VP for Torture
October 29th, 2006 at 2:40 pm by David FarrarNRT blogs on how Dick Cheney has defended “dunking in water” as an interrogation technique if it saves lives and how he has been labelled “Vice-President for Torture”.
Putting aside the debate over water-boarding, I can’t resist commenting that of all the Government titles one can have, it’s hard to beat “Vice-President for Torture”.
I mean think of the politeness and service you’ll get. If you’re on a flight and they have to decide who gets a complimentary upgrade, you can bet that the Vice-President for Torture will not be left in economy class.
Go to a restaurant, and there is no doubt the waiter will be especially polite and attentive. And you’d be the one taxpayer even the IRD treats with respect.
Also imagine all there fuming third world dictators. They give themselves titles such as Commisar of the Nation, Supreme Patriotic Leader etc, but none of their titles are as cool as Vice-President for Torture. Within a few years there will probably be a dozen copycats.
Related posts:
- The Immigration Bill and torture
- Are tasers torture?
- If it was the US, not France
- Looking good in Iraq
October 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Dunking in water must be on a par with taping hands to desks and stuffing tennis balls in mouths. I wonder if the Honorable Member for Dunedin South got the information he was after.. and if he’d also like to be confered with a flash new title!
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Indeed Mr Farrar – but it’s no laughing matter.
What upsets me re the libertarian camp is they don’t seem to care about torture, imprisonment without trial, illegal wire-tapping etc. NRT is the only blogger who has posted on the matter – for shame.
Yet if someone wants to destroy my kids lives with drugs, poison my air in public bars, or exploit the most vulnerable women in our society by opening brothels — hey that is A- OK with Libz. Maybe if someone had wanted to steal Jose Padillas *money* instead of imprisoning him indefinitely without charges, or access to a lawyer it would have been different.
Which confirms my opinion – and that of others who have emailed me via my own blog – that libertarians are merely hedonistic conservatives.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Putting aside the simple FACT that most politicians are torturers of their own people, I think you mean it is the Americans that are the copycats don’t you. Hey its just EEO – they want to become part of the third world too.
[Ruth please don’t interrupt me and tell me that it was the far right or the libz that legalised your friendly neighbourhood brothels. It was, if you haven’t noticed the womins government we have now. It may have been the lebz but it sure wasn’t the libz. Wow, didn’t they do a good job for the hard working women and men in this country they are supposed to represent? Can you take my congratulations back to the labour fundraiser tonight for me, I’m persona non grata down there – thanks a lot guys!]
Hey, from my enlightened pedestal I’d like to offer the Americans some advice. Those dictatorships call their government departments “Authority”s, “Secretariats and “directorates” ”, with the power to search premises without warrants, and pass retrospective legislation legalising their excess’s. Oops. – America, “born to follow where others can only lead”.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
“Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?” Mr Hennen asked.
“Well, it’s a no-brainer for me,” Mr Cheney replied. “But for a while there, I was criticised as being the vice president for torture. We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in.”
A radio host asks a tongue in cheek question.
Dick cheney gives a reply.
The left hears what they want to hear and ignore the rest, build a mountain out of a mole hill and go bannanas.
Which is why I think the left are either moronic
Vote:or insane
October 29th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
If there’s an unfunny torture joke, I haven’t heard it.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I don’t think andrei is moronic or insane. I’m confident he’s moronic.
If a harmless little dunk in water is such a trivial matter you might want to ask yourself why the US is subjecting people it suspects of being the most evil, hardened criminals in the world to this procedure, or why the Bush administration is passing legislation to protect itself from prosecution for war crimes, or why the US felt that waterboarding was torture – and thus a war crime – when it was practised by the Khmer Rouge and the Japanese military.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
“The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.” CIA operative Richard Esposito’s 2005 description of the technique the US ‘doesn’t use.’ More amusing reading here
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Within a few years there will probably be a dozen copycats.
And that’s what we should all be afraid of. The bad example set by America on this issue gives license for everybody else to follow – and the US no ground to stand upon in criticising them. Particularly if it is done to Americans.
(And I think that “Minister for the promotion of virtue and suppression of vice” also has a nice ring to it – though obviously a better one if it is reversed)
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Torture … before we all get emotive, it can be argued it has its place.
