McCain makes a very compelling counterpoint.

My basic point and understanding of waterboarding is that it is highly effective while being less brutal than other options. I was hoping to decouple waterboarding from the overall torture debate on this basis.

It isn't clear that the US giving this up would insure captured American soldiers better treatment.

DB, that it is just wrong thinking IMO.

Although it is repugnant sometimes the consequences make it justifiable.

You mentioned the IRA - I grew up in the UK too in the 70s, and remember the pub bombings etc. Let us suppose that we captured an IRA man who tells us that he has placed a bomb in a pub which will explode in the next 30 minutes, but he will not tell us where.

It would be justifiable to torture him to make him tell us where it is in order to save the lives of the people concerned.

I knew I shouldnt have opened this thread because I like db.

Maybe we should invite them over for tea instead and ask them if they would like a go at the wife whilst I watch, perhaps?

I just asked Daniel Pearl if he felt bad about the tortured prisoners.. he hasn't responded yet.

Sorry, I'm not a relativist on this. I don't accept state-sponsored torture under any circumstances as acceptable. It's a principle with me.

Anyone coming up with hypotheticals to try and make themselves comfortable with accepting they live in a state that tortures prisoners of war is fine - if that helps you reconcile that point of view, go for it, but I do not want to live in a society that ignores the Geneva Convention.


Also, torture is the sign a state is going down the path of dictatorship and use of terror against its own population. I don't think Americans are that familiar with world politics to be aware how clear the connection is, but it's a very high correlation.


Remember the admirable and actually quite profound principles that America was founded on - personal liberty and freedom - and ask yourself if you want that corroded?

Actually, I feel anyone proven to be involved in terrorist planning, training or implementation should be shot through the head. I consider anyone involved in such things are effectively at war with their targets, and if they are not in soldier's uniforms, they should be treated as enemy spies/saboteurs, and shot.


Prisoners of war, on the other hand - ie clearly soldiers - should be accorded the rights of the Geneva Convention.



I really don't even understand anyone thinking it is okay to break the Geneva Convention. Breaking it is an act of gross barbarism imo.

no u

Ya 'Experts disagree' but surely there are some times when it can be expected to be reliable (such as a terrorist having previously given us known reliable information).

Geneva Convention is moot here since it specifically only covers those that fight by the rules - i.e. those that fulfill conditions from article 4 such as :

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Al-Qaeda terrorists are the opposite of that.

The final point, that this means US prisoners are more likely to be tortured seems preposterous to me .. if captured by such people, there was certainly no expectation of being treated humanely anyway.

Okay, if we're going for little sentences, ask yourself:

What Would Lincoln Say?

Seems to be very muddled .. ?

1) so anti-torture, but happy to cold blood execute, yes ?

2) these people are clearly not legitimate POWs, so GC is moot.

Also, please tell me what you would do in the IRA scenario above, or if someone had put a nuke in a suitcase in Leicester town center or whatever.

Yes, happy to see personnel covertly at war with my allies be executed. I'd expect the same for any covert operatives on our side, if caught. That's war.

Can I ask, Indigo, do you think men holding guns/grenade launchers/etc and shooting back at our soldiers in a battle zone aren't legitimate soldiers because they don't have a uniform? Therefore they aren't PoWs if they surrender? Is that your opinion?



(also, a little off-topic, but I do agree the rules of engagement laid down for our troops are frankly ridiculous, and all the politicians involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves)

DB, you still haven't responded to the IRA question.

As for 'legitimate POWs' well yes but we are concerned with the typical Al-Qaeda operative. I don't know why you are obsessing about just the uniform aspect ?

The point is that those that fight according to the rules are protected. Those that do not are not, and this means - dressing like NCs ; hiding amongst NCs for protection and to increase NC deaths for propaganda purposes; targetting NCs -- it obviously is not just limited to wearing a uniform or not.

Once you mention men in uniform, it becomes impossible for db to concentrate.

Okay, I'll try and make it clear.

I find the use of torture against absolutely anyone for any reason whatsoever morally reprehensible and unacceptable.

There are a number of reasons for holding this view, but it basically it boils down a simple utilitarian argument: 'brutality breeds brutality, dehumanisation of others makes monsters of us all'.


You may find all sorts of hypotheticals or reasons to justify torture, and feel fine that your government was indulging in this, fine, but don't expect a lot of people who know history, world politics etc to agree with you. Jesus, even the French have the moral highground on you at the moment.

Thank goodness your country elected someone with a moral stance on this. Seriously, this is much more an important step than even the fact he's black or whatever. To have another 4 years+ of someone indulging in this would have been toxic for America on the global stage, I believe.

Thank goodness the relationship between the American government and people is starting to get back to a symbiotic one where the gov does stuff for the people, and the people do stuff for the government, rather than having that evil parastic worm called Bush-Cheney sitting in America's guts, firing out signals to dull your senses while it fed off your fears and uncertainties relentlessly and destructively.

AND WHERE THE HELL IS MY TINFOIL HAT?

blah blah blah

blah blah blah

I agree with the French

blah blah blah

Dick Cheney is more of a man than I could ever be

blah blah blah

Okay, I've cracked. There are circumstances where I'd torture someone. Kevroc.

I don't know if this smug, rather deranged diatribe is directed at me, since it seems that you have not answered the questions put, nor is it 'my government'.

.. but this was my favourite part ! The condescension, sophistry and falseness are irresistible.

I did my best

Wait, this says the President knew about an attack on the West Coast yet ordered waterboarding? What the hell is a "perceived" time limit? Have you read about what these "enhanced" interrogation techniques involve? The language here would be enough to convince anyone that a terrorist is subject to a smallish room at a weight loss clinic.

One terrorist was subject to waterboarding for over a month. So the "perceived time limit" expired, but the waterboarding continued for over a month. Aren't you even a bit suspicious of "credible CIA intelligence" at this point?

In response to other points you make, Entertainme, once again, I believe we have been diminished because of these actions.

If you are referring to the Daniel Pearl killing, entertaineme, then I take back my initial response. Because questioning my reaction or feelings about such a despicable act is too low, insulting, and misleading of a question to deserve an answer.

You seem to have a severe bitterness toward those who take a left of center view. I may not agree with you on a ton of issues, but I would never stoop to accusing you of being a terrorist sympathizer, or impugn your love of your country or your priorities.

No, it is not. No one here has done so. But I would rather not put myself on their level. You seem to have no such reservations.

Again, just because I think my country should not torture others does not mean I'm all for others doing so, and your framing things in such either/or terms is beneath you.

Pretty shocked at some of the responses here. Apparently, state sponsored torture is okay if it's on the side you're on, but it's a despicable practice when utilized by the other guys. Which allows us to freely permit ourselves to indulge in such atrocities. It becomes a perpetuating and debasing cycle.

Which is why we are taught when we are young that two wrongs don't make a right.

One of the links I posted makes a very good point. If such torture and persecution is seriously useful in stopping "enemies of the state", someone explain to me how Christianity thrived? It seems, as some have mentioned, that it has a pretty serious counter-effect.

DB is right. A battlefield situation is entirely different. I have a friend who passed away a few years ago. A Vietnam veteran. Some of the things he had to do to survive haunted him until he died. But it was a matter of personal survival. Battlefield conditions between combatants are a different matter entirely. And situations that civilians may be put in are the same. But to broach your entire foreign policy in such "them or us" primal survivalist mentality, though, with accepted components such as torture, is not only corrosive, it is counter-productive.

The "examples" cited, the bus and the bomb, are extreme and unlikely. In such events, circumstances may dictate a certain course of action. But for a state to condone torture, with such flimsy relativism, leaves no recourse for responsibility of misuse and counter-productive results that may harm more than they help.

Wait a second...did DB just say something nice about the French?

I have to go to a meeting. I have been without internet service for about 12 hours now (bad weather) and haven't had a chance to grok everything here yet. But JFK's point about our leader's misuse of interrogative practices was a very salient point that should be considered. It doesn't change my mind, and I don't agree with the overall post, but it does add a dimension to the discussion.

Are you saying the Christians never tortured?

Also If you are going to torture dont condemn others that do it to your citizens as well. You cant be 1/2 for it either its a yes or no question. Personally I say no. But if someone kidnapped my pooch and it had 24 hours to live I would pop the guy in the knee caps for info

Its easy to say your against it till it is somethiong you love that is effected

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

Nope. Never said that. Never even implied it. But during their formative years (and I'm talking about the Christian movement, here, not the fully structured organization the Catholic church later became), they were persecuted by the state, sometimes aggressively.

They did torture, as well, at least later on. And probably more efficiently. Which begs the question, if torture works, how come free thought, reformation, and Islam thrived after the inquisitions and the crusades?

True. But objectivity and personal resonance are frequently at odds. Which would you prefer someone use when drawing up laws that you are going to be held accountable to?

I forget..their chief weapon...fear and surprise, or surprise and fear?