Cheney/Bush Support USA Torturing People

[bevin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051025/ap_on_go_co/congress_detainees

Quote:

---

Congressional negotiators are feeling heat from the White House and constituents as they consider whether to back a Senate-approved ban on torturing detainees in U.S. custody or weaken it as the White House prefers.

Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration is floating a proposal that would allow the president to exempt covert agents outside the Defense Department from the prohibition.

---

Quote:

---

Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss met last week with McCain, R-Ariz., and suggested excluding from the torture ban overseas clandestine counterterrorism operations by agencies other than the Pentagon "if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."

---

Where is the SDA Church's public position statement?

/Bevin

[Bravus]

I'm staying away from this one - I remember the Gonzales flap... No, the heck with it, I won't be silenced: let's just call this the 'torture administration' and be done with it.

[Dr. Shane]

One really needs to see the definition of torture before they take a strong postion for or against it.

If we are taking about cutting people's tounges out with razor blades, pulling out finger nails with pliars, feeding people feet first into tree chipping machines or cutting fingers off one by one, than I am dead-set against it.

If we are talking about putting people into cold or hot rooms for several days and making them sweat or shiver, I am not too concerned about that. Making someone sleep in their urine or other psycological "torchure" isn't as objectionable as what Saddam did and what other Islamic countries continue to do today.

[Bravus]

Of course, but the aim is to transcend what one's enemies do, not descend to it.

[Ron Lambert]

What if we have hold of a member of a terrorist cell that is about to detonate an atomic bomb in a major U.S. city in six hours? Would not drugs and torture and any other means available be warranted, to find out enough to stop it? Will God really count it as moral for us to refrain from use of torture, and by so doing (or not doing) allow millions of innocent people to be incinerated--when we DID have the means of preventing it?

[Bravus]

I think we've been around that particular mulberry bush many times, so let me just comment that extreme examples make bad law.

[there buster]

Yes, let's just call this "the torture administration." Like the congressional resolutions, such declarations conveniently make those who proclaim them look righteous. It's easy to make such statements when they put someone else at risk.

It's all the easier when we don't define our terms carefully, and any sort of discomfort can be called torture.

This mindset is called "the greater moral purity of the uninvolved."

[there buster]

Quote:

---

extreme examples make bad law.

---

True, but for those of us who were actually targeted, It's difficult to think of turning airliners into flying bombs and exterminating 3000 people at a stroke as an act of "moderation."

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

extreme examples make bad law.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

True, but for those of us who were actually targeted, It's difficult to think of turning airliners into flying bombs and exterminating 3000 people at a stroke as an act of "moderation."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Read carefully, Ed. That's an extreme situation, but I was specifically referring to the specific extreme example - a captured member of a terrorist cell of which other members have a suitcase nuke in an American city - that Ron cited.

My point was that using extreme, and extremely improbable, hypotheticals like that to make law is a bad idea. I've been talking with people who are actually involved in intelligence service, and their universal answer is 'torture doesn't work, and is not worth it'. They comment that the tortured person will tell the torturer exactly what he thinks they want to hear, so the only time it might be useful is if you already know the answer. Or - the real use of torture - as a terror tactic for cowing others.

But - and I say this in all seriousness: when you take up terror tactics to as part of the War on Terror, it's lost.

I don't expect to convince you on this issue, but I do want to hold you to the high standard of actually addressing the arguments raised, not strawman versions of them, that you helpfully hold me to.

[Bravus]

And apropos of the 'greater moral purity of the uninvolved' - I am involved in humankind, which is why I have strong opinions on this issue. And by the way, Australians have died in terrorist bombings in Bali too: about as many per capita as Americans died on September 11.

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

bevin said:

Where is the SDA Church's public position statement?

/Bevin

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't think the SDA Church should get involved publicly at all. There's too much combining religion and politics already going on from the radical right; the churches should stay out of that type of discussions.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."

There should be no politicking from the pulpits.

[Gregory Matthews]

FYI, I watched a program last night in which it reported that the lives of several hundred schhool children were saved because torture was used on a person in custody.

That program also reported that the torture was NOT necessary the same information was obtained, at about the same time, in a manner that did not use torture.

Based upon that program, some might say that some in that administration were willing to use torture.

[Gregory Matthews]

By the way, I probably should have added two additional comments to my above post:

1) The program that I referenced was Commander In Chief, and was telecast from 8 PM to 9 PM, in the area where I live.

2) The President, did fire the person who allowed (ordered) the torture.

Just thought that I would add to the conversation.

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/icon_salut.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Jeannieb43 said:

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Where is the SDA Church's public position statement?

/Bevin

---

I don't think the SDA Church should get involved publicly at all. There's too much combining religion and politics already going on from the radical right; the churches should stay out of that type of discussions.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."

There should be no politicking from the pulpits.

---

While I agree that churchs should refraim from "politicking"

on political issues, I also believe that the church should encourage the avoidance of the use of torture as a policy within intelligence communities and should also encourage civilized behavior in civilized societies. SDAs are noted within its own circles of 'setting standards' of behavior, so why not set the standard of civilized behavior within civilized societies? This gives the SDA a position of maintaining good will within cultures and promotes good relationships within open societies.

But as to commenting upon govermental policy and critizing political administrations, yeah, the churches should avoid politics.

[Gregory Matthews]

Two additional comments:

Many millitary persons beleive:

a) Torture is ineffective. It does not generally give you valid information. Under torture, people say what they think people want to hear, regardless of its truth. Most information obtained under torture is invalid.

In the International field, we often set the standard. If we allow torture, we will set a standard that will place our military personnel in harm. It is in our best interest not to engage in torture.

[there buster]

Without clear definitions, all we have is the opinions of some people, including the opinions of journalists.

As has been demonstrated, some are willing to attribute anything to this administration.

[there buster]

I recognize both of the points in your last post, and generally agree with them.

However, our restraint has not had any effect on the terrorists, who videotape their beheadings of prisoners. It had no effect upon the Communists, who routinely tortured American airmen during the Vietnam War.

The notion that other nations--and especially non-national actors such as the terrorists, will be guided by our behavior is, I think, largely wishful thinking.

Nevertheless, we should not engage in torture. Whether we should subject enemy detainees to discomfort, I think, is another question. After all, being detained is discomfiting. That's why, without definitions, the rush to condemn people is largely a matter of moral posturing.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

using extreme, and extremely improbable, hypotheticals

---

Until 9/11, crashing airliners into buildings was considered extremely improbable, that's why most of the passengers didn't resist.

Beheadings and homicide bombers used to be considered extremely improbable.

If these guys can get a suitcase nuke, they will use it. Japanese terrorists have already used nerve gas.

I'm not sure "extremely improbable" has any significance in this context any more.

[Bravus]

That's not the improbability (although if you know much about nukes, suitcase ones are pretty improbable). The improbability in that scenario is that you just happen to capture one person from the cell in the narrow window before the bomb is used. There are just too many coincidences for it to work, even as the plot of a Tom Clancy novel.

Deciding to allow torture based on that scenario is bad law. Consideration of torture (and I agree with you that we need to define our terms carefully, and there might be forms of discomfort and deprivation that don't constitute torture narrowly defined) ought not to be based on these kinds of scenarios, but on its more regular uses.

And, as you've said, we're in the realm of opinion, but the opinions I'm trying to listen to are those of people with experience in intelligence contexts (and their politics is frequently very different from mine), not the vengeful man in the street.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

experience in intelligence contexts (and their politics is frequently very different from mine), not the vengeful man in the street.

---

Yeah, cute jab. So much for "civility." Don't worry, no need to issue ultimata, I'm off this thread now.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . .not the vengeful man in the street. "

Ed, I do not see that as being directed at any one person. Rather I saw it as a generalization that implied that some people may be such. I certainly did not see it as directed at you.

[Bravus]

Thanks Gregory, you've read it as it was written. Ed, once again, has incorrectly assumed the worst. But never mind, he's off this thread now, so he won't be reading these clarifications.

[Ron Lambert]

Bravus, you attempt to dismiss the scenario of a member of a cell being captured prior to that cell's planned detonation of a nuke in a major city. The possibility of a suitcase nuke being detonated in a U.S. city is taken seriously by Homeland Security Planners. The old Soviet Union is believed to have made such devices, and some are said to be missing.

In actual fact, most terrorist plots are thwarted when some member of the cell is captured, and he either is made to talk, or important information is found with him--such as files on his computer. Government agents seek to infiltrate the communities where terrorist cells are known to operate, and from time to time terrorists are taken into custody prior to launching their terrorist strike; hopefully all the members of the cell, but more often only one member is captured without the knowledge of other members of the cell. This is how it works, and this is what has thwarted numerous terrorist strikes in the US in recent years, according to the administration.

It is funny that you ridicule the scenario I suggested as being improbable "as the plot of a Tom Clancy novel." Tom Clancy, in his 1994 novel, Debt of Honor, envisioned a terrorist crashing an airliner into the US Capitol, killing the entire Congress, Supreme Court, and all but two White House officials. Remind you of anything? 9/11 was even more improbable than Clancy's novel. Imagine THREE airliners crashing into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, plus a forth that was probably intended to crash into the Capitol building or White House, but was stopped by the heroic revolt of passengers. What Clancy envisioned in 1994 was tame and conservative, compared to what really happened on 9/11.

Greg, as for the liberal litany that "torture is useless because the victim will tell you anything he thinks you want to know" is not really true, in most cases. The effectiveness of any form of interrogation depends on the person. Some might actually be ignorant; some might be really tough and motivated and determined never to talk; but the vast majority are not supermen, and will begin talking the first instant they feel real pain and fear. They will tell the truth because they have been drugged, and are hooked up to lie detectors, which they think will catch them if they lie.

If torture did not work, then no one would ever use it.

I saw that episode of Commander in Chief too. The "alternative" to torturing the individual terrorist that had been captured, was sending in a strike force to invade a training camp in the Bekaa valley in Lebanon--thus using fatal force as well as torture and pain against many people, while illegally invading a foreign country.

The presidential subordinate who went ahead and authorized the torture of the captive terrorist, was indeed fired. But that is just the way the screenwriter was thinking. The character did mention the common counter to the idea that we should accord to others the same constitutional rights we enjoy ourselves. She said: "The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact." I thought the writer did a pretty good job of representing the different views on this subject, as at has actually been debated in recent years. But the decision to have the president fire the person who authorized the torture meant that the president was acting to surround herself with yesmen (or yeswomen). The fact was that the president had indeed used the words "I do not want to HEAR that torture has been used." This was construed to mean that torture could be used as long as she was not advised of it. This is what presidential advisers have believed for many years, in various administrations. It is called "maintaining deniability." If the president did not want that to be thought by her underlings, she should have learned her lesson and then made it clear she wanted it understood that she was not going to be using that "metaphor" in the future. Firing her subordinate actually amounted to holding her subordinate to blame for her own error in communication.

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If torture did not work, then no one would ever use it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Torture works very well. Just as a terror tactic rather than as an information extraction one.

For the rest of the staff, clearly Osama reads Tom Clancy. No, I don't think I can safely joke in this thread. The probability of each of the individual *pieces* in that scenario happening is lowish, but I agree, improbable, weird and horrible things have been happening lately. What is *vanishingly* improbable is all the pieces happening in the right order and at the right time.

OK, let me put it out there in clear terms with no dancing around the issue:

1. I believe torture is always wrong.

2. I believe it profoundly damages the torturer as well as the victim.

3. I can conceive of instances - incredibly improbable, but possible - in which the wrong of torture is outweighed by another potential wrong.

4. I believe that, in those instances, it will be clear to everyone involved that that's the case, and the relevant anti-torture laws would be broken even if they were in place.

5. I believe creating laws allowing torture is a horrible idea, because it will tend to make it a first resort rather than a last resort.

Again, torture is always wrong, and diminishes us as human beings. If Ron's scenario ever happens, I will accept and acknowledge that the potential wrong of a million deaths is greater than the wrong of torture. But Ron's scenario is a bad basis for laws.

[bevin]

It is absolutely amazing to me to watch conservative members of the SDA denomination - a denomination which traditionally was completely against bearing arms during an active war - supporting the use of torture as a standard tool of the USA government.

Stunning. The SDA denomination is prepared to make public statements opposing gay rights, and not prepared to make public statements opposing torture as an implement of USA national policy.

Furthermore is it very clear that Abu Ghrab, Gitmo, and the CIA flying people to 3rd countries for torture has

(a) bolstered the Anti-USA cause around the world

( damaged the USA's support even amongst its traditional friends, and

© done nothing particularly positive in either the Iraq or Terror theaters of operation.

/Bevin