61% of Americans think torture is okay?

[Berek]

Sleep deprivation, drugs, psychological methods don't equate to torture in my book however, who is going to write the interrogation rules?

You're right. It actually sounds more like my college years...

 

[NineseveN]

Sure. What Lincoln did to the South was unforgivable. He even imprisoned Northerners, without due process, just for disagreeing with him. But at least history has judged him as someone who illegitimately assumed dictatorial powers, i.e., he was not acting properly under our system of government. But I don't think that even a monster like Lincoln stooped to torturing captured Confederates for information. He starved them to death, but that's an atrocity somewhat inferior to torture, and more importantly it was done despite our safeguards, not because we decided as a nation to abandon those safeguards.

That's an interesting point, but I fail to see how starving someone to death is better than torturing them for information. I don't see the moral high ground there really, and it may simply be a matter of personal opinion. I do recall however that Confederates were indeed tortured, maybe not exactly for information, but does that make it better? I think not. It goes to show that my point that you are responding to is very valid though, and I think if we all take an objective look at the actions we as a nation have taken, we can see that we were not on the high ground because we were perfect or failed to commit nefarious acts, but simply because we fought for what was right, even if our tactics were deplorable. The ends sometimes justifies the means. It's a slippery slope, I agree, but it's one we're subject to anyway from our aggressors, might as well make some decisions and try to control the descent.

Your closing point sums your argument up, and I hinestly do see where you are coming from, I still maintain that this is no civil war or conventional wr, and that some latitude needs to apply, despite our personal feelings either way.

 

[FeebMaster]

I think that, at one time, what you call government schools did in fact impart American values. I certainly learned from a lot of good teachers back in the 60s and 70s that our nation was founded on a belief in inalienable human rights that governments must be made to respect in their acts and laws, and that the alternative was to be like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. I'm sorry that wasn't your experience, but at least most of us learned this in the good old days, if not from school, then certainly from our parents.

My father, who is in his middle seventies now, was in a conversation with a Bush supporter a couple of months ago, and when the other guy was dismissing as unimportant the problems associated with torturing terror suspects for information, my father paused, then thoughtfully observed that it seemed to him that the kind of thing that had always made him particularly proud to be an American was that only the bad guys, not Americans, did things like that. We were the good guys, and were damned proud of it. He seemed perplexed that someone who he had always thought was pro-American held a view to the contrary. I was glad to see that my father's old timy American values have not faded in the current mad rush to get all the inconvenient laws out of the way of our government.

Schools do impart American values. The values of the people running for office today and of the people voting for them. The values of people who think torture is okay. People who grew up in the last century valuing liberty did so despite the public schools, not because of them.

Sure. What Lincoln did to the South was unforgivable. He even imprisoned Northerners, without due process, just for disagreeing with him. But at least history has judged him as someone who illegitimately assumed dictatorial powers, i.e., he was not acting properly under our system of government.

Are you kidding? Lincoln is remembered as the greatest president the United States ever had. He's practically a God to Republicans. He saved the Union! People that see Lincoln for what he was are as few and far between as people who really value liberty.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

That's an interesting point, but I fail to see how starving someone to death is better than torturing them for information. I don't see the moral high ground there really, and it may simply be a matter of personal opinion. I do recall however that Confederates were indeed tortured, maybe not exactly for information, but does that make it better? I think not. It goes to show that my point that you are responding to is very valid though, and I think if we all take an objective look at the actions we as a nation have taken, we can see that we were not on the high ground because we were perfect or failed to commit nefarious acts, but simply because we fought for what was right, even if our tactics were deplorable. The ends sometimes justifies the means. It's a slippery slope, I agree, but it's one we're subject to anyway from our aggressors, might as well make some decisions and try to control the descent.

Your closing point sums your argument up, and I hinestly do see where you are coming from, I still maintain that this is no civil war or conventional wr, and that some latitude needs to apply, despite our personal feelings either way.

Yes, well the closing point was the main point of my post, i.e., that you can point to all kinds of black marks on our history, but they were done despite, not because, of our system of safeguards. What many are proposing today is the abandonment of those safeguards, arguing that the principles themselves are faulty. That is a huge and regrettable departure for Americans. At least Lincoln had the "decency" to usurp the power of suspending habeas corpus, thus not besmirching our Constitution with his actions.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Are you kidding? Lincoln is remembered as the greatest president the United States ever had. He's practically a God to Republicans. He saved the Union! People that see Lincoln for what he was are as few and far between as people who really value liberty.

Most well educated people, even those who admire him, know that Lincoln was acting extra-Constitutionally.

 

[jcoiii]

I skipped the last 30 or so posts so if this has already been stated then +1 to whoever said it.

If you define torture as sleep deprivation, loud music, etc. then I was tortured during my four years of college. You want to talk about torture? Let's talk about the witnesses in the Sadaam trial. Let's talk about people getting their HEADS CUT OFF WHILE THEY ARE ALIVE!

If it means saving even one american soldier or civilian, then I say let these scum go without sleep for a week. Are there limits? Of course, but what the blissninny left (note that all lefters do not fall into this category of blissninny) want me to believe is that sleep deprivation and loud music and wearing panties on their heads is EQUIVALENT to sawing off a live person's head! That is unforgiveable in my mind.

 

[FeebMaster]

Most well educated people, even those who admire him, know that Lincoln was acting extra-Constitutionally.

And most of them just don't care. They still think he was the greatest despite a few minor imperfections.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And most of them just don't care. They still think he was the greatest despite a few minor imperfections.

They are deceived. He was one of the world's worst despots at the time.

 

[Lupinus]

They are deceived. He was one of the world's worst despot at the time.

They also think the civil war was simply about the south wanting to persecute people and keep them as slaves.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

They also think the civil war was simply about the south wanting to persecute people and keep them as slaves.

True, your average uneducated person might think that. Anyone who has actually taken any kind of a look knows that it was about the right to government by the consent of the governed. North and South had become too different to remain in the same union. The South no longer consented to that arrangement. The only way to stop secession was to destroy the South, and Lincoln was determined to stop secession, because it would have been the ruin of the North, although the South would have been just fine.

 

[Lupinus]

Agreed.

Also if I'm not mistken Lincoln didn't issue the order freeing the slaves (was that even with congress?) untill after the war had started. If I'm not mistaken that is.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Agreed.

Also if I'm not mistken Lincoln didn't issue the order freeing the slaves (was that even with congress?) untill after the war had started. If I'm not mistaken that is.

Yes, the emancipation proclamation had no force in law, as the legality of slavery was assumed under the Constitution at the time he proclaimed its eradication, and congress never voted on it. Even if they had voted it into law, it would not have been Constitutional because the US Constitution did not delegate the power to free the slaves to the Federal Government. That required the Thirteenth Amendment.

 

[BuddyOne]

Lincoln???

Liberals are soooooo delicate. Their intellectual arguments are filled with feathery, lightly nuanced conclusions that instruct us on the error of our ways. I am told that my views of Honest Abe's qualities are "relative" to the fact that he was a politician's politician. This relativism is pushed on us by those who (for fifty years) have affirmatively told our country's black population that they are the "party of the people." Relatively speaking, the blacks are still waiting for something to happen other than liberal hot air.

Since relativism is your poorly camouflaged game, try this-

If the United States of America applied torture often enough and well enough, our armed services would be home by now.

It would be a real delight to see service veterans sitting in college classrooms laughing out loud at their profs.....

Buddy

 

[Art Eatman]

Lincoln-hijack of this thread = locked thread.

Probably oughta start over and try to give a consensus definition of torture. Or, maybe, a consensus notion of what torture ISN'T!

That is, if the same people who will include yelling at a kid as "child abuse" are also given the power to define torture, well, God bless us and save us...

Art

 

[NineseveN]

That is, if the same people who will include yelling at a kid as "child abuse" are also given the power to define torture, well, God bless us and save us...

Art

Lol, Art, good point.

 

[1911 guy]

Well said, Art.

My position is that if we're talking about the average grunt terrorist that is just doing what he's told, torture is out of the question. If, however, we have a for-sure-no-doubt somebody who knows something, all bets are off. Is it the "American" thing to do? No, but then neither is ambushing because after all, John Wayne never ambushed anybody. I'd much rather employ somewhat questionable tactics and save american lives than be so cotton pickin' (for lack of THR friendly words) politically correct that we literally kill ourselves trying to nor offend the same that flew planes into our world trade center.

 

[RomanKnight]

Well, if you still believe that 19 Muslim Arabs with box cutters did 911, directed by a guy on a dialysys machine in a cave in Freakin'stan, that makes it ok to torture anybody who fits that description. The example from Nazi Germany is all about incrementalism. First, you start with the really unpopular segment (Jews then, Muslim Arabs now). Gradually, you expand that segment, and/or add new ones (communists and other religions then, enemy combatants, domestic terrorists, political disidents, gun owners, [fill in the blanks]). What does "enemy combatant" mean? If it's enemy, who declared him an enemy? If so, is he a soldier, openly wearing a uniform, or a distinguishing feature (armband), and part of an organized unit? If yes, shoot him, blow him to pieces, and if he surrenders, treat him like POW. If not, a civilian caught with weapons, put him to the wall, and spend 12 rounds on him. Don't do anything that you would not have done to your own soldiers, that is. Obey Hague and Geneva and whatever other conventions exist -we, the US, can do that, maintain a high moral ground AND win the fight. Every time we torture, abuse, kill by mistake anybody in that part of the world, we become, in their eyes, an even bigger Satan, increasing their drive to kill one of us. Not saying to kill'em with kindness. Just think what would you like done to yourself, what rights and priviledges you would want, both in this country and abroad, civilian or military (food, lawyers, medical treatment,torture, abuse), draw the line there, and behave accordingly. Call anything and everything you don't want to suffer yourself, "torture".

 

[bjbarron]

We just didn't air our dirty laundry in public in the past.

That was before the feminization and emasculation of a good percentage of the men in this country.

Just talk to a few WWII combat vets about what they saw...my Dad had interesting stories about the SS they caught and our Marine neighbor had the same about the Japanese. Is playing 'hunt the naked SS in the woods' considered torture?

Different times, a different people.

Personally I'm in the 'ticking bomb' camp. Anything goes if there's a ticking bomb somewhere, a lot* goes if you catch the leaders and need strategic info, and just lock up the grunts somewhere.

*You need do nothing more than is experienced in our E & E training by our own soldiers.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Just talk to a few WWII combat vets about what they saw...my Dad had interesting stories about the SS they caught and our Marine neighbor had the same about the Japanese. Is playing 'hunt the naked SS in the woods' considered torture?

Different times, a different people.

Personally I'm in the 'ticking bomb' camp. Anything goes if there's a ticking bomb somewhere, a lot* goes if you catch the leaders and need strategic info, and just lock up the grunts somewhere.

*You need do nothing more than is experienced in our E & E training by our own soldiers.

What soldiers do outside of national policy is quite a different thing from making it national policy.

 

[Waitone]

What soldiers do outside of national policy is quite a different thing from making it national policy.

Wrong. In an era of instant communications and a 724 news cycle, what soldiers do on the battlefield is by definition national policy in the eyes of the watching world. Reality be damned. I draw your attention to Abu Graib. To this day the US is tarred with that brush in spite of taking legal action against the perps.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Wrong. In an era of instant communications and a 724 news cycle, what soldiers do on the battlefield is by definition national policy in the eyes of the watching world. Reality be damned. I draw your attention to Abu Graib. To this day the US is tarred with that brush in spite of taking legal action against the perps.

Those soldiers were following someone's orders. Somehow the people who gave those orders got off the hook. My personal opinion is that they came from the top in the form of the president saying something like, "I want to know everything they know, and I don't want to know, nor do I care, how you accomplish that." Perhaps when I said national policy, I should have said consistent with the laws of our nation. National policy, or the policy of a field commander, or a corporal on the ground, can be inconstant with the laws of our nation, and when they are, they are wrong, and the people responsible need to be brought to justice.

In no way did I intend to advocate that policy makers, at whatever level, act contrary to our nation's laws. I do realize, however, that it does happen. When it does, we should not make patsies out of those who were just following orders, although they too need to be brought to justice.

 

[Art Eatman]

I've always been just really hostile to the idea of gratuitious harm to anybody. The operative word is "gratuitous".

I'm generally against torture--in the sense of physical damage and extreme mental damage--against any enemy. That doesn't mean I'm gonna bust some agent's chops because of a time-pressure field expedient. "Agent" as in a military guy or somebody given charge of a definitely-known terrorist when time is a notably important factor.

I figure that run-of-the-mill hostiles oughta be treated pretty much as we did the WW II POWs. But leadership guys when it's known that a deal is going down that would kill a bunch of us? My priority is saving our folks.

Sure, any system can be abused. But, no matter how many laws you pass, somebody, somewhere, some time, is gonna abuse any system. Mexico has anti-pollution laws. Chad (IIRC) is on the UN Commission on Human Rights. The point is that any system of whatever sort will always be vulnerable to the people responsible for implementing it.

Better not to be hypocritical about what our needs are. That doesn't mean we gotta be happy about dealing with problems. If I gotta work some guy over to get info that saves the lives of my (hypothetical) platoon, I'm not gonna go leaping and dancing about, saying, "Hey, looky what I did! Ain't I neat?"

Art

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I've always been just really hostile to the idea of gratuitious harm to anybody. The operative word is "gratuitous".

I'm generally against torture--in the sense of physical damage and extreme mental damage--against any enemy. That doesn't mean I'm gonna bust some agent's chops because of a time-pressure field expedient. "Agent" as in a military guy or somebody given charge of a definitely-known terrorist when time is a notably important factor.

I figure that run-of-the-mill hostiles oughta be treated pretty much as we did the WW II POWs. But leadership guys when it's known that a deal is going down that would kill