Moral High Road Unavailable
It was reported today that the Islamic terrorist group which just murdered an American journalist -- by brutally cutting his head off while cameras were rolling -- has also waterboarded their American prisoners. Unfortunately, while every civilized person is understandably shocked and outraged over the murder, the moral high road is unavailable to America on the question of waterboarding prisoners. This is precisely the scenario many have been warning about for years: If America tortures prisoners, what will we say when others torture American prisoners?
To be absolutely clear, I am not equating America (or the Pentagon, or the C.I.A., or politicians) with a group who routinely murders prisoners in the most gruesome ways they can think up. There is no moral equivalence between us and them. Their atrocities are so far beyond anything America has done in the past 15 years that it would indeed be outrageous to even attempt equating the two. The only parallel which can be drawn is on one specific technique, used by both to torture prisoners. That the possibility of drawing this parallel exists is precisely why the moral high road is unavailable to Americans now over a terrorist group waterboarding prisoners. It can be summed up quite succinctly as: We did the same thing.
The proponents of America using waterboarding made many arguments, but most of them were practical arguments as opposed to moral arguments. "Waterboarding works" sums up most of these arguments' essence. Morality was deemed, by those making these arguments, as a luxury America could not afford.
This led me, very early in my blogging career, to attempt to make a clear moral argument against torture. The essence of my stance could be summed up as: We don't torture -- we're better than that. In the first article I wrote (titled "So Is Torturing A Daughter OK?"), I posed two questions to people arguing for the use of torture:
If your daughter were a member of the U.S. Army and were captured by an enemy, and waterboarding and other "interrogation techniques" you are condoning the United States use were used against her -- against your own daughter -- would you call those techniques "torture" or would you defend them as being legal techniques?
and:
If we hold a terrorist and we think he knows about an imminent plot, you advocate [the use of] "aggressive interrogation techniques" against him, since his comfort is less important than saving the lives of so many in an attack on America -- but if he has been trained to resist interrogation and doesn't talk, would you also advocate using the same techniques on his innocent nine-year-old daughter, in front of him, in an effort to make him talk?
I truly wish such questions had been asked, back then. Because if they had been, perhaps we wouldn't be where we are now, with one moral high road closed off to us. I wish we could unequivocally state: "We're better than Islamic terrorists because we treat prisoners with respect according to international laws of war." This is a much better argument than: "We're better than Islamic terrorists because while we did torture prisoners, we never cut their heads off."
Again, I do believe that last line is true. We are better than ruthless terrorists who murder the innocent. Much better, in fact. But even while I travel down that particular moral high road, what saddens me is that I can see, up above me, an even higher moral path we could have taken. But that route is closed off to us, lest we be accused of the rankest sort of "do as we say, not as we do" hypocrisy.
Waterboarding people is shameful. We are, in fact, about to see some declassified evidence that it is not even a very useful interrogation tool (once Dianne Feinstein and the White House finish bickering about how much of the Senate report can be safely declassified). We used to prosecute American soldiers for waterboarding prisoners, before 9/11 happened. We did so because it is wrong. Waterboarding is torture. We waterboarded prisoners, repeatedly. Nobody who approved the use of this torture has ever been brought to justice for his or her actions. There was no accountability at all. These incontrovertible facts all add up to being denied the righteous outrage we should now be allowed to feel, when an enemy of America uses waterboarding to torture prisoners. But that moral high road, sadly, is no longer available to us, because of what was previously done in our name.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
"We're better than Islamic terrorists because while we did torture prisoners, we never cut their heads off." Again, I do believe that last line is true."
That "never cut their heads off" part is *very* specific, so I suppose I can go along. I've never heard of "us" doing that.
The moral high road would not be unavailable if those who believed they had to resort to the use of torture had been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
It's one thing for the US to employ torture but, it is quite another thing for the US to condone or justify the use of torture and that is why the high road is unavailable.
Maybe when the torture report is released it will lead to a serious debate about the use of torture and why, if torture is ever used by the US government, it should never be justified or condoned, though punishment for those who resort to its use may be mitigated by the circumstances involved as in the rare case of saving innocent life from imminent danger or death.
John From Censornati -
I don't buy it, but an argument could be made in the case of Saddam Hussein, who was reportedly beheaded during his hanging. But it was by the Iraqi authorities, not the US, which is why I don't think the argument can be reasonably made.
