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
• 
For a lengthy discussion on this very topic, I respectfully direct your attention to this thread on Making Light. In which even people in the Armed Forces acknowledge that torture doesn’t work, and the “ticking bomb” scenario is a bogus rationale.
Rene, I think you have totally hit the nail on the head. It’s a bad argument to say that torture is wrong because it doesn’t work.
For starters, I think it can be demonstrated repeatedly that torture does indeed work, especially in certain circumstances. Ironically, the ticking time bomb scenario most often used to justify torture is one of the least likely scenarios to yield good results, for reasons I and others have already mentioned. As a means of inducing fear and obedience among a population it’s pretty good. As a way of getting people to give up accomplices it’s great. Hëll, some folks would sell out their won mother for a klondike bar. Just threaten someone’s career and many will fold like a cheap suit; nobody had to pull out Elia Kazan’s fingernails to get him to name names.
Secondly, suppose a new and improved method of torture was devised that would, with near 100% efficiency, get anyone to spill their guts anytime, a torture so hideous that they would not even dare lie to their interrogators for fear of repeating the experience. Would this in any way alter the morality of the technique’s use?
Genocide isn’t wrong because it doesn’t work (there will always be a few Gypsies, Jews or Armenians who slip through the cracks after all). It’s wrong because it’s genocide.
Now someone can certainly ask whether if, God forbid, I were in a position where one of my kids was kidnapped and buried alive somewhere and I had one of the kidnappers at my mercy, would I entertain the notion of plunging broken glass rods into the fleshy parts of his anatomy until he decided to voluntarily do the right thing? Well, sure. But I have faith in my ability to not abuse such options. I have no such faith in anyone else. Nor should they have that faith in me. And I don’t pretend that such actions would be ennobling or even morally defensible. I can understand how individuals may be driven to it but I don’t want any faceless entity like a government feeling they have the option at the ready.
I really don’t know why he didn’t sign this bill. How many of us really think our security services respect all the laws of our country. To save face say one thing do another. Also we know that many terror cell are training there men to resist water boarding.
Simply put its usefulness is becoming more limited all the time and it would be a good sign to world if we stopped it. Always to lead by example in my mind.
I’ve heard the same arguments for torture before. In the mouth of Bigeard, Massu, Aussaresse, and many french soldiers who used it in Algeria. Ironically, some of them had had those same tactics used on them by the Nazis and/or the VietCong (although, at the time, it was called the VietMinh). If I remember well, the United States were pretty much against those methods. My take is that if it was wrong then, it is wrong now. If it was wrong for the French to do it, it is wrong for the United States to do it. And yes, it was wrong to do it then, regardless of what the other side was doing (and they were indeed doing very gruesome things. Philippeville comes to mind).
What I’ve said is relevant because the justification for torture has been framed by urgent life-or-death scenarios, and you haven’t contradicted this. I’m saying terrorists can adjust their destructive plans if one of their key players is picked up, and you’re example wasn’t one of the imminent life-or-death scenarios cited to justify torture.
Mike: “What I’ve said is relevant because the justification for torture has been framed by urgent life-or-death scenarios, and you haven’t contradicted this. I’m saying terrorists can adjust their destructive plans if one of their key players is picked up, and you’re example wasn’t one of the imminent life-or-death scenarios cited to justify torture.
But the life-and-death scenarios used to justify torture are bogus. They don’t happen outside entertainment thrillers. I’ve yet to see anyone provide even one example of where a “ticking bomb” situation existed and torturing someone saved the day.
So framing the discussion by these scenarios, using them as a basis to justify allowing torture as standard operating procedure doesn’t make sense.
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?
That classic hypothetical is as relevant as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The odds that there would ever be such a scenario with the perfect storm of elements to make the hypothetical a reality (a bomb successfully smuggled in, no one knowing about it until it was almost too late to do anything, somehow finding someone who absolutely knows the relevant details, us knowing for absolutely certain that he knew and yet despite knowing all that not knowing where the bomb was, etc) are too darn long to fathom. Using an extremely remote possibility to determine policy is, at best, ridiculous and very probably dangerous.
And even if torture is deemed “necessary” in such a scenario, it should never be condoned, let alone considered a noble act. Those involved would still need to be investigated and tried for crimes committed. They may be found innocent, but they still would need to face justice like any other person.
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.
Torture does not scare someone into talking, it coerces them to talk and say anything to have it stop. Waterboarding coerces talk and is de facto torture.
