Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bob Barr on Torture
Libertarian ex-congressman and ex-U.S. Attorney Bob Barr participates in a monster Washington Monthly essay package about torture. Everyone they tapped, from Gary Hart to John Kerry to Barr, is against torture, no exceptions. Writes Barr:
No less an upholder of the law than the attorney general of the United States, Michael Mukasey, sets almost as low a standard for the concept of the rule of law as do Messrs. Cheney and McConnell. For the attorney general, the answer to the question of whether waterboarding (and, by clear implication, other techniques inflicting pain as a tool with which to elicit information from a detainee) constitutes torture and would therefore be unlawful lies neither in clear definitions nor in definite standards. For Mukasey, it all depends on the "situation's circumstances." Mukasey refused to answer questions about waterboarding during his 2007 confirmation hearings, but has since determined that the CIA does not engage in the practice. And that, for the nation's top law enforcement officer, is the end of the matter. Everything beyond that is simply speculative and hypothetical.
This administration has gone beyond even the Bizarro World standard of declaring up to be down or left to be right. Not only is torture not torture, but there exists insufficient clarity even to know what is torture so we can determine whether an interrogation technique is torture or not. While the extreme sophistry and word gamesmanship practiced to a fine art by this administration might make a high school debating coach proud, it does great disservice to the notion that we exist in a society in which there are rules and norms of behavior with clarity and definitiveness and in which government agents as well as the citizenry are held to standards of behavior. This is not something of which we as Americans should be proud, and the use of torture will come back to haunt us in ways this administration apparently either doesn't realize or simply doesn't care about.
Not the first time this argument's been rolled out, but I like how it's put. I'm less impressed by the offering of William Taft IV.
When the subject is torture, opera fans like me think of Puccini's Tosca, in which the hero, Cavaradossi, is tortured for refusing to reveal the hiding place of a colleague.
At least I understand why the mag rejected my essay, which
began: "When the subject is torture, Motown fans like me think of
the opening of the Jacksons' Victory, in which the heroes,
Michael and Jermaine, are tortured for losing the loves of their
lives."
|3.13.08 @ 4:55PM|#
I oppose torture. Even almost torture. And even if I didn't, I think it isn't necessary in fighting terrorists, other nations, drug lords, other criminals, or even the politically unsound. We have many, many, many other ways to get information. Pretty much all of which are better and more reliable than torture.
|3.13.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Well, Episiarch, there is a difference between using torture to acquire information and using torture as punishment.
|3.13.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Torture does not work. Torture does not provide the results that (some might say) justify it's use. Torture diminishes your country.
svf|3.13.08 @ 5:13PM|#
so is Bob Barr gonna run for the LP presidential nomination or not? time is running out, isn't it?
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.08 @ 5:20PM|#
I think it's more cost effective to shoot the enemy than drag
them half way across the world to be tortured, fed, jailed,
porta-pottied, and then tortured some more.
Everyone they tapped...... is against torture, no
exceptions.
Any of them still beat the wife?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.13.08 @ 5:23PM|#
So as soon as Dondero reads this, that'll be the last time he ever says anything nice about Barr. If you can't out-Bauer Bauer, you're no friend of his.
|3.13.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Let's waterboard Michael Mukasey and see if he'll say "Waterboarding is torture in all circumstanses".
|3.13.08 @ 5:42PM|#
is 'sophistry' the word of the day or something?
regarding the post:
anyone who is 'for' torture is a sick fuck. I don't care what logic
or nuance they are using to justify their stance.
|3.13.08 @ 6:01PM|#
While I am a fan of Bob Barr, I don't think he is completely
accurate when he writes:
Waterboarding causes excruciating physical pain as the immobilized victim's lungs fill with water. At the same time, the process inflicts profound psychological pain by creating the very real impression in the victim's mind that he faces imminent death by drowning.
From what I have read, three detainees in the GWOT have been
subjected to waterboarding, the most famous of who was Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed. Their faces were covered by a plastic sheet, and
water was poured over the plastic sheet. Thus no water actually
entered the lungs. So the first part of Bob Barr's description is
not correct. However, the second part - the sensation of drowning
and associated panic and terror is correct.
|3.13.08 @ 6:06PM|#
I think that the signature of a failed presidency is the one
that Mr. Bush put on his veto of the torture-prohibition bill. But
he'll probably consider himself successful, in that the gutless
Congress could not muster up enough votes to override the
veto.
