- Keep consequences for kids in mind
- Child welfare agencies must be fixed
- Illogical and unfair
- Spray the poppies
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Airlines are to blame for airport congestion
- Blackwater scandal
- Aggressive corporate takeovers
- “Bush prosperity"
- David McSwane’s recriminations are hypocritical
- Foreclosures & helping the homeless
Questions could mean our survival
About the Rocky’s editorial of Oct. 7, “The persistence of an outlawed policy”: Am I to believe that if we are holding a terrorist whom we think has knowledge of a planned nuclear attack on an American city but we do not know where or when, and the detainee refuses to talk, there can be no recourse?
What folly! Maybe the publishers of The New York Times and the Rocky Mountain News are ready to surrender to the jihadists, but I’m not.
Percy Conarroe, Longmont
Percy, when that exact scenario plays out, we can torture. Now do you feel better?
Anything less and we are back with that old civilized behavior that we all hate.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 22, 2007 01:12 AMHey Sharon Who is "we all"?
Posted by Liberals Suck on October 22, 2007 01:21 AMwow sharon said we can torture under this scenario, and good ole hillbillary said we should never do it not matter what. we have to be nice to the enemy so they will like us. she even so much as said bill was wrong when he said this would be a time to use torture.
lets talk to teddy k as he knows a really good one with the use of a car and a bridge and lots of water. its not water boarding and if we could talk to Mary Jo she could tell us about it, but we cant.
Sharon B. What would you suggest the U.S. do to extract vital information from a proven terrorist?? What would be your plan to help the U.S. if a jihadist had knowledge of a pending nuclear attack and refused to reveal any info about it???
Do you want civilized behavior or a civilization?
Just curious.
Posted by A on October 22, 2007 06:34 AMoh hell torture away, that is what so many want, why should we liberals stand in your way.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 22, 2007 07:09 AMA,
A "civilization" is defined by its "civilized behavior". Or, as the old song goes: "You can't have one without the other."
Posted by Old Grouch on October 22, 2007 07:09 AMUsually, when this administration says something like "we know where the weapons of mass destruction are," or like the writer states, we "think has knowledge of a planned nuclear attack ", you can be sure that they are lying and are feeding you false information to spread fear and terror to further their own agenda. That's the way they operate.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 07:18 AMSharon, your world is so small. It's not just liberals who are against tourture, some on the right are too. Spouting party lines does nothing for the argument except show ignorance.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 07:19 AMUse drugs, the really addictive kind produced from poppies grown in the Islamic countries, get them hooked, deny them drugs. They will tell you anything to get more drugs. The CIA did that back in the 60's and early 70"s to our own troops, as a test of course.. Why not do it now to our enemies and, use the drugs the rabid, radical islamic mideast terrorists produce in the process.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 22, 2007 08:15 AMAllen Campbell states one good reason why torture is ineffective: "They will tell you anything to get more drugs." Anything at all, true or false.
Posted by Truth on October 22, 2007 08:30 AMExactly Old Grouch!!! In a civilization there are people who are expected to live within the common laws of civility and social order but...
What about 'human nature"??
Do we, as humans have a right to protect ourselves???
Is it not torture to cut up living things to eat??
Hell, we torture a tomato or a carrot by cutting it up. Are the trees screaming when we hack them down, or carve our initials on them?? After all they are living breathing forms of life on this planet.
I won't even get into the atrocitys we inflict upon animals we kill for food.
In order to survive, human beings commit alot of disgusting acts.
If we want to survive an atrocity against our civility we must secure pertinent information from the enemy to revealing the plans of the attack or...... perish!
Once again I ask Sharon B.
What would you suggest we do to extract information from an enemy who is bent on attacking and causing great harm to our citizenry?
I am neither Rub or Dem so please leave politics out of any response. You wouldn't want me to expound my opinions concerning ALL(barf) politicians!
Posted by A on October 22, 2007 08:58 AMPercy could bitch slap them with his purse.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 09:49 AM"Maybe the publishers of The New York Times and the Rocky Mountain News are ready to surrender to the jihadists, but I’m not."
They MSM (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The LA and NY Times, Al Jazera, etc.) have already surrendered and are completely invested in an American defeat in Iraq as well as "punishment" for the America that they blame.
Anonymous 9:49 AM
FUNNY!!!!
A few tears and rolling with laughter here!!!
Well Hank we know we can depend on you wonderful fighting keyboardists to continue the struggle regardless of whoever else has given up.And that despite the twisting and turning on your psychiatrist's couch you'll keep your aluminum foil headgear on straight and pulled down tight and always be prepared to mindlessly echo the latest in wingnut blathering points.
For myself I'm going to take the word of people who actually know what they're talking about;
U.S. Marine Major Sherwood Moran and the German Lufwaffe’s Hans Joachim Scharff. Both men were incredibly effective at extracting useful information from their prisoners, using very similar techniques. The basic premise: “Know their language, know their culture, and treat the captured enemy as a human being.”
Stripping a prisoner of his dignity, treating him as a still-dangerous threat, forcing him to stand at attention and flanking him with guards throughout his interrogation in other words, emphasizing that “we are his to-be-respected and august enemies and conquerors”âinvariably backfired. It made the prisoner “so conscious of his present position and that he was a captured soldier vs. enemy intelligence” that it “played right into [the] hands” of those who were determined not to give away anything of military importance.
This is the difference in the way a "civilized nation treats its enemies and those who will stoop to the lowest level their enemies inhabit. It is also the difference between being willing to settle for whatever information one can extract by whatever means and "truth" extraction.
The above from this website which you'll find is not exactly a fount of liberal thought.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/05/truth_extraction_honey_beats_vinegar/
Percy, By ignoring the BILL of RIGHTS and treaties we signed BUSH has made us a laughingstock in the eyes of the rest of the world. We based our LAWS on English common law. I NEVER thought I'd see a U.S.A.G try to convince the courts that those laws do NOT apply because W says so! You sir a fool and you are helping the government in it's efforts control our lives. You may want to give up YOUR freedom to W. I'll keep mine and do what is called for to put this country BACK into the hands of the people and out of the hands of the NEO-CON WARMONGERS! Try getting your information from somewhere besides RUSH or FOX! IDIOT!
Posted by Bluesone on October 22, 2007 10:39 AMA,
Your illustrations are certainly exagerated, to say the least. Both tomatoes and carrots are no longer "living" when we finally work on them in the kitchen. That there are civilizations that do recognize the life of other than humans is not at issue. Their practices of honoring the life they take for their own survival - when the tomato is plucked from the vine, or the carrot pulled from the earth, to deal with your example there - distinguish, and define, their form of civilized behavior.
On the other hand, our civilization has moved to the point at which our behavior towards our fellow human beings is the measure, and distinguishes, or defines - at least in theory; and, for the most part in practice, in the Western world - that civilization.
There is, of course, no perfect example, or perfect practice in the world. But, history does show that humanity's overall growth and development tends towards that form of culture in which regard for the other is equal to regard for the self. In some places, it's called, "The Golden Rule".
And here, I think, we come to the crux of the matter. What may be done - or is done - for survival in "imminent emergency and danger", such as the battlefield in a war, is made normative outside those survival situations only at the peril of losing the civilization attained.
And what seems to be at issue here is not only whether or not there is such "imminent emergency and danger", but also, whether or not that "imminent emergency and danger" is such that it threatens our whole civilization OFF the battlefield as well.
Those who propose the latter position insist that those of us who do not see that degree of threat are, among other things, "cowards", etc., etc., because we propose to distinguish the degree of "imminent emergency and danger" from an everyday fear, and terror, about the possibilities and potentials of the future. While we prefer to at least attempt to preserve the civilization we have attained, by refusing to surrender to childish emotions about a boogey man under the bed, or in the closet, when the lights go out.
In applying our position, we are trying to give perspective. So, let's give some to . . . oh, say, "Guantanamo" for instance.
Currently, we have several hundred - maybe several thousand - who are considered to be "prisoners of war". Not a small number of them have been in our custody for a good deal of time now, several years in fact. That they actually had "information" concerning an "imminent emergency and danger" - on or off the battlefield - is . . . somewhat moot, to say the least. But, having been kept in captivity - and a form of isolation - for the period of time they have been prisoners, what CURRENT knowledge of "imminent emergency and danger" might they have?
Going beyond Guantanamo - and Abu Graib as well - and, even positing that someone - or a group - actually be taken "on the battlefield", again we may ask what CURRENT knowledge of "imminent emergency and danger" does he - or they - or did he - or they - have, depending on their status as "leaders", or those who have "rank"?.
In other words, is ours a civilization in which "torture" is a "matter of course", more or less "just for the fun of it", or is our civilization one in which "torture" happens, in certain times, places, and necessities, but is NOT considered to be a distinctive part of our "civilized behavior" as such?
I believe that most Americans hold to the latter point of view.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 22, 2007 10:46 AMPraise gezus and death to those infedels!
Republicans are the party of the rascist past.
Posted by rick on October 22, 2007 10:48 AMOf course the N.Y. Times would surrender to the terrorists.It is a Democrat controlled newspaper.The Democrats will not back any policy that will help defeat their terrorist friends.
Posted by An American on October 22, 2007 10:54 AMOk Davis, we know you are a big reader of Al Jazera and faithfully watch CNN. We know full well whose side that you are on; guys like you "High-5" each other every time a US Marine takes a hit.
But to make my point perfectly clear, consider this. If I knew that a terrorist (let's just say its you, Davis) had information regarding the imminent detonation of an atomic weapon in the NYC subway system, I would quickly find a pair of battery jumper cables, back up the old Peterbilt (with a battery the size of a small refrigerator), and quickly introduce your subordinate personage to something that would ROCK YOUR WORLD.
ZZZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPP!
I'd know everything that I need to know to prevent an atomic attack in just 13 seconds, it works every time. And 5 million Americans would thank me and send me Christmas cards.
Posted by Hank on October 22, 2007 11:17 AMClose down Gitmo and put them in Gen- Pop at one of the worst prisons in the U.S and treat them just like the other prisoners.No special foods,no special treatment.
As soon as the other prisoner's found out they were terrorists,they would torture them to get the information so they might get their sentences reduced.
Or we could do it the Democrats way and put them up at 5 star Hotels and Resorts,hoping if we be nice to them they will tell us everything we want to know.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 11:45 AMHank, it works in your dream world, in the real world the guy might die from a heart attack before you get your info. then what?
Anon 7:19, I wrote that as satire, try reading a little slower and see the hidden meaning. Usually the liberals are the ones writing against torture. Not many self proclaimed conservatives write that they are against it.
I would let our military handle the "ticking bomb" scenario, however, under these conditions we can torture: we are 100% sure a nuclear bomb is ready to go off and we are 100% sure we have a person whose knowledge will allow us to find and disarm the bomb, before it has time to go off.
Have you all seen the movie 'Siege" where they torture to death the wrong man?
Maybe you gung ho torture folks should see it first.
Hank, what you said to Davis is disgusting, about the Marines taking a hit.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 22, 2007 11:58 AMI'll tell you what doesn't work. An "al-Qaeda Bill of Rights" doesn't work. Especially during a time of war. And it seems odd to me that some American's are more concerned with al-Qaeda "rights" than my rights--like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Etc.
The al-Qaeda Bill of Rights crowd do their best to conceal and hide their "High-5s" celebrations--it is disguisting. They can't admit to it as they pretend to support the troops. But they do it every time they put a terrorist murderer's "rights" above my rights.
Even Bill clinton, at his now infamous Georgetown Univ. address of several years ago, was guilty of "High-5ing" when he said that our (America's) behavior provoked the justified murder of 3,000 folks. We got what we deserved was his message. Disguisting? Now that's disguisting coming from the once -commander -in-chief.
Posted by Hank on October 22, 2007 12:22 PM
Hank,
You're a joke aren't you?
You lied about someone with an opposing viewpoint:
"...guys like you "High-5" each other every time a US Marine takes a hit."
Did you think that up while you were raping, killing, and then eating the small children you kidnap?
...
See how easy it is to make sh*t up?
Posted by Charles B. on October 22, 2007 12:52 PMCharlie, you sound like a potential candidate for my jumper wires. My Peterbilt is ready to get backed up.
This "High-5" revelation really hits home with the al-Qaeda Bill of Rights crowd and the Surrendercrats. Just mention their subordinate personage and jumper wires in the same breath and they go totally sasquatch.
I must be on to something really big here.
I must be on to something really big here.
Posted by Hank
LOL did you get that quote from Larry Craig?
Posted by just sayin' on October 22, 2007 01:27 PMPercy Conarroe wrote:
"Maybe the publishers of The New York Times and the Rocky Mountain News are ready to surrender to the jihadists, but I’m not."
I'm glad to see that he's not going to surrender to the jihadists. Is he bringing his own gun or just his keyboard.
Posted by Stan B on October 22, 2007 01:46 PMjust sayin,'
You wouldn't be doing a littel "trolling" on the net, would you? Sure looks that way.
Posted by Hank on October 22, 2007 02:07 PMHank -
What a tool you are. Such homoerotic torture scenario B.S. Are you wearing leather chaps right now, or is that only when you break out the Gump?
Sharon B. -
The point here is that no U.S. agency will ever have 100% certainty. If a U.S. agent, however, is close to that, then he *should* break the anti-torture law, and bring his certainty as an affirmative defense during his prosecution. Naturally, if his torture yielded positive information regarding an imminent terrorist attack, and he therefore prevented it, no jury in this country would ever find him guilty. IF however, he's just some yanker like the Hank, and getting off electrocuting some dude's sack, he should go to prison.