Hypothetically, let’s say you are in a position of responsibility and had one of the London bombing muslims in your custody.
Knowing he and some unknown associates were planning on blowing up the underground, would you resort to pulling his finger nails or worse if it meant you could stop the bombing?
If you say no, then aren’t you failing in your responsibilities if they go on to kill 50 of the people you answer to.
Ok, that doesn’t work here as Helen doesn’t answer to anyone, but dunking a terrorist in water to if the aim is to save lives seems rather minor.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Maybe if it was absolutely guaranteed to save lives you could make a point for it. This is unlikely to be the case. But you have to make tradeoffs. If we were that concerned at loss of life you’d require everyone to wear gas masks all the time, ban cars, have video survelliance everywhere… though those who end up dying would disagree, a handful of lives is worth trading for enormous gains in liberty for the entire population. And in some cases it could be between saving a handful of lives and many lives, in the case of funding for anti-terrorism versus say, health care. “No amount of money could be put on the price of ” victims… but if the enormous costs to prevent it could have saved tens of thousands of lives some other way, wouldn’t that be preferable? Unfortunately, democracies are frequently not rational. The high-profile death of 10 people will cause far more funding than something small that consistently kills 30 people every year.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
The left hears what they want to hear and ignore the rest
I heard him agree that he would use water-boarding. Water-boarding is torture. And a war crime.
According to who? The US, in 1947, and in 2005:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
But hey, it’s all good. Yuck it up guys, have a chuckle. Make a joke about Benson-Pope, or retrospective legislation.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Nick,
There are two problems with the scenario you’ve just described:
1. It has never – so far as we know – ever happened.
2. If anyone were ever put in a situation in which they KNEW that torturing their captive were the only way to prevent a terrorist attack they’ll torture them anyway, no matter what the law says.
Now let me invent a different – but to my mind much more plausible scenario:
You’re travelling through the United States and you arrive at LAZ airport. Sadly, someone who has a grudge against you (jilted girlfriend, disgruntled employee) has decided to settle an old score. They call the FBI and tell them that you’ve recently converted to Islam and were overheard talking about ‘a big operation’ in the United States.
Unfortunately for you, the FBI has recently recieved a warning about Asia-Pacific based Islamic groups recreuiting western looking operatives to carry out attacks in the US. You are immediately detained for questioning on arrival.
Now – ordinarily you’d be in for an uncomfortable couple of days in a holding cell while INS, the FBI, State and the New Zealand embassy sorted out the whole sorry affair.
But in our Brave New World that doesn’t happen. Instead you can be held without trial and questioned for as long as the FBI, the CIA and Military Intelligence likes. They can prevent you from sleeping and they can strap you to a board, pour water over your face and make you feel like you’re drowning.
How many days do you think you could last before you told them what they want to hear and confess to being an Al Qaeda operative? You’re not, of course – but that doesn’t really help you any. You’re now an enemy combatant. You can be held without trial for the rest of your life.
But who am I kidding – after all, we KNOW huge beuraucratic government-run organisations NEVER make mistakes . . .
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
And that’s what we should all be afraid of. The bad example set by America on this issue gives license for everybody else to follow – and the US no ground to stand upon in criticising them. Particularly if it is done to Americans.
America is setting a bad example?
Really?
What we see is America having a public open debate about what is and isn’t acceptable in coercive interrogation techniques.
Do you think Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Sudan to mention but a few is have ever had such debates?
Now it is unknown whether or not water boarding has ever used by the US but it is not on the list of allowed coercive techniques as signed off by Donald Rumsfeld. If it has it is far less appalling than hot pokers in the rectum known to be in use in Syria, Crucifixion known to occur in the Sudan, Rape of children in front of their parents, film of which exists, from Saddam Husseins Iraq. Other charming things from Saddam Husseins Iraq which you can see video of if you have the stomache for are the removal of hands and the cutting out of tongues.
A country which openly debates the acceptable limits of interoggation techniques is setting a bad example to these places – get a grip.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Nick –
Congratulations. You have just joined a select group of people who have believed that they can stop “terrorist” acts by torturing suspects. This group includes the Gestapo, the NKVD, and the Inquisition.
But hey Nick – why stop at torturing people suspected of terrorism? I mean, the Kahui case would have been solved so much faster if the Police had the right to torture the family. Right Nick?
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Andrei, don’t you feel even a slight sense of embarrassment at using the euphemism “coercive interrogation techniques?”
And doesn’t it strike you as a little odd for a Western democracy to be having a public, open debate about what torture techniques they’ll allow? Are we through the looking glass here or what?
And if you have to fall back on “not as bad as North Korea et al”-type arguments, shouldn’t that tell you something?
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
PM all interogation is in some sense coercive, the idea is to get the person to tell you what he doesn’t want to.
Do you think that 4 hours of intensive interrogation is torture? How about not allowing the suspect to use the toilet for long periods of time. The good cop, bad cop technique, Feeding the suspect misinformation, forcing the suspect to stand for long periods etc etc.
Where do you draw the line? My point is that in the USA for years these sort of things have come under intense public scrutiny (far more scrutiny than in NZ for instance). All sorts of far more terrible than waterboarding (for which there is no convincing evidence that it has actually happened) occur on a daily basis throughout the world with no public scrutiny.
People like you hold the US to a far far higher standard of behaviour than every other country in the world and it is easy to do because they are so open about what they are up to and agonize about it themselves.
We are hypocrits in this regard
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
“What we see is America having a public open debate about what is and isn’t acceptable in coercive interrogation techniques.”
….did they have some kind of “secret” public debate before building the secret prisons where these terrorists were tortured? Or did I miss something.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
“What we see is America having a public open debate about what is and isn’t acceptable in coercive interrogation techniques.”
….did they have some kind of “secret” public debate before building the secret prisons where these terrorists were tortured? Or did I miss something.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Torture has no place in a western country (and shouldn’t have a place in any country). By condoning torture we bring ourselves down to the level of those we would prevail over, and take away the whole point of prevailing – we have become them.
Of course, the hard part, as andrei has noted, is defining what torture is. The usual story – a bunch of things that everyone agrees are torture (hot pokers in the rectum sounds like torture to me), a bunch that (I think) nobody thinks are torture (good cop bad cop, extended interrogations), and a grey area in between (into which water boarding might fall).
Seems to me that anything that physically injures someone against their will – permanent markings – is torture. And most that physically impact someone (including denial of toilet, of sustenance).
Some phsycological techniques are probably torture as well – not sure which ones though.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
I’ve got a great definition of torture. It’s anything I think the state should be allowed to do to me if they mistakenly suspect me of a crime. I’m happy for them to ‘feed me misinformation’ or apply the ‘good cop bad cop routine’. I’m not happy for them to drive me insane via sleep deprivation or pretending to drown me.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
“What we see is America having a public open debate about what is and isn’t acceptable in coercive interrogation techniques.”
….did they have some kind of “secret” public debate before building the secret prisons where these terrorists were tortured? Or did I miss something.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
I’ve got a great definition of torture vs interrogation:
Interrogation is anything I think the state should be allowed to do to me if they mistakenly suspect me of a crime. I’m happy for them to ‘feed me misinformation’ or apply the ‘good cop bad cop routine’.
Torture is anything I’m not happy for them to do – like drive me insane via sleep deprivation, ‘stress positions’ or pretend to drown me.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
“What we see is America having a public open debate about what is and isn’t acceptable in coercive interrogation techniques.”
….did they have some kind of “secret” public debate before building the secret prisons where these terrorists were tortured? Or did I miss something.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Simon said:
“I heard him agree that he would use water-boarding. Water-boarding is torture. And a war crime.”
I do not know whether the US waterboards, however Cheney categorically did not say he would. He said he had no problem with dunking in water.
Cheney said the US does not torture, and does not condone torture.
You say waterboarding is torture (I agree), the only logical conclusion is therefore that the US does not waterboard (or at the very least that Cheney said they didn’t).
We agree waterboarding is torture;
Vote:Cheney says the US does not torture;
Therefore Cheney says the US does not waterboard.
