Bush vetoes anti torture bill

[Andy]

Such a thing has been suggested, but far from proven.

I quote myself from post 57#:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was one of the only 3 terrorist to be waterboarded. KSM, was the one instrumental in the murder and video taping of the execution of Daniel Pearl. He was widely know and a long time attack planner of many terrorist events world wide. After his capture, he refused to speak, often responding to questions with Qur'anic chants. After 90 seconds of waterboarding, KSM answered every question.

Due to the information given the following terrorist were captured: Iyman Faris, Jemaah Islamiya, Hambali, Majid Khan, Jose Padilla, and Malaysian Yazid Sufaat.

Along with the capture of these six terrorist, the following plans were foiled: derail a train near Washington, D.C., use acetylene torches to sever the Brooklyn Bridge’s cables, plot to assassinate Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, detonate U.S. gas stations, poison American water reservoirs, and a radioactive “dirty bomb” attack.

The CIA and FBI verify these claims, and more.

We aren't trying to win the hearts and minds of the terrorists. We are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people. If all of the people are terrorists, then we'd be better off just to conduct an ethnic cleansing.

You imply that terrorist do not come from the people? Or that terrorism based on Islamic teaching, is in any way a different version of the Qur'an? In which case there is amply evidence suggesting otherwise. I recommend that you watch a documentary "Jihad in America".

No, they are not all terrorists, but they have the same ethnic/religious culture. I quote myself from post 57#:

In the 90s, during the Clinton administration, the PLO accused a fellow arab Palestinian of being a spy. Without a trial, or the slightest scrap of evidence, they dragged him through the streets of Palestine, publicly beat him physically, and stoned him for more than an 1 hour. After being tortured by his own people for blocks, he was hung upside down on a communications tower by his legs. There he was stoned and beaten until death at which point they sliced half way through his neck with a blade of some sort. Then the people of Palestine had their children come and and throw stones at the body until one finely knocked his head off of his sliced neck.

Note, it was the people, who did this. Torturing people who 'deserve' it is very acceptable to people from this culture.

Only if you believe that the ends do justify the means.

I'm just making a logical conclusion to the statements you made.

Or, more likely, sign me up to go and fight the evil ones who torture and kill our people.

If they consider us evil to begin with, torture will not be an issue. There were dozens of attacks from the early 90s till now, and we never tortured. So this is an empty statement.

There is no question that torturing prisoners is an absolute evil on an emotional basis. What we're discussing is whether it is a moral evil on an intellectual basis as well.

How can you say that? There are nations in this world where torture is not considered an evil from an emotional basis. Further I would actually say about half of American doesn't think it's evil either. If there is no question, then why do thousands justify it daily? Why do millions of people in other countries support it? You state it as an absolute truth that is not absolute. You need something more, to make this claim.

 

[PLC1]

I quote myself from post 57#:

​

The CIA and FBI verify these claims, and more.

I went back and reread your post. Since you didn't provide a link, I googled Sheik Mohammad + waterboard, and got the following:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons

"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

I couldn't come up with anything that supported your statement. Perhaps you can.

You imply that terrorist do not come from the people? Or that terrorism based on Islamic teaching, is in any way a different version of the Qur'an? In which case there is amply evidence suggesting otherwise. I recommend that you watch a documentary "Jihad in America".

No, they are not all terrorists, but they have the same ethnic/religious culture. I quote myself from post 57#:

​

Note, it was the people, who did this. Torturing people who 'deserve' it is very acceptable to people from this culture.

Does that mean that my example is also acceptable in our culture?

If they consider us evil to begin with, torture will not be an issue. There were dozens of attacks from the early 90s till now, and we never tortured. So this is an empty statement.

If they consider us to be evil to begin with, torturing prisoners will simply confirm what they think. If the terrorists are telling people that we are evil, torturing prisoners will simply lend credence to their statements.

How can you say that? There are nations in this world where torture is not considered an evil from an emotional basis. Further I would actually say about half of American doesn't think it's evil either. If there is no question, then why do thousands justify it daily? Why do millions of people in other countries support it? You state it as an absolute truth that is not absolute. You need something more, to make this claim.

They support it the same way you've been supporting it: The end justifies the means.

 

[Andy]

I went back and reread your post. Since you didn't provide a link

Ex-CIA Agent: Water boarding saved lives

Abu Zubayda also divulged information on "al Qaeda's leadership structure and mentioned people who we really didn't have any familiarization with [and] told us who we should be thinking about, who we should be looking at, and who was important in the organization so we were able to focus our investigation this way,"

And a ton more. But this should be enough to support my claims. If you need more, I'll get it.

Does that mean that my example is also acceptable in our culture?

Not sure what you mean.

First, you can't saying it's morally wrong because we think it's morally wrong, and therefore it is morally wrong. That's circular logic.

You can't say our culture says it's wrong to begin with because over 50% of the public said if water boarding would help gain information to save lives, then they would support it, and since it did, they do.

You can't say our culture is more important, or more right, or better than their culture, at least not if you believe in moral relativism.

Now if you want to make the case for absolute truth, feel free. But otherwise, it's just your opinion, and someone else's opinion. It's back to 'there are more people of my opinion than someone else's, and therefore we are right'. Which is "might makes right". Is that what you support?

If they consider us to be evil to begin with, torturing prisoners will simply confirm what they think. If the terrorists are telling people that we are evil, torturing prisoners will simply lend credence to their statements.

Think through this logically. They think we're evil. They torture. They find out we torture. ... again... they torture. So you think they are going to say... 'they do the same thing we do... so they must be evil'... or better still... 'they do the same thing terrorist do, which is evil... I'm going to join the terrorist now' No, that is not logical, that's insanity. If that is true, then we're dealing with insane people and it doesn't matter what we do.

They support it the same way you've been supporting it: The end justifies the means.

Whoa whoa... I'm not supporting anything. I am simply making logical conclusions to YOUR position.

You say that we should do what does the most good. Well this does the most good.

 

[PLC1]

If you stick to moral relativism, and buy the idea that the people of the Mid East believe that torture is OK, then the argument boils down to the above.

Does torturing prisoners really do the most good over all, or would holding ourselves to a higher standard of behavior do more good in the fight to win the hearts and minds of the people?

You gave one example in which information obtained through torture was useful, so that goes on the plus side of the equation.

What should go on the minus side? If you think that maybe at least the more moderate people in the MidEast view torture the same way we once viewed lynching (my example above), then using torture will help to lose the hearts and minds battle. Of course, if yuou think that Mid East cultures really uniformly approve of torture, then there is no negative there.

We know that our allies in Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. view torture as a negative. What impact might that fact have on the overall war on terrorism? There is a definite negative, as the credibility of the US is critical in fighting any ideology.

Just imagine what might have happened had we tortured citizens of the Soviet Union, and that torture had become known worldwide. That struggle of ideologies might have ended differently also.

What the rest of the world thinks of us is important, regardless of how much military power we have or don't have.

 

[Andy]

If you stick to moral relativism, and buy the idea that the people of the Mid East believe that torture is OK, then the argument boils down to the above.

Does torturing prisoners really do the most good over all, or would holding ourselves to a higher standard of behavior do more good in the fight to win the hearts and minds of the people?

Once again "higher standard". Who's standard? 'Standards' are made by man. Thus 'higher standards' are also made by man. So who's 'higher standard' is right? How do you claim your 'higher standard' is better than someone else's 'higher standard'?

You gave one example in which information obtained through torture was useful, so that goes on the plus side of the equation.

What should go on the minus side? If you think that maybe at least the more moderate people in the MidEast view torture the same way we once viewed lynching (my example above), then using torture will help to lose the hearts and minds battle. Of course, if yuou think that Mid East cultures really uniformly approve of torture, then there is no negative there.

Actually I do. In fact there is great evidence to support this view. Public stoning is still a common practice in many middle east cultures.

I was thinking about this after writing yesterdays post. I occurs to me that the very reverse of what you claim may be true. In their culture torturing evil people *is* the 'higher standard'. So from their perspective, they may think less of us, and be more likely to fight us if we do not waterboard terrorist.

They may say "Wow, these Americans will not even torture someone, who already killed thousands of their own, to get information that would save lives! How can we trust them if they don't even protect their own people?".

We know that our allies in Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. view torture as a negative. What impact might that fact have on the overall war on terrorism? There is a definite negative, as the credibility of the US is critical in fighting any ideology.

I've heard nothing of Australia or Japan. I know that both supported our actions in Iraq, but not heard much complaining about waterboarding. Torture yes, but nothing about waterboarding.

As for Euros, quite frankly, I could not possibly care any less about it as I do now. It's not a negative in my book. We save thousands of lives preventing terrorist attacks and capturing AQ leaders, through waterboarding and oh dear, the French don't like us. How ever can we live without cheeze and wine? I can not even fake being upset over this. Last I heard the French have had troubles of their own with the people we're fighting. They already surrendered, we have not.

The Euros, as a group, have opposed us in everything. They would still have us watching planes fly into buildings and bombs going off in parking garages. With all due respect, let them eat dirt.

