He had to. There was no choice.
Why?
Because if he had signed the ban, then he would have been tacitly admitting that the practice was wrong. And Bush is psychologically incapable of admitting that anything he does, or that he endorses, is wrong.
The bottom line is that if the United States is going to preach high morality and ethics at other countries, then we must have clean hands. And as long as this country supports torture for any reason, then our hands are filthy.
I have no doubt that if, a year from now, a similar bill lands on Clinton or Obama’s presidential desk, they’d sign it. What I’d be curious to know is if John McCain, who knows a thing or two about torture himself, would veto it. See, on the one hand, he talks a good game about deploring torture…but on the other hand, he voted against the bill. It’s a duplicity that his opponents should be trying to highlight.
PAD
• 
As much as I dislike Bush and what he has done to this country, I’m glad he used his veto power on this.
In my opinion, the interrogation limits should be set based on who you are interrogating and why and not some hard and fast rule. For example, if it’s the difference between a US city being nuked or not, I’m not willing to set a limit on what can be done to get information.
Scott, that’s essentially saying that there should be no rules against torture at all. If torture is only to be used against “bad people,” then it’s going to be used a lot.
And I have a problem with the idea that you get better information when you torture people. Has this ever actually been proven? Sure, it *feels* true. It feels like if you punch a guy in the face, he’ll be more truthful.
But there are plenty of people who have confessed to crimes under duress and then been exonerated later by DNA evidence. I’m not sure that in this case what feels true is actually true. I think there’s a possibility that if you torture people, they’ll say whatever you want to hear to make you stop torturing them, whether it is true or not.
It is important to point out to those that are pro-torture (never in my life did I think we would actually have this conversation in this country.)
The US executed Japanese Officers after WWII for waterboarding American G.I.s.
I have not seen an argument so far that comes close to justifying what Bush is doing.
McCain was on 60 minutes and cleary stated that waterboarding was torture. Somehow I think he will pander to the desires of the Republican party on this on and veto any bill similar to the one that Bush vetoed.
It is important to point out to those that are pro-torture (never in my life did I think we would actually have this conversation in this country.)
The US executed Japanese Officers after WWII for waterboarding American G.I.s.
I have not seen an argument so far that comes close to justifying what Bush is doing.
Sorry for the dupe.
Maybe America could allow waterboarding, but only for hands?
I think one of the basic issues we have is that our only exposure to torture is what we see in movies. Or when our significant others are going through PMS. 🙂
Seriously though, When I hear about this, my mind does flash to movies, and I think: hey it worked for Steven Segal or Mel Gibson. So as a “common person” I have to say that I have no *real* exposure to the issue to even know if it works or not. (and naturally if anyone has any real experience with this topic, I am not speaking for you)
I will say that our enemies have no issue using death/torture against us; So that if in reality it DOES work, I have no issue with it. Now are there better possibilities than waterboarding? Perhaps, but again, I am going to say I really do not have enough knowledge of torture in general to say: hey this is a better option!
Scott, if it came down to the ticking time bomb scenario is there any doubt that someone would be willing to take the heat for breaking the rules and going all 24 on someone’s ášš?
And it’s just so unlikely a scenario that it isn’t worth losing the moral high ground over.
It’s like saying we would not initiate a first strike with nuclear weapons. Whether or not you think that’s a good policy statement is irrelevant; if a president was actually in a position where there was no doubt that a first strike would save millions of lives, they’d probably do it, policy be dámņëd. Ditto with torture; someone goes to President Obama and says they captured some guy with one of two missing nukes and they think the other one is in an american city and the captured guy knows where it is…President Obama, Clinton, McCain etc is going to just tell the CIA to get the info by any means necessary. If it results in the second nuke being found I doubt there will be any recriminations–I’d like to see anyone start impeachment proceedings based on having saved a city from nuclear annihilation. If the city is nuked the only complaints will be that he wasn’t tortured enough.
So the only value of this law is to keep torture from being used in ordinary non-nuclear bomb in the city circumstances. Which is as it should be. When you allow something to be used it gets used.
