On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:37:11 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

1. My opinion, yes. Legal interpretation? I don't know.

It's an interesting subject with two distinct viewpoints. Alan
Dershowitz, a not exactly "conservative" legal scholar nor a foaming
at the mouth reactionary villian (from the liberal perspective)
advocates and believes that under certain conditions, torture is
permissible and effective method of obtaining information.

As usual, there are two arguments here.

1 - The "dirty hands" dilemma which is really a cost/benefit analysis.
The usual circumstances are the "ticking bomb" scenario in which a
bomb is set to go off and kill thousands of people - the cost of
harming one human life to save thousands of human lives is defensible
and/or excusable. This argument basically states that while morally
indefensible, the end result justifies the means.

2 - That there is a moral, ethical and legal humanitarian obligation
that supercedes the need for information and that no justification can
be made to support the harming of one human being to save thousands of
human beings under any circumstances. That the ends to not justify the
means on a human and personal level.

The view under the Bush administration was the same as Dershowitz's -
that the end justifies the means - another way to put it would be that
while morally reprehensible, in the "dirty hands" scenario, it is
excusable and justifiable. As a general rule, while the United States
is a signatory to most, not all, of the interntional conventions on
the use of torture, it does reserve the right to determine it's own
findings guided by US law rather than international law - meaning that
the United States can make it's own rules if it feels necessary -
which is basically the "conservative" viewpoint. The Obama
administration has the exact opposite viewpoint and this is basically
supports the liberal/progressive viewpoint.

There are ancillary arguments to both sides about the nature of
"torture", what is and isn't torture, are the international
conventions too broad, yada, yada, yada. For instance, the use of dogs
to "threaten" an informant is verboten. "Psychological" techniques
(sleep deprivation or annoying sounds, hyponsis) are forbidden. "Drug"
techniques (such as "truth" serum) are forbidden. Some governments
allow for one, and not others.

I'm not at all sure how I view it to be honest. I think I'm more
inclined towards the Dershowitz viewpoint if I was pressed hard to
give an answer. On the other hand, I'm not much for inflicting pain as
the be all and end all. I suppose if I had to choose a "method" I'd
prefer the psychological approach in that I'd most likely use those
techniques to get what I wanted rather than inflict physical harm. You
know - hypnotize the suspect, find out that he's afraid of rats say,
then flood his cell with rats and see what happens.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:50:23 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


1 - The "dirty hands" dilemma which is really a cost/benefit analysis.
The usual circumstances are the "ticking bomb" scenario in which a bomb
is set to go off and kill thousands of people - the cost of harming one
human life to save thousands of human lives is defensible and/or
excusable. This argument basically states that while morally
indefensible, the end result justifies the means.

If, in truth, there were a "ticking bomb", the torture argument does
become hazier, but the reality is that scenario is extremely rare, and
doesn't apply in this case. This was torture used for plain old
"ordinary" intelligence. When you put people in a violent situation,
there will be torture, and illegal killings. That can be put down as
"**** happens", but when you allow torture as policy, you place this
country on the same level as Pinochet's Chile, Stalin's Soviet Union,
Hitler's Germany...

To me, it isn't whether torture works or not, it's about what it says
about us. We're ****in' barbarians.

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:50:23 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


1 - The "dirty hands" dilemma which is really a cost/benefit analysis.
The usual circumstances are the "ticking bomb" scenario in which a bomb
is set to go off and kill thousands of people - the cost of harming one
human life to save thousands of human lives is defensible and/or
excusable. This argument basically states that while morally
indefensible, the end result justifies the means.

If, in truth, there were a "ticking bomb", the torture argument does
become hazier, but the reality is that scenario is extremely rare, and
doesn't apply in this case. This was torture used for plain old
"ordinary" intelligence. When you put people in a violent situation,
there will be torture, and illegal killings. That can be put down as
"**** happens", but when you allow torture as policy, you place this
country on the same level as Pinochet's Chile, Stalin's Soviet Union,
Hitler's Germany...


To me, it isn't whether torture works or not, it's about what it says
about us. We're ****in' barbarians.



Tell me.

Are we as barbaric as a society who beheads innocent people and posts the
video on the internet for all to see including the family of the victims?
Are we as barbaric as a group who sneak into the USA, hijack airplanes and
fly them into buildings in downtown NY city, killing about 3000?
Are we as barbaric as a group who instill lifelong hatred into 6 year old
kids and promote the killing of the "infidels" as a religious honor and
duty?

And that's not considering how they treat their own who don't obey.

Sorry. I have no sympathy for them.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:50:23 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


1 - The "dirty hands" dilemma which is really a cost/benefit analysis.
The usual circumstances are the "ticking bomb" scenario in which a bomb
is set to go off and kill thousands of people - the cost of harming one
human life to save thousands of human lives is defensible and/or
excusable. This argument basically states that while morally
indefensible, the end result justifies the means.

If, in truth, there were a "ticking bomb", the torture argument does
become hazier, but the reality is that scenario is extremely rare, and
doesn't apply in this case. This was torture used for plain old
"ordinary" intelligence. When you put people in a violent situation,
there will be torture, and illegal killings. That can be put down as
"**** happens", but when you allow torture as policy, you place this
country on the same level as Pinochet's Chile, Stalin's Soviet Union,
Hitler's Germany...


To me, it isn't whether torture works or not, it's about what it says
about us. We're ****in' barbarians.



Tell me.

Are we as barbaric as a society who beheads innocent people and posts
the video on the internet for all to see including the family of the
victims?
Are we as barbaric as a group who sneak into the USA, hijack airplanes
and fly them into buildings in downtown NY city, killing about 3000?
Are we as barbaric as a group who instill lifelong hatred into 6 year
old kids and promote the killing of the "infidels" as a religious honor
and duty?

And that's not considering how they treat their own who don't obey.

Sorry. I have no sympathy for them.

Eisboch




1. Since we still have capital punishment in this country, and in many
cases it is painful to the victim, I'm not sure we are on high enough
moral ground to bitch about the ways other societies execute their
criminals or those they consider criminals. Also, we were involved in
the trials that led to the execution of Saddam Hussein, and if you
recall, videos of his hanging were on the news everywhere. We're at
least guilty by association in that public display, even though it was
carried out by our new warm friends and allies, the Iraqis.

Also, don't forget that we are one of the only "modern" western
countries that still has capital punishment, and that of all modern
western countries, we imprison the highest percentage of our people.

2. As horrific as 9-11 was to us, we have killed far more innocent
Iraqis with our bombings of their cities, towns, and villages. We don't
talk much in this country about the devastation we have caused to Iraq
and Iraqis, a country and people who were virtually uninvolved in 9-11.

3. We have thousands upon thousands of crazed conservative christians in
this country who instill lifelong hatred into their children towards
others in society (e.g., gays) who do not believe as they do, and
sometimes those children go out and commit violence in the cause of
their religious beliefs. We don't have as much of it as the Muslim
world, but we have it.

Your post ignores the fact that whatever high moral ground this country
occupied was given up by the actions of the George W. Bush
administration. We may not be down in the sewer with the fundie
Islamists, but we certainly were taken right to the gutter.

In short, the differences between the way the fundie Muslims abuse
people and the way we do here are a matter of degree.

The damage inflicted on this country by Bush and his crowd will plague
us for generations.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 06:04:18 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:50:23 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


1 - The "dirty hands" dilemma which is really a cost/benefit analysis.
The usual circumstances are the "ticking bomb" scenario in which a bomb
is set to go off and kill thousands of people - the cost of harming one
human life to save thousands of human lives is defensible and/or
excusable. This argument basically states that while morally
indefensible, the end result justifies the means.

If, in truth, there were a "ticking bomb", the torture argument does
become hazier, but the reality is that scenario is extremely rare, and
doesn't apply in this case. This was torture used for plain old
"ordinary" intelligence. When you put people in a violent situation,
there will be torture, and illegal killings. That can be put down as
"**** happens", but when you allow torture as policy, you place this
country on the same level as Pinochet's Chile, Stalin's Soviet Union,
Hitler's Germany...

To me, it isn't whether torture works or not, it's about what it says
about us. We're ****in' barbarians.

The argument is a valid one - how often would it happen is a major
component of this debate and one that should be recognized as a valid
counter argument.

However, the counter argument dismisses the main point and dodges the
hard question - what if. The problem, from my perspective, is scale.
The example of a single event with the potential of killing thousands
is a little extreme, but it has happened and it isn't a stretch of
imagination to understand that more may have been in the offing.

The examples you presented also dodge the main question - Hitler,
Stalin and Pinochet used torture as a political instrument and not as
a technique to gain military intelligence to assess potential threats
- Dershowitz also makes that distinction and argues that there is a
moral imperative to protect the lives of citizens - another way to put
it is that a single evil to benefit the common good, while morally
questionable, is defensible and excusable. At it's heart, that is the
argument - can torture be defended as being a valid technique when
time and lack of intelligence is of the essence.

To me, the term "torture" has been expanded beyond any common sense.
The International Conventions proscribe the use of almost all
cohersive tactics - even those that are relatively benign such as
hallucinogens, "truth" serums and other passive techniques (sleep
deprivation, sound/light, etc.). That just seems to me, in this day
and age of advanced medical technology, that these types of cohersive
tactics should be considered as a valid intelligence tool and should
be used to gain intelligence not available via normal methods.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:52:37 -0400, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:


The argument is a valid one - how often would it happen is a major
component of this debate and one that should be recognized as a valid
counter argument.

That's where the argument gets hazy. Look, in the abstract, if torturing
one would save many, I may do what it takes, or, overlook what happens,
but that doesn't excuse torture as policy.


The examples you presented also dodge the main question - Hitler, Stalin
and Pinochet used torture as a political instrument and not as a
technique to gain military intelligence to assess potential threats -

So, when the veil of secrecy is finally lifted, if it turns out that that
is exactly what we did? What then? I mean, rumor has it we waterboarded
one guy 183 times. And what was that BS at abu Graib?


Dershowitz also makes that distinction and argues that there is a moral
imperative to protect the lives of citizens - another way to put it is
that a single evil to benefit the common good, while morally
questionable, is defensible and excusable. At it's heart, that is the
argument - can torture be defended as being a valid technique when time
and lack of intelligence is of the essence.

It's arguable, and perhaps, just perhaps, defensible, in a strict one off
way, but that's not what we are talking about. We're talking blanket
policy, and from there, it's not a slippery-slope, it's a damn cliff.


To me, the term "torture" has been expanded beyond any common sense. The
International Conventions proscribe the use of almost all cohersive
tactics - even those that are relatively benign such as hallucinogens,
"truth" serums and other passive techniques (sleep deprivation,
sound/light, etc.). That just seems to me, in this day and age of
advanced medical technology, that these types of cohersive tactics
should be considered as a valid intelligence tool and should be used to
gain intelligence not available via normal methods.

Yeah, but ... those International Conventions aren't for the protection
of our enemies, they are for the protection of our own. The question to
ask is, what tactics do we want our soldiers to be subject to?

On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:39:00 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:52:37 -0400, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:


The argument is a valid one - how often would it happen is a major
component of this debate and one that should be recognized as a valid
counter argument.

That's where the argument gets hazy. Look, in the abstract, if torturing
one would save many, I may do what it takes, or, overlook what happens,
but that doesn't excuse torture as policy.

That's a good point - then again, it depends on how you define policy.
A "policy" can take the point of view that in a strictly one-off
situation, it's acceptable. If you take the opposite view, that even
in one-off situations it's unacceptable, that's a different policy.

I acknowledge your point - it's very good and one that would require
some thought with respect to both the nature of policy and what the
potential gains might be.

The examples you presented also dodge the main question - Hitler, Stalin
and Pinochet used torture as a political instrument and not as a
technique to gain military intelligence to assess potential threats -

So, when the veil of secrecy is finally lifted, if it turns out that that
is exactly what we did? What then? I mean, rumor has it we waterboarded
one guy 183 times.

Well if so, then I would view it as wholly inappropriate if not
criminal - in concept. There is a point where the methodology becomes
useless and, in truth, morally and ethically indefensible even under
the standards of the dirty hands dilemma. Assuming that it actually
happened that is - I don't know that it actually did.

And what was that BS at abu Graib?

Heh - I was wondering when that would rear it's ugly head.

In my view, and I'm operating with the same information that most of
us are which is limited as we weren't there, it has all the hallmarks
of a true one-off situation. In this case, and I'm projecting here
based on personal experience, you had poorly trained troopers under
the direction of an inexperienced chain of command who wholly ignored
the standards set forth in both the Geneva Convention and the US
Military Codes, Standards and Practices that govern treatment of
Prisoners of War.

Karpinski claimed that her hands were tied (no pun intended) and that
she was following lawful orders of her command staff. I find that
suspect because in that situation, in particular being an officer in
the Military Police/Intelligence, she not only had an obligation to
report the abuse of the prisoners, she had a moral or ethical
obligation to resign her post effectively immediately and take the
issue to the civilian command. She was obviously complicit in the
abuse and either condoned it, ignored it or was incredibly naive about
the nature of the acts that were committed - which does not matter
anyway - she was clearly at fault.

Graner and England were clearly unbalanced personalities.
Unfortunately, that can happen even in the best trained and organized
military. Frankly, there are no excuses for what happened there in the
most egregious cases and taken as a whole, Karpinski should have been
held to account for operating what rightly could be viewed as a
chamber of horrors. Demotion wasn't enough.

Dershowitz also makes that distinction and argues that there is a moral
imperative to protect the lives of citizens - another way to put it is
that a single evil to benefit the common good, while morally
questionable, is defensible and excusable. At it's heart, that is the
argument - can torture be defended as being a valid technique when time
and lack of intelligence is of the essence.

It's arguable, and perhaps, just perhaps, defensible, in a strict one off
way, but that's not what we are talking about. We're talking blanket
policy, and from there, it's not a slippery-slope, it's a damn cliff.

True enough, but then again, we're kind of operating in the dark - we
honestly don't know what the threat level was perceived to be at that
time by our intelligence agencies. I do know that there were other
plots exposed by the use of these techniques - why that hasn't been
fully revealed I don't know - bits and pieces have come to light, but
the whole picture has never been revealed.

And I agree with you - it is a very steep slope. We can only trust
that our leaders use common sense and are guided by appropriate
ethical and moral standards.

To me, the term "torture" has been expanded beyond any common sense. The
International Conventions proscribe the use of almost all cohersive
tactics - even those that are relatively benign such as hallucinogens,
"truth" serums and other passive techniques (sleep deprivation,
sound/light, etc.). That just seems to me, in this day and age of
advanced medical technology, that these types of cohersive tactics
should be considered as a valid intelligence tool and should be used to
gain intelligence not available via normal methods.

Yeah, but ... those International Conventions aren't for the protection
of our enemies, they are for the protection of our own. The question to
ask is, what tactics do we want our soldiers to be subject to?

Do you honestly believe that our more civilized standards of military
conduct will be adhered to by what is basically a 5th Century
religious movement practiced by what are, to use your term,
barbarians? Do I really have to point out the atrocity perpetrated by
Al Qaeda on Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker?

We only need to look back at our most recent involvement in Vietnam to
put lie that concept. Describe the way our aviators and soldiers were
treated by the Viet Cong and NVA and then describe the way their POWs
were treated by our troops.

No offense but it's a specious argument. This isn't conventional war
here -it's fighting a guerrilla war and those rules are entirely
different. Al Qaeda doesn't play by the same rules as we do.

This argument reminds me of the Beirut kidnappings. Two diplomats were
kidnapped at the same time - one US and one Russian. As the story was
told in the press at the time, the Russians basically told the
kidnappers through what ever channels they had that they knew who the
kidnappers were, where their families were and suggested in the
strongest possible way that their guy needed to be returned ASAP or
else. Six hours later, he was released. Our guy spent five months in
captivity while we fiddled around with "diplomacy".

Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 06:04:18 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:50:23 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


1 - The "dirty hands" dilemma which is really a cost/benefit analysis.
The usual circumstances are the "ticking bomb" scenario in which a bomb
is set to go off and kill thousands of people - the cost of harming one
human life to save thousands of human lives is defensible and/or
excusable. This argument basically states that while morally
indefensible, the end result justifies the means.
If, in truth, there were a "ticking bomb", the torture argument does
become hazier, but the reality is that scenario is extremely rare, and
doesn't apply in this case. This was torture used for plain old
"ordinary" intelligence. When you put people in a violent situation,
there will be torture, and illegal killings. That can be put down as
"**** happens", but when you allow torture as policy, you place this
country on the same level as Pinochet's Chile, Stalin's Soviet Union,
Hitler's Germany...

To me, it isn't whether torture works or not, it's about what it says
about us. We're ****in' barbarians.

The argument is a valid one - how often would it happen is a major
component of this debate and one that should be recognized as a valid
counter argument.

However, the counter argument dismisses the main point and dodges the
hard question - what if. The problem, from my perspective, is scale.
The example of a single event with the potential of killing thousands
is a little extreme, but it has happened and it isn't a stretch of
imagination to understand that more may have been in the offing.

The examples you presented also dodge the main question - Hitler,
Stalin and Pinochet used torture as a political instrument and not as
a technique to gain military intelligence to assess potential threats
- Dershowitz also makes that distinction and argues that there is a
moral imperative to protect the lives of citizens - another way to put
it is that a single evil to benefit the common good, while morally
questionable, is defensible and excusable. At it's heart, that is the
argument - can torture be defended as being a valid technique when
time and lack of intelligence is of the essence.

To me, the term "torture" has been expanded beyond any common sense.
The International Conventions proscribe the use of almost all
cohersive tactics - even those that are relatively benign such as
hallucinogens, "truth" serums and other passive techniques (sleep
deprivation, sound/light, etc.). That just seems to me, in this day
and age of advanced medical technology, that these types of cohersive
tactics should be considered as a valid intelligence tool and should
be used to gain intelligence not available via normal methods.

I think we are losing sight of the forest for the trees. Before you
determine if one should ban different interrogation techniques, you
first have to determine what are effective interrogation techniques that
will provide valuable information.

From what I have read from former CIA operatives and British MI5,
techniques such as waterboarding DO NOT and HAVE NOT provided good
reliable intelligence. They provide an lots of information, but it
tied up valuable resources following up on false information provided to
stop the waterboarding. If you waterboard most people, they will tell
you anything you want, just to stop the waterboarding. It is not
necessarily good information. If you want a confession, waterboarding
works great. I know if I was waterboarded, I would tell you about 100's
of terrorist activities that were in the works. I would admit to being
the lost Beatle, and would swear that I thought Harry and Donnie were
decent human beings.

Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:



Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

I've seen more than one CIA operative say that the FBI interrogators
are the best in the world at extracting useful information.
The FBI interrogators don't torture.
There is no debate to be had.
Any discussion about torture is political smoke and mirrors.
Or mental masturbation.
Our founding fathers settled the issue long ago when they created
the U.S. Constitution.
And if waterboarding were tested in the U.S Supreme Court, with
everybody out sick except justice Scalia, I have no doubt he would
rule it unconstitutional.
Well, geez, I hope so, anyway.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:49:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:


Once you determine what are effective techniques, then you can debate if
we want to use a technique that most people consider torture, and does
the end justify the means.

I've seen more than one CIA operative say that the FBI interrogators
are the best in the world at extracting useful information.
The FBI interrogators don't torture.
There is no debate to be had.
Any discussion about torture is political smoke and mirrors.
Or mental masturbation.
Our founding fathers settled the issue long ago when they created
the U.S. Constitution.
And if waterboarding were tested in the U.S Supreme Court, with
everybody out sick except justice Scalia, I have no doubt he would
rule it unconstitutional.
Well, geez, I hope so, anyway.

--Vic

I think you understood the point I was trying to make. Many people are
debating if we should use waterboarding , is it considered torture and
if it is torture should we do it anyway.

My point is that the question is really moot. Most people agree that
torture does not provide valuable information. No matter what anyone
says, if you are being waterboarded, it is torture. If you are not
going to get any accurate information why waste your time, why provide
your enemies and friends with justification to question the U.S. moral
fiber, why provide the Islamic extremist a valuable recruiting tool to
expand their members who are determined to attack the west and the US.
I can not figure out why our leaders in the military, the CIA and the
administration allowed this to go on. I am just very disappointed by
all of it, and everyone involved, including Bush and Chaney.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects