Dennis Prager: Nine Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture

townhall.com ^ | April 28, 2009 | Dennis Prager

[kellynla]

Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity. With this in mind, those who oppose what the Bush administration did to some terror suspects may be justified. But in order to ascertain whether they are, they need to respond to some questions:

1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did -- all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.

3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time -- even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives -- wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida -- for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured -- could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?

4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.

5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?

6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, ”We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?

7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?

8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos -- or at least photo re-enactments -- of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?

9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?

If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.

[muawiyah]

All you need as an answer is to check out Senator Leahy. When you say "Saddam Hussein" in his presence he starts grinning and drool drips down his jaw.

Now that can't be natural.

[Republic]

Good questions. Wow. He outdid himself.

[STONEWALLS]

....and reason #10: Alan Dershowitz has written approvingly of using it....and he’s an esteemed Lefty on the faculty of Harvard Law school.

[bgill]

Bingo.

[Sacajaweau]

The big question will always remain: What is the definition of "torture"??

Panties on the head is NOT torture.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

bump

[ClearCase_guy]

If -- as I'm often told -- torture "doesn't work",
And if waterboarding demonstrably DID work,
then doesn't that move waterboarding out of the category of "torture"?

And the flip side:

And if waterboarding IS torture, and if waterboarding works, then we have to admit that torture works, and then we have to justify not using something that we know works even when millions of lives may be at risk.

To a certain extent we are faced with a choice: To be alive or to be so squeamish that we end up dead.

I'm not squeamish.

[Old Sarge]

Great article.

Pity no one will ever read it.

[kellynla]

“Pity no one will ever read it?”

well, you & I and many other FReepers have...
and I’ve emailed it to others...hopefully you & many other FReepers will follow suit...

[nufsed]

Dennis Prager, one of the most thoughful, civilized people in any medium. No one addresses morality and ethics as well as he.

[CodeToad]

“Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?
“

More importantly, as a member of Congress, she voted to FUND those activities.

[roaddog727]

Spot on quetions.

[Ancesthntr]

All of the bellyaching about “torture” by the Left leaves unanswered a few other questions, which even Prager didn’t ask:

10) If you refuse to condone the use of waterboarding or other forms of enhanced pressure, what manner of obtaining information that may be vital to saving the lives of hundreds, thousands or more people will you use on a known member of a terrorist organization that you believe has knowledge of the next attack? What are you going to do, invite them to Starbucks for a latte and hope to convince them in an hour to give up a lifetime of beliefs?

11) How would you justify to the families of the victims of the next terror attack your preventing of the use of a method of extracting information that would have been uncomfortable for the murdering terrorist, but which would have had a high likelihood of preventing the attack?

11A) How would you like to spend 5 minutes in a closed room with a few of them, especially when all are made aware that there will be complete privacy, no cameras and no microphones or other recording/transmitting devices?

[randog]

The big question will always remain: What is the definition of "torture"??

That's always the question in politics--where is the line? Abortion is a good example--some say never while others say right up to birth.

I saw Shep Smith throwing a tantrum on a video--"We're America and we don't f$%#$g torture!". That's not true at all--a fighting American is vicious. Talk to a vet that saw any combat--we're mean SOB's when it comes to fighting the good fight.

[Ancesthntr]

“Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?”

How about THIS: Will you also seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. who lie under oath (i.e. obstruct justice) about their recollection of the CIA briefings concerning waterboarding of high-level suspects, in an attempt to cover up their knowledge of, and involvement in, approving and funding waterboarding?

[IrishPennant]

The big question will always remain: What is the definition of "torture"??

Enduring 4 years of this destructive administration...

[kellynla]

“More importantly, as a member of Congress, she voted to FUND those activities”

Pelousy and many others!!!

[Ancesthntr]

Shep Smith is a huge disappointment. I used to think that he had some sense in his head, that he actually analyzed the question of the day. Turns out that he usually has decent instincts, but when it is crunch time on tough issues, he “goes wobbly” (as the Brits like to say).

Shep, THESE things are torture:

1) pulling out someone’s fingernails;

2) breaking multiple bones and not only not giving them medical treatment, but hitting the broken bones with bricks and rifle butts in an effort to force a confession;

3) forcing tens of thousands of people to walk hundreds of miles in high temperature, high humidity conditions, while not giving them water or food, and then shooting anyone who can’t keep up;

4) hooking someone’s testicles up to a car battery, dousing them with water, and then turning on the current;

5) pulling someone’s tongue out with a pair of pliers; and

6) cutting someone’s head off with a rusty and dull knife, all the while filming the event so that you can show the world how proud you are of it, and preferably to traumatize the family of the victim - just for the fun of it.

Shep, you freaking moron, you emotional little girl, we DON’T do those things. Jack Bauer isn’t real, you jackass.

[OrioleFan]

Since there are pictures of of waterboarding all over the net, a commercial should be prepared for when Leaky Leahy starts his investigation and hearings. Entitle it “Nancy Knew”, and show a picture of waterboarding in the corner of the screen faded in and out over 911 video with faded of pictures of people jumping from the towers. The announcer can say, “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques prevented another 911 in Los Angeles. Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrat leaders were in the briefings, and didn’t object. In fact, several asked if we were doing enough.”

[Mrs. Don-o]

I want to make two points here, and I would value hearing back from people who agree or disagree.

First, shouldn't we agree that if something is intrinsically wrong, then any consideration of whether it "works" or not should be out of the question?

I suppose there are rather few acts which are "intrinsically" wrong, in the sense of "moral absolutes" or "exceptionless norms," but among those few would be abortion, infanticide, deliberately targeting noncombatants in time of war, use of indiscriminate biological and chemical weapons and the like, city=target bombing, rape/sexual violation, and torture, when objectively and properly defined.

(Please stay with me here.)

Second, Shouldn't there be some better attempt at definition, to distinguish between interrogation, "enhanced" interrogation, restraint and disciplinary penal measures, and torture?

And even within the sub-category of torture itself, shouldn't there be a demarcation of different degrees, analogous to the way that we classify different degrees of murder: 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, negligent homicide, justifiable homicide, manslaughter, etc., upon consideration of all the aggravating, mitigating and even exculpatory factors?

(This is not to say that something intrinsically wrong can be justified by mitigating factors, e.g. even if raping the terrorist's wife and daughter before his eyes would break him psychologically in a way that proved useful, you still can't do that --- under any circumstances.)

From a legal point of view, it would seem that prosecution makes no sense if everybody has a different definition, and if the law itself does not make sufficiently clear distinctions. How can people be prosecuted for acts which took place before those acts were legally defined as crimes?

Acts which are gravely immoral ought to be illegal. Examples, again, would be abortion, and torture as properly defined. But you cannot prosecute a person for anything, however immoral, if it was not clearly illegal at the time committed, can you?

Hm. And then there's Nuremburg.

Your thoughts?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Dennis Prager, one of the most thoughful, civilized people in any medium. No one addresses morality and ethics as well as he.

Indeed. The only problem is that it takes intellectual honesty to answer the questions and that simply does not exist on the left

[EnigmaticAnomaly]

"All of the bellyaching about “torture” by the Left leaves unanswered a few other questions, which even Prager didn’t ask:

10) If you refuse to condone the use of waterboarding or other forms of enhanced pressure, what manner of obtaining information that may be vital to saving the lives of hundreds, thousands or more people will you use on a known member of a terrorist organization that you believe has knowledge of the next attack? What are you going to do, invite them to Starbucks for a latte and hope to convince them in an hour to give up a lifetime of beliefs?

11) How would you justify to the families of the victims of the next terror attack your preventing of the use of a method of extracting information that would have been uncomfortable for the murdering terrorist, but which would have had a high likelihood of preventing the attack?

11A) How would you like to spend 5 minutes in a closed room with a few of them, especially when all are made aware that there will be complete privacy, no cameras and no microphones or other recording/transmitting devices?"

I concur.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It’s just the usual partisan politics.

The left has never had a problem with people suffering before. They don’t care now.

[kellynla]

okay...you lost me in the second sentence. LOL

but lets get down to it...

ANY action that does not inflict physical harm to the body IS NOT TORTURE.

As anyone who was ever been “dunked” in a pool, lake, river, ocean or other body of water...”dunking” is not “torture!” LOL

and Hussein & his band of Propeller Heads have opened up one HUGE Pandora’s box by releasing these memos...

Does the phrase “loose lips sink ships” nor register with this bunch of morons!!!

We're at war and the country is being run by “Larry, Moe & Curley!”

Hussein's incompetence, arrogance & ignorance is going to get a LOT of Americans needlessly killed!!!

Semper Fi,
Kelly

[HiTech RedNeck]

All I can say is that such a subtle analysis would not be done by the lefties in a million years. Not even to highlight the difference between what the WWII Japanese called waterboarding vs. what the Gitmo teams called waterboarding.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Yes, until Obama is out and we have a more sensible president, our foes will laugh.

[FastCoyote]

Here’s the Big question. Is it better to engage in non-lethal torture, or just execute the bastards on the spot, because that’s what our agents will now do.

[Just A Nobody]

9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this?

On what grounds indeed! Forget Japan...what about the current war?

PFC Thomas Lowell Tucker, 25

PFC Kristian Menchaca, 23

Farewell, PFC Tucker
PFC Tucker and PFC Menchaca were kidnapped, brutalized to a point that the only way to identify the body parts was through DNA testing, then left with their remains booby-trapped.

[statement released by the terrorists at the time]
"We announce the good news to our Islamic nation that God's will was executed and the two crusader animals we had in captivity were slaughtered"..."

Bodies of G.I.'s Show Signs of Torture
"There were traces of torture on their bodies, very clear traces," General Jassim said. "It was a brutal torture. The torture was something unnatural."

Those terrorists don't waste time with panties on heads or dripping water on our heroes faces. No siree!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"All I can say is that such a subtle analysis would not be done by the lefties in a million years. Not even to highlight the difference between what the WWII Japanese called waterboarding vs. what the Gitmo teams called waterboarding."

You may be right about that, I don't know. But principled conservatives ought to do a careful moral and legal analysis.

Because if we don't, who will? And if we won't, what are we?

[Just A Nobody]

Here’s the Big question. A.) Is it better to engage in non-lethal torture, or B.) just execute the bastards on the spot...

I'll take B. for $1000, Alex.

[Just A Nobody]

As anyone who was ever been “dunked” in a pool, lake, river, ocean or other body of water...”dunking” is not “torture!”

So, are you saying everyone that was baptized by immersion were not tortured? How about all those babies that have been baptized by dribbling water on their heads that run down their faces?

You are ruining perfectly good law suits against preachers and priests with your proclamation!

[puroresu]

Obama also wants to cozy up to Cuba, a nation which actually does practice real torture, not waterboarding.

[goodnesswins]

Another question....

Is facing the choice between dying in a burning building or jumping 18 stories Torture?

[safetysign]

The left only wants the RICH to suffer.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here's a well-reasoned moral analysis of torture by Christopher Tollefsen of the Witherspoon Institute. Witherspoon is an ethics-and-public policy outfit which takes a pro-life, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-Constitution approach. In other words, they're ethically sound.

I'm most concerned about using means to cause the personality breakdown of the subject, that is, to disorient the subject and distrupt or destroy his freedom of will. Tollefsen sketches out a definition of what IS torture, and points to the central reason why breaking down the human personality (the mental integration of the interrogation subject)is wrong.

[nufsed]

I would add: Which is more moral? Torturing a person who has guilty knowledge that a school bus full of kid will be blown up to get information to possibly prevent it or not torturing and have the buis blwo up?

[Old Sarge]

well, you & I and many other FReepers have...

That's nice.

Really.

I mean that.

But The Majority Of The American People_® - the ones who NEED to see it - never will.

Unless it's squeezed in between dead-blonde updates on Faux News-Obama..