The Post Election Thread

[MrRain422]

I don't see where we owe a terrorist from another country due process. I also think thwarting or preventing terrorist attacks is more important that someone's perception of our standing in the world.

 

As for the reliability of the information, there are certainly many methods that probably have varying degrees of success. I just don't think you need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

First off, we're not just talking about people from other countries -- until the courts forced them to act, there were several American citizens being held as enemy combatants anyway.

 

Also, again, there is no real reason to think any terrorist attacks are being thwarted through torture. All real evidence suggests that torture gives unreliable information, especially when compared to more proven techniques that don't diminish our own values, and our place in the world. And maintaining respect in the world is very important in preventing terrorist attacks. Who do you think it is that is threatening to attack us anyway? Actually following through with our professed values will help to get help from the rest of the world in fighting terrorism rather than assisting terrorists in recruiting new allies to aide them in attempting to attack us. So what do we gain by torturing people?

[Sir Stewart]

Caganers: figurines of defecating world leaders in Catalan nativity scenes

 

The 'caganer' (literally 'defecator') is a feature of Catalan nativity scenes. The figure is usually tucked away in a corner of the model, far away from the manger itself, for children to find. The caganer represents fertility and equality.

 

Hell yeah. This should have its own thread!

Wow.

 

[bleedorange]

First off, we're not just talking about people from other countries -- until the courts forced them to act, there were several American citizens being held as enemy combatants anyway.

 

Also, again, there is no real reason to think any terrorist attacks are being thwarted through torture. All real evidence suggests that torture gives unreliable information, especially when compared to more proven techniques that don't diminish our own values, and our place in the world. And maintaining respect in the world is very important in preventing terrorist attacks. Who do you think it is that is threatening to attack us anyway? Actually following through with our professed values will help to get help from the rest of the world in fighting terrorism rather than assisting terrorists in recruiting new allies to aide them in attempting to attack us. So what do we gain by torturing people?

 

 

I just don't think it is an all or nothing proposition. Obviously, techniques that continually provide unreliable information should not be used. All interrogation procedures should be examined for effectiveness. Isn't most of this stuff classified? Who professes to truly know what actual techniques are being used and how accurate the information is?

 

You make it sound like torture is a technique used as a first and only resort for fun despite constantly getting bad information.

[MrRain422]

You should really read that article.

[bjorn_skurj]

There is no scientific evidence that torture is a reliable method of gathering usable intelligence. The scenario of "Holy shit, there's an atomic bomb somewhere in Duluth and we have to make Habib tell us where it is in TEN MINUTES" sounds a lot more like a TV show plot than an actual contingency to be planned for. We're better than this. I, like the vast majority of Americans, believe in a reality beyond this reality. Jesus was tortured. If we're such a Christian nation, how can we condone torture?

[Beltmann]

coercive measures

 

Andrew Sullivan, a few weeks ago:

 

"Under coercive conditions". Excuse me, but what does that mean in English? Try: Because they got intelligence from torturing people. Coercion means force. It means they forced "information" out of them. Not coax, trick, lure, force. That means the victims had no choice. And the only way in which human beings can seriously have no choice at all is by subjecting them to such severe mental and physical pain and suffering that they have no option as human beings but to tell their torturers something.

 

This is the defining line of torture: not some arbitrary comic book technique, but a psychological and physical fact: pushing another human being to the point where choice becomes unavailable to him or her. You can do this in any number of ways; it can take three seconds of electrocution or it can take two months of sleep deprivation, hypothermia and darkness. But the line it eventually crosses is the same line. Throughout human history, human beings have known what that line is, and the West was constructed on a disavowal of ever crossing it again. Why? Because a society that endorses torture commits itself not to limiting, but to extinguishing human freedom. And a protection of human freedom in its most minimal form is what our entire civilization is premised on.

 

Once that force is unleashed - and it is pure evil - it is almost impossible to stop it destroying your entire system of government. Maybe Europeans like me, who grew up in a land where torture was practiced by government widely in the distant past, and had that history dinned into us, understand this more acutely than those who have never known anything but a New World. But trust us Old Worlders passionate about the New: America and torture are mutually exclusive as ideas and realities. You can have one or the other. You cannot have both.

 

So when I read an American use the meaningless euphemism - "under coercive conditions" - as if force can be a condition that hovers in the air without anyone accountable for it, I shudder. When I read him tiptoe around what we are actually talking about, and express sympathy for those who tortured, illegally and secretly and against their oath of office, I shudder some more. Because we are numbing ourselves from moral responsibility and the only true protection we have from tyranny: the rule of law.

 

Even the word "torture" can be too vague and abstract a term. So let us state in plain English how Bush, Cheney, Tenet, et al. actually got information. They did it by subjecting prisoners to repeated drowning, or freezing, or heating, or sadistically long sleeplessness, or shackling or crucifying them until the pain could be borne no longer, or beating them until they pleaded for mercy, or threatening to kill or torture their children or wife or parents. Or all of the above in combination, in isolation, and with no surety of ever seeing the light of day again, with no right to meaningful due process of any kind, sometimes sealed off from light and sound for months at a time, or bombarded with indescribable noise day and night in cells from which there was no escape ever. This is what "under coercive conditions" actually means. It drove many of the victims into become mumbling, shaking, insane shells of human beings; it killed dozens; it drove others still to hunger strikes to try to kill themselves; and it terrified and scarred and "broke" the souls of many, many others. For what? Intelligence that cannot be trusted, and the loss of the sacred integrity of two centuries of American history. Did it save lives? We do not know. We do know that the people who are claiming it did have been unable to bring any serious case to justice based on their original claims, and are the people who are criminally responsible for the torture they have committed. Why would they not say it saved lives? And yet we have no other way to know. And we have the terrifying possibility that false information procured by torture provided a pretext to torture others in a self-perpetuating loop in which any ability to find out the actual truth is lost for ever. That, after all, is how some of the flawed intelligence that took us into Iraq was procured.

 

To paraphrase Hitch: torture poisons everything.

 

And people wonder why I seem so angry and concerned about this issue, about its centrality to this election, and about the unique, once-in-a-century chance to put it behind us before it infects us beyond cure. It is, in my judgment, the biggest single crisis we now face, because it does not simply affect our wealth or our safety, but because it affects who we are.

 

I agree with Sullivan. This is a major issue for me.

 

At the same time, I have to concede that I, like bleedorange, might be willing to look the other way in certain situations. The trouble is, most of the people tortured at Abu Ghraib weren't known to be guilty and known to possess necessary information; they were tortured to establish guilt. That is indefensible--especially since the majority of the accusations were flimsy in the first place.

[Tweedling]

And maintaining respect in the world is very important in preventing terrorist attacks.

[okp greg]

I don't see where we owe a terrorist from another country due process. I also think thwarting or preventing terrorist attacks is more important that someone's perception of our standing in the world.

 

As for the reliability of the information, there are certainly many methods that probably have varying degrees of success. I just don't think you need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

So what's the difference between an accused "terrorist from another country" and an accused american citizen that makes you think we deserve due process ourselves in America?

[MrRain422]

 

Really? You don't think that taking actions that turn large portions of the world against us makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks?

[explodo]

Really? You don't think that taking actions that turn large portions of the world against us makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks?

No kidding. Ultimately, we are reaping what we have sown. Torture is just another notch in the belt of incredible atrocities we have committed over the years.

[Tweedling]

Is that what you took from my nonverbal "comment"? I just don't agree with that statement. We as a country will never be loved by "the world". I think to some people/"large portions of the world" it does not matter what we do. They hate us and everything we stand for. But most importantly, I think that not taking some actions makes us the most vulnerable.

[MrRain422]

Is that what you took from my nonverbal "comment"? I just don't agree with that statement. We as a country will never be loved by "the world". I think to some people/"large portions of the world" it does not matter what we do. They hate us and everything we stand for. But most importantly, I think that not taking some actions makes us the most vulnerable.

 

Which things that we stand for do you think that they hate?

[mountain bed]

The Bush Legacy Project - real live, revisionist history making right before your very eyes! Catch it on a mainstream television outlet near you!

 

 

God, is this guy just too much?

[MattZ]

I have to concede that I, like bleedorange, might be willing to look the other way in certain situations.

 

But what situations would you be willing to look the other way? As I mentioned above, and bjorn illustrated more artfully, I just don't think that those certain situations exist. I think they are fictions used to justify torture in far different situations. There just never is (to my knowledge) a ticking bomb scenario where tens/hundreds/thousands will perish if we don't get that one last bit of information about whether to cut the blue wire or red wire. And any other scenario that's close, but isn't quite a ticking bomb, gets you further and further away from the "iminent harm" that proponents of torture insist that torture protects us from. All of this, again, balanced against the clear harm that torture does by providing bad information, or aiding our enemies by giving them bulletin board material for the locker room. It just doesn't make sense.

[John Smith]

The Bush Legacy Project - real live, revisionist history making right before your very eyes! Catch it on a mainstream television outlet near you!

 

They did annd have beenn doing the same thing with Reagan. It began before his term eneded and they had a goal of soemthing named after him in every state, county and municipality if possible. They basically did the same thing though they went out and told the story as they wanted it told with the goal of elevating him into the upper pantheon of great presidents.

[JUDE]

Everytime I open this thread I start humming Mel Brooks' The Inquisition.

 

Carry on.

[Tweedling]

Which things that we stand for do you think that they hate?

How about our support of Isreal?

[MrRain422]

Yes, exactly. So it's not that they hate us regardless of what we do, it's directly tied to our actions. How about that.

 

You should probably read that article I linked to on the last page too. It was written by someone who knows way more about the subject than either you or I do.

[MattZ]

How about our support of Isreal?

 

Good point.

MrRain- I agree with you on this torture thing, but there are plenty of things that terrorists hate about this country other than the fact that we torture people. Don't forget that we invaded Iraq, we propped up a regime in Iran, we are in bed with the Saudis, etc. This country has a long history of meddling in the middle east...

 

EDIT: you beat me to it -- I see you backed off of the statment a bit.

[Good Old Neon]

If we, as a nation, are willing to engage in the use of torture (which we have

[Tweedling]

Yes, exactly. So it's not that they hate us regardless of what we do, it's directly tied to our actions. How about that.

 

You should probably read that article I linked to on the last page too. It was written by someone who knows way more about the subject than either you or I do.

Aren't actions tied to beliefs?

Do you think that we have supported Isreal because we want to piss other people off or because we believe it's the right thing to do?

Do you think there may be some jealosy in their hate towards us?

[Good Old Neon]

Aren't actions tied to beliefs?

Do you think that we have supported Isreal because we want to piss other people off or because we believe it's the right thing to do?

Do you think there may be some jealosy in their hate towards us?

 

I don

[Good Old Neon]

Do you think there may be some jealosy in their hate towards us?

 

That

[Good Old Neon]

Andrew Sullivan, a few weeks ago:

 

 

 

I agree with Sullivan. This is a major issue for me.

 

Thanks for posting that.

 

Though I do not always agree with him, Andrew Sullivan is (insofar as I

[mountain bed]

They did annd have beenn doing the same thing with Reagan. It began before his term eneded and they had a goal of soemthing named after him in every state, county and municipality if possible. They basically did the same thing though they went out and told the story as they wanted it told with the goal of elevating him into the upper pantheon of great presidents.

Yeah, I guess that's to be expected from an old hack movie actor. The sad thing is evidently many fell for it.

 

This ain't really your life

Ain't really your life

Ain't really

Ain't nothin' but a movie (real to reel)

 

-Gil Scott Heron, "B-Movie"