Comments on: Updated: The Politics Of Torture

By: Frank Brady

Frank Brady — Sun, 24 May 2009 15:16:25 +0000

With respect, any “enhanced interrogation technique” that uses pain as a means of extracting “information” (whether or not it meets the legal definition of torture) crosses an important Bright Line, for practical as well as moral reasons.

1. The end does NOT justify the means. To practice moral relativism places one on a very slippery slope.

2. “Information” obtained as a consequence of such techniques is notoriously unreliable. Those being interrogated–even the innocent–will ultimately say anything to make the pain stop–including implicating others who may also be innocent. This sets up a chain that leads to bad outcomes.

Frank

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Sun, 24 May 2009 03:50:40 +0000

With respect to Robert Glisson’s posts (from McCarthy) – I find it interesting that McCarthy is worried about the Constitutional rights of the accused torturers but no one else’s rights, morality , or anything else. As for the “national emergency” – it is still necessary to deny any due process to people 8 years after apprehending them??!! When the hell does this emergency ever end? Also – just because Democrats/Republicans are odious or hypocritical in no way justifies the abuse of government power by the rival gang of Republicans/Democrats.
By the way, my grandfather was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques AND no nuclear weapon was dropped on Nazi Germany so I guess we can say that the enhanced interrogation techniques “worked” – at least this would be the Cheney logic.

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Sat, 23 May 2009 23:11:07 +0000

Sorry about not quoting my source, I'm not all that good at this. I know to quote or add reference locations on essays, but was unaware of the requirement for comments. Until now, that is. The statement that I referred to reading in a previous post came from "Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review Online." The article was titled "A Dishonest Debate," dated 4-28-09. I hope this is sufficient. Please have a good weekend. [Thanks for the link]

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Sat, 23 May 2009 14:40:27 +0000

One of the things I read about this subject is that: A. It was done when it was legal. B. When “enhanced interrogation” came up for voting in Congress, as to whether to add it to the list of no-nos in the Military Justice Code, the Democrats wanted Waterboarding included as being a violation but the Republicans voted against it being included, and waterboarding was not listed as a violation of the Military Legal Code because it was not listed among the restrictions, however, the Military and CIA did not use it after the matter came up for vote. The Democrats gained the majority in Congress within six months of the matter having come up, and could have revived it but didn’t. They never brought the subject up again until now and to date, to my knowledge, Waterboarding is still legal. Something the Democrats have failed to mention. How can they charge a person with committing a crime, if it is not a crime? Only Congress knows. If I am incorrect, please delete, not everything I read is true.

[The problem with what you’ve written is that you offer no links or proof to support what you allege. Please provide links.]

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:07:05 +0000

(1) Behind Scheuer's writings is a desire to protect the agency (CIA); however, the country does not exist for the purpose of serving the CIA. Nevertheless, I can see why he or other intelligence professionals don't wish to be scapegoated for trying to satisfy the erratic ideological whims of political schnooks like Bush, Obama, Pelosi et al. (2) Political trials are generally bad ideas and often the techniques of the Stalinists, etc. - a show trial of idiots like John Yoo would serve no purpose and would turn him and their ilk into political martyrs. It is quite likely that in the 5 years that some "Special Prosecutor" does the usual prosecutorial abuses, some jackass Abdul will kill some folks at a 7-11 in Omaha and the neo-con Hannities will say "this only happened because Obama stopped torture...". (3) You are absolutely correct that the Iraq war and the lack of any exit criteria in Afghanistan/Pakistan is a far bigger crime than the abuse of prisoners. (4) However, we have not had ANY nuclear bombs under Manhattan - theoretical "what-ifs" do not justify enhanced interrogation. One shouldn't trample principles of justice to make life easier for cops and CIA agents. [The reason I mentioned Scheuer is because his motives are not purely to protect his agency. I would not have dredged his work up were he an agency Zombie like Jack Bauer.]

By: Bob Schaefer

Bob Schaefer — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:21:58 +0000

Scheuer’s piece in the Post is on the money. Thanks for calling attention to it.

He writes: “Obama and his team will ‘reluctantly’ agree to a congressional investigation of former Bush officials and serving CIA officers, politically targeted indictments from Holder’s minions and perhaps even a truth commission to prove that even the United States can aspire to be a half-baked Third World country.”

[I cringe every time I read the words “truth commission” and “hate crime.” What is this country coming to?]

Sadly, Scheuer said tonight on Glenn Beck that, due to his actions during the Clinton administration, he himself may be subject to federal indictment or interrogation by government truth squaders.

Shameful.

By: Virgil

Virgil — Fri, 22 May 2009 02:25:54 +0000

Today in New York the FBI announced the arrested of four black Muslims on terrorism related charges. In this case, as with other recent cases involving domestic jihadists (Fort Dix case, JFK case, etc), there was heavy use of FBI provocateurs, the use of the Patriot Act, and other police state legislation and tactics. Now we see two different sides on this issue. On one hand we have the authoritarian right (including the neo-conservatives) which tells us that there is a serious threat of terrorism not just from foreign-based al-Qaeda, but domestic jihadists inspired by the al-Qaeda ideology (but lacking any formal connection to international jihadist groups) and that we need more police state powers to preempt this threat to security. On the other hand you have libertarians and leftists claiming that the threat is all exaggerated and that this is all an attempt for grabbing more power by the Federal government and\or to incite more fear to push for the aggressive neo-conservative foreign policy which is aimed at Muslim countries like Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Where does the truth lie in all of this? How does one balance between confronting domestic jihadists and resisting attempts by the state of expand its powers?