Waterboarding

[Annie Oakley]

These are all well thought out responses to the question. The problem is that I thought I knew where I stood when I first read the poll question and now I don't know what is right. Thanks to all of you for keeping me on my toes and questioning my own beliefs. I have the feeling that I will be mulling this over long after this thread has gone quiet.

 

[SavageEagle]

I think my brain hurts now. I'm not sure because my head's pounding.

For those living in Fairy-dust-and-Unicorn-fart land, the world is not full of peaceful human beings and this world is far from perfect. To sit here and say that we should not TRY to extract information that would save millions of lives all in the sake of feeling good about ourselves is asinine. I can't believe you people, who carry firearms, who hunt, and say it's your right to protect yourself and those around you, would sit here and say you would rather take a POW and let him rot in jail while he probably knows where his buddies plan on detonating a Nuke. All the while those other terrorists are planting that bomb and we have no idea where or when and it's ok because we didn't do all that we could to find them and their evil act of terrorism before it was too late.

To sit here and say that violence is not necessary in times of war and that it is inhumane to find out the enemy's plans anyway possible....

I mean i just can't comprehend your thinking behind this. It's almost as if you would rather see our Country destroyed and all of us killed instead of water boarding someone WHO IS OUT TO KILL US to stop it.

I just don't get it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

About what I thought. Mostly a codification of existing practice. If anything it's an actual increase in protections since in the past it was often the commander in the field (often a junior officer) who made that determination.



Bingo! The actions taken to defend your person against an attacker are justified by the actions of the attacker. That those actions you take may inadvertently lead to innocents being hurt or killed (through, say, missing a shot) also lies at the feet of the attacker. No attack, nobody hurt.

I'm simply saying that as a society we have the same right. Actions we may take as a society to defend that society could be abhorrent at other times, but are justified by our being forced into that position by the attackers. No attack on our society, no such actions necessary. Don't break down my door and don't get shot. He who has ears to hear, let him here.



The "solution" to that is to make sure that, like with lethal self defense, there are checks in place to make sure that the situations where such things are used are actually justified. That can only happen if the terms of such justifications are actually in place. The only way that can happen is if a person can say, in at least some circumstances "yes, this was bad, but the circumstance was bad enough that it was less bad than the alternative" and have that be considered a valid answer.

As an analogy, suppose that lethal self defense were made completely illegal. If faced with a "him or you" situation, you would either have to accept dying, or kill him and either go to jail or try to hide that the "crime" had taken place. As things stand now, if you are threatened, you can do what you have to do, then call the police and let the courts decide with a reasonable chance of having a bona-fide self defense case determined to be a good shoot.

I'd rather have the situation where, if it's justified by circumstances, you can legally use lethal self defense openly rather than a system where, if I do kill in self defense, I have to either accept a murder conviction or try to hide the "crime" and then live the rest of my life in fear of it being discovered (no statute of limitations on murder).

And if the case turns out where the shoot wasn't justified, where I didn't have valid reason to kill in self defense, well, then I go to prison and justice is served.

And this is where I am on the idea of things like waterboarding and outright torture. The bar on justification for using them should be high, no question. But making the height infinite--saying that there is no situation that could ever possibly happen that would make their use justified, doesn't make them not happen. It just drives them underground.

If, as has been suggested here in several places, a future administration of the US is of the kind to use such tactics on US citizens in investigation of crimes that may be no more than political disagreement, well that administration is going to do it however high we've made the bar for things like military interogations of possible key intelligence sources.

Put simply, if Obama's going to do it, he's going to do it regardless of our policy in Iraq. The one thing that might be different is how open he is about it. If it's going to happen, I'd rather it be out where it can be seen rather than hidden in back rooms. It makes the excesses more obvious.




Maybe the first person to be waterboarded tought he was going to drown but it had to rapidly become clear that nobody was drowning.

It's uncomfortable and scary. And that whole "torture of the mind" thing I don't buy. It dilutes the term "torture" in much the same way things like "terrorist" and "nazi" have been diluted by simply applying them to folk the user of the term didn't like. I mean, anybody using a term like "Chimpy Bush McHitler" really needs to study some more history to learn what Hitler was really like. And calling peaceful protestors at an abortion clinic "emotional terrorists" is beyond the pale.



And here we are, I think, in more agreement than you may realize. My discussion here has really been more theoretical and philosophical than about the specific alleged and verified uses of such tactics in Iraq. On the one hand, I think that the hypothetical I gave uptopic would, were such a thing to actually happen, be a pretty clear-cut case where pretty much any level of interrogation would be justified. On the other hand, I don't think anyone here would say that "did you, or did you not exceed the speed limit on I65 on January 3rd" while applying a soldering iron to the suspects genitals was justified. Best answer is somewhere between, leaning a lot toward the high end, I would think. Where, exactly, on that continuum the line would be (and how it varies depending both on circumstances and the level of "vigorousness" of the interrogation) is something which I think reasonable men (and women) could disagree on. Too bad the world is so full of unreasonable men and women.



