Torture as "policy differences"

This is interesting. I am a neocon, of sorts, and a sympathetic reader of First Things. But the one thing that has concerned me for some time is the extent to which FT has hitched its wagon to the Bush administration's foreign and security policy. It took them a long time even to comment on the torture memos.

3. Can you honestly tell me that it isn't a difficult moral quandry when you essentially have a prisoner saying: "Yes, there's going to be another bombing in an American city. Soon you will know. But--f*&! you, you can't do jack. Now I want my defense lawyer from NYU." I'll count my self as anti-utilitarian as anyone, but being such does not automatically mean I'm going to blind myself to the reality (or possibly reality) or extraneous circumstances.

Ask yourself a question--interpose the hypo in part 3 into a situation where it involved someone attacking your own house, and where a guest inside your house was part of the conspiracy and had information that could save your life. When it's personal, how does it feel?

-----

I can tell you exactly how it feels. It's scary as hell. To know that a nut-job, who longs to be as brave as another of his ilk who murdered someone, knows where you live and sends some of his propaganda to your house...you fear for your children, your wife, yourself, and even your pets. So far, thankfully, all he has done is send mail to those who he disagrees with, but a health clinic in Iowa City was able to convince a judge that his intent was malicious, and a restraining order has been issued to keep him away from the clinic entrance (some 2000 ft. clearance, I believe).

Now, does that mean I am suggesting that we should torture the idiot in question, just in case he is planning something? No...absolutely not. If we resort to that then we have become just as guilty as he is. If we surrender our ethics and morals simply because of personal security, we are no better than those we hate.

Now, a question to you, Don. We have exactly this scenario playing out for us in a recently publicized terrorist incident. Dr. George Tiller was murdered recently, and Scott Roeder is being held in custody as the prime suspect. Mr. Roeder recently said that he knew of several other plots to murder healthcare professionals, and that these would be happening in the near future.

Don...should we torture Mr. Roeder in hopes that we can get him to give us more information about these plots he allegedly knows about? Why or why not?

"The reaction of a friend of mine to a smarmy professor who wanted to do some ad libbing on the issue was: "Oh, c'mon, I've done that. It's not that bad!""

No, he had an experience in a controlled environment by people who really hoped he lived and were not his enemies. If he wants the real experience, he should arrange a trip to Pakistan and ask some AQ there to waterboard him.

On the broader issue, this argument carried to its end, means you can almost never prosecute anyone from a prior administration for anything. No one should be above the law. FTR, I would prefer a truth commission. We need to find out how such a small number of people with so little experience in interrogation came to make these decisions. The decision to torture cost us many lives and a lot of money. Please note that when we gave up torture, we did much better in Iraq. There remains no real evidence that we gained anything from it.

Steve

If it is "torture" to pour water over the head of a terrorist, is it "tortue" to spank a child to "incentivize" them to tell the truth?

Whatever happened to the old notion of torture being something that caused permanent physical disfigurement?

"1. Is this torture? I realize it isn't all that fun--it's not supposed to be. However, military officers are waterboarded as part of their training. The reaction of a friend of mine to a smarmy professor who wanted to do some ad libbing on the issue was: "Oh, c'mon, I've done that. It's not that bad!""

You know, I am really not that surprised we are hearing arguments like this from proponents of torture. After all, these are the same people who will cry you a river when they mention all the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but brandish the label "collateral damage" when it is our bombs and some other nation's innocent victims.

These people are little better than the terrorists they hate. They respond to unreasoned fear in exactly the same manner and with the same twisted logic as their Muslim counterparts. And in doing so they help the terrorists destroy the very freedoms they claim to be protecting.

Oh, and, 'permanent physical disfigurement' has never (well, until we started doing it and needed to raise the bar and change the definition so, well, we weren't) been part of the definition of 'torture'.

Ever hear of the 'Chinese water torture'? No permanent disfigurement needed. Neither does sensory deprivation, etc. Indeed, serious injury is something a good torturer wants to avoid. The less real damage, coupled with the most pain means you can torture longer without the victim passing out or, heaven forbid, dying.

And yes, an average of 7 seconds with a wet towel over your face that you know is going to be there, how long it is going to be there and is administered, at most, a couple of times by friends that you know have absolutely no intention to harm you has very little to do with the real thing.

Yes, we do that to officers, briefly, as they noted, to prepare them for what the ENEMY will do, because we know the enemy is not bound by the rules we, well, used to be bound by.

Finally, the whole 'in one hour' bit? Straight out of 24. If that was the case, the damage would be done before we got them to the holding cell to question them in the first place. What we are REALLY dealing with are people who have been compromised, and if their contacts have a brain in their heads, their info is obsolete anyway.. for the few who actually know anything in the first place. That's why they generally go more for names of contacts instead of the whole 'ticking bomb' thing.

Andrew- You are very old fashioned. The torture regimes of the 20th and 21st centuries moved on past that stuff. It is very time intensive and is more costly. Torture like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes and isolation take fewer personnel and have lower need for medical treatment if you are going to keep people alive. We were using the same torture schemes worked out by the North Koreans and Russians , for the most part. You are known by the company you keep.

Steve

Me: "Don...should we torture Mr. Roeder in hopes that we can get him to give us more information about these plots he allegedly knows about? Why or why not?"

Don: "When it involves a city--yes, we should."

Are our enemies in conflicts then right to torture our captured citizens (whether they be military or civilian workers) in an effort to determine what attacks may be pending on their cities?

Notice I am not asking if they do, for we know that many times those we oppose resort to torture, even methods that are far worse than what we employ. I am asking, instead, if they are right to do so in the name of protecting their people, their cities, from attacks from our military forces.

RJohnson wrote: "You know, I am really not that surprised we are hearing arguments like this from proponents of torture. After all, these are the same people who will cry you a river when they mention all the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but brandish the label "collateral damage" when it is our bombs and some other nation's innocent victims."

Thank you. That was very well put. This paragraph alone puts almost our entire ill-advised military romp throughout the mid-East in crystal clear perspective.