Dafydd ab Hugh posits a realistic, albeit hypothetical, scenario where you, as CIA station chief  have a terrorist with time sensitive information to avert a major attack on American soil:
You ask the DCI whether you can waterboard him; word comes from the White House via the DCI that you are authorized to waterboard Mahmoud, but you must use your own discretion whether you actually do it: You are the only one close enough to the scene to make that call. You get the impression that the president will stand behind you, whatever you decide… but of course, that only applies to this particular president. You don’t know who will be president in 2009.
So the question is, do you order Mahmoud to be waterboarded?
The ensuing discussion both at Dafydd ab Hugh’s and also at Patterico’s covers much of the same ground and engages in the same debates we’ve seen here at PW before.
I’m coming to the point where I do not care if waterboarding is “illegal” or not. If waterboarding is the correct moral action, I want people in that situation to be courageous enough to proceed whether or not they have “authorization.”
Let me further illustrate by using a real case that happened in Germany some years back.
You’re a police chief in on an interrogation of a kidnapper. It is without doubt that this is the kidnapper (evidence plus confession). The alarming thing is not only will he not tell you where the young child is that he took, what he does tell you is that he has buried the child alive in a box somewhere. You are now under a time constraint to find that child before he dies. So you do something forbidden by law, you get into the kidnapper’s face and convince him you WILL beat the crap out of him until he reveals the boy … indeed, you put a gun to his head.
He confesses where the child is buried.
What should happen to you?
How much has our society, in letting legality become a substitute for morality, put itself in the position that we have these endless debates about waterboarding? It should not matter whether or not it is illegal when the moral context is so compelling that to not use the technique is to let a greater evil triumph. And that context should be part of any review of the action by superiors. There a some things that the law cannot be crafted to cover. There are some scenarios we cannot fully anticipate.
We need to debate the legality less and the morality more.
Comment by Jack Bauer on 2/15 @ 9:33 am #
So the question is, do you order Mahmoud to be waterboarded?
There isn’t enough time!
So you shoot him in the kneecap.
(Boop/beep) ( Boop/beep)
Comment by DMG on 2/15 @ 9:41 am #
There was an interesting parallel case a number of years ago- you can read about it in a book called, I think, “In the Heart of the Sea”. A group of men is stranded in a whaleboat in the middle of the Pacific. In the face of starvation, they draw straws for which one will be killed and eaten. Of course, soon after they kill the short straw guy, they are rescued. The case is ultimately thrown out of court, simply because the law cannot possibly decide all aspects of a case that hard.
The waterboarding example- the ticking time bomb- is similar. As long as you are SURE that your situation requires it, it may indeed be the morally correct thing to do to save X number of lives. So long as your life (possibly in prison) is worth the sacrifice, you go for it… But the law would probably not come after you if your choice were vindicated. But you MUST be right before you do it.
Comment by JHoward on 2/15 @ 9:44 am #
Now extend these examples to countless civil American encounters with “figures of authority”. You are within your rights. You are supported by law and the Constitution. Yet you are harassed, you are intimidated, you are threatened, your property is taken, your privacy is violated, your safety is impaired, and your freedom is destroyed.
You live in a nation that increasingly believes you have nothing to fear from “the authorities” if you’re within the law, even though that fallacy is obvious and the evidence of it is enormous. What do you do? What can you do?
The difference? In these countless cases, in addition to being morally right, you are supported by legal right. The neo-morality is that in the name of law enforcement, you must submit to the lawlessness of the habitual policies of civil authority as exercised not by public servants, but what are become masters of the private sector.
Comment by Joel on 2/15 @ 9:47 am #
“We need to debate the legality less and the morality more.”
Couldn’t agree more.
However, according to political correctness brought about by post-modern thought, there are different moralities in different cultures. We cannot judge a different culture, and by extension their different moralities. Therefore, the only current recourse to “objectively” look at the problem is legally.
Besides, a key difference between moralism and legalism is that legalism is codified. It should (theoretically) be strictly enforced, while morals are different from person to person. Just like I can shop for a better rate on a car, I can “shop” around until I find a person with morals I want to abide by. Unfortunately, morals can’t be legislated.
Neither, by the way, can common sense.
Comment by alppuccino on 2/15 @ 9:51 am #
You tried to jump the fence at Augusta again, didn’t you JHoward?
Comment by JHoward on 2/15 @ 10:01 am #
Nope. The overly sensitive foreign policy types make great stay-at-home nazis. You know, for the consistency.
Comment by Semanticleo on 2/15 @ 10:11 am #
You and Patterico with your simplistic, straight-jacketed hypotheticals;
Let’s imagine GWB reaches the termination point of his regime and decides to declare there is some domestic threat which makes it too dangerous to transfer power (ala Bushareff).
Martial law is enacted for the sake of ‘National Security’.
Will you Plausible Denialists refuse to metaphorically waterboard a Prez?
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 10:13 am #
the premise here is that rules and laws are not needed to constrain “authority figures”. This is a position that can only be held by someone who has only experienced the bright, sunny side of life. Doesn’t mean that person hasn’t had problems, but theyve never lived in a neighborhood where getting rousted by cops was a way of life or never been “interviewed” by cops who appear to be extensively trained in being completely immoral liars or seem to think that breaking the law to enforce the law is not a moral dilema (heck it never occurs to most of them there is such a thing as a moral dilema). I spent a good size chunk of my adult life as one of those “authority figures” and I can tell you that most of my peers were upright kind of folks, but many you wouldn’t trust to watch your drink at a bar.
Comment by JD on 2/15 @ 10:14 am #
I knew some idiocy was coming, and cleo did not disappoint. That shit only exists in the fevered swamp otherwise referred to as the decaying grey matter between your ears.
Comment by happyfeet on 2/15 @ 10:18 am #
I’d kind of guess that if the Democrats either got their way and passed a law that you had to be super-nice to Mahmoud or just made a loud loud case that Mahmoud, he is people too just like me and you, then the waterboarding would be even more effective. It’s like if you get sent to some wimpy-assed liberal principal’s office and he pistol whips you. Your world would look real different real fast I’d think.
Comment by Pablo on 2/15 @ 10:20 am #
I don’t know about metaphorically waterboarding the President, ‘cleo, but I’m 100% ready to take my rhetorical blowtorch and a pair of metaphorical needlenose pliers to you.
Comment by memomachine on 2/15 @ 10:23 am #
Hmmmm.
Best solution IMO?
President authorizes the waterboarding and then immediately writes out full pardons for every single person associated with it.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 10:25 am #
The actual topic in question aside, if there’s some widely agreeable moral course of action, don’t you think the law should respond appropriately?
Now, back to the scenario. Let’s say you’re a typical 24-script terrorist scum, and that if Jack doesn’t briskly bastinado you, a nuclear warhead will explode in one hour, killing a half million people.
Now, a 24-script terrorist is going to know a few things. First, he’s committed enough to his objective that death is not enough of a threat. Second, he’s committed enough to his objective to know that the pain is going to be over in an hour, and is therefore willing to clam up or prevaricate (unfortunately for us in this scenario, it’s a 24 script, and so Jack always knows when the guy is lying) for an hour, and then he’s either dead or not worth torturing anymore. Lastly, he knows that every 24 episode lasts only an hour, and so he’s going to have to put up with only an hour or so of simulated pain until next week.
In real life, though, they lie. They tell you anything to mislead you, and they tell you anything to make you stop. Then you have to go check the veracity.
This is just part of why the ticking-bomb scenario just doesn’t work for me.
Comment by JHoward on 2/15 @ 10:25 am #
Talk about self-supporting insanity.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 2/15 @ 10:27 am #
this is a stupid discussion
there are already laws in place that allow the station chief to use his own discretion without fear of punishment
it is part of training.
the salient question is this
do we have covert operations or not?
i mean, the rules of engagement for covert ops and national security exist, and were duly passed and voted on by congressional committees.
but if they are published they hardly covert anymore.
lately natl security is bein used to count coup politically
this needs to stop.
either we have covert ops or we dont.
make up ur mind.
Comment by happyfeet on 2/15 @ 10:32 am #
I dunno. The CIA’s calls to the New York Times have been pretty darn covert. My hat’s off.
Comment by jon on 2/15 @ 10:37 am #
This ticking-time-bomb scenario is a load of crap. The loon who buries a child admitted it because he wanted to torture the child, alarm his interrogators, and so forth. He wouldn’t have admitted to even knowing of the existence of children if he thought he might have had a gun to his head. If he thought that was a possibility, the sick fuck would have shut up and the child would have been dead. So, a terrorist knows if he is held by someone willing to torture that he better be quiet and give no leads. No starting info would lead to no further questions. So we’d have to torture them to even get them to start talking. And then there’s the problem of picking up a whole bunch of people, many of whom know little, and some know even less, and having to decide who to torture. Getting the guy who knows nothing to talk is just as easy as getting the mastermind to talk, but the information gathered is different: one is what might be, while the other is what they think the interrogators want to hear. Not a great information gathering adventure, since innocent people might get tortured. Actually, they will get tortured. And if that doesn’t bother you, then you are just a sick fuck.
If torture is required, then I’d opt out. If someone really wants to get that info, then he should risk his freedom and career for it. If it saves countless lives, then the President should probably pardon the torturer. If it leads to nothing, his ass should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Ticking-time-bombs aren’t scenarios that I’ve ever heard about outside of hourly dramas and Batman episodes, but if they’re encountered in the field by our troops, I’m okay with them getting information from the suspects. But this nonsense of taking suspects in planes to foreign spots to torture them into giving information isn’t such a scenario. If it even involves a short car trip I’m not sure such a scenario is present. Justify torture all you like, but this system is wrong and all the episodes of 24 in the world aren’t going to change my mind.
Plus it’s not effective in the long term. The information is always suspect, the morality of it is almost always wrong, and it sets a very bad precedent. The information is not presentable in a court of law, or at least is always sullied to the point where, for instance, victims of 9/11 can’t sue the accused or their financiers if the accused have been tortured. So the big money operators of terrorism won’t get slammed in the courts and the connections will remain just as shadowy as ever. Call me naive and so forth, but I think the most effective way to beat the jihadists is to investigate and prosecute the ones we capture and blow up or shoot the ones we can’t. Torture isn’t necessary.
Comment by happyfeet on 2/15 @ 10:38 am #
You’re a goofball.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 10:38 am #
clearly Nishi lives in a dream world of shadows and conspiracy. If you think “secret” laws to protect station chiefs exist you’ve never worked in and observed the general state of government incompetence and grudge settling through “whistleblowing”, not to mention blatant any behavior to serve BDS, or the leaks like a sieve behavior that has gone on for more years than you and I have been alive.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 10:41 am #
leaks like a sieve Congress. PIMA is my friend.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 2/15 @ 10:43 am #
Sure, because a president who refuses to leave office deserves impeachment followed by imprisonment, not interrogation.
And, ‘cleo, you *do* realize that particular fantasy was prevalent on the mouth-breathing right in 2000, don’t you? Given that Bush has followed the law more consistently than the administration that gave us the phrase “no controlling legal authority”, why is it more likely now than it was then?
Comment by JD on 2/15 @ 10:45 am #
Clearly, the only way to get good information is to risk your job and your career on it. Especially when politicos and mental midgets like jon are going to be the ones judging your actions, by using a retrospectoscope. The absolute (im)moral clarity of people like that is astounding.
I change my answer. I would not waterboard the terrorist. I would have them waterboard Miss Cleo and jon, just for fun.
Comment by Semanticleo on 2/15 @ 10:51 am #
Cobford;
Thanks for getting on the Wagon. It’s nice to see a lack of equivocation or evasiveness in a response.
I hate to derail the emerging comity, but…….
“Given that Bush has followed the law more consistently”
Absent ’signing statements’ you could be more or less correct (must go to work) but would you agree that their abundant presence colors that with a considerable ‘gray tone’?
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 2/15 @ 10:52 am #
RC
the CIA has recently used politically based leakage to damage the bush administration
for example we have been using keyword recognition on overseas calls for prolly…15 years at least
im guess..i dont have that access.
;)
the program to do that was approved by congress, that segment of congress with need-to-know.
a congress that we elected.
Comment by happyfeet on 2/15 @ 10:53 am #
What goofball jon doesn’t understand in his head is that the reason the government is there is to protect the innocent. Innocent people like what fell from the towers all the way down til they made a really disturbing noise on the pavement. Those ones. It’s the social compact. Our government is doing everything it can to prevent the loss of innocent life. It’s something we need to know when we get up and go to our stupid jobs. Sometimes we get there a few minutes late but it’s ok cause the boss is gone. If you’re in the prison in Turkey, and the funny little man from the embassy comes and says we’re doing everything we can to get you out of here, do you believe him or are you tortured by doubt? Jon I think would find he was not at all complacent.
Comment by JD on 2/15 @ 10:54 am #
Yet another non-sequeter Dem bogeyman talking point there, Miss Cleo. This is one that particularly energizes you. I read that in the most recent signing statement, that Halliburton and Blackwater were directed to receive trillions, if not gazillions of dollars. Oh, the horror.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 10:55 am #
as usual Ms Cleo is full of …, but a lot of what Jon said is true and on point. Essentially we’re talking lifeboat scenarios here, which by definition is an incredibly rare occurance. Its always a bad idea to create policy and law based on exceptions, especially rare ones. If for no other reason than it is impossible to codify every possible rare exception. Laws and policy _should_ only be used to set those minimum rules required for humans to peacefully coexist. In the case of the lifeboat you have to hope you have someone about willing to perform an ultimate sacrifice. Amongst my peers in the officer corps this well known phenomenon was known as “falling on your sword”. We all knew there was the constant risk of having to do so to do what was right.
Comment by sashal on 2/15 @ 10:59 am #
I would waterboard JD, just for the fun of it, may be he will admit to digging up a tunnell from Washington DC to Moscow, Russia
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 2/15 @ 11:02 am #
i shud say, automated keyword recognition, speech understanding by machines.
Comment by alppuccino on 2/15 @ 11:04 am #
Moscow’s in Russia?
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 11:05 am #
nishi, none of this information was secret or even particularly hidden. I clearly remember the hullabaloo about the eshaloen (sic) program in the 90’s. The fact that most people don’t pay attention doesn’t mean its not out there to be found. Btw, thanks for making my point re:CIA and BDS.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 2/15 @ 11:07 am #
also….i dont think we shud have a stated “policy” of waterboarding.
because we are America.
and because we are already employing better methods
but i do think the waterboard testimony data shud be allowed in the guantanamo courts
because…it was state of the art at the time.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 2/15 @ 11:10 am #
RC do u see the difference between the amount of leakage between CIA and NSA?
i can recall only 1 NSA leaker.
it is directly portional to the degree of difficulty in attaining their respective clearances.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 11:10 am #
HF, the real question is how much authority do you grant government to protect the innocents before you’ve granted enough for government to be a threat to those same innocents? Hint, there are at least 2 answers, one having to do with criminal prosecution and the other having to do with CINC war powers. These are both sliding scales and different people are comfortable with different positions of those sliding pointers.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 11:17 am #
This doesn’t answer the general question, but in my view waterboarding is not torture in any context above grade school. When we start gouging out eyeballs, putting burning matchsticks under fingernails and the like get back to me. Fear and humiliate do NOT constitute torture as they are both very transient and harmless. Lots of kids in highschool go through worse experiences than the people we’ve been interogating.
Comment by alppuccino on 2/15 @ 11:20 am #
Lots of kids in highschool go through worse experiences than the people we’ve been interogating.
Cleo’s prom date comes to mind
Comment by alppuccino on 2/15 @ 11:20 am #
Too easy?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 2/15 @ 11:21 am #
No.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 11:22 am #
I’d settle for code to translate nishi’s…whatever to English.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 11:23 am #
Signing statements don’t break any laws. They do make a certain declaration of intent WRT law enforcement, but that declaration of intent isn’t a violation of the law.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 11:27 am #
Al,
you have to take your points where you find them ;)
BTW, you’re welcome :)
Comment by JD on 2/15 @ 11:30 am #
sashal – I would probably admit to that after being waterboarded, but I would be willing to bet that I would last longer than manbearpig KSM. And, it would be pretty damn easy to check out if I was telling the truth or not.
Comment by alppuccino on 2/15 @ 11:36 am #
Al,
you have to take your points where you find them ;)
I’ve always had a penchant for the low fruit RC. Thanks.
Comment by sashal on 2/15 @ 11:41 am #
JD, point taken.
I hope you will reconsider jon’s arguments now .
Comment by happyfeet on 2/15 @ 11:42 am #
RC. We need to debate the legality less and the morality more. You have to write to the prompt or you get points off. The legal part I could care less cause we have people for that. I just know I need to believe the government is doing everything in its power to keep me safe cause I’m a pretty special guy and my Mom would be so sad if anything happened.
Comment by alppuccino on 2/15 @ 11:49 am #
I need to believe the government is doing everything in its power to keep me safe
Then I’d suggest hitting the MUTE button whenever you see Pelosi’s well stretched mug on your tube happy. (that is if her lips are moving)
Comment by B Moe on 2/15 @ 11:53 am #
Until someone passes and enforces real protection against torturing definitions I really don’t see the point of trying to discuss these things.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 2/15 @ 11:57 am #
Semanticleo:
Let’s imagine GWB reaches the termination point of his regime and decides to declare there is some domestic threat which makes it too dangerous to transfer power (ala Bushareff)
Reminds me of that one progg in Australia who was astounded that John Howard allowed the election which resulted in him being voted out of office without staging a coup–apparently not remembering that JH had “allowed” the three previous elections he won.
It’s sheer projection. Proggs slobber over lefty strongman presidentes-for-life, and then howl that those eeeevil conservatives are trying to kill democracy.
Comment by JD on 2/15 @ 11:59 am #
sashal – Nope. jon is still a moron.
Comment by JHoward on 2/15 @ 12:00 pm #
Question: I’d argue that civil law enforcement is primarily just that: Law enforcement for when laws had been broken and needing enforcing. There’s nothing worse than civil nannies constricting rights in the name of crime prevention, at the same time that we prosecute only crimes committed, not crimes potentially about to be committed. I’d argue that legally sound behavior shall be an individual responsibility.
On the other hand, given that national defense is, well, both national and defense in the constitutional sense, is there a strict technical difference between enforcing a civil criminal law that had been broken and preventing the “crime” of assaulting the nation?
Those soft on national defense frequently conflate the domestic criminal code and its rights with the national military code and its rights. Making the distinction may be where the eternally conflicted — the Semanticleos — should correct their semantically unstable reasoning.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 12:00 pm #
Monsier Feet,
I really was talking about the morality inherent in trying to make a legal system overreach. I’m obviously a limited, small government kind of guy. To me that is a moral issue. Government doing any more than absolutely neccessary is immoral as pretty much by definition the more government does the more it is oppressing the people from whom government derives its authority. I’d have to agree with your Mom, HF is a pretty special person that deserves not to be hurt. My argument is that past a certain point government is more liable to hurt you in some way or other than some small percentage event. BTW, this is not an argument against the WOT, GWB, strenuous interrogation short of true torture or any of that. Its just that it makes me shudder when someone wants to violate Ben Franklins injunction and give up their freedom to acquire safety, thus loosing both.
Comment by happyfeet on 2/15 @ 12:05 pm #
Oh. Ok. You’re kind of more like one of those people we have for that sort of thing. I trust you, and I think my Mom would too. Carry on.
Comment by JD on 2/15 @ 12:13 pm #
The distinctions between national defense/intelligence and crime prevention and not at all insignificant in this discussion, but is usually ignored, or blurred. BMoe points to another common hurdle in this discussion, as the likes of cleo and jon would call anything beyond asking a question without saying please torture.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 12:15 pm #
crap now I feel a little like Galadriel in LOTR. I guess I will brag that when it was my turn in the barrel I was very cautious to constantly remind myself; “thou are but mortal”.
Comment by JHoward on 2/15 @ 12:15 pm #
Which can go to #3 and #50, RC? A topic that, IMHO, gets entirely too little airplay in conservative circles. In fact, when libertarians bring it up, conservatives crap on them as often as liberals do…
Comment by McGehee on 2/15 @ 12:21 pm #
I’ll pass — but when you’re done imagining it, please go outside to smoke your cigarette.
Then please wash those goddamn sheets.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 12:22 pm #
As far as what does and does not, legally, represent torture under US law, and whether torture overseas is allowable or not, this is a decent point of reference.
It is not legal to coerce, through severe pain or discomfort, any sort of testimony or behavior. That’s how I read it. It’s also not legal to deport someone to another country so that they may be tortured there.
I suppose that we can do this sort of thing to our hearts’ content by repealing the UN Convention Against Torture, and possibly also one or more Geneva Conventions, but I don’t see how you can make a case for that torture is justified on legal grounds, ever. And I don’t think there’s any legal support at all for the notion that torture is only that which inflicts permanent damage on major organs or appendages.
We’re the good guys. We can still win if we behave as if we really are the good guys. It might be harder, but doing what we’re doing now is a great deal harder than, for instance, slagging the entire Middle East.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 12:24 pm #
JHoward, not that I am religious but there are times when I pray this country be saved by any diety from Liberals(progressives really), and Law and Order Conservatives. Both groups want to steal freedom and decision making from Joe and Jane average.
Comment by JHoward on 2/15 @ 12:27 pm #
^ Ditto.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 12:36 pm #
Slart,
From the first paragraph, _extreme_ cruel and unusual punishment is proscribed. Definitions of what those are are left to implementation of signatory nations. Our own laws are our business. I’d propose that any form of humiliation or discomfort fall far beneath even cruel and unusual much less _extreme_.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 12:44 pm #
If you were a suspect (pick your case) and were interrogated by waterboarding, would you not think that was a little extreme?
Our normal rules of interrogation prohibit beating, among other things. Almost by definition, waterboarding is extreme compared with methods normally permitted by law.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 12:46 pm #
Page CRS-2:
This seems pretty straightforward: severe pain, mental or physical.
Comment by happyfeet on 2/15 @ 1:00 pm #
Mostly really the best way to prevent icky torturey things is to not be an evil muslim retard what wants to kill people. Only YOU can prevent waterboarding is the sign that should be put up in the bazaars and madrassas.
Comment by happyfeet on 2/15 @ 1:01 pm #
Education is key.
Comment by steve on 2/15 @ 1:03 pm #
Maybe I wouldn’t be so bothered if I could be sure that all of these people we’re picking up are really terrorists. But guess what? We can’t do anything to determine their guilt either. How about torture AND a sufficient demonstration of guilt? We just snatch people up from all over the world – in many cases w/o clearly demonstrating guilt – and we need a blank check to torture them because in the rarest of instances, we may be torturing them in a ticking time bomb scenario.
We shouldn’t care what other countries think, but we scratch our heads and wonder how anti-American sentiment can get out of control. “Why do they hate us?” Must be the freedom, right? Maybe we SHOULD be caring about what the rest of the world thinks – strategically. Maybe anti-American sentiment helps feed our foreign policy problems while thumbing our collective nose at the world doesn’t really buy us anything but the smug satisfaction that we can.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 1:11 pm #
Slart, I still disagree with your definitions. This is a place where we must agree to disagree. We are willing to submit our own troops to these types of treatment in the escape and evasion courses, why in the world would we not subject our enemies to it. Beyond that there are college fraternities that treat pledges worse than this. And we won’t even talk about how Marines can treat each other in barracks, in the field or in their cups. I know before I became a gentleman by act of Congress I was one of those rowdy junior Marines and if you think waterboarding is cruel and unusual then you don’t really get around enough to be trusted in making these definitions.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 1:12 pm #
I think you’ve got a couple of choices, given evil muslim retards. First, you can follow said evil people around and identify their co-evil buddies, then kill the lot of them. Alternatively, you can just kill the one.
Easy, I say.
Comment by happyfeet on 2/15 @ 1:15 pm #
Hmmm. Good thinking. We’ll have to hire some of those spy types. Good ones.
Comment by Pablo on 2/15 @ 1:16 pm #
Depending on the circumstances:
When, exactly, did mental suffering make the list of things that constitute torture? Remember when torture used to look a whole lot more torturey?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 1:18 pm #
RC, have you been waterboarded? Would you think it was OK for someone to snatch your child or your sibling, and waterboard them? Would you think it was just peachy to do that to someone a) who you were sure was a bad guy that knew things that you would do well to learn, or b) who you just suspected held said vital knowledge?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 1:19 pm #
Is infliction of mental suffering a lawful sanction, Pablo? Are we allowed to inflict said sanctions on criminals, stateside?
Comment by JHoward on 2/15 @ 1:20 pm #
True. Still, I admit that mostly I don’t care what you purport to think. To wit:
Because that’s just the way we hang. More plausibly, maybe you’re simply incapable of reason, to say nothing of perspective. On, say, regarding the human rights records of democracies vs those of tyrannies of various stripe.
Comment by alppuccino on 2/15 @ 1:20 pm #
“Why do they hate us?â€Â
Yeah. Like why does Huckabee hate Romney so much. He told you. He’s the rich guy. He spends his money. He’s the one that’s gonna lay you off and “I’m the one who gets laid off with you.” Look at him. He’s so rich and he has good posture and he has an opinion on what’s right. I hate that. Why doesn’t he realize that if he just mussed his do, slouched and went bankrupt, we’d love him. People without ambition, hate rich people. Nations without ambition hate America.
Oh and steve, Sarkozy gave a speech in front of Congress that probably had most of those useless fat-asses squirming in their seats while they were getting a lesson on why America is the greatest country in the history of the world. So stop scratching your head.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 1:21 pm #
RC, the reason that we do these things to soldiers in training is to show them what our more immoral enemies will do to us.
So, where were you going with that?
Comment by JHoward on 2/15 @ 1:21 pm #
I don’t know, Slart. We allow marriage.
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 1:23 pm #
Slart,
I’m sensing here a lack of understanding. A lot of people seem to believe that waterboarding is some form of near drowning. That is not at all the case. It is a technique to fool autonomic senses in the body to _believe_ it is drowning. Properly performed there is NO risk of long term damage and ultimately results in a serious case of the willies after its finished. Its kind of like bootcamp. I survived it, but I’d NEVER want to do it again and that was 12 Weeks of stimulating unpleasant autonomic responses :)
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 1:23 pm #
I have no response to that that’s both witty and that I wouldn’t mind my wife reading.
Comment by Pablo on 2/15 @ 1:32 pm #
Yes.
Comment by Belvedere jones on 2/15 @ 1:32 pm #
Tangential, and at the risk of appearing to confuse nat’l defense and crime prevention, I’m reminded of this from Walt Williams:
“I was summoned for jury duty some years ago, and during voir dire, the attorney asked me whether I could obey the judge’s instructions. I answered, “It all depends upon what those instructions are.” Irritatingly, the judge asked me to explain myself. I explained that if I were on a jury back in the 1850s, and a person was on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting a runaway slave, I would vote for acquittal regardless of the judge’s instructions. The reason is that slavery is unjust and any law supporting it is unjust. Needless to say, I was dismissed from jury duty.”
Comment by JD on 2/15 @ 1:33 pm #
Add steve to the list of America-haters.
CHICKENWATERBOARDER !!!11elevnty!!!!!!!!!!1111
Comment by RC on 2/15 @ 1:36 pm #
Slart,
your logic is tortured here. Yes we do it to some of our troops to familiarize them with some of the techniques our more honorable enemies may do so that they _may_ be able to resist better. If you are suggesting that we torture our own troops as a demonstration of bad guy behavior then this is where civil discourse between you and I ends. We do not torture anyone, much less our own troops. If you think discomfort and emotional distress are torture then nothing more can be said to you. I would suggest to you that your spouse, whom you’ve loved for 10 years suddenly decides to divorce you and take custody of your kids is a heck of a lot more emotionally distressful than the 4-5 minutes it usually takes to waterboard someone.
Comment by JHoward on 2/15 @ 1:42 pm #
^ Not allowed to talk about that, RC.
Comment by McGehee on 2/15 @ 1:46 pm #
I thought the question was whether waterboarding is acceptable as an interrogation technique. Asking about its use as punishment is like asking whether one should use a condom as a diaper.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 1:48 pm #
RC, although I do deeply appreciate where you’re coming from, and also respect and appreciate your being a Marine, I say that there’s a crucial difference between subjecting yourself to mental or physical pain, and subjecting someone else to it. Permission, mostly, and the knowledge that you won’t be killed. You trust your instructors not to kill you, or otherwise permanently damage you. Your instructors are people who, in all likelihood, have endured such treatment themselves, and know how to make sure you don’t die. Different from, say, an enemy interrogator who may not place a high value on your life.
Now, waterboarding isn’t the only coercive technique that we use, and we’ve used other techniques, according to the White House, far more widely than we’ve used waterboarding. So confining this conversation solely to waterboarding is inapt, I think. Still, it serves as a kind of placeholder for general infliction of extreme mental or physical discomfort, as prohibited by the aforementioned UN Convention Against Torture. I’d think the Cold Cell treatment would get mighty discouraging, and it too is one of those things that falls under our normal definition of “cruel and unusual”, and is (the way I see it) illegal under the UN CAT.
I’ve got no problem with you disagreeing with me, BTW. Thanks for the civil exchange.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 1:53 pm #
Well, I just might have to walk back on this one. Which of our more honorable enemies forcibly interrogates prisoners of war?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 2:02 pm #
…I mean, we’ve got this Geneva Convention thing, and if I were me (and I am), I’d interpret the Geneva Conventions (the same ones that require respectful treatment of POWs, mind) as strictly prohibiting such behaviors.
I’d like to admonish caution in engaging in behaviors which you might be able to justify for yourself, that you’d draw up short of finding justified when done against you, but I’m not quite sure how to do that without giving offense.
That, and I’m really not all that sure of what I’d do. I think we had a decent idea that KSM was absolutely a bad guy, guilty of a whole lot of bad-guy stuff, and so my inclination would be to bastinado the hell out of him, just for being who he is. Or, bonus, to squeeze the names and locations of other bad-guys out of him, or information about operations, etc. So, I’m a little conflicted as regards legal constraints. What I am absolutely convinced of is that we oughtn’t be in the business of beating and/or freezing confessions out of people that we merely suspect are bad guys.
As a result of these conflicting thoughts, I’m absolutely convinced that I’m not the guy to decide, and so I’m just in it for the conversation.
Comment by Darleen on 2/15 @ 2:33 pm #
Slart
Human beings, by and large, all experience pain and we can generally agree on what constitutes physical torture or even discomfort (and debate whether or not discomfort rises to the definition of torture)
I have problems with “mental torture” because much of it is culturally defined.
The Islamist is aculturated in misogyny. He will feel “mental discomfort” if the interrogator across the table is a female. Does that make female agents/soldiers/officers/guards illegitimate participants in being around Islamist prisoners?
Comment by JD on 2/15 @ 2:36 pm #
I think. Still, it serves as a kind of placeholder for general infliction of extreme mental or physical discomfort, as prohibited by the aforementioned UN Convention Against Torture
And many would, and credibly do argue that waterboarding, as is practiced by the US, is most certainly not extreme mental or physical discomfort. The same people would argue that the meaning of the phrase mental and physical discomfort and extreme for that matter, have had their definitions expanded so far so as to render them effectively meaningless.
Comment by Cave Bear on 2/15 @ 2:44 pm #
What I find hugely amusing about these “torture” discussions, particularly as they apply to waterboarding and the like, is that despite what the usual proggie wet-pantsers around here and elsewhere would have us believe, out of all those raghead lowlife motherfuckers they’ve got down there in Gitmo, they used waterboarding on a grand total of three of them, and that was several years ago.
Furthermore, not one of those assholes was picked up at random off the (Arab) street because some no-doubt-Republican CIA or military type thought he looked terroristey. No, every damned one of them was captured while trying to kill our guys on the battlefield (or the terrorist equivalent).
To be sure, a nontrivial difference.
It would be a blinding statement of the obvious to say that our opponent in the WOT do not abide by any “UN Convention Against Torture”, Geneva Convention, etc rules on the treatment of prisoners. Anyone who has been paying attention can tell you that whenever the terrorists have gotten hold of any of our guys, they are promptly raped, tortured (and we are talking the real thing here, not this “waterboarding” horsecock) and killed, not necessarily in that order. And not because they needed any information, but rather simply because they could and they get their rocks off by doing so.
Now that I think about it, none of the United States’ opponents in any war we’ve fought in the past 100 years or so has abided any so-called prohibitions against torture. Not the Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, and certainly not the Arabs. And we are supposed to worry about what the rest of the world thinks of us?
Darleen has a point here, one that most people seem to have overlooked. The sad simple difference between us and them is that, on the rare occasions when we have used such “extreme” measures as waterboarding, harsh language, sleep deprivation, slaps on the belly or whatever, is that our guys were doing it to save innocent lives.
Like it or not, there are going to be situations where the MORAL imperative, the imperative to protect the innocent, overrides any bureaucratic regulations. Of course, the trick is to know with a goodly amount of certainty you are in the right as you shove that red-hot poker up Jon’s ass so he will tell you where his Islamocommie pals hid that nuke that’s about to go off in New York City.
Get it right, you are a hero. Get it wrong, and you are fucked, and deservedly so.
Let us all fervently hope and/or pray that it never comes to that…
Comment by Pablo on 2/15 @ 2:52 pm #
We don’t have their permission to detain them, and they don’t know what we’ll do to them. Unless, of course, we make a habit of telling them exactly what to expect when we’ve got them in custody.
If we were dealing with a traditional enemy, I’d find that argument compelling. But we’re not, and the things that would likely be done to you or I if captured by this enemy would not only fail to meet the “justifiable” standard, they tend more toward the obscene and abhorrent and their intent is to shock the conscience and to show themselves to be so fucking frightening that we’ll crumble at the foot of their ruthlessness.
That’s not us. When we do what we do to extract information, and the subjects are left whole and unharmed, I simply can’t find a way to get outraged about that. What we do has no bearing on what they’ll do because they operate under a completely different set of principles and they aren’t signed on to any of the gentlemen’s agreements we refer to as the laws of war. Further, these are not POW’s in the GC sense.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 3:03 pm #
I worry more about what I think of us, to be honest.
No, I think that’s one of those things that a POW just has to suck up, just as he has to suck up that he’s a POW. And of course, as a POW, he has the option of simply refusing to respond to a female interrogator.
We don’t need it, Pablo.
We already have: Geneva Conventions. It doesn’t matter if they’re signatories; it matters if we are. We became signatories voluntarily, and we did it for some very good reasons. If we don’t think those reasons are so good anymore, is it your recommendation that we back out, or that we simply pick and choose when we abide by them?
So, the solution is to allow them to dictate the limits on our behavior? I thought we were the arbiters of our own morality; now it looks as if that morality is somewhat flexible. I mean, consider this: we don’t even torture serial killers into telling us where the bodies are. Why don’t we? After all, they’re inhuman scum.
I don’t have a high Outrage Quotient, myself. Darleen raised the question of morality, though, and I’m attempting to address that question. I may very well suck at this, but I am doing my best.
Comment by Darleen on 2/15 @ 3:04 pm #
Belv
You’re talking about jury nullification … which, too, comes down to moral imperatives. I certainly think it should be discouraged, even if a jury still engages in it, because to encourage jury nullification is to get the kind of injustice as the OJ acquital. Like waterboarding, it should be rare.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 3:04 pm #
weird. some of that got out of order.
Comment by Darleen on 2/15 @ 3:11 pm #
Slart
How POW’S are treated is one matter, how illegal combatants is another. And no, the US was not a signatory of the portion of the Geneva Convs added in the 1970’s that got rid of that distinction.
even excitable Andy thought having a female interrogator smear redink on an Islamist (ooo! menstrual blood!) was notorious torture. So “dissing” the culture of detainees HAS been condemned by the morally challenged as “torture.”
Comment by Pablo on 2/15 @ 3:20 pm #
We don’t need what, Slart? And what else don’t we need? We’ve got lots of stuff at our disposal. What else should we jettison?
Yes, it does. The conventions exclude from their protections those who don’t adhere to the rules of war as laid out within. If they were protected, they’d be POW’s and we’d not be able to interrogate them at all. They’d need only provide name, rank and serial number. That is not the case here.
Absolutely not, but that seems to be the case you’re trying to make with the “If we waterboard, what might they then do?” formulation.
They have Constitutional rights.
Comment by mcgruder on 2/15 @ 3:20 pm #
Oh, waiter: I’ll have an order of red-herrings from the left and right side of the menu please.
If we had an activist intelligence gathering and collecting aparatus–instead of a toy-obsessed research operation– much of this debate would be valid only after 5 drinks.
We don’t, so we are put in a situation where when we get a scumbag, we are reduced to the implicit threat of going all 13th century on his ass.
If we were better at hunting and killing, this would not be an issue.
The left doesnt like this last bit because, well, wet work has no nuance. thats not fair. Actually, the left doesnt like this because they are trapped in a deluded parallel world where “We all can get along.”
we cant.
the right, which doesnt want the time and cash sink that this capability takes–despite rhetoric to the contrary–argues for the discretion to execute conduct that is beyond the pale.
me? I just wanna see a more robust campaign against hamas and hizbollah.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 3:21 pm #
How is the status of a detainee determined, and when? I think there’s a requirement for a tribunal. Can a detainee be treated as an illegal combatant before his status is formally determined?
And are you saying that illegal combatants have, literally, no legal status at all? That we can do with them as we wish? Somehow I doubt that is the case.
Comment by Pablo on 2/15 @ 3:23 pm #
Ah, permission to detain them. Sorry, that was more obvious on second read. And well, we don’t need their permission to waterboard them either.
Comment by JD on 2/15 @ 3:29 pm #
I would argue that if you are an illegal combatant, you can be removed from the playing field until the game is over, at which point, you can be released. It sure beats the alternative for said illegal combatant, the infamous double-tap.
Comment by irongrampa on 2/15 @ 3:31 pm #
interesting reading here,howver the subjects of the conversation do not fall under any provision of the Geneva Convention. Imho, this whole thing got started by our treating them as if they WERE subject to the GC.And no, I don’t think waterboarding is torture–far from it. Simply because we did treat these scum as prisoners of war, because it’s WHAT WE DO, is no reason to hamstring our efforts in the WOT.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 3:36 pm #
Why do they? I mean, if morality (and, possibly, legality) can be thrown over for pragmatic reasons, why not put them to the Question?
We don’t need their permission to detain them, Pablo. What else don’t we need? We don’t need to carpet-bomb; we jettisoned that a long time ago. We don’t need to hear the lamentations of the women, either. Do you want a complete list?
I’m not sure that’s true. Certainly there are words to the effect that if one party to the conflict is a signatory, both are bound, and I don’t see any words releasing us, for example, if our opponent(s) decline to adhere. I could be wrong about that, though.
Comment by McGehee on 2/15 @ 3:40 pm #
I believe the Conventions do specifically exclude from their protections spies and saboteurs, and I remain convinced that had terrorism been a significant concern at the time they would have specifically excluded them as well. As it is, I see no reason why people who target civilians, or who hide among them while engaging coalition troops, should not be regarded as outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
Including them makes the Conventions a joke.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 3:44 pm #
And well, we don’t need their permission to waterboard them either.
I think you’re mistaking my argument. I wasn’t saying we required their permission to waterboard them, I was saying that A distinction between SERE training and waterboarding a prisoner is one of consent. There are certainly other distinctions, but I thought this was an important one.
Just as it’s an important difference between you running a marathon, and having someone force you to.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/15 @ 3:46 pm #
I agree, provided you know the person in question is in fact one of those, and not someone you mistook for one of those. Which is why tribunals are vital, I think.
Comment by Pablo on 2/15 @ 4:08 pm #
Because they’re subject to the American justice system.
They become excluded from the protections the GC’s entitle POW’s to by failing to adhere to the rules such as maintaining a central commander responsible for his subordinates, carrying arms openly, bearing a recognizable mark to identify them as combatants, and maintaining separation from civilian populations. See Article 4
Comment by Pablo on 2/15 @ 4:11 pm #
Which seems to say that we shouldn’t do it because we don’t have their permission. Which further seems to suggest that we need their permission, which is clearly not the case. That argument is not persuasive, and the distinction is immaterial as I see it.
Comment by Cave Bear on 2/15 @ 4:12 pm #
I have the solution to the entire problem. Just take our hypothetical terrorist-with-needed-information “detainee” and put him in a room with Slart and some of the other from here while the argue the minutiae of waterboarding, his Constitutional rights (next thing we’ll be hearing about habeas corpus and the Gitmo bunch), etc.
In no time our terrorist will be begging for mercy and proclaim himself willing to spill his guts about whatever we want to know, if they will…JUST…SHUT….UP!!!!!!!
Comment by B Moe on 2/15 @ 5:14 pm #
http://videogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/Video.aspx?s=5&vid=2107
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 2/15 @ 6:08 pm #
Inhuman. That video shows the depth of their depravity. Mo was an ass, but these guys make him look like the fucking Dali Lama or Mother Theresa. I’m in agreement with Pablo here in regards to my understanding of the GC rights for these people. They don’t have them.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 2/15 @ 6:09 pm #
Just to be understood here. The “Mo” was for muhammed, not you B Moe. I figure you know that, but just to be safe.
Comment by Rusty on 2/16 @ 7:11 am #
#101
I think we’re already handling pretty well. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having these conversations. But you have to admit that being at war is an extraordinary situation.Ordinary measures don’t apply for very long. It really does come down to choosing one side over another. So we shouldn’t be alarmed too much if someone in the field decides to accelerate the questioning process. I’d much rather the mistake be made in preferring to save the lives of our men and women than angonizing over a terrorists natural rights. Is it barbarism? Not at all.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/16 @ 10:12 am #
Which is just good enough, some might argue, for our inhuman scum. But our inhuman scum are worthy of better treatment, probably, than anyone at all in the ME.
So, you’re going the “no controlling legal authority” route? I don’t think that’s necessarily incorrect so much as illustrative of a huge, gaping hole in our legal structure that permits arbitrarily harsh abuse of folks overseas.
And, as I asked of Darleen, are there no legal limits or guidelines at all, for treatment of your “illegal combatants”.
No, it’s a matter of consent, Pablo. I’ve spoken of this before, and you still may disagree, but let’s not pretend I haven’t gone on at length about the difference between voluntary and involuntary shouldering of intense pain, ok?
No one’s forcing you to read this discussion, Cave Bear. If you can’t stand it, you’re welcome to skip the whole thing. I happen to think it’s an interesting set of questions. Elections primaries, on the other hand, bore the living shit out of me. It’s TORTURE, I tell you!
Comment by bjtexs on 2/16 @ 10:35 am #
This debate, more than any other I can think of, seems to get clouded with idealism and emotion. There is no question that the Geneva Convention is an inadequate document for dealing with our current brand of nationless terrorists. If we go by that document as it’s written the concepts of “uniformed combatants” and “lack of controlling legal authority” should provide ample justification for summary execution. The fact that we don’t is both a reflection of our national ideals and the practicality of a conflict won as much my timely information as laser guided bombs.
There is a tendency to argue the extremes. We are the good guys translates into treat them like criminals, denying both the concept of war and the seperate set of rules that are identified with conflicts. In contrast the kill ‘em all or use flamethrowers on them reflect an emotional response that is at odds with our national identity and is, ultimately, unworkable.
The CIA and other covert operations have been conducting aggressive interrogations for decades under the strictest secrecy. Despite the back and forth over waterboarding, we are left with the fact that only three terror suspects have been waterboarded by American operatives. As we stand now, we are still ahead of most of both the civilized and uncivilized world in the treatment of prisoners whose rights under the Geneva convention are hazy at best. We also know what happens to American soldiers captured by insurgents in Iraq which makes the argument of “We’re no better than them” false and libelous.
Regardless of ones point of view this discussion is important and should continue to challenge our preconceived notions of justice and expediancy. The nature of the threat requires something more nuanced and thoughtfull that the tossing of “torture” and “fascism” everytime we talk about Gitmo or aggressive interrogation. It also requires that same level of clear thinking from the “nuke ‘em all” brigade while we struggle to establish security while protecting long held civil rights values.
I don’t confess to have the complete answer but I’m willing to listen to ideas and compromises in this debate as long as a healthy dollop of common sense prevails on both extremes.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 2/16 @ 10:41 pm #
That’s pretty much where I am, bjtexs. I’d have no problem at all with killing those who we KNEW were guilty out of hand, were we able to convince ourselves of their guilt with a decent degree of certainty. KSM, most likely, was one of those cases.
Out of this, now. Sorry if I pissed anyone off.
Comment by Magrooder on 2/17 @ 8:06 pm #
E
Pingback by We need to debate the legality less and the morality more. on 2/19 @ 1:06 pm #
[...] waterboarding debate–”We need to debate the legality less and the morality more.” She writes: I’m coming to the point where I do not care if waterboarding is “illegal†or not. If [...]