Here's the thing. I don't support the use of any kind of torture as punishment. Not ever. By the time you get to capital crimes, i don't see it as punishment at all. As H. Beam Piper put in the mouth of one of his characters (paraphrased), "we don't kill them for committing those crimes, we kill them for being the kind of person who commits those crimes. It's a sanitation measure, like shooting sick cattle."

One of the things that would, IMO, justify the use of "vigorous" interrogation (whether rather mild forms like waterboarding, modest sleep deprivation, "in your face" grilling, or more extreme up to and including actual torture) is time pressure. If you don't need the information right away, you've got time to use other methods. If you have time for a trial, you aren't under enough time pressure to justify that kind of interrogation.



One recurring theme in the US's military action in the past has been that we were generally rather slow to get our ire up, but once we did, we tended to be quite ruthless in putting down the threat. The idea of "leave us alone; we'll leave you alone. Mess with us, and you'll wish your grandparents had never been born." Or as Teddy Roosevelt (the good Roosevelt) said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" (implication being the willingness to use that stick at need).

I, personally, think that's an excellent approach and would like to see us return to it.

I'm going to answer you out of order intentionally.

First, no, I am aware that we are, as usual, greatly in agreement. My primary issue against waterboarding or any kind of torture is that if we say it's OK against one human being, then we have implicitly allowed it against all human beings. You've said that no matter how high the bar is set, any future administration will, in the absence of oversight, ignore the bar completely. This is clear even using the example of Abu Ghraib. For the record, no, I do not think that taking pictures of people in humiliating positions when they are incapable of resisting qualifies as "torture", but the idea that (paraphrased) "It's OK, they're just prisoners." did not start with the guards in the prison, it came from higher up, as we recently read here. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that even if the waterboarding of terrorist suspects is carried out openly that such an administration would carry all such waterboardings out openly. Herein lies the problem, IMHO: We cannot remove the knowledge of how to do it from people, nor can we control when they use that knowledge. We can set penalties for misuse, but those who would use such methods on our own citizens are already proving they have a capacity for violence and a disdain for those of us who would defend our rights from a tyrannical gov't. Such people think themselves above the law, and it is precisely that attitude that I would think we would be better served by concentrating on changing.
I use the term "torture of the mind" in the sense that to make a person fear that his life (or that of a family member) was going to be ended and that he is helpless to prevent it is excessive. Our state laws have codified that in Castle Doctrine, such that someone causing that level of fear to you in your home or anywhere else you have a right to be risks being shot and killed. Is it truly a "torture"? No, probably not. I said above that there are many answers to when this is acceptable. Short of "always" and "never", I don't think any are patently incorrect. (always would include any time, on anyone, for any reason, while never would mean that it was not ever acceptable) Absolutes are rarely correct, however...
You made the point that there is a continuum upon which these actions fall. This reminds me of a quote from a former coworker of mine: To have "shades of grey", you have to have black and white. That's so simple, yet so deep at the same time. For us to determine when waterboarding or any action against a suspected terrorist is acceptable, there must be times when it is "absolutely" wrong to use those actions. Example: It is absolutely wrong to use any of the more extreme methods of interrogation against schoolchildren. It is absolutely wrong to use them against those without the mental capacity to understand, let alone accomplish, resistance. It is absolutely wrong to use them as the first method of interrogation. (All of these are solely examples, not necessarily to be taken literally at face value) Conversely, there must be times when it is absolutely right to use these methods. I can't think of times when that would be, and therein lies my quandry: If I can't say that it's absolutely appropriate to use it in this circumstance, how can I define when and where the "white" stops and where the "grey" starts? If I cannot say where "grey" starts, how can I say where it stops and "black" begins?

I think I'm a reasonably moral, ethical man. (Not bragging, just stating my self-image in re: this issue) If I can't define where it is right vs. wrong, how can I judge when my government is doing it appropriately and by extension, hold their feet to the fire (pun intentional) when they exceed their authority?

With all due respect, it's not the same as a self-defense scenario, and here's why: In SD, you have, literally, split seconds to make a decision that will change your life forever, a decision that will be bandied back and forth on dry-erase boards and court documents for months, maybe years, and debated in it's minutiae by jury members and attorneys who have the one major thing you didn't have when you most needed it: time.
When deciding how to interrogate a suspected terrorist, the decision to use method X or not is not one that must be made without consideration of right vs. wrong. It's probably not a decision that will be made by the person using method X, but by his/her superiors. It is bad to torture (or waterboard) other people. It is worse to allow them to keep information that could (or did) kill tens, hundreds, thousands, even millions of people... or even one. But is it acceptable to possibly do wrong to someone because we suspect he may be the terrorist with the answers (to where the bomb is, etc.) What if it's the wrong guy, and he really knows nothing?
(I know, what if, what if) More to the point, however, at what point does it become acceptable? That is, it's the argument we've both recently quoted as to haggling price: It's OK to torture someone who knows how to stop the killing of millions-is it OK to torture someone who knows how to stop the killing of one person? If it is not, where do we draw the line? Two? 10? 100?

Lastly, yes, America has long been known for being long-suffering. We quietly tell the other country, "no, that's not acceptable", but we really don't do a lot to enforce that. They continue and we clear our throats, "*ahem* We said you need to stop that." Eventually, we get tired of clearing our throats and somebody gets led to the woodshed by his ear.

President Theodore Roosevelt (I read that he HATED "Teddy") had quite a few things right. We would do well to follow his examples, I think.

Thanks for your posts.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

These are all well thought out responses to the question. The problem is that I thought I knew where I stood when I first read the poll question and now I don't know what is right. Thanks to all of you for keeping me on my toes and questioning my own beliefs. I have the feeling that I will be mulling this over long after this thread has gone quiet.

If you're thinking about it and challenging your own previous assumptions (whichever position you started from) then this thread has served a good purpose.

 

[turnandshoot4]

That has been my intention all along

 

[dburkhead]

I'm going to answer you out of order intentionally.

First, no, I am aware that we are, as usual, greatly in agreement. My primary issue against waterboarding or any kind of torture is that if we say it's OK against one human being, then we have implicitly allowed it against all human beings.

I'm sorry, but that does not follow. It would be equivalent to saying that if it's okay to shoot one human being it's okay to shoot all of them. If it's okay to execute one murderer, it's okay to kill all human being. If it's okay to put one person in prison, it's okay to put everyone in prison.

It's all about the circumstances, including the "why" and "how."

You've said that no matter how high the bar is set, any future administration will, in the absence of oversight, ignore the bar completely.

Not quite. What I said (or, perhaps better, what I intended to say) is that if a future administration is bent on tyranny then it doesn't matter that we decide not to use waterboarding on select prisoners (usually non-lawful combatants), or even outright torture, or not. They're going to do it because it suits their needs not because we used it to interrogate certain non-lawful combatants. The arguments about Iraq and Gitmo are simply not relevant to that situation. The only real difference is likely to be whether they hide it in back rooms or think they can get away with doing it out in the open. I'd rather they think they can get away with it out in the open. It makes the backlash against them come about that much sooner.

This is clear even using the example of Abu Ghraib. For the record, no, I do not think that taking pictures of people in humiliating positions when they are incapable of resisting qualifies as "torture", but the idea that (paraphrased) "It's OK, they're just prisoners." did not start with the guards in the prison, it came from higher up, as we recently read here.

First off, not that much higher up. (Of course, the Media and the Left assumes the trail goes all the way to the White House--but then they'd assume that even if it all came from a lowly PFC.) But Abu Graib is actually an example of what I'm talking about. There wasn't any justification for the treatment of those prisoners. It was all for the amusement of some of the guards. There was no life or death situation where information needed to be gotten quickly to save lives, particularly innocent lives. In fact, there was no attempt to gain any information at all. It was sadism pure and simple.

Thus, the treatment of the prisoners was not, in any way, justified. And the military agrees with me. The investigation was well underway when the media leaked, I mean "broke" the story (and, thereby, ensuring that anyone higher up who might have been involved was warned so they could cover their tracks). And one of many pet peeves of mine is the way the media conveniently ignored in its reports that the military had been investigating the issue and tracing it back up the chain of command when their reports suddenly short-circuited everything.

I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that even if the waterboarding of terrorist suspects is carried out openly that such an administration would carry all such waterboardings out openly. Herein lies the problem, IMHO: We cannot remove the knowledge of how to do it from people, nor can we control when they use that knowledge.

Security through obscurity never works for long. Trying to keep "how to" information from falling into the "wrong hands" is almost always a losing game.

We can set penalties for misuse, but those who would use such methods on our own citizens are already proving they have a capacity for violence and a disdain for those of us who would defend our rights from a tyrannical gov't.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but the way the words read is that if they're going to do it, they're going to do it regardless of whether we have a policy of "never" in place or not.

Such people think themselves above the law, and it is precisely that attitude that I would think we would be better served by concentrating on changing.

Exactly. As long as folk like Obama think they are "entitled" to whatever powers they want to do what they want, it doesn't matter what official policy is.

I use the term "torture of the mind" in the sense that to make a person fear that his life (or that of a family member) was going to be ended and that he is helpless to prevent it is excessive.

And, again, I dispute that use of the term as diluting the term. First off, after the first few people have been through it, it should be pretty clear that one is going to survive the process.

And one thing that, to the best of my knowledge, we do not do is threaten families. Everything I've said about under some circumstances such tactics might be justifed. throw it out when it comes to threatening families, or even friends, aquaintences, or outright strangers. One "absolute" in my book (a book that contains remarkably few absolutes) is that any kind of coersion, regardless of what other standards are needed to justify it, is only used, to the best of our ability to discern, against the actual guilty parties.

It's like the Geneva convention doctrine of reprisals (where one is legally permitted to perform acts that would ordinarily be war crimes in retaliation for war crimes permitted by the other side--why that's actually a good policy is a discussion for another time). If enemy massacres a civilian population you cannot use the doctrine of reprisals to massacre a civilian population under your control. You can, however, use the doctrine to declare "no quarter" against the offending group and slaughter them to the last man--pour encourager les autres (or however it's spelled).

Our state laws have codified that in Castle Doctrine, such that someone causing that level of fear to you in your home or anywhere else you have a right to be risks being shot and killed. Is it truly a "torture"? No, probably not. I said above that there are many answers to when this is acceptable. Short of "always" and "never", I don't think any are patently incorrect. (always would include any time, on anyone, for any reason, while never would mean that it was not ever acceptable) Absolutes are rarely correct, however...

Which is really all I've been saying--mostly in contradiction to the "never" side of the equation (perhaps giving some folk the impression that I might set the bar lower than I actually would).

You made the point that there is a continuum upon which these actions fall. This reminds me of a quote from a former coworker of mine: To have "shades of grey", you have to have black and white. That's so simple, yet so deep at the same time.

Actually, I think it's deeper than that. Many times "shades of gray" are only gray from a distance. Looked at closely, the "gray" becomes a pattern of black and white--kind of like fractal ethics I guess. .

For us to determine when waterboarding or any action against a suspected terrorist is acceptable, there must be times when it is "absolutely" wrong to use those actions. Example: It is absolutely wrong to use any of the more extreme methods of interrogation against schoolchildren.

Mmm. Maybe. However, in an earlier generation it was considered absolutely wrong to shoot schoolchildren even in a war zone. However, those schoolchildren were walking up to GI's with armed grenades and releasing the spoons so they were an active threat. Maybe there's a better way than considering even children potential threats, and therefore targets, in a war zone but I can't think of one. I wish I could. I really, really wish I could.

It is absolutely wrong to use them against those without the mental capacity to understand, let alone accomplish, resistance.

This one I will agree with for the simple reason that someone without the mental capacity to understand also won't have the mental capacity to provide good intelligence anyway. Thus, there's simply no justification.

It is absolutely wrong to use them as the first method of interrogation. (All of these are solely examples, not necessarily to be taken literally at face value)

Mostly agree here, with the caveat that, in cases of extreme time pressure that first method may only be one chance to answer the questions without force being used.

Conversely, there must be times when it is absolutely right to use these methods. I can't think of times when that would be, and therein lies my quandry: If I can't say that it's absolutely appropriate to use it in this circumstance, how can I define when and where the "white" stops and where the "grey" starts? If I cannot say where "grey" starts, how can I say where it stops and "black" begins?

I would suggest that my hypothetical from uptopic would be a "it's right" situation. Someone walks into a government office (or pressroom, or wherever) and announces that he's placed a nuke (or bioweapon or something equally nasty) in some major city in the US that is set to go off in six hours, who then proceeds to provide sufficient information to establish his bona fides.

As for determining where "gray" begins and ends and becomes "black", well, nobody ever said that the decisions would be easy. They never are when they are about life and death for large numbers of people, are they? In those circumstances, any decision thats "easy" is also likely wrong.

I think I'm a reasonably moral, ethical man. (Not bragging, just stating my self-image in re: this issue) If I can't define where it is right vs. wrong, how can I judge when my government is doing it appropriately and by extension, hold their feet to the fire (pun intentional) when they exceed their authority?

You and I may not feel qualified to make that judgement, but we're the folk who've got the job. Remember, not making a decision is also making a decision--and it's usually the wrong one.

With all due respect, it's not the same as a self-defense scenario, and here's why: In SD, you have, literally, split seconds to make a decision that will change your life forever, a decision that will be bandied back and forth on dry-erase boards and court documents for months, maybe years, and debated in it's minutiae by jury members and attorneys who have the one major thing you didn't have when you most needed it: time.
When deciding how to interrogate a suspected terrorist, the decision to use method X or not is not one that must be made without consideration of right vs. wrong. It's probably not a decision that will be made by the person using method X, but by his/her superiors. It is bad to torture (or waterboard) other people. It is worse to allow them to keep information that could (or did) kill tens, hundreds, thousands, even millions of people... or even one. But is it acceptable to possibly do wrong to someone because we suspect he may be the terrorist with the answers (to where the bomb is, etc.) What if it's the wrong guy, and he really knows nothing?
(I know, what if, what if) More to the point, however, at what point does it become acceptable? That is, it's the argument we've both recently quoted as to haggling price: It's OK to torture someone who knows how to stop the killing of millions-is it OK to torture someone who knows how to stop the killing of one person? If it is not, where do we draw the line? Two? 10? 100?

If you are attacked by a group, how many are you allowed to kill to protect your single life? That's really the same kind of question. How many folk can be put at risk of being accidentally injured or killed from a self defense shooting before defending yourself becomes unjustified. These are the same kind of decisions "retail" that the government and military (and us as the ultimate watchdogs of both) have to deal with "wholesale."

Oh, and on the "split second" thing, one of the criteria in my personal checklist for "possibly justified" is time pressure. If you only have hours or days to get the critical information, well, to the government that is a split second decision.

In the end, however, someone on the sharp end is going to have to make the call. And afterward, if things go right, their call will be second guessed by folk who have lots of luxury to think about alternatives. (Just like folk will be all over a defensive shooting about how one really didn't have to kill the guy.) In the end, I would like to think that, if circumstances warrant, there should be a reasonable chance that the secong guessers in authority (analogous to the prosecutor or jury in the SD shooting case) being able to say "given what he knew, the situation he faced, and the risks of not acting as he did, he was justified in doing what he did." Anything else is to throw the sheepdog to the wolves (after first hamstringing him since many sheepdogs are actually able to take down a wolf--it's what some types were bred for after all).

Again, no easy answers and I never claimed their would be.

Nor did I, I'm afraid. Nor did I.

Lastly, yes, America has long been known for being long-suffering. We quietly tell the other country, "no, that's not acceptable", but we really don't do a lot to enforce that. They continue and we clear our throats, "*ahem* We said you need to stop that." Eventually, we get tired of clearing our throats and somebody gets led to the woodshed by his ear.

President Theodore Roosevelt (I read that he HATED "Teddy") had quite a few things right. We would do well to follow his examples, I think.

Thanks for your posts.

Blessings,
Bill

And thank you as well. Even where we disagree, your arguments are well reasoned and thoughtful. And most of those end up being areas where, as I have said many times "reasonable men can disagree."

 

[SavageEagle]

Very well thought out arguements guys. I tend to agree with David on this though. There is a time and place this should be use and a time and place when it shouldn't. Our elected officals will do tyranny no matter what "policy" is, be it in a dark room, gradually, or openly.

The trick is to spot it and then stop it. The Tree of Liberty Should Be Refreshed From Time To Time....

 

[Annie Oakley]

I have found that the only way to grow as a human is to constantly question my own opinions and be open to new ways of thinking. Sometimes I change my mind, sometimes I don't. What I love in a thread like this is that people who are much smarter than I am have stated their thoughts well and have remained civil. Keep it up and to each of you, regardless of your "side" of the issue, thanks for the conversation. I'd give reps to each one of you but I can't stay at the computer full time for the time it would take to do so.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I, unfortunately, was only able to read half-way through the entire discussion before I knew I would forget the points I would want to make, so I'm gonna go ahead and make them.

If they've already been made an thoroughly rebuffed, just let me know and I'll hush up.

First, and foremost, I am a firm believer in the original documents for America's birth. I agree entirely with the Declaration and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all. They afford proper rights are Americans, and I believe they could justifiably be used to give rights to all humanity--as long as they would be willing to accept them.

That is, to say, and as Bill of Rights has previously stated, that the Declaration spells out that each human deserves, from God, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". This is not something I disagree with (although I prefer John Locke's original draft of "property").
However, what is to say that a person is afforded these rights when they violate these rights for someone else? I admit this can get into the whole "slippery slope". But I would contend that the radical Muslims we are dealing with currently have already broken those rights for many people, and therefore are disallowed that right. Their pursuit of happiness is in directly confrontation with that same pursuit that other individuals are attempting to obtain. Therefore someone, one way or another, will be disallowed that right. I would say that, since their preference disallows more human rights than the other way of thinking, they should be the ones to lose their rights.

That is, I firmly believe that waterboarding is entirely acceptable, and they have forfeited their rights to what is entitled to all man based on their ideologies and their wanton wish to disallow us our rights.

While I can see the merits of an argument stating that you start with them, and the next think you know it's you or me on the board because we're "gun nuts" and "right wing extremists". They are not Americans. They are not afforded the same protections under our government as we are. They do not follow the Geneva Convention laws and therefore have absolved their right to those laws to apply to them as well. They are, furthermore, non-regulation paramilitary insurgents, without uniform, and without a formal command structure. Therefore, they are not technically an enemy army, but are exactly what we know them to be. They are terrorist insurgents. Their aims and goals are to only terrorize and demoralize their enemies via whatever tactics they deem appropriate. be it a car bomb or a video online of beheading someone, they have made their choice to break all the laws and regulations afforded to them in war. Therefore, by what means are we supposed to uphold our end? To save face? To be the bigger man? In a fist fight, the 'bigger man' gets kicked in the balls. Then he loses.

Now, I am not for waterboarding every single enemy POW we get. There should definitely be a process to it, but I also don't believe they deserve any amenities in their detention and should be held indefinitely. Those who are known to have possible relevant and pertinent information should be interrogated. If it is confirmed that they know something that could be useful in saving innocent lives, be they American or otherwise, then the authorization for certain torture techniques should be used. I do not believe that any physically scarring trauma should be used, but mental trauma is a-okay.
Of course, the argument has been made that psychological trauma is far worse, and I understand where you're coming from. However, I would rather break down their mentality, and erode it to get information that would be used to save the lives of people who do not deserve any of the pain they would unleash. Remember, you are merely 'torturing' a man who has already brought upon others hurt, and has already decided that he is willing to be a martyr for a cause. You are saving the lives of innocent people, possibly American civilians or military. I'm more than willing to take the chance that it may get back and bite us in the ass.

The reason I'm willing to take that chance is because I don't believe it will. And, if it were to, then no amount of legislation currently on the board would stop it. Take, for example, the mindset most people on these forums hold BHO in. To a lot of people, he is possibly the next Communist tyrant. The first Caesar of America, so to speak. If he gets all that power, what does it matter that we don't want to be black-bagged and dragged into the night to a windowless room? If it's going to happen, it's going to happen--regardless of whether or not it has been sanctioned as legal on enemies who are not American citizens.
Now, I don't believe this will happen. All of us here are American citizens. We are afforded a court and due process of the law. Therefore, and this was brought up way back (approximately page 7), if I saw bin Laden in America, I'll be damned if I didn't do everything in my power to detain him. And, afterwards, I don't care what they do to him. They can waterboard the hell out of him. He is not an American citizen, he is an enemy insurgent, and deserves the same treatment I would give any terrorist.

Now, there was another point made that most people view history as starting from their births. I will admit that I have often times done that. However, I will say that I do not think the war we are dealing with is anywhere near on the same scale as other wars we have been in. The enemy is not 'at our gates'. They are in a country, far away, and haven't done much noticeable damage to America in a few years. We are in their country, at their gates. However, I will say that the face of war has changed. We are not in the traditional war, there are no battle lines. The enemy is not a soldier, from another country, fighting for his government. The enemy is a brain-washed, militant Muslim, crossing country borders to terrorize their enemies. Most of the attacks that occur in Iraq are from Syrian and Iranian nationalists. In Afghanistan, they are remnants of the most abhorred government system in the past 30 or so years. But, they are by no means, the equivalent of Nazi Germany, or Communist Russia. If anything, this enemy is worse. We don't know who he is. We don't know where he is. And he is willing to do anything to hurt us.

I am all for honorable warfare. I would love to know that, if I am a POW, I will be afforded the rights upheld by the Geneva Convention. But that is not the case. And I would say that now is not the time to be the 'bigger man'.

 

[SavageEagle]

Very well put. Agree 100%. And repped.

 

[Bill of Rights]

[...]
That is, to say, and as Bill of Rights has previously stated, that the Declaration spells out that each human deserves, from God, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". This is not something I disagree with (although I prefer John Locke's original draft of "property").
However, what is to say that a person is afforded these rights when they violate these rights for someone else? I admit this can get into the whole "slippery slope". But I would contend that the radical Muslims we are dealing with currently have already broken those rights for many people, and therefore are disallowed that right. Their pursuit of happiness is in directly confrontation with that same pursuit that other individuals are attempting to obtain. Therefore someone, one way or another, will be disallowed that right. I would say that, since their preference disallows more human rights than the other way of thinking, they should be the ones to lose their rights.
[...]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because some (to use David's abbreviation) RIFs have violated the rights of others, we should disallow the exercise and respect of those rights for any Muslim? Any RIF? Or perhaps you mean that if, for example, Khalid Sheik Mohammed is on film sawing a man's head off of his neck with a pocketknife while the man screams, then Khalid Sheik Mohammed should not be treated as if he had rights?

I am torn. If I'm a family member of the person KSM is depicted beheading, I want to put a couple of hollow-points in the MFer's belly and watch him die a slow death. Conversely, I consider the Bill of Rights and for that matter, Nuremberg, among other such trials in which the accused is given an opportunity to defend himself. I struggle with that. See, it's easy to recognize the rights of those who we see as good, or even who we see as having somewhere gone wrong. I usually make a practice of not mentioning serial killers and mass murderers and the like, but I'll make this exception:

Eric and Lyle Menendez: Two spoiled rich kids who murdered their parents. Very public trial.
Jeffrey Dahmer: Killed and ate multiple people. Very public trial, very public execution.
Timothy McVeigh: Killed (edit:168) in an act against the government, retribution for actions against the Branch Davidians (and Randy Weaver's family?) Very public trial and execution.
Saddam Hussein: Killed thousands of his own people horribly. Public trial. Execution video still available on YouTube, somewhere, I'm sure, filmed on a cell phone camera.

All but the last are/were Americans. All committed crimes against the innocent. All were tried in a court of law-admittedly, Hussein was not tried in America. Further admittedly, all of the above, the verdict was pretty well known before the trial started. The fact is, they got their day in court. I can't say they didn't deserve it. I can't say they did, considering that their victims got no such day in court. Here's the thing, though: If we waterboard, torture, or summarily execute those we think are guilty of heinous crimes, how can we claim to be a nation of laws, rather than of men? How can we hold our methods as the example they have been for generations, telling other countries, "See? This is what we do, and it works so well... try it and make it work for you, too! We'll help if you want.", when we don't hold to our own principles?

I do think there is probably a time and a situation that makes these extreme methods advisable. I think that given specific types of known enemies would surpass that high bar, much as some homicides qualify as deserving of 10 years in prison and others qualify for capital punishment.

I am also glad that the decision of when it is appropriate does not fall on my shoulders.

Blessings,
B

 

[dburkhead]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because some (to use David's abbreviation) RIFs have violated the rights of others, we should disallow the exercise and respect of those rights for any Muslim? Any RIF?

One minor point here: Not all Muslims are RIFs.

For the rest, I would strongly recommend getting and reading a copy of Revel's "How Democracies Perish." A copy of de Toqueville's "Democracy in America" would also be highly recommended.

 

[CarmelHP]

What I've come to understand from the "never waterboarding" side is that the Constitution really IS a suicide pact.






(a nit to pick, Dahmer wasn't executed, a fellow prisoner beat him to death)

 

[Archaic_Entity]

[...]
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because some (to use David's abbreviation) RIFs have violated the rights of others, we should disallow the exercise and respect of those rights for any Muslim? Any RIF? Or perhaps you mean that if, for example, Khalid Sheik Mohammed is on film sawing a man's head off of his neck with a pocketknife while the man screams, then Khalid Sheik Mohammed should not be treated as if he had rights?
[...]

No, no. Not any Muslim. I speak specifically toward the militant Muslim, or RIFs. . The average Muslim that is arrested ought to be given their fair day before their own court system. They are not POWs, they are not war criminals, and they have their own justice system. And if they are American civilians, they should be tried in America, by American standards.
And I don't even agree with that we should waterboard/torture every single RIF that we capture. Most of them should be treated at least semi-hospitably, and be given fair living conditions. Many studies have shown that (and Hussein was one of the examples) in order to obtain information from people, it is far more advisable to be friendly and compassionate to them. Once they realize you're not a bad guy, or that you're not just going to kill them, but that they will be treated fairly... they tend to be far more willing to confide and share information with you. However, that takes time, and if the information is time-sensitive then you can't do that. Waterboarding, and similar methods of interrogation are effective, if done properly. I do not think it should be a small matter, but it should be taken under serious consideration. If the information is absolutely necessary within a very limited time-frame, and you had that method at your disposal, and you knew the one interrogated was withholding that information--or even a major portion of it--would you not consider it?

Furthermore, I was talking to a friend about this tonight, and he brought up another point. If the timing was so dire... say, for example, you were part of a squad of Marines that had just been ambushed. You were able to beat back the ambush, but you hear a wounded RIF stating that his friends would get you soon. You already had information that there would be another patrol of them in the area, but you didn't know when or where. All you had on you were your rifle, your bayonet, maybe a knife, and your ammo. Would you, in order to protect your life and the life of your men, be willing to apply physically painful and possibly permanently disabling torture to this man in order to find out what he knows?
And, as a side-note I just thought of, would you end up killing him afterwards... or would you attempt to keep him alive and turn him in to a proper POW camp afterwards?
And that's not just to Bill, I think it's a fair question to ask in general. Granted it's a bit extreme, and most here couldn't say for sure whether or not they could go through with it... but would you condone it, if you knew it could be done?

Anyway, sorry for that confusion.

 

[techres]

What I've come to understand from the "never waterboarding" side is that the Constitution really IS a suicide pact.

The Constitution is the only thing that stands between us and the tyranny of the majority of the day. Most days any more, that majority would have us all disarmed, quiet, and unable to organize for a better future. That majority would have the laws on all levels changed so that it can always remain the majority and would keep those changes intact through fears of threats that are "unprecedented", "unique", and of a "magnitude" that requires fundamental changes to what has made this country great.

Our Constitution has survived world wars, the burning of the capital, the red scares, and intermittent terrorist attacks. It has survived American Nazism, American Socialism and American Communism.

The only failure has been those times that fear has driven us away from it and then you find that we are willing to have internment camps, government agencies that spy on it's own civilians and send police into pacifist gatherings in order to report on their "terrorist activities", and who gather up guns and restrict ownership "for the public good".

I guess it was "a suicide pact" to let civilians keep guns after Katrina, or let Americans of Japanese decent remain free during WWII, or let people say what they wanted to outside of a "free speech zone".

Sometimes I am amazed by that edge of the community that is so ready to toss the Constitution for anti-terror reasons, but would call back to it if someone tried to take all our firearms.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

The Constitution survived terrible times before, sometimes in a very scathed form, but it may not survive the now times - not if we are willing to sell it off so cheaply out of fear.

 

[CarmelHP]

Sometimes I am amazed by that edge of the community that is so ready to toss the Constitution for anti-terror reasons, but would call back to it if someone tried to take all our firearms.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

The Constitution survived terrible times before, sometimes in a very scathed form, but it may not survive the now times - not if we are willing to sell it off so cheaply out of fear.

Quite simply, straw man balderdash. We have fools willing to let hundreds of thousands of their countrymen die in order to extend the Constitution to enemy combatants that were never extended such protections by this country, or any country, in any other war. Simple unadulterated foolishness towards an enemy that takes it only as a sign of weakness to exploit. I suppose we should have let German prisoners clog our courts with habeus writs or not arrest and hang saboteurs, some of them citizens, until they actually were able to accomplish what they came for. Fools drawing equivalency between U.S. citizens on U.S. soil engaging in peaceful exercise of their rights to ruthless enemy agents conducting war against women and children. Feel good nonsense, blah.

As Jefferson wrote, "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.(*)" That is what is being advocated by those arguing that you can't make a terrorist uncomfortable.





* As quoted in:
Brest, Paul; Sanford Levinson, Jack M. Balkin, Akhil Reed Amar, and Reva B. Seigel (2006). Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials (6th Edition ed.). Aspen. pp. 65–67.

 

[Michiana]

What if it was your family that would die?

Or perhaps you mean that if, for example, Khalid Sheik Mohammed is on film sawing a man's head off of his neck with a pocketknife while the man screams, then Khalid Sheik Mohammed should not be treated as if he had rights?

What rights did the guy getting his head cut off have? Who protected him? What rights do you think you would have with these animals? This Khalid should be taken out and shot with no trial like they would do to you if it is known without a doubt he is guilty. When individuals have information that can save the lives of many innocent people I have no problem doing whatever is necessaryto get them to talk.

The bleeding hearts would do whatever it took if it was their family, their children who would die if this animal does not tell what he knows. If you feel so sorry for the bad guy put your carry gun in a drawer at home so you don't become judge and jury and executioner if some insane person holds you up; you can't have it both ways. This type of nutty thinking is why this country is so screwed up.

 

[96harley]

They should be forced to surf.................

That way they would have to go to the left coast, the land of fruits and nuts and be exposed to all kinds of weird stuff. Now if that ain't torture I don't know what is.

 

[Prometheus]

The Constitution is the only thing that stands between us and the tyranny of the majority of the day. Most days any more, that majority would have us all disarmed, quiet, and unable to organize for a better future. That majority would have the laws on all levels changed so that it can always remain the majority and would keep those changes intact through fears of threats that are "unprecedented", "unique", and of a "magnitude" that requires fundamental changes to what has made this country great.

Our Constitution has survived world wars, the burning of the capital, the red scares, and intermittent terrorist attacks. It has survived American Nazism, American Socialism and American Communism.

The only failure has been those times that fear has driven us away from it and then you find that we are willing to have internment camps, government agencies that spy on it's own civilians and send police into pacifist gatherings in order to report on their "terrorist activities", and who gather up guns and restrict ownership "for the public good".

I guess it was "a suicide pact" to let civilians keep guns after Katrina, or let Americans of Japanese decent remain free during WWII, or let people say what they wanted to outside of a "free speech zone".

Sometimes I am amazed by that edge of the community that is so ready to toss the Constitution for anti-terror reasons, but would call back to it if someone tried to take all our firearms.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

The Constitution survived terrible times before, sometimes in a very scathed form, but it may not survive the now times - not if we are willing to sell it off so cheaply out of fear.

Wonderful post.

The bottom line is too many people are living and cowering in fear of some "terrorist boogeyman". It's disheartening, to say the least.

 

[Bill of Rights]

One minor point here: Not all Muslims are RIFs.

Agreed, and exactly the point I was making.