October 29th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
No Andrei, there are boundaries. At some point interrogation turns into torture. At some point spin becomes lies, brusqueness is just plain rudeness, a coarse joke becomes vile, and rough sex is abuse. Now we can quibble a little about the exact location of the boundary, but we all know where the territory lies. Dick Cheney has unequivocally stepped the USA (and by proxy the all other Western nations as well) into it.
Actual torture is well-known as a fairly weak form of interrogation. The other forms you mention are far more effective; whereas under torture the victim will say anything to make it stop. Torture is primarily an instrument of policy, intended to terrorise, not the victim, for they are dispensable, but all those who come to know of it’s practise. Tyrannies are held together by fear. The predators in power exploit our herd instinct in order to keep the masses who vastly outnumber them in subjugation. Fear of being singled out as an example is what keeps the millions passive and in bondage.
This is the path of facism, the well understood “they are only doing it to the Gypsies and Jews” line of thinking that steadily erodes hard won rights and freedoms in the name of security. It is by OUR silence that assent is obtained for what just a decade ago was unthinkable. What is worse, is that we KNOW that by our assent we are participating in these acts, and by that fact we become monsters ourselves. Our conscience knows this, and men who knowingly silence not only their voices, but their sense of shame as well, are the most dangerous and pitable creatures at the same time.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
“What we see is America having a public open debate about what is and isn’t acceptable in coercive interrogation techniques.”
….did they have some kind of “secret” public debate before building the secret prisons where these terrorists were tortured? Or did I miss something.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
“What we see is America having a public open debate about what is and isn’t acceptable in coercive interrogation techniques.”
….did they have some kind of “secret” public debate before building the secret prisons where these terrorists were tortured? Or did I miss something.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
My apologies for the multiple posts, I’m unsure of what happened.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Ruth: Don’t confuse libertarians with the Libz. The Libz are not like most libertarians and most libertarians are very concerned with the torture issue. Randian Objectivists do seem obsessed with war, torture and dropping atomic weapons and the Libz are run by similar cultists.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
During the Afghan war, the Mujahideen, trying to overthrow the “Marxist Peoples Democratic Party” would slit open the abdomens of captured Russian soldiers and watch as wild dogs fed on the entrails of the dying victim. The worst, and most foolish thing the Yanks ever did was support the Mujahideen, but I digress.
As an interrogation technique, perhaps the Yanks should gag and restrain all terror suspects and put them in the company of handwringing lefty social liberals for days on end. Soon enough they will be squealing like pigs on a honeymoon.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Nothing betrays the morally guilty more than the use of euphemism and evasive language. andrei and his fellow supporters of evil acts arbitarily committed outside due process – which is what torture is – are in their hearts uncomfortably aware of the corrupting and criminal nature of the actions they support.
The words of Sir William Holdsworth in a “A History of English Law, vol 5″ (1927 I think) are worth quoting in full, for they constitute an as complete and organised rejection of torture as you could wish for, and from a mond considerably more powerful than the right wing halfwits who support this practice:
“We have seen that the use of torture, though illegal by the common law, was justified by virtue of the extraordinary power of the crown which could, in times of emergency, override the common law. We shall see that Coke in the earlier part of his career admitted the existence of this extraordinary power. He therefore saw no objection to the use of torture thus authorized. But we shall see that his views as to the existence of this extraordinary power changed, when the constitutional controversies of the seventeenth century had made it clear that the existence of any extraordinary power in the crown was incompatible with the liberty of the subject. It is not surprising therefore, that, in his later works, he states broadly that all torture is illegal. It always had been illegal by the common law, and the authority under which it had been supposed to be legalized he now denied. When we consider the revolting brutality of the continental criminal procedure, when we remember that this brutality was sometimes practised in England by the authority of the extraordinary power of the crown, we cannot but agree that this single result of the rejection of any authority other than that of the common law is almost the most valuable of the many consequences of that rejection. Torture was not indeed practised so systematically in England as on the continent; but the fact that it was possible to have recourse to it, the fact that the most powerful court in the land sanctioned it, was bound sooner or later to have a demoralising effect upon all those who had prisoners in their power. Once torture has become acclimatized in a legal system it spreads like an infectious disease. It saves the labour of investigation. It hardens and brutalizes those who have become accustomed to use it.”
In those words, “…the fact that the most powerful court in the land sanctioned it, was bound sooner or later to have a demoralising effect upon all those who had prisoners in their power…” we have the decent into madness of the United States to the point where its vice-president calls torture “a dunk in water.”
Torture seldom, if ever, produces anything of use and its corrupts its practitioners and supporters into liitle more than pychopathic pornographers.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:53 am
The trouble is, a concept the sanctimonious lefties fail to understand is, Islamic radicals HATE US ALL, of Western origin. They destroyed the Afghan MARXIST party.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:45 am
andrei, lovely new slogan you have come up with,
The United States of America! not quite as bad as Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea or Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:47 am
The trouble is, a concept the sanctimonious lefties fail to understand is, Islamic radicals HATE US ALL, of Western origin.
That argument is non-sequitur. Are you suggesting that because there are a bunch of people opposed to Western values that we should be prepared to debase those values ourselves first?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:12 am
“That argument is non-sequitur. Are you suggesting that because there are a bunch of people opposed to Western values that we should be prepared to debase those values ourselves first?”
That is the inevitable consequence of asymetric war where terrorism is the primary weapon. Terrorism cannot be defeated following the Geneva Conventions and other rules if you don’t operate at the (highly effective) level of the terrorists.
Of course there is one other effective way, best exemplified by Syria a couple of decades ago, you go into a city from where the terrorists operate and kill 20,000 or so non combatants in one action.. this provides the necessary impetus for the survivors to kick out any remaining terrorists.
And torture *is* effective, else it wouldn’t be used, but there are rules to follow.. and it’s difficult to describe it with the emotion laden word “torture” when the rules are followed.
JC
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:04 am
“And torture *is* effective, else it wouldn’t be used”
And invading Iraq was effective, else it wouldn’t have happened….
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:13 am
What gives you guys? Either its because you’ve got Stockholm syndrome or double standards that make you people support a few terrorists. Me I’m more concerned with the use of foreign aid to build nukes, the thousands of Indians being driven out by Mugabe, or the millions all over the world whose lives are made miserable by terrorist regimes and especially concerned as to why the North Korean Nuke sites haven’t been smart bombed yet.
I guess it’s just the logical extension of the limp wristed way we deal with crime in this country. A criminal is a criminal no matter where they are from. And they have the same choice as anyone else:
If they don’t like doing the time they could always choose not to do the crime.
Stop hating the innocent majority whether they be Muslims or Christians or whatever – just weed out the extremist criminals.
And Toms the only part of your diatribe that made any sense was the first line.
“Nothing betrays the morally guilty more than the use of euphemism and evasive language.”
Was this a quote from someone from a bygone era where honesty and integrity still ruled too? Could you give me the origin to that quote?
Nothing could describe our PC government better, I wish I’d thought of it myself.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:29 am
“And torture *is* effective, else it wouldn’t be used”
“And invading Iraq was effective, else it wouldn’t have happened….”
That’s a bit inscrutable for me.
Anyway, America tried to stay out of two world wars, but got dragged in all the same. It tried to stay out of the Middle East these last 30 years and ran from it’s UN responsibilities in Lebanon and Mogadishu, and backed off invading Iraq in Gulf War 1.. and look what it got them.. a series of mostly unanswered terrorist attacks at home and round the globe.
At least now they are front footing in the war against the jihadists.
JC
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:30 am
It seems there are two forms of water torture,
http://hereswhatsleft.typepad.com/home/2005/01/waterboarding.html
“One from French Algeria in 1958:
I was taken off the bar [on which he had been hung and subjected to electric torture] and my guards started their football again [beating and kicking him], perhaps for a quarter hour. Then they led me, still naked and blindfolded, into a neighboring room on the same floor. I heard: “We’ll have to kill him, the bastard.”
Then they laid me on a bench, flat on my stomach, head extending into the air, and tied my arms against my body with cords. Again the same question, which I refused to answer. By tilting the bench very slowly, they dipped my head into a basin filled with stinking liquid—dirty water and urine, probably. I was aware of the gurgling liquid reaching my mouth, then of a dull rumbling in my ears and a tingling sensation in my nose.
“You asked for a drink—take all you want.”
The first time I did drink, trying to appease an insupportable thirst. I wanted to vomit immediately.
“He’s puking, the bastard.”
And my head was pushed back into the basin….
From time to time one of them would sit on my back and bear down on my thighs. I could hear the water I threw up fall back into the basin. Then the torture would continue.”
Or this one
“from a victim in the Argentinian “Dirty War”:
She was immediately blindfolded. Her first torture session was in a basement full of soldiers, where she was stripped naked, tied, and beaten. “They slapped my face, pinched my breasts. ‘You have to talk, this is your last opportunity, and this is your salvation.’ And then they put me on a table. And I thought, ‘Well, if they are going to kill me, I hope they kill me pretty soon.’ They pushed my head underwater, so I could not breathe. They take you out, ask you things, they put you in, they take you out—so you cannot breathe all the time. ‘Who did you receive this from? Who do you know?’ Who can control anything when you cannot breathe? They pull you out, you try to grab for air, so they put you back in so you swallow water, and it is winter and you are very cold and very scared and they do that for a long time. Even if you are a good swimmer you cannot stand it anymore….”
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Fascinating reading. you do learn a lot on the blogs.
There are also two types of people. Those who participate in terrorism, killing and maiming innocent people and those that do not. Given I have a finite time on this planet I will chose to help, defend and even fight for those that do not.
How about some free choice? Why don’t we let the victims of terrorism decide how to fight it and what the punishments should be – you can’t say fairer than that!
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Ever thought Porcy that many of the people being tortured may be innocent?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Ruth: Do please take your pills and say at what point the current leader of Libertarianz has supported the use of torture by any country?
I know you have a beef with PC – be honest about it. If you have a press release or an email from Bernard Darnton to support your claims please release it, otherwise shut up and stop lying or misrepresenting Libz policy.
For example, you completely ignore Libz submissions about telecommunications interception in NZ – but that’s fine, you’re having an angry day and you need a small party to bash. Libz has never tolerated or supported torture.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:04 am
- John Cawston
- Friedrich Nietzsche.
Of course, Johns argument is simply nonsense. The single most important victory for the US so far in their battle against Al Qaeda has been the capture of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the operational organiser of the 9/11 attacks. And the intelligence used to hunt down KSM wasn’t obtained through torture – he was sold out by one of his buddies in exchange for $25 Million USD and a new identity in the United States.
Contrast this with the use of torture to extract information from Abu Zubaydah as detailed in Ron Suskinds book ‘The One Percent Doctrine’:
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:12 am
The Libz would only be for torture if it was fully privatised!
S
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Andrei: I was always under the impression that our Western democracies opposed the torturous behaviour of nations such as Zimbabwe, Saddam Husseins Iraq, etc. Haven’t American politicians spoken much about the horrors of Husseins regime? And now we are expected to defend similar behaviour because it is coming from America?
I would have thought that torture is unacceptable, full stop, no arguments. Isn’t that in accordance with our own self-prescribed Western values?
I didn’t realize that not being quite as bad as some of the others somehow justifies such behaviour. After all, if say North Korea wasn’t quite as bad as Saddam Husseins Iraq I don’t think we’d be sitting back saying it’s ok then. Right?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:26 am
What is interesting is that while this issue has been in no-mans-land, the reality on the ground is that CIA operatives have been given little choice other than to kill their targets rather than detain them in the fear that the good old left libs of the world will eventually see them freed. These are not men fighting for the sovereignty of their country or more importantly, not fighting for the freedom of their people. They are indoctrinated salafist fundamentalists who aim to kill as many innocent non-believers as possible, incl children: remember Beslan, and yes, they were Salafist!
Dick is on the money and thank God George W is too. These are men who understand survival and freedom. Kahlid Sheikh Mohammad (mastermind of 9/11) wasn’t going to spill the beans over a cup of tea and neither will any other fundamentalist.
I reiterate my main point, these are not objective individuals fighting for the good of their people.
The counter argument is, well how do we expect coaition troops etc be treated if captured? What do you think? Do you really believe that they are treated according to the Geneva Convention? Yeah right!
The other premise which is so flagrantly drawn is that black sites (Syria, Egypt etc) where these measures are undertaken, is readily used on any prisoner. Not so.
I am sick and tired of listening to die hard liberals with no concept of what is actually going on over there. Time to get real.
And just as an aside, that no good parasite Ahmed Zaoui should have been returned to sender!
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Shorter Roohoo.
Whats up with torturing people we don’t like, have you not heard that some of them are Muslims!
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Do you have ANY proof to back up this little fantasy of yours? Everything I’ve read indicates that the CIA are furious whenever one of their allies – usually Saudi Arabia or Pakistan – kill a suspect. Their goal is to capture Al Qaeda members and extract information, not to rack up a bodycount.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.”
Nevertheless, being monstrous is how you defeat monsters.. how could it be otherwise?
“Of course, Johns argument is simply nonsense. The single most important victory for the US so far in their battle against Al Qaeda has been the capture of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the operational organiser of the 9/11 attacks.”
Who sang very nicely whilst being questioned over a nice cup o tea.
As for Zubaydah, the CIA stands by the information it collected from him and described him as “crazy, like a fox”.
JC
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
After all, that’s how the west defeated communism and nazism – by abandoning all our values, setting up our OWN deathcamps and starving our populations to strengthen the power of the state. Oh . . . wait . . .
How can they ‘stand by’ the information when none of it has had any substance whatsoever? Last I checked, the Brooklyn Bridge and Statue of Liberty were still there.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
“After all, that’s how the west defeated communism and nazism – by abandoning all our values, setting up our OWN deathcamps and starving our populations to strengthen the power of the state. Oh . . . wait . . .”
So what do you call the killing of 3.8 million German civilians, civilised? In war, you do what you have to do to win, and that includes starving and killing enemy civilian populations to lower morale, slow or stop production and put pressure on the leadership. That’s monstrous and certainly sinking to the worst levels, but it’s what you have to do to win.
“How can they ‘stand by’ the information when none of it has had any substance whatsoever?”
What, take only what an author says (with third hand sources) as Gospel and ignore what the officials say? How quaint.
JC
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Daryl, you are absolutely correct. Of course the CIA’s objective is to detain for questioning. But if they are unable to garner information from a particularly dangerous suspect due to McCain’s bill, and in a position where they have the chance to eliminate them, not in cold blood whilst interrogating (you may have got the wrong end of the stick from me in that regard) what do they do? We have seen this countless times. Think of Abu Musab al-Zaqarwi.
I read too, a lot, particularly about the CIA. But I find the best information comes from those who have been over there.
Torture is indeed hideous.
Sonic, these people are a perverted version of Islam. I am not implicating all Muslims. I speak Arabic and many of my friends are Muslims. All Muslims I know abhor these people and don’t classify them as Muslims.
I absolutely don’t condone what happened at Abu Graib etc. What I am saying is that some of these people (very few) require a harder line of questioning. I am absolutely not suggesting that we hurt all those we don’t like, that is not what I said. And it is a very tricky fine line, which I guess is why people are so incited by it.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Listening to some of you guys I think its more a case of
Q: “why did the soviet union fold”
A: “their job was done”
(I take that back, read “looking at our present government…”)
Sonic – R E A D – I said I would defend any innocent victim of violence – I would give that person as much of my time and money as any ONE victim of terrorism.
Where’s our “precious” in all of this? Cocktails in NY anyone? Thought up any good names for “genocide” lately?
Everyone stop donging on innocent people from whatever religion and start donging on the politicians who use them for their own selfish purposes.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
An instructive video demonstrating ‘a harder line of questioning’ (or torture porn depending on your definition) is here if you’ve got the stomach.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
‘a harder line of questioning’ as a euphemism for repeatedly drowning someone until they confess.
Orwell would be proud of that one.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
‘a harder line of questioning’ as a euphemism for repeatedly drowning someone until they confess.
Orwell would be proud of that one.”
Oh, I don’t know. 46 million per year “terminations of pregnancy” seems a better candidate.
JC
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Orwell sure wouldn’t be proud of us now. We have the retrospectosope on our side but don’t use it.
Orwell wrote a work of fiction warning the population what not standing up to tyrants and not fighting for freedom can do. In that book the mind controllers were defending a tyranical system, we are trying to defend a system where innocent people are safe from those would be tyrants and we need to use some degree of force to do it. There is, actually a big difference, despite toms verbosity.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
“We” porcupine?