Just imagine what might have happened had we tortured citizens of the Soviet Union, and that torture had become known worldwide. That struggle of ideologies might have ended differently also.

What the rest of the world thinks of us is important, regardless of how much military power we have or don't have.

Just think if we had tortured all the Soviet spies, we could have prevented Soviets from taking over half the world, and stopped them from getting nuclear technology that had us practicing ICBM strikes and air raids, and building nuclear winter shelters. Just think, we wouldn't have had to fund governments all over the world to prevent communist take overs, and we wouldn't have loaned billions to the Soviets through the IMF that kept their half baked communist economy alive for 30 years. Just think, China may never have become communist, and the Tiananmen Square may never have occurred, along with the millions more that were killed.

But hey... at least the world thinks well of us... oh wait, they didn't before we waterboarded, and they don't after. So... what was your point again?

 

[Andy]

I went back and reread your post. Since you didn't provide a link, I googled Sheik Mohammad + waterboard, and got the following:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

I didn't want to say anything before without doing some background checking. The man "Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi" outlined in the story was never waterboarded. There were only 3 terrorists ever waterboarded. Sheik, Abu, and Al-Rahim.

Which means... that not waterboarding leads to false information, since I doubt if he was subjected to that he would "intentionally (give) misleading information" bring more of the same on himself.

This would seem to be even more support for it's use.

Also, this highlights how once again, and reporter with a basis view will distort and stretch the facts to fit his prejudgement. This is why I never trust the media. I double check constantly.

 

[PLC1]

Once again "higher standard". Who's standard? 'Standards' are made by man. Thus 'higher standards' are also made by man. So who's 'higher standard' is right? How do you claim your 'higher standard' is better than someone else's 'higher standard'?

And, where does man get his idea of what is right and wrong?

Actually I do. In fact there is great evidence to support this view. Public stoning is still a common practice in many middle east cultures.

Public lynching was once widely practiced in the old South. That doesn't mean it was widely accepted by the people living there.

I was thinking about this after writing yesterdays post. I occurs to me that the very reverse of what you claim may be true. In their culture torturing evil people *is* the 'higher standard'. So from their perspective, they may think less of us, and be more likely to fight us if we do not waterboard terrorist.

They may say "Wow, these Americans will not even torture someone, who already killed thousands of their own, to get information that would save lives! How can we trust them if they don't even protect their own people?".

I seriously doubt that the people of the ME think that. See my response above.

If torture is such a good idea, why is it that the CIC of the United States Armed Forces is against the idea, at least in principle?

"The U.S. is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the U.S. and the community of law abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating and prosecuting all acts of torture."

— George W. Bush, U.N. Torture Victims Recognition Day, June 26, 2003

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/torture_pow.html

That date is, of course, before the most egregious examples of torturing prisoners held by the US armed forces, as outlined in the same site.

I've heard nothing of Australia or Japan. I know that both supported our actions in Iraq, but not heard much complaining about waterboarding. Torture yes, but nothing about waterboarding.

Waterboarding is torture, but not all torture is waterboarding.

I'm pretty sure that the Austrailians and Japanese feel the same way the Europeans do about torturing prisoners, despite the latter's history during WWII. Just because it happened under their watch doesn't mean that the people of Japan are in favor of torture, any more than the common people of the ME are in favor if it or see it as a moral right, as you suggest.

As for Euros, quite frankly, I could not possibly care any less about it as I do now. It's not a negative in my book. We save thousands of lives preventing terrorist attacks and capturing AQ leaders, through waterboarding and oh dear, the French don't like us. How ever can we live without cheeze and wine? I can not even fake being upset over this. Last I heard the French have had troubles of their own with the people we're fighting. They already surrendered, we have not.

The Euros, as a group, have opposed us in everything. They would still have us watching planes fly into buildings and bombs going off in parking garages. With all due respect, let them eat dirt.

I see. In order to support your argument, you have to write off an entire continent. Does that include Great Britian as well?

Just think if we had tortured all the Soviet spies, we could have prevented Soviets from taking over half the world, and stopped them from getting nuclear technology that had us practicing ICBM strikes and air raids, and building nuclear winter shelters. Just think, we wouldn't have had to fund governments all over the world to prevent communist take overs, and we wouldn't have loaned billions to the Soviets through the IMF that kept their half baked communist economy alive for 30 years. Just think, China may never have become communist, and the Tiananmen Square may never have occurred, along with the millions more that were killed.

But hey... at least the world thinks well of us... oh wait, they didn't before we waterboarded, and they don't after. So... what was your point again?

