So Torture Me

If it weren't for high dudgeon Mark Kleiman would have no dudgeon at all - in a characteristically restrained and thoughtful post, Mr. Kleiman joins the torture discussion, quoting Abe Lincoln as follows:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

He then adds:

Just substitute "waterboarding" or "sleep deprivation" or "hypothermia" for "slavery."  This issue is dividing the actual conservatives from the cowardly sado-fascists who think it's fine if we imitate the KGB as long as we don't imitate the Spanish Inquisition. Apparently the sado-fascists constitute a majority of Republican primary voters.

Hmm.  Let's put a few substitute words in Abe's mouth:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for capital punishment, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

Or:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for abortion, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

My point - there are any number of pro-lifers or death penalty opponents who believe the state is sanctioning murder yet have come to terms with the possibility that not all the folks who disagree with them are monsters.  If Mr. Kleiman really believes that a majority of Republican primary voters are "sado-fascists", I would note that he is misunderestimating the problem; perhaps he ought to get a ticket to Canada.

But I would advise him not get too comfortable there:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

...The polling, in the United States and eight of its closest allies, found that in Canada, Mexico and Germany people are divided  on whether torture is ever justified. Most people opposed torture under any circumstances in Spain and Italy.

I suggest a ticket to sunny Spain, then.  Here are more polls from ABC News, and Harris.  According to ABC News, roughly 35 to 50 percent of Americans approve of some form of torture or physical abuse, depending on the method in question:

Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks. Thirty-five percent say torture is acceptable in some such cases.

There's more of a division, though, on physical abuse that falls short of torture: Forty-six percent say it's acceptable in some cases, while 52 percent say not.

Majorities identify three specific coercive practices as acceptable: sleep deprivation (66 percent call it acceptable), hooding (57 percent) and "noise bombing" (54 percent), in which a suspect is subjected to loud noises for long periods.

Far fewer Americans accept other practices. Four in 10 call it acceptable to threaten to shoot a suspect, or expose a suspect to extreme heat or cold. Punching or kicking is deemed acceptable by 29 percent. And 16 percent call sexual humiliation — alleged to have occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad — acceptable in some cases.

And Harris:

52 percent of all adults believe that the use of torture is justified either often (12%) or sometimes (40%).

I don't see a definition of torture here.  However, it appears that at least a third and perhaps more than half of Americans are sado-fascists.  Or as an alternative hypothesis, perhaps Mr. Kleiman's rhetoric is overheated, and the rest of us need to wait for the day when he can find the tolerance and calm reason practiced by some of the pro-lifers and death penalty opponents.

But let me add one last point, while Mr. Kleiman packs his bags.  George Tenet has said that the CIA enhanced interrogation program has uncovered plots and saved lives.  Who knows?

But on the subject of saving lives, if the day comes (and I can not imagine a scenario, but work with me) that a more-or-less innocent life could be saved if I personally agreed to be waterboarded or subject to sleep deprivation or hypothermia, then yes, I will volunteer.  Torture me, save a life?  Sign me up.  I don't know if that meets Abe Lincoln's imagined challenge, but it is the best I can do.

And although I agree to this it is hardly because I think I am a hero (my probable stature vis a vis cheap suitcases was discussed here.)  But per this helpful review composed by the always measured Mr. Djerejian, I infer that these three techniques are only transiently ghastly and should not result in permanent harm, whereas the life I saved would be, well, relatively permanent as lives go (Can I save a youngster?  Oh, forget I asked...).

I also very much doubt that I would be alone in volunteering for this highly improbable and totally abstract program; I am quite certain Mr. Kleiman would step forward and submit to this in order to save the life of a fellow American, even one of the many sado-fascistic ones.

MORE:  Let's hear more about Abe Lincoln:

Of particular note are Lieber’s, and ultimately Lincoln’s, views on the treatment of prisoners. Article 16 of the code boldly states: "Military necessity does not admit of cruelty--that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions.” All forms of cruelty against prisoners are prohibited. Even the code’s broad acceptance of military necessity does not provide a justification for torture.

Here are the orders - "terrorists" is not a separate category, but Al Qaeda certainly would not qualify as soldiers.  Article 82 seems like the best fit:

Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.

Spies are hung until dead; no word on highway robbers or pirates.

Comments

[MDP]

Hanged.

[Rick Ballard]

The Brits rule on pirates taken in the act was that they be given a summary (drumhead) court on the ship taking them with those unable to convince the ships master that they were pressed crew (unwilling participants) being hanged immediately following the hearing. Lincoln proposed to do precisely that with the privateers operating on letters of marque issued by the Confederacy but gave up the idea when Davis promised that Union POWs would be selected by lot and hanged in retribution.

I believe that highwaymen's treatment was dependent upon the jurisdiction. Early in the war Fremont was in Missouri and having a bit of trouble with irregulars and proposed hanging them after a drumhead court but Davis promised the same reprisal method. The practical outcome was that surrender by irregulars not wearing uniforms wasn't recognized - no prisoners, no problems.

If President Bush were to take Lincoln as his model regarding executive conduct during a time of conflict, then Kleiman would be sitting in a prison cell wondering when (or if) he were going to receive any hearing whatsoever. Lincoln didn't wear kid gloves when handling seditionists and traitors.

[huski]

Not so abstract or improbable if you count the members of our volunteer military who sign up for service that requires SERE training

[bdcook]

The problem with the argument that because we may - or may not - use the same techniques that the Soviets DID use makes us all morally equivalent is in the nature of the victims. Where the NKVD-types used it systematically on their own citizens who had violated excessively broad articles of the law [Article 58 covered political crimes] interpreeted for the express purpose of controlling a population through terror. If the US is using these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, it is on captured foreign fighters engaged in a war against us while remaining unburdened by uniforms and intermixing with the civilian population.

[PeterUK.]

It would be interesting to hear from the opposers of enhanced interrogation just what they would permit beyond,
"Good Morning,I'm your interrogator for today,any complaints,food OK?"

"You object to Corporal Kawinski,because she is a woman?"

"OK,we'll have her reassigned".

"Anything else?"

"Right,what do you know about the bomb"?

"Yes .I understand the Great Satan should be wiped off the map,believe me anything to oblige,but it's against regulations"

"So you don't know anything about the bomb? OK I'll take your word for it.Please fill in the complaints form,have a nice day".

[seamus]

It is interesting how the Conservative movement has moved so easily toward Authoritarianism, and away from Libertarianism. Is it really a good idea to give our Military or Intelligence branches the the power to torture people? The same type of fallible human beings who run FEMA and the Gonzales Justice Department, and the Rovized GSA? Some of the people that ended up in Abu Graib and Guantanamo most assuredly are innocent, wrong place, wrong time. As a free Democracy we should not license this type of activity. It's corrosive to us. Any information obtained via torture is suspect. Probably useless. The ticking time bomb scenario is a terrible and most unlikely example to use to design a policy to abide by. We must assume that this is another power that will be abused and mis-used. Isn't that the lesson from history?

[Great Banana]

Of course, the problem with this debate is that they assume waterboarding, sleep deprivation and cold rooms are "torture" and proceed from there. I don't beleive any of those things are torture. Extremely uncomfortable, yes. Slightly painful, maybe. torture? No. AS I said on the last thread, I have been subject to sleep deprivation and extremely cold conditions. While not enjoyable, they are hardly torture.

Now, even on these techniques, nobody is calling for their use willy-nilly on any and all prisoners. Even these techniques, which I don't believe are torture, are used sparringly on prisoners who the U.S. believes has very valuable info. So, the U.S. and we sado-masochists on the right, are hardling advocating rounding everyone up for a good torture-o-thon.

I think in reality, most people, even us sado-masocists on the right, are against actual torture. But, these people who start from the position that every technique they disagree with is torture, are arguing in bad faith to begin with.

They point to U.S. laws that say you can't be cruel or cause mental anguish. In reality, one could argue just about anything, including imprisoning people, is cruel and causes mental anguish (trust me, in civil litigation people sincerely claim extreme mental anguish over the silliest stuff). By the anti-waterboarding crowd's absurd logic, we can't even interrogate or imprison people for fear that they will feel "tortured".

they are unwilling to have a debate on the issue, preening about America's loss of the "moral high ground", which in itself is ridiculous. The idea that a) the U.S. has not used these techniques or worse through its history already; b) that any other country (and even more specifically the islamofascists we are fighting) really cares whether we use these techniques or not aside from PR purposes; c) that it will affect the outcome of the war; or d) that it will destroy our national psyche, are all idiotic arguments. As others have observed, we survived slavery, jim crow, using atomic weapons, firebombing civilians, and many other moral outrages in the past - all of which are much, much worse than the alleged moral outrage of waterboarding or sleep deprivation. Thus, that argument is not only extremely weak, it is easily demonstrated as wrong.

If the best argument your side has is that you believe waterboarding and sleep deprivation (not the vague and abstract "torture") are immoral, then say so, and explain why. Don't claim that america itself is going to collapse if we don't stop using the techniques.

I'm sure those of you on the left scoffed (and rightly so) when people like Rev. Falwell said that God was going to take america down because of abortion and gays. Now you are basically making the same argument about torture. It was not persuasive by Falwell and is not persausive by you.

If you have an argument as to why we should not use these techniques - outside of your moral preening, let's hear it. Thus far, I have heard no such argument. The only possible rational argument would be that we shouldn't use the techniques because then our own soldiers will be subject to such techniques. In this case, that argument is useless as we know that the enemy will subject our soldiers to much, much worse wether we use these techniques or not. Indeed, the enemy we are fighting does not abide by any laws of war, Geneva Conventions, international law, nor even what the West generally considers tradional morality. Thus, such an argument is not remotely persausive.

To say merely that such techniques are against the law, begs the point. The law is vague and prohibits things like cruel treatment or causing mental anguish. Again, anything can be made to fit into that definition.

[Great Banana]

Seamus,

Would that you held the position about limiting government more generally, and not just on this issue.

I think you are arguing a straw-man. Nobody is arguing for every member of the military or CIA to have authority to use waterboarding any time they see fit. I agree that such techniques should be used sparingly, and there should be a process in place to ensure that such techniques are not abused.

Again, you beg the question by simply claiming such techniques are "torture". I don't agree with you that they are, and I don't believe most people over here do. So, simply calling it torture and saying we shouldn't allow torture, is not arguing or making a rational point.

[seamus]

To test the principle, imagine a Government run by your political opponents. Are you comfortable with them being able to declare anyone an enemy combatant, being able to detain them indefinitely without a fair hearing, and then to apply aggressive interrogation techiniques (this would be torture), with no oversight for as long as they wish? We have set up a shadowy, lawless, zone. Our Intelligence Officers and Soldiers are compromised by this approach. Drawing a clear line and holding our citizens to it, helps us in the war, it does not hinder us.

[Rick Ballard]

"The ticking time bomb scenario is a terrible and most unlikely example to use to design a policy to abide by."

The ticking time bomb scenario is occuring in Iraq right this minute. The IA,the IP and US forces have suspects in hand right now. Some of them were taken in flagrante delicto, shovel in hand with more IEDs in the trunk of their car. While your putrid sensibilities may be offended by the thought of potential abuse, Brown Eyes, a rational human being would decide that ol' Achmed the Assassin ought to receive a brisk and thorough interrogation on the very likely probability that he will readily disgorge information that will save lives.

The "lesson from history" is that unless a state monopolizes the use of violence, it isn't a state and that the means used to gain the monopoly will vary according to the level of threat extant in the instant.

Your willingness to sacrifice innocents in pursuit of political objectives is truly pathetic. As, of course, are you.

[Great Banana]

Seamus,

Are you comfortable with them being able to declare anyone an enemy combatant, being able to detain them indefinitely without a fair hearing, and then to apply aggressive interrogation techiniques (this would be torture), with no oversight for as long as they wish? We have set up a shadowy, lawless, zone.

the problem with this argument is that despite your paranoia, none of this is true.

thus, your question is nothing but a straw-man with no persuasive affect.

Again, instead of paranoid rantings, please feel free to offer debate as to why a) you consider sleep deprivation or waterboarding torture; and b) why you think they should not be allowed (and without the moral preening, but with real arguments).

[seamus]

I do think waterboarding and sleep deprivation are torture. Chaining someone to a wall, and making them stand for hours and days sounds like torture to me too. Sullivan and Dejerian spell out what constitues torture quite eloquently. There is clarity on what constitutes torture. Yes, I'm against it. No, I don't want us to lose the war on terror. I'm a Catholic, an American, a Democrat. I love this country too. I don't think that forswearing torture weakens our nation or makes me un-American, or is aiding and comforting the enemy. Just the opposite.

[Daddy]

How about some more made up Abe Lincoln quotes:

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus I..." darn it, can't use that one since he suspended it to help win the War.

How's about,

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for overriding the First Amendment by shutting down newspapers I..." darn it, can't use that one either since he did it to help win the War.

Let's see, let me try:

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for shutting down any particular citizens Constitutional right to freely participate in elections or the democratic process I..." Darn it all, 'believe he did that too to win the War, didn't he.

Gosh, if Old Honest Abe was so intent on wining a war and preserving The United States of America that he'd override the Constitutional rights of individual American citizens, sorta' makes you wonder what he might have considered doing to non-citizen combatants. Let's try 2 other made-up quotes and see which one sounds more logical.

"President Lincoln, we caught Abullah here in a firefight on the battlefield with RPG's and AK-47's, and with secret plans to explode nuclear weapons in 10 American cities on the 4th of July. Shall we give him the third degre Sir, in order to try to smoke out his acomplices thereby saving lives?"

(Lincoln Option A) "What an impertinant question General Grant. Give this non-citizen, non-uniformed, non-Geneva convention combatant his 3 squares a day at Gitmo, a plastic wrapped Koran, and an ACLU Lawyer at taxpayer expense. Then tell General Sherman to burn down every living thing in a 10 mile swath for 110 miles straight on his march through to Atlanta.

(Lincoln Option B) "General Grant, Do whatever is necessary to win this war as quickly as possible so that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth."

[Jane]

I'm sure those of you on the left scoffed (and rightly so) when people like Rev. Falwell said that God was going to take america down because of abortion and gays. Now you are basically making the same argument about torture.

That's what happens with people who stand for nothing except hating Bush. Hypocrisy simply knows no bounds on the left these days.

So seamus, can we put you in the camp who would let your children be murdered rather than torture someone to find out who is holding them?

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

The problem wth defining your position on torture in terms of snarking at the snark of other bloggers is that it is difficult to determine what your position is. Now my understandng of it is that you are generally comfortable with the law passed in 2006 with McCain's acquiesence -- that the military continues to not have the ability to apply "enhanced interrogation techniques/torture", but the CIA does have this ability, so long as it is (in Bill Clinton's memorable abortion formulation) safe, legal and rare.

Now the question I think you need to wrestle with, if you are going to continue a debate on substance (as opposed to whether certain bloggers are civil and logical in their screeds) is, if torture is available, whether it's really going to be rare. I know my own thoughts, back when this bill was being discussed, was keeping it illegal, but having any enforcement take into account the nature of the threat and the people we were dealing with. I question whether you can publically change a law back to where it was, and not really enforce it, without having word of all of this leak out, and continue the damage to our soft power that all this had previously. I also figure that the tendency at the CIA, given the law is on the books, would be to expand the nummber of people its used againse, because that is the nature of the way people behave.

None of this is good, really. It's much easier being an absolutist.

Oh well, just random thoughts on a hard issue.

[boris]

it is difficult to determine what your position is

Not this again. TM has made his position perfectly clear. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

keeping it illegal, but having any enforcement take into account the nature of the threat

Frak that. If interrogation of terrorists is necessary, make it policy. None of this “do your evil in secret” crap. That results in disparate and selective exposure by political operatives. As we have seen during this conflict over and over. Funny how much stayed “secret” for BJ.

[boris]

imagine a Government run by your political opponents

Aha, the perfect expression of projection. What it's really all about. Waterboarding wouldn't bother them half so much if it was an administration they "trusted" to use good sense, like the CLintons.

[PeterUK.]

"It is interesting how the Conservative movement has moved so easily toward Authoritarianism, and away from Libertarianism."

Conservatism has never been Libertarianism,but the greatest Authoritarians since the French Revolution have been on the Left.One has only to look at the liberal left stifling of freedom in the name of Political Correctness as of this moment.

"Are you comfortable with them being able to declare anyone an enemy combatant, being able to detain them indefinitely without a fair hearing, and then to apply aggressive interrogation techiniques (this would be torture), with no oversight for as long as they wish?

You have extended the debate to detention,I didn't think it would take you long.Essentially you are extending the legal protection of citizens to non-citizens.
No doubt you will give "oversight" to usual political Jackals.

"We have set up a shadowy, lawless, zone. Our Intelligence Officers and Soldiers are compromised by this approach. Drawing a clear line and holding our citizens to it, helps us in the war, it does not hinder us."

There has always been a "shadowy,lawless zone",this is not new.What is new is the desire to drag it into the daylight and make political capital out of it.The NSA surveillance,the SWIFT programme,rendition, all areas where the enemy have been assisted by the liberal preeners,almost looks like deliberate sabotage.

[cathyf]

Some of the people that ended up in Abu Graib and Guantanamo most assuredly are innocent, wrong place, wrong time.

Some of the people that we've killed in battle are most assuredly innocent, too. A huge a direct cause of innocent civilian deaths in battle is the war criminals who put them in harm's way by fighting out of uniform from civilian homes and businesses. They are the ones who have set up the lawless zone, and you are aiding and supporting them in your campaign to grant them the rights and privileges of POWs.

Look, the traditional privileges of war are that soldiers get to rape, pillage and loot the civilian population as they go by, and that any enemy soldier that the civilians overpower is fair game limited only by their imagination. In the mid-nineteenth century, exhausted and horrified by the brutal degradation of nearly continuous war for decades, Europeans made a treaty, a quid pro quo. In exchange for soldiers protecting civilians, all parties would protect captured soldiers. POWs aren't allowed to be interrogated at all -- forget torture, asking with nothing more than "please" is a violation of the GC.

I think that the best argument against torture is one that I see McCain making that doesn't seem to be appreciated, which is that whether it is torturing an unlawful combatant who deserves it, a lawful-combatant POW, a civilian, or a bug you caught in your backyard, torturing any living creature is soul-destroying degradation for the torturer.

But make no mistake -- just because we don't take one jihadi a week, cut off his tongue, arms and legs, and drop his naked torso onto a fire ant hill in the blazing sun, and then broadcast his 2-3-day slow death on live pay-per-view doesn't mean that this is something worse than the punishment which unlawful combatants have earned. No, we refrain from this because we can't do it without injury to our own souls.

[Great Banana]

Seamus,

I do think waterboarding and sleep deprivation are torture. Chaining someone to a wall, and making them stand for hours and days sounds like torture to me too.

Well, I disagree. Now explain by stating something other than "it sounds like" torture to you. Give me reasons why sleep deprivation (which I have experienced) is torture? Why is a cold room torture? Why is making someone stand for long periods of time torture? Simply stating it is is not an argument.

Sullivan and Dejerian spell out what constitues torture quite eloquently. There is clarity on what constitutes torture.

Asserting something is true and it being true are two different things. They have NOT spelled out what constitutes torture, but have offered vague wording about "mental anguish". I agree that there is clarity on what constitutes torture. Electric shock, severe beatings, pulling fingernails - these things are torture. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, long periods of standing - these are clearly not torture. SEE Clarity!!!

Yes, I'm against it. No, I don't want us to lose the war on terror. I'm a Catholic, an American, a Democrat. I love this country too. I don't think that forswearing torture weakens our nation or makes me un-American, or is aiding and comforting the enemy. Just the opposite.

I never argue or intimated that. Another straw-man argument.

As I have attempted to point out several times, aside from moral preening and bald assertions, I have yet to see an argument about a) why you consider water boarding or sleep deprivation torture or b) why such techniques should not be sparingly use.

Again, assertions are not arguments.

[Sue]

give our Military or Intelligence branches the the power to torture people?

Have you people lost your mind? The correct question should be do we want to take away the power. It has always been there, but never discussed. Mostly because the conservatives realized it is a useful tool and the left liked the president using it. But wait. Maybe I should have said you liked it if it wasn't done by a citizen of the US. Just so long as the president authorizing it made sure it was done by citizens of another country. The rendition program was authorized by Clinton, for those of you still unclear as to whether torture was condoned by the last administration. And you (those of you who suffer from BDS) were strangely silent when you liked the president. Bush has merely put a stamp of approval on something Clinton did under the cover of darkness.

Sheesh....

[Sue]

To test the principle, imagine a Government run by your political opponents. Are you comfortable with them being able to declare anyone an enemy combatant, being able to detain them indefinitely without a fair hearing, and then to apply aggressive interrogation techiniques (this would be torture), with no oversight for as long as they wish?

Surely some members of the republican party were aware of Clinton's rendition program. But you didn't read about it in the NYTs. I believe that answers the question you asked.

[Maybeex]

think that the best argument against torture is one that I see McCain making that doesn't seem to be appreciated, which is that whether it is torturing an unlawful combatant who deserves it, a lawful-combatant POW, a civilian, or a bug you caught in your backyard, torturing any living creature is soul-destroying degradation for the torturer.

I can accept that, depending again upon the definition of torture. Putting someone in a cold room, blasting loud music at them, or even water-boarding shouldn't be soul-destroying.

Shoving rats in body cavities for kicks would be soul-destroying.
But what of killing people? Under normal circumstances, that would be much more soul-destroying than making someone stand up for a long period of time, no?

I think whatever you feel justified to do is less soul-destroying than something you feel you shouldn't do. But there are many things we do in war that a civilian shouldn't do. God Bless our soldiers, I hope they don't feel their souls are being destroyed.

[boris]

I don't want us to lose the war on terror

Oh yeah? BS, you claim it's already lost.

[boris]

or even water-boarding shouldn't be soul-destroying

Seems pretty low risk since we train our own troops using those techniques.

It would be a little strange for those who oppose any government policy based on the existence of souls to worry about the CIA waterboarding terrorists possibly destroying their own.

[seamus]

International Law defines torture as : "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are ways to finesse this definition, and of course, reasonable people may disagree. I put these methods in the torture category. I think it's in our interest to be "absolutists" against it. I'm against it whether it's applied by the Bush Adminstration, or the past or future Clinton Adminstrations, or whatever. I think it's a bad idea to give the government consent to torture. They may do it anyway, but I think it's wrong and actually weakens us. Our strength will defeat the terror, not our weakness, not appealing to our baser instincts.

[Sue]

I think it's a bad idea to give the government consent to torture.

Yeah. It is much better to turn your captives over to countries you know use real torture and claim the high moral ground in doing so. We should name that program the Clinton I Did Not Torture Enemy Combatants But It Depends on the Definition of Did.

[Great Banana]

Seamus,

See, I can accept that argument. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

I don't think using waterboarding will "weaken us" and don't believe it is "appealing to our baser instincts."

But, at least you admit that "reasonable people may disagree." That is what has been lacking the most on your side of the argument (not necessarily you - just others on your side of the argument).

This is of course a slippery slope argument, for either side. We argue that your side is defining torture down further and further to the point where any interrogation or even imprisonment is "torture" and your side believes that allowing waterboarding and other techniques will lead to more and more agressive methods.

I think it is good to have the debate and draw a fairly bright line as to what is and is not acceptable, I just disagree with you as to where the line is.

[Semanticleo]

Fascinating.

You guys really think you have everyone over a barrel on this def of 'torture' thing, don't you?

Remember when the SC was deciding 'obscenity' cases?

Justice Byron White's Definition: "no erect penises, no intercourse, no oral or anal sodomy. For White, no erections and no insertions equaled no obscenity."

Justice Brennan's Definition, The Limp Dick Test: "no erections. He was willing to accept penetration as long as the pictures passed what his clerks referred to as the 'limp dick' standard. Oral sex was tolerable if there was no erection."

Justice Stewart's Definition, The Casablanca Test: " . . . I know it [obscenity/pornography] when I see it." In Casablanca, as a Navy lieutenant in World War II and watch officer for his ship, Stewart had seen his men bring back locally produced pornography. He knew the difference between that hardest of hard core and much of what came to the Court. He called it his 'Casablanca Test'."

As to torture, I think Stewart's is the one
I subscribe to.

This 'waterboarding' technique is the one you all seem to be most pleased with. But at Belgravia, the venerable Mr Turner cited
the difference between mock execution (Deer Hunter Style) as separate and distinct from
WB. The apparent distinction is the fact that WB merely produces 'panic'.

What is the origin of the panic? Survival
instinct? How is that different from the fear of bullet in brain? (I expect all kind of exceptions to Cecil's distinction amongst the folks here. But I do throw it out there.)

Whats the diff?

[Rick Ballard]

"I hope they don't feel their souls are being destroyed."

That's a tertiary concern. I'm kind of stuck on doing what's necessary to preserve their (and the Iraqis) lives and keeping them (and the Iraqis) from being maimed. Somehow I imagine that the troops hierarchy of concerns would be somewhat similiar to mine. (BTW - very nice ironying this morning - no wrinkles in that one)

[boris]

Waterboarding an illegal enemy combatant to exctract life saving intel is not covered by your quote.

No confessions are obtained, no punishment is administered.

Waterboarding is not painful and does not cause suffering. The reflex panic it induces does not hurt, it simply makes it difficult or impossible for the subject to form the willpower or mental coherence to resist the interrogator or construct a lie.

The panic is reflex. It is not based on "fear of being killed".

[boris]

Suppose a legally armed citizen is confronted by a knife wielding criminal assailant. The citizen brandishes his gun ...

Should the citizen say “drop your weapon or I’ll shoot” ???

No, that would be threatening the criminal’s life, TORTURE !!!

The only option available to the citizen is to shoot the assailant where he stands.

[Great Banana]

You guys really think you have everyone over a barrel on this def of 'torture' thing, don't you?

Remember when the SC was deciding 'obscenity' cases?

No, the point is that we are stating that waterboarding, sleep deprivation and cold rooms are not torture. We ask others to explain why they believe such techniques are torture.

the point that I am making about the definition is that the definitions others point to are so vague as to be almost meaningless. by the definition of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" almost anything can be argued to be torture.

The whole point is to come up with what can be used and not be used. My argument against those on the other side of this debate is that they are attempting to skip the entire debate by merely asserting that waterboarding, et al. is "torture" and therefore we can't do it.

In other words, your side of the debate is claiming to be Justice Stewart, being the person who gets to define what is and is not torture and the rest of us should just shut up. That is not a debate, nor is it an argument.

[Semanticleo]

GB;

You can't have it both ways. If you are making the determination WB is 'not torture'
you must also be applying Stewart method.

Otherwise, it is necessary for you to define
it.

[Other Tom]

Pardon me for going so far off-topic, but I found this such an inspirational read that I wanted to bring it to the attention of everyone here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010083

[boris]

GB's point is that any definition of torture that would include WB is too vauge to be meaningful or useful. A valid point.

That is not the same as simply asserting "such and such IS torutre".

Too semantic for you?

[Sue]

Otherwise, it is necessary for you to define it.

It has already been defined. Enhanced interrogation technique.

[clarice]

An unusually good discussion based on logic, history and law. I, however, give greater weight to externals and in that note observe that Angelina Jolie's new film on the Pearl murder is being released. In it the sympathetic Paks torture the perps to find out where to find Pearl and what happened to him.
As Angelina and the character she plays (Marianne Pearl)are very good looking and appealing, I predict the argument against "torture" is going to lose ground. What chance does moral preening have against the needs of sexy sweeties?

[Semanticleo]

"An unusually good discussion based on logic, history and law. I, HOWEVER, GIVE GREATER WEIGHT TO EXTERNALS"

Tongue in cheek? Hope so.

[Great Banana]

Cleo,

GB;

You can't have it both ways. If you are making the determination WB is 'not torture'
you must also be applying Stewart method.

Otherwise, it is necessary for you to define
it.

Touche. I think you have a point there.

I think the difference is that I am arguing about specific techniques, which I state are not torture, i.e. waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cold rooms, even long periods of standing. The other side simply states those techniques ARE torture, and as their only argument, point to a very vague definition of torture that makes "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" torture.

My argument is that sleep deprivation does not cause severe pain or severe mental anguish, nor does coldness, nor does long periods of standing, nor doew waterboarding.

Now, we will have to argue over what "severe" means.

I think it is easier to point to specific techniques and say - that is torture or that is not torture - and come up with a fairly bright line set of procedures that are allowed and those that are not allowed.

Your side of the argument wants to simply state that such-and-such IS torture and therefore verbotten (sp?). I want to argue about why they believe waterboarding, sleep deprivation, et al., are torture.

But, instead of being willing to argue the point, we are called names and the implication, if not outright expression, is that we are evil brutes. And arguments are used like - we'll lose our souls if we allow torture. Again, 1) that begs the question of what is torture, and 2) I don't believe we would necessarily lose our souls even if we engaged in real torture - not that I am advocating for the use of real torture.

[PeterUK.]

There are reports thatIran is planning attacks on Europe nuclear plants.

Our liberals are vociferous concerning the consequences of using enhanced interrogation technique,but like all principles of the liberal left are coy about the consequences of NOT using such techniques.
So please would they state what they are willing to endure,on behalf of all of us,to maintain their principles?

[Bill in AZ]

OT - Goodling testifies that McNulty is a lying sack o'... er... wait, forgot to turn off my MSM translator...

McNulty's explanation, on Feb. 6, "was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects," Monica Goodling told a packed House Judiciary Committee inquiry into the firings.

She added: "I believe the deputy was not fully candid."

various sources...

[hit and run]

Other Tom, thanks for the link to that article.

[seamus]

Can we win the war on terror without resorting to torture and/or enhanced interrogation techniques? I dare say, yes. Are these techniques essential to us? I dare say, no.

As per Stewart's "I know it when I see it." Imagine if these techniques were applied to you or one of your loved ones. That's a mighty good way to test the principle. We need to take a clear stand against, it helps us as a civilized nation. In the long run, our tolerance of torture will undermine our effort, not enhance it. We won't win the war with brute force alone. Our "good guy" example will help us win friends and influence neighbors. Maybe that's preening. I agree, as a free Democracy it's essential to have this debate without demonizing the other side. Romney's and Guiliani's catering to the pro-torture crowd certainly puts the debate front row and center for the coming election.

[Semanticleo]

GB;

We all make assumptions about the intent of the other side.

Given the typical imaginary scenario of a terrorist having info about a nuke or the location of captured G.I.s, I don't give a rodent's sphincter about which technique
gets results while providing cover, legally,
in the World Court.

The above is applicable, in my estimation,
when there is Probable Cause to believe
there is actionable info which can be obtained in good faith.

My concern is the
slippery slope which gets ample lubrication
when people make the call on when to apply
the 'enhanced techniques'. It is all too easy to apply the technique without some sense of proportion when it becomes accepted practice. Elsewhere I heard the derogation,
'safe legal and rare' but find some prudence
in the outline thereof.

[clarice]

Most people are incapable of thinking in hypotheticals. Now seeing Angelina Jolie desperate to find out what happened to her darling husband--that they can understand.

Truly. She's doing more to okay harsh treatment of jihadis at war with us than we can ever hope to.(Just as Jane Fonda killed the most environmentally friendly energy source, nuclear power.)

[boris]

It is all too easy to apply the technique without some sense of proportion ...

Ah yes, another version of how we can't trust Bushitler with such license, only leaders with good sense like the Clintons.

[SunnyDay]

Monica Goodling is fantastic!! On c-span 3

[topsecretk9]

OT, but duh huh?

Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty knew about extensive White House involvement in the firings of U.S. attorneys before he provided inaccurate information about the issue to Congress, a former senior Justice aide testified this morning.

Monica M. Goodling, speaking publicly for the first time about her role in the prosecutor firings, also said McNulty urged her not to attend a private Senate briefing, saying that her status as White House liaison would raise questions among lawmakers about possible White House involvement in the dismissals.

"I believe the deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of the White House's involvement," Goodling testified at the House Judiciary Committee, which has granted her immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony...

Schumer's little gambit with McNulty backfired.

[topsecretk9]

OH...Bill in AZ caught it!