Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent’s life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, “You do what you have to do.” And then take the responsibility.
Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don’t entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.
The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. We know we must act but have no idea where or how — and we can’t know that until we have information. Catch-22.
Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding.
Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the “enhanced interrogation” program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from “the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together.”
Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that “as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations.” Even Dennis Blair, Obama’s director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded “high value information.” So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.
Asserts Blair’s predecessor, Mike McConnell, “We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened.” Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy’s plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture.
Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a Washington Post report that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she’d been “briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future.”
Today Pelosi protests “we were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.
On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what’s done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA’s rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do “in the future.”
But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying “Don’t do it.”
On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, “on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.”
More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now “on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009” (the words are Blair’s) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
fms (anonymous) says…
How can you be so sure that Tenet isn't just covering his ass by defending the programs? WIthout public oversight there's no way to know the value of these "programs".
Also, this article makes the common assumption that we can provably know whether or not someone actually knows something that can "save lives". The Constitution is founded on the idea that the government should not trust individuals with deciding issues of liberty but rather that we are to live in a society of predictable laws and correct process for the administration of justice. I think torture is abhorrent to those ideals, and I don't believe it's good to allow an agency to make a determination that someone is "dangerous" and "knows something".
Orwell (anonymous) says…
The terrorists have already taken away our character as an honorable nation, aided and abetted by the amoral Krauthammer and his fellow-travelers. The fact that people are even debating the acceptability of evil actions in the name of (dubious) necessity must be great comfort in the AfPak hideouts.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Given that torture is largely ineffective, and more likely to elicit bad information and false confessions than to expose a "ticking bomb," Krauthammer is yet again exposing his barely concealed sadism.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
OK we have gone from "Waterboarding isn't torture." to "Waterboarding may be torture but...." to a flat out statement that "Yes, waterboarding is torture and justified." Either way, the Geneva Convention Articles have been thrown out the window by the US (or more specifically the Bush Administration) and made as worthless as toilet tissue. The value of any "information" gained from torture is immediately suspect (you *do* know people will say anything under torture just to get it to stop, don't you?) and the truth of the matter is that Bushco committed war crimes and got away with it.
For once I agree with Tom Shewmon but not for the reasons he is thinking.
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
Got to go with the Gipper on this one.
Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.
Krauthammer is just another whiner.
temperance (anonymous) says…
Convention Against Torture, signed and supported by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law."
I fail to see the "unless there are there are scary Terrorists running around" exception here.
How far our country has sank. Now, Ronald Reagan is a retroactive member of the Far Left.
(and don't tell me Reagan had a "pre-9/11 mindset" -- we faced plenty of existential threats in 1980's but we didn't debase our country's values by embracing the practices of Syria, Iran, and various South American juntas.)
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
The truth is that Cheney can not provide any actionable intelligence from torture. If you have to waterboard someone hundreds of times, you are not getting any useful intel. Besides, why would the simulated death from waterboarding affect someone with a martyr complex?
And why won't Sean Hannity let himself be waterboarded for charity? Another demonstration of Republican "conviction".
TheYetiSpeaks (anonymous) says…
OK we have gone from “Waterboarding isn't torture.” to “Waterboarding may be torture but….” to a flat out statement that “Yes, waterboarding is torture and justified.”
Uh...I haven't. Waterboarding is not torture. Look up the definition of torture. It causes no pain. It causes mild psychological distress and even thats debatable. Pulling toenails...crucufixcion...cutting off fingers...plucking out eyes...These things are torture. Our enemies want us dead. You do what you have to do to win without violating the Geneva Convention (which we didn't). War sucks. You do what you have to for survival.
"War is cruelty, and it cannot be refined."
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for revenge killings. I think KSM should be whacked, if for no other reason than excessive back hair.
But torture does not provide good intel and it recruits more enemies than it kills.
The Library Tower plot, for one, was uncovered by interrogation six months BEFORE the waterboarding started.
Again, someone who knows, like Cheney, can provide us with the actionable intel we got as a result of torture. I eagerly await the documents that he has asked to have declassified. (Sound of crickets chirping)
salad (anonymous) says…
Kraphammer and Tom Shewmon both assume that torture works, or that the ticking time bomb situation is valid. Both are wrong. If waterboarding is so effective, why did they need to do 183 times to Kalid sheik mohamed?
Bush Co. = lies upon lies upon lies upon lies.
temperance (anonymous) says…
As a follow-up to salad's point, if torture is so effective, why don't we practice it on all people accused of violent crime? Why not? If you think waterboarding isn't torture, what's stopping you from advocating it as a general police practice to extract confessions and information?
smitty (anonymous) says…
The CIA's $1,000 a Day Specialists on Waterboarding, Interrogations
The New Focus on Two Retired Military Psychologists Called the 'Architects' of the CIA's Techniques
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?i...
cthulhu_4_president (anonymous) says…
Temperance brings up an excellent point. If it's not torture, then does that also mean that it's not cruel and/or unusual? Perhaps the next round of police cadets will have had a class in waterboarding at the academy. Would any of the brave Americans touting our right to inflict mental anguish on people of the world have a problem with this?
Honestly curious here.....
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Do we sacrifice what we believe to be just and right in order to defeat those who, with their every action, defy the natural laws of man? Shall we spare quarter to the men who, if the roles were reversed, would make our techniques first seem like a Swedish massage and then behead their captive? Was this what our enemies had in mind to begin with, that we attack our own values and compromise our humanity? Should we actually villify those who implemented these policies when the techniques were copied from the Navy Seal training program, techniques that thousands of our own military have endured? So it's ok to use such methods on our own to train them, but their use on terrorists is deemed torture?
I'd like to believe there are moral absolutes left. But when dealing with an enemy whose primary goal is to murder as many innocents as possible, I'm not sure we're afforded the luxury of the moral high ground. These actions weren't implemented and carried out for years without justification in the results. How many burning holes in the ground would we have had here or where are embassies stand around the world if we didn't extract information from these people? You're going to behead a sergeant in my country's army on a grainy home video, but someone grabbing you by the collar is torture? Tough.
ndmoderate (anonymous) says…
"Waterboarding is not torture. Look up the definition of torture. It causes no pain."
Ever been waterboarded, Yeti?
feeble (anonymous) says…
Krauthammer posits two conditions in which torture is permissible:
"Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent’s life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge."
============================
Regarding the waterboarding of high profile detainees, the first circumstance holds no water.
The Bush administration began seeking legal cover for waterboarding at least as early as January 2002, as the first Yoo memo is dated 1/9/2002. Bush signed a memorandum declaring that SERE techniques were not torture in February 2002. Abu Zubaydah was captured on 4/28/2002 and waterboarded in August 2002, four months after his capture. That's one slow time bomb.
Further, testimony from FBI officials reveals that Abu Zubaydah was cooperating with interrogators prior to being waterboarded, and gave up KSM without under conventional interrogation techniques, so that blows up Krauthammer's second circumstance.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"Regarding the waterboarding of high profile detainees, the first circumstance holds no water."
Rim shot.
TheYetiSpeaks (anonymous) says…
"Ever been waterboarded, Yeti?"
Nope, but I wouldn't be opposed to having the experience just to have the point of view, especially knowing my life would not be in danger and there would be no pain. Or you could ask anyone in our special forces...they get waterboarded in training.
Listen, I'm not saying the experience is pleasant, but what are we to do? Whatever you think of the previous administration, they kept us safe and I honestly did not think that would be the case on September 12th 2001.
Finally, we are at war. Unlike most wars our country has been involved in, this one is not about land, government ideals, or even greed. Our enemies don't want our land or money. They don't want us to be communists. They want us dead. They want our children dead. I'll be damned if I would try to hamper our chances of survival because of some set of "mythical rules of war". If someone jumps you on the street, I'm not going to NOT kick him in the balls out of some "guy honor code"...he's trying to hurt me! There is no alternative to winning...It's not an option. Therefore you do what you have to do to win. Period.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
"Unlike most wars our country has been involved in, this one is not about land, government ideals, or even greed."
This statement made me laugh so hard I peed my pants.
temperance (anonymous) says…
"The police comparison is BS. Our police are trained to taze suspects, maybe shoot them."
I'm arguing that we should train police detectives to waterboard suspects because a) waterboarding is a great way to extract information and b) the end justifies the means -- the information we will receive outweighs the human rights violations that torture creates. Why not? I'm simply taking the logic of torture apologists to its logical conclusion.
I don't understand the Daniel Pearl comment. Because the actions against him were so horrific and grievous, we Americans have a green light to act like barbarians, too? That's the "logic" of a 5-year old.
sinverguenza (anonymous) says…
Can't say I'm surprised to see all the anti-choice people justifying torture. Respect for life (the pick-and-choose kind). Ironic, ain't it?
verity (anonymous) says…
duplenty (Anonymous) says… “'I'm not sure we're afforded the luxury of the moral high ground.'
If your morals are not consistent, you have no morals."
I'm with you on that one. I know it's been said before, but if we compromise our morals and ethics, then "they" have won.
ndmoderate (anonymous) says…
Well, I just can't believe that having water poured into my upside-down nose doesn't cause quite a bit of pain.
TheYetiSpeaks (anonymous) says…
We deserve to be beaten. We don't have the heart to make the tough decisions anymore. Too concerned with political correctness and not hurting anyone's feelings. I hope your pacifism comforts you when our enemies have the stones to do what we wont and our country burns down around us.
TheYetiSpeaks (anonymous) says…
Actually logicsound, whether waterboarding is torture or not is irrelevant because I'm all for it if it helps you and I stay alive...even if you don't want it.
TheYetiSpeaks (anonymous) says…
Abu Zubaydah- Bin Laden's Chief of Operations
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri- mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed- mastermind of 9/11
These three men were the ones who were subjected to the waterboarding. They would not thank you for your support and would gladly kill your family slowly while you watched before chopping your head off with a butter knife...and yes, I am in favor of doing whatever is necessary to these men to learn anything we can.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
"There is that little matter of f**king 9/11. That happened. On their watch."
I see the (slow) students from Revisionist History 101 are checking in.
Yes, they put the plan together and executed it just that quickly. Oh, wait - except they were already here, learning how to fly jet planes, while Billy Boy was getting BJ's in the Oval Office. Maybe you're not old enough to remember the Clinton administration, dupe?
TheYetiSpeaks (anonymous) says…
"There is that little matter of f**king 9/11. That happened. On their watch."
Maybe if you could read duplenty you would have seen the implication of from September 12th on. We obviously did not waterboard anyone before 9/11....pity.
TheYetiSpeaks (anonymous) says…
No, I don't fear them as long as we are willing to do what is necessary. Your indignant righteousness wont stop even that "small group of religious extremists."
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
Nancy_Boy says
...listen to Bill O'Reilly as he exposes the New York Times for their biased and shoddy (purposely shoddy) reporting.
Pot, meet kettle.
O'Reilly hides his ideology under the cloak of stalker journalism, while the NYT is just plain shoddy (see Whitewater, Judith Miller, Bill Kristol, etc.).
And any honest con would know that if Clinton had gone after OBL, he would've been accused of "Wag the Dog" to distract attention from his BJs. Despite the deranged right, Clinton kept us safe.
If Bush hadn't been obsessed with protecting stem cells and oil companies, maybe he could've kept us safe.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
"It's either on BOTH men or neither man. Take your blinders off."
Perhaps if you took your own off, you could read? Would you care to point out where I absolved or apologized for Bush by mentioning the plan was underway before he took office?
TheYetiSpeaks (anonymous) says…
“It's either on BOTH men or neither man. Take your blinders off.”
Thats probably the only thing we will agree on today.
duplenty-
Nice. You're pretty good at singling out one sentence of what I was saying and applying your own meaning to it. Read the rest of the statement and stop taking that one sentence out of context.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"Would you care to point out where I absolved or apologized for Bush by mentioning the plan was underway before he took office?"
I think it happened where your mentioning of that came under the context of a previous comment saying that Bush kept us safe, making the addition of "but Clinton" nothing more than a superfluous and empty addition. The only point in making the comment is to absolve Bush of some responsibility, either by spreading it around or transfering it whole to another party.
NavyVet (anonymous) says…
ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…
“Waterboarding is not torture. Look up the definition of torture. It causes no pain.”
"Ever been waterboarded, Yeti?"
are you implying that if one has been waterboarded they can speak authoritatively on the matter, and if they don't believe it's torture - then it's not?
If you are, take me on.
RonBurgandy (anonymous) says…
You are wrong. Not much else to say.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, “You do what you have to do.” And then take the responsibility.
Taking responsibility in this situation may mean being tried for your actions.
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
Orwell said… The terrorists have already taken away our character as an honorable nation...
You mean the country isn't honorable like Russia or China or North Korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia or UAE. Please Orwell, Mr. Krauthammer makes a good point. If I had a choice between saving an innocent life and going easy on the terrorist its a no-brainer which I think is how I would describe your comment.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"And any honest con would know that if Clinton had gone after OBL, he would've been accused of “Wag the Dog” to distract attention from his BJs"
First off, going after Bin Laden would have been righteous and should have been imperative throughout his Presidency, Oval antics notwithstanding. You can't possibly believe that Clinton didn't go after him 'cuz he was afraid people would take it the wrong way, do ya?
And actually, Clinton did go after him. They had him dead to rights, literally and figuratively, on a couple occassions, but for whatever reason, Clinton didn't give the green light or waited too long to respond.
As to 'who's to blame', no doubt both President's own responsibility. Clinton set the groundwork by hamstringing the intelligence communities and not taking out Bin Laden when he had the chance. Bush should have cleaned up the red tape and opened back up the lines of communication, and should have been all over Atta and these guys when the threats became evident.
ndmoderate (anonymous) says…
Navyvet, did waterboarding cause you pain?
temperance (anonymous) says…
catfish: "If I had a choice between saving an innocent life and going easy on the terrorist its [sic] a no-brainer which I think is how I would describe your comment."
If it's such a no-brainer, why restrict the practice to "terrorists?" Let's do it to anyone accused of a serious crime. It's worth it -- a no-brainer -- if the homicide rate drops, right?
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
duped:
My point was that Clinton going after Bin Laden would have been the right thing to do no matter what, and was in reference to the quote I provided. It's not meant as a damning statement, merely a rebuttal to the claim that Clinton refrained from going after him because people would have thought of it as meaningless misdirection due to the Lewinski mess.
Bush never had the option of trying to quell the atrocities in Darfur, unless you were willing to risk going to war with China.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
Krauthammer:
"Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty."
So Krauthammer is saying that anyone who does not believe in torture as an accepted practice of the United States is a kind of coward or someone who runs from any fight, not specifying whether it is a legitimate fight or a big mistake such as the Vietnam War.
It sounds like Krauthammer has just called most of the people of the United States a coward for not believing in torture.
I think most of you, like me, have the same feeling when hearing that. We would like to take Krauthammer behind the proverbial barn and teach him a lesson he never forgets. I guess in that sense. you might call it torture. I call it an ass kicking.
akt2 (anonymous) says…
Waterboarding is nothing compared to the torture our soldiers have endured. Beheaded and dragged thru the streets, and then their bodies hung for all to see. That is torture. For our soldiers, their families and US citizens.
QuestionMan (anonymous) says…
Want to learn about torture?
http://www.persecution.com/
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
jayhawklawrence:
"So Krauthammer is saying that anyone who does not believe in torture ..."
Go easy there, brother, he's not saying any of that at all, read it again:
"....and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty.”
Correctly show respect.
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) says…
akt2 (Anonymous) says…
"Waterboarding is nothing compared to the torture our soldiers have endured. Beheaded and dragged thru the streets, and then their bodies hung for all to see. That is torture. For our soldiers, their families and US citizens."
How many US soldiers have been treated thusly? Wasn't it just contractors? Four of them? And do we want to stoop to their level?
Water boarding is torture. If you don't think it is, remember that the CIA agents could only last about 15, maybe as much as 30 seconds under such treatment.
As for it's effectiveness, how come Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded so many times but didn't tell anyone the location of bin Laden?
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) says…
Yes, that comes up every time I see one of your posts, pilgrim deuce.
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) says…
Drowning is the only way you cannot commit suicide. No matter how strong your intentions are, your body will always overcome and struggle to survive. Water boarding simulates drowning.
I'm sick of all you small minded nitwits whose only knowledge of torture is from watching "24". Most of you have never left the country nor know what goes on in the rest of the world.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"How many US soldiers have been treated thusly? Wasn't it just contractors? Four of them?"
Don't know the numbers but no, it wasn't just contractors.
TheYetiSpeaks (anonymous) says…
"As for it's effectiveness, how come Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded so many times but didn't tell anyone the location of bin Laden?"
Because he didn't know. It's not like caves have a street address.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Most of you have never left the country nor know what goes on in the rest of the world."
I bow to the superior intellect of Corey Williams who apparently has left the country once or twice and knows what goes on in the rest of the world......................................Sorry, I had to my list of people who should be waterboarded.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Ya made me laugh with the 'caves' line, Yeti.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
Ever heard of fanatical commitment? Of course you have.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That would be an argument as to why torture is not effective.
rrussell (Rex Russell) says…
Nancy, let me offer an opinion from a non-leftie with out BDS derraingement. This was torture. Plain and simple. Waterboarding is a torture technique recognized around the world. It is morally reprehensible. We did it because certain people were worked up into a frenzy about another large attack. That part is understandable. What we are doing now is haggling over justifications for doing something morrally disgusting. If this wasn't torture, we wouldn't have hired special contractors to do the dirty work. We wouldn't have sent detainees to places like Syria and Egypt who's Intel people practice these things for us. We wouldn't have set up black-op prisions in places like Thailand so it wouldn't be done on US soil. Same for Gitmo. This tells me that the people that OK'd this at the time, knew it was wrong to do it too. Sadly, this page in our history makes us all a little less American. From some of the posts I've read in this string some are almost to the bottom.
soldier1 (anonymous) says…
mancityfooty says....
"How many US soldiers have been treated thusly? Wasn't it just contractors? Four of them? And do we want to stoop to their level?"
Well, one example I can think of is the 2 kids from Fort Riley who were found booby-trapped and mutilated beyond recognition. Now, do you think the extremeists did this to them before or after they killed them? or does it even matter? I wouldnt stoop to that level, but that makes waterboarding look like a day at Disney World.
Here is a critical thinking exercise for everyone here, and it is not meant to advocate torture but is just a question. If you have a high level operative in custody (which they ALWAYS have critical information), and you had other intelligence that suggested an imminent attack and time was critical, how would you extract that information from the operative?
temperance (anonymous) says…
"Now, do you think the extremeists [sic] did this to them before or after they killed them? or does it even matter? I wouldn't stoop to that level, but that makes waterboarding look like a day at Disney World."
Hey, soldier, the "but they did it too!" defense is only effective in elementary school sandboxes. You're saying that America should stoop to the level of terrorists and extremists because The Terrorists are really mean and bad. If that's your attitude, please accept my sincere invitation to leave my country. You'd be better off in Syria or Serbia where state officials aren't bound by pesky things like "democracy," "the rule of law," and "international treaties."
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) says…
"I wouldnt stoop to that level, but that makes waterboarding look like a day at Disney World."
Yes, and the deaths of more than 100 detainees in US custody, more than 30 of which were investigated by the military as homicides, that must be like a day at worlds of fun.
camper (anonymous) says…
I like to think America is more enlightened than most countries. This is not just about waterboarding. Some of the other techniques described in these legal memos are downright embarrassing (ie place a prisoner in a cell with an insect). Jesus Christ. Were these memos written by a high ranking court official (today).
Well, America still is one of the most enlightened places on the globe....but we are not immune from conducting ourselves in ways most would think barbaric.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"Sadly, this page in our history makes us all a little less American."
The idea that this has been an isolated incident is idealistic. We've utilized similar methods to extract information as far back as WWII, if not earlier. And it'll happen again.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"Hey, soldier, the “but they did it too!” defense is only effective in elementary school sandboxes"
That wasn't his 'defense', temperance. He merely stated the truth, that our men were mutilated and beheaded which in comparison makes waterboarding a day at the beach.
"You're saying that America should stoop to the level of terrorists and extremists "
Quote: "I wouldn't stoop to that level..." Reading is fundamental, temp.
"If that's your attitude, please accept my sincere invitation to leave my country. You'd be better off in Syria or Serbia where state officials aren't bound by pesky things like “democracy,” “the rule of law,” and “international treaties.”"
Let me get this straight.......you poorly comprehend a person's post and then feel obliged and superior enough to "invite" them to leave 'your' country? Why, how 'American' of you. " I don't like your opinion so get out. " Swell.
I understand and empathize with those that speak out against these methods being implemented. My opinion is that their use was necessary and prudent, and will be again. But no matter which stance one takes on this issue, their opponent shouldn't feel compelled nor justified to call them 'evil', 'stupid', or ask them to leave the country, as if their side is the side of the angels and they're superior just for thinking a certain way.
Irish (Leslie Swearingen) says…
After you get waterboarded a few times and realize they are not going to kill you, why don't you just learn to hold your breath for longer and longer periods?
RedwoodCoast (anonymous) says…
And LJWorld.com continues to be an online support group for conservatives in despair. Go ahead, continue thumping your chests. I'll continue laughing and shaking my head.
temperance (anonymous) says…
@jaywalker: I understood soldier’s post just fine, but thanks anyway for the exegesis. Torture apologists trot out examples of terrorists’ barbarity to justify our own barbarity in dealing with them. The logic is inherent in soldier’s post – it’s doesn’t take an especially deep reading to see that.
And yes, I’m calling torture supporters un-American. This isn’t a simple policy dispute. It goes to the core of our country’s values. Will we be like a 3rd world dictatorship or 21st century democracy? “Evil” and “stupid” are your words – but they certainly apply here. The invitation still stands.
camper (anonymous) says…
Good point about legal opinions Pilgrim2.. As absurd (in my view) as these opinions are, an "opinion" is not law. To my knowledge, giving bad professional opinion could be considered gross negligence and sufficient cause for revoking one's license however.
For the people who acted on this advice - following legal advice should not be a reason to break the law. So should the AG now go after the top dogs rather than the lawyers? Obama seems to have the reverse opinion.
.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
"War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders.'" - George W. Bush, March 17, 2003
Just some of Bush's own words to add to the mix.
There has been much written here about American lives saved because of confessions made during torture sessions, but what about the number of American lives lost because of all the people who joined the fight against Americans only after seeing the pictures from places like Abu Ghraib, and only after learning about American war crimes?
I still feel we shouldn't prosecute the actions of the past administration because I don't think it is in the best interest of our nation, but I do wonder what the perception of the rest of the world will be when we ignore our own stand against war crimes. Will the world continue to listen when American leaders speak?
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
104 days, and it looks like Gitmo will remain open...
http://tinyurl.com/cev7j4
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"I understood soldier’s post just fine"
Ummm..
You: "You're saying that America should stoop to the level of terrorists and extremists ”
soldier: Quote: “I wouldn't stoop to that level…”
Yeah, not so much.
"Torture apologists trot out examples of terrorists’ barbarity to justify our own barbarity"
Sure. But soldier was 'comparing', not 'justifying'. There's a difference.
"And yes, I’m calling torture supporters un-American. This isn’t a simple policy dispute. It goes to the core of our country’s values."
That 'core value' hasn't been honored for decades. The U.S. and I'm bettin' every other western nation have employed harsh interrogation techniques time and again. You might wish we lived in that idealistic country, but we don't.
"“Evil” and “stupid” are your words – but they certainly apply here.
I was referencing other's posts and/or sentiments with the 'evil' and 'stupid' thing, you hadn't thrown those characterizations out in your post. 'Course now you have. Well done you.
"The invitation still stands."
You post that again like it actually means something? Have it your way, temperance. Like I said, I respect your opinion on the matter.
soldier1 (anonymous) says…
temperance (Anonymous) says…
"@jaywalker: I understood soldier’s post just fine, but thanks anyway for the exegesis. Torture apologists trot out examples of terrorists’ barbarity to justify our own barbarity in dealing with them. The logic is inherent in soldier’s post – it’s doesn’t take an especially deep reading to see that.
And yes, I’m calling torture supporters un-American. This isn’t a simple policy dispute. It goes to the core of our country’s values. Will we be like a 3rd world dictatorship or 21st century democracy? “Evil” and “stupid” are your words – but they certainly apply here. The invitation still stands."
soldier1 says-
I was not avocating torture, nor would I support the inhumane treatment on our detainees that was done to us. I was just trying to get some intelligent thought by creating alternatives to getting critical information, and so far NO ONE has answered this question. Is that clear enough for you?
As far as leaving 'your' country, I have done my part and will always continue to do my part to protect what makes OUR country great, foreign and domestic. I love this country and the people in it. How about you?