The politics of torture

[txbadger]

"Bush and his buddies are just a bunch of p%^&ys hiding behind some bu$$^&it legal theories which they know they probably can't win. If they would just stand up and say "yeah we did it but we were trying to protect the country""

Quite unlike the current prez who thinks rendition is the way to go. You know, where you hire somebody else, say the Saudis to do your work for you & hope they share what they find out. I think if you condone the act you should do it yourself and quit being holier than thou .

[Hoosier]

I think I'd rather be water boarded, then to read anymore of Cotts posts on this issue.

[Pete]

I think we all hate our lying ,cheating ,deceptive polititians.
It goes against human nature to like that stuff. Anyone who agree's with the deceptiveness is probably about the same character.
But I don't believe I need to know alot of the techniques for gather info from our enemies.
I would like to see our politions waterboarded so we can extract the trueth from them.
Most of them belong in Gitmo with the rest of our enemies.

Pete

[Gerry Clinchy]

What do I consider torture of an individual who was picked up on a battlefield and is our enemy?

1)…..mmmmmmm…..well…..let me see….hummm….ok well there is, no…ummmm
Humm pretty short list.

What do I not consider torture?
1)Anything that gets the job done and potentially saves the lives of anyone, be it American or otherwise that the person in question is an enemy of.

I have no problem sleeping in my bed at night knowing that somewhere in the world someone is doing what some might consider bad things to someone else to keep me, my loved ones, and my country safe. I thank those who do the job everyday and especially today.

Somehow I don't really believe that you truly agree with doing the same thing to POWs that was done to U.S. POWs in Vietnam ... or in WW11 by the Japanese or Germans.

I think that John McCain's opposition to torture has everything to do with believing it is not right to do to any human being what was done to him in Vietnam. Can we say that those who tortured him did not believe that it was to keep themselves, their loved ones and their country safe? maybe we see their belief as the result of propaganda, but it may have been the belief of many of those who participated in his treatment. It goes without saying that there are also anti-social miscreants who don't need a reason to behave that way.

There is surely a middle ground between losing our own humanity v. being polite & nicey-nicey to captives, even when they are not in uniform. The dilemma is finding the wisdom to determine where the line is crossed between rigorous interrogation and "torture".

[badbullgator]

Somehow I don't really believe that you truly agree with doing the same thing to POWs that was done to U.S. POWs in Vietnam ... or in WW11 by the Japanese or Germans.

I think that John McCain's opposition to torture has everything to do with believing it is not right to do to any human being what was done to him in Vietnam. Can we say that those who tortured him did not believe that it was to keep themselves, their loved ones and their country safe? maybe we see their belief as the result of propaganda, but it may have been the belief of many of those who participated in his treatment. It goes without saying that there are also anti-social miscreants who don't need a reason to behave that way.

There is surely a middle ground between losing our own humanity v. being polite & nicey-nicey to captives, even when they are not in uniform. The dilemma is finding the wisdom to determine where the line is crossed between rigorous interrogation and "torture".

You are wrong in that assumption. While I certainly DO NOT want to see it happen to our guys, you would have to be a FOOL to think that is does not and will not again. I am very sure that McCain has a different view since he went through it. What he has been through will certainly change your prospective on many things, but not always in the best way. I will say it again and I truly mean it do what is needed to be done. Come on now we are talking about war here. The idea is to kill your enemy because that is what they want to do to you. Anything less than death is giving them a break. Lets see, I have seen pictures that my nephews took in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I would say that water boarding or even having your fingernails pulled off is far better than a tank running over your head or being torn to shreds with 50mm’s and that is after all what happens in war. If you are captured and tortured you are still alive. It aint pretty, but it is the gamble all soldiers, theirs and ours, take everyday.
I agree with a middle ground and do not necessarly think you should go right to pulling off fingernails, start with asking nicely and move on from there. It is really up to them at that point as to where they want to give in.

[Gerry Clinchy]

You are wrong in that assumption. While I certainly DO NOT want to see it happen to our guys, you would have to be a FOOL to think that is does not and will not again.

Not sure what assumption I'm wrong about.

I'm not foolish enough to think that this kind of treatment does not still happen to our guys if they're caught by enemies like those they face in Iraq & A'stan.


Also don't subscribe to the silly opinion that if we're nice to their guys, they'll be nicer to our guys. If we are nicer to their POWs (than they are to ours), it would be only because we could not countenance being as barbaric as the enemy.

I will say it again and I truly mean it do what is needed to be done.

But I think we can do it differently. Aren't there ways to use drugs to lower a person's mental defenses? Put them in a "twilight" between sleep and wakefulness ... and then ask them the questions? And while we're at that, implant some suggestions for future behaviors?


The problem, as well, with painful torture is that you are likely to get any information that the victim might think is plausible. If they don't really have facts, they will make some up to avoid further distress. I would. Wouldn't you?


I can't believe that we can't be more sophisticated than going back to the methods of the Inquisition! With all our scientific advancement since then, it is incredible to me that we would not have come up with a painless way to extract information like this from an unwilling captive.


And when it's all over, the information source has not had any pain inflicted. They are none the worse for wear either mentally or physically ... so I cannot call that torture ... rather it would be "pharmacologically assisted interrogation".


If we do use pharmcologically assisted interrogation, it might be a good thing NOT to tell the enemy we use it.

Personally, I do believe that the enemies who use torture on U.S. military captives do so, at least in part, for revenge. For whatever reason, they enjoy making these captives suffer because they are extracting revenge for the real or imagined distress the U.S. (or its allies) have caused them or their loved ones.

I agree with a middle ground and do not necessarly think you should go right to pulling off fingernails, start with asking nicely and move on from there. It is really up to them at that point as to where they want to give in.

And I think that a drug route would be even better. We get good information. Nobody gets hurt. We maintain our integrity. But I definitely wouldn't publicize the use and effectiveness of this kind of interrogation. Treat them as prisoners; without any special favors. Slip them a mickey in their soup. Get the information. Send 'em back to their cells none the wiser.

[Gerry Clinchy]

Need to qualify that last post.

The use of drugs in interrogations would only be of use for POWs. As far as I know, POWs are not tried in a court; they are sent home at the end of hostilities. Thus, use of non-voluntary information has nothing to do with impugning their rights in a court of law. It is simply another way of gathering military intelligence.

In the case of civilian terrorists, it is a knottier problem. If they are to be tried in a court of law, then any information that might have been gathered "unconstitutionally" could not be used against them. I could live with that if the information saved lives.

Could use of drug interrogation lead to a terrorist's release simply because of a violation of their constitutional rights? If that means they "get off" to terrorize again, then it doesn't help.

[badbullgator]

I was talking about you assuming I did not mean what I said. I have no problem with uising drugs to get the info, but I bet a lot of people, the same that don;t like what we do now, will be against it because sticking a needle in someone would hurt them.......

[Gerry Clinchy]

I was talking about you assuming I did not mean what I said.

Okay, got that now.

I have no problem with uising drugs to get the info, but I bet a lot of people, the same that don;t like what we do now, will be against it because sticking a needle in someone would hurt them.......

Since needle sticks are commonplace, minor inconveniences in life, I don't thinkt here is any way that a few needle pricks, as commonly used for testing, medications and vaccinations, could be construed as torture. Of course, JMHO.

I'd be more inclined to think that some wingnut would contest that the person's "constitutional rights" were violated by use of the drugs to get information ... and use that basis to get the person totally off the hook for terrorist acts. However, if the information was not used in any litigation against that individual, I couldn't see why that should be the case.

[badbullgator]

Okay, got that now.



Since needle sticks are commonplace, minor inconveniences in life, I don't thinkt here is any way that a few needle pricks, as commonly used for testing, medications and vaccinations, could be construed as torture. Of course, JMHO.

I'd be more inclined to think that some wingnut would contest that the person's "constitutional rights" were violated by use of the drugs to get information ... and use that basis to get the person totally off the hook for terrorist acts. However, if the information was not used in any litigation against that individual, I couldn't see why that should be the case.

You would be assuming that the drugs had no affect on the liver, kidneys or any other lasting effects. Ever read a list of pretty much any medications side effects. Could you live with yourself if some poor terrorist had his testicles shrink to the size of a pea and could not reproduce after you tortured him with drugs? What about all that oily gas residue that would be found in his prison duds? I would bet that drugs are pretty common in interrogations but that is just speculation. They would be easy to use and hard to detect/prove after about 72 hours…..
BTW- drugs like you are talking about are already banned by international law and considered torture. The KGB, Russians, and I am sure the CIA were very fond of this application