When Torture Backfires

Jesse Walker | April 29, 2009

The leader of an American interrogation team in Iraq speaks out about torture:

It was the team led by Major Alexander [a named assumed for security reasons] that obtained the information that led to the US military being able to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qa'ida in Iraq. Zarqawi was then killed by bombs dropped by two US aircraft on the farm where he was hiding outside Baghdad on 7 June 2006. Major Alexander said that he learnt where Zarqawi was during a six-hour interrogation of a prisoner with whom he established relations of trust.

Major Alexander's attitude to torture by the US is a combination of moral outrage and professional contempt....In an interview he was particularly dismissive of the "ticking bomb" argument often used in the justification of torture. This supposes that there is a bomb timed to explode on a bus or in the street which will kill many civilians. The authorities hold a prisoner who knows where the bomb is. Should they not torture him to find out in time where the bomb is before it explodes?

Major Alexander says he faced the "ticking time bomb" every day in Iraq because "we held people who knew about future suicide bombings". Leaving aside the moral arguments, he says torture simply does not work. "It hardens their resolve. They shut up." He points out that the FBI uses normal methods of interrogation to build up trust even when they are investigating a kidnapping and time is of the essence. He would do the same, he says, "even if my mother was on a bus" with a hypothetical ticking bomb on board. It is quite untrue to imagine that torture is the fastest way of obtaining information, he says.

Alexander also offers some interesting comments about the motives of the men he interrogated:

Before he started interrogating insurgent prisoners in Iraq, he had been told that they were highly ideological and committed to establishing an Islamic caliphate in Iraq, Major Alexander says. In the course of the hundreds of interrogations carried out by himself, as well as more than 1,000 that he supervised, he found that the motives of both foreign fighters joining al-Qa'ida in Iraq and Iraqi-born members were very different from the official stereotype.

In the case of foreign fighters – recruited mostly from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and North Africa – the reason cited by the great majority for coming to Iraq was what they had heard of the torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. These abuses, not fundamentalist Islam, had provoked so many of the foreign fighters volunteering to become suicide bombers.

For Iraqi Sunni Arabs joining al-Qa'ida, the abuses played a role, but more often the reason for their recruitment was political rather than religious. They had taken up arms because the Shia Arabs were taking power; de-Baathification marginalised the Sunni and took away their jobs; they feared an Iranian takeover. Above all, al-Qa'ida was able to provide money and arms to the insurgents.

Comments

brules|4.29.09 @ 7:16AM|#

It makes a little sense that someone being tortured would cite torture as their motivation for becoming insurgents/foreign fighters.

Kyle Jordan|4.29.09 @ 7:20AM|#

Hey, like Michael Westen said,

"The fact is, torture is for sadists and thugs."

anarch|4.29.09 @ 7:42AM|#

Skeptics may scoff, but empirical evidence for the inefficacy of torture supports my confidence in the humane aspect of the world-order, much as does the mutual strengthening of liberty and prosperity, or of unrestricted speech and general creative innovation. It's like learning that depressions don't need war for their cure.

That is, I should be sad to live in a world in which inflicting pain is the best method of supporting honesty. I'd adjust, but I'd be sad.

This is better.

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 7:54AM|#

The problem is still how the word torture has been sissied up to mean anything a crybaby reporter wants it to mean.

|4.29.09 @ 8:11AM|#

This article it a total crock of shit.

Sure, Islam has been violently expanding for 13 centuries but now they are the equivalent of an Arab Human Rights watch?! They left their tent in the desert because they are simply fighting for human liberty?!!!

Written like a complete Leftard, "Everything bad that happens in the world is a result of the EVIL Americans"

I can't decide who is more stupid. The fool who made up this absurd story or the people who actually believe it.

If this guy was interrogating people in prison he would write an article about how they were all innocent, cause you know, they told him they were.

What a tool.

Nikola T|4.29.09 @ 8:19AM|#

I don't know...

How can this guy really say listening to him talk for 6 hours isn't torture? After 6 hours of this, I'd be requesting the rack, the iron maiden and crucifixion!

spambot|4.29.09 @ 8:20AM|#

So if he had said it worked then he would be a hero? The knowledge that torture is ineffective is nothing new. I will take this guys word over the average pro-WOT blog poster since he has actually been there. Yes I would say that even if his opinion were just the opposite.

The reality is these stories are more common than stories of them getting usable information through torture. I do believe the article overplays the aspect of foreign fighters being influenced by American torture and not Islam. I am sure that is a motivator for some but not as big as it is made out in the article.

|4.29.09 @ 8:22AM|#

Marshall,
Are we reading the same article?

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 8:24AM|#

crucifixion

Nail 'em up! Nail some sense into 'em!

Abdul|4.29.09 @ 8:27AM|#

the reason cited by the great majority for coming to Iraq was what they had heard of the torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib

If Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were the great recruiting tool, how did we stock those places with detainees before the stories of abuse became widely known? Foreign fighters were already coming into the area.

Furthermore, Russia's done a lot more torturing of Muslim detainees in Chechnya than the US was ever accused of doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why isn't there a jihad migration into Russia?

|4.29.09 @ 8:31AM|#

I call bullshit on foriegn fighters citing Gitmo and Abu Grahab as their motivators. They were obviously trained to say that. People who enjoy chopping off heads aren't phased by dog collars.

Nikola T|4.29.09 @ 8:36AM|#

Exactly. If it caused more harm than good, we'd have no reason to do it. I have a problem when people try to insist on there being a utilitarian reason not to torture. A moral reason, yes. But it IS effective - that's why people do it. Even if you condemn it, it will still be done because it gets information you didn't have before.

Untermensch|4.29.09 @ 8:38AM|#

What is it with some folks that they think that questioning torture is anti-American or "liberal"? Surely conservatives who believe in America as the city on a hill should believe that we have the moral requirement to live up to what we proclaim. I don't understand those who really don't see that saying that we're better than the local thuggish dictator and then doing the same thing, regardless of our reasons, sends the message that we're not so different...

I have a close friend (an American) who married a Turkish man. The Turks where she lives are pro-American, which is precisely why they find allegations of torture and abuse so infuriating. As one of her in-laws told her, "Of course we know that governments torture people, but we want America to be different." If those who are pro-American are infuriated by torture, why wouldn't those who are more ambivalent about America in the first place find it a motivator?

I call bullshit on foriegn fighters citing Gitmo and Abu Grahab as their motivators. They were obviously trained to say that. People who enjoy chopping off heads aren't phased by dog collars.

That has to be the most asinine statement yet in this thread, and that's saying a lot.

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 8:39AM|#

But it IS effective - that's why people do it.

You mean it is not because they are big meanies or sex freaks?

JohnD|4.29.09 @ 8:41AM|#

Any article quoting a person with an assumed name is just so much drivel.

This sounds like something written by a lefty reporter with an agenda.

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 8:42AM|#

Doing his work while SF is on a Feministing strike: The Feministing take on Libertarianism.

|4.29.09 @ 8:52AM|#

Any article quoting a person with an assumed name is just so much drivel.

This sounds like something written by a lefty reporter with an agenda.

Exactly, just like Deep Throat...oops.

creech|4.29.09 @ 9:02AM|#

Suppose it could be demonstrated that some form of torture did work? Would that make it right? Obviously, some forms must work - French resistance fighters spilled their guts when captured by the Gestapo. Do we really believe Gestapo agents were more effective pulling info out of them by offering an absinthe and a Gauloise or by electrifying their balls or gang raping female captives?

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 9:03AM|#

LIT gets one right by accident.

Nikola T|4.29.09 @ 9:15AM|#

Ok, creech. Thank you. It does work.

That's enough of the utilitarian argument.

Now the moral argument...
The place where a person draws this line is based upon the situation. If the information you are trying to obtain has a higher moral value to you than the method of interrogation you are using, then you will say it's justified.

It's an easy equation, but one that will change for any given situation. So... if you believe the information sought by THESE interrogators was more important than scaring the detainees, then you probably have no problem with this.

Therefore, I don't think a blanket statement about what is and isn't torture can be made.

Xeones|4.29.09 @ 9:21AM|#

French resistance fighters spilled their guts when captured by the Gestapo.

I bolded your answer.

It seems to me that if American affairs are in such a state that we even need to be debating what is and is not torture, let alone how much thereof is permissible, then the United States has gone pretty far off the rails.

|4.29.09 @ 9:27AM|#

Anyone who supports torture deserves to be tortured.

|4.29.09 @ 9:28AM|#

Here's my biggest concern about torture.

Sure, it might work on some people, particularly those with a lot of intelligence (that they're reluctant to give).

But what about people without any actionable intelligence?

What about people being mistakenly held?

Not good, I say.

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 9:28AM|#

Anyone who supports torture deserves to be tortured.

"I'm not touching you."

Okay, you can do it back to me, if you can stomach that level of brutality.

Nikola T|4.29.09 @ 9:30AM|#

Warren, everybody supports torture. Even you.

See my moral equation above.

Jesse Walker|4.29.09 @ 9:31AM|#

I can't decide who is more stupid. The fool who made up this absurd story or the people who actually believe it.

If by "absurd story" you mean "Marshall Gill's summary of the article," I can't decide either.

Hugh Akston|4.29.09 @ 9:47AM|#

Therefore, I don't think a blanket statement about what is and isn't torture can be made.

Torture is the willful infliction of physical pain or psychological distress for the purpose of gaining information or concession from the victim.

It is a sadistic and malicious act that yields nothing that could not be gained in more humane ways.

Torture is the recourse of scoundrels and savages, and the hallmark of a failed society.

Untermensch|4.29.09 @ 9:52AM|#

For all those who argue that anyone who argues against torture is a lefty, terrorist-loving nancy boy, even if that were true, so what? If the argument is right, it's right, no matter who makes it. It seems like you can't argue against it, so you engage in absurd ad hominem. It seems like the one side is morally bankrupt, knows it, and is pissed about, so they attack anyone who points it out...

Kris|4.29.09 @ 9:52AM|#

Guy Mont... err... High Every Body,

Go back to slash dot.

Drip, Drip, Drip|4.29.09 @ 9:53AM|#

I simply do not buy this crap.

Nikola T|4.29.09 @ 9:53AM|#

And yet, "If the information you are trying to obtain has a higher moral value to you than the method of interrogation you are using, then you will say it's justified."

|4.29.09 @ 9:54AM|#

To clarify what I said, I'd only think torture would be OK if we lived in a universe where we were all like Ghost Rider, and we could look into people's souls and see all their past deeds and know what type of person they were, and be like, "hey, this guy's done _______, feel my penance stare."

Pretty sure we don't live in that universe.

|4.29.09 @ 9:55AM|#

the reason cited by the great majority for coming to Iraq was what they had heard of the torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib

Seems odd to me. They come from societies that torture routinely, yet they aren't rising up against Syria or Iran or Saudi Arabia, so it can't really be that they are offended by torture.