The US executed Japanese Officers after WWII for waterboarding American G.I.s.
Edhopper, is this really the case? I thought that the ones executed had far worse offenses on their hands. Which ones were executed just for waterboarding?
Scott, the problem with what you say, and what Bush always says, is that torture doesn’t work. The real world isn’t an episode of 24 and the bad guys don’t hold out just long enough to stop the nuke at 00:00:01 on the countdown clock.
Torture doesn’t work. History, including the Bush era history of torture, is full of innocent people being tortured into confessions of crimes they didn’t commit and people who did do something giving false information under “expert” torture sessions.
Besides, Bush can veto this law and it still doesn’t change the fact that what he’s authorizing is torture and that it’s already against U.S. law codes to commit acts of torture. Hopefully, we can all look forward to the trial starting by the end of 2009 and then enjoy the looks on George and Ðìçk’s faces as they get carted off for a long prison stay.
Hey, a man can dream can’t he?
Michael t,
Go rent Bravo Two Zero. Hëll, go buy Bravo Two Zero.
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=2278182&style=movie
It’s based on a true story of an SAS unit in the first Gulf War. They got caught and got some major torture smackdown put on ’em. They never broke their cover story and lied their butts off at each torture session. People can be trained to do that.
Then look at the real real world.
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_3655.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml
Michael t,
Go rent Bravo Two Zero. Hëll, go buy Bravo Two Zero.
It’s based on a true story of an SAS unit in the first Gulf War. They got caught and got some major torture smackdown put on ’em. They never broke their cover story and lied their butts off at each torture session. People can be trained to do that.
Then look at the real real world.
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_3655.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml
Just because something is a law, or even in a Constitution, doesn’t make it right. You can’t change something just by using a different label. Getting “right-sized” off your job is still getting liad off at work, which is still just losing your job and income no matter what you call it. Using physical or emotional duress in order to get someone to tell you something they don’t want to tell you is torture, somewhere along the spectrum of acts that constitute torture. It doesn’t matter if what you’re doing isn’t normally fatal, or even normally injurious…it’s still torture.
And it doesn’t work. There’s no information extraction method that can’t be trained against, and in fact methods that use fear or pair are the easiest to overcome. Not that such training is easy, but for any individual willing to strap on a TNT vest, do you really think there’s anything we can do here on Earth that’s going to shake their faith?
And not to say that everyone commiting a terrorist act has the convictions of a suicide bomber. And sure, occasionally we’ll catch that technician or contractor who might break under certain interrogation techniques. But as they say, a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Does torture sometimes produce reliable, valuable information? Sometimes. But the cost to our societal soul is too high. It reduces us to a savage brutality that we decry as evil everywhere else we see it. If we’re truly to act as the World’s Policeman, we have to embrace that our position puts limits on what we can, or would like to do, in fulfilling our role. That means playing by some rules. If we don’t, then we’re little better than the lawless warlords all over the world.
Just to be clear, the actual bill we’re referring to here is not explicitly an anti-waterboarding bill. It was one that would have prevented the CIA from doing anything that is not allowed by the armed forces, including hooding and sleep deprivation, among other, more questionable techniques.
I thought that the ones executed had far worse offenses on their hands. Which ones were executed just for waterboarding?
From what I’ve read, waterboarding was considered a war crime, and Japanese commanders who used it or authorized it were sentenced up to 20 years hard labor, but I don’t think this alone got anyone executed.
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”
— George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
How far our country has fallen since the boy emperor became president
A couple of corrections here:
1) the Japanese officer did NOT do what is now considered “waterboarding.” The practice he did was, essentially, controlled partial drowning.
2) Waterboarding was done on exactly three people, it now seems, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the Ron Jeremy/Rosie O’Donnell lookalike who was the guy who plotted the 9/11 attacks), who gave up everything he knew in a couple of minutes.
3) The restrictions on the military were designed to cover guys in the field who don’t undergo specialized training in how to use the more advanced techniques. The interrogators who would have been covered by this bill know a hëll of a lot more about interrogation than the average GI, and can do a far better job.
4) By my last count, the number of people waterboarded for demonstrative purposes (journalists, protesters, and the like) in public outnumber those waterboarded for interrogative purposes by at least ten to one.
J.
If I may offer a foreign perpective, from someone that lives in a country that until twenty years ago lived under a dictatorship… In Brazil, torture was used against everyone that rised up against the establishment. Guess who trained the secret police here? Well… The CIA. Alright. i’m not making accusations or anything because it was another time, the Cold War was raging and the justification was that everyone could be a communist. Still. People were thrown out Airplanes into the ocean in Argentina. So, my point is: When tortures stops being justifiable and turns into a way to quash any kind of opposition? Wouldn’t better if this question was never asked?
*shrugs* Just my two brazilian cents.
Mau
Hello All
Im New…
Jay Tea, there is no way to know how many people have been waterboarded. Your claims of just 3 can in no way be confirmed. And….
Waterboarding is EXACTLY controlled partial drowning.
Waterboarding was done on exactly three people
Do you honestly believe this, that our government has only waterboarded 3 people?
If so, I’ve got some land for sale…
Just use Google and have a look what freed British prisoners from Guantanamo Bay had to say about their treatment. I wish I could say I was surprised but no, unfortunately this is what I expected.
One of the men who returned is wearing an eye patch now. He told a reporter that he was held down and one guard poked his fingers into his eyes with quite some force. In an earlier appearance you could see clearly the damage done to one eye.
I am sure, there are many more horror stories going on we simply never hear about.
Bush and in general, the USA, has no moral right whatsoever to preach to other people about human rights! Also, THIS is not the way to fight terrorism. I think the world was a safer place before Bush started his crusade.
Hello All
Im New..
Hello. What do you think of torturing captives for information?
PAD
So, my point is: When tortures stops being justifiable and turns into a way to quash any kind of opposition? Wouldn’t better if this question was never asked?
And a very valid point it is.
Torture is the tactic of dictatorships and radical madmen. It may sound Yogi Berra-ish, but if we don’t stand for something, then we don’t stand for anything.
PAD
Jay Tea: “1) the Japanese officer did NOT do what is now considered “waterboarding.” The practice he did was, essentially, controlled partial drowning.“
Water is forced into the mouth/nose until need to breath overcomes the gag reflex and the lungs start to fill with water. Waterboarding is controlled, partial drowning.
Jay Tea: “Waterboarding was done on exactly three people…“
Ah, so it’s okay if we only do it to three people. What about four? Is four okay? What about fifty? Are our hands still clean, can we speak with moral authority as long as we do it to “only” fifty people?
Jay Tea: “The interrogators who would have been covered by this bill know a hëll of a lot more about interrogation than the average GI, and can do a far better job.“
And large number of interrogators from WW2 onwards (who know a lot more about interrogation than the average anybody) are on record as saying harsh interrogation techniques do NOT produce reliable, useful information.
Jay Tea: ““By my last count, the number of people waterboarded for demonstrative purposes (journalists, protesters, and the like) in public outnumber those waterboarded for interrogative purposes by at least ten to one.“
Oh, good! I think you may have answered my earlier question! It is okay to torture fifty people! As long as we demonstrate the practice on 500 journalists, etc.
(BTW, JT, you might want to check on just HOW those journalists, etc. described the experience. “Torture” was a common word.)
Yeah, gotta love that “On;y 3 people” argument. Because, god knows, this administration has been completely honest and forthcoming with information.
Please ignore the “lost” emails, sealed “public” records, the the fleet of peper-shredding trucks, thanks.
My typing sucks.
Being trained by the CIA, it’s ridiculous to think these guys will hold any information worth keeping 24 hours after being taken into custody. Captured French resistance, for example, felt free to blab after 24 hours of being in nazi custody because what they knew would have been worthless then. Having gone missing for that long, the resistance would have changed their plans.
If the bill could be tailored to prohibit torture after 24 hours into custody, we could probably count on cutting into 99.99% of the wrongness that goes on.
