Torture Works (Sometimes...)

Dean Barnett, writing at Hugh Hewitt's fine site, is fascinating on abortion, torture, and John McCain.  Let me pluck this:

And then there’s the persistent intellectual incoherence of the anti-torture voices. They can’t decide whether they’re against torture because it doesn’t work or whether they oppose it solely on moral grounds. This confusion belies their own sense of their argument’s weaknesses. If you add up the consensus of informed opinions, torture sometimes gets you some really useful and actionable information, and sometimes gets you utter rubbish. Torture opponents know this, which is why they cherry-pick experts who argue that torture never works. Because if a consensus formed that torture produced any good information, and the media acknowledged that consensus, torture opponents know their position would become politically untenable.

Let me toss in this link to Captain Ed and the Times as yet another data point in the efficacy of torture.

Now, on the question of John McCain - I was asked recently why conservatives don't like McCain and I belly-floppped badly.  I offered the caveat that I think he is a great American but maybe would not be such a great President, noted the ghastly McCain-Feingold bill, andthen stalled.  I am certain I have forgotten at least two things - his role in the torture debate in the Senate may or may not be one, and the other eludes me totally. 

I welcome some reminders here.  And McCain's fans should feel free to talk him up - I have a well-respected brother-in-law who thinks McCain walks on water (a helpful knack for a Navy guy), so there you go.

Comments

[Memomachine]

Hmmmm.

McCain is completely untrustworthy on any issue or subject. Particularly if he can be used against other Republicans or conservatives.

His stance changes like the wind. Or should I say "breaks like the wind".

[Jane]

I don't find McCain as persuasive as I once did, and that includes on the issue of torture.

[Pollyusa]

1. McCain's a prima donna.

2. McCain criticizes other republicans.

[Wright]

I was once a McCain supporter - a shipmate of his Dad's long ago. But McCain-Feingold, the Group of 14 and the notion that he was opposing Bush just for the sake of opposing him (and getting the resultant MSM ink and adulation) soured me. A friend whose opinions I value said he thought McCain would be a hell of a Commander-in-Chief, but didn't think he'd be a very good president.

[Cecil Turner]

His stance changes like the wind.

Concur, and it's always self-serving. His position on many issues is a study in backside coverage for his own political soft spots.

For example:
• Keating Five--Campaign finance reform
• cooperating with the enemy--anti-"torture" legislation and decrying the SwiftVets

The rap on him (which I first heard from fellow aviators in the early 80's) is that he has no core values, and merely looks for advantage. I can respect a man whose principles I disagree with . . . but not one who doesn't have any.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Dean Barnett:
If you add up the consensus of informed opinions, torture sometimes gets you some really useful and actionable information, and sometimes gets you utter rubbish.

Well - and even that is ceding too much ground to the "anti-torture" camp.

In a post on the Corner Cliff May (talking more generally about polls, MSM, public awareness) says:

As Brit Hume has pointed out, the most consequential point that the former CIA director made is that “enhanced interrogation” is not a euphemism for torture and that it may be the most important weapon we have in this war.

The anti-torture camp spends a lot of time decrying techniques that aren't even torture. By granting them that terminology, the pro-enhanced interrogation camp is starting off with one spiked leather whip tied behind their backs.

[Rick Ballard]

John McCain constantly exhibits a wondrous blend of intellectual incoherency matched only by his willingness to resort to the expedient upon merely a vague sense that the political wind may be shifting. I think that he and Linsay Graham make a fine pair - placed on either side of an airfield they would provide very important visual clues for any pilot attempting to land.

The man actually believed that the press liked him.

WRT torture - we only really started eliminating (mostly) the third degree about fifty years ago. It would be a pleasant fiction to think that the Iraqis were only that far behind. No American requested or condoned torture and if I were to begin a list of "Things That Must Be Fixed This Instant" for Iraq this type of interrogation wouldn't be on it. They have much bigger fish to fry first.

[clarice]

Yeah--like what about babysitting w/ no beer left in the house?

[clarice]

I agree wholeheartedly, Rick. Plus I thin McCain is far too mercurial for my comfort level.

[clarice]

**thinK***

[Jeff Dobbs]

Yeah--like what about babysitting w/ no beer left in the house?

mrs hit and run once got me to admit that I didn't do enough to help out around the house and that I wasn't fully there for her emotionally and that I needed to watch less sports by withholding beer from me.

[PatrickR]

Any man who is friends with John Kerry isn't to be trusted.

[seamus]

Torture is not something the US should do or condone. It's a tactic used by the worst regimes in the world. Even if it works it's wrong, and I dare say, un-American. Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard? McCain has his problems as a candidate but arguing against torture seems like a principled stand. McCain has special credibility on this issue because he's a Vet who endured torture himself. Plus, you can't fault him on wavering on the Iraq occupation. I think he's going to have difficulty in the Republican primaries eventhough he's strong on Iraq. Criticizing fellow Republicans doesn't win him many friends in the Repub camp, but blind loyalty to the Bush team looks like a fool's paradise.

[PeterUK.]

What constitutes torture? The definition seems to have been reduced to "anything the interrogated dislike,find mildly uncomfortable,musses their hair or has a chance of iliciting information is out".

[clarice]

I'm really horrible, I guess. In a real pinch, I'd okay the real stuff to preclude even worse events.

[clarice]

H & R what does not there for her emotionally mean enyway? I never could figure that out.
I think it's the same as not doing your share of the work. In any event that is ore important really--there's always Oprah or "The View" for the other stuff.

[Cecil Turner]

Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard? McCain has his problems as a candidate but arguing against torture seems like a principled stand.

What standard? The procedures described don't amount to "torture" without turning the definition on its head. The worst of the enhanced interrogation techniques was waterboarding (which we've now eschewed, AIUI). And yes, I think we ought to interrogate war criminal terrorists . . . and keep the options somewhat murky to complicate their anti-interrogation training and procedures.

McCain's proposals, largely adopted, would give war criminals the same rights as a citizen accused of a civil offense. That isn't "principled" . . . it's "stupid."

[boris]

To oppose interrogation techniques like waterboarding, cold room, or belly slap on the basis of some "moral principle" while lying that it doesn't work anyway is too confused to be credible.

When it comes to situations like the ticking bomb, the ambush, the secret password, the safe combination, telling the interrogator "what he wants to hear" amounts to the location of the ticking bomb, where the ambush is, what the secret password or the safe combination are.

These are real world situations that save lives, not confessing to being a capitalist dog spy oppressing the workers of the world.

[seamus]

According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture is defined 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."

We're the good guys because we act like good guys. Once we start using the bad guys tactics it all starts getting fuzzy. Especially when we can't be sure that every one singled out for "agressive interogation" is really an enemy or just someone in the wrong place at the wrong time. Clarity, consistency, the rule of law, etc. are our friends.

[Jeff Dobbs]

John McCain says, I won't believe George Tenet if he says enhanced interrogation techniques saved lives...

WALLACE: But if I may, sir... when George Tenet says we saved live through some of these techniques...

J. MCCAIN: I don't accept it. I don't accept that fundamental thesis, because it's never worked throughout history. And so again, I know this for a fact, and anyone who's had experience with this, I think, that's — well, the people I respect will tell you that if you inflect enough physical pain on someone, they will tell you anything they think you want to know in order to relieve that pain.

Is that any different than when Harry Reid says, I won't believe Petraeus if he says the there is progress in Iraq??!?!?!!????!??!?!!

Oh and read the whole post linked, from Andy McCarthy, he also addresses McCain's treatment of the "ticking timebomb scenario" back in 2005, which belies his contention that torture doesn't work...

[clarice]

Yes. Anyone who wouldn't torture a prisoner who one knows has the secret of the ticking bomb, the imminent attack, the location of the kidnapped child is a moral moron.

[PeterUK.]

No Seamus,now it is what ever the captive says it is,Koran abuse,being interrogated by women or anything they can make up to continue war by other means.

[seamus]

The U.S. should not formulate a policy based on the "ticking bomb" scenario...it's certainly rare, and usually we don't "know" whether the person being interrogated knows anything of value or not. The reality seems to be we round up some of what we suspect are really bad characters, not really knowing what they know, and then by "aggressively interrogating" them we get some kind of "confession." Because they are coerced these confessions are suspect...Stalin was the master at this art. He'd have people "confess" to crimes he knew they didn't commit, have them write their confessions down, then he'd have them shot.

[PeterUK.]

"I don't accept that fundamental thesis, because it's never worked throughout history".

Totally untrue,one has only to look at the networks of agents that the Nazis and the Soviets rolled up when one agent broke under interrogation.

[PeterUK.]

"Stalin was the master at this art. He'd have people "confess" to crimes he knew they didn't commit, have them write their confessions down, then he'd have them shot."

Actually Stalin wasn't terribly punctilious about confessions to have people shot,shooting came easily to him.
The confessions were in the main to eliminate political opponents by incriminating them,but not by and large essential.

[seamus]

Exactly...we should not be using the same tactics used by the Nazis and the Soviets...it's a sign of weakness on our part not strength. Yes, we are fighting some very bad people, but we must not use the same tactics...Bush opened the door to this, it was a mistake, even if the intentions were "good." McCain is wrong, torture is wrong, not because it doesn't work, but because it is wrong. Is that a tautology?

[clarice]

seamus, Just when I thought I'd heard the most stupid thing ever, you top it.

[PeterUK.]

"Exactly...we should not be using the same tactics used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

No, not exactly at all,the Nazis and the Soviets were,rubber hose,electrode, pliers and bone crushing merchants,enhanced interrogation techniques are not the same thing.
Because torture has been defined to include the use of drugs or even incorrect dietary provision,the bar has been set so low that interrogation is becoming impossible.

[seamus]

Maybe the "test" of this would be to imagine one of our soldiers being "agressively interrogated." Where would you draw the line? What would be an acceptable interrogation tactic...waterboarding, sleep deprivation, drugs, desecration of the bible? Once you stray from the U.N. Convention on Torture or Geneva Conventions it starts getting foggy. I think it's in our interests to draw a hard line against "torture" or enhanced interrogation. The moral clarity is good for us.

[PeterUK.]

"Maybe the "test" of this would be to imagine one of our soldiers being "agressively interrogated." Where would you draw the line? What would be an acceptable interrogation tactic...waterboarding, sleep deprivation, drugs, desecration of the bible?"

Well Seamus,you do know what the fate of any captive in the hands of the Jihad is don't you? Rape,gender immaterial,beatings,mutilation,often sexual,certain death,shot if they are lucky,beheaded alive if not.I would say any prisoner of the enemy would gladly exchange it for enhanced interrogation.

[Barry]

Oh BS seamus. You think we become just like them if we use torture. They use torture to enhance their ability to kill innocents. If we use torture, it is to save innocents. Using the same tactics do not make us the same.

I would personally do the torturing to save my family, or yours.

[seamus]

The acts of the Jihad you describe are evil...we agree. I still think it's in our interest as a nation, as the leader of the free world to forswear torture. "Enhanced interrogation" seems like an Orwellian euphemism that opens the door to the moral abyss. Secret detention facilities and months or years of coercive interrogation smacks of the Gulag...

[Deagle]

One, voting for John McCain would be worse than the worst toothache (torture for sure). So far down on my list of reasonable Republicans as to be non-existent.

Second, I wish someone could actually define "torture" for me. No, it is not loud music, nor lowering the temperature to 68 degrees... so get off that kick. Making someone uncomfortable is NOT torture.

I have little doubt that torture works and might be necessary under time constraints, but my torture would be considerably more than that determined by the N.Y. Times. You just can't dismiss all these centuries that it has been used and assume that it has not been successful.

So... that leaves us with just when do you use torture. I am not sure just when it would be justified, but if it has the possibility of saving innocent lives, I certainly would agree to its use.

[Rick Ballard]

We didn't do nuffink - the American officers neither ordered nor condoned the actions of the Iraqis. There is no need to defend the Iraqis because they are only doing what custom dictates. The Americans made the Iraqis aware of their displeasure, the Iraqis took careful note of the American officer's displeasure and in the future I am absolutely positive that the Iraqis will behave in a manner for which they will never, ever feel ashamed.

We should be all smiley faced with the outcome of the situation. After all, everyone concerned has learned a valued lesson concerning respect for each others cultures.

Now, let's all hold hands and join in "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing". First we must take a moment to put ourselves in the mood - let's think of ourselves as UN or NGO castrati with untreated sewage for brains.

There, we're ready to start singing.

[Deagle]

seamus,

"Maybe the "test" of this would be to imagine one of our soldiers being "agressively interrogated."

You of course mean like they always have been interrogated when they are prisoners of war. Ask Mr. McCain about that...

[PeterUK.]

"Secret detention facilities and months or years of coercive interrogation smacks of the Gulag."

Noticed you managed to slip in detention centres,who said anything about months or years?
You have raised so many straw men in that comment you are probably eligible for some sort of agricultural subsidy.

[Deagle]

Barry,

Absolutely right! The reasoning behind torture can be either justification (saving innocent lives) or evil intent. Sorry seamus, that kind of reasoning makes all the difference...

[seamus]

I don't think so...I torture to protect my innocents, you torture to protect your innocents...we're both torturers...! It's all in the eyes of the torturer...even those with evil intent can concoct some good and grand justification...as Dylan once said, even the Nazis had "god on their side."

[Deagle]

seamus,

All your saying is that I will protect you, but you will NOT protect me. You will probably live longer, but live with a guilty conscience.

[boris]

My position is that if the Islamofascists are willing to limit their abuse of US personell and innocents to waterboarding and cold room, that is ok with me. It is therefore legitimate for me to support using those techniques on them.

[PeterUK.]

"Dylan once said, even the Nazis had "god on their side."

Regular "come to meeting folks the Nazis",real devout,the Tottenkopf SS still have their reunion at Oberammergau,doesn't clash with the Passion Play,so sensitive are they.

[Deagle]

seamus,

I suspect that you do not know the definition of "innocents", but that does go to the plan of those that wish us harm.

boris,

Unfortunately, Islamofacists tend to use harsher methods...so I would not hold out hope for your solution.

[PeterUK.]

Boris,
The difference is,we want information,they just want to get mediaeval on our arses.

[Deagle]

seamus,

Let's see, we torture to save lives, and they torture to kill additional lives...hmmm... Yep, sounds the same to me.

Maybe you ought to get a bit more involved in the lives of those that are threatened... maybe save some..

[Deagle]

seamus,

Let me add just for clarity... In a culturally equal world (certainly not today), torture would be outlawed and non-existent. So yes, I would agree that torture should not occur, but today that dream is NOT available.

You just have to understand the circumstances of today's world (hey, cultural diversity is great, isn't it) does not allow it. Let's just get along with the 17th century culture...NOT likely.

[Maybeex]

seamus:"Enhanced interrogation" seems like an Orwellian euphemism that opens the door to the moral abyss.

"Seems like" doesn't make it so. Should we start making interrogation techniques unusable because it seems like it might sound like torture? Is perception the MOST important issue?

The U.S. should not formulate a policy based on the "ticking bomb" scenario...it's certainly rare, and usually we don't "know" whether the person being interrogated knows anything of value or not.

If we don't have a policy for it, what do we do when that scenario comes up?

[Other Tom]

Seamus, kindly shove it with the references to definitions furnished by the United Nations, which has no moral standing of any kind whatsoever, and has devoted the past three decades principally to defining Zionism as racism, and appointing nations like Cuba and Libya to its human rights panel.

To say that a tactic was used by the Soviets or the Nazis does not inform us in the slightest as to whether or not it is a tactic we ourselves should use. They both used aerial bombing and amphbious warfare--should we therefore refrain from doing so?

As for the moral equation, I think it has been admirably addressed by the prominent civil libertarian and exreme liberal Alan Dershowitz. At the very least, you might to bone up on what he has had to say and couch your arguments by way of response. Your empty blather about what you think is "wrong," and therefore is something we "should" not do, is idle.

[the count]

He did not vote for Bush's tax cuts!

[Deagle]

the count,

Another strike against him!

[Bill Arnold]

If we don't have a policy for it, what do we do when that scenario comes up?
Policy:
(1) Torture is illegal
(2) For the ticking nuclear bomb case, and a suspect we are sure (a) is guilty and (b) responds to pain by disgorging accurate, actionable information, most people would torture, and hope that a judge/jury wouldn't convict. (I have no respect for those who assert they wouldn't torture in such a clearcut case.)

I'm not at all confident that "we don't torture". There are at least two loopholes there - (a) redefinition of torture to be coercive interrogation methods which we don't use and keeping the list of techniques used secret, and (b) outsourcing/letting local interrogators have their way.

extreme liberal Alan Dershowitz
Mr "the continuum of civilianality"? His moral clarity can be a little fogged at times.

[Rick Ballard]

MayBee,

The Times article is about a literal "ticking bomb" scenario. The Americans followed procedure and used actionable intelligence developed by the Iraqis to 'defuse' the bombs - and bombmakers.

I suppose the question could be phrased as "Should US policy be modified so as to enjoin the use of actionable intelligence developed by our allies based upon the possibility that the intelligence was acquired by means that may have involved coercion at a level that a numbnutted UN bureaucrat might possibly find objectionable?"

You know, I could actually feel my IQ drop as I typed that?

It sure would be nice to let lefties play with moral absolutism in front of Iraqi parents an hour or so after the parents were done searching for all the pieces to their kids. I would enjoy watching that.

[Deagle]

Well, I for one would hope that whoever is in charge doesn't develop a conscience at the wrong time... Otherwise, as seamus would say, heaven help us...

[PeterUK.]

Is not the point that all cases are "ticking bomb scenarios" when the enemy is attempting to kill as many people as they can?
So far the methods have been primitive,through necessity rather than restraint.Just as Iran is providing more lethal mines in Iraq some rogue state will arm the Jihad with some vile weapon of mass destruction.One day it won't be a car bomb but some filthy pathogen or nuclear device.
This isn't only about means,it is about intent.

[Maybeex]

Rick- heh.

Bill (2) For the ticking nuclear bomb case, and a suspect we are sure (a) is guilty and (b) responds to pain by disgorging accurate, actionable information, most people would torture, and hope that a judge/jury wouldn't convict. (I have no respect for those who assert they wouldn't torture in such a clearcut case.)

So you propose we do then want torture if necessary, we just don't want to condone it. We want some individuals to take it upon themselves to put their liberty at risk for the rest of us, so we can tsk tsk and feel morally superior.

[Rick Ballard]

MayBee,

I just realized that there wasn't a direct link to the NYT thumbsucker.

Sorry.

BTW - The Iraqis need some help in identifying the enemy. Talking to the NYT?

[PeterUK.]

It would be foolish to take any option off the table.The Democrats have said they will run away,speeches by Harry Reid were punctuated by massive explosions.Take any interrogation techniques off the table and you give the terrorists time to complete their operations.

[Deagle]

Rick,

"Iragis need help in identifying the enemy".. Not a problem...our infamous NYT will come to the rescue!

Geez...despicable site to behold.

[Cecil Turner]

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person . . .

When we waterboard Americans we call it "training." If your contention is that is torture, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. Cold rooms, belly slaps . . . no frickin' way. Pretending that amounts to "torture" is dishonest. Or bends the word to the point it has no meaning.

[Bill Arnold]

So you propose we do then want torture if necessary, we just don't want to condone it. We want some individuals to take it upon themselves to put their liberty at risk for the rest of us, so we can tsk tsk and feel morally superior.
Yes, pretty much, though I don't agree about the moral superiority. The alternative is to write down the detailed torture allowed/not allowed decision tree, to guide interrogators in the grey area cases e.g. where the ticking bomb is a little bomb and we are only 10% sure the suspect knows anything, and trying to keep the decision rules secret, since leakage would be extremely toxic to US standing in the world.

[Maybeex]

The alternative is to write down the detailed torture allowed/not allowed decision tree, to guide interrogators in the grey area cases

I don't agree that that is the alternative.
I think the alternative is not to pretend there is a bright line of "moral clarity" as Seamus suggests. The alternative is not to pretend we never want torture if in fact, sometimes we do.
Furthermore, the alternative is not to pretend unpleasantness is torture.
Pretending we don't want, as a nation, to cross that moral line when in fact we do want someone to cross that moral line for us is precisely moral superiority.
Would you want someone that made the right decision to go to jail or be put to death on your behalf?

[Cecil Turner]

. . . and trying to keep the decision rules secret, since leakage would be extremely toxic to US standing . . .

The bigger reason to keep rules secret is efficacy. Heather Mac Donald has what's still one of the best reports on the subject, and hits this one squarely:

Uncertainty is an interrogator’s most powerful ally; exploited wisely, it can lead the detainee to believe that the interrogator is in total control and holds the key to his future. [. . .]
He’s been told: ‘They won’t physically touch you,’ and now you have. The point is not to beat him up but to introduce the reality into his mind that he doesn’t know where your limit is.” Grabbing someone by the top of the collar has had a more profound effect on the outcome of questioning than any actual torture could have, Martin maintains. “The guy knows: You just broke your own rules, and that’s scary.

Speaking from minimal (training) experience, that's spot on. It's not what the guy does to you (a little beating is no big deal) . . . it's what you're afraid he'll do to you. Publicizing limits is the wrong answer, because it removes that leverage. Keep 'em guessing.

[Deagle]

Maybeex,

I think that you nailed it! Morality is not a linear line and depends upon the circumstances at any given time. Moral clarity is an ongoing, ever changing, and circumstantial thing...

[Deagle]

I might add - It DOES require that the individual recognize the difference between Right and Wrong... not always easy in todays world. And where does that lead us...what is right and what is wrong...I know...

Easy for me, hard for others...

[Other Tom]

I'm one of Dershowitz's former students, and can't think of much on which I have agreed with him in the past 34 years. However, I don't think it contributes much to the discussion simply to assert that his "moral clarity can be a bit fogged at times." Examples? Evidence?

[Barry]

By not worrying about the sensitive, and making it clear torture is on the table, very little torture will ever be required. Most of these types are cowards. If they *believe* torture is possible they will be singing and cutting deals from the moment of their capture. Actual torture would be rare as long as the perp doesn't know how rare.

[Deagle]

Tom,

Yes, it does get down to the individual beliefs doesn't it... Maybe that is what drives both sides of the debate...(more so than we let on)...

[Rick Ballard]

"since leakage would be extremely toxic to US standing in the world with EUroweasel lefties and posturing fools.

All fixed.

[Jim Miller]

There's an example from FDR's life that I found instructive. Briefly, at point in his life (and probably later) he heartily aproved of something awfully close to waterboarding.

I use that example to argue that there is no clear line between torture and non-torture, and can not be one. And because there can be no clear line, our enemies will always be able to accuse us of torture -- and at least a few in the West will always believe them.

I suspect that no matter what American interogators do to prisoners, Seamus for one will be convinced that it includes torture.

[ann]

McCAIN

* Partnered with Ted Kennedy on Immigration

* Wants to close Gitmo, bring them to the U.S.,
lawyer them up and god forbid don't torture them. (I mean use "enhanced interrogation")

* Couldn't say one nice thing about Rumsfield

* Wants Gonzales head,too.

* Best friends with Chris Mathews and ChucK Impeach Bush Hagel

* Against Tax Cuts

* Gang of 14

* Called the Swift Boat Ads dishonest and dishonorable

* Authored McCain Feingold

* Believes in Global Warming

* Entertained being John Kerry's VP

[Deagle]

Jim,

Heh...sounds like a prep-school problem to me...or maybe preparation for World War II.

Sorry, you are not going to convince those that think like seamus...He lives in a lovely reality that we all wish were true...

[PeterUK.]

Abdul Hadi al Iraqi has provided information which led to the rolling up of an al Qaeda cell.
Hadi was said to have run screaming from the healing circle,"No more Kumbiyah,beat me torture me but not one more Joan Baez album".

[maryrose]

I can't watch torture..not even on the show "24". You know it when you hear it or see it. Using dogs-no McCAin is the only one among us that has been there. I feel I should learn something from his experience. I think about 3 months of a Marine boot camp and those terrorists would be singing like birds.

[Deagle]

Ann,

Darn, and I was hoping for those that agree with him.

Heh...yep, you've nailed most of his problems... and no, I would not vote for him period!

[Deagle]

Hay, no one wants to watch torture, but would you condone it if it saved innocent lives? That is the question...

Actually, according to my son, Marine boot camp was only mild torture but would probably make those Islamists talk like crazy...heh.

[ann]

Thanks Deagle

By the way, I never understood the logic that we can blow a mans head off or drop a L-MAV on his head (see video at patdollard.com) on the battlefield but we better not capture them and waterboard them. WE ARE AT WAR!!

[Deagle]

Yep, logic is not always a "logical" choice for some. The left unfortunately does not consider us at war...and that is a major problem. It's just simply another police action.

[Dan S]

The whole idea behind the no-torture, treat-prisoners-nice sorts of agreements is to protect our own.

Is there anyone left who thinks our enemies are gonna abide by those agreements (if they even signed them?)

Not that we signed a lot of them either.

War is the last resort. When you're at that point, do what you need to to win. No more, no less.

[ann]

I forgot "24" is on, have to go watch some torture....hurrah!

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Torture is not something the US should do or condone. It's a tactic used by the worst regimes in the world. Even if it works it's wrong, and I dare say, un-American. Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard?

Luckily, Seamus, we do. Ask George tenet: the US doesn't do torture. We do sometimes do coercive interrogation.

The problem is that one person's torture is another person's interrogation, and entirely too often, what's "torture" is defined by whether you can use the accusation against a political opponent. So, for example, in some Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International contexts, we see failure to provide a private toilet as "torture."

The same people often have a little trouble condemning sawing off Danny Pearl's head with a butcher knife, though.

[Other Tom]

Here is a little bit of anecdotal history for all of you JOM'ers on the subject of torture.

In 1944, in a POW camp on US soil (I think it was in North Carolina) six German prisoners were accused of murdering, by hanging him in the barracks, a fellow prisoner whom they suspected of being an informant. They refused, citing the then-applicable Geneva Conventions, to respond to questions about the incident.

They were transported to a secret prison in Oregon, where they were tortured until each confessed to the crime. This was under the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Each was sentenced by military tribunal to death by hanging. After various prescribed appeals, the sentences were carried out in late 1945—after the war was over—with the express written approval of Harry S. Truman. The men were serially hanged in an elevator shaft over a period of several hours, and each was cut down by an American chaplain who had befriended them during their ordeal, and who has recounted his experience in riveting detail.

I mention this incident only to illustrate that it is the kind of thing that has occurred since time out of mind in the course of warfare. That includes warfare among the nations most earnestly dedicated to the rule of law and to liberal (in the classic sense) notions of the value of attempting to minimize the horrors of war. Such things have been done, very reluctantly and definitely sub rosa, in the effort to advance some common idea of the greater good. The lines separating what is and is not acceptable behavior are necessarily blurred, but for generations we have been content to accept that the determinations are being made in good faith by men who are acting on our behalf in matters we are content to leave, silently, to others.

That compact of silence has now been shattered by some who feel that an even greater good—the greatest good of all—is to harm the administration of George W. Bush. It is very likely that we will all suffer greatly for the unilateral judgment they have made. We shall see.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Well, well, well. Talk about big ideas that will get people's attention. from powerline.....

McCain to Propose a "League of Democracies"

In a speech tomorrow at the Hoover Institution, John McCain will propose a new "league of democracies" to supplement the United Nations:

"It could act where the U.N. fails to act," McCain says. Such a new body, he says, could help relieve suffering in Darfur, fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa, develop better environmental policies, and provide "unimpeded market access" to countries sharing "the values of economic and political freedom."

And, McCain adds, an organization of democracies could pressure tyrants "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval" and could "impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions" while helping struggling democracies succeed.

If you put aside the inevitable Bush-bashing of the AP's account, it's a good idea. A league of democracies could render the U.N. more or less obsolete if it proves able to act effectively. Standards for admission, of course, would be a key issue.

[Other Tom]

I'm hot for McCain's idea. We could almost call it the Anglosphere, except we wouldn't want to exclude such valiant stalwarts as Poland and Denmark.

Let's do it.

[clarice]

Hey! That was my idea!

[ann]

Hit and Run, Other Tom and Clarice:

Brilliant!! This should be a new thread.

[Sara]

I'm with Clarice:

Yes. Anyone who wouldn't torture a prisoner who one knows has the secret of the ticking bomb, the imminent attack, the location of the kidnapped child is a moral moron.

And Seamus (5:12 post) seems to live in some Utopian world. There are lots of things we should do that we can not do for very practical and necessary reasons.

RE: McCain

I worked for him in the 2000 Primary and at that time I was disappointed that he didn't win. A couple of years later, I was grateful he didn't. It isn't just his backstabbing ways that get to me, but I have come to believe that one cannot suffer torture and imprisonment by the enemy for 5-6 years and end up unscathed by the experience for a lifetime. Just when you think you can trust him again, he twists the knife. I don't trust someone who puts his own ambition above loyalty and I think John McCain does whenever it is expedient.

[Barry]

Sara, I'm not a McCain fan by any stretch of the imagination. But I give him a free pass on the issue of torture.

On the other hand, I know what he would be willing to do to save his child. I expect him to do no less to save mine.

[Sara]

* Partnered with Ted Kennedy on Immigration

* Wants to close Gitmo, bring them to the U.S.,
lawyer them up and god forbid don't torture them. (I mean use "enhanced interrogation")

* Couldn't say one nice thing about Rumsfield

* Wants Gonzales head,too.

* Best friends with Chris Mathews and ChucK Impeach Bush Hagel

* Against Tax Cuts

* Gang of 14

* Called the Swift Boat Ads dishonest and dishonorable

* Authored McCain Feingold

* Believes in Global Warming

* Entertained being John Kerry's VP

Posted by: ann | April 30, 2007 at 08:43 PM

I had to repeat Ann's reasons just so I could say "DITTO!!!"

[Sara]

Sara, I'm not a McCain fan by any stretch of the imagination. But I give him a free pass on the issue of torture.

Barry: McCain's history is what it is. I understand why he feels the way he does about torture, and for sure if anyone knows the subject, he does. But, like someone said upthread, the rules on torture were adopted to protect our guys and the U.S. swearing off torture isn't going to stop the enemy of 2007 anymore than it stopped the VietCong in McCain's time. It is wishful thinking and hampers our ability to get needed information and it gives our own forces a false sense of security for their own treatment at the hands of an enemy.

[PeterUK.]

Whose definition of democracy will be used,Bill Clinton's or Jimmy Carter's?

[Jeff Dobbs]

Clairce:
Hey! That was my idea!

League of Clarice it is.

[cathyf]

I'd like to make my position on "torture" quite clear -- not only do I support "torture", but I will do it myself, up to, and including, the horrific mental cruelty of saying "good morning" and meaning it to a Muslim male prisoner.

[ajacksonian]

One of the things that the anti-torture crowd is claiming is based on such things as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which underlies further Treaties built upon it. There is, however, a major problem with that line of argument by international law: terrorists have broken with that Treaty by their activities and the one thing *proscribed* by it. Not only have they broken with that, but, to the US, they have also broken with the pre-1977 Geneva Conventions, which the US is not a part on the 1977 agreement as it would step in where the US Constitution over-rules it. The US because of that has a very hard and fast view, then, towards both *persons* and war fighting.

To uphold the very agreements being cited and their foundation requires that terrorists abide by them and do not contravene them, especially the Universal Declaration. They most patently do not do this, so further Treaties built upon that language, unless specifically addressing terrorism (like the 1977 GC) must abide by that fact. That is not legalistic terminology for being pro-torture, but it is a huge flaw in anti-torture reasoning with respect to terrorists. By their declarations, activities and actions they fall outside of the Universal Declaration framework and the pre-1977 GC framework.

In general torture hurts troop morale and cohesion, which is why the Armed Forces have the UCMJ and strict prohibitions against it. After that Congress has very little say on the Civilian organs of government that function outside the National borders and have no means, outside of Treaty enforcement and setting up civil codes and rules for treatment within territories of or held by the United States. Guantanamo being a rental property is not that, like other rental properties that the US Government funds overseas.

That is wholly and unconditionally by the US Constitution and the SCOTUS ruling of US v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. given over to the sole organ of international relations: the President. Which is why choosing a President is very, very important in this world of ours. Congress finds itself at a loss outside of Treaty regularization language in foreign affairs for one very good reason: they do not have a role to play beyond that. That is wholly left up to the Head of State, Head of Government and Commander in Chief to do. And when dealing with individuals not *covered* by Treaties by their action, then the heavy weight of what to do with same is left up to one, and only one, individual when they are outside the US.

And I support that no matter if the individual in office has a D or R after their name as that sort of decision making is vital to the Republic to stand as it is with a separation of powers. It has been a long time since we faced enemies that were no Nation, flew no flag, put on no uniform, had no means of accountability and put down no people they would protect by rule of law.

So do think carefully before bringing up Treaty language and its applicability, as they must be read as a whole especially when done in conjunction with other Treaties. And those that engage in terrorism have abjured that as an idea and actually broken from some of the most basic ones on what a person must do and must *not* do to remain covered by them.

[PeterUK.]

Another al Qaeda chief bites the dust.Rest assured it was pure organic dust,no cruelty was involved in his demise,he departed with a song on his lips and a smile on his face,not easy,but comforting.
No Coalition forces were involved in the making of this happy event.

[Cecil Turner]

So do think carefully before bringing up Treaty language and its applicability, as they must be read as a whole . . .

Yes, since there's no need to violate the treaties, even where the terrorists do. In particular, it is not a violation of the CAT to waterboard terrorists. Nor is it a violation of Geneva to hold terrorists accountable for their own Geneva violations (yes, by a tribunal).

And though some of our leading terror-sympathizers in Congress are backsliding from last year's Military Commissions Act which authorized those tribunals:

The indefinite detention of nearly 400 prisoners without charges is "unconstitutional. It's un-American," said the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., one of half a dozen witnesses.

The Supreme Court is finally on board with the process, repeatedly ruling they don't violate the Constitution:

In practical terms, Monday’s decision presents a potentially insurmountable obstacle for detainees seeking to be covered by U.S. constitutional protections. Twice now, justices have refused to hear challenges of a U.S. circuit court ruling in February, which stated that “foreigners without property or presence in this country have no constitutional rights.”

But the debate is ongoing, and the bleeding hearts are both energetic and well-organized:

Scores of lawyers representing detainees at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are descending on Capitol Hill today to lobby House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and various congressional offices to overhaul GOP legislation governing military tribunals.

[Rick Ballard]

If AQ terrorists can't turn to their Democratic allies for help, how can they keep their operation running efficiently?

I blame Bush.

[Other Tom]

I understand that some Al Qaeda outfit is now denying that Al Masri was killed.

[Poppy]

MCCain doesn't believe in torture even when the torture is INSURED of getting accurate and useable data to save thousands or millions of lives. I would never vote for him, unless he's the only Republican left on election day.

By the way, Tenet's book, as outlined in the Natiobnal Review has confirmed everything I (Patton aka Poppy) suspected about Al Queda in Iraq. The leftist were clearly wrong. Al Queda was 'Boogeying to Baghdad' as suggested by Richard Clark.

Tenet confirms Al Queda were under Saddam's protection in the Kurdish area, just like we thought.

[Other Tom]

Hitchens absolutely savages Tenet in the current Slate. Excerpt:

"So, the only really interesting question is why the president did not fire this vain and useless person on the very first day of the war. Instead, he awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom! Tenet is now so self-pitying that he expects us to believe that he was 'not at all sure that [he] really wanted to accept' this honor. But it seems that he allowed or persuaded himself to do so, given that the citation didn't mention Iraq. You could imagine that Tenet had never sat directly behind Colin Powell at the United Nations, beaming like an overfed cat, as the secretary of state went through his rather ill-starred presentation. And who cares whether his 'slam dunk' vulgarity was misquoted or not? We have better evidence than that. Here is what Tenet told the relevant Senate committee in February 2002:

"'Iraq … has also had contacts with al-Qaida. Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies, but the two sides' mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.'

"As even the notion of it certainly should have done. At around the same time, on another nontrivial matter, Tenet informed the Senate armed services committee that: 'We believe that Saddam never abandoned his nuclear weapons program.' It is a little bit late for him to pose as if Iraq was a threat concocted in some crepuscular corner of the vice president's office. And it's pathetic for him to say, even in the feeble way that he chooses to phrase it, that "there was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat." There had been a very serious debate over the course of at least three preceding administrations, whether Tenet 'knew' of it or not. (He was only an intelligence specialist, after all.) As for his bawling and sobbing claim that faced with crisis in Iraq, 'the administration's message was: Don't blame us. George Tenet and the CIA got us into this mess,' I can say, as one who has attended about a thousand postmortems on Iraq in Washington, that I have never, ever, not once heard a single partisan of the administration say anything of the kind. The White House may have thought that it could count on the CIA to present some sort of solidity in a crisis but, as Sept. 11 had already proved, more fool the White House."

It's all here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2165269

[PeterUK.]

Two hours ago,Australian news, al Masri.

If these people are a danger,but they cannot be interrogated nor incarcerated,death seems the only option.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Oh, but they must be interrogated!

Mr. Terrorist, are you comfortable? Can we get your anything? Where would you like for us to drop you off? How much money do you need to get back on your feet? Can you ever forgive us? We do have your word that by letting you go, you won't try to kill or harm us, right?

Lots of questions that must be asked.