Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
More on How to Interrogate, the CIA Way
Because knowledge is power, and if anyone should have command of these inner-circle secrets of how to interrogate a suspect, it's you-the-American-people, and just in case you might need these techniques at some point in your own perambulations through this thing called life dealing with truculent wayfarers, the Washington Post heps us in detail to some of the secrets of the interrogation stars at the CIA so you don't have to RTFM yourself:
As the session begins, the detainee stands naked, except for a hood covering his head. Guards shackle his arms and legs, then slip a small collar around his neck. The collar will be used later; according to CIA guidelines for interrogations, it will serve as a handle for slamming the detainee's head against a wall.
After removing the hood, the interrogator opens with a slap across the face -- to get the detainee's attention -- followed by other slaps, the guidelines state. Next comes the head-slamming, or "walling," which can be tried once "to make a point," or repeated again and again.
"Twenty or thirty times consecutively" is permissible, the guidelines say, "if the interrogator requires a more significant response to a question." And if that fails, there are far harsher techniques to be tried....
The detainee would be ushered into a world of constant bright light and high-volume "white noise" at levels up to 79 decibels, about the same volume as a passing freight train. He would be shorn, shaved, stripped of his clothes, fed a mostly liquid diet and forced to stay awake for up to 180 hours....
"Establishing this baseline state is important to demonstrate to the [detainee] that he has no control," the memo states.
Interrogations at CIA prisons occurred in special cells outfitted on one side with a plywood wall, to prevent severe head injuries. According to the agency's interrogation plan, the nude, hooded detainee would be placed against the wall and shackled. Then the questioning would begin.
"The interrogators remove the [detainee's] hood and explain the situation to him, tell him that the interrogators will do what it takes to get important information," the document states.
If there was no response, the interrogator would use an "insult slap" to immediately "correct the detainee or provide a consequence to a detainee's response." If there was still no response, the interrogator could use an "abdominal slap" or grab the captive by his face, the memo states.
Each failure would be met with increasingly harsher tactics. After slamming a detainee's head against the plywood barrier multiple times, the interrogator could douse him with water; deprive him of toilet facilities and force him to wear a soiled diaper; or make him stand or kneel for long periods while shackled in a painful position. The captive could also be forced into a wooden box for up to 18 hours at a stretch.
Jacob Sullum wrote on this interrogation report today as well.
Jennifer|8.26.09 @ 10:51AM|#
I look forward to the inevitable comments insisting that these were mere fraternity pranks, or that the people deserved it, and anyway we're a lot better than North Korea so why bother complaining?
|8.26.09 @ 10:54AM|#
This is Room 101, 1984 type stuff. How reassuring to know that there are crack squads of torture ghouls in various CIA and military offices across this fine nation.
|8.26.09 @ 10:57AM|#
The Sullum thread is already full of Tuff Gais posturing. Everyone one of those turds would be blubbering for mama after the first slap.
Xeones|8.26.09 @ 10:59AM|#
You know, i'm kind of starting to hope the Obama's schemes DO destroy this country, so we can start over.
The Libertarian Guy|8.26.09 @ 11:09AM|#
I'd be more creative... puppies, Jewish chicks in skimpy outfits serving Hebrew National hot dogs, having Jackie Mason conduct the interviews...
|8.26.09 @ 11:09AM|#
FWIW, other than the soiled diaper and the head banging against the wall, all of these techniques are used on pilot trainees in SERE school.
|8.26.09 @ 11:11AM|#
There is no reason to believe these interrogators actually
believed they were causing physical harm or severe mental
distress.
None whatsoever.
Fluffy|8.26.09 @ 11:18AM|#
What, no taserings?
What a gyp.
They needed some Alabama police on the job, to make sure some
taserings were included.
If this is the stuff they're willing to reveal, I wonder how bad
all the stuff that's still redacted was.
Maybe some of the "lost" detainees had heads that couldn't stand up
to being bashed into a wooden wall 20 times.
tarran|8.26.09 @ 11:22AM|#
That's right brotherben, and do you know why?
It's to prepare them to deal with torture.
They also have a motto: "train like you fight, fight like you
train".
In fact, I seem to recall reading a thread here tracing how the CIA
techniques had originated in North Korean POW Camps during the
"police action" of the 50's.
It's torture, pure and simple, perpetrated by amoral fuckers who
would be just at home wearing swastikas or hammer & sickles on
their arms.
Joe|8.26.09 @ 11:23AM|#
FWIW, other than the soiled diaper and the head banging
against the wall, all of these techniques are used on pilot
trainees in SERE school.
This SERE argument pisses me off to no end. Because we use these
techniques on volunteers, that makes it moral to do them to people
involuntarily?
Every day millions of women consent to sex, so I guess rape must be
a-okay with you too, then?
|8.26.09 @ 11:29AM|#
If we just try hard enough, I'm sure we can find a way to have meaningful dialog with people who saw off their prisoners' heads and blow up children without having to resort to anything unpleasant.
|8.26.09 @ 11:31AM|#
Joe and tarran, the point of this element of the SERE training is to cause a tremendous amount of mental distress so the instructors can teach them how to deal with it. They are teaching the students how to deal with tortue. It's an argument against, not for these techniques.
|8.26.09 @ 11:31AM|#
I doubt it, Cris. Just like you can't have a meaningful dialogue with type of human cum toilet that defends torture.
|8.26.09 @ 11:33AM|#
I have said several times before on these threads that aany information gleened from these techniques is dubious at best. It's a damned poor way to get intel.
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 11:33AM|#
Cris,
Were you born retarded, did you achieve retardedness, or was
retardedness simply thrust upon you?
Tomcat1066|8.26.09 @ 11:35AM|#
Chris is the result of someone waterboarding his mother with liberal amounts of vodka while she was pregnant with him, and then waterboarding him with liberal amounts of leaded paint chips while he was a toddler. Really, it's not his fault he's an idiot.
Agent Richards|8.26.09 @ 11:37AM|#
If this is the stuff they're willing to reveal, I wonder how
bad all the stuff that's still redacted was.
You don't want to know.
|8.26.09 @ 11:40AM|#
If this is the stuff they're willing to reveal, I wonder how
bad all the stuff that's still redacted was.
I've heard rumors that they locked some detainees in a cell with
Lefiti and Tony for three days straight. And then they told him he
voted for Ron Paul.
Joe|8.26.09 @ 11:41AM|#
Joe and tarran, the point of this element of the SERE
training is to cause a tremendous amount of mental distress so the
instructors can teach them how to deal with it. They are teaching
the students how to deal with tortue. It's an argument against, not
for these techniques.
If you meant it as an argument against, then I'm sorry for jumping
on you. I just see too many people who know what the SERE program
is for, but still somehow think that it's existence means that
waterboarding can't be torture since we do it to our own
troops.
Fluffy|8.26.09 @ 11:41AM|#
If we just try hard enough, I'm sure we can find a way to
have meaningful dialog with people who saw off their prisoners'
heads and blow up children without having to resort to anything
unpleasant.
Our prisons are full of people who have murdered, raped, kidnapped,
and tortured.
While those murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and torturers were at
large, the state was morally entitled to use lethal force, if
necessary, to bring them in.
But now that they are in custody and rotting away in prison, the
state is not morally entitled to have prison guards randomly beat
up these murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and torturers, or sexually
abuse them, or use sleep-deprivation techniques on them, or
waterboard them. Regardless of how horrible their crimes were.
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 11:43AM|#
The U.S. State Department has issued reports about torture
committed by other countries. To be sure, these countries'
torturing ways don't stop the State Dept. from dealing with them,
but it is certainly embarrassing for a foreign regime to be
publicly rebuked by the U.S. for mistreating prisoners. Many of
these prisoners are terrorist suspects or potential witnesses to
terrorism, and the excuses for U.S. torture apply to these
countries as well. In fact, many countries could argue that they
are *more* threatened by terrorists than the U.S. is, since the
terrorists sometimes come from armed opposition movements within
the country itself, drawing broad-based support from many sectors
of the population.
Will the U.S. apologize to those other countries we criticized for
torture? Will we say, "OK, guys, we understand that you weren't
doing torture, you were just Fighting Terrorism and Protecting Your
People - we're so very sorry we said those mean things about your
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?"
Brazen Bullshit|8.26.09 @ 11:45AM|#
"But now that they are in custody and rotting away in prison,
the state is not morally entitled to have prison guards randomly
beat up these murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and torturers, or
sexually abuse them, or use sleep-deprivation techniques on them,
or waterboard them. Regardless of how horrible their crimes
were."
Then what of lethal injections?
Joe|8.26.09 @ 11:46AM|#
Then what of lethal injections?
Are we handing those out without trials now?
|8.26.09 @ 11:48AM|#
Fluffy said:
Our prisons are full of people who have murdered, raped,
kidnapped, and tortured.
While those murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and torturers were at
large, the state was morally entitled to use lethal force, if
necessary, to bring them in.
But now that they are in custody and rotting away in prison, the
state is not morally entitled to have prison guards randomly beat
up these murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and torturers, or sexually
abuse them, or use sleep-deprivation techniques on them, or
waterboard them. Regardless of how horrible their crimes
were.
And furthermore, we don't know whether these guys actually
did anything wrong in the first place. Supposedly that's
why they are being tortured. It's precisely because 'we' supposedly
believe in limited government and innocent-until-proven-guilty that
this kind of 'interrogation' is disgusting, and those who condone
it equally so.
Tacos mmm...|8.26.09 @ 11:52AM|#
But now that they are in custody and rotting away in prison, the state is not morally entitled to have prison guards randomly beat up these murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and torturers, or sexually abuse them, or use sleep-deprivation techniques on them, or waterboard them. Regardless of how horrible their crimes were.
And, at least, they were found guilty in a court of law.
"Detainee," however, has no such implications.
tarran|8.26.09 @ 11:54AM|#
brotherben,
I apologize: I missed the fact you were being ironic - mainly
because I have heard so many people - cough, cough, Guy
Montag advance nearly identical arguments seriously.
|8.26.09 @ 11:54AM|#
Next comes the head-slamming, or "walling," which can be
tried once "to make a point," or repeated again and again.
"Twenty or thirty times consecutively" is permissible, the
guidelines say, "if the interrogator requires a more significant
response to a question." And if that fails, there are far harsher
techniques to be tried....
The detainee would be ushered into a world of constant bright light
and high-volume "white noise" at levels up to 79 decibels, about
the same volume as a passing freight train. ... fed a mostly liquid
diet and forced to stay awake for up to 180 hours....
The captive could also be forced into a wooden box for up to 18
hours at a stretch.
All of this is torture. Whoever did these things should be tried
and imprisoned. Whoever approved them, should be tried and
executed.
T|8.26.09 @ 11:56AM|#
Are we handing those out without trials now?
Only to senior citizens after their end-of-life panel discussion
and QALY calculation.
|8.26.09 @ 11:56AM|#
If we just try hard enough, I'm sure we can find a way to
have meaningful dialog with people who saw off their prisoners'
heads and blow up children without having to resort to anything
unpleasant.
Remember boys and girls, the only possible way that we can win this
epic heretofore unprecedented struggle of good versus evil is to
reduce ourselves to their level. And don't worry, we have plenty of
Tuff Gais to do that dirty work you don't want to think about.
|8.26.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Don't apologize. I made a statement about SERE without stating my position on torture. The jump you both made was logical. Sometimes I am a dumbass. (some would argue it's all the time)
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 12:18PM|#
But where's the folks to come tell us that all this was done "in good faith" and that the interrogators, because they got a permission slip from a lawyer, couldn't be expected to know that their activities would cause extreme pain and suffering?
|8.26.09 @ 12:22PM|#
The SERE school argurment is BS. The mindset is totally
different. You know it's a school, and that your captors know you
have to be fit to return to duty. You know, they know, you will be
ok, and the school is in your best interests.
When applying the techniques in real life, the captor doesn't
really give a shit, and is not looking out for the captives best
interest. So the idea of going over the top can happen, but not so
much in SERE school.
Maybe we should change how SERE school works to make it more real.
Such as, never let the students know they are going, kidnap them
off base, hood them, stip them naked, and deliver them to the
school. Make sure all the instructors are of Middle Eastern decent
and use English rarely in school.
Of course we wouldn't do that because they would be returned to
their unit mentally unfit for duty, and mentally fucked up for the
rest of their life. But hey, they would never be tortured.
|8.26.09 @ 12:24PM|#
I've heard rumors that they locked some detainees in a cell
with Lefiti and Tony for three days straight.
I am in complete favor of waterboarding ect, but this is simply
inhumane. I am not certain even KSM would deserve this. A simple
death by impalement would be much more pleasant.
|8.26.09 @ 12:24PM|#
Come on guys, most of you are better commenters than that.
Calling anyone who disagrees with you "Tuff Gais" sounds eerily
similar to the libtard "Racist/Facist" circle jerks that we make
fun of on here all the time. We're supposed to use facts and reason
to defend our positions, not blanket ad hominem for those who
disagree with us.
I'm also curious what everyone believes to be "good" intelligence
gathering techniques. Because we can't torture people to tell us
what they know and we dont' want the govt wiretapping and listening
in on any private citizens. What specific techniques should the
govt use to gather information?
|8.26.09 @ 12:26PM|#
""But hey, they would never be tortured.""
I should have said, but hey, we didn't torture them.
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 12:28PM|#
I would love to have the torture apologists here explain a few
points:
-Is torture OK if performed by foreign governments (like Egypt's)
against alleged terrorists, or by hostile regimes against U.S.
soldiers? If not, why not? If it's OK for foreign governments to do
this, shouldn't the U.S. quit publishing human rights reports
criticizing torture by other governments?
-What if the foreign government in question is doing its torture
based on a referral (and a wink and a nod) from the U.S.? Would
that make it OK? Or would that type of oursourcing simply take jobs
away from good American torturers?
-Isn't your complaint against Congress for failing to give a safe
harbor for 'antiterrorist torture,' rather than against people who
complain about violation of the torture statute? I mean, the
Bushevik Congress had around five years to relax the restrictions
of the torture statute, but they didn't do it. Aren't you going to
criticize Congress for failing to allow such necessary
interrogation techniques?
creech|8.26.09 @ 12:29PM|#
What, this isn't a guide on how to treat your congresscreature at the next town hall meeting?
freeforall232|8.26.09 @ 12:35PM|#
If I learned anything from watching "24", it's that all you have to do is shoot the bad guy's wife in the leg if you want to make him talk.
T|8.26.09 @ 12:38PM|#
I'm also curious what everyone believes to be "good"
intelligence gathering techniques. Because we can't torture people
to tell us what they know and we dont' want the govt wiretapping
and listening in on any private citizens. What specific techniques
should the govt use to gather information?
Part a: No, we can't torture people because it is against the law.
You want to be able to torture terror suspects freely, get the law
changed, repudiate our international treaties, and go for broke.
Expect any captured American soldier or citizen to die horribly and
the video to be broadcast worldwide in response.
Part b: Wiretap away, as long as you get a warrant specifically
describing the information you're looking for and why you think the
suspect has it.
There's any array of intelligence techniques available for use, but
torture doesn't have to be one of them.
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 12:39PM|#
I would love to have the torture apologists here explain a
few points:
Oh Mad Max, you give them so much credit. It's really simple.
1. Torture is wrong. America is the beacon of morality, so we know
this.
2. Thus, when Americans do "stuff" it is by definition not torture.
After all, torture is un-American and who is more American than
soldiers and spies?
3. If it were torture, though, that's OK, because the government is
empowered to make torture OK by saying so.
|8.26.09 @ 12:40PM|#
The SERE argument (when presented as a defence of these techniques) misses a crucial point. SERE school is two weeks long, and only the last week is dedicated to interrogation. The people there know that the instructors are US military personnel, that there is a limit to what techniques will be used, and, most importantly, that it will end within a week. Detainees have no such assurances, and the the difference is crucial.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 12:42PM|#
I'm disappointed. Where are the bamboo shoots under the
fingernails? The electric shocks? The blowtorch, the acid, the
power tools applied to bone?
Don't these people have any professional pride anymore?
This crap sounds more like a bad behavior-mod high school from the
1980s.
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 12:45PM|#
This crap sounds more like a bad behavior-mod high school
from the 1980s.
Hey TallDave. People died from this. So go fuck yourself.
T|8.26.09 @ 12:46PM|#
Detainees have no such assurances, and the the difference is
crucial.
That and the whole voluntary vs. involuntary thing.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 12:47PM|#
They died from what? Belly slaps? Soiled clothes?
People die in prisons all the time. And we don't even get any
information from them.
Seriously, the degree of whining here is pathetic. There is real
torture going on in the world and you fucktards are giving them a
free pass by equating it with this stuff.
wayne|8.26.09 @ 12:53PM|#
You guys obviously don't want to entertain Cris' (11:29AM)
viewpoint, but he raises a legitimate point.
This kind of reminds me of the abortion debate: I fully support a
woman's choice about abortion, but the reality of aborting a fetus
is repugnant.
I don't like torture either, but is the "solution" to capture them
and ask politely (once) if they are willing to divulge their plans
to murder your children and mine, and you and me. If they decline,
then... what?
T|8.26.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Seriously, the degree of whining here is pathetic. There is
real torture going on in the world and you fucktards are giving
them a free pass by equating it with this stuff.
TallDave, I'll make you the same offer I made on the other thread.
Torture is defined in our laws as causing "severe physical pain".
Come on down to the house. I'll shackle you up and bounce your head
off a sheet of 3/4" ply 30 times. Then you can tell us all whether
or not that's severe physical pain. You get to pay for the
reconstructive surgery, though. I can guarantee you, given the
guidelines posted in the linked article, you'll need it when I'm
done. If I'm a little sloppy, you may end up with some permanent
brain damage or a skull fracture. But hey, it's not torture, right,
schmuck?
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 12:55PM|#
There is real torture going on in the world and you
fucktards are giving them a free pass by equating it with this
stuff.
How in that twisted brain of yours does that follow? Hey, is it
like a stretch to condemn murder by stress position but ALSO (wait
for it...) condemn murder by any other method? Do we relinquish the
ability to criticize things that are even *more* fucked up than the
things we are currently criticizing? Is it possible to say, what
the US did/is doing is evil, and also say, what the Iranian regime
is doing is probably even more evil?
You're launching an argument that is the equivalent of "that guy"
who says that because you care about beautification of the local
park, you obviously do not care about the starving children in
Africa (because it is impossible to care about two things at once)
and what a horrible soulless person you are because you care about
the park.
|8.26.09 @ 12:58PM|#
Some of the kinky aspects are intriguing. Hoods, collars, shackles, being stripped and shaved? Does any of this violate "don't ask, don't tell?"
|8.26.09 @ 12:58PM|#
I don't like torture either, but is the "solution" to
capture them and ask politely (once) if they are willing to divulge
their plans to murder your children and mine, and you and me. If
they decline, then... what?
Your argument rests on the assumption that torture actually
produces useful information.
Maybe I'm just special, but torture me and I'll tell you anything
you want to know, even if I have to make up some plausible sounding
bullshit.
|8.26.09 @ 12:59PM|#
Hey T
Sounds like you've never been around the block. Life is unfair. Get
it? It's nasty, brutish and short. Get it?
Quit your whining and refusal to see life as it is, not as you wish
it to be.
Fluffy|8.26.09 @ 1:00PM|#
Come on guys, most of you are better commenters than that.
Calling anyone who disagrees with you "Tuff Gais" sounds eerily
similar to the libtard "Racist/Facist" circle jerks that we make
fun of on here all the time.
Well, some people insist on making supporting torture a manhood
test.
When you make statements declaring that you're more manly than
everyone else because you are bravely typing on the internet your
support for torture, you deserve all the mockery you get.
They died from what? Belly slaps? Soiled clothes?
We don't know what the overwhelming majority of fatalities died
from because it's being hidden from us.
To me, it's really simple. Take the list of actions described in
the report. Now let's assume that the government of Iran seized ten
blonde American 22 year old females in a third country [Indonesia,
say], declared that they were suspected CIA agents who had
coordinated "terrorist" activities within Iran, and proceeded
to:
1. Strip them naked
2. Parade them around in hoods
3. Beat their heads against a wall 20 times in a row
4. Slap them every time they asked them a question
5. Waterboard them
6. Tell them their families had been abducted and were being raped
and/or executed in the next room
7. Subject them to mock executions
8. Chain them naked in a refrigerated cell
9. Deprive them of sleep for up to a week at a time
Oh, and 1 of them dies in custody of "unknown" reasons, and 2 of
them "disappear" and the Iranians say, "Well, we had them in
custody, but we don't know where they went now" and they scratch
their heads.
What would we say about the government of Iran in such a
circumstance? Would we or would we not accuse them of torture and
murder?
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 1:01PM|#
'This kind of reminds me of the abortion debate: I fully support
a woman's choice about abortion, but the reality of aborting a
fetus is repugnant.'
A most excellent analogy! Especially since a remarkable number of
torture apologists (like Rudy Giuliani) are also pro-abortion, or
at worst soft on abortion.
To be sure, it makes logical sense that if the 'highly personal
choice' of killing your own unborn child should never be questioned
by the government - should, in fact, be subsidized by the taxpayers
- then the highly personal choice of whether to torture a human
being after he is born should also not meet with any disapproval
from the government - should, in fact, be supported by the
government at the highest levels!
|8.26.09 @ 1:01PM|#
Suge, you are special. And way too willing to submit for it to be called torture in your case.
|8.26.09 @ 1:02PM|#
"""This crap sounds more like a bad behavior-mod high school
from the 1980s."""
Yeah, but almost all of that IS illegal now.
|8.26.09 @ 1:03PM|#
Some buildings got blown up. So what? Boo fucking hoo. Life's not fair, America. You pussies.
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 1:04PM|#
A most excellent analogy! Especially since a remarkable
number of torture apologists (like Rudy Giuliani) are also
pro-abortion, or at worst soft on abortion.
Oh damn. Bizarro Mad Max passed violently through the negative
space wedgie and we are now left with the beardless, nutty version
again.
George Bush|8.26.09 @ 1:05PM|#
We torture them Arabs to show how wrong and violent their religious driven beliefs are and how right our religious driven beliefs are. Go God!
|8.26.09 @ 1:06PM|#
"There's any array of intelligence techniques available for use,
but torture doesn't have to be one of them."
Because I'm not a spymaster, please tell me what information
gathering techniques are out there and effective that don't get
libertarian panties in a tizzy.
I'll agree with wiretapping on suspects with "known" information if
you describe to me what techniques we used to know that information
"known"
Fluffy|8.26.09 @ 1:06PM|#
I don't like torture either, but is the "solution" to
capture them and ask politely (once) if they are willing to divulge
their plans to murder your children and mine, and you and me. If
they decline, then... what?
Then we don't know what their plans are.
Seriously.
We could have tortured captured Germans, Italians, Japanese,
Koreans, Chinese, and Vietnamese for information, and probably
saved soldiers' lives by doing so. [We probably would have lost
more of our soldiers' lives, once our enemies figured out that it
really wasn't safe to surrender to Americans, but I realize that no
one on the pro-torture side acknowledges or cares about that.] But
we didn't. Are you saying we should have tortured those prisoners
for information too?
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 1:06PM|#
LMNOP,
Oops, I forgot that it's OK to oppose torturing a human being, but
killing him in the womb is a sacred constitutional right which is
not to be questioned.
|8.26.09 @ 1:07PM|#
please tell me what information gathering techniques are out
there and effective that don't get libertarian panties in a
tizzy.
"You see, the ends totally justify the means."
wayne|8.26.09 @ 1:08PM|#
Your argument rests on the assumption that torture actually
produces useful information.
SF,
True. According to reports in the news Khalid Sheik Mohammad's
interrogations yielded "very valuable info". KSM was one of three
detainees who were tortured. Apparently in KSM's case torture
worked.
I would like to point out that your argument rests on the
assumption that torture does not provide useful info.
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 1:08PM|#
'Isn't intentionally forcing someone to give birth severely
painful?'
Maybe, but getting killed in the womb is no picnic, either.
Bear in mind that it was wayne who brought up the abortion issue.
Blame *him.*
|8.26.09 @ 1:08PM|#
TallDave, think of it this way. Our government is accepting a
wide range of bad behavior for it's self, while cracking down on
it's citzens for far, far less bad behavior such as having a house
party with a few underage drinkers. Or heaven forbid if you smoke a
cigarette in a public building.
The permissiable behavior gap between what the government can do,
and what the citizenry can do should sound alarms. If our country
is being driven toward evil socialism, it's not just from the
political left, the right is doing their fair share by accepting
the torture arguement.
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 1:10PM|#
wayne,
Let me ask you this:
If you could induce a witness to reveal what he known about a
terrorist plot by raping the witness's 10-year old daughter, would
you do it? Or are you a disloyal, wimpy liberal?
|8.26.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Suge, the legality of the methods used is in a grey area due to
interpretation of the rules, IMO.
The reliability of any intel gained from the techniques described
in the article is questionable at best. The thing that comes to
mind is the articles we have seen here about police interrogations
in the U.S. resulting in confessions to crimes by innocent people.
The interrogation methods used by the cops were playground stuff
compared to what this article describes.
,,,,,,,,,, put these where you think they go.
|8.26.09 @ 1:11PM|#
According to reports in the news Khalid Sheik Mohammad's
interrogations yielded "very valuable info".
Who's reports? The torturers trying not to go to jail? Did he give
up the WMD in Iraq? Did he know where the yellow cake was
stored?
Please make the "We haven't had any terrorist attacks" argument. I
need a good laugh.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:15PM|#
According to reports in the news Khalid Sheik Mohammad's
interrogations yielded "very valuable info".
The important thing is not whether these techniques can save lives.
The important thing is the only acceptable interrogation technique
is to ask politely, then perhaps raise our voices slightly.
This will give us the moral high ground, which will comfort us
greatly when we're burning to death in a building full of flaming
jet fuel.
|8.26.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Suge, the legality of the methods used is in a grey area due
to interpretation of the rules, IMO.
I know we really don't disagree, but here's something for those who
use the "gray area" fig leaf.
Not everything that is legal is moral. Not everything immoral
should be illegal. Both the right and left exhibit an inability to
understand these simple ideas.
I don't care about the legality of torture, like redistributionist
taxation as a cover for theft, the law doesn't obviate moral duties
and judgments.
(I, of course, am using my secular defintion of "moral" that people
disagree with.)
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Oops, I forgot that it's OK to oppose torturing a human
being, but killing him in the womb is a sacred constitutional right
which is not to be questioned.
You misunderstand. I have no problem with you being pro-life. But
your argument (really oxymoronically) attempted to stretch an
equivalence between the two (torturing a captive, and abortion),
and despite what moral objections you have to both, they are
comparing apples and bricks. It was simply bizarre.
And since you often find any way you possibly can, regardless of
how unrelated or tangential it is to the topic at hand, to bring up
some sarcastic comment about abortion, or rank abortionists amongst
the political enemies du jour, my bizarro comment was
totally justified.
|8.26.09 @ 1:19PM|#
This will give us the moral high ground, which will comfort
us greatly when we're burning to death in a building full of
flaming jet fuel.
Expediency is the excuse of utilitarians everywhere.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:19PM|#
Vic,
The government is allowed to do all sorts of things citizens can't
via their monopoly on violence.
I'm all for better controls on these things. There was supposed to
be strict medical oversight and if that wasn't done people should
be duly prosecuted.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Expediency is the excuse of utilitarians
everywhere.
It's all a fun moral exercise till you're on fire.
wayne|8.26.09 @ 1:20PM|#
If you could induce a witness to reveal what he known about
a terrorist plot by raping the witness's 10-year old daughter,
would you do it? Or are you a disloyal, wimpy
liberal?
No. Rape is not in my toolkit, nor is torture of any kind for
anybody.
Let's pose the opposite, and equally unlikely scenario: Suppose you
were in possession of a terrorist whose brethren had YOUR ten year
old daughter in chains and were preparing to rape her, and then
just for good measure behead her as well.
Would you be willing to slam your captive's head against a plywood
wall to get information about her whereabouts?
|8.26.09 @ 1:22PM|#
"""This will give us the moral high ground, which will comfort
us greatly when we're burning to death in a building full of
flaming jet fuel."""
As opposed to the moral high ground that comforted us when we were
dying in France and Germany, and some Pacific Islands in much
larger numbers?
|8.26.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Mad Max @ 1:10:
You left out material information: is the 10-year-old totally
hot?
|8.26.09 @ 1:24PM|#
It's all a fun moral exercise till you're on
fire.
Lifeboat ethics, the most useful of the ethics. Go back to the GOP,
Dave. They actually think this shit is profound.
JB|8.26.09 @ 1:24PM|#
Many of those do sound like frat initiations.
I think the number of people who have died from frat initiations is
higher than the number of terrorism suspects who have died in
custody.
Obviously Obama needs to look into that.
|8.26.09 @ 1:24PM|#
"""There was supposed to be strict medical oversight and if that
wasn't done people should be duly prosecuted."""
What does strict medical oversight mean? You can have a Dr. there,
but if doc is provided by the captors, what oversight is he really
doing? Trying to keep you alive for more torture?
I believe it's already been reported that the psychs and docs were
not doing the job you probably thought they should.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:25PM|#
So when the Chinese was using waterboarding, it wasn't
torture?
It's certainly among their more humane methods
of interrogation.
Immersion in sewage, ripping out fingernails, sleep
deprivation, cigarette burns and beatings with electric prods -
these are some of the torture methods used by China's police and
prison officers to extract confessions and maintain discipline, a
United Nations investigation has found.
And that was for confessions. God only knows what they do for
information.
|8.26.09 @ 1:27PM|#
Would you be willing to slam your captive's head against a
plywood wall to get information about her whereabouts?
Yes. And after I got my daughter back I'd expect to go to jail, not
whine about how unfair it was. The jury would probably let me off,
but not unless I could prove that he had my daughter and I actually
got her back. Until then I tortured a legally innocent person on a
hunch.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:27PM|#
You can have a Dr. there, but if doc is provided by the
captors, what oversight is he really doing?
Third, the enhanced techniques may be used with a particular detainee only if, in the professional judgment of qualified medical personnel, there are no significant medical or psychological contraindications for their use with that detainee... The third significant precondition for use of any of the enhanced techniques is a careful evaluation of the detainee by medical and psychological professionals from the CIA's Office of Medical Services ("OMS"). The purpose of these evaluations is to ensure the detainee's safety at all times and to protect him from physical or mental harm
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 1:30PM|#
It's certainly among their more humane methods of
interrogation.
Okaaaaay. So your argument now is "we do bad things, but it could
have been worse!"
Fuck off and rot.
|8.26.09 @ 1:30PM|#
"""The government is allowed to do all sorts of things citizens
can't via their monopoly on violence."""
Sure, but the size of the gap is a indicator of how evil it's
becoming. All evil governments, the ones that have deserved our
wrath throughout the years, had a large gap between what freedoms
the citizens can exericise and what the government can. To widen
that gap is to move us closer to them. The gap can be widened by
cracking down on it's citizens, or allowing the government great
leeway with it's bad behavior.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:32PM|#
Yes. And after I got my daughter back I'd expect to go to
jail, not whine about how unfair it was.
I would expect a medal.
|8.26.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Ahhh, hell. I didn't know they had written rules for medical folks to be supervising the enhanced interrogation. Since I know that govt employees always follow the rules because if they don't they are always caught and punished, I guess I am wrong to question the government.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:35PM|#
Okaaaaay. So your argument now is "we do bad things, but it
could have been worse!"
No, my argument is
1) The methods are acceptable given the circumstances.
2) China does much worse than waterboarding, so who gives a fuck
about whether they waterboard?
3) Fuck off and die burning in jet fuel.
|8.26.09 @ 1:35PM|#
There might be a plot against Obama, what with all these angry
Town Hall protesters. Let's grab that guy with the gun and torture
him until we find out what he knows.
I mean, what good is the moral high ground if you get shot standing
at a podium?
|8.26.09 @ 1:35PM|#
""The purpose of these evaluations is to ensure the detainee's
safety at all times and to protect him from physical or mental
harm""
We have had people die in our custody, but some don't want that
investigated. And if you read the techniques above, most of them
are not about getting the information per se, but to mentally break
the individual. We intend to create mental harm in order to soften
the detainee for questioning.
That's why I mentioned changing SERE school in a previous post. If
we applied the mental breaking techniques to the students, they
would be to screwed up for duty, and for the rest of their
lives.
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 1:37PM|#
'No. Rape is not in my toolkit, nor is torture of any kind for
anybody.'
What's the matter, wayne, aren't you a loyal American? Aren't you
*manly* enough to rape a 10-year-old girl, if that's what it takes
to get a terrorist to tell you where to find his Ticking Time Bomb
(TM)?
ØŸ Liberals like wayne make me sick. They think that the War on
Terror is some kind of tea party. I hope to God that there are some
real *men* out there who don't have wayne's wimpy liberal
inhibitions. Does wayne believe that we can get information from
head-chopping terrorists by asking nicely?
Wayne is simply a left-wing faggot who doesn't have the balls to do
what's necesessary. While liberal faggot wimps like wayne sleep
comfortably, our brave fighting men and intelligence agents do
what's necessary to keep him safe from terrorists, and what thanks
do they get? Nothing but scorn from liberal lefty faggots like
wayne.
GILMORE|8.26.09 @ 1:39PM|#
All I want to know is: who's soiling all these diapers for them? Is there a cadre of infant Junior G Men crapping our way to catching Osama? Or is it like the kind of job they give to the low man on the CIA totem pole?
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:40PM|#
We have had people die in our custody, but some don't want
that investigated.
It's already been investigated. Should it be investigated again?
Some fear a political witch hunt. Are they right? Who knows.
People die in custody all the time with or without interrogations.
Somtimes it's abuse, sometimes it's bad health, sometimes it's an
overenthusiastic guard defending himself or preventing escape,
sometimes it's just bad luck. The fact people "died in custody" is
meaningless without knowing the circumstances.
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 1:41PM|#
'Immersion in sewage, ripping out fingernails, *sleep
deprivation,* cigarette burns and beatings with electric prods -
these are some of the torture methods used by China's police and
prison officers to extract confessions and maintain discipline, a
United Nations investigation has found.'
ØŸ TallDave, you traitorous slut, sleep deprivation is one of the
methods expressly approved by our 100% American CIA! And you dare
to suggest that it's torture?
ØŸ I bet you hate Mom and Apple Pie too, you treacherous, disloyal
disgrace to Americanness. Why don't you move to China if you hate
this country so much?
|8.26.09 @ 1:42PM|#
All I want to know is: who's soiling all these diapers for
them?
We seem to have plenty people right here that wet themselves
constantly.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:43PM|#
There might be a plot against Obama, what with all these
angry Town Hall protesters. Let's grab that guy with the gun and
torture him until we find out what he knows.
I thought you were against torture?
That straw man took quite a beating. I'm calling the WaPo.
|8.26.09 @ 1:43PM|#
"""2) China does much worse than waterboarding, so who gives a
fuck about whether they waterboard?"""
But it could be ok for them to do much worse assuming they believe
it is acceptable given the circumstance. Any other regime for that
matter. Or does #1 only apply to the US?
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:44PM|#
9/11 justifies everything.
Plus, without all the torture, how are we ever going to find Iraq's
WMDs, and the secret pact between Saddam and Osama?
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 1:44PM|#
wayne,
The distance between genius and madness is measured by success. We
know that's true because a Bond villain said it. And if raping a
10-year-old girl obtains actionable intelligence, how can that be
wrong, according to your own logic?
ØŸ But you aren't willing to practice a little rape for the sake of
your country? You're obviously a disloyal traitorous
wayne|8.26.09 @ 1:44PM|#
Does wayne believe that we can get information from
head-chopping terrorists by asking nicely?
I will answer the only coherent point in your post:
No
ManliessMan@whitehouse.gov|8.26.09 @ 1:45PM|#
"Well, some people insist on making supporting torture a manhood
test"
Whose comment at what time makes the pro-torture pro-manliness
connection? Mostly it's the anti-torture crowd that's calling
anybody who disagrees with them "manly men" in a snarky way. Then
other anti-torture advocates go out to say "oh yeah, I'll slam your
head into a wall and see how you like not being tortured." Why are
you so insistent on slaming people who disagree with you into a
wall? If you slammed everyone's head into a wall that disagreed
with you, and they all changed their mind and became anti-torture,
wouldn't that prove that torture was indeed effective? As a general
point it a weird idea, using violence to show what violence is in
an effort to show we shouldn't use violence.
Fluffy, your 10 blonds in Iran analogy is a long stretch. Rather
than 10 blonde women, a closer analogy would be 10 American members
of the KKK go to Ghana and then are arrested on suspicion of
terrorism and murder, so then you get to ask your question "What
would we say about the government of 'Ghana' in such a
circumstance? Would we or would we not accuse them of torture and
murder?" Which is a lot closer of a debating point then 10 22 year
old blonds.
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 1:45PM|#
wayne,
So to be clear -
If there was a ticking time bomb and a million - or a hundred
million - Americans were about to get blown up - and you could save
them by raping a 10-year-old girl, you wouldn't do it because
you're too pure?
You liberal.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:46PM|#
But it could be ok for them to do much worse assuming they
believe it is acceptable given the circumstance. Any other regime
for that matter. Or does #1 only apply to the US?
Of course not. It's not OK just because we say it's okay, any more
than anything else is.
Ripping out fingernails, cattle prods, immersion in sewage...
always unacceptable, no matter who does them.
wayne|8.26.09 @ 1:46PM|#
You're obviously a disloyal traitorous...
You trailed off there, Dave. Did you choke on the foam in your
mouth? You OK, buddy?
|8.26.09 @ 1:47PM|#
I thought you were against torture?
Your inability to grasp sarcasm is simply amazing. But then, it's
easy to ignore a reversal of argument that makes a hash of
something you believe.
MNG and joe would be so proud.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:48PM|#
Max,
Hey, use you imagination. What if the only way to prevent 100
million child rapes was to rape that child?
Oh, the conundrum.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 1:49PM|#
SugarFree,
Alas, you've only exposed your own shortcoming in that regard. I
was referring to your torture of that strawman, which clearly
violates the Geneva Convention.
I will be assembling a trial in Nuremberg. Attendance is voluntary,
but morally you cannot refuse.
|8.26.09 @ 1:52PM|#
"""Ripping out fingernails, cattle prods, immersion in sewage...
always unacceptable, no matter who does them."""
Fingernails grow back, Cattle prod is just another name for tazer.
Immersion in sewage is just hummiliation, not torture. You can
spray them down with a high pressure water hose for an hour or two
afterward. The doctors can confirm if the sewage water your
cleaning them with actually contains no harmful bacteria.
|8.26.09 @ 1:55PM|#
TallDave,
Here's a tip: The Strawman Argument is what you have employed the
entire fucking time by suggesting that anti-torture is pro-terror.
Reversing that on you, which you still haven't managed to muster a
coherent reply to, is fair game.
I know you don't have an answer, so I'll make it easy for you. Fuck
off. You want to argue in bad faith, you go right ahead. But I'm
not going to feed you anymore.
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 1:55PM|#
'You misunderstand. I have no problem with you being pro-life.
But your argument (really oxymoronically) attempted to stretch an
equivalence between the two (torturing a captive, and abortion),
and despite what moral objections you have to both, they are
comparing apples and bricks. It was simply bizarre.'
ØŸ You're absolutely right - how could I possibly suggest that
killing a human being in the womb is morally objectinonable in the
same sense that torturing a terrorist suspect is objectionable? I
mean, torturing terrorist suspects is obviously and self-evidently
wrong (even if the suspect may have information about upcoming
terrorist crimes), whereas abortion is a much more ambiguous
situation. I mean, what if the unborn child is black and is going
to be brought up in a single-parent household? Even Richard Nixon
would agree that this would be a horrible situation.
'And since you often find any way you possibly can, regardless of
how unrelated or tangential it is to the topic at hand, to bring up
some sarcastic comment about abortion, or rank abortionists amongst
the political enemies du jour, my bizarro comment was totally
justified.'
Just to bring you back to reality for a moment (for which I
apologize, because wherever you are right now is obvioiusly a more
pleasant place than reality) - it was wayne who brought up the
abortion issue by saying that he supported abortion just like he
supported torture:
'This kind of reminds me of the abortion debate: I fully support a
woman's choice about abortion, but the reality of aborting a fetus
is repugnant.'
Mad Max|8.26.09 @ 1:57PM|#
"Ripping out fingernails, cattle prods, immersion in sewage...
always unacceptable, no matter who does them."
You left out 'sleep deprivation,' TallDave. Why is that? Is it
because the CIA does it, too?
What if the CIA jumped off a bridge? Would you jump in after
them?
|8.26.09 @ 1:58PM|#
"I'd be more creative... puppies, Jewish chicks in skimpy
outfits serving Hebrew National hot dogs, having Jackie Mason
conduct the interviews..."
I see you attended Ron Jeremy's bris.
Lucky bastard!
Tacos mmm...|8.26.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Not everything, but surely something.
Just as a diet isn't a diet if you stick to it only when you're not
hungry, your principles aren't real if you follow them only when
its easy.
Fluffy|8.26.09 @ 2:15PM|#
The important thing is not whether these techniques can save
lives. The important thing is the only acceptable interrogation
technique is to ask politely, then perhaps raise our voices
slightly.
This will give us the moral high ground, which will comfort us
greatly when we're burning to death in a building full of flaming
jet fuel.
Well, then, we should ignore the First Amendment and start
arresting people for engaging in speech that Muslims consider
blasphemy.
People who publish the Mohammed cartoons, for example. Give them
all long prison terms. Close down any publication that attempts to
publish those cartoons in the future.
It's only the First Amendment, after all. We can't worry about
retaining the moral high ground if the alternative is terrorist
violence. What comfort will the First Amendment be to us, while
we're immersed in burning jet fuel?
Do we really want to tell the victims of terrorist violence that
they would have lived if it weren't for our desire to let people
publish whatever they want?
As the great Mitt Romney pointed out, isn't the right to life
greater than all the other rights?
TallDave Quoting TallDave|8.26.09 @ 2:18PM|#
TallDave | August 26, 2009, 1:48pm | #
Max,
Hey, use you imagination. What if the only way to prevent 100
million child rapes...
Because thats what CIA torture achieved! Without their acts, we
CLEARLY WOULD ALL BE BURNING IN JET FUEL.
See? It becomes perfectly reasonable as soon as you start assuming
that had you NOT committed torture, then all the children in the
world are raped, the kittens drown, and everyone takes a
burning-jet-fuel shower. Why is this not clear to everyone?
JB|8.26.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Just as a diet isn't a diet if you stick to it only when
you're not hungry, your principles aren't real if you follow them
only when its easy.
As far as principles go, I find it fairly illogical and a little
bit sick that many people find it ok to end someone's
consciousness, but not ok to cause them fear, pain, or shame.
|8.26.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Lifeboat ethics, the most useful of the ethics.
Interesting point. Once in the lifeboat of say, the Essex, aren't
ethical considerations different? Aren't ALL ethical considerations
specific to their context?
If I come to your office and shoot you for writing "Love Crimes"
that is unethical. If I shoot you as you climb into my window in
the dark of night screaming that you are going to rape my dog, it
is ethical.
I am not arguing that the methods used were ethical, only that
ethics is determined by circumstance, not a solid rule like "thou
shalt not kill"
The Late, Great, WFB defined moral equivalence perfectly. Pushing
an old woman out of the path of an incoming train and pushing an
old woman into the path of an oncoming train both involve
pushing an old lady but are not morally equal.
english nazi|8.26.09 @ 2:31PM|#
it was wayne who brought up the abortion issue by saying
that he supported abortion just like he supported
torture:
It was me that brought up abortion as an analogy. I did not say
that I supported it. I said it presented me with a moral dilemma,
for which I see no clear "right answer".
wayne|8.26.09 @ 2:35PM|#
What if the CIA jumped off a bridge? Would you jump in after
them?
If the bridge was rigged with terrorist explosives... yes
:-).
T|8.26.09 @ 2:37PM|#
Hey T
Sounds like you've never been around the block. Life is unfair. Get
it? It's nasty, brutish and short. Get it?
Quit your whining and refusal to see life as it is, not as you wish
it to be.
franz, I sure as hell hope that's sarcasm. If not, go fuck yourself
with a chainsaw. I've been around the block and have the scars and
the medals to prove it.
Life as it is means what the CIA did was against the law. I don't
give a shit what policy was or what justification you think they
had. We have black letter law that says this shit is illegal. We
have people right here whining that we shouldn't prosecute members
of our security apparatus for breaking that law because it was
'necessary'. Fuck that, them, and you. You don't get a get out of
jail free card because terrorists are the evil, just like the cops
don't get a pass because drugs are bad, mmkay. If the people in the
government disobey the law, come down on them like a motherfucking
asteroid strike. (Thanks for the phrase, Fluffy.)
I cannot fucking believe we have idiots here who think slamming
somebody's head into a wall 30 times in a row was not "specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering".
Oh, wait, the CIA says it was to demonstrate the subject's lack of
control, so that makes it all just peachy fucking keen. The severe
pain and the broken nose was just a side effect of demonstrating
who was in charge.
I'll be the first to admit, people have defined torture downwards
to the point of meaningless in the larger debate, but if beating
the crap out of a guy you have naked, shackled, and hooded doesn't
qualify, what the fuck does? Do we have to set people on fire
before some of you will admit it's torture?
Fluffy|8.26.09 @ 2:39PM|#
As far as principles go, I find it fairly illogical and a
little bit sick that many people find it ok to end someone's
consciousness, but not ok to cause them fear, pain, or
shame.
We have the right to use violence, including lethal violence,
against anyone at war with us for however long they remain in the
field.
We have the right to use violence against criminals who resist
apprehension.
Both of these rights to use violence terminate when the other party
surrenders.
If the enemy surrenders and one of our guys runs around saying,
"Hey, look, it's the enemy!" and shoots the prisoners, that person
is a war criminal.
If the police apprehend a suspect and have him in handcuffs and
decide to beat the shit out of him, those police officers are
criminals.
"Hey, I was allowed to kill these guys a minute ago before they
surrendered, why not now?" is not a counterargument. "Hey, I was
allowed to use my billyclub on this guy before he gave up a minute
ago, why can't I use it now?" is not a counterargument. "Hey, I was
allowed to end that guy's consciousness back when he was still in
the field, firing a weapon at me. Why am I not allowed to cause him
pain, fear and shame now that he has surrendered and is in a cell?"
is not a counterargument, either.
It's not illogical and it's not sick at all. The only thing that
gives us the moral right to use any level of violence at all is the
fact that our enemies are loose. That means that when they
aren't loose, we no longer have the right to use any
violence, other than the minimum required to keep them from getting
loose again.
wayne|8.26.09 @ 2:40PM|#
Oh, wait, the CIA says it was to demonstrate the subject's
lack of control, so that makes it all just peachy fucking
keen.
Actually, it was the initial bitch-slap that was meant to
demonstrate the subject's lack of control. The head banging was
meant to emphasize the point.
|8.26.09 @ 2:46PM|#
Marshall Gill,
The problem with Lifeboat Ethics and Ticking-Time Bomb Ethics is
that we are so rarely in a lifeboat with a ticking bomb. Of course
the situation dictates the judgment of the actions of others, but
to argue that we are in a lifeboat (thousands of dangerous
terrorists are slavering at our doorstep and only freezing this one
guy half to death will stop them!) when we aren't (useful
information, maybe, according to completely biased people) is
sophist bullshit.
Like a commitment to free speech is defined by defending repugnant
speech, ethics are supposed to guide us through the lifeboat
scenerio, not degrade at the first sight of the ocean.
As for the equality of ethical choices, that was exactly what I was
getting at with the Obama analogy/reversal that TallDave blithely
ignored. If it is OK to torture someone in a scenario you agree
with, why is it not in one you don't?
The townhall guy scares Obama groupies and an assassination of
Obama would be far more disastrous for civil liberties than 9/11.
All we know is "the guy wasn't where he was supposed to be with a
gun," doing things that they deem "suspicious." There might be an
imminent threat on the president's life. Is it OK to torture
him?
JB|8.26.09 @ 2:49PM|#
Fluffy, I don't think that distinction is as important as you
make it out to be.
Just define someone as an 'enemy' and then you can do whatever you
want to them when they are 'loose', but can't touch a hair once
they are 'not loose'. Well, except for putting them in prison where
they will be raped.
My problem with much of this debate is that people take it out of
context. I'm much more concerned with ending the consciousness of
thousands of innocents who end up as collateral damage than I am
about the fear and pain of hundreds of detainees (a good portion of
which are not innocent). They both are likely things to be
concerned about, but one is far more important than the other.
|8.26.09 @ 2:54PM|#
JB,
I can only speak for myself, but I'm anti-torture and
anti-unnecessary war. I imagine that is a huge overlapping
demographic.
|8.26.09 @ 3:02PM|#
Third, the enhanced techniques may be used with a particular
detainee only if, in the professional judgment of qualified medical
personnel, there are no significant medical or psychological
contraindications for their use with that detainee..."
Bones: He's alrady dead Jim....There's nothing he can tell us
now....
Kirk: Bones, are........you sure? He's....still breathing. Has...a
pulse. His pupils Bones...they are....reactive to light. He has a
temperature. Blood Pressure. He even displays....irritability
to....stimuli. Even alpha and beta waves! Spock! What say
you?
Spock (raised eyebrow): Logically, Capt....he is still alive.
Bones: Jim, how could you suggest...? Dammit I'm a doctor, not an
OMS!!!!
Scotty: No Cappan! He canna handle it!
Kirk: Spock, meld with him.
Spock: Indeed, Capt. Logically, you should have requested this in
the first place.
|8.26.09 @ 3:04PM|#
You should be ashamed.
I am. But then I have the luxury of denying lifeboat ethics. I
wouldn't live long enough in a lifeboat for me to be a
factor.
I had a Philosophy of Human Nature professor I used to "torture"
with my diabetes. He was fond of hypothetical ethics
exercises:
"OK, the whole class is lost in the forest..."
"I'd be dead in a few days. Feel free to eat my body."
"What past age would you live in if you could time travel?"
"None. I'd die without insulin."
|8.26.09 @ 3:15PM|#
"The third significant precondition for use of any of the
enhanced techniques is a careful evaluation of the detainee by
medical and psychological professionals from the CIA's Office of
Medical Services ("OMS"). The purpose of these evaluations is to
ensure the detainee's safety at all times and to protect him from
physical or mental harm"
Really? So, by essentially using the Star Trek illustration, it
would certainly permissible to say, withhold the dentainee's
insulin if he was an insulin dependent type I diabetic, or withold
glucose until at the point of sugar shock, but having that medical
personnel there to check his sugar every 15 minutes to give him
insulin/glucogon to prevent coma or DKA, all the while threatening
to withhold until he spills the beans?
But not letting him die, just causing enough discomfort but not
'true' harm, since medical staff is there to make sure he doesn't
croak while questioned?
He is not being denied medical care, but you seriously can't tell
me this is not mental anguish and torture, even though he is not in
immediate harm.
And the the psych test would be an epic fallacy: "How long have you
been a terrorist and what is the next target? You deny being a
terrorist? Well, you must clearly be sane, since, by definition,
criminals lie and we expected your denial"
|8.26.09 @ 3:16PM|#
You are more of a hyperthetical kind of person. That or you just enjoy fuckin with folks.
|8.26.09 @ 3:19PM|#
You are more of a hyperthetical kind of person. That or you
just enjoy fuckin with folks.
Both, of course.
|8.26.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Groovus Maximus,
But insulin shock is just a psychiatric technique, right?
(I can't believe they used to do that. I can't imagine the
assumptions that theory of treatment was based on. This is the last
time I bring up The Bell Jar today, promise.)
The Angry Optimist|8.26.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Third, the enhanced techniques may be used with a particular detainee only if, in the professional judgment of qualified medical personnel, there are no significant medical or psychological contraindications for their use with that detainee
I did not know that. That probably makes the legal defense even
stronger in this case.
Hey, guys, let me ask this: if you could rewrite the torture
statute, how would you write it?
|8.26.09 @ 3:33PM|#
The problem with Lifeboat Ethics and Ticking-Time Bomb
Ethics is that we are so rarely in a lifeboat with a ticking
bomb.
I don't disagree one bit but "rarely" is not never.
As for the equality of ethical choices, that was exactly what I
was getting at with the Obama analogy/reversal that TallDave
blithely ignored. If it is OK to torture someone in a scenario you
agree with, why is it not in one you don't?
For the same reason that it is OK to kill, it depends upon the
circumstances. I agree that it is OK to kill in self-defense,(a
scenario with which I agree) does this equate to the support for
killing for cash (a scenario with which I disagree)?
|8.26.09 @ 3:34PM|#
Actually that was just a hypothetical. But it wouldn;t suprise
me if that technique was/is employed, if such a "suspect"
presented.
But IIRC, when porcine insulin was introduced for insulin
replacement, that was essentially how the trials went.
Before human analogues like humalin, humalog and NPH were developed
that is.
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 3:37PM|#
"What past age would you live in if you could time
travel?"
"None. I'd die without insulin."
So what you do is you travel back to middle ages Transylvania, and
then under the guise of being a vampire, you kill people and
harvest their pancreases. You could subsist on the pancreases of
livestock, but to be honest that just isn't as much fun.
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 3:38PM|#
Hey, guys, let me ask this: if you could rewrite the torture
statute, how would you write it?
Torture. Don't do it, or we'll bust you like a legal pinata.
|8.26.09 @ 3:39PM|#
"""I am not arguing that the methods used were ethical, only
that ethics is determined by circumstance, not a solid rule like
"thou shalt not kill""""
If you accept that, no authoritarian government has ever done
anything unethical as long as they believed the circumstances
allowed it.
|8.26.09 @ 3:47PM|#
"I am not arguing that the methods used were ethical, only that
ethics is determined by circumstance"
I thought moral relativism was a tenet in the religion of the
progressive left.
Circumstance does not dictate morality. Since ethics are derived
from a moral fibre, one would have to question the validity of the
moral code.
|8.26.09 @ 3:53PM|#
For the same reason that it is OK to kill, it depends upon
the circumstances.
No, no, no. It is not about when it's OK to torture, it's about who
it's OK to torture. The scenario is the same, just the participants
differ. It's not "shoot an innocent person or a robber" it's "shoot
a maybe innocent person or a sort of innocent person." Both have
made threats, both were picked up "in the field." It is only
politics and assumptions that make it OK to torture one, and not
the other.
Never give power to the government that you don't want your
ideological opposites to also have. Islamic terrorists today, Iowa
militia members tomorrow.
I stick with the simple: It's not OK to torture. And if you think
that the situation warrants torture, then you should be fine with
being judged on whether that torture was right.
|8.26.09 @ 3:59PM|#
"""Never give power to the government that you don't want your
ideological opposites to also have. Islamic terrorists today, Iowa
militia members tomorrow."""
One has to be pretty shallow not to understand that.
"""I thought moral relativism was a tenet in the religion of the
progressive left."""
It's a tenet in the religion of government.
|8.26.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Never give power to the government that you don't want your
ideological opposites to also have. Islamic terrorists today, Iowa
militia members tomorrow.
Sorry, but I don't consider Islamic terrorists as my "ideological
opposites" but murderers. Leftist are my "ideological opposites"
and no, I don't favor torturing or even waterboarding most
of them.
wayne|8.26.09 @ 4:01PM|#
It's not "shoot an innocent person or a robber" it's "shoot
a maybe innocent person or a sort of innocent person."
Or, in the actual case before us, it OK to torture KSM, the
self-admitted beheader of Daniel Pearl and "master mind" behind 911
as well as many other nefarious acts. Hmmm, what to do?
wayne|8.26.09 @ 4:03PM|#
And if you think that the situation warrants torture, then
you should be fine with being judged on whether that torture was
right.
Agreed.
|8.26.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Sorry, but I don't consider Islamic terrorists as my
"ideological opposites" but murderers. Leftist are my "ideological
opposites" and no, I don't favor torturing or even waterboarding
most of them.
Leftist being able to torture based on their defintion of
imminent threat is my point. Do you want a Democratic
administration to be able to torture the people they see as
enemies? Because making excuses for Bush is enabling exactly
that.
|8.26.09 @ 4:12PM|#
If you want to allow torture for acts of murder say so. If you
want to allow torture for an act war, understand that works for
both sides.
KSM felt the circumstances justified the behavior. Therefore, by
some arguments here, his acts were moral. Moral relativism works
for everyone.
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 4:15PM|#
Agreed.
So...trials then? For the people who did it, and the people who
ordered it?
roystgnr|8.26.09 @ 4:27PM|#
And if you think that the situation warrants torture, then
you should be fine with being judged on whether that torture was
right.
Bingo. "But what if the smoking gun is going to be a mushroom
cloud!?!" If you're so sure of that, go ahead and commit some
horrific felonies and war crimes. If hindsight proves you right,
I'll bet even those wusses who believe in the Bill of Rights will
support giving you a pardon. If not, then too bad. The risk of
prison should have paled besides the risk of fruitless torture
anyway.
We could instead try the strategy of treating accused prisoners
like human beings, and becoming an example of civilization to the
barbarians. But it may be too late to start seeing the practical
benefits of that again for another generation or two. German
soldiers used to tell each other to surrender to the Americans, to
make sure they got the best treatment. There's no telling how many
of our GI's lives that saved, or how much it contributed to the
reconstruction of German society over the subsequent decades. But
hey, what's the point of trying to build up civilizations for our
grandkids to trade with decades from now, when there's some scary
people we can beat to death *today*? Besides, every person we
torture probably wins Al Qaeda ten new recruits - and if we're
going to be ready to torture all *those* guys too, we're going to
need more practice!
|8.26.09 @ 4:40PM|#
"""We could instead try the strategy of treating accused
prisoners like human beings, and becoming an example of
civilization to the barbarians."""
After 9-11 we decided it was more important to prove to the
barbarians that we can be barbarians too. Obviously a few here
agree. Civilization is for whimps and traitors. ;-)
|8.26.09 @ 5:02PM|#
"""Yo, fuck moral relativism."""
Moral relativism helps in getting laid, usually around closing time
and aided by alcohol.
JB|8.26.09 @ 5:04PM|#
JB,
I can only speak for myself, but I'm anti-torture and
anti-unnecessary war. I imagine that is a huge overlapping
demographic.
Reason and other venues have about 1000% more posts on 'torture'
than on collateral damage and it's been blown out of proper
proportion by many people as a partisan crusade to 'punish
Bush'.
I would like to see both Bush and Obama punished for sending people
to be raped for getting high with a substance less dangerous than
alcohol. I'm much more sympathetic to going after those abuses of
American citizens than going after the mis-treatment of hundreds of
foreign citizens detained in war time.
wayne|8.26.09 @ 7:42PM|#
I would like to see both Bush and Obama punished for sending
people to be raped for getting high with a substance less dangerous
than alcohol. I'm much more sympathetic to going after those abuses
of American citizens than going after the mis-treatment of hundreds
of foreign citizens detained in war time.
Word.
wayne|8.26.09 @ 7:44PM|#
So...trials then? For the people who did it, and the people
who ordered it?
El, what crime would you try them for, following the CIA
handbook?
Elemenope|8.26.09 @ 10:16PM|#
El, what crime would you try them for, following the CIA
handbook?
If the CIA handbook instructed them to torture people, I'm not
seeing the problem here.
Kevin Carson|8.27.09 @ 3:07AM|#
Tricky Vic: Actually, somebody proposed challenging Hannity to be waterboarded under those conditions: no "safe word," absolutely no control and no way of knowing when it will stop. Also throw in being kept naked in a cold, brightly lit cell, waking at random intervals, etc. Hannity would NEVER agree to be waterboarded under the actual conditions used by the U.S. because he knows every MSNBC viewer in the country would be jerking off to him blubbering like a baby.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245