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.
Enough people have commented that waterboarding is not simulated, but rather, controlled drowning so I won’t belabor the point. The one point I want to address is a position I’ve noticed many pro-waterboarders embrace: That waterboarding is somehow acceptable because it doesn’t “physically maim or harm” the subject.
The ultimate goal of torture is not to break the body but to break the spirit. Physical pain is one way of doing that, but you don’t have to physically hurt a person to crack his soul. The ability to inflict mental and spiritual pain without physically injuring someone doesn’t mean it’s not torture or more acceptable torture, it just means it’s more clinical and efficient torture.
(And as an aside, thank you for conceding that waterboarding is, in fact, torture. If there is one thing that drives me nuts, it’s folk who claim to be against torture, but are completely for waterboarding on the premise that it isn’t torture – despite waterboarding being considered exactly that for literally centuries.)
In extreme circumstances, almost any abhorrent act can be argued for, but that does not mean that abhorrent acts should be given legal sanction just in case an extreme circumstance somehow arises.
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.
W. has argued for and acquired the affirmed right for the President to arrest and detain anyone (citizen or foreigner) without cause or possibility of review and use “coercive interrogation” if he (or, presumably, his appointed proxies) deems a person to be an “enemy combatant.” Clinton has not ever suggested such a radical position. Why is she more dangerous?
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.
What makes it a farce is that waterboarding is already, unequivocally, against the law as any plain, common sense reading of the US Code will tell you (TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113C § 2340) and that the Bush Administration needs to be reminded so bluntly. The fact that W. will still not take the hint (and the moral cowardice of the GOP in Congress who cannot/will not break the lockstep they have fallen into) makes this farce into a tragedy.
Posted by Bill Mulligan
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.
Part of that 24 hours was to let the others whom he knew go under. And, in the *real* Resistance (Rather like the Dublin GPO in the Easter Rising, of which it’s been said “Fifty men* marched in and five thousand heroes marched out,” a lot of people – both at the time and later – *claimed* to have been in the Resistance. And at least some of *those* were, in fact, active collaborationists.), you might be abl;e to recognise the othe rmembers of your Action Group – but unless they were members of your immediate cell (generally five or fewer, i believe) you didn’t know their names or addresses.
Posted by Sean D. Martin
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.
Actually, the descriptions i have read indocate that they are, in fact, strapped head down, a plastic bag covers the mouth and nose, preventing breathing, and then water is poured over their faces, which gives the sensation of drowning.
The technique you describe would result in actual physical damage to the lungs – probably leading to pneumonia – which (at least, if you believe the waterboarding advocates) does not occur.
Posted by matt
I really don’t know why he didn’t sign this bill. How many of us really think our security services respect all the laws of our country. To save face say one thing do another. Also we know that many terror cell are training there men to resist water boarding.
Possibly because *someone* in the Current Ruling Junta in Washington DC is smart enough to foresee that someone might want to bring charges of one sort or another against the architects of our current brilliantly successful policies, and advised vetoing it so as to not give further ammunition for such charges.
*Or however many actually followed Connelly and his fellow Socialists.
One of the problems I have with torture is that with certain groups, when you torture them, you’re giving them what they want. You’re making them into martyrs. Also, in the increasingly-thought-to-be-crap time bomb scenario, you catch the Bad Guy. Threaten to torture the living crap out of him. The Bad Guy knows when the bomb is going to go off. He knows how long he has to hold out before the explosion.
mike weber: “Actually, the descriptions i have read indocate that they are, in fact, strapped head down, a plastic bag covers the mouth and nose, preventing breathing, and then water is poured over their faces, which gives the sensation of drowning.“
Different than the descriptions I’ve read, but I certainly wouldn’t argue that there might be more than one technique used.
_____________
In my case, the technique was so fast and professional that I didn’t know what was happening until the water entered my nose and throat,” Nance testified yesterday at a House oversight hearing on torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. “It then pushes down into the trachea and starts the process of respiratory degradation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html
Sean: “Also, in the increasingly-thought-to-be-crap [It actually is crap. – SDM] time bomb scenario, you catch the Bad Guy. Threaten to torture the living crap out of him. The Bad Guy knows when the bomb is going to go off. He knows how long he has to hold out before the explosion.“
Exactly.
