On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:39:00 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:52:37 -0400, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:


The argument is a valid one - how often would it happen is a major
component of this debate and one that should be recognized as a valid
counter argument.

That's where the argument gets hazy. Look, in the abstract, if torturing
one would save many, I may do what it takes, or, overlook what happens,
but that doesn't excuse torture as policy.

That's a good point - then again, it depends on how you define policy.
A "policy" can take the point of view that in a strictly one-off
situation, it's acceptable. If you take the opposite view, that even
in one-off situations it's unacceptable, that's a different policy.

I acknowledge your point - it's very good and one that would require
some thought with respect to both the nature of policy and what the
potential gains might be.

The examples you presented also dodge the main question - Hitler, Stalin
and Pinochet used torture as a political instrument and not as a
technique to gain military intelligence to assess potential threats -

So, when the veil of secrecy is finally lifted, if it turns out that that
is exactly what we did? What then? I mean, rumor has it we waterboarded
one guy 183 times.

Well if so, then I would view it as wholly inappropriate if not
criminal - in concept. There is a point where the methodology becomes
useless and, in truth, morally and ethically indefensible even under
the standards of the dirty hands dilemma. Assuming that it actually
happened that is - I don't know that it actually did.

And what was that BS at abu Graib?

Heh - I was wondering when that would rear it's ugly head.

In my view, and I'm operating with the same information that most of
us are which is limited as we weren't there, it has all the hallmarks
of a true one-off situation. In this case, and I'm projecting here
based on personal experience, you had poorly trained troopers under
the direction of an inexperienced chain of command who wholly ignored
the standards set forth in both the Geneva Convention and the US
Military Codes, Standards and Practices that govern treatment of
Prisoners of War.

Karpinski claimed that her hands were tied (no pun intended) and that
she was following lawful orders of her command staff. I find that
suspect because in that situation, in particular being an officer in
the Military Police/Intelligence, she not only had an obligation to
report the abuse of the prisoners, she had a moral or ethical
obligation to resign her post effectively immediately and take the
issue to the civilian command. She was obviously complicit in the
abuse and either condoned it, ignored it or was incredibly naive about
the nature of the acts that were committed - which does not matter
anyway - she was clearly at fault.

Graner and England were clearly unbalanced personalities.
Unfortunately, that can happen even in the best trained and organized
military. Frankly, there are no excuses for what happened there in the
most egregious cases and taken as a whole, Karpinski should have been
held to account for operating what rightly could be viewed as a
chamber of horrors. Demotion wasn't enough.

Dershowitz also makes that distinction and argues that there is a moral
imperative to protect the lives of citizens - another way to put it is
that a single evil to benefit the common good, while morally
questionable, is defensible and excusable. At it's heart, that is the
argument - can torture be defended as being a valid technique when time
and lack of intelligence is of the essence.

It's arguable, and perhaps, just perhaps, defensible, in a strict one off
way, but that's not what we are talking about. We're talking blanket
policy, and from there, it's not a slippery-slope, it's a damn cliff.

True enough, but then again, we're kind of operating in the dark - we
honestly don't know what the threat level was perceived to be at that
time by our intelligence agencies. I do know that there were other
plots exposed by the use of these techniques - why that hasn't been
fully revealed I don't know - bits and pieces have come to light, but
the whole picture has never been revealed.

And I agree with you - it is a very steep slope. We can only trust
that our leaders use common sense and are guided by appropriate
ethical and moral standards.

To me, the term "torture" has been expanded beyond any common sense. The
International Conventions proscribe the use of almost all cohersive
tactics - even those that are relatively benign such as hallucinogens,
"truth" serums and other passive techniques (sleep deprivation,
sound/light, etc.). That just seems to me, in this day and age of
advanced medical technology, that these types of cohersive tactics
should be considered as a valid intelligence tool and should be used to
gain intelligence not available via normal methods.

Yeah, but ... those International Conventions aren't for the protection
of our enemies, they are for the protection of our own. The question to
ask is, what tactics do we want our soldiers to be subject to?

Do you honestly believe that our more civilized standards of military
conduct will be adhered to by what is basically a 5th Century
religious movement practiced by what are, to use your term,
barbarians? Do I really have to point out the atrocity perpetrated by
Al Qaeda on Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker?

We only need to look back at our most recent involvement in Vietnam to
put lie that concept. Describe the way our aviators and soldiers were
treated by the Viet Cong and NVA and then describe the way their POWs
were treated by our troops.

No offense but it's a specious argument. This isn't conventional war
here -it's fighting a guerrilla war and those rules are entirely
different. Al Qaeda doesn't play by the same rules as we do.

This argument reminds me of the Beirut kidnappings. Two diplomats were
kidnapped at the same time - one US and one Russian. As the story was
told in the press at the time, the Russians basically told the
kidnappers through what ever channels they had that they knew who the
kidnappers were, where their families were and suggested in the
strongest possible way that their guy needed to be returned ASAP or
else. Six hours later, he was released. Our guy spent five months in
captivity while we fiddled around with "diplomacy".