In a Sunday post noting the capture of the al Qaeda leader in Britain, I raised the following questions:
[…] should the leader of Britain’s al Qaeda be given what amounts to Geneva Convention protections / domestic civil liberties protectionsâ€â€especially in light of the recently foiled plan designed to bring down a score of airliners? Or should the forces allied against Islamic terror be making other arrangements for his questioning?
This is no longer the hypothetical ticking nuke question; instead, this is the capture of a man who, as AJ Strata notes:
would have information on financing methods which might avoid detection and the same with communication methods. This person will have knowledge on active cells and those who support terrorism from a safe distance (feeling concerned Mr. Galloway?). This person will also have contacts up the chain and probably to his peers in other EU nations.
How much of our “moral authority†or the “souls†of western liberalism is that kind of information worth?
And this is more than a simple academic question. The British security gauge remains pinned to critical, suggesting that a second-wave attack may still be in the offing. And as Ed Morrisey reminds us:
[the airliner plot arrests shed] some more light on the 7/7 bombng plot that British authorities chalked up to home-grown amateurs last year. According to the Pakistani official, the arrest came after the suspect visited the same radical imams and mosques as Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, the 7/7 bombers. That could just be coincidenceâ€â€or it could indicate that Khan and Tanweer had direction and support from AQ for their attacks as well.
That brings us to the concern of a “second waveâ€Â. The 7/7 plot was followed closely by an abortive attempt for a repeat two weeks later. AQ also plotted a second wave of attacks in the US after 9/11 but got surprised by the quick grounding of the airliners and tight security restrictions afterward Security officials in Britain worry that the plotters who escaped may yet try a second wave even though the first failed.
How much should MI5 be willing to do to find out just if and what that second wave attack might be?
Is it okay to value the lives of your own citizens moreso than the fillip of righteousness you feel when you refuse to cross certains lines with respect to interrogation? And I’m not even talking torture necessarilyâ€â€or at least, I’m not talking about torture as it stood before it was defined down to outrages on personal dignity.
How far should our leadersâ€â€sworn to protect us, not to burnish their own “moral†bona fidesâ€â€be prepared to go? And just how “moral†is it to allow a unyielding code of morality stop you from perhaps preventing the deaths of thousands and the suffering of tens of thousands?
Interestingly, today brings two disparate answers—and the US, it appears, doesn’t fare nearly so well when it comes to finding pragmatic solutions to individual ethical dilemmas.
To wit: Karol Sheinin, guest posting for Michelle Malkin, points to this Guardian story suggesting that torture was used to obtain much of the information used to prevent the al Qaeda plot to blow up in mid flight multiple airplanes in waves of three:
Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week’s arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had “broken” under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. “I don’t deduce, I know – torture,” she said. “There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all.”
…And?
This returns us to my questions of the other day—namely, is torture (or, even less so, coercive interrogation) a valid tool to get that information necessary to stop pending attacks? Alternately, is the rendition of those prisoners strongly believed to hold such key information to countries less concerned than are we, for purposes of extracting that key information, with civil liberties (or even the threat of such renditions)—the so-called “selling of our souls” or the “surrendering of the moral highground”—worth the price if it can physically and actually save hundred, thousands, or possibly even tens of thousands of civilians?
This question goes to the very nature of government. Are we electing a “moral” leadership—something the left has scoffed at time and again when that morality is tethered to the kinds of religious convictions that ground it? Or are we electing a government whose job it is to protect our lives and interests—even if it means crossing a “moral” line that under different circumstances we might never cross?
Sheinin writes:
The Guardian wrestles with the question if “actions abroad pollute British justice, even if in the short-term they may protect British security”.
Personally, I have no such quandary. It is one thing to debate the ethics of torture in a general sense, whether captured terrorists can be subject to uncomfortable conditions in order to extract information about their network and associates. It’s quite another to understand the use of torture in order to save the lives of innocent people. An attack was imminent, and the information had to be obtained, no matter the method.
This is the pragmatic way to address an immediate need—and yet those who generally claim to embrace pragmatism (in the absense of any transcendental truths) are those most likely, it seems to me, to hold unyielding views on matters less theoretical than real and requiring an immediate and difficult decision by those charged with protecting our countries and their people.
In the end, I suspect most Britons will be quite secretly content with what was done in order to foil the plot—though soon conversation and discussion will drift back to the realm of the theoretical where those who are in immediate danger are simply forensic cutouts in a debate about principles and moral highgrounds.
Meanwhile, here in the US, a San Francisco judge has taken a different tack and decided—even in lieu of the recently thwarted plot—that state secrecy in the war on terror is unnecessary:
Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco  pointing to the continuing, widespread public controversy over the president’s secretly authorizing the NSA’s warrantless disregard of individual privacy rights  ruled that there was no urgent state need for secrecy
—an observation that is based on, well, the fact that we haven’t been attacked recently. most likely.
Otherwise, how can he claim to know more about the urgent need for secrecy than those responsible for gathering the intelligence necessary to thwart attacks like the one in London recently (which relied upon US surveillance help)?
Bottom line: there are those for whom the realities on the ground are beginning to come clear, and those whose political idealism and false sense of security have moved to rule in ways that are utterly astounding given what we know about how al Qaeda plans and what their stated aims are.
Sadly, many in the US seem to be moving left even as many of the socialists in Europe, having been mugged by reality, are preparing to take precisely the kind of measures necessary to root out the enemy that has spent years insinuating itself into the host countries it plans to attack from within.
I say torture, but only if it’s safe, effective, and low-cost.
Hmmm. Maybe I’ll just move to Corsica. Good food, good climate.
Technically, it’s France. But so what?
I say torture as well. But let’s just keep it our secret, ok? That is if we can keep the agenda driven personel from our intelligence agencies quiet…..
Otherwise, how can he claim to know more about the urgent need for secrecy than those responsible for gathering the intelligence necessary to thwart attacks like the one in London recently (which relied upon US surveillance help)?
It’s “principle” dammit!!!!
Slippery slope!
Fascism!
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
tw: what do they teach these black robed lawyers in their schools?
Jeff said;
This returns us to my questions of the other dayâ€â€namely, is torture (or, even less so, coercive interrogation) a valid tool to get that information necessary to stop pending attacks? Alternately, is the rendition of those prisoners strongly believed to hold such key information to countries less concerned than are we, for purposes of extracting that key information, with civil liberties (or even the threat of such renditions)â€â€the so-called “selling of our souls†or the “surrendering of the moral highgroundâ€Ââ€â€worth the price if it can physically and actually save hundred, thousands, or possibly even tens of thousands of civilians?
OK. Does not resorting to torture to save lives result in cultural suicide? Keeping in mind that not physically or mentally coerecing information is a relatively new phenom.
Are we somehow morally superior by aquiescing to our oun ruin?
The rules of this conflict were laid down by our enemies.I think in this instance we must agree that our culture is the superior one.The evidence for this can be seen by the fact we’re arguing the morality of the act. Not accepting it as a matter of course. Which is as it should be.
At every instance it has been the policy of our government , our politicians, and our armed forces to use every means at their disposal to limit the amount of civilian casualties. On the otherhand it has been the stated objective of our enemies to cause as much random violence against civilian populations as possible.
There is no morallity to war. Yes if can,(in that great leftist slogan), save just one life, it will be worth it.
I believe it was Dennis Miller who said (paraphrased) “I don’t think James Madison thought about adding ‘the right of people not being blown up at their workplace’ to The Bill of Rights, but it kind of underlies all of it.”
Situational ethics rears it’s ugly head. Although I’m not sure why it would not rear it’s ugly ass.
Anyway, I digress.
It’s acceptable for me, but not for thee.
I would not have objected if 9/11 could have been avoided by yanking out someone’s fingernails. Anyone party to such an outrage is foris factum, in my book.
Unfortunately, thus having avoided the tragedy, the howls of indignation would erupt in earnest, more easily heard in the absence of crashing airliners and brick dust.
First let me say that I don’t believe the Guardian story. The guy may or may not have been coercively interrogated but neither the Guardian or Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, know this. They’re punting to get the meme out there, setting the stage for appeals for Rauf and the Brit guys who’ve been arrested.
Personally I’m in favour of coercive interrogation in very restricted ways and very restricted circumstances. I don’t want the post of Queen’s torturer to be advertised in the paper, but if there is enough evidence that a guy like Rauf knows the who, what, where and when of a terrorist atrocity then I want him to be questioned hard.
As for rendition. I’d rather we did what we have to do in our own countries with our own methods and our own people, and especially with our own due process as agreed by our society, or at least delegated to our representatives. “Do what you have to do but don’t do too often and don’t get used to it.”
We haven’t woken up to what’s necessary yet but the way things are developing, maybe we will soon.
TW Heavy man
Who are we to judge the people of Pakistan and their traditional cultural practices and imperatives? Why, torture is an important part of the daily lives of thousands of Pakistanis. How Eurocentric, paternalistic and dare I say it, neocolonial of the Guardian to look down on them for it.
TW: “gone” as in, The Guardian done gone and volunteered to be murdered.
Torture as an effective tool works, not always but usually. And a history channel show on torture I watched backed up what I have always known (from my subversion and espionage training in the USArmy) that ‘everyone’ breaks under torture, everyone, eventually will break.
With that said…
It’s like whacking off…. 100% do it, and 60% of them lie about doing it…but keep doing it…
So it has to be this unspoken policy… not written down… not widely known, except by those that need to know.
But I guess ultimately we are debating the ‘ends justifying the means’ aren’t we…. an arguement that, as I see it, has gone on since Machiavelli stated it.
“The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few”—Spock
Which to me represents our democracy… the majority decide what is ‘moral’ or right… or good…
So as long as we all stick together and decide that torture, in a limited scope, is ‘good’ then… well it’s good.
What is fundamentally good, or bad? Who decides?
Who decided there was a “god”, or an “allah”, or a “Shee’va”… we did… don’t make it true but we believe it, so therefore.. it is reality…
“Everything you touch or see, is everything your life will ever be”—Pink Floyd
TW: as far as I am concerned, the matter is ‘closed’, and hopefully on some jihadists head, and or fingers.
Ugly sheep alert:
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=13192248&src=rss/oddlyEnoughNews
Forget all the ‘better than that’ rhetoric. This culture is mine and for that reason alone I reserve the right to use any means necessary to defend it from outside threats.
For I have seen the light.
I suspect most people feel* the same way about the questions you raise as they do about eating meat. Most of us are squeamish to think about how the animals we eat are raised, treated in life and slaughtered. We most of us are also not too keen when confronted with growth hormones, antibiotics and GM soy protein in the process. I suspect if I knew more about the subject I would become vegetarian.
And yet I eat meat. Mmm. Meat. Basically, I am content to let the professionals get on with the job thereby allowing me to enjoy sausages, hamburgers and steak. Yes, there will be a vocal few who decide to look into the subject and become vegans or Heinlein-style self-sufficiency kill-and-eat-it types. But most of us would rather not be bothered.
I think the same logic applies to keeping the airlines flying. It is a practical, if not terribly ethical, stance.
*And I do mean “feel” rather than “think”.
That “moral” line is a difficult one. But I remembered what Robert Heinlein said about morality in his novel Starship Troopers:
The terrorists—barbarians in all but name—have effectively set the lower limit for morality in this war. While I am reluctant to walk in that direction, I know that they set the rules, and the stakes. They are in no position to complain.
So, yes, I think we need to cross that line. Torture, or threat of torture, should be used. The only conditions that I would offer for its use would be the rules that (1) torture is not always the most effective tool, and must not be relied upon as a sole source of data; and (2) the prisoner must be suspected to possess high value information. Torture should not be routine.
Ugly? You betcha. So are airplanes being blown out of the sky.
And on that note, I’ll drop one more quote from the same book:
Sound familiar?
If you haven’t read this book, I urge you to do so. While basically a science fiction novel (and please, ignore that horrible movie of the same name), Heinlein postulated a society where service and sacrifice is more valued than anything else. A lot of lefties hate it, and claim that said society is facist, but their arguments don’t stand up (as usual).
I think Flea is onto something. And it would be a rather poetic rejoinder to the “chickenhawk” stupidity.
“You think torturing terrorists is always wrong, eh? Tell me, do you eat sausage?”
We have been told repeatedly by its opponents that torture “doesn’t work.” If valuable, accurate information was obtained, torture obviously could not have been involved.
Which mention provides an opening for yet another “Curse you!!!” to be aimed at the wastes of skin who made the detestable movie unjustly bearing that book’s name.
The question, “If it would have prevented 9-11, would you condone torture?” is a false comparison, although a valid element of the background. We (or our governments) are never faced with a known disaster to erase, but a spectrum of suspected threats to prevent.
The question then becomes a compound of: “1. What measures do we use (e.g., coercive, etc.)? 2. Upon whom do we use them? 3. What threats justify their use? 4. Who applies them? 5. What are the limits in the previous questions?”
Take question 2 further. Do you apply coercive methods to suspects or only to convicted terrorists? How does one convict a person of having knowledge that we need? Do we coerce people only on the basis of arrest and suspicion? What kind of system will we set up to prevent the innocent from being subjected to torture?
Take question 3 further. How do we keep these protections of physical security from being applied to protect political security? How do you keep political enemies from being labeled “terroritsts”? Who oversees the application of that label? Quis custodiet custodies?
This is not simply an “anti-torture” set of questions. Any (classically) liberal democracy will have to answer them or risk devolving into tyranny.
Respectfully submitted, T&T
So there is talk about exchanging the
IDF guy for like 600 pallies.
Is there like a Forex market on this shit? I mean if the exchange rate on Jews is that good, I want in on summat. I know where I can get about 750 Mexicans. How many Jews would that bring?
I don’t know about that, yet. As I listened to snippets of news all day I heard messages from the left—that left me utterly bewildered, and I imagine the non-news junkie, regular Joe is hearing the same thing….
That is…Republicans and Bush are trying to scare us, but haven’t made us safer or done enough!
How is that?
If all anti-terror measures are trumped up political scare tactics, seems to me Bush Admin. has done enough or nothing needs to be done, right?
But the real message? After five years, five years! the Democrats have not set forth ONE even semi, quasi viable idea, plan, thought on combatting terrorism. The ONLY contribution (if you want to call it that!) Democrats have supplied to the issue of GWOT is Politics, reflexive Obstruction and blame. That’s it.
The more Dems. fight measures that work, the less relevant they will become.
*I think the same logic applies to keeping the airlines flying. It is a practical, if not terribly ethical, stance.*
Ha. Hmm. Yep, kinda.
Though somebody REALLY hungry would probably make that analogy. Not that I’m implying anything.
I’m trying to tune out the anti-bush noise- what are these potential sentators going to be when elected AND when Bush is gone? I understand withdraw but do they understand the ramifications of leaving an “unstable” iraq ? Disastrous if Iran gets its hooks into Iraq and whats to say thats not going to happen other than boots on the ground and special forces active in the “problem” areas?
Sad but Funny thing – Iran’s no different then Iraq 5 years ago- its just tyranny by committee instead of by family.
TSK9
As I alluded to above. You can’t disprove a negative. The absence of exploding jihaddis in America cannot be attributed absolutely. The left is therefore free to weep and wail about real and imagined measures employed against the terrists.
If and when one does create a red smear at the local Starbucks, the volume will only increase. It’s a win/win for the opposition.
I think the world should start acting like we’re really at war and treat this turd like a captured prisoner. Some Imam stands up in a temple and calls for death to the west and Islam conquering all the world? Treat him like you would some nazi standing up in a room and calling for the victory of Hitler and all the Jews turned into lampshades in 1944. This is not a difficult concept.
It’s long, long past time we started acting like we’re at war instead of pretending we can act like normal while young men fight and die somewhere else.
Basically because leftist reactionaries don’t know how to read.
Another Heinlein quote (approximation):
“A critic is someone who can’t understand a simple declarative sentance.”
tw: true…weird, man, really weird.
But Mona reads Reason, and quotes CATO, and is liked by uber-libertarian GiGi. She MUST be right.
Gratuitous I know.
Very? Sure about that?
Because the sum of all human history leads me to believe that the only thing that that berserk doomsday machine raining violence, oppression and death on all in its sight hates more than it hates us is rivals for our blood.
But since the monster hasn’t yet grown enough limbs to twist the pliers on all our nipples at once, its greed is our reprieve; most of us will die on our own before it gets around to slaughtering us.
A pragmatic toast to that.
[black fist]</i>
Life is a greed based proposition.
Therefore all succesfull endevours are invariably based in greed at their core.
Only the dead are truly innocent.
Why am I not surprised that a judge from America’s looniest city has made a decision that makes it more difficult for us to defend ourselves? I’d be outraged, except that these loony decisions seem to be routine for that circuit, and routinely overturned on appeal.
Of course, were something really bad to happen in San Francisco, and the survivors were to identify Judge Walker, the judge might become familiar with the meaning of justice.
I’ll agree with Kevin B. on the truth , or the lack of, in the story. It just people giving opinion as fact based reporting*.
* I lifted that line from someone, but the name escapes me.
No More Blood Oil
Using the same quote block as tsk9: I’ve written here before and I’ll write again, the Islamic fascists are happy to demonstrate to all, the right, the left, and everyone else why they need to be fought and killed because there is no alternative.
It’s their job. It’s what they do. And they’ll keep doing it until “everyone” gets it.
TW: until it’s over
Was that really the calculation? Ie, we already knew he was the guy? Its a good thing we didn’t torture this guy for 5 years. But hey, new attacks were supposedly imminent. Right?
Obligatory notice to all (rational) PW members:
That is all.
TW: And you should.
Besides the question of torture, this one allegation by a human rights activist (code for leftist) also raises your issue of one side or the other claiming and creating the narrative. No credible evidence is given except an allegation by one activist. So it is “report,” not “reports” all by the go-to gal for al-Guardian. And suddenly, the report is, reports are, true!
Whatever they did or said to him, it worked, and revealed a REAL plot. So he was not tortured, if indeed he was, to the extent he would say anything to avoid the torture. He revealed a REAL plot.
Damn, the troll repellant wore off.
Looks like somebody’s not grounded anymore. Time off for good behavior?
First things first…
Meg–if you’re going to go the Med route–do Sardinia–same climate…NOT France (although a significant number on Corsica believe they are not France as well, but the flag does fly there and all, plus there’s all those bad Napoleon jokes).
On to Jeff’s points…If you lived across the street from a group of loons who opened their day with a chant of “Death to (insert your name here)!!!” and who killed multiple members of your family on multiple occasions and who taught their kids to hate everything about you and who routinely sought ways to do you harm…
Would you or would you not consider them to be an enemy? And should they not be treated as such?
Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!
I know that actus should be ignored, but I just wanted to say “Where the Hell you been? Lebanon?
Hmmmm.
If I had to decide?
I’d whip out the pliers and the propane torch.
Frankly if you’re involved in a terrorist group you’ve either long since realised that this would be your fate or you’re a complete imbecile.
Actus,
maybe if they tortured him it wouldn’t have taken 5 years to get freed or maybe he’s hid his involvement for 5 years because we didn’t tortue him or maybe he wasn’t there at all or maybe he’s a CIA plant who is using the newspaper story as a cover to infiltrate a terror cell because the last 5 years detention has “made him into a terrorist or maybe he’ll write a Oprah book of the month?
We just don’t know, do we?
Is he the guy?
Were the Rosenbergs THE guys?
Was McViegh THE guy. Who was the mysterious other guy?
I think Americans want to know who THE guy(s) is before a tragic event occurs because we raise hell after the fact that we didn’t know, thus preventing “it”.
With the Rosenbergs, whether we were right or wrong, at the time, a message was sent that we would win the Cold War or at the very least the USSR would also lose the Cold War. The shoe pounder blinked and then passed from history. Plus, the Soviet archives showed we were right.
Naivity prevented us from finding, prior to Oklahoma City, that American deranged low lifes could destroy lives, in a ever expanding ripple, right here in America. All because it would be unconstitutional, i.e., not nice and fair, to go looking for killers before they killed.
Now, we hear the same Warren Court crap from “elements” within our country that because we might make a mistake and kill the wrong guy we must not go down that path, even for our own survival. Nobody in this country is planning genocide over “there” nor here in our country, even to root out terrorists, their abettors or fellow cowards, but we may make a mistake on the side of caution. In fact we need to err on the side of caution, because these murdering, lying cowards have made these the ground rules.
Was HE the GUY? Sorry, I don’t care, because I trust our people here, and because I see the animals over there that hide behind their wives holding their children to kill their opponent’s women and children on purpose.
Terrorists are THE guy and those that abett them here are also THE guy.
Kill a few. Even the wrong ones. It worked in the Cold War and being a track record guy, I’m, betting it will work again.
Course me and the Dillo (he e-mails me) are hoping we’re not involved. Know I ain’t, but that Dillo………
Damn Lost Dog, I’ve been praying no one would ask that!
You really don’t want to hear it.
God hates me.
You almost have to have gone to college and neglected to fully regurgitate during exams to carry around the notion that situational ethics is a bad thing.
Of course “it depends” is vital.
Morality is a rigid, dogmatic rulebook. Nobody likes a moralist. With damned good reason. There’s a ton of unthingingness goin’ on there.
Your freakin’ illiterate Taliban wacking off heads in soccer stadiums does so adhering to his group’s moral code.
Ditto for the assholes who first shaved their balls in order to be all moral about 9/11.
Lefties can look at a dead-to-rights convicted murdering rapist and then split hairs with the “root cause” wedge and all manner “it depends” argumentation in order to get the animal released. Then turn rigidly moralistic about torturing a guy bent upon killing innocent masses – Not In My Name etc ad nauseam.
Their apparent inconsistency is not inconsistent.
They have an enemy they want to hobble, endanger and harm.
If it takes sit-ethics they’ll use that.
If it takes morality they’ll use that.
That doesn’t make sit-ethics bad. It just shows that anything can be be mis-used, abused.
I’ll quite comfortably apply sit-ethics to torture.
Use it? It depends.
Torture the head of DMV for the long lines?
No.
Torture the guy who knows the names, addresses and phone numbers of Muslim Mad Bombers in the starting gate?
Please. I’d take a lump hammer and turn his dick into a tortilla to get him talking.
Any right-thinking man with a hammer and a strong stomach would.
And women? Shit. I know women who would, after the guy talked, roll up his balls in that dick-tortilla and make him eat it. Anyone who thinks he doesn’t know any women like that is comically stupid.
Situational Ethics? Of course. “It depends” is the only thinking way to look at it.
Situational Ethics considers real world circumstances with real world consequences for action or inaction.
Morality is way to abstract to ensure healthy living.
Or “Survival” as someone above wrote.
Heinlein also wrote:
A zygote is a gamete’s way of producing more gametes. This may be the purpose of the universe.
Survival.
Murderous Muslims, murderous whatevers, are anti-survival. Cancer.
Fuck ‘em.
Heinlein again:
It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion.
And usually easier.
FYI:
Bruno Kirby RIP
He’ll always be Tommy Pischedda to me.
Ayn Rand and Heinlein are fantastic spring boards, but who are the speakers within these times?
Shelf dust causes me to sneeze. I have sneezed a lot.
Terry Dolan told me that humor wins battles. but loses wars.
Heinlein writes in a way that makes me read all night, but his daylight power diminishes with each early morning ray of light.
OSEA
Maybe, but I think Dems live and die by polls…and so that’s why they are so disjointed. Their polls give them 2 messages- say one thing for this group say another for the rest. The media laps up the polls too. Polls are fluid AND not accurate…if you called me tonight and asked if I were pleased with Iraq – I’d say no, doesn’t mean I’ve given up, displeased with the military or Admin the “handling”—it means I am tired of Islamo-fascist who blow crap up, prize death as a victory and as a whole the middle east is a bass akwards region.
Your right, the left won’t miss a beat at the next attack to play politics, obstruct, blame and OFFER NOTHING…but regular people know that Isalmo-Terror Fuckers just want to do bad to the west.
The only way torture “works” is by highly motivating the subject to say whatever will stop the torture. This being the case, true torture is an art, not a science.
But we’ve bollixed it all up. We failed to have the debate we needed to have, and therefore what constitutes “torture” remains undefined.
We don’t need torture to manipulate these fuckheads. That is, if torture is the imposition of pain or physical harm. I.e., stress positions are out, but water-boarding is in. Electric shock is out, but sodium pentathol is in, in like Flynn. Physical beatings are out, but MindFuckâ„¢, including fucking up someone’s sleeping and eating habbits as well as manipulating them through their superstitions, is way, way in.
That’s all we need to win the war on terror.
yours/
peter.
TS9
U B right
Having not read the other posts, I hope I’m not being redundant. Torture one guy, to save even a single life of another, when it is/was the intent of the torture candidate to kill hundreds and thousands if possible. Let me think for a …….okay I’m done. Was there really ever a question? Should there be any doubt as to actions REQUIRED, in cases such as these? Will the thug-huggers ever get it or like anything done, in the name of securing the safety and lives of the people the government and its people are supposed to/sworn to protect?
NO. NO. AND NO.
Having not read the other posts, I hope I’m not being redundant. Torture one guy, to save even a single life of another, when it is/was the intent of the torture candidate to kill hundreds and thousands if possible. Let me think for a …….okay I’m done. Was there really ever a question? Should there be any doubt as to actions REQUIRED, in cases such as these? Will the thug-huggers ever get it or like anything done, in the name of securing the safety and lives of the people the government and its people are supposed to/sworn to protect?
NO. NO. AND NO.
Having not read the other posts, I hope I’m not being redundant. Torture one guy, to save even a single life of another, when it is/was the intent of the torture candidate to kill hundreds and thousands if possible. Let me think for a …….okay I’m done. Was there really ever a question? Should there be any doubt as to actions REQUIRED, in cases such as these? Will the thug-huggers ever get it or like anything done, in the name of securing the safety and lives of the people the government and its people are supposed to/sworn to protect?
NO. NO. AND NO.
Having not read the other posts, I hope I’m not being redundant. Torture one guy, to save even a single life of another, when it is/was the intent of the torture candidate to kill hundreds and thousands if possible. Let me think for a …….okay I’m done. Was there really ever a question? Should there be any doubt as to actions REQUIRED, in cases such as these? Will the thug-huggers ever get it or like anything done, in the name of securing the safety and lives of the people the government and its people are supposed to/sworn to protect?
NO. NO. AND NO.
Having not read the other posts, I hope I’m not being redundant. Torture one guy, to save even a single life of another, when it is/was the intent of the torture candidate to kill hundreds and thousands if possible. Let me think for a …….okay I’m done. Was there really ever a question? Should there be any doubt as to actions REQUIRED, in cases such as these? Will the thug-huggers ever get it or like anything done, in the name of securing the safety and lives of the people the government and its people are supposed to/sworn to protect?
NO. NO. AND NO.
Feh. All you need to know about the article on that poor muslim guy is the phrase “sullen FBI agents.” Nope, no agenda there.
And definitely RIP Bruno Kirby. Dude cracked me up. I worked with him. Well, sort of. I worked with him in the same way the guy who runs the honey wagon does. The next time you watch “Tin Men,” in the courtroom scene when they’re still building the courtroom, and a workman in the far background with a big coil of cable over his shoulder walks as s-l-o-w-l-y as he possibly can across frame, that’s me.
Spamword, “short.” Yes, he was.
Forest…What are you saying? Are you for torture under the pretense of protecting the masses or against it no matter what?
It may be the sleep depravation but I read your post 3 times and I still can’t tell.
Rob, what the hell are you doing up at 12:43 in the morning?
HERE in lies the problem…non-political people DO NOT CARE what the Govt’/Millitary does to ensure our safety. Really…bad guys with crack still get policed and knuckled and that is what we BEG FOR.
The dirty little secret is NO ONE wants to know or NEEDS to know the REAL CRAP our Gov’t NEEDS TO DO , not only to make us safe, but to ensure our way of life.
AND THAT is why I have such disdain for elected Dems. They fucking know it,!!!
They know the dirty day to day shit—that no citizen needs to hear, or really SHOULD HEAR, BUT HAS TO HAPPEN in order for us to live our life, go to church, bars, movies and the GAP.
It’s ugly, it’s been going on for longer than Ted Kennedy has been in office and it flipping NECESSARY.
NyTimes just thinks we all like to do elite Manhatten salon dialog time, and they are wrong.
As I noted yesterday, I await Andrew Sullivan’s complaint that he has climbed the moral high ground and has been cheated out of the sight of nine jetliners exploding over US cities.
Jim – thanks for the heads-up on Bruno Kirby. I loved him as Tommy P., and as many other characters, but for me he’ll always be young Pete Clemenza (in “The Godfather II”). May he rest in peace.
TW: horse – Hey, the horse was in “The Godfather I”!
Keep waiting because Andrew is so married to his gay-marriage one-issue-wonder rope it prohibits (conveniently) Andrew from addressing anything other than what Andrew wants, needs, desires or needs to “play-dough” to fit Andrew’s current missive.. Really don’t expect much in your wait…Andrew really only deep thinks about Andrew and how great it is Andrew thinks and of course he thinks so much he’s like (lisp here) like sexy and gay!…it is that embarrassing.
Don’t believee me? The look at the view outside you window! It means so mush!
This was in Pakistan.
They don’t have the Left sitting on their backs lecturing them.
They don’t give a rats ass for the Geneva Convention.And they saved countless thousand lives.
When the rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of those they intend to cold bloodedly murder…its time to ask what the hell are we protecting.
Some of you haven’t yet personalized the data. Islam is out to kill or enslave you. That is the goal of each individual Muslim. End of story. What are you willing to do to save your own lives and the lives of your friends and loved ones? It’s that simple.
Over the last few years, I’ve moved from the center to a position several miles to the right of Ghengis Khan. When it comes to kill or be killed, the other guy is a dead MoFo. If his homies are out to kill me, before I kill the dead guy, he’s gonna learn to love torture so much – that when I quit – he’ll beg me to continue. If he’s a Muslim, when I’m done, I’m gonna dump his body in the nearest pig pen. …then I’m goin’ after his homies…I’m goin’ after his kids, his wives, and each and every member of his family and mosque.
You see…I fully understand that all of that and much, much more is pretty much what they have planned for all of us. If we’re even allowed to live under their rule, we’ll be worse than slaves. Most of you have yet to understand this reality. This is a fight to the finish, for your very life. There is nothing academic about any of this. There will be no return to “normal” after you survive it…if you survive at all.
Life as we’ve known it is gone. Our future is up to us. But in order to have that future, we must be willing to fight, now and in the present, and to do whatever is necessary in order to survive. Our enemy is even now doing whatever is necessary on order to kill or enslave us all.
Torture versus terror? No contest. Torture rocks!
“Fezik, rip his arm off.”
“Oh, you mean this key?”
Work-release program.
I think that about sums it up. But I do like the point that we torture someone and then they dont talk, it means they’re innocent. Cute.
You can just stay in the dark all on your own. But don’t let that stop your opining.
Given the number of times he’s vehemently argued a point then left the conversation with statements to the effect of “I’ve never really looked into that”, the Talking Telephone Pole is not one to make comments like the one at 7:31am.
Sadly, many in the US seem to be moving left even as many of the socialists in Europe, having been mugged by reality, are preparing to take precisely the kind of measures necessary to root out the enemy that has spent years insinuating itself into the host countries it plans to attack from within.
The left in this country, having lost its moral moorings completely, will follow any European thought fashion, which means, I suppose, that it will soon be imitating Continental rationales for national defense. And that means, of course, that the morality dialectic imposed upon Europe by enemies lacking moral compunction and easy identification will soon compel European salons to invert currently fashionable moral sentiments regarding torture for information. The rationalizations themselves likely will be tortuous. But the very notion that this process will itself increase contradictions within the dialectic may make the whole thing irresistible to European leftists.
We don’t need torture to manipulate these fuckheads. That is, if torture is the imposition of pain or physical harm. I.e., stress positions are out, but water-boarding is in. Electric shock is out, but sodium pentathol is in, in like Flynn. Physical beatings are out, but MindFuck™, including fucking up someone’s sleeping and eating habbits as well as manipulating them through their superstitions, is way, way in.
Though lacking rhetorical elegance, Peter Jackson’s statement is a blazing conceptual star for Europeans needing a guide to survival. He undefines “torture” and then redefines it, nearly endowing it with civility by replacing implicit physicality with technology-psychology. If he does not object to use of MindMold in place of MindFuckâ„¢, the brand and idea will be completely saleable to European philosophical weasels. After that we’ll soon be hearing even morally vacuous people like John Kerry advocating new, European torture methods. The rest of the American left won’t be far behind.
I am highly skeptical of the “article” in the Grauniad. They have nothing to offer other than the bald assertion of one gal who “knows” this guy was tortured. Oh, and “reports” in the Pakistani papers.
Heh.
Being a past reader of the Pak press, I await their detailed follow up articles [note to self, plan on retiring, aging and dying at a ripe old age before seeing such].
Relying on government to solve social problems? What are we, a pack of whining liberals?
Privatization is the answer.
When we are able to establish a PayPal account where anyone who is tired of terrorism can click a contribution to a private “organization†that will employ the same or better methods on the terrorists, their financiers and enablers, the problem will be on its way to being solved.
Governments need to stick to fighting other governments. It allows them to retain a patina of moral authority necessary in civilized societies. Terrorism is an impediment to commerce and should be dealt with in an efficient, privately funded way devoid of the constraints governments have.
Hmmm.
@ Warren Bonesteel
That’s actually part of the problem.
As the jihadists continue to be treated with kid gloves, they feel immune to real retribution. And so they ratchet up the violence and expend ever greater amounts of effort in domination and murder.
And it causes other people to shift towards that position, in a mirror view, as a response. I know people who have stated, and I believe them completely, that if muslims in their area commit acts of terrorism that they’ll go and wipe out the local mosques and everyone in them.
A lot of pro-muslim groups talk a lot about backlashes but that’s just what it is. Talk. They aren’t considering that the real backlash is still building and when the restraints snap.
That backlash will be incredibly bloody.
think that about sums it up. But I do like the point that we torture someone and then they dont talk, it means they’re innocent. Cute.
No it doesn’t.
TW; away as in, Now goaway and let the grownups talk.
Smells like desperation in here. Somebody open a window.
No, it’s starting to smell of tittybabies.
Someone left the doggy door open.
In the midst of all of this:
With Hez re-arming and Iran pumping bucks into bulldozing and rebuilding in southern Lebanon and IDF withdawing and U.N. likely failing to move in, I now think Jeff’s ceasefire pessimism was thoroughly warranted.
I think Olmert will fall sooner than later (a resolution for dissolving the Knesset is afoot, if not already introduced for debate) and a more hawkish government will replace it (BiBi?). What will happen if Hez renews its attacks after a dissolution of the Knesset and before new election(s)?
If Hez renewing attacks does give Olmert “cover” for aggressive defense, well, I think at this point that will be due only to luck of the Irish, ‘cause it won’t be due to luck of the Jewish.
Now that they’re both here, I challenge actus and darvid to prove which of them is the more inane.
Two troll enter! One troll leave!
Two troll enter! One troll leave!
Two troll enter! One troll leave!
Two troll enter! One troll leave!
**cue the sounds of chainsaws**
Sorry, I don’t watch reality TV.
Check your diapers, david. More likely, that’s what you smell.
Yeah – it could be part of an episode of Banzai!
Place bets now!
I know rusty. It was kind of ridiculuous that someone suggested that with torture this guy would be released earlier.
Do not incur the wrath of mild and conservative men, for once angered, they are notoriously difficult to placate.
More Americans than ever before are now waking up to the threat that we face, but even many of them are in denial about the very nature of our enemies. Those Americans who do understand our enemies are now becoming quite angry. …and it is the righteous anger of mild and conservative men. In time, such men will act, and they will act decisively.
Why limit this to terrorism. All sorts of crimes seem to fit into this.
Actually, david is quoting a comment I managed to insert briefly into trex’s odious Republicans = the KKKlan post last night at FakeLiarDog. (Complete with hooded Klansmen photo. Woo! Woo!) I signed it ‘Condoleeza Rice’. It was disappeared in about 12 seconds. I believe it behooves us to go over there once in a while and give them the finger. It’s the right thing to do against leftist fascists.
Permit me to quote:
Arghhh! Chtulu!! N’gaaaa! N’gaaa!!! (Mine.)
david: Fuck you.
actus: Welcome back. Long time no see. Now fuck off.
Oh, a propos the topic at hand, I’d recommend a link wretchard features today, a 1978 speech by Solzhenytsin which perfectly portends what we are experiencing today.
I’m hearing cowbell again…
I seem to have triggered a burst of unwanted reflection and childish denial. Sorry about that, but it really is getting ranker in here all the time.
That is, like, so real, man. Kick ass is what you did.
Oh, man, then you lay down this shot? C’mon, have mercy!!
He who smelt it, dealt it.
david: You give yourself way too much credit….
david, what you are experiencing is the collective EEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!! from those people who are not appreciative of trolls who pop in, drop a turd, and then pop out. As you are wont to do from time to time.
TW: I find your dismay to be overly dramatic.
The thing you seem to miss (one of them, anyway), david, is that we’ve been reflecting on these subjects for FIVE FRIGGIN’ YEARS now. Most of us have come to the conclusion that it’s sometimes necessary to resort to unsavory tactics in order to address the problems at hand. It’s ugly, and messy, and awful, but the nature of the current conflict and the enemies we face forces our hand. Have you read any of the above comments, or the sources from which the draw? It’s better to be tainted and alive than pure and dead.
Note that we take no joy in this. There’s a wide gulf between cheerful enthusiasm and grim determination.
Almost as wide as that between you and understanding.
I think david is delivering a pre-set monologue. You have about as much chance of engaging him with any measurable result as you would actus…
He certainly shows no interest in facts contrary to his tiny little worldview.
TW: indeed. That thing’s unreal!
Look, I understand this might be a bad time, what with everyone’s panties still damp from this morning’s near miss, but I figured someone ought to occasionally mention the ever shrinking island of fantasy you all are standing on in case one of you should care to look over your shoulder, notice, and wish to jump on the lifeboat sent to save you (that would be me
). You may now commence calling me names (I understand, you have to keep up appearances for the other boys and girls).
david is a lifeboat, and wishes us all to jump on him.
Ok, then. Not that there’s anything wrong with it.
davids life boat has been resting on the bottem of the lake for going on 6 years. If he wasn’t so ill informed he might realize that the “air” he has been breathing in this whole time is a little wet.
Excellent insight, Squid. Especially since we’ve all seen the (confirmed) reports of “cheerful enthusiasm” in the form of publicly dancing in the streets after a major terrorist attack. Or gleefully cutting off the heads of hostages. A phenomena largely limited to Muslim terrorists and their sympathizers, for some odd reason.
TW: true. ‘Nuff said.
Wow. Talk about projection.
TW: My fantasy island is big.
Davey, the boy who cried “NO ITS NOT!!!” when presented with evidence, has the gall to talk about living on a fantasy island.
Davey, your new name would be Tatoo, if it wouldn’t be an insult to the late, great Herve.
The other question is, supposing there was no plot, and someone made one up under torture, does that mean all those heroic enough to consider torturing others are goign to get a clue?
Actus,
You never did tell us where you scooted off to.
In any case, are you stating that you would be OK with torture if you could be certain that no innocent individuals were tortured?
BRD
Vacation.
I’m stating that people seem to talk as if we only have bad guys who actually know info as torture candidates. But we dont. We shoot brazilians in london. We hold people for 5 years without charges in the US.