The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

SERE was not torture. Torture is not consensual. The tortured are not given a safe word or signal they can use to stop things whenever they want. And the fact that waterboarding was included is a pretty solid indicator that the military considers it torture. The point, after all, was to expose soldiers to a flavor of what it would be like to be tortured. It wasn't "here are perfectly legal and reasonable -- though tough minded -- extreme interrogation techniques you might experience if captured training" it was "here're are some of the things you might experience if you're captured and tortured" training.

SERE gave a taste of what it might be like to be tortured but psychicly it is fundamentally different from toture. On another board someone who has been through SERE said it well, I think. It was torturous, not torture.

And to pre-empt the eventual question that comes up. If torture was the only thing standing between us avoiding another 9/11, it would still be wrong to torture and that would be, in my view, and acceptable price to pay for standing by some very important principles.

That said, I certainly understand the pressure that leads to torture and after the fact society may decide to forgive or only lightly punish a transgession if the evidence is strong that it did do just such a thing (currently there is little such evidence for the torturing we did do). But still, you don't pre-emptively exonerate people for immoral acts that they might commit under the pressure to succeed.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

And to pre-empt the eventual question that comes up. If torture was the only thing standing between us avoiding another 9/11, it would still be wrong to torture and that would be, in my view, and acceptable price to pay for standing by some very important principles.

Something on which I do not doubt your sincerity at all, because you are not someone seeking political advantage.

No one would ever convince me though, that should something horrid have happened (say the LA 9/11 thing), Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, whomever, would all be on the other side asking why we didn't use more agressive techniques to find out whatever we could.

And this is what disturbs me about politics, really. I don't consider myself innocent of it in the least. EVERYTHING can be spun in hindsight to make a political opponent look inept. With rare exception, I do believe (Obama included) that politicians have the best interests of America at heart, but each politician wants to be the one who is credited with making the decisions that have bettered America. Should Kerrey or Gore have been President and made some of or all of the same decisions, the left would be all for them and justifying or downplaying the significance of just what they are now condemning.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

No one would ever convince me though, that should something horrid have happened (say the LA 9/11 thing), Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, whomever, would all be on the other side asking why we didn't use more agressive techniques to find out whatever we could.

Opinions based on "what if" and hypothetical "shoe on the other foot" scenarios have got to be the least convincing rhetorical device ever!

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex

And to pre-empt the eventual question that comes up. If torture was the only thing standing between us avoiding another 9/11, it would still be wrong to torture and that would be, in my view, and acceptable price to pay for standing by some very important principles.

I would disagree with that as a theoretical matter. It arguably is another species of exigent circumstances, a familiar doctrine that says police don't need a search warrant if they have reasonable belief of an imminent or ongoing harm. Also, in such situations, I would draw both a moral and legal distinction between what might properly be done to save lives and what would be appropriate to admit in a criminal prosecution.

The problem that I have with the argument is that is akin to the capital punishment defense, "Well, would you execute Hitler?" in that it has little basis in reality. So far, no one executed in the U.S. actually has been Hitler, and so far, there's no evidence that we tortured anyone with a focused and reasonable belief that they knew where the bomb was.

I also heard someone say that a problem with torture is that it is bad and lazy intelligence gathering in that the torturer generally has an answer in mind that he wants to hear in order for the torture to stop.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I would disagree with that as a theoretical matter.

I agree. When we live in a world where it is possible to know with absolute certainty that Person A absolutely knows Fact B which will prevent Catastrophe C and torture is the only way to get it, then my view will change.

So I should have written "if we believed that torture was all that stood between preventing another 9/11..."

In the real world I don't know that the requistie perfect knowledge is possible but if you're holding a prisoner and believe it to be so then go ahead and torture, but do it knowing your violating our principles and very well may be punished for it. If it is so important it is worth torturing then it is important enough to live with the consequences.