I’m sorry… But aren’t you guys splitting hairs? I mean… Torture isn’t justifiable by any argument. What if next time, the waterboarding is done in criminals to get them to inform the polic? Is that justifiable? Again, I’m sorry. I don’t want to flame anyone. Just… Being spontaneous (and making several grammar mistakes, which I apologize. It’s my second language…)
Mau
1 must be so out of it. I saw the headline about waterboarding, and had to read half the article to understand why they wanted to ban it….! I thought it was about watersports…..! *blush*
PAD,
Do you really believe if Hillary or Obama was in office, there was a ticking nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, and she had a prime suspect who could tell where it was, she or he would refuse to use waterboarding?
I do believe there is good reason to fear the government (Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal). I do think in most ways we have to take the moral high ground. But scaring someone into talking is a far cry from cutting off a limb or removing their fingernails.
Waterboarding is simulated drowning. I would consider it a form of torture. But it is a radically different form than practiced by most dictators. It does not physically maim or harm the individual in the same way as other forms of torture. Does that mean I take it lightly? No. Should it be used in most cases? No. But I do think a moral argument can be made for its use in some extreme cases.
The issue is what keeps it from being a tool that is abused? Good question. But I think there is far more reason to fear the Clinton’s of the world than George W. Bush for abusing power.
Bottom line, this bill was a farce. The Dems knew it would be vetoed. If it really had the moral authority you claim, the veto would be overridden. The reality is it is a farce. I believe most of you on this site sincerely believe in your opposition. But I do not think that is true for most of the politicians. This is political gamesmanship done for show. Nothing more, nothing less.
Iowa Jim
“2) Waterboarding was done on exactly three people, it now seems, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the Ron Jeremy/Rosie O’Donnell lookalike who was the guy who plotted the 9/11 attacks), who gave up everything he knew in a couple of minutes.”
Nope. As far back as November 18, 2005 ABC News reports indicated that the CIA officials reported “debatable results” from that interrogation. When they finally revealed all that he “confessed” to, it quickly became a joke as a good chunk of it was hogwash.
Besides, Stalin tortured people who never did a thing to him and coerced confessions from them. Are you now ready to declare that all of those innocent people really were justly put to death and imprisoned for life? After all, Stalin’s people knew a hëll of a lot about torture and I’m sure they used proper technique. The confessions under torture must be true.
“2) Waterboarding was done on exactly three people, it now seems,…”
Nice backdoor there. “It now seems,” you say? And you know this because of what top secret clearance? Oh, you’re just saying that because Bush and crew have told us that? Hm… This is the same Bush and crew that was saying that we never did that until they couldn’t deny it anymore, but I’m sure they’re being completely honest now.
“3) The restrictions on the military were designed to cover guys in the field who don’t undergo specialized training in how to use the more advanced techniques. The interrogators who would have been covered by this bill know a hëll of a lot more about interrogation than the average GI, and can do a far better job.”
Doesn’t matter. It’s against our laws and international laws to torture. It is an unreliable means of collecting information and serves no real purpose other than showing what a sadistic SOB some people can be.
“4) By my last count, the number of people waterboarded for demonstrative purposes (journalists, protesters, and the like) in public outnumber those waterboarded for interrogative purposes by at least ten to one.”
Even if true, that’s irrelevant. One person is too many. We do not sell our beliefs, our values and or souls down the river for convenience’s sake or because some people are too stupid or scared to know better. America does not stand for torture when it is applied to our people our people allied to us. We better dámņëd well stand up and denounce it when we’re the torturers.
“But it is a radically different form than practiced by most dictators.”
Only in so far as who’s doing it this time. And if that’s really the only true difference, then there’s no difference at all.
I only know what I read and what’s on TV, but from the technical approaches to waterboarding, isn’t it more accurate to say that it’s not controlled drowning, but creating the phsyical sensation of drowning, to capitalize on the fear that one is drowning? Anyone feel free to correct me, but I’ve seen several experts talk about how the subject is never in any real danger…that they are still getting oxygen, aren’t going to drown, etc., but the boy reacts as though it is.
