Video: Current TV demonstrates waterboarding; Update: KP says bring it on
posted at 12:08 pm on October 23, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Sent to me by KP, who wonders how the test subject here lasted five minutes when Khaled Sheikh Mohammed shocked investigators by lasting for two and change. I think with KSM they were pouring water continuously for that time; here the guy gets intermittent reprieves.
If you missed it last month, watch Brian Ross explain to O’Reilly how waterboarding KSM helped foil a 9/11-type plot targeting the Library Tower in L.A. It’s rude of me to introduce irrelevant details like that into the debate, I know, but I do love to shock.
Update: Having failed to alienate every last leftist in America, KP redoubles her efforts.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
I don’t think that’s torture. Putting someone in prison and taking away their freedom, is that a lesser form of torture? How about being raped by other inmates in prison, is that a lesser form of torture?
That doesn’t bother me one bit.
dougless on October 23, 2006 at 12:18 PM
I don’t see how anything you can stand up and walk away from in no pain whatsoever is torture.
Pablo on October 23, 2006 at 12:22 PM
My guess is that he could have lasted longer. He was a SEAL, right? They go through way worse than that in school.
Besides, if they were pouring water continuously with KSM, how did he cry uncle?
I dunno, waterboarding is nothing to me, when we’re dealing with splodeydopes and head-choppers. Yelling in the guy’s ear looks more annoying than waterboarding. (That would drive me crazy!)
bamapachyderm on October 23, 2006 at 12:24 PM
In case you missed it, back in December, Uncle Jimbo posted at Blackfive about this–he’d been waterboarded in SERE training.
Amen.
bamapachyderm on October 23, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Yep, that Al Gore network sure knows how to do “current” ..
labwrs on October 23, 2006 at 12:31 PM
my buddy in gradeschool would tackle me, pin my arms down with his knees and tap on my chest. just tapping - taptaptaptaptaptap. that was unbearable, but i’m not calling unhrc monitors on him.
jummy on October 23, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Great………now we will have teenagers making ‘torture gone wild’ vids………..
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Limerick on October 23, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Current what? Seriously, I know it’s the Gore thing… but who the hell watches that? I suspect KP is one of very few. By the way, I suspect there is also a video coming from CurrenTV where they show a beheading to compare with what the other side does. I mean, after all, that’s the argument against coercive interrogation, right? “How would we like it”. So lets see what the other side does.
RightWinged on October 23, 2006 at 12:55 PM
boooringgg…looks like a spa treatment
Brent on October 23, 2006 at 12:56 PM
I thought waterboarding was supposed to be torturous.
BlueStateBlues on October 23, 2006 at 1:03 PM
Oh Please. High school is worse. Anyone heard of swirlies?
americanpundit on October 23, 2006 at 1:13 PM
I think with KSM they were pouring water continuously for that time; here the guy gets intermittent reprieves.
As pointed out above, Kaj Larsen is a former Navy Seal, while KSM is a former (and current) fat lump of !@#$%^.
Citizen Duck on October 23, 2006 at 1:30 PM
How evil of us to pour water on that poor mass murdering tub of lard.
Rick on October 23, 2006 at 1:37 PM
How evil of us to pour water on that poor mass murdering tub of lard.
For a whole two minutes!!!
Citizen Duck on October 23, 2006 at 1:40 PM
watching my wife’s depilation techniques I can assure you all that waterboarding is not remotely close to torture.
Ropera on October 23, 2006 at 1:42 PM
True, but I think I remember the article that first mentioned waterboarding saying that our own men who were tested with water boarding on average could not last as long as two minutes.
I imagine they did just what they did in this video. I imagine they started out slow, just a few seconds at once, then a few more, then a few more, giving him time in between each to make sure they weren’t killing the guy and to get him a way to squeal.
I mean according to article, most people cannot do any more than thirty seconds. I seriously doubt they mean to imply that most people would have stopped at the first 30 of that video. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems unlikely to me.
Esthier on October 23, 2006 at 1:46 PM
Cutting off pieces of flesh, pulling teeth, bamboo under
fingernails, pulling off fingernails, branding, and extreme
electric shock are more what I think of when I hear torture.
As far as I’m concerned we can keep these bastards up for
days on end and slap the ever lovin’ shit out of them.
No freakin’ prayer rugs or copies of the koran, no party
time out in the yard with your friends. And if there is a
special case that needs to be dealt in a nastier way, then
do it and keep the bullshit media away.
Gooch on October 23, 2006 at 1:51 PM
As usual, for those on the left like Dershowitz who gets interviewed in the segment that actually comprises the final edited footage, there’s a real disconnect on what actually matters. For most Americans, the debate is not about what is and what is not torture, it is about what’s effective. I could really care less about what happens to any detainee. When one takes up arms against the US, one should be prepared to pay a high price. If waterboarding or anything else is effective, I’m all for it, and so are the majority of Americans. If one doesn’t want to be waterboarded, or held in jail, etc. then don’t take up arms against the US, don’t commit crimes, etc. The left always wants us to believe that within Islamic Culture, becoming a terrorist is a valid form of expression. Yeah, whatever, it’s not valid or accepted with American citizens, so be prepared to pay if that’s your stance.
JeffB. on October 23, 2006 at 1:54 PM
I’d like to see some sort of Fear Factor game show where they waterboard the contestants. I’d bet Americans could put up with it for a few minutes with a some money on the line.
Big S on October 23, 2006 at 2:02 PM
KSM caved because he knew the “panties-over-the-head” were coming next.
fogw on October 23, 2006 at 2:22 PM
There are several reasons why he may have held out so long. Telling the truth being one. And it never induced him to lie to get it to stop. Second is the fact that he knows it will be over sooner or later. KSM didn’t have that assurance. His SEAL training most definately helped him withstand it all. And, I wonder if they really went out after him. Even though he was chained with a waist chain, very rarely did he seem to even make an effort to struggle. Didn’t even try to reach up. It would seem that this technique would induce a state of uncontrollable panic and he wouldn’t be able to help himself in trying to struggle. Giving him breaks would actually be a good thing. Give him time to let it play with his head.
Catseye on October 23, 2006 at 2:25 PM
Ever smelled a wet dog?
I think the real torture was the American interrogaters having to get a whiff KSM.
urbancenturion on October 23, 2006 at 2:37 PM
We Americans are not yet truly terrorized by the Islamic fanatics. Not allowing waterboarding is the evidence. What we are willing and not willing to do in order to extract information from these cancer cells to the human race is the perfect measurment for just how terrified we are. I guarantee you that as soon as the next attack takes place our only concern will be how best to use the information extracted after subjecting a terrorist to waterboarding and other forms of torture. We might, at that point, even become interested in who and how many people flood like sewage into our country on a daily basis too. I hope it doesn’t come to that but we seem to be moving in the direction of dangerous complacency by refusing to do something that a) has proven to work and b) is completely harmless.