1 – The chain of events needed to have a viable “ticking bomb” scenario just don’t happen. We’d have to find out about a plot too late to do anything about it, but happen to have (or get) someone who does know the details. We’d have to know enough to know the prisoner has the info we need, but not enough to know what that info is. It just doesn’t happen outside books/TV/movies.
2 – Should the immensely improbable scenario occur, the person being questioned would only have to hold out for a brief period of time. And could easily declare all sorts of false answers (“The target is the Sears Tower!” when it’s actually Met Life building.) that would send agents off on a wild goose chase while the clock ticks to 0.
Ticking Time Bomb Scenario – complete bogus. And beware those who use it to advocate for torture. They either are not thinking or are hiding their real motives.
Here’s four:
1. First WTC bombing 1993
2. Oklahoma bombing 1995
3. U.S. Embassy bombings 1998
4. USS Cole bombing 2000
Pat Nolan: “
Here’s four:
1. First WTC bombing 1993
2. Oklahoma bombing 1995
3. U.S. Embassy bombings 1998
4. USS Cole bombing 2000″
Seriously? Those were four suprise attacks, but hardly the “ticking bomb” situations we’re talking about.
Are you saying we had someone in custody in the hours leading up to those incidents
– who knew about the imminent attacks
– who we knew had information about the imminent attacks and
– we would have been able to prevent the attacks if we’d tortured them for the info?
All four of those incidents were surprises. OK, there might have been some warning to the imminent attack on the Cole since they could see the boat coming. But even there who could we have possibly tortured to find out something that would have stopped the attack, what with the boat moments away from the Cole?
Pat, ticking bomb scenarios don’t happen in the real world.
Pat Nolan: “Posted by Sean [sic] D. Martin“
And, yes, Pat. That is how may name is spelled.
Are you freakin’ kidding me, Nolan? Are you taking us for simpletons?
You’re completely ignoring what was asked:
I’ll repeat the question:
“Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one.”
And you give four examples where the terrorists attacked.
Not a single one of those played out like an episode of 24, where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and we managed to somehow justify torture.
It didn’t happen in those instances, and it probably never will in any other potential future attack.
Your argument just jumped off a cliff.
my feelings are–do what ever you can to get what ever info you can to protect us.
Just as a pragmatic reason, I suspect that even if there are gains by using torture or similar methods against terrorism, the damage it does to the image of the US is far worse. Things like Guantanamo and the Iraq prison abuse are the best propaganda the terrorists could have hoped for.
Someone said that the CIA has probably used torture in secret since forever. So why has it become now such a big deal? I can imagine two reasons: Because it happens much more often, or because it is made known intentionally, for propaganda reasons. The second would be a very strange tactic, but nevertheless might have some psychological reasons. I’m going to totally speculate now, and am not sure if I seriously believe it, but I can imagine some psychological similarity to Ku Klux Klan lynchings being at work here: Something like keeping the black guys scared and showing them who’s boss, even if the wrong one is hanged. Ignoring how ethically disgusting that is, in a brutally pragmatic way that sort of policy might, sadly, actually have produced results against the black population. But against terrorists, who are not a surpressed minority, but who’s reason for violence is hurt national or religious pride in the first place?
Again, that was me totally speculating, and I admit I’m not American and shouldn’t claim to know much about American psychology.
Anyway, I guess what’s more important is that allowing torture is connected to getting rid of human rights and civil liberties. It has become fashionable to consider those things luxuries one just cannot afford anymore in our new harsh times. But I think those rights were introduced for very good reasons, and not because some tree-hugging do-gooders wanted to polish their halo. If you allow a government to abuse it’s power, it will do that sooner or later. Maybe not this one, but the ones following. 9-11 was a very terrible thing, sure, but how many people died in WW2? What is so new about terrorism that one should give up the constitutional fundaments of a society?
And I think torture, in connection with the patriot act, provides a very real danger that this might happen. The problem is not so much that terrorists might be mistreated. It is that innocents might be suspected of being terrorists and imprisoned and tortured for years without legal procedure. That has already happened several times, if we can believe the news. For all I know, the CIA or whoever made honest mistakes here. But I’m very sure, if those things become standard procedure, even legal, they will be abused. First to cover their tracks to avoid bad publicity, then maybe to scare journalists they don’t like, and then everyone who opposes them politically, and soon you have a reign of terror. Seems far fetched? Maybe, but after the first steps have been taken, maybe even without “evil” intentions, it might be to late to stop the ones who will be willing to abuse those kind of powers.
