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.

Comments

[Jennifer]

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?

[Randolph Carter]

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.

[Waggoneer]

Kinky!

[SugarFree]

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]

You know, i'm kind of starting to hope the Obama's schemes DO destroy this country, so we can start over.

[ev]

This is pretty much how the misses and I like it.

[*]

Jeez, they're so strict.

[The Libertarian Guy]

I'd be more creative... puppies, Jewish chicks in skimpy outfits serving Hebrew National hot dogs, having Jackie Mason conduct the interviews...

[brotherben]

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.

[P Brooks]

There is no reason to believe these interrogators actually believed they were causing physical harm or severe mental distress.

None whatsoever.

[Mary Jo Kopechne]

I was waterboarded and the perpetrator paid no price.

[Fluffy]

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.

[Tomcat1066]

Geez. That sounded like a description of my honeymoon.

[tarran]

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]

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?

[Cris]

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.

[brotherben]

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.

[SugarFree]

I doubt it, Cris. Just like you can't have a meaningful dialogue with type of human cum toilet that defends torture.

[brotherben]

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]

Cris,

Were you born retarded, did you achieve retardedness, or was retardedness simply thrust upon you?

[Tomcat1066]

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]

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.

[SugarFree]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

Then what of lethal injections?

Are we handing those out without trials now?

[Geoff]

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...]

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.

[franz kafka]

Yawn.

[tarran]

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.

[Warren]

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]

Are we handing those out without trials now?

Only to senior citizens after their end-of-life panel discussion and QALY calculation.

[troy]

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.

[brotherben]

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)

[Brazen Bullshit]

"some would argue it's all the time"

That's so stupid.

[Elemenope]

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?

[TrickyVic]

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.

[Marshall Gill]

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.

[Come on]

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?

[TrickyVic]

""But hey, they would never be tortured.""

I should have said, but hey, we didn't torture them.

[Mad Max]

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]

What, this isn't a guide on how to treat your congresscreature at the next town hall meeting?

[TrickyVic]

Just put them in a cell with a TV that has Ann Coulter on a loop.

[TrickyVic]

Come on Mad Max, only our reasons for doing it are just.

[freeforall232]

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]

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]

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.

[Number 6]

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]

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]

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]

Detainees have no such assurances, and the the difference is crucial.

That and the whole voluntary vs. involuntary thing.

[TallDave]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Pablo]

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?"

[SugarFree]

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.

[franz kafka]

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]

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]

'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!

[brotherben]

Suge, you are special. And way too willing to submit for it to be called torture in your case.

[TrickyVic]

"""This crap sounds more like a bad behavior-mod high school from the 1980s."""

Yeah, but almost all of that IS illegal now.

[franz fucknut]

Some buildings got blown up. So what? Boo fucking hoo. Life's not fair, America. You pussies.

[Elemenope]

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]

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!

[Come on]

"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"

[SugarFree]

Isn't intentionally forcing someone to give birth severely painful?

[Fluffy]

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]

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.

[SugarFree]

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]

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]

'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.*

[TrickyVic]

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]

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?

[brotherben]

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.

[SugarFree]

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.

[TrickyVic]

So when the Chinese was using waterboarding, it wasn't torture?

[TallDave]

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.

[TrickyVic]

Even the CIA's own report said it could not be determined if techniques work.

[SugarFree]

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]

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.

[SugarFree]

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]

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]

Expediency is the excuse of utilitarians everywhere.

It's all a fun moral exercise till you're on fire.

[wayne]

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?

[TrickyVic]

"""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?

[Shelby]

Mad Max @ 1:10:

You left out material information: is the 10-year-old totally hot?

[SugarFree]

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]

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.

[TrickyVic]

"""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.

[wayne]

Was every detainee tortured in the manner described in the article?

[TallDave]

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.

[SugarFree]

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]

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]

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.

[TrickyVic]

"""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]

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.

[brotherben]

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]

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.

[SugarFree]

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?

[TrickyVic]

""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.

[wayne]

it is a conundrum.

[Mad Max]

'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)?

? 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.

[TallDave]

brotherben,

Not at all, question away. We're all for the questioning.

[GILMORE]

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?

[wayne]

Mad Max, Wow! Emphasis on the "Mad" part.

[TallDave]

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]

'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.'

? 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?

? 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?

[SugarFree]

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]

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.

[TrickyVic]

"""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]

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]

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?

? But you aren't willing to practice a little rape for the sake of your country? You're obviously a disloyal traitorous

[wayne]

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

[TallDave]

also, only the guilty have reason to worry

[[e-mail]]

"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]

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]

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]

You're obviously a disloyal traitorous...

You trailed off there, Dave. Did you choke on the foam in your mouth? You OK, buddy?

[SugarFree]

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.

[TrickyVic]

So the moral compass of our nation is anything goes with the proper excuse?

[TallDave]

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]

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.

[wayne]

no more hypotheticals for me.

it is a conundrum.

[TrickyVic]

"""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.

[TallDave]

9/11 justifies everything.

Not everything, but surely something.

[SugarFree]

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]

'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.'

? 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]

"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?

[Groovus Maximus]

"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...]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Marshall Gill]

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]

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]

Oops. Wayne = English Nazi... sometimes

[wayne]

What if the CIA jumped off a bridge? Would you jump in after them?

If the bridge was rigged with terrorist explosives... yes

:-).

[T]

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]

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]

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.

[Art-P.O.G.]

What T and Fluffy said. And what SugarFree said.

[SugarFree]

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]

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.

[wayne]

There IS an ethical and moral dilemma here.

[wayne]

how many detainees were tortured?

[SugarFree]

JB,

I can only speak for myself, but I'm anti-torture and anti-unnecessary war. I imagine that is a huge overlapping demographic.

[brotherben]

Suge, your positions my friend are un-american You should be ashamed.

[Groovus Maximus]

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.

[SugarFree]

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."

[Groovus Maximus]

"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"

[brotherben]

You are more of a hyperthetical kind of person. That or you just enjoy fuckin with folks.

[SugarFree]

You are more of a hyperthetical kind of person. That or you just enjoy fuckin with folks.

Both, of course.

[brotherben]

nap time. have a good afternoon all.

[SugarFree]

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]

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?

[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.

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)?

[Groovus Maximus]

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]

"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]

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.

[TrickyVic]

"""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.

[Groovus Maximus]

"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.

[SugarFree]

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.

[TrickyVic]

"""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.

[Marshall Gill]

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]

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]

And if you think that the situation warrants torture, then you should be fine with being judged on whether that torture was right.

Agreed.

[SugarFree]

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.

[TrickyVic]

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]

Agreed.

So...trials then? For the people who did it, and the people who ordered it?

[Elemenope]

Yo, fuck moral relativism.

[roystgnr]

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!

[TrickyVic]

"""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. 😉

[TrickyVic]

"""Yo, fuck moral relativism."""

Moral relativism helps in getting laid, usually around closing time and aided by alcohol.

[JB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.