Monday, October 23, 2006
|
|
Waterboarding: How Does It Make You Feel?
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
5:29 PM
|
|
I'm assuming that Al Gore's Current TV is assuming that my reaction to this video should be horror--HORROR!
Allah has video of a couple of professional interrogators demonstrating a waterboarding.
I am unmoved. In fact, I'm so unmoved that I wonder why Current thought this would be an effective way to illustrate the barbarity of the Bush administration. Rather, it demonstrates that the Left's hyperventilating over this has been taken to a simply silly level. After many minutes of off-and-on waterboarding (torture, as they'd have you believe), the subject is still speaking clearly and calmly. That guy, it should be remembered, is a SEAL, so he's tougher than most, but I still can't say I feel all that bad about doing this to suspected terrorists.
The kind of guys who killed Daniel Pearl.
Ace is with me on this.
Milblogger Uncle Jimbo has been through these coercive interrogation techniques himself, during SERE training:
Tens of thousands of troops have been through this training and yet somehow the idea that we do these same things to the scum who murder innocents in order to protect innocents is beyond the pale. BS. Why don't we just institute the jihadi draft, make them members of the military and give them a little Resistance love. They have earned it and we can't afford to miss a single tidbit of intel that could help us send more of them along to Allah.
Bottom line is coercive interrogation techniques are proper and should be employed and the line drawn at causing permanent damage to the mind or body. Temporary suffering, degradation, humiliation and even distress are acceptable to me and I believe we should formally state that these are approved for high value prisoners. I also think we should hint that we might even do worse, in a nudge, nudge, wink , wink kinda' way to increase their effectiveness, while stating for the cameras that "The US never sanctions the use of torture".
Read the whole thing.
|
|
Good points. I'm not sure I have good answers.
Your points above are as well reasoned as mine, and I can't directly counter them with respect to religious people vs. secular progressives.
Where I was going was more to western society as a whole. I don't know that it is pronounced enough to split segments of the society other than in some issues that seem to be owned by the "Religious Right". Such as the stem cell, Terri Schaivo, and abortion controversies.
You make me think D.
Thank you
|
|
This is completely off topic but your post made me think about a few things and for that I thank you.
One of the things that immediately sprang to mind was the realization that the fascination and belief in the sanctity of life, that the "Religious Right" espouses doesn't quite parrallel the teachings and philosophies of Christ. He brought the gift of eternal life, and worldly life, although a great gift, was puny by comparison.
The only explanation that I can come up with for the supremacy that western society places on human life is the secular influence and philosophy that "maybe this is all there is."
If one believs in eternal life, then murder is merely grand larceny. Stealing a very small amount your time. Kinda like what a telemarketer does when they call you at home.
Does that mean I can shoot telemarketers?
Does that explain why I would like to shoot telemarkers? |
|
As I understand it, and I'm certainly no scholar here:
Jesus did not value worldly life the way western society does today. He valued the immortal soul and preached that worldy life, in and of itself, was almost valuless by comparison. Rather it was one's belief and their faith in acting on that belief that had value.
Would he use torture? I think he would be able to find a better alternative to save those lives. He is rather famous for his powers of persuasion.
I think anyone would use another method if they could find one. My position is that in the abscence of another method, and lacking that ability to persuade, that you do the best you can. |
|
Follow my logic ...
If you value human life.
Even if you are stupid enough to value all human life equally....
then 1 life is worth less than two lives.
All of the pain, misery, and fear that one life can hold is worth less than two lives.
Anything I do to one individual, be he innocent or guilty, even if it results in his death or permanent disbility, is a good trade if it saves two lives.
The KGB, Chinese, and N Vietnamese have been accused of many things, but ineffective interrogation is not one of them. If you knew something they wanted to know, then before they were through with you, they knew it as well.
While it is certainly true that people who are tortured will always attempt to lie to stop the pain, it is just as true that they will eventually tell the truth when that doesn't work.
The complication of having to wade through the lies (usually obvious ones, people being tortured lose some of their ability to finess.) does not detract much from the value of the life saving information that you can get.
Torture is not used indiscriminately because that doesn't work well and is inefficient. It is very targeted, methodical, and scientific. When done properly it yields good results. It is not used (by the US) to get confessions, because we don't care if you admit to something we already know. And we're not going to start broadcasting terrorist confessions on TV. It is used to get intelligence that can save lives.
If you value all human life equally, and that guy in your power knows something that will save lives, then you will find the moral courage to extract the information as best you can, no matter how much it personally horrifies you to do it.
If you follow a more conventional philosophy that the life of a murderer is worth less than the life of an innocent, then you don't even need these high order math skills. This is usually not the case however, since the favorite target of most of our current guests happens to be large groups of Iraqi civilians.
Ugly, but nature can be as ugly as she is beautiful. |
|
|
I was lampooning scooternyc harsh style. I find it amusing how easily such extreme statements can be made to say the complete opposite by changing a few words. I feel such exercises show the ridiculousness of some commenter by contrast. |
|
"Moral relativism does not follow political lines. There are moral-relativist liberals as well as conservatives."
This is true. But conservatives are always accusing liberals of being moral relativists and (as people have no doubt noticed) I like to turn conservative arguments around and point out that they are themselves what they claim to despise.
So sure there are moral-relativist liberals who think that something is bad when we do it but OK when a left-wing government does it. But the real danger now comes from moral-relativist conservatives who think that torture is OK as long as it's the right kind of torture of the wrong kind of people.
Oh, and let's face it: your thing about my post being an A or potentially an A+? You're wrong. I suck. Ask anybody. |
|
That was an excellent post making an intelligent argument about your opinion that I can agree to disagree with.
I would have given it an "A+" if it word conservative had been left out. Moral relativism does not follow political lines. There are moral-relativist liberals as well as conservatives. |
|
Mary K:
Of course there's a distinction between one kind of torture and another. I don't disagree that torture that leaves permanent physical scars is the worst kind. But other kinds of torture, while not *as* bad as the worst kinds of torture, are *still bad.*
I don't believe in "nuance" or moral relativism when it comes to torture. Either it's morally wrong, or it's not. And I believe that torture is morally wrong, because unlike moral-relativist conservatives, I believe that some things are right and others are wrong. |
|
|
We're you responding to scooternyc with that last part or just parroting him? It's unclear. If my above comment doesn't apply to what you were saying, that's why. It occurred to me I might have misread you. |
|
This video means, U.S.A = N. Korea, according to you?
Where's all the nuance? Surely you recognize that there's a distinction between coercive interrogation methods that leave no permanent marks or harm used in a very narrow section of cases, and a totalitarian government's indiscriminate use of much, much, much worse tactics. Or, do you really not? |
|
|
Oh, it's just the IQ level on this thread dropping through the floor... |
|
Really? For the life of me, I can’t understand why you are not out there killing them now. Even as a civilian or a wounded ex-marine, I’m sure you have the wear-with-all to get the job done. Just get to Iraq and kill someone, anyone since it obviously doesn’t matter too much. I’m sure if you kill enough Iraqis that you’re bound to save at least one American life.
As for the rest, the video sounds like a joke, but torture isn’t. I’m sure that with time and technique I could get most of you (not you Lifer) to confess to just about anything. The funny part is when you start to name neighbors or old acquaintances as accomplices.
scooternyc:
I know all you’re a self-righteous type who wants to moralize all the behavior, but that's your style, you’d rather stay alive and live my life no matter who suffers.
If you don't like the idea of people opposing torture to get information, I suggest you rescind your American citizenship and move to North Korea, live amongst those that eat dirt and leaf soup, have cataract(sp)surgery at 22 years of age, and don't even know that a man has landed on the moon. After all, torture is routine business there.
|
|
|
Why should I leave when I'm upholding American values? You're the one who hates what America stands for (freedom, fair trials, avoiding torture), and so *you* should go over to a dictatorship where you'd feel more at home. The stuff you want -- throwing people in prison without trial and torturing them -- is stuff that is common in North Korea, Iran, China. Because you hate America, you want America to be more like the dictatorships you admire. |
|
Yeah, I think it would be a good idea if you were one of those people who rescinds their citizenship and gets the h*ll out.
I'd be happy to start the fund that gets you a one-way ticket to North Korea, Iran, China, go ahead, pick one.
The rest of your writing is like a whining baby, what a wuss you are! |
|
...then you have no worries. It stands to reason. Don't get stuck on stupid!
Yeah, the days of your J.Edgar Hoover conspiracies is over, so you can unblock the windows and come outside to see the sun. You loon! |
|
...What if somebody is *not* a terrorist?
You just seem incapable of understanding that just because the government throws a man in prison without a trial, that doesn't make him a terrorist. Only someone who worships Big Government would believe that there are no innocent people in Gitmo.
As for the rest of it, you're just a coward, and you are willing to trade away everything that makes America great in order to feel a wee bit safer. That's the way things usually are with authoritarian types: they say they'll trade away freedom in order for the government to "protect" them. But America was founded on the basis that there are more important things than avoiding risk -- a republic was a much riskier form of government than dictatorship or monarchy -- and if you really think torture is OK if it helps you avoid risk, then you don't love America. |
|
...and has information we need to know, I don't care how they get the information.
I know all you self-righteous types want to moralize all the behavior, but that's your issue, I'd rather stay alive and live my life.
If you don't like the idea of torture to get information, I suggest you rescind your American citizenship and move to North Korea, live amongst those that eat dirt and leaf soup, have cataract(sp)surgury at 22 years of age, and don't even know that a man has landed on the moon.
In other words, get the f*ck outta here! |
|
There you go again stating your opinion as fact:
“The problem with the Bush administration is that they have made torture the *default interrogation method* for anybody they capture”
I’m sorry, you know this how? You don’t for a second think they might treat individuals differently based on the information known about them, associates, where captured, who captured them, etc ???
“belief that anyone the government throws in prison must be a ‘terrorist’"
I don’t recall reading anyone claim that here.
“Same way cops get information out of a guy who knows when the bank robbery will go down”
Oh, yeah… That’ll work
"And yes, sometimes cops go beyond the call of duty and start slapping the suspect around, and his colleagues tend to agree to look the other way and not report it if he doesn't make a habit of it.”
Been watching a little too much TV?
We can be slightly barbaric now, or tremendously barbaric later – take your pick. The terrorists won’t stop until they are defeated – they are determined to destroy or indoctrinate all “infidels” (that includes you). Their successes are what get them new recruits and embolden them – regardless of the BS reasons they use to blame us. We can use the information we get from interrogations to stop them, or we can let them be successful in further attacks on us. If that continues to happen, we will be left with no choice but to give up our current attempts of liberating enemy states and go back to the historically tried and tested method of destroying enemy states. Would you prefer that? Hmmm?
|
|
Just because the murderers of Daniel Pearl are more barbaric than you, doesn't mean you're not barbaric. Your advocacy of torture, and your belief that anyone the government throws in prison must be a "terrorist," is barbaric; low-level barbarism perhaps, but still contrary to basic Western values.
"You are in control of our intelligence-gathering operations. How do you get the information out of a hardened terrorist knowing he has information that will save the lives of our troops or our citizens?"
Same way cops get information out of a guy who knows when the bank robbery will go down. And yes, sometimes cops go beyond the call of duty and start slapping the suspect around, and his colleagues tend to agree to look the other way and not report it if he doesn't make a habit of it.
The problem with the Bush administration is that they have made torture the *default interrogation method* for anybody they capture, whether it's a "hardened terrorist" or just some poor schmuck the Afghan government handed to them. It would be like a cop who beats up every single suspect. And there's a name for that: a rogue cop. |
|
"Go to Oprah"
"Go to Oprah"
"Go to Oprah"
"Go to Oprah"
"Go to Oprah"
"Go to Oprah"
"Go to Oprah"
"Go to Oprah" |
|
The point is not what our enemies do or don't do. It's what we want ourselves to be.
I don't think this belongs in our playbook. |
|
|
I forgot the 'barbarians' comment. Seems it already has. |
|
"False confessions are not worth bending our morals. If you love your neighbor, you don't waterboard him. And don't tell me the terrorists aren't your neighbors, or aren't human, "db". They're as human as you are, especially since you're so eager to cause other people pain in revenge for what you only suspect they've done. Al Qaeda did what they did in revenge for what they thought we had done to them. Don't be like them. Forgiveness, not revenge, is the Christian way."
These are all platitudes. They don't have any useful purpose other than to make you feel good saying them. Here's a test: What would you suggest doing to attain information from a suspected terrorist in order to save lives? Eating s'mores, holding hands around the campfire, and singing 'Kum By Yah' is not going to do the trick, nor is it going to deter others from brutally mistreating our soldiers caught in battle.
scooter,
This is a typical lib reaction (Page 1, section B from the playbook). Spout off on some nonsensical, emotional rant meant to mock those you disagree with instead of offering anything productive. And the reason you don't offer anything productive is because you don't *have* anything productive to offer. Just waiting for the name-calling to begin... |
|
|
The real question is: if this were done to our soldiers, would you consider it torture? |
|
...we're being so rude, mean, and uncaring. We should offer to the terrorists all the Democrats they would like to slice their heads off, rape, cut their eyes out, cut off the male's d*cks and stick them in their mouths, and then drag them through the streets.
We should have a website sign up for Democrats who are opposition sympathizers and offer them free air transportation over to Iraq so we can make this easier on all of us.
I'm sure this would suffice for the time being and the terrorists would certainly leave us alone, if not for a while, maybe forever. One could only hope. |
|
Forgiveness is the Christian way. Failure to protect yourself, your family, and your Christian way of life is not. The ability to do both at the same time is the difficult line we have to walk.
I don’t “suspect” that the vile, inhuman, sadistic, godless, perverse, freedom-hating, Christian-hating torturers and killers of Daniel Pearl committed that act. Nor do I condone any act of “revenge” against them. I whole-heartedly support, condone, and expect that every bit of intelligence information possible be extracted from them by effective means necessary that falls short of torture in order to protect as many lives as possible. I’m sure our definitions of “effective” and “short of torture” differ to some degree, and that is what compromise is all about. Those responsible must then face _justice_ – not revenge. A Christian must also try to forgive them and pray for their souls.
Justice and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive. The ability to carry them both out properly requires wisdom and strength of Spirit. It is the failure to do either that would be our downfall.
|
|
Miss Contrary,
Suppose I don't claim to love my neighbor ?
By your logic, would I then have the green light to waterboard ?
After all, I wouldn't then be violating any of your religious tenets.
Secondly, this is NOT an episode of "NYPD Blue" where the Dennis Franz character is a little over-the-top in attempting to intimidate some wise-cracking punk with a heroin addiction into signing a confession to a carjacking.
The terrorists in detention are NOT necessarily suspected of having perpetrated anything other than being combatants, and our boys are not attempting to coerce them into confessing to having committed any crimes; rather, our boys are trying to get information out of them---logistical, intel, names, & locations which will be helpful to countering their 'insurgency.'
Vital intel may enable us to stop a planned bombing, which will save innocent lives.
Let me reduce this into one simple sentence for you; we're trying to get intel, not signed confessions to 9/11.
And it's not about 'revenge,' it's about self-defense against an international terrorist network which promises to wipe us off the face of the earth.
Madame, we're interested in seeing Americans protected from the terrorists, while it appears you're more interested in protecting the terrorists from America. |
|
"You are not conservatives. You are barbarians."
The barbarians are the terrorists who killed Daniel Pearl. Get it?
Waterboarding is much too tame for these scum. Something liberals will never understand as their idea of torture is plucking nose hair or eyebrows.
Or listening to common sense.
We should never debate, discuss, converse or otherwise negotiate with these animals. They do not think like us and have no regard whatsoever for human life.
Waterboarding is much too civilized for them.
When they kill one of ours we should kill 10 of theirs. It's the only thing that will get their attention. The only thing they understand.
Approach them as a civilized human being and they look at you as weak and inconsequential. Which is exactly why liberals should never...ever be in charge of the war on terror or our national security.
When these animals come to cut your silly liberal head off, you better hope there are a few of us "barbarians" around to save your sorry butt.
|
|
|
|
The effectiveness of torture has been proven over and over in history to be almost nil. If you actually torture someone, many people will confess to whatever they think you want to hear, whether or not they did it. This leads to the *real* perpetrators going free because nobody suspects them anymore.
False confessions are not worth bending our morals. If you love your neighbor, you don't waterboard him. And don't tell me the terrorists aren't your neighbors, or aren't human, "db". They're as human as you are, especially since you're so eager to cause other people pain in revenge for what you only suspect they've done. Al Qaeda did what they did in revenge for what they thought we had done to them. Don't be like them. Forgiveness, not revenge, is the Christian way. |
|
|
you are in control of our intelligence-gathering operations. How do you get the information out of a hardened terrorist knowing he has information that will save the lives of our troops or our citizens? |
|
And I'm not sure I consider the actual terrorists that killed Daniel Perl human beings.
|
|
"Suspected terrorists" didn't kill Daniel Pearl.
Actual terrorists killed Daniel Pearl.
The people we're doing this not-torture to tend to fall into the former category. If you can't distinguish between "terrorist" and "guy the Government says might be a terrorist," then your love of Big Government has clearly driven you to the brink of BDS (Bush Defense Syndrome).
As for the rest of it, need I explain to you the difference between being waterboarded by someone you know is on your side (the army trainers) and someone who you fear may try to hurt you or even kill you? The point of waterboarding these suspects -- which is to say, often innocent people -- is to induce fear and terror and cause them great mental distress, even drive them mad.
And all you can do is laugh at the suffering of human beings.
You are not conservatives. You are barbarians. |
|
|
|