I’m aware of Godwin’s law, but remember, Hitler had no problems in getting rid of the constitution and civil liberties because the german parliament building was burned down by a terrorist attack, and most people thought it a good thing to hunt down the communists everyone thought responsible (maybe even correctly, I think historians were never able to decide that) with all means necessary.
As you can see from the thread of what’s been discussed, when I responded to Bill with “you haven’t contradicted this,” “this” referred to “What I’ve said,” not any “justification for torture.” While you’ve pointed out the hypothetical scenarios have been bogus, I’ve pointed out torture is unwarranted even if that which we agree has been bogus were to play out in reality, so you have no apparent cause to challenge what I say.
If terrorists are competent enough to pull off even a suicide bombing, they are never, ever going to take the chance an agent taken captive won’t give them away. If one of their agents taken knows anything, their first priority will be to take evasive maneuvers and cover their tracks — and there goes your imminent danger. Therefore torture is always unjustified.
No Ries… I’m not freakin’ kidding you. The question was asked and I,ll let you repeat it.
Granted, Kiefer Sutherland wasn’t there. An actual ticking clock wasn’t played and there certainly weren’t any commercial breaks.
Oh… I see, what you, and/or Mr Martin really meant to ask was:
“Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and we managed to somehow justify torture.”
You know…Not all of “24” was about where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and they managed to somehow justify torture.
As a matter of fact, in the last dismal season (talk about torture) they actually managed to nuke LA.
So how about next time, Mr Martin, instead of spending your time pointing out my horrible spelling abilities, ask the FULL question your thinking, I dont read minds.
=== === ===
Posted by Sean D. Martin at March 10, 2008 02:13 PM
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?
=== === ===
Sean, Dawn said in her very next paragraph that she doesn’t condone torture. Perhaps you missed it.
So, for all those who think torture is acceptable given the severity of the threat:
Should we let the police torture people? Do we put off that whole pesky Miranda law and give cops the leeway to go to town on a suspect? Do we allow certain amount of time based on the accused crime — maybe 15 minutes to recover some money, an hour for a potential murdered, three hours to find a kidnapped person? And if the wrong person is tortured, do we just dust them off, put salve on their injuries, and offer them a “no harm, no foul” afterwards?
And if not, why let the government do what the police aren’t allowed to do?
How nice of you, Pat, to change the argument to fit your ‘facts’.
Torture will never prevent imminent mortal danger to anyone’s life. Such a notion has no fidelity to reality. It will never happen.
What are you talking about? By your own admission, you can’t answer neither Sean’s literal question — and you can’t answer the question you fabricated for him. How is that anyone else’s fault but yours?
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 10, 2008 11:19 PM
How nice of you, Pat, to change the argument to fit your ‘facts’.
What in the Hëll are you talking about, Craig?
I answered the question both times. You don’t like the answer, thats fine, I can live with that.
How did i change what argument?
“I’ll repeat the question: “Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one.”
“Granted, Kiefer Sutherland wasn’t there. An actual ticking clock wasn’t played and there certainly weren’t any commercial breaks.
Oh… I see, what you, and/or Mr Martin really meant to ask was:”
“Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and we managed to somehow justify torture.”
“You know…Not all of “24” was about where the attack was stopped because a thousand things fell into place and they managed to somehow justify torture.
As a matter of fact, in the last dismal season (talk about torture) they actually managed to nuke LA.”
_______________________________________________
“What in the Hëll are you talking about, Craig?
I answered the question both times. You don’t like the answer, thats fine, I can live with that.
How did i change what argument?”
Come on, Pat. You seriously have to ask? The scenario that was being discussed was the 24/ticking time bomb argument. You gave as “real world examples” of that scenario examples that aren’t even close. You got called on that and then you said that they weren’t really the ticking time bomb examples, weren’t really the examples of the argument being made and then stated that they were basically still right because that’s not the only storyline in 24.
Nope, nope and nope. The challenge at hand, in the context it was presented to you in, was to show a real world example of the ticking time bomb/we have the bomber and have to torture the location out of him example that is a favorite amongst the right wing talking pinheads. You gave bad examples that didn’t come close to that. You didn’t answer the question or, at best, you did so extremely poorly.
I’ll repeat, for the last time:
“Cite me just one incident in the real world that played out like an episode of 24. Just one.”