Which doesn’t change my stance on it…whether conducted within 10 miuntes of apprehension, or 10 weeks, it’s stil torture.
As for the proverbial ticking bomb scenario…I think that’s a fallacy. Say our security does miss such a bomb being delivered and activated…and we have a high-level suspect in that plot with hours to go before the threatened detonation time. Honest, if someone’s that connected that they know of the location, and know that millions of people are about to be killed, does anyone think that any level of torture, coercion, or bribery is going to get any response out of him? This isn’t TV, where you can “break” someone in a short amount of time. Sure, maybe over months and years of torture you can so wear down their resolve that they do, in fact, break, but at that point, how reliable is anything you learn from them? But in that ticking time bomb moment? You’re not going to break anyone, and they aren’t going to tell you. They’ve already gotten the nerve to kill millions, or at least hundreds of thousands. It’s a war to them, and they are a soldier…they’ve already signed away their life for their cause. All torturing them does is make the side of those holding him worse than animals.
I was watching Bill Maher a few weeks back, and the subject of torture came up. (If you get HBO, I highly recommend ‘Real Time with Bill Maher’ — love him or hate him, he always has interesting guests from both sides of the political spectrum, which leads to some fascinating conversations.)
He made what I think was a valid point — the CIA has most likely ALWAYS used torture in extreme cases (I’m talking rarely), we just never heard about it. I’m talking about past and present, not just the current moronic administration.
I’m not condoning it, just stating a fact. I think it’s being a bit Pollyanna-ish to think that we’ve never tortured prisoners in this country.
Iowa Jim: “Waterboarding is simulated drowning.“
No.
It is actual drowning. Water is forced into the mouth/nose until a need to breath overwhelms the gag reflex and the lungs start to fill with water. That is drowning. Nothing “simulated” about it.
That the victim is not actually killed doesn’t make it any less of a real drowning. If someone held you under until you needed mouth-to-mouth to survive, would you not claim they were trying to drown you?
“I’m not condoning it, just stating a fact. I think it’s being a bit Pollyanna-ish to think that we’ve never tortured prisoners in this country.”
There’s a world of difference between using it, and embracing it. I don’t doubt that our government and armed forces have done many things that would be seen as repellant by society. As Col. Jessup says, we want people like him on the wall. At the same time, we must at times reign in those very same people for doing what we want them capable of doing. And I don’t see anything wrong with that.
Dawn S.: “He made what I think was a valid point — the CIA has most likely ALWAYS used torture in extreme cases (I’m talking rarely), we just never heard about it. I’m talking about past and present, not just the current moronic administration.“
So what IS his (or your) point? Because it has been used in the past, we shouldn’t condemn its use now?
Do you really believe if Hillary or Obama was in office, there was a ticking nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, and she had a prime suspect who could tell where it was, she or he would refuse to use waterboarding?
I think you’ve watched too many episodes of “24.”
PAD
PAD: “I think you’ve watched too many episodes of “24.”“
Seriously.
Can we just dispense with the “ticking time bomb” scenario, folks? Until someone can provide at least one example where this has actually been the case in real life (Go ahead. We’ll wait.), let’s just leave it out.
Speaking of war-crime tribunals: At Nuremberg (from which the main lesson we should take is “There is only one war capital crime – losing.”), Admiral Doenitz was originally to be tried on capital charges for (primarily) ordering/permitting unlimited submarine warfare in the Atlantic, but:
Basically, Nimitz (and, i think, Halsey) said “if you want to try this man for this as a crime, you’d better at least take back the medals you gave me for the same thing.”
Not that i think it was a Good Idea to turn the subs loose in either theatre…
Your initial post sort of put me in mind of the bumper sticker that says “Be nice to the US or we’ll bring democracy to *your* country.”
While I have no intention of voting for McCain, I think it’s important to point out that McCain voted against this bill because it requires the intelligence services to adhere to Army field manual regulations in interrogations. And while McCain is absolutely opposed to waterboarding and any other form of torture, the field manual is more restrictive than simply banning torture (it was designed for the handling of ordinary soldiers in conventional wars).
