Morality and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

The issue of the Bush Administration’s enhanced interrogation techniques involve several inter-related questions.

There is, first of all, the matter of morality. Critics of enhanced interrogation techniques have taken to saying that Americans don’t torture, period – meaning in this instance that we do not engage in coercive interrogation techniques ranging from sleep deprivation to prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights to waterboarding. Anyone who holds the opposite view is a moral cretin and guilty of “arrant inhumanity.” Or so the argument goes.

But this posture begins to come apart under examination. For one thing, the issue of “torture” itself needs to be put in a moral context and on a moral continuum. Waterboarding is a very nasty technique for sure – but it is considerably different (particularly in the manner administered by the CIA) than, say, mutilation with electric drills, rape, splitting knees, or forcing a terrorist to watch his children suffer and die in order to try to elicit information from him. Waterboarding is a technique that has been routinely used in the training of some U.S. military personnel – and which the journalist Christopher Hitchens endured. I certainly wouldn’t want to undergo waterboarding – but while a very harsh technique, it is one that was applied in part because it would do far less damage to a person than other techniques. It is also surely relevant that waterboarding was not used randomly and promiscuously, but rather on three known terrorists. And of the thousands of unlawful combatants captured by the U.S., fewer than 100 were detained and questioned in the CIA program, according to Michael Hayden, President Bush’s last CIA director, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey –and of those, fewer than one-third were subjected to any of the techniques discussed in the memos on enhanced interrogation.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or insulting. But I am not sure I understand your question.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the land. Treaty law only obligates us to operate within the parameters of treaty but does not compel us to do so in violation of direct or intended Constitutional Authorities.

Again, not sure if I understood your question. I am okay with Geneva 3 and 4 but the rest of the world wants to dictate the terms. In other words an enemy combatant should be housed and card for under Geneva 4.

I disagree with their premise and anyway I prefer Geneva 3 in which a “nonuniformed” enemy combatant may be held until fully interrogated and adjudicated under “US Military Tribunal”.

So the “Terrorists” and Enemy Combatants can in my view be waterboarded while still being respected and getting superb medical treatment and 3 squares a day. Or whatever they eat. This also helps to reduce the health hazards associated with lice and fleas without using what could be harmful chemicals

But if my country or fellow Americans are presumed to be or are in imminent danger, then by whatever means we can obtain information with the utmost expediency seems appropriate to me.

In fact, it would be amoral and inhumane to act otherwise, so as to protect Americans from harm or supreme tragedy.

Let me sharpen my question, then. You made this completely accurate statement: “Treaty law only obligates us to operate within the parameters of treaty but does not compel us to do so in violation of direct or intended Constitutional Authorities.” So, what part of the Constitution, or what constitutional authority, would the Geneva and Torture Conventions violate? The rest of your post is sensible but you’re talking about policy preferences; I’m talking about law.

As for sarcasm, I was referring to your reference to my “invisible /s tag.” Didn’t know what you were driving at.

Let’s get one thing very clear. These “enemy combatants” are (were?) in truth, non-uniformed soldiers of an organized enemy force and, as such, could have been lawfully executed in the field! Torture (not what we did do but REAL torture) is the best that they could have expected and more quarter than they, themselves, were in the habit of giving. The lesson to be learned by any true patriot who, in the future, becomes CinC is to BOMB BIG and take no prisoners! So much for the compassionate warrior nonsense!

Oh! In regards to your first post, it was obviously sarcastic(ergo the /s symbol) and I was trying to be funny.

As to the argument of “Treaty within the Constitution” or “Treaty vs the Constitution”. That would be the way to view the points. For my part, I would interpret Treaties as obligations that have no ability or requirement to undermine the Constitution.

Others might view it as Treaty vs the Constitution requiring us to give up a bedrock principle. That, to my was of thinking undermines the Constitution and would say “So what is the point?”.

We have a US Constitution or we acceed to others, feel good higher moral precepts, relative to whatever benefits those arguing for the abrogation of our Constitution in favor of World Citizenry.

Heck, I am not American because I was born in the USA. I am an American because I am and ascribes to a certain idealism. Then, I am an American Citizen.

This baloney about becoming world citizens is a bunch of baloney designedly to make sissies feel good around the world.

I think if they thought things through they would find that we are giving humanity the greatest gifts of freedom of choice and thought. Of course, you deal with those consequences. Anyway, we are delivering more people into the concept of individual rights and choice.

Without our Constitution there is no current template for anyone to build their own nation base on the ideals we bring them.

So the Constitution reigns supreme above all laws and is immutable at all times, even to a treaty.

A little wordy but hopefully I answered your post.

BTW, I am in Puerto Aventura. We got no reports of pig, bird or chimney flu. I hugged several beautiful women today to spread the love and shook hands with everyone I met.

Still, the Governments have found it necessary to thrill with us with their fiction in a very dramatic flair.

FUBO and the other A**holes. Their policies at this are really make people south of the boarder suffer as their is less tourism and less dollars being spent.

Ping me if you like.

I think there are some spelling errors but I gotta go eat. Hasta

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.