The debate on torture has heated up these past few days and a lot of people are back to opining on what is and isn't torture and when it is and isn't justified. I continue to be astounded that our good "Christian Nation" is even having this debate [Who Would Jesus Torture?] and that there are so many folks who seem to be experts on what constitutes torture.
Today, we're going to look at a controversial method of interrogation called waterboarding that the Bush Administration employed and that they themselves have described as torture.
The following three short videos explain in dramatic fashion what is involved in waterboarding. In the first video, former SEAL Jesse Ventura discusses Dick Cheney's latest speech on the subject. The second video, which was filmed just this week, shows conservative talk show host Erich "Mancow" Muller getting waterboarded and his reaction. And, finally, in May 2008, journalist Christopher Hitchens also voluntarily underwent waterboarding. The third video documents that event.
If nothing else, this post should familiarize readers with what waterboarding is and the effect it has on people. Whether you decide it is torture or not is, obviously, up to you.
.
27 comments:
Very interesting. I have let this debate sort of wash over me since it first came out... not thinking hard about it. Recently, I have become increasingly disturbed by the idea that Americans would be the proponents of torture, even with the possiblity that valuable military intelligence could come from the practice. If we are indeed the leaders of the free world, we should lead by example. Strong military, OK. But let's draw the line somewhere.
I am struck by how disturbed Mancow and C. Hitchens both seemed. Gov. Ventura is fantastic & I am glad he's speaking out on the issue, with some expertise.
Honestly I don't understand what all the big fuss is about. The United States has a dark underbelly to its history - it's better to just amend those dark moments and move on.
What does it say about waterboarding when reporters and shock jocks willingly submit themselves to it for entertainment purposes? I don't view being waterboarded as any worse than being tazed by a cop. Actually, tazers have killed people. How many people have been killed by waterboarding?
The two techniques shown were distinctly different, weren't they?
Is waterboarding a general category or a specific prcedure? Does anybody here know?
I am sick of the media and 40% of the nation focusing so much energy on the well being of people whose only goal in life is the death of every American man, woman and child in our country. Why aren't we pissed at the torture they perform? They saw entire heads off live on video! No one bitches about that!
But let Americans place a caterpillar inside a box with a mad man intent on our death, and the ultra liberals form at the mouth!
These nut jobs are plotting right now YOUR death. The death of your friends, family and children. How about demonstrating a little concern about that?
Waterboarding. Hell, half the people picked up tonight by the Broward Sheriff Office will be "tortured" far worse by officers who accidentally close elevator doors on their heads, kick them, punch them, taser them or worse.
This is a non-issue.
SCG
The difference is, Lazaro, that those journalists know they can stop the torture -because it is torture- at any time with a safe word, that there's a doctor standing by and that they won't be killed. Detainees don't know that. It makes it infinitely more terrifying. That's why those videos of journalists undergoing waterboarding voluntarily are a fallacy. And so it's the argument "our special forces train for it".
SCG: "nobody bitches" about beheadings???? Police abuse justifies torture??? Are you serious?
In any case, the debate is not about if a method is worse than another. Cheney tried to make it about "only four people were waterboarded" as if that makes it better or erases all the other torture methods used. Not to mention the detainees shipped to other countries were there was little scrutiny as to how they were "interrogated"
The debate is whether we should be using methods that are banned by our laws. Why do you think they were called that pitiful euphemism "enhanced interrogation". Whether we stretch the interpretation of our laws when convenient or even when under extraordinary pressure. You either agree or you don't. It is a VERY BIG ISSUE because it is what separates us from them. If you don't agree, then go straight for the nail pulling and electric shocking, because honestly, once we cross the line, may as well go all out.
Alex, I do not think we have crossed the line. If you can't see the difference between cutting someone's balls off and pouring water on their face, than we will never agree, and we should just agree to that.
What you seem to be saying is that if you happen upon a terrorist, (Screw the word "Detainee" as THAT is a pitiful euphemism) who you know has the plans for a nuclear bomb that is going to go off in Miami and kill everyone you know, you are going to die, and let all your family and friends die, because you want to "hold the higher ground".
You want to separate us from them. Well, your method will work Alex. They will be alive and you and your family will be dead.
SCG
Don't like "detainee"? Would you rather think everybody detained is an actual terrorist with nucklear bomb plans? (Yet another fallacy, the ticking bomb scenario). By all means, keep that blindfold nice and snug.
Alex,
I think you and I have a different view of reality. What should we do with terrorists that we capture on the battlefield? Release them? Send them to Harvard? Put them on The View as co-hosts?
50% of why we capture them is to prevent them from killing us, and 50% is to try to get information out of them to prevent the next 9/11.
Or, do you believe that there is no war, that there are no terrorist, and that 9/11 was committed by the Republicans?
Are you concerned about the next terror attack, or do you just believe there isn't a next one coming?
Just curious.
SCG
What I find a bit ironic and, quite frankly, disturbing, is that the same people who who go to church and receive communion each week can have such utter disregard for other human beings.
I'm not a pacifist and I certainly don't advocate just rolling over and not defending ourselves, but there's something very sinister and very wrong about a a person of faith who can so easily write off other human beings with the stroke of a pen or a pull of a trigger simply because they believe Jack Bauer's world is real.
The values and morals of these people are so convoluted and twisted that I'll never even attempt to sort them out or understand them.
.
Lazaro: Have you ever been tazed? Have you ever been waterboarded?
.
The values and morals of these people are so convoluted and twisted that I'll never even attempt to sort them out or understand them.You just described life, Rick. Not just for these people. For anyone.
You are actually surprised that such dichotomies exist in the human condition? I am surprised that you are surprised.
Would it change anything if those that "defend" torture were not so easily categorizable as some lunatic or "evil" fringe? If these people were otherwise reasonable enough?
Torture is always wrong. Except when it's not. Which is never. Unless there's a really good reason. But none comes to mind.
Stop treating faith as something perfect. As people of faith, we fail it regularly. It's almost supposed to be that way. It's what separates us from the animals. And the dead.
Nonee: when a guy cheats on his wife are we supposed to condone it as being part of the human condition? When he does it again, do we again give him a pass and rationalize that humans are imperfect? And when it happens a third time, and the guy visits his favorite bar and receives a standing "O" when they learn about him being unfaithful again, is it then the right time to say something is really wrong?
We all make mistakes. We are all imperfect. But when we consciously and intentionally commit to behavior that is morally and ethically contrary to our core beliefs as humans and then vigorously defend and rationalize it as being "necessary," something is very wrong.
I don't disagree, Rick. My only point is that for there to be light there must be dark.
There is no way for a society to engage in self-correction which, if you agree with the fundamental imperfection of society, is a constant dynamic (like the universe expanding, or spiraling ticket prices), without the very imperfections to self-correct from.
I'm not suggesting we condone torture. Quite the contrary. But I am willing to realize that torture, like infidelity to a lesser degree, is merely a data point on the societal scorecard. It is, in many respects, no different than war itself. A glaring example of the limits, or heights, of man's inhumanity to man, but without which there may be no proper counterpoint to man's capacity for good. One can have no reference in our collective mind without the other.
And I think this discussion can be had on several levels. Torture is bad, empirically. But I think we fall in the trap of moral absolutism when we speak of torture in practical terms. It is ludicrous for someone who is anti-torture to expect someone who is pro-torture* to "prove the negative" and vice versa. But as long as the concept of reliable information exists, that strain of circular argument will always be had. On the bright side, it keeps many of us from engaging in more pointless pursuits, like Lotto.
I failed to address my note*
While I can accept your characterization of someone "consciously and intentionally" commiting to the use of torture, I still believe that even that, without more, falls short of establishing a preference for torture.
That to me is a very different - and way more disturbing- thing.
I accept that there may be people like that out there and, unfortunately, that they may be very close to the circumstances that actually feed those depravities.
I certainly don't believe I stand a chance of convincing anyone that torture is wrong. I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it here: your position on this issue is reflective of one's core values as a human being. They are so deeply-rooted that no comment thread is ever going to change them.
It's like the the driver who runs over a bum on the street and when is later asked why he didn't stop, he answers, "The guy was just a bum." You don't change someone like that.
I'm willing to accept that I am a pawn in a theater show that has to played out. I'm just hoping that when the curtain comes down, my view, or something like it, is being cheered and accepted by the audience.
.
Rick,
First, I do not support torture. I do not consider placing caterpillars in a room torture. Nor do I consider going "boo!" in someone's face torture. And no, I do not consider pouring water on someone's face torture.
You liberals never debate the issue. You immediately cloud the discussion with misdirections and lies.
What was that thing about you being surprised that people of faith can support torture? Did you pull that out of your butt or what?
The reason you don't think you can convince someone to change how they think is that you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a horrible lower life form that is not capable of rational thought to begin with. At least, that is how it seems. No offense intended.
You raised the issue of interrogation techniques. Why not drop all the character bashing, misdirection and talk about the issue?
I asked Alex and he never replied, what should do with terrorists?
I'll ask you.
1. Should we try to get information out of them, yes or no?
2. If yes, how?
3. Would making them watch 20 minutes of "The View" qualify ss torture?
I'll promise to hold my insults if you will.
Let's have a nice friendly debate.
I have changed my views in the past. Hell, I once liked Bush! Hell, I once thought Obama was going to be an OK president! So, I am known to change my mind.
Seriously Rick. No hard feelings. I would like to know what we are suppose to do with terrorists.
Peace out.
SCG
SCG, asking for a "serious" answer after you've insulted Rick and dismissed his views as lies and misinformation is a tad disingenuous.
As for what we do with terrorists, what's wrong with locking them up without trial for an indefinite period of time and denying them access to lawyers. It seems to work in Cuba.
Well SCG, I do have a life beyond arguing with people on the web, especially those whose claims of putting forward a serious argument are undermined with an weird obsession with 'The View", so excuse me for not answering right away.
What to do with terrorists: indict them and prosecute them according to the laws we already have. I think that's a pretty clear path. I don't see the arguments as to why it won't work: there isn't one case of a proven terrorist set free by our courts. As far as getting information, that's an intelligence issue for which there are many techniques. We seem to have gotten by quite well for decades without making torture the official policy of the US. Many intelligence specialist question its benefits and to me their argument that a man under torture will eventually say anything to avoid further punishment seems reasonable. You believe the next 9/11 is unavoidable without torture and I think that's plain conjecture. But as Rick says, I'm not here to convince you otherwise.
Mustang Bobby - I wasn't the first one to sling insults.
Alex, thanks for the discussion. Terrorists who are captured on the battlefield of a foreign country being flown to the United States to stand trial, no doubt with us paying for their lawyers....I guess it is as good a plan as any.
You may be surprised to learn that I too did Gitmo should be closed.
I'm wondering what you mean by your statement: "as far as getting information, that's an intelligence issue for which there are many techniques"
We are discussing those techniques right now, aren't we? What are those "many techniques" and how many of them would you call torture?
You cannot say that the current interrogation techniques did not produce valuable information. Why? Because the "transparent" Obama administration only releases memos that help push his agenda, and not the whole story. He is picking and choosing what to release. Why not release ALL the memos, including what information, if any, was obtained by water boarding? Then we will know the rest of the story.
If it didn't gather sufficient information, then I'm on your side calling for it to stop. On the other hand, if the technique did save American lives, you still won't support it. But at least we will know if it works or not.
Alex and Rick, the left and the right and the mixed breeds such as myself (Some left, some right) do need to have a conversation. A spirited debate can change minds. And it can educate and maybe bring Americans together as Americans first, liberals or conservatives second.
Peace out.
SCG
"Many techniques" for intelligence gathering, not just interrogation of captives. I'm no expert and I'm not going to pretend to be one by googling a bunch of examples. One of the constant critiques of the way this "war on terrorism" has been conducted is the poor intelligence gathering on the field.
I do know that torture is not a reliable technique. Even if seeing dispassionately, it's a lazy and sloppy substitute that produces bad intelligence that has to be sorted afterward. That's not just my opinion, there are many intelligence experts that agree and a zillion words written about the topic (Here's one article, for starters, and notice that one of the experts faced real life clock-ticking scenarios in Viet Nam). By contrast, I've yet to see a defense of torture as an effective method by an intelligence specialist -and one who is not involved in the current mess.
The memos: neither you or I know if Obama is picking and choosing. Cheney is only making the argument that there are other memos out there showing valuable information was obtained. It could be one memo vs. 100. We just don't know. Cheney is also quite hypocritically calling for the release of memos he knows can't be released, after he was the main proponent of stretching executive branch secrecy privileges while he was in office AND criticizing Obama for declassifying those memos using the "now terrorists know what we know about them" argument.
I'll always welcome a good argument. Have a nice Memorial Day.
Alex, I will admit you make a sound argument. Yet, it isn't black and white.
For instance, Dennis C. Blair, President Obama's own Intelligence Director, stated that these harsh interrogation techniques works, and HAS provided us with high value information. You can see the article on MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/
So, to say flatly that they do not work you have to discount the Intelligence Director that Obama appointed and relies on for guidance.
I think in the future we won't have to worry about these techniques.No doubt DARPA is working on mind reading devices or truth drugs. That scares me more.
Looks like the sun came out for a bit, so I'm off to enjoy the holiday. Hope you do too.
SCG
Mustang Bobby - I wasn't the first one to sling insults."He started it" is not exactly the way to make a point unless you're eight and riding in the back of a station wagon.
Actually, SCG, you do make some valid points, although there is some dispute that Mr. Blair was quoted correctly. Be that as it may, I think it's safe to say that no one one this thread knows all the truth behind what's really going on or went on at the CIA or at Gitmo. I'll be the first to admit that everyone has an agenda. But if there is to be any closure on this, we need to find out as much as we can and, if in a fair court of law we find that there were those who violated the laws, they face justice.
And if we are going to live up to the ideals that we cherish to the point that we are willing to send men and women to war to defend them -- and honor them today and every day -- then it is the least we can do to find out if there are those who went beyond what is permissible both by law and our ideals.
I agree -- Peace.
SCG: Regarding persons of faith that support torture...no, I didn't just "pull that out of my butt." I link to one of my previous posts on the issue in the current post and I have also posted how studies show that Christians favor torture more than non-Christians in the U.S..
I think it's pretty clear that my opinion is that torture is despicable so, yeah, I don't have much respect for those who embrace torture.
As you know, there are established interrogation tactics that have been established for our Armed Forces. I think we need to follow them. And I also think we need to follow the Geneva Convention when we detain war prisoners,terrorists or whomever, not because we have to but because we are a civil, humane society that has morals and values better than those who torture. Whether or not these are prisoners who are entitled to Geneva's benefits should be immaterial to any conversation because...
The United States doesn't torture. Period.
Finally, on the effectiveness of the torture rendered by the Bush Administration...
" In his address to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy organization in Washington, Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that's considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were "legal" and produced information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."
He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."
In a statement April 21, however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.
FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn't think that the techniques disrupted any attacks."
-SourceTorture doesn't work. Never has. Never will.
.
Well, it seems we have beat this dead horse sufficiently. Not that I am for beating horses mind you. Just a saying is all.
I feel pretty sure that sitting the terrorists, oh, excuse me, the detainees, down in a comfortable chair with some hot tea and lemon probably isn't going to get any information out of them at all. Anything more harsh than that and no doubt the liberals will start whining again. So, I say stop capturing the bastards! Why waste everyone's time? Let the ones we have captured loose in their home countries where we will run into them again on the battlefield no doubt, and this time not waste time and energy trying to take them alive.
That should solve the whole problem.
Both you and Alex raised some good points that I will ponder. I hope both of you are just as willing to consider the valid arguments on the other side.
I do wish President Obama much success in closing Gitmo.
And I can accept his stand that we don't torture. I just hope he puts as much energy into winning the war on terror.
Enjoy your evenings gentlemen.
Peace out.
SCG
SCG: One more time because apparently it didn't come through in my last comment.
"As you know, there are established interrogation tactics that have been established for our Armed Forces. I think we need to follow them."
I'm not sure where you're picking up that we should not do anything to interrogate terrorists. No one has said anything like that anywhere in this comment thread.
.
SCG-
You left out Admiral Blair's followup to the story you linked.
The next day he clarified his opinion:
"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means," Blair said in a written statement.
"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/obama.memos/
Time and again, studies have shown that torture is largely ineffective as an intelligence tool. Jesse Ventura accurately predicts that he could torture Dick Cheney into confessing to the Sharon Tate murder, or anything else he chose.
Waterboarding is unquestionably torture; that's not up for discussion. It's torture. How do I know? Because that's what we've been teaching our military personell for at least half a century. We tell them it's torture, and that they can expect it to happen to them when they are captured by our enemies.
So if SCG supports waterboarding, he absolutely supports torture. That's the stand he's chosen for himself.
I must have missed the catechism that teaches that Jesus was cool with that.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.