Zetterson on October 23, 2006 at 2:55 PM
A KP update without a KP picture?
Slipping.
Slublog on October 23, 2006 at 3:04 PM
Al Gore? Oh, you mean Jor-el!
budorob on October 23, 2006 at 3:09 PM
Now that I’ve seen the video, I can see what all the hub-bub is about. Prior to this, I didn’t really much CARE what “waterboarding” was.
To tell the truth, I wasn’t too concerned what it was. I was and am of the opinion that the guys being interrogated shouldn’t whine about their treatment. They’re lucky to be alive. Many were recovered from the battlefield as combattants, facing the very folks they were trying to kill. Furthermore, others were snatched by special ops folks, widely regarded as some of the most unsympathetic people on the planet. It’s surprising that they were allowed to live.
Having seen this video, I can now categorically state that this procedure isn’t “torture”. It’s uncomfortable. It’s scary. It’d damned memorable. That’s sort of the point. It just isn’t torture.
I know. A form of this procedure has been done to me.
In 1982, I was captured in 3rd Phase of US Army SF school, wandering ’round the hills of west-central North Carolina. I was stripped, bound with WD1 (plastic-coated copper field phone communications wire), and laid on my belly (which was flatter in those days). Then the fun began, all done outside, in the backyard of a small rural house rented by the Army for SF School.
I was positioned with my face in a scooped-out bowl in the groud which quickly filled with water. A rag was tied over my eyes, nose, and tightly around my mouth. The depression filled with water, and I had to crane my neck back to keep it out of the water, which would’ve reached over my ears with my head straight out. I was roughed up, questioned repeatedly, all to the delight of the instructors and some their families and friends, who were visiting evidently.
It went on for maybe an hour, and I was “killed” (shot with blanks), cut loose, and hosed off and allowed to dress. For months afterwards, my right thumb, tied to the left by WD1, was numb and difficult to move.
I remember it with humor today, largely because I was able to shake my “interrogators” off of my back, jump to my feet, and run away…no small feat when you consider that my “interrogators” were all strapping six-footers and I was a little lizard of 5′7″/150#. I would’ve escaped, too, had I not been naked, tired…and still wearing a blindfold. I yelled something dashing (”Ah-HA! You scurvy knaves! You can’t catch me…again!”) and ran about 3 feet, straight into the garage. Falling back onto my butt, I was quickly back into “why are you in our country”-mode, and the games began anew.
I can assure you that this wasn’t any “softie” school interrogation. It was fairly rigorous…at least as rigorous as what you can see on the offered video above. The guys were stopping short of permanent damage, but they would pull that punch with folks like KSM, as well, keeping ‘em around and healthy for future interrogations.
To this day, the Army runs SERE school in much the same area as I trained, perparing flight crews, special ops folks, and others to deal with the POW experience, interrogations, and survival and evasion situations. They don’t pull punches there, either. I was able to avoid going for 10 years, knowing already how much fun it is. But, I’ve seen the bruises and scars.
We need to remember who these guys we’re questioning are. They have stated, in as many words, that they’ll either conquer us for Allah or kill us all, man-woman-child, with no more mercy than their desert godling allows them to show…which is none.
So, having watched the video, the last vestigal shreds of sympathy for these animals has evaporated. Give ‘em garden-hose enemas, pull out the bamboo-slivers and field phones, go really “River Kwai” on ‘em. Once in our hands, their only reason for living is to rat out their compadres.
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 3:10 PM
The liberal comments defending water boarding as torture here are deafening in their silence. This is a liberal issue, but I guess it shames them more than do their elected officials as they have refused to defend their stance.
DannoJyd on October 23, 2006 at 3:16 PM
…sorry for the long post, but I love telling this story…my wife and kids are sick of it…but my 4-year-old does like hearing about Daddy slamming into the garage with a blindfold. To tell the truth, some of the onlookers might’ve been laughing…I’m trying not to remember.
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 3:16 PM
HAHA.
I’m waiting for the official “DKos ousts KP from the party”
Theworldisnotenough on October 23, 2006 at 3:27 PM
Puritan1648 –
Great story. It really had me captivated.
wytammic on October 23, 2006 at 3:29 PM
Can we do this to the CNN personnel who approved of showing a terrorist sniper video / jihadist propaganda snuff film piece, played in the “interests of telling the whole truth”?
(Although a non-stop video, for 24 hrs., of Ted Turner mangling the English language might do as well.)
profitsbeard on October 23, 2006 at 3:31 PM
Me and my brothers did worse things to each other than “waterboarding”. Where’s the real torture?
MikeyB on October 23, 2006 at 3:36 PM
I really don’t know if I want KP to be outsted from the left and to come to our side - I was really hoping that someday there might actually be a sane, mature, reasonable, democratic party that actually represents the loyal opposition. It’s better for the country to have two healthy parties, instead of our present situation where one party is completely off the rails while the other party seems content to play down to the level of its competition.
Sadly, I don’t think KP and Lieberman can do it all by themselves … so welcome aboard LOL.
thirteen28 on October 23, 2006 at 3:38 PM
Certain people consider waterboarding torture because it puts the fear of death into a detainee whose treatment is entirely at our mercy. Waterboarding a soldier for training obviously does not do the same thing, because that soldier has no fear of death. The soldier being trained knows that he’s not going to die. The detainee does not know that. The detainee thinks there is a REAL fear of death involved. Otherwise, why would he talk? Why disclose information? He thinks he’s going to die.
The reason waterboarding is different from other interrogation techniques is because other interrogation techniques are merely uncomfortable for a prisioner. Making them stand for the duration of the interrogation is uncomfortable. Open-palmed slaps are uncomfortable. Colder temperatures (not life threatening) are uncomfortable. But waterboarding isn’t merely uncomfortable, it’s a violation of their integrity as a HUMAN PERSON. I hate terrorists just as much as anyone else, but I happen to like humanity. And as evil as they are, waterboarding is considered torture by many because it puts the fear of death into a person entirely at the mercy of his interrogators. That’s the classic definition of torture.
I think that right now, there’s a reasonable disagreement about whether waterboarding actually crosses the line. I can understand that people may disagree. And I’m no liberal, nor do I discount the threat of terrorism (or the possibility, however remote, of a ticking-bomb scenario). I live in Manhattan, after all, and am surrounded by liberals. But waterboarding, if it really puts the fear of death into a detainee, is torture. Use every other technique designed to make a detainee uncomfortable, to make him want to tell you information. But if you make him think he’s going to die if he doesn’t tell you, that is torture.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 3:39 PM
No kidding - where’s the cute hand-over-the-mouth-giggling pic?
thirteen28 on October 23, 2006 at 3:40 PM
No kidding - where’s the cute hand-over-the-mouth-giggling pic?
I’ll count that as a second.
There’s a resolution on the floor. We urge…nay, we demand the adorable KP giggling pic.
