Posted on 11/11/2005 9:07:04 AM PST by SirLinksalot
When torture is the only option ...
DAVID GELERNTER
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN's proposed legislation incorporating into U.S. law the Geneva Convention ban on mistreating prisoners. The bill, which bans cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, passed the Senate 90 to 9. To say it's got momentum is putting it mildly.
But President Bush says he will veto the bill unless the CIA is exempted. Vice President Cheney has led the administration's campaign for the exemption. It's a hard sell; pro-torture politicians are scarce around Washington.
But of course you don't have to be "pro-torture" to oppose the McCain amendment. That naive misunderstanding summarizes the threat posed by this good-hearted, wrong-headed legislation. Those who oppose the amendment don't think the CIA should be permitted to use torture or other rough interrogation techniques. What they think is that sometimes the CIA should be required to squeeze the truth out of prisoners. Not because the CIA wants to torture people, but because it may be the only option we've got.
McCain's amendment is a trap for the lazy minded. Whenever a position seems so obvious that you don't even have to stop and think — stop and think.
SNIP
Michael Levin published an article challenging the popular view that the U.S. must never engage in torture. "Someday soon," he concluded, "a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of lives, and torture will be the only way to save them."
Suppose a nuclear bomb is primed to detonate somewhere in Manhattan, Levin wrote, and we've captured a terrorist who knows where the bomb is. He won't talk. By forbidding torture, you inflict death on many thousands of innocents and endless suffering on the families of those who died at a terrorist's whim — and who might have lived had government done its ugly duty.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I would'nt rape the mother or daughter of a terrorist, but I'd kill them if it would save New York or London.
You quote the Geneva convention when it's convenient for you, which by the way again, what I suggested in post 107 and 114 is NOT severe and does NOT meet that definition. How do you feel about the fact that the Geneva Conventions CLEARLY STATE that people like the terrorists, DO NOT have ANY Geneva Convention protections, because they are NOT lawful combatants, and they are NOT uniformed or fighting under a nations flag, and they are dressed as civilians, not part of a military organization, wantonly inflicting civilian casualties and attacking our uniformed military from cover, in ambush, dressed like civilians. The Geneva Conventions call that kind of person a "terrorist" and it says CLEARLY that we can shoot such terrorists and no promise of quarter or trial must be given. Since you believe that the Geneva Conventions are so great, do you think it is okay that we shoot all the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else, even if they surrender, because that is EXACTLY what the Geneva Conventions says we can do. Is that okay with you, or do you only subscribe to the parts of the Conventions that work for your argument?
Also, terrorists are NOT defined as POWs or enemy combatants, and additionally have NO protections under the Geneva Conventions once detained, so the rules of the Conventions don't apply to them in the field when captured, or under detention after capture. What do you have to say about THAT? 8)
OH, and you STILL haven't specifically replied to ANY of hte things I asked you about before in my other posts. ESPECIALLY 107 and 114. Are you here to discuss issues, or just spew what you THINK and never back it up with fact? 8)
Not legally. But the quote from the manual says that torture doesn't work. The truth or falsity of that statement applies everywhere.
As I have said, this is a bogus argument. Torture is already illegal, and any soldiers who cross the line already are charged and do serious time.
It might be interesting to read the book The Interrogators, written by an army interrogator. The book is interesting for what it says, and what it doesn't say.
What it says is that interrogators are taught very strict guidelines as to what is permitted, and what is not, and they are repeatedly warned that they will do 10 years in the slammer if they cross the line.
They spend a great deal of time studying the Geneva Convention, as applied to their work, and they know it very well.
He describes how they responded to the difficult demands of trying to extract information from people who didn't want to give it up, and still respect the basic rights of his prisoners. It isn't always clearcut, but they agonized over how and where to draw the line not only so they didn't not go foul of any law, but also so they could remain square with their consciences.
One of the best tools they had, though, was the fact that his prisoners knew that if they did not talk, they might be sent to Guantanamo. That fear was enough to lead many of them to talk. But they had to be careful how they played on that fear; because to do it purposefully crossed the line. You can get an idea from this the kinds of limits interrogators must live within.
They can't touch the prisoner.
Now for the part of the story he doesn't tell in his book, according to what I read elsewhere. After a long run in Afghanistan, where he was a successful interrogator and lead interrogator, he was pushed out by officers who thought he wasn't aggressive enough.
A year later, those officers were themselves charged with abusing prisoners, and relieved from their jobs. So there is a natural tension between the need for information which can save the lives of your fellow soldiers, and the need to respect the humanity of your enemy. Americans are the only fighting-men on earth who care about such things; a lot of countries are signatories, but they don't actually field troops, and when they do, they frequently violate these rules.
We are the only nation on earth that actually respects the humanity of its enemy prisoners. Period.
This argument is misplaced, because its already illegal to torture prisoners. This is an attempt to use civilian courts to go after soldiers and intel agents in a way that has never been allowed, ever, in history. And should not be allowed for very good reason.
Right on. 8) How is something torture when we do it to terrorists, when stupid teenagers are sneaking off to do it without their parent's concent. Because based on that lpm1888, a minor getting an abortion without the parents concent is TORTURE and we should be charging those doctors and entities with torture and war crimes! BOY I bet the liberal democrats would LOVE that. 8)
Right on. A liberal would recoil in horror if a terrorist was bitch slapped, but yawn over partial birth abortions.
Excellent post! Dershowitz got it spot on right. Liberals so against torture are such hypocrits because they know good and well they'd do whatever it too to get their kid back, even if it meant smacking around the person who took them, and inflicting pain. Any one who would sacrifice the life of their child because they would not hurt the person who is killing them, is a non-human souless monster. And the fact that liberals WOULD do whatever it took to get their kid back, shows they're hypocrisy in not being willing to do that to protect thousands they don't love. THAT is pathetic. THAT is obscene.
Torture is always wrong. But I do not consider it torture to withhold sleep or food for short periods, to administer drugs, to disorient through loud music or short extremes of heat or cold. That is just making the terrorist subjects uncomfortable and less likely to hold to a false story. That is not torture.
I also have no problem with a warm cup of coffee and a kind word, if it gets us the information we need.
All of these methods are a long way from beatings, electrocution, etc that is real torture and is practiced with alarming regularity across the world.
The problem is that no one has the guts to sit down and write out exactly what can and cannot be done. Based on the articles (leaks) I've seen in the press, it seems like our military and intel services are simply left on their own, with everyone fervently hoping that no one will do anything embarrassing.
Hypothetical grins. It's a grim subject so I'm trying to keep it a "little" light. Would you agree to the methods I suggest if the ones you suggest failed? So long as it was proved that the individual was a terrorist and there was evidence he did have information, beyond a reasonable doubt, that was vital to the military's efforts to prosecute the war and prevent attacks on themselves and the Iraqi and Afghani civilian populous? Because if causing some terrorist some emotional discomfort and maybe a little pain that is not permanent, and it would save the lives of military personnel and civilians, and CHILDREN, I would have no problem causing a little emotional discomfort and some non-permanent physical pain. Surely you can accept that.
We already have evidence of what would happen if we try to act "civil" with the terrorists...
When it was rumored that a guard at Gitmo flushed a Koran (that the American people paid for)...19 people died in riots in Pakistan...in THEIR minds...that constitutes "torture"...
How in the heck can our military work to keep our country safe...and not get themselves killed or court-martialed playing by those rules...
This enemy is nothing like the enemies we had when the Geneva Convention was signed...they KNOW how we have worked in the past...and THEIR handbooks have the ways to take advantage of our "honor"...
It is kind of like the 2004 election...the dems put out a voters handbook months before the election, telling the dems to "cry voter intimidation" even if there is none...just to plant the seed in the public's mind...
The terrorists have been reading the dems handbook...and every little slight will be used to cry "torture"...and McCain and gang will shake their fingers at Rummy and Bush and say....NO, NO, NO...we told you, you can't do that.
YES! YES! YES! I ask you now, seriously. Is there anything more pitiful than a loony liberal who would sell his birthright of freedom so cheaply?
Good G-d, under what circumstances was this done to you?
--From The Interrogators
By Mackey and Miller. I just Googled this.
This is the book you referred to, right?
That would be incorrect. The Army Field Manual regarding interrogation is quite specific.
Perhaps what you meant to say is that the 97 idiots in the senate voting for this bill did not have the guts to get specific because they were only seeking some cheap glory?
As for whether or not torture is always wrong, I would disagree. I can envision instances where torture would be the by far the lesser of two evils and thus not wrong in very specific cases. If our august senate had a minimal amount of testosterone, they would have addressed the specifics and the rare instances when "torture", or more realistically methods outside those described in the Army Field Manual short of pulling out limbs one at a time, would be justified and installed a system to determine that.
Anyone with knowlege that is not a participant, it depends on how readily they are cooperating. If they refuse to cooperate, in my mind, that makes them a participant and I would have no problem using the techniques I outlined, so long as there was a real and credible reason to believe they had critical information. If the information that person has saves lives, it is more than justifice. And if the intelligence retreived is good, but doesn't change any operations or stop any attacks, there is still nothing lost, because no real harm has been done to the terrorist captured. If it's a BIG emergency, like the theoretical terrorist with a ticking bomb somewhere, and you know he's the only one that knows where it is, and thousands or millions of lives are at stake, sorry, all bets are off. Anything goes. If that means spilling some of his blood or removing some digits, then sobeit. And would you care if by doing so your kids weren't statistics in a body count from a terrorist attack? I certainly wouldn't. I want my loved one alive. If some terrorist scum has to lose some fingers or take a beating to make that happen and stop the bomb, then that's fine with me. Someone else can do it, or I'll do it myself. Whatever stops the bomb.
Hard for me to say no to that. I'd also like to see if Moran's methods work. What about you?
Then if someone who really believed that Moran's method tried it, and it failed, and the person was captured while armed and engaged against our military, and was a definitely terrorist captive, and had knowledge of enemy personnel and operations and locations of ammunition and equipment and bases of operation, etc, and Moran's technique failed, but it was certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the terrorist had the information, would you then agree that the techniques I lined out would be acceptable? For example if a Marine was being held captive, and zarkoui said he would behead him in 24 hours if a ransom was not paid, and the military captured a terrorist in the vicinity of the Marine's capture and they knew where he was because he had been seen associating with the people who took the Marine hostage. If Moran's technique failed, and it was performed by someone who believed it the best way of extracting information, but it failed, would you then agree that it was prudent to use more aggressive means, like I detailed, to get the information? Worst case, you make the terrorist's life unpleasant for a day, best case, you save a Marine's life and the terrorist is still alive, and has suffered no permanent harm, and will be sent to a detention facility where he'll be better off than those in America living in poverty. Surely you would say that is reasonable.
BINGO!
Exactly. Common sense it seems isn't so common after all.
Excellent post! 8)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.