Your response so far has been:
“As a matter of fact, in the last dismal season (talk about torture) they actually managed to nuke LA.”
Last I checked, no terrorists have nuked the US. Nobody’s been tortured to prevent a nuke from going off at the last second, etc, etc.
So, I guess then you have no examples after all?
I answered extremely poorly. Sorry guys!!
Rene – “Who should we believe?”
How about professional interrogators who have gone public in stating torture simply doesn’t work and is, at the very least, a waste of time and effort best otherwise spent?
As for those pointing out Japan used to do ‘waterboarding’. No, no, no, you’ve got it all wrong.
Seen, when ‘they’ do it, it’s ‘bad’. When ‘we’ do it, it’s ‘good’. Same thing as when ‘they’ fingerprint visitors, or issue travel papers, or … See it’s ‘bad’ because ‘they’ did it and we could wag fingers at them. But now it’s ‘us’ doing it, so it’s ‘good’. All a matter of perspective really.
Now excuse me while I go throw up in disgust.
My main problem is the continuing downward definition of “torture.” I’ve never really had a Webster’s-style definition, but to me, “torture” requires certain elements — some or all of these:
1) Serious physical injury
2) Permanent or long-lasting psychological trauma
3) Maiming
It’s a heavy-duty word, and the criteria for using it should be strict as hëll.
Waterboarding, as I understand it, places the subject (OK, victim, if you prefer) in NO physical danger and causes NO injury. (I’m going with the “plastic over the face and water poured over it” version I’ve heard and seen.) It creates the sensation of drowning, triggering the normal reflex responses to drowning, but NO water enters the mouth and lungs. It’s an express lane to primal terror that ends in seconds — and it cannot be ignored or overcome through experience.
But in the end, the victim is utterly uninjured (although their upper body — and undergarments) might be wet) and suffers no permanent damage or trauma.
I’ll reserve “torture” to things such as actual torture. When we’re talking about putting CIA interrogators on trial for doing their duty, I want a very clear, very precise definition on the books — none of this “I don’t like it, so it’s bad and illegal” crap like we’ve had covering concepts like obscenity and pornography.
J.
Jay, the need for a good definition of torture is probably wise. Some of the things I’ve seen thrown around hardly qualify. In fact, by those standards virtually everyone in prison in most parts of the world are undergoing torture.
But I’d disagree that waterboarding, even if its the type that covers the face in plastic wrap and does not allow water to enter the body, does not result in trauma. Psychological tortures may leave the most long lasting wounds.
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?
Unfortunately, 24 may actually be encouraging interrogators to use harsher techniques than they ordinarily might. If it’s done on television and it looks okay, then surely it can be done in real life.
First, we have the CSI effect creating havoc in the criminal justice system, and now 24 encourages soldiers and interrogators to torture. Is American society simply unable to discern the difference between reality and fantasy anymore?
Waterboarding is torture because the US prosecuted it as torture. It ain’t Rocket Surgery.
Therefore torture is always unjustified.
I guess it comes down to one simple question about torture. I will preface that question with the comment that torture is presumably to obtain information, and not to “punish” an opponent, or teach their people a lesson or any such (because God help the USA if that’s why we’re doing it…)
Torture will obtain information from a victim – but why would ANYONE assume that it’s intelligent information? I’m a man – not a brave or heroic one – and if I were being tortured, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have the guts to stay silent, and I’m just as certain that I would say ANYTHING, sign anything, to get the torture to stop.
So why would anybody think to use it to get valid intelligence? And if it’s NOT used for that – why torture? Isn’t that taking the LOWEST moral ground?
It’s impeachment time. There’s enough evidence, even without terminal stupidity and uncontrollable lust for power and money being impeachable offenses.
I remain,
Sincerely,
Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
I think torture is always bad, Starwolf.
Perhaps you misunderstand my point? My point was that it is a complete waste of time to argue about the effectiveness of torture. What truly matters is that it’s morally wrong. Period.
I don’t care one whit if torture works or not. Let’s NOT use it, even if it works.
Forgive me if I’m cynical. Living in a society where everyone has an agenda and is ready to manipulate data in their favor does it to you. I find it hard to believe anyone anymore when a hot button issue is involved. Give them time, and I’m sure conservatives could find interrogation specialists that say that torture works. Or they can get some specialists to lie, whatever.
Rene, when you and Bill say to disregard the effectiveness of torture, you seem to treat the notion that torture can prevent an imminent attack as plausible. Is that what you had in mind? Because torture will never, ever prevent an imminent attack.