How can you NOT muster up a 2/3 majority to oppose torture? How can
those who voted against the prohibition, or who voted to sustain
the veto, stand to look at themselves in the mirror, much less be
re-elected?
We might as well just drop all pretenses of being the good guy in
bringing Democracy to the world (by force of arms, if need be). We
are now, inarguably, on record as retaining torture in our bag of
tricks, official denunciations or denials notwithstanding. This
dishonors the lives and memories of all those who made the ultimate
sacrifice to establish this nation, and to ensure "liberty, and
justice for all" throughout the ensuing centuries. The pride I feel
in my nation and its ideals struggles to survive under the
onslaught of the disgust I feel at the actions of those who have
hijacked the nation's institutions. I wonder how many Germans felt
similarly in the 1930s?
|3.13.08 @ 6:23PM|#
These discussions always break apart into arguments about (i) if
torture "works" and (ii) if it is morally permissible.
Obviously, if torture never works, there's no reason to ever use
it. If that's really one's position, one has a scientific case to
make first: namely, "there (virtually) never exists a time when
torture would provide timely information when no other method
would." One can then add for just emphasis in that case that
torturing people makes us look like jerks.
But I doubt one can really make even a rough probabilistic argument
of that sort really stick because there are so many hypotheticals.
And I don't think it matters, because most opponents of torture
would still be opposed even if it could be proved to work some of
the time. I think to most opponents, torture is always morally
unacceptable.
It's a corollary that these folks are willing to accept the risk
that, at some point in the future, not torturing a particular
terrorist may lead to the deaths of a very large number of innocent
people.
Now I assume some would say, "well, the risk is so small, it's not
worth mentioning." Again, what if that isn't true? Maybe the actual
position is "no matter what the risk, no matter what the potential
loss of life, torture is unacceptable, even if it works."
If that's the case, make that argument. A lot of people aren't
going to agree however. And that most likely includes all three
potential candidates for President, whatever they say.
|3.13.08 @ 6:44PM|#
From what I have read, three detainees in the GWOT have been
subjected to waterboarding, the most famous of who was Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed. Their faces were covered by a plastic sheet, and
water was poured over the plastic sheet. Thus no water actually
entered the lungs. So the first part of Bob Barr's description is
not correct. However, the second part - the sensation of drowning
and associated panic and terror is correct.
The videotapes of those interrogations were destroyed. Why would I
believe the Bush administration about what occured after they
desroyed the evidence?
Oh, that's right. I don't.
|3.13.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Maybe the actual position is "no matter what the risk, no
matter what the potential loss of life, torture is unacceptable,
even if it works."
I'll say that. I also say that rape is always
unacceptable.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.13.08 @ 6:49PM|#
"Ronald Reagan":
You don't have to accept that torture never works to distrust
torture. I'm as skeptical of this as I am most "never" or "always"
claims, though I've yet to see any evidence of it working beyond
the ability to force confessions. Torture supporters should be
willing to provide evidence of this if they're so sure of its
effectiveness; they should bring forward the evidence from the
regimes that have tortured in the past, showing that they got
worthwhile intelligence. If they're truly dedicated to what works,
with no real moral boundaries other than some vague utilitarianism
of number of lives saved, they shouldn't have any difficulty in
whose company they'd find themselves. You don't even that it is
always morally wrong to torture (I do accept this) to doubt that
any government is a trustworthy enough institution to place the
power to torture in their hands.
We don't feel that our government is trustworthy enough to allow
them to outlaw all private arms. (At least I don't; I'm guessing
that you don't either.) Why should we think their reasonableness
and restraint is so much greater when deciding who should say, be
waterboarded, have bamboo shoots shoved under their fingernails,
have their testicles crushed in vices, their children dismembered,
or whatever lengths we decide are acceptable in our utilitarian
quest to minimize total deaths?
Grant only those powers to government you'd want in the hands of
your worst enemies ... because soon enough that's exactly whose
hands they'll be in.
|3.13.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Thank you J sub D, I admire your honesty.
But what if raping one person could save the lives of
thousands?
|3.13.08 @ 6:58PM|#
But what if raping one person could save the lives of thousands?
I feel like I jerk for laughing at anything that involves rape. I
just couldn't possibly imagine the scenario you just laid out
actually happening.
Perhaps you meant to be absurd or coy, sir.
|3.13.08 @ 7:01PM|#
Someone:
I suspect "supporters" would say that virtually every modern
intelligence agency uses (and has always used) what opponents would
deem "torture" to some degree.
And that most modern armed forces have used it in the field to
extract time sensitive information.
Moreover, this has been done even when the political cost is known
to be high.
I'm willing to accept that all of these government agencies all
over the world may have done this just because they are composed of
evil idiots who can't compute a basic cost-benefit ratio even when
it's in their own favor.
If this is true, it should be an easy argument to make.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.08 @ 7:01PM|#
We are now, inarguably, on record as retaining torture in
our bag of tricks
I know this, but the CIA and friends have been using torture as far
back as anyone can remember. Or so it is assumed.
Course if I were king, I'd abolish the CIA, but the elections
aren't until later this year.
technomist|3.13.08 @ 7:04PM|#
"This is not something of which we as Americans should be proud,
and the use of torture will come back to haunt us in ways this
administration apparently either doesn't realize or simply doesn't
care about"
I think future administrations may come to care. Notwithstanding
any pardon or sovereign immunity Bush might try to claim for
himself or his cronies, the rest of the world has none of the moral
ambiguity his government has, nor do its jurists share your
Attorney General's uncertainty about what constitutes torture. Its
not too much of a stretch of the imagination to see former members
of your current administration or some sap who was 'only following
orders' low-down the food chain arrested abroad and facing a chain
of extradition cases and criminal charges in a few years time, on
torture related charges.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.08 @ 7:05PM|#
Their faces were covered by a plastic sheet, and water was
poured over the plastic sheet
That would be more likely to induce suffocation or a sensation of
suffocation than to induce a sense of drowning. Wouldn't it?
You know who was really good at torture? The Chinese.
|3.13.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Ok Art-POG, here's your scenario - maybe you'll feel
better?
Suppose we catch a female suicide truck bomber with a ticking
nuclear bomb in her vehicle. After we disarm the bomb and search
the truck, we find information that gives us reason to suspect that
she knows the location of additional bombers.
She is unwilling to speak and obviously totally willing to die. Can
we threaten to have her raped (perhaps while strongly suggesting
all of the potential religious ramifications to her) to make her
talk?
Can we actually carry it out if we think rape with additional
"physical pressure" will compel her to tell us where the other
bombers are?
Keep in mind we might only need to know what cities they are in to
have a good chance to catch them.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.13.08 @ 7:09PM|#
I suspect "supporters" would say that virtually every modern
intelligence agency uses (and has always used) what opponents would
deem "torture" to some degree.
And that most modern armed forces have used it in the field to
extract time sensitive information.
Then evidence that it works should be easily obtainable, shouldn't
it?
I'm willing to accept that all of these government agencies all
over the world may have done this just because they are composed of
evil idiots who can't compute a basic cost-benefit ratio even when
it's in their own favor.
I'm certain the use of torture is beneficial to some of the people
that use it. I'm just not sure that gaining actionable intelligence
is the benefit they're getting.
|3.13.08 @ 7:12PM|#
Can we actually carry it out if we think rape with additional "physical pressure" will compel her to tell us where the other bombers are?
Gosh, no. I don't want anybody playing by those rules.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.08 @ 7:13PM|#
the rest of the world has none of the moral ambiguity his
government has
I would have to say that a goodly share of the rest of the world is
just fine with torture so long is it is practiced on someone
besides themselves. They may rear their collective heads in outrage
but none of them will cast the first stone cuz that would involve
calling the kettle black (I know, mixed metaphors--is that the
right word?).
Now if you mean relatively civilized countries, well, we haven't
actually tortured any Swiss or Australian citizens, so they aren't
likely to prosecute anybody in the manner you describe. Not saying
you're scenario is entirely far-fetched, I could faintly see it
happening (Iran grabs Cheney and drags him off a plane in Cairo,
tosses him on the floor of a cab, and zip to a waiting corporate
jet owned by Soros for a short ride to Tehran International).
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.08 @ 7:14PM|#
Ronnie Rayguns (Zap)
Don't we have drugs that can make people tell the truth?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.13.08 @ 7:15PM|#
"Ronald Reagan",
Suppose we catch your female (or male) truck bomber but the rape
threat is not quite enough. Perhaps some threat of torture of her
child would make her more likely to give up her information. Maybe
she (or he) has multiple children so one can be eliminated in the
process just as proof that we're serious.
Is there any limit to how far we should go on a string of
maybes?
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.08 @ 7:16PM|#
Is there any limit to how far we should go on a string of
maybes?
Maybe.
Geotpf|3.13.08 @ 7:25PM|#
The problem with torture is the following:
1. The chances of the typical Jack Bauer 24 scenerio happening in
the real world are so small as to approach zero. For this to work,
we must know that there is a nuke going to go off somewhere soon
(or the equilvalent), have already captured a guy who knows where
it is and how to stop it, and we know he knows where it is and how
to stop it. In the real world, this combination of events in not
going to happen.
2. A lot of times, a tortured guy will spout off random bullshit to
get the torture to stop, even if he knows nothing. So, not only do
we have to know that a nuke is going to go off soon, and we have to
have captured a guy who knows where it is and how to stop it, and
we need to know that the guy we have captured knows where it is and
how to stop it, and we have to have enough to time
to run down any bullshit leads the guy gives to us (especially if
we just think we know he knows where it is and how to stop it, but
we are actually wrong and he really doesn't know where it is or how
to stop it).
|3.13.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Someone:
I really don't know if there's a limit. And I'm not really
suggesting an answer, other than to say this is pretty difficult
issue in a lot of ways. I don't think what Bob Barr says (or what
John Kerry might say for Chrissakes!) really gets into this. All
they do is bash Bush, which is so easy it's not even sporting any
more.
But really, step back and suppose I know where there terrorists are
in advance. Am I allowed to order an air strike on a "known"
nuclear-suicide bomber safe house under time-constraints even if
it's impossible to do so unless I kill and/or permanently injure a
bunch of children nearby?
Being wounded by an air strike sure seems torture-like to me
.....
Maybe I'm only allowed to attack the house if I can get troops
there to use non-lethal weapons in time? Is there any limit
here?
|3.13.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Torture does work. You just have to understand that its purpose
is not the extraction of information from terror suspects, but
rather the intimidation of the legitimate, peaceful
opposition.
Aren't you all just a little bit more fearful of crossing the
Bush-Cheney Overlordship, knowing that they can arrest you without
a warrant and torture you without a trial?
Then as far as they're concerned, it's accomplishing its intended
purpose.
technomist|3.13.08 @ 7:37PM|#
The Wine Commonsewer: have you asked the rest of the world? I
think you will find you are right in places like Uzbekistan,
Morocco and Egypt, but not in Europe. There is genuine anger in the
EU at governmental levels about what has been going on and
embarrassment that the USA has a government which has stooped so
low.
AS for the mechanics of it, Pinochet wasn't arrested specifically
for torturing anyone British, he was held initially on a Spanish
warrant. The world has moved on further since then: a European
arrest warrant can now be issued in Spain or Belgium and enforced
in another part of the EU with far fewer formalities than Pinochet
hid behind.
I know there are outstanding allegations regarding the torture of
British Citizens in Guantanamo, and I would not be surprised if
there are not others stacking up as we speak regarding the citizens
or permanent residents of other 'civilized' countries.
I don't see it happening now- or during the life of the next
administration, possibly, while we are still all fighting happily
as allies in Afghanistan, but things change... More likely it would
be some low level torturer who'd get caught on a holiday
somewhere.
Its not an anti-American thing - its just that Europeans don't much
like torturers and there are legal careers which would be enhanced
by forcing the application of the laws we have against it. (Don't
stop over in Belgium is my tip to Rumsfeldt) I've been told there
are already Israeli officers and politicians having to pretend they
aren't on flights that stop to refuel in Europe, for the same
reason, by the way.
|3.13.08 @ 7:47PM|#
technomist:
Speaking as one American, I'm very pleased to see that Europeans
have finally repudiated the last 500 years of murder and plunder
that they spread all over the globe. And I congratulate Europeans
for (sort of) managing to not whole-scale slit each others' throats
for the past 60.
I don't even mind the moralizing sermons I hear from European
politicians and pundits, because it gives me hope that you'll stay
peaceful even as we and the Russians fade into the background. It's
very important to me that you stay peaceful, because all of our
wars for the past century have been against or because of
you.
I sometimes fear though, that you may yet turn out to be secret
Spitzers of a sort, especially when I see how some European
countries behave in their "former" colonies .....
|3.13.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Ronald Reagan -
OK, I read your how. No. Thousands die and I don't get
re-elected.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.13.08 @ 7:58PM|#
All they do is bash Bush, which is so easy it's not even
sporting any more.
This issue is one of the reasons he's easy to bash.
But really, step back and suppose I know where there terrorists
are in advance. Am I allowed to order an air strike on a "known"
nuclear-suicide bomber safe house under time-constraints even if
it's impossible to do so unless I kill and/or permanently injure a
bunch of children nearby?
I'm having a hard time figuring where the haste requirement is in
this one. A "known" nuclear-suicide bomber safe house is a bit
vague and I expect, subject to change. I assume that these bombers
haven't yet suicide-bombed, so they must be still in the planning
stages to one extent or another. It also seems as though the bomb
isn't about to go off, and that we aren't getting any information
out of them if we're bombing them from above. Why are we to believe
that they have to be taken out by air? Why immediately, if we know
where they are? How certain are we in this knowledge?
Unless there are further hidden reasons to take this action
immediately, I'd say no on this. (Note that I'm not definitely
saying I'll say yes under other circumstances.)
Being wounded by an air strike sure seems torture-like to me
.....
It certainly does.
Maybe I'm only allowed to attack the house if I can get troops
there to use non-lethal weapons in time? Is there any limit
here?
Again, in time for what? Where's the doomsday scenario here that's
awaiting in minutes?
I'm not a pacifist. I don't believe non-lethal weapons are
necessary to deal with every threat. However, it is important to
try to deal with actual threats, not every single being that you
think might be near a threat.
Any answer on why we can't be provided evidence of torture's
effectiveness in getting good intelligence?
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.08 @ 8:00PM|#
Any answer on why we can't be provided evidence of torture's
effectiveness in getting good intelligence
best question I've heard all day.
|3.13.08 @ 8:01PM|#
Well J sub D,
You have my respect that's for sure.
Very few people I've met have the guts to stand there and say "no,
no matter what." It's a brave position and I admire it.
Especially if US city is nuked after you as president gave a
no-torture order .... if it ever became public, you'd have to
resign and go into hiding for the rest of your life.
technomist|3.13.08 @ 8:07PM|#
Ronald Regan,
I tend to agree with you about hypocrisy: I have no great
confidence that the French aren't up to their old tricks in Chad or
the C.A.R. as we speak. On the other hand, they aren't pretending
what I suspect their small force of legionnaires may get up to is
legal. Nor,as far as I know re-organizing their internal security
apparatus on the basis that this is a primary instrument of state
policy and its adherents in government should have immunity from
prosecution.
|3.13.08 @ 8:08PM|#
TWC:
It would be useful to expand that question: why not look at all of
the various means to get "good" intelligence (good is probably
harder to define that you might guess too).
What are they?
I'm not a spook, so I really don't know.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.13.08 @ 8:48PM|#
"Ronald Reagan":
The anti-torture side needs one of two things to be true: either
that torture is ineffective in meeting the goals we set for it,
or that it is so morally reprehensible
that it is never acceptable regardless of its effectiveness. The
pro-torture side needs both of these
things to be false. It seems that you are willing to admit that, at
least in some situations, such as those in which there is no
possible gain, torture may be morally wrong. Also, you seem to be
unable to provide any evidence that it is effective in achieving
any of the goals you are setting for it. (So far these goals seem
to be entirely about nuclear suicide bombers, but even if we allow
the expansion of the goals to include "good" actionable
intelligence against would-be mass murderers, you have yet to
provide any evidence of torture's effectiveness.)
In this case, where's the argument to keep using torture? Whatever
the arguments against are, the case for it falls apart if it
doesn't work (get "good" intelligence). If even its supporters have
no evidence to show that it does work, why should one propose its
use? This is an especially serious question, since at least when
used incorrectly (against innocents for example, and with no net
gain of lives) its supporters could be reasonably expected to admit
that torture is morally wrong, even reprehensible.
Why should the burden of proof rest solely on the anti-torture
side, especially for a method whose own supporters, or devil's
advocates, or whatever, are willing to admit is mostly wrong? One
whose supporters can't provide any scientific evidence of its
usefulness?
|3.13.08 @ 9:30PM|#
Someone:
Actually I don't see the argument quite as you do, but:
First, I absolutely believe there are many cases where torture is
unacceptable ... including many cases where there is possible
gain!
Second, I don't think there is any possibility of ever proving
torture "does" or "does not" work. I would submit that when
combined with other means, it will work on some individuals, and
not on others. We will not know in advance what methods will or
will not work on a particular terrorist.
Third, I've made a point to bring up nuclear terror for the
following reason: if there was no possibility of attack using a
nuclear device, I would oppose torture under any circumstance I can
imagine. But a nuclear weapon has the easy potential to kill more
Americans in an instant than died in all of the 20th century's wars
combined.
So I believe in the nuclear terror case, a larger share of the
burden of proof does rest on the anti-terror side, because the
potential for loss of life is so staggering. In such a situation,
anything that has a chance of working probably needs to be
tried.
The nuclear issue is the main unspoken weapon the administration
really has to defend itself. Nuclear terror is very scary to people
and there is a moral argument to make that one terrorist's comfort
is not worth 500,000 lives.
I would submit that to face that argument squarely would make it
much easier and effective to oppose extension of torture to other
situations.
|3.13.08 @ 10:18PM|#
The reason you cannot get any evidence of torture's effectiveness is that NONE EXISTS. That was easy. Anyone know how they get the caramel inside the Caramilk bar?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.13.08 @ 10:20PM|#
Interesting that evidence was important to you here:
Obviously, if torture never works, there's no reason to ever use it. If that's really one's position, one has a scientific case to make first: namely, "there (virtually) never exists a time when torture would provide timely information when no other method would."
But no longer so important here:
Second, I don't think there is any possibility of ever proving torture "does" or "does not" work. I would submit that when combined with other means, it will work on some individuals, and not on others. We will not know in advance what methods will or will not work on a particular terrorist.
But, for the sake of argument, let's lower the bar for the
"scientific case" for your side again. Give me a single example
where torture has worked, since you seem to view it as necessary
that its opponents prove that it never works, can you just show
that it has once? I am looking for an actual specific example where
some specific positive outcome was directly attributable to
torture. That would be the negation of the proof that you want for
those who state that torture should never be legally
acceptable.
And let me sum up your position:
1. You accept that there are cases in which torture is
unacceptable. In fact, I'd guess you would admit, as you seem to
only be interested now in one very limited case, that in almost
every single other case, it's unacceptable.
2. You lack a single example of it ever "working". Here, I have
even left what "works" for you to define. Feel free to give me an
example and explain what your bar for having it "work" is.
3. The reason that you feel torture may be a necessary tactic is
due to a hypothetical case that has never happened.
How do these three points give us a reason to justify torture's
past, current, and further use, none of which apply to your single
"thought experiment" justification?
If the burden of proof is always on the other side and your side
never has to answer any questions about evidence or the likelihood
of your justifications ever coming to pass, it seems like you're
doing your side a disservice with a poor argument.
The nuclear issue is the main unspoken weapon the administration really has to defend itself. Nuclear terror is very scary to people and there is a moral argument to make that one terrorist's comfort is not worth 500,000 lives.
If this is their main "unspoken weapon", let them speak it. Let
them use nuclear terror to justify the use of torture in
non-nuclear terror cases (as every single case in which it has been
used thus far has been).
Lots of things are scary; fear is a powerful motivator and a good
thing to rely on when avoiding giving evidence.
I would submit that to face that argument squarely would make it much easier and effective to oppose extension of torture to other situations.
If they ever state that these are the only cases in which they
would use torture, then perhaps it would. So far, they seem
uninterested in waiting until the nuclear case ever arises. By the
way, when a government power ever quits being extended to other
situations than whatever was its initial justification, please let
me know.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.08 @ 10:38PM|#
Ronnie, I don't think there is ever very much really good
intelligence. Maybe, on occasion, in limited circumstances there is
(Mossad may disagree).
Except in the movies, the intelligence community in the USA has
been profoundly wrong on most of the really important stuff that we
need to know about. Or at least we think we do.
For instance, I don't find the need to sneak into my neighbors
homes to see what kind of an arsenal they might have. I don't find
it useful to try to determine who means me harm and who can be
trusted. I keep my doors locked, my dogs seem as mean as junk yard
dogs, I keep my defense mechanisms operational and nearby.
Sure the terrorists mean us harm, but we can't find them, even
after spending billions and billions over at Langley. Sure we can
end up having problems like the ME. And we'll need to handle those
problems but they will be after-the-fact because no matter how much
you spend you can't stop a crazed bomber from detonating a hidden
grenade as a movie theater empties into the night air.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.08 @ 10:38PM|#
I meant the last two paragraphs as an argument as to why we may not even need an intelligence community at all.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.08 @ 10:42PM|#
Winter, I think there may be some evidence that torture works
sometimes. It almost always was effective in all those Ian Fleming
novels.
Seriously though, I'd like the feds to trot out some specific
examples of when it has worked and why and what the bottom line
benefit was. I think that is a most excellent question to ask of
them.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.13.08 @ 11:04PM|#
TWC: I'm not even asking that. "RR" can use an example from
another country, even one whose records are now open. As long as it
meets his requirement for "working", and the result is directly
attributable to the torture, that will be the example I've asked
for. He should feel free to find a case in which Pol Pot got
actionable intelligence based on his torture if he wants. Of course
if he wanted, he could lower his bar to "causes the tortured to
sign confessions" as well. That would probably do it just fine, if
that's what he decides he's interested in. (Though it does drop the
bottom out of his "nuclear terror" justification as confessions
don't find bombs.)
I've lowered the bar for what I'm expecting of him several times
now (far below what is actually necessary), so I'm hoping he'll
step up this time. It's really easy to never stop asserting your
correctness when your argument is that the other side has to prove
the universal claim that you ask of them beyond any doubt and yours
doesn't need any evidence, not even a single example to the
contrary, because of the danger of some thought-experiment come
true whose likelihood you can't even estimate.
|3.13.08 @ 11:07PM|#
What the heck is going on in that video? Jermaine surrounded by giant, gooey eyeballs. Michael strapped to a giant spiderweb while chainmail-wearing girls crack whips at him. I think this is MKUltra-style torture involving a massive overdose of LSD.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.13.08 @ 11:47PM|#
CSI: Yeah, that video's 51 seconds of my life I won't get back.
Nutter|3.14.08 @ 12:48AM|#
Doesn't Barr still fervently support the drug war, which tortures and kills Americans every day?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.14.08 @ 8:17AM|#
Nutter: Certainly he used to be. He seems to have reversed his position on the WoD since he left the Republican party, though.
T|3.14.08 @ 9:53AM|#
I'll freely admit that I'm an amoral sonofabitch who would have,
back when I was a young paratrooper, picked up some razor blades
and a propane torch and gotten after it if some JAG officer told me
it was legal. I also freely admit I'm an outlier. I don't
necessarily get the moral case against torture. What, it's okay to
shot/bomb/stab/immolate terrorists but not beat the fuck out of
them? On the spectrum of acceptable violence against their persons
we go from minimal to kill with no intervening steps? Huh? How's
that make sense?
However, I'm fundamentally opposed to torture as an instrument of
state policy for several reasons. One, I don't trust the government
to competently handle the issue. I barely trust them with the death
penalty, and my support for that keeps waning as Radley posts more.
Two, I'd like to think all the high-minded poetry in the
Declaration and the Constitution means something. We as a country
should be better than that, even if I'm not. Finally, I don't want
to turn 20 year olds who volunteered to defend the country into
torturers. It ain't gonna do them any good, I think that's a shitty
thing to do to them, and that's how it would end up.
Michael Ejercito|3.14.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Does not waterboarding constitute assault and battery?
Why can't local authorities who have jurisdiction where the
waterboarding takes place prosecute under existing laws against
assault and battery?
|3.14.08 @ 4:07PM|#
I've read many times the explanation that waterboarding involves
placing plastic over the face of the target/victim/suspect and
pouring water on the plastic, thereby inducing the sensation of
drowning. I just don't understand how that can cause a drowning
sensation, if no water is entering the lungs.
Can anyone explain this?
DannyK|3.14.08 @ 6:04PM|#
David, why the opera-bashing? Having just seen a really good
performance of Tosca at the Seattle Opera, I can tell you it's a
lyrical celebration of love, art, and freedom in the face of
religious tyranny. Plus great music.
I realize it's always "cool" to mock classical music, but isn't
this post a little beneath you?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.14.08 @ 6:19PM|#
TF: I'm not sure. I'd heard that, but I've also heard that it's done with normal cloth so water can actually enter the nose. Not being too into that kind of kink myself, I can't say what the proper procedure is.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245