Mr. McCain is the best possible pick for President right now. However, he is a complete knot head in many areas, and this is one of them. I sure wish we had a different Republican candidate, but we don’t. I will support Mr. McCain as wholeheartedly as I am able to work up, but he doesn’t make it easy.

Buford Gooch on May 10, 2008 at 10:42 AM

The publicity around waterboarding killed it as an interrogation technique because it is now known that though you feel like drowning, you are in no danger of drowning.

Basically, the word got out that this is not torture and anyone can will their way through it. That is why it was used in the training of our own forces.

Valiant on May 10, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Both concluded that any effectiveness waterboarding had as a interrogation technique had likely vanished as a result of the publicity surrounding it, and the CIA’s decision to stop using it in 2003 meant that they agreed.

And THIS is the problem. And THIS is why I have a problem with McCain parading around with this in some sort of ‘holier than thou’ position. He should not be talking about it. Any public official should just say ‘we follow the Geneva Conventions’ END OF COMMENT. But no, this guy has to go on and on and on and on about how bad it is to torture someone (I imagine to draw attention to the fact over and over again that he was tortured).

It’s like the 2nd amendment. I don’t have a gun, but I don’t want a robber or attacker to know that I don’t have a gun. I’m not going to walk around with a badge on announcing ‘I don’t have a gun’. The fact that I COULD have a gun makes a difference.

Now in terrorist training camps, they teach what water boarding is, and they teach not to break down because you won’t be hurt or killed. . . thanks ‘leader McCain’.

None of these nations will care during a war. He wants to walk around saying ‘you broke the rules, you broke the rules’ (citizen’s arrest - a la Gomer Pyle on Andy Griffith) when the saying goes ‘all is fair in war’. It really makes him seem utterly naive about war and how brutal it is.

The Democrats will already say that he voted against it and flip flopped, so he’s not going to get anywhere by continuing to talk about it. He wants to close Guantanamo and treat those enemy combatants like . . . well illegal aliens and give them the same rights that American citizens who LOVE this country and would DIE for this country have.

McCain is a terrible leader and his stance and vocal opposition to whatever torture might be used is proof positive of that. Islamic nations will forever use ‘Abu Graib’ as an excuse to torture no matter what we do or don’t do. I guarantee you that Abu Graib was a walk in the park compared to what Vietnam did.

The staunch ‘war president great on defense’ is putting our troops and our citizens in greater danger by broadcasting this garbage. I’d much rather he talk with Hamas than have this stance. He’s NOT better than the Democrats.

ThackerAgency on May 10, 2008 at 11:01 AM

The captions on the main page used to be funny- now they are just pissing me off when it comes to McCain.

Valiant on May 10, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Thank you ThackerAgency. You’re more eloquent than I could ever be. I was just going to post that I didn’t care what kind of “torture” they do to our enemy, and I’ve never considered waterboarding torture. However, thanks to all this blustering on both sides, this technique cannot be used.

For this reason and his support of illegals, I will NOT vote for a president this year.

moonsbreath on May 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM

Someone needs to pull a Dukakis on him and ask him if he would support waterboarding if his wife and children were captured by jihadists threatening to behead them.

BigD on May 10, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Just imagine a guy who says something to get the widest support to get elected. I know it’s never happened before, but just imagine. If I were to run for President, I’d say “not going to waterboard” too. Once I became president, personally I’d go way beyond waterboarding. Pulling out entrails and burning them in front of his pals to let them know I’m not kidding would be a healthy start. Guantanamo would be like a Hilton if I had anything to say about it. Torture doesn’t get results? Gimme a try, I’ll fix that..

adamsmith on May 10, 2008 at 11:12 AM

ThackerAgency on May 10, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Well said. For the most part I am inclined to agree.

joewm315 on May 10, 2008 at 11:15 AM

errhhh….He does NOT indeed….yeah, that’s what I meant!

Vntnrse on May 10, 2008 at 11:17 AM

I suspect that every network anchor has that question already teed up for the general election debates.

Ed Morrissey on May 10, 2008 at 11:16 AM

5 bucks says his answer starts with, “Listen my friend–”

Bicyea on May 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM

It is stuff like this along with McCains view that there is no such thing as a bad illegal alien that convinces me that, if elected, he will rival Jimmy Carter for the title of “Worst President Ever.”

If a President McCain wants to coddle terrorists and give them a suite at the Baghdad Hilton in the hopes that HBO and thick towels will convince them to give up information- that would be his perogative. But to go around all but accusing the troops of commiting war crimes is disgusting behavior even from a cranky old political traitor like John McCain.

highhopes on May 10, 2008 at 11:24 AM

5 bucks says his answer starts with, “Listen my friend–”

Bicyea on May 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM

10 bucks it’s more along the line of, “I’m offended by the media using this ‘gotcha” technique of using my family as props to try to get me to deny my principles.”

BigD on May 10, 2008 at 11:25 AM

First, torture does not get us reliably good information. Second, if we torture our troops will be tortured.

Furthermore, how can O’Reilly say that to McCain knowing what he went through?

Torture doesn’t get reliabley good info; you know this how? Because McCain said so? Because you want it to be true? I’d rather hear from some of our allies who don’t have as many protections as we do, and that have gone a little further before I buy into a sweeping statment like that. If we did have a ticking time bomb scenario, I’d like to be absolutely sure our leaders did everything they could before letting a few thousand people die.

Our troops will be tortured if we torture? When did we torture? Abu Ghraib? That excuses what we the islamists have done to our troops? Tell you what. Let’s have a test. I’ll let some folks put me in women’s underpants and take pictures of me and have their guard dogs widdle all over me; you get beaten unrecognizable and have your head chopped off. We’ll get together on Monday and see who had the worst time of it

Furthermore, how can O’Reilly say that to McCain knowing what he went through?

How can we question McCain on anything at all after what he went through! Absolute Moral Authority card, I invoke you! No criticism must be made, no question asked of John McCain! He is above us…his rule will be perfect and absolute…and we must never speak ill of him lest we be consigned to the depths of hell that we would so richly deserve. Good grief you syncophants make me bloody sick.

austinnelly on May 10, 2008 at 11:29 AM

I’m inclined to think that waterboarding is torture, even when done under controlled conditions that keep the detainee from suffering physical harm from it.

What is your definition of torture? Making someone feel uncomfortable? Waterboarding inflicts no physical injury and leaves no scars.

Pretty please Mr. Terrorist, sir, tell me who you’re going to kill next. Pretty please with chocolate sprinkles on top?

Last November, I interviewed two Special Forces veterans who had very personal perspectives on waterboarding, and especially on the tenor of the national debate on the subject. Both concluded that any effectiveness waterboarding had as a interrogation technique had likely vanished as a result of the publicity surrounding it, and the CIA’s decision to stop using it in 2003 meant that they agreed.

Bizarre. The publicity has made waterboarding less effective how, exactly? People no longer feel like they’re drowning, now that there’s publicity?

Absurd.

misterpeasea on May 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM

Torture is only relevant when enough Daisy Cutters aren’t available.

I want to see McCain join Janet Murguía on the Factor, maybe he’d get a clue.

Speakup on May 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM

It is stuff like this along with McCains view that there is no such thing as a bad illegal alien that convinces me that, if elected, he will rival Jimmy Carter for the title of “Worst President Ever.”

I’ve been thinking about not voting in the Presidential Election of 2008. I’m casting my ballot instead in the Presidential Election of 1976: The Rerun.

thuja on May 10, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Senatus Consultum Ultimum? Blanket immunity for the leader who has the ultimate power (for the ‘good’ of the state)?

Where do you draw the line? Obviously we have to find a mechanism to hobble that kind of power. Putting these guys in county lockup is as much madness as popping each and every one right there on the battlefield. There has to be some kind of review of a leader’s decision to use extraordinary measures, but how to put that kind of review process into place, while the ticking clock tics on?

Pandora laughs.

Limerick on May 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM

IMO President Bush gives the best answer on this: We don’t torture. Period.

Hillary beat McCain to the punch with this one insofar as she has said, I don’t believe in torture and we won’t do it if I’m President.

Yeah sure Hillary.

Domino on May 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM

I disagree with McCain’s stance on many issues, but on this one subject I understand his objections.

RMR on May 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM

You are making the (incorrect) assumption that torture and interrogation techniques are the same thing. McCain’s very public accusations that our military is committing war crimes is disgusting.

highhopes on May 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM

thuja on May 10, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Well, retro is in!

highhopes on May 10, 2008 at 12:03 PM

I think I have something to add to the conversation. I was an NCO in LRSC at Ft. Bragg. For those that don’t know it’s a fairly elite unit that specializes in HUMINT. Many of the guys have all the lickies and chewies (JM, MFF [HALO], Pathfinder, LRSLC, Ranger, etc.). Going to SERE or doing a SERE-X brings much more pain to our own soldiers than a waterboarding (or anything else for that matter) that those in our detention face. Those who are actual interrogators (by MOS or specialization) have plenty of training in appropriate interrogation techniques. Most have very specialized training in psychology. It is explained to them that any use of torture (or any technique that’s excessively physical) could have negative consequences. Every terrorist has a different breaking point or level of tolerance. If you exceed this level too much what you’ll get is bad info. from them. They will say anything to make their discomfort end. This doesn’t mean that they will lie, but at this point it’s a distinct possibility. Most guys who are in SpecOps like the SF guys Ed talked to would probably know best what does and does not work. They also would be more prone to laugh at different techniques being considered torture than the general population because they have gone through much worse than anything our enemy will be put through. If McCain wants to take a stand against torture that’s fine, but he has to be careful he doesn’t take options off the table that people who know better than he does about what works, wants to have to use. Also, the notion that our using so-called questionable techniques will lead to our enemies doing the same is beyond laughable. This isn’t even an argument he should ever use, because of how absurd it sounds. Our enemies will either treat their captors appropriately or not (and probably the latter) regardless of any treaty they are a signator to. I know if I had been near capture when I was in Iraq I would have had to just go down fighting, because the alternative was just not an option. And if we put those we had captured up in a five-star hotel it wouldn’t have made any difference in how our own soldiers were treated by the terrorists who captured them.

davenp35 on May 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM

I know if I had been near capture when I was in Iraq I would have had to just go down fighting, because the alternative was just not an option. And if we put those we had captured up in a five-star hotel it wouldn’t have made any difference in how our own soldiers were treated by the terrorists who captured them.

davenp35 on May 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM

When my son is on patrol, he keeps one bullet in his pocket, he said he will not be captured.

bnelson44 on May 10, 2008 at 12:39 PM

I’d say that anyone who can’t comprehend that maybe, just maybe, being tortured himself for six years has something to do with his stance is too stupid to breathe. That would be about half of the commenters here.

What’s most ludicrous is that those who would throw the troops to the wolves to maintain their “ideological purity” and care more about that evil brown wave of Mexicans turn around and show false support for the troops and the war on this issue. Every bit as disgusting as Code Pink, and exactly the same.

rightwingprof on May 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM

O’Reilly gets the worst of this exchange for not comprehending that the Geneva Conventions bind nations to standards of conduct regardless of reciprocation and for many different kinds of detainees and refugees;

Zombie Reagan called and says he begs to differ:

In a move intended to deny international legal protection to terrorists and anti-Western guerrillas, President Reagan has decided against ratification of part of a major revision of the 1949 Geneva Conventions on treatment of combatants and war victims, according to Administration documents.

In a move intended to deny international legal protection to terrorists and anti-Western guerrillas, President Reagan has decided against ratification of part of a major revision of the 1949 Geneva Conventions on treatment of combatants and war victims, according to Administration documents.

…The Administration has concluded that Protocol 1 would have the effect of legitimizing insurgent movements and terrorist groups by granting their members the status of combatants and prisoners of war. Senate Support Sought

Now if you are talking about Hamdan, that’s arguable a different story but to say that the Conventions themselves protect non-uniformed combatants seems to be in error.

Drew on May 10, 2008 at 12:52 PM

So how, in the unforseeable future, can we be assured that our commitment to the GC will cause others to not torture our soldiers?

VolMagic on May 10, 2008 at 12:43 PM

We can’t “assure” anything, just as laws against bank robbery don’t assure us that no banks will ever be robbed, or laws against child abuse assure us that no children will ever be abused.

It’s undeniable that the GC and associated commitments have not, to give other examples, prevented prisoners from ever being executed, prevented civilian populations from ever being targeted, or prevented cultural monuments from ever being destroyed, but all of those evils of war have been lessened as a result of such commitments. The prosecution of war criminals is also enabled, something that also can be critical in establishing the rule of law and humane relations subsequent to the conclusion of whatever war, and also in restraining such abuses during the conduct of war. The mere fact that perpetrators of such abuses struggle to hide the truth from the world is a net plus - that they’re forced to be secretive and to try to cover their tracks, and that they and their potential allies and operatives know there will be consequences, restrains them to some greater or lesser, if inherently unmeasurable, extent.

CK MacLeod on May 10, 2008 at 1:03 PM

O’Reilly gets the worst of this exchange for not comprehending that the Geneva Conventions bind nations to standards of conduct regardless of reciprocation and for many different kinds of detainees and refugees…
posted at 10:37 am on May 10, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to ANY un-uniformed combatants. This has always been the case. I apologize to you on behalf of Mr. O’Reily for making an insignificant semantic error. But it’s important to remember that HE is not the one who’s running for President.

And that’s a bit of a problem. McCain’s policy of “tough on Iraq, but easy on the terrorists themselves” is pretty much the worst combination of positions a President could possibly take.

logis on May 10, 2008 at 1:24 PM

What about the ticking-clock scenario, which McCain dismisses?

We should absolutely not craft our “torture policy” around such 24-esque hypothetical situations. You know how it goes with giving power to the government. If it can be abused, it will. If crafting a sensible moral policy means that interrogators might be facing a situation where they think a detainee has information that could stop an imminent attack, but they can’t legally torture him to get the information, so be it. There are two choices, both that’ll probably haunt the interrogator for the rest of his life. But we should not be encouraging the choice that is clearly immoral and clearly a violation of human rights. If they want to go for it and hope that the results of their actions will result in a sympathetic jury — good for them.

Mark Jaquith on May 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM

First, torture does not get us reliably good information. Second, if we torture our troops will be tortured.

Torture doesn’t get reliabley good info; you know this how? Because McCain said so? Because you want it to be true?

austinnelly on May 10, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Obviously torture doesn’t magically turn a terrorist into an honest human being. And if (as McCain claims) all US Military Intelligence officers are utterly incompetent, then the solution to that problem would be for McCain to rescind his plan to promote only mentally retarded people to those positions.

But (assuming that McCain is wrong and that US military officers DO have some idea how to perform their duties) then of course they are fully capable of corroborating any information gathered through adverse interrogation of any kind - whether some self-righteous twit decides to call it “torture” or not.

logis on May 10, 2008 at 1:37 PM

We can’t “assure” anything

Good. Then we can dispense with the line that our use of enhanced interrogation techniques will lead to other countries torturing our soldiers.

VolMagic on May 10, 2008 at 1:51 PM

And O’Reilly let Juan “Z-Visa” McCain slide on SANCTUARY CITIES and AMNESTY FO ILLEGAL ALIENS. Another lap dog for ol’ “Z-Visa” in the media? You bet. Ol’ “Z-Visa” is gonna need them because he can’t get money or volunteers for his fledgling campaign.

STAY HOME ‘08

DfDeportation on May 10, 2008 at 2:02 PM

At the same time the US military was being portrayed in the press as a mob of jack-booted thugs, the real story was that our military repeatedly risked lives to save civilians. For example, when terrorists were rearming and regrouping in one side of a residential duplex, we took care not to damage the other side of the duplex where an innocent family was living. Even though it might’ve given some of them an escape hatch, that they could come out fighting from.

RBMN on May 10, 2008 at 2:07 PM

The only real problem is……Waterboarding is NOT torture!

DfDeportation on May 10, 2008 at 2:13 PM

rightwingprof on May 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Wow, excellent job of completely missing the point, not to mention linking things together that are utterly unrelated. Bonus points for working in the “subtle” racism jab against border enforcement proponents.

Grayson on May 10, 2008 at 2:38 PM

… doesn’t the man research the topic before an interview?

Who? Bill O’Reilly? Watching that man shaves points from your IQ. Rarely has so little thought been packed into so large an ego.

paul006 on May 10, 2008 at 2:54 PM

I say we compromise on the issue. No torture, but no prisoners either.

Grayson on May 10, 2008 at 3:03 PM

By the way, I believe even though it is no longer used as a general practice, if the situation arises in the future, I believe that water boarding would be used as an interrogation technique, if it was believed that an impending danger was used. It has worked every time it was used, and I don’t care if a president McCain, along with the Democrats in Congress, pass law forbidding its practice, this will not stop people from performing such practices in a time of emergency. Higher ups, who know better, will take the fall for their subordinates if such a case were to happen. I am quite confident this is true.

Weebork on May 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM

MB 4

Yep!

MNDavenotPC on May 10, 2008 at 3:35 PM

As for the naive faith that waterboarding is or ever was some perfect, 100% effective way to extract timely and exploitable intelligence, thankfully our interrogators are more sophisticated than than to believe such fairy tales.

Take, for instance, the much talked-about but seldom encountered “ticking bomb” scenario. Waterboarding is said to have helped in the interrogation of the terrible trio, including extraction of critical operational details, but the situations weren’t ticking time bombs. More important, at least for anyone who’s trying to think clearly about these matters, there isn’t and can’t be any proof that the same information or better information couldn’t have been gotten through alternative means.

If, however, a bomb really is ticking, then someone committed to the cause knows that giving misinformation can help contribute to the operation’s success, while also possibly halting the torture. For that very reason, operatives will be supplied ahead of time with misinformation (to be passed on knowingly or unknowingly).

There are many interrogation techniques, and, just as important, there are many other skills and tools that need to be employed before any information extracted can be used effectively. The real extraction and exploitation of useful and accurate information will tend to be much more complex than “the bomb’s in the basement of 1st National Bank - go disarm it!”

CK MacLeod on May 10, 2008 at 3:44 PM

McNumbnuts is a liar.

A. We have never faced an enemy that treated our soldiers according to the GC. Japan was not a signatory FYI.

B. Our guys are and have been ROUTINELY tortured when captured and will continue to be, or worse.

C. Coerced interrogation OFTEN yields good intel, regardless of what he says to the contrary and

D. Kalid Shiek Mohammed.

McNumnuts also brings up the punishments of the Japanese, but again he lies, or is stupid or is ignorant of the actual FACTS which I researched.

Only one Japanese soldier (that I could find) was charged with water torturing our guys and it was the last item tacked onto a laundry list of other charges. He received a fifteen year sentence for the totality of his crimes.

Out of thousands of Japanese officers and high command only seven senior commanders were hanged for their atrocities. 54 others were released by MacArthur, ostensibly to aid in the construction of a new Japaneses government.

dogsoldier on May 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM

People too often conflate and confuse the coercive extracting of intel with, say, the forced signing of a confession for a criminal offence. The object of coercive interrogastion techniques, including waterboarding, is not the admission of offence, but obtaining actionable info. The two are not even remotely comparable. The person who signs a confession does so in order to end coercive interrogation, sometimes even if the confession is false, because it will nevertheless end his discomfort; the person who supplies intel as a result of coercive interrogation, however, full well knows, as do his interrogators, that the info he supplies will be thoroughly checked out, and if it proves to be false, they will most surely meet again.

Thus, waterboarding in order to extract actionable intel undeniable works, and has worked, as the linked statement makes amply and abundantly clear:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020483.php

Those who continue to willfully deny this irrefutably proven fact are merely supergluing scales to their eyes, in order to memetically filter cognitively dissonant information that threatens their emotionally invested position.

Salamantis on May 10, 2008 at 5:13 PM

What definition of torture includes waterboarding? It does no physical harm. No injuries. No scars. No disfigurement.

So the definition would have to include some reference to the subject’s feelings? His subjective state of mind?

I feel uncomfortable being confined in a small room. Or being handcuffed. Or being blindfolded.

Or not having millions of dollars. The government is torturing me and I demand it stop immediately!

It’s nonsensical.

misterpeasea on May 10, 2008 at 5:20 PM

A. We have never faced an enemy that treated our soldiers according to the GC. Japan was not a signatory FYI.

Japan was not a signatory to the Third Geneva Convention that dealt in detail with treatment of Prisoners of War. It was however a signatory of prior conventions and international laws that covered the same issues.

It’s probably fair to say that no country, including the United States, has or likely ever will conduct itself at war in perfect accordance with the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements. It will always be a matter for debate whether a given action or practice violates the letter or spirit of the conventions. On the other hand, every enemy - including Nazi Germany and even North Korea, even to a small extent the terrorists - has been restrained in small or large part, directly and indirectly, by the laws of war and by international opinion. When Al Qaeda internal messages confirm that depredations in Iraq and elsewhere have harmed them politically, that’s partly a by-product of a worldwide consensus among civilized nations as to what is and isn’t permissible in warfare.

The only real question is whether supporting the Geneva Conventions and similar efforts is in the interests of humanity, the nation, and in this particular context our soldiers, and not just today, but tomorrow and the day after. If you look at the arguments and issues - and perhaps past your enmity towards McCain - I think it’s obviously in our interests, not to mention morally more sound, not just to prohibit torture, but to be aggressively on the side of humane treatment of prisoners and non-combatants.

CK MacLeod on May 10, 2008 at 5:53 PM

I think it’s obviously in our interests, not to mention morally more sound, not just to prohibit torture, but to be aggressively on the side of humane treatment of prisoners and non-combatants.

I’m with you 99%. But doesn’t there have to be some calculus here? In the case of KSM, it is not morally correct to do to him as we did to save thousands of truly innocent lives?

VolMagic on May 10, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Treatment of prisoners in general and torture, if needed, are two different issues. I have no problem with human treatment of POWs. I do have a problem with humanely treating Islamic terrorist animals with critical information that could save the lives of our people. All bets are off against these denizens of terror.

I just love the pantywaisted, white gloved Marcus of Queensbury aficionados. Don’t want to get their “hands dirty” in the messy business of war. Want to remain “above the fray.” Damnit! This is war. Can ANYONE here tell me that if their family was in a city to be nuked by these animals that they would hesitate to do whatever necessary to save their lives? If so, you are pussies and don’t deserve to enjoy the liberties earned by men better than you. You’ve become so “civilized” that you would shrink from that which is necessary to protect your family and nation.

Charles Martel on May 10, 2008 at 6:19 PM

War has nothing to do with civilization. It is the method of exercising a political will at whatever the cost necessary. War is an abomination and can never be won by being civilized.
To fight with the goal of avoiding innocents is an abomination in itself considering the cost to men and material that fight. The more you decide not to win at all costs, it’s the time you begin to lose. Remember, there are factions out there now that do not have the “civilized” outlook of European countries. They believe millions must perish to achieve their Caliphate.
If you don’t want to get in the dirt with them, you won’t win.

MNDavenotPC on May 10, 2008 at 6:30 PM

When you really think about it, however, the odds are badly against our ever being in that situation - one where 1) we know an event is about to occur, 2) we just happen to have in our custody somebody whom we know possesses timely and critical information, and 3) that captive hasn’t been adequately trained and prepared to mislead us even and especially under torture or “enhanced interrogation.”

1) No we don’t have to know it is about to occur
2) For some reason, we are able to identify the movers and shakers in AQ and other terrorist organizations. I trust that they are in posession of “timely and critical information” pretty much all the time.
3. Exactly why there has to be some latitude in this area.

I don’t watch 24.

VolMagic on May 10, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Regardless of what you try to imply, we’re not sinking to anybody’s level….Waterboarding is NOT torture…

It’s right on the edge IMO.

I do have a problem with humanely treating Islamic terrorist animals with critical information that could save the lives of our people. All bets are off against these denizens of terror.

That’s a slippery slope we should avoid. The main thing that distinguishes us from them is that we are civilised - we believe in the rule of law, due process, equality and so forth. If we sacrifice the core tenets of our ideology for expediency we will quickly become very similar to them.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Nietzsche

Ares on May 10, 2008 at 9:00 PM

What about the assumed self-superiority of people who pretend that there’s some magic torture switch that only they are brave enough to throw, saving the lives of thousands?

Even leaving aside the various myths about the effectiveness and usefulness of “enhanced interrogation” and/or torture, over and above alternative methods, why stop at water boarding? What will the penalty be, if any, for stopping at the wrong point? How imminent does the threat have to be? How big does the threat have to be? How certain does our suspicion have to be? How certain does the identification of the proposed torture subject have to be?

If, despite the bluster of some of the torture advocates, you’re not imagining the casual use of torture and other forms of coercion that most of us consider beyond the pale, and if you instead are such a “panty-waist” that you can imagine that water boarding and worse (use your imagination) will be attempted only under very closely circumscribed situations - the true ticking terrorist time bomb scenario - then you’re talking about something that, as far as I know, has only ever occurred in action thrillers, but never in real life. (I repeat, KSM was not a ticking time bomb. As far as we know, he was just someone who interrogation was short-cutted.)

Do any of you have any evidence of any real world situation - EVER - in which the application of enhanced interrogation or torture by US authorities really did save or alone could have saved the lives of innocents?

If not, then basically you’re just engaging in a huge morally self-righteous pissing contest, while indulging in ghoulish fantasies. If President John Sidney McCain or President Barack Hussein Obama really did find himself smack dab in the middle of the last act of some movie, where only giving Bruce Willis or Kiefer Sutherland permission to do something ugly could get us the secret code to defuse the bomb about to blow up New York City in five minutes, he would give the OK (though the bad guy would still probably give a misleading answer) - but the odds are very, very strong that nothing like that will ever happen.

In the meantime, having the US identified with a torture double standard in the real world has probably already cost us in incalculable ways, even if the charge is largely unjustified. At some future date, it may cost us a lot more.

CK MacLeod on May 10, 2008 at 9:49 PM

So making people feel uncomfortable does absolutely nothing to get them to give up information.

We can just give them a Coke and a smoke, chat with them for a while, and eventually, they’ll tell us what we want to know.

misterpeasea on May 10, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Actually, Brian Ross, the lead investigator for ABC News, reported, after interviewing those who waterboarded Khalid Shaykh Mohammed, that, although weeks of other methods did not work, three minutes of waterboarding did, and that the information he provided allowed us to stop several ongoing terror plots, including a plan to detonate ten transatlantic flights over US population centers, causing possibly more casualties than 9-11.

I have a question for YOU; if we had caught Khalid Shaykh Mohammed, the mastermind of the WTC atrocity, in early September 2001, and knew that a mass terror plot was proceeding, but lacked the necessary specifics to prevent it, would you have supported waterboarding him, or would you have preferred that your tender soul not be sullied with such actions, and that the 9-11 terror flyers thus be left unimpeded to complete their horrendous mission? And if so, how would you explain to the surviving friends and families of the 3000 that died that preserving your clean hands and moral pristineness was worth more than the lives of their loved ones?

Salamantis on May 10, 2008 at 10:48 PM