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 ...
Of course you're right. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I'd like to run a quote for you guys. This is from "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Moslems" edited by Robert Spencer (Prometheus Books, 2005). From the foreward by Ibn Warraq: " Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social, and political life of mankind in all its aspects . . . And I mean Islam, I do not accept some spurious distiction between Islam and 'Islamic Fundamentalism' or 'Islamic terrorism.' The terrorists who planted bombs in Madrid; those responsible for the deaths of more than two thousand people on September 11, 2001, in New York and Washington, DC; and the ayatollahs of Iran were and are acting canonically; their actions reflect the teachings of Islam, whether found in the Qur'an, in the acts and sayings of the Prophet, or Islamic law based on them." For example: "Q. 8.12: 'I will instill terror (interesting choice of words, imagine that, terror!) into the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then (on videotape, no less), and strike off from them every fingertip.' I can't believe how passive so many people are in the face of such unremitting evil.
How can that NOT be put in large bright text. THAT is a perfect example of how out of whack the liberals complete and total lack of moral and ethical clarity is. Liberals really are crack heads. 8) No one sane and posessing their faculties could be that way. Ironically, speaking of crack heads, random drug testing of terrorists captured in Iraq show most have high levels of opiates in their blood. There's a real SHOCKER! 8\
Great post. That's right on. That's what I said in my 107 and 114 posts. They're right on the edge, but not going over, and NOT torture.
Exactly right. And that was a lie and the Marine didn't even do that with a koran. If the liberals who are so against this war and want to coddle the terrorists get back in power, we are toast. I wouldn't give this country ten years if it's liberals making policy and military decisions.
I sure can't think of anything worse than that. It's astounding that so many in this country have so little understanding of islamic terrorists, and go so far out of their way to be critical of the government and the military, tryting to protect them, when the fact is, the terrorists would kill all the anti-war liberal fanny-wackers in a heart beat if they could. To them, there is no difference between California, New York, and Massachusetts, and Texas, Utah, and Georgia. No difference. Case and point, the three places that 9-11 hit, two deep blue States, and D.C. which is 90%+ democrat. Can't get much plainer than that. Why liberals are so ready to sell out to a mindset that 200 years ago would have killed this country before it really got started is amazing. Bottom line is, the liberal politicians say whatever it takes to get their power back from the Republicans, and the liberals who aren't politicians simply walk in lockstep with the liberal media and liberal politicians and lack a working understanding of islamic terrorism and the war in general. That's the real bottom line.
Hey, if it works, bully for Moran! 8) After all, the truth of this is, we BOTH want actionable first hand intelligence from captured terrorists, and want it fast enough that it does good. If that method worked, then great, because if it gets the intelligence, THAT is what matters. But if it doesn't work, the door should be left open for less warm and fuzzy means like I suggested earlier. All that matters is the final result which is getting intel, getting it fast, and stopping terrorist attacks BEFORE they happen, and arresting terrorists in bed or while they're peeing on a palm tree, NOT when they're shooting us or have already planted a bomb somewhere. 8)
Thanks for the link! I wonder if the CIA is considered under those regulation...probably not. I agree, the Senate is just looking to hear itself talk. Nothing new there.
Hey, thanks for pointing me to your post. Fascinating stuff.
Bernard Shaw, the moderator of the debate, asked Dukakis, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied coolly, "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life," and explained his stance. Many observers felt Dukakis' answer lacked the emotion needed for a question in which he was forced to consider his wife's rape and death. Many believe that this in part cost Dukakis the election. Other commentators thought the question itself was unfair, in that it injected an irrelevant emotional element into the discussion of a policy issue.
I'm a vet, and I've got nothing but problems with the things you're talking about.
One day in Iraq, a JDAM was dropped on a terrorist safe house in a residential neighborhood. It was riskier than normal, but it was the best that could could be done on short notice. Several elusive terrorist leaders were suspected of holding a meeting there, but wouldn't be present for long. A number of adult males (later confirmed to be our targets) were killed in the strike. So were two young children who were apparently playing in the alley behind the house.
I bring this up because having poor intelligence causes our aim to slip, and 'surgical' operations to get dirty. We tell our interrogators that they can't use techniques on terrorists that they can use on U.S. service members in survival training. (We wouldn't want anyone to accuse us of anything.) So we do the best we can.
It's nice to be able to say 'We never torture, no matter how extreme the circumstance', but those words come at a terrible price. We say 'but it's worth it' because it doesn't cost us a dime. The word 'torture' really hits us in the gut, but 'civilian casualties'? They're just the cost of doing business, aren't they?
Those two kids didn't have to die, by the way. We had just captured a guy who had information that would have changed our response entirely. A smirking bastard who knew we wouldn't lay a finger on him, and was right. But were we? I'm not even talking doomsday scenarios, here. No millions of Americans would have been saved if we had taken the gloves off with this man who chose the life he led. Just two young kids in a dirty little town in Iraq no one's ever heard of.
But only up to a point. Some have suggested threatening the suspect's family with torture.
This might work better than your method or Moran's, but we still shouldn't use it.
Why not? Perhaps because it would degrade us, or because it would create bad press, impeding the winning of hearts and minds
Yes, that is torture. If you think any of those things are okay, than you're out of step with the legal definitions of torture that we work under. A military interrogator caught using any of those above techniques could be court martialed and imprisoned.
Unless you were teaching survival training for U.S. service members. Then, you'd be okay. (Except for the drugs part. That still wouldn't fly.)
The THREAT of torture is probably more important than actual torture. If we completely outlaw torture, then there is no subsequent threat of torture. Not that I know one thing about torture, but I do know people.
It makes no sense to me that we make life rougher for our troops in training than we are allowed to make it for terrorists in our custody.
This is the book. I don't remember the details of the interrogation mentioned in the excerpt, except that the prisoners brought in straight from the battlefield were usually in great fear of their lives, not having had any previous contact with Americans. Hence the trembling. Why this particular prisoner had no clothes I don't remember. This was not policy as I recall, it had to do with this particular capture.
The favorite opening interrogation technique was usually a marathon questioning session. This could go on for as long as the interrogator himself could stand it. The catch was, in order not to cross the line into "torture" the interrogators weren't allowed to tag-team the guy, they were not allowed to push the prisoner beyond what they themselves were able to stand in terms of fatigue and sleep-deprivation.
In fact, since they would probably go from this prisoner to another one, they normally got much less sleep than did the prisoners.
Their best opportunity for quick results was in that initial session, when the prisoner was still disoriented from having just come in from the battlefield. As soon as he reached his cell where other prisoners had access to him, he would be quickly coached by the others that he would not be tortured. So that edge, the fear of death or torture, only lasted through the initial interview.
This fear could only be in his own mind, they were not allowed to threaten him with torture, as that in itself is considered torture.
Another edge they had was to mention transfer to an arab country. That would break some prisoners as they knew that would mean torture, but again the interrogator could mention possible transfer to Egypt, for example, but he could not mention that this might mean torture because again that is to cross a line they couldn't cross.
Another was the fear of going to Guantanamo. Again the same limitations.
But for most prisoners what worked better than anything was the simple human contact with the interrogator. They would call each prisoner in periodically to go over whatever information they might have, and a familiar face was enough to get them talking. Some of it would be incorrect, but it was compared to what other prisoners were saying, and eventually they could put together the likely truth. The marathon sessions were used when they aggressively needed information. After that, the sessions were more like those described by Moran. The use of favors was also helpful.
Its actually a pretty good book. It shows how interrogators work, how they think, and how they resolve the tension between the need for intel and the legal and moral requirements of the job.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Spare the rod, spoil the child.
Inflicting pain on the flesh has it's own rewrds.
At every level.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Just checking...
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.