Craig,
By way of some explanation to last nights words, not an excuse but an explaination, I didnt realize you and Mr Martin were reiterating a fully asked question. I took the question from Mr. Martin at face value and ran. It wasnt until Jerry voiced his opposition that I went back and reread the whole thread and saw my error. So again, My apologies to you both.
It doesn’t sound like standing up too quickly will be good for you today, Pat.
My main problem is the continuing downward definition of “torture.” I’ve never really had a Webster’s-style definition, but to me, “torture” requires certain elements — some or all of these:
1) Serious physical injury
2) Permanent or long-lasting psychological trauma
3) Maiming
It’s a heavy-duty word, and the criteria for using it should be strict as hëll.
One of my peeves is the insistence of many on the Right to redefine torture techniques (in this case waterboarding) as not torture.
I cited the relevant statute from the US Code earlier (TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113C § 2340), but for convenience I’ll quote the entire legal definition here:
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Waterboarding, as I understand it, places the subject (OK, victim, if you prefer) in NO physical danger and causes NO injury. (I’m going with the “plastic over the face and water poured over it” version I’ve heard and seen.) It creates the sensation of drowning, triggering the normal reflex responses to drowning, but NO water enters the mouth and lungs. It’s an express lane to primal terror that ends in seconds — and it cannot be ignored or overcome through experience.
I think you need to do more research. Waterboarding does place the subject in physical danger as careless administration could lead to asphyxia and brain damage or actual death by drowning. The procedure causes minute amounts water to trickle into the throat and nose, exacerbating the effect. (The most effective method calls for a small hole to be punched into the plastic wrap around the mouth. The water that drips in is aspirated directly into the lungs — thanks to the vacuum the plastic creates.) The effect is profound and like any other torture technique, the victim suffers psychological trauma.
But in the end, the victim is utterly uninjured (although their upper body — and undergarments) might be wet) and suffers no permanent damage or trauma.
Like I stated before and will state again, the ultimate goal of torture is not to break the body but to shatter the soul. The ability to inflict mental and spiritual pain without physically injuring someone doesn’t mean it’s not torture, it just means it’s more clinical and efficient torture. The ability to not leave marks is just gravy. The lasting psychological trauma is profound and often leaves permanent scars. (Among testimony I’ve read about is a former POW who became a hydrophobe as a direct result of his experience – he is terrified of rain and cannot take showers even decades after his waterboarding.)
I’ll reserve “torture” to things such as actual torture. When we’re talking about putting CIA interrogators on trial for doing their duty, I want a very clear, very precise definition on the books — none of this “I don’t like it, so it’s bad and illegal” crap like we’ve had covering concepts like obscenity and pornography.
Controlled drowning & asphyxia has been considered torture for centuries. A common sense reading of the statute as well as decades of legal precedent has determined that the technique of waterboarding is indeed torture. The U.S. Government has tried and convicted people and court-martialed soldiers for waterboarding for goodness sake. Why some people have suddenly decided it isn’t torture is a determination I leave to you.
Quite frankly, the entire question is backwards. I shouldn’t have to explain why waterboarding is torture; no one should – it’s been established as such over scores of years. Rather, those in favor of waterboarding need to explain to the rest of us why, after all this time, waterboarding is suddenly “not torture.”
(Unless, of course, you agree it is torture, then my question to you is this: Do you believe that the US Government has the right to torture people when necessary and that no consequence should befall upon those individuals performing the procedures?)
my feelings are–do what ever you can to get what ever info you can to protect us.
And how far should you (or anyone, including the US government) be willing to go? For instance, would you sodomize a child if it would help our security?
NB: This, unfortunately, is not as extreme a hypothetical as it sounds. I’ve read about a case in Egypt (IIRC) where agents from the government, attempting to get intel on radicals, kidnapped and raped the innocent son of one of the suspects. They threatened to reveal what happened — a very serious shame in Arab/Islamic culture — to get the child to entrap another kid (who was given the same treatment) and spy on the cell for them. Needless to say, it ultimately didn’t end well for the two unwilling informants.
Posted by: Mike at March 11, 2008 10:35 AM
It doesn’t sound like standing up too quickly will be good for you today, Pat.
Not real sure what your talking about but I’ll just go with: I dont think I was speaking to you.
