The Atlantic - Latest Comments in In defense of torture

Re: In defense of torture

Dash RipRock III — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:50:31 -0000

Al Gore has really stepped in it this time. He could have spent the rest of his global warming career collecting money by spreading fear over events that were a centure or at least half century in the future. Oh, but that wasn't good enough for Big Al. He's now told the biggest global warming whopper of his alarmist career:

AL GORE HAS GUARANTEED THAT THE NORTHERN POLAR ICE CAP WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE IN FIVE YEARS!!!

When I heard this I assumed it was a rumor started by skeptics to make Gore look bad. It wasn't until I viewed the video that I realized what Gore had done. Gore has started a five year credibility countdown timer ticking and it's up to all of us to make sure that he is held accountable and proven to be a fraud when his dire prediction aimed at drumming up support doesn't come close to comming true.

The mainstream media isn't going to let this video see the light of day because they, unlike Al, understand the precarious position in which he has placed himself.

It is therefore up to us to spread the word about Big Al's prediction. He must be exposed for the fearmongering opportunist that he has become.

To view the video, please visit the following site and click on the picture of Big Al holding up five fingers.

http://www.hootervillegazette.com

While visiting this site, you might want to watch a preview of the film "Not Evil, Just wrong" or watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which is found in the video section. Happy Viewing!!!

Re: In defense of torture

verite — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:10:30 -0000

There is an actual historical record of attitudes toward the A-bombing of Japan. Why base an argument on speculation, rather than on the widely known facts? General Eisenhower, not only a 'potential President,' but Truman's actual successor, as well as a military leader and strategist with some small standing, reported in his memoirs that he opposed the use of the A-Bomb. General MacArthur (incredibly) was NOT consulted prior to the bombing, but said afterwards that he thought it was a mistake. Look at the records of Stimson, Forrestal, and others on this, as well.

Also: Although the U.S. went along with Bomber Harris's anti-civilian "conventional" night bombing raids against European and Japanese cities, the preferred Army Air Force strategy was targetting of military, industrial, and logistical points.

On the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush torture: Aside from the "anti-War" opposition, there has been massive, open opposition to the policy from within the serving military as well as from retired military and other circles close to the military. Which of the '08 Presidential contenders backed them? What forced the decision on them?

Re: In defense of torture

MoeLarryAndJesus — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:05:02 -0000

Sorn says: "Hi Moe. Thought you'd fallen off the edge of the world."

Thanks for noticing, but nah. After so many months of obsessive political posting I decided to take a break after the FORCES OF EVIL got their heads kicked in.

I am truly proud of America. Now let's hope the new boss lives up to our best ideals - not the degenerate, obscene, criminal, evil ideals of the fucking Bushpig scumbags.

I'm even willing to ignore this sad Rick Warren business. For now.

Re: In defense of torture

Sorn — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:25:18 -0000

Hi Moe. Thought you'd fallen off the edge of the world.

Re: In defense of torture

MoeLarryAndJesus — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:09:17 -0000

Douthat voted for Dumbya in 2004 despite a clear knowledge that torture was an official instrument of policy in the administration. Therefore Douthat knowingly approved of torture by voting for it to continue. And he would do it again.

This latest waffle by Douthat is really disgusting and reminiscent of his past defenses of his hero Saint Reagan against charges of racism. Conservatism never fails! Therefore ANY president would have behaved just as Bush did after 9/11. Really? Would every other president have invaded Iraq? Would every other president have fucked that invasion up in spectacular fashion? Would every other president have partied with his rich pals while New Orleans was drowning?

This vapid prick of a president has done many things no other president has done. Making torture the open and notorious policy of the US is just one of them. And Douthat supported him, then and now. He's just trying to pretend otherwise to look good in public.

Re: In defense of torture

Ottovbvs — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:15:16 -0000

The notion that there is any equivalency between torture and an act of war directed against another nation aimed at breaking their will to resist or damaging them economically is surely deeply flawed. The bombing of London by the Luftwaffe or Hamburg by the British; U boat sinkings of merchantmen; or the two year siege of Leningrad in which thousands died of starvation; meet a certain crazy standard of logic. But atrocities against Jewish or Russian civilians behind the lines, or the Rape of Nanking, surely not, and they are the category into which torture falls. If you can't tell the difference what can I say.

Re: In defense of torture

Sorn — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:58:22 -0000

Amitav wrote "Sorn, aren't there provisions for foreign nationals working with governments (eg mercenaries)? Why would Saudis fighting on behalf of Taliban (Afghan govt at time) be any different? Thanks for clarifications."

In all honesty I don't know. Its a pertinent question. Conceivably, could Backwater employees captured by agents of a foreign government be tried and held the same way we hold "enemy combatants?" Sort of puts the shoe on the other foot when you look at it that way doesn't it?

To answer Persia I don't know how status is determined, and if someone is given a hearing under UCMJ to determine whether the Geneva convention applies. If it does happen the American Public probably doesn't hear about it.

Lastly John wrote:

I honestly can't imagine the level of rationalization that must go on in the heads of people who think its fine and dandy to keep folks locked up indefinitely with no charges. Do you think that because you wear a crucifix and have white skin you're immune to having your habeus corpus rights taken away? This is the definition of a slippery slope.

And if you are down with Gitmo you are no longer allowed to call yourself conservative. I can't think of a less conservative act than the betrayal of the reason for our country's founding.

I never said I was down with Gitmo, and I certainly never brought race into the matter. Someone had to explain the administration's legal reasoning behind Gitmo and explain that while the spirit of the Geneva Conventions were violated, (I only say possibly because I haven't been there and I don't presume to know everything) the letter was probably kept. The Habeas Corpus mention was meant to draw attention between the parallels at gitmo and the controversy surrounding the Charles I and the English civil war, which is from where we get the Write of Habeas Corpus in the first place. As much as it should be freedom from arbitrary arrest is not a human right, it's a civil right, and we have to remain vigilant lest it be taken away.

Re: In defense of torture

Little L liberal — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:35:42 -0000

Despite what charges of thread-jacking preceded, there is in fact a strong link between torture, Truman, and the bomb.

Many Japanese officers after the war explained that they would not surrender to the Allies because

A) a cultural legacy that placed honor above defeat and death

AND

B) the experience of Japanese soldiers being tortured and killed by Chinese soldiers earlier in the war and in previous Sino-Japanese conflicts.

Since the Japanese were torturers, they expected to be tortured once captured and did not believe the American promises that they would not fall under any harm after a peaceful surrender.

Like those complaining about thread-jacking remind us: This is about Bush. And the fact that Bush has authorized the use of torture has meant the forfeiture of the moral high-ground which American legitimately lay claim to after WWII.

Re: In defense of torture

Sophie — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:41:10 -0000

The reasons for bombing a Japanese city may be discussed, in the 'it was a way to end the war' fashion, but I don’t like the 'Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing' phrasing. I always separate the two cities.

The reason above can be defended for the first bomb in Hiroshima, but does it stand for Nagasaki? If a nuclear bomb was the definitive way of saying 'you have no choice but surrender', why would they need a second one?

Maybe to test a slightly improved version.

Re: In defense of torture

jim — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:39:18 -0000

sorry just another historical note (i know this is supposed to be about torture but it seems to me that the sum of the conversation is that the context of the use of these methods are key to deciding upon their morality). The Japanese were actually seriously considering surrender and were attempting to communicate this through diplomatic channels at the time of the bomb (a mis-translation of one of their announcements hastened the use of the bomb).

Re: In defense of torture

Persia — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:54:39 -0000

According to the Bush administration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed divulged information of tremendous value during his detention

And we all know the Bush administration has never, ever deceived us in any way. Please.

Re: In defense of torture

Andrew — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:37:40 -0000

I know that I'm late to the party, but I've got to respond to Scott's argument that the "left" are being inconsistent by claiming that a) morals are relative and that b) torture is always wrong.

The claim that morals are not absolute is not the same as the claim that morals are arbitrary, and it is illustrative to use the theft example that he cites.

The reason that most people would agree that stealing a crust of bread to feed one's starving family is morally justified is not because theft is just some arbitrary moral marker; rather, it's the claim that the moral consequence of stealing food is less than the moral consequence of allowing one's family to starve to death. That's where the relativity in moral relative comes from: theft is wrong, but it's a lessor wrong when compared to the alternative of allowing one's family to die.

Now consider something like rape. Is it possible to conceive of some circumstance that would justify me raping a woman? Well, I suppose if someone were holding a bunch of children hostage and threatening their murder unless I raped a certain woman and for some reason I couldn't go the police and there were, literally, no alternatives...

But as you can see, the scenario is already hopelessly contrived. If the only way to justify a moral violation is to imagine utterly implausible circumstances then it's fairly safe to say that, in practice, that's a moral rule that shouldn't be violated even if we can imagine some outlandish hypothetical where we should violate it.

We find all the hallmarks of this when it comes to torture. There's a reason that the never-actually-observed-in-fact ticking time bomb scenario is frequently used to justify torture. It's necessary to contrive such an unlikely scenario to even hypothesize a moral consequence where failing to torture someone would be morally worse than agreeing to torture someone.

The amazing thing is not only that people don't see it as the same sort of hypothetical that could be used to justify rape or any other extreme violation of our moral norms but that they then turn around and use that implausible hypothetical rationalization to justify torture in circumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with ticking time bombs.

The supreme irony, however, is that it seems that it's proponents of moral absolutism that are the most prone to doing just that.

Re: In defense of torture

Doctor Jay — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:16:36 -0000

Well, I don't support the idea that dropping the bomb was morally indefensible. It is exactly as morally defensible as fighting a war is.

Declaring war means you're going to kill people, and not just soldiers. I wish more people knew this, had it condensed into their bones, because if they did, we'd have fewer wars.

I find the Allied bombing campaign in Europe less morally defensible than the A-bombs, because it did less good in ending the war quickly. Air superiority theorists love to tell us how they can win wars with air power alone, and they have been shown to be wrong every single time with one exception: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I don't think the Japanese, as they were in 1945 would have quit if we had invaded them. I think they would have taken to the hills and fought to the death. We might still be finding pockets of them. That's bad for us, and bad for them.

And so torture, like "air superiority" is a myth that doesn't work.

Furthermore, there's a difference between dropping a bomb and torturing a prisoner that I find ethically important. When you drop a bomb, the plane carrying it can, in principle, be shot down. The actors are indedpendent, and responsible for their own safety.

This is not the case for a prisoner, who has surrendered rather than fight to his or her own death. Which gives the jailkeeper some level of responsibility for the prisoner's safety. Thus torture is an abuse of position. That it may be expected from some quarters doesn't change that.

Re: In defense of torture

stonetools — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:07:13 -0000

We don't have proof that ANY method of interrogation is going to be effective. "Friendly" interrogation methods can also produce misinformation. Then there is this:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded while being interrogated by the CIA. According to the Bush administration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed divulged information of tremendous value during his detention. He is said to have helped point the way to the capture of Riduan Isamuddin (AKA Hambali), the Indonesian terrorist responsible for the 2002 bombings of night clubs in Bali. According to the Bush administration, he also provided information on an Al Qaeda leader in England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Water-boarding, arguably, DID work to produce actionable info.

Re: In defense of torture

jim — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:58:17 -0000

For what its worth Albert Einstein, whose urging helped set-up the Manhatten project, was convinced that FDR would no have used the bomb on Japan. (although he did write a second letter urging thhat the bomb never be used which was left unopened after FDR's death). I think its a strangely American perspective that suggests an inevitabilty to the use of the bomb.

In terms of Bush i think this is an even harder sell

Re: In defense of torture

Persia — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:54:48 -0000

That means one thing: if he is told that he has to have Jihadist Fanatic X waterboarded in order to find out where the tactical nuclear weapon is buried so he can save Buffalo, he will do it.

Let's continue to be pragmatic: What proof do we have that waterboarding Jihadist Fanatic X will be effective? Why wouldn't Fanatic X simply say that the bomb is at the post office, when it's actually behind the sports stadium? The fact is, when you're down to one person and a ticking time bomb, you have already failed. Jack Bauer doesn't exist and will not be able to save the day.

Re: In defense of torture

John — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:52:55 -0000

RE: the enemy combatant conversation

This entire debate is sickening.

I honestly can't imagine the level of rationalization that must go on in the heads of people who think its fine and dandy to keep folks locked up indefinitely with no charges. Do you think that because you wear a crucifix and have white skin you're immune to having your habeus corpus rights taken away? This is the definition of a slippery slope.

And if you are down with Gitmo you are no longer allowed to call yourself conservative. I can't think of a less conservative act than the betrayal of the reason for our country's founding.

Re: In defense of torture

stonetools — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:40:54 -0000

Coming late to the discussion....

Based on my study of WW2, I think that Truman's decision was right, and did save lives in the long run.

I think that Mark Bowden has it right, pretty much. I think that there are some hard men out there in al-Queda that simply aren't going to be " friended' into divulging crucial info, no matter how earnestly the ACLU believes that. The Army manual that people seem to accept as the Bible does condone the use of coercive methods 9 stress positions, etc) that would fall within many liberal's definition of torture.

Finally, I just can't summon much moral outrage at KSM being water-boarded. Folks, this guy planned the mass murder of 3000 people, some of whom burned to death or otherwise died in horrifying circumstances. As far as I'm concerned, he should be hung or executed by firing squad. That would be justice.

Re: In defense of torture

Matt — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:08:14 -0000

It's important not to confuse what we know now--and what we have decided now--with what we knew and would have decided in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. We now know that the "ticking time bomb" situation essentially never arises. And we now know that such a situation didn't obtain just after 9/11. But back then most people assumed that was the situation. We now know torture is almost never effective. That wasn't clear back then. (Or rather, it was clear to experts in interrogation, but not to informed people generally speaking.) We now know that "winking" at light torture in a perceived exingency invariably leads to much worse--namely, outright torture as a matter of policy. U.S. policymakers made moral and practical mistakes. What really matters is that they doubled up on them. Very much can be forgiven as to the immediate response to 9/11--the three to six months, if you'll remember--of outright confusions and, even at the top, barely suppressed panic. (Remember the "credible report" that a Soviet suitcase nuke had been smuggled into Manhattan? I heard that rumor from people close the mayor and from people who should have been in a position to know in the Defense Department.) All of you, even those who express the most outrage, would have sinned, too. Much less can be forgiven about the hardening of torture into policy over the course of months stretching into years.

Re: In defense of torture

section9 — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:08:04 -0000

Let's clear something up right now.

Barack Obama is President of the United States because he is a supremely pragmatic politician. That means one thing: if he is told that he has to have Jihadist Fanatic X waterboarded in order to find out where the tactical nuclear weapon is buried so he can save Buffalo, he will do it.

Even if liberal bloggers scream all day long about waterboarding.

Keeping hundreds of thousands of registered voters alive is much more important than being able to look at yourself in the mirror. Obama knows this. But you voted for him AND gave him your money.

Re: In defense of torture

WilyArmadilla — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:53:25 -0000

regarding Truman's use of 'The Bomb' on Japan - it's fairly easy, with what we know NOW about radiocative fallout, etc. to condemn the use of a nuclear weapon.

But remember that in those days they were testing nuclear bombs in the deserts of New Mexico and Nevada. The full horror was neither completely known nor understood. Yes, we know NOW how terrible a weapon it is, but consider the times.

We saw the firestorm at Dresden, the Blitzkrieg, Stalingrad, the Rape of Nanking, Manilla and on and on and on. In the maelstrom of such violence, of such horror and suffering, could Truman, or any man, have envisioned that stopping such barbarism would end up being even MORE horrifying and inhumane?

To compare the age-old practice of torture, with its well-known deficiencies and unproductivity, to using a weapon whose destructive scope was incomprehensible...well, that's not even close to being intellectually honest.

Re: In defense of torture

Apsaras — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:49:36 -0000

And you cannot compare the training of US Soldiers and the little shows the military puts on for "journalists" like Hitchens to actual torture. Simulated waterboarding in a controlled environment where the subject is not onlu fully aware of his situation, but aware that he isn't actually going die, is nothing like the real thing. You might as well compare a fencing match with a back alley knife fight.

And what does it say of Hitchens's total narcissism that he had to be "waterboarded" personally before he was willing to concede that it was torture. Get the pentagon on the phone! If we drop a few cluster bombs on his neighborhood, we might get him turned around on this war just yet.

Re: In defense of torture

Persia — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:09:44 -0000

Sorn, Gitmo is still a violation because the Geneva Conventions say that every person picked up on the battlefield has a right to a hearing to determine his/her status. You can't declare someone an 'enemy combatant' without a hearing.

Glenn Greenwald takes Douthat down this morning, by the way.

Re: In defense of torture

Amitav — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:32:59 -0000

Sorn, aren't there provisions for foreign nationals working with governments (eg mercenaries)? Why would Saudis fighting on behalf of Taliban (Afghan govt at time) be any different? Thanks for clarifications.

Re: In defense of torture

Sorn — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:40:08 -0000

Again I would like to state that none of the above posts are representative of any view on my part condoning torture. I just wanted to explain a few things and to ask about definitions. Its funny, although the letter of the laws have been kept the current administration has arguably broken itself upon the rock of principle. In spiritu virtuteque neither of which are very apparent at present.