I’ll state my position as plainly as I can – the CIA could waterboard “Mahmoud” once a week, and western democracies would be nowhere in danger of becoming “no better than the enemy” or “losing our soul” or other such nonsense. Some of the tactics employed during WW2 in defeating the Axis feel rather short of pleasure thresholds, but the victors emerged from the morass as the “greatest generation” nonetheless. (Of course, give it time. Another 20 years and we’ll could well be sending reparations and “never again” mea culpas to the descendants of Hiroshima.)
But then again, relativism was never my strong suit. Try as I might, I cannot place “water up the nose” on the same ethical plane as say, the application of a cordless drill to a prisoner’s temple or forcing him to watch while his children are raped and then slaughtered.
Not so the readers of the Guardian!
What’s interesting to me is how the subject is currently being discussed, or rather reacted against, very often with wholesale fantasy. For every partially serious response to a particular point, there are two, perhaps three, comments that are unhinged and simply perverse, albeit in a broadly similar way. I stopped counting after a dozen different commenters asserted, smugly, that no war against terrorism exists, or that the West shouldn’t have made efforts to defend itself, or that the US is some kind of fascist autocracy, or that Osama bin Laden and his associates weren’t responsible for 9/11, or that the US government killed its own citizens for unspecified reasons, or that Bush and Blair are morally indistinguishable from homicidal jihadists. As a thumbnail sketch of Guardianista opinion, or a large part thereof, these reactions are worth noting.
And then, there’s the whole question of, you know – winning. One of the most maddening arguments utilized by the political left that goes largely unchallenged is the assertion that “you cannot win a war against an insurgency”.
Well, speaking as a lowly citizen, may I make a suggestion? Could we please get busy and come up with a way to defeat insurgencies, because if we don’t, western civilization as we know it is doomed.
“Dear Mahmoud. Sorry about that dunking thing a while back. We’ve voted those dreadful people out and replaced them with Enlightened Diplomats. Here’s the thing – you and I both know we are incapable of defeating an enemy who wears no uniform, obeys no rules of combat, engages in terrorism and random attacks on civilians, but this is of little concern because we are confident that you will never bring those tactics to our soil.”
Perhaps that’s the true legacy of Vietnam and to an extent, WW2 – the notion that one can lose a war and still go home again. After all, Germany, Italy, and Japan still claim spots on the map. In retrospect, that may have been a mistake on our part.
If waterboarding is so harmless, why isn’t it in the Army Field Manual?
john, go watch GI Jane…………
If defending your civilization is so trivial that having your sensitivities offended takes precedence and becomes your paramount concern why don’t you just convert to Islam and be done with it?
Let the water flow!
Lets re-name water boarding “The cleansing of the terrorist’s soul.” I am sure that would make the $#1t stains feel much better about themselves than that 72 virgin thing. Maybe it is the thought of clean water that scares them so bad
Rob, that would DEFINITELY be a war crime. Trying to convert them from Islam via the method of Baptism? We’d never hear the end of it.
RG
War is not pleasant , but somehow the left seems to think it can be waged with kid gloves and hands tied behind the back.
The Islamic terrorists started the war on the West , and now the West is being forced , in a politically correct environment, dominated by the left , to confront some very awkward issues such as torture.
Anyone who has read WW2 history knows the absolute carnage that occurred. If young Kadr who is now lounging in Gitmo had been a WW2 combatant he would have been buried where he was wounded , and not treated as some sort of bizarre mistreated “hero” by the left.
One example of WW2 is Iwo Jima with some 26000 marines casualties (6,891 killed and 18,700 wounded), and most of the 21000 Japanese were killed. The scale of the casualties eventually led the US to use the atomic bomb.
Even today the left attempts to paint this as a form of US genocide , while ignoring the fact that the Japanese military was planning to use the entire Japanese civilian population as a from a mass-kamikaze which would have resulted in millions of dead.
My point being … if you start a war or a proxy war don’t expect to be treated kindly … Al Qaeda , Iran , Taliban etc.
I believe the proxy war on Israel driven by Iran will explode soon , because eventually Israel will be forced to make a survival decision regarding Iran.
Can’t agree. Waterboarding is torture, if wikipedia is anything to go by…
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]
Now I agree, the occasional waterboarding does not make the U.S. morally equivalent to the Taliban. But it’s not good either.
So the question is, should any government, at any time, allow waterboarding? How about if you were Jack Bauer and a nuclear device is about to go off and your prisoner knows where it is but won’t say?
The morality and legality of torture, or if you prefer, outrages upon human dignity, is well established. Such actions are illegal in our society. Today they torture a suspected terrorist, and I do not object, because I am not a terrorist, and so forth.
We have a right to the integrity of our persons, no less than the right to our free speech. These rights are called rights because they cannot be taken away or violated by those in authority, for any reason. If we allow torture on them then eventually it will be used upon us.
I support the war in Afganistan, as a just war for a good cause. The rule of law says we hand over our prisoners to the nation in which we operate. Done, so be it. If, on the other hand, Canadian soldiers torture a prisoner, then they have committed a crime and justice will be done.
A standard directive that could be issued before an op is, “Prisoners are not required.” The PPCLI will cheerfully ensure that no prisoners are taken. Shooting a combatant to ensure that he stays down and doesn’t try to bring a weapon to bear as you over-run a position is not the same as torturing the helpless.
We will win in Afganistan. In fact, we have already won. We need to finish the job, without giving up what makes us Canadian.
Hypothetical questions about the ticking bomb are ridiculous. Personally, I would torture the victim, get the data, and then turn myself in to be prosecuted for torture. I certainly would not attempt to defend myself with the pitiful statement that the end justifies the means.
How many times must people learn that the end does not justify the means?
“Perhaps that’s the true legacy of Vietnam and to an extent, WW2 – the notion that one can lose a war and still go home again. After all, Germany, Italy, and Japan still claim spots on the map. In retrospect, that may have been a mistake on our part.”
Yeah, a little genocide sure would have taught ’em.
Idiot.
“How about if you were Jack Bauer and a nuclear device is about to go off and your prisoner knows where it is but won’t say?”
Our moral superiority dictates the “one” persons rights trumps the thousands or millions. After all it’s just hearsay and war mongering over any debate until the event actually takes place isn’t it? Only a right wing nut would pose a question like that in the first place.
/heh.
How many times must people learn that the end does not justify the means?
Depends on what the “end” is…and you damn well know it. Neither you nor I have any idea how many lives have been saved or how many 9/11 wannabes have been stopped by such means.
I take no shame is saying that, if some water-boarding would have resulted in us getting the intel to prevent the 9/11 plot, I would gladly have held the bucket or hose. If you don’t think that that is a case where the end justifies the means, you are sick.
The kind of torture that Kate alludes to in her post is exactly what used to go on in places like Abu Gharib – before the US was there performing “torture” tactics such as putting women’s underwear on prisoners’ heads. In those times, the “end” was nothing more than ensuring that a bunch of sadistic freaks got their jollies. Big difference.
“Yeah, a little genocide sure would have taught ’em.”
There’s that leftist methodology again. In this case, the suggested loss of political nationhood as the consequence of launching a war of agression becomes the equivalent of “genocide”. Strawman snark is so much easier than actually carving out an reasoned position.
There’s an entire blogroll devoted to it, actually. They call themselves “progressives”.
Then, in the next breath, this particular debating class will assert that the nation of Israel shouldn’t exist, because the Jews were forced upon “Palestinian” land…
b_nichol:
Not “genocide” – just killing all of the fascists.
I don’t even think liberals have come up with a pejorative like “fascistophobe” since they’re not yet a PC-protected group. So, I assume that it is OK for me to promote “fascisticide.”
90% of the inmates at Abu Ghraib were, by the USAs own admission, wrongly imprisoned.
They don’t use torture as a means of interrogation; they use it as punishment, and to instill fear in their enemies.
Thousands of innocents tortured, for no good reason other than for them to go home to their families and tell them not to screw with the USA.
The Liberals will be back in power some day, and they will have scores to settle. As it stands, the RCMP and other police forces use tasers today in Canada as torture devices, even on handcuffed handicapped people, with the specific intent of intimidating and punishing citizens.
An Ottawa Police spokesperson was quoted in the news recently that their force doesn’t keep statistics on Taser use because “we’d be writing ten reports a day”. Ten taserings a day in dull Ottawa?
