Is 183 the Magic Number?

[I.J. Reilly]

Nice dodge. You're the one claiming a significant effect on recruitment of America-haters. If it's just a feeling, admit it, and we can move on. There was plenty of American hypocracy before waterboarding to get these people to act. I suspect they get much more exercised by predator missiles taking out family members in the Hindu Kush than the waterboarding of some fat man they have never met.



Wow, I thought we were talking about a place that actually exists in the real world. While states "can," they don't. And in this world, those that would venture to "do," wouldn't be states for very long.

I asked for your opinion on whether waterboarding was an overall positive or negative thing for this country. You came back and responded that apparently since terrorists have been killing our people for a while we shouldn't care how we treat them. I said that wasn't the issue, that our moral ground should be above and independent of what the terrorists do.

You claimed then mocked the idea of a moral high ground and I then gave an example of how giving up the high ground could have a real world effect. I never claimed "significant" anything but only asked if the cost of waterboarding was worth it.

My question still stands, was the price we paid for the information worth the cost?

[wuapinmon]

My question still stands, was the price we paid for the information worth the cost?

I guess that would depend on whether or not your children were saved from death by torturing someone. If it's someone else, it's bad.....if it's my kids, it gives me pause....but, I think that ultimately, I don't know.

I know torture is wrong.

I know terrorism is wrong.

I know I don't want anyone I know to die from terrorism.

I know that I don't want anyone to have to torture someone else.

I know that I wouldn't want to be tortured, especially if I didn't know anything.

I know that Jack Bauer kicks ass.

I know that Jack Bauer is fictional.

I know that the video I've seen of waterboarding looks like torture to me.

I don't know that I can make up my mind on this one. I know it's wrong, but there are certain circumstances where I could see the morality getting hazy.

[YOhio]

I kind of see the whole torture debate as a nice demonstration in how much Americans love to be offended in order to demonstrate our own high-mindedness.

Don't misunderstand, I think it's clear that torture for the sake of torture is wrong. But we've tasked a federal agency and military with a duty to protect Americans, in part by gathering reliable intelligence and acting on it. This isn't an easy job and sometimes things get messy. Even then, the released transcripts show a CIA that conducted interrogations under a very controlled environment. The 'torture' part wasn't a result of a rogue agent getting his kicks off of waterboarding some hapless prisoner. Rather the coercive interrogation was strategically used to gather information with about fifteen layers of supervision.

So should they do it? I don't know. I've never worked for the CIA and I don't know how effective it is. I do know that the CYA mentality of the bureaucracy will probably prevent it from ever happening again. Whether this puts us in a more dangerous position, only time will tell.

All that said, what happened at Abu Ghraib was inexcusable and fortunately the exception.

[I.J. Reilly]

I kind of see the whole torture debate as a nice demonstration in how much Americans love to be offended in order to demonstrate our own high-mindedness.

Don't misunderstand, I think it's clear that torture for the sake of torture is wrong. But we've tasked a federal agency and military with a duty to protect Americans, in part by gathering reliable intelligence and acting on it. This isn't an easy job and sometimes things get messy. Even then, the released transcripts show a CIA that conducted interrogations under a very controlled environment. The 'torture' part wasn't a result of a rogue agent getting his kicks off of waterboarding some hapless prisoner. Rather the coercive interrogation was strategically used to gather information with about fifteen layers of supervision.

So should they do it? I don't know. I've never worked for the CIA and I don't know how effective it is. I do know that the CYA mentality of the bureaucracy will probably prevent it from ever happening again. Whether this puts us in a more dangerous position, only time will tell.

All that said, what happened at Abu Ghraib was inexcusable and fortunately the exception.

I guess that would depend on whether or not your children were saved from death by torturing someone. If it's someone else, it's bad.....if it's my kids, it gives me pause....but, I think that ultimately, I don't know.

I know torture is wrong.

I know terrorism is wrong.

I know I don't want anyone I know to die from terrorism.

I know that I don't want anyone to have to torture someone else.

I know that I wouldn't want to be tortured, especially if I didn't know anything.

I know that Jack Bauer kicks ass.

I know that Jack Bauer is fictional.

I know that the video I've seen of waterboarding looks like torture to me.

I don't know that I can make up my mind on this one. I know it's wrong, but there are certain circumstances where I could see the morality getting hazy.

Thank you for answering my question.

[Guest]

My question still stands, was the price we paid for the information worth the cost?

Without knowing the information gathered, I'm not sure you can determine the ROI. Generally, I think information gathered by torture is probably not high in quality. But what do I know? The bottom line: You can't answer your questions without having the resulting information.

The CIA memo situation had me thinking about the following...

In 1945 the US Army liberated the Dachau concentration camp. 30k captives freed. Upon searching the camp the US Army soldiers found railcars lined with dead bodies; yhey were shocked and appalled at what they encountered.

Systematically and under the order of an US Army officer the SS guards were separated from the regular German army and executed. Lined up against a wall and machine-gunned. Dozens murdered. Army medics refused to treat any wounded SS in the aftermath.

There was an investigation by the military. It concluded indeed war crimes occurred. But charges were dismissed and no court-martial proceeding held...

Why no court-martials? Patton covered it up. Eisenhower didn't want to hear about it – he knew moral superiority was needed in the war's aftermath.

The incident went unreported for fifty years. Through the prism of time, few hold malice for the soldiers involved, in fact the incident is now met with nods of understanding.

I thought about the incident over the weekend and pondered any parallels with the CIA memos.

"The killing of unarmed POWs did not trouble many of the men in I company that day for to them the SS guards did not deserve the same protected status as enemy soldiers who have been captured after a valiant fight. To many of the men in I company, the SS were nothing more than wild, vicious animals whose role in this war was to starve, brutalize, torment, torture and murder helpless civilians." Flint Whitlock, The Rock of Anzio, From Sicily to Dachau: A history of the U.S. 45th Infantry Division

[myboynoah]

I asked for your opinion on whether waterboarding was an overall positive or negative thing for this country. You came back and responded that apparently since terrorists have been killing our people for a while we shouldn't care how we treat them. I said that wasn't the issue, that our moral ground should be above and independent of what the terrorists do.

You claimed then mocked the idea of a moral high ground and I then gave an example of how giving up the high ground could have a real world effect. I never claimed "significant" anything but only asked if the cost of waterboarding was worth it.

My question still stands, was the price we paid for the information worth the cost?

Well, since this has devolved into people providing opinions, I answer "YES!" Again, let me opine that the negative effect upon those from which our enemies recruit is marginal. They've been killing us for years, they are already motivated to do so, the effect of waterboarding is minimal in providing more motivation. Again, predator missiles fired from drones taking out the families of suspected Taliban and Al Qaida operatives are probably eliciting a much more viseral reaction and providing better recruiting incentives. That's real world. Where does your morality stand on that?

I hope Obama responds affirmatively to Cheney's request for the results of these interrogations to be released so we can make our own assessments. What price would you put on someone's life? Are the lives of your most precious loved ones worth your high level of morality?

This morning Khalid Sheik Mohamend woke up to a new day. The families of his near 3,000 victims will live with his handiwork for generations. I see little problem with making him uncomfortable 183 times in order to prevent another such tragedy, particularly given the controled environment within which these sessions were conducted (the same care given during S.E.R.E. training for our own members of the Armed Forces). KSM still lives today.

[I.J. Reilly]

Well, since this has devolved into people providing opinions, I answer "YES!" Again, let me opine that the negative effect upon those from which our enemies recruit is marginal. They've been killing us for years, they are already motivated to do so, the effect of waterboarding is minimal in providing more motivation. Again, predator missiles fired from drones taking out the families of suspected Taliban and Al Qaida operatives are probably eliciting a much more viseral reaction and providing better recruiting incentives. That's real world. Where does your morality stand on that?

I hope Obama responds affirmatively to Cheney's request for the results of these interrogations to be released so we can make our own assessments. What price would you put on someone's life? Are the lives of your most precious loved ones worth your high level of morality?

This morning Khalid Sheik Mohamend woke up to a new day. The families of his near 3,000 victims will live with his handiwork for generations. I see little problem with making him uncomfortable 183 times in order to prevent another such tragedy, particularly given the controled environment within which these sessions were conducted (the same care given during S.E.R.E. training for our own members of the Armed Forces). KSM still lives today.

Thank you for answering my question.

Now, onto some of the questions that you asked.

Where does your morality stand on that?

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here but I will answer what I think you are asking, and I will say that my preference is for capturing and prosecuting criminals, be they within our borders or without. I acknowledge though that it is not always plausible or feasible to go in and capture people that actively try to engage in the destruction of the US. I do not know of a workable model that allows us to stop the use of these programs. Etraordinary rendition has already presented us with myriad problems.

And I would love to see Obama release the results of the torture so that we could judge for ourselves. I would argue though, that Cheney himself pretty much had the opportunity to do this himself and chose not too, so he is being a bit disingenuous in calling for its release.

Are the lives of your most precious loved ones worth your high level of morality?

On a theoretical level I would like to say that I would be willing to give my life (or the life of my loved ones, although this sounds weird) for my principles but in a more practical application all I can say is I don't know what would happen. It is hard to say what one would do when pushed to the ultimate extreme. I will say that my heroes are principled people and ones that, when the rubber met the road, sacrificed their own self-interest to stand by their principles.

I understand that losing a loved one in a planned attack in which they were innocent victims can cause a very visceral reaction that drives those that are left to demand revenge. Revenge, in my opinion, is not the best answer.

And if you believe in the gospel then you know that one day KSM will get his just reward.

[myboynoah]

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here but I will answer what I think you are asking, and I will say that my preference is for capturing and prosecuting criminals, be they within our borders or without. I acknowledge though that it is not always plausible or feasible to go in and capture people that actively try to engage in the destruction of the US. I do not know of a workable model that allows us to stop the use of these programs. Etraordinary rendition has already presented us with myriad problems.

I'm talking about the use of drones and predator missiles targeting Taliban and Al Qaida members in their homes, taking out the home and killing family members along with the suspected "terrorists." How do you square your morality with the taking of innocent life in going after these bad guys? Are you confident in the information upon which these attacks are based? Are you confident that the suspected "terrorists" are even in the targeted residences? At least with extraordinary rendition, we got the bad guy and left the families to live their lives.

You've opined that waterboarding is a recruiting magnet for terrorists. Do you acknowledge that these types of fairly indiscriminate predator attacks, in Al Quaida's and the Taliban's backyard, serve that purpose as well, if not to a greater degree? Shouldn't we then, based on the goal of showcasing our "moral authority," end this indiscriminate tactic?

And I would love to see Obama release the results of the torture so that we could judge for ourselves. I would argue though, that Cheney himself pretty much had the opportunity to do this himself and chose not too, so he is being a bit disingenuous in calling for its release.

Cheney would not have released any of the information due to national security concerns. Now that the primary concern no longer exists, thanks to Obama's release last week, he is arguing the results might was well be released as well.

On a theoretical level I would like to say that I would be willing to give my life (or the life of my loved ones, although this sounds weird) for my principles but in a more practical application all I can say is I don't know what would happen. It is hard to say what one would do when pushed to the ultimate extreme. I will say that my heroes are principled people and ones that, when the rubber met the road, sacrificed their own self-interest to stand by their principles.

I understand that losing a loved one in a planned attack in which they were innocent victims can cause a very visceral reaction that drives those that are left to demand revenge. Revenge, in my opinion, is not the best answer.

"Principles" is such an amorphous word. Duty is a principle, and many people take an oath to protect the nation. Revenge has so little to do with it. The point is that despite the difficulties of his interrogation, KSM still lives today. He gave us information as a result. Great care was taken to make sure he didn't die in a process used to train our own armed forces.

I'm still waiting for an effective arguement that waterboarding KSM increased the threat to the U.S. in any significant way.

[I.J. Reilly]

I'm talking about the use of drones and predator missiles targeting Taliban and Al Qaida members in their homes, taking out the home and killing family members along with the suspected "terrorists." How do you square your morality with the taking of innocent life in going after these bad guys? Are you confident in the information upon which these attacks are based? Are you confident that the suspected "terrorists" are even in the targeted residences? At least with extraordinary rendition, we got the bad guy and left the families to live their lives.

You've opined that waterboarding is a recruiting magnet for terrorists. Do you acknowledge that these types of fairly indiscriminate predator attacks, in Al Quaida's and the Taliban's backyard, serve that purpose as well, if not to a greater degree? Shouldn't we then, based on the goal of showcasing our "moral authority," end this indiscriminate tactic?

You raise a good point with this question. Is waterboarding any worse or better than sending missiles that kill family members and that may or may not get the enemy? If it is worse why doesn't it get the type of attention that waterboarding gets?

I would have to say that since the missile attacks don't fall under the banner of torture they become a less sexy topic for our news media to pick up on. The destruction that they leave behind, though, definietly aide in the recruitment of enemies.

[myboynoah]

You raise a good point with this question. Is waterboarding any worse or better than sending missiles that kill family members and that may or may not get the enemy? If it is worse why doesn't it get the type of attention that waterboarding gets?

I would have to say that since the missile attacks don't fall under the banner of torture they become a less sexy topic for our news media to pick up on. The destruction that they leave behind, though, definietly aide in the recruitment of enemies.

Raising another interesting question:

What can the U.S. do to protect itself against such a dedicated enemy without provoking it even more?

Apologize?

[KillerDog]

Raising another interesting question:

What can the U.S. do to protect itself against such a dedicated enemy without provoking it even more?

Apologize?

They can either raise the stakes for the enemy or fracture the enemy's solidarity. I think you can fight a group in a couple different ways. You can either continually raise the cost of their bad acts or you can break them internally.

In the study of small groups, there is some belief that the so called terrorists (I prefer the term enemies because terrorism is nothing more than a tactic) will actually become stronger under acquiesence or direct attack. The best way, according to small group theory, to defeat a small and insular group is to fracture it internally.

I think small group theory misses the best method...complete destruction of all sympathetic parties. If you kill your enemies and all of those who might feel sympathy for your enemies, there is no risk that your attack will strengthen the group.