Okay, but how would all that have applied to the KSM case? KSM boasted to his captors of his knowledge of another coming attack, and when asked about it, he taunted, “You’ll see.”

What to do? Waterboard KSM to obtain information that would preserve thousands of innocent lives? Or isolate him morally mentally and physically until the resulting “insanity” causes him eventually to admit defeat (meanwhile Los Angeles goes up in smoke)?

Next John Robb, in the link, says that, while weakening connections of terrorists, the U.S. should be doing the opposite of strengthening its connections to its own referents by abiding by standards of conduct we profess to uhold, i.e., don’t torture. By not upholding these standards, we set up internal opposition which then ruins everything we’re trying to accomplish. IOW, we shouldn’t be hypocrites. Okay fine. Let’s let innocent people die so that we won’t be open to charges of hypocrisy. Can this really be what we call moral?

John Robb’s “grand strategy” may be great in a broadly general kind of way but in regard to it’s applicability to the singular particularity of the KSM case, it sounds more like a bunch of useless gobbledegook to me.

I get no pleasure at all from thinking about the suffering of anybody, even a vile creature like KSM, so if there were an equally effective way of dealing with cases like this and with these killers who delight in killing, I’d be all for it.

If we had never touched KSM, because we’re too moral to do so, if we had allowed him to keep his little secret and the LA attack had proceeded as planned, I think Satan himself would have been pleased as punch with all the death and destruction. But then, I think our society has cultivated a lot of sympathy for the devil over the last 40-50 years.

I also find it rather odd that a society so in love with the concept of nuance and shades of gray suddenly can find no room for anything but a rigid absolute.

“TORTURE AND MORAL ISOLATION”
by John Robb, 4/25/09

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2009/04/torture-and-moral-isolation.html

There have been too many innocents housed on death row to believe otherwise. Acceptance of such methods creates its own bubble of sorts.

This can only be true when the torture victim is innocent. A confession obtained by torture of an innocent person is, of course, not going to be worthwhile. Do Mark’s supporters suppose Khalid Sheik Mohammad is innocent? Maybe they do; after all, we haven’t put him on trial yet!

The information obtained from KSM prevented another 911 in LA. IMO, what was done to him doesn’t qualify as torture – I’d call the beheading of Daniel Pearl torture – but even if these techniques do constitute bona fide torture, I still say the state’s duty is clear: to prevent the shedding of innocent blood of thousands of people when it’s in their power to do so.

This does not make us “bad.” It doesn’t mean that the end justifies the means.

On one side you have terrorists whose avowed purpose is killing innocents and the more the better. On the other side you have legitimate agents of the state conducting interrogations with doctors standing by, for pete’s sake.

Frankly, this should not be a hard call. Let’s see, which shall it be, thousands of dead innocents or KSM subjected to distress? Only a hopelessly decadent society would be wringing their hands over this.

To tolerate mass deaths of innocents as the price we must pay in order to call ourselves morally superior is evil to its core. And even Wretchard, much as I respect his opinion, can’t convince me otherwise.

Heck yeah it was better than nothing!

Not sure what CCW means. I am in a concealed-carry state but I wasn’t planning to carry it around with me. Just want something better for here in the house. But who knows, I may be rethinking that in time too.

Poor Shadow. He’s aptly named. What can one say to someone like that? He thinks he knows we’re just a bunch of dangerous dolts – who don’t even know how kooky dangerous we are – and we need the elites to force us to behave. As you said, he has no idea of my, or your, or any gun-owner’s level of commitment, responsibility or maturity but he has to communicate his disrespect anyway. I’ll guess he’s never been mugged by reality.

So many complacent Americans, who’ve long been blessed with such a high level of safety and comfort, left to go about their lives in peace, living on the dwindling capital built up for us by those who went before but forgetting what those who left us this legacy knew… barring a miracle, it’s all fixing to change. The majority of Americans asked for change and their request was granted.

For me, the school is still out on torture during war which we are currently fighting worldwide. According to Mark and his supporters, there is nothing worthwhile that you can obtain from torture. I used the same argument about the french resistance making rapid changes to their network when anyone was captured because no matter how brave, they would break and give up everything. If torture were not effective, it would have ended centuries ago.

Is it ethical in wartime? Is it OK if a city is saved from attack? It would seem if you can legally and morally protect your family from someone breaking in even to shooting them in their defense, then there has to be some argument about obtaining information in this war to save thousands of lives. But Mark Shea says no and if you try to reason why, you are banned. What does Mark fear in argument? why so timid on debate.

You’ve said all that needs saying re George – I’m one of those guys who hopes to hell his time – meaning IRAQ!!!! – looks better in 10 years…But…Then I get sent passages like the following – GWB in 2003:

“Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere… I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture.”

198 – I think the distinctions between waterboarding and water torture matter as does the fact that the WWII wb came with a set of other tortures – but you may be misunderestimating the other dimensions of “enhanced” interrogation…- Did you read the cryptic stuff in the Senate report about the guy who got the dog collar and was forced to do “animal” tricks (whatever that meant) – He’s the guy they let out and OFF in 2008 because they couldn’t bring the unmentionable stuff up at trial. There’s also a fair amount stuff re forced standing — Rummy’s famous line re “I stand at my desk for hours” isn’t really to the point – I remember the story in the IRC report re one guy – his hands shackled over his head – for days at a time – had an artifical leg. They removed that in order to put more pressure on – he’s naked too and shitting himself as he falls asleep – and jerks awake – hanging by his hands – I think that amounts to torture…

ONe more thing – I heard Bill Bennet say – it can’t be toture – we use the SERE tecbniques on our own people. BB forgot to mention they’re given a pass-word that allows them to cry uncle if the training gets too rough (and of course they KNOW it’s training!) The justifiers for “enhanced” interrogation do seem to be verging on dishonorable argufying…

Wade – The accounts of interrogation in FEAR UP HARSH suggest a fair amount of random brutalizaton went on outside Abu G. That’s one reason why Petraeus held forth in that memo on the necessity for “humane” behavior among America’s warriors – The senate report uses his words at the top…Doubt those crazies at A.G. were quite as far from the pre-2006 norm as you might hope…PS Did you notice that ALL the services resisted the Administration’s first offer of “enhanced” interrogation techniques. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force ALL asked for a “Review” of the legal rationales as they were NOT buying in. Myers (and Rummy) shut that down – General M. was/is no Petraeus…

At any rate, it sure was better than nothing for you, now wasn’t it?

Thinking about a new one? Well, I am here to give you all sorts of good advice. You in a CCW state?

BTW: What DOES The Shadow know? How I handle my end of smokepoles is not part of his knowledgeability.