Nowhere on that list should be seen “put panties on head” “play loud rap music” “keep them awake” “make them uncomfortable” “make them do stupid naked dogpile tricks so we can take pictures of them”.
TheCulturalist on May 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM

A lot of that idiocy happened precisely because our leadership was too chickenshit to do interrogations RIGHT. So the guards were left with vague “don’t ask, don’t tell” instructions about how to get information – and absolutely no training.

And that was with BUSH running things. With somebody like Clinton, McCain or Obama in charge, who knows what kind of crap will be going on?

Real torture is cutting hacking off someone’s head with a dull sword.

Real torture involves burning, cutting off body parts, severe beatings, etc. The list is long and grewsome.

Nowhere on that list should be seen “put panties on head” “play loud rap music” “keep them awake” “make them uncomfortable” “make them do stupid naked dogpile tricks so we can take pictures of them”.

Not waterboarding terrorists when necessary isn’t going to win the hearts and minds of our enemies. They will only view that as weakness. It won’t stop one act of real torture against our troops or civilians anywhere in the world.

Anyone who can’t see the difference needs to take a step back and really think about this. If you don’t get it, you don’t understand our enemy, but they do understand you.

My oldest son is looking to deploy to Iraq early next year. So I have skin in the game.

I don’t view this topic as some kind of parlor exercise. It’s for keeps.

There is one reason, and one reason only, that we’re even talking about torture today — and that is that the Democrats wanted something they could use to take the high moral ground when addressing Republicans.
philwynk on May 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM

There are two reasons – if you count the fact that John McCain has no practical experience at opposing Democrats

But [the Democrats] wanted to sound pure (the opposite of what they actually are) so they invented a moral absolute, that however civilly we treat our prisoners, we must treat them even more civilly than that.

Did somebody say “slippery slope?”

I, for one, find it appalling that I would have to come up with some sort of clever argument to defend the notion that I’m as morally sound as Nancy Pelosi, or worse, as Hillary Clinton. These are some of the most morally disgusting human beings on the planet. How did we let ourselves get into this fix?
philwynk on May 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM

What do you mean, “we?” John McCain is the guy who’s blabbering himself into a bottomless pit here.

We conservatives need to focus our soul-searching on what we did through last February. To wit: how in the Hell did we let this dipwad become the Republican Nominee? For all practical purposes, we’re completely out of the loop now. John McCain isn’t listening to our advice any more than than Barak Obama is.

We should treat POWs consistent with our own values, which would strongly argue against torture anyway,

Values are worthless to a dead man. Waterboard away.

McCain is a RINO, what else can be said!

The fact that absurd overkill is sometimes used during wartime (sowing mines …in Laos or anywhere…that have no time-sensitive, self-extinguishing fuses) is not the point.

Technology already existed to construct munitions’ fuses that would become inert after any chosen time period (whether 6 hours or 6 months or 6 years). I have been in favor of them, and deplore the indiscriminate use of “always live” bombs/mines/ etc.

That our military and government are brutally ineffective and imperfect, at times, is hardly to excuse the opposition’s claims that “America is the real source of all world terrorism/evil”.

Propaganda memes that the the anti-U.S. p.c. cadres indulge in.

They do not reasonably criticize our specific mistakes or “sins” as unique failings and tactical follies and human idiocies , but presume that they are systematic signs of the utter corruption that underlies the nation.

Destructive, not constructive criticism, is their forte.

Exaggerating waterboarding beyond its real injury (psychological panic) or calling nude Abu Ghraib body pyramids or placing panties on the heads of prisoners or barking dogs the immoral equal of jihadis sawing off someone head on video for deliberate terroristic effect renders their moral equivalencies polemically suspect and stuptifyingly dishonest.

We weigh and self-criticize our failings and try to balance survival with necessary evils like placing a captive terrorist under psychological (via some physical) duress.

The militant Islamofascist enemy, meanwhile, glories in the torture of captives.

We are not proud to pressure prisoners, but cringe that it may need to be done.

They are thrilled that they have crushed an infidel dogs, and slaughtered him in the most horrific manner posssible, publically humiliating and desecrating his body -and spirit.

I don’t think the slope is as slippery as you fear.

But I do think the enemy is more than willing to cunningly exploit of fear of “becoming like them” and use it to destroy us during our moments of hesitancy and self-paralysis.

Because, for the people who live in Moral Equivalency Land, everything is the same as everything else.

logis on May 11, 2008 at 5:07 AM

just curious, do you believe that abortion is murder?

So, now candidate McCain has to take a ridiculous position on something we’ve never used as a policy, but have always had available. There isn’t another nation that treats its prisoners as well as the US. But the Democrats, those supercilious prigs, have inflicted yet another instance of their twisted, self-righteous faux principles on us all, simply so they could have one more club with which to beat the President while telling everybody “We are holier than thou.”

Self-righteous people are dangerous people, and the more so if the rest of the populace has lost the ability to dismiss their posturing. A wise nation would snort and ignore; because our nation has become unwise, we’re debating nonsense.

I, for one, find it appalling that I would have to come up with some sort of clever argument to defend the notion that I’m as morally sound as Nancy Pelosi, or worse, as Hillary Clinton. These are some of the most morally disgusting human beings on the planet. How did we let ourselves get into this fix?

Johan Klaus on May 11, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Being sucessful does not make it right.

Also Phillipine Insurrection does not equal Jihadi nutjobs.

a capella on May 11, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Not torturing prisoners is not going to lead to Sharia law, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

When Laos turns capitalist you can move there and tell everyone how wonderful it is to live in a country that’s best described as a massive mindfield that kills hundreds of civilians every year thanks to your hero Kissinger’s secret war.

bayam on May 11, 2008 at 7:26 PM

Did’nt Kennedy get the U.S. involved in the war in southeast Asia?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/827

Collectivism wasn’t just some lame-brained economic theory debunked a hundred years ago

When Laos turns capitalist you can move there and tell everyone how wonderful it is to live in a country that’s best described as a massive mindfield that kills hundreds of civilians every year thanks to your hero Kissinger’s secret war.

I worry that my children will grow up not thinking that America is not a Shining City on a Hill.

Squid Shark on May 11, 2008 at 2:36 PM

I worry that my great grandchildren could grow up under Sharia law, because we allowed it to happen.

Thanks for the lesson, I am well aware of the dangers we face. But I submit that torture supporters are the ones being relativists, saying that because they are cruel we must be cruel. I worry that my children will grow up not thinking that America is not a Shining City on a Hill.

Squid Shark on May 11, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Do you think that General Pershing was wrong in his approach to fighting terrorism? He stopped it for many years.

Why don’t you go on a countryside tour of Laos and tell all the amputatee kids and their families that their suffering was worth it because Kissinger had to go to toe with the evil commies to prove American toughness… but by the way, Americans are really the good guys. It’s amazing that people in that country aren’t filled with hatred toward Americans and turning out scores of suicide bobmers.
bayam on May 11, 2008 at 5:03 PM

Sure. Liberal self-loathing is the only thing saving America from the endless hatred you feel is rightfully due it because America evily interfered with the world’s free and willing coalescence into a giant “Workers’ Paradise” – for absolutely no reason other than the mindless blood-lust of some evil capitalist oppressors.

Collectivism wasn’t just some lame-brained economic theory debunked a hundred years ago — it is a religion. And make no mistake: liberals are NEVER going to forgive those of us who are infidels to their faith.

All that “moral equivalency” claptrap is nothing but a big smokescreen. Liberals don’t for one second equate America with dictators and terrorists. Deep down inside, they honest-to-God believe we are the source of all evil in the world.

We should, like every other country, lie and claim that we will never use “torture” (which means too many different things to too many different people to have any real meaning).

And then simply do what is necessary, when extreme circumstances arise, to secure the information needed to defend our nation properly.

Agreed. Some things should happen out of sight without public discourse.

The “War is not the answer!”/surrender-now/AmeriKKKa Last!/COEXIST crowd hate everything the U.S. does in self-defense, so anything (except curling up in a ball and dying) would be construed as a black mark and used as propaganda in the worst possible light.

Now you’re soundling like a wingnut. Why don’t you go on a countryside tour of Laos and tell all the amputatee kids and their families that their suffering was worth it because Kissinger had to go to toe with the evil commies to prove American toughness… but by the way, Americans are really the good guys. It’s amazing that people in that country aren’t filled with hatred toward Americans and turning out scores of suicide bobmers.

Let’s face it, stopping bad guys is a very hard and dirty business. Sticking your head in the sand is an awful lot easier. The end result of liberalism may be horrific, but many people would prefer to not think about such unpleasant things – so they don’t.

Thanks for the lesson, I am well aware of the dangers we face. But I submit that torture supporters are the ones being relativists, saying that because they are cruel we must be cruel. I worry that my children will grow up not thinking that America is not a Shining City on a Hill.

a capella on May 11, 2008 at 11:57 AM

There has been a pretty clear standard for a hundred years.

Or, we can swing the other way, define all forceful interrogation as “torture” and gain little information which can be used against our enemies in order to protect ourselves. That way we eventually won’t have to worry about the type of society we are because we won’t have any choice in the matter.
a capella on May 11, 2008 at 11:57 AM

To be a liberal is to be a subjectivist. And the only goal of the subjective mind is to feel good about one’s self.

Let’s face it, stopping bad guys is a very hard and dirty business. Sticking your head in the sand is an awful lot easier. The end result of liberalism may be horrific, but many people would prefer to not think about such unpleasant things – so they don’t.

misterpeasea on May 11, 2008 at 4:18 AM

I’m already confused. The way I understand it, either I made a straw-man of your argument (i.e., false argument), or I have a valid point. Do you really think there is no advantage to coercive vs. non-coercive methods of interrogation?

I believe with your “coke and a smoke and a chat” comment you were trying to be sarcastic, suggesting that it’s laughable to think that what you call “non-coercive” methods might be preferable or more effective than coercive ones.

It’s my understanding – based on wide reading and very limited interaction with professionals and their subjects – that interrogation for intelligence purposes is typically a complex and time-consuming project.

To make a long story short, if you can give an unimaginably bored, isolated, hopeless individual a little bit of hope, a little taste of pleasure or home – a coke, a smoke, a chat partner, if he’s cooperative – most of the time he’ll talk to you. Once he’s talked to you a little, he’ll talk to you a lot. Once he’s said something, he can be questioned about it. Once he’s talking, he’ll reveal things about himself, including vulnerabilities that can be approached from other angles and at other times. He may also start telling you things without realizing it. Sometimes the interviewer may not realize the value of a tidbit until much later, maybe when questioning someone else, or when re-questioning.

On the other hand, once you’ve maimed (or killed) a guy, or truly “broken” him, it can get (rather) difficult to question him effectively about anything. He may become incapable of cooperating, or he may be so desperate to cooperate that he’ll tell you anything, or he may for all intents and purposes have lost his mind.

Again, we’re not privy to all of the details, but I strongly suspect that the water boarding sessions with the AQ leaders were highly choreographed for the sake of climactic effect on the subjects, and that what the subjects revealed still had to be embedded within a larger intelligence tapestry woven together over time. I don’t think even the strongest proponents of that technique or other coercive ones think they’re simple magic bullets, as in “water board the bad guy – save the world – celebrate.”

On the other issues:

you seem to argue that the GC influenced the Japanese to treat our prisoners more humanely than otherwise. But you say that “indiviidual Japanese commanders” acted more humanely. How can you attribute the actions of individuals to the GC?

I don’t see what’s hard to understand about this. Even the most rigidly totalitarian society consists of diverse individuals with divergent opinions and sensibilities. Some Japanese were extremely hostile to Western morality and influence. Others, for a range of reasons, felt differently. The Geneva Conventions and related laws were one expression of the Western moral consensus, and Japan had itself officially subscribed to it (in large part) at a very recent point in its history.

In a large country, no matter how inward-looking and totalitarian, there will be many individuals susceptible to external or dissident viewpoints. If those viewpoints aren’t ever advanced in the first place, then there’s nothing for them to be susceptible to.

In more recent times, to cite a parallel example, the Soviets made a propagandistic gesture in signing the Helsinki Human Rights Agreements of the ’70s. The dissidents of the Eastern Bloc were later able to use those agreements to advance their own cause, including by exerting influence on members of the Communist Party.

I still see people posting the totally a-historical and simplistic view that only the US ever followed the Geneva Conventions, with possible exceptions. It’s just false. The US never perfectly followed the GCs (no one has or could – they’re too generalized and debatable), and even flagrant violators have chosen or been compelled to follow them, appeal to them, or explain themselves in relation to them.

Even Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the most flagrant violators of every imaginable civilized rule of warfare, sought to portray itself as a protector of civilians and prisoners. Individual Iraqi military and non-military officials could as a result be pressured, and prisoners could be cared for, reached, and freed.

In Bosnia, when the Serb forces used captive soldiers as human shields, even they were eventually forced to relent, in part after recognizing the damage done to their cause in the court of world opinion. Eventually, however, such excesses against uniformed military and of course against civilians were critical in rallying international opposition to them, including military opposition.

There are a host of such examples. The Romans used to kill Christians for sport, and laughed at Christian beliefs and ethics. Eventually, the entire state was converted to Christianity.

Which seems to capture a theme with your posts: that our enemies have Western sensibilities. And yet they explicitly deny the legitimacy of Western civilization.

“They” are not a monolithic block. Neither are “we.” If we assume that everyone who has ever been sympathetic to terrorists can only be destroyed, never influenced to change, then we better get ready to kill several hundred million people, just as a beginning point.

Why is waterboarding clearly torture? If it does no physical damage, leaves no physical scars, and doesn’t maim or permanently injure or kill someone, why is it torture? Every slope is slippery, why is waterboarding on the bad side of the slope?

I personally put water boarding right on the edge. I don’t believe that a working definition of “torture” can exclude psychological damage, risk of injury and death rather than certainty of same, etc. (Someone in ill health or with a relatively excessive fear of drowning might be killed or permanently hurt by water boarding.)

I think it’s certainly a kind of torture, for instance, to take someone’s loved ones and abuse them before the subject’s eyes, even though the subject of the interrogation may himself not be physically harmed at all.

I don’t personally want to define torture down to the point that dealing with intermittently hostile or vexing posts on complex subjects on Hot Air qualifies as “torture,” but I think water boarding is closer to the rubber hose (hurts a lot, doesn’t necessarily leave marks) or thumb screws or burying you up to your neck or denying you food and water, etc., than it is to making you explain yourself on an internet message board.

At the end of the day, if we want to become the scum we are fighting, than lets just call it a day and give up the ghost of a decent society.

Squid Shark on May 11, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Or, we can swing the other way, define all forceful interrogation as “torture” and gain little information which can be used against our enemies in order to protect ourselves. That way we eventually won’t have to worry about the type of society we are because we won’t have any choice in the matter.