I have no doubt that they are offended by Americans in Iraq, though. I suppose, to a certain primitive mind, torture by "our people"/Arabs/Muslims is OK, but torture by Americans is uniquely offensive.

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 9:57AM|#

Pretty sure we don't live in that universe.

Does not sound like you need interrogation in that universe, but I am not a comic book nut either.

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 9:58AM|#

I have no doubt that they are offended by Americans in Iraq, though. I suppose, to a certain primitive mind, torture by "our people"/Arabs/Muslims is OK, but torture by Americans is uniquely offensive.

Looks like plenty of primitive minds right here on this thread. Scroll up.

Hugh Akston|4.29.09 @ 10:00AM|#

Nikola, rather than hoping that empty repetition will make your argument any more plausible, you might try to provide an example of something-anything-that would justify dehumanizing yourself and your captive the way torture does.

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 10:04AM|#

Hugh Akston,

The safe word is bin Laden.

|4.29.09 @ 10:07AM|#

Major Alexander's attitude to torture by the US is a combination of moral outrage and professional contempt ...

He sounds like a real pro. He'll never make Lt. Colonel now because he disagreed with the powers that be and was right. Then he spoke out of school.

Nikola T|4.29.09 @ 10:09AM|#

Hugh, if someone was holding your child captive somewhere and threatening to hurt him, your moral obligation to find him would be higher than your moral obligation to make the criminal comfortable.

You would do what works.

This debate is not black and white, it's an equation. And to deny that is to deny our nature.

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 10:11AM|#

He sounds like a real pro. He'll never make Lt. Colonel now because he disagreed with the powers that be and was right. Then he spoke out of school.

Perhaps he is eyeing a deal with Air America before they fold?

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 10:16AM|#

"If Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were the great recruiting tool, how did we stock those places with detainees before the stories of abuse became widely known?"

Because approximately 60% were believed to have been innocent. While the most notorious photo of a prisoner being electrocuted was someone who was guilty of carjacking, not terrorism.

"Furthermore, Russia's done a lot more torturing of Muslim detainees in Chechnya than the US was ever accused of doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why isn't there a jihad migration into Russia?"

There is, foreign fighters have gone to fight in Chechnya. As well since the Russians killed approximately 250,000 Chechen's in the "war on terror" theirs less to worry about due to a basic lack of scruples.

"But it IS effective - that's why people do it. Even if you condemn it, it will still be done because it gets information you didn't have before."

Yes, in extracting false confessions. That's the reason it was used in the Inquisition, by the Gestapo, the KGB, and the Stasi.

It's nice to see "libertarians" promoting the use of torture.

"I call bullshit on foriegn fighters citing Gitmo and Abu Grahab as their motivators. They were obviously trained to say that. People who enjoy chopping off heads aren't phased by dog collars."

What about sodomy, rape, mutual masturbation, manslaughter, stress positions, and pouring acid of prisoners.

Nikola T|4.29.09 @ 10:19AM|#

Funny, I can't believe how many "libertarians" think everybody else should accept THEIR moral equation.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 10:20AM|#

Alas, I must stop. More or less because I fear people like High Every Body, Marshall Gill, and Nikola T, all start to tell us we should read "The Gulag Archipelago" as a manual in how to fight terrorism. Not to mention their position that their is nothing wrong with adopting the same tactics as the Gestapo, Stasi, and the Kempeitai.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 10:21AM|#

"Funny, I can't believe how many "libertarians" think everybody else should accept THEIR moral equation."

You mean NOT giving the state the ability to torture people under secrecy.

Perhaps you should figure out that torture isn't necessarily moral and we shouldn't throw out the Geneva Conventions because a few on the extreme-right want to adopt torture.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 10:24AM|#

"Hugh, if someone was holding your child captive somewhere and threatening to hurt him, your moral obligation to find him would be higher than your moral obligation to make the criminal comfortable.

You would do what works."

No, you wouldn't. Because the information given could lead to a wild goose chase and you're not 100% certain they know where said child is. The ends don't justify the means.

This is the same logic that Robespierre used during the reign of terror.

y|4.29.09 @ 10:24AM|#

http://www.blacktulip.nl/tulip.html

|4.29.09 @ 10:25AM|#

Not to mention their position that their is nothing wrong with adopting the same tactics as the Gestapo, Stasi, and the Kempeitai.

I have a theory, which as far as I know is not reflected in the formal law of war, but is almost certainly reflected in the "common law" of war.

Whatever tactics your enemy adopts, they consent to you using against them. When the Germans bombed London, they consented to mass air raids against German cities. When the Japanese killed Americans attempting to surrender, they consented to the killing of Japanese attempting to surrender. When AQ tortures and kills American prisoners . . . .

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 10:28AM|#

"Whatever tactics your enemy adopts, they consent to you using against them. When the Germans bombed London, they consented to mass air raids against German cities. When the Japanese killed Americans attempting to surrender, they consented to the killing of Japanese attempting to surrender. When AQ tortures and kills American prisoners . . . ."

Problem being that many of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were not members of AQ and were tortured anyway. As well you're basically stating that war cimes are permissible as long as the other side does it.

We've seen the result of that kind of logic in Yugoslavia.

Hugh Akston|4.29.09 @ 10:34AM|#

Nikola,

First, don't say everything is contextual with regard to what's permissible and the turn around and talk about absolute weights of my moral obligations. If you're going to stick to your pusillanimous utilitarian calculus, then everything, including the weighting schema, is fair game.

Second, If "what works" includes less sadistic measures like persuasion, negotiation, or in extreme cases the credible threat of execution, it seems unlikely that hooking his nuts up to a car battery would be my first recourse.

Third, even if I did grant that the welfare of my child is of greater moral weight to me than that of a prisoner, we're talking about the State here, not me personally. I would think twice about empowering the State to decide which individuals' welfare outweighs that of others.

Hacha Cha|4.29.09 @ 10:38AM|#

torture gets you information you didn't have before... yeah, false information.
life isn't a TV show. torture is wrong morally and because it doesn't fucking work.

Blind Kung Fu Master|4.29.09 @ 10:39AM|#

"Whatever tactics your enemy adopts, they consent to you using against them. When the Germans bombed London, they consented to mass air raids against German cities. When the Japanese killed Americans attempting to surrender, they consented to the killing of Japanese attempting to surrender. When AQ tortures and kills American prisoners . . . ."

But Grasshopper, they are not our teachers.

Jack Bauer|4.29.09 @ 10:48AM|#

"torture gets you information you didn't have before... yeah, false information.
life isn't a TV show. torture is wrong morally and because it doesn't fucking work."

What are you talking about?

It's quite obvious that Nikola and Marshall know torture works from my TV show 24. Television entertainment is an accurate portrayal of reality.

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 10:57AM|#

Because approximately 60% were believed to have been innocent. While the most notorious photo of a prisoner being electrocuted was someone who was guilty of carjacking, not terrorism.

If that does not deserve a good zap, or better, I don't know what does.

High Every Body|4.29.09 @ 10:59AM|#

By-the-by, carjacking is a good way to get yourself shot dead in my county.

spambot|4.29.09 @ 11:23AM|#

"What is it with some folks that they think that questioning torture is anti-American or "liberal"? "

It is a side effect of being an ass clown. For other examples, see folks who call anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 11:23AM|#

but I am not a comic book nut either.

Connoisseur, I'm a comic book connoisseur. I wouldn't say I'm nuts, but I guess that's up to professionals to determine.

Rice Bingham|4.29.09 @ 11:23AM|#

By-the-by, carjacking is a good way to get yourself shot dead in my county.


Tough talk from a guy who had his Pacer jacked by an assailant wielding a butter knife.

|4.29.09 @ 11:36AM|#

A moral reason, yes. But it IS effective - that's why people do it.

Far more people pray for God to cure them of illness. By your sophomoric reasoning, that IS effective - that's why people do it.

|4.29.09 @ 11:39AM|#

Problem being that many of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were not members of AQ and were tortured anyway.

Yeah, I know. All the laws of war, written and unwritten, break down when you have illegal combatants on the field.

As well you're basically stating that war cimes are permissible as long as the other side does it.

Pretty much, yeah. Kind of like how its not assault to hit somebody in a boxing match. To extend that analogy, if your opponent in a boxing match hits you below the belt, he is waiving the rule against hitting below the belt, and you can proceed to pound his 'nads without getting whistle from the ref. Another analogy: if someone takes a shot at you, they are waiving the rule against you shooting back.

Really, its the golden rule in operation, so I don't think its inherently unethical, and has a lot to recommend it as a practical incentive for adherence to the laws of war.

|4.29.09 @ 11:41AM|#

This is a bunch of lies. This supposed interrogator sounds like a troofer to me! Everyone knows the islamist hate us for our freedom. Anyone who questions this FACT is an idiot. The islamist probably like us more when we torture because it helps them relate to us and see us as strong people.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 11:42AM|#

"Really, its the golden rule in operation, so I don't think its inherently unethical, and has a lot to recommend it as a practical incentive for adherence to the laws of war."

I'm still opposed because that could extend to the largely unecessary deaths of civilians who are not suppose to be targeted. I'd even go so far as to say that I was opposed to both Dresden and the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If we're going to war and want our virtues to remain intact we should take the moral highground and not stoop to the same level as those who commit evil.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 11:48AM|#

If we're going to war and want our virtues to remain intact we should take the moral highground and not stoop to the same level as those who commit evil.

+1

Hearts and minds, people. Hearts and minds.

Jesse Walker|4.29.09 @ 11:50AM|#

its the golden rule in operation, so I don't think its inherently unethical

Only if you hold civilians responsible for the war crimes committed by their governments. (Sort of a "Little Eichmanns" argument.)

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 11:54AM|#

"Hearts and minds, people. Hearts and minds."

Exactly, anyone who is knowledgeable on the Battle of Algiers will note that the French essentially adopted many of the same tactics many on the right are saying America should adopt. Needless to say it didn't work out in the long run and Algeria eventually became independent.

Christopher Hitchens sums up whats wrong with torture perfectly:

//Now, let's stipulate that there may conceivably have been a moment of national emergency-a "ticking bomb" moment, if you insist-when the rules were bent a bit. But if this emergency rule-bending is then institutionalized, and kept a secret from Congress and the courts and the voters, and becomes a regular bureaucratic practice known only to an unelected and unaccountable few, then you have created a secret state within the state and are well on the road to becoming a banana republic. The next stage, very often, is that certain inconveniently damaged secret prisoners have to be made to "disappear," as in the death-squad regimes of Latin America in the days when the CIA ruled that roost as well. I am very much afraid that this will be the next awful disclosure we read about.//

|4.29.09 @ 12:01PM|#

the reason cited by the great majority for coming to Iraq was what they had heard of the torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

It is, of course, worth noting that the OLC memos released did not specifically apply to the DoD, which operated Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, but applied to the CIA.

Torture is a matter of degree, but there is also a wisdom in setting bright line boundaries. It is certainly true that while people don't want to think about where to draw the boundaries, and blanch at the OLC memos. But it seems to me that without a discussion of where to draw the line, a slippery slope of torture is a very real possibility. Just look at what goes on in our prisons, and prisons throughout the world. But all that is out of sight, out of mind I suppose, and few care. Just like few care about secret CIA prisons, since they're secret, or even extraordinary renditions.

Untermensch|4.29.09 @ 12:03PM|#

If we're going to war and want our virtues to remain intact we should take the moral highground and not stoop to the same level as those who commit evil.

+2

|4.29.09 @ 12:09PM|#

I'm still opposed because that could extend to the largely unecessary deaths of civilians who are not suppose to be targeted. I'd even go so far as to say that I was opposed to both Dresden and the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You're always free, of course, to decline to do those things. My point was that, really, we shouldn't consider it a war crime to engage in behaviors originated by the other side, not that it is necessarily a good idea to do so.

If we're going to war and want our virtues to remain intact we should take the moral highground and not stoop to the same level as those who commit evil.

I seriously doubt that it is possible to successfully prosecute a war and maintain your virtue intact, but, in any event, see my previous thought.

Untermensch|4.29.09 @ 12:11PM|#

Alberta Libertarian, thank you for the quote from Christopher Hitchens. There are times I think Hitchens is a horse's ass, but he's got it right there. The unaccountability and finger-pointing that came out when U.S. torture was uncovered shows this is where we were headed.

Ryan|4.29.09 @ 12:12PM|#

The Golden Rule is: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The shorthand for do unto others as they have done to you is "An Eye for an Eye".

|4.29.09 @ 12:14PM|#

Only if you hold civilians responsible for the war crimes committed by their governments.

Just curious about where this logic leads:

Should the response to a nuclear attack on US cities by Iran be to ask the Hague to indict some mullahs?

Would any use of nuclear weapons be a war crime because it would necessarily impact civilians?

Are attacks on any dual use facilities war crimes because they necessarily impact civilians?

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 12:15PM|#

"You're always free, of course, to decline to do those things. My point was that, really, we shouldn't consider it a war crime to engage in behaviors originated by the other side, not that it is necessarily a good idea to do so."

We can't decline it if we're funding it with our money. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the other side commits a rape it doesn't make us justified if we do it as well. The law is not something to be thrown out in favour of Old Testament justice and revenege.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 12:20PM|#

"Should the response to a nuclear attack on US cities by Iran be to ask the Hague to indict some mullahs?

Would any use of nuclear weapons be a war crime because it would necessarily impact civilians?

Are attacks on any dual use facilities war crimes because they necessarily impact civilians?"

Difference being that said nuclear attack would be a soley defensive action. Theirs a large difference between engaging in a defensive action and taking people that are unarmed and torturing them with no justification. You have to differentiate between what is considered a "defensive" action and what is immoral. If we are only intent on revenge instead of focusing on the defense of a nation then we've already lost.

Once again, I'll reference the success of the French in their fight against the Arab's in Algeria yet their loss of the colony along with the near loss of their democracy a few years later by the same troops who were given free rein to engage in the worst activities imaginable.

If you're a liberal democracy which values human rights you're at a higher standard than a Serb commander ethnically cleansing Albanians or the AQ operative who cuts off reporters heads.

|4.29.09 @ 12:28PM|#

All the laws of war, written and unwritten, break down when you have illegal combatants on the field.

Yeah even though many of those "illegal combatants" were innocent people swpet up by local warlords because we were offering bounties and not really concerned about guilt or innocence or even if they were "combatants" at all.

But don't let facts get in the way of your torture-apologist narrative RC.

|4.29.09 @ 12:30PM|#

You're always free, of course, to decline to do those things. My point was that, really, we shouldn't consider it a war crime to engage in behaviors originated by the other side, not that it is necessarily a good idea to do so.

Shorter RC Dean : two wrongs make a right.


I doesn't matter what the other fucking side is doing. Morality isn't relative, regardless of how many times you keep implying that it is.

JB|4.29.09 @ 12:34PM|#

Low level grunts are a lot different from KSM. How many low-level grunts were waterboarded? Crickets chirping. None.

I love taking terrorists at their word. They signed up because of Gitmo! lol. They too can watch CNN and they read the memos from DailyKossacks.

It's like asking Oswald why he assassinated Kennedy and he said 'because Kennedy has no penis'. Does that mean Kennedy had no penis?

For all you know, they signed up because they heard of all the people being sent to be anally raped in the US. But that's not something CNN talks about.

JB|4.29.09 @ 12:44PM|#

Alberta Libertarian and all you others can take your fake outrage and shove it up your ass.

The Obama administration is currently sending tons of Americans off to be anally raped for committing victimless crimes (not blowing civilians up, not fighting out of uniform), and yet you pukes have not said word one about it.

You have no problem with widespread torture so shut your hypocritical mouths. Until you complain about the current widespread torture in America done to American citizens, you come across and retards complaining about what was done to KSM.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 12:54PM|#

The Obama administration is currently sending tons of Americans off to be anally raped for committing victimless crimes (not blowing civilians up, not fighting out of uniform), and yet you pukes have not said word one about it.

Yeah, you're right, because everyone on here supports the war on drugs. Is that what you're talking about? If so, I didn't realize the Obama administration started it.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 12:56PM|#

Please clarify, JB, because I have no idea WTF you're talking about. And why do you assume the outrage is some posture and not a legitimate ethical disagreement with torture?

|4.29.09 @ 1:07PM|#

The Obama administration is currently sending tons of Americans off to be anally raped for committing victimless crimes (not blowing civilians up, not fighting out of uniform), and yet you pukes have not said word one about it.

What?! Seriously, you came to Reason to accuse people of not caring about the ill effects of the Drug War?

Wow -- the stupid -- it burns!!!

Untermensch|4.29.09 @ 1:14PM|#

JB, you don't hang around here much, do you? If you bothered to actually read the site before shooting your mouth off, you'd know that what you say we ignore is actually a regular topic on this board and that most of us agree with you.

JB|4.29.09 @ 1:18PM|#

Art and Tom, I'm accusing people of being hypocrites on the issue of torture.

1. Is anal rape torture?

2. Do many Americans face anal rape because of non-crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc.)?

The answer to both is yes. Thus, when so many Americans are facing this level of torture, why isn't the waterboarding of KSM put into proper context?

If the Bush administration is going to be prosecuted over treatment of foreign nationals who don't follow the rules of war, then I want the Obama administration prosecuted for doing far worse to American citizens.

JB|4.29.09 @ 1:21PM|#

So Untermensch you agree that what the Obama administration is currently doing to American citizens is worse than what the Bush administration did to foreign nationals?

Yes or no. Because I haven't heard that argued by anyone on any torture thread I've read at Reason.

|4.29.09 @ 1:21PM|#

Torture is the willful infliction of physical pain or psychological distress for the purpose of gaining information or concession from the victim.

Wouldn't that definition also encompass war itself? In war physical pain, psychological distress, and even death are inflicted for the purpose of gaining "concessions."

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 1:22PM|#

JB,

To reiterate what Untermensch said, you're focusing your ire at the wrong people.

ConcernedCitizen|4.29.09 @ 1:24PM|#

Just one question, if all he did was "gain their trust" during interrogations, then why did he need to assume a name "for security reasons"?

I call shenanigans!

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 1:26PM|#

Wouldn't that definition also encompass war itself? In war physical pain, psychological distress, and even death are inflicted for the purpose of gaining "concessions."

Yes, but once you're off the battlefield, you're off the battlefield. Once you're unarmed and no longer capable of resistance, you're no longer in the fight.

Also, JB, you're phrasing it like the WoD wasn't going on during the Bush administration. And obviously, before. Doesn't make it right, I'm just wondering where you're going with this.

|4.29.09 @ 1:27PM|#

...for the purpose of gaining information or concession from the victim.

How about if it's just for enjoyment? Not torture?

Untermensch|4.29.09 @ 1:29PM|#

So Untermensch you agree that what the Obama administration is currently doing to American citizens is worse than what the Bush administration did to foreign nationals?

Yes or no. Because I haven't heard that argued by anyone on any torture thread I've read at Reason.

No, I don't agree with you when you put it that way. I do agree with you that prison rape is a travesty and that it should be stopped. But there is a difference. While prison rape is horrible, and our government turns a blind eye to the matter, it is generally not undertaken as a matter of government policy by government agents with the full protection of the executive branch. There is a difference between not tackling a problem that is not directly of your own making and making the problem yourself.

By your "logic" here, because I'm not talking about prison rape I can therefore not have any ire directed at torture undertaken by agents of the government. I might as well reverse it and call your wrath at prison rape ginned up and fake because I haven't heard you expressing anger at government torture. Maybe you can't see it, but it entirely possible to be focused on one thing in this thread without tackling the world's problems.

If you want to vent, wait until another prison rape thread comes up (they do quite frequently) and then tell us that no one cares about it. Until then, kindly shut your trap and stop calling everyone hypocrites because they don't happen to share your priorities.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 1:30PM|#

then why did he need to assume a name "for security reasons"?

When you work MI, the more anonymous you are, the better. For OPSEC, primarily. Also, I'm sure MAJ Alexander's superiors knowing who he was probably wouldn't help his career any.

|4.29.09 @ 1:43PM|#

There are times I think Hitchens is a horse's ass, ...

Everybody, including his mother, feels the same way.

It's one of the reasons he's cool.

JB|4.29.09 @ 1:44PM|#

Untermensch, my point is that you are ignoring widespread torture and instead selectively focusing on small instances of practices you don't like and identify as torture. You claim you are against torture, but that doesn't seem to be the case. You are against torture when it takes place in limited circumstances in a limited way that offend your sensibilities. I'm calling you and others here hypocrites.

Art, I'll pose you the same question: do you agree that what the Obama administration is currently doing to American citizens is worse than what the Bush administration did to foreign nationals?

I'm less concerned about who started the drug war; I'm more concerned about pointing out a flaw in the arguments I've heard here. I keep hearing the argument as 'torture is bad, bad, bad', but there is little context given and even worse and more widespread instances of torture are actively ignored by the same people making this argument.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 1:51PM|#

more widespread instances of torture are actively ignored by the same people making this argument.

Bullshit!

And for the record, there would not be much difference between my answer and Untermensch's.

JB, for the record, nice attempt at ad hominems, but I think you're failing.

|4.29.09 @ 1:54PM|#

@Alberta Libertarian

While the most notorious photo of a prisoner being electrocuted...

Are you refering to the photo of the prisoner with nothing but a hood or a blanket draped over him and wires attached to his body? Because, if you are, I don't recall reading anywhere that he actually was electrocuted as opposed to being scared with the threat of it.

What about sodomy, rape, mutual masturbation, manslaughter, stress positions, and pouring acid of prisoners.

At Gitmo? At Abu Ghraib? Really? Do you have a link to substantiate any of that? I'd certainly like to see it. Other than "stress positions", "mutual masterbation" and/or similar humiliation - psychological abuse - I haven't heard of any evidence of that at these prisons.

|4.29.09 @ 1:58PM|#

I haven't heard of any evidence of that at these prisons.

I have heard of some unsavory things happening elsewhere, but not at those two particular prisons.

|4.29.09 @ 1:59PM|#

You have to take into account the fact that the versions of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo stories people in the Arab world were exposed to were far more extreme. They are out there getting fed stories about how white phosphorous is a chemical weapon, and depleted uranium is meant to give children cancer, and so forth. They have state controlled media, media that is just insanely anti-American and will publish anything, no matter how ludicrous, as long as it make the US look bad.

|4.29.09 @ 2:01PM|#

@Art-P.O.G.

Bullshit!

Yeah, I would have to second that.

|4.29.09 @ 2:02PM|#

Are you refering to the photo of the prisoner with nothing but a hood or a blanket draped over him and wires attached to his body? Because, if you are, I don't recall reading anywhere that he actually was electrocuted as opposed to being scared with the threat of it.

In fact, the electricity was out at the time. That was the published information with the original stories.

Untermensch|4.29.09 @ 2:02PM|#

Untermensch, my point is that you are ignoring widespread torture and instead selectively focusing on small instances of practices you don't like and identify as torture.

It might, just might, have something to do with the fact that we're on a thread about government torture in Iraq, not a thread on prison rape. But I guess every thread is about prison rape for you.

Now, JB, I conclude that you don't really care about prison rape because you are ignoring the even more wide-spread problem of war rape being undertaken by various military forces around the world. Until I see you standing and condemning janjaweed torture in Darfour and similar things, I will call you a hypocrite for talking about prison rape in the U.S. After all, that makes about as much sense as your reasons for calling us hypocrites without knowing anything about whether or not we are ignoring prison rape in any context but this thread.

As Art put it, you're full of it if you think we "actively ignore" prison rape.

Your whole "argument", such as it is, also relies on the equivalency of prison rape and torture. There are a lot of us who are horrified with prison rape who wouldn't equate it with torture as discussed here. That doesn't mean we don't care, but rather that we like to keep separate things separate. When prison rape becomes a matter of official government policy with government agents committing it, then I will agree with you wholeheartedly. Until then, it's a travesty, but it is not what this thread is talking about. I suppose though, that if this were a thread on police brutality, you'd tell us we're hypocrites for talking about that and not bringing prison rape into the discussion.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 2:09PM|#

media that is just insanely anti-American and will publish anything, no matter how ludicrous, as long as it make the US look bad.

This is true in many, many instances and also doesn't help.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 2:10PM|#

"I'm calling you and others here hypocrites.

Art, I'll pose you the same question: do you agree that what the Obama administration is currently doing to American citizens is worse than what the Bush administration did to foreign nationals?"

Yes, because Bush did everything in secret without the consent of the American people.

But you can keep on apologizing for the GOP as long as you want.

"At Gitmo? At Abu Ghraib? Really? Do you have a link to substantiate any of that? I'd certainly like to see it. Other than "stress positions", "mutual masterbation" and/or similar humiliation - psychological abuse - I haven't heard of any evidence of that at these prisons."

http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/

JB|4.29.09 @ 2:11PM|#

Art, so can you point to a torture thread where someone other than me has brought up this widespread and more prevalent torture?

No? Then I would call that actively ignoring it.

So you also answer 'no' to my question? That's pretty astounding. Your argument seems to be that torture is bad (rephrase if I'm mis-stating it), but yet when more people are more brutally tortured it somehow isn't as bad?

That seems crazy to me.

Are you really going to hinge your argument on saying the government isn't committing the actual rapes? Because if so, we can solve this whole issue by allowing non-government actors into the cell with KSM.

If your argument doesn't hinge on that, then I would like to know what it does hinge on. I'm really uncertain on how you can disagree with this statement: what the Obama administration is currently doing to American citizens is worse than what the Bush administration did to foreign nationals.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 2:11PM|#

I love the logic used by many people here. Since their is prison rape, government should take part in torture.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 2:13PM|#

"So you also answer 'no' to my question? That's pretty astounding. Your argument seems to be that torture is bad (rephrase if I'm mis-stating it), but yet when more people are more brutally tortured it somehow isn't as bad?"

What's your definition of brutally tortured. Are you referring soley to prison rape which I'm sure occurs to not just drug offenders but sex offenders as well?

"Are you really going to hinge your argument on saying the government isn't committing the actual rapes? Because if so, we can solve this whole issue by allowing non-government actors into the cell with KSM."

The government pays prisoners to engage in anal rape?

"If your argument doesn't hinge on that, then I would like to know what it does hinge on. I'm really uncertain on how you can disagree with this statement: what the Obama administration is currently doing to American citizens is worse than what the Bush administration did to foreign nationals."

So you're fine with whatever shit went down with George W Bush, you just really hate Obama since he defeated Sarah Palin.

JB|4.29.09 @ 2:14PM|#

Untermensch, this also applies to you:

Are you really going to hinge your argument on saying the government isn't committing the actual rapes? Because if so, we can solve this whole issue by allowing non-government actors into the cell with KSM.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 2:18PM|#

JB, do you happen to have an actual point. Outside of getting angry because some people are consistent when it comes to opposing government abuse of power?

JB|4.29.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Alberta Libertarian, you really don't get it so it's not worth arguing with you, but I'll refute two of your points:

The government pays prisoners to engage in anal rape?

Who said anything about payment? What if the government just had volunteers go into KSM's cell?

So you're fine with whatever shit went down with George W Bush, you just really hate Obama since he defeated Sarah Palin.

I want things put into their proper context; something that simpletons like you have a problem with. Sending people to be anally raped for victimless crimes is far worse than what was done to those violating the rules of war.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Just for JB by the way, since he thinks Abu Ghraib wasn't that big of a deal I'll point out the case of Manadel al-Jamadi:

"Chapter 5, "Other Government Agencies," tells the story behind photos of the mangled corpse of Manadel al-Jamadi, known as the "Ice Man," who died during interrogation by a CIA officer. No one at the CIA has been prosecuted, even though al-Jamadi's death was ruled a homicide. The chapter adds new detail about the CIA's role in the prison drawn from Christopher Brinson's testimony to CIA investigators."

Untermensch|4.29.09 @ 2:21PM|#

JB, believe it or not, yes. When the government starts encouraging prison rape and paying people to do it, I'll agree with you in calling it government-sponsored torture. Until then I'll call it something else: PRISON RAPE. If it makes you feel better, I'll agree with you that prison rape is a horrible thing. That doesn't make actual government-sponsored torture any less bad. This is not a zero sum game where any badness that accrues to torture in Iraq (or wherever) is badness taken away from prison rape.

Again, you are complaining about the wrong thing. We were, until you came along, discussing torture in government interrogation centers. We were not discussing prison rape, nor was there any reason to until your one-track mind came along and concluded that prison rape is the only thing that matters and that any discussion of anything else means we are actively ignoring prison rape.

After this message, I give up on answering your comments because you clearly care about one thing and one thing only and are convinced that everyone else is wrong and doesn't care, evidence or arguments to the contrary be damned. I bet you have a lot of trouble making and keeping friends if you act like this outside of cyber space.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 2:22PM|#

what the Obama administration is currently doing to American citizens is worse than what the Bush administration did to foreign nationals.

False dichotomy. Are you implying the WoD and prison rape didn't happen during the Bush Administration? WTF?

JB, your whole thought experiment is pointless. You had us at "prison rape/WoD is bad". That's a banality on this site. Seriously, I don't get where you're trying to go with this.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 2:23PM|#

"Who said anything about payment? What if the government just had volunteers go into KSM's cell?"

Alright, so the government sanctioning torture is alright as long as people volunteer for it. You sold me!

"I want things put into their proper context; something that simpletons like you have a problem with. Sending people to be anally raped for victimless crimes is far worse than what was done to those violating the rules of war."

Who said anything about my position on victimless crimes. I was referencing a discussion on torture, if you want my views on drugs and prostitution I'll gladly give them.

Unfortunately I like to be consistent with my principles, meaning I don't ignore one abuse of state power because an obvious GOP booster like yourself is angry that people question the use of torture.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 2:26PM|#

I bet you have a lot of trouble making and keeping friends if you act like this outside of cyber space.

+100x10^16

JB, WTF. Seriously.

JB|4.29.09 @ 2:31PM|#

Unfortunately I like to be consistent with my principles...

Bullshit. You claim torture is bad, yet you won't come out strongly against actual torture.

My point is that I want you fools to be consistent. If torture is the issue, then let's prosecute every living President for it.

But we all know that isn't the issue, you just like to claim it is.

JB|4.29.09 @ 2:34PM|#

I bet you have a lot of trouble making and keeping friends if you act like this outside of cyber space.

I point out a logical flaw in your arguments and you adolescents respond with ad hominems.

That's cool. Keep deluding yourselves when you go after some government-sanctioned harsh treatment, but you ignore other kids of government-sanctioned harsh treatment. Real principled you all are.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 2:39PM|#

"Bullshit. You claim torture is bad, yet you won't come out strongly against actual torture."

I have come out strongly against it, in other threads about the topic.

Did you notice this thread was on torture JB?

"My point is that I want you fools to be consistent. If torture is the issue, then let's prosecute every living President for it.

But we all know that isn't the issue, you just like to claim it is."

I thought you were angry about prison rape? In that case we'd have to prosecute everyone in government.

"I point out a logical flaw in your arguments and you adolescents respond with ad hominems."

Didn't you previously call people who disagreed with you "simpletons."

But yes, you sure as hell started out this debate like an intelligent scholar:

"Alberta Libertarian and all you others can take your fake outrage and shove it up your ass." -JB

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 2:39PM|#

JB, your entire 2:31 post was composed of fallacies. But I think you know that.

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you.

JB|4.29.09 @ 2:39PM|#

Honestly, what is so hard about admitting this?

what the Obama administration is currently doing to American citizens is worse than what the Bush administration did to foreign nationals.

There is no claim that Obama is worse than Bush or Bush is worse than Obama.

I don't see how any reasonable libertarian could say otherwise. It may hurt your partisan arguments, but it boggles the mind that you actually think thousands of people being subjected to anal rape for victimless crimes is somehow not as bad as the harsh treatment of hundreds of detainees in war time.

Alberta Libertarian |4.29.09 @ 2:47PM|#

"I don't see how any reasonable libertarian could say otherwise. It may hurt your partisan arguments, but it boggles the mind that you actually think thousands of people being subjected to anal rape for victimless crimes is somehow not as bad as the harsh treatment of hundreds of detainees in war time."

The difference being that one is done by individuals in prison without being aided by the government. It's basically a crime between two human beings. What you're saying is that the government is directly responsible for anal rape, even though it really isn't. Then your saying that because people sometimes get sexually assaulted we can't criticize the government on torture.

Now if the government were to pay prisoners to anal rape those convicted of possession you might have a point.

Unfortunately, you don't.

|4.29.09 @ 2:49PM|#

http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/

FWIW, that article actually doesn't say anything about sodomy rape, or acid.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 2:53PM|#

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18831prs20050124.html

|4.29.09 @ 2:55PM|#

Jebus Chrysler!