All in favor?
Slublog on October 23, 2006 at 3:45 PM
The only other “democrat” I’ve ever heard speak with common sense is Tammy Bruce. I just find it hard to believe there’s actually TWO democrats in this country with common sense. KP must be a cyborg or something, or a DNC plant to get our guard down then spring some hideous trap on us.
She posts stuff that I could actually see myself having rational debates about, and even agreeing with sometimes.
Somethings fishy … plus I question the timing.
darwin on October 23, 2006 at 3:46 PM
But what do you do when stopping short of making them fear death results in a failure to get the information necessary? Do you refuse to take the next step and lose potentially critical intelligence because taking the next step is (in your opinion) torture? At what point does fear for the lives of our own citizens and soldiers trump putting fear of death into a detainee?
Ultimately, results matter. If you fail to prevent an attack on our soldiers or civilians because you’d rather have the “moral high ground”, then you’ve really accomplished nothing moral at all - you’ve just made the worst of two ugly choices, and in doing so, you’ve put the enemy’s rights ahead of ours.
thirteen28 on October 23, 2006 at 3:48 PM
Wow, that was intense but it doesn’t come close to the Nick Berg film.
When I watched the Berg film I was shaking and couldn’t watch it a second time for a day or so.
That Navy seal is a tough guy - what is his name, something like - Project #4839?
ar_basin on October 23, 2006 at 3:51 PM
Slublog, I’m def in favor!
However, KP pics might be in short stock, what with the number of Bethany pics he posts…
Can we stop with the “I question the timing” response. It’s turning into the $1 dollar bet on The Price is Right.
budorob on October 23, 2006 at 3:54 PM
Ahhh…that’s the one.
Slublog on October 23, 2006 at 3:55 PM
I agree in part with Sydney, but not how he probably thinks. The guy in the video probably held up so well because he knew that he would not be harmed. He volunteered for the stunt and knew that cameras were rolling. He knew how it would all end - with him unharmed.
But the captured terrorist would have no idea what was going on. Not telling him “how it ends” DOES put the fear of death into the terrorist - which is what makes the procedure effective. Captured terrorists should be made to feel that the interrogators are “out of control” and may really harm them, even if those interrogators have no intention of doing so and the situation is completely under control. Which is why I’m not sure it’s a great idea to post this video. I don’t want terrorists who have not been captured to see this and train for it, knowing now that they won’t really be injured if they resist.
angler on October 23, 2006 at 3:55 PM
thirteen28,
If you really think “results matter,” then shouldn’t our policy explicitly be in favor of torture? If you’re saying that waterboarding is not torture, that’s one thing. But I don’t think you’re saying that. I think you’re saying that we should torture whether waterboarding is torture or not. To take your argument one step further, what if waterboarding doesn’t work? Should we start cutting off fingers? Should we mutilate a person? If you say no, then you don’t really believe “results matter,” or at least believe that there’s a line that cannot be crossed. If you say “yes,” then you advocate torture.
This isn’t about putting the enemy’s rights ahead of ours. No one has a right to engage in torture, just as the terrorists have no right to murder. Now, if you do think that our interrogators have a right to engage in torture, you necessarily advocate the same sort of consequentialism that the terrorists believe in (they wouldn’t consider innocent Americans worthy of life, just as a terrorist wouldn’t be considered worthy of not being tortured).
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 3:58 PM
If you want to say I advocate torture, then so be it. It would be more correct to say that I advocate doing whatever is necessary to win the war against the jihadists. While I would never advocate engaging in a tactic gratuitously or for it’s own sake where no positive results could be obtained (as opposed to what our enemies do as a matter of practice), I have no problem whatsoever with any tactic, regardless of whether it can reasonably be called torture or not, if such tactics are necessary and produce useful results that advance us towards victory and the enemy towards defeat. The waterboarding of KSM that you consider torture did just that - it yielded useful results that advanced us toward victory and the enemy towards defeat - and I won’t lose a nanosecond of sleep over that.
thirteen28 on October 23, 2006 at 4:09 PM
…glad to be of service. That’s what you really come away with after the better part of a generation in uniform: stories…and friends who die too young….
…by the way, while you were captivated, by the way, I lifted your wallet, wiped my feet on your guest towels, and rearranged your sock drawer.
I may be old and fat, but my fingers are still nimble. Once SF, you’re ruined for polite society.
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 4:09 PM
“Can we stop with the “I question the timing” response. It’s turning into the $1 dollar bet on The Price is Right.”
It was in jest. Are you calling for a moratorium on humor? Or are you just having a bad day?
darwin on October 23, 2006 at 4:09 PM
Yes … Allah(Pundit) Akbar!!
thirteen28 on October 23, 2006 at 4:11 PM
Sydney C.-
It depends on the level of threat what level of pressure you use.
The detainee terrorist priosoners of Khalid S.M.’s type have more potentially-serious and massively-deadly info, and need more pressure put on their sorry rear ends to save more of OUR lives.
If it were a choice between sacrificing a 100,000 of our own people in order NOT to “torture” a terrorist and to hold onto “the moral high ground”, then you have determnined that one life (KSM’s) is worth more than 100,000 (or 10,000?… or even 9/11’s 3,000?) of ours.
I disagree.
His life, in such a situation, and his comfort mean nothing if, by causing him pain, it would save thousands (or even millions) of lives.
The terrorists, meanwhile, do not behead Danny Pearl or Nick Berg to save lives, but to weaken the resolve of those resisting their global effort at a terror state (Caliphate, Imam-ate,. or whatever name it goes by). They are acting, not to preserve greater numbers of lives by hurting one life, but destroying one life to further the aim of destroying all infidel lives.
The moral equivalency doesn’t flush.
profitsbeard on October 23, 2006 at 4:12 PM
extreme electric shock are more what I think of when I hear torture.
Do you mean like electrolysis? American women submit to that form of torture on a regular basis and, believe you me, it hurts like hell.
Babs on October 23, 2006 at 4:14 PM
It looks rather unpleasant. Kind of like a bad dental appointment.
kmcguire on October 23, 2006 at 4:15 PM
I think actually what the liberals are up in arms about is the continued questioning for “a purpose”. Liberals still think that this is done to get a confession, not actual information. Watch the video again, and notice how it’s driven in that direction. There’s no, “We know there’s a bomb planned for the 24th and you know where it is. Tell us.” or “Where is Bin Laden.” There’s no pursuit of information in that video. For them it’s no different than trying to get some kind of moral condemnation, like the torture used in witchhunts or something. That’s how they actually see it. They don’t see the difference.
That’s what I got out of the video.
JohnJ on October 23, 2006 at 4:16 PM
Then you do advocate consequentialism (something I’ll note that Western morality has condemned since the end of the Roman Empire). For your own benefit, irrespective of whether they are necessary or produce useful results, the following things are wrong: intentional killing of innocent civilians, torture, genocide, and the systematic uprooting of populations.
