I think the best argument against water boarding and other torture techniques is the question:

"IF water-boarding is so effective, why did KSM need to be water-boarded over 100 times?"

Keep asking both Cheney this question, over and over.

When someone uses the argument that it's not torture because the SERE program uses it on our own soldiers, it's time to dismiss everything else they say. But Liz Cheney didn't even have enough confidence to let Robinson respond to any of her arguments.

"If you knew that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad had information about an imminent threat on the United States, information that would result in the death of your family members, the death of people you care about and love, and that if he were waterboarded, you would be able to get that information and prevent the attack, you wouldn't do it?"

Here's the question I've always wanted to ask in response to that scenario: How did I learn that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad had this information? Seems to me I should be working a little harder to get more information out of my source for that knowledge.

If *MY* family were being threatened, and *I* thought torturing someone (especially a person I believed was evil) might save them, then I would do it.

But *SOMEONE ELSE* would still be justified in punishing me for torturing.

Just because a person might rationally decide to torture someone in some bizarre scenario, doesn't make torture legal or right.

I watched that argument this morning and the woman would not shut up. It's not the Robinson didn't have all the answers, it's just that she would not stop talking long enough for him to respond. He was being way too much of a gentlemen to her.

Beyond that, her argument is based on the premise that water boarding works. My question to her would have been:

Why, by a astronomical margin, do all of the professionals in this "industry" (military, FBI, CIA) say that torture does not work? What do you know about interrogation and torture that the people who actually perform these 'tasks' don't?

Please. This is a cover Cheney's ass media blitz and nothing more.

Discussion suggestion to those who, like me, find torture as ethically abhorrent as rape, slavery, etc: Do not try to engage cons on why torture is inherently immoral. This is a self-evident point for those who possess a conscience and no amount of arguing will make a sociopath acquire a moral compass.

For those who support torture: You should tell us what practices you support exactly; otherwise your abstract argument about "enhanced interrogation techniques" has no legitimacy. What happens when these "techniques" fail? Do we take it up a notch or is waterboarding as far as you're willing to go?

Here's a handy multiple choice checklist for you. Check whatever you're OK with and post it below.

__ Slapping, etc.
__ Punching, kicking, etc.
__ Striking with nightsticks and other objects
__ Water-boarding, asphyxiation, choking, etc.
__ Sexual violence (simulated rape, etc.)
__ Extreme sexual violence (actual rape, etc.)
__ Electrodes on genitals, drilling of teeth, etc.
__ Extreme beatings (breaking of bones, etc.)
__ Eye gouging, some mutilation
__ Burning of skin
__ Fingernail pulling, teeth extractions
__ Mutilation of extremities (fingers, toes)
__ Mutilation of face (nose, ears)
__ Mutilation of limbs (arms, legs)
__ Mutilation of genitals (castration, cutting penis off)
__ Partial flaying
__ Complete flaying
__ Complete, slow flaying in front of a mirror
__ Beating of suspect's adult family members
__ Sexual torture of suspect's adult family members
__ Mutilation of suspect's adult family members
__ Execution of suspect's adult family members
__ Extreme execution (decapitation, quartering, disemboweling) of suspect's adult family members
__ Beating of suspect's children
__ Sexual torture of suspect's children
__ Mutilation of suspect's children
__ Sexual mutilation of suspect's children
__ Simple execution of suspect's children
__ Grisly execution (decapitation, quartering, disemboweling) of suspect's children

____________________________________________

"If you knew that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad had information about an imminent threat on the United States, information that would result in the death of your family members, the death of people you care about and love, and that if he were waterboarded, you would be able to get that information and prevent the attack, you wouldn't do it?" ********************************************************

First, it is almost inconceivable that you would absolutely KNOW what he knows. What? You read his mind?? And if you did know what he knows, then you wouldn't have to torture him. Second, you also can not KNOW in advance "that if he were waterboarded, you would be able to get that information and prevent the attack." Not unless you are a mindreader and fortune teller, in which case, again, you wouldn't have to torture him.

C'mon. Get Real.

L. Cheney's hypothetical is not just farcical. It boils down to the following:

"The ends justify the means"

This from the party the disparages "moral relativism"

I don't blame Eugene Robinson for not having all of the possible responses right on the tip of his tongue

Why not? Isn't preparting for an interview one of the jobs a reporter is supposed to be good at?

Torture doesn't work for intel purposes, since even in the case of KSM, the useful info came before he was waterboarded to create the "link" between Al Qaeda [a fanatical Sunni org] and Saddam Hussein [a secular Muslim who actually kept AQ out of Iraq, except where our no fly zone kept Zarqawi safe]. Others were waterboarded too, and renditioned. One worth bringing up here is Al-Libi whose death was reported yesterday. Another is Saddam Hussein. Both of these characters would have been able to provide seriously damning evidence about the program and its "effectiveness" as well as Darth & W's motivations. Therefore they both had to die. Once Human Rights Watch was able to find Al Libi in a Libyan prison, he was marked for removal. However, another hundred or so have died in interrogations in Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and probably GTMO too, plus the ones who were "disappeared" as Al Libi was until 4/27/09's visit by HRW.

As we all can go back and review, we had the WMD claim, the AQ claim, and when those fell apart, we had the Saddam's a bad, bad, man and a torturer too of the Shiites. Thus he had to go.

How is Cheney any different here? I don't see it. The five-deferment man is a coward and a traitor.

Why is Liz Cheney on the airwaves?

This is a self-evident point for those who possess a conscience and no amount of arguing will make a sociopath acquire a moral compass

Which would make Obama a conservative conscienceless sociopath for sending torturer McChrsytal to run Afganistan and burning civilians to death with drones.

Let's not pretend that liberal opposition to torture is anything but cheap partisan tactic that will be abandoned as quickly as it was adopted.

"By any reasonable measure, Liz Cheney's argument is morally, legally, and strategically bankrupt."

Well, the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

Could the ultimate fatal flaw in humanity be our limited ability to successfully oppose emotional arguments with rational ones? Even internally; even when we know better?

I watched that argument this morning and the woman would not shut up. It's not the Robinson didn't have all the answers, it's just that she would not stop talking long enough for him to respond. He was being way too much of a gentlemen to her.

That's the MO of the Cheney ilk--if you can't get a friendly "interview" where you essentially give a lie-filled pro-torture speech, then make sure that anyone who's challenging you can't get a word in edgewise. It doesn't hurt when the person challenging you is the over-polite Eugene "Kermit the Frog" Robinson.

Why not? Isn't preparting for an interview one of the jobs a reporter is supposed to be good at?

They would never let such a person interview a Cheney on their pro-Repub show. No way.

"If you knew that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad had information about an imminent threat on the United States, information that would result in the death of your family members, the death of people you care about and love, but you could only get the information out of him if you gay-married him in a way that was recognized in all 50 states, you wouldn't?"

Robinson has a Pulizter un der his belt. He shouldn't be thrown by a light weight like Cheney.

Nonetheless it seems inconcievavble to me that the torturers have their talking points donwn to a science and the "clear thinkers" always seem to circumvent the obvious responses.

"Liz, define Torture".

"I see. What do you think about the fact that torture was used before the legal angle was manufactured. Why do you suppose they needed to do that?"

"How does the defense at Nuemburg that ended with jail and execution of those torturing, differ from wht your husband did?"

Go to commercial...

Let's not pretend that liberal opposition to torture is anything but cheap partisan tactic that will be abandoned as quickly as it was adopted.

As soon as you stop pretending to know what people here truly believe or don't believe.

She's just doing what she can now because she knows visiting him in an out of state prison will be a real pain in the ass.

It's hard to believe this woman was chair of the National Endowment of the Humanities for seven years in the 80s and 90s.

It looks to me like Lynne and Dick are working the media now because they got word Dick will be investigated and possibly indicted for his advocacy of "intelligent interrogation techniques" as Vice President.

Wonder how long it would take Cheney ro tell the truth if he were waterboarded. That would get all of this discussion stuff taken care of.

"If you knew that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad had information about an imminent threat on the United States, information that would result in the death of your family members, the death of people you care about and love, and that if he were waterboarded, you would be able to get that information and prevent the attack, you wouldn't do it?" Liz Cheney asked. "You would let him go ahead and launch the attack? Eugene, that's exactly the situation these folks were in."

Then why didn't the President acknowledge the illegality of the methods conducted and then use his Constitutional right and pardon the individuals that did it? Surely that is easier, more above board, and more transparent than:

1. Using his legal staff to concoct phony balony reasonings on what is and isn't torture
2. Try to convince Americans we aren't torturing by using those reasonings in those memos (which Bush didn't make available, or ever talk about).
3. Construct a giant bureaucracy including prisons across the world to not-torture people picked up.
4. Make secret pacts with tyrants and third world countries so they can be tortured there too.

Why do the Cheneys hate America so much?

Until any torture proponent or rationalizer provides a justification for torture that cannot be used by other groups or countries to justify torturing Americans (civilian or military), I will call all of them what they are.

Immoral and Anti-American and Anti-Military Assholes!

'When we do it is ok but not when others do it' is not a valid justification! All that these pro-torture, Anti-American asses seem to be doing is to try to provide cover for the legal shithole that Bush & Cheney & a whole lot of others should be in! Just a reminder: After WWII, the United States played a lead role in the war crimes trials and executions of Japanese for these very acts for which justifications are being provided.

'Pelosi knew about it' is not a valid justification. If senators and congressmen were participants, at any level, that information should be put forward to the public. If they have legal culpability, they should be investigated and prosecuted as well.

'We only waterboarded three terrorists' is not a valid justification. Not only not valid, but misleadingly incomplete. Other forms of torture were performed on many persons and are just as illegal and immoral.

As noted, an obvious question is why, if waterboarding is so effective, did KSM need to waterboarded 183 times.

But another question is why, if it's legal and effective (as Ms. Cheney asserts), did the U.S. only waterboard 3 detainees? Wouldn't it make sense to use it on all of them?

The acorn (Liz) does not fall far from the distorted oak (Dugout Dick).

It's hard to believe this woman was chair of the National Endowment of the Humanities for seven years in the 80s and 90s.

That was Lynne Cheney, Dick's wife and the author of a lesbian-cowboy novel. This is Liz Cheney, Dick's daughter.

I find it baffling how much of the discussion of the question of torture relates to the "ticking time bomb" scenario. How many real ticking time bombs have there actually been?

I honestly think that a large part of the new appeal of torture is just outright racism. People support the idea of torturing Those People, because even if they don't know anything, shut up, who cares, they probably would do the same to you, because that's just what They are like. They're the kind of people who like... um... torture... uh oh.

It's hard to believe this woman was chair of the National Endowment of the Humanities for seven years in the 80s and 90s.

You're confusing his wife (Lynn, I think), with his daughter Liz here. The daughter worked in the State Dept. in some capacity(totally on merit, of course, no nepotism to see here), although I'm not sure if her job involved intelligence gathering or interrogations. Of course, that doesn't stop her from claiming to be an expert, or claiming that we avoided terrorist attacks by torturing(we didn't).
When your last name is Cheney, and you speak with a smug sense of self-assurance, you can lie all you want and the "liberal" media will give you plenty of air time.

And, according to MSNBC, Liz Cheney is qualified for this discussion how? (Kinship to the perp nothwithstanding...)

How many real ticking time bombs have there actually been?

None, at least none that were set by terrorists and stopped by torturing them. Again, wingnuts only have fiction and fantasy on their side.

Echoeing questions from upstring: Why is anyone asking this woman anything? What is her standing in this matter?

Its a waste of time to talk about her as though she has some credibility or importance to this issue. We are giving her more importance than she deserves...

I loved that Eugene Robinson called Dick Cheney a "crazy old coot." We in Washington haven't had a Coot in town since Coot Veal, a starting infielder for the first-year expansion '61 Senators. (And the Bush-Cheney team's eight-year reign made those early sixties' Senators look like champions by comparison.)

We are giving her more importance than she deserves...

No one here but the wingnuts take her seriously, but the MSM sure does.

Obviously it runs in the family, now who asked this mentally retarded Cheney to appear on television?

hey, if my father was a war criminal, i'd be spinning like a top, too.

Is it too much to ask that these people go back and study what U.S. interrogators did during WWII? They were living the ticking time bomb syndrome but somehow managed to get all the information they needed by usually engaging the captive in a simple game of chess.

That and the fact that we executed people after WWII who did torture. If you waterboard someone you can get them to admit they handed John Wilkes Booth the gun.

Water-boarding vs. shooting innocent kids? How tiresome. Childish really.

Why don't we let our lawyers fight Al Qeada for us. I feel safer already. Water-boarding is technically torture, since we're parsing this to death - BUT its VERY mild torture. I am prepared to live with it to save lives.

So where, specifically, would a monster like me draw the line? How far is too far, for a sadist like myself? I don't know. But I can tolerate water-boarding of top level Al Qaeda terrorists and still hold my head high as an American.

BTW - KSM was not water-boarded 100+ times. That number referenced the number of times water was actually "poured." Either way, I am not horrified enough to oppose it. Sorry.

Wars are an ugly business. Al Qaeda is a rough bunch. We need to be prepared to be a little ruthless - and water-boarding ain't exactly medieval stuff for those of you who've read a little history. If its the worst we've done, and a sod like Christopher Hitchens can do it between bourbons, I think we'll live, ladies!

"IF water-boarding is so effective, why did KSM need to be water-boarded over 100 times?"

He had to be water-boarded over 100 times to get him to "confess" that Iraq was complicit in 9-11.

I'd like to see Dick Cheney waterboarded until he "confesses" he's the meat puppet of an evil extradimensional parasite that has burrowed into his spinal cord.

well, now that jcambro has unilaterally withdrawn from the geneva conventions, everything's a-ok. whatever makes them say saddam and al qaeda in the same sentence is good enough for proud citizens like jcambro. now i gotta go throw up.

This question is actually not hypothetical.

The United States DID torture KSM's children (very young children).

When the details on that emerge, will we hear the same "ends justify the means" arguments? Or will the public's horror finally reach a critical mass?

I wish the Cheneys would stop the terrorism! By projecting publicly their fear and cowardice, we have to hear the unrattling, delusional rhetoric far too often. I do not fear Osama bin Laden and his fellow thugs! I fear the unhinged intellect that says torture is as American as apple pie - now that is true terrorism! -Kevo

jcambro: Water-boarding is technically torture, since we're parsing this to death - BUT its VERY mild torture. I am prepared to live with it to save lives.

If water-boarding is "VERY mild torture," what the point, really? I mean, if a torture technique is mild than it is potentially tolerable. And who needs tolerable torture? What we need is effective torture, which should by definition be intolerable torture, something Hitchens could not do between bourbons.

You're disappointing, jcambro. If your only criterion for using or not using torture is its efficacy, and your only motivation is to supposedly save lives, then you should be arguing that there are NO limits to what we should be able to do. But you're not even a principled sadist. Just a frightened child, clinging on the idea that we can throw a little water on the boogeyman and he'll tell us everything we need to know, and we'll be safe, oh so safe, and no harm done, it was just water, don't you see we can still keep our heads high?

Come on cons! Show a little courage and admit that you'll rape and butcher a child to save the tribe from the boogeyman!
____________________________________________

Hey Liberal Weenies:
Torture in the muslim world involves physical mutilation, removal of limbs, of limbs of your family, and of murdering your family. If you are lucky, those animals will only kill you by beheading on TV and NOT drag your corpse around burned and naked through the streets. I have no problem with waterboarding KSM or OBL or BHO if it makes the country safer, in fact I think waterboarding should be used to get the guy's preferences for dinner tonight. If it is even suspected that these guys know anything keep waterboarding them. I realize that "progressives" have a lot of guilt to work through, but weakening this country's defenses is not the key to your redemption.

Most of you probably think it's okay to burn, mutilate, and suffocate an innocent unborn child.

But murdering terrorists? Let's fret about the way we treat them while they plan to destroy our nation.

The above statement, "But murdering terrorists?"
should have read, "But murderous terrorists?"
SORRY FOR MY SLOPPINESS.

^^Why is it that the fear card still works on you people? Terror, Hate, Xenophobia, Hooray - Ice Cream and Koolaid! God damn you're both remedial!

The above statement, "But murdering terrorists?"
should have read, "But people accused of being murderous terrorists without any evidence?" torture 'em! there are no "innocent " muslims.

SORRY FOR MY CONTEMPT FOR THIS COUNTRY'S IDEALS AND THE RULE OF LAW. I am, after all, just a monarchist who believes everything my rulers tell me.

And here come the hordes of torture apologists who insist that the thing that makes The Terrorists so awful is that they... torture people. But also that The Terrorists are a buncha pussies, because they crack under torture that isn't even very bad. Damn ruthless-effeminate torture-lovin'-torture-hatin' wogs!

If it is even suspected that these guys know anything keep waterboarding

yeah, "evidence" is so 20th century.

disgusting, the people who call themselves american these days.

If waterboarding were such torture and not simply enhanced interrogation, why did we have so many reporters running and asking to be waterboarded? They, like all of you, know that it is the sensation that's difficult to take and there is no permanent damage like the list of all the torture methods listed in a post above. Same goes for sitting in an uncomfortable position, or being cold or warm.

Another question, in the light of day in 2009 some folks do not remember the mood of the days following 9/11. I think a few New Yorkers remembered when Obama had AF 1 do a flyover of New York City. All you Bush haters would have demanded his and Cheney's heads if there had been another attack.....even Pelosi agreed to the techniques...don't forget to spew your venom at her. While you're at it, think about Obama's order to kill the Somali pirates in cold blood. Must be ok when a D is behind the order?

One last thought.....and this is what makes all of you very, very nervous....what if Cheney's right? Do as he requests, and have the memos released for the public to see. What's Obama afraid of?

...water-boarding ain't exactly medieval stuff for those of you who've read a little history.

FAIL.

A form of water torture with very similar effects was used by the Spanish Inquisition. In the Middle Ages - you know, during Medieval history.

...there is no permanent damage...

FAIL.

Reporters undergoing waterboarding where they are in control of when it stops may escape permanent injury. Especially since they tend to ask for it to stop really quickly.

Strangely enough, detainees being involuntarily waterboarded by hostile interrogators as part of an entire program of harsh treatment with no prospect of it ever ending may have a rather different experience.

Any practice which interferes with breathing may cause significant damage, up to and including brain damage, neurological damage, heart attacks and death. Any practice that introduces water into the lungs may introduce bacteria that may cause serious infections. Those waterboarded in anger may break bones as they involuntarily convulse against the restraints. And we haven't even started on the well documented psychological damage.

...some folks do not remember the mood of the days following 9/11.

Ah, yes, you're arguing that the mood after 9/11 - the fear that dedicated attackers thus far armed only with boxcutters would cause further havoc - was so strong that you needed to make torture into policy for years afterwards.

And you're making the "we are pussies and wimps compared to earlier generations who faced down the USSR with thousands of nukes, and faced down the Axis power during WWII" argument.

You really want to go there?

I realize that "progressives" have a lot of guilt to work through, but weakening this country's defenses is not the key to your redemption.

I realise that craven torture apologists such as yourself have an astonishing amount of of fear to mask and deny, but weakening the US's defenses by handing terrorists a massive recruiting bonus, motivating large numbers to oppose you, sending most of your anti-terrorist investigators on a series of wild goose chases, and destroying channels that can reveal actual information rather than fairy stories made up under extreme duress is not the key to removing that fear.

Here's a handy multiple choice checklist for you.

That's a good start. I see that none of the torture apologists has responded to it, and I think I know why. They're awfully confused by the lack of moral contextual information. They can't figure out whether each practice is allowed or not - because they don't know who is doing it.

I suggest providing two checkboxes per entry
- "When the US does it"
- "When other countries do it"

If you want to be really thorough, have several columns per practice:
- "When the US does it to foreigners who are terrorists"
- "When the US does it to foreigners who are alleged to be terrorists, even if they may have been falsely turned in by their neighbours for a reward or revenge or to gain power"
- "When the US does it to foreigners the President says are enemy combatants"
- "When the US does it to US citizens the President says are enemy combatants"
(after all, Bush said he could designate US citizens as enemy combatants, and (say) deny them legal representation and hold them without charges for several years.
- "When the US does it to US citizens who are not designated enemy combatants" (after all, the memos justifying torture basically pretend that various Constitutional Amendments don't apply if you squint at them right)
- "When foreigners do it to US citizens"

I'm sure you get the idea, and there are many more useful categories.

The trouble is, I think most of these scenarios will be "Does Not Compute" for many of the apologists - they simply can't imagine the possibilities. There is a risk of exploding heads all over...

Great article.
Great comments.
Thanks.

"By any reasonable measure, Liz Cheney's argument is morally, legally, and strategically bankrupt. Her entire question is based on unsupported assumptions -- a terrorist might have information that he might share about an attack that might happen, unless we use a technique that might be torture. And if you disagree, you're willing to let al Qaeda slaughter innocent Americans. What a pathetic display"
==============================================
Might, might, might.

How did the interrogators "KNOW" that Khalid Sheik Muhammad "KNEW" that there was another attack coming in the United States?

Because his response was always: "You will soon find out".

This must be the font for all the liberal bilge that passes for rational, critical thought.

Just another group of spoiled, self-indulgent brats spouting mindless gibberish while enjoying the freedoms others provide. Parasites living on the host until they kill it, then move on to.......where ya gonna go kiddies? After you've ruined this country, where are you going to go to indulge your lazy, ignorant spoiled little butts? Cuba?

This must be the font for all the liberal bilge that passes for rational, critical thought.

Ever noticed that people who make this sort of critical comment...almost never back it up with reasoning or logic supporting their assertion?

It's almost like they've learned the form of such a criticism without understanding the function that justifies it.