The problem with this common sense answer is that no politician will get any traction out of actully making sense. Republicans can't say "defeatocrat"! and Democrats can't say "isn't 'enhanced interrogation' English for 'Verschaerfte Vernehmung'?"
(Yes. That *was* the exact language the S.S. used. Look it up.)
Posted by Con Mor on October 22, 2007 02:26 PMFollowing Percy's scenario: the terrorist knows there is a nuke in a container in the port of Long Beach. He stays quiet through all the "soft" questioning. Finally the interrogators say to each other - "Percy's right, we need to torture this guy." They torture him enough to make him scream. Why would he say "Long Beach" when he could say "Miami" instead?
Posted by Mac on October 22, 2007 02:50 PMMac -
Exactly. Especially consider that this person may well actually be willing to kill himself to accomplish his f*cked up mission,and you begin to realize that Hank's totally weird pornotorture fantasy is designed to get him wanking, not to extract good information.
Posted by Con Mor on October 22, 2007 02:58 PM"fighting keyboardists"! I love it. Do they have a unit patch?
Posted by Mac on October 22, 2007 02:59 PMHank said hilariously:
"Charlie, you sound like a potential candidate for my jumper wires. My Peterbilt is ready to get backed up."
...Paging Dr. Freud...
Posted by Charles B. on October 22, 2007 04:20 PMCharles b. says,
"Did you think that up while you were raping, killing, and then eating the small children you kidnap?"
Freud would analyze this statement of yours as projection.
Get some profession help, no kidding,you need it.
OEDIPUS MUCH?
Posted by on October 22, 2007 08:19 PMHmmpf.... I see Sharon B. couldn't offer any suggestions regarding A's post. Typical Sharon B. Sidestep and rant when it gets to hot in the kitchen!
Posted by Realist on October 23, 2007 11:51 AMWhat lovely images we conjure in our role as the dictator of our own minds.
Problem here seems to be that reality, rhetoric and politics make a poor stew.
Enemy combatants are covered by the Geneva convention. The definition of such is not met by terrorists and therefore they aren't covered. The Supreme Court decided otherwise.
We were attacked. The people who attacked us died in the attacks. Our actions since then have been intended to destroy the sponsors of the attackers and make it too costly to make any others.
In any combat there will be prisoners. Most prisoners will have no information of any value. Some will have a limited amount of information, but it is further limited by the passage of time. A very few prisoners will have valuable information. This information will also be affected by time as those who share the information will be able to devalue it. The location of troops, arms, headquarters and leaders is not valid more than 48 hours after the receipt of the information. The types of weapons, troops and intelligence are also valuable but there is less time pressure on this information.
The identities and locations of those not in the theater of war, the planning and placement of domestic allies of the terrorists and the connections to future plans is information that can wait for as long as five or six days.
Torture itself has been defined and re-defined depending on which side wins the war.
The general definition is the use of pain or fear to force information from the person who has the information.
Under Saddam torture was feeding people into a shredder slowly enough that their relatives, in line to be next would provide the information or carry the story to others who might be thinking of joining the opposition.
Water boarding and humiliation are two tactics along with the Peterbilt, (sorry to inject reality but I can jump start a Peterbilt with a Corvair.)
Bringing together the need for the information, the need to obtain most information in a very short period of time and the methods of torture we imagine or believe available gives us a very basic picture with the possibility of giving us more information on the subject.
Few of those captured will have the information we seek. Any information these people have can wait. It will gain us little advantage or safety.
Those taken who are likely to be part of the decision making will be those caught in headquarters or non-combat areas. Usually these captures are accomplished with the use of tactical information obtained from covert sources or prisoners. Again, if Timmy the Terrorist is in Des Moines and his secretary is captured, Timmy is going to make tracks. Give this kind of information a 24 hour useful life.
If TT has concealed or stockpiled weapons in an area, he will have to contact someone to move or destroy the weapons. 48 hour useful life.
So far, in none of these cases will torture have enough of a favorable percentage to make it worth the effort, no matter what civilian sentiment is.
If we manage to catch TT, he might have information on plans, hidden terror groups and plans in progress. What they are we don't know and TT has a great advantage. He will be a martyr for the cause. His followers will rally around to defeat those who dared defile their leader by making him a common prisoner. He knows that there are plans to protect his organization that will be implemented upon his capture. This would take no more than a week. It might include a planned attack upon the United States or one of our allies. It might be information on who has what weapon and where.
To have enough information to consider torture there will be either an informant from or surveillance of the enemy. Neither will ever be 100% accurate or reliable. The information derived from torture, especially one involving physical pain, is suspect. It must be verified with other information from other sources. You could act on information in an emergency without verifying it. The degree of error in such actions is incalculable.
Non-physical torture has more valid results but takes time. You cannot create the communication necessary for accuracy quickly.
The nature of our enemy makes torture dangerous for us. Most are young, uneducated, dedicated to the "cause" and often quite provincial. Martyrdom for the "cause" is a mindset not part of our normal experience. For them it is a treasured goal. Most of us find it so foreign we cannot deal with it. Torture might produce a lie more damaging to us than the terrorist. If we believe and act on a lie the terrorist wins. We look stupid. We make no progress in defusing real threats. We waste resources. Torture, the non-physical kind, is more effective in these cases. The terrorists are in a situation where their cause is of no importance to us, their enemy. They can't understand our indifference. It is the foundation we use to break their silence. Again, these terrorists are likely to have no useful information. They are the modern equivalent of cannon fodder. They follow orders blindly without question and without any need for more than battle orders.
The terrorists we can obtain information from are the hidden ones. Some are physically hidden in caves, small villages or remote areas. Capturing these terrorists can produce useful information especially if the capture is unreported or unknown. The other hidden terrorists are the most dangerous and the most invisible. They live among us wrapped in hate or ambition. Some hate us so completely, the reason is immaterial, they will sacrifice everything to attack us. Some seek to increase their standing or that of their families. They are educated, intelligent and fully able to exist in our society and blend in. Only against these might physical torture produce usable information. In an emergency, it would be the most practical means of obtaining the location of a bomb, the type of neural agent or the target of an attack. It is risky, clumsy and quite necessary to have as a tool that is available. But it is a tool with a best use being its existence.
It is all well and good to claim to oppose torture on moral grounds. I am not that good. I oppose it on practical terms. That is why it must be avaliable. It is also why it shouldn't be used.
Posted by momma y on October 23, 2007 02:30 PMA very good point! Your letter is right on target.
Posted by Brian Stuckey on October 24, 2007 03:03 PMMomma Y tell it to the Jihadists who lop off heads like thanksgiving turkeys.
They not only torture they torture and kill!
Then the liberals in this world yell "fowl" at our methods. at Abu Ghraib the naked men are still alive and getting on with their lives. Where O' where is Daniel Pearl?? Oh that's right he's dead thanks to the mercy and logic used by terrorists.
Your letter is probably right on. But I believe in an "eye for an eye"
Posted by on October 24, 2007 04:13 PM4:13 PM
"An eye for an eye leaves all blind and none wiser."
If we are talking about military tactics, torture is most useful when it is on the shelf and visible but seldom if ever used. One author, fictional, has his characters ask for a strange combination of items like oil, sand rope and three funnels. The people he needs to get information from use their own imaginations and fears to interpret their possible usage. The torture takes place in the mind and produces quick results.
But, if we are talking revenge, the best revenge is to make the terrorists completely powerless. They could still murder and occupy areas of some countries but, if they lose the advantage of being able to hide behind civilians and within the civilian population, they lose so much that we cannot conceive of the magnitude of that loss to them.
They have no country. They must be able to use other countries as bases. Free countries are unsafe for them and they usually only stay there if they are part of an impending attack force or a sleeper force waiting for an opportunity to carry out an attack.
Our presence in any terrorist country makes it possible for people to receive an education, aspire to a better life and taste freedom of opportunity. That is a rarity that only exists in free populations. Most of the terrorist countries have layers of laws and traditions and practices. Changes in the law make an improvement. The greatest improvement comes over time as traditions weaken in the face of freedoms. Setbacks will happen but for every ten years of freedom there will be a reduction in those voluntarily joining the terrorists of about 25%. There will always be sons and daughters who follow the orders of a family leader despite their own desires. Fortunately, the nature of terrorism and its method of attacks make it unlikely that those who follow the terrorist path will bear children. Women are undervalued in this culture. The result is that women will make more advances and will share them with their children. Four generations of freedom will reduce the terrorist threat from that country. Women will also face greater punishments and dangers at first. This makes any advance they obtain more valuable to them. Terrorists know this and have had a great deal of difficulty in areas like Israel. Many of the terrorist attacks there are carried out by those imported from other countries to create chaos and the appearance of a "local" resistance.
Again, the best revenge is for the terrorists to find themselves destroyed by their own inability to change.They must watch their demise and beat their fists in the sand in frustration because they have no weapons against this.
Posted by momma y on October 24, 2007 08:23 PM