Certain of those things could probably help us in the war on terrorism. By your own admission, none of them would bother you if you thought they were necessary. I don’t feel comfortable with the thought that my fellow Americans might not bat an eye at genocide or the intentional killing of innocent civilians if they thought such things were “necessary.”
Would you shoot a terrorist’s innocent wife in order to threaten him to reveal information? His innocent 5-year old child? The answer is “no, you cannot.”
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 4:20 PM
…could’ve fooled me. At the time, it seemed pretty convincing.
Humanity…cutting the heads off of shackled journalists…humanity…bombing mosques and markets, full of their own…humanity….
…it’s sort of hard to compute, but then I was in Kurdistan back in ‘91…those “humans”, after bullying and gassing Kurds, scuttered away like cockroaches upon our arrival….
Hmmm…fight a war by the Marquis of Queensberry rules against someone who isn’t…and keep chanting “we’re above that sort of thing”…have your soldiers fight with one hand pinned behind their backs, worried that their actions will be caught on film and they’ll end up, after significant “enlightened” pressure behind bars….
…or just fight….
Machiavelli, “The Prince”, Chapter III:
“Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.”
…but, go on reading Gore, Clinton, Chomsky, Lerner and Dr. Seuss…great geopolitical and military thinkers, those….
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 4:22 PM
So now when someone asks me if I’m comfortable subjecting another person to waterboarding, I can say yes.
bookwurm322 on October 23, 2006 at 4:24 PM
profitsbeard:
You need not explain the difference to me of what the terrorists do and what our interrogators do. I presume good intentions on the part of our interrogators. I presume good intentions on the part of all Americans acting in the fight against the terrorists, and I presume the terrorists have evil intent.
That said, even if done for a good intent, torture is always wrong. No matter what your intent is, it can never be made into a good thing. Just like intentionally killing an innocent civilian can never be a good thing, even if doing it might save a lot of innocent lives. If a terrorist were holding a child hostage, and the only way to get to the terrorist was to kill the child, it would be wrong to kill the child.
I should probably say that I have no problem with giving the terrorists the death penalty, after a military commission finds them guilty. That sort of thing is fine with me. It’s not morally prohibited. But torture certainly is.
I always like to think in terms of role-model exercises, and here’s one many people might be familiar with: What would Optimus Prime do?
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 4:29 PM
Sorry Darwin, my comment was meant to be humorous…why else would I reference a game show known for its fabulous prizes?
sorry, bad joke.
budorob on October 23, 2006 at 4:29 PM
Puritan1648,
Reading comprehension isn’t your friend. I’m as conservative as they come. I hate Clinton, Gore, Chomsky, and all the other leftists who despise America. But torture isn’t in the cards for any of us. Sorry.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 4:30 PM
…once again, the fallacious notion of “tender feelings and idealism masquerading as international law in wartime” rears its ugly head.
It’s not about rights. It’s about stopping them killing people. Killing them is pretty effective. You capture and vigorously interrogate prisoners in order to kill their friends. It’s just that simple.
Clearly, with the amount of attention that the “anti-torture” “patriots” focus on those whom we’ve given responsibility for extracting intelligence (and running partols, protecting our allies, etc.), the terrorists are just as aware as any soldier in training that the interrogators DON’T DARE cross the line.
For that matter, all of the “we’re above that sort of thing” drippy “humanitarianism” is sounding more and more like the “gentlemen don’t read eachother’s mail” of yesteryear. Open their mail, tap their phones, slap their servants, bug their bedrooms, threaten their girlfriends, and, once you have them in hand, flay them an inch at a time…until they sing like a diva. THEN, take the information and kill the friends they ratted out. Simplicity itself.
In the end, “humanity” doesn’t do what they’ve already done…gleefully, with the promise of more of the same as soon as we drop our guard….
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 4:33 PM
I’ll answer your question with my own - do you think the Allies were wrong to carpet bomb numerous cities in Germany and Japan, along with nuking two of them - which in effect, amounts to the intentional kllling of innocent civilians? I think you can pretty safely guess my position on that.
Furthermore, those actions could easily fall under the category of the “consequentialism” that you note has been condemned since the end of the Roman Empire. Yet the U.S. and U.K. engaged in those actions nevertheless, and did so unapologetically for the most part.
By my own admission, you are correct. When the original uprising in Fallujah occurred, I would have had no problem whatsoever had Bush carpet bombed the city into a pile of smoldering rubble. And if there was anyway to determine it, I’d be glad to bet that the number of deaths that have occurred in Iraq since that point would be dramatically fewer than what the were with the more “humane” course we pursued.
Would you shoot a terrorist’s innocent wife in order to threaten him to reveal information? His innocent 5-year old child? The answer is “no, you cannot.”
No - but I might detain them seperately from the terrorist and try to make him believe I would if I thought it would be useful in extracting information.
thirteen28 on October 23, 2006 at 4:41 PM
Puritan:
“International Law” is B.S. and has no meaning to me. This is about our civilization and whether we want to be barbarians or not. I choose not to be a barbarian.
I’m all for interrogation and killing them and their friends. I am not in favor of barbarities like torture.
I said torture, along with genocide and the intentional killing of innocent civilians, are prohibited. I said nothing about opening mail, tapping phones, slapping them, or bugging their bedrooms. Do all of that. I’m all in favor of that, and I think liberal objections to that are ridiculous. I want to kill as many terrorists as possible. But I will not become a barbarian to do it, and our people shouldn’t expect that our officials will become barbarians to protect them either.
For the love of God, do not presume that I’m some idiotic liberal. I’m more to the right than Bush is, for Pete’s sake. But I will not violate basic moral precepts of humanity. Is that so hard to understand?
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 4:42 PM
…while I, in your estimation, cannot read, I must commend you on speaking condescending prick fluently.
Torture is always…let me repeat myself, ALWAYS…one of the bolts in our quiver, period. To say that it isn’t is to say that “violence is never a solution”, when obviously it is always one of the options. It is seldom the best one, and its application requires the skill of a surgeon. Still, to take violence off the table is to tell your opponent that you’re only serious about defending yourself to THIS point, and no further. So, he just joes to that point, and voila’….
Kill KSM’s wife and children? Parboil his rabbit? Poison his dog? Then get back to him and make his life really unpleasant? He has to believe that we can, will and might just be ready to try.
The whole world isn’t Iowa. It certainly isn’t Judeo-Christian…including most nominally Judeo-Christian countries. Most people in the world are a cheeseburger away from eternity, and life and death are very real for them. In some places, value passion where we value restraint, hence the rush to martyrdom.
I’m for letting martyrs be martyrs. If KSM is still alive, he’s on OUR time.
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 4:44 PM
Bah, doesn’t look like torture to me.
