Posted on 12/01/2005 5:12:54 AM PST by Tolik
Sen. John McCain recently proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill in an attempt to plug loopholes in already existing anti-torture laws. The amendment, which President Bush opposes, is a good idea for America — but not necessarily for the reasons cited by most critics of the administration.
Contrary to popular belief, throughout history torture has brought results — either to gain critical, sometimes lifesaving intelligence or more gratuitously to obtain embarrassing confessions from terrified captives.
The question, then, for a liberal democracy is not whether torture in certain cases is effective, but whether its value is worth the negative publicity and demoralizing effect on a consensual society that believes its cause and methods must enjoy a moral high ground far above the enemy's...
...we might as well admit that by foreswearing the use of torture, we will probably be at a disadvantage in obtaining key information and perhaps endanger American lives here at home. (And, ironically, those who now allege that we are too rough will no doubt decry "faulty intelligence" and "incompetence" should there be another terrorist attack on an American city.) Our restraint will not ensure any better treatment for our own captured soldiers. Nor will our allies or the United Nations appreciate American forbearance. The terrorists themselves will probably treat our magnanimity with disdain, as if we were weak rather than good.
But all that is precisely the risk we must take in supporting McCain amendment — because it is a public reaffirmation of our country's ideals. The United States can win this global war without employing torture. That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists also defines the nobility of our cause, reminding us that we need not and will not become anything like our enemies.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/ NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Excellent point.
Why do I get the feeling that the McPains, RINO's and Dem'Rats are determined to set us up to fail?
Sorry, I can't agree with VDH on this one. The left has defined "torture" as putting panties on someone's head, or depriving them of sleep. If that were the worst of things, no one would ever give details of the enemy's movements. I grew with the adage "All's fair in love and war" and for the most part, I agree with that. We are at war. We need to win. Don't limit the interrogators.
Torture works... it's a simple fact.
But then I read the conclusion. Be warned, you might be considered "weak" by some murderous psychos for deciding that way, so better think twice about officially outlawing torture.
Everyone keeps answering the wrong question.
It needs to be phrased thusly: Would you agree to using torture if the person in custody had conclusive and damaging information that would destroy George Bush?
We'd have a completely different public debate with the Democrats on that question.
It helps to actually read the article. VDH points out that torture has its place and why we shouldn't care what the enemy or the Euro-peons think.
"Contrary to popular belief, throughout history torture has brought results"
Of course it has. I never have believed the so called experts when they say that torture does not work. It works!
On a side note. I would recom. the book "the battle of Cabash". It describes the French fighting the Algeria insurgents. I will admit some French men had it right.
Also, "the battle of Algiers" movie ties in what VDH says.
"The terrorists themselves will probably treat our magnanimity with disdain, as if we were weak rather than good."
And they will be right, because the liberals who are leading the fight against torture are, in fact weak, and they are not at all good. Liberals are evil.
My apologies!
Or what about random executions? After a suicide attack, I advise you to round up the village's inhabitants and start to randomly shoot people until someone tells you who is responsible for that. People might call you weak if you don't do this, so it's practically a must! Plus, it probably gives you vital information on which the lives of soldiers might depend.
I read through the excerpt which is posted here. My opinion remains the same. This is something which isn't necessary.
So everyone sent to the Gulag really was a "wrecker," "saboteur," or "counterrevolutionary"? Is it possible they made such confessions just to stop the pain?
A technique that can make anyone say anything isn't a whole lot of good.
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?
There's no guarantee someone will tell you the Truth just because he's in pain. He'll tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear.
Excellent reply.
Torture is morally wrong, and I'm not talking about panties on someone's head.
Saddam tortured his people, and that's an important reason our country stands against him. He fed people into shredders, raped children in front of their parents, hacked off limbs.
We are supposed to be better than that. And yes, I realize the potentially adverse consequences of the decision to not torture.
Now, if someone could just invent a serum which would make our enemies blabber at the mouth, the question of torture would be moot. I hope someone does.
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.