Obama visiting CIA, prosecuting former interrogators?

[Balog]

I'm trying to understand your argument G98.

Are you saying that anything we do to extract intel is ok? That you have no moral problems (that there are indeed no moral considerations at all, merely pragmatic ones) with anything that is done to captured suspects? That, in other words, the ends justify the means? I really am curious if I'm misinterpreting, because that seems to be your point.


Oh and fisty, are you planning on answering me? You think it's moral cowardice to not torture the (suspected) bad guys if we really really need to, right? That is your contention? So I was just wondering if you (and the others who've supported you) would care to clarify that belief.

[seeker_two]

I think torture is something that, when used properly, leaves irreparable physical and/or psychological damage. Pain, discomfort, and stress are not considered torture unless they meet the first definition....

For example, waterboarding under medical supervision is not torture.....repeatedly drowning and reviving someone who later dies of fluid in the lungs is....

...and using drugs under medical supervision to ellicit information is definitely NOT torture....in fact, it's much more reliable than torture....it's EFFECTIVE....

[makattak]

Back to the original point.

I've just had another thought.

Many people are pointing out that by releasing our techniques, Obama has allowed the terrorists to prepare for such techniques and, consequently, they will be less successful.

For example, putting a terrorist in a box with a bug seems less likely to work now.

As much as I hate conspiracy theories, what if that was the intent of the administration?

They don't want the techniques to work. Since they think it's immoral, they are going to release what we do so that we will be unsuccessful in the future with these techniques.

The fact that it was successful in the past doesn't matter. They will do whatever they can to stop it and if it means aiding the enemy, so be it.

[longeyes]

Ah.

Speaking the unspeakable. 

Speculating that maybe perhaps our goals and some of the goals of the people now in power might be at odds?

This one will be a hard one for a lot of Americans to get their minds around.  We have not yet reached a critical mass of either understanding or outrage.

[Balog]

Hanlon's Razor. I won't rule out malice, but I view stupidity as way more likely.

[Gewehr98]

I've said more than enough from my perspective.

We do what we do, for reasons that are obvious to some, not so obvious to others.

It sickens me to think that we've suddenly grown a conscience after all these years, thanks to Obama & Crew.

Had we known KSM would've talked with just a plate of milk and cookies in front of him, well...  

(LadySmith, you need not fear me nor my avatar.  You've already been through your own special kind of hell, too.)

[vaskidmark]

I guess it is my fate to remain perfused and complexed regarding the use of the term "torture by both youse guys (yinz if from Pittsburgh, all y'all if'n from the South) and the current administration.  It seems nobody can get beyond "enhanced interrogation."

I have known a few folks who were the receipents of what I consider to be torture, and until I met them I had considered some of the behaviors of my parents to be at least bordering on torture.  (No, I am not merely moaning about being grounded or spanked a tad vigorously.)  I do not consider any of the stuff mentioned so far to be torture, as all of it has a component that goes beyond the infliction of physical and/or psychic pain purely for the purpose of inflicting said pain.  Even what gw98 has thankfully declined to share in summary, let alone detail, seems to have had a purpose beyond the mere infliction of pain.

Maybe it is because of my experiences (personal and vicarious) that I am looking at the term differently from the vast majority of those discussing it.  If that's the case, I guess the best I can make of it is to be glad that youse guys (yinz, all y'all) have not learned that there may be a difference.

From my perspective, those who receive "enhanced interrogation" are for the most part those who self-select for the experience.  Some of those self-selecting in may be purposely attempting to waste the time and resources of our intelligence-gathering community, but by and large they also seem to self-select out of the expereience sooner rather than later - meaning that it is fairly easy to determine who has nothing to say as opposed to figuring out how to encourage someone with something to say to reveal that information.

As for the moral high gound-edness of enhanced interrogation - I'm just not sure that can be appropriately determined until we have a situation where a Bad Thing happens that we know for a certainty could have been prevented if we had found out about it before it happened.  I'm not willing to allow that to happen.  Some of you seem to be more willing to allow it to take place.

stay safe.

skidmark

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Remember, folks - if G98 ever comes into your house with a Neti Pot, run the other way. 

[Balog]

I suppose I just lack the moral courage to be utterly pragmatic. I'm sure torture can be very effective. I know for certain just killing all the damn Iraqis would be even more effective, but again there's that annoying morality thing. I really do think there needs to be a guide other than "Just do whatever you have to."

I have known a few folks who were the receipents of what I consider to be torture, and until I met them I had considered some of the behaviors of my parents to be at least bordering on torture.  (No, I am not merely moaning about being grounded or spanked a tad vigorously.)  I do not consider any of the stuff mentioned so far to be torture, as all of it has a component that goes beyond the infliction of physical and/or psychic pain purely for the purpose of inflicting said pain.  Even what gw98 has thankfully declined to share in summary, let alone detail, seems to have had a purpose beyond the mere infliction of pain.

Yeah, we had a guy in my unit a lot like that. He'd rationalized his Dad beating his ass as a good and normal thing. What was your point again? We can do anything we want, as long as we claim "it's for the greater good" or "weh ad no choice."

As for the moral high gound-edness of enhanced interrogation - I'm just not sure that can be appropriately determined until we have a situation where a Bad Thing happens that we know for a certainty could have been prevented if we had found out about it before it happened.  I'm not willing to allow that to happen.  Some of you seem to be more willing to allow it to take place.

Ever thought of what kind of fed.gov is bred from allowing torture? A hell of a lot more people have died from .gov saying "we just do what has to be done" than every terrorist attack (and every war fought with terrorist regimes). The cure can be worse than the illness.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

My observation is that the "torture is always wrong crowd" are mired in overly-bureaucratic thinking, the notion that everything has to be always one way or always the other way.  It relieves them of the burden of thinking critically about the particulars of the specific situation.  Much easier to mutter an unthinking platitude and pat yourself on the back for being right.

Truth is, circumstances matter. 

Killing someone can be either wrong or right.  It depends on the circumstances.  Likewise, inflicting pain one someone can be both wrong and right depending on the circumstances.  Heck, even doing nothing at all can be wrong or right, depending.

I think fistful hit upon a critical point.  There can be circumstances where torturing someone would be the right and moral thing to do.  Not following through with it in those circumstances would be immoral. 

[Balog]

Meh, some things really are always wrong. There is a difference between consensual sex and rape, which is where we agree. But you are saying rape is ok, in certain circumstances; in fact, given those magical circumstances it's the only moral thing to do! All killing is not wrong, but all murder is. All inflicting pain is not wrong, but all torture is.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Your sex example makes my point quite clearly.  It's a perfect example of how circumstances matter.  Sometimes sex is ok, sometimes it's immoral, it depends on the circumstances.

The circumstances determine whether a specific instance of sex is consensual vs rape.  Without considering those circumstances you cannot possibly form a proper judgment about whether it was right or wrong.

[Jamisjockey]

We all look back of the interment of Japanese during WWII as wrong, what's so different about this? 

[longeyes]

The people who become the targets of "torture" are people who probably know more than they fight.  It is therefore predictable that people who build their lives on "knowing" rather than fighting would find "hard interrogation" the most fearsome thing in the universe.  It is not the most moral people who rail most against torture, it is the most cerebral.

Even Hamlet, that most iconically western of men, used psychological torture--theater of cruelty--to trap his step-father and ended up with buckets of blood on his hands.

[Balog]

Your sex example makes my point quite clearly.  It's a perfect example of how circumstances matter.  Sometimes sex is ok, sometimes it's immoral, it depends on the circumstances.

The circumstances determine whether a specific instance of sex is consensual vs rape.  Without considering those circumstances you cannot possibly form a proper judgment about whether it was right or wrong.

Uh, no. Sex=inflicting harm. Torture=rape. Some things really are always wrong.

By the way, I notice the "Yay torture" crowd refuses to answer my simple question. Is there anything you would consider out of bounds to do to a (suspected) bad guy? Well heck, let's take rape. If your beating someone and hooking htem up to a car battery isn't working, it would be ok to rape the suspect if you thought it'd break their will enough for them to talk, right? Just gotta do whatever is necessary, and the ends justify the means, right? I find generally when you espouse a principal but aren't willing to actually follow it out to it's logical conclusion that says something.

[roo_ster]

By the way, I notice the "Yay torture" crowd refuses to answer my simple question. Is there anything you would consider out of bounds to do to a (suspected) bad guy?

[joe_pesci]You talkin' to me?![/joe_pesci]

I suspect you and I are on the same page, when it comes down to it.  I am willing to call no-bull torture out of bounds, period. 

If it were not, we would have to develop guidelines for the legal yanking of thumbnails, electroshocking of genitalia, rape by dogs, etc. and charge folks with executing the same.  No thanks, make that illegal and make it understood that not only are they out of bounds, but that we will not think less of men who refuse to do them in the gravest of extremes (the exact opposite of the disgusting John McCain expectation that the men in question will break the law). 

As for the new-fangled "torture," that defines anything more vigorous than harsh language as "torture," I do not cede the point that sleep dep, WB, what-have-you is torture as practiced by our folks IAW DOJ guidelines as described in the latest document dump.

[roo_ster]

We all look back of the interment of Japanese during WWII as wrong, what's so different about this? 

That thing about assumptions....

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Internment-Round-Up-Americas-Terror/dp/0895260514/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240689375&sr=1-2

Product Description
This diligently documented book shows that neither the internment of ethnic Japanese--not to mention ethnic Germans and Italians--nor the relocation and evacuation of Japanese Americans from the West Coast were the result of war hysteria or race prejudice as historians have taught us.

From the Publisher
Everything you've been taught about the World War II "internment camps" in America is wrong:
- They were not created primarily because of racism or wartime hysteria
- They did not target only those of Japanese descent
- They were not Nazi-style death camps

In her latest investigative tour-de-force, New York Times best-selling author Michelle Malkin sets the historical record straight-and debunks radical ethnic alarmists who distort history to undermine common-sense, national security profiling. The need for this myth-shattering book is vital. President Bush's opponents have attacked every homeland defense policy as tantamount to the "racist" and "unjustified" World War II internment. Bush's own transportation secretary, Norm Mineta, continues to milk his childhood experience at a relocation camp as an excuse to ban profiling at airports. Misguided guilt about the past continues to hamper our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks. In Defense of Internment shows that the detention of enemy aliens, and the mass evacuation and relocation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast were not the result of irrational hatred or conspiratorial bigotry. This document-packed book highlights the vast amount of intelligence, including top-secret "MAGIC" messages, which revealed the Japanese espionage threat on the West Coast. Malkin also tells the truth about:
- who resided in enemy alien internment camps (nearly half were of European ancestry)
- what the West Coast relocation centers were really like (tens of thousands of ethnic Japanese were allowed to leave; hundreds voluntarily chose to move in)

I have also found that those of Philippine heritage are not so sympathetic to the tale of woe that is the usual for this topic.

[Perd Hapley]

Sex=inflicting harm.

ur doin it rong   

[Balog]

[joe_pesci]You talkin' to me?![/joe_pesci]

I suspect you and I are on the same page, when it comes down to it.  I am willing to call no-bull torture out of bounds, period. 

If it were not, we would have to develop guidelines for the legal yanking of thumbnails, electroshocking of genitalia, rape by dogs, etc. and charge folks with executing the same.  No thanks, make that illegal and make it understood that not only are they out of bounds, but that we will not think less of men who refuse to do them in the gravest of extremes (the exact opposite of the disgusting John McCain expectation that the men in question will break the law). 

As for the new-fangled "torture," that defines anything more vigorous than harsh language as "torture," I do not cede the point that sleep dep, WB, what-have-you is torture as practiced by our folks IAW DOJ guidelines as described in the latest document dump.

Yeah, I wasn't talking to you.

ur doin it rong  

Or right; you're just not sex-positive enough. 

Also, answer the question shifty.

[Perd Hapley]

Shifty yourself.  Did you ever consider I had better things to do, and just quit reading the thread before you asked the question? 

You haven't understood what I've tried to say thus far, so I shouldn't bother.  But to repeat myself, I only approve of torture in cases where the "detainee" is essentially holding a gun to someone's head.  Given that, if you're confronting someone with a gun to the head of an innocent person, what would you consider out of bounds?  If, in some bizarre way, you could take down the bad guy by inserting a red hot poker into a major orifice, zapping his man-parts with voltage and chopping off his ears, while having rats gnaw off his face, would you do so? 

Tell me how far you'd go to stop someone from killing an innocent person, and that's probably how far I'd go, too. 

[longeyes]

The real issue, with the civilized world under hammer and tong from so many angles, is why "torture" would become such an obsessive concern, throwing far more repercussive issues into the shadows.  My answer to that is simple: it is the Left's way of demoralizing the American people and discrediting our entire set of values while simultaneously distracting us from their real agenda.

We had better get our true priorities in focus.  Soon.

[Balog]

Shifty yourself.  Did you ever consider I had better things to do, and just quit reading the thread before you asked the question? 

You haven't understood what I've tried to say thus far, so I shouldn't bother.  But to repeat myself, I only approve of torture in cases where the "detainee" is essentially holding a gun to someone's head.  Given that, if you're confronting someone with a gun to the head of an innocent person, what would you consider out of bounds?  If, in some bizarre way, you could take down the bad guy by inserting a red hot poker into a major orifice, zapping his man-parts with voltage and chopping off his ears, while having rats gnaw off his face, would you do so? 

Tell me how far you'd go to stop someone from killing an innocent person, and that's probably how far I'd go, too. 

I understand you, I just disagree. And I think there needs to be a basis for our actions aside from just "what will accomplish the results we want?"

[Perd Hapley]

You don't understand at all what I'm saying, as your last statement proves.  What I'm saying is, if we can taze a person just to stop them from resisting arrest, or we can kill someone to keep them from harming someone else, then torture is acceptable in some very limited cases.  Torture doesn't need to be justified by some new set of principles, nor is it a case of the ends justifying the means.  Rather, it is already rendered acceptable and even morally required, by principles which are already well-established. at least by those of us who approve the use of force under the usual circumstances. 

[Monkeyleg]

Putting the arguments aside for a moment, does what GW98 said mean that he's going to be prosecuted by the Obama administration?

[Gewehr98]

From what I understand so far, they're going after the Bush-era policy makers only. 

I don't know how much of a circus Obama & Crew want to make of this, but that could change.

It would be interesting to see the administration prosecute all of the actors, from the DCI down to the Gitmo guards. 

It would make the Nuremberg trials look like a walk in the park, and how would one seal testimony to protect classified methods and sources on something so wide-scale? Even prosecuting just a few Bush-era legal hacks will be bad enough.

Methinks they'll scapegoat a few members of the Bush legal team to assuage their collective consciences, and then feel justified enough with that to go no further.

I could be wrong, and have been before.  Regardless, I'm holding off on calling my buddies in Air Staff for RUMINT until CNN tells me otherwise.