E L Frederick on October 23, 2006 at 4:47 PM
do you think the Allies were wrong to carpet bomb numerous cities in Germany and Japan, along with nuking two of them - which in effect, amounts to the intentional kllling of innocent civilians?
My heart says we were right, but my head says no. In other words, I’d probably agree with it at the time and then later realize how monstrous it was. The heart would be wrong (it wouldn’t be the first time). This is why Catholics have a thing called the confessional. I’d have to confess that I would’ve probably done it, but would have to do some serious repentence. To be fair, on 9/11 I was saying we should nuke the entire Middle East. But of course that was just my anger at the time. I totally understand where you’re coming from. Your heart says yes. So does mine. But it’s still wrong.
I notice that carpet bombing of civilian centers hasn’t been done since then. We’re not as unapologetic as you think. It’s not U.S. policy to do that thing. What the heck do you think smart bombs are for? Why’d we spend all that money developing them, if not to avoid civilians?
So there are some lines you won’t cross? If you could nuke them, why not just shoot then? What’s the difference? Their blood is still on your hands either way.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 4:50 PM
Sydney says, “Just like intentionally killing an innocent civilian can never be a good thing, even if doing it might save a lot of innocent lives.”
So, Sydney, had a pilot of an F-16 been close enough to shoot down one or both of the two airliners screaming towards New York, filled with mostly innocent civilians, it would not have been a good thing, even if it had averted the collapse of the two towers. And to you, Todd Beamer and the rest of the heroes on Flight 93 were torturers, or “consequentialists” because they decided to sacrifice their lives, and those of the other innocent civilian passengers, to avoid a possibly greater tragedy on the ground.
angler on October 23, 2006 at 4:56 PM
…as thirteen28, the folks of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo were “innocent”, and they got whacked anyway. I submit that they were guilty, much as the folks of “innocent” Lebanon were guilty and reaped the Israeli whirlwind as a result. They were guilty of being in the wrong place, supporting actively or passively the wrong guys, and folks well able to make their governments suffer and crumble by making THEM suffer and crumble was the result.
Innocence is elastic in wartime.
…my apologies — sincerely — for any slight of YOU. I still slight your WORDS. I regret the “prick” comment, as well. Still, applying the “walks like a duck” criterion, you might maybe be able to see my confusion here.
There are lots of those fuzzy-headed libs out there — the anti-American and national-suicide anti-defense sort, as well as the theoretical human conduct sort — who want us to think that we’ve stumbled into “another Vietnam”. Strangely, the comparison is accurate, but only insofar as one considers:
* the activist, advocacy press in both instances,
* the “fight only so far and no further” ethic in both instances (no waterboarding, no going into Cambodia, etc.)
* you can’t trust the military
* middle America stays silent as activists run amok.
Otherwise, it’s an apples v. oranges day….
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 4:57 PM
Wouldn’t you consider it an insult if someone thought you were reading Chomsky? Excuse me for my anger, but don’t compare me to that S.O.B.
That is complete B.S. I am all in favor of violence. Kill as many terrorists as you want. Give them the death penalty after a military commission. Kill them in combat. Use semi-violent uncomfortabilities like open-slaps and other things. But it is wrong to torture someone who is completely at our mercy. If you don’t understand the difference, you need to think again.
I haven’t taken violence off the table. I’m all in favor of violence. Or, do you mean violence in interrogations? Again, putting the fear of death into a helpless detainee is torture.
Since I live in New York City, I sure as hell know the world isn’t Iowa. I also know it isn’t Jude-Christian either. And I know how much life sucks. But torture gets you nowhere.
I thought this thread was about how waterboarding isn’t torture. Now, it’s turned into torture advocacy. That’s dispiriting.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 4:58 PM
Simple rule: when faced with an enemy who won’t kill your non-combattants, fight from within crowds of non-combattants.
For more rules, explore your opponents self-imposed restrictions and turn them against him. This is especially effective if your opponent has a prominent self-fascinated minority which will not suffer the consequences of their actions, and one which can’t or won’t be silenced.
If you find yourself up against such an enemy, however strong they may be, find a rug and offer prayers of thanksgiving. You only have to wait until he beats himself.
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 5:02 PM
angler:
Of course it wouldn’t have been a “good thing.” Would you find anyone who says that blowing up 2 airliners is a good thing? It would be a fricking tragedy to do that. If you’re celebrating the destruction of 2 airliners that were shot down by us, even to save the Towers that I loved (and that I was in just 4 days before 9/11), then you’re a moron. That said, I don’t think that destroying the airliners is something that would be flatly prohibited, because the intent is NOT to kill the innocent civilians, but to kill the terrorists. And considering that destroying the airliners would be a proportionate act when weighed against the destruction of the towers, then it would probably be morally permissible. However, notice that the intent is not to kill the innocent civilians, but to destroy the terrorists and disrupt the achievement of their goal. There is a very, very, very important difference.
Do I really have to respond to this? Or is this considered trolling?
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 5:09 PM
…oh…OK. Waterboarding isn’t torture. That settles that.
For further dispiriting discourse, refer to the current media fascination with Madonna’s adoption habits or watch three episodes of “The West Wing” back-to-back. Now…THERE’s torture.
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 5:10 PM
I wish I could talk all day, but I have to get back to work. I’ll try to read any replies later tonight. Apologies to Allah if I tended to monopolize this thread. Thanks all for the conversation.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 5:12 PM
I dont see any blood drawn here, I dont see a beaten and broken man (though I will concede a Navy Seal would never succumb to such a kid glove treatment) So what do you say we subject Hillary to this and find out what she knows??? could be fun dont ya think.
Viper1 on October 23, 2006 at 5:13 PM
You KNOW that’s not enough. But I don’t have time for anything else right now. Maybe later!
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 5:15 PM
Islamic terrorist have done a very good job of keeping up-to-date on US policies and thought. KSM and other terrorists would be very aware of the fact that the interrogators are not supposed to kill them, just as this reporter knew that they were not supposed to kill him. The real fear comes from worrying that they might over-do it. That they might just be out of control and take it too far. That fear exists whether you’re a terrorist with information or a reporter with the cameras rolling. I’m sure as that sensation of drowning kicked in, he wasn’t thinking “Well, this sure does suck, but those guys know what they’re doing so it’ll all be fine.” The whole reason for the drowning sensation is to short circuit your logical thought processes and to kick in your primitive brain.
In truth, I suspect that the only reason any other interrogation methods (keeping people awake, smacking them, chilling them, etc) work at all is because the prisoner fears that the interrogator will escalate to the next level and then the next until they end up dead. At the end of the day, it’s still the fear of death that makes the lighter techniques work, so should they qualify as torture now too?
