Posted on 12/01/2005 5:12:54 AM PST by Tolik
If you believe that... you're a fool.
Do you have some first-hand experience with torture? Please, share. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence.
I rest my case.
Every discussion I have seen on this subject focuses on the 'torture' aspect and ignores the more ludicrous provisions outlawing 'degrading and humiliating' treatment. ACLU lawyers in consort with liberal judges will define these terms to mean that a terrorist may not be interrogated unless he authorizes it and specifies what questions may be asked. I do not agree that this McCain amendment should be supported.
ping.
I should "P.S." that I don't agree with VDH's conclusion - that we support the McCain amendment. VDH says we should support the amendment all the while offering quite a few reasons why we should NOT. And he's not being sarcastic. Oh, well.
Since our nation is at war with islamofacist Wahabis who use unspeakable methods to butcher and murder innocents, we must meet this enemy using whatever resources we have to gain information.
Do you distinguish between coercion to elicit information and intelligence and coercion to elicit confession of a crime? It would seem that information and intelligence could be double checked for accuracy. Either the guy told you the true location of the secret submarine base, or he didn't. If he'll tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear, and what you want to hear is clearly accurate information, do you believe that can be coerced successfully?
Second, is any form of coercion to be considered torture? Sleep deprivation and humiliation cause no actual pain, but are surely coercive techniques. So is "good cop/bad cop, but it wouldn't work without a credible "bad cop".
No. Traditionally, the infliction of physical pain has been the defining feature of torture (though, it's not difficult to conceive of non-physical varieties).
There's a fundamental conservative idea that's being trampled in these torture discussions. Are we really supposed to grant the State permission to torture its enemies? The omnipotence of government is a liberal dream (well, it was). If suspects can be tortured: How much more flippin' powerful can a government be? Of course, that power would never be abused (When has the government ever abused its powers?) And the C.I.A.--that bastion of ineptitude--would be running the show...Good Lord!
I remember hand-wringing about Saddam being a torturer; people spoke of that as though it constituted the nadir of human conduct (correctly, I believe). Asymetric "standards" are not standards.
You can't fight terrorists with holy water. Their earthborne violence must be met with a force of equal ferocity. The lame-brained democrats are treating this war like a movie review....oh..it should be written this way, not this way.....you're wrong!
Why is it that the liberals care more for a murdering crypt than an unborn child?
In many regards, the terrorist and the liberals are brothers.
Sec 2 (a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
My problem with the amendment is the word "degrading". Is that word used in the Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation?
We all know very well how the Left loves to play games with the meanings of words. The word "torture" has already been stretched far beyond its elasticity by the MSM. Knowing this to be true, ask yourself a question: Is there any form of incarceration, interrogation or punishment that will not be labelled "degrading" by the anti-American Left??
Personally, I think it's degrading to be handcuffed and walked to a patrol car in public view. I think having my mugshot taken is degrading. Being arrested and detained by a filthy American infidel is certainly degrading to any self-respecting Muslim terrorist!
That single word will be badly abused to the profound detriment of our military and our country. Mark my words.
You are completely missing the point of why torture was used during the Soviet purges. It was not to find the truth, but simply get confessions and more names on paper. The torturers knew they were not getting true confessions. They just had a quota to fill.
In contrast, when the Soviet secret police were breaking up the Trust counterrevolutionary group in the 1920s, torture was used to get information and they were interested in its accuracy.
A technique that can make anyone say anything isn't a whole lot of good.
Short answer - torture those who are known to be guilty and cross check the information and come back if the victim misleads.
It works quite well when combined with normal investigative techniques. Do an normal investigation to figure who is who and what they know. Then use torture to extract the contents of what the victim knows.
For example, when the Gestapo was rolling up the Red Orchestra spy ring, the Gestapo used normal investigative police techniques to identify the next operative in the chain, brought them in and tortured out the information needed to get the next spy in the chain. I forget whether they got to the radio operator first (via radio triangulation) and then worked back to the spies in the government or vice versa.
The History Channel program also had a video interview of the sole survivor, who had actually resisted breaking under torture. He attributed that to plain luck. According to him, anyone being tortured will talk at some point and what is said is beyond rational control. Note that only one member of the ring resisted.
Torture works to extract information from a victim whose involvement has been determined from other sources.
Many folks who wouldn't crack could be made to change their minds by the sight of their children being tortured. I ask every brave defender of torture on this thread: Would you extend it to children? If not, why?
Unless you are talking about a parent-child terrorist partnership, the child is a non-combatant and an innocent, the terrorist is a combatant and actively wicked. Now why are the people making this argument unable to tell the difference between the two?
Instead of making this emotionally manipulative argument, their time would be better spent on better arguments.
They could argue that modern coercive techniques work just as quickly and with better accuracy. Of course, most people opposing torture want things like waterboarding outlawed as well.
They could try to point out how torturing a captive terrorist who has time bomb ticking somewhere (and thus has not really surrendered) is different and wrong in contrast to shooting the terrorist when he is planting the bomb.
But the problem is that the Left is playing fast and loose with the definition of torture. And McCain is complicit. What they are attempting to do is conflate all coercive techniques with torture and remove them as a tool to gain intelligence from the enemy.
The propaganda mill makes no distinction, and any protest that vital techniques for gathering time critical information will be lost gets broadbrushed as being "pro-torture". After a while, the general public begins to lose the distinction as well, as is demonstrated by your next statement:
Are we really supposed to grant the State permission to torture its enemies? ... If suspects can be tortured: How much more flippin' powerful can a government be? Of course, that power would never be abused
You've bought the propaganda that the US allows torture of prisoners now, and that this McCain bill addresses that. You've bought into the idea that fighting international terrorism can be handled with law enforcement mentalitites, instead of recognizing that it's a war, and needs to be engaged employing wartime rules of engagement.
I can. No problem. No hesitation, with the proviso that we are dealing with terrorists or illegal combatants. For instance, persons caught red-handed servicing a car bonb should be shot on the spot. That's not torture, it's common sense.
And then there's this: I love the nuanced careful choice of words by Mr. Hanson, and I rely on them, ... That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists ...
Here I part company with Mr. Hanson, for I believe that even though it "does not come naturally" to us, often it is still necessary.
Paraphrasing, Winston Churchill said it best: No society or culture was ever saved from extinction by "good" men (speaking of agents, both men and women, parachuted into occupied Europe).
How is George Bush different from any of the other citizens of the respective states? Are you advocating torture for anyone that may be accused of planning any crime now?
He specifically references the Constitutional protections granted to citizens under the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendmenments.
I will not, I cannot grant those protections to anyone unwilling to accept the underlying responsibilities which accommpany those protections.
Terrorists have already shown their unwillingness to abide by even the simple rules of common decency..those rules are the foundation of liberty;
not freedom, LIBERTY.
Freedom is doing what you want..
Liberty is doing what you want, while not infringing on someone else's ability to do the same.
Terrorists will not grant even that basic concept.
Thank you BP..
Uh... I forgot the sarcasm tag, okay?
You see... I addressed the point to Democrats specifically, because their blind hatred for GWB would entice them to change their usual answer, and... nevermind.
Uh?
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.