Yes, just think, had we tortured Soviet spies, the Soviet Union could have broken up as soon as say, the early '90s. Instead, just look at how they control half of the world today.

 

[Andy]

And, where does man get his idea of what is right and wrong?

Whatever suit him at the time. Some people in the past thought slavery was wrong, then it became right, now it's wrong again. But then that's only us, in some places in the world it is still ok. Soviets had no problem with slavery even till the early 90s when they fell apart. Racism was considered wrong long ago, then it became right, now it's wrong again. Of course it's still widely practiced in other parts of the world. How many people hate the Jews?

Public lynching was once widely practiced in the old South. That doesn't mean it was widely accepted by the people living there.

But it was.

I seriously doubt that the people of the ME think that. See my response above.

Opinion. Facts seem to suggest otherwise.

If torture is such a good idea, why is it that the CIC of the United States Armed Forces is against the idea, at least in principle?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/torture_pow.html

That date is, of course, before the most egregious examples of torturing prisoners held by the US armed forces, as outlined in the same site.

Pointless. The only way in which one single questionable action is being considered, is in the case of a known, informed, leading Al-Quida member is refusing to cooperate with interrogators, and only to the limited scope of getting them to talk and provide needed life saving information. None of what you refer to fall into that catagory. Of course torturing pows for no reason other than to gain sick enjoyment out of causing others pain, is not what I am talking about. It's pointless to even bring that up.

If you wish to broaden the scope to include all these actions, then I have nothing to discuss with you. I highly doubt you'll find anyone who sees value of beating on someone for the sake of doing it.

Waterboarding is torture, but not all torture is waterboarding.

You say that as a stated fact when it is not.

I'm pretty sure that the Austrailians and Japanese feel the same way the Europeans do about torturing prisoners, despite the latter's history during WWII. Just because it happened under their watch doesn't mean that the people of Japan are in favor of torture, any more than the common people of the ME are in favor if it or see it as a moral right, as you suggest.

"Pretty sure" is an opinion. Facts please. If you truly believe that people in the south didn't believe in lynching even though it was widely practiced, and you truly believe that ME people don't support torture when they openly practice it... then how do you know that all these people are against waterboarding? Maybe the leaders and media are saying that when the public isn't as against waterboarding as you think?

You can't have this both ways. When it's my opinion everyone supports it... when it someone else's, then they really don't support it, its just... whatever.

I see. In order to support your argument, you have to write off an entire continent. Does that include Great Britian as well?

In order to support your argument you have to enlist the support of those that have opposed us on anything that might protect lives no matter what it involves. Which is pointless. If you are going to make the case we should follow their opinion on the matter, then we should not do anything about terrorism whatsoever. That would at least make the topic of this thread mute since there wouldn't be any captured terrorist to interrogate. I'm neutral on GB.

Yes, just think, had we tortured Soviet spies, the Soviet Union could have broken up as soon as say, the early '90s. Instead, just look at how they control half of the world today.

That statement is not logical. It was Soviet spies in our government that helped keep the Soviets alive. Had they been stopped, the Soviets would have crumbled years and years earlier. Two things kept the USSR running. Big money income through bad loans from many places including the US (a soviet spy was working for our IMF department), and through taking technology from the US through their spy network (Rosenburgs and more). They also were kept afloat by the U.S. being passive to their military aggression. Alger Hiss (Soviet Spy) for example convinced government officials to do nothing after the fall of Poland to the Soviets, despite the fact the government was specifically warned he was a spy.

Instead we did nothing to spies, and Soviets reigned terror on half the planet for 60 years. If it wasn't for McCarthy and Reagan and our military that caused the Soviets problems world wide, they would still be in power today, and we'd still be practicing air raid drills.

 

[PLC1]

Whatever suit him at the time. Some people in the past thought slavery was wrong, then it became right, now it's wrong again. But then that's only us, in some places in the world it is still ok. Soviets had no problem with slavery even till the early 90s when they fell apart. Racism was considered wrong long ago, then it became right, now it's wrong again. Of course it's still widely practiced in other parts of the world. How many people hate the Jews?

Or, it could be that treating other people badly, whether it is done through slavery, prejudice, torture, or whatever other method is used, is morally wrong, and always has been. People have always understood that maltreatment of other humans was wrong. Why else would we invent words to describe those others as less than human? Do I need to list the words that have been invented over the years to describe the enemy, the slaves, the mistreated in whatever way, as less than human? We didn't kill human beings in Vietnam, but "gooks". We didn't enslace human beings, but n****s. Now, that word has become so tabu that it can't even be used any more. We aren't killing and torturing human beings in Iraq, but "hadj". Why do we always find it necessary to invent such words if not to dehumanize and assauge the consciences of those who are mistreating other humans?

Pointless. The only way in which one single questionable action is being considered, is in the case of a known, informed, leading Al-Quida member is refusing to cooperate with interrogators, and only to the limited scope of getting them to talk and provide needed life saving information. None of what you refer to fall into that catagory. Of course torturing pows for no reason other than to gain sick enjoyment out of causing others pain, is not what I am talking about. It's pointless to even bring that up.

If you wish to broaden the scope to include all these actions, then I have nothing to discuss with you. I highly doubt you'll find anyone who sees value of beating on someone for the sake of doing it.

Now, we come to the crux of your argument. You aren't saying that torture in general is OK, just that it was OK to torture a particular prisoner, as we got information that proved valuable. Yet, had we not had a policy in place (unwritten of course) of torturing prisoners, that particular one would still be languishing in jail with his secrets unsaid, and there would be no example to hold up and say, "Look, see! Torture is a good thing!"

Had we only imposed "enhanced interrogation techniques" on that one prisoner, then this whole debate could never have happened. The fact is, however, that many have undergone torture, and waterboarding is the least of that torture.

"Pretty sure" is an opinion. Facts please. If you truly believe that people in the south didn't believe in lynching even though it was widely practiced, and you truly believe that ME people don't support torture when they openly practice it... then how do you know that all these people are against waterboarding? Maybe the leaders and media are saying that when the public isn't as against waterboarding as you think?

Yes, it is an opinion, as well as an understatement.

Here is some support for the opinion that not everyone in the South thought that lynching was OK:

Lynching was an important extralegal aspect of the Jim Crow system that emerged in the last decades of the nineteenth century. Between 1880 and 1930 more than 3,200 African Americans were lynched in the South; at its height in 1892, lynching claimed the lives of 230 African Americans in a single year. White mobs seized, hung, shot, and often sadistically tortured and burned blacks who transgressed Southern norms for proper docility. Southern whites typically rationalized lynching by viewing it as a community response to black men's attacks on white women's sexual purity, but the victims of lynching were too varied a group -- including black women and children -- to be accounted for by such claims.

Opposition to lynching grew after 1890, even in the face of white solidarity that made it dangerous to question the practice. Black women were among the first Southerners to speak out. Over time they called upon white women to control the violence and lawlessness of white men.

http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/teacher/aswpl.htm

That statement is not logical. It was Soviet spies in our government that helped keep the Soviets alive. Had they been stopped, the Soviets would have crumbled years and years earlier. Two things kept the USSR running. Big money income through bad loans from many places including the US (a soviet spy was working for our IMF department), and through taking technology from the US through their spy network (Rosenburgs and more). They also were kept afloat by the U.S. being passive to their military aggression. Alger Hiss (Soviet Spy) for example convinced government officials to do nothing after the fall of Poland to the Soviets, despite the fact the government was specifically warned he was a spy.

Instead we did nothing to spies, and Soviets reigned terror on half the planet for 60 years. If it wasn't for McCarthy and Reagan and our military that caused the Soviets problems world wide, they would still be in power today, and we'd still be practicing air raid drills.

Now, you're the one expressing unsupported opinions. How do you know that the Soviet Union would have crumbled sooner than it did had we tortured their spies for information?

If it for McCarthy? Are you talking about Joseph McCarthy, and implying that it is your opinion that he helped bring down the Soviet Union, or am I misreading your post?

 

[Andy]

Or, it could be that treating other people badly, whether it is done through slavery, prejudice, torture, or whatever other method is used, is morally wrong, and always has been. People have always understood that maltreatment of other humans was wrong. Why else would we invent words to describe those others as less than human? Do I need to list the words that have been invented over the years to describe the enemy, the slaves, the mistreated in whatever way, as less than human? We didn't kill human beings in Vietnam, but "gooks". We didn't enslace human beings, but n****s. Now, that word has become so tabu that it can't even be used any more. We aren't killing and torturing human beings in Iraq, but "hadj". Why do we always find it necessary to invent such words if not to dehumanize and assauge the consciences of those who are mistreating other humans?

If, "People have always understood that..." then there would never have been any of these things. So clearly they didn't always understand it. And honestly, it doesn't seem like they understand it now really. Go do a bit of research on how Katherine Harris was treated in 2000. They ripped her and treated her horribly. And honestly, go look through some of the threads here. People do not treat others well. In one job many moons ago, a co-work found out I went to church, and ripped me to no end. Did he know that it's morally wrong be prejudice against me? Guess not.

Now, we come to the crux of your argument. You aren't saying that torture in general is OK, just that it was OK to torture a particular prisoner, as we got information that proved valuable. Yet, had we not had a policy in place (unwritten of course) of torturing prisoners, that particular one would still be languishing in jail with his secrets unsaid, and there would be no example to hold up and say, "Look, see! Torture is a good thing!"

You still haven't made a moral argument other than "I assume that..." Which isn't really all that true. But To the point here, of course, I was specifically limited to the topic at hand. Of course randomly torturing people without purpose, without reason, without need, without any such justification of the action, is not supportable from any aspect.

As for waterboarding, and our policy, of course we have a list of tortures that we inflect on people. The CIA routinely strips people naked, and puts them in a cell at roughly 40ºF, and splashes water on them. They routinely strap people down, and slap them silly, and often blare hard rock music through their cell 24/7 preventing any sleep until they talk. Honestly, that, to me, would be torture too. Of course so is being herded into a 4x4 cell for life. Should we turn rapist and muggers loose?

So in my mind, clearly there is a divide between what is torture, and what is punishment and interrogation. I believe that torture is causing pain and suffering for pointless or selfish reasons. For example, Stalin tortured people until they 'admitted' to trying to undermine him, and then put them on show trials. Why? To squash resistance to his government, not for the good of the people (obviously). For example, the brutal torture of the cabby in Afghanistan. Why? For sadistic pleasure in hurting someone.

Had we only imposed "enhanced interrogation techniques" on that one prisoner, then this whole debate could never have happened. The fact is, however, that many have undergone torture, and waterboarding is the least of that torture.

Waterboarding was an "enhanced interrogation technique". I'm also a bit curious why the other techniques are not considered torture, when clearly they cause huge amounts of long term pain and discomfort. Or why putting someone in a 4x4 prison cell isn't. Might it be that you have chosen that this is torture to you, and chosen that the others are not? Back to moral relativism.

Here is some support for the opinion that not everyone in the South thought that lynching was OK:

If I somehow implied that everyone everywhere in the south thought it was ok, that was in error. However, clearly, as a whole, they did. In every group, there are always a few on the outside that believe differently than the whole. There are people in Russia that think Stalin was great. That doesn't mean the millions in the labor camps loved him. Cuba has thousands that have risked death to escape Castro, that doesn't mean there are not some in Cuba that think he's wonderful.

Now, you're the one expressing unsupported opinions. How do you know that the Soviet Union would have crumbled sooner than it did had we tortured their spies for information?

If it for McCarthy? Are you talking about Joseph McCarthy, and implying that it is your opinion that he helped bring down the Soviet Union, or am I misreading your post?

Umm... well let's see. Since we know soviet spies had influence in our government that allowed un-opposed Soviet expansion... since we know there were spies in the International Monetary Fund, that gave incredibly good low interest loans to the Soviets from our own government coffers.. since we know they gain tons of Technological advancement from spies in our governments R&D spending... I think it's safe to assume that if we had eliminated the spies, and stopped all that, clearly the Soviets would not have had all this support, and without it, all Communism fails consistently. That doesn't seem to me to be 'unsupportable'. But then...

Yes, but not in a direct way. McCarthy was instrumental in revealing that infestation of Soviet influence in our government. McCarthy also exposed the truth of the Soviets to other young leaders who then opposed Communists and Soviets, by his leading. JFK for example, opposed Soviets in part, based on the work of Joe McCarthy, whom he considered a great American Patriot. And of course the Communism slayer, Reagan was influenced by the work of McCarthy.

 

[PLC1]

If, "People have always understood that..." then there would never have been any of these things. So clearly they didn't always understand it. And honestly, it doesn't seem like they understand it now really. Go do a bit of research on how Katherine Harris was treated in 2000. They ripped her and treated her horribly. And honestly, go look through some of the threads here. People do not treat others well. In one job many moons ago, a co-work found out I went to church, and ripped me to no end. Did he know that it's morally wrong be prejudice against me? Guess not.

What people do, and what is morally right are two different things. Don't you think people often do things that they know are not right?

You still haven't made a moral argument other than "I assume that..." Which isn't really all that true. But To the point here, of course, I was specifically limited to the topic at hand.

And yet, the topic at hand was whether torture is morally right and defensible. I still argue that it is not.

Of course randomly torturing people without purpose, without reason, without need, without any such justification of the action, is not supportable from any aspect.

Exactly. Torturing people when there is a supposed purpose is not supportable either.