What measures should be allowed is an important issue to be discussed and debated, but I wouldn’t slam McCain as being wishy-washy on torture due to this vote. He’s been Bush’s most consistent opponent on that issue.
PAD,
Actually, I have only seen 3 episodes of “24.” I liked more realistic shows like “Alias.”
Iowa Jim
PAD,
Actually, I have only seen 3 episodes of “24.” I liked more realistic shows like “Alias.”
Iowa Jim
Captured French resistance, for example, felt free to blab after 24 hours of being in nazi custody because what they knew would have been worthless then. Having gone missing for that long, the resistance would have changed their plans.
Actually, one of the main bits of info the nazis wanted was the identities of other resistors; information which would not change after 24 hours or 24 years for that matter. I seem to recall a recent official who was brought up on charges of having tortured some resistors and used the information obtained to capture and kill others.
Sure torture can work, especially against ordinary people (like those resisting an occupation). That isn’t relevant. Lots of things work but unless one takes a strict utilitarian view of morality this should not be the guiding factor.
Iowa Jim–the problem with the ticking time bomb scenario is that it requires a highly unlikely set of circumstances–life isn’t an episode of 24. But imagine we do have a terrorist who knows where the bomb is. We torture him and he talks. Why the hëll would he tell the truth? As soon as he says “It’s in the Holland tunnel” the torture stops and we waste time going to the Holland tunnel while the real bomb ticks away on the Staten Island ferry. Since all he has to do to stop the torture is talk what incentive does he really have to tell the truth? And if the terrorists know he’s been captured why would they not just detonate the bomb right then and there? A bomb exploded anywhere on US soil will do the trick, it doesn’t have to be the White House.
PAD: Do you really believe if Hillary or Obama was in office, there was a ticking nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, and she had a prime suspect who could tell where it was, she or he would refuse to use waterboarding?
I think you’ve watched too many episodes of “24.”
PAD
Yeah!… Next thing you know he’ll be comparing it to a ridiculous senario involving jet planes and flying them into skyscrapers.
Just for clarity…. The Terrorists (Yes.Terrorists) are not drown during water boarding, they are put into a state of near drowning. A drown Terrorist, is a dead Terrorist and you cannot get info from a dead Terrorist.
I say, if it will save lives, do what you need to do to get info. Times have changed.
“I say, if it will save lives, do what you need to do to get info. Times have changed.”
No, they haven’t. History shows that there have almost always been people willing to do anything to kill everyone else not like themselves. That’s what we have today. It’s what just about every corner of the world has had to deal with at one time or another.
Which is a trick that works exactly one time, and that pony’s been paraded around now, so everyon knows what it looks like. I’m firmly of the belief that such an attack cannot happen again…passengers won’t let it, and once the air fleet goes GPS, the military won’t let it, either.
Which is not to say that we should relax airport security efforts. We still have the safety of those passengers to worry about, so we don’t have to decide to shoot down our own planes.
As for the ticking nuclear bomb scenario…yeah, it’s far fetched. Making a nuclear bomb is not easy. Neither is setting one off. Transporting it is a trick, too. It requires a level of technical expertise that it’s difficult to conduct in secret. And as I and others have pointed out, in the event one is shipped, deliverd, planted, and armed, it’s not torture that’s going to reveal the location. It’ll be comprehensive data study.
Here’s another thing that TV has mislead people on…court trials are not usually decided by witness testimony. Just about every study will show that first hand visual observance is highly unreliable. Flatly put, people’s memory is bad, and it degrades significantly with even a slight passage of time. Given that, torturing information out of someone is subject to that same questionable quality. Even if what you get is the truth as the prisoner knows it, that still doesn’t make it accurate. That’s before you take into account that many operatives are taught to provide false, or old, information. The best you could hope to do is acquire information to check against other sources to look for similarities and patterns.
Bear this in mind…you’re questioning your enemy. He has little incentive to help you, because to them, it’s war, and they are ready and willing to die. Why you would trust anything they say under any circumstances defies logic.