The Indian Posse, The Malvern Crew, The Crips; if society ever breaks down even for a few days these groups will take great pleasure in going on a torture spree, one that does not discriminate between sexes.
All of which to say if you think torture is such a great idea, wait until it happens to you.
“How many times must people learn that the end does not justify the means?”
Better just hope the enemy holds that same view.
Sounder:
Why would only a “right wing nut” only ask this question? I bet thousands of teachers and professors (many being left wing) have asked this question of their students.
It’s a good question. It makes one think. To dismiss it out of hand suggests that you aren’t really comfortable with that thinking thing.
Even in liberal democracies, the rights of one person definitely does not trump the rights of thousands or millions. At least not in practise in any country in the world – not when it gets down to brass tacks. That might be good or bad, but it’s certainly the case.
90% of the inmates at Abu Ghraib were, by the USAs own admission, wrongly imprisoned
Yes…and name one that was killed or tortured.
They were threatened with torture, menaced with dogs, forced into sexually suggestive poses while naked, and forced to wear women’s underwear on their heads.
All of which are acts that are reprehensible and brings shame to those who wear the uniform. But they are not acts that come even CLOSE to what used to go on at that prison before the US was there.
I think I’m stealing from Bill Whittle. But, try to imagine watching your daughter raped and disembowelled before you while your fingers are removed one by one with bolt-cutters. How long before you beg to be posed naked with a thong on your head? Yeah…I thought so.
You can’t compare the two. And the fact that you think you can shows just how delussional you are.
william hughes – just a few questions.
You state that we have ‘the right to the integrity of our persons’. Does a terrorist accept our right to this?
You say that this right can’t be taken away or violated by the govt, but it can be, by a terrorist.
I don’t see this war on Islamic fascism as a ‘war to be won’ in the traditional sense. What we are fighting, in my view, is a reaction (Islamic fascism) to the dysfunctional tribal states of the ME (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt..). The West bears absolutely no responsibility in this fight. Its origins, its causes are strictly within the economic/political/social structure of those ME states.
These ME states externalized the unrest within their own countries to the West, setting up the West as the False Cause. But the real cause is their own medieval political and economic tribal system, which denied power to their population and attempts to keep them as passive, submissive slaves. The tactics used are faith and fear; and fear and faith.
The Al Qaeda movt emerged as a reaction to this degenerate system, where the new found wealth of industrial oil devt simply set up the dominant tribe as billionaires..and kept the rest of the people as peasants. Instead of moving into a civic democratic mode and enabling a middle class, Al Qaeda’s reaction was to revert to an even earlier history, the pre-industrial age of fundamentalist ‘simplicity’ and presumed purity.
It won’t work. You can’t reverse history. And the population is too large. And they like their cars and cellphones. You can’t go back.
The fight is within the ME, between the fundamentalists who want isolate Purity; and the current corrupt tribal elite; and the mass of the population who want to have economic/political power.
But, as the inevitable occurs, aided and kicked along by the West who are doing all the sacrifice and work for the ME, of confronting the fundamentalists and enabling democracy…these people will become marginalized and move into the purely criminal zone of society.
That is, they’ll rapidly lose their ideology and move into criminality as an economic lifestyle. I think we’ll see more and more Islamic fascists engaged in purely criminal acts: kidnapping, hostage taking for money; art and jewellery theft; extortion..etc.
(Moral) relativism isn’t my strong suit, either, Kate.
But, it’s been able to thrive because when a vacuum is created–the Englightenment having largely sucked Western Civilization dry of the Christian faith it was built on–relativism, “‘so sorry we’ve offended you, our bad, let us fall down dead and let you walk all over us,” quickly fills in the moral/ethical hole that’s been created.
Because relativism precludes personal responsibility and accountability, making it convenient to hide behind “collective guilt” and “the government” paying the penalty–meaning all of us, as we watch our tax dollars sucked into every socialist, relativist, leftist black hole the secular, humanist, relativists amongst us can create–it seems an easy way out for most people.
It’s an easy way out, that is, UNLESS you can counter its moral vacuousness with another, more viable and productive, system. The fact that religious faith (i.e., Christianity) has taken such a hit–even on the part of otherwise open and intelligent individuals–is the West’s Achilles Heel. We’re going to be duped again and again by the “isms” if the moral/ethical/religious foundation upon which we’re standing is simply another humanist philosophy.
One thing you’ll notice about the men and women who went to war in 1939-1945 is that most of them, and their families, were adherents to the Christian faith. They understood that there is a greater good for which they would be willing to forfeit their lives–also the understanding of the West’s leaders.
Fast forward to today: How many young men and women feel any obligation to a greater good or would even THINK to sacrifice their lives for it? We’ve lost an immeasureable weapon in the fight against darkness and evil.
And it’s frustratingly difficult to get a discussion going about it, even on “conservative” blogs.
If the doctor misdiagnoses the malady, the patient grows increasingly more ill and eventually dies. Our blind spot today–or, our misdiagnosis of the malady of the Western World–is, IMO, our relegating the importance of religious faith to the attic of history.
“The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever).” – Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 2745
Ok. So in their Islamic ideology, no Muslim should be punished for killing a kafir. This is well understood from the Hadiths and recognized through sharia.
And the leftists in the west are wringing their hands about what?
“There’s that leftist methodology again. In this case, the suggested loss of political nationhood as the consequence of launching a war of agression becomes the equivalent of “genocide”. Strawman snark is so much easier than actually carving out an reasoned position.”
No, there was nothing to indicate “the suggested loss of nationhood” in your statement. Is that what you meant? A 73-year occupation of all the Axis countries? So, in addition to Germany, Italy and Japan, the Allies would perpetually occupy Hungary, Romania, Austria, Slovakia, etc.
“There’s an entire blogroll devoted to it, actually. They call themselves “progressives”.”
I have no idea what your point is here.
“Then, in the next breath, this particular debating class will assert that the nation of Israel shouldn’t exist, because the Jews were forced upon “Palestinian” land…”
So you’re now saying that I will argue that Isreal shouldn’t exist? Is that speculation, projection, or just something that you made up on the spot.
My charge stands.
What the left does not realize is that they have created a need for torture.
The left wants us to wage politically correct wars in which for example no religious or historical site are destroyed, but to accomplish that we need very precise information, and how do we get it?
by torturing those who have this information.
If the left had not managed to impose on western nations the absurd concept of limited war, there would be no need to ask questions.
There would be no need for precise information on where a certain leader is or where certain weapons are hidden et cetera.
We would just bomb the enemy until it would surrender.
it worked just fine with Japan.
And now Japan is a very prosperous and peaceful democracy – which it was not before WW2.
We ( we the allies ) did not need to know if a factory in Germany was producing row boats or warplane wings, we just bombed everything.
and it worked fine.
Now Germany is a nice cuddly peaceful nation who is also prosperous.
My dear lefties, the choice is yours,
either we go back to carpet bombing ( my number one choice )
or
you let us torture people so we can get the precise information required to wage the politically correct/clean/limited/almost casualty-free war you want us to wage.
(Moral) relativism isn’t my strong suit, either, Kate. I wonder how many of the respondents claiming the moral high ground would have fared in the carnage of WW2.
Personally I think the moral issue would fade quickly after seeing friends killed.
I am not recommending wholesale torture , but to take the position that no form of torture is acceptable is absurd. I could probably torture some of the “lefties” who have been so indignant here by simply looking at them ! Would that also be banned ?
The problem with all of the moral relativists is that they lack any common sense of proportion. Here we are fighting with killers who spit on the Geneva convention , behead etc. , but when they are caught the left immediately jumps to their aid. In WW2 they would have been put in front of a wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg&feature=related
Eddie Izzard’s Church of England skit. So appropriate here, non?
Keeping our eye on the ball, the aim is to change the gang running Iran. To diminish their proxy attacks on the West through Hizballah pushing Hamas rocket attacks on Iarael.
The majority in Iran want a free western lifestyle.
To reduce the weapons and support to Muqtada al Sadr and al Qaeda in Iraq.
To help Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari keep the Taliban away from Pakistan*s Nukes.
If military pros insist waterboarding is required then I*m no expert.= TG
“Then, in the next breath, this particular debating class will assert that the nation of Israel shouldn’t exist, because the Jews were forced upon “Palestinian” land…”
“Strawman snark is so much easier than actually carving out an reasoned position.”
Indeed.
The post points up a couple of issues. The first and most fundamental issue underpins the whole debate on fighting the war on terror, the use of torture if necessary etc. That issue is a simple question: “Is what I have worth defending?” I’m not referring to material possessions but rather to a lifestyle, liberty, political structure and process, even territory and community. Some people make out as though they would be just as happy as slaves. I think they are deluding themselves, but self-delusion seems to go with that turf. I personally believe that what I have is worth defending and I’m not about to justify that belief to any supranational body, certainly not the dictators’ club aka the UN, or any other group of rogue thugs. If you don’t agree with me — tough!; threaten me and you’ve got a fight on your hands. The leftists seem mired in a self-loathing, and self-delusion so profound that they seem to believe that their lives are devoid of anything worth protecting. Maybe they’re right, but if so, they think only for their lives, not for mine. At the same time as they boast of their cowardice they refuse to walk the talk and go to live under those regimes they purport not to fear.
In the defense of those things I value, I’m not going to quibble over the niceties. Fly airliners full of people into skyscrapers full of people and I’ll be quite prepared to pour water up your nose in the interests of preventing a repeat. If it turns out I was wrong about you despite due diligence, heck, I’ll buy you a beer. Life’s rough; it’ll make you a man.
As for no insurgency has ever been defeated — what rot! The Americans in the Phillipines, the British in Burma, the SAS in Yemen, the Viet Cong after the Tet offensive (read “A Viet Cong Memoir” by Truong Nhu Tang). It takes sophistication, steadiness and most of all patience. They won’t be defeated quickly; it takes time — something the surrender monkeys are afraid of because time is on our side if we have the moral fortitude to stand for our beliefs (see the first point).
Okay, I’ll say it: Nothing here that good old fashioned crusade wouldn’t cure.
The definition of torture has, like so many words today, been altered to satisfy people with an agenda. That’s like “cruel and unusual punishment” in Canada’s prisons is the term used when they don’t get steak night every week.
Waterboarding may not be pleasant but then again it is not supposed to be. Geeesh.
rabbit, excuse my undeclared sarcasm. I misled you a bit because of it. I really do concur that your question is a very good question.
or this classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY
For leftards, I think it’s beneficial to use their delusions to illustrate the point.
Instead of Muslim terrorists, let’s say that there is a kidnapped civil rights leader and Rove knows where he is but won’t say. Lets further assume that the civil rights leader has only a few hours to live.
What would a leftard do to Karl Rove?
I think we know the answer.
Hypocrites.
This is a big gray area. It’s not an easy question and people who have moral absolutes on this issue are not serious people. They fail to think through their positions because they’re in no position to be forced to. Fat, lazy, comfortable westerners can afford moral absolutes – for now. When that changes, it tends to change big.
When asked if you support torture, the obvious answer is of course not. The more telling question is to ask under what circumstances you would condone the use torture. How would you police it against abuse? Where would you draw the line? These are serious questions which have serious consequences to real people. They don’t suit moral poseurs typing in their mother’s basements.
Btian: “(Moral) relativism isn’t my strong suit, either, Kate.”
That was my comment and you misunderstood it. I’m not taking an “moral high ground” here. I’m making the point that when there’s a war on, and we’re fighting for our lives and those of our children and posterity, then hard measures need to be taken: Individuals have to be prepared to both kill and be killed. That’s war.
The point I was making was that in today’s morally relativistic world, where for the most part we believe in nothing but our own comforts and entitlements we see no reason to stand up for anything, including our own survival.
I’m with Kate on her feelings about bleeding heart liberal lefties who’ve wimped out in this War on Terror. If winning this war means some terrorists will be tortured, then so be it. Look at what the Islamofascists are doing and have done to us. Look at their long-range plans for us Infidels.
I’m not sympathetic towards them and figure that if they put themselves in the line of fire, they probably deserve what they get.
A way of making sure they’re not tortured is to stop fighting…which puts the responsibility clearly and plainly on their shoulders.
Warwick:
My approach would be as follows: There exists a concept called “the right of self defense” where one is allowed take drastics action – even kill people – to protect oneself or others. Regarding torture, I would borrow from the right of self defense:
– The threat must be serious and immediate.
– The force must be the minimum possible.
Rabbit,
I would agree. The problem with that on a state level is policing them. As we know, give the state power and the state jackboots will abuse it. Give the state power to torture and they’ll be after your grandma in no time.
I think torture can be a necessary evil in some instances. It’s just difficult to impossible to codify and use under the law. I don’t have an answer as to how a modern society goes about managing the uglier aspects of defending against aggressors but moral absolutes (ie. there is no way to justify torture under any circumstance) is a cop-out. The leftard idea that if we put a pair of underwear on some guy’s head we’re morally equivelent to head-hacking terrorists is even worse.
“- The force must be the minimum possible….”
You’ve obviously never Won a fight in your entire life have you rabbit?
OMMAG,
Torture isn’t a fight. It’s more akin to kicking the guy while he’s down. You avoid that sort of thing unless you really have to do it…
People like John responding to his daughter’s question (as to why this happened as they stand looking over the smoking hole that used to be Chicago) why something this terrible could be allowed to happen.
“Well dear, Daddy didn’t want the evil torturers in our evil government to pour water on the bad man’s face.”
They should use pigs blood instead of water.It worked for Pershing.
General Pershing Fights Jihadists
“General John J. Pershing fought Muslim insurgents in the Philippines before World War I. His methods were politically incorrect, but quite effective.
Today, he’d be hammmered ruthlessly by the press, court martialed, and thrown in the brig for G-d knows how long. But keep in mind that “Pershing is the only person, while still alive, to rise to the highest rank ever held in the United States Army—General of the Armies—equivalent only to the posthumous rank of George Washington.”
I guess Pershing was doing something right.
One important thing to remember is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won’t even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell.
Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks against the United States and it’s interests by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists.
So General Pershing captured 50 of the terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists.
The soldiers then soaked their bullets in pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad.
The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist’s bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.
They let the 50th man go. And for about the next 42 years, there was not a single attack by a Muslim fanatic anywhere in the world.”
Why not just force them to eat pork instead of having a bath if it offends western sensibilities so much.
Personally I think the practice of sending them to Egypt and turning them over to their own is the greatest idea the American administration has ever had. Less cost for accommodation for the taxpayers to absorb, and the air over Florida remains less foul.
Let the Islamic traditions of justice serve itself on those that defend it the most. A few weeks in an Egyptian interrogation room and “gods warriors of peace” become Jewish.
OMMAG:
You’ve obviously never Won a fight in your entire life have you rabbit?
I boxed recreationally for many years (now I do boxer’s workouts but rarely spar), and I did win bouts against some good opponents. So yes, I’ve won some fights.
The idea of using minimal force is not mine, but the courts. It’s fundamental to the concept of the right of self defense.
Rabbit has it about right, and the next part of that is you are willing to face the consequences of your actions, i.e. a jury of your peers.
Torture should NEVER be done by regular army. Screws up the battlefield consequences, disincents the marginal opponent and degrades the army itself, they know it is wrong.
Intelligence gathering is another story. however, I would still say that they get more information and better information from better interrogation techniques…good cop bad cop need not involve the bad cop beating the guy to a pulp.
Waterboarding is probably the least damagin of the torture techniques, no bruises, no permanent physical damage. The psychological damage may be otherwise.
A question is Russian Roulette where the prisoner believes there are bullets in some of the chambers torture, even though there are none in the magazine or chamber? Of course it is.
But that isnt the argument here. Of course you then have to answer the question, once you cross the brisge of torture, which torture methods do you not use and why. It becomes increasingly unclear as to how you distinguish between them. The only factor becoming which method yields the most accuate information the fastest.
The argument is that they do worse and that we are in an existential battle here.
1) They do worse – First point is I thought we werent into moral relativism here. Either our methods are correct and just as are our goals or they arent. There isnt a scale here. Would it matter if they had the same aims they have but fought like we thought they should. Capturing prisoners, feeding them appropriately etc etc.
I dont think that changes the nature of the fight in terms of goals and objectives. I think what we are doing is right, certainly in Afghanistan and in the shadowy counter terrorist war we are engaged in with our security apparatus.
The danger is if we adopted those methods that were one step less than theirs and then they got better. Do you think the local populations would care. They would see no difference. Look at Michael Yon’s post. there is a reference to there being less munition fired, letting the extra bad guy get away but the benefits come from turning the population on your side.
I think Petraeus is proving you can fight the battle the right way, and win. Chechnya is an example of fighting the wrong way and winning, for the moment. Are we prepared to fight that way?
2) An existential fight – Maybe, but not at the moment. If it really was existential then out come the nukes and the draft.
This lower level doesnt make the fight any less important. It just means the rules are different. This is why Iran will never overtly target US troops in Iraq or in the Gulf. It means that the US would be free to play to its strength, overwhelming and dominating force and technology to overcome the enemy.
The nature of Counter Insurgency is one hand behind your back. And it is wrong that you cannot win against an insurgency. It happens and right now Petraues is doing the right thing to win it in Iraq. Afghanistan is different but we are doing the right things, just not enough fighting troops from Nato.
We arent in WWII. In some ways I wish we were. Thats a fight the West can win and in short order.
So where does that leave us. We should be fighting in a manner that we can feel comfortable with, regardless of the enemy. Either we are right in goals or we arent. Generally that means torture is not an accepted method, certainly not by reg army.
Secondly, we are not in an existential fight. No need to be engaging in these tactics at this stage.
If one truely is in the ticking time bomb situation then this might be justified, no different than when lethal force is justified facing an armed intruder in your house. In both cases though one must be willing to face the consequences of ones actions. Thats what makes it a moral choice not the comparison to other persons worth or background.
Now are there too many things lumped in with whats required….yes. Korans’s, halal food etc, I guess if it can be provided but you know I just think that Geneva only requires them to be kept in decent condition and not intentionally degraded.
It isnt so much about losing ones soul as winning period. As a society and a civilization we are more likely to win being the best of what we are, that means the nice stuff( wealth creation, implanting rule of law, respect for individuals) and the nasty stuff (force projection, leveraging technology etc) Do both properly and the West will continue to triumph.
How do the Russians deal with Islamic savages?
When the Lebanese Christians prayed for Israel to help and Israel sent troops to Lebanon and together with Lebanese Christians started to push the Syrians and Arafat’s bandits out of Lebanon, Arafat demanded the intervention of the USA to press the Israelis to withdraw. At this moment some excessively active Palestinian Sheikh decided to make his contribution “to the just struggle of Muslims”, and took hostages 5 Soviet specialists who had worked there on contract with some Lebanese company. He then informed the Soviet Embassy that if the USSR does not use all its political and economic influence to make Israel withdraw, then every 24 hours one of the hostages will be beheaded.
The Soviets immediately sent to Lebanon a Special Task group, activated the local residential net and kidnapped 5 men very dear to this Sheikh.
And in a couple of hours the brave Sheikh received a package. Inside he found the head and genitals of one of his friends and a message in which he was informed that if in 6 hours all five Soviet citizens were not standing at the Soviet Embassy’s gate, the Sheikh would get a head every hour. And when the heads and genitals end, all the training camps of Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon and Syria will be leveled to the ground.
In the morning all five Russians were brought to the Soviet Embassy gate, with apologies.
——————–
How do Muslims deal with Muslim savages?
A cruiser going from Turkey to Russia. A group of armed Chechens on board announces: “You are all hostages! Sit still! Obey! Go out! We want the liberation of our brothers from the Russian jails”
In 3 hours the Turkish Police and Special Services found and arrested ALL the relatives of these Chechens living in Turkey. The Police then informed the guys on board the cruiser that in 5 hours the cruiser with all the passengers in good health must enter the Port of Istanbul. After which all the Chechens must leave their weapons on the deck of the cruiser and go down the ladder with their hands raised high above their heads. Otherwise the members of their families would be shot.
And in five hours the ship entered the port, and the “Chechen heroes” went down the ladder as good guys, with their hands raised high above their heads.
——————————
I wonder if the Muslims remember how Ghengis Khan dealt with them?
Negotiation? Violence with extreme prejudice is the only thing known that they fully understand.
If an enemy who has information about an imminent large-scale attack on civilians refuses to talk, we should respect his right to privacy. Sometimes people just don’t feel like talking, and when they feel that way it’s rude not to respect that.
IF a bomb will go off that kills and maims hundreds of men women and children at a market or a mosque, the point is that we could rest easy, thoughtfully plying our emery boards, knowing that we haven’t, you know, lost our souls.
Let’s be sweet with them, and day by day repeat to them that terrorism simply isn’t done:
youtube.com/watch?v=wveW9Tw2JKE&feature=related
” Perhaps that’s the true legacy of Vietnam and to an extent, WW2 – the notion that one can lose a war and still go home again. After all, Germany, Italy, and Japan still claim spots on the map. In retrospect, that may have been a mistake on our part. ”
This throwaway line contradicts any claim you have to be defending western civilization.
to hell with any discussion. i’m of the kill em all school of warfare. you never have to say your sorry to an asshole enemy that no longer exists.
Sorry rabbit, boxer or not, minimum force makes no sense in battle.
If extremists fire one round, you empty 50 mags on em.
If extremists detonate one IED, you hit them with a mortar barrage that ensures they all get their virgins.
If extremists behead one of your comrades(fellow soldier in theater), you bring down a shit storm that they will be talking about for generations.
Irwin Daisy summed it up quite properly. Extreme violence is the only language our enemies understand.
GO ARMY!
Spot on Kate and excellent comments batb concerning how we got to this stage in history with reason and common sense (no longer common) being replaced by mushy sentimentality.
Reading the comments here from the “sentiment” crowd explains exactly why we are not winning this war. My word even the definition of torture is so distorted that we consider anything unpleasant torture.
Showing mercy to brutal enemies is actually cruelty.
OMMAG:
I agree. You don’t pull your punches in battle. You hit ’em with everything you’ve got.
But with regards to torture you’re dealing with a helpless prisoner. You have responsibilities at that point, one being to avoid needless suffering.
Let’s take a closer look at some incidents of the past few years:
“NEW YORK A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America’s image. Last year a Republican senator conceded that they contained scenes of “rape and murder” and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said they included acts that were “blatantly sadistic.” ”
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001218842
“Blatantly sadistic” are Rumsfeld’s words, let us note, not the media’s.
“CBS/AP) Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered “my deepest apology” Friday to Iraqi prisoners abused by sadistic military personnel and warned that videos and photos yet to come could further inflame worldwide outrage.
“It’s going to get a good deal more terrible, I’m afraid,” he said glumly in congressional testimony televised throughout the Arab world as well as in the United States.
…
In addition to the known abuse cases and at least 25 prisoner deaths already reported, acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee said the Army is investigating 42 potential cases of misconduct against civilians that occurred outside prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: To those Iraqis who were mistreated by member of the U.S. Armed Forces, I offer my deepest apology.
MIKLASZEWSKI: Rumsfeld then dropped a bomb, revealing that there were more photos, even videos depicting abuses far worse than what has been seen so far.
RUMSFELD: There are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman.
MIKLASZEWSKI: U.S. military officials tell NBC News, the unreleased images, show American soldiers severely beating one Iraqi prisoner to near death; apparently, raping an Iraqi female prisoner; acting inappropriately with a dead body; and Iraqi guards apparently videotaped by U.S. soldiers raping young boys.
SEN. LINDSAY GRAHAM ®, SOUTH CAROLINA: We‘re talking about rape and murder here, we‘re not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience, we‘re talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4945202/
WASHINGTON (CNN) — U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed Friday that videos and “a lot more pictures” exist of the abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.
“If these are released to the public, obviously it’s going to make matters worse,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I mean, I looked at them last night, and they’re hard to believe.”
Hersh: children raped at Abu Ghraib, Pentagon has videos
Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
“The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking,” the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was “a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher.”
Some of the worse that happened that you don’t know about, ok. Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib which is 30 miles from Baghdad […]
The women were passing messages saying “Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened”. Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it’s going to come out.
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh-children-raped.html
Morally torture is wrong.
Practically it does no good, save winding up wingnuts who take their guidance from TV shows.
No actionable intelligence has been gained from its use and it does cloud, severely, the “we’re better argument”.
Prosecuting the 9/11 planners is going much more difficult because they were tortured.