As for the argument against torture which goes something like this, “Torturing a terrorist detainee isn’t right because torturing innocent people isn’t right,” the argument is based on a fundament fallacy. If you are saying that there is no difference between terrorists and innocent people, you’ve lost me. There is a difference between torturing a person that is actively engaged in combat against you and your fellow people, that has no problem with using civilians to achieve their goals, and potentially has information that can save people and torturing a civilian just for giggles. I also believe there is a difference between torturing a terrorist for information and torturing one for fun as well (as in, I’ve got no problem with the first and am adamantly opposed to the second).
If you want to make the argument that it’s never right to torture anyone, that’s fine by me (although I’m likely to disagree). If, however, your argument is that torturing terrorists is morally equivalent to torturing innocent civilians, I don’t think you have a philosophically sound argument.
JadeNYU on October 23, 2006 at 5:16 PM
Wrong … but compared to what? The flaw in your thinking is that you somehow believe in such situations there is a good choice and a bad choice, when the reality of the situation is that there is only a bad choice and a worse choice. Nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima and intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians was without a doubt a bad choice. But would a bloody invasion of Japan that would have dragged on much longer and led to the deaths of millions been any better? Given what we saw on places like Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc., it most likely would have been worse - much worse.
We made the bad decision instead of the worse one - and those were the only two we could make. To try to take the moral high road in such a situation is to indulge in the fantasy that there is a good choice among the available options.
And I notice that we haven’t truly won a war since then, either. I don’t think that’s a coincidence either. Oh sure, we fought to a stalemate in Korea, but look where that has gotten us now? And we held off the communists while we were in Vietnam, but look what happened when we withdrew. And of course, in our first go-round of Iraq, we fought with great restraint … really took care of the Saddam situation, didn’t it? And while we’ve been a little less restrained this time around in Iraq, we’ve still been quite restrained nevertheless - would you say that’s working out?
All of is a result of a policy that does just what I discussed above - it indulges in the fantasy that there are good choices and bad in war, when usually the choices are bad and worse. Smart bombs are a result of noble intentions, but I have yet to read of one instant in history where noble intentions have won a war. And the real, cruel irony of it all is that the noble intentions often times only serve to prolong the war, prolong the killing, and lead to more deaths than the less noble methods used in the past.
Certainly there are lines I won’t cross - those are the lines where it becomes simply gratuitous and doesn’t get any results. But I will advocate doing whatever has to be done to win.
The phrase “All is fair in love and war” was not coined by accident.
thirteen28 on October 23, 2006 at 5:17 PM
…in the current theaters of war, where do civilians, innocent or not, leave off and combattants begin?
It would be easy here to quote Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury during the Albigensian Crusade, “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” (”Kill them, for the Lord knows those who are his own.”) But, we wouldn’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Still, it’s a hard call. Remember all of the fauxtography during the latest Lebanon square dance? Could you look at a photo containing half a dozen Lebanese and pick out the innocents? How many of those “innocent” rusted-out ambulances we’re assured were trashed by the “nasty” Israelis were righteous calls?
If you have elevated moral standards in wartime, it’s best not to announce them. If they’ve leaked out, and they can be used against you, it’s best to renounce them.
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 5:17 PM
There’s too much gray area.
I understand that there are 2 kinds of violence: the malicious sword and the life-giving sword. I believe we all know the difference between 1)a criminal killing an innocent person and 2)a police officer killing a criminal in the line of duty. So, why is it so difficult to understand that our version of “torture” is intended to save the innocent and keep the peace?? Jihadis don’t offer quarter for any of our own, including the innocents traveling to Iraq to earn their keep. Recall the mercy they afforded Nicholas Berg.
I don’t even understand why we (the nation) are even having this debate. Unless, of course, we’re not committed to victory. What happened to leaving politics at the water’s edge?
budorob on October 23, 2006 at 5:19 PM
Well Sydney, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until you responded to this statement:
“do you think the Allies were wrong to carpet bomb numerous cities in Germany and Japan, along with nuking two of them - which in effect, amounts to the intentional kllling of innocent civilians? ”
“My heart says we were right, but my head says no. In other words, I’d probably agree with it at the time and then later realize how monstrous it was. The heart would be wrong (it wouldn’t be the first time). ”
If we hadn’t nuked Japan, I probably wouldn’t be here typing this right now… Nor would my sons be walking the face of this earth. You see, my father was a pilot in the Pacific theatre during WWII and, had we not nuked Japan, my father most certainly would have died trying to do the “morally and humanistically dignified” thing to get Japan to surrender.
As it was, my father washed himself in DDT (as did everyone else in his unit in the Pacific theatre) in order to avoid malaria and, he died at the age of 63 from cancer…
Your arguments fall on a deaf ear. Based on your set of principles we are all barbarians, my father included???
“My heart says we were right, but my head says no. In other words, I’d probably agree with it at the time and then later realize how monstrous it was. The heart would be wrong (it wouldn’t be the first time). This is why Catholics have a thing called the confessional. I’d have to confess that I would’ve probably done it, but would have to do some serious repentence.”
I live today because we nuked Japan. My father was a Catholic, born and bred… He went to 12 years of Catholic school before entering the Army Air Force. I guarantee you that he never did a day of repentance for his role in killing civilians during WWII and, forget about any repentance for the role of the Army Air Force in nuking Japan! Chew it over Sydney and get back to me.
Babs on October 23, 2006 at 5:24 PM
Sydney,
Wait a minute. You repeatedly stressed above that intent is irrelevant. That good intention does not excuse torture or the intentional killing of innocents.
You stated, “Even if done for a good intent, torture is always wrong. No matter what your intent is, it can never be made into a good thing. Just like intentionally killing an innocent civilian can never be a good thing, even if doing so might save a lot of innocent lives.”
But yet you reluctantly state that shooting down a hijacked airliner is not “flatly prohibited” because the “intent is NOT to kill the innocent civilians, but to kill the terrorists.”
Well no shit. But the intent would be to shoot down the plane, which would necessarily result in the death of innocent civilians. Just like carpet bombing Dresden or other industrial sites during WWII would result in destroying Germany’s capability to make war, even though the pilots of the bombers did not “intend” to kill innocent civilians.
Nice try trying to mischaracterize what I wrote. Of course, shooting down a hijacked plane would never be a good thing, and I have never suggested that. The point is that there are some things that are necessary. In some limited contexts, I think torture is necessary. And had a pilot been able to shoot down one or more of the hijacked planes on 9/11, I think it would have been tragic, but necessary to prevent a greater human tragedy. You, apparently, do not.
angler on October 23, 2006 at 5:25 PM
Sydney,
I sincerely respect your position, your thoughts and arguments on this subject. Please take none of what follows as an attack of any kind.
ALL war is monstrous. But time and distance dim awareness. It is only because of technological advancements in tactics and weaponry (mostly by the U.S.) that we can wage war without having to resort to tactics such as carpet bombing. I feel fairly certain that most Germans during WWII did not hate most Britons, and yet the Blitz. It is a simple fact of the time, and of the nature of warfare.
Conducting war so as to end it in your favor, and as soon as possible, is the proper goal of a military. There is no equivocation to be considered, during or after the fact, regarding the steps commanded by those in charge of the field, if they are directed to that goal. You cannot look back and say that Dresden was needless killing. It was critically essential given the tools and resources we had, and the strategic nature of the industrial targets there.
As for waterboarding, your analysis that the subject in the video lasted longer because he knew he wasn’t in REAL jeopardy of his life is partially true. The reason he didn’t last longer is that he began to lose his intellectual faith in that opinion. THAT IS THE POINT. It works. And yet within moments afterwards he was able to laugh. No such treatment can be called torture, and I respectfully disagree with your choice of defining torture down to include fear of death.
Torture is derived from the latin tortura, from which we also get the word torque, and means to twist or force unnaturally. Severe physical pain or injury, or the threat of same to another, qualify as torture. Bodily discomforts which cause no lasting harm do not cross the threshhold. Coersion is the proper term for waterboarding.
Freelancer on October 23, 2006 at 5:35 PM
angler,
To be fair, there are many factors involved in your hypothetical. And I screwed up by attempting to simplify the moral principles involved. So you have a point. Let me start over again.
There are certain things that are de facto evil, aka: always wrong. Intentionally killing civilians is always wrong. If you do something with the intent to kill civilians, it’s wrong. Torture is another thing that is always de facto evil. That means, regardless of your intent, it’s wrong. My mistake was not to make clear that both torture and the intentional killing of civilians are things that are always classified as evil. That’s the REAL classification I’m talking about when I said that “intent doesn’t matter.”
That said, if you are not engaged in those activities that are de facto evil, then you’re not doing something that would be “flatly prohibited.” Blowing up an airliner, if you do not intend to kill the civilians, is not de facto evil. It might still be wrong under another moral principle (for example, it might be disproportionate - you wouldn’t blow up an airliner to prevent a minor criminal act, say, embezzlement, that’s occuring on a plane). It is not de facto evil because of the principle of dual effect: you can engage in a morally permissible act that also has consequences that you do not intend. The morally permisible act, the killing of terrorists on a plane, is permissible for certain reasons (it is proportionate to the threat, it is exhaustive of all other options, it is to save the lives of other innocents, etc). The unintended effect of killing the civilians on the plane is not intended. In fact, if it were possible to beam them out of the plane like in Star Trek, you would.
Now, to further discuss this with respect to Dresden & Hiroshima, etc. The use of nuclear weapons is disproportionate. Carpet bombing is disproportionate. They go so far that it makes a mockery of the principle of dual effect. It’s like blowing up all the cars on a road merely to stop someone from speeding. The principle of dual effect is not a wide loophole, but an important moral principle. Thus, bombing Osama bin laden’s caravan is fine because it’s not disproportionate, but nuking all of the Middle East to get him IS disproportionate.
Sorry for the confusion before. I didn’t mean to mischaracterize you, if in fact I did. And I’m certain that you’re also sorry for trolling with your idiotic comment about how Todd Beamer is a torturer.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2006 at 5:44 PM
I’ve already blabbed well beyond the point of boring a statue stiff on this thread, but, for me, the whole question of torture boils down to this: how far are you willing to go in war to win?
For my part, it depends on the enemy’s track record. I’m just that little bit more willing to be brutal than they are. Were we fighting, say, Norway, I’m sure that we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But, we’re not.
We’re fighting a stateless, self-fascinated, self-justifying faction which will stop at nothing to win. They will stop at nothing, so we should stop at nothing…we just need to ensure that we use our “stop at nothing” more skillfully than they do, and to an overwhelming degree.
If this war were a boxing match, rules and distinctions would be important. As the anti-torture activists correctly point out, if we’re harsh on their combattants in our hands, they’d be justified to be harsh to ours who come under their power. Then again, we’re not fighting Norway, who may be a little bit more proportional and ration than the “religion of perpetual rage” has proven itself to be.
It’s foolish, then, to go into a knife fight armed with boxing gloves. This isn’t a boxing match, after all. The only one observing the rules are our guys, and only then because a lot of people are watching for whom our victory would invalidate their paradigms. We’re being held to account by people who don’t want us to win in the first place…so why are we worried so.
Take the gloves up and run up the black flag. The most humane thing to do in war is to end it as quickly as possible.
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 5:48 PM
There is a reason for his long endurance. The procedure is improperly done. Notice how they poured water for a few seconds then stopped. This gave the subject time to recover, and, they did it several times. The proper method is to put a wet rag in the mouth and form a pocket. Then you drizzle the water into the pocket. If the subject holds his breath you give a quick sharp push on the solar plexis. This causes the subject to suck in and and start taking in the water. In less than 1 minute he will be talking. How do you know? It will only be mumbles, but, you know he wants to talk. This tape is not how it is properly done, and, is designed to turn public opinions against Bush.
In Vietnam I participated in using this technique on captured NVA 17 different times. I wasn’t in Intell. I was a grunt. By the time Intell arrived, we knew unit location(s), ambush position, weapons caches, food caches and much more. We let Intell discover his food rations and family history.
Helloyawl on October 23, 2006 at 5:54 PM
Welcome to the newbies- great assets to the site.
Sydney, while your argument is compelling, I disagree with your premise;
If this is the litmus test for torture, I think the ACLU has done a wonderful job of eliminating our ability to torture at all. Many trained terrorists are well aware of our legal system and the rights they have, including the de-facto rights they have due to the rights our Marines and soldiers don’t have (see the Pendleton 8). As Jade said, they know we are not allowed to kill them and that eventually it will be over. Unless we are allowed to do things that can trick that thought process our hands are tied.
This is why I think the ACLU is an enemy to our country and should be investigated (along with its major donors) as such.
Puritan, as an aside, we bought our home from a SF, his family moved next door. Now I’m worried about our sock drawer!
NTWR on October 23, 2006 at 6:09 PM
No argument there. Evil exists, and killing civilians is wrong. The fact that ones opponents have proven themselves perfectly content to kill YOUR civilians may urge you along, but it doesn’t excuse doing evil. Torture is also evil.
The point is that war is the sum of all evils, and to let things go — as we have done for most of my adult life — to the point where war is unavoidable is to uncork the jug and let pour forth a heady flow of evil. At that point, is all in how you manage it.
In short, if you’re in a war, you’re already hip-deep in evil. That’s not to excuse evil, but it does mean that judicious use of it can shorten the war by finding, closing with and destroying enough of the enemy to end the war, allowing ALL the evil to subside.
Allow me introduce again our best friend in this case, old Nick Machiavelli, from The Prince, again Chapter III: “…the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others…”
In other words, building on the quote supplied earlier:
1) The Romans (who know a thing or three about evil) would handle problems as and when they arose, not putting them off until the pus had REALLY coalesced and it would be REALLY nasty.
2) Once the seal on the whup-ass can was popped, they wouldn’t hurt anyone lightly. If they had to reach out and strike someone, it was be crushing, removing any chance of the enemy responding or taking revenge later.
…so, after 40 years of so of political thuggery, hijackings, murders, and mush-mouth “diplomacy” not prepared to call anyone a villain, we’re forced into fighting. It wasn’t a Democratic or Republican failure. What started as proxy nibbling against the Soviets just kept moving along until it was a tremendous boil needing lancing.
War is the evil. That which shortens it, especially if it does so in such a way as to cripple any chances of subsequent wars, serves to limit evil…all the evils intendent upon war.
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 6:11 PM
I want to put the fear of death into the minds of terrorists. We need to put the fear of death into their minds.
I have no problem ‘waterboarding’ terrorism suspects. none.
Marvin on October 23, 2006 at 6:11 PM
…it doesn’t have to be socks…sometimes it’s underwear…watch for footprints in the jello…
…want to avoid being “visited”…put a beer in the window…as an offering…
…it was like being trained to be a poltergeist….
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 6:15 PM
Sydney,
I appreciate your response. I think you made my argument in your attempt to contrast the killing of innocents and the use of torture. You argue, and I agree, that the killing of innocents for the sake of simply killing innocents is always wrong and barbaric. You further argue, and I agree, that taking action which results in the killing of innocents can be morally justified, e.g. when the consequences of not doing so are enormous and the act of killing is proportional. You would not shoot down a plane to stop embezzlement, but you would to prevent the plane from becoming a missile. Agreed.
But why won’t you extend that to torture? You and I would agree that torture for the sake of torture is wrong and barbaric. But why doesn’t the proportionality rule apply here as it does to the killing of innocents? After all, the intent of the interrogators is not to inflict discomfort for the sake of it - the intent is to extract against the terrorist’s will valuable life-saving information. And as long as the tactics used are proportional, (which this waterboarding, mild as it appears, seems to me) would torture be morally justified in some circumstances? That’s really my argument with you. You seem to categorically rule “torture” out, no matter what, no matter the intent, while leave room for the killing of innocents if the circumstances are right and the act is proportional.
As for the Todd Beamer comment, I was attempting to illustrate the absurdity of what I thought you were arguing. Admittedly, it was a clumsy effort.
angler on October 23, 2006 at 6:17 PM
Spooky…I’m starting to get embarrassed thinking of all the possibilities. Hopefully the always-stocked beer fridge has pacified him.
It’s great to know we have people trained that well to protect our nation.
Now, if we could just extract the ACLU and CAIR, we would squash this jihad without problems. Of course, propaganda like the kind being spewed all over the news and on Current doesn’t help either.
NTWR on October 23, 2006 at 6:24 PM
YES. Terrorists have “innocent” wives? I doubt it. More likely, they’re raising that 5 year-old kid to be a shaheed (look at those Arabs who call themselves “palestinian”) or a head-chopper that’ll be looking to kill MY daughter some day. So to hell with the terrorist’s wife. If she’s a human being, she wouldn’t be enabling a terrorist. Make that 5 year-old kid an orphan, and put him in a civilized environment–that’s what I’d want to do. Maybe that kid would actually live in peace, and past the age of 35.
And for the record, I’m holding back what I really think we ought to be doing with these cockroaches. Because I’m being politically correct, of course. ;-)
Also: Ditto everything Puritan1648 has said here.
bamapachyderm on October 23, 2006 at 6:26 PM
Oh, and one more thing, Sydney. I liked your Star Trek “beam me out of there” analogy. But I think another one applies equally well to torture. If the interrogators could simply do a “mind-meld,” all Spock-like, and painlessly extract the information being withheld by the terrorist, I imagine they would gladly do so. But, like the pilot of the F-16, the interrogators have no such powers, and must use the means they have, even if those means are not desireable, to achieve the objective.
angler on October 23, 2006 at 6:27 PM
“Would you shoot a terrorist’s innocent wife in order to threaten him to reveal information?”
No. Assuming the terrorist loved his wife, shooting and killing his wife would not be very helpful in pursuading the terrorist to talk. I would imagine that having lost his wife he would feel he has nothing left to lose.
But I would certainly convince the terrorist that if he didn’t talk I WOULD shoot his wife. Or show the terrorist a professionally photo-shopped picture of what looked like his wife being mercilessly tortured when in fact his wife was safe and sound and telling him that the torture would stop when he talked would be just fine with me.
angler on October 23, 2006 at 6:34 PM
KP said,
Welcome, Kirsten! muaahahahhahahaaa
(Just kidding, it doesn’t mean you’re a right-winger, it just means you’re honest.)
(She’s gonna catch all kinds of nutty Mr. Sockpuppet hell for that one!)
bamapachyderm on October 23, 2006 at 6:37 PM
sydney carlton. i have to say, i’ve read your first three posts and each sound like answers to essay questions which weren’t studied for. you are clearly making things up on the fly to halt and heal the widening gap between the prevailing assumption about waterboarding, and what is evident from demonstrations of waterboarding.
jummy on October 23, 2006 at 6:37 PM
I could get behind that, for sure. Except, they really don’t give a damn about their wimmen; it’s all about their crazy “allah.” Maybe show ‘em some Danish ‘toons. ;-)
bamapachyderm on October 23, 2006 at 6:40 PM
…I like it when people talk like that…could you speak with my wife. 22 years, and she still hasn’t got the knack.
Puritan1648 on October 23, 2006 at 6:42 PM
that’s basicly it.
jummy on October 23, 2006 at 6:56 PM
Sydney “Tis a far, far better thing” C.-
Not big on philosophical exercises myself. I just want our civilization to prevail over immoral Islamic Imperialist savages.
But here’s one for you:
If a terrorist’s 6 year old child were holding a WMD’s electronic detonator trigger (cell phone, etc.) and terrorist Dad yelled to the child to “Push the button!” and the only way to stop the remote deaths of 50,000 or more people, would be to shoot this child dead to prevent such a mass murder -even though the child was “innocent” and merely am unwitting terror tool of his (or her) corrupt, maniacal parent?
(And merely wounding the child would not prevent the detonation.)
War is hell. And sometimes it takes hellish acts to end it before it kills thousands, or millions, who need not have died oterwise.
Indecisiveness, diffidence, “fighting nicely”, not hitting “religious sites or graveyards”, etc., is resulting in the deaths of more of our own people than fighting seriously, with warlike decisiveness, would. The aim is to end the enemy’s ability to threaten our civilization, not convince them that we are “better” than them. They’ll never believe it, and I don’t need to be told the difference.
The Bill of Rights is superior to Sharia Law. Period.
A surgeon cuts a human heart out… to replace it with one healthier. Aztecs cut human hearts out… to kill the sacrificial victims and offer the organ to the Sun.
Intent is the key, not the literal acts.em>
profitsbeard on October 23, 2006 at 7:22 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »