home

CIA Interrogator Comes Forward: Used Waterboarding, Says It's Torture

Meet former CIA Agent John Kiriakou. He's come out to ABC News, admitting he's the one who waterboarded Abu Zubaydah (background here.) He tells ABC that Zubaydah "broke in less than 35 seconds," and that yes, water-boarding is torture.

"We're Americans, and we're better than this. And we shouldn't be doing this kinda thing," he said.

< Preacher Huckabee | N.J. Senate Votes to Abolish the Death Penalty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    How long before he's smeared? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by rdandrea on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 07:35:15 PM EST
    n/t

    Great (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by ctrenta on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:24:31 AM EST

    Now Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other NGOs will be all over our country's ass now. So much for land of the free, home of the brave, and justice for all.

    There is nothing (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:37:48 AM EST
    we can do, or could have done, or should have done to prevent these various groups from doing what they do, which is complain.

    In the meantime, rest assured that the sun will continue to rise and your life will not be impacted one iota.

    Parent

    Those groups also "complain".... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    an awful lot about the practices of fundamentalist muslim governments that you and I abhor.

    One could say the are consistent in their "complaining" about human rights abuses throughout the world.  And sun god bless them for it.

    Parent

    And they do absolutely (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:31:39 PM EST
    no good in the "rest" of the world.

    Parent
    Not So Bad? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by john horse on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:42:23 PM EST
    If you say that waterboarding isn't torture but just another interrogation technique then you are allowing foreign governments to waterboard American POWs and American citizens accused of crimes.  You can't have it both ways.  If it is not so bad when our government does it then it is also not so bad when foreign governments do it to Americans.

    not a problem (none / 0) (#76)
    by wumhenry on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:24:58 AM EST
    OK by me if foreign governments waterboard American terrorists to get information with which to prevent further acts of terrorism.

    Parent
    Did you enjoy it? (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:20:40 PM EST


    I (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Claw on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:34:06 AM EST
    Wonder if torture apologists ever step back and look at what they're defending.  Have we sunk this low?  We're having a serious national debate on just how brutal we can be to prisoners.  Anything that gets a hardliner to provide info (or anything to stop the pain) within a matter of seconds is presumptively torture.  The onus is definitely on the other side to prove it isn't.  If your best argument is the ol' organ failure line or a list of Jack Bauer scenarios, you probably can't be reasoned with.

    They do. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:36:07 PM EST
    It's hard, but they like it that way. It gets their hormones all fizzy.

    Parent
    This Guy Is A Liar (4.66 / 3) (#2)
    by john horse on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 07:39:55 PM EST
    This guy is a liar (sarcasm alert).  I know this because the President said that we don't use torture.  The CIA said that we don't condone or conduct torture.  What other explanation can there be for the contradiction between what he says and what they said?

    According to Kiriakou

    "Each one of these steps, even though they're minor steps, like the intention shake, or the open-handed belly slap, each one of these had to have the approval of the deputy director for operations," Kiriakou told ABC News.

    "The cable traffic back and forth was extremely specific," he said. "And the bottom line was these were very unusual authorities that the agency got after 9/11. No one wanted to mess them up. No one wanted to get in trouble by going overboard. So it was extremely deliberate."

    I'm sure that the Bush administration wants to release these cables as quickly as possible in order to show that there isn't an ounce of truth to his allegations.

     

    If they do (2.50 / 2) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:06:04 PM EST
    you will see an approval bounce from the country.

    Why? Because people will also read this:

    "A former colleague of mine asked him during the conversation one day, `What would you do if we decided to let you go one day?' And he said, `I would kill every American and Jew I could get my hands on...It's nothing personal. You're a nice guy. But this is who I am.'"


    Parent
    I think it's time (4.00 / 4) (#3)
    by scribe on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 08:24:01 PM EST
    for AG Mukasey to come back before the SJC and answer the questions he dodged during his confirmation.

    But We (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 08:55:07 PM EST
    Won't hold our breath.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#11)
    by ctrenta on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:22:44 AM EST

    We really are living in 1984 now!

    Parent
    Moral dilemma (3.66 / 3) (#18)
    by Natal on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:57:41 AM EST
    It's a moral dilemma for this country. It could potentially divide the country like no other issue including abortion.

    There is nothing moral about torture. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 01:46:57 PM EST
    But really I don't see a moral dilemma. (3.67 / 3) (#22)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:50:07 AM EST
    The people who order and do torture should be charged with and convicted of war crimes, locked up... and treated better then the prisoners they have been torturing.

    U.S. Code: CHAPTER 113C--TORTURE

    Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody
    ..........................
    This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like
    Bottom line: Not only do waterboarding and the other types of torture currently being debated put us in company with the most vile regimes of the past half-century
    ...
    These photos are important because most of us have never seen an actual, real-life waterboard. The press typically describes it in the most anodyne ways: a device meant to "simulate drowning" or to "make the prisoner believe he might drown." But the Khymer Rouge were no jokesters, and they didn't tailor their abuse to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. They-- like so many brutal regimes--made waterboarding one of their primary tools for a simple reason: it is one of the most viciously effective forms of torture ever devised.


    Parent
    Imminent attacks (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Natal on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    He said many imminent attacks were thwarted through obtaining information with water boarding. Is it true or not? Were lives saved? If it were true that would be the dilemma. Information should be available documenting these supposed imminent attacks. Personally, I don't believe him.

    Parent
    Don't hold your breath (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    I suspect the claimed thwarted attacks wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.

    Parent
    Maybe I missed it (1.00 / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:03:18 AM EST
    but I did not read the word "imminent" in the transcripts.

    Perhaps you can show it to me.

    You can also look here.

    What he said:

    BRIAN ROSS: So in your view the water boarding broke him.
    JOHN: I think it did, yes.
    BRIAN ROSS: And did it make a difference in terms of--
    JOHN: It did. The threat information that he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.
    BRIAN ROSS: No doubt about that? That's not some--
    JOHN: No doubt.
    BRIAN ROSS: --hype?
    JOHN: No, no question. No question. The reporting-- I remember reading the reporting, and it was dramatic when it first started coming in. Now,of course, a lot of that was time-sensitive. So after a period of time he wasn't to-- to provide any real actionable information, any information that you could use to disrupt an attack. But what he was able to provide was information on the al Qaeda leadership. For example-- if bin Laden were to do X-- who would be the person to undertake such a-- such an operation? "Oh, logically that would be Mr. Y." And we were able to use that information to kind of get an idea of.....

    Now you can pretend to not believe the importance of this. You can say the guy was lying.

    But let's deal from what he said. Not what you want him to have said.

    Parent

    Yes. (3.66 / 3) (#25)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    And even if it were true, which I also do not believe, since when are terrorist's actions the guideline for determining morality? Except in the looking glass world of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the disgustingly self-respectless obsequious ingratiation of their acolytes and supporters?

    Parent
    Potentially divide the country? (3.66 / 3) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:16:30 AM EST
    It already has.

    Into human beings... and the morally bankrupt and  intellectually retarded 24 percenters who still try to excuse and support George Bush and Dick Cheney and torture.

    Some people have said to me 'I don't trust anyone who claims to know the truth.'  My response is that some truths are complicated and some truths are simple.  It's no great horror to know the simple truth when you see it.  Torture is an abomination, dropping bombs on babies is an outrage, people deserve healthcare and good treatment, and lying to the people is no way to run a democracy.  All of these things are true.

    One does not compromise with Straussians, neocons, chickenhawks or clueless bastards.  People who still support George W. Bush, torture and war profiteering at this late stage of human history are beyond reason or persuasion.  There is no point whatsoever in worrying about how such people see things, what they might say, or how they might characterize our actions or arguments.  These people should not be appeased or wooed, they should be marginalized and driven back under the rocks from which they have slithered.

    -- No Time Left To Compromise With Evil

    Parent
    Be glad others protect your precious (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:35:37 PM EST
    behind.

    John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse."

    "A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."



    Parent
    Yeah ... (1.00 / 2) (#28)
    by wumhenry on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    In this corner we have a bunch of sanctimonious nice nellies and moral poseurs who are pleased as punch that they, in particular, weren't blown up by the bombs that would've been set if Zubaydah hadn't broken after 35 seconds of waterboarding but who want the world to know that they would never have done any such thing under any circumstances and will scream for John Kiriakou's head on a platter.  And in the other corner we have the silent majority.

    Parent
    and in the other corner (4.20 / 5) (#30)
    by Jen M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:14:03 PM EST
    People who find Amreican laws, traditions, morals and ethics to be horribly inconvenient and want to get rid of them.

    Plus, they loath freedoms and are doing everything humanly possible to take them away from themselves and their children.  

    Because freedom is so unbearable.

    Parent

    When you start by name calling (4.20 / 5) (#39)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:05:31 PM EST
    You aren't going to persuade a lot of people. Of course, it could be, you weren't interested in a reasoned discussion. You post is awfully sanctimonious for one decrying sanctimonious behavior.

    You also assume facts which have not been established. Its been alleged that Zubaydah hadn't been broken bombs would have been set off. Evidence for this proposition (other than Bush said so)?

    What makes you think the silent majority likes torture or thinks it is a good thing, Milhous? Assuming there is a silent majority, we don't know what they think- they have been silent. I would hope the majority of our citizens like our American values and traditions. Why don't you?  

    Parent

    Your turn (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:27:22 PM EST
    Prove that the bombs wouldn't have gone off.

    Of course the fact is you can't prove anything because you don't know anything and have no facts on anything.

    On the other hand we have a gaggle of radical Moslems all dedicated to killing us and doing such things as beheading people on TV.

    Parent

    Help us out (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:46:39 PM EST
    Prove that the bombs wouldn't have gone off.

    Just so we know what to provide to you, what would you accept as proof of that?

    Parent

    I'll let you know (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:59:37 PM EST
    Your turn.

    Parent
    Thanks for confirming (4.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:25:10 AM EST
    that no form of evidence would satisfy you.  If I ask for evidence of something, I can always give you an example of evidence that would satisfy me.

    You ask for evidence that something DIDN'T happen, but since proving a negative is impossible, you don't know what the evidence you would accept would be.  

    I knew you were logically deficient, but making you admit it is SUH-WEEEEET!

    Parent

    If someone asks me to prove something (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:06:55 PM EST
    I answer with what I see as proof.

    I don't answer with a question.

    You did.

    But I understand that you are serious, just trolling. No problem.

    Your turn.

    Parent

    It must be a day (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:45:59 PM EST
    for candid, embarrassing confessions on your part.

    But I understand that you are serious, just trolling.

    When you admit that I am serious and you are "just trolling," SUH-WEEET doesn't seem adequate as a celebration of your embarrassment.

    Wait.  I have an official NFL football.  Be right back.

    ...

    Went out in the back yard and spiked it.

    Parent

    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    Parsing becomes you.

    The subject of the sentence:


    But I understand that you are serious, just trolling.

    That means you be the troll.

    hehe

    Parent

    Silly, one doesn't prove a negative (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:14:46 PM EST
    What a stoopid comment. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by glanton on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    Of course it is not upon us to "prove" their claim false.  

    They are the ones making a pretty enormous claim, what with bombs going off and all.   Even if they didn't have the credbility problems they have, the enormity of the claim demands they be able to substantiate it.  

    Which of course they cannot.  Nor do they need to for you to nod along.  

    Ahh, troglodytes: without thee, where would the ruling classes throughout history have ever been?

    Parent

    hehe (3.00 / 2) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:28:39 PM EST
    The proof as they say, is in the pudding... or the lack of the explosions..

    You are invested in BDS and America Bad, therefore anything that sheds some positive light on what and why things are done must be rejected.

    I have provided you a link and two transcripts of an interview with a man who was there. Since he says things you, and the Left, doesn't like you try to change what he said... see the "imminent attack" fake description by Natal... If you don't believe, go to the ABC transcript links and search them.... You can also see Molly's attempt at flipping Diogenes comment so it becomes a middle school debate about what the guy said....

    Unfortunately, the truth comes through... We have waterboarded two evil men and they broke.. If that has insulted your, or anyone's, code of honor, then be insulted. I hope that we do it again, the same way, if we have to.

    BTW - Go read the transcripts to see the control, the caution used to insure it was necessary and not just something someone just wanted to do.

    After you have done that, then go back and review what I said about the casual acts of the guards at Abu Gharid... They were... investigate, charge, try and if convicted, punish. Not because I regarded all of what they did as "torture," but because it was done for the ego/enjoyment/whatever of the guards. To me it is the difference between a lynching and a trial and execution.

    Parent

    If the polls of likley voters are any indication (none / 0) (#43)
    by Rojas on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:10:00 PM EST
    it's a slam dunk that Americans are just fine with it.
    Hillary is in favor of using tortue and the polls have her at 55%. One must allow that this data point does not consider the fact that some may be ignorant of her position.
    However this is one policy area in wich she actualy does have some experience from her term as co-president. Of course being sensitive to those who detested the tortue, they treated it with much more decorum. They opted to give the tortuers a cash bonus in lue of medals.

    Parent
    I'm not fond of HRC's positions but (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:18:46 PM EST
    this is excessive. The fact she voted for the war, doesn't tend to prove she favors torture. You have a credible link showing she favors torture? Likewise the fact that she is polling at 55% doesn't mean that 55% supports torture either. You are using tortuous logic.

    Parent
    "Alas, poor country! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Rojas on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:30:55 AM EST
    Almost afraid to know itself."


    There is no question that what we did at Waco was torture. We specifically targeted infants and children. We located them with electronic monitors, drove the tank right up to the room where they had sought shelter and dumped  the entire load.
    That these actions likely resuted in the death by suffocation of those children is not something we talk about in polite company.
    Nor do we worry much about orders from the DOJ to shut down after action reviews because they are generating Brady material. After all this was our administration, a Democtatic administation, and as they explained, it's just "Prosecution 101".


    Parent

    Shakesphere becomes you (1.00 / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:13:56 PM EST
    links (none / 0) (#68)
    by Rojas on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:32:28 AM EST
    www.nydailynews.com/news/2006/10/16/2006-10-16_mccain_team_mocks_hil_torture_loophole.html

    Parent
    Your Source appears to be wrong (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:46:11 AM EST
    Please Don't make me defend HRC. Here from the horse's mouth (pardon the expression)

    Parent
    Appears to be a direct quote (none / 0) (#70)
    by Rojas on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:02:48 AM EST
    "If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," Clinton said in a phone interview Friday, expanding on comments to the Daily News Editorial Board.

    Parent
    Appears seems to be the key (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:27:16 AM EST
    Mine iS a direct quote

    Parent
    Appears she was for it..... (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Rojas on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:09:05 AM EST
    and now she claims she's against it. Imagine that, seems one really can be a part time virgin.

    You asked for a credible source and I gave it. If you have some evidence that the source is not credible I'd apreciate that.  

    As I said before, what the clintons did at Waco was torture and a crime against humanity. Absolutly no question about that.
    And it's the clintons who started the CIA rendition program, the outsourcing of torture. It's their baby and their bath water, swim in if you choose.

    Parent

    What? (3.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 09:09:15 PM EST
    PowerBlind hasn't posted their talking points on this yet? This must be torture for them....

    I watched the video a couple times, and (4.20 / 5) (#16)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:35:00 AM EST
    it reeks of "insta-declassification" and being WH-provided spin.
    The handsome, earnest, experienced professional says:
    1. "we knew he had information"
    2. "nothing had worked"
    3. "he lasted a long time"
    4. "we only had to do it once"
    5. "he cooperated fully thereafter"

    And, he sells being deeply troubled by it, but that it was necessary.

    He implies it was professionally, almost surgically done, last resort, all the rest.

    And, oh, yeah.  He gave up information and prevented attacks.

    Every last one of these lines has been one of the propaganda lines supporting (or at least defending) the known use of torture by the USG.

    Powerline doesn't have to be spouting the Republican party line when ABC will provide a bigger, allegedly "unbiased" platform.  And the WH doesn't have to comment on the revelation of top secret material (Remember, they want to keep their captives from talking to their lawyers because their treatment is, um, top secret) when they're behind it.  If this propaganda works, they won't ever say anything.  If it doesn't, they can condemn the agent for leaking, but will never prosecute him for violating his security oath, clearance, or the law.

    Watch.

    Parent

    I gotta agree... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:45:17 PM EST
    w/scribe on this. Bullseye.

    Parent
    A transparent attempt (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:35:12 AM EST
    to somehow get Bush and Cheney off the hook, as was the leak of Pelosi at al being briefed on waterboarding.

    Parent
    Pelos et al... (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:09:02 PM EST
    No matter the motive, you are now treated to another example of the hypocrisy of the Demo leaders.

    By their silence they prove that they know that the actions taken were necessary and right. By their condemnations to their base they prove that all they are about is politics.

    Really, edger. How can you stand to be associated with such???

    Parent

    waterboarding (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by diogenes on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    If this guy is so honest, and if he says that 35 seconds of waterboarding produced valuable information, why do you all believe his assessment that waterboarding is torture and not his assessment that the information obtained was highly timely and valuable?

    Better Yet (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:26:02 AM EST
    Why do you believe him when he says water-boarding produced valuable information, but don't believe him when he says water-boarding is torture?

    The latter he has first hand knowledge and experience with. The former? We don't know what his belief is based upon. You would have to know what information was extracted and what was done with the information. He may have all of the requisite knowledge and personally stopped or disrupted all these alleged attacks, then again, he may not. We don't know, he hasn't said. I doubt he personally oversaw the response to all the information he extracted by torture. And if he feels it was torture, I suspect (but admittedly do not know) he feels better believing it accomplished something.

    Parent

    heh (1.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:34:51 AM EST
    Why do you believe him when he says water-boarding produced valuable information, but don't believe him when he says water-boarding is torture?

    Your point is sophomoric in the extreme. It wasn't his job to use the information, but to obtain it.

    I suppose that when you find out the price of a car you also build it??

    Parent

    It doesn't surprise me you missed the point (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:21:56 AM EST
    The only question is whether it was deliberately or obtusely. I never can tell with you. Sometimes I think  you really are that obtuse, other times I desperately want to believe no-one is that obtuse and after all you are a man who can convince himself that torture is not torture and is OK. Your problem is you can't convince anyone else who hasn't drunk the Jim Jones' Guyana special  flavored drink.

     

    Parent

    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:21:30 PM EST
    The answer is that your comment was sophomoric.

    The guy's job was to obtain information, not act on it.

    Again: After you find out the price of a car do tou also build it??

    Parent

    Double Standared (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Jen M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:44:37 PM EST
    waterboarding (1.00 / 2) (#6)
    by diogenes on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 10:01:54 PM EST

    If this guy is so honest, and if he says that 35 seconds of waterboarding produced valuable information, why do you all believe his assessment that waterboarding is torture and not his assessment that the information obtained was highly timely and valuable?

    Jimakappk did not call this sophmoric.

    Double standard.

    He will, of course, answer this post with complete segue into somthing nonsensical. If he answers at all. Best if he don't

    Parent

    Really?? (3.00 / 2) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:30:06 PM EST
    Because diogenes was quoting what the man said.

    Molly was just flipping it as if she was in the tenth grade. Form and scoring points is nice in class. In the real world accuracy and truth is more important.

    I hope this helps in your education.

    BTW - This is the type of person you are so concerned about protecting, and doing the type of thing he considers "right."

    Friends and classmates of a 16-year-old girl who police say was murdered by her devout Muslim father in a Toronto suburb told local media Tuesday she was killed for not wearing a hijab.

    Link

    Ranks right up there with the hanging of rape victims.

    Parent

    as predicted. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Jen M on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:06:11 AM EST
    double standard. Tea in China.

    Parent
    No and a try (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    If you can not see Molly using a very old technique to switch a point... well, you can't....I understand that is just who you are.

    You love EVERYBODY except those who are trying to protect you.

    And yes Jen, there is true evil in the world. There are people who would cheerfully do things to you that you can not even imagine.

    Parent

    I've seen some of it (4.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Jen M on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:26:01 AM EST
    "And yes Jen, there is true evil in the world. There are people who would cheerfully do things to you that you can not even imagine. "

    So naturally, you want us to become just like them. Because you think that the way to confront evil is to become evil.

    Parent

    some folks need to heed (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:29:05 PM EST
    "He who who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."


    Parent
    And he who does not (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:47:59 PM EST
    is destroyed by the Monster.

    I'll take my chance on who I become...

    Parent

    No said not to fight the monster (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:52:35 AM EST
    The question is how and the point is not to become the monster. Reading is fundamental.

    Parent
    I think evil does evil (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:46:25 PM EST
    And yes, I would destroy those who would harm others.

    BION, when the lamb lies down with the lion, the lion has dinner.

    Parent

    Do we hang him before or after the trial? (3.66 / 3) (#72)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:34:16 AM EST
    Should there be a trial? Is evidence necessary? How about if the we get the Dear Leader to make a video appearance at trial and he tells us that the guy is guilty.

    Is physical abuse Ok if the guy is guilty, but not Ok if the guy is innocent?

    Are only innocent people's rights worth protecting? Are you really this clueless about our justice system?

    Parent

    We are not talking about a trial (3.00 / 2) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    I mean where have you been???

    We are talking about obtaining information from a stone cold admitted killer who is engaged in a war on Israel and us because we have supported Israel.

    So try and concentrate and see the difference between a Quicke Mart robber and a terrorist.


    Parent

    Don't complain to me about what you wrote (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:54:23 AM EST
    Your exact quote:
    BTW - This is the type of person you are so concerned about protecting, and doing the type of thing he considers "right."

    Friends and classmates of a 16-year-old girl who police say was murdered by her devout Muslim father in a Toronto suburb told local media Tuesday she was killed for not wearing a hijab.

    Is physical abuse Ok when you "know" you are dealing with "a stone cold admitted killer?" When and under what circumstances did he admit to being a "killer"?

    Your answer seems to be yes.

    Is physical abuse Ok when you don't know, but "reasonably believe" you are dealing with "a stone cold killer?"

    If your answer is no, what is the difference between the two? And when is it Ok to use physical abuse to prove you are dealing "a stone cold (and soon to be admitted- soon as you are done with the enhanced interrogation techniques) killer ?"

    We see what you have become, the question is do you?

    Parent

    Nice try at reframing (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:58:49 PM EST
    But it won't work.

    This is not about a trial. The comment was to demonstrate to Jen M some of the traits that radical Moslems exhibit, such as killing female family members who bring dishonor on the family. It is called "honor killings" and is quite widely practiced in many places in the Moslem world.

    Tell you what. You keep on worrying about people who kill their 16 year old daughters and people we know who are terrorists....

    And I will continue to worry about the 16 year old daughters and the victims of the terrorists.

    To each their own, I guess. But I know I will like me better for my choice.

    Parent

    Right now I am worried about our American values (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:02:58 PM EST
    and way of life and those who who foolishly and cavalierly throw it all away.

    You are just a step away from those who commit honor killings. Just a few more steps and you will be their equal.

    You are ready to commit physical violence against any person you perceive to be a "radical Moslem. "

    How are you different than they are? Because "they behead" and you "only water-board?"

    Congratulations. You have dishonored the US by refusing to stand up for our values. In the process you throw logic out the window and  soon will be as immoral as any radical terrorist.

    Parent

    Fool me again, please (4.33 / 6) (#8)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:39:42 PM EST
    why do you all believe his assessment that waterboarding is torture and not his assessment that the information obtained was highly timely and valuable?

    Because after you catch these guys lying EVERY TIME for years, there is no longer any reason to believe them if they say the sun comes up in the east.

    Because torture is torture, even if it's only, say ten or fifteen seconds of the car battery attached to your genitals.

    Because I am a patriotic American and a military veteran and I want any American who has tortured even the most despicable terrorist scum to do hard prison time.  Years and years of hard time.

    Because George W. Bush has no business advancing Al Qaeda's interests by torturing people.  I believe that the administration should work on our behalf, not on behalf of terrorists.

    Unfortunately, George W. Bush works harder on Osama's behalf than he does on behalf of the United States, and sadism is just one of the symptoms of his sociopathic depravity.  This must be the first time in American history that a president openly supported our enemies at the expense of our own country.

    Parent

    No one has to fool you (2.00 / 4) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:27:02 AM EST
    You have done that to yourself. And a you have done a very good job.

    Parent
    You don't mind (4.42 / 7) (#23)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    that the president advances the cause of terrorists by torturing people.  You have a First Amendment right to that treasonous, disgusting opinion.

    I am offended to the deepest part of my soul by this anti-American, sadistic, and useless activity.

    We'll have to agree to disagree.

    Parent

    I don't believe it was (4.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Jen M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:15:25 AM EST
    just 35 seconds of waterboarding. One of the USA's official torturers conveniently left out what other things they were doing to the terrorist suspect at the same time.

    Torturers aren't believable witneses, even if they are one of the USA's official torturers. Let them go play at being human elsewhere.

    Ok, so he admits waterboarding is torture. He's capable of stating the glaringly obvious.  How nice for him.  Any other breaking news from him? Rain is wet? Dogs sniff things? Georgia has funny red dirt?

    Parent

    He also said this (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    "What happens if we don't waterboard a person, and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack," Kiriakou said. "I would have trouble forgiving myself."



    Parent
    Who said anyone didn't believe his assessment? (3.66 / 3) (#9)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:04:53 AM EST
    Quote someone. It'll be better for your reputation than lying.

    Parent
    Because that is what they do. (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:09:43 PM EST
    They can't help it.

    Now let me see.... thirty five seconds...

    Yep. That's bad. No doubt about it. Yessir. Absolutely. Wow.

    Really... That long??

    For strangers wandering by... Sarcasm Alert!!

    Parent

    let's re-phrase the question (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by wumhenry on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    for the nice nellies among us.
    New question: are you sure that John Kiriakou is lying or mistaken in saying that "a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks" were prevented thanks to the information that Zubaydah divulged after 35 seconds of waterboarding?
    Follow-on question: if you were in charge of interrogating a stonewalling al Quaeda kingpin who undoubtably is privy to information that could be used to prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks, would you try waterboarding on him if all non-coercive techniques failed? If you elected not to and 1,000 civilians were subsequently killed by bomb attacks that could have been prevented by information you might have extracted from the prisoner, would you feel good about yourself?  I.e., do you think that letting 1,000 innocent people be killed is an acceptable trade-off for avoiding the onus of subjecting a terrorist kingpin to coercion?

    Its a torturer (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Jen M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    It has nothing of interest to say.

    I'd rather listen to a pedophile.

    Just hand me the drugs over there.

    Parent

    Agreed, and well said (none / 0) (#88)
    by glanton on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    At least many pedophiles acknowledge they are sick and should not be let loose in the society at large.

    Moreover, it's an interesting comparison with regards to those pedophiles who think there is no problem with their actions.  Consider the efforts of NAMBLA and other organizations to use lawyers to obfuscate the actions in question.

    Bybee types are guilty of capital crimes and should be prosecuted and punished as such.

    Parent

    My, (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by syinco on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    It certainly was gallant of our CIA agent to risk sacrificing himself. In his words, he tortured. But let's not get hung up on words. Maybe a legal inquiry will find differently, maybe not; this and any resultant proceedings are consequences he should now face, right?

    And perhaps as a result he goes to prison for a while. Impinging one person's life so; surely it's an acceptable tradeoff for having saved 1,000 lives. Quite courageous of our CIA agent to have made such a decision. Thank god he knew that his actions would save all those lives. Must have made that whole self-sacrifice bit, that agonizing decision, a bit easier to swallow. Imagine how hard it would've been if he'd only vaguely suspected some sort of 'useful information'. Imagine if he'd been wrong entirely ...

    Parent

    I really don't care (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Jen M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:31:15 PM EST
    what it thought.

    Parent
    I think that was sarcasm (none / 0) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:58:56 PM EST
    just a wee bit ... n/t (none / 0) (#40)
    by syinco on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:06:52 PM EST
    oops (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jen M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    Not syinco, you know better (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:57:01 PM EST
    when you write, even as sarcasm, this:

    Quite courageous of our CIA agent to have made such a decision.

    That is just wrong.

    Interview transcript from American Futue.

    The former intelligence officer says the interrogators' activities were carefully directed from Langley, Va., each step of the way.

    "It wasn't up to individual interrogators to decide, `Well, I'm gonna slap him.' Or, `I'm going to shake him.' Or, `I'm gonna make him stay up for 48 hours.'

    "Each one of these steps, even though they're minor steps, like the intention shake, or the open-handed belly slap, each one of these had to have the approval of the deputy director for operations," Kiriakou told ABC News.

    "The cable traffic back and forth was extremely specific," he said. "And the bottom line was these were very unusual authorities that the agency got after 9/11. No one wanted to mess them up. No one wanted to get in trouble by going overboard. So it was extremely deliberate."

    And it was always a last resort.

    He also made this point.

    "That's why so few people were waterboarded. I think the agency has said that two people were waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah being one, and it's because you really wanted it to be a last resort because we didn't want these false confessions. We didn't want wild goose chases," Kiriakou said.

    And they were faced with men like Abu Zubaydah, Kiriakou says, who held critical and timely intelligence.

    "A former colleague of mine asked him during the conversation one day, `What would you do if we decided to let you go one day?' And he said, `I would kill every American and Jew I could get my hands on...It's nothing personal. You're a nice guy. But this is who I am.'"

    In that context, at that time, Kiriakou says he felt waterboarding was something the United States needed to do.



    Parent
    You're right, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by syinco on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:30:33 PM EST
    I'm playing a little loose with things.

    I admit I'm mingling the purported facts with the additional premises provided to us by our friend wumhenry, for the sake of argument.

    You could then, with that understanding, if you prefer, substitute our CIA agent's higher-ups in his stead.

    Parent

    Nope, that dog doesn't hunt (3.00 / 2) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:12:26 PM EST
    There is no courage here, and you know it.

    What we had was a very deliberate series of actions under tight control to capture a key terrorist and then interrogate him.

    We can argue about waterboarding if we want. I don't see it as torture, you do. But in the end...

    JOHN: But like a lot of Americans, I think I-- I'm involved in this-- this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that water-boarding may be torture, versus the quality of information that we-- that we often get after using the water-boarding technique. And I struggle with it, I think like a lot of people do, where like I said earlier, we're Americans and we're better than this. And we shouldn't be doing this kinda thing. But at the same time, what happens if we don't water-board a person and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack on a-- on a movie theater or a shopping mall or-- or in midtown Manhattan, you know, at rush hour? Then-- then what do we do? I-- I would have trouble forgiving myself.

    The issue was, and is simply this. Is waterboarding someone who we sincerely believe to have information that will save American lives, perhaps thousands, the moral thing to do?

    I say it is, because to NOT take actions to save lives is a sin of omission. Their blood would be on our hands.

    And, as I did in our last discussion on this, I agree that it is a narrow path and one that must be constantly supervised, as these were.

    Parent

    Not quite, Jim (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by syinco on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:57:05 PM EST
    There is no courage here, and you know it.

    Again, sarcasm. With a purpose. Purpose served, I think.

    The issue was, and is simply this. Is waterboarding someone who we sincerely believe to have information that will save American lives, perhaps thousands, the moral thing to do?

    Close. Change "we sincerely believe to have" to "we believe may have", change "that will save" to "that may save", and change "the moral thing" to "the morally and/or legally appropriate thing" - then I'll agree that that is the issue.  Maybe not the only issue, but one that I think is going to be much more useful to discuss. Your proposition is just a special case of it that can be attended to generally or specifically.

    You might see my last post to wumhenry. Note that my series of posts was not intended to speak to the particular case that introduced this thread, but rather to object to what I think is a disingenuous way of trying to frame the debate.

    Parent

    Jim no doubt sincerely believes a lot of things (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:07:11 PM EST
    and if he is wrong, these things happen, c'est la guerre!

    Parent
    Nope (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:27:44 AM EST
    Now, the end result may be that your information is wrong.

    But unless you believe, you shouldn't act. So no qualifiers, no hedging.

    Parent

    Necessary vs. sufficient conditions. (none / 0) (#123)
    by syinco on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:37:47 AM EST
    But unless you believe, you shouldn't act.

    Unless who believes?
    Believes what?
    How "sincerely"?
    On what basis?
    How far down the 'interrogation' spectrum are you willing to go?

    More importantly, are you saying there should be legal sanction for such actions?

    Parent

    Please don't play games. (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:45:06 PM EST
    You understand exactly what I am saying.

    And no. No legal sanctions. These actions are political in nature, driven by a moral imperative.

    Parent

    No, Jim, (none / 0) (#147)
    by syinco on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:58:57 PM EST
    I don't understand exactly what you are saying. And I'm not playing games. This is intensely interesting to me and I for one am learning something from it. I hope you don't feel like I'm wasting your time.

    I understand some of what you are saying. I understand that provided that certain conditions are satisfied, you would condone measures up to and including waterboarding as means of "interrogation". You justify this based on a qualified moral imperative to not allow the loss of innocent life when means are readily available to prevent such loss.

    Here's what I don't fully understand:

    Given that you have a moral imperative to take action that could/would save innocent American life, what do you do when all of the 'certain conditions' are satisfied but waterboarding fails to achieve the expected ends?

    What happens when those certain conditions aren't satisfied in whole, yet it's still possible that not taking action could lead directly to the deaths of innocent Americans?

    Do you think that your moral reasoning and framework should be held superior to arguably equally sound reasoning that is based on a different moral foundation? Or are you just putting forth your proposition as one view worthy of consideration?

    Are you advocating that these "interrogatory" actions be considered and/or made lawful under the Constitution, or that these actions be taken extra-Constitutionally?

    I know that you have acknowledged elsewhere that your proposition is not without problems, but having some understanding of how these problems are addressed is critical in considering what you propose.


    Parent

    Remember I said (1.00 / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:56:47 PM EST
    that the deal was that the "CIA/government" had to believe 100% or they shouldn't "act."

    Also remember I have said that you must also believe that our cause is just.

    Now, if you have those two things and if the situation is time sensitive then all necessary measures must be taken to break the terrorist and obtain the information.

    In other words, the actions taken must be equal to the need for the information in all respects.

    I have no idea as to what you mean when you ask:

    Do you think that your moral reasoning and framework should be held superior to arguably equally sound reasoning that is based on a different moral foundation? Or are you just putting forth your proposition as one view worthy of consideration?

    First, I don't see this as a "debate." If you claim that it is morally acceptable, and I don't think you do, to let people die rather than take all necessary steps to obtain information that could save them... then I believe you are just wrong. I further believe that most people who make such claims are really engaged in sophistry for some other reason. Usually political and usually to try and make themselves feel superior.

    et al - If the shoe fits, wear it.

    And I do not believe there is an argument that can overcome my position.

    I do believe that there are some CO's who are sincere. They are welcome to their beliefs. But I cut them no slack if their actions are harmful to the group.

    I think that we already have the right to take what actions we find necessary. If some country or the UN has difficulties then my position is, "So?"

    I have no golden rule book on this. In my opinion we are talking about things that must be approved of by the President. Is there a slippery slope involved? Yes.

    But life is a risk. Sometimes risks must be taken to serve a greater good.

    Parent

    More (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by syinco on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:58:04 PM EST
    I have no idea as to what you mean when you ask:

    Do you think that your moral reasoning and framework should be held superior to arguably equally sound reasoning that is based on a different moral foundation? Or are you just putting forth your proposition as one view worthy of consideration?

    What I mean is that you have cast your own moral judgment on this issue, based on your moral reasoning, without regard for how others may reason and arrive at differing judgments, and seemingly would cast your will upon all others just because you believe it is right. You seem to confirm that when you say you "don't see this as a debate".

    Do you not remember your objections to me in the thread about Guantanamo detainees knowing their accusers' identities when you thought (mistakenly) that I was trying to declare what was "just" and "wise"? If we're going to effect change, or implement policy, better done through reason and under the auspices of the Constitution. I think that was effectively your point and with that I agree.  

    Anyway.

    You are back to one specific set of premises (100% certain, lives on the line, exigent circumstances) where if it comes down to it, I'd probably have to agree with you. For that specific set of premises. But how often do these circumstances really and wholly obtain? That is a very important question here. Otherwise, we're really talking about that slippery slope.

    And you've said enough to lead me to believe that you are willing to slip down the slope a ways; how far I don't know because you evade those questions, but I think that when our primary motivation is fear that is not checked by any notion of adhering to international agreements on the matter ("If some country or the UN has difficulties then my position is, "So?"") or any apparent regard for the possibility of torturing someone without appropriate information, that we as a government will be ready to slip pretty damn far down that slope.

    Does that right there mean we must categorically ban torture? No. But let's recognize those problems in full and let's not hide behind the charade of 'we're only going to do it when we're 100% sure that this is the only way to save lots of lives.' Horse hockey!

    So you've got that set of problems on one hand. On another hand you have those that would have a categorical ban on torture, as we supposedly have today. That hand would appear to have the problem of at least the 'ticking time bomb' hypothetical, as well as the possibility of avoidable loss of innocent life in less clear-cut cases.

    Which is worse? I don't know. I'd like to have more information to assess. If we have terrorists running willy-nilly around the country with nuclear triggers up their sleeves just waiting for the right moment to nuke another city, you bet I'm going to lean towards advocating means up to and including some forms of torture to prevent these happenings. And I would want us to be open and forthcoming, on an international basis, about it, and our reasons for it. If instead we are really talking about cases where more benign means of interrogation can be put to work, or where we are largely uncertain whether people have information that is going to immediately save lives, then I'm more inclined to go with the categorical ban.

    In my opinion, we need less secrecy and more information to properly assess. And that goes in line with my opinion that if we are to countenance torture, there needs to be a certain visibility and accountability to it, along with the controls to which you've alluded. Considering one select case, like the one that introduced this thread, is not enough information to support this "debate" in either direction.

    And even if we did have a categorical ban on torture, I wonder if we can't resolve the 'ticking time bomb' problem by recognizing that if a situation is that severe, that critical, that extra-legal steps will be taken. For which there should then be full accountability. That approach is obviously not without issues either, but don't discard it out of hand.

    In short, I want to base our moral and legal decisions on a consistent set of rules that is, based on what we know today and can reasonably foresee in the future, going to do the most good and cause the least harm, directly or indirectly. It's that "what we know today" part that I feel like I'm missing.

    Parent

    Elaboration (none / 0) (#157)
    by syinco on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    To my question about how you esteem your moral reasoning and your point about no argument overcoming your position, consider this.  (And I apologize if this comes out of turn.)

    You have your categorical imperative that you must always act to save American lives when you believe that failure to do so would result in loss of said lives, regardless of the situation or the potential outcome. Someone else has the categorical imperative that torture is always wrong and should never be done, regardless of the situation or the potential outcome.

    Who's right? You'll each say that you are right. And until you try and understand the other side's perspective, or consider things situationally, you'll be like the two sides in the abortion debate. Completely unyielding, irreconcilable positions (unless we capture no more terrorists deemed worthy of torture or no woman ever wants an abortion).

    How might one start to say that one position is better than another? Well, one way is to look at the consequences of each position. Granted, you're saying that regardless of the consequences, your position is right, because to not act would be a sin. Which is just restating the premise as the conclusion. And the other person could more or less make the same pointless argument.

    So let's look at the consequences as one possible means of assessing positions. What are the consequences of each position? The consequences of the anti-torture position might be that a few people die but no one was tortured. The consequences of your position might be that no one is saved but lots of people are tortured. Can one position be adjudged better than another based on the consequences? Some people will say yes, some people will say no. It depends on their ethical system.

    And for those that say yes, consequences do matter, which position they favor will depend on the actual consequences, and how they value certain things (like loss of innocent life vs. fruitless torture). What are the actual or to-be-expected consequences? I don't know - we hardly have even the rough totality of information necessary to assess what they are or can reasonably expect to be.

    But arguing that the overall situation at hand can be expected to have consequences that favor your position seems to me a reasonable way to advance your position. In doing so, all consequences should be considered, not just those from the ideal scenarios.

    Parent

    Or the end result is you tortured an innocent (none / 0) (#151)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:04:24 PM EST
    party AND got bad info.  

    The 800 lb gorilla in the room,

    Parent

    Missed one (none / 0) (#112)
    by syinco on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:34:46 PM EST
    and change "Is waterboarding someone" to "Is severely interrogating/torturing someone".

    Parent
    the main issue (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by wumhenry on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    The main question is whether an interrogator should resort to coercion, in the last resort, to extract information from a notorious, self-confessed terrorist kingpin in order to prevent further planned attacks against civilians. I say yes because I put a higher priority on preventing mass murder than on the comfort and/or mental welfare of a terrorist kingpin.

    Parent
    Oversimplification (none / 0) (#79)
    by syinco on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    Yes, it seems reasonable and permissible that we should use some means to try and coerce information from certain suspects.  

    But are you talking about legal or illegal coercion?

    Parent

    what I'm talking about (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by wumhenry on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    ... is duress.  E.g., waterboarding.
    The primary issue is whether it's morally permissible under a given set of circumstances. Under some circumstances, I'd say that it's morally obligatory. For essentially the same reason that it was morally (albeit not legally) obligatory for the security guard in the Colorado church to shoot down the would-be mass murderer to curtail his spree.

    Parent
    Interesting take on it. (well... not really) (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    Morally obligatory to toss your morals out the window in favor of expediency?

    Morally obligatory to become what you profess to fight?

    Morally obligatory to let terrorists be your moral guides?

    Morally obligatory to have no morals?

    Morally obligatory to invite more terrorism?

    Parent

    silly questions (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by wumhenry on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    Morally obligatory to toss your morals out the window in favor of expediency?
    I'm sure most people would agree that it's morally permissible to kill a mass murderer in order to save innocent people from being slaughtered. Yet you imagine that there's some absolute moral principle that prohibits an interrogator from inflicting non-lethal distress on someone who masterminds and supervises mass murder in order to thwart his co-conspirators from perpetrating more of same?

    Morally obligatory to become what you profess to fight?

    I'm sure that most people can readily see a morally-crucial difference between a) mass murder and b) twisting a mass murderer's arm to extract information with which to prevent his co-conspirators from claiming more innocent victims.

    Parent
    Go back to troll school wumhenry. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:42:58 PM EST
    Tell them the job is over your head, and that your sales conversion rate has so far been zero. Tell them to send someone more competent.

    Parent
    Then your sense of morals (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:25:40 PM EST
    is rooted in "I will do nothing to harm anyone no matter what they have done, are doing or will do if given the opportunity."

    Worse, your logic is so juvenile that it is funny.

    Morally obligatory to invite more terrorism?

    This, of course, is a replay of the rather dumb claim that to attack a country that you believe to have/be manufacturing WMDs will create terrorists. You are, of course, referring to Iraq. About which you wrote:

    The facts remain (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 12:23:42 AM EST
    which you conveniently ignore, that 1) before the invasion Iraq was one of the most advanced societies  on earth,

    I am unsure if that reflects a bias or merely ignorance. But it certainly frames your belief system rather well.

    Parent

    Heh! (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:49:12 PM EST
    You really aren't pretending, are you?

    Parent
    I know that the quotes (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:29:47 AM EST
    embarrass you but what can I say? You wrote'em.

    hehe

    Parent

    Embarrass me? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:07:49 PM EST
    Embarrass me? Heh!

    You really are in fantasyland, aren't you? But of course you wouldn't be able to tell that you are....

    Parent

    OK So they don't (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    embarrass you.

    That says more than them embarrassing you.

    I mean, wow.

    Parent

    No, (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by syinco on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    that's your primary issue framed in a way that suits your perspective.

    That you can conceive of a set of circumstances where duress/coercion/torture/whathaveyou is arguably a morally acceptable choice, or even under some systems of ethics a morally required choice, means exactly what?  

    Parent

    It means, among other things, that (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by wumhenry on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:37:53 PM EST
    instead of reacting with kneejerk outrage to news that a prisoner was waterboarded, people should suspend judgment until they're aware of all the relevant facts.

    Parent
    Practically (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by syinco on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    a truism in any cirmcumstance.  

    Though I'd be surprised if you hadn't been outraged at some time in some circumstance before having learned all the facts in that case.

    What else does it mean? I'm still not clear on the point you've intended to make.

    Parent

    Not sure (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by syinco on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:42:44 PM EST
    if you're still around, but if you want people to be aware of all the relevant facts, you might want to avoid obfuscating the facts with hypotheticals, like you did with the post that heads this particular chain.

    Look, I agree that the 'torture debate' is not necessarily as cut and dry as "torture bad". To some it is, and I don't think that's an invalid perspective, but it's not without serious problems.    

    And in this post, I'm just going to call it torture; I don't mean it dysphemistically, using 'severe interrogation' every time gets laborious, and the logic behind your views would seem to support either practice. Until you want to make clear your definitions, anyway ...

    But using a variation of the 'ticking time bomb' scenario to try and frame discussion around torture is largely disingenuous. And it begs the question of what end you are trying to achieve by bringing it into play. Apart from it pointing out to some that "torture bad" is not a response that is going to satisfy everyone, using that approach ignores the real issues and dilemmas that I see coming into play in the torture debate.

    It sidesteps the issue of what is torture and what is not. It can have the appearance of being used to conflate the legal and moral aspects of torture. (And to what end?) It precludes the real-world issues of uncertainty of possession of useful information, uncertainty of the value of that information, the degree of exigency, and who is appropriately assessing all of these things and how?

    So if we're going to have the 'torture debate', let's do it on terms that are representative of the actual cases, ideally considering all the actual cases.

    Parent

    That's not good (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:36:15 AM EST
    And in this post, I'm just going to call it torture; I don't mean it dysphemistically, using 'severe interrogation' every time gets laborious, and the logic behind your views would seem to support either practice. Until you want to make clear your definitions, anyway ...

    By calling everything torture you include things that are not. This leads to people disregarding torture. It also leads to people actually thinking everything is torture. (See Repack's comment in another thread.)You really should be as exact as possible.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#124)
    by syinco on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    I can take the time to write "severe interrogation/torture" in cases where either could be in question, or when the classification of a practice is debatable.  As I tried to say, it was just a matter of convenience, not an intent to use inflammatory or muddling words.

    Parent
    anwers for syinco (none / 0) (#127)
    by wumhenry on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:20:02 PM EST
    if you want people to be aware of all the relevant facts, you might want to avoid obfuscating the facts with hypotheticals, like you did with the post that heads this particular chain.

    Asking a question that assumes certain facts for the sake of argument DNE obfuscation! My hypothetical tees up an important issue: can torture ever be morally justified? It's an issue that most people posting here with an anti-waterboarding mindset have assiduously avoided, you being the only honorable exception, AFAIK.

    And in this post, I'm just going to call it torture; I don't mean it dysphemistically, using 'severe interrogation' every time gets laborious, and the logic behind your views would seem to support either practice.

    Sure, go ahead, call it torture. That's apt enough. It is what it is, and what we label it for purposes of this discussion doesn't really matter.

    But using a variation of the 'ticking time bomb' scenario to try and frame discussion around torture is largely disingenuous.

    ?!

    <quote>Apart from it pointing out to some that "torture bad" is not a response that is going to satisfy everyone, using that approach ignores the real issues and dilemmas that I see coming into play in the torture debate.</quote>
    Almost all of the anti comments posted here simply boil down to "torture bad." I agree that acknowledgment that torture might be justified under some circumstances should not the endpoint of debate, but it's a sine qua non for conceiving a reasonable policy.

    Parent

    At least you have the guts (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by glanton on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:53:52 PM EST
    To admit that what you're doing is standing up for torture.  Ahem, under certain circumstances.

    Why not go all the way and declare the Gen Con obsolete now that 9/11 has....drumroll.... Changed Everything (except the need for more tax cuts for the wealthy)?

    Not all apologists on these here boards are so forthcoming as you, oh basement channeller of Jack Bauer, have the potential to be.  Like the Prez, they like to say "we don't torture" even as they defend its use with euphemisms.

    Clearly, neither morality nor logic are stong suits for you.  Keep the path towards honesty if you wish to avoid the trifecta.

    :-D

    Parent

    No Glanton (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:41:33 PM EST
    That is NOT what I said and you should be ashamed of yourself for making such statements.

    What I said was:

    He and I have exchanged several comments re the immorality of NOT doing what is necessary to protect lives, so I don't see him as one of the far far Lefties...

    In the faint and probably useless hope that you may have misunderstood, what that means is that I think it immoral to NOT do what is necessary to protect lives.

    It is often called a sin of "omission."

    And if you had actually been paying attention you would know that I have commented on the requirement for tight supervision and controls.

    So please. Either get in the game, or out of it. But quit making things up.

    Parent

    I was actually responding to the other (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by glanton on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:48:39 PM EST
    pro-torture voice currently on the mic.

    Difference being, he has the guts to say he's in favor of torture.

    it is true that in your case you say, "do what is necessary" and then add canards about "tight supervision" (fox please guard henhouse for us).  We understand.  The Prez is the same way.  He says with a straight face, "we don't torture" even as he authorizes torture.


    Parent

    well, excuse me for (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:14:54 PM EST
    misunderstanding.

    You are still wrong.

    Parent

    That reply (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by glanton on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:27:45 PM EST
    Par the course for you.  Maybe even a birdie, by your own standards.

    Parent
    Be careful (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:54:22 PM EST
    You could fall of your tightrope and hurt yourself trying to backpedal that fast.

    You're either for torture or you're against torture.

    You're either with us or you're with the terrorists, ppj.

    You've made your choice.... at least have the guts to live with yourself:

    ...the Khymer Rouge were no jokesters, and they didn't tailor their abuse to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. They-- like so many brutal regimes--made waterboarding one of their primary tools for a simple reason: it is one of the most viciously effective forms of torture ever devised.


    Parent
    I refer you to the comments (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:08:05 PM EST
    exchanged with synico.

    I also recommend you get to a good shrink who will explain that absolute positions are usually the fruit of a idealistic personality that can not change and is likely to snap when they finally see that they are wrong.

    I just heard a "crack."

    Or maybe it was a cracked I heard "snap."

    Parent

    Thanks for the response. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by syinco on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:57:09 PM EST
    Asking a question that assumes certain facts for the sake of argument DNE obfuscation!

    Agreed. Though it can have that effect. And clearly I'm quite wary of having one situation confused with another in the broader discussion. Looks like I assumed intent where I shouldn't have.

    My hypothetical tees up an important issue: can torture ever be morally justified?

    Agreed, it is important. To me, its primary value is to say that it's not as simple (for everyone) as just saying, in effect, "torture bad". And to the extent that that was the intent of your post, I support that message, because I don't think it's that simple.

    However, people with differing ethical systems can reasonably come up with different (and controversial) responses, including torture should not be conducted in any circumstance. Such people, in a moral discussion, should contend with the potential consequences you bring up.

    but it's a sine qua non for conceiving a reasonable policy.

    I agree that such circumstances should be considered in the process of establishing policy. But if you mean to say that a policy is by definition unreasonable if it does not allow for certain methods of severe interrogation/torture under certain circumstances, then I disagree.

    But using a variation of the 'ticking time bomb' scenario to try and frame discussion around torture is largely disingenuous.

    "?!"

    Not sure if you're questioning my characterization of your approach, but ultimately, you led with:

    [D]o you think that letting 1,000 innocent people be killed is an acceptable trade-off for avoiding the onus of subjecting a terrorist kingpin to coercion?

    That was the basis for my characterization.

    ###

    My concern is that moral debate will shift quietly into legal justification. Just because something can be argued to be morally appropriate does not necessarily mean that we should allow it.

    Parent

    modified contention (none / 0) (#140)
    by wumhenry on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    But if you mean to say that a policy is by definition unreasonable if it does not allow for certain methods of severe interrogation/torture under certain circumstances, then I disagree.

    Actually, I did mean that, but I'll pull back a bit. Modified contention: acknowledging the following is a sine qua non for reasonable discussion: i) categorically banning torture might make it impossible, in some cases, to extract information needed to thwart planned terrorist attacks; ii) thus, categorically banning torture could facilitate mass murder that could otherwise be prevented. Another sine qua non for reasonable discussion is that those advocating a no-exception ban on torture posit an ethical rationale for concluding that torture should not be used on a notorious, self-admitted terrorist even if refraining from using it will effectively condemn innocent people to be murdered.


    Parent
    I disagree in part. (none / 0) (#146)
    by syinco on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    i) categorically banning torture does not, in and of itself, make it impossible, in any case, to extract information needed to thwart terrorist attacks.

    ii) in spite of disagreement on i), and apart from objecting to 'facilitate mass murder' as inflammatory wording and assuming too much, yes, this is an issue that must be considered.

    As for your last sentence - from a deontological perspective, it's not ethically inconsistent to maintain that we have a duty, a categorical imperative, to not torture. Jim, above, seems to be operating from this sort of ethical framework, though in a modified sense. He seems to have a moral imperative that we must do what is necessary to save innocent American lives, at least up to a point. He also seems to have a moral imperative to not torture. I'm not sure what happens when these come into conflict, but I will probably ask.

    Anyway, more to your point, you're probably assuming that those who categorically object to torture would also categorically object to causing loss of (innocent) life. Seems reasonable to me. And there we get into questions like whether not taking available measures, even if questionable in nature, to prevent loss of life is equivalent to causing loss of life. Just one initial thought. More to discuss there, I'm sure.

    Parent

    reply (none / 0) (#158)
    by wumhenry on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    categorically banning torture does not, in and of itself, make it impossible, in any case, to extract information needed to thwart terrorist attacks.

    Surely we can agree that there can be a case where a terrorist prisoner has knowledge that could be used to thwart planned terrorist attacks and refuses to divulge the information to skillful interrogators using every trick in the book short of torture and yet that such a prisoner might readily "spill" if subjected to waterboarding or some other coercive technique. In such a case, barring torture would make it impossible to extract the information from that prisoner. Perhaps the same information could be gotten from someone else without resorting to coercion, or perhaps not. Torturing that prisoner would not be morally justifiable unless the interrogators exhausted all feasible non-coercive means of obtaining the information in time to make use of it, including questioning other people. Nor would it be justifiable unless the interrogators had very strong grounds to believe that the prisoner in question was privy to such information.

    Parent
    To be fair, (none / 0) (#160)
    by syinco on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 10:54:46 AM EST
    I should have been more clear.

    You're assuming that a categorical ban means that it physically cannot or will not be done, even in the most extreme circumstances. You'll see in one of my replies to Jim that in fact I wonder if we might not be better served having a categorical ban, yet acknowledging that extra-legal measures might still be taken in the most extreme circumstances.

    It's not without problems. None of these positions are. Which problems are worse?

    Parent

    See post reiterated at end of thread ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by syinco on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 10:57:56 AM EST
    Don't give up so easy (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    The "torture bad" group actually is several groups, mostly united by "Bush bad."

    So make them define what they actually mean. Don't accept the "UN laws, treaties, etc." they like to toss out as a substitute for actually thinking and writing down something they'll have to look at a year from now.

    You may note that there has been almost no comment about Dear Leader Pelosi and other Democrats who have known about what was happening for around 5 years now and never said a word. The reason is that many here have used them as moral guides and examples to beat up the opposition.. Now, with their leaders shown to be hypocrites, they have no where to hide.

    As for synico, I don't know. He and I have exchanged several comments re the immorality of NOT doing what is necessary to protect lives, so I don't see him as one of the far far Lefties...

    Parent

    No comment about Dear Leader Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    and other Democrats who have known about what was happening for around 5 years now and never said a word?

    Heh! You need to get out more. Talk to people. Read.

    But then, doing that would leave you without the old "Call him a pig fu*ker and make him deny it", ploy that you think passes for debate in your ingrown little world. You know - the one that comes back to bite you on the a$$ everytime you try it.

    I'd think after years of throwing away what little self respect you must have started with you be sick of setting yourself up and being bitten by now.


    Parent

    Uh, that doesn't pass for "facts." (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    Now, show me some comments. I mean I would think such betrayal would have the blogs just dripping with outrage.

    Or is it that you are going to play the betrayed wife who, though long suffering, will say nothing to keep the "family" together.  

    What's next, an appearance on Good Morning America where you will blame the vast right wing conspiracy??

    hehe

    BTW - I'm starting to worry. TomStewart wants to talk about the size of certain male memebers, Jondee is concerned about the length of certain sexual activities and you bring up sex with animals...

    Parent

    Go read the blogs... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:43:47 PM EST
    No. Prove your claim. (1.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:57:52 PM EST
    Then stay in your wilful, intentional ignorance. (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:08:45 AM EST
    IOW, remain not worth the time of day, as you always have been.

    Parent
    As uusal (1.00 / 1) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:09:52 AM EST
    Edger gets caught being wrong.

    Edger starts personal attack.

    He can't help it.

    It is what he does.

    Parent

    Awww... (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:53:18 AM EST
    You're breaking my heart....

    Parent
    or say (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Jen M on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:05:09 PM EST
    reacting to a pattern of such things that has been going on for years.

    We say "change course". You say "oh its only a little ice" just before the submerged part of the iceberg rips a huge gaping hole underwater that sinks the ship.

    Its just one lil old prisoner of war (which, aparently he isn't because Bush declared he isn't- he likes to declare laws nul and void like that). Not like were doing anything else wrong to anyone else. Just one teesie weesie little old (not, according to the government) prisoner of war. What could POSSIBLY be wrong with doing that once and only this once and never again.  Because governments NEVER EVER EVER EVER keep powers they grabbed for themselves in an emergency (can you say income tax) after the emergency is over.

    Parent

    Can you please (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:28:44 PM EST
    bring the comparisons out of the middle school level??

    I man all of these things you emote over are hypothetical. 9/11 happened. The USS Cole happened.
    etc, etc, etc,

    Parent

    Im sorry (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Jen M on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:37:37 PM EST
    I was trying to be clear.

    Was that not good enough?
    Do I have to go to secong grade level?

    Parent

    and.... income tax is a hypothetical? (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Jen M on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:39:25 PM EST
    really?

    Thats what you belive?

    Parent

    Obviously (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    ships, icebergs and income taxes are real.

    It is how you use the words to construct a scenario   that makes it hypothetical.

    And I understand your claim, perhaps even fear, that government may grab power.

    Parent

    oh good (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Jen M on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    because they have already have, and if they expand the conditions under which they use it... well, ask the NRA, they understand that stuff


    Parent
    Disgusting (3.66 / 3) (#87)
    by glanton on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:46:22 PM EST
    This lawyerly obfuscation of the moral imperative not to torture.

    Sorry you have fallen prey to it.  Enjoy the absolute lowest rung of American culture.

    Parent

    wumhenry (3.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    In case you haven't noticed - no one is buying from you, anymore than they're buying from ppj, from Yoo, from Gonzales, from Mukasey, from Cheney, or from Bush.

    You're in good company. Don't stop now. Keep going...

    Parent

    Nope that is not true. (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:29:09 PM EST


    Nope that is not true. - more (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:32:49 PM EST
    stipulation (none / 0) (#159)
    by wumhenry on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    BTW, I don't think that torture should ever be used merely to extract confessions. I think that it can only be justifiable when used to obtain information needed to save lives.

    Restating here what I said above. (none / 0) (#161)
    by syinco on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    To help with the indentation/readability.

    To be fair, I should have been more clear.

    You're assuming that a categorical ban means that it physically cannot or will not be done, even in the most extreme circumstances. You'll see in one of my replies to Jim that in fact I wonder if we might not be better served having a categorical ban, yet acknowledging that extra-legal measures might still be taken in the most extreme circumstances.

    It's not without problems. None of these positions are. Which problems are worse?


    Parent