In Reply: Avoiding torture and cruelty has nothing to do with who they are or what they do... It's about who we are...

In reply to the following comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Anonymous says:
April 29, 2014 at 10:58 pm

You dolt. This barbarous:

“A jury found that on June 3, 1999, Clayton Lockett and two co-conspirators, Shawn Mathis and Alfonso Lockett, broke into the Perry, Oklahoma, home of Bobby Bornt. They assaulted Bornt before burglarizing his home for drugs. While they were at Bornt’s home, two 19-year-old women arrived. The men repeatedly raped and assaulted one woman, whose name is withheld as a victim of sexual assault, before loading Bornt, Bornt’s 9-month-old son, Stephanie Nieman, and the other woman into Bornt’s and Nieman’s trucks and driving them to a rural location in Kay County.

Bornt testified that he heard Clayton Locket say, “Someone has got to go,” before he put Nieman in a ditch dug by Shawn Mathis and shot her twice. He also testified to hearing the men laugh about “how tough [Nieman] was” when she did not die after the first shot.”

My reply:

The reason we avoid torturing our country's enemies and cruelly punishing those who break our laws--even when those enemies and lawbreakers have shown that they torture and are intentionally cruel to others--is because we are not them. Our American, religious, and human values and ideals prevent our giving in those animal instincts, and we've made laws to prevent our doing so when tempted. The people who don't do that--who can't control those base instincts and do torture and otherwise behave cruelly toward others...well, they're the very people whose eyes and teeth you're talking about pulling out, aren't they...?

Avoiding torture and cruelly has nothing to do with who they are or what they do, Dr. Douglas... It's about who we are... Who we are, and who we strive to be as Americans and as human beings...
—

Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 at 6:26 am

In Reply: Torture Creep

In reply:

Hoagie sez:
One other thing, repsac3. Sometimes you are unaware of a “ticking timebomb” until you push enough buttons to uncover it. Saying “pretty-please” usually won’t work. Trust me.

Good article on the "torture creep" that Hoagie may or may not be advocating in his comment above about being unaware of ticking timebombs until you've "pushed enough buttons" to uncover it (a potentially ominous phrase, if ever I read one.)

Torture Opponents Were Right - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic. The key paragraph:

The return of the torture debate is striking because its apologists no longer feel the need to advocate for a narrow exception to prevent an American city from being nuked or a busload of children from dying. In the jubilation over getting bin Laden, they're instead employing this frightening standard: torture of multiple detainees is justified if it might produce a single useful nugget that, combined with lots of other intelligence, helps lead us to the secret location of the highest value terrorist leader many years later. It's suddenly the new baseline in our renewed national argument.

---

Posted 5 May 2011 at 18:43

Added, 7:15 PM: Reading this comment over, I was far too kind... Not only is it what Hoagie was advocating, it's what every person who offers some variation of "Waterboarding / Enhanced Interrogation Tactics / Torture Works!!" is advocating. (For the record, one of those is a real right wing blog post title, right down to the exclamation points.) The fuse on the potential time bomb can now be seven years long, and the torture is still justified... and that's just nuts.

In Reply: Do It, But Then Stand Behind Your Actions

In reply to the following comment at Obama Waited 16 Hours (Good) Bush Waited 10 Minutes (Bad) - Common Sense Political Thought

Hoagie Sez: I don’t know how many battles you’ve engaged in Whistler, but as a man who spent 520 consecutive days in a theatre of war and participated in 42 battles, torture does work. You may not like it. You may not have the ability to inflict it. But it really does work. If it did not work no one would use it now would they? You may sit in your ivory tower and pontificate about the dignity of America all you want, but when our lives and those of our fellow warriors or families are at stake there is no line we will not cross to achieve victory. That’s why war sucks. All wars suck, even when we know we are right. It still sucks.
---

“…when our lives and those of our fellow warriors or families are at stake there is no line we will not cross to achieve victory.”

Y’know… I’m not actually opposed to that. If you really believe you’re in the classic ticking time bomb scenario, and truly believe you can end it Jack Bauer-style via torture, you do it. But then you stand trial, and justify your actions before a jury of your peers. I have little problem with jury nullification, and believe that a guy whose act of torture saved the lives of tens, hundreds, or thousands would never be convicted.
---

Posted 5 May 2011 at 13:12

In Reply: "Enhanced" Interrogation; It is what it is, and few minds are gonna change, either way

In reply to a whole bunch of comments at Dana Pico's The best result - Common Sense Political Thought
---

I don't know, guys...

The fact that some bit of useful intelligence might've been discovered as a result of "enhanced" interrogation methods, up to and including the "now-it's-torture-now-it-isn't-now-it-is-again" practice of water boarding, does not vindicate either the "enhanced" interrogation methods, or the torture.

First off, we'll probably never know for sure, as most of the folks there to tell us what we learned when and how have a vested interest, one way or the other. It's no accident that it's largely one political pov and folks who worked under 'em saying the death of bin Laden never would've happened without these methods, and the other political pov and folks who didn't work under the first political pov calling those assertions into question.

Second, there's no way to prove that it couldn't've happened the opposite way. The facts surrounding our interrogation history as regards all that lead to finding bin Laden are what they are. Maybe less harsh interrogation methods might've achieved a more reliable or a quicker result, or maybe without harsh interrogation methods, we never would've gotten bin Laden at all, and had we water boarded every detainee we captured, we might've caught/killed bin Laden years sooner. There's little point theorizing though, because the bell was rung, and it can't be unrung. We did our interrogations the way we did them, and obtained the information we obtained. There's no way of knowing "what might've been, had we used more (or fewer) harsh interrogation methods on fewer (or more) detainees, more (or less) often." As the saying goes, it is what it is (and it was what it was, too.)

This is also why I can't take seriously the occasional mini-meme of folks who say "Obama was opposed to such'n'such an interrogation method or detention facility, but had no problem using the info gleaned from them to kill bin Laden." The info was already obtained, however it was obtained... It wasn't as though Obama & co. could unlearn it, and then interrogate it out again the "right" way. Whatever the moralities or legalities of torture or other bad acts (I'm thinking of the syphilis testing done on black men, or other unethical bits of human experimentation over the years, for starters), we neither could or should unlearn the facts obtained because of their use, even as we criticize the methods, themselves. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

I've voiced my bit on morality, values, and the American way as regards "enhanced" interrogation methods--whatever their effectiveness in this particular case or overall--and I've seen nothing so far that'd change my position.

So, while I'm sure the debate will rage on, I'm not sure there's any winning this one, for any person or point of view.
---

After giving it a whole lotta thought, and in the absence of solid facts to the contrary, I have decided to believe that bin Laden made a move or otherwise acted in some way that made his killing justified. I choose not to believe that the US government authorizes or condones summary execution of anyone, no matter how evil a person is or how many people he's killed. It was the best result, but even the best ends don't justify illegal or immoral means. We are a nation of laws, even in time of war, and even on the battlefield.

I pray I never have occasion to learn any different.
---

And just as an aside...

Dana Pico says:
4 May 2011 at 12:34
Casper wrote:

I see Pico deciphered my super-secret pseudo-pseudononymous nom-de-keyboard. Congratulations are in order. (It took some folks years to do the same, complete with cries and gnashing of teeth about how I was a coward unwilling to stand behind what I wrote, in a few cases.)

James Casper III... Pleased to meet'cha... You can call me whatever you wish or think you need to (as long as you're not breaking the rules here, and you don't call me late for dinner), but personally, I'm stickin' with repsac3, which I've been using at AOL and in/on newsgroups, e-groups, yahoogroups, and blogs (in order, as best as I can recall) since the mid-90's, on my very first teeny-tiny 100 mb Mac Classic. As long as you steer clear of the caps lock and the equals sign, we cool...
---

Posted 5 May 2011 at 11:21

In Reply: Whether or not torture "works," it's still a filthy immoral thing

In reply to this comment at the Common Sense Political Thought post Osama bin Laden Is Dead UPDATE: He Died In A Mansion? UPDATE: He Died Today In A Firefight UPDATE: GWB Congratulates BHO, Troops UPDATE: Dies On Holocaust Memorial Day (Too much to repost. Please visit CSPT for more info.)
---

I stand by what I've said. I do question the effectiveness of "enhanced" interrogation techniques, on the grounds that many interrogators have said that they elicit too much false information, and because the world wouldn't willingly choose not to engage in such methods if they really did lead to more reliable information, and/or do so more quickly. Obviously, others, both "expert" and ordinary citizen, believe otherwise. Whether such methods work, either as tools to get reliable information themselves, or to "break" a prisoner's spirit and thus get reliable information later--and the attendant questions of whether either/both outcome(s) are possible via more traditional and widely accepted means--will of course continue.

But to me, the effectiveness of "harsh" "coercive" "enhanced" interrogation techniques is a secondary issue, even if they did provide the key info that lead to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

From all I've read, and from what my own common sense and experiences tell me, water boarding -- the intentional drowning and simulated death of an unwilling participant, is a form of torture. We here in the US have successfully prosecuted both our own citizens and military men in other countries for committing the same/very similar acts on US citizens and servicemen. And while redefining the word torture and the act of water boarding can make once illegal acts legal, it cannot change the morality of committing them. (Whatever one's stand on abortion or homosexuality, the same rule applies; legality (or illegality) doesn't affect morality.) For me, it's that simple. While I have my doubts about the effectiveness of torture, my position would be the same even if it could be conclusively proven that torture produces the most reliable intelligence, and does so in half the time. Like the man said, "...sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'll never know because I won't eat the filthy motherfucker." We're Americans, and we live by a set of ideals. Whether or not torture "works," it's still a filthy thing, and I'm going to continue to speak out against anyone willing to lower our American standards and values enough to metephorically swallow it.

Posted 3 May 2011 at 21:31 and 3 May 2011 at 22:19

If Torture "Works," Why Do We Not Torture ALL of Our Legal/Military Detainees?

In reply to the following comment at the Common Sense Political Thought post Osama bin Laden Is Dead UPDATE: He Died In A Mansion? UPDATE: He Died Today In A Firefight UPDATE: GWB Congratulates BHO, Troops UPDATE: Dies On Holocaust Memorial Day"

But really — why do we maintain black sites if “ordinary” methods work just fine?

The answer to your question, of course, is that there are individuals who believe as you do, that torture works, or perhaps that, whether it works or not, it's use creates fear in the minds of our enemies and makes us appear more resolute in their eyes... ...and perhaps in the eyes of some of our own citizens, as well. We maintain (or maintained, I hope) black sites because the people in charge believe(d) that harsh interrogation methods that would not withstand the scrutiny of the US citizenry had some actual or propaganda value, and they also had power to put their theory into practice.

Of course, Hube, there is a correlation to the argument you're offering. If enhanced interrogation was significantly more effective than non-coercive means, it's use would be far more widespread and accepted here in America and throughout the world. However we choose to classify the "water cure" and other such methods, they've been around for a very long time, and countless military and law enforcement theoretical experts and in-the-field practitioners have had plenty of time to evaluate the effectiveness of such treatment on a detainee's willingness to provide truthful, reliable, actionable intelligence. So the question is, if the interrogation methods used at black sites are so effective, why are they not more prevalent in military/law enforcement interrogation rooms throughout the world?
---

Posted 3 May 2011 at 13:45
---

Added: Besides, Hube... While the theory that “if it exists, there must be a need for it” may be persuasive to some, one only has to consider the pet rock, or the KFC Double Down sandwich to realize the folly of the idea as a useful or accurate meme.

I’m just sayin’…

In Reply: "Enhanced Interrogation" (Torture) Vindicated? Not So Fast...

In reply to the following comment at the Washington Examiner post Bin Laden raid was culmination of years of work, senior administration officials say:

"My reply is not to invoke frustration regarding your comment. But, it does make me question your involvement in such matters. You said 'we get'. Are you or have you personally been involved in such matters? The theory of , it is better to talk than fight always sounds better. The praticality of it is not always true. War has been around for a very long time. I would believe if just talking worked better...it would only be used. Physical and mental tactics are purposeful and effective."
---

I have not personally interrogated anyone, no. I'm willing to bet that the majority of us (that is, we Americans) similarly never have. I don't believe that my failure to do so should in any way negate my opinion on the matter, anymore than I believe that anyone who advocates in favor of war without ever having served in one is a chicken hawk. Our whole military structure is based on civilian leadership and oversight, and our government is similarly civilian lead and "overseen" by we, the people. As Americans, we have an obligation to speak up about the things our government is doing in our name... ...even if we haven't personally done those things, ourselves.

Further, I'm not advocating against war... I agree there is a time for talking, and a time for fighting. While I never thought Iraq was a particularly good idea (to this day... The ends don't justify the means.), I was never opposed to our invasion of Afghanistan, and I'm still not.

And, while I do question the effectiveness of torture (and it's euphemism, "enhanced interrogation"), that isn't the only reason to oppose their use. Even if they elicited nothing but 100% factual intelligence, they would still be morally and legally wrong. We Americans stand for a set of values, and one of them is that we treat others humanely, no matter how poorly they treat us. It is our values that define us and make us exceptional on the world stage. When we compromise them for short term gain--and as I said, I question whether there is any short term gain, besides--we compromise that which makes us who we are as a nation.

Since I posted my initial comment, Folks have been floating the meme that harsh interrogation tactics were responsible for some of the intelligence that lead to the killing of bin Laden. Facts in support have been sketchy, at best. (An AP report quoting unnamed sources...) Until I see something more definitive I'll have my doubts, but even if it turns out to be completely true, every word, I'll still believe that the use of torture goes against the values that make America great, and that we can get all the intelligence we need through the methods the military and law enforcement have always employed.
---

Posted 5/2/11, 10:38 PM

In Reply: In spite of the meme, is there any solid evidence that "harsh interrogation" played any part in finding ObL?

Revised and extended, in reply to the following AP blurb, posted at Officials: CIA interrogators at secret prisons developed first strands that led to bin Laden | StarTribune.com

WASHINGTON - Officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden's most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed's successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.

The news is sure to reignite debate over whether the now-closed interrogation and detention program was successful. Former president George W. Bush authorized the CIA to use the harshest interrogation tactics in U.S. history. President Barack Obama closed the prison system.

Not a single official willing to go on record, though...

Perhaps they could at least clarify the methods used to obtain the information--because in spite of many of the claims being made in these comments and throughout the blogosphere, I don't see any official account saying that the intentional near drowning of any detainee lead to our getting the information in question.

There's a whole lotta disinformation, rearguard CYA, and wishful thinkin' going on around this story, methinks... It'd be far more believable if someone would speak on the record, and end the speculation and guesswork.

Nobody wanted to close Gitmo or any of the secret prisons because they were ineffective or didn't provide information; Obama and others wanted to close them because they'd become legal black holes, where people are being held without benefit of trial or conviction, and some of us believe that it is unAmerican / unjust to do that to ANYONE, no matter their nationality or the circumstances under which they were captured. Inalienable, God-given rights apply to everyone, or they're not inalienable, or God-given. If one has foundational principles, they apply across the board. Otherwise, they're nothing more than wishy-washy situational ethics. (And yes, I understand that Gitmo is legal; I'm not saying otherwise. What I am saying is it's immoral, and not in keeping with the notion that all men (not all citizens, but all men) are created equal, and should be treated that way, before the law.)

I've seen nothing to suggest that the information used to ultimately find Osama bin Laden was gathered through the use of intentional drowning or any other "harsh interrogation" method, or that Obama's failure to close Guantanamo in 2009 in any way helped them gather the information they did in 2007 or before (4 years ago). If anyone has solid evidence to the contrary--hopefully something with a name attached to it, this time--I'd be most interested in reading what you have to say.

As I've said elsewhere, I believe that a whole lot of named and nameless individuals working for or with either (or both) the Bush administration and the Obama administration, as well as the folks in the military who carried out the mission, deserve a whole lot of credit for finally getting this done. But there is zero evidence that any credit goes to Gitmo or the black sites as prisons, or to torture as a method of gathering information. (Even where KSM was concerned, reports are most of the reliable info they got from him was when he WASN'T being tortured, rather than when he was.) ((And where is this "KSM gave up the OBL info" meme coming from, btw... That's another one that seems to have no basis in fact...))
---

Posted (in shorter form) at the link above, May. 2, 2011 at 12:51 PM (StarTribune.com time)