We know, for example, that while MAD worked with the USSR, it would not work with Iran, since their cultural views are radically different. For another example, 100 years ago, everybody had to experience intense pain at various points in their lives – having dental work was usually one of the most painful. Everyone who was alive had to suffer through this. The level of pain that such people view as normal, and are able to withstand, is much higher than modern people can even contemplate. What we call “torture”, they would call “relief”. But our law would dictate our behavior towards such people, without any regard for the differences between them and us, when the differences with respect to “torture” would be almost unimaginable. Since we start from blanket rules that are built for individualistic cultures, there are bound to major flaws when trying to apply these rules to non-individualistic ones.

It is interesting that our left loves to point out these cultural differences and carve out spaces in our law, but they only care when these differences lead to “rights” that must be given to the aliens – e.g. provide Korans and point them to Mecca (for a tiny example). But they refuse to acknowledge such differences in the opposite direction, and conservatives don’t tend to argue these cultural points.

Hitchens theory is especially stupid because; History of WWII proves it doesn’t hold water. The US did nothing to the Japanese in the way of torture prior to WWII yet look how they treated our guys on Corregidor, Bataan, Philiphines etc.
Hitchens theory on this doesn’t hold a drop of water. Those of us old enogh to remember haven’t forgotten.

Considering what a recruitment poster events like Abu Ghraib are for al-Qaeda,

Spc Steve on December 18, 2008 at 9:10 PM

This is a lie thought up by the liberals that bares no relation to reality. The only thing about Abu Ghraib that helped recruitment for Al Quaeda was the way the left attacked our soldiers and showed the arabs that we would tie ourselves in knots over college frat pranks and were more interested in prosecuting our own soldiers than winning the war. Apologizing for Abu Ghraib did more to help Al Quaida recruitment than anything else. Once the arabs saw our weakness in this, they were motivated to fight us, because they thought they had a chance of winning. When they see that we tie ourselves up over such idiocy, they see a chance of defeating us. Their cultures have been this way for thousands of years and are not likely to change anytime in the near future.

Anyone who thinks that the average arab thought what was happening at Abu Ghraib was so terrible has no idea what usually goes on in the arab world and how they think. Frankly, I get tired of hearing this line over and over again.

Dishonesty for the sake of a ‘moral high ground’ is just stupid. Because thats a battle (moral high ground) we (America) wins over and over and over again.

I know, I took a break for this debate (have to sleep sometime), but I have to disagree with the statement that we will always hold the moral high ground. In the eyes of America, probably, there is very little American soldiers can do to lose face amongst its own citizenry. I think America saw what it became when it made Soldiers the subject of derision in the wake of Vietnam and aren’t likely to let that happen again. However, in the eyes of the people of Iraq, for example, we stormed through their front door, sometimes literally, then wiped out their infrastructure through de-Baathification, then treated petty criminals like circus freaks for all the world to see in Abu Ghraib. Yeah, I’d say there was some trust to be regained between the Iraqi people and the American military. We were only very fortunate that al-Qaeda in Iraq overplayed their hand and showed the Iraqis how immensely more brutal they are than the American GI. But it took a long time, a great deal of money, and a lot of blood, to regain that trust.

Considering what a recruitment poster events like Abu Ghraib are for al-Qaeda, I wonder if the number of lives saved by torture is anywhere near the number of lives taken by men who sought vengeance for torture. Just a thought.

I suppose we can all be thankful that so few watch Hardball that few minds will be infected with the douchebaggery that is Hitchens, Smerconish and Matthews discussing the efficacy of torture.

Smerconish: When it comes to torturing Al Qaeda, anything goes

He means it, too: Matthews, incredulous, offers him a menu of
horribles and Smerc orders everything on it. I can’t remember ever
watching a torture debate like this, pitting……

I am for it only if we know for sure that :
1) this is a scumbag terrorist.
2) He has information. Valuable information.

I think that most people are of that mindset. Except many don’t want to ADMIT it.

There fore anyone who says otherwise is just simply…dishonest.

Dishonesty for the sake of a ‘moral high ground’ is just stupid. Because thats a battle (moral high ground) we (America) wins over and over and over again.

You are an ass. Does America sell weapons to the PLO, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

Hilts on December 18, 2008 at 8:32 AM

America sells arms to Saudi Arabia.

For Esthier, if you deny that Europe’s becoming a shell was coincident with it’s use of torture, do you really believe that what Hitler’s Germany did to the Jews was not the most horrible form of torture? Not just the death marches and the “experimental surgeries” and the starvation, but being forced, for example, at gunpoint to have sex with the corpse of your daughter after she was shot before your eyes?

Not to mention Russian psychoprisons.

While I think it is necessary to understand the tremendous brutality of torture and to remember the risks to a culture and citizenry of its abuse, I think many people in the West have no clue, or deliberately deny, the level of evil that we can face.

Liberals don’t understand this, because they hate having to take context into account. It hurts their pea-brains and strains their hyper-fragile, always-near-collapsing emotional states.

progressoverpeace on December 18, 2008 at 5:43 PM

That, AND Liberals have to have SOMETHING to be perpetually pissed off about.

seanrobins on December 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM

Well said. I particularly love the arguments they give to show that “torture doesn’t work”. For some reason, they think that they can reasonably argue that the information gotten from someone nicely is more dependable than the information gotten from someone under duress who knows that the info will be checked and he will suffer greatly if it is a lie.

But we all know that lefties argue that torture doesn’t work specifically because they know it works (just the threat of torture, frankly) in the vast majority of cases. That is what really scares the libs.

I would add to your points on the first argument, lefties love to look at actions taken out of context. I always tell them that I don’t condone biting people’s ears off, as that can generally be considered uncivilized behavior, but if I get mugged the situation could easily arise that biting the mugger’s ear off is the best, and most civilized, action. That doesn’t mean that I will then go around biting ears off, but will return to my normal behavior in normal contexts. Liberals don’t understand this, because they hate having to take context into account. It hurts their pea-brains and strains their hyper-fragile, always-near-collapsing emotional states.

Has Smerconish ever revealed on PMS-NBC that he voted for Obama? (Just curious)

First, the argument is that “we shouldn’t do it, because it makes us as bad as the bad guys”.

Then the argument is that “we shouldn’t do it because it doesn’t work”.

So, which is it?

The second argument is a red herring, because even if it doesn’t work in some people, certainly it works in others. Nothing works 100% if the time. And I can’t imaging that there are many of these cowardly terrorists who can withstand our best interrogation techniques.

So that only leaves the first argument: that it makes us like the bad guys. Well, the Left already believes that we are. The argument is phoney, because it depends upon the common lefty notion that everything is the same, there is no “better” or “worse” – and therefore, even if torturing terrorists will prevent massive numbers of death through the intel obtained, the argument is; “who are WE” to determine that the safety of many Americans is worth inflicting pain on some poor terrorist.

There is no legitimate reason not to apply “pressure” in ever-increasing increments, when extracting important information from these vermin.

Harry Truman went to his grave never regretting the bombing of Hiroshima. Had we not been civilized, it would have been Tokyo. Had he not done it, the death total in taking Japan would have been exponentially higher on both sides.

It was a difficult decision, but it was made by a civilized nation. No act of war is clean and anyone who wants to find something in it “uncivilized” will. If a nation bombs a bridge or a road to obtain an objective, they are performing an act which is opposed to the civilization of the surrounding area… but that does not necessarily make the nation itself “uncivilized.”

The carpet bombings of Germany and the carpet bombings and atomic bombings of Japan killed civilians beyond even what many advocates of that policy expected. And yet, though we won the wars,

… not “though we won the wars” but those policies were instrumental in TRULY winning the wars. i.e. totally obliterating the threat from those enemies and turning them into strong, productive, trustworthy allies for more than a half century – something that none of our half-fought wars has ever achieved, but I guess you would consider that a minor point …

we didn’t then change the laws of warfare to say that the intentional killing of civilians (which is what both those policies were about) is now to be standard policy backed by law.

Drum on December 18, 2008 at 1:41 PM

We have a strategic nuclear arsenal – to this very day – that is made to do nothing but incinerate civilians, when necessary, and our strategic defense doctrine is predicated on the extermination of the enemy. Grow up. It does no one any good to pretend that that is not our standard policy, though it makes some silly people feel good about themselves. But, intentional ignorance, and political correctness applied to war, never serves anyone but our enemies. For many lefties, of course, serving our enemies is exactly the point behind their positions. Self-hate and illusory guilt tend to do that.

Charles Martel on December 18, 2008 at 7:45 AM

Thanks, Charles. I’ll tell you, I use the term “progress” in the classic sense. It is a shame that the left has stolen the term and abused it for their own purposes – which tend to be anti-progress and organized more towards the stagnation of civilization – but I am trying to put the old meaning back into the word.

My view is that the progress of Man, the technological and intellectual progress – our growth – should be our highest priority, bar none, and thoughts of peace are secondary considerations, at best, especially as we have no control over enemies deciding to threaten us and drag us into war. This means, for me, that victory certainly becomes the main goal in any military campaign, once our progress is threatened and war is engaged. It is unfortunate that, post-WWII, the US switched from this view, which just about all used to hold, to one of “not losing” as our main military doctrine – yet another piece of emotional fallout from the traumas we (Truman, specifically) suffered fighting WWII.

The US has been under attack for far too long now without responding properly to deter it. Violent jihad has been emboldened by our government’s lack of response. The culture that breeds this supremist cult loathes weakness and respects nothing but projection of power and bloody reprisal. Nothing else will stop them which is the lesson Israel learned long ago. Therefore I don’t flinch too much when regime changes happen and Gitmo detainees are forced to listen to Sesame Street music…at least for the time being.

Look at our economy and sad state of government. If we were to experience another attack equal to or worse than 9/11…it would be all over folks (IMO).

First, debates about torture and it’s efficacy don’t make a whole lot of sense without first defining what counts as torture and what counts as success.

I know people that consider it torture if at any time the prisoner thinks that they are at risk of bodily harm or death regardless of whether or not you ever lay a hand on them. Beyond that, I’ve heard torture defined to be anything from sleep deprivation (apparently in college I was being tortured by the dorm next door to mine) to extreme physical acts like pulling out finger nails and burning people.

By leaving it undefined, we can’t be sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing on the same things. I might argue that torture is fine as necessary and define torture as well-controlled pain designed to get a person to speak. You might say that torture is never permitted but only define torture to mean sadistic physical harm. In this case, we’d agree, but never know it because I say “Yes, torture!” and you say, “Never torture!”.

———————

As for my stance, I’m for using any and all techniques that have been shown to work.

I would place the following three limits:

1) There must be reasonable evidence that the harm that can be prevented is greater than the harm that will be committed to get information. In other words, you can’t rip someone’s fingernails off slowly in order to get them to tell you where an AQ driver’s wife’s sister’s grocer lives. If it’s a ticking bomb scenario and lives hang in the balance, everything’s permitted (assuming there is evidence it might work to get the target to speak).

2) You can’t torture innocent people to get guilty people to talk. No burning elderly parents or children with hot pokers in order to convince someone to talk. However, you can feel free to make someone think that you are torturing their loved-ones as I don’t have any issue with psychological torture being used on the guilty person either. Whatever works.

3) Start with the lowest level of torture that would likely be successful in the given time. There is no need to jump straight to skinning a man alive slowly when you could easily be successful with sleep deprivation.