JB, meet INCIF. INCIF, meet JB ...

Fenevad|4.29.09 @ 2:57PM|#

I don't see how any reasonable libertarian could say otherwise. It may hurt your partisan arguments, but it boggles the mind that you actually think thousands of people being subjected to anal rape for victimless crimes is somehow not as bad as the harsh treatment of hundreds of detainees in war time.

I've read this entire thread and want to know where anyone has stated what you just attributed to them. I must have missed that part of the thread and believe you are attributing positions to people who don't hold them and then holding them responsible for the positions you made up. That's not a way to win any sort of argument. It is a way to get reasonable people to dismiss you as a crank, which seems to be what Untermensch and Art have already done after trying to be reasonable with you and engage your arguments on their merits only to have you ignore their responses and continue to attribute positions to them that they have explicitly disavowed. If this was a scored debate you would have lost a long time ago for completely failing to engage with the arguments and rebuttals and instead repeating your opening statement over and over.

JB|4.29.09 @ 2:57PM|#

Now if the government were to pay prisoners to anal rape those convicted of possession you might have a point.

That's really your distinction? So if the US government allowed a non-governmental citizen (and didn't pay them) into the cell with KSM then the US government would bear no responsibility and it's only a crime between those two people?

The US government knowingly puts people who commit victimless crimes into prison where they are likely to face anal rape. And yet the government bears no responsibility? Really?

And I'm not saying don't criticize; I'm saying put things in a proper context. Maybe Bush should be prosecuted for the treatment of detainees, but I think there are much better reasons for prosecuting Bush and Obama over the drug war.

|4.29.09 @ 3:02PM|#

Yeah even though many of those "illegal combatants" were innocent people swpet up by local warlords because we were offering bounties and not really concerned about guilt or innocence or even if they were "combatants" at all.

You miss my point, ChicagoTom. Illegal combatants are, by definition, indistinguishable from innocents. Having them on the field means that the laws of war, intended to apply where you can tell soldiers from civilians, break down.

Shorter RC Dean : two wrongs make a right.

No. Shorter RC Dean: whatever your opponent does, he defines as "not wrong to do to me."

I doesn't matter what the other fucking side is doing. Morality isn't relative, regardless of how many times you keep implying that it is.

Oh, but morality is relative, as I pointed out in numerous situations above. It is immoral to punch a man in the face, except when it isn't (a boxing match). It is immoral to shoot a man, except when it isn't (self-defense). It is immoral to machine gun and incinerate large groups of young men, except when it isn't (war). Morality, like meaning, depends on context.

It matters a great deal what the other side is doing. I think you'd agree that if they aren't shooting at us, we shouldn't be shooting at them, but if they are shooting at us, we should be returning fire.

I am merely proposing that the fundamental rule of morality and ethics (the golden rule) goes both ways within the context of war crimes. If your opponent in war does something, then it is not a war crime to do it back to him. Your opponent has created a context where it is not a war crime.

Again, that doesn't mean its strategically or tactically smart. It also doesn't mean that its moral. It merely means that its legal.

JB|4.29.09 @ 3:02PM|#

Fenevad, please go back and read again.

Two people said they disagreed with this statement:

what the Obama administration is currently doing to American citizens is worse than what the Bush administration did to foreign nationals.

How is that any different than this?

thousands of people being subjected to anal rape for victimless crimes is somehow not as bad as the harsh treatment of hundreds of detainees in war time

I don't think that's a reasonable position to take.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 3:05PM|#

Maybe Bush should be prosecuted for the treatment of detainees, but I think there are much better reasons for prosecuting Bush and Obama over the drug war.

Arrgggh you could've just said this at the beginning. This position actually has some merit, at least as a thought experiment.

JB|4.29.09 @ 3:06PM|#

Fenevad, re-reading those I guess you could claim they are both equally bad, but I have a problem with that as well. The one sure looks a lot worse than the other unless you subscribe to some warped version of moral equivalence.

Fenevad|4.29.09 @ 3:09PM|#

what the Obama administration is currently doing to American citizens is worse than what the Bush administration did to foreign nationals.

No, they disagreed with your premise that the Obama administration is an active agent in it. They disagreed with your assertion that the Obama administration is itself guilty of prison rape. No one here has said that those things aren't bad, even worse than torture. But they did disagree with you about that being an active policy of the government (versus being a crime conducted by non-government agents that should be prevented). So, like it or not, there is a difference. Not to trivialize it, but there is a big difference if I make my kids go outside and they get stung by bees and if I stick a hive of bees on their heads.

I don't think that's a reasonable position to take.

Who exactly is taking that position? Please show us who said that they agree with this statement. Everyone here agrees with you that prison rape is horrible, or at least no one has disagreed with you on that. But they do disagree with you on who, exactly, is culpable. So, yes, you have been imputing positions to others that they have disavowed.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 3:10PM|#

How is that any different than this?

See, this kind of statement is why I suspect you didn't actually pay attention to any of our arguments for not concurring with your comparison.

P.S.: There's no conspiracy, JB, but there are damn good reasons nobody on here is backing you up, JB.

JB|4.29.09 @ 3:12PM|#

Arrgggh you could've just said this at the beginning. This position actually has some merit, at least as a thought experiment.

lol. But I wanted to get people to think about their assumptions on torture. I'm not sure a short statement like that would really provoke people to question why they get so upset over harsh treatment of detainees when they don't seem to care much about even worse treatment against American citizens.

JB|4.29.09 @ 3:17PM|#

But they do disagree with you on who, exactly, is culpable.

I don't think that is reasonable. The government bears quite a bit of responsibility. To suggest otherwise, is a cop-out. It's their law, it's their prison, it's them forcing you into that cell.

there is a big difference if I make my kids go outside and they get stung by bees and if I stick a hive of bees on their heads.

Is it that big a difference if you make them go outside, but 'outside' is a 10x6 room filled with a thousand bees?

JB|4.29.09 @ 3:23PM|#

How about this then?

1. More torture results from government policies concerning drugs than results from government policies concerning wartime detainees.

2. Thus, if we are going to prosecute bad government policies in one area, we should also prosecute in a worse area.

Any disagreements on those two points?

Sargent Schultz|4.29.09 @ 3:25PM|#

"Yes, but once you're off the battlefield, you're off the battlefield. Once you're unarmed and no longer capable of resistance, you're no longer in the fight."

I see nothing, Colonel Hogan. NOTH-ING!

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 3:31PM|#

when they don't seem to care much about even worse treatment against American citizens.

Like I said before, albeit in harsher terms, I think you're mistaken in this assumption. Particularly on Reason.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and explain to you that from my POV, the WoD and torturing detainees are deleterious for different reasons. I didn't think it was useful to compare them in the way you seemed to be suggesting, because they are unlike in many, many ways.

Yes, they are both miscarriages of justice. I don't think you needed to make this point.

Any disagreements on those two points?

Only a quibble with your use of the word 'torture' in the first point.

Guess My Bra Size|4.29.09 @ 3:31PM|#

JB:

If you cared about all forms of torture, you'd stop posting.

Art-P.O.G.|4.29.09 @ 3:35PM|#

Don't get me wrong, it's devastating to be imprisoned and doing hard time, just as it's devastating to be detained and tortured.

Guess My Bra Size|4.29.09 @ 3:36PM|#

"I keep hearing the argument as 'torture is bad, bad, bad'"

Not from me you don't. I'm just fine with it. I agrfee with the Colonel Kurtz character in Apocolypse Now. "It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies."

|4.29.09 @ 3:37PM|#

...when they don't seem to care much about even worse treatment against American citizens.

This is why INCIF was invented, Art. As Ron White would say, "You can't cure stupid."

Guess My Bra Size|4.29.09 @ 3:38PM|#

"They have state controlled media, media that is just insanely anti-American and will publish anything, no matter how ludicrous, as long as it make the US look bad."

Comming soon to a town near you.

JB|4.29.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Like I said before, albeit in harsher terms, I think you're mistaken in this assumption. Particularly on Reason.

I have large issues with most of those arguing in these debates (on reason and elsewhere) because they always seem to ignore the context. They act like waterboarding KSM is the worst thing in the history of the world or the history of the US. It's nowhere close on either of those counts and should be considered in the larger context of war and conflict and all sorts of other government policies and their repercussions.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 3:54PM|#

"I have large issues with most of those arguing in these debates (on reason and elsewhere) because they always seem to ignore the context. They act like waterboarding KSM is the worst thing in the history of the world or the history of the US. It's nowhere close on either of those counts and should be considered in the larger context of war and conflict and all sorts of other government policies and their repercussions."

How many confessions to drug possession were brought about through the use of torture and waterboarding in the United States?

highnumber|4.29.09 @ 3:59PM|#

It has been pointed out already, but you missed it or ignored it, so I'll put this in capitalized bold letters for you:

RC DEAN:
"AN EYE FOR AN EYE" IS NOT THE SAME AS THE GOLDEN RULE. THE GOLDEN RULE IS GENERALLY STATED AS "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU."

I don't care if you believe in the Golden Rule or not. Frankly, it reflects an immature state of morals. If the only reason you don't torture or rob is because you wouldn't like someone doing to you, you aren't really that far away from finding those acts defensible. That's a discussion for another day, but in the meantime please keep your moral justifications straight.

JB|4.29.09 @ 4:42PM|#

How many confessions to drug possession were brought about through the use of torture and waterboarding in the United States?

Huh? I don't think there were any confessions for detainees who were waterboarded. That wasn't the point. The point was to obtain information, not confessions.

I'm not sure what your point is. That it's worse that 3 people were waterboarded than thousands anally raped?

Fenevad|4.29.09 @ 4:58PM|#

You obviously missed his point because you are stuck on (obsessed with?) the rape = torture equation, which is exactly what he was calling into question.

|4.29.09 @ 5:10PM|#

One of my only objections to the points made above is that countries are quite often accused of doing things it isn't actually doing.

So whether we torture or not, it's likely we're going to get accused of it anyway by the sorts of people recruiting for Islamic fighters. So I'm not sure our actually doing it as a matter of policy affects recruiting any. Unfortunately, take enough prisoners anywhere for any reason and some of the guards are going to abuse those prisoners. So there's going to be some evidence of it either way.

That doesn't mean we should actually do it, of course, but the reasons are that it's just the sort of barbaric thing this country was founded to escape from.

Fenevad|4.29.09 @ 5:11PM|#

They act like waterboarding KSM is the worst thing in the history of the world or the history of the US.

In terms of damage to our reputation internationally and complication of international diplomacy, waterboarding is far worse than jailhouse rape. That is not to say that it is fine, but if you were to poll 100 people in the Arab world about why they have a problem with the U.S., I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that jailhouse rape would not show up on the list, while waterboarding would.

As Untermensch mentioned earlier, it's not exactly like this is a zero sum game and pointing out that waterboarding is bad somehow makes jailhouse rape OK. They are both bad, evil things. However, in the context of international relations, one creates a lot more problems than the other. Pointing that out and trying to address the one that matters in this context isn't dishonest or whitewashing the other. This seems to be the point that eludes you when you complain about everyone else lacking context while you try to jam everything into one particular context and argue that any other context for looking at issues is wrong.

These discussions don't lack context, they just happen to lack the particular context that you think they should have. In other words, you are acting as a doctrinaire ideologue who can't understand that not everyone sees things the same way he does. These discussions were focused on something other than what you think they should be. It's fine that you put jailhouse rape higher on your priority list than waterboarding, but please stop accusing others of bad faith when you were the very first one to start personal attacks on their motivations and morals with your totally unprovoked attack on Alberta Libertarian.

It is rich that you whined about others' ad hominem attacks when you came up with this piece of polite and civil discourse before anyone had even responded to you about anything or before you tried to engage anyone in polite discourse.

…yet you pukes have not said word one about it.

You have no problem with widespread torture so shut your hypocritical mouths. Until you complain about the current widespread torture in America done to American citizens, you come across and retards complaining about what was done to KSM. (emphasis added)

You came in with both barrels blazing and then wonder why not everyone agrees with you? There's an old proverb that says that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Since you skipped vinegar and went straight for throwing the battery acid around, you really have no one to blame but yourself for the reaction you got...

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 5:22PM|#

"Huh? I don't think there were any confessions for detainees who were waterboarded. That wasn't the point. The point was to obtain information, not confessions.

I'm not sure what your point is. That it's worse that 3 people were waterboarded than thousands anally raped?"

Actually waterboarding was meant to bring about confessions. My point was that your stating your complete ambivalence towards torture, yet then go on to say that an activity [prison rape] which isn't sanctioned by the government is worse then the government secretly engaging in torture and breaking the Geneva Conventions. Nobody is arguing for prison rape here, what we are supporting is the rule of law.

As for victimless crimes, why are you getting into a argument with people who have many times stated their support for legalizing them.

Here is our argument in a nutshell:

Both torture and criminalizing victimless acts is wrong.

Your argument:

Oh, so your opposed to torture eh!!! What, does that mean you support prison rape for victimless criminals. You guys are hypocrites.

JB|4.29.09 @ 5:36PM|#

Fenevad,

if you were to poll 100 people in the Arab world

I think Voros has a point which isn't stated very often:

So whether we torture or not, it's likely we're going to get accused of it anyway by the sorts of people recruiting for Islamic fighters. So I'm not sure our actually doing it as a matter of policy affects recruiting any.

These discussions don't lack context

Most of these discussions revolve around prosecuting people for policy they think is bad. My point is that 1) this policy isn't as bad as they think it is 2) this is not all that unusual considering past actions by the US and other actions committed in war 3) there are currently worse policies which cause worse forms of torture than what is being objected to here.

I objected to the ad hominem attacks at that point because there was an actual argument taking place, but Alberta decided to abandon it. I came out both barrels blazing because I think there is some strident hypocrisy in these threads.

JB|4.29.09 @ 5:40PM|#

Alberta,

So you are saying you don't care about the torture? All you care about is "the law"?

My point is that one government policy (the drug war) is responsible for much more torture at government-run institutions than another policy (WoT detainee treatment).

Fenevad|4.29.09 @ 5:42PM|#

So whether we torture or not, it's likely we're going to get accused of it anyway by the sorts of people recruiting for Islamic fighters. So I'm not sure our actually doing it as a matter of policy affects recruiting any.

See above about the Turks mentioned by Untermensch, who were pro-American but questioned it because of torture. Remember that, if he's accurate, these were people who wanted the U.S. to be different. If they were on the border instead, who knows. I think Voros is simply wrong: sure we'd be accused of it, but proof does a lot more damage than accusations because it sways those who were skeptical.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 5:43PM|#

"I objected to the ad hominem attacks at that point because there was an actual argument taking place, but Alberta decided to abandon it."

Yeah, it's always a good thing to begin every debate by using ad hominem, then get pissed off if you feel insulted.

"I came out both barrels blazing because I think there is some strident hypocrisy in these threads."

Really, strident "hypocrisy." What's so hypocritical about being opposed to both torture and drug war?

All you've stated is that we shouldn't care what the government does to people overseas and not hold them accountable for their actions. Instead we should be pinning all of the blame on Obama for prison rape which you consider torture. Despite the fact that prison rape has likely happened since the time of the Sumerians and it likely will continue to happen even if we no longer convict people for taking part in victimless crimes.

Is that what you're getting at JB?

|4.29.09 @ 5:49PM|#

"but proof does a lot more damage than accusations because it sways those who were skeptical."

My point is that there is going to be some proof of abuse regardless of policy, because some prison guards will abuse prisoners in every country in the world past and present.

I mean nothing Lynndie England did was legit and she went to jail for it. But it was still likely used for recruiting purposes.

|4.29.09 @ 6:04PM|#

@Alberta Libertarian:

I took a look at the Salon article you referenced. I not only looked at the photos, but I read what each chapter had to say, even though it took me quite some time. I didn't see any material that I haven't already seen elsewhere.

sodomy, rape, mutual masturbation, manslaughter, stress positions, and pouring acid of(sic) prisoners.

Where? I saw something about "simulated sodomy" and something about "simulated masturbation." There was something about tying some accused child rapists together naked and bullying them a bit (I'd probably have done worse than that to them.) There was a mention of allowing a mentally deranged prisoner to sodomize himself with a banana. Rape? Didn't see anything about that either - just a mention of some hookers, one of which apparently voluntarily flashed some guy. Pouring of acid on prisoners? Again, no mention of that.

The most egregious things I read about was the death of the guy in chapter five. Clearly that was not intentional - if you are trying to extract info from someone by beating him, you have failed should he die on you.

I also went to your ACLU link and read the article there. Again, the small part of it concerning Abu Ghraib abuses makes no mention of the things you cite. And neither article makes much mention at all of what went on at Gitmo.

Look, I grant you that there was extremely unprofessional conduct at Abu Ghraib on the part of our soldiers, all the way from enlisted on up. There was also a great deal of psychological abuse and yes, some physical mistreatment - some of them probably got knocked around - but torture? Other than the guy who died at the hands of the CIA, was there anyone who left there unable to walk, see, or procreate? Anybody missing any limbs or permanently crippled (other than his macho pride?) I dare say that many, much worse things happened at that prison when Sadam's boys were running it. I also dare say that no one does their case any good by exaggerating the abuses of this country and its military and ignoring those of the enemy.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 6:10PM|#

"Where? I saw something about "simulated sodomy" and something about "simulated masturbation." There was something about tying some accused child rapists together naked and bullying them a bit (I'd probably have done worse than that to them.) There was a mention of allowing a mentally deranged prisoner to sodomize himself with a banana. Rape?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/12abuse.html
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06214-usls-provance-statment.pdf

"The most egregious things I read about was the death of the guy in chapter five. Clearly that was not intentional - if you are trying to extract info from someone by beating him, you have failed should he die on you."

Usuaully beating someone to death is considered homicide.

"Look, I grant you that there was extremely unprofessional conduct at Abu Ghraib on the part of our soldiers, all the way from enlisted on up. There was also a great deal of psychological abuse and yes, some physical mistreatment - some of them probably got knocked around - but torture?"

Yes, if you don't consider smearing fecal matter on a person, putting them in stress positions, jumping on wounds, and making naken pyramids torture, I'd like to know what you think torture is.

" I dare say that many, much worse things happened at that prison when Sadam's boys were running it. I also dare say that no one does their case any good by exaggerating the abuses of this country and its military and ignoring those of the enemy."

Awe yes, a common response. If you question the treatment of detainee's your a party to the enemy.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 6:12PM|#

SOB, if you were to force someone down on the ground and sodomoize them with a broomstick would that be considered legal? What would you call it if you don't mind me asking?

All you've said is that worse happened under Saddam Hussein, therefore this is justifiable and shouldn't bother us.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 6:16PM|#

"was there anyone who left there unable to walk, see, or procreate? Anybody missing any limbs or permanently crippled (other than his macho pride?)"

I've noticed that people think torture is confined to either murder or ripping off body parts. Unfortunately it isn't according to the Geneva Conventions.

Luckily those on the extreme-nationalist side of the GOP haven't succeeded in throwing international law out of the window yet.

|4.29.09 @ 7:08PM|#

@Alberta Libertarian:

SOB, if you were to force someone down on the ground and sodomoize them with a broomstick would that be considered legal? What would you call it if you don't mind me asking?

No, I wouldn't consider that legal, nor probably even excusable or justifiable - though I might consider it understandable in some cases. In any event where is the mention of that happening at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo?

All you've said is that worse happened under Saddam Hussein, therefore this is justifiable and shouldn't bother us.

No, I said I haven't seen evidence of all the things you claim. Yes, I said Saddam Hussein was responsible for much worse, but I did not say that justifies the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Nor did I say it shouldn't bother us. Don't put words in my mouth.

Yes, if you don't consider smearing fecal matter on a person, putting them in stress positions, jumping on wounds, and making naken pyramids torture, I'd like to know what you think torture is.

Jumping on someone's wounds (intentionally) would constitute torture, yes. Smearing a little poop on someone? Not so much. Sress positions? Hell, forcing someone to do pushups or stand on one leg, etc. is no worse than what we commonly had to do in high school gym class. Naked pyramids? That isn't going to hurt anything except false pride. Likewise with the woman's panties over the head schtick (oh my god - they were pink with flowers on them!)

Luckily those on the extreme-nationalist side of the GOP haven't succeeded in throwing international law out of the window yet.

I'm not a member of the GOP, nor have I ever voted for one their candidates outside of voting for Ron Paul in the primaries. Geneva Conventions and international law? Pity the enemy isn't concerned with them. Also a pity most of the third world dictatorships in this world aren't particularly concerned with them either. Most of all, it's a pity the Left is never concerned about them except when they want to beat up the US with them.

JB|4.29.09 @ 7:33PM|#

Alberta, I'm done with you. You care more about limited amounts of torture vs. more widespread torture because you are a partisan who selectively applies his outrage.

I called you on and you know it. When you call for Obama to be prosecuted for his policy of sending people to be anally raped, let me know.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 7:45PM|#

"No, I wouldn't consider that legal, nor probably even excusable or justifiable - though I might consider it understandable in some cases. In any event where is the mention of that happening at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo?"

I already posted the article.

"No, I said I haven't seen evidence of all the things you claim. Yes, I said Saddam Hussein was responsible for much worse, but I did not say that justifies the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Nor did I say it shouldn't bother us. Don't put words in my mouth."

I did provide evidence, which was conveniently ignored by those who want America to adopt torture with no concern for accountability from the government.

"Jumping on someone's wounds (intentionally) would constitute torture, yes. Smearing a little poop on someone? Not so much. Sress positions? Hell, forcing someone to do pushups or stand on one leg, etc. is no worse than what we commonly had to do in high school gym class. Naked pyramids"

Actually, it would constitute torture if you were forcing people to preform those activities.

Would you be fine if law enforcement in the United States were to start smearing fecal matter on all people regardless of whether they've been proven innocent or guilty?

"Naked pyramids? That isn't going to hurt anything except false pride. Likewise with the woman's panties over the head schtick (oh my god - they were pink with flowers on them!)"

I'm sure you take part in naken pyramids with your fellow mates all the time. Needless to say in the civilized world as compared to your preference for the US adopting tactics similar to Gestapo, KGB, and Stasi, we expect some civility from members of the government.

"I'm not a member of the GOP, nor have I ever voted for one their candidates outside of voting for Ron Paul in the primaries."

That's doubtful considering the fact that you seem to support most of these foreign interventions along with any human rights abuses that accompany them.

"Geneva Conventions and international law? Pity the enemy isn't concerned with them."

Pity we aren't run by Slobodan Milosevic or Pol Pot, then we would no longer need to be concerned about them. You're 100% correct, why should we follow the rule of law when our "enemies" break the law. By that logic you're justifying the government also breaking the law here at home for whatever cause they see fit.

If the criminals don't follow the law, then neither should the police, bureaucrats, or politicians. If that sounds absurd it is, more or less because that's the same logic you've used.

"Also a pity most of the third world dictatorships in this world aren't particularly concerned with them either."

Agreed, why would you want to emulate what happens in third world dictatorships?

"Most of all, it's a pity the Left is never concerned about them except when they want to beat up the US with them."

Probably because of the fact that what a country does abroad is done in your name. Therefore you do have a responsibility to do what you can to ensure such violations don't occur.

All you're doing at the moment is advancing a jingoist theme to tell those critical of the Bush administration to shutup.

Alberta Libertarian|4.29.09 @ 7:47PM|#

"Alberta, I'm done with you. You care more about limited amounts of torture vs. more widespread torture because you are a partisan who selectively applies his outrage."

Don't worry, I wouldn't argue either considering the amount of logic and reason you've had to endure thus far.

"I called you on and you know it. When you call for Obama to be prosecuted for his policy of sending people to be anally raped, let me know."

Do you happen to have any documents where the executive branch either explicity or implicitly stated their support for anal rape?

Probably not, your hatred for Obama and obvious love for Dick Cheney is merely getting in the way of any rational thinking.

JB|4.29.09 @ 11:41PM|#

There are tons of documents supporting the drug war.

My overall take is that the absolutist position is a little silly. If torture is so bad (the absolutist position), then I would like to see those absolutists be a little more concerned about all the places it occurs.

That does not mean there are things I don't like or think are bad (Abu Ghraib being one), but I don't have many issues with harshly interrogating someone like KSM. He is one of the extreme cases where harsh treatment may be justified.

|4.30.09 @ 12:24AM|#

@Alberta Libertarian:

"No, I wouldn't consider that legal, nor probably even excusable or justifiable - though I might consider it understandable in some cases. In any event where is the mention of that happening at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo?"

I already posted the article.

I read all four of the articles you refered to; I even went back and re-read the last two. If there is any mention of someone getting a broomstick up their ass at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, I surely can't find it.

"Sress positions? Hell, forcing someone to do pushups or stand on one leg, etc. is no worse than what we commonly had to do in high school gym class. Naked pyramids"

Actually, it would constitute torture if you were forcing people to preform those activities.

Well gee, none of us kids ever thought of it as torture; neither did our parents, or the gym coaches, or the public school administrators. In fact, we didn't think getting spanked on our bottoms even constituted torture - neither did our parents. ;-)

Would you be fine if law enforcement in the United States were to start smearing fecal matter on all people regardless of whether they've been proven innocent or guilty?

Nope, not even if they were proven guilty - nor did I say I would be either. I just wouldn't call it torture.

I'm sure you take part in naken pyramids with your fellow mates all the time. Needless to say in the civilized world as compared to your preference for the US adopting tactics similar to Gestapo, KGB, and Stasi, we expect some civility from members of the government.

"I'm not a member of the GOP, nor have I ever voted for one their candidates outside of voting for Ron Paul in the primaries."

That's doubtful considering the fact that you seem to support most of these foreign interventions along with any human rights abuses that accompany them.

Where did I say anything that expressed a preference for the US adopting tactics similar to the KGB et al? Show me. Furthermore, if you think the practices at Abu Ghraib were anywhere near as bad as some of the stuff the Gestapo or the Stasi used to do, you're badly mis-informed.

Where in bloody hell in this thread do you see me supporting "these foreign interventions along with any human rights abuses that accompany them"? Show me. Or is that just some more of your exaggeration and unsubstantiated claims?

You're 100% correct, why should we follow the rule of law when our "enemies" break the law. By that logic you're justifying the government also breaking the law here at home for whatever cause they see fit.

Bullshit. I didn't say we shouldn't follow the law if our enemies don't, and I certainly didn't try to justify the abuses on those grounds either. What I said was that I never hear the Left crying about the other side or third world dictatorships breaking international law. I didn't attempt to justify anything.

If the criminals don't follow the law, then neither should the police, bureaucrats, or politicians. If that sounds absurd it is, more or less because that's the same logic you've used.

Uh,no, I did not say that nor did I imply it. Double bullshit.

"Also a pity most of the third world dictatorships in this world aren't particularly concerned with them either."

Agreed, why would you want to emulate what happens in third world dictatorships?

I wouldn't want to emulate it - where did I say I did? Why doesn't the Left ever want to castigate those third world dictatorships about their practices?

"Most of all, it's a pity the Left is never concerned about them except when they want to beat up the US with them."

Probably because of the fact that what a country does abroad is done in your name. Therefore you do have a responsibility to do what you can to ensure such violations don't occur.

All you're doing at the moment is advancing a jingoist theme to tell those critical of the Bush administration to shutup.

No, I'm not advancing any paricular theme, "jingoist" or otherwise. I'm certainly not supporting the policies of Bush and his administration. I'm merely asking for precise substantiation of several claims you've made. I'm not telling you to "shut up" either - I'm telling you to put up or shut up. That and stop exaggerating the supposed atrocities of this country yet ignoring those of all the rest.

I think your last few comments about Bush and your subsequent ones to JB concerning Cheney reveal your real problem here. Like most of the Left you can't stand them or the GOP and you couldn't stand them even before 9/11. Well, dude, I don't much care for them either, and I sure didn't vote for them - but if you think Obama is any better, you're kidding yourself.

And that's about all I can think to say to you. Address your hysterics to someone else - I've wasted enough time with you.

jtuf|4.30.09 @ 4:44AM|#

I agree that we should not toture and that the abuses in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib were wrong. However, we should base our policies on our consitution and the results of open debate, not on possible military consequences. The reason for stopping abuses matters. If we stop abuse out of respect for the constitution, we reafirm the consitution. If we stop abuse out of respect for universal human rights, we reafirm universal human rights. If we stop abuse out of fear of retaliation, we reafirm the effectiveness of terrorism as a strategy.

Also, consider the logic of a jihadist who joins Al-Q in response to the Abu Ghraib abuses. Some US personal abused prisoners and were prosecuted as a result. In the said jihadist mind, this justifies blowing up mosques. Would you accept that reasoning from any other group? Reason has reported on many cases of police abuse. Those abuses are also deplorable. Would any of you agree that watching your friend suffer police brutality would justify blowing up the local church?

jtuf|4.30.09 @ 5:06AM|#

I wouldn't want to emulate it - where did I say I did? Why doesn't the Left ever want to castigate those third world dictatorships about their practices?

Good point. Before someone wags a finger, he must first establish consistent rules of right and wrong. If someone restricts his comments to US action, because he believes that the people of each nation should monitor their own behavior, I can respect that. If someone denounces democracies for an action but ignores the same action when dictatorships do it, then I conclude that he bases his morality on the ease of the struggle, not the severity of the abuse.

Fenevad|4.30.09 @ 7:17AM|#

If someone denounces democracies for an action but ignores the same action when dictatorships do it, then I conclude that he bases his morality on the ease of the struggle, not the severity of the abuse.

I wonder where you think that Alberta Libertarian or anyone else here gave foreign dictatorships a free pass. I didn't see it. If anything, they were held up as the example of moral turpitude, an example of what we should not be like. No one on here, except in your imaginations, has said "it's OK for Egypt (or whatever country) to torture, but not for us." A number of people have said, in direct opposition to the position you've made up for them, that it's not OK for us to torture because it makes us like them. That's hardly ignoring it: it's open acknowledgment of the fact that it's bad for them and worse for us because we have a duty to be better than that. It's the same reason I should be more outraged at myself if I cheated on my wife than I would be at someone else for cheating on his wife: I don't have any say in that person's behavior, but I do in mine, and I have a duty to be better than that.

When it comes down to it, none of us have any chance at all of changing Egypt's position on torture (for example), while we live in the U.S. (or maybe Canada, in the case of Alberta Libertarian), where maybe, just maybe, we might make a difference.

By your logic we shouldn't get angry about police brutality in the U.S. because the janjaweed militia in Darfour are far, far worse. If we ever see a case where someone else is worse, we should go there and fight that rather than trying to fight the cases where we might be able to actually do something. Your logic is the logic of grand interventionist schemes that fail while ignoring problems at home.

I don't see anything hypocritical in picking your battles and focusing your energy on things done in your name by your government as a matter of policy rather than expressing outrage at other, perhaps even more outrageous actions done by other governments where said outrage won't accomplish anything at all. If it makes you happy, I am genuinely outraged about Egypt's use of torture and think that it, more than U.S. action, led to the creation of radical Islam. Now what do you want me to do about? Write a letter to the Egyptian embassy? Carry a sign outside of it? Wow, wouldn't that make me feel better for "doing something" (never mind that something accomplishes nothing).

More germanely, what are you (jtuf or JB) doing about said dictatorships or prison rape (respectively), the issues you seem to think we have to address or we can't address the ones we have a say in? If you aren't doing anything and getting after us for arguing against something where public debate might actually make a difference, then you're being pretty hypocritical yourselves since your preferred course of action/target of anger isn't accomplishing anything whereas ours might.

Some of us prefer to start with the problems we can affect rather than the ones we cannot. (And here I'll agree with JB: prison rape is a much bigger problem, but also, by its nature, much harder to deal with than U.S. use of torture.

Fenevad|4.30.09 @ 7:43AM|#

then I conclude that he bases his morality on the ease of the struggle, not the severity of the abuse.

This should read:

then I conclude that he bases his morality efforts on the ease of the struggle, not the severity of the abuse.

since no one here has said it's OK for others to torture, despite your claims that they have.

Generally that's considered good tactics, not a moral failing. But I guess, for an absolutist, anything short of taking on the whole tamale is a moral failing. Some of us, however, just prefer to take on struggles that are within our reach and set aside the others until we can actually address them. Just like some of us might do something about local government graft even though we know the federal government is the serious offender.

Alberta Libertarian|4.30.09 @ 9:48AM|#

"Nope, not even if they were proven guilty - nor did I say I would be either. I just wouldn't call it torture."

What is your definition of torture?

You stated your support for waterboarding which was used by the Gestapo during World War 2 and the Japanese Military Police as well. Oddly enough the Japanese who waterboarded American POW's were hanged.

"No, I wouldn't consider that legal, nor probably even excusable or justifiable - though I might consider it understandable in some cases. In any event where is the mention of that happening at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo?"

In the Salon, New York Times, and ACLU links provided. You just conveniently ignored them.

"Where in bloody hell in this thread do you see me supporting "these foreign interventions along with any human rights abuses that accompany them"? Show me. Or is that just some more of your exaggeration and unsubstantiated claims?"

By criticizing those who are critical of foreign interventions and arguing that we should really ignore your definition of "torture" which you can't define because third world countries do worse.

"Bullshit. I didn't say we shouldn't follow the law if our enemies don't, and I certainly didn't try to justify the abuses on those grounds either. What I said was that I never hear the Left crying about the other side or third world dictatorships breaking international law. I didn't attempt to justify anything."

So if I don't condemn these actions yet not make any mention of what's happening in North Korea along with it, I'm automatically ignoring North Korea.

"I'm merely asking for precise substantiation of several claims you've made. I'm not telling you to "shut up" either - I'm telling you to put up or shut up. "

I have, and you've conveniently ignored each of the articles posted. Including the one about the 16 year old girl who was sexually assaulted at Abu Ghraib.

"I think your last few comments about Bush and your subsequent ones to JB concerning Cheney reveal your real problem here. Like most of the Left you can't stand them or the GOP and you couldn't stand them even before 9/11."

I'm not on the left friend, I'm just skeptical of the state and the minions who advocate we should ignore what bureaucrats do overseas in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

"Well, dude, I don't much care for them either, and I sure didn't vote for them - but if you think Obama is any better, you're kidding yourself."

I never stated my support for Obama. I did state my opposition to torture which apparently is a position to only be held on the left.

Do you know what the Geneva Conventions are?

"And that's about all I can think to say to you. Address your hysterics to someone else - I've wasted enough time with you."

Don't worry, I don't think a Cheney backer such as yourself would respond. Especially when given evidence of abuses that occured and automatically responding like so:

"well, you're just a left winger who hates America, I know because you're not opposing dictatorships in third world countries and you think that liberal democracies should be held to a higher standard than Pol Pot."

Alberta Libertarian|4.30.09 @ 9:56AM|#

But, I'll provide the quotes from the links just for you:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18831prs20050124.html

"In one instance involving TF 20, an elderly Iraqi woman reported having been sodomized with a stick, but an investigation into the allegation was closed on the basis of a "sanitized copy of the unit 15-6 investigation," which has not been released."

http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06214-usls-provance-statment.pdf

"The first alarming incident I heard about was that some of the interrogators had gotten drunk, and then under the guise of
interrogation, molested an underaged Iraqi girl detainee. It could have been worse, but MP on duty stopped them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/13/iraq.usa

"Photographs of dogs snarling at prisoners, of women being forced at gunpoint to expose their breasts, of hooded prisoners being forced to masturbate, and of forced homosexual acts were among those shown to members of Congress yesterday."

But then again smartass SOB's gone through worse, his gym teacher once made him do pushups which is comparable to being forced to masturbate a fellow student.

Fenevad|4.30.09 @ 11:51AM|#

and you think that liberal democracies should be held to a higher standard than Pol Pot.

Alberta Libertarian, where did this quote come from? I read it as being attributed to SOB, but he(?) didn't write that. Or was it intended to be representative of the kind of thinking you believe him(?) to have? I almost responded and said I would be terribly frightened by anyone who would disagree with that statement, but then I couldn't find that anyone had said that.

|4.30.09 @ 1:46PM|#

@Alberta Libertarian

You stated your support for waterboarding which was used by the Gestapo during World War 2 and the Japanese Military Police as well. Oddly enough the Japanese who waterboarded American POW's were hanged.

No where in this thread have I so much as mentioned "waterboarding", let alone expressed any support for it.

Don't worry, I don't think a Cheney backer such as yourself would respond. Especially when given evidence of abuses that occured and automatically responding like so:

"well, you're just a left winger who hates America, I know because you're not opposing dictatorships in third world countries and you think that liberal democracies should be held to a higher standard than Pol Pot."

Don't make up quotes and try to attribute them to me - the text of this thread is here for anyone who cares to check on your dishonesty. And kindly don't attribute support for Cheney to me, either, since I haven't expressed any for him here - as you well know and as anyone else can see. Frankly, you're just a liar - and a poor one at that.

|4.30.09 @ 1:58PM|#

@Fenevad

...but then I couldn't find that anyone had said that.

That's because no one did.

|4.30.09 @ 3:29PM|#

Okay, Alberta Libertarian...one more time:

Here's a fuller quote from the article at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18831prs20050124.html

"Government investigations into allegations of torture and abuse have been woefully inadequate," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Some of the investigations have basically whitewashed the torture and abuse. The documents that the ACLU has obtained tell a damning story of widespread torture reaching well beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib."

The release of these documents follows a federal court order that directed the Defense Department and other government agencies to comply with a year-old request under the Freedom of Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

Many of the documents released today implicate Special Forces, including Task Force 6-26 and Task Force 20, in cases of abuse. In one instance involving TF 20, an elderly Iraqi woman reported having been sodomized with a stick, but an investigation into the allegation was closed on the basis of a "sanitized copy of the unit 15-6 investigation," which has not been released. In another case involving Special Forces Group ODA 343, investigators found that there was probable cause to believe that three members of the group had committed the offenses of murder and conspiracy and that a commander was an accessory after the fact. However, no action was taken against the commander or two of the soldiers. The remaining soldier received only a written reprimand.

Where does it mention anything about the broomstick incident happening at Abu Ghraib? Was Task Force 20 assigned to Abu Ghraib?

==================================

http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06214-usls-provance-statment.pdf

"The first alarming incident I heard about was that some of the interrogators had gotten drunk, and then under the guise of
interrogation, molested an underaged Iraqi girl detainee. It could have been worse, but MP on duty stopped them."

Yes, I read that. It's a third or maybe fourth hand account by someone who wasn't even there. Did rape actually take place? Apparently not. Was it even attempted? Maybe, but maybe the incident never actually happened, either. And maybe horny drunken soldiers can be found anywhere in the world, in anyone's military.

====================================

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/13/iraq.usa

"Photographs of dogs snarling at prisoners, of women being forced at gunpoint to expose their breasts, of hooded prisoners being forced to masturbate, and of forced homosexual acts were among those shown to members of Congress yesterday."

You never even made reference to this article before. But since you do so now, let me just say that this is The Guardian's exaggerated and inflamatory account(a publication well-known to be leftist, btw.) It isn't nearly as precise or objective as the other four articles that you referenced, such as the one at Salon. Their account of the breast-baring incident expresses some doubt as to whether it was involuntary or just an attempt of a prostitute to drum up business.

==================================

Perhaps you should go back and re-read all these articles that you've referenced for us - and read them more carefully than you've read my comments in this thread. Your comprehension of either plainly leaves something to be desired.

Alberta Libertarian|4.30.09 @ 4:15PM|#

"Perhaps you should go back and re-read all these articles that you've referenced for us - and read them more carefully than you've read my comments in this thread. Your comprehension of either plainly leaves something to be desired."

Well, you did state that what happened at Abu Ghraib was no worse than Gym class.

"Well gee, none of us kids ever thought of it as torture; neither did our parents, or the gym coaches, or the public school administrators. In fact, we didn't think getting spanked on our bottoms even constituted torture - neither did our parents."

Your little tirade plainly leaves little to be desired. But I feel sorry for you if your parents were to put you into stress positions, cover you with fecal matter, and made you masturbate your brother.

Now I think you have to go listen and get more keen insight into the world and what torture is from Rush Limbaugh.

Now [smart]dumbass, I think you have to tell us all how you supported Ron Paul and are super awesome libertarian but find nothing wrong with what happened at Abu Ghraib. Then you can give us your keen insights into what torture is based on your experience at gym classes.

Another thing, read the actual Geneva Conventions. I doubt you're aware of them, more or less because they include some articles about how prisoners in a wartime situation are supposed to be treated.

"You never even made reference to this article before. But since you do so now, let me just say that this is The Guardian's exaggerated and inflamatory account(a publication well-known to be leftist, btw.)"

As long as you still cling to the belief that what you experienced at the hands of your gym coach was no different than what happened at Abu Ghraib we'll be fine.

Alberta Libertarian|4.30.09 @ 4:17PM|#

"Don't make up quotes and try to attribute them to me - the text of this thread is here for anyone who cares to check on your dishonesty. And kindly don't attribute support for Cheney to me, either, since I haven't expressed any for him here - as you well know and as anyone else can see. Frankly, you're just a liar - and a poor one at that."

Unfortunatley theirs not much to lie about since you lack any substance when it comes to your opposition to anything. Outside of being making a few talking points that any idiot could make.

Like comparing what happened at Abu Ghraib to what the gym coach did to you.

Alberta Libertarian|4.30.09 @ 4:23PM|#

"Geneva Conventions and international law? Pity the enemy isn't concerned with them. Also a pity most of the third world dictatorships in this world aren't particularly concerned with them either. Most of all, it's a pity the Left is never concerned about them except when they want to beat up the US with them."

The best comment is the above one however. Which seems to imply that since the "enemy" and the typical third world dictatorship isn't concerned with the Geneva Conventions neither should we.

You should make yourself more clear instead of screaming "leftist" to any person who's concerned about the rule of law.

Alberta Libertarian|4.30.09 @ 4:31PM|#

Smartass, I don't see the point in responding if your main points consist of saying you really have no idea what torture is, what's covered in the Geneva Conventions, or how doing a couple of pushups instead of the truffle shuffle is comparable to what happened at Abu Ghraib.

|4.30.09 @ 6:26PM|#

@Alberta Libertarian?

Or is it Edwierdo, or Dan, or Neal...or one of H&R's other many-handled little trolls?

==============================

Lies drool from thy lips,
Drip soundlessly to thy feet.
They glisten dully.

|4.30.09 @ 6:45PM|#

To nail the coffin on this thread, and I realize I'm late.

Liberty.
Many here consider themselves Libertarians. There are those who don't but even they consider themselves Americans. Be it Right or Left and most here do seem to side more right as do I.

When we declared independence from Brittain we affirmed that all MEN are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Liberty was an incredibly important concept to the founders.

That being said as a Libertarian or libertarian or even an american I Despise any act that takes away liberty of any living human being on this planet.

It is that simple. It really is. As american you treat every person you come in contact with as an individual with individual liberty. You have a right to defend your own liberty, but you never have a right to do it pre emptively.

I'm not exactly sure where if at all any torture at all fits into that view of the U.S..

If we were the country our founders intended there would be no terrorism. Period.