I suspect when Rene and I say that it is irrelevant whether torture is effective or not it means just what it says; it’s irrelevant. That applies to “imminent” attacks (whatever that means–24 hours, 24 days, “imminent” has no definite time frame that I know of) or torture used to get information or used as a means of suppression, or whatever.
The advantage of this reasoning seems obvious–if one’s opposition to torture depends on the belief that it is never ever effective there is always the risk that one day you will be proven wrong–the right interrogator uses the right methods on the right terrorist at the right time. Far too unlikely a convergence of circumstances to base policy on but it can’t honestly be dismissed as an impossibility.
It doesn’t matter. Some things are wrong even if they work, whether all the time or rarely.
“Now someone can certainly ask whether if, God forbid, I were in a position where one of my kids was kidnapped and buried alive somewhere and I had one of the kidnappers at my mercy, would I entertain the notion of plunging broken glass rods into the fleshy parts of his anatomy until he decided to voluntarily do the right thing? Well, sure.”
There’s a point to be made here: Much is forgiven if an act is taken out of self-defense. If a kidnapper says they’ve abducted a child, and left them somewhere, where in 2 hours high tide will come along and drown them, using extraordinary means to reveal that location could be seen as defense of another, and allowed under the law. This is the ticking time bomb scenario.
But note the difference: the threat has to be real, or at least percieved to be real, and it has to be imminent. Under a ticking time bomb scenario, torturing a regular person/common criminal could yeild reliable results.
But bear in mind that in most cases, this is not what is happening. We’re torturuing people just to find out what they know…without having a specific, real or percieved real threat, and with imminency. It’s a fishing expidition. We’re not even certain that the guy is actually guilty of something.
dave: “my feelings are–do what ever you can to get what ever info you can to protect us.“
Great. We’ll be installing the monitoring devices on your phone, computer and in your house today. We’ll be reading every piece of mail you send or receive (postal or e-), tracking every financial transaction and reviewing every item on your credit card statements.
And then you’ll be perfectly safe.
Jay Tea: “Waterboarding, as I understand it, places the subject (OK, victim, if you prefer) in NO physical danger and causes NO injury. (I’m going with the “plastic over the face and water poured over it” version I’ve heard and seen.) It creates the sensation of drowning, triggering the normal reflex responses to drowning, but NO water enters the mouth and lungs. It’s an express lane to primal terror that ends in seconds — and it cannot be ignored or overcome through experience.
But in the end, the victim is utterly uninjured (although their upper body — and undergarments) might be wet) and suffers no permanent damage or trauma.”
Oh, boy. Where to begin.
There is, apparently a version of waterboarding such as you describe, where the mouth and nose are sealed and no water actually enters them. But waterboarding technique can also involve not sealing the breathing passages, and water does then enter the lungs. How nice of you, to force the facts to fit the conclusion you want, to just dismiss that particular fact.
Even without the trauma, the physical trauma, that this involves, there are significant psychological issues that can and often do result. Let’s be real here, Jay. People have needed counseling after getting mugged or having their purses snatched. Incidents measured in seconds which were over before the victim even has a chance to realize what is happening. Do you really think having several people wrestle you onto a plank, strap you down, forcibly stop your breathing, and very likely do it several times is something the victim will just forget about the next day?
“Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
Pat Nolan: “Craig,
By way of some explanation to last nights words, not an excuse but an explaination, I didnt realize you and Mr Martin were reiterating a fully asked question. I took the question from Mr. Martin at face value and ran. It wasnt until Jerry voiced his opposition that I went back and reread the whole thread and saw my error. So again, My apologies to you both.“
Fair enough. No hard feelings from my side.
It’s relevant in that weighing torture vs lives saved seems to literally qualify as an arbitrary call. You are rendering the issue irrelevant at your discretion.
Torture will never, ever prevent an imminent attack, and therefore allowing the issue to be settled at the privilege of anyone’s discretion should never, ever be tolerated.
Nothing I’ve said depends on you otherwise addressing me.
“There’s a point to be made here: Much is forgiven if an act is taken out of self-defense. If a kidnapper says they’ve abducted a child, and left them somewhere, where in 2 hours high tide will come along and drown them, using extraordinary means to reveal that location could be seen as defense of another, and allowed under the law. This is the ticking time bomb scenario.”
And if I were the bad guy, I’d lie like a cheap rug and make you flush those two hours away running to pointless locations.