LizM -
Exactly. And you're right -- we're all about to have a big conversation about it, when the DiFi report is released.
-CW
@CW: I wish I had your faith. I think it far more likely we'll wring our hands until the next media cycle comes along. Just like children being murdered in our schools and reckless financiers endangering our economy. Our track record in the last fifteen years, almost a generation, is less than promising.
CW, I wasn't arguing about beheadings. I'm granting that you are correct about that, but I don't believe that "we" haven't killed some prisoners by other means. Beheadings are sensational, but dead is dead and "we never cut their heads off" is setting the bar pretty low. The terrists post their vids on the internets and "we" erase ours.
This led me, very early in my blogging career, to attempt to make a clear moral argument against torture. The essence of my stance could be summed up as: We don't torture -- we're better than that. In the first article I wrote (titled "So Is Torturing A Daughter OK?"), I posed two questions to people arguing for the use of torture:
Hmmmmmmmmm
That commentary sounds vaguely familiar... :D
I'll make the same argument I made back then..
As you indicate, water boarding works. Torture works.
It gave us Bin Laden..
And, as is often the case, the Ends DO Justify The Means...
As for my daughter?? When family is involved all logic goes out the window.
"My logic is uncertain, where my son is concerned."
-Sarek Of Vulcan, STAR TREK III
But we cannot let fear of what might happen to family members prevent us from doing what we know to be necessary, albeit morally ambiguous..
For me personally??
If the price of saving hundreds or even thousands of lives is a guilty conscience over causing some scumbag pain and suffering??
It's a price I am willing to pay...
Let me turn your question around CW....
If your daughter were kidnapped by Islamic terrorists and faced a certain beheading and all SF operators had to do was torture some scumbag terrorist (who had already killed hundreds of people) to get her location and save her life..
Would you condone torture then??
Morality and family.
It's a double edged sword..
Liz,
It's one thing for the US to employ torture but, it is quite another thing for the US to condone or justify the use of torture and that is why the high road is unavailable.
See my question to CW above...
JFC,
CW, I wasn't arguing about beheadings. I'm granting that you are correct about that, but I don't believe that "we" haven't killed some prisoners by other means.
My personal fav for Islamic terrorists is to hobble them, slice them up a bit and throw them alive into a pen of wild pigs..
But that's just me... :D
It's us or them, people...
I would rather be alive with a guilty conscience then dead, secure in the knowledge that I didn't torture anyone..
And I think 99.9% of the American people would feel the same way...
Michale..
It was reported today that the Islamic terrorist group which just murdered an American journalist -- by brutally cutting his head off while cameras were rolling -- has also waterboarded their American prisoners.
I am also constrained to point out that Foley would be alive today if Obama hadn't totally scrooed the pooch in authorizing the rescue mission..
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that Foley would be alive today if Obama hadn't totally scrooed the pooch in authorizing the rescue mission..
What do I mean, you ask??
Pentagon sources said Foley and the others might well have been rescued but Obama, concerned about the ramifications of US troops being killed or captured in Syria, took too long to authorise the mission.
Anthony Shaffer, a former lieutenant-colonel in US military intelligence who worked on covert operations, said: “I’m told it was almost a 30-day delay from when they said they wanted to go to when he finally gave the green light. They were ready to go in June to grab the guy [Foley] and they weren’t permitted.”
Another US defence source said: “The White House constantly goes back and forth on these things. These people are a bunch of academics who endlessly analyse stuff and ordering up another deep-thinking paper but can’t decide what to order for lunch.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/65579
"Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself. And it is usually the wrong decision to make."
-Captain James T Kirk, THE GALACTIC WHIRLPOOL
Michale
Citing canadafreepress.com comes comes right after "comparing to Hitler" on the "You've Lost The Argument List."
Citing canadafreepress.com comes comes right after "comparing to Hitler" on the "You've Lost The Argument List."
Really??
OK.. How about RCP???
Obama's Iraqi Mission Impossible
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/25/obamas_iraqi_mission_impossible_123753.html
They basically say the same thing.
Obama frak'ed up..
AGAIN
Michale
See my question to CW above...
I believe we've been through this before, Michale.
While I will defer to a competent and experienced interrogator who may believe that resorting to the use of torture is the only option available in a serious effort to save innocent life from imminent danger or death - a case that you must admit is extremely limited and rare - that deference does NOT, in any way, shape or form excuse or justify or condone the use of torture and any interrogator who does resort to the use of torture should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and suffer the appropriate penalty, given the exigent circumstances.
Torture is still evil, whether or not it "works". And, as such, it should never be justified or condoned or sanctioned by the US government.
It's as black and white an issue as any issue can be.
Chris,
we're all about to have a big conversation about it, when the DiFi report is released.
I hope you're right and that the discussion will be a serious one.
But, I think it will be wasted time if it doesn't result in clear and precise legislation prohibiting the use of torture by US officials or their proxies, at home or abroad, and outlining the penalty for such action just as clearly and precisely.
It's as black and white an issue as any issue can be.
Yer exactly right.
It IS a black and white issue..
And the issue is saving lives...
While I will defer to a competent and experienced interrogator who may believe that resorting to the use of torture is the only option available in a serious effort to save innocent life from imminent danger or death - a case that you must admit is extremely limited and rare -
Not as limited or rare as you might think..
But even if it only happens once a decade and the lives of thousands hang in the balance??
What was it that our old friend Michty was fond of saying??? "If there is even a .001% chance of it happening.....?????"
Protocols must be in place to handle the contingency..
or condone the use of torture and any interrogator who does resort to the use of torture should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and suffer the appropriate penalty, given the exigent circumstances.
If it could be guaranteed that said torturer would get a fair and impartial hearing on the totality of the circumstances without ANY political overtones whatsoever being considered, I *might* (emphasis on MIGHT) be willing to entertain such notions..
But as has been proven beyond ANY doubt, such clarity and non-influence is simply not possible..
Torture is still evil, whether or not it "works".
Torture is a tool.. Nothing more, nothing less..
How it is applied determines whether or not it is "evil"..
Consider animal testing that creates life-saving medications. That's not "evil"....
I believe we've been through this before, Michale.
We have indeed. And we will likely do so again.. :D
It's not the destination, it's the journey...
"To the journey!"
-Ensign Harry Kim, STAR TREK: VOYAGER, Endgame
:D
Michale
Michale 13:
Torture is still evil, whether or not it "works".
Torture is a tool.. Nothing more, nothing less..
How it is applied determines whether or not it is "evil"..
I would say those lines, right there, pretty much encapsulate why people on the right are the last people to look to for moral guidance. They don't appear to have any grounded sense of what good or evil are or how they manifest in the real world. They distance themselves, using hypotheticals; they rationalize, and they dehumanize.
Chris is 100% right America lost the moral high ground, not just because of institutionalized torture, but that was the lowest of low points.
I would say those lines, right there, pretty much encapsulate why people on the right are the last people to look to for moral guidance. They don't appear to have any grounded sense of what good or evil are or how they manifest in the real world. They distance themselves, using hypotheticals; they rationalize, and they dehumanize.
You mean like ya'all have done to me here?? :D
I am also constrained to point out that, more often than not, it's the LEFT WINGERS who have created an entire philosophy around equivocating good and evil..
Apparently, only when it suits their agenda....
Finally, the issue of animal testing completely decimates any good/evil argument vis a vis "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..."
Good ta see ya, Paula.. :D
Michale
M- 10
They basically say the same thing because canada free press is a cut and paste operation cutting and pasting (in this case) from RealClearPolitics.
Obama took a calculated risk, which is basically risk taken with due diligence. He rolled the dice, and came up with a dry hole. All the commandos came back and 15 bandits got the martyrdom they so richly deserved. An historical "Meh."
Obama declined to take a similar risk earlier. We don't know why, we might in a few decades. That mission might have succeeded, or it might have left some burned out helicopters and a few charred US corpses that were Carter's payout from calculated. The latter was a frak up. A frak up that taught a lot of lessons that haven't been forgotten.
The buck stops at the CIC. Obama didn't win, but a draw is no frak up.
Two calculated risks that came perilously close to being frak ups. Midway, 1942. D Day, Omaha Beach, 1944.
I think it will be wasted time if it doesn't result in clear and precise legislation prohibiting the use of torture by US officials or their proxies, at home or abroad, and outlining the penalty for such action just as clearly and precisely.
Well said, Liz.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, it won't happen. Not until we stop thinking of ourselves as the "global law" anyways. What I mean by this is that politicians will face too much backlash for appearing "weak" if they support such legislation.
-David
Michale (15)
You know, I will give you this: rather than saying "right wingers" as a group, I should have directed my comment to you specifically. Or, better, to "people who think like this" which would include you AND most right wingers but would still be less broad-brush.
I think it is fair to point out that Dems were on board in a lot of the mess that was Iraq War and Torture and they deserve condemnation as well.
But to say that torture is "nothing more than a tool" is, in my view, grossly wrong. Torture is an act: defined as "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure." The evilness of it is built-in.
When you step back and tell yourself it's ok to use it in -spin-hypothetical-situation you are relieving yourself of responsibility towards those who suffer IN REAL LIFE as a result of your approval. You also relieve the perpetrators of responsibility and enlarge the scope in which they believe themselves permitted to act.
When you decide that the end justifies the means you have abandoned morality for expedience.
TS,
Obama took a calculated risk, which is basically risk taken with due diligence. He rolled the dice, and came up with a dry hole. All the commandos came back and 15 bandits got the martyrdom they so richly deserved. An historical "Meh."
No.. A man died.. Several will likely die also...
But it's the PATTERN that concerns me..
Obama is always reacting. ALWAYS having his hand forced..
That's not leadership...
That's cowardice...
Michale
Paula,
I think it is fair to point out that Dems were on board in a lot of the mess that was Iraq War and Torture and they deserve condemnation as well.
Yea.. THAT will be the day that anyone here (sans yours truly) will condemn Democrats in even a PARTIAL manner as ya'all condemned Bush and Republicans...
But to say that torture is "nothing more than a tool" is, in my view, grossly wrong.
That is your opinion and I respect that.
But it is an opinion devoid of practical experience/knowledge in the field...
Sticking one's hand up a cows ass is "grossly wrong"... Yet, if you were a farm vet, you would have to do it all the time...
I have watched it done when I was a kid on my Uncle's farm.. It's not a pleasant sight.. :D
Torture is an act: defined as "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure." The evilness of it is built-in.
The only relevant part of that definition is "coerce"...
When you decide that the end justifies the means you have abandoned morality for expedience.
Not at all.. When you elect to torture a terrorist for intel you are weighing the consequences..
On the one hand, you have a scumbag who has brutally killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent men, women and children...
On the other hand, you have hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children's lives..
It's about as clear a choice as is possible to be made..
Frankly, I can't see how ANYONE could make ANY other choice other than to gut the scumbag to an inch of his life til he spills the beans.. Once that is accomplished, the go the last inch...
Two words for you...
Animal Testing....
That says it all as far as justification goes..
Michale
Two words for you...
Animal Testing....
That says it all as far as justification goes..
Do you know how I can tell when I make a hell yea, dead on ballz argument??
No one here can touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod..
:D
Michale
"A review of ISIS social media messaging during the week ending August 26 shows that militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely infiltrate the southwest border of US, for terror attack."
-Situational Awareness Dispatch, TEXAS DPS
The 2014 October Surprise begins...
Democrats don't stand a chance in Novembers elections...
Michale
"A review of ISIS social media messaging during the week ending August 26 shows that militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely infiltrate the southwest border of US, for terror attack."
-Situational Awareness Dispatch, TEXAS DPS
The 2014 Oct Surprise begins...
It's going to be a sad, sad election for Democrats...
Michale
Looks like I am filling up the NNL filters, CW... :D
“A review of I.S.I.S. social media messaging during the week ending August 26 shows that militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely infiltrate the southwest border of US, for terror attack.”
TEXAS DPS RELEASE
Democrats are gonna get shellacked...
Looks like I am filling up the NNL filters, CW... :D
Looks like terrorist chatter is targeting our southern border..
Democrats are gonna get shellacked...
Michale (20)
You use hyperbole to describe theoretical terrorists who have "brutally killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent men, women and children", which is invention, fantasy, drama, but not fact. But it used by you, and others like you, to justify real torture done to real people, nearly all of whom turned out to be innocent.
Torture is the height of immorality. And morality, if it is to have any meaning at all, must be something you fall back on when it is hard, not simply when it's easy. Otherwise its all just empty words.
You use hyperbole to describe theoretical terrorists who have "brutally killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent men, women and children", which is invention, fantasy, drama, but not fact.
September 11th, 2001..
Perhaps you have heard of it...
Torture is the height of immorality.
Then what is terrorism??
You see what I mean about equivocating evil when it suits your purpose..
You offer NO facts to support your claim that torture is evil.
I offer PLENTY of facts and examples AND personal experience/training that show you are wrong...
You say what you say because you THINK it's true..
I say what I say because I KNOW it's true..
And therein lies the difference..
Oh yea...
Animal testing.... :D
Michale
Michale (24)
You take one evil event, September 11, and use it to justify several more evil events. You say "they" are evil but "we" are not. It is the height of rationalization.
(Definition. of "rationalize": attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.)
If you need "facts" to "prove" that torture is evil then you either don't understand what torture is, or you don't understand what evil is.
If you need "facts" to "prove" that torture is evil then you either don't understand what torture is, or you don't understand what evil is.
I ALWAYS need facts.. And so should you.
You are reacting emotionally, not logically or rationally..
As such, you simply are blinded to facts..
Yes, torture is a horrid and perverse tool. So is killing another human being..
Yet, in our society, BOTH are justifiable..
Saving the lives of hundreds if not thousands of innocent men, women in children is a noble cause..
If some scumbag has to be tortured to do it??
No sane, logical or rational person would have a problem with that..
It's really that simple..
And, oh yea..
Animal Testing... :D
We're obviously never going to agree on this because you are too emotional over the topic..
Michale
Don't get me wrong, Paula.
There ARE things in this world that are inherently evil..
rape... terrorism.. Are two that come to mind..
Put torture is simply a tool.. It can be used for great good or for evil...
Just as any tool can...
Michale
Obama's own officials have stated categorically that torture has allowed US forces to stop terrorist attacks before they happened..
If THAT is not proof positive of torture being used for good, then what is??
We're not talking about civilized people here?? I could even make the case that we're not even talking about human beings..
Torturing terrorists to obtain actionable intel is NO DIFFERENT than animal testing to create life-saving medications...
Hell, I feel more sorry for the pigs and the monkeys than I do for the tortured terrorists..
Michale
M - 19
You need to know how to thrust, and when to parry.
Sometimes it pays to let the other guy initiate his head into the noose. Like the Russians played Napolean.
That said, ISIS is not a recognized state, and it's fighters are encouraged to behave like psychopaths, not soldiers. Applying a no prisoners doctrine to any ISIS found alive on the battlefield seems fully appropriate. We are better than not setting a floor to human depravity.
David,
Unfortunately, in my opinion, it won't happen. Not until we stop thinking of ourselves as the "global law" anyways. What I mean by this is that politicians will face too much backlash for appearing "weak" if they support such legislation.
Is this also what partly explains why the US is not a party to the International Criminal Court?
From my perspective, the ambiguous nature of the US stance on torture and its non-participation in the ICC do not make it any easier for the US to carry out its global leadership role (not act as "the global law") should it ever decide to fully take that role on ...
You need to know how to thrust, and when to parry.
Sometimes it pays to let the other guy initiate his head into the noose. Like the Russians played Napolean.
Well, ya see.. I have a problem when that other guy's head in the noose is an American..
The President's MAIN job is to save American lives..
Or, at the VERY least, not let them die because he can't make up his frakin' mind, too worried about POLITICAL considerations..
In the aftermath of 9/11 Bush was quoted as saying that political considerations are NOT to be considered..
THAT is leadership..
Despite all his mistakes and faults, Bush has more leadership in his pinky fingernail than Obama has in his entire body..
That said, ISIS is not a recognized state, and it's fighters are encouraged to behave like psychopaths, not soldiers.
And yet, they are organized, disciplined, well funded and scoring victory after victory after victory..
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Liz,
Is this also what partly explains why the US is not a party to the International Criminal Court?
The US is not a party to the criminal court for reasons like Iran being part of the UN Human Rights office...
Michale
"A review of ISIS social media messaging during the week ending August 26 shows that militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely infiltrate the southwest border of US, for terror attack."
-Situational Awareness Dispatch, TEXAS DPS
The 2014 October Surprise begins...
Democrats don't stand a chance in Novembers elections...
Michale
Michale (29)
You are reacting emotionally, not logically or rationally..
Torture is not a "tool" -- it is an abomination that is used as a tool.
Logic, on the other hand, IS a tool.
Tools don't make moral choices.
Logic-fetishists seem to regard logic as an end it itself, rather than recognizing it as merely a framework that can be used to evaluate choices. You can arrive at all sorts of conclusions using "logic" and the fact that you used "logic" to get there does not make it inherently "right". Certainly not "moral".
People can successfully use logic to decide what car to buy: they make little checklists and assign points. But the points they assign are ultimately subjective and who's to say whether it was more "moral" to buy the white car with better gas mileage over the blue car made by American Workers? In the end logic makes use of people's subjective views.
Morality is something else. I can't put it into words exactly -- I think it is beyond words. Somewhere in human beings there are understandings we share that place value on people's lives, on the love they have for their offspring and for each other. Murder is understood at a root level to be wrong. Theft and dishonesty ditto.
Cultures superimpose other values on top of the roots, some which are in line and some which are opposed. When they are opposed people use a lot of energy to rationalize their support, knowing, on some level, that it's wrong. That is what people do when they argue "logic" to support things that are wrong.
You talk about the evil terrorists and feel they deserve to suffer. You are willing to discount the suffering of innocent people caught up in the net. You, sitting far away and untouched, can dismiss their suffering as collateral damage. You, sitting far away and untouched, can cheer Torture as a "tool" and not worry that it will then be turned on American Soldiers and journalists and others. More collateral damage. More reason to be even more vicious in response to the terrorists.
When you begin to use their "tools" you become them.
Torture is not a "tool" -- it is an abomination that is used as a tool.
That is an opinion.. Not a fact..
Tools don't make moral choices.
Exactly.. They are inherently neither good nor evil. It is how they are used that makes that determination..
Logic-fetishists seem to regard logic as an end it itself, rather than recognizing it as merely a framework that can be used to evaluate choices. You can arrive at all sorts of conclusions using "logic" and the fact that you used "logic" to get there does not make it inherently "right". Certainly not "moral".
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris. Not the end."
-Captain Spock, STAR TREK V, The Voyage Home
:D
Morality is something else. I can't put it into words exactly -- I think it is beyond words. Somewhere in human beings there are understandings we share that place value on people's lives, on the love they have for their offspring and for each other. Murder is understood at a root level to be wrong. Theft and dishonesty ditto.
Unintentionally, I am sure :D You are making my case for me..
Murder is immoral and against the laws of man.. But KILLING can be justified by a plethora of reasons...
So, it is neither good nor evil, it is a tool and how that tool is used determines the good and the evil.
So it is with torture..
It is not evil to torture a scumbag if the intent is to save the lives of hundreds, thousands or millions of innocents.. Or only just ONE innocent..
You talk about the evil terrorists and feel they deserve to suffer.
Frakin' A.. Who wouldn't???
You are willing to discount the suffering of innocent people caught up in the net.
For example???
You, sitting far away and untouched, can cheer Torture as a "tool" and not worry that it will then be turned on American Soldiers and journalists and others.
It will anyways... Letting innocent people die because we were too squemish to torture for intel won't help our soldiers one single bit..
Do you honestly believe that any scumbag terrorist will think, "WOW.. The US is not torturing terrorists, so we won't torture their soldiers.."
If you believe that, I have some swampland in FL for sale.. :D
When you begin to use their "tools" you become them.
"Those who fight monsters must guard against becoming the monster"
-Neitschze
Intellectually, I would agree with that. Before my stints in the military I would agree with that..
Now??
Not so much..
And if you were the product of MY experiences and MY training, you would feel EXACTLY as I do...
Michale
Again, I have to make the argument that fits the situation perfectly..
Animal testing..
The exact same logic that justifies animal testing applies to torturing..
The goal is to save innocent lives...
Not treat terrorists with compassion that they refuse to show anyone else...
Michale
If you like another example, think of a medical tool designed to amputate limbs..
If you use it to cut off an innocent person's head, that's evil..
If you use it to cut off a cancerous leg, that's not evil...
It's all in the usage...
Michale
Michale:
When you start talking about "letting innocent people die because you won't torture" you are again talking in abstractions.
The situations that create terrorists are multi-leveled and complex, but in the end, terrorists have decided that whatever their particular beef is, it's more important than human decency. They have decided that individuals are pawns, to be used and abused as needed to accomplish some objective.
That begins a spiral which cannot end until one side or the other chooses to end it.
When you start deciding that you can sacrifice a few innocent people along the way because you'll save "thousands" you have now become the same kind of thinker -- it's just a matter of degree.
And once you've decided it's ok to sacrifice a few you've opened the door to finding ways to excuse sacrificing more and yet more people.
BTW, to me your military background, with all sincere due respect, is something that must disqualify you from making this judgement. Your experience and your training is based on dehumanizing "the enemy". It takes a lot of breaking down to make normal people be willing to kill strangers. You can't be objective (or, at any rate, it would take a pretty heavy-duty effort.) It's like with doctors (my Dad was an MD) -- they are told never to treat their own family -- things like surgery -- because they won't have the necessary detachment.
When you start talking about "letting innocent people die because you won't torture" you are again talking in abstractions.
No, I am talking about real life..
Do you want me to list the actual people and the numbers of people who have died at the hands of terrorists??
It's not an abstract..
But, again inadvertently I am sure, you have hit on the exact issue...
For YOU, it's all abstract...
I have lived it, breathed it, bled it...
That likely explains the disparity in our views of this issue..
When you start deciding that you can sacrifice a few innocent people along the way because you'll save "thousands" you have now become the same kind of thinker -- it's just a matter of degree.
I am not talking about sacrificing innocent people. YOU are...
BTW, to me your military background, with all sincere due respect, is something that must disqualify you from making this judgement. Your experience and your training is based on dehumanizing "the enemy". It takes a lot of breaking down to make normal people be willing to kill strangers. You can't be objective (or, at any rate, it would take a pretty heavy-duty effort.) It's like with doctors (my Dad was an MD) -- they are told never to treat their own family -- things like surgery -- because they won't have the necessary detachment.
That's actually a very good point.. Kudos..
But we're not talking about specifics..
As you say, it's never a good idea for a doctor to operate on their own family..
Just like if my family was held hostage, it would be a bad idea for me to lead the rescue assault..
BUT.....
The general expertise is a MUST...
You wouldn't want an optometrist performing heart surgery...
You wouldn't want a politician leading an assault to rescue hostages.. The James Foley debacle proved that..
And you don't want an ACLU lawyer whose idea of Counter Terrorism is fighting with the coffee machine in the morning deciding what is and is not necessary to fight terrorism and save innocent lives..
You need someone who has been there, done that and survived to get the t-shirt...
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that CW's original "WHAT IF IT WAS YOUR DAUGHTER..." commentary (which, incidentally is the commentary that brought me and him together. :D) is completely abstract..
A "what if" scenario, if you will...
Scenarios that are perfectly acceptable for both proving AND refuting a given point of view..
You can't accept one because it supports your perspective and deny the other because it doesn't..
It's against the rules. :D
Michale
Michale:
I don't deny that real people have died at the hands of terrorists, or as a result of terrorist activity. I don't deny the heniousness of that kind of deliberately random killing.
Where we diverge is on two levels. First, the nature of torture itself, which I believe to be unacceptable and immoral. It is the deliberate use of cruelty and the infliction of pain on powerless people to coerce them or simply to torment them. That is the case whether it is performed by Crusaders, Inquistors, Mafia Thugs, Klansmen Lynching people, Conquerors from any time or place, Police, Sadistic swine who keep people locked in basements, Serial Killers or serial-killers-in-training who torture animals ond bugs.
Now, if someone has your daughter hostage and you can beat up somebody in order to extract her wherabouts -- is that the same thing? I don't know. I lean toward's "no". Why? Because it is specifically situational; because it is personally emotional and because the other party intends specific harm. You are likely to be held "responsible" by authorities and you are likely to be "forgiven" because people instinctively understand your behavior. (You may or may not succeed in getting the info. you want.)
Torture isn't that. The second it gets removed from the very specific and individual situation as above, it becomes something else. When, as in the case of the Iraq debacle, you have Psychologists studying people's reactions and applying their observations to increase the intensity of the experience it has lost ALL connection with decency. When you take prisoners and do the things they did in Abu Gharib, indiscriminately, assuming people's guilt, not caring whether people in your custody are actually involved, then it has become about power, not justice. It has become about misapplied revenge; "some Muslims were involved in 911 -- I'll hurt other Muslims".
The specific evil that was the Bush Administration Torture Policy is that it was a fucking policy. It was planned, codified, finessed. It was deliberate. And, in addition to being a moral outrage and stain on our national character it didn't fucking work. It never works. So it's both horrifying and incompetent.
The mess that is the Middle East will NEVER be resolved by doubling down on atrocities. The only way to get peace is to stop making war. I recognize the seeming naivete of such a statement but it is true. I'm not saying it's easy or even doable - certainly not instantly - but it's the bottom line. Look at Ireland.
You say you aren't talking about sacrificing innocent people but you are. As soon as Torture becomes a policy it gets used on innocent people. Iraq was full of stories, starting with the guy they drove mad by torturing him and putting him in solitary confinement. As soon as it becomes policy it reduces us to ISIS -- what's the difference between them water-boarding and beheading a journalist and us water-boarding and then leaving a guy in a stress position in a cell until he dies? What if ISIS firmly believed the guy was there for nefarious reasons? I'm not excusing them at all. But we don't get excused either.
You talk about expertise -- fair enough. Military Interrogators say torture doesn't work. They can get what they need using their skills.
Where we diverge is on two levels. First, the nature of torture itself, which I believe to be unacceptable and immoral. It is the deliberate use of cruelty and the infliction of pain on powerless people to coerce them or simply to torment them.
There is no evidence that torture is used as retribution..
I would agree with you that such use IS "evil".. of a sorts.. :D
OTOH, I find it difficult to show sympathy for a scumbag terrorist who I know would behead me and my family in a stone cold minute, given the chance..
You talk about expertise -- fair enough. Military Interrogators say torture doesn't work. They can get what they need using their skills.
Politically correct military interrogators say that torture doesn't work..
Well documented statements from Obama Administration officials state categorically that torture HAS produced actionable intelligence..
I agree that torture is highly situational and it's not a tool to be utilized lightly, if only because of the danger to the one applying torture.
"When one looks long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into them."
-Nietzsche
But it's foolish to discard a vital and effective tool simply because a segment of the general public is squeamish about it's use...
Michale
And, once again, I am constrained to point out (in hopes that you will address it.. :D) that the logic that applies to "torturing" animals to produce lifesaving medicines is the EXACT same logic that applies to torturing terrorists to produce actionable intel.
The only difference is that one group is undeserving of their fate and the other group deserves it and so much more..
I'll leave it to you to determine which is which. :D
On a personal note, I want to thank you for the manner in which we can discuss this. We both obviously are very passionate about our positions and it's nice to see that we can discuss/debate the issue with a decent amount of civility... :D
Michale
Michale,
But it's foolish to discard a vital and effective tool simply because a segment of the general public is squeamish about it's use...
That's not why torture by the US or its proxies, at home or abroad, should never be justified or condoned.
The squeamishness, or lack thereof, on the part of a segment of the general public has nothing to do with this debate. Of course, I could say the same thing about your animal testing faux-analogy.
The squeamishness, or lack thereof, on the part of a segment of the general public has nothing to do with this debate. Of course, I could say the same thing about your animal testing faux-analogy.
By all means.. Elaborate..
I would especially like to hear why you think my animal testing analogy is not dead on ballz accurate?? :D
Michale
Michale,
I need some time to think more about your animal testing analogy and I don't have it right now.
Suffice to say that there are people who believe any form of medical research involving animals amounts to torture. I'm not one of them. So that's essentially where your analogy breaks down for me.
I notice that you have nothing to say about the exceptionalism vs torture dilemma.
I'm gonna go ahead and take that as a vote for exceptionalism! :)
Oh, it looks as though one of my comments this morning Re. exceptionalism vs torture has been removed.
oops ... that exceptionalism vs torture comment can be found on the latest FTP thread ... I'll check back later for your response, Michale ...
I'm so confused!! :D
Oh, and as for exceptionalism (funny that word is not recognized in Chris's blog as being spelled correctly, heh) ... exceptional nations don't torture. I'm afraid you just can't have it both ways, my friend ... you must choose.
I disagree..
The tools of war are frightening indeed... But just because some of them MUST, at times, be utilized that does not reflect on the nation as a whole...
Michale
Suffice to say that there are people who believe any form of medical research involving animals amounts to torture.
If you take the human element out of it, torturing terrorists is identical to torturing animals for testing.
Both involve sever pain and suffering and both are done to save human lives...
The only difference is one is done to animals and the other is done to humans who are animals..
Michale
Oh, and as for exceptionalism (funny that word is not recognized in Chris's blog as being spelled correctly, heh) ... exceptional nations don't torture. I'm afraid you just can't have it both ways, my friend ... you must choose.
US Exceptionalism has been around since WWII..
You can bet that we were torturing the enemy for intel quite a bit then and since then...
So it seems that torturing the enemy and being an exceptional nation are mutually exclusive. In other words, a nation can do one and still be the other...
Michale