"We don't torture people in America and people who say we do simply know nothing about our country." - George W. Bush
It is the quintessential argument for supporters of harsh interrogation.
If your child was abducted and you had custody of an individual with knowledge that could possibly assist in the rescue of your child, would you use any and all means necessary (torture) to extract that information?
The answer is unequivocally yes, and no one can argue that torture doesn't work because there is no clear evidence of failure. But you can't argue that torture does work, because there is no quantifiable success that can be measured.
However, you cannot argue for torture without eliminating the moral lines between humane and inhumane treatment. But then again, you cannot argue against torture without understanding the possible consequences of inaction.
Torture is a relatively general term and is subjective since it can be used to describe any method which successfully leads to the extraction of information from any individual unwilling to initially provide that information.
Thus, even interrogation methods with no perceived physical abuse (sleep deprivation, sound/sensory deprivation, water-boarding, stripping, stress positions) should always be considered torture since the point is to make the detainee experience enough discomfort to persuade them to comply.
On the other hand, physically painful, life-threatening, and permanently damaging procedures deemed excessive and inhumane in most parts of the world (hand/finger amputating, whipping/flogging/caning, burning/branding, electrocution) have been throughout history, routine disciplinary actions for crimes committed in certain cultures.
If you support water-boarding and consider the torture debate ridiculous and claim your country should be able to use any and all means necessary to extract information if there is the possibility to save American lives, then there can be no moral line drawn between excessive and acceptable methods. In other words, if the situation is grave enough to call for torture, then you should have no qualms with any methods if it can achieve the desired result. In this case, your tax dollars are supporting the government's right on your behalf to torture any individual it feels has information that endangers the lives of its citizens.
Ali Soufan, a former senior FBI agent involved in the interrogation of captured al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah told a Senate panel Wednesday that the use of harsh techniques to extract information was "slow, ineffective and unreliable."1
If you don't support water-boarding and are concerned that your government's use of power is excessive, broad, and ambiguous (how ironic for conservatives since this is usually the position of liberals and it is one of less government, not more), then you support the humane treatment of all people under any circumstance. In other words, illegal immigrants, serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, and purveyors of genocide would all be offered the same basic rights as any detainee, regardless of their potential impact on society. The only remaining factor is exacting justice for the crimes committed.
Consider the comments of former Navy General Counsel Alberto J. Mora:
"If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America -- even those designated as 'unlawful enemy combatants.' If you make this exception the whole Constitution crumbles."2
In my opinion, any individual detained under the umbrella of societal civil law obviously falls within the laws of that culture and therefore should be provided the same rights afforded to its citizens. If a man breaks into your home and murders your children and you have the opportunity to kill him but you instead turn him over to the authorities, you are immediately relinquishing any later opportunity to strip him of his rights as a citizen. Basically, you should have killed him when you had the chance. The same can be said for terrorists. If you are in war and catch terrorists in so-called "terror" activity, you should "interrogate" those individuals immediately if you believe they have critical information. Once you officially "detain" them, you are relinquishing any later opportunity to strip them of their rights.
1 Ex-FBI Interrogator Calls Harsh Tactics 'Ineffective' by Scott Neuman, NPR
2 [Feb. 27, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, entitled "The Memo"]
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
You presented both the facts and a balanced view on the merits or lack thereof on this issue. Well written, thank you for offering this to the Gather community.
I believe the most compelling statement made yesterday was in denouncing the basic premise of the Bush Administrations argument, ... tick tick tick, ticking time bomb scenario.
Soufan countered that his personal experience showed that the harsh interrogation techniques did not work even when there was not a lot of time to prevent an attack.
"Waiting 180 hours as part of the sleep deprivation stage is time we cannot afford to wait in a ticking bomb scenario," he said.
Soufan said the harsh techniques were "ineffective, slow and unreliable and, as a result, harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaida."
The administration said Abu Zubaydah was not cooperating before Aug. 1, 2002, when waterboarding was approved. "The truth is that we got actionable intelligence from him in the first hour of interrogating him" before that date.
The administration credited waterboarding for Zubaydah's information that led to the capture of Padilla, who received a 17-year, four-month sentence, although prosecutors did not present any dirty-bomb information. Padilla was arrested in May 2002, months before waterboarding was authorized, Soufan said.
Bush officials contended that waterboarding revealed the involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks of al-Qaida mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Soufan said the information was discovered in April 2002, months before waterboarding was introduced.
Watch this interview: Torture Testimony @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
Also, an Interview with a Military Vet who taught at S.E.R.E. school @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30733090
The Ticking Time Bomb scenario has been proven FALSE ! Tick Tick Tick
If it is illegal to torture a person convicted of a capital crime, how could it be legal or honorable to torture someone who merely is suspected of having information?
I hope the post is widely read.
Yes, I support the humane treatment of all people, including illegal immigrants, serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, and purveyors of genocide. And also of those suspected of having committed such acts.
Because what if it's not my child who's been abducted, but my child who's being tortured because somebody thinks he has information that could assist in finding and rescuing the abducted child? What if they're both my kids? If one of my kids witnessed his brother being abducted, but couldn't remember whether the can he was pulled into was green or blue, should I waterboard or electrocute him to see if that helps him remember?
Torture against any person is a deranged method of causing unnecessary pain and mental degradation. It doesn't matter if its your kid, my kid or any other living thing its torture in black and white.
Bush put us back into the dark ages and Obama is going to keep us there.
These are great points. Unfortunately, proponents will say that this is one very small possibility and is outweighed by the greater good served by the protection of all.
I can understand their feelings.
I think we all would agree that the fact that torture/interrogation is happening just proves that there are gross abuses and misconduct due to those very feelings of despair and anger. It only stands to reason that if given the opportunity to interrogate a dangerous person, there can only be room for animosity and revenge which would lead to even more abuse.
Of course the Pakistan government wouldn't do that since we just tripled financial aid to that country (with money we don't have), but that's not the issue. The point is, they would be justified (by the standard of "torture to save lives" concept), particularly since we're bombing a sovereign nation.
Of course they would be justified in torturing American pilots which is why our military is trained in interrogation techniques.
But wouldn't they also know that pilots and ground forces would have very little useful knowledge? Hmmm....you mean like the hundreds of prisoners we captured and detain in Guatanamo Bay?
But then, you are speaking to the fact that Americans are typically self-centered and feel that our culture is one of universal peacekeeping, therefore, we are entitled to make and break the rules.