As for waterboarding, and our policy, of course we have a list of tortures that we inflect on people. The CIA routinely strips people naked, and puts them in a cell at roughly 40ºF, and splashes water on them. They routinely strap people down, and slap them silly, and often blare hard rock music through their cell 24/7 preventing any sleep until they talk. Honestly, that, to me, would be torture too. Of course so is being herded into a 4x4 cell for life. Should we turn rapist and muggers loose?

Rapists and muggers have to be locked up for the safety of the rest of us. Keeping them locked up is not torture, and, moreover, they are not locked up without a trial to prove their guilt. Any confession that might be obtained through the kinds of methods that the military admits to using, let alone the ones that take place that are not admitted, would be thrown out of court. Such confessions, like the information obtained, is simply not reliable.

So in my mind, clearly there is a divide between what is torture, and what is punishment and interrogation. I believe that torture is causing pain and suffering for pointless or selfish reasons. For example, Stalin tortured people until they 'admitted' to trying to undermine him, and then put them on show trials. Why? To squash resistance to his government, not for the good of the people (obviously). For example, the brutal torture of the cabby in Afghanistan. Why? For sadistic pleasure in hurting someone.

Yes, there is a divide between that is torture and what is punishment and interrogation. This is the kind of thing I've been writing about as torture:

Researchers at Human Rights First have categorized more than 70 detainee deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as homicides linked to gross recklessness, abuse or torture. The findings are based largely on the military's own records, obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, according to Hina Shamsi, an attorney for the organization.

Then there's Spec. Damien Corsetti, nicknamed "Monster" by his peers, who took to screaming out the ingredients on a box of Frosted Flakes to keep captives awake. Yet he knew full well that when it came to gleaning intelligence through sleep deprivation, "past two days they begin to just be bumbling idiots. Three days, they're just worthless."

Waterboarding was an "enhanced interrogation technique". I'm also a bit curious why the other techniques are not considered torture, when clearly they cause huge amounts of long term pain and discomfort. Or why putting someone in a 4x4 prison cell isn't. Might it be that you have chosen that this is torture to you, and chosen that the others are not? Back to moral relativism.

I've never said that the others are not. You've been talking about waterboarding specifically. I've been talking about torturing prisoners in general.

 

[Andy]

What people do, and what is morally right are two different things. Don't you think people often do things that they know are not right?

I wager if you go into a jail and ask, most will claim what they did was right to do. In fact, if you listen to some of those radio talk shows, the people calling in really believe what they did was ok.

Exactly. Torturing people when there is a supposed purpose is not supportable either. Rapists and muggers have to be locked up for the safety of the rest of us. Keeping them locked up is not torture, and, moreover, they are not locked up without a trial to prove their guilt. Any confession that might be obtained through the kinds of methods that the military admits to using, let alone the ones that take place that are not admitted, would be thrown out of court. Such confessions, like the information obtained, is simply not reliable.

The purpose of waterboarding is not to get a confession. We've been over this. We don't need confessions, we already know the people in question are quilty. We require information about other members, locations, and planned terror events. All of which we got using waterboarding.

Further, maybe you don't feel this way, but being locked up in a 4x4 cell with a couple of convicts, sure sounds like torture to me. Maybe you missed it, but unless your part of a large strong gang, prison isn't exactly enjoyable. I'd consider it torture easy... in many ways worse than waterboarding. Waterboarding is over the moment you become co-operative. Prison lasts for years.

Yes, there is a divide between that is torture and what is punishment and interrogation. This is the kind of thing I've been writing about as torture:

I've never said that the others are not. You've been talking about waterboarding specifically. I've been talking about torturing prisoners in general.

Well here is your choice. You can allow people to die because we didn't get intelligence from captives... or you can do 'something' to get them to talk so we can save lives. Now, I'm totally open to what we do. But clearly sleep deprivation isn't working is it... so what do you suggest? Do nothing and die? Or do something and have everyone whine about it? I'm totally open. I would gladly ban waterboarding and anything else you wish, provided you have a working alternative. Because otherwise it's a matter of time until one of these nutz gets passed our inept, self inflicted restrained CIA, and lands another attack on us.

 

[PLC1]

I wager if you go into a jail and ask, most will claim what they did was right to do. In fact, if you listen to some of those radio talk shows, the people calling in really believe what they did was ok.

Most of them will claim that they are not guilty. Yes, people can rationalize a lot of behavior. When it gets down to it, though, most people will see through their rationalizing.

You seem to be rationalizing about torture. Maybe you really believe that it is morally right.

The purpose of waterboarding is not to get a confession. We've been over this. We don't need confessions, we already know the people in question are quilty. We require information about other members, locations, and planned terror events. All of which we got using waterboarding.

We most certainly do not know that they are guilty of anything. Many innocent people have been turned over to the military for money. We also don't know whether the information we get from them is accurate or not.

Further, maybe you don't feel this way, but being locked up in a 4x4 cell with a couple of convicts, sure sounds like torture to me. Maybe you missed it, but unless your part of a large strong gang, prison isn't exactly enjoyable. I'd consider it torture easy... in many ways worse than waterboarding. Waterboarding is over the moment you become co-operative. Prison lasts for years.

If prison is torture, why do so many elect to return? Why is it that some have been known to committ crimes just so they can go back inside?

For you and I, prison would be torture. For the habitual criminal, it is a way of life.

Besides, what does keeping criminals in jail have to do with torturing prisoners of war? That is a red herring argument if there ever was one.

Well here is your choice. You can allow people to die because we didn't get intelligence from captives... or you can do 'something' to get them to talk so we can save lives. Now, I'm totally open to what we do. But clearly sleep deprivation isn't working is it... so what do you suggest? Do nothing and die? Or do something and have everyone whine about it? I'm totally open. I would gladly ban waterboarding and anything else you wish, provided you have a working alternative. Because otherwise it's a matter of time until one of these nutz gets passed our inept, self inflicted restrained CIA, and lands another attack on us.

Regardless, it is a matter of time before some nutz gets past out inept CIA and the rest of the disfunctional federal bureaucracy and tries to launch another terrorist attack on the United States. The best way to prevent such is to open lines of communication between agencies, to secure the border, to check out what gets sent to this country, and to keep an eye on radical groups abroad as well as domestically. There are hundreds of ways in which the United States is vulnerable to attack. What is unlikely in the extreme is that torturing prisoners of war is going to produce the gem of information that wards off such an attack.

 

[Andy]

Most of them will claim that they are not guilty. Yes, people can rationalize a lot of behavior. When it gets down to it, though, most people will see through their rationalizing.

You seem to be rationalizing about torture. Maybe you really believe that it is morally right.

Morals are relative. To them, what they did is right. Torture is right depending on the people in question. To you it's wrong. To some others, it's right. You have yet to make any case that it's wrong, other than it's wrong to you, and possibly others that believe the same as you. Which is the same as might makes right. More people support view X so it's right.

We most certainly do not know that they are guilty of anything. Many innocent people have been turned over to the military for money. We also don't know whether the information we get from them is accurate or not.

The ones we waterboarded we did know, and the information gained was extremely accurate.

If prison is torture, why do so many elect to return? Why is it that some have been known to committ crimes just so they can go back inside?

For you and I, prison would be torture. For the habitual criminal, it is a way of life.

Torture is subjective isn't it? So people say it's torture, some say it isn't.

Besides, what does keeping criminals in jail have to do with torturing prisoners of war? That is a red herring argument if there ever was one.

The point, rightly made, was that in a moral relative, subjective society, you pick and choose what you want to call torture and not, and what is "moral" and what is "immoral".

Regardless, it is a matter of time before some nutz gets past out inept CIA and the rest of the disfunctional federal bureaucracy and tries to launch another terrorist attack on the United States. The best way to prevent such is to open lines of communication between agencies, to secure the border, to check out what gets sent to this country, and to keep an eye on radical groups abroad as well as domestically. There are hundreds of ways in which the United States is vulnerable to attack. What is unlikely in the extreme is that torturing prisoners of war is going to produce the gem of information that wards off such an attack.

Yet the three waterboarded provided information for warding off a half dozen attacks.

 

[PLC1]

Morals are relative. To them, what they did is right. Torture is right depending on the people in question. To you it's wrong. To some others, it's right. You have yet to make any case that it's wrong, other than it's wrong to you, and possibly others that believe the same as you. Which is the same as might makes right. More people support view X so it's right.



The ones we waterboarded we did know, and the information gained was extremely accurate.



Torture is subjective isn't it? So people say it's torture, some say it isn't.



The point, rightly made, was that in a moral relative, subjective society, you pick and choose what you want to call torture and not, and what is "moral" and what is "immoral".



Yet the three waterboarded provided information for warding off a half dozen attacks.

I suppose you do have a point. Moral absolutism is a religious concept, not one that the government is to be expected to adhere to, much like the value of upholding the agreements that have been made with others. If we're to have separation of church and state, then by extension, we can't expect the government to abide by any sort of moral absolutism. If torture in one instance actually produced some useful information, and if we'ere fighting people who don't share our abhorrence of the practice, then it must be OK for the government to torture prisoners.

However, despite the one instance of useful information you cite, it seems to me that overall the practice is detrimental to the goal of bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East.

Or, is that really the goal of the war against Iraq?