Torture
Here are some disjointed thoughts on torture.
First, Andrew Sullivan:
One reason I became a conservative was because as a teenager in the 1970s, conservatives seemed the only people to grasp the true evil of the Sovet Union. At the core of its evil was its deployment of torture to break free people's souls and to obliterate their liberty by the brute force of the state. Now conservatives are the ones justifying torture - by the United States. They have become what they once fought. Unchecked power does that to you.
Help me with the parallelism here - Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a free person and the United States is trying to break his soul just to uhh, quash his thirst for freedom? I wonder what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would say about that?
Powerline defends waterboarding; personally, I haven't read anything about waterboarding that makes me think I would find it to be especially terrifying - intellectually I appreciate the reports that most people submit in less than a minute, but emotionally, I don't feel it.
And I do not say that because I harbor any sort of illusions about being a "tough guy". Frankly, I think that if threatened with torture I would fold up like a cheap suitcase. In fact, let me be more emphatic - I think I would fold up in a way that would burnish the reputation of cheap suitcases. But "torture" for me is more like the Winston Smith with the rat/face-cage scenario from "1984" - ghastly and permanent trumps ghastly but transient.
As I recall, John McCain said something similar about some of the stress positions inflicted on him by the North Vietnamese, where a prisoners arms would be bent up behind his back. McCain's point was that, yes, it is painful but after a while the prisoner's arms go numb and the prisoner starts to worry about how much permanent damage is being done to him; some airman would have numb arms and shoulders for months afterward.
Well. Back to Andrew for a link to David Corn for a post title "This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like". Corn's theme is that waterboarding was the torture of choice for the Khmer Rouge and he offers some pictures as evidence.
Well, if a picture is worth a thousand words, this will be one of my longest posts. Here is Vann Nath, an artist and former prisoner of the Khmer Rouge, and his drawings of various Khmer Rouge tortures (one of his pictures appears without credit in the Corn post, presumably through no fault of Mr. Corn).
So, let's play Find the Waterboard! Not here; not here; not here; not here; not here; not here. Hmm, those Khmer Rouge had a wide variety of nasty, didn't they? I don't think I am going to rank "waterboarding" at the top of the list offered by Vann Nath.
Let me lurch in a different direction:
Lou DiMarco (Lieutenant Colonel, USA Ret.) is a faculty member at the US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he teaches military history and courses on urban warfare and warfare in the Middle East.
Here is a paper he offered on torture as it related to the French experience in Algeria. One snippet highlights the absurdity of my own little exercise in attempting to estimate my own pain threshold:
...some French officers subjected themselves to electric shock to ensure they understood the level of violence they were applying to prisoners. What these officers did not understand was the huge difference between pain inflicted in a limited, controlled manner without psychological stress, and pain inflicted in an adversarial environment where the prisoner is totally under the control of the captor.
Well, yes. Let's also note that the French were a bit indiscriminate:
...many French commanders tolerated or encouraged widespread and often random torture. By one estimate, 40 percent of the adult male Muslim population of Algiers (approximately 55,000 individuals) were put through the French interrogation system and either tortured or threatened with torture between 1956 and 1957. This action likely irrevocably alienated the entire 600,000 Muslim population of the city from the French cause.
My understanding is that the CIA will be employing "coercive interrogation" only with high value prisoners.

My understanding is that the CIA will be employing "coercive interrogation" only with high value prisoners.
I always thought that conservatives hated moral relativism.
Posted by: TexasToast | September 29, 2006 at 10:29 PM
Well, we know Corn's a liar, and Sullivan has a peculiar thing about "torture". Did he go to one of those British boarding schools?
Posted by: clarice | September 29, 2006 at 10:37 PM
I always thought that conservatives hated moral relativism.
Indeed, we are. No relativism involved here since we believe that the treatment involved here is not immoral.
Let me ask you Toast, as a lefty, do you think FDR's incarceration of 75,000 Japanese Americans was equivalent to the Nazi's roundup of millions of Jews and other "untermenschen"?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | September 29, 2006 at 10:37 PM
TT, you're right. Equating a cold room or loud music with torture is the worst kind of moral relativism.
Posted by: MayBee | September 29, 2006 at 10:37 PM
The fun will begin when Larry "Some of my best friends are assassins" Johnson weighs in with how awful this bill is.
Posted by: MayBee | September 29, 2006 at 10:39 PM
Equating a cold room or loud music with torture is the worst kind of moral relativism.
Bingo.
The moral relativism here is by those who equate the US's treatment of a few dozen terrorists who've declared war on us with the imprisonment and slaughter of tens of millions by the Soviet Union.
Now, there's moral relativism.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | September 29, 2006 at 10:41 PM
TT's confusion may be the result of growing up without any moral relatives.
Posted by: boris | September 29, 2006 at 10:43 PM
One of my coworkers once posted a link to a page describing medieval torture techniques. I made the mistake of clicking on it and reading it. Nothing that has been officially approved by the US government has been even remotely close to torture.
There have been cases of torture against enemy prisoners. There have also been cases of Americans torturing their children. Other Americans have tortured their wives. Real, horrific torture. The Sullivans of this country and their puerile braying attempting to "define torture up" is an insult to all of the victims of real torture.
Posted by: cathyf | September 29, 2006 at 10:43 PM
OT:The House version of the bill approving and funding the building of a U.S./Mexico border wall has overwhelmingly passed the Senate, according to KFI News.
Posted by: clarice | September 29, 2006 at 10:43 PM
Poor Andrew. He wrote one of the best, if not the best justifications I have seen for the humanitarian intervention in Iraq, but then lost his mind when Bush came out against homosexual marriage.
Posted by: Terry Gain | September 29, 2006 at 10:54 PM
Exactly.
Posted by: clarice | September 29, 2006 at 10:56 PM
Torture has basically been redifined as forcing somebody to tell you things that they'd rather not. It's funny in a sad sort of way. It kind of fits though, the left would really rather not know what's coming. That way they can't be blamed if something happens. The less you know.......
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 29, 2006 at 10:56 PM
I used to think a good torture would be to make the detainees watch Oprah 24/7 but I read the other day they love her in Gitmo.
GO figure.
Posted by: clarice | September 29, 2006 at 11:03 PM
It seems some bodyguards of the Sunni bloc were working for the terrorists and were planning a multiple suicide bombing extravaganza in the green zone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30sunni.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The Iraqis (not us) will undoubtedly be questioning the suspects.
Those rounded up will wish it were otherwise.
Posted by: clarice | September 29, 2006 at 11:09 PM
I once emailed Andrew Sullivan to ask if it would be abusive to our prisoners to read pro-gay marriage literature to them, or to tell them their guards were gay men.
Posted by: MayBee | September 29, 2006 at 11:10 PM
ask if it would be abusive to our prisoners to read pro-gay marriage literature to them,
Well, it would certainly be torture for me.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 29, 2006 at 11:12 PM
Lets score the reactions to "moral reletivism"
Everyone knows how fair the scorekeeper is!
Clarice - ad hom on Sullivan -2
SMG - the Nazis were worse! -5 (Godwin - mega moral relativism)
MayBee - its not that bad -3 (I would also defame the reputation of cheap suitcases)
MayBee - Larry Johnson? -1 (ad hom or Huh)?
SMG - the Soviets were worse! -2
Boris - ad hom on the scorekeeper! -27
CathyF - its not that bad - -0 (I liked the medeval bit - but we really don't know, do we?)
Terry Gain - Faggots - -52 (that is why Sully went nuts!)
Clarice - Exactly ????????
Pofarmer - the left is silly - -3
Total?
drumroll
I'm afraid it is rather negative - I will spare you the results.
Thanks for playing! ;)
Posted by: TexasToast | September 29, 2006 at 11:23 PM
Now it would be one thing if we were talking about Khalid Sheik Mohammed only people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed being tortured by professionals--like those who worked in the Tower of London for James I & VI and broke Guy Fawkes.
But that's not what we're talking about, are we? We're talking about torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed and perhaps a thousand others, low-value targets some of whom are like Maher Arar. And we're talking about them being tortured by amateurs desperate to produce things that coincide with what their political masters like Dick Cheney want to hear.
And everyone we torture has relatives.
And we are strongest when we are the good guys, not B-movie heavies, or worse.
Torture: it's not just an international crime, it's a bad idea.
Posted by: Bradford DeLong | September 29, 2006 at 11:27 PM
We're talking about torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed and perhaps a thousand others, low-value targets some of whom are like Maher Arar. And we're talking about them being tortured by amateurs desperate to produce things that coincide with what their political masters like Dick Cheney want to hear.
Hey, Tom, can you delete this like DeLong does regularly at his site?
Because we're in deep fantasy land here.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | September 29, 2006 at 11:31 PM
I'm afraid it is rather negative - I will spare you the results.
You need to "cc" a copy to Sullivan.
So, FDR isn't Hitler and Bush isn't Stalin, right?
Hmm, what's the Soviet/Stalin equivalent of the Hitler analogy/Godwin's law?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | September 29, 2006 at 11:34 PM
a cold room or loud music
Careful MayBee. We don't want anyone to cry or suffer from lowered self esteem. We'd better order them some more Subway and try to be more understanding.
But perhaps we could make some lemonade out of all of this. Openly admit gays to the military but only as MPs or HUMINT Collectors. Turn Guantanamo into a year round Pride Parade.
Everything these people eat, sleep on, what have you will have been touched by homosexuals. Everytime they take a shower, they are being watched by homosexuals. Reinstitute periodic strip searches.
And every interrogation starts with the words, "You know, I've been checking you out..."
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 29, 2006 at 11:36 PM
The fun will begin when Larry "Some of my best friends are assassins" Johnson weighs in with how awful this bill is....
He did not say this, did he?
I dunno, I do not buy the torture - secret prison (NSA or swift, for that matter) BS has any moral grounding on the part of the Dems, it's all about undermining, lying scratching their way into power, fed to them by self-interest protecting rogues who realize it's much easier to be bad when Dems are in power...
CIA rendition, torture and worse has always happened via CIA and will continue just the same, regardless of this feel-good legislation....and we will only hear someone breached it when the LEAK-O-crats decide it might hurt a republican and throw the person under the bus in order to hurt the politician.
The only thing the leak-o-crats didn't realize is Bush is right, the enemy has figured out they can exploit our fubar ACLU liberal legal system and "SUE" - yeah, this option is available to all the prisoners nursing the fingerless hands in some skank prison cell in those free societies of Iran or Syria. -- and so they help the enemy again
Posted by: topsecretk9 | September 29, 2006 at 11:36 PM
Openly admit gays to the military but only as MPs or HUMINT Collectors. Turn Guantanamo into a year round Pride Parade.
HEH!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | September 29, 2006 at 11:41 PM
I think the "one reason" why Andrew 'light in the loafers, not that there is anything wrong with that' Sullivan "became a conservative" was so he could start out his GOP bashing stories (99.9% of his repertoire) with "One reason I became a conservative was..."
Was doesn't he just disavow his so-called conservative credentials so he can be happy with the rest of the America-hatin' lefties?
Posted by: Tutti McFruity | September 29, 2006 at 11:41 PM
Oh! and we could rename Guantanamo to:
The Birdcage.
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 29, 2006 at 11:42 PM
You know, we could ask Andrew Sullivan to the Detainee Czar!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | September 29, 2006 at 11:42 PM
Perhaps, as a PR tool, the CIA should offer a "pool" reporter the option of undergoing "waterboarding."
But why should the reporters have all the fun. Maybe 6 Flags or Disneyworld could offer a "waterboarding" ride.
Posted by: Neo | September 29, 2006 at 11:42 PM
Neo:
Disneyland is worse than waterboarding.
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 29, 2006 at 11:44 PM
But it would make for an interesting "Muslim Day".
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 29, 2006 at 11:45 PM
Pol Pot killed 3 million Cambodians but its the waterboarding that demonstrates the evil of the bastard?
I haven't gotten that deep into the onion yet.
Posted by: Sweetie | September 29, 2006 at 11:45 PM
The military appropriations bill passed 100-0. What do you think that does to the NYT's "bucking the President" theme? To the cut and run message? LOL
Posted by: clarice | September 29, 2006 at 11:46 PM
Sorry, TS. I should have been more accurate about Johnson's descriptions of his friends. They hunted down and killed Pablo Escobar and ME terrorists.
Posted by: MayBee | September 29, 2006 at 11:48 PM
Waterboarding works because without gills, one cannot breath underwater. If one lacks oxygen, you die.
Thus, waterboarding IS torture. The question isn't "is this necessary?' but "is it effective?" Having answered this in the affirmative, the next question is "how can it only be used rarely?" Eliminating military use, which has been done, is a good step.
But how does this bill and its resoluation make its use rarer still? I hope it does, but still allows its occaisional use. War forces us to accept a utilitarian "for the greater good" standard of morality. It is anothr reason why wars ought to waged only reluctantly.
Honesty makes me accept this.
While there are "slippery slope" concerns, I hope this battle between executive and congressional views makes torture rarely used.
Posted by: Orson | September 29, 2006 at 11:51 PM
Disneyland is worse than waterboarding.
NO COME ON RED...your worse than this when it comes to joy and merriment and leetle childrens!!!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | September 29, 2006 at 11:52 PM
TexasToast
Where did I say anything about faggots? I was simply noting something that is obvious to someone who read Andrew carefully, both before and after.
Faggot is your word, not mine. I happen to believe sexuality is innate and not a matter of choice or environment. I have never used derogatory terms to describe a person's God-given sexuality. So, TT you're just acting like a liberal: jumping to conclusions.
And on that score Delong does you one better when he says we are talking about torture and low value targets. Perhaps under a Democratic administration that's what we would be talking about, but right now we're talking about the most effective way to interrogate terrorists in order to learn information so we can disrupt and destroy the enemy, win the war and and save lives.
It's not clear to me why liberals think they can fool us into thinking they are concerned about terrorists rights when we know they are just playing politics.
Posted by: Terry Gain | September 29, 2006 at 11:54 PM
They hunted down and killed Pablo Escobar and ME terrorists.
Oh, yeah..that's right...rendition and murder! They were WAY above a chapter or 2 of Harry Potter!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | September 29, 2006 at 11:54 PM
TSK9:
Six words–
It's A Small World After All
I rest my case.
In fact, if I were running Guantanamo, that song would be piped in 24/7.
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 29, 2006 at 11:55 PM
I wonder if the outlawed the "comfy chair"
Ximinez: Confess! Confess! Confess!
Biggles: It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord.
Ximinez: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
Biggles: Yes, lord.
Ximinez [angrily hurling away the cushions]: Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!
Posted by: Neo | September 29, 2006 at 11:58 PM
TT: MayBee - its not that bad -3 (I would also defame the reputation of cheap suitcases)
Who says it's not "that bad"? I think it'd be tremendously uncomfortable to be sleep deprived, and it would be awful to be cold and terrifying to be waterboarded. But we're not playing a game of "Let's not be that bad". What I find comfortable, unpleasant, or even awful shouldn't be the standard by which we define torture.
For the record, yes, I would be an embarrassment to cheap suitcases. Which is why I don't plan on engaging in any terrorist activities.
TT: MayBee - Larry Johnson? -1 (ad hom or Huh)?
ad hom. Taking away my ad hom Larry Johnson attacks would be torture.
Posted by: MayBee | September 29, 2006 at 11:58 PM
TM,
Has Mr. Sullivan ever explicity answered the question asked of him by many others as to what forms of coercion he would sanction to obtain actionable intelligence from a known enemy or combatant?
Is the argument that no coercive measures may ever be taken, by anyone, at any time?
If this is true I believe it only fair for Mr. Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Biden, Mr. Levin, et al to come right out and loudly proclaim so.
If not, then it is equally necessary and appropriate, as the President has asked Congress as those in the position of making law, and those that feel themselves in a position to comment, to explicity determine what is and what is not allowable.
Posted by: MTT | September 30, 2006 at 12:00 AM
In fact, if I were running Guantanamo, that song would be piped in 24/7.
I see your vays...although..."What I got I got to get it put it in you...not stop please continue" is simply devilishly devine too!
THE COMFY CHAIR!
Neo, it was the "BIG comfy couch", and it was so very teh lame, wasn't it?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | September 30, 2006 at 12:04 AM
The truth of it boils down to whether any of the detractors of some sort of reasonable "coercive interrogation" would ever act to recind their use if they were the POTUS at war with a bunch of suicidial nutcases.
Posted by: Neo | September 30, 2006 at 12:04 AM
Neo...my bad, forgot about monty python...sorry. The Big Comfy couch did suck, though.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | September 30, 2006 at 12:06 AM
Once we have got the Comfy Chair, imagine a suicidial version of the "Blues Bothers" (on a mission from God) is in the chair.
Posted by: Neo | September 30, 2006 at 12:11 AM
Soylent- hilarious!
Posted by: MayBee | September 30, 2006 at 12:12 AM
I see your vays...although..."What I got I got to get it put it in you...not stop please continue" is simply devilishly devine too!
Particularly if played in a camp run entirely by homosexuals with an enormous sign over the gate saying "The Gayest Place on Earth".
Yep. I'd break before lunch.
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 30, 2006 at 12:13 AM
Red
I do believe you have just written an entire episode of South Park my friend...EN-Kaay!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | September 30, 2006 at 12:16 AM
Orson
If I'm not mistaken, waterboarding does *not* result in drowning as you suggest. It apparently creates a very effective *feeling* that one is drowning due to triggering of the gag reflex. I will be happy to be corrected if this isn't the case.
One of the reasons we cannot rationally discuss this is extreme, emotional and unsubstantiated assumptions like this.
Posted by: Another Bob | September 30, 2006 at 12:19 AM
Soylent--that is truly diabolical.
Maybe we could get the Manolo to do the new prison uniforms and footgear..
Posted by: clarice | September 30, 2006 at 12:21 AM
All done in black vinyl and rubber?
Talk about a policy that causes terrorism. We might see a distinct uptick in terrorist activity by readers of The Village Voice.
Just hoping they'll get caught.
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 30, 2006 at 12:25 AM