- Audit raises questions for Episcopal Church
- Where will they stop?
- What they expect
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Why oppose reforms in ‘lower ed’?
- War with Iran
- Bush has failed our children
- Sovereignty of our nation at stake
- Vote no on all Denver bond issues
- “Ghettorize” shouldn’t have been a factor
- Bottled-water woes
Thoughts on torture
Even then, the torture might kill the detainee just when he was ready to talk even without it. He won’t be a source of much information when dead. And if that assumption about the detainee turns out to be false, it is the interrogator who is the torturing war criminal deserving to be shot.
The methods our hawks are promoting were in use by both the Nazis and the Tojo Japanese. They both lost the war.
This letter has not been edited.
nice job k a. you shold go back and talk to bill clinton as he said he would do it in this case.
my idea would be very simple. if they are a terrorist and have the knowledge to help prevent the distruction of an American city we ask them very nicely while their heads are on a chopping block and a person is holding a knife to their throat. when they refuse we do as they would do one of us we begin to cut their head off and film it to show the rest of the world how polite we are. at least we would not degrade them by showing them womens undergarments of all horriable things.
You've gotta love the left... Weeping for the terrorists... Where was their public distain for the terrorists when they murdered Richard Pearl buy cutting his head off? How about the many other innocents that fell prey to these animals?
Perhaps you should stuff your "ostrich" head back in the sand and pretend things will be OK.
Posted by on October 30, 2007 03:34 PMAnonymous 1 and 2 I think you misunderstand the liberal position. It happens to be the same one that life-long military personnel and experts at the CIA hold.
Torture simply doesn't work.
So you can talk your big talk (from the safety of your chair) about how you'd cut everyones head off etc, but you're only showing everyone how much of a depraved idiot you really are.
In brief, torture not only helps recruit more terrorists to do us even more harm, but it simply doesn't work, and I dare you to prove me wrong.
Posted by Charles B. on October 30, 2007 03:58 PMWay to pound those strawliberals into oblivion anon 1 & 2.
Not approving of the death of Daniel Pearl (not Richard, my smug friend), does not mean that we can't disapprove of torture as well. It's quite simple:
I disapprove of barbaric acts of murder and/or torture, whether Bill Clinton agrees with me or not.
Posted by MM on October 30, 2007 04:44 PMCharles B. What method would you use to extract vital info from a captured enemy?
Posted by A on October 30, 2007 05:36 PMAnon 1 & 2 think life is just like an episode of "24". They need to cut back on TV.
Charles B. is correct, and the results have been documented. Google it yourselves if you would like. Information derived from torture is typically false-- the tortured usually provides the torturer whatever he thinks he wants to hear to end the suffering.
The other concern about U.S. participation in torturing war criminals is it weakens our stance with the Geneva Conventions, potentially putting our soldiers in worse danger should they be taken hostage and weaken our ability to negotiate their safety and a safe release.
Nobody is weeping for the terrorists. I could care less if their nuts get cut off. My concern is for the safety of the troops, and the validity of information we receive from those we choose to interrogate.
Posted by Dan on October 30, 2007 05:49 PMCharles B,
"Torture simply doesn't work."
Torture wouldn't have been used all over the world throughout human history if it didn't work.
Dan,
"Information derived from torture is typically false-- the tortured usually provides the torturer whatever he thinks he wants to hear to end the suffering."
If it's merely to extract a confession, it could be false. But that's different from just trying to gain information. If the torturer wants to know the truth, say, the location of a nuclear bomb that's about to go off, he'll be given what he wants to hear, the truth.
That's not to say I approve of torture, with the exception of gaining information that could save a lot of lives. But to casually dismiss it with a wave of the hand and proclaiming "It simply doesn't work." is denying reality.
Posted by on October 30, 2007 07:56 PMPlease dont ever reply to charles b.
It will only encourage more of his oral diarrhea.
chas b said
In brief, torture not only helps recruit more terrorists to do us even more harm, but it simply doesn't work, and I dare you to prove me wrong.
ok chas please tell us why it has been used for hundreds of years? how would you like to go through a survival course the military offers to see if torture works or not?
can you prove your statement that torture does not work? I say it does and when applied correctly even a mountain of a man like you would cry like a baby and no one would even touch you, just torture you with the thought of what is going to happen. who knows you may have to take a ride in the back seat of teddy's car.
Sorry Dan, 24 is closer to reality than the weekly episode of Desprate Housewives you love so much.
Posted by on October 30, 2007 08:29 PM8:29PM.... brilliant. So I'm guessing you like '24' over 'Desperate' because hot women just don't do it for you? Sleep tight with your Jack Bauer fantasies. I'm sure you'd like nothing more than to have Jack "render" you.
Posted by Dan on October 30, 2007 08:37 PMMcCain has it right. It is rather odd, Rudy, Mitt, McConnell, Cheney, "W", Frist, Boehner, Delay, Lott, Huckabee, Lamborn, phony Fred, Tancredo, Hannity, O'Riles, Lim(P)baugh, etc., all like torture. However, when America called this band of brothers to serve in uniform, they collectively placed HER on ignore, and immediately called their rich daddies.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on October 30, 2007 08:43 PMI still don't see why the person being tortured wouldn't lie just to make the torture stop and maybe screw up their enemy.
And how would the torturers know the tortured is lying, unless they already had the information?
So, where can I find the stats on that?
Of course if torture does not work then there is no moral issue. However if torture does work, then the question becomes more difficult.
Do you cause you a single human being to suffer to save a greater number?
Many of you seem quite willing to dismiss the Americans who serve in intelligence services as sociopaths. That doesn't seem likely.
And if that's not true, then you have no excuse for ducking the the tougher question.
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 09:01 PM”Torture wouldn't have been used all over the world throughout human history if it didn't work”
Nope, it just means that frightened people do nasty things to others, and the nastier they get, the more they try to justify the nastiness.
Since a tortured person is hyper-motivated to tell you what you want to hear, and hyper-sensitive to detecting hints as to what that may be, torture strongly tends to confirm what the torturer already believes. - It just amplifies bias, and convinces the torturer of what they already believed.
It also embeds false memories suggested by the torturer, so once used, real recollection is contaminated at best and completely false and polluted otherwise.
My reference material goes back several centuries and no study that I have ever read on torture over the last three decades has said anything other than that torture is ineffective to retrieve truth or facts, and corrupts the torturer at the same speed that it damages the victim.
It is one of the foulest of human vices and has no place amongst moral or civilized people.
James said ”Of course if torture does not work then there is no moral issue. However if torture does work, then the question becomes more difficult.
Do you cause you a single human being to suffer to save a greater number?”
It’s only difficult if you are a conflicted Utilitarian, but if you follow a deontological ethical system like Christianity, then it isn’t difficult at all.
To a Christian it can never be right to torture, regardless of the number of people who may suffer if you don’t.
I am surprised that you don’t understand that James, I thought you followed Jesus?
Skank,
Christians may be compelled to use torture as a moral obligation.
You think all sorts of odd things. The fact you think it doesn't make it true.
Posted by James Jones on October 31, 2007 06:22 AMTorture does work. Check out the Salem Witch Trials, all of those that were tortured confessed to being witches. If not for torture the US would still be filled with witches today ( well, OK Ann Coulter slipped in some how).
Now that we all agree on torture as being acceptable we can just throw all those silly war rules out and hope none of our soldiers get captured
Soldiers don't believe in torture. Chickenhawks (Bush/Cheney) think that torture is a good thing. Ideally they would somehow be captured and tortured.
Posted by justice on October 31, 2007 07:22 AMReal torture is listening to George Bush mangle the english language! Lock the terrorists in a room with W and he will make their ears bleed from his malaprops and hillbilly chatter.
Posted by on October 31, 2007 09:24 AMI love it the wingnuts immediately bring up a man who has not occupied the white house for nearly 8 years now, and who they are usually quick to point out never served in the military.
I also love hearing from a couple twits without the balls to even select a screen name so that their blatherings can be identified and attributed to a reliable nom de blog.
As the the effectiveness of torture and the extraction of random and perhaps unreliable information as opposed to truth extraction I believe I'd rather rely on the opinion of a couple of experts over the twitterings of the types I've described above.
Moran was writing in 1943, and he was describing his own, already legendary methods of interrogating Japanese prisoners of war. More than a half century later his report remains something of a cult classic for military interrogators. The Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association (MCITTA), a group of active-duty and retired Marine intelligence personnel, calls Moran's report one of the "timeless documents" in the field and says it has long been "a standard read" for insiders. (A book about the Luftwaffe interrogator Hans Joachim Scharff, whose charm, easygoing manner, and perfect English beguiled many a captured Allied airman into revealing critical information, is another frequently cited classic in the field.) An MCITTA member says the group decided to post Moran's report online in July of 2003, because "many others wanted to read it" and because the original document, in the Marine Corps archives, was in such poor shape that the photocopies in circulation were difficult to decipher. He denies that current events had anything to do with either the decision to post the document or the increased interest in it.
But it is hard to imagine a historical lesson that would constitute a more direct reproach to recent U.S. policies on prisoner interrogation. And there is no doubt that Moran's report owes more than a little of its recent celebrity to the widespread disdain among experienced military interrogators for what took place at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo when ill-trained personnel were ordered to "soften up" prisoners. Since the prison scandals broke, many old hands in the business have pointed out that abusing prisoners is not simply illegal and immoral; it is also remarkably ineffective.
The torture of suspects [at Abu Ghraib] did not lead to any useful intelligence information being extracted," says James Corum, a professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and the author of a forthcoming book on counterinsurgency warfare. "The abusers couldn't even use the old 'ends justify the means' argument, because in the end there was nothing to show but a tremendous propaganda defeat for the United States."
Corum, who recently retired as a lieutenant colonel after twenty-eight years in the Army and Reserves, mostly in military intelligence, says that Moran's philosophy has repeatedly been affirmed in subsequent wars large and small. "Know their language, know their culture, and treat the captured enemy as a human being" is how Corum sums up Moran's enduring lesson.
Part of why Sherwood Moran became such a legendary figure among military interrogators was his cool disregard for what he termed the standard "hard-boiled" military attitude. The brutality of the fighting in the Pacific and the suicidal fanaticism of the Japanese had created a general assumption that only the sternest measures would get Japanese prisoners to divulge anything. Moran countered that in his and others' experience, strong-arm tactics simply did not work. 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"—invariably 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.
Remarkable isn't it that this took place in a war in which one of our anonymous twits claimed the torture it so obviously delights in took place and against a couple of enemies frequently described as fanatic and one of whom was documented to have beheaded prisoners.
Maybe the fact that torture has been utilized through the ages as our resident expert twits assert is because there have always been sadists such as our twits who cared less about the results than they did about the process.
The entirety of the article I'm citing from can be found here:http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/budiansky
And I'm sure a search on the internet would turn up further information about Major Moran and his successful techniques.
I have to say I'd not be surprised to see one of our twits retort that Moran must be one of oxyrush and the wingnuts phony soldiers for holding the attitudes he does.
Machina is a fart sniffer
Posted by on October 31, 2007 09:50 AMJJ said:
"Christians may be compelled to use torture as a moral obligation."
Care to provide examples?
And any old psychopath can call him/herself a Christian. Just like you Jimmy Jay.
People who advocate torture are morally vacuous. Just like you Jimmy Jay.
Posted by Charles B. on October 31, 2007 11:51 AMOnce again Charles B. What method would you use to extract vital life saving information from an enemy??
Posted by A on October 31, 2007 12:44 PMTorture worked on women accused of the impossible crime of witchcraft because they were not terrorists and therefore preferred not to die; they wanted to live. Today's terrorist prefers to die so will keep his secret until death delivers him to Allah's turf where the virgins wait to provide him with ecstasy for eternity. I do believe today's terrorist will endure torture knowing his nuclear bomb will explode and with each jab of torture the terrorist will revel: Do it again, dude, you'll get yours.
Posted by JVB on October 31, 2007 01:06 PMWe always seem to associate torture with physical torture. What about psychological torture? Would non-physical torture be ok, even though it is still torture?
As a society, I personally do not feel that it is appropriate to use physical torture for any reason, other than for pure revenge (if someone raped my sisters or my wife, I honestly would take great pleasure in torturing this person to the brink of death before I anonymously turned them over to the police).
But as a means to extract information, would it not be more appropriate and maybe even more effective to use psychotropics? As an example, maybe the use of sodium pentothal (even though that was banned by the Geneva Convention)?
Would it be preferable to ignore some of the agreements and treaties of the Geneva Convention, if it meant saving the lives of millions? Is this something we could agree on, and maybe address at a "new Geneva Convention" to specifically address terrorists?
Posted by Dan2 on October 31, 2007 02:12 PMI think all torture methods being considered should be tested extensively on Brian Stuckey and Johnny II. If they die, who gives a damn.
James blasphemed with ”Christians may be compelled to use torture as a moral obligation”
The fact that you think that there may be such a possibility speaks reams about your morality, but please go ahead and give an example.
Can you think of a situation where Jesus would torture somebody, or a parable or action by Jesus that leads you to believe that He might?
Christians may be compelled to use torture as a moral obligation.
Not quite. More accurately: "[purported]Christians may be compelled to [condone] torture as a [political] obligation."
However, many Christians don't. Increasing numbers of Christians, in Kansas of all places, are waking up to how they've been used by Republican party to advance un-Christian policies...torture just being one of many: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html
Posted by on October 31, 2007 09:20 PM
Skank,
Can I think of an instance when God would torture a human being? Not a loving God - no. It would seem somehow contradictory act for the Creator of the Universe. Probably not Your Universe though.
I have offered many arguments on this page but have never invoked the theology of any religion as a premise. You read my posts and conclude that I am a Christian Fundamentalist. That is not a surprise. What's remarkable is your own ongoing charge of blasphemy never seems to shake your prejudice.
A man of your education is no doubt familiar with:
Cocooned in supercilious bigotry
Ever, but only mildly, surprised by reality
Khalid Sheik Mohammed
Wooden Travels
Oh get off it James, are you denying your saviour so quickly?
Didn’t even take a Roman guard or procurator to make you pretend not to know Jesus.
Of course you are a fundamentalist, just a rather demented, blasphemous, and supercilious one.
You pussy-foot around the issue but it is obvious.
So here is your chance to prove me wrong, disclaim God and Jesus. Tell us how you deny Jehovah and Jesus.
If not, tell me what circumstances could possibly arise in which Jesus (note: Christians follow Jesus) would encourage and partake in torture.
Go for it, sucker.
Blaspheme or be apostate.
Skank,
I don't think we should turn this into a "me" thing, do you? So petty don't you know.
You're a little touchy this morning. I understand- Halloween night at the bath house must be absolutely murder.
Posted by James Jones on November 1, 2007 07:52 AMA bit evasive there James.
Why do you find it so difficult to admit your beliefs?
Now show me how you reconcile torture with the teachings of your saviour.
Witness to me on this.
PS. we have been over this insult thing before -since I don't find gays offensive, like you do, you need to think of something other than gay insults to use on me.
Skank,
"Why do you find it so difficult to admit your beliefs?"
OK - you talked me into it. I think it's time I finally came clean.
I believe your are the most effete poster on this blog. I believe your tautologies bounce between tedious and banal with any sense of comity reduced to fly-over country. I believe that you are a dogmatic leftist who thinks in stereotypes and hopes to disguise vacuity with periphrastic bombast.
You know what? You were right. I do feel better.
Common civility requires the correction of one of you falsehoods. I have never insulted you as a homosexual. First, I have no way on knowing, more than that I do not care, about your sexual orientation. My interest is only what is posted on this page. Second, I have never referred to homosexuality perjoratively in any post I've put up here - and that's a lot of posts.
I have quite often characterized you as being a sycophant. That is because your response to any leftist platitude is to offer up obsequious support.
The fact that you create a nexus between servility and homosexuality evidences not only homophobia but also a priapic imperative at work. This is entirely your problem and has nothing to do with me.
Now to your entreaty
"Now show me how you reconcile torture with the teachings of your saviour.
Witness to me on this."
I do hate it when people beg but - Can do:
Christians may be compelled to use torture as a moral obligation.
Sound familiar? It should - here's where I got it:
James blasphemed with ”Christians may be compelled to use torture as a moral obligation”
The fact that you think that there may be such a possibility speaks reams about your morality, but please go ahead and give an example.
Can you think of a situation where Jesus would torture somebody, or a parable or action by Jesus that leads you to believe that He might?
Posted by Bangalore Skank on October 31, 2007 08:24 PM
But I make no complaint. I will answer this question as often as you need to ask it. It is an important point.
Posted by James Jones on November 1, 2007 07:45 PMJJ, I think I'll just call you "Cop Out Jones" from now on. You write so much and say so very little..
Posted by Charles B. on November 1, 2007 08:32 PMJust asking,but aren't there drugs that make people talk?
Posted by Jimminy on November 1, 2007 08:59 PMCharles,
How could I know you would be looking in?
I will rewrite in Chalse Beese:
Bango,
You know what? You sure are one dumb guy.
Hehehehehe
Torture is bad but ok if you find out really important stuff.
Better?
Posted by James Jones on November 1, 2007 09:02 PMJimminy
If drugs were more effective then water boarding, then why do you think this would be an issue?
Posted by James Jones on November 1, 2007 09:19 PMOk James, so besides repeating everything without any formatting, you didn’t actually answer the question or provide an example of where Jesus practiced or encouraged torture.
I will assume that is because you cannot.
Far from “coming clean”, you said nothing.
I agree with Charles, you are a “cop out”.
As far as homosexual insults, I have to wonder if it's really possible that you are unaware that you frequently use homosexual innuendo when you try to play the insult game.
I find your attempts amusing, you struggle like crazy and come up with the weakest but most self-reflective insults I have ever seen.
That was one reason I wondered about your right cerebral cortex shutting down.
Jimminy (not James) said ” Just asking,but aren't there drugs that make people talk?
“
Many depressants and hypnotics have a very small effect. Sodium pentothal was such a “truth serum”, but practically speaking they aren’t very effective at all and tend to produce yarns and fabrication in copious amounts. The CIA, Stasi, KGB, and MI6 (and no doubt every other spook agency) have all dabbled with drugs, and unless they are hiding something remarkably well – given that they wind up leaking everything else, they have found zip.
The main trouble seems to be that drugs that loosen people’s resolve to be schtumm also tend to make them both suggestible and highly confabulatory. So you wind up with people that yak away and spin great yarns that incorporate stuff they pick up from the interrogator.
Turns out just being friendly makes people spill the beans.
That’s how they got the info out of the Nazi and Gestapo prisoners.
No waterboarding, no drugs, no beatings.
Skank,
So you're still puzzeled about why we have no examples of God using torture. I did address that earlier but apparently to no effect. I will have another go.
The reason you torture someone is to get them to tell you something that they know but you don't. God would not use torture because he already knows what the other person thinks.
The absence of examples is not surprising given the circumstances - wouldn't you say?
Your Great Moral Question is, remarkably, both vapid and inchoate. Your special talent in creating these fourmulations is probably attributable to your smugness.
The moral parameters surrounding the question of torture are of interest. Unfortunately, that discussion has not occured. Nor will it.
You are oblivious to the moral import of the ethics because you deny the parameters the question.
I don't have the time or patience to walk you through the ethics. I did give you a good clue in my initial post but, you haven't the wit to take it up. So that will have to suffice for the time being.
Posted by James Jones on November 2, 2007 07:07 AMJJ:
Jesus didn't have to torture anyone because he's God and God knows what everyone is thinking right?
Nice dodge.
You really could use an editor, because most of the things you write could be whittled down to almost nothing- therefore reflecting more accurately what you have to say.
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 11:05 AMCharles B,
You can get this one.
Assume the target is a terrorist (and yes Charles there are such persons as terrorists)
If God is omniscient then he already knows everything the terrorist thinks. If the terrorist has an evil plan, God already knows what it is. If God is ominpotent then he can stop any evil deed the terrorist has planned.
So can you understand why there could be no point in God torturing a terrorist and why no one would look for or expect an example of God torturing a terrorist and why that is not a good question?
Posted by James Jones on November 2, 2007 12:55 PM