I’m deeply suspicious of any arguments about whether torture really works or not, pro or against.
It’s one of those issues that cause strong emotion and there is so much ideology involved. “It’s so disgusting and horrible, then of course it must not work”.
It’s like sexual mores or abortion or gun control. I can imagine, without looking it up, which specific groups will present studies showing how gun control is good for crime prevention and which groups will present studies saying the very opposite.
Who can we believe?
I’ll have a lot more respect for the guy who says: “Even if torture does work, we still shouldn’t use it, because it’s morally wrong.”
Well, I don’t really believe that governments or states are moral entities and for that reason I do my best to drown out or ignore any idea that “we shouldn’t torture because it’s wrong and we’re the good guys so we should stand on higher ground”. Of course I don’t believe in more moral human beings or less human beings, strictly speaking. With the same strictness I believe different human beings are more or less scumbags and others have different qualities. So what makes an American better than a Terrorist is a philosophical issue that I am not going to fly down.
What’s important is not that torture is morally wrong except under certain scenarios. We shouldn’t torture people as rule 1 for the only reason that we don’t have ends that justify those means. Rule 2, of course, in a civilized society is that there are some means which can be justified by certain ends (and some means that can never be justified by ends…. probably).
I think Rules 3 and 4 are more important than 1 and 2. Rule 3 is that you don’t tell bad guys that you have ruled out stuff that you are going to do to them. Rule 4 is don’t make it open what sort of interrogation tactics you have remaining in your Allowable Book, even through Process of Elimination.
Therefore…. rather than Sign a law disallowing a method of interrogation that you believe you (or one of your successors) may end up breaking in the future (the dumb-assiest approach to Constitutional Law)… it’s better to make a policy of simply not doing the horrible thing as a general rule, and don’t sign any laws that you intend to stick to which would send a signal to Horrible People as to what we refuse to do to them. NRO put it as thus: “First, we know that al-Qaeda operatives are trained to resist known questioning methods, so it makes no sense to help them by making our methods literally an open book.”
“These uncontroversial facts make it difficult to understand why congressional Democrats want to hand our enemies the playbook — literally, an actual manual — that details the full menu of U.S. interrogation practices and ensures gentle treatment for captured jihadists. President Bush, to his credit, would rather keep al-Qaeda guessing. That necessity, and not torture or waterboarding, is the reason for the president’s sound veto Saturday of a bill that would have restricted intelligence interrogators to the tactics set forth in the Army Field Manual.”
Besides that, the Bill was not only about water-boarding or torture, and if it was a bad bill to should Vetoed, regardless if there is something in it that I like or if the main thrust is unquestionably good.
Regardless of why Bush-43 vetoed the bill, he did the right thing.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3YmEwODc4ZjVhMWUxYTRhMTFiMWI0NzZlOGFmNmU=&w=MA==
I am against water-boarding, for what it’s worth. But if the CIA or whoever does have a list of things we don’t do to bad guys, I don’t want to know what’s on the list.
Pat Nolan: “Yeah!… Next thing you know he’ll be comparing it to a ridiculous senario [sic] involving jet planes and flying them into skyscrapers.“
If the 9/11 plot was to be stopped ahead of time, it would have been because the numerous clues from the months leading up to the attack had been recognized, evaluated and acted on. Not because we lucked out and found some guy with info on an attack we knew was going to happen soon but knew nothing else about. The ticking bomb scenario in all it’s forms is the stuff of TV and movie thrillers ONLY.
Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one.
Pat Nolan: “Just for clarity…. The Terrorists (Yes.Terrorists) are not drown [sic] during water boarding, they are put into a state of near drowning.“
Correct. They are not actually drowned as in “He drowned, He’s dead.” But they are being drowned. Water is being forced into their lungs and they are being drowned. That it is stopped before a lethal conclusion makes it no less of a drowning.
Pat Nolan: “I say, if it will save lives, do what you need to do to get info. Times have changed.“
But people have not. And the nature and efficacy of torture have not. It is not an effective means for getting reliable information, especially under the “ticking bomb” scenario which advocates love to trot out so much.