Hypocrisy and double-standards are a world-wide phenomenon. Americans are just so self-righteous about it that it makes everyone else sick.

We haven't had a media worth the First Amendment for decades, I don't care what they do.

I guess the press can't handle cognative dissonance.

We're scared.

They're brown.

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

I guess what? It has to be #2, right?

It's actually #1, but you described it incorrectly, so I'll explain it to you. Conservatives believe torture is wrong just like murder is wrong. Murder is wrong, but it is not murder if there are mitigating circumstances like, say, self-defense. Similarly, torture is wrong, but there can be mitigating circumstances which would make it not torture.

In our case of Al-Qaeda suspects, the mitigating factor for America is self-defense from the terrorists and supporting freedom and democracy. These are certainly mitigating factors which means the so-called "torture" done by America is not really torture. To the contrary, the torture done by Iranians, al-Qaeda, and Hamas is justified by hatred of America, support of terrorism, and crushing freedom and democracy. These are certainly not mitigating factors and so they are certainly torturing which would be wrong because torture is wrong. That's why America and Bush does not torture while the terrorists like Iran, Al-Qaeda, and Hamas do torture.

Pretty simple, really, if you think about it.

I think they feel it is the moral equivalent of playing by street rules. If the other side isn't going to abide by the 'rules' of modern warfare, then neither should we.

What gets lost in that moral calculus is the fact that the methods are a) ineffective, and b) bring us down to their level. Plus, how do you put that genie back in the bottle - limit its use or maintain your credibility?

Pretty simple, really, if you think about it.
Posted by: Al

"Simple" describes you well, scum. I preferred it when you applied your feeble reasoning skills in a pathetic attempt to defend serial rapist/murderer Wayne Dumond.

It's not #2.

GRAHAM: You mean you’re not equipped to give a legal opinion as to whether or not Iranian military waterboarding, secret security agents waterboarding downed airmen is a violation of the Geneva Convention?

HARTMANN: I am not prepared to answer that question, Senator.

Crazy, eh?

I don't think "most people" have a problem with, or are aware of, inconsistencies. Most people don't have consistent moral positions.

So it's okay/necessary/justified/deserved when done to others - the guilty - but not when done to "us". Most people wouldn't have much problem with slight torture of convicted murderers, child molesters, rapists, etc. (or else why all the jokes about prison rape?), but if slight torture happened to one of "us", then it's a problem.

Witness people who will cut others off in traffic without a second thought, but when done to them 10 seconds later, get pissed off.

It's a very common aspect of human behavior. Assuming that people have fully developed philosophies of justice which require "consistency" is kinda silly.

Pundits who act as if they do value consistency, are usually either fooling themselves, or know they are lying in order to sell copy and stay employed.

The stuff we do is OK, full stop. If Iranians or al-Qaeda or Hamas used waterboarding or stress positions on Americans in order to wring information out of them, we'd have no cause to complain. War is war.

That does seem to the new position of the United States military. A few days ago at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “The Legal Rights of Guantanamo Detainees�, Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann, the legal adviser at Guantanamo Bay, repeatedly refused to condemn the hypothetical torture of an American pilot by the Iranian military. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who asked the hypothetical, then pushed Hartmann on his answer, asking him if it would be a “violation of the Geneva Convention�:

GRAHAM: You mean you’re not equipped to give a legal opinion as to whether or not Iranian military waterboarding, secret security agents waterboarding downed airmen is a violation of the Geneva Convention?

HARTMANN: I am not prepared to answer that question, Senator.

So there you have it. According to the Pentagon, foreign militaries are free and clear if they want to torture captured American servicemen.

I cannot begin to express my disgust.

Kevin, I think most torture apologists don't even have enough moral reflectiveness to have gone through the mental exercise you postulate.

So, the answer is Option 3: "I don't know and I don't care."

shit. 'waterboarding' has now entered the acceptable political discourse. didn't you hear tweety the other night scream at rachel maddow -- who had the audacity to offer an opinion not agreeable to tweety -- who then said 'i want to waterboard you, rachel'. to which she had no reply.

besides, when the majority of the teevee chattermonkeys are in favor of torture, chances are they'll employ the language to diminish the reality of what they are endorsing.

Al is an idiot. His line of reasoning should have led to the U.S. refusing to sign the Geneva Accords. We should be able to torture anyone, anywhere at any time in any war. After all the U.S. is always waging war to protect and spread democracy and freedom. It would NEVER be wrong for us to employ ANY methods of extraction on anyone. Why don't we just withdraw from all treaties and agreements having anything to do with anything related to the treatment of prisoners, detainees and suspicious persons? You know, since everything we do is with the pure intent of protecting God's chosen nation and making such benevolence possible for others?

"If Iranians or al-Qaeda or Hamas used waterboarding or stress positions on Americans in order to wring information out of them, we'd have no cause to complain. War is war."

Gee Kevin, if only the worse thing that al Qaeda or Hamas did to Americans was limited to waterboarding or stress positions. I'm sure the reporter from the Wall Street Journal who got his head hacked off or the victims of 9-11 would have prefer being subjected to such "torture" instead of the treatment they got at hands of our enemies.

Your descent into becoming a poor Kos knockoff appears to be accellerating. The question is why? Need to attract more of the "Four legs good, two legs bad" liberals to the site?

Not everyone in this world shares American moral values, not even every American.

Torture apologists simply don't share our values.

They really think that certain people DESERVE to be tortured. They really do. They think that not torturing people that DESERVE to be tortured is worse than torturing the occasional person they mistakenly think DESERVES tortoring.

It's a very common aspect of human behavior. Assuming that people have fully developed philosophies of justice which require "consistency" is kinda silly.

I think luci's exactly right here. Most folks want things both ways. We want rules, codes, & laws to prevent *other* people from doing unbecoming shit, but there are always mitigating circumstances when it's we who get caught up by those rules, codes, & laws. (Cutting folks off in traffic is a good example. So is trying to bring something oversized as carry-on.) It's cute when you see it in a three-year-old. It's less so, if understandable, when you get it from a teenager. It's ridiculous when you see it in adults. It's unspeakably loathsome when you see it done by governments.

Oh, and it's entirely predictable when you see it in Al & his ilk.

"Torture doesn't work." (repeat as necessary)

"It would be wrong to torture Americans because our fighters are uniformed soldiers, not irregulars."

One word: Blackwater.

Another factor in America's acceptance of torture is the crushing blow to the nation's psyche that was 9/11. Bush stoked feelings of vengence to the degree citizens experienced true bloodlust, maybe for the first time in many of their lives. You'd think to hear people pine for the opportunity to mow down a few thousand Muslims that Bin Laden had nuked NYC. 3000 people died. That's a slow week in Somalia. Terrible? Yes. Deserving of a swift, appropriate, targeted response? Yes. The end of the goddamned world as we knew it and time to saddle up, perpetually swing the sword and rejoice in tit-for-tat slaughter? Hardly.

It would be wrong to torture Americans because our fighters are uniformed soldiers, not irregulars.

No, you idiot. It would be wrong because torture is wrong. Period. Torture doesn't magically become correct "on a technicality."

"supporting freedom and democracy" Al says as Britain and the US become police states with every passing day.

They hate our freedom, WE hate our freedom, the terrorists have won.

It seems that many take the position the president has. America doesn't torture -- hence whatever is brought up in this context isn't torture. If someone does it to an American, that's a different story. It's an updated call along the lines of My Country, Right or Wrong (and it's never Wrong.) Or America, Love It or Leave It.

It comes down to america can do no wrong. God and country alwayss right. it is the oldest story in the book, and the slippery slope that always elads to downfall

Robert - I can't wait until some Blackwater mercenary gets captured by Al Qaeda, they waterboard him, and release the videotape on the net. Then watch the wingnuts explode with outrage.

You can sign me up for the
"My Country, Right or Else" mailing list.

At least some of the torture apologists believe that torture (or "harsh treatment") is intrinsically good when done to "bad guys." The point isn't getting information, it's a) retribution for 9/11 and b) a way of showing toughness. Harsh treatment of prisoners is always preferable to humane treatment, even if humane treatment is more effective in obtaining useful intelligence, promoting public safety, and enhancing the U.S.'s international reputation.

The Armed Forces Journal on Waterboarding

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/12/3230108

TO RUDY GIULIANI AND ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE MICHAEL
MUKASEY

For their tacit support of waterboarding. In an
interview, Giuliani was asked for his views on using
“enhanced interrogation techniques,� including
waterboarding. He responded that in a hypothetical
scenario that assumed an attack, “I would tell the
people who had to do the interrogation to use every
method they can think of.� Prompted again on the
specific use of waterboarding, he repeated “every
method they could think of.� Mukasey said he found
waterboarding to be “repugnant,� but he wouldn’t
answer whether it amounted to torture.

Let AFJ be crystal clear on a subject where these men
are opaque: Waterboarding is a torture technique that
has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. In
1947, the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese military officer
for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S.
civilian during World War II.

Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of
imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it
is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining
reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work. That
blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and
future, should be clear on the issue.

Ah, Kevin.

We're at war, Kevin. Perhaps you've forgotten that.

Yes, we try to maintain certain standards and code of conduct during war. THat we're above the insurgents and Iranians is beyond dispute, and not even you would debate that.

But desperate times call for desperate measures, and that's been the case throughout our history. Perhaps you efeet liberals dining on your cheese and brie from your ivy towers haven't been impacted by this war. But this war demands sacrifices from Americans, and we owe it to ourselve to protect ourselves. If that demands enhanced interrogation techniques, so be it.

>"His line of reasoning should have led to the U.S. refusing to sign the Geneva Accords"

>"Why don't we just withdraw from all treaties and agreements"

I think the above that pretty well encapsulates the Bush regime position on these matters (and more).

Geneva Accords, other treaties, civil US laws, the US Constitution (etc) are only applicable when they serve the interests of the current regime... otherwise they are to be ignored, abrogated or get an imperial 'signing statement'.

Other news at 11.

It's #3:

It's not ok to torture Americans; it's ok to torture anyone else.

Torture apologists, meaning pretty much everybody who watches the Fox propaganda channel and listens to Rush Limbaugh, should not be expected and cannot be expected to have an actual rationale for their beliefs.

You are the enemy. I am the enemy. Libruls are the enemy. The apologists' minds don't even consider what is or is not torture. All they know is what they were told they should argue by the Republican propaganda channels. And all they will do is argue those bankrupt arguments because those arguments have been served to them on a silver platter and they know that all they have to do is shout those arguments loud and long enough and The Enemy will shut up. The United States does not torture. The United States obeys all laws. Waterboarding is not torture. We must do everything we can to prevent terrorist outrages. Next question.

The point of making or winning arguments is not that you believe what you say, and not that anyone else believes what you say. The point is To Win and you do that by demonstrating your implacable will, no matter how pea-brained you may be. How do you think all of these mediocrities get to be the heads of Fortune 500 firms and earn 10s of millions of dollars every year? A lot of them probably can't write a single coherent paragraph and never bothered to learn how to type.

My neighbor is an uber wingnut. He's always wailing about tax & spend liberals, welfare cheats, the virtues of CEO's making millions while laying off thousands, government (except the military) is evil, incompetent, both,yada yada, the usual.
His job? Working at public universities handing out government paid or sponsored student aid.
As for torture, it's just their fascist streak. Abu Graib, Haditha, etc? Our brave men & women are being harassed by the vast liberal conspiracy.
Torture (and it's cousin, abrogation of civil liberties here) is ok, at least of Muslims. This supposedly devout Christian sees Islamofascism under every bed, and is convinced that we're in a to the death struggle with Islam (and to a lesser extent, with anyone who disagrees with that), and if we don't eradicate Islam completely all non-Muslims will either be rounded up like the Jews in 1940 Europe, or at best the US (which is incapable of being wrong under Bush) will come under the rule of the Taliban. He completely believes this. Since this is a life or death struggle, torture by us is fine.
As an example: Timothy McVeigh & the Oklahoma City bombing was just the work of a couple nuts. 9/11 was a conspiracy of all Muslims against the US, Christians, and the West in general.

"We're scared. They're brown."

"most torture apologists don't even have enough moral reflectiveness"

"Torture apologists simply don't share our values."

Once again we see that liberal excel at nothing so much as when they are in moral preening mode. Do any of you even know a supporter of enhanced interrogation? Have you ever honestly asked them their opinion?

I know of no one that thinks that anything the US does is OK. The answer to Kevin's question is that supporters of enhanced interrogation believe partially in his 2nd option (that these techniques are not OK in general but OK when used in specific circumstances against terrorists) and partially in a third option Kevin did not provide. And that option is a genuine disagreement on what constitutes torture. Self-righteous liberal never seem to consider this and conclude instead that we "know" it is torture and defend it nevertheless because (1) we are Bush lackeys, (2) we don't believe in the Constitution, (3) we have no moral code, or (4) we hate "brown people" and don't care what happens to them. Im sure that makes you feel better about yourselves but it is deeply offensive and utterly preposterous.

Supporters of enhanced interrogation have clear moral boundaries when it comes to torture, they just aren't your boundaries. As should have been obvious in the previous discussion on waterboarding, this above all others is an extremely difficult case for folks like me to deliberate upon. But self-righteous liberal never consider why. The answer is, that is the most extreme form of interrogation folks like me are willing to consider acceptable. We are literally debating the limits when we discuss it. Liberals, in my experience, refuse to set the same boundaries for themselves. They are quick to say whatever Bush has approved is torture but then either (1) decline to say what the most severe practice they would accept is, (2) use the Geneva Convention to either hide behind by asserting it but not actually stating how it applies to terrorists, or (3) asserting Geneva or other laws apply fully and that any treatment beyond the kind of questioning you would find in a US police station is torture.

This is why Waldman is unable to restrict his moral preening on torture to waterboarding but feels compelled to include sleep deprivation and stress positions. He either sincerely believes that anything beyond what is legal for criminals in the US justice system is torture or he is avoiding the question of what additional measure he would approve of. I think it is incumbent on all of these critics to do what conservatives have been doing all along - state the most severe interrogation technique you would support and then defend it.

Sorry if the rhetorical value of my original post was missed... I meant it to indicate that I don't think most torture apologists have a moral compass, so, contra Kevin, there's just not a lot of people seriously thinking about it.

Gee Kevin, if only the worse thing that al Qaeda or Hamas did to Americans was limited to waterboarding or stress positions.

Ah, the old "b-b-b-but Tommy did something worser than me!" defense so beloved by five year olds everywhere....

For their tacit support of waterboarding. In an interview, Giuliani was asked for his views on using “enhanced interrogation techniques,� including waterboarding. He responded that in a hypothetical scenario that assumed an attack, “I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they can think of.� Prompted again on the specific use of waterboarding, he repeated “every method they could think of.�

I'd have loved if the interviewer had followed that up with "what about rape and/or sodomy?" Let Giuliani answher that.

Do any of you even know a supporter of enhanced interrogation?

We are the good guys. Our enemies are evil, in league with Satan, or something like that. It would be cowardly to back down from anything in the fight against evil.

If that demands enhanced interrogation techniques, so be it

Coward, as ever. In this case, he can't bring himself to use the word even when explicitly defending the practice of torture, resorting to the weasely orwellian euphemism instead. A euphemism actually coined by the Gestapo, in fact.

What a craven and despicable little twerp this eggbert item is. Not to mention he verbally spits on Viet Nam vets.

"3. It's okay for us because we are White Americans and those we torture or who torture our people are not."

I'd have loved if the interviewer had followed that up with "what about rape and/or sodomy?" Let Giuliani answer that.

Stefan - take it a step further - "What do you think would be acceptable to do to the subject's children?"

Yeah kids, that slope is pretty motherfucking slippery.

Supporters of enhanced interrogation have clear moral boundaries when it comes to torture, they just aren't your boundaries.

The phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is German for "enhanced interrogation". Other translations include "intensified interrogation" or "sharpened interrogation". It's a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court. The methods, as you can see above, are indistinguishable from those described as "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the president. As you can see from the Gestapo memo, moreover, the Nazis were adamant that their "enhanced interrogation techniques" would be carefully restricted and controlled, monitored by an elite professional staff, of the kind recommended by Charles Krauthammer, and strictly reserved for certain categories of prisoner. At least, that was the original plan.

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html

acceptable when used against suspected ...

That's your slippery slope right there. "Suspected" inevitably includes innocent people, and "suspected" is determined extremely early in the game, and varies widely from person to person.

So, not only does it generally not work, works less well than other methods, is a war crime, is cruel and unusual, is a hearts-and-minds catastrophe, and is immoral -- if we set the bar at "suspected", we virtually guarantee that we will do it to innocent people.

And the whole "ticking time bomb" canard is just "suspected" on a grand scale. It supposes that I could know, with certainty, that there is a bomb; that it will go off very soon; that the person in my custody knows the location; and that he will give me good info if I torture him -- if there is no bomb, if there is no hurry, if I have the wrong guy, if he won't tell me anyway, if he lies, if he makes stuff up to get the torture to stop, then the torture gets me nothing. And somehow, even though I know all that stuff with utter certainty, I don't know where the bomb is. Has such a scenario ever occurred? Do we ever expect it to occur? (And has anyone checked Alan Dershowitz for the onset of senile dementia?)

And remember, "suspecting" that a ticking time bomb scenario exists, is not the same thing as a ticking time bomb scenario, and that is the crucial difference -- the hypothetical question assumes one-fact-missing omniscience, but in real life, we don't know if there is a bomb, when it will really go, or the guy we have in custody knows the information we need, or if he will even give it to me, and in particular, that he will not lie.

A particular flaw in "ticking time bomb" is that there is no incentive to tell the truth. Suppose the "suspect" lies about the location. A bomb team is dispatched to the wrong place, and time passes, and the real bomb goes off. Further torture is useless, right? So the torture is stopped. The suspect faces zero charges for lying, because he has an obvious defense. There's no evidence that he ever knew where the bomb was -- telling the truth would be confirming, but lying, no. So what does it profit him to tell the truth? He can't rely on any promises from the people who are torturing him ("excuse me, I'll have to let my lawyer look at this deal?" I don't think so). It's a game theoretic dead-end -- as long as he remains the least bit sane, he will lie. And if he is not sane, what good is his information?

This is why Waldman is unable to restrict...torture to waterboarding but feels compelled to include sleep deprivation and stress positions. He either sincerely believes that anything beyond what is legal for criminals in the US justice system is torture...

Is it an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him information or a confession, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity?

Then it's torture.

I think Al's reasoning is typical, to the extent that people reason about this rather than just having gut feelings about it. The torture apologists think that being Americans and serving America's interests are "mitigating circumstances," so when we do waterboarding, it's not torture (or it's justified torture, or it's just o.k. and it doesn't matter whether you call it torture). Of course, that's not written anywhere in the Geneva Conventions or the history of American law. It's just a case of Americans, in practice, making exceptions for themselves from the general rule. Which we do in almost every area of international politics, because we can. Bali, anyone?

Read Al's first comment (2nd comment on board) and I think his response captures the conservative mindset exactly (not that I agree with it).

When I read conservative columns or listen to conservative radio, the rationailzation always pivots around two themes: "good vs. evil" and "means vs. ends". This became especially clear during the recent discussions on Abu Zubaydah.

First, Zubaydah is an "evil" human being and therefore loses all of his rights as a human being. Second, as long as the "end" is achieved of recieiving one actionable piece of intelligence (regardless of how much bad intelligence is provided alongside), the "means" of torturing is wholly justified. Wouldn't you do whatever it took to a "sub-human" in order save just one human's life? If the "sub-human" died through the process of extracting intelligence, it is still worthwhile.

By contrast, all American service men and women are deemed "good" and therefore are conferred human status. And we should never torture humans.

I am pretty confident that most identified modern conservatives (including Al) agree with my analysis above (they may tone it down a bit, but basically agree).

IMO, that is one of the larger differences between your modern liberal and conservative. A conservative believes that there is a "good" and "evil" side and that they can easily differentiate between the two and have no issues in using whatever means to justify the ends (the destruction of said evil).

But this war demands sacrifices from Americans, and we owe it to ourselve to protect ourselves.

What sacrifices are the upper classes and the higher strata of the Republican Party making? They're not paying for the war thanks to tax cuts and deficit spending. Their children are the ones who are enlisting, fighting and dying.

We endanger, not protect, ourselves when we torture innocent people. Sure, all the talk has been about those two Al Queda guys, but how many others have been imprisoned and tortured by us when they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And don't argue this isn't happening, we've released several hundred from Gitmo after Rummy called them the worst of the worst. I'm sure all those guys, their families and friends are all saying, "Hey, it was an honest mistake, we won't hold any grudges."

And that option is a genuine disagreement on what constitutes torture.

There's a genuine disagreement on what constitutes torture the same way there's a genuine disagreement on what constitutes rape.

Double-high authoritarians, like Dick Cheney, George Bush and the rest of the gang, have no problem with torture when needed. I think it is hard for most people to get into the minds of these folks or even to believe such amoral people exist. Double-highs are not working out some kind of moral balancing act or set of justifications. They don't care about legality, rights or human well-being. They care about power.

Below those people are the apologists. They will come up with any kind of excuse to protect the leader's project. This is why we having the Republican noise machine injecting poison into the neutered MSM. Since the Republicans couldn't run away from the charge of torture they just said it wasn't torture, they legitimized it and they celebrate it.

The apologists open the door to normalization and the banality of evil. The rank and file now can follow orders without worrying about moral conflict or responsibility. Now there is no problem.

It resembles historical fascism because it is a form of fascism.

The answer is, that is the most extreme form of interrogation folks like me are willing to consider acceptable. We are literally debating the limits when we discuss it.

Lay of the chest pounding yourself. You're debating the limits, but the rest of us--along with the military, as per the AFJ and above--accept that waterboarding is in fact over the limit and has been recognized and accepted to be such for decades. The problem here is that you want us to accept that this is some earnest, philosophical debate that moral persons can disagree about. For us, it is like discussing the conditions under which rape is justified. To discuss the pros and cons of it isn't a way of reaching a meeting of minds on a debatable topic, it's a form of lunacy.

I’m old enough to remember Vietnam. It’s sad and pathetic, but a lot (most?) of conservatives didn’t see anything that William Calley did at My Lai as wrong. Basically we can’t do anything wrong, because God is on our side. If on occasion we do something that is a bit questionable, well it’s just because the other side drove us to it.

Whatever we do is _right_ because it's us that did it: that's not new. Worse yet, a big fraction of the country is saying that everything we do is _sensible_ and _practical_ because it's us that did it. So blowing a trillion dollars on invading and occupying a country that was never a threat, doing it in a way that reduces Iraqi oil exports, unbalances the local strategic equation to our disadvantage, immobilizes the Army, screws recruit quality, and alienates most of the world while giving us nothing at all in return - that's sensible and practical, since the alternative would entail admitting that the people running the country are utter damned fools. This includes every Democrat who voted for war authorization, essentially the entire Republican party, and the vast majority of all published pundits.
Even bad guys can call off wars that sap national wealth and strength to no purpose: we don't seem to be able to.

"There's a genuine disagreement on what constitutes torture the same way there's a genuine disagreement on what constitutes rape."

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2007 at 3:14 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sadly many conservatives likely feel there are gray areas and room for debate on the exact nature of rape.

Sadly many conservatives likely feel there are gray areas and room for debate on the exact nature of rape.

Like, eg, Haliburton.

If Al and Egbert actually existed, they could join "efeet liberals dining on your cheese and brie" (wow, both!) while their children were being raped by Halliburton, and it would all be okay. But they are not human beings, and cannot have children, and therefore torturing them is also okay. Because everything can always be justified all the time now. Simple is the word for it.

There's not really even a distinction about Americans - an awful lot of people, in my experience, are pretty much OK with the police torturing American suspects if they want to. An awful lot of the conservative outrage about "liberal judges" and criminals "getting off on technicalities" starts there, even if their examples are less barbaric.

Have you ever honestly asked them their opinion?

Why is their opinion relevant, in this case? We already know that waterboarding is illegal and considered torture. We also know that torture doesn't work.

I'm not really interested in the "opinions" of flat-earthers, too. You need to explain why I should care.

I do not believe the authoritarians had worked out the definition of torture before the waterboarding scandal. They are trying earnestly to legitimize it as not torture because it is so politically damaging. To even entertain the "debate" of where the line lies is to give credence to their wicked amoral position.

We must not forget that many of these Republican authoritarians have no moral compass, nothing is beyond the pale for them.

We are up against the brutal force known as nationalism. We will have to accept the charge being so many Neville Chamberlains if we think these authoritarians will be appeased with this or that form of brutalization.

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.

George Orwell
Notes on Nationalism
1945

Torture smorture.

What's got to be dealt with is the mLB mess. That seems to have our preznut in a frenzy.

I mean, it's okay to do all manner of unmentionable things to other humans in the name of our government.
But, god forbid, the game of baseball should be sullied!!

Disputo,

Or like, eg, the Duke lacrosse players.

DrBB,

Uh, Armed Forced Journal is not a DOD publication.

However, there is an Army field manual on interrogations that bans waterboarding, among other things. Of course, I (and I think most others like me) would not support just anyone being able to use enhanced interrogation techniques. That is why the current system authorize only specific personnel to apply these measure, with the highest approval, and in a case by case basis.

Stefan,

Great well the Nazi's also coined "autobahn" and the Brits coined "concentration camp,"

Hacksaw, when someone is trying to tell you that something is merely "enahnced interrogation techniques," they're trying to use a word other than torture, in order to cover up the fact that they are, in fact, using torture. "Orwellian" is the word you're looking for.

That is why the current system authorize only specific personnel to apply these measure, with the highest approval, and in a case by case basis.

That doesn't magically turn it into something other than torture, which is not only immoral, but is also ineffective, compared to the alternatives.

Also, you should note that we are discussing what the United States of America should do, not what some two-bit banana-republic country should do. The latter, not having to worry about moral authority and being perhaps less considered with efficacy, can likely make a more compelling case for torture than the united states can. Libya, for example, doesn't really have to portray itself as a moral beacon, while we actually do.

Between Huckabee and Abu Gonazales, it's pretty clear that this crowd is soft on crime. Those damn liberals are soooo sentimental.

Hacksaw, when someone is trying to tell you that something is merely "enahnced interrogation techniques," they're trying to use a word other than torture, in order to cover up the fact that they are, in fact, using torture. "Orwellian" is the word you're looking for.

That is why the current system authorize only specific personnel to apply these measure, with the highest approval, and in a case by case basis.

That doesn't magically turn it into something other than torture, which is not only immoral, but is also ineffective, compared to the alternatives.

Also, you should note that we are discussing what the United States of America should do, not what some two-bit banana-republic country should do. The latter, not having to worry about moral authority and being perhaps less considered with efficacy, can likely make a more compelling case for torture than the united states can. Libya, for example, doesn't really have to portray itself as a moral beacon, while we actually do.

I loved the image of the Republicans luring jouralists into their moral sewer. It somehow hit the spot. US journalists must be so embarrassed these days, what with bloggers nailing them so accurately day after day. How can they sleep at night?

Of course, I (and I think most others like me) would not support just anyone being able to use enhanced interrogation techniques. That is why the current system authorize only specific personnel to apply these measure, with the highest approval, and in a case by case basis.

As you can see from the Gestapo memo, moreover, the Nazis were adamant that their "enhanced interrogation techniques" would be carefully restricted and controlled, monitored by an elite professional staff, of the kind recommended by Charles Krauthammer, and strictly reserved for certain categories of prisoner. At least, that was the original plan.

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html

Of course, I (and I think most others like me) would not support just anyone being able to use enhanced interrogation techniques. That is why the current system authorize only specific personnel to apply these measure, with the highest approval, and in a case by case basis.

I've searched US federal law and international law statutes forbidding torture, and for the life of me I haven't been able to find the section where torture is permitted so long as it is applied only by specific personnel, with the highest approval, and on a case by case basis. Perhaps you can find it for me?

In fact, those three conditions are damning rather than mitigating. If we look at the definition of torture as defined in the UN Convention Against Torture -- "the term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity" -- then the fact that it is carried out with only by "specified personnel" with the "highest approval" makes it fall under the category of an act "at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or...person acting in an official capacity." You'd have been better off arguing that it was applied randomly and without approval.

DrBB, Uh, Armed Forced Journal is not a DOD publication.

Uh, did he say it was, you moron? No, he merely said it reflected the views of the military ("along with the military, as per the AFJ...."). Learn to read.

Stefan,

Obviously I'm not looking to change anyone's mind on this subject. What I am trying to address is the perception that supporters of enhanced interrogation are rationalizing torture to themselves. That we somehow "know" this is torture and are nevertheless willing to look past it because we are, well take your pick looking at this thread - immoral, un-American, stupid, Nazis, racists, and so on. The reality is quite different, there is a very real struggle to determine where the boundaries should be, and the reason I will defend these techniques is that I do not view them as torture and not because I really know they are torture but am cowed from rejecting it by my love for the president, hatred or brown people, or ignorance of the Constitution. Maybe you don't actually give a crap about why people might have a different perspective than yours, but you should.

I also love it how folks like you love to cite essentially the same language from the various anti-torture conventions. I know them well, have studied them, have contemplated them in the context of the war with Islamic extremism. So let me ask you (sorry I can't recall if you answered this in the waterboarding thread) - what is the most aggressive interrogation technique you would find still in compliance with the language you cited above. What technique does not rise to:

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Stefan,

No need to get snippy.

As per, to me, carries a more direct connotation than "according to this non-DOD publication. As with the Army Times and other Gannet publications, a lot of folks have mistaken these journals for officials military publications carrying military weight. They aren't and they don't. I was just clarifying.

The are more than two reasons. The #3 reason (very common) is "because we do it to our own people in training."

What I am trying to address is the perception that supporters of enhanced interrogation are rationalizing torture to themselves.

And Stefan and others have been trying to address is the perceptions of folks like you, that you are NOT rationalizing torture. 'Cause, dude, that is exactly what you are doing.

Please take this in good faith, OK, but: if "torture" is to include mental suffering (and just what does that mean?), then even being imprisoned is "torture" since it is miserable in any case. So, does that mean we can hold suspects etc. to keep them from getting away, but any incentive to them to tell us information thereby (like getting out sooner) must be somehow "incidental" or coincidental to their being held?

What I am trying to address is the perception that supporters of enhanced interrogation are rationalizing torture to themselves.

What I am trying to address is your deluded perception that you supporters of torture such as you are not rationalizing torture to themselves.

I also love it how folks like you love to cite essentially the same language from the various anti-torture conventions.

I, too, love it how we cite the same legal definition of torture when discussing the legal definition of torture. Call us crazy.

I know them well,

Apparently not.

have studied them,

Study harder.

have contemplated them in the context of the war with Islamic extremism.

What context would that be?

So let me ask you (sorry I can't recall if you answered this in the waterboarding thread) - what is the most aggressive interrogation technique you would find still in compliance with the language you cited above.

I'll answer that (again) and will ask a question in return. My answer is the same technique that law enforcement already uses for criminal suspects -- sitting them down in a chair and questioning them.

Now, my question: what are the most aggressive interrogation techniques you would find acceptable when used agianst captured Americans?

There is only a "very real struggle to determine where the boundaries should be" among ultra-rightists in the United States who are looking for brutal ways to interrogate prisoners with minimal observation of long established norms of prisoner treatment. These prisoners are often abducted under conditions of extraordinary rendition and are purposely sent to countries where the “limits� of civilized nations, their laws, and their treaties, do not apply. They are usually held without a right to habeas corpus.

You see it is all part of a package. The ultra-rightists want to carve out a lawless zone where they can act as brutally as they like. They do this under the aegis of the American president acting as a wartime dictator. Authoritarians through the ages have explained their dual proclivities for violence and suspension of rights as logical necessity in a time of danger. Now they repackage the old story as the epochal struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. It is so novel a threat that it requires new rules- suspension of rights and a bit of mild torture. It would be far more honorable if they would just say they like to torture instead of trying to concoct some story about working out the fine limits of brutality.

These people are enemies of the Republic and everything liberal democracy stands for. Ben Franklin weeps, but he would not be surprised.

Huh, this is actually one of those cases where it's handy to have a troll around.

I guess the short version is that even evil acts can be justified so long as they are in defense of a good cause. Other people have bad causes, so their evil acts can't be justified.

I wonder what percent of torture apologist Al speaks for.

Please take this in good faith, OK, but: if "torture" is to include mental suffering (and just what does that mean?), then even being imprisoned is "torture" since it is miserable in any case.

Article 1 of the Convention's definition of torture provides that "It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." Being imprisoned subject to due lawful process, as for example a prison sentece after a trial, therefore, wouldn't be torture.

Being imprisoned for the express purpose of inflicting suffering (for example, as the Stasi or KGB would lock people into solitary confinement for weeks or even years on end to induce a mental breakdown) could, however, be torture.

The are more than two reasons. The #3 reason (very common) is "because we do it to our own people in training."

So? What does that have to do with it? I punched my self-defense students in the face in training. That doesn't mean I get to overpower a stranger, strap him down and punch him repeatedly in the face while he begs me to stop.

Our own people are volunteers who can quit at any time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Guantanamo prisoners volunteered to be kidnapped, and I don't think they're given a safeword and allowed to go home at any time. But I may be wrong....

"The #3 reason (very common) is 'because we do it to our own people in training.'"

ROFL.... That may well be the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Dear heart, has it occurred to you, perhaps, that there just might be a difference between a short, consentual, training exercise and prolonged torture? When you have learned the difference, you might have earned a place in this conversation. Until then, you should probably stfu.

"What I am trying to address is the perception that supporters of enhanced interrogation are rationalizing torture to themselves"

Dear heart, since your every post on this thread basically consists of "rationalizing torture," forgive us if we laugh our asses off at the way you're confirming Kevin's post, not to mention our opinion of you. It's really hilarious watching you dig that hole deeper and deeper, squirming as you try to deny the obvious.

This is another one of those "debates" that isn't really a debate at all. Of course waterboarding is torture. Every one knows it's torture. Furthermore, I'd bet that 90% of conservatives know it's torture.

But they set up this false debate where we're supposed to pretend there are two legitimate sides. It's like the "debate" over evolution, or the "debate" over climate change. Conservatives do this because they have no integrity and they know that facts are almost never their friends.

Again, my question: what are the most aggressive interrogation techniques you would find acceptable when used against captured Americans?

When you have learned the difference, you might have earned a place in this conversation. Until then, you should probably stfu.
Posted by: PaulB

Actually, I think waterboarding is torture.

I knew some miserable moron would confuse bringing up a reason (like Kevin brought up two) with agreeing with it (like Kevin doesn't agree with the two he brought up), thus demonstrating their embarrassing lack of even the most basic tenets of logic and therefore humiliating themselves in a very public way.

I'm glad it was you.

I can say it better here. Take what Kevin quotes:
This is not complicated. Everyone all over the world agrees on what constitutes torture. Torture is the intentional infliction of physical or mental suffering in order to obtain information or confessions. Not hard to understand.
Sorry, no. You can't *define* torture per "in order to..." those specific things, because then, doing it just to be cruel etc. isn't "torture." Torturing for X reason is doing "torture" for X reason, not a proper definition of it.

Really, if I catch you and rip you on the rack, it doesn't really matter why I did it. (That isn't clear anyway - can you read my mind? What if I never give a reason nor have any context around it?) You and every other "decent person" are going to say I tortured you.

If we strip that purpose-bound context away, then we are left with "Torture is the intentional infliction of physical or mental suffering." Maybe, but then we have to define imprisonment as "torture" because being locked up causes suffering, seriously.

That scheme just won't work, and I don't know why the basically good writers at Tapped would be careless. A better formulation is needed.

Stefan,

Sorry, I forgot that you had said that earlier.

In response to your question I have two answers.

U.S. soldiers, like any soldier fighting in accordance with the laws of war and therefore captured as a POW, is entitled to all the rights and protections of a POW. This of course has not happened for U.S. soldiers caught by any enemy since, surprisingly, the Nazis.

But an American citizen captured while fighting as part of a terrorist organization? Say a US citizen that was part of an IRA bombing cell hat was caught by the British. Well I would expect the Brits to treat as they treated any other IRA bombers. Of course an example to cover waterboarding would make this American a major planner and top leader within the IRA which is more than a stretch.

PaulB,

Of course I know that most folks here see my position as one of rationalizing torture. But Kevin's questions was whether "[Torture is] not OK in general, but it is acceptable when used against suspected terrorists." I am trying to answer his question by describing how proponents of enhanced interrogation have answered this question for and amongst themselves. Which was Kevin's interest, since he too, obviously, feels that whatever manner we used to arrive at our position it still amounts to rationalizing torture.

But an American citizen captured while fighting as part of a terrorist organization? Say a US citizen that was part of an IRA bombing cell hat was caught by the British. Well I would expect the Brits to treat as they treated any other IRA bombers. Of course an example to cover waterboarding would make this American a major planner and top leader within the IRA which is more than a stretch.

That's not an answer to my question. I said "captured Americans," not "captured Americans captured while fighting as part of a terrorist organization." And what if the suspect was not an IRA bomber, but only an innocent Irish-American tourist?

Now let's assume there's an American CIA agent in Pakistan, and the Iranians kidnap him, fly him to Tehran, and accuse him of being in league with domestic terrorists setting off bombs in Iran in order to undermine the regime. What should the Iranians be allowed to do to him, given that to their mind he's helping terrorists who are endangering innocent Iranian lives?

Torture is the intentional infliction of physical or mental suffering in order to obtain information or confessions.

Wrong. At least according to the US Code. What constitutes torture is not constrained by a putative purpose (to obtain information), nor is it permissible under any extenuating circumstances (to protect the lives of others).

Sec. 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter--
(1) ``torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control

The definition makes the case of the critics of torture apologists: it's ok to do to others. That view, however, is inconsistent with US and international law.

Is there a name for the subspecies of wingnut troll that posts something wingnutty, gets called on it, and then responds "haha, I'm not *that* nutty, you fool"?

There is only a "very real struggle to determine where the boundaries should be" among ultra-rightists in the United States who are looking for brutal ways to interrogate prisoners with minimal observation of long established norms of prisoner treatment...
You see it is all part of a package. The ultra-rightists want to carve out a lawless zone where they can act as brutally as they like.

Bellumregio

Bingo.

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

- US Congress reservation against the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984.

IOW, Kevin is an ignorant twat playing up to ignorant twats.

Stefan,

The problem with your question is that the answer to "captured Americans" actually does depend on who they are - a concept quite clearly captured (sorry, bad pun) in the Geneva Conventions for example.

To take your example of an American spy kidnapped in Pakistan and taken to Iran, I would first point out that the CIA has a wall covered in stars that represent agents who have been killed in the line of duty so clearly the expectation is not that they will be sat down and questioned Law and Order style. But to go with your hypothetical, I suppose if the Iranian made a show trial out of it, we would respond with a list of demands for humane treatment and the rest. But I would also suppose that no one would be surprised that an American spy was treated roughly or even tortured by the nation that captured him. In fact, I dare say we would assume they would do that.

But your hypothetical may suffer from several false analogies. You said:

Now let's assume there's an American CIA agent in Pakistan, and the Iranians kidnap him, fly him to Tehran, and accuse him of being in league with domestic terrorists setting off bombs in Iran in order to undermine the regime.

Rather than assume what you meant by this, let me ask. Are you suggesting a situation in which Iran kidnaps this person in order to make a show trial over them even though they know he was not actually in league with domestic terrorists? Or are you suggesting a scenario in which they truly believe this individual was involved with those domestic terrorists? If they believed they had actually captured a ringleader, do you think they would publicly disclose this or would they simply do whatever they could to get the information from him?

I ask because there is in fact a perfect example of this. The kidnapping of William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut. He was kidnapped by Hezbollah and tortured to death. It certainly was not my sense that there was an expectation that even though he was an American, he would only be treated within the confines of Geneva POW rules.

But is an American spy the same thing a Khalid Sheik Mohammed? To make your Iranian example relevant, we can't just talk about some spy, we need to make the American a senior individual in a group responsible for devastating attacks against Iran. And you know what, if the Iranian caught an American doing that, they would be well within their rights to kill that person, let alone waterboard them. I wouldn't be happy about it, but that's reality.

OK, I seem vindicated about the "purpose" business. But how do we define "severe"?

"I knew some miserable moron would confuse bringing up a reason"

ROFL.... Dear heart, if you bring up a reason, that is prima facie evidence that you think that it is, in fact, a potentially legitimate excuse, even if you don't agree with it. I was simply pointing out the abject stupidity of the excuse -- that it was not, in fact, a valid reason and that anyone who brought it up would be demonstrating that they are a moron.

"I'm glad it was you."

LOL... Love you, too, sweetie.

"Is there a name for the subspecies of wingnut troll that posts something wingnutty, gets called on it, and then responds 'haha, I'm not *that* nutty, you fool'?"

Yeah. Moron.

"Of course I know that most folks here see my position as one of rationalizing torture."

You have a problem with the truth, dear heart?

"But Kevin's questions was whether '[Torture is] not OK in general, but it is acceptable when used against suspected terrorists.'"

No. Kevin's question was: what rationalization are you using to justify your support for torture? You have amply confirmed his, and our, opinion of you with your handwaving and pretense on this thread.

To make your Iranian example relevant, we can't just talk about some spy, we need to make the American a senior individual in a group responsible for devastating attacks against Iran. And you know what, if the Iranian caught an American doing that, they would be well within their rights to kill that person, let alone waterboard them. I wouldn't be happy about it, but that's reality.

How about an American senior individual responsible for devastating attacks against Iraq?

You wingnuts are really too stupid to see what crazy world your morality leads to, aren't you?

I am trying to answer his question by describing how proponents of enhanced interrogation have answered this question for and amongst themselves. Which was Kevin's interest, since he too, obviously, feels that whatever manner we used to arrive at our position it still amounts to rationalizing torture.

Hacksaw

Some thoughts. First, the personal justification of individual enhanced interrogation practioners seem to be irrelevant here: what is at issue is a policy which is viewed as either consistent or inconsistent with normal morality and the law.

Second, and more to the point, is that the proposed 'exception' to the normal application of the law and morality to (say) waterboarding suspected terrorists when there is evidence of a planned attack on civilians has a heavy burden of justification, since clearly - by hypothesis - this activity is both illegal and immoral. The question, then, is under what circumstances, if any, can torture in the described case be justified?

Well, one view is that it is justified if a) the subject is known to be a member of a terrorist organization, b) it is known that there is an impending attack such that c) the information obtained by torture will be sufficient to prevent the ensuing attack. This seems to me to be most generous characterization of the exceptional-circumstances position.

Now, it seems to me that reasonable people can disagree about the whether torture is justified in this type of scenario, even those who feel strongly that torture is immoral. And the reason is that such a case is very analogous to loosening the justification of murder in the case of self-defense.

The problem with this scenario, however, is that, by being so circumscribed, it cannot justify a general policy which prescribes torture as a method of interrogation as a matter of course. On the contrary, such a scenario - as the details of the hypothetical make clear - would merely elucidate an exception to the general rule(s) against torture in the same way that murder, when committed in self-defense, constitutes an exception.

An exception to the normal prohibitions against torture, therefore, cannot ground a general policy of 'enhance interrogation' any more than an exception to the normal prohibitions against murder can justify a policy of indiscriminate (or even discriminate) killing.

ROFL.... Dear heart, if you bring up a reason, that is prima facie evidence that you think that it is, in fact, a potentially legitimate excuse, even if you don't agree with it.
Posted by: PaulB

Sweetness, first, if you had been reading threads, you'd have known that I think it is torture, and that I have been waterboarded in training and know exactly what I am talking about. You haven't and you don't and therefore should take your own advice and stfu when dealing with those more knowledgeable.

Second, thinking that mentioning an argument regularly made by proponents in some way legitimizes it...thanks for the textbook example of a non sequitur.

Hacksaw, our own behavior should only be dictated by our own morals, irrespective of who we are interrogating. Anyone can see that you don't want to torture a 12 year old girl for information, for example. We don't cut their ears off (unlike in Liberia) and feel good about ourselves. But the real test of a society is when the decision is *hard* to make. When confronted with a terrorist, it is hard. How we behave with regards to them is the real indicator of our morality.

Dear heart, I don't think you know what the term "non sequitur" means, but I love it that you keep trying to defend the moronic post you made rather than just admitting that you screwed up. Ta-ta, snookums.

It seems to me that the basic problem with the mor