What is torture (harsh interrogation)?

[wuapinmon]

If it saved innocent Americans, I wouldn't have a problem. Because I wouldn't let them sleep. I wouldn't lose sleep myself. I wouldn't cut out tongues or stick prods up their rectum. Waterboarding, sure. Remember, these were high valued targets, not just your ordinary terrorist.

I put a much higher value on innocent Americans than you do.

Guess who are chomping at the bit to charge the Bushies with torture crimes? The terrorists and leftists. You're in great company.

I don't think we need to charge anyone. I do think that we need to stop the practices now. This is America. We don't torture.

[KillerDog]

I think the difficulty in torture is that it is used when you have an intelligence failure and you are trying to resolve that failure. Because of that, you never know if you are torturing a valuable asset or not. The U.S. got lucky in that it was torturing some valuable assets. If you know enough to know that the assets are extremely valuable, you probably don't need to torture.

In the specific case of the U.S. torturing al Quaeda operatives, we had an utter failure of U.S. intelligence and had to find answers quickly. Torture worked because we were lucky to torture the right people. I think the moral difficulty of torture is that you don't know the right people, you don't know what you are trying to find out, you may be torturing a relatively useless asset and you don't know until all is said and done. At that time, you are stuck with the memory of what you did to someone to get something they didn't have.

That said, if someone had kidnapped my son and I had his family member or close friend who was smugly acting as though he had knowledge and wouldn't tell me where my kid was, I believe I would be able to torture him in much worse ways than the CIA used. I also realize that if it turned out he didn't have information, I would struggle to live with the act. As I've said before, in the real world these questions are difficult.

[Indy Coug]

There has to be a moral calculus when it comes to torture where you have to make a rational assessment of the pros and cons, the costs and benefits. We see ample scriptural evidence of where God's own moral calculus gave the green light to behavior that would otherwise be unthinkable. I fail to see how allowing highly restricted forms of "aggressive interrogation" in very limited, extenuating circumstances is completely untenable.

[KillerDog]

There has to be a moral calculus when it comes to torture where you have to make a rational assessment of the pros and cons, the costs and benefits. We see ample scriptural evidence of where God's own moral calculus gave the green light to behavior that would otherwise be unthinkable. I fail to see how allowing highly restricted forms of "aggressive interrogation" in very limited, extenuating circumstances is completely untenable.

I agree with you but I think your position is overlooking the difficulty of keeping it restricted enough and novel enough to have value. The more commonplace it is in practice, the less value we gain from the torture.

[myboynoah]

I think the difficulty in torture is that it is used when you have an intelligence failure and you are trying to resolve that failure. Because of that, you never know if you are torturing a valuable asset or not. The U.S. got lucky in that it was torturing some valuable assets. If you know enough to know that the assets are extremely valuable, you probably don't need to torture.

In the specific case of the U.S. torturing al Quaeda operatives, we had an utter failure of U.S. intelligence and had to find answers quickly. Torture worked because we were lucky to torture the right people. I think the moral difficulty of torture is that you don't know the right people, you don't know what you are trying to find out, you may be torturing a relatively useless asset and you don't know until all is said and done. At that time, you are stuck with the memory of what you did to someone to get something they didn't have.

That said, if someone had kidnapped my son and I had his family member or close friend who was smugly acting as though he had knowledge and wouldn't tell me where my kid was, I believe I would be able to torture him in much worse ways than the CIA used. I also realize that if it turned out he didn't have information, I would struggle to live with the act. As I've said before, in the real world these questions are difficult.

In the case of the three that were waterboarded, we knew who they were (due to intelligence successes). We waterboarded them because of who they were and they refused to cooperate further by providing information on al-Qai'da structure and future plans. Waterboarding was reserved only for high-level, non-cooperative subjects.

I was watching The Untouchables the other night. I bet all of America cheered vigorously as Costner's Ness took out De Niro's Capone using any means necessary (particularly when Ness sends Frank Nitti falling to his death into the Chicago’s streets). The Canadian Mounty's reaction to Connery putting another bullet into the head of dead gangster to “facilitate” cooperation from the captured Capone accountant was particularly precious, and an obvious swipe at our effete northern neighbors. It was the Chicago Way.

De Palma needs to take some of the blame for his role is creating a culture where Americans would explore the limits of good behavior in order to fight a vicious enemy.

[KillerDog]

In the case of the three that were waterboarded, we knew who they were (due to intelligence successes). We waterboarded them because of who they were and they refused to cooperate further by providing information on al-Qai'da structure and future plans. Waterboarding was reserved only for high-level, non-cooperative subjects.

I think we were hoping the people we had were people who had information. We thought they were high asset targets but prior to September 11 we didn't think al Quaeda had transnational terrorist capabilities. Our intelligence community had completely failed and we used torture to catch up. I think an appropriate removal of torture from the tool box at this time is a good decision. Criticising the techniques of the past from the safety of today seems stupid to me.

[il Padrino Ute]

I think we were hoping the people we had were people who had information. We thought they were high asset targets but prior to September 11 we didn't think al Quaeda had transnational terrorist capabilities. Our intelligence community had completely failed and we used torture to catch up. I think an appropriate removal of torture from the tool box at this time is a good decision. Criticising the techniques of the past from the safety of today seems stupid to me.

I agree. We can't untorture the bastards.

Stop the practice and move on.

[Bo Diddley]

Trial over Abu Ghraib abuse will begin on April 15. This will be interesting.

I remember when the scandal broke. It was like a gut punch and I was ticked. Our combat engineer battalion was building a rapport with the Iraqi people doing a lot of good. All of that was undone. Things seemed to change after that.

https://apnews.com/article/abu-ghrai...944692a139e012

Now, three survivors of Abu Ghraib will finally get their day in U.S. court against the military contractor they hold responsible for their mistreatment.

The trial is scheduled to begin Monday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, and will be the first time that Abu Ghraib survivors are able to bring their claims of torture to a U.S. jury, said Baher Azmy, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights representing the plaintiffs.