I think this whole torture debate is bunk.
First, I do not think water-boarding is torture. It certainly doesn't rank up there with cattle prods and decapitation.
Moreover, I think its crazy that our government has openly stated that it would not use certain "enhanced interrogation techniques". Is the President saying that if we had 3100 Americans in mortal danger and we had a person in captivity who had information that could save them, we would not use whatever methods were needed to extract that information? If so, I'd like him to say that openly to the American people. I doubt they would applaud.
This is so much about politics. Check out this PowerLine post on the topic. The bad news is that the president's political gain was purchased by weakening our defenses against terrorists.
Even more pathetic is Nancy Pelosi's claim that she didn't object to the CIA's plans to use water-boarding when she was briefed after 9/11, because she did not realize they were going to use the technique. Now, after year's of being kept safe from terrorists, she's all for Bush bashing on torture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
If I set it up, will you agree to the water boarded? I want you to let someone do that to you before you so cavalierly assert (behind the safety of your computer screen) that water boarding is not torture.
I'm sorry John, but there are just some things that we, as a civilized nation, must not do.
And just because you baldly assert that its not torture, does not make it so. But you know this. You know it because if it wasn't so repugnant and violative of every international convention, you wouldn't need to justify its use by bringing up draconian scenarios.
Let's be clear: 9-11 didn't happen because we didn't water board people.
Rubes
Paula:
This is one of those times when I just thank goodness that during most of my lifetime serious adults ran the country.
You and people with many of the views you hold are free to indulge your alleged moral superiority because you are not in a position where you are responsible for hard choices that actually could mean the difference between life and death.
If your son was placed in some life threatening danger and a person was in custody who had information which could save him, I find it hard to believe that you would not endorse almost any tactic to save him. I would, quite frankly, use any means at my disposal to protect my innocent child at the expense of the guilty terrorist.
You reference things a civilized nation should not do. That, I assume, would include not deciding to kill innocent people by flying planes into buildings. America, as a civilized nation, does not commit terrorist acts, but if faced with a mortal threat, even civilized people must act.
As a lawyer, I assume you would agree that it would be appropriate for me to use deadly force against a person to prevent that person from killing another innocent person. If so, I cannot understand the argument against using any of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (none of which do any serious or permanent harm) employed against terrorists who had information regarding mortal threats to scores of innocent people.
Regarding your first point, no, I do not want to be water boarded. But then, I have done nothing that would justify using that technique on me (assuming that you do not think being a conservative justifies it).
With regard to your final point, true, 9-11 did not happen because we did not water board. On the other hand, the West Coast replay of 9-11 didn't happen because we did water board KS Mohammed.
Johnny Di,
People also tell me I would pull the switch on the electric chair of a person convicted of killing my son. I would not. I don't believe in the death penalty and all of the research shows that it is not a deterrent, etc. etc. And doing so would bring me no peace.
Likewise, your hypothetical is flawed.
First, because it is premised on the notion that torture (not enhanced interrogation tactics John, torture) produce reliable information. It does not.
Second, your position starts with the characterization that the individuals in custody are guilty terrorists (..."use any means at my disposal to protect my innocent child at the expense of the guilty terrorist"). That is not a fair or accurate assumption.
Many individuals that were neither guilty nor terrorists have been rounded up on flimsy, if any, pretenses and tortured. One of the biggest problems is that our country doesn't wait till an individual has been found to be a guilty terrorists. In fact, the prior administration did everything in its power (and in many cases beyond its legal authority) to prevent these people from having any due process at all. We don't just torture guilty terrorists John. And you are either naive or deluded (or you think I am) to try to make such an argument. Guilty? In whose opinion? By what court of law? Based on what evidence?
In fact, you can not assert with any authority that we have not been used by Al Queda to do its dirty work. Let me explain: Al Queda operatives feed us bogus "intelligence" that a person is a terrorist, who in fact is someone who doesn't want to help Al Queda. What a great way to keep their people loyal. If you don't help Al Queda, we'll tell the Americans you are one of us, and the Americans (not the terrorists) can torture you.
Civilized people should not fly planes into building. Likewise civilized nations should not gas people in showers and cremate them in giant ovens. I have never heard you endorse that as an event worthy enough to justify torture.
AND NO I am not comparing those who water board to Nazis. I AM saying this: that fact evil people fly planes into our buildings killing innocent people, does not make it okay torture people just like the fact that evil people killed innocent people in gas chambers did not make it okay to torture people. Roosevelt and Truman (both serious adults, I think you'll agree) got that. I wish Bush and Cheney had.
Paula:
Only three captives were water-boarded.
The reason they were water-boarded was because they were high level persons with real information.
You seem to be implying that there were other things done to captives even "worse" than water-boarding. Care to offer any evidence of that?
And, as far as the captives arrested on flimsy evidence go, hmmm, I wonder why our allies don't want to accept any of them into their countries when we let them out of Gitmo.
Finally, there is a monumental difference between seeking revenge for a murder (your death penalty example) and using non life threatening measures on a person to save an innocent life.
Oh, and one more thing.
Even though you have "done nothing to justify" being water boarded, I am willing bet any amount of money, that if you were water boarded, you would admit being involved in terrorist activity just to make the water boarding stop. I know I would. Look me in the eye and say that isn't so.
That, my friend, is why this tactic is unreliable.
Repoman:
The fact that the United States of America engaged in torture is an issue that cannot be swept under the rug. Moving forward as a people demands that we set up a commission to find out the extent of the torture and hold accountable those who authorized it.
My non-lawyer review of the Federal Law regarding torture indicates to me that it is a crime to engage in torture. Reading the definition of what constitutes torture clearly indicates that waterboarding and other practices authorized by the President (Bush) were torture.
Aside from the reading of the statute, look at what Senator McCain has said. Here is a man who knows what torture is because he EXPERIENCED it. For 5.5 years the man was TORTURED. This man, who represents the finest example of what a patriot is, states that waterboarding is torture. North Viet Nam justified it in the same way you justify it. They believed McCain had information that if they could retrieve, would prevent the death of North Vietnamese. They justified torture on the grounds of national security.
President Nixon was charged with high crimes and misdeameanors, and faced conviction in the Senate for a simple Burglary charge and cover up. Think of it- a President removed for a simple house burglary and cover up.
We need an independent commission to review this matter and report to the nation. Then, we can decide to prosecute, or not, or to offer pardons to those responsible.
Burglarizing an apartment was stupid. Authorizing torture for any reason is contrary to the spirit of what makes America "The shining city on a hill." Although he was covering up what he did, President Bush was correct when he said, "America does not torture."
Anonymous:
As I said earlier, I do not think it possible that using a technique which does not cause permanent harm to obtain information from a terrorist, can be torture, when its clearly OK for me to use deadly force to save an innocent person.
I agree that torture is wrong. I consider torture to include the gratuitous infliction of harm as was done to Senator McCain. The purpose of that torture was to obtain political gain (a confession from an American officer). Using strenuous tecniques against a person who has information that can save innocent lives is the moral choice.
viagra generic viagra sample canadian viagra viagra patent how does viagra work what does viagra do buy viagra in england buying viagra online get viagra viagra for sale without a prescription generic brands of viagra online viagra buy cialis levia and viagra cheapest uk supplier viagra
Post a Comment