Let's all go back to the pre-9/11 days or utopian dissent and the fact of aome musunderstood forces wanting to kill as many "non-believers as possible will go away.

Yeah, that's exactly what we think when we oppose torture as a policy. I always forget that I'm in a 9/12 world.

A question for you Elmo. What do you need to feel safe?

|9.27.06 @ 5:28PM|#

I posted above some questions for the "anti" group. I notice they didn't draw a peep in response.

If you question were remotely relevant to the discussion, I'm sure you'd have plenty of responses. That said, I'll give it a shot.

1) Worn a uniform requiring mental skills to provide security to any other person? i.e. Among them is there one, , , , even one, , , previous clean sleeve Private on a police or military force?

No. I'm sure that disqualifies me from having an valid opinion.

2) Worked as a security "anything". i.e. developer of computer software, tracing weblink hits, school yard monitors, neighborhood watch, , , , CIA operative, etc?

A few times in college, as event security, mostly breaking up fights. Checking ID's while managing a bar. I never had to torture someone's real age out of them.

3) Adhered to any maxim in the face of peril, whether real or imagined?

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

4) Most importantly, . . Realistically, repeat , , realistically, , , considered the results if someone were to begin "not taking suspect activity seriously" and following up on it? or

Is the alternative to disappearing someone to a secret prison for rough interrogation taking no action at all?

5) Actually "do" believe that: a) freedom has no cost, or if it does, then b) that cost is spread equally among those who benefit the most from that freedom, because c) they can point to their individual and identifiable costs? and

a)The cost of freedom is to defend it from those who would take it away. That might include you as well as religious fanatics who want to kill Americans. b) The cost of anything is rarely spread equally c) everyone thinks their own sacrifice is the biggest.

6) Those costs are too high and would preferrably not be paid, so that

If the cost of "defending freedom" as you put it is a society where the rights of citizens exist at the whim of the military and law enforcement, what are we defending again?

7) Let's all go back to the pre-9/11 days or utopian dissent and the fact of aome musunderstood forces wanting to kill as many "non-believers as possible will go away.

Yeah, that's exactly what we think when we oppose torture as a policy. I always forget that I'm in a 9/12 world.

A question for you Elmo. What do you need to feel safe?

|9.27.06 @ 5:56PM|#

Carrick,

>>>>>The republic won't fall. It will be replaced by a totalitarian state that promises to protect the safety of all the concerned citizens like Elmo.>>>>

Did you read that somewhere carrick, or is that another of the things you have neither read nor have tme to read, but do have a destructive opinion on?

And I believe, when referencing the U.S., it is proper to show respect by capitalizing the "R" in Republic.

Of course, now if there is no respect for the U.S., then the capital R would not be expected.

David,

>>>>>>Suppose you round up 20 people with suspected links to terrorism. Ten are terrorists and ten are not. Under torture, you get confessions, more suspects plot details, from all of them. Now you have to follow up on all those leads, at least half of which are fictitious. What have you gained? What have the ten people who really didn't know anything lost?>>>>>

Thank you for your biography. Apparently there is more to learn, though. Because in your earlier post you presupposed the outcome simply by the qorfing of your scenario.

you see, as you may have learned and forgotten, you don't know ahead of time who, or how many terrorists you have. Or gate crashers at a ball game. And I will assume you didn't bother to ask, , , and certainly not verufy , , , that the persons going by your "check point" met the requirements of the sponsors of the event. I mean, you "did" work for the people who gave to the job, didn't you? Or did you just use it to let anyione who showed up by, without regard to the reqwuirements placed on you?

I mean, you took it on yourself to disegard all the guidance you were given, and use your own make-it-up-as-we-go-along playbook, didn't you?

Let's face it, you either did one or the other. If you followed the rules then, you're off base now. But if you didn't follow the rules then, how could you ask somebody else to follow them now?

What do I need to feel safe?

For everybody to play by the same rules would be a start. Not "my" rules. "The" rules will be good enough.

|9.28.06 @ 3:51PM|#

"Yeah, that's exactly what we think when we oppose torture as a policy. I always forget that I'm in a 9/12 world." - David

You gotta love the false dichotomy school of argument. It's worked well for the Bush supporters, too.

Bush: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

The Swiss: "Huh? What? That's not how international tradition defines neutrality. What's that all about?"

Bush supporter: "Terrorist supporting surrender monkeys!"

The Swiss: "Dude, what is your problem? That's not what we said."

Bush supporter: "Terrorist!"

_________________________________________________

Left-of-center wingnuts say: "You're either for torture or against torture."

Rational guys who have studied LOAC and the GC: "Huh? What? That's not what it says in the Geneva Conventions and that's not the accepted law of armed conflict. What are you talking about?"

Left-of-center wing-nut: "Either enforce the law of armed conflict the way we want and to suit our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions or you're for torture - no matter how ludicrous our interpretation of the GC and LOAC are, or how silly our definition of torture."

Rational guys who have studied LOAC and the GC: "Dude, what is your problem? That's not what I said."

Davids, jennifers and carricks (all together now): "Torturer!"

_________________________________________________

The difference in the above two examples is ONLY WHO the attacks are directed at, the low-down scurviness of the tactic remains the same.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements