Pajamas Media

170 Comments

1. The Famous Mo:

Heh…for half a second there, I totally missed the sarcasm! I was getting worried! Great article!

May 1, 2009 - 1:24 am 2. BPT (Australia):

I know what torture feels like too. Years ago, I watched Katie Couric.

May 1, 2009 - 1:41 am 3. Nosinin:

Well you forgot one tiny detail-what about those right wing terrorists? (it’s OK to call them that if they’re Americans) You know, the returning vets, anyone who attends a tea party? What are we going to call it? Homeland Contingency Operation? We really need to squelch those voices before we can even begin to turn our thoughts towards all we have abused-you know like France, Venezuela, N Korea oh and Iran. We have been so mean to the rest of the world. I hope we haven’t forgotten to apologize to anyone. We certainly think they should like us now. It’s really those on our very soil that we need fear….

May 1, 2009 - 4:05 am 4. Paul -Indiana:

Extracting information by torture to save many lives is not wrong. The terrorist can always just give up the data. Torture is his choice.

May 1, 2009 - 5:19 am 5. Walt:

The Obama administration now considers the following to be torture:
water-boarding
sleep deprivation
face slapping
etc.
I contend that none of these actions are torture, as they don’t cause any permanent physical or mental injury.

That aside, it shouldn’t be of any concern in our treatment of terrorists anyway. Terrorists DO NOT enjoy the constraints of the Geneva Convention! Only UNIFORMED, NATIONAL ARMED FORCES, that are SIGNATORIES to the convention must be afforded certain treatment.

The people that are so concerned about the ‘rights’ of terrorists are, I believe, exhibiting lack of courage in dealing with danger to their own life and limb – transference if your will.

Decision of what is and isn’t torture should not be made by politicians (who by their very nature cannot give a honest assessment), but rather by professionals who are willing to put their lives and well-being on the line.

May 1, 2009 - 5:19 am 6. Eric Florack:

Agreed, Frank… a great, great bit of work.
Ladies and gents, we are in the presence of greatness.

May 1, 2009 - 5:46 am 7. Unistat:

“So we gained nothing, and we debased ourselves by becoming nothing more than common Cheneys.”

Haha! The new standard in evil dark-lord-ness.

May 1, 2009 - 5:54 am 8. tanstaafl:

How dare we support tough measures against those we label as “evil” just because they want to blow up our citizens!

How dare, indeed.

The entire debate is the weirdest thing I can imagine, but, with memos and, apparently soon, pictures, the Obama administration has both met the demands of the Left, the ACLU/Soros crowd, and managed to distract from egregious spending & the government’s takeover of business. (Obama recently said he’s for lean gov’t, but circumstances are forcing him to grow it and regulate. He had, however, already tipped his hand in saying some months back that “only” the federal government can fix America.)

Torture is watching a crowd of DC strategists who don’t respect any Constitutional limits on their machinations.

Torture is hearing their daily, hourly, by the minute, pronouncements on any and all subjects and the slavering entrenched media falling all over itself.

Keeping up with all this is like being waterboarded, daily.

(I’m not exaggerating)

May 1, 2009 - 6:08 am 9. Mike T:

But they claimed they used waterboarding, which they say is not torture but we all know is totally torture. I mean, they hold someone down and pour water — real water — on his face; try that on a cat and see if it acts like that isn’t torture. Thus, since waterboarding is torture, it obviously didn’t cause KSM to give up information because torture doesn’t work. Thus, he must have given up the information for reasons completely unrelated to the waterboarding.

If you knew anything about history, you’d know that Western civilization has known about waterboarding for hundreds of years and it has always been considered a form of torture. During the Spanish Inquisition it was one of the few forms of torture that was allowed to be used on suspects, and the Pope mentioned it as such in his authorization to the Spanish monarchy to carry out their own private inquisition in the name of the Roman Catholic Church (what, you didn’t know that the Spanish inquisitors reported to the monarch, not the Pope?) The United States has also prosecuted people as torturers for waterboarding.

So you can be a sarcastic jackass all you want about it, but that doesn’t change the fact that the only reason we call it “harsh interrogation” is because patriotic conservatives cannot stomach the fact that our tactics are closer to modern Syria than traditional American tactics.

May 1, 2009 - 6:27 am 10. seven:

It looks like calling for the torture and public flogging of the Republicans is in order.
In the name of Pro choice, would it be better to offer them 2 hours ow watching the broads on the view or having 183 spoonfulls of water over 12 minutes poured on their face? It is of course presumed that they will get a disclosure document warning them that their skin can become prune like even to the extent of dishwater hands.

May 1, 2009 - 6:31 am 11. Chris H:

I know what torture feels like too. Reading that piece of amoral nonsense. Unbelievable.

May 1, 2009 - 6:33 am 12. LynnS:

That’s the thing, we didn’t demand torture, we just demanded that the government do something to stop the attacks. We didn’t want to know how.

Too much information.

Now along with obama, we can “wash our hands” of it and not only prevent the spreading of swine flu but also prevent the spreading of any blame for demanding results and ‘faster please’.

Can I go back into my safe room now?

May 1, 2009 - 6:34 am 13. Ray:

If it will save one American service member, or one innocent life, all I have to say about torture is “Red is positive…”

May 1, 2009 - 6:35 am 14. Frank J.:

Mike T:

And used on such a poor soul as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed! It’s an outrage!

May 1, 2009 - 6:35 am 15. Stinson:

Mike T is parroting the latest liberal meme.

Yukio Asano was convicted of torture on US soldiers. Asano did use a form of water torture but thirty seconds on Google reveals his water tactics were far more sadistic than the modern American version.

Comparing KSM’s treatment to Asano’s cruelty is absurd and dishonest.

May 1, 2009 - 6:43 am 16. The Shadow:

Alert – that bastian of marxism, the Catholic Church, claims that torture including waterboarding is evil. Oh and the FBI opposed the use of waterboarding, but they are a group of marxists too. Of course Pol Pot and the Japanese soldier during WWII used it and they were prosecuted by the US for using torture – nice company you are keeping.

May 1, 2009 - 6:46 am 17. The Wizard:

You people seem to forget that 3000 Americans lost their lives on 9/11 due to a terrorist attack on our country! While not an advocate of radical interrogation techniques, I believe the Bush Administration, Congress and the CIA did what was appropriate to prevent more attacks.

Now that the Obamanatiion had dismantled and denigtrated the CIA, opened our borders, embraced our enemies and is financial supporting Hamas (20.7 million dollars) I can’t wait to hear what you have to say when the terrorist strike us again.

Grow up, people. War is hell and this is war. Obama is a naive idiot.

May 1, 2009 - 6:52 am 18. Frank J.:

The Shadow:

I can’t believe we’re torturing terrorist masterminds just like the the Japanese did during WWII! We’re monsters!

May 1, 2009 - 6:57 am 19. Gabe Smith:

The only thing I would add to our new interrogation techniques you describe here would be that any information the “international guest” shares should only be accepted if he pinky swears.

Otherwise, his word is just not reliable.

May 1, 2009 - 7:00 am 20. AThinkingPerson:

I say pipe in hour after hour of Obama trying to speak without aid of a Teleprompter and those Gitmo detainees will be swimming back to their homelands.

By the way, aren’t our own Navy Seals subjected to the “torture” methods during training? If it’s good enough for our own men, it’s beyond good enough for those animals.

May 1, 2009 - 7:01 am 21. momof3:

So really, what are we supposed to do? A known terrorist knows of future plans but won’t talk, so we just say “Oh well!”??? And really, what are these “traditional interrogation tecniques” libs speak of so highly? Forcing someone to sit ina room on a no-doubt hard chair for hours, answering questions? Maybe even when they’re tired or hungry or need to pee? Isn’t that torture too?

I”ve gone through worse than any gitmo prisoner has just by being a mom. You gotta admit, though, that the apologist in Chief has the distraction thing down pat!

May 1, 2009 - 7:18 am 22. tanstaafl:

I say pipe in hour after hour of Obama trying to speak without aid of a Teleprompter and those Gitmo detainees will be swimming back to their homelands.

I suggested endless loops of Bobby Gibbs & Janet Napolitano piped in. Any mortal (although mortal might be too good a word to describe some of them) would go instantly mad and tell anything.

Some of the high value detainées have recently asked for “martyrdom”, but the phalanx of scuzzy ACLU attorneys insists on keeping them alive for fun, profit and “torturing” the former administration that nailed them.

May 1, 2009 - 7:23 am 23. Pastor of Muppets:

AThinkingPerson: “By the way, aren’t our own Navy Seals subjected to the “torture” methods during training? If it’s good enough for our own men, it’s beyond good enough for those animals.”</i.

Do our SEALs get the same tracheotomies when they swallow water in their lungs and drown as a result of multiple waterboardings?

Bet not.

May 1, 2009 - 7:27 am 24. LynnS:

#17 What you said except the “obama is naive” part. He and his cronies are from chicago where it is impossible to be naive and move up in politics.

and…We Will Never Forget…that is unless obama and most of the main stream media have their way.

Is this torture?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnA9FjvLSU

Warning, it’s long and may make some feel uncomfortable.

Fuc! Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We are better than him, and I will take part of the blame for water boarding him.

May 1, 2009 - 7:33 am 25. The Shadow:

Why stop at waterboarding – under the logic of most of the wingnuts, we should try every immoral practice because we might save lives. Any evil means to achieve a good end. That is the way to salvation.

May 1, 2009 - 7:38 am 26. AThinkingPerson:

Pastor Of Muppets: You’ve mentioned tracheotomies twice now. Proof you’ve yet to provide.

May 1, 2009 - 7:39 am 27. ChipD:

Copnsider the following scenario, and tell me if you think it is far-fetched:

One of the Tea Party attendees gets out of control, and blows up an IRS building or something;

The Obama Admin. uses the precedent of the warrantless wiretapping case, and begins wiretapping phones and scanning emails of right-wing bloggers without anyone’s knowledge or consent;

Based on bits of info, they then use the precedent of the Padilla case and begin detaining American suspects without a trial or charges, and forbid them to protest their imprisonment;

When the suspects won’t divulge info satisfactory to the Obama Admin., they are subjected to “enhanced interrogation”, for days, weeks, years, until one of them cracks and begins naming names.

Based on these confessions, several or many right wing extremists are “brought to justice” and sent to Supermax for life.

There are no appeals- using the precedent of the “state secrets” the Obama Admin. foprbids any discussion of the trials, any appeal, any review.

Does any of this sound too far-fetched? Does any of it sound like what we want America to be?

May 1, 2009 - 7:42 am 28. Bill Perron:

If torture can get valuable information that can save American lives as it did in thwarting the planned attack on Los Angeles (where I live) then I’m all for it. It is a war folks, we either win or we lose.

May 1, 2009 - 7:46 am 29. tanstaafl:

“tracheotomy” must have been in the talking points memo on DailyKos.

Geez, the Obama administration puts out waterboarding etc. as a distraction, and Muppet and Shadow (and an entire army of Muppets & Shadows) become instant ex-spurts.

These people are malleable to whatever distraction their handlers throw their way. Whatever the topic (and they are serial and endless), Useful Idiots jump on board and start acting ASIF it has been at the top of their lists and the subject uppermost in their thoughts.

Piece of cake for the handlers of the Obamatrons.

They will be instant ex-spurts on next week’s topic as well, I have no doubt.

May 1, 2009 - 7:57 am 30. AThinkingPerson:

#25 The Shadow: Grunting and name calling yet no points to be made. Typical.

May 1, 2009 - 8:00 am 31. Frank J.:

Pastor of Muppets:

Plus Navy SEALs are even worse than terrorist masterminds!

May 1, 2009 - 8:00 am 32. Frank J.:

The Shadow:

That’s right. I don’t care if we have to watch thousands – nay millions – of people die. Nothing will get me to harm an evil man.

Because it’s wrong.

May 1, 2009 - 8:02 am 33. Frank J.:

ChipD:

You think Obama will change things so that torture will be used to get confessions? I thought he was better than Bush!

May 1, 2009 - 8:09 am 34. Macko:

MikeT, ChipD, Muppet Pastor

I guess you’re pretty hard up for a way to put down the US. A humor article? You guys need a life. And as far as grabbing a tea party extremist and waterboarding him(probably throw in a few caterpillars). Tapping phones and all this other stuff that smucks like you guys couldn’t shut up about during the bush administration well guess what. nobama hasn’t stopped any of it other than maybe the waterboarding. The Feds still have the country wiretapped, they still do renditions, and they just named a whole boatload of Americans extremists so they can violate their rights. So until I hear about all you nut jobs crying about what nobama is doing I’d say you have surrendered all credibility.

May 1, 2009 - 8:19 am 35. BettyBlue:

Chip D., yeah, that scenario sounds pretty much unrealistic to me. I’ve been to some tea parties, and there was no violence, nobody getting out of control, not so much to blow up a trash can, let alone a handy I.R.S. building that just happened to be in the neighborhood.

Anyhoo, far as that goes, the Obama Administration has decided that those who attend tea parties, or are against abortion, or members of the military, are all dangerous terrorists, and, no, this isn’t an America I particularly want to live in, but it’s already happened. Nor do I hear any on the left complaining about this demonization of a large segment of the American populace.

May 1, 2009 - 8:29 am 36. BettyBlue:

And, of course, when all the tea party-goers, anti-abortion guys and supposedly deadly military guys do get rounded up, it will be because they’re insensitive, intolerant, “spoilers”, opposing the glorious peoples’ economic recovery, Kulaks and enemies of the state. And the Left won’t give a tinker’s damn about their rights, or freedom of speech.

May 1, 2009 - 8:31 am 37. BettyBlue:

As Macko says, until you guys start complaining about the Obama Administration, instead of putting forward imaginary scenarios about wild-eyed Tea Partiers blowing up buildings, you’re pretty much all out of credibility here.

May 1, 2009 - 8:38 am 38. ChipD:

Macko and Betty-
You guy don’t get what I was saying-
I AM complaining about the Obama Admin. having too much power!
I am opposed to ANY government having the power to tap phones, detain without trial, etc.

My point is that now that we have given the government these powerful, near-dicatorial tools, the government will never want to give them up.

All it will take is a 9-11 style incident, by anyone the government doesn’t like, to allow them to take away the rights we have fought so hard to get for the last 200 years.

Conservatives need to stop defending the erosion of liberty,and liberals need to stop being all-accepting of the Obama Admin, and begin vigorously and loudly demanding that our liberties be respected, and the Constitution followed faithfully.

May 1, 2009 - 8:50 am 39. Chris H:

Just so long as none of you defenders of torture is claiming to be a Christian….

May 1, 2009 - 9:14 am 40. AThinkingPerson:

ChipD: I appreciate your wanting to uphold the Constitution but the methods employed were not “torture”. They were qualified as “torture” by TeleBama retroactively so that he could use the memos and pictures for political gain. I agree, real torture goes against our Constitution but until I see our military beheading or pulling fingernails out or worse, anything our own Navy Seals are subject to is not “torture”.

May 1, 2009 - 9:14 am 41. Frank J.:

Chris H:

Or anyone in the military shooting terrorists! Christ wouldn’t do that either!

May 1, 2009 - 9:21 am 42. Frank J.:

ChipD:

It’s a slippery slope. First they’ll torture terrorist masterminds. Then they’ll torture lower level planners. Eventually, they might even be torturing terrorists who barely killed anyone at all!

May 1, 2009 - 9:22 am 43. LynnS:

Chris H: “I know what torture feels like too. Reading that piece of amoral nonsense. Unbelievable.”

“Just so long as none of you defenders of torture is claiming to be a Christian….”

I defend this article.
I believe that Jesus is the Christ.

Go ahead.

May 1, 2009 - 9:27 am 44. BettyBlue:

ChipD: “A 9-11 style incident by anyone the government doesn’t like. . . ” Are you saying that if a “9-11 style incident” perpetrated by someone the government did like would be just dandy? Or that our government would just shrug it off? Or that “9-11 style incidents” (wouldn’t “terrorist attacks” be more appropriate than “incidents”?) are merely excuses for the government to torture us, something which, from the sound of things, you seem to be believe it’s aching to do, be it Bush or Obama as president.

Maybe you are as critical of Obama as you are of Bush, but you sound a little unclear on the whole concept of terrorist attacks, the number of people they can kill, their effect on our society and why they must be taken seriously.

Chris H., are you a Christian? Do you consider yourself an expert upon what Christians ought, and ought not, to believe? Have you studied Christian theology extensively? Are you are priest, or minister, with some authority to speak to other Christians?

By the way, what’s your take on the actual persecution, and, yes, torture, of Christians in places such as Darfur, Indonesia, Egypt and Pakistan?

May 1, 2009 - 9:32 am 45. BettyBlue:

By the way, Chris, can you say exactly why you find the article to be so awful, and immoral? Can you support your point of view, or are we just supposed to believe, because you said it? “Hey, Chris said this article is amoral! Guess he’s gotta be right!”

May 1, 2009 - 9:34 am 46. BettyBlue:

If any of you defenders of tortures is Christian, will Archgrandpooh-bah Chris excommunicate you? Forty lashes with a copy of Gandhi’s memoirs, you hypocrite!

/Sorry, couldn’t resist.

May 1, 2009 - 9:37 am 47. Chris H:

Jesus said ‘Love thine enemy’

Jesus said ‘Turn the other cheek.’

Somehow the light of the world, the prince of peace, applying electrodes [or water boarding or whatever] to people who threaten him doesn’t quite square with that.

Your turn. Show me that Jesus who would sanction torture.

May 1, 2009 - 9:40 am 48. Frank J.:

Chris H:

Jesus was about peace. He would never lift a finger to save the innocent.

May 1, 2009 - 9:48 am 49. anti-supernaturalist:

** Neither the old President nor the New can claim immunity.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condie Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft sought a legalistic subterfuge to legitimate torture. This was duly created and served up by John Yoo and Jay Bybee. And, acted upon by senior figures in the CIA among them George Tenent.

Each is an international conspirator and international criminal for authorizing and facilitating torture as an accepted arm of US foreign policy.

As along as Barack Obama stands in the way of an independent prosecutorial investigation of the Bush regime’s criminal acts, he is obstructing justice. This is also true of Eric Holder.

Wholesale interception and data mining of civilian communication carried out against millions of citizens has not yet been legally repudiated as domestic policy. So too kidnapping and torture have not yet been legally repudiated as foreign policy.

The Republic is damaged. Mr. Obama’s verbal assurances notwithstanding, nothing precludes a future dictator manque taking up where Bush left off.

Mr. Obama can neither absolve the conspirators nor expunge their crimes.

May 1, 2009 - 10:05 am 50. Macko:

I ran into Jesus at the bar the other day and he thinks there should of been something closer to fire and brimstone used on those idiot dumb$ucks. Just to give ‘em a taste of what’s comin’. Castrate ‘em too, to make sure they can’t take a certain appendage along just in case they’re expecting virgins.

May 1, 2009 - 10:08 am 51. Chris H:

Only of course, Macko, you didn’t run into Jesus. You just found yourself vainly trying to justify your own immorality by pointing out the immorality of others. Which is the exact opposite of what Jesus was about.

Everyone else seems to have gone very quiet.

I still want to be introduced to Jesus the torturer.

May 1, 2009 - 10:16 am 52. AThinkingPerson:

#49 anti-supernaturalist: TeleBama labeled the interrogations “torture” retroactively so he could use the memos and pictures as propaganda devices. Pure political gain no matter how you spin it. There is no “immunity” to be needed nor crimes expunged. Now, there will be a need for immunity and crimes expunged if or God forbid when we get attacked again. Any blood shed due to the releasing of said memos and pictures is squarely on TeleBama’s hands.

May 1, 2009 - 10:18 am 53. AThinkingPerson:

Chris H.: I don’t think you can read the silence as agreement. I think everyone thinks you’re sort of ignorant for trying to turn this into a religious issue when it’s not.

May 1, 2009 - 10:20 am 54. Frank J.:

Chris H:

Or Jesus the electrical engineer.

May 1, 2009 - 10:21 am 55. Frank J.:

Chris H:

Or Jesus the idiot commenter.

May 1, 2009 - 10:25 am 56. The Shadow:

Unthinking pwerson:

How far would you go with torture? Where would you draw the line? Would you want Obama to have the power to determine who should be tortured?

May 1, 2009 - 10:29 am 57. The Shadow:

Unthinking person – how is this not a moral question? If this is not a moral question, what is your definition of a moral question?

May 1, 2009 - 10:31 am 58. Pious Agnostic:

Jesus may have smacked around a few money changers, but he never waterboarded them. So, I guess that Chris H. is right!

May 1, 2009 - 10:31 am 59. Chris H:

Somebody give a simple answer to a simple question.

Would Jesus have sanctioned torture?

May 1, 2009 - 10:32 am 60. momof3:

“Just so long as none of you defenders of torture is claiming to be a Christian…”

YOu realize Christ condemned those who don’t protect and care for their families as being worse than infidels, right? It is your moral duty to care for your kin. There is a difference, in God and everyone else’s rational eyes, between going on a killing spree for fun and in stopping people intent on killing you. Why don’t libs get that? Do you all really feel that guilty for being born?

Christ wasn’t exactly a pansy. Have you read the Bible? I’m guessing no.

May 1, 2009 - 10:34 am 61. AThinkingPerson:

#57 The Shadow: It is not a moral question. It is a national safety question. My definition of a moral question is of no bearing here nor is yours so I’m not even going to ask. The safety of the citizens of the US is the question here and why TeleBama is choosing to forgo that in favor of political gain is the question.

How far would I go with torture? Depends on the torturee. Would I want TeleBama to have the power to determine who should be tortured? No.

May 1, 2009 - 10:42 am 62. Pious Agnostic:

A simple answer to a simpleton: Nope, Jesus wouldn’t have sanctioned torture.

Evidence shows that he would sanction making a whip of cords and driving a bunch of folks engaged in legal commerce from their places of business with blows from said whip.

Apparently, even Jesus considered violence the correct course of action under some circumstances. It’s almost as if Jesus realized that the morality of behavior is contingent upon context. How nuanced of him! It’s almost as if he realized that in the grand scheme of things, there are small evils, and there are BIG evils, and sometimes, when given no other choice, you have to choose the least of all evils.

It’s almost as if 2000 years of thought on this topic has been completely ignored by people like Chris H.

May 1, 2009 - 10:43 am 63. Susan Katz Keating:

Okay, right off the bat: I am against waterboarding. But this one made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the day-brightener!

May 1, 2009 - 10:44 am 64. Alana:

May 1, 2009 - 10:44 am 65. Athelstane:

I don’t know how sarcasm advances the discussion very much.

I’m conservative, and Catholic. I think much of the Left fails to take the urgency of the War on Islamist terror seriously. And I am flabbergasted how anyone could view waterboarding or “walling” as *not* torture.

Are they as horrific as, say, many of the KGB’s methods? Or many despicable acts done by Al Qaeda itself? No. But that doesn’t mean it’s not turture: that is to say, the use of physical violence to extract information. That fact that it may not leave permanent injury on the prisoner is a sophistic distinction.

I think these methods, like torture generally, can actually produce real results. That doesn’t make it right.

Really, folks: Is this what conservatism has to stand for now?

May 1, 2009 - 10:45 am 66. Macko:

Chris H

Ok Jesus told me: Divida los terroristos en grupos de tres. Piensa a que terroristo sabes mas. Tiro a la cabesa los otro dos terroritos y el trecero diles todo que tu quiera saber.

If you don’t believe me ask him yourself

May 1, 2009 - 10:51 am 67. Just this once:

Chris H:
” Chris H

Somebody give a simple answer to a simple question.

Would Jesus have sanctioned torture?

May 1, 2009 – 10:32 am”

Jesus the man has been dead for 2000 years. No way to know.
The Jesus of your belief system? It’s your belief you tell us.

FYI at the time of Christ the modern counter part of “Is that the best you got” was “turn the other check”

Why did Jesus’ disciples carry swords

May 1, 2009 - 10:57 am 68. wayne:

If any of you think that Jesus isn’t going to eventually command horrific suffering then you haven’t paid any real attention to that whole “Judgment Day” thingy. We bring judgment upon ourselves and horrible are the consequences of our sins.

The fact is BY HIS OWN ACTIONS, Khalid Sheik Mohamed has brought judgment upon himself and damnation onto the burning fires of Hell.

By causing him fearful discomfort in this life we are actually reducing the potential judgment that he faces in the next life by preventing him from sinning further through committing more murderous mayhem.

In his suffering we are saving him from a worse fate. It’s not like the guy committed some minor act of heresy or some little bit of immorality. For God’s sake he was instrumental in the butchering of thousands of innocent people!

We are not talking about people who died in collateral damage in a war to remove another vicious butcher here, folks.

The Al Qaeda scum deliberately targeted tens of thousands of people going about their daily lives for horrific deaths for the purpose of purest evil. It was only by a combination of shear luck (the planes hit high instead of low), engineering excellence (it was amazing how long the buildings survived for people to get out of), and incredible heroics of firemen and policemen and ordinary citizens that 20 or 30 thousand people didn’t die on 911.

KSM and the other scum planned to kill uncounted thousands more and if we hadn’t made these bastards suffer they would have likely succeeded. If it was possible for me to take upon myself any part of any “guilt” for anyone who roughed these scum up I’m there.

If anyone ever asks for any volunteers to help finish the job on KSM and the others to give them the send off to Hell they so richly deserve, please put my name as far as possible near the top of the list.

May 1, 2009 - 11:05 am 69. ChipD:

OK, for the moment, lets skip the question of the precise legal definition of “torture”;

The point is, do conservatives approve of giving the Obama Admin. the power to wiretap/ read email/ search bank accounts without warrants, imprison American citizens without trial or charges, and use “enhanced interrogation” techniques?

Shouldn’t conservatives be demanding the limitation of government power, instead of cheering it on?

May 1, 2009 - 11:05 am 70. BettyBlue:

Jesus did throw the money changers out of the temple. He did advise His disciples to go out and buy swords and He did condemn those who don’t take care of their families. And this, I think, is where the problem comes in.

Torture is bad, but the Left seems to think that the life, and comfort, of the accused terrorist is more important than the lives, and safety, of said terrorists intended victims. In fact, just as the author of the article this thread is based on so slyly points out, they often seem to think Americans, somehow, have it coming, and, therefore, should do nothing to defend themselves. And this, I think, is where a lot of people, Christian or whatever, have problems.

I don’t think Jesus would sanction torture, but I don’t believe Jesus approves the murder of innocents, either (He condemns murder); nor do I believe He would sneer at those who died on 9/11 as “Little Eichmans”, or make excuses for terrorists who massacre civilians. Torture is bad. So is the wholesale death of innocents just going about their jobs, visiting a pizza parlor, shopping, riding a bus, etc. What are we to do? It’s a tricky question, and one that deserves more than platitudes, scoldings and “Jesus said we’re supposed to love one another!” G-d also gives us free will. Sometimes we have to choose, and the choices, whether one is Christian or not, or between bad and worse.

As for the whole question of Christianity and pacifism, I think C.S. Lewis answers it very well in his essay, “Why I am not a Pacifist.” I recommend it to you, Chris, and I’d like to repeat my earlier questions:

1. Are you, yourself, a Christian? If not, don’t you think it’s a tad hypocritical, ordering others to follow a religion whose tenants you, yourself, don’t accept?

2. What’s your stand on Christians being persecuted throughout the world? Do you speak out against this? Or only when the country involved is: 1. America, and. . . 2. It involves Islamic terrorists?

May 1, 2009 - 11:07 am 71. AThinkingPerson:

#69 ChipD: Skip the question of “torture”? Why? Let’s turn the tables a bit here. Chip, tell us what you would do if you had war “detainee” and knew that he had been a part of a previous crime against America and was part of a group that planned these things on a regular basis.

Do tell, Chris, just HOW would you get the needed information out him? Would you not try? Would you place the safety and security of one person above that of thousands of Americans?

Shouldn’t you be MORE concerned over saving the innocents instead of worrying about the rights of the guilty?

May 1, 2009 - 11:13 am 72. BettyBlue:

ChipD, I don’t think anybody here is cheering on torture.

As for giving Obama the power, sadly, he’s already gotten it, partly from bad moves from the previous administration, and a lot because his adoring followers, and the media, aren’t willing to call him the fact that he isn’t abolishing the things he said he would abolish, but hanging on to them.

As for torture itself, I think I pretty much set out my own stance in Post #70; it’s a nasty, tricky question. I want limited government. I also do not want another 9/11, or a Beslan, taking place on American soil. I’m glad the attack on the L.A. Library Tower was prevented.

When conservatives, or anybody else, point this out, we’re accused of being racists, and sore losers.

And, of course, no one on the Left is criticizing him for demonizing the Tea parties, and social conservatives, as would-be terrorists.

May 1, 2009 - 11:13 am 73. BettyBlue:

A society can be strangled by too much government; it can also be destroyed by outside attackers who, by targeting its citizens and businesses, bring society to a halt, cripple it and render it powerless.

May 1, 2009 - 11:15 am 74. Chris H:

‘Shouldn’t you be MORE concerned over saving the innocents instead of worrying about the rights of the guilty?’

Protecting the individual is at the very heart of Conservative thinking, surely? How do you know this guy’s guilty? Because the CIA says so? The minute we give up on the fundamental principles upon which our nation was based, we may as well give up on the entire American Constitution and join those who seek to bring us down. Because we’ll have done their job for them.

We won’t prevail by giving up on our principles; we’ll prevail by sticking to them.

May 1, 2009 - 11:19 am 75. Turna:

That was pretty lame humor, even by IMAO standards.

May 1, 2009 - 11:21 am 76. Kurt(the infidel):

Great post Frank. im a little new around PJ and almost missed your sarcasm for a milisecond. its funny how the liberal argument against torture only solidifies my reasons for doing it. poor “misguided” terrorists. i feel so bad for each and every one of them

May 1, 2009 - 11:22 am 77. Moogie:

#62 Pious: Jesus did not drive people legally engaging in business in their places of business from anything.

He drove money changers and prostitutes out of the Holy Temple. Where did you get your information? “Jesus Christ Superstar?”

Everyone is debating the wrong thing, once again. To torture or not to turture – that is NOT the question!

The question is: if a known terrorist has information that is invaluable to the saving of thousands of lives, how do you get him to tell you about it? Better yet, how do you get him to tell you without resorting to enhanced interrogation techniques?

Does anyone know of any method (other than waterboarding, et al) by which this kind of information was extracted from a terrorist? Anyone? Anyone? Had all other methods of interrogation been used and the results were nil? Was the use of enhanced interrogation a last measure on the CIA’s list of methods for extracting information? How long did they question each terrorist?

Lastly, what is torture? Is torture like a garage sale item: one man’s trash is another man’s treasure? One man’s torture is another man’s everyday occurance? For me, being locked up and confined would be torture.

So where is the line? Who determines that line? Is it objective or subjective?

I’m just asking…

May 1, 2009 - 11:24 am 78. Trestor:

Pouring water on his face… That’s pretty rough stuff. Personally, I would give him the same choice the “disenfranchised youths” gave a group of New Yorkers: talk, burning alive, or jumping out of skyscraper.

May 1, 2009 - 11:36 am 79. AThinkingPerson:

Chris H: How would you get the information out of a “detainee”? Would you even try?

May 1, 2009 - 11:36 am 80. Frank J.:

Turna:

It passed all the standard tests for IMAO-level lameness, so you must be wrong.

May 1, 2009 - 11:37 am 81. Just this once:

The minute we give up on the fundamental principles upon which our nation was based, we may as well give up on the entire American Constitution and join those who seek to bring us down. Because we’ll have done their job for them.

We won’t prevail by giving up on our principles; we’ll prevail by sticking to them.

Which founding principle is it that says we can’t use what ever means necessary to protect our citizens?
If we were to stick by the principles of weakness that you seem to espouse we will definitely fail

May 1, 2009 - 11:45 am 82. AndyH:

In a way Jesus did sanction torture, by allowing it to happen when he had the choice to not be crucified but decided to go ahead and be crucified. Jesus as the Son of God, or God in the form of man, could have said no and walked away, disappeared, risen into the clouds, whatever he wanted to do. But chose instead to be tortured to death. Does he approve it? No, probably not. But by allowing it, I believe he did sanction torture. Not that scumbag terrorists (or self-righteous, I’m morally superior to you, people) who want to kill us (or have us killed by terrorists) have much in common with Jesus anyway.

I appreciate Frank’s take on the situation, because laughter is the best medicine for an Administration that definitely takes itself way too seriously. His blog is one of the first and last blogs I read each day. And I think Jesus found it humorous also.

May 1, 2009 - 11:50 am 83. momof3:

“The minute we give up on the fundamental principles upon which our nation was based, we may as well give up on the entire American Constitution and join those who seek to bring us down”

Are you aware how our country was started? The colonies (actually, a few people in them) decided to throw off their government, and the methods they utilized were not pleasant or “gentlemanly” in the least. They fought to win, and fought dirty and hard. I imagine they’d be horrified to discover what we’ve become, so tolerant of big evils while denouncing the small necessary ones.

“Protecting the individual is at the very heart of Conservative thinking, surely?”

No. Not really. Allowing the one to come before the lives of tens of thousands? That’s not a conservative view, but I have heard it somewhere…where could that be?

May 1, 2009 - 11:52 am 84. Macko:

If you watch the right movies you can develop all sorts of misguided opinions. I’m willing to believe that there are torturers out there that enjoy torturing. An interrogator enjoys extracting information. Interrogators who use harsh means don’t do it for the sake of torture. They do it in hopes of extracting useful information from someone that they have reason to believe actually has useful information to extract. Waterboarding is hardly pleasant but, the plus side is the worst that happens to the interrogatee is he is left humiliated and probably feeling like a coward. He walks away with all his fingers, toes, eyes, testicles etc. The interrogator gets to walk away knowing all he did was hurt somebodies feelings and will hopefully save lives.

You ask if Jesus would do that? Of course but Jesus wouldn’t have to he could extract the information just by asking for it. After all he’s Jesus you dummies

May 1, 2009 - 11:53 am 85. Lightduty:

Asano used medieval water torture, but he also beat prisoners, and generally was a bad guy. Our guys, on the other hand, inform subjects that the insect they’re using to “torture” them is non-poisonous.

It’s crazy that things that any 10-year old might do- pushing a kid, grabbing a kid’s collar, dunking them under the water, playing with bugs – are now considered torture. Is the Geneva Convention going to open courts in every day care center and swimming pool in America?

May 1, 2009 - 11:56 am 86. Chris H:

If the government abrogates unconstitutional power to protect its citizens, then it can use that same power AGAINST its citizens. Stalin justified all his atrocities by reference to external enemies.

Every time we torture we act as a recruiting sergeant for our enemies.

And to whomever it was that asked, I am a practicing Christian, yes. But not at the expense of anyone else’s beliefs.

May 1, 2009 - 11:58 am 87. The Shadow:

Pius Agnostic – It is so good to have your in depth study of the Jesus. You must have spent endless hours reading the bible.

There is a false dichotomy here. Where is the evidence we could not get the infomation we need without the use of torture? If waterboarding is OK, where do we draw the line. If that does not work why not try The rack, genital mutilation.?

May 1, 2009 - 12:05 pm 88. BettyBlue:

Actually, the value of the individual, and protecting his rights, is the basis for all Western thinking, and politics. And there’s the problem. The accused terrorist is an individual. So are the innocent citizens he plans to kill. So, who deserves the most protection here? Who are we most bound to preserve? Our own citizens, or the one who wants to kill them, in order to bring us to our knees?

Surrendering to those who want to destroy us, because we can’t bear to fight back, is a pretty good way to lose our constitution too—not to mention everything else.

I do wish you’d answer my questions: are you, yourself, a Christian? And does all torture, not just that used against Islamic terrorists, bother you?

(Oh, of course we can’t trust the C.I.A.! They love rounding up people and torturing them just for kicks! That’s their only reason for doing it.)

/sarc.

May 1, 2009 - 12:11 pm 89. BettyBlue:

thinkingPerson, I suggest Chris H. wouldn’t even try.

I suspect he’s one of those people being satirized in this article. Why can’t we just accept we’re getting what we deserve and submit?

May 1, 2009 - 12:13 pm 90. Deadmanwalking:

Turn the other cheek, while they behead an American Soldier and drag him through the streets. Yeah, that’s it. That will make them stop.

May 1, 2009 - 12:18 pm 91. Mark in Texas:

The sad thing is that there are at least a half dozen sites where this piece could be posted as a straight article.

Problem is, of course, that they know the name Frank J.Fleming. Why don’t you see if you can get them to run this at Pandagon telling them your name is Alan Sokol.

May 1, 2009 - 12:34 pm 92. Macko:

Don’t forget that it was the FBIs determination to not violate anyones rights that slowed investigations that could very well have prevented 9/11. The decision and a just one regardless of anyones beliefs was to protect the innocents. That my forum friends is what this country is most famous for not just human or civil rights but protecting the innocent.

Now all of you who are all fired up about how the US shouldn’t torture and never did until 9/11 need to get your heads out of your you know whats. This isn’t something new but we have made great strides in protecting criminal and terrorist behinds.

Just take your time now and explain how the protection of innocents is less important than protecting the rights of our sworn enemies

May 1, 2009 - 12:35 pm 93. Pious Agnostic:

Pius Agnostic – It is so good to have your in depth study of the Jesus. You must have spent endless hours reading the bible.

There is a false dichotomy here. Where is the evidence we could not get the infomation we need without the use of torture? If waterboarding is OK, where do we draw the line. If that does not work why not try The rack, genital mutilation.?

Great use of sarcasm there, Shadow. It’s not clear from your comment that you know what a false dichotomy is, though.

What kind of evidence would you accept, other than the testimony of those doing the questioning?

And, let’s not use the rack or genital mutilation, since waterboarding works so well and, you know, doesnt’ actually hurt any one.

May 1, 2009 - 12:35 pm 94. Mark in Texas:

Chris H: — Somebody give a simple answer to a simple question.

Would Jesus have sanctioned torture?

Since Jesus is God and is omnipotent, He obviously did sanction His own torture.

May 1, 2009 - 12:42 pm 95. Delia:

Screw water-boarding.

Let me at ‘em with a pair of fingernail clippers, box-cutters and a detainee-proof burka. “Halla-lalalalalala”! Ha-yah! *karate-chop and eye-poke!*

May 1, 2009 - 12:46 pm 96. AThinkingPerson:

I’m finding this whole “torture” issue is driving the Left crazy. They SO want the GOP to decry this as unamerican and join the witch hunt against the Bush Administration. They cannot wrap their heads around the idea that those in the GOP might think some good ole waterboarding might be just the ticket for a terrorist that threatens their family/neighbors/country. They keep throwing up the Christianity argument over and over to no avail.

Funny how the Left doesn’t give a damn about the unborn but they’ll sure call up the ACLU for a terrorist. Suck an unborn baby out and throw it in the trash? Ok! Pour water over the face of someone who has killed American soldiers. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo!!!

May 1, 2009 - 12:52 pm 97. Paul -Indiana:

#47, Rather, show me a Jesus who would sanction terrorism.

May 1, 2009 - 12:53 pm 98. Macko:

If Jesus dropped a taliban terrorist and an Alqaeda terrorist of a ten story building which terrorist would hit the ground first ?

Who cares ?

May 1, 2009 - 12:55 pm 99. Trouble:

Somebody give a simple answer to a simple question.

Would Jesus have sanctioned torture?

“And when He came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demoniacs met Him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no-one could pass that way. And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?” (Matthew 8:28-29)

In the case of demons, Christ sanctions torture. IMHO, KSM qualifies.

May 1, 2009 - 1:11 pm 100. Pastor of Muppets:

26. AThinkingPerson: “Pastor Of Muppets: You’ve mentioned tracheotomies twice now. Proof you’ve yet to provide.”

As cited in the “2005 Bradbury memo”, the CIA inspector general noted that the original approval of waterboarding was based upon inadequate safety evaluation by qualified medical officers:

“See IG Report at 21 n26 (”[The CIA Office of Medical Services (OMS)] was neither consulted nor involved in the analysis of the risk and benefits of [enhanced interrogation techniques], nor provided with the OTS report cited in the OLC opinion [the Interrogation Memorandum].”). Since that time, based on comments from OMS, additional constraints have been imposed on the use of the techniques. ”

Evaluating the new constraints placed on waterboarding in the “2005 Bradbury memo” reveals a MAJOR change. “Harmless” waterboarding now required that a physician be present in the room in which the detainee is waterboarded to prevent death. Furthermore, they now included a tracheotomy kit in the room where “harmless” waterboarding was conducted:

“…a detainee could suffer spasms of the larynx that would prevent him from breathing even when the application of water is stopped and the detainee is returned to an upright position. In the event of such spasms, a qualified physician would immediately intervene to address the problem, and, if necessary, the intervening physician would perform a tracheotomy…. we are informed that the necessary emergency medical equipment is always present- although not visible to the detainee- during any application of the waterboard.”

May 1, 2009 - 1:17 pm 101. The Shadow:

Puis – A false dichotomy posits a two positions where in reality they are other options. You say if we either torture and get the critical infrmation to save us or we don’t an suffer an attack. That is a false choice beccause there are other options that can produce the same ends.

AS for the use of the Bible – Somehow I don’t think that many would believe that you are the expert to go to regarding what Jesus taught

His whole life was a witness to his belief in a new way of approaching power.

May 1, 2009 - 1:51 pm 102. The Shadow:

Turning the other cheek does not mean not resisting violence. And no one is saying that we shouldn’t prosecute murderers and terrorists. The question is do we do it in a moral way or not. WE do not waterboard murderers and child killer. Why not? Arn’t they as heinous as terrorists?

May 1, 2009 - 1:57 pm 103. The CIA:

Oooohhh…Shadow thinks we waterboard terrorists to punish them. No wonder he’s so confused.

May 1, 2009 - 2:05 pm 104. Stinson:

I think the real reason liberals are against waterboarding is because they despise efficiency.

May 1, 2009 - 2:17 pm 105. LynnS:

If the terrorists and planners had discussed the attacks against our citizens as thoroughly as westerners discuss methods of interrogation, perhaps everyone in the plane would have been provided a parachute and leaflets would have been dropped to evacuate the buildings. Sigh.

May 1, 2009 - 2:19 pm 106. AThinkingPerson:

#100 Pastor of Muppets: Wow…. According to your documentation, the US Government actually has a tracheotomy KIT on hand JUST IN CASE ONE IS NEEDED????? THE HORROR!!! What are we, ANIMALS?

So, after all of your claims that tracheotomies after waterboarding was the reason “torture” should be banned, you show me evidence that they just keep a kit on hand in case it’s needed so the bastards don’t die (WHICH THEY NEVER DID)? I don’t get it. We have doctors on hand to give medical aid to these animals and somehow you find that offensive?

Your documentation clearly states “…a detainee COULD suffer spasms of the larynx…”. And it goes on to say, “…In the event of such spasms, a qualified physician would immediately intervene…”. Geez, these animals get three squares AND a physician? Wow. Sounds like hell.

BIG DEAL. Daniel Pearl not only could have his head cut off he DID. Were any medical professionals present? Pathetic on it’s face.

This only proves what I’ve known all along. Liberals don’t give a damn about US citizens. You would throw a busload of Americans over a cliff to save one lying terrorist.

May 1, 2009 - 2:25 pm 107. macko:

We don’t waterboard our child murderers and child molesters but we incarcerate them to protect the innocent. We threaten to tell their jail buddies what they’re in for unless they talk. It’s more effe3ctgive than waterboarding.

But hey y’all have a good one this has gotten too serious. Jesus would torture and kill to protect the innocent. Hell if you know the biblle you know that he had killed. He may have brought that kid back to life but one thing for certain is that kid didn’t give Jesus any more trouble. yes sir no sir after that.

See ya

May 1, 2009 - 2:26 pm 108. AThinkingPerson:

#102 The Shadow: Do tell. What would be “the moral way” to prosecute terrorists?

May 1, 2009 - 2:27 pm 109. uburoisc:

Actually, the Catholic Church, on a whole host of positions, beginning with the death penalty and including illegal immigration, is not aligned with conservatives at all. The Church is a very divided institution, and it really depends who wrote the defense and why. The Catholic Church is not necessarily a conservative institution.

Also, the FBI is a mixed bag; there are many lawyers and policy wonks in the FBI, and the US military who I vehemently disagree with; just because you wear a badge or have a rank, doesn’t mean that your opinion is sacrosanct, or that it isn’t “progressive” drivel. People who work at the FBI and the Pentagon read “The Nation” as well.

Torture, depending on how it is applied and to whom, does work. It can be clumsy and pointless in the hands of a sadistic idiot, or it can be diabolically subtle, and effective in the direction of a master psychologist. I think people know this, but don’t quite want to have that discussion for the record, so they cede the field to their opponents.

The problem with “studies” about the effectiveness of torture, is you can’t easily find an egghead who will openly even consider the possibility of advocating torture as an effective interrogation option; polite society has unfounded opinions about torture, and a thousand pithy sayings about morality, and if you come right out and defend torture, you will not be tolerated long in that society. It’s about akin to advancing the idea that there might be inherent, hard-wired intelligence differences between the races, or how we might want to reconsider how we view sexual offenders.

Now, when you compare the recent US interrogation techniques with what went on in Japan during the Second World War, and in Cambodia, then I cannot believe you are serious (any more than I took dimwit John McCain seriously in his various pronouncements over the years; no-one said as many half-baked opinions over the years as McCain, except perhaps for Joe Biden). To make such a preposterous assertion either displays a profound ignorance of the crimes committed by the aforementioned, or you are being facetious. It is like comparing a 90 mph ride at an amusement park carousel with a petrol-laden semi truck careening down the Grapevine with no brakes at 90 mph. There is no relation between the real practice of torture that the Imperial Japanese and Pol Pot practiced, and the pale shadow of torture that went on at both Guantanamo and Iraq. What’s next, American prisons in Alaska are akin to the Gulag Archipelago because each is equally cold?

But I know that you know, really, that the two have no analogy. This is an exercise in public, moral grandstanding about “sinking to their level” and pretending to voice patriotic dissent at US policy and all the usual posturing and posing about what an honorable man you are to be standing up to our own hypocrisy; oh, how brave you are to be telling your poor countrymen the truth about themselves. That is one of my ongoing problems with taking anyone of the Left seriously, when they pretend to be fighting some great evil that turns out to be nothing at all; if real evil ever came around, all the brave leftists would be the first to crawl under the bed. Besides, leftist don’t believe in “evil,” that’s a hangover from a dying theological paradigm.

As to the breathless talk of treaties and treaties and international law. First, there is no such thing as international law. I know that contradicts what the fine fellows at Boalt Law say, but it is true; international law is an indulgence of advanced nations, and exists as long as the international system is willing to continue to go along with it. All it takes is a good war to throw all the lawyerly horses*%# out the window and it’s every nation for itself. Peace=rules and laws and restraints, the lawyers and academics hold sway. War=Just win, baby; the lawyers and hand-wringers had better get out of the way of they’re going to get got.

All treaties are contingent, and all of them reflect a place and time; and all treaties wear out their welcome and efficacy. Treaties are never unilateral, and are based on mutually agreed needs between nation states or regimes. Treaties are broken all the time, thousands have been signed and thousands have been discarded when it was appropriate. If the other side chooses to ignore a treaty, the treaty in not enforceable and may as well not exist; treaties are not some great moral law hanging in the sky; they are written by career diplomats to gain advantage or reach a practical accommodation. Clinging to a treaty like some kind of secular 11th commandment (“thou shalt not waterboard because it’s not nice”) is simply folly, and I never cease to be amazed at what men will believe about the world around them.

Here is a simple thought exercise: Let’s say the Germans overran the Soviets, and Midway went the other way, and the war was going very badly; not an impossible premise. Well, is there anything you wouldn’t do to make sure the US would win that war, without question an existential war for liberal democracy?

I can answer that unequivocally: no, there is nothing I wouldn’t do to win. Killing children? Women? Lopping off fingers? Yes to all. Losing that war, or the Cold War, for that matter, is unthinkable, and there is nothing I wouldn’t do. Jacques Maritain be damned, I’m not going to fight with one hand tied behind my back against the Huns, or the Muslim lunatics either, because some secular, Christian sissy is concerned that it will damage my soul. I’ll worry about “becoming like our enemy” or “sinking to their level” down the road, when the successive generations root around in the evidence and parade around like self-righteous twits, chattering about how vile and immoral their grandparents were. By then, the facts on the ground will be settled, and the next generation will be well on their way to imagining a new set of inviolate rules that will bind nations.

I do not think the War on Terror is an existential war at this time, so I’m willing to play nice for a while, and go along with the thin veneer of behavior spelled out by academic elites behind desks and Yale men about what constitutes good sportsmanship. But I do not take them seriously, and I know that those rules aren’t real; they were made up by men who had to make decisions for their time and place, and, depending how the Jihadists continue to act (in complete defiance of every western “rule” of war so far), I’ll act accordingly.

May 1, 2009 - 2:58 pm 110. ChipD:

We’ve heard all this before-
in order to safeguard the public we must:
1. Ban guns;
2. Outlaw something;
3. Abandon the 1st Amendment- or the 4th, or 5th, or whatever the flavor of the week is;

I am still amazed that so-called conservatives are cheering on the unlimited power of the State against the individual. But it has always been the case- those who are willing to surrender their freedom to the State never had faith in freedom in the first place.

As I said in my first post, what will you do when “right-wing extremist” replaces Islamist Terrorist”?

May 1, 2009 - 2:58 pm 111. Mark in Texas:

There’s that phrase “suffering the tortures of the damned”. I wonder where that comes from. It certainly sounds like something that I would want to avoid, although YMMV.

May 1, 2009 - 2:58 pm 112. Moogie:

Okay I typed my fingers off earlier with a lovely expose full of thought provoking questions, suppositions, and other B.S. like that. And no one, not ONE person in here answered my simple question:

What should we do to a terrorist who refuses to give us vital information if he won’t just answer the questions?

Someone explain to me how this could be played out with some other method besides waterboarding or whatever.

Stop debating back and forth about what Jesus would do. It’s getting us nowhere. And apparently, trying to determine if the rights of one terrorist to not be waterboarded outweigh the rights of thousands of people to be blown to pieces is too difficult.

So someone give me the answer to the question, preferably with some kind of verification, and I’ll stop asking.

May 1, 2009 - 3:10 pm 113. AThinkingPerson:

#110 ChipD: You must be a conservative Chip! We are not for banning guns or outlawing “something” or changing the Constitution in any way! Congratulations friend! I just saved you years and years of voting for just the opposite. Welcome.

Where you got the idea that we, and now apparently you, are “cheering on the unlimited power of the State against the individual.” is beyond me. Silly on it’s face. In face, we have been called the “truther’s” for a reason Chip. We are the party that DEMANDS that we follow our founding father’s wonderfully written Constitution and weep now that we see TeleBama stomping
all over it.

May 1, 2009 - 3:13 pm 114. moron:

Or we could just bomb them and their families in Pakistan before we have the chance to torture them by pouring water on them. Or in the case of teenage freedom fighting pirates blow their brains out before we have to torture them by pouring water on them. This Barry guy will certainly put America back on a pedestal of world opinion. No more pouring water on terrorists!!!

May 1, 2009 - 3:15 pm 115. moron:

Jesus would not consider it torture to pour water on savages in order to acquire information to save innocents.

May 1, 2009 - 3:21 pm 116. Moogie:

#109 uburoisc: Wow! and well said.

You brought up another point that is constantly overlooked here:

1. The Geneva Convention (being a treaty or contract) does not give protection to terrorists.

2. (okay, you brought up two points): Regardless of whether America believes or disbelieves that we are in a War on Terror, the terrorists themselves have declared it, and THEY believe it, and we’d damn well better start taking them at their word on this, because they aren’t screwing around. “Death to the infadels!” is not some nifty little faddish saying of the day – they mean it. And they don’t mind blowing themselves up to accomplish it.

So, until someone comes up with a BETTER, more morally acceptable alternative to enhanced interrogation techniques, I think we should shut up about it and let the experts do what they do.

But again, no one has managed to answer my question.

May 1, 2009 - 3:39 pm 117. macko:

uburoisc: right on

One thing that get’s lost in all this opinion sharing is the fact that we can sit here and do all this yacking because someone else is out there covering our ass. whether it be in combat, ready for combat or interrogating terrorists someone else has taken up the job to keep us safe. To sit here and critique how they go about it or like now, after the fact go and prosecute them is something I cannot understand. We must speak out to our government that we will not tolerate the prosecution of our protectors. We can do it from our nice, safe and cozy homes from right here at our computers.

May 1, 2009 - 3:44 pm 118. Frank J.:

moron:

Actually, Jesus was for perfectly innocent people being dunked in water.

May 1, 2009 - 3:54 pm 119. Frank J.:

ChipD:

A terrorist mastermind is no different from you or me. First they’ll imprison him, then they’ll imprison us!

May 1, 2009 - 3:55 pm 120. uburoisc:

Mark, so I’m supposed to concede this world in deference to an entirely speculative condition in some religious view of the afterlife? A religion, I might add, founded by a pacifist mystic that all decent and practical men for centuries have chosen to more or less ignore when it came to conducting matters of war and peace. You know what you get when you mix Christianity with statecraft? Jimmy Carter, America’s political Elmer Gantry. A fool and a bible-thumper rolled into a moral humbug. If Machiavelli were to return and write a treatise on how not to govern a Republic, Carter would be his example.

Moogie, I’ll answer you. If he is a soldier, a man in uniform and belongs to a nation state, and has, more or less, been abiding by the normal dictates of war as put forth by western governments these past couple centuries, then he is to be treated equitably and with civility. When the war is over, he will be returned to his country, whatever the outcome. If he is a terrorist (ie wears no uniform, hides behind women and children, and otherwise regards the western rules of modern warfare), you hang him from a gallows in the morning, and have the other terrorists dig a ditch to bury him. If he isn’t willing to provide information about the other pirates/terrorists he is of no value, and we are not going to cloth or feed him further. Then you ask the next terrorist the same questions. Or, you could simply abandon the whole idea of taking prisoners and simply shoot them on the battlefield and give up on the idea of turning one of them (probably easiest).

If an enemy cannot fight you and win, but will not concede, and chooses to fight “unconventionally,” then you consider what the enemy cannot protect and target that. Most men will cut a deal if the deal is reasonable; if not, then you go after, for example, the women and children and make the enemy fight (or destroy their food supply). Now, this is ugly business, and not to be taken lightly, but if the terrorists know we will never do that, then they can not only leave their great weakness exposed, but can also use it to great advantage (as the terrorists have done). It is a dicey and unpleasant conversation, but I can tell you our Jihadist enemies have discussed it. But if we keep our cool, that can work, too, provided we have the patience and resources, as our Iraq policy worked (despite every attempt to derail it by the idiots on the Left; the highpoint of their involvement was, and is, Abu Ghraib). The terrorists know a great deal about us, and they only chance they have is counting on the unmanliness among the American smart set; the rest of America will tear them to pieces.

May 1, 2009 - 4:01 pm 121. pappy:

re…moogie, how about let him spend the night with perze hillton? he’llsing like a canary. answer a question for me. why won’t they make waterboarding uncontitutional?

May 1, 2009 - 4:08 pm 122. uburoisc:

BTW, thank you GW Bush for showing so much perseverance and spine in Iraq, and, so far as things look on the ground today, for showing so much confidence in our military and our real “best and brightest” in uniform to sort out the problems and get the job done. Well done, you served the biggest cup of STFU to the American Left since the collapse of the Evil Empire made every professor of accommodation hastily rewrite their “official” position on the Soviets for the previous 5 decades. All the Left has is the memory of Lynndie England, and the prospect of the waterboarding show trials. Methinks since they seem to have really lost this war, Obama would like to “move on” without too much scrutiny; maybe someone might notice that W prevailed.

May 1, 2009 - 4:18 pm 123. uburoisc:

What do I care what Jesus wants or doesn’t want? I’m not a Christian and I do not think Christianity is a sound way to make decisions about the actions of the State.

Perfectly innocent? You know, I wish their were real consequences to follow for the people who insist all the pour dears who were “tortured” were innocent–and they were not. The Jihadists are not stupid, and they know, that, perversely, leftist Jewish lawyers and old WASP guilt are their surest allies in this country, and would not be stupid enough to attack their last and best line of protection, but I’d still like to see some kind of halfway house centered at the Kennedy School of Government for all of the “innocent” Jihadists who get set free. Maybe they can live in Ruth Ginsberg’s building. I don’t care if stupid people have stupid notions; I simply want to make sure their own folly bits them in the ass, not me.

May 1, 2009 - 4:27 pm 124. macko:

He He kicked their ass he he

May 1, 2009 - 4:33 pm 125. Stephen:

Bravo, Frank J. Mockery has a way of deflating the posturing and self-importance of the self righteous.

May 1, 2009 - 4:43 pm 126. uburoisc:

Well, Shadow, we do not waterboard murderers or child killers because:

1. There are not gangs of murderers and child killers organized to do more and more of what they do. If there were organized gangs of child killers, we might start to see some very aggressive techniques to get information from them. If you want to waterboard some of the gangs here in LA for info, that works for me, somebody call Vic Mackey. I prefer to use snipers disguised as homeless to take out their leadership at night.

2. The aforementioned are US citizens, and under our constitution, receive certain rights due to them as US citizens. The right do not and should not be confused to apply to a villager in Africa or a goat farmer in Asia, they do not–except in the feverish and impractical mind of the leftist lawyer/activist. That’s why so many Americans hate the leftist lawyer/activist, because they are turning our laws into a muddle in a demented quest for a unilaterally “progressive” America.

3. Terrorists are not the same category; the former are domestic criminals, the latter are aliens declaring an informal war against the State. The former get to go to court, the latter are captured, given a sentence on the spot, and hung. It is neither prudent nor efficacious to use the US court system (as filled as it is with idiot leftists and sympathizers); not to mention that we have no resources to be devoting to this expensive waste of time. In the end, yes, as the Left is finally discovering, costs matter, and all the money and lawyers and court time and judges that are going to be roped into this farce isn’t going to even be possible because we are broke. You know what that East African pirate is going to cost us? Imagine hundreds and hundreds or thousands of such cases. Thankfully, the money has run out for the plethora of mooncow projects on the leftist social calendar, and some dumb ideas are going to get the axe. Or we could keep running these bad ideas on borrowing trillions and getting the Chinese to by more treasuries.

The New Left: where bad ideas, white guilt, self-loathing, and moral humbug come together to make the impossible fail over and over.

May 1, 2009 - 5:28 pm 127. uburoisc:

Frank, I’m with Stephen, very funny stuff. Thanks for the laugh. Thank God the Shadow is around as our moral conscience so when we watch what remains of Boston stagger out of the radiation hole, he can reassure us that we made the right moral decision along the way, whatever the outcome. Dumb Kantians.

May 1, 2009 - 5:36 pm 128. gary:

No, No, No. We are the United States. We do not torture. You mess with us, we kick your butt fair and square. Torture belittes us, belittles our troops, is not what America is about. It is against our values, against the word of God. We cannot turn into what we oppose. It is not us, ever, even if we go down, we will go down standing for what is right, what is moral.

May 1, 2009 - 6:27 pm 129. uburoisc:

One last thing, and I say this after contemplation of the effort among the more inventive members of the International Left to compare the Japanese use of “water torture” during the Second WW with the US use of waterboarding on unaligned pirates operating outside any recognized western rules of combat, you are contemptible, utterly beyond vile. They are not in the least the same, not even close, and you’d have to be a colossal moron to make such an analogy. It takes a certain sort of ignorance to say something so dumb, a lack of all intellectual conscience. I knew men in New Mexico who lived through the Bataan Death March, and nothing the US did even comes near that testament to savagery; and the acts of villainy committed by the Japanese are VERY extensively documented. If the CIA did waterboarding while performing live vivisection, over years, on anyone handy, that would be closer to the ballpark. I expect John McCain to say stupid things; he is a vain arrogant man, who has a long history of saying things without thinking, but he may be somewhat excused for his noble service in Vietnam. The rest of you idiots should put a sock in it before some 85 year old Marine does it for you.

May 1, 2009 - 6:30 pm 130. Dohtimes:

WWJD? If waterboarding is a sin, He might forgive the sinner if the sinner asks nicely enough. But if BHO releases a terrorist who later kills your little puppy or blows up your tricycle would there be forgiveness in your bleeding heart?

May 1, 2009 - 7:19 pm 131. Ms. Attitude:

114. moron: You said what I was going to say. Take no prisoners and then we wouldn’t have this prisoner problem.

Some of you may ask, “what if they are innocent?” Here’s my answer: The US military is not going around and randomly grabbing folks off the street in Iraq to detain. There’s a big reason why these guys have been detained. Ask any soldier who has taken a prisoner, it’s not an easy nor fun task!!! DOH!!!

So to save them some time, just shoot there terrorists asses!

And Chris H or whoever it was that asked if conservatives agree with wire tapping, etc by the US government. The answer is NO, not by a democrat nor a republican.

And the other guy who keeps asking if Jesus would torture…I’ll take a wild guess that you are a Christian who believes in the Holy Trinity. So, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one, right? Then answer your own question by reading Exodus and watching what God did to the Egyptians. There’s your answer!

May 1, 2009 - 8:44 pm 132. Yuval:

Hilarious article! The funny thing is that plenty of people will read this and believe every, solemn, moralizing word.
For another good (more serious) article on the torture issue, check out the link.

May 1, 2009 - 11:44 pm 133. pappy:

re..104 if the gov. could tax it, they would legalize it.

May 2, 2009 - 1:47 am 134. Eric V:

Uhh.. KSM was captured after the Library Tower plot was foiled.

May 2, 2009 - 5:42 am 135. sloan:

That’s right boys, embrace a pro-torture position.

In 20 years when we all look back at the collapse of the modern Republican Party, this will be one of the defining issues that made people run away in horror. Your pro-torture Hollywood fantasy scenarios are make-believe. You’re a scared, angry little man, too proud to admit Bush made a terrible mistake, so now you defend Bush by defending torture.

Own it. Embrace it.

It will define you.

May 2, 2009 - 7:40 am 136. uburoisc:

Sloan, in 20 years the country will still be flat broke, and will still owe trillions of dollars in its balance sheet. The social welfare state the Left envisions will not have a dime to fund any of it.

Iran will have used nuclear weapons, and terrorists will have staged spectacular attacks on US citizens. The Lefts preoccupation with calling anything “torture” will be a distant quibbling point in a very violent, unforgiving and dangerous world.

May 2, 2009 - 9:13 am 137. Magic Dog:

The right wing is such a pack of hypocrites! They have spent years prattling on and on and on about “the rule of law.” Well, torture is against more than one American law. What does the right wing do? Ignore the law. What a sick joke you are, “Pajamas Media.”

May 2, 2009 - 9:17 am 138. Disappointed:

I remember a time when the conservative movement was a pillar of morality.

It makes me sick to see people who should know better abandon their values, their morals, with such… glee.

When did conservatism become the bastion of moral cowardice?

May 2, 2009 - 11:20 am 139. Pious Agnostic:

Shadow #101

That’s a great definition of a false dichotomy you gave. However, the example you give of it depends upon me holding opinions I haven’t actually expressed.

For those of you keeping score at home, this is an example of a “Straw Man argument.”

I don’t believe I opined on whether or not waterboarding was the only way to get the information that was desired. There may have been other, much more horrible ways, to get the information. Of all the possiblities, I think pouring some water on a guy is fairly mild.

Would I want it for myself? No way, I get swimmer’s ear.

I don’t ask people to come to me for information about Jesus, but Chris H. asked a “simple question” and I think I knew the answer. I wonder where he went?

May 2, 2009 - 11:36 am 140. ILikeIke:

“138. Disappointed:

When did conservatism become the bastion of moral cowardice?”

Don’t be so disappointed, D. None of these people are conservatives.

Out of one corner of their mouth they cry for “small government.” Out of the other, they make excuses for a government that puts torture in its toolbox of coercive techniques.

That’s not conservative. At all.

May 2, 2009 - 11:59 am 141. moron:

So sloan and Magic dog consider Obama’s dropping bombs on terrorists and civilians in Pakistan, and blowing the brains out of teenage Freedon Fighting pirates more humane than pouring water on them. And the conservatives will be remembered as evil torturers and liberals as maintaining morals and values!!!!

Hahahaha.

May 2, 2009 - 12:08 pm 142. Full Blooded American:

Obama is fools gold to a lot of stupid people in this country.

May 2, 2009 - 12:33 pm 143. Bill O'Goods:

I am tremendously gratified about our new no-torture policy. Only cynics believe we can’t get information. Look at this to see the CIA square off against bin Laden: http://bit.ly/186IP3.

May 2, 2009 - 12:43 pm 144. Full Blooded American:

Unless someone has a very severe mental desease,they would tear somebody’s body apart to save there loved one’s life. So why do you people keep on with this?

May 2, 2009 - 12:54 pm 145. twolaneflash:

We are all Cheneys now. Can we invite our friends, the Guantanamo guests, for a little bird hunting? Twelve gauge, double aught buckshot for me. BIRD!

May 2, 2009 - 7:33 pm 146. twolaneflash:

WWJD? Make himself a weapon and drive the heathen from the temple in a fit of murderous rage. He would curse them for the poisonous and predatory animals their behavior resembles, and He would definitely leave a mark. He would know the truth.

Jesus was tortured. He never complained that it was wrong, or that the government didn’t have the right to torture him, to death, for the offenses with which he was charged. He knew His wrongful death was a sin upon those who made it happen, so He asked forgiveness for those who participated. He is not reported to have screamed that his flogging was illegal, or that the manner of his death was evil and beyond the pale. He gave to Caesar what was Caesar’s.

Reality is that we all deserve to, and will, die. I choose to try and not let it happen to me and mine because I was too weak to defend the lives of those of I love against the followers of a death-worshipping, hate-filled cult who believe there are no innocents, that all Jews must die, that America is The Great Satan. Waterboarding is the least of what I would do to keep them safe.

May 2, 2009 - 9:02 pm 147. Ideological Sceptic:

Paul -Indiana:

“Extracting information by torture to save many lives is not wrong. The terrorist can always just give up the data. Torture is his choice.”
May 1, 2009 – 5:19 am

Your argument has this form (as far as I can tell)

Premise 1: We know that a terrorist has information that will save lives.
Premise 2: “Extracting” information by torture is not morally wrong.
Premise 3: The terrorist could volunteer the data thus avoiding torture.
Therefore: Torture is something that the terrorist has volunteered for and we are not responsible for it.

Obviously Premise 2 is problematic—the euphemism ‘extracting information’ makes torture sounds like information technology. By simply assuming the premise that is at the center of the dispute makes Paul’s argument useless.

Obviously, the terrorist could do several things to avoid torture. He could volunteer the data, he could escape, or he could kill himself. Not doing what avoids torture constitutes, by Walt’s view, volunteering to be tortured.

By this argument, no crime is morally wrong. The victim could voluntarily avoid murder if he killed himself. The victim didn’t kill himself therefore he volunteered to be killed.

Paul’s argument fails.

May 3, 2009 - 4:27 am 148. Ideological Sceptic:

#20 Thinking Person says:
“By the way, aren’t our own Navy Seals subjected to the “torture” methods during training? If it’s good enough for our own men, it’s beyond good enough for those animals.”
May 1, 2009 – 7:01 am

This is the form of the argument.

Premise 1: Navy Seals are subjected to various “torture” methods at Sere training.
Premise 2: It isn’t morally wrong to use these various “torture” methods on Navy Seals.
Therefore: It isn’t morally wrong to use various “torture” methods on Navy Seals then it isn’t wrong to use these torture methods on anyone.

The fallacy here is the fallacy of equivocation. The ‘torture’ methods used at Sere School is much different than actual torture methods used on real prisoners. Instructors at Sere are carefully supervised and they are never allowed to actually torture anyone. In addition, the “prisoners” can at any moment stop the “torture” if it gets too rough.

Thinking Person seems to be relying on another unstated argument:

1. Terrorist prisoners are animals – guilty of committing heinous crimes and have forfeited all rights.
2. Terrorist prisoners have no moral status and no rights.
3. If Terrorist prisoners have no moral status nothing is prohibited in our treatment of them.
4. Therefore torture of terrorist prisoners is morally permissible.

It is true that a terrorist prisoner may have committed heinous crimes but this does not entail that he has forfeited all his human rights. Premises 1 and 2 are false.

May 3, 2009 - 4:58 am 149. macko:

ideological sceptic

someone else is willing to defend your sceptical ass so that you can sit there and come up with your silly ass arguments. you and those like you are just plain naive to think that these things haven’t been going on long before bush’s administration.

although you have the freedom of speech and all other freedoms kept secure by people other than you sometimes it’s better to just shut up and be grateful

May 3, 2009 - 6:42 am 150. Larry I:

“When disenfranchised youths flew planes into buildings” ?? What Garbage! It’s to bad your kind couldn’t have been born on a planet covered in daisies where the sun & rainbows were out 24/7 and just sitting around listening to Barbra Streisand and playing whatever it is you play with Michael Moore, Bill Maher and a few other prototypes. That would be Torture, Wise Up!

May 3, 2009 - 6:45 am 151. Ideological Sceptic:

109. uburoisc:

Wow –Let me Count the Fallacies
Fallacy 1. “The problem with “studies” about the effectiveness of torture, is you can’t easily find an egghead who will openly even consider the possibility of advocating torture as an effective interrogation option; polite society has unfounded opinions about torture, and a thousand pithy sayings about morality, and if you come right out and defend torture, you will not be tolerated long in that society.”

You fail to locate the problem – it isn’t in eggheads being unwilling to consider possibilities.
Let’s break this down.
1. To conclude that torture doesn’t work we must study it.
2. To study it we must concede that it might be effective.
3. Polite society has unfounded beliefs about the morality of torture.
4. Therefore it is impossible to study torture and reach an unbiased conclusion
Claim 1 is true. Claim 2 is false. I can study a claim that I believe is false.

Claim 5: Lightly placing a thimble on the palm of a person will instantly cause death to that person.

I believe that claim 5 is false. I can objectively conduct a study of it. I gather hundreds of volunteer subjects, inform them of the nature of the experiment, I place a thimble of each of their palms, none die. I repeat the experiment numerous times with other subjects and get the same result.

You might claim my experiment is faulty and invalid because I did not seriously consider that the claim I was studying is true or is even possibly true. I disagree. Nothing about objective and valid experimentation requires me to concede that my belief about the claim being studied might be false.

Fallacy 2.” Now, when you compare the recent US interrogation techniques with what went on in Japan during the Second World War, and in Cambodia, then I cannot believe you are serious…. …There is no relation between the real practice of torture that the Imperial Japanese and Pol Pot practiced, and the pale shadow of torture that went on at both Guantanamo and Iraq. What’s next, American prisons in Alaska are akin to the Gulag Archipelago because each is equally cold?”

You are simply asserting that there is no comparison. The Japanese tortured prisoners by waterboarding. But our use of waterboarding was not torture. They are relevantly different.
We have not seen the videos of waterboarding in Guantanamo, Iraq, or Afganistan. I could argue that they have been withheld them from our view because it is believed that viewers would see them as videos of people being tortured. What other explanation is there for not making these videos public? Privacy shouldn’t be a concern. Faces could be blocked out so no identifications could be made.
Seems to me that those who are withholding the videos believe that views would compare and equate what we did to the Japanese behavior.

Fallacy 3. ‘But I know that you know, really, that the two have no analogy.”
Stick to the arguments themselves – don’t base your arguments on whether someone believes something or not. Base it on the belief itself.

Fallacy 4. “As to the breathless talk of treaties and treaties and international law. First, there is no such thing as international law. …international law is an indulgence of advanced nations, and exists as long as the international system is willing to continue to go along with it.”

By this argument there is no such thing as federal or state law. Just because criminals, corrupt prosecutors, judges and politicians subvert the act by violating it, we cannot infer that there are no laws. Granted the existence of the law depends on the society actually observing or following the law. Democratic systems of laws is a recent “indulgence” of advanced nations but that doesn’t make democracy and the rule of law an effectually effete indulgence.

Line drawing between lawless societies and observant law-abiding societies is difficult. But just because the law is sometimes ignored does not mean it doesn’t exist.
Fallacy 5: “All treaties are contingent, and all of them reflect a place and time; and all treaties wear out their welcome and efficacy….Treaties are broken all the time, thousands have been signed and thousands have been discarded when it was appropriate. If the other side chooses to ignore a treaty, the treaty in not enforceable and may as well not exist.”

You’re equivocating here between doesn’t exist and might as well not exist.

All federal and state laws are continent, violated, revised, discarded, and ignored as well. So what? A law that isn’t enforced today may well be enforced tomorrow. Remember – most simple burglaries are never investigated and the burglar arrested and convicted. This does not mean that the laws against burglaries do not exist. They do exist, they should exist and they should be enforced whenever possible.

Fallacy 6. “Here is a simple thought exercise: Let’s say the Germans overran the Soviets, and Midway went the other way, and the war was going very badly; not an impossible premise. Well, is there anything you wouldn’t do to make sure the US would win that war, without question an existential war for liberal democracy?”

What do you mean thought exercise? This was the reality. The German’s did overrun the Soviet forces and occupied most of European Russia. The Japanese were winning the war before Midway. It was going badly for the Russians and for the Americans.

Would the use of torture been morally justifiable before Midway or even after Midway if we had lost? No, it wouldn’t have been morally justifiable.

You’re thought experiment fails to clarify the problem.

You seem to be claiming that we must accept the principle that torture and other crimes are acceptable if they get you what you want or need. Shop lifting is ok – look at all the neat things I got that I wanted and needed.
In other words, what the Nazis did and what the Japanese did was fine – they were merely trying to win the war. This is the point in dispute. Those who think torture is a criminal act, believe it is wrong to torture people even if it helps you get what you want – i.e., win the war.

“I can answer that unequivocally: no, there is nothing I wouldn’t do to win. Killing children? Women? Lopping off fingers? Yes to all. Losing that war, or the Cold War, for that matter, is unthinkable, and there is nothing I wouldn’t do.”

This is not an argument. You are merely describing what sort of criminal behavior you would be prepared to engage in. Why should your willingness to do these things be taken more seriously or as being more important than my unwillingness to do these things? Are you obviously morally superior to me in some important way?

You call those who oppose using torture the “academic elite”. You seem to be saying that you are part of the moral elite because your views of morality are superior to my views.

Again, I would urge you focus on the arguments and not on the people who hold one position or another.

Calling us thought twits and academic elites does not magically turn your fallacious reasoning into sound arguments.

May 3, 2009 - 7:41 am 152. klrtz1:

Chris H
You believe waterboarding is torture, I do not.

Lets settle this like religious men have settled arguments since the beginning of time. I will pray to Jesus and ask him to kill you if waterboarding is not torture and you can pray for me to be killed if waterboarding is torture.

OK? Ready? Then go.

P.S. It would be cheating for you to kill me so as to answer the question.

P.P.S. If neither of us is killed then maybe Jesus doesn’t have that strong an opinion on the topic.

May 3, 2009 - 7:50 am 153. klrtz1:

Chris H

Would Jesus drink whole milk or skim milk? You must know the answer, don’t you?

Got any Jesus tips on white chocolate vs dark chocolate?

Would Jesus be a concern troll? Or would he ridicule a concern troll?

I’m just asking.

May 3, 2009 - 8:11 am 154. Ideological Sceptic:

129. uburoisc:

“…to compare the Japanese use of “water torture” during the Second WW with the US use of waterboarding on unaligned pirates operating outside any recognized western rules of combat, you are contemptible, utterly beyond vile.

They are not in the least the same, not even close, and you’d have to be a colossal moron to make such an analogy. It takes a certain sort of ignorance to say something so dumb, a lack of all intellectual conscience.

I knew men in New Mexico who lived through the Bataan Death March, and nothing the US did even comes near that testament to savagery; and the acts of villainy committed by the Japanese are VERY extensively documented.”

You’re confusing two separate issues. Issue 1: the entire Japanese program during WWII of torture, war crimes and human rights abuse cannot be compared to anything America did. The rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March do no compare to anything we did.

Another issue is the matter of waterboarding itself. Waterboarding per se. Focus on waterboarding and not on the entire program of torture. Focus on whether it is torture or not.

Some acts are worse than others. Certainly waterboarding a human rights criminal or terrorist isn’t as bad as picking up school girls off the street and subjecting them to waterboarding. Waterboarding a terrorist probably isn’t as bad as waterboarding a soldier.

But it doesn’t follow that waterboarding the terrorist isn’t just as painful and just as much torture as waterboarding the soldier. We can compare levels of pain and whether or not the level of pain amounts to torture.

As far as what I have read there is no difference between the type of waterboarding inflicted by the Japanese on Lt. Chase Nielsen, the pain involved, the gag reflexes and the feeling of drowning and the waterboarding we have been doing to prisoners at Guantanimo. If there is a difference please

I take it then that you reject the following description offered by one of Doolittle’s raiders who was captured and tortured. I take it you think that he was just a big sissy.

Q: Did the questioners threaten you with any other treatment while you were
being questioned
A: Yes, I was given several types of torture…. I was given what they call the water
cure
Q: What was your sensation when they were pouring water…, what did you
physically feel?
A: Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and
death..

Excerpts from testimony of CPT Chase Jay Nielsen, p. 55, Record of Trial, United States v.
Shigeru Sawada et al, (1946) Record of National Archives, Suitland, Maryland.3

Source: http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf
Source: http://www.doolittleraider.com/raiders/nielsen.htm

Nielsen also testified:

“‘Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I’d get my breath, then they’d start over again.’”

How does this – the waterboarding– differ from what we did in Guantanimo?

May 3, 2009 - 9:56 am 155. Ideological Sceptic:

149. macko:
ideological sceptic

“someone else is willing to defend your sceptical ass so that you can sit there and come up with your silly ass arguments.”

If you are/were a soldier, sailor, or marine, thank you for your service. I served four years in the Navy.

If some of my arguments are fallacious, please help me correct them. Point out the fallacies.

I will be eternally thankful.

“Although you have the freedom of speech … sometimes it’s better to just shut up and be grateful.”

Unless you consider yourself infallible and omniscient, and as long as the focus of the discussion is on the validity of arguments and the truth of premises it is never appropriate to tell someone that he/she should shut up.

May 3, 2009 - 10:06 am 156. Ideological Sceptic:

The Shadow

Great to see you here.

You’re doing good work.

May 3, 2009 - 10:15 am 157. TxGent:

No, we should not pour real water on them. We should turn the other cheek…

Oh, that doesn’t work with beheading…

May 3, 2009 - 1:38 pm 158. BettyBlue:

I dunno, Chip D., sounds to me like you’re one of those people who can’t wait for the day when Obama starts rounding up all those right-wing “terrorists”, who attend tea parties.

If you really are concerned, and not just spewing B.S., then, honestly, at this point, you really do have to take this question up with Obama, and his administration—and Obama’s fanatic supporters—not conservatives; they’re the ones in charge now, and they’re the ones who are holding onto these things from the previous administration.

May 3, 2009 - 2:34 pm 159. steveg:

This is a winning issue for republicans, and am hoping this discussion will continue into the mid-term elections. A recent poll revealed that 62% of Americans did not have a problem with the techniques described, as long as they were being used as a last option to save American lives.

The reason the GOP won in 2002 and 2004, was because national security was at the forefront . This is why the left had tried so hard to play down the threat of terrorism over the last few years. With this as an issue going into the 2010 election, it will only be good for the GOP. I am a strong believer that liberal Democrats cannot be trusted with National Security, and this is one of the better examples I have seen.

Also, it will be interesting watching Nancy Pelosi, and others explain what they knew in advance about the interrogation procedures. Hopefully she will not lie under oath, like a certain Ex-President did.

May 3, 2009 - 3:34 pm 160. Michael Haltman:

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques: The Need Is Clear! Let’s Go To The Videotape

The Taliban Moves To Within 60 Kilometers Of Controlling Nuclear Weapons

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

For those on the extremely naive and holier than though left, read this very, very carefully.

If there was any question regarding the use of any technique at our disposal to pull actionable information out of terrorists, I believe the transcript and clip below of Kuwaiti Professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi speaking on the topic of terrorist attacks on the United States should go a long way towards quelling it.

Unless of course you are an employee of the ACLU, or someone that is willing to die, going to the grave with your incorrect principles intact.

Now this professor does not speak for everyone, but for enough to be a concern at the highest level.

This is an excerpt from a speech on Al-Jazeera in February, 2009:…

May 3, 2009 - 5:35 pm 161. Swo - Houston:

A lot of comments about Christians and Jesus. Well when Jesus happened onto the scene, God the Father didn’t just disappear. He still doing a lot of smiting in this world. Even if a lot of it is smiting by omission. Trying to play the Jesus wouldn’t torture really doesn’t mean much, because GTF is quite capable of sactioning it.

May 3, 2009 - 8:18 pm 162. Swo - Houston:

And I’m not even a Christian, although I certainly respect their viewpoint.

May 3, 2009 - 8:20 pm 163. Paul -Indiana:

Re #147. You are making a false moral equivalence between the innocent and the terrorist. No score.

May 4, 2009 - 5:04 am 164. macko:

Ideological sceptic:

I see you missed my point.

Harsh and harsher techniques have been used to extract information that could very easily be shown to have made your very existence possible or just plain kept you or your loved ones out of harms way. For you to come out and be critical of how information that saved your sorry ass was aquired is to difficult for me to understand. Especially when it is after the fact. Do you resent it? is that it? Perhaps you should live somewhere that doesn’t offer the protection that America does. Maybe just a little while so you can open your eyes and mind to the real world. It gets pretty ugly out there and people are literally dying to get in to the US. Hell if your rant on this forum was against any number of countries you would be lucky if all they did was pour water up your nose.

So maybe you should just shut up and be grateful.

May 4, 2009 - 5:34 pm 165. macko:

Haltman:

no link

May 4, 2009 - 5:35 pm 166. Dave Surls:

Frank, that was a great piece of satire.

You captured the cluelessness (and the moral depravity) of the Kumbaya-singing Left perfectly.

May 4, 2009 - 6:56 pm 167. Stephen:

Ideological Skeptic asks: “How does this – the waterboarding– differ from what we did in Guantanimo?”(sic)

Good question. Do you know the answer?

May 5, 2009 - 8:33 pm 168. shaui-jan:

different thread,same arguement that goes nowhere.we are still taking prisoners,we cannot just shoot them on the spot.no gitmo means rendering.rendering means the combatants are horribly abused with no redcross,no over sight,no docters(except to keep them from dying so they can be brutilized some more)obama hasn’t stopped renderng and he will not stop it.why?because he knows we need the intel to prevent further attacks.obl’s number two man was tortured and radicalized in an eqyption prison long before 9/11.we have been bankrolling people to do our dirty work for well over fifty years.and please don’t tell me clinton started rendition,i know that.but our client states have been torturing people on our behalf for a long time.gitmo was the most humane thing we could have done considering the cicumstances.closing it was just a bone thrown to the squimish and uninformed to let them feel morally superior.we will now be responseable for way more brutality so you can feel better about yourselves.congratulations.now please go educate yourselves on the history of our nations envolvement in th middle east before you come in here screaming war crime!or…wwjd?or is torture ok in your eyes a long as other people do it for you.it’s kinda like eating meat and calling hunters inhumane.

May 6, 2009 - 8:22 am 169. adagioforstrings:

re: Mike T: “The United States has also prosecuted people as torturers for waterboarding.”

No, it hasn’t. You are being completely disingenuous. First, he Japanese version of water boarding entailed actually drowning its victims, not simulating drowning. Second, the Japanese were prosecuted for a litany of actual torture, such has putting lit cigarettes out on their victims & pulling finger nails out. The mention of water torture was only mentioned as supporting evidence.

May 6, 2009 - 12:47 pm 170. Jesus Gonzalez:

Why the beep are you guys arguing about this? The line is drawn by whoever is in power and based on their ideology, not reason nor logic. Both sides are hypocritical so those charges redundant. The administration doesn’t care what Fred Thompson thinks, nor Fred’s pet, er, I mean “friend” thinks, and certainly not what the the niche of loser internet forum jockeys think. I have no illusions about that. I also think if it’d boost the traffic here and get the writer a car, he/she would probably argue for the opposite view. The sarcasm is great, though, I mean I never see that used to belittle people. Tres original.

Bottom line: Don’t argue and let’s all search for porn. This is the internet people, you can find better stuff to jerk off to. That’s males AND FEMALES, don’t bring your sexism labels around here.

Spreading the gospel, your friend, “pathetic internet forum” Jesus. It’s Hay-zeus.

Jun 6, 2009 - 2:20 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: