Water-boarding? Torture?

I think this is a good subject. I would be interested in how everyone feels about it.

Here is the situation. It's late September, the world trade center buildings are still smoldering. Thousands of your American brothers and sisters are innocently murdered. You have in your hands Ali Al-Mari, we all know him as Thomas. You have proof that the man helped orchestrate the previous attacks.
While interrogating him, he just smiles, calls you an infidel, and tells you that this is just the thunder before the storm.
You know he has information on future attacks. You know that if you can get it out of him you may possibly save thousands of innocent lives.

You are also an American. You are not a hate monger, and you know that because much has been given to you that you are held to a higher standard.

What do you do?
Do you wrap plastic wrap around Ali's head, puncture a breathing hole where his mouth is and pour water over his face? You know this technique wont kill him, or cause any physical damage to him, but you know it will mentally wreck him enough to spew the information that you need.

What do you do?

I would be interested in all of your opinions. Especially those who live in or around NYC, and experienced 911 close to home.

I must admit that I am a little torn on the subject.

One side of me wonders if waterboarding the enemy will only give our enemies justification in torturing our people.

The other side sees that the enemy takes their US captives, and cuts their heads off with a hunting knife, all the while posting videos of the beheadings on the internet.

I also have images of people holding hands jumping to their death from the burning World Trade Center. I would give anything to not have to watch that ever again.

I also realise that I am an American and know that I may be setting an unhealthy standard for the rest of the world.

I'm torn.

I'm dumbfounded free thinking, intelligent Americans would even fart the name Perez Hilton.
Just cutting and pasting it from Johnny's post makes me ill.
The guy is a buttermilk princess. He's pink mist without brains being torn apart.

I may well be one of the few Marines that are anti-torture. I would be saddened to find out that any of the Marines that I know / knew had anything to do with abusing or torturing anything or anybody. We as Americans have to hold our selves to a higher standard. I lost a lot of respect for John McCain when he did not take a more forceful stand against torture. He is one of our more notable public figures who have undergone torture.

As for the comments in the news that water boarding does not cause any mental damage. It is one thing to undergo water boarding and other methods in some place like SERE training in a controlled environment where one has the ability to say time-out I am done! In such a setting you place your trust in your “Captors” who are fellow military members. You know that you are in a controlled environment with safe guards in place and your well being a concern to all involved. Without any personal experience to base the following on, I imagine that it is infinitely more damaging mentally to be held and tortured by enemy combatants! I would imagine one to have the concern of are they going to kill me now or later.

That's a good point J-Walk. I think being captive and really wondering if you were going to die would make a huge difference.

Chad, finally something that you and I can agree on.

On torture I say "Not in my name". Period. But there are a couple of facts that make the Bush administrations torture more pernicious.

First is that most people captured and tortured were innocent. Some estimates are that as many as 90% of people who spent time in Gitmo have NO connection to terrorism. They were just picked up by Afghan bounty hunters who handed them to the US military for cash.

Second is that the FBI and most of the military were opposed to these "enhanced interrogation techniques". If you can't trust Obama's opinion, you at least have to give some currency to the opinion of the FBI.

Third is that some of these techniques were illegal, or at least have been condemned when other countries use them. So even if we wanted to torture, we have to CHANGE THE LAW first. That's what democratic societies do.

Fourth is that US personnel were "reprimanded" for not participating in torture. Google "Alyssa Peterson" to learn of a US soldier who killed herself in 2003 rather than participate in torture in Iraq.

And Fifth is that US soldiers have done prison time for using the same techniques that CIA officers are about to be let off the hook for. And these soldiers were acting under orders. A real miscarriage of justice if you ask me. (This is from the movie, "Taxi to the Dark Side")

What the hell is wrong with people? Do they not read history books? Every single act that occurs in war is unsettling, including the treatment of prisoners.

War is hell because if it wasn't, it would never end. War is about death ... plain and simple. You shoot us, we shoot you. It's over when one side can't take it any more; like an international high school rumble with bullets.

Soooo, why does everybody get all hot and bothered about this? The only thing that bothers me about it is that it became common knowledge that we were doing it at all. This is war, people. One that we didn't start, and one that we cannot afford to lose, against an enemy that -left unchecked- can and will destroy us.

Waterboarding? Hell yes! Use any methods you want to get the information you need to protect our people. Just make sure that you are interrogating the enemy, not civilians, and do it in seclusion. Then, make him disappear. It never happened. Enough said.

Same as every war that's ever been fought. This is not the time or the place for full disclosure.

You wanna re-invent war? OK, we have a bomb for that, too. Do you want long and painful, or short and painless? Either way, America loses because we are the big, bad bully ... but which method is more socially-acceptable to everyone? We can make it quick so that everyone will be appalled at all the carnage and we can take our international pummeling all at once, or we can draw the battle out, expose the carnage a little at a time and lose the war in the media at home and abroad.

I'll tell you what will send me outer-limits ... if Congress and the rest of the Hillanazis start going after Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush et al. If that doesn't say it all. Prosecute American officials that were acting in what they believed was the best interest of the country, but make sure we protect the rights of the non-Americans who have a declared hatred of our very existence and are acting in their own self-interest. If it happens, that will be a HUGE turning point for me in the little support I have left for the current administration.

Tomorrow, I'll discuss bicyclists riding three abreast in the only lane I have to drive.

Gnaster- I respect your opinion but I'm going to have to call bullshit on your so called facts.
First:

"Most people captured and tortured were innocent."

According to what????

Second:

"Some estimates are that as many as 90% of people who spent time in Gitmo have NO connection to terrorism. They were just picked up by Afghan bounty hunters who handed them to the US military for cash."

Some Estimates? Who estimates that? Where did you get this number???

Third:

Second is that the FBI and most of the military were opposed to these "enhanced interrogation techniques".

Did the FBI release a statement?

Most of the military? Was there a poll? Who gave the poll? What are the numbers???

Fourth:

And Fifth is that US soldiers have done prison time for using the same techniques that CIA officers are about to be let off the hook for.

Who? When? What was the situation?

Just because Alex Gibney made a movie about a conspiracy doesn't make it fact. I'm not denying that innocent people have been detained. Nor am I confirming it.

When a person comes to me claiming to have facts, they better show up with more that a third hand conspiracy theory that they stumbled upon by watching a 90 minute film.

I do respect the fact that you are against torture. I think that is respectable. However, I hope you will do more then rewind your video tape to legitimize your facts.

Johnny:

"Where I have trouble in all this is that we water-boarded the 911 mastermind guy with the scoop neck T-shirt 183 times. That tells me it isn't working."

It either tells that it wasn't working or it tells us that the interrogators enjoyed it.

I for one, could probably enjoy torturing that guy.

Tim makes a good point. Why tell everyone about it??

Lucas, that is a great quote and a good point.

That type of war was a different type of war though. Did we take the moral high ground by dropping the A-bomb?
We did what we had to do. Different wars call for different measures.

I think it is a mistake to challenge Tim's knowlege of history. He may look like a monkey, but he has probably forgotten more about history than you will ever know about it.

Dave,

Thanks for your points. The Comment thread does not really provide facilities for sourcing facts but I should have provided more sources. So here they are:

FBI and military opposed to torture: http://tinyurl.com/dnxl7j or just Google it

Most detainees are innocent: Check out this McClatchy series at http://tinyurl.com/4pwd73 or this opinion by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson http://tinyurl.com/dl3lr5. The 90% figure came from "Taxi to the Dark side"

Soldiers doing prison time for using harsh interrogation techniques: There is this story from NPR on Private Lynndie England http://tinyurl.com/d4tyth , and in the Taxi to the Dark side movie, it is just depressing to see young people like you and me say that joining the military was the worst decision they ever made after spending time in prison for crimes they though were legal. Would you or I have behaved any differently if we were in their position? Here is the page for the Captain of the group on wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/der69e

The facts as I presented them are just what I've picked up from listening to the news and reading blogs. I did not make them up.

I'm just responding in kind to his comment about those of us objecting to torture not having read history books. It was intended as a playful jab, and nothing more, although I may question his selective recall of historical facts.

I've got to get back to work, but I'll leave you all with this bit:

Summer, 2008

The principles below were developed by 15 individuals who served as senior interrogators, interviewers and intelligence officials in the United States military, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency. The group met at a forum hosted by Human Rights First on June 17 and 18, 2008, in Washington, D.C. to discuss the most effective ways to obtain timely and credible information from suspected terrorists and other individuals who threaten the security of the United States.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

We believe:

1. Non-coercive, traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches provide the best possibility for obtaining accurate and complete intelligence.

2. Torture and other inhumane and abusive interview techniques are unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive. We reject them unconditionally.

3. The use of torture and other inhumane and abusive treatment results in false and misleading information, loss of critical intelligence, and has caused serious damage to the reputation and standing of the United States. The use of such techniques also facilitates enemy recruitment, misdirects or wastes scarce resources, and deprives the United States of the standing to demand humane treatment of captured Americans.

4. There must be a single well-defined standard of conduct across all U.S. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation of people anywhere in U.S. custody, consistent with our values as a nation.

5. There is no conflict between adhering to our nation’s essential values, including respect for inherent human dignity, and our ability to obtain the information we need to protect the nation.

I hear 'ya Lucas. That was the policy, and should still be.

What actually happens in war is quite different, though. That's the history I am referring to.

Plus, I'm not sure that the Washington could anticipate the type of enemies we would have in the future. The English and French were our enemies then. They may not have any souls, but at least we have always been able to fight fair with each other.

I keed about the souls. The English have souls.

Waterboarding, or any other form of torture, is total crap. What we see in the movies and on TV (ya listening Jack Bauer?), is total bullshit. Torture never gives credible information. If you take a 100 POWs and torture them, you potentially will get 100 answers. Which one is a legitimate piece of information and which is the detainee saying what you want to hear so you stuff abusing him? Commanders in Afghanistan stated they were chasing ghosts too often, and all those chases were based on information gained under torture. Cheney talks all high and mighty about the "good information" we received from abusing humans. Well Dick, you wanna let us in on when that actually happened, or you gonna keep that info hidden in you man-sized safe?

I find it most shocking that some in the media would support this and other forms of "enhanced interrogation" (whatever the fuck you wanna say to make yourself feel better), but then the same get bent out of shape if reports come out that our own troops were put thru such actions by the enemy. Torture is torture, no matter which side gives it. We should all be disgusted whenever it's committed.

An important side question is on whether to prosecute Bush admin officials. Of course you cannot criminalize policy differences or prosecute people with different opinions. The central question is, did the OLC lawyers act in bad faith? In other words, did they know that this was illegal, but conspire to claim it was legal anyway?

This is why I think the Obama admin is reluctant to prosecute. Its going to be awfully hard to prove in a court of law that the memos were written in bad faith. Not with the evidence we've seen so far. On the other hand if more evidence emerges--an email chain in which the lawyers discuss their plans, or a whistle blower who confesses-- these lawyers are going down.

And even if the lawyers are not hit criminally, there are likely to be other repercussions. One of them is now a Federal judge--he will no doubt be impeached. Others will be disbarred in their local states. There has to be accountability for this, so we don't say to future generations "its OK to twist the law to serve your needs." BTW if you have not read the torture memos, they are here: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

"Of course you cannot criminalize policy differences"

Torture is illegal. They committed an illegal act. This was not a debate about tax policy. If Bush officials decided to rape 18 year olds it would be a crime not "policy differences".

Tim, you're too smart to not know that torture doesn't accomplish anything. If they had found one piece of good intel, had stopped on terrorist plot with this info they'd be telling us about it. They didn't.

"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. "

"Necessity is not an established fact, but an interpretation. "

We are acceding to power to make such a ridiculous argument, and the truth is lying bleeding in an alley behind the Fox News studios. Whenever people have nuanced conversations about something as sick as torture, they need a Sheppard Smith there to shout "AMERICA DOES NOT TORTURE!"

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

"The bad gains respect through imitation, the good loses it."

And this was not a spur of the moment thing... Cocksucking lawyers sat around and played Pictionary with the Constitution and Geneva convention parsing what the meaning of "is" is until the came up with a justification for doing what they KNEW WAS WRONG. This was premeditated. We kidnapped and threatened to torture/kill CHILDREN for god's sake. We had an army of psychologists standing by to make the torture even worse and scarier.

Someone, anyone... Point me to one life saved by rolling in the mud with these pigs. All that happened is we got dirty and they liked it.

And remember your justification for this the next time you see an American journalist decapitated, the next time contractors bodies are found hanging from a bridge. "Eh, it's war, bad stuff happens, you can't blame or prosecute the guys they were doing it for the good of their country. This was just policy differences...."

"To forget one's purpose is the commonest form of stupidity. "

And apparently it has been spread across this country like so much manure. What will it fertilize and grow?

"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. "

Mr. Wright,

Very few people know about the 6th floor of the Book Depository. The information you have supplied about your Grandmother is very interesting, and fits nicely into our third gunmanwoman theory.

We'll be in touch,

The Johnson Adminstration

I have a hard time believing that our military tortures people (prisoners or civilians) for no apparent reason. Some of you are proposing that not only is that what is actually happening, there are people in the military that believe that doing this with no purpose is the right thing to do.

Let me be clear, I do not think that any form of torture is morally proper. It is offensive as hell. So is war. Anything that we have to do to get it done and over with as soon as possible with the least loss to life should be done. If that means torture of the enemy before taking him out, so be it.

Perhaps if the world stopped trying to see war as something that can be managed with rules and treat it as reprehensive as it really is, we would all be on the same page. It seems to me that the true hell of war has been marginalized to the point that it is nothing more than an international media event, and anything that happens outside of what is socially-acceptable is suddenly criminalized and put on international trial.

"Anything that we have to do to get it done and over with as soon as possible with the least loss to life should be done. If that means torture of the enemy before taking him out, so be it."

Tim, you're still clinging to the illusion that torture ends wars faster.

Torture led to our troops chasing "ghosts" in Afghanistan. Without torture leading to bad intel, those same troops are doing something to win the war at it's most crucial time, the early days. Instead of winning hearts and minds, we were chasing false leads.

Trust me, Abu Ghraib did not shorten the "war" in Iraq.

"I have a hard time believing that our military tortures people (prisoners or civilians) for no apparent reason."

What part of Abu Ghraib confuses you so much exactly? What part of "Look how funny it is when we make them get naked in a pyramid and snap pictures" doesn't strike you as "for no reason"?

And whatever reason you give, where are the results? The reason is we thought these people knew something, and we were wrong. So we tortured them because we're stupid? And stop acting like there IS a good reason to torture someone... Torture does not work! You think while we were busy waterboarding dude 183 times there was a bomb set to go off in 5 minutes somewhere?

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TORTURE. Period.

"Perhaps if the world stopped trying to see war as something that can be managed with rules and treat it as reprehensive as it really is, we would all be on the same page. It seems to me that the true hell of war has been marginalized to the point that it is nothing more than an international media event, and anything that happens outside of what is socially-acceptable is suddenly criminalized and put on international trial."

What? Tim, I am seriously starting to doubt your intellect, and that's a shame, because I have always liked your comments. That is just flat out stupid.

"BTW if you have not read the torture memos, they are here: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html"

I was thinking about these earlier, and the fact that is might be tough to prosecute those that created these policies. I am wondering if the admin has that same thought, and figured "let's at least make them guilty in the court of public opinion".

I think of OJ (sorry about the stretch, but hear me out). No one can think of OJ as anything but a guy that murdered his ex-wife and a waiter, because though he was found innocent in a criminal court, he lost in civil court and is branded in the minds of a majority as a killer. The same will hold true here. Maybe we will never get a trial or a guilty verdict on the actions of these people, but the proof from the memos is irrefutable - they directed others to do immoral acts against others. Their names will be forever tainted.

I think torture would be justified for:
1. Child Molesters
2. Child Abusers (Physical)
3. Child Killers

Khalid sheik Mohammad orchestrated the attacks on 9-11. That killed children. That left hundreds of children without Moms and without Dads.

Khalid orchestrated the deaths of over 3000 innocent people.

The only thing that I regret about the CIA waterboarding him 183 times is the fact that they didn't shove razor blades up his ass, pull his fingernails out with pliers, and burn his eyes out with a hot piece of steel.

I will never make him a victim.

So you're for revenge then. I'm not trying to cast aspersions by that, it's just a straightforward way to put it. It's at least a legitimate reason for torturing people that accomplishes the goal it sets out with, whether you agree with it philosophically or not.

Torture, as a means to get information, is not. It does not accomplish the goal, and cannot be justified in that regard.

The morality of revenge is an entirely different discussion. I, for one, am not willing to accept vengeful behavior in my name by my government.

"The ends NEVER justify the means."
It's wrong to kill innocent people. There's never been a war where innocent people aren't killed. Unless you are a complete pacificst, like Gandhi, you don't really believe this.

Personally I'm not a pacifist. I think torture is a bad policy cause it's ineffective and counterproductive.

I'm more of an absolutist than a pacifist. I believe that there are certain ethical rules that there is NO justification for breaking.

I'm generally against war as well, so if that makes me a pacifist, so be it. I find it pretty hard to justify killing innocent people, regardless of what gets accomplished.

Khalid sheik Mohammad is not the victim here. We are.

Especially as we now learn that the purpose of the extreme torture was to create a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (see this recent McClatchy story: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html )

So even though there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the govt used torture to try and extract false confessions that there was a link. And it looks like this worked -- I remember hearing somewhere that Khalid sheik Mohammad and his comrades may have suggested that there is a connection, even though the record shows that no link has ever been found.

So torture works! Just not for the purposes that we would want.

Jeebus LiDJ, I worked an entire year to gain your respect and lost it just because we disagree on this? And now I'm stupid? Methinks our relationship was tenuous at best.

I feel like Jellio preparing a keynote speech for a meeting of the Dave Admiration Society - I have a lot to share about why we are so misguided, and quite a bit of work to do to correct some things that may have been misinterpreted, but I fear that there is nobody in the audience that is willing to listen.

Have been out for a few hours, so I have to sit and absorb all this before I prepare and submit my dissertation.

"I find it pretty hard to justify killing innocent people, regardless of what gets accomplished." Fair enough.

I would rephrase "The ends NEVER justify the means." to "The ends don't justify ANY means." For instance: I don't think it's right to steal, but I would feel justified in stealing water if I was dying of thirst. That's an example of the end justifying the means. In my book anyway.

"Let me be clear, I do not think that any form of torture is morally proper. It is offensive as hell. So is war. Anything that we have to do to get it done and over with as soon as possible with the least loss to life should be done. If that means torture of the enemy before taking him out, so be it."

LIDJ - note Tim said 'If'. It's was a hypothetical assumption.

Dave- torture amounts to getting mad because someone won't tell you something and hitting them. It is not a technique for getting information (which is why, assumably, the Replubicans are suddenly releasing reports today claiming to have gotten information from it), and I don't know why people keep acting like it is. When you do, you just appear morally bankrupt, which is why Shepard lost it.

Where are the cynics today? WTF. Makin me nervous. Did the dude plan on saying 'fucking' to give himself a nice YBNBY boost, or do you *really* think it just slipped out.

"Where are the cynics today? WTF. Makin me nervous."

Good point E. Why are we talking about torture when there is a pandemic flu killing pigs in Mexico? 60 people have died already. No more bacon?

Has anyone actually tried Baconnaise? Apparently it's delicious.

God I hope the Pig Flu doesn't hurt the pot harvest, I would hate to resort to buying the good stuff grown in Canada!

Is serving bacon to Islamic prisoners is considered torture? We may need to define the term.