I agree with Rene that the primary objection to torture is that it’s morally bankrupt, but I also object to the ticking time bomb scenario because it’s such a fallacy of logic.
If we’ve picked up someone who really is one of Al-Qaeda’s important operatives then we’ve picked up a highly trained killer. These guys have trained in techniques that they’ve learned from the CIA, the U.S. & British militaries and the Russian Spetsnaz amongst others. Have you ever seen films of Al-Qaeda training their men? I have. They’re not the amateur hour “rag-heads” that some would like to make them out to be. You’re not going to break one of those guys in two hours, two days or likely even two weeks. If you’re in a ticking time bomb scenario with one of them… *BOOM!!!*
If we pick up some Al-Qaeda wanna be, then we have a whole other problem. He may know exactly Jack and $&!^ and it’s pretty good odds that Jack stayed home that day. But the interrogator doesn’t know that. You can’t determine whether you’re getting honest denials of knowledge or confirmable information in two hours. Hëll, you can’t do that in two weeks. So you break some dumb wanna be who knows nothing and he tells you whatever he thinks you want to hear to stop the torture. Now you can go and waste manpower, time and other resources following up your “solid lead” while the real bomb/attack/incident happens miles away.
So what have we accomplished through torture? Well, we’ve shown that we as a nation don’t care about laws unless we wanna whine about how we’re being mistreated or our captured soldiers are being abused. We’ve shown that we’ll do anything we want while using the same techniques and tactics that we condemn others for and push for U.N. sanctions or full scale invasions against them. We’ve also shown the world that Osama Bin Laden won his war with America as of 10:28 a.m. EST., September 11, 2001. He won because America and its people have have become so fearful, so terrorized, that Americans will do anything, justify anything and sacrifice even their most valued freedoms and beliefs to “be safe” from whatever threat may be out there. He won because ideas and actions that would have been seen as insanely stupid by the majority of Americans up until 8:45 a.m. EST. that day are now being seen as justified and vital by almost half of America.
Torture is morally wrong. It’s not something that you can justify or excuse by claiming that it’s ok if we do it because we’re doing it for the right reasons. It’s wrong no matter who does it.
It’s also wrong because it and other “patriotic” steps and measures being taken by this President and supported by mindless, fearful sheeple sends a clear message to the OBLs of the world and to anyone else who once thought that America was a strong nation. It says that we’re scared little children who can be cowed into doing the immoral, the self destructive and the unthinkable if you hurt us. Great message to send out to the world guys.
I once thought that we were better than that. I thought that we were better as a nation and as a people. Bush and his crew in the halls of power and the Scotts, Pat Nolans and others amongst “the common man” are doing a lot to convince me otherwise.
Dave W: “my feelings are–do what ever you can to get what ever info you can to protect us.”
And my thoughts are that you’re a complete idiot. Drop OBL a note and congratulate him on his victory over you.
Hëll, why stop there? Drop Bush a note and ask him when you can sign up for The Bush Youth or some other group. Maybe you can get lucky and they’ll even let you torture someone yourself as a bonus.
Rene – Sorry. Only the first part of my comment was aimed at you. The part replying to your query. The rest was aimed at people generally, but I see I didn’t make that clear. This is part of the reason why PAD makes the decent bucks as a writer and I don’t. 😉
As for Torture being bad, period, you’re right, of course. But, if it can be empirically shown to not work, then maybe more and more people can be convinced not to bother using it as being a waste of time. The trouble is, we’ll still have two groups who will: sadists, and those who just want revenge. You;ll not deter them any time soon. Trick is to have those in authority make sure they never get to where they can cause harm.
Wow Mike.
Your stupidity and desire to argue with Bill Mulligan just keeps getting funnier. Bill and Rene are on the same side as you in the argument and yet you still have to find things to pull out of Bill’s posts and argue with him over.
Bill and Rene (And me for that matter) are saying that torture is never good under any circumstance for moral reasons. It’s not ok if you have all the time in the world to get the information and it’s not ok if you’ve only got one hour because it doesn’t change the morality of the act. by that standard, it’s irrelevant if there’s a ticking time bomb scenario or not because their (and my) answer to whether or not torture is justified will always be a resounding NO.
Can’t you put away your odd little psychosis even just long enough to realize that you’re attacking the really rather rational arguments of two guys who are on the same dámņëd side of this debate as you.
Oh, wait, you’re Mike. What was I thinking? Of course you can’t. Silly me…