Are you involved with drowning prisoners?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
How torture breeds torture
http://www.slate.com/id/2152268/nav/tap2/
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
To drown someone is to kill them. Waterboarding simulates the feeling of drowning and while it isn’t something I would wish to endure it is a walk in the park by comparison to what insurgents and terrorists do to their captives. However, it isn’t about and eye for an eye, it is about national security.
Carl von Clausewitz said,
“The fact that battle is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms”.
Sounds a bit profound, but it was obviously written hundreds of years ago, but the philosophy is absolutely correct.
Now Orwell would be proud of that.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Lets think outside the powder puff for minute. Despite what you may think I am no torturer. Lets say that a superpower was lucky (no intelligent) enough to have me as their leader. Some maniacs who do not represent the main steam view from a foreign country kill a lot of my citizens and threaten to do it again. I say if they do it again I will
(a) send one smart bomb back for each person killed or
(b) use some limited extraordinary powers to catch those criminals before they have killed anyone, while working with that country to overcome the problem they have with maintaining law and order.
Which one shall I choose? Any alternative suggestions anyone? Your all so full of it how about some ideas? Come on I wont laugh. Even if it is just to suggest the toothless maggot of a UN could change the name of mass extermination back to genocide.
Come on you anti-yanks. Do you know any Americans. They are not that scary when you get to know them. Give us some ideas instead of ideology.
Still can’t understand the Korea one though. Surely if you can spy on a nuke site you can take it out and save millions of lives in future generations?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Porcy, can I summarise.
It is better than 100 innocent people are tortured than one guilty person go free?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
There is ample evidence that torture is not effective, and is, in fact, extremely counter-productive.
The British defeated the terrorists in Malaya in the 1950s by deliberately making a point of NOT torturing and treating suspects humanely as part of their broader strategy. This was to prove decisive. Captured suspected CTs proved to be much more likely to provide good intelligence and even assistance if they knew they would be treated humanely. The Malayan public soon saw that the British were lawful and restrained, while the terrorists were murdering thugs, and the insurgency withered away.
In contrast, when confronted with terrorism in Algeria the French increasingly resorted to torturing suspected FLN “terrorists”. Essentially, as the French had no strategy, they resorted to brutality – torture and mistreatment of captives, ratonnades, and, by 1956, reprisals – once torture was condoned, then it proved a very slippery slope. The French were increasingly hated and the FLN gained legitimacy. Because the behaviour of the French Army was so contrary to French values, the support of the French public for the war was undermined.
Quite apart from the appalling immorality of torture, the fact is that torture is extremely counter-productive as a method against terrorism. Powers that have resorted to torture have ended up losing the war as they lose public support (at home and abroad) and the terrorists gain legitimacy. In fact it is a warning sign – every time powers resort to torture it is a sign that the leaders have no strategy for winning the war. Torture is not merely ineffective – it is a sign of desperation and defeat.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Sonic, as you well know, I’m actually saying its hard to chose between the possibility of one innocent person being tortured and 100,000 innocent people being saved.
However I can see how an endoparasitic judge could be swayed by your succinct hypothetical bullshit, so for that enlightenment on the gullibility of the judicial system I thank you.
In fact with attitudes like yours out there I could see why America might want to go back to isolationism (qv) and nuke anything that moves.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:53 am
As an American I agree… we waited to long to get involved in some wars and didn’t get involved in some situations that we should have. Regardless, we are always under the microscope. I am Fed up with all the critics who run their mouth but can’t find a better solution. If American people agreed with The tactics that were being used it wouldn’t be up for debate in the public eye on what constitutes torture and what lines cannot be crossed.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:42 am
Don’t feel guilt about waiting too long to step into past wars – you saved our sorry asses several times in the past and you will be called in by the wankers above to do it again without a shadow of a doubt.
PS thanks for freedom, our standard of living and air travel as well. [could you do something about the judiciary – they’re out of control in all our countries].
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 2:45 am
Yes sonic, privatised torture between consenting adults – whoops! already is legal
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 2:53 am
Yes sonic, privatised torture between consenting adults – whoops! already is legal
Vote: