The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[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.

[Alex]

Possibly, though you didn't realize anybody demanding torture-in-hindsight following 9/11 and we did have access.

But certainly politicians will sway to some degree with the political breeze. And to the extent that Democrats in positions of authority to intervene were aware and did nothing then they are deserving of the same response (though Pelosi or Hastert being told about it in a meeting she wasn't legally allowed to talk about and Bush making sure the legal office produced exactly the CYA guidance they wanted are not the same thing. And while Pelosi may have remained silent (she claims to have not actually be told while committee chair) the next minority chair of the intelligence committee, Jane Harmon, did write a letter of protest in February 2003 when she was told waterboarding had been used. So while you can claim she should have done more, her position (Harmon's) has been consistent.

[scaeagles]

Interrogation is not an issue of only finding out new information. A good interrogator will always ask many, many questions - by far the majority - that they already know the answers to. When the subject lies, they inform the subject of the real answer.

And Flippy.....hypotheticals are dealt with ALL the time. And really, I don't see this as exceptionally hypothetical. It is not difficult to surmise that political parties spin the decisions of their party members in one way and identical actions of the other party in the complete opposite.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Interrogation is not an issue of only finding out new information. A good interrogator will always ask many, many questions - by far the majority - that they already know the answers to. When the subject lies, they inform the subject of the real answer.

And Flippy.....hypotheticals are dealt with ALL the time. And really, I don't see this as exceptionally hypothetical. It is not difficult to surmise that political parties spin the decisions of their party members in one way and identical actions of the other party in the complete opposite.

A) Sure. I said nothing about standard interrogation procedure. No disagreement here. But the major justification of waterboarding is (can you deny this?) that we gained big important life-saving information from it. So, I'm eager to know more about that information.

B) Of course everybody spins. But saying that you know how democrats would react in a hypothetical situation is not evidence, and it's equally eye-rolling for me when the other side does it, too.

It's a horse that has been flogged in the Daily Grind many many times. I really enjoy learning new facts that shed light on the issues, and I welcome them even when they come from the other side of the aisle. (Sometimes the truth really does sting - that's fine) But hypothetical "I know what your lot would do" adds nothing to the conversation for me. I stand by this, and apologize in advance if I misunderstood your intent somehow.

[Strangler Lewis]

If it's not torture, why do it. Waterboarding doesn't seem to be easily lumped under the category of "loss of privileges," e.g., "Tell us everything you know, or you can't watch Zack and Cody."

So, if your soldier friends thought it wasn't torture, I submit that either 1) they didn't experience it long enough or 2) we're bad at devising methods of torture.

The latter argument certainly doesn't excuse us. It calls to mind the testimony of the defense expert at the Rodney King beating trial who said, no, Officer Powell was not committing police brutality because, as you can see, his baton technique is really quite poor.

[Betty]

If someone in your family was suspected of being a terrorist, would you feel comfortable knowing that this was one of the techniques that would be used to "make them talk".

Note this would be before they had a trial - this would be an attempt to gain valuable information to save American lives.

[scaeagles]

I answered that above in post 4464. I said

I will certainly admit that in part could be because they knew it was training and didn't figure anyone was planning on killing them.

They didn't expand on their experience much.

[scaeagles]

And while the national debate continues along the lines of waterboarding 3 terrorists, North Korea detonates a nuclear weapon. Good thing they followed through on their agreements to dismantle their weapons programs!

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And while the national debate continues along the lines of waterboarding 3 terrorists, North Korea detonates a nuclear weapon. Good thing they followed through on their agreements to dismantle their weapons programs!

Is anyone suggesting that this isn't as important? I bet we'll hear more about this than waterboarding for a cycle or two.