So to support the doubtful proposition that aggresive interrogation might “put our own troops at risk,” which, incidently, they already seem to be,Warner & his friends, Powell, and the Democrats have instead chosen to put our entire country at risk.

Or, to put it in other words, to possibly benefit a handful, they have chosen to threaten at least a hundred thousand. What kind of crazy cost-benefit analysis is that?

Thanks.

Israel outlawed torture in 1999. One of the arguments was that it was very ineffective. But heck, what would they know about torture compared to you, or Dubya?

I noticed you didn’t answer the question re Iran. Guess it didn’t fit into your neat, if bizarre, theory of torture rationale based on enemy actually having a national anthem.

Also, not to be picky, but it’s illogical to call a stateless terrorist a “fascist”–what is the defining characteristic of a fascist after all? Exaggerated nationalism. Small point, but sloppy thinking leads to, well, your nonsense.

honora on September 15, 2006 at 3:30 PM

In 1999 Israel rejected applying the 4th Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948.

I answered the question on Iran, you just didn’t like the answer. Bizarre theory on torture rationale? Now you’re flat out making things up. You should pay a little more attention to my response, then you might get a grasp on how I feel about torture … re Iran or any other terrorist supporting country.

Not all terrorists are stateless, now are they?

21. The last refuge of a bad debater is nit-picking.
22. The next to last refuge of a bad debater–creating a fault choice.
23. Sloppy thinking leads to, well, your nonsense.
24. Never engage in ra, ra, bla, bla, ka, ka, du, du.

Who we I need to start calling and swearing at in order to get movement in the Senate? I swear I am going to buy them all large doses of ex-lax to remove the blockage.

I noticed you didn’t answer the question re Iran. Guess it didn’t fit into your neat, if bizarre, theory of torture rationale based on enemy actually having a national anthem.

Also, not to be picky, but it’s illogical to call a stateless terrorist a “fascist”–what is the defining characteristic of a fascist after all? Exaggerated nationalism. Small point, but sloppy thinking leads to, well, your nonsense.

OK, so let’s say we go to war with Iran and are fighting the Iranian army. You agree that torture is not ok then?

honora on September 15, 2006 at 2:25 PM

If it ever comes to going to war with Iran it is likely nukes will enter the picture, given Ahmadinajab’s obsession with acquiring this equalizing weaponry. The conflict will conclude in a matter of hours. No torture necessary. Lousy hypothetical.

So maybe we should crank up the interrogation techniques now to avoid the slaughter of millions once our friendly neighborhood terrorist gets his hands on one of Iran’s nukes.

My guess is your opinion on the use of torture will change the minute one of these fascists straps a bomb to his chest and marches into your local elementary school.

Then it will be too late.

I say if torture prevents one terrorist from killing one child here in our homeland it is a just and worthwhile cause. I think the Israelis have taken that path, but then again they have had school buses, restaurants and nightclubs blown to smithereens for decades.

We are next and America, it’s people, politicians and judges had better wake up damn soon.

Your comment is senseless. You want to read the whole thing and respond, fine. This parsing to pounce on something totally out of context is inane.

My statement “We knew where to find the N. Koreans, N. Vietnamese, Japanese and Germans” did not mean we knew where each and everyone of them were and what they were up to. Thought you were smart enough to figure that one out.

It meant we knew the N. Koreans could be found in N. Korea, the N. Vietnamese in N. Vietnam, the Japanese in Japan and the South Pacific and the Germans in most of Europe and North Africa. That is where we could find them and that is where we took the fight. If you can’t comprehend that we fought a different war back then, against a defined enemy with an entrenched war machine, then you are as delusional as General Vessey.

This new enemy calls for new strategies to protect us from a foe without a homeland. Duh.

fogw on September 15, 2006 at 1:30 PM

OK, so let’s say we go to war with Iran and are fighting the Iranian army. You agree that torture is not ok then?

Armed Services Committee Republicans John McCain, John Warner, Lindsay Graham, and Susan Collins have joined the Democrats in voting on an alternative bill for terror tribunals

dis-honora shrieked: Therein lies the problem. We are facing grave issues here and most people have developed their ideas on law enforcement–and inexplicitly transfer those ideas to military situations

Recall John al-Qerry pledged that if he became president he’d treat terrorist acts against the U.S. as a law enforcement problem rather than as acts of war – the approach favored by President Clinton throughout the 1990s as Osama bin Laden repeatedly struck U.S. targets with impunity.

So we knew where all the U boats were? We knew where/when the enemy was going to attack us? We knew where landmines were? We knew where all the submarines were in the south Pacific? We knew where Rommel was going to attack? We knew the strength of the Germans at Monte Casino? We knew troop strength anywhere? We know all about Tet? Well I’ll be damned.

My statement “We knew where to find the N. Koreans, N. Vietnamese, Japanese and Germans” did not mean we knew where each and everyone of them were and what they were up to. Thought you were smart enough to figure that one out.

It meant we knew the N. Koreans could be found in N. Korea, the N. Vietnamese in N. Vietnam, the Japanese in Japan and the South Pacific and the Germans in most of Europe and North Africa. That is where we could find them and that is where we took the fight. If you can’t comprehend that we fought a different war back then, against a defined enemy with an entrenched war machine, then you are as delusional as General Vessey.

This new enemy calls for new strategies to protect us from a foe without a homeland. Duh.

The President has asked for definitions of the obtuse langauge in the Article 3 of the GC. Not a new article, not a mandate for torture but, rather, clear language that will allow our military to question these unlawful combatants without being hauled in front of some 9th Circus Court or the Hauge.

But, instead of that we get posturing by “our betters” in the U.S. Senate. They place their relationship with the NYT and their liberal allies before the safety of the country and the lives of those serving. Have they no shame?

1) know something, will succumb to torture
2) know something, trained to withstand torture and therefore will not succumb and may give wrong info
3) don’t know, may give wrong info to end torture or if trained to withstand torture will deliberately give wrong info

The problem is, you don’t know who is who, so the quality of the info is always in question. This is true, whether interrogation is applied under the rules of the GC or if torture is used to gain information. I guess we should just throw in the towel. Well if that’s the best you can come with, I am surprised. There are lots of interrogation techniques, ones more effective than torture.This notion that the prisoners in questions are always in possession of the specific intel we are looking for when we are looking for it (the “if we had someone who knew where the nuke was” red herring) is crazy. This is not how it works, particularly with an enemy like Al Q et al. These guys operate in discrete cells, information is deliberately compartmentalized. So if we capture Al Qaeda within an operating cell, can’t we reasonably expect to find out what is going on within that cell through interrogation techniques? Wouldn’t that be helpful? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the discussion here is on the means.
So the practical reason for not torturing is clear. To you. Then there is that moral reason. I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly want to pattern myself after the enemy, especially one this noxious. This idea that the enemy lops off heads so we should do the same is insane–that’s revenge, not a cogent military and political strategy. Sure it might feel good, but we learn as children–well most of us–that what feels good isn’t always the wisest choice. First of all, no one in western civilization would get a good feeling from lopping off someone’s head. Excuse me, do you read this blog???? Where do you get off making that assertion? Secondly, no one is, or ever has suggested lopping off heads should be considered as a means of torturing prisoners. It’s difficult to tell your interrogator anything when your head is detached from your body. The last refuge of a bad debater is nit-picking. Of course I realize lopping off heads is not a torture technique–I was making a point that the tit for tat argument is invalid.
Retired general John Vessey, a former chair of the joints chiefs of staff and a man with 46 years’ military experience, said the enemy in the war on terror may be a “different enemy,” but no more inhumane or cruel than the North Koreans of 1950-53, the North Vietnamese, the Japanese overseeing the prison camps of World War II or the Nazi Holocaust. “Through those years, we held to our own values,” Vessey wrote. “We should continue to do so.” We knew where to find the N. Koreans, N. Vietnamese, Japanese and Germans. Perhaps General Vessey overlooked that criteria in his “different enemy” characterization. Harsh interrogation techniques, and yes torture, can play a crucial role in finding out who the enemy is, where he is hiding and how he might secretly infiltrate us on our own soil. During WWII, we would know a Jap or German battleship in NYC’s harbor when we saw one. This enemy hides among us, disguised as an everyday American citizen. Really? So we knew where all the U boats were? We knew where/when the enemy was going to attack us? We knew where landmines were? We knew where all the submarines were in the south Pacific? We knew where Rommel was going to attack? We knew the strength of the Germans at Monte Casino? We knew troop strength anywhere? We know all about Tet? Well I’ll be damned.
Why not fight ‘em in everyway possible rather than throw in the towel or cower in the face of international thumbsuckers who hate America no matter how we fight this WOT? The next to last refuge of a bad debater–creating a fault choice.

fogw on September 15, 2006 at 12:26 PM

1) know something, will succumb to torture
2) know something, trained to withstand torture and therefore will not succumb and may give wrong info
3) don’t know, may give wrong info to end torture or if trained to withstand torture will deliberately give wrong info

The problem is, you don’t know who is who, so the quality of the info is always in question. This is true, whether interrogation is applied under the rules of the GC or if torture is used to gain information. I guess we should just throw in the towel.

This notion that the prisoners in questions are always in possession of the specific intel we are looking for when we are looking for it (the “if we had someone who knew where the nuke was” red herring) is crazy. This is not how it works, particularly with an enemy like Al Q et al. These guys operate in discrete cells, information is deliberately compartmentalized. So if we capture Al Qaeda within an operating cell, can’t we reasonably expect to find out what is going on within that cell through interrogation techniques? Wouldn’t that be helpful?

So the practical reason for not torturing is clear. To you. Then there is that moral reason. I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly want to pattern myself after the enemy, especially one this noxious. This idea that the enemy lops off heads so we should do the same is insane–that’s revenge, not a cogent military and political strategy. Sure it might feel good, but we learn as children–well most of us–that what feels good isn’t always the wisest choice. First of all, no one in western civilization would get a good feeling from lopping off someone’s head. Where do you get off making that assertion? Secondly, no one is, or ever has suggested lopping off heads should be considered as a means of torturing prisoners. It’s difficult to tell your interrogator anything when your head is detached from your body.

Retired general John Vessey, a former chair of the joints chiefs of staff and a man with 46 years’ military experience, said the enemy in the war on terror may be a “different enemy,” but no more inhumane or cruel than the North Koreans of 1950-53, the North Vietnamese, the Japanese overseeing the prison camps of World War II or the Nazi Holocaust. “Through those years, we held to our own values,” Vessey wrote. “We should continue to do so.” We knew where to find the N. Koreans, N. Vietnamese, Japanese and Germans. Perhaps General Vessey overlooked that criteria in his “different enemy” characterization. Harsh interrogation techniques, and yes torture, can play a crucial role in finding out who the enemy is, where he is hiding and how he might secretly infiltrate us on our own soil. During WWII, we would know a Jap or German battleship in NYC’s harbor when we saw one. This enemy hides among us, disguised as an everyday American citizen.

Why not fight ‘em in everyway possible rather than throw in the towel or cower in the face of international thumbsuckers who hate America no matter how we fight this WOT?

honora on September 15, 2006 at 10:14 AM

“I know what you’re thinking: ‘Did he fire six shots or only five?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”

Terp Mole on September 15, 2006 at 11:39 AM

Therein lies the problem. We are facing grave issues here and most people have developed their ideas on law enforcement–and inexplicitly transfer those ideas to military situations–based on Dirty Harry movies. Dear God.

Torture Must Be an Option

Picture this: There’s a guy in police custody who knows the location of a bomb that’s set to explode in a school building that holds 500 children. Threats and intimidation have failed to make him reveal the address of the school and the location of the device. You know that torture would loosen his tongue and save all those innocent lives. What would you do? C’mon, the clock is ticking. Make a decision! Five hundred helpless children against the life of some murderous creature who corrupts the atmosphere of life with every breath he takes.

Should you think lofty thoughts about the slippery slope toward totalitarianism? Should you quote the Constitution, chapter and verse? Should you courteously recite his Miranda warnings and get him a lawyer, or should you do everything and anything imaginable to force a confession? Which course of action is most noble? You decide. I already know what I would do.

“I know what you’re thinking: ‘Did he fire six shots or only five?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”

This is just intolerable. Here we’ve got a President successfully turning around the debate on national security and the War on Terror…putting Democrats on the defensive…making them openly defend the “rights” of terrorists or support his legisla…

I believe the Butt-Boy #4 that you are seeking is none other than Southern Sissy JAG Lindsey Graham.

As for the larger understanding of how pathetic our political-military leadership is on the whole war on terror, you simply must read this.

/argumentum ad absurdum II

Afterall, they’ve served their time and are entitled to the same rights as other “rehabilitated” former criminals.

/argumentum ad absurdum

1) know something, will succumb to torture
2) know something, trained to withstand torture and therefore will not succumb and may give wrong info
3) don’t know, may give wrong info to end torture or if trained to withstand torture will deliberately give wrong info

The problem is, you don’t know who is who, so the quality of the info is always in question.

This notion that the prisoners in questions are always in possession of the specific intel we are looking for when we are looking for it (the “if we had someone who knew where the nuke was” red herring) is crazy. This is not how it works, particularly with an enemy like Al Q et al. These guys operate in discrete cells, information is deliberately compartmentalized.

So the practical reason for not torturing is clear. Then there is that moral reason. I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly want to pattern myself after the enemy, especially one this noxious. This idea that the enemy lops off heads so we should do the same is insane–that’s revenge, not a cogent military and political strategy. Sure it might feel good, but we learn as children–well most of us–that what feels good isn’t always the wisest choice.

Retired general John Vessey, a former chair of the joints chiefs of staff and a man with 46 years’ military experience, said the enemy in the war on terror may be a “different enemy,” but no more inhumane or cruel than the North Koreans of 1950-53, the North Vietnamese, the Japanese overseeing the prison camps of World War II or the Nazi Holocaust. “Through those years, we held to our own values,” Vessey wrote. “We should continue to do so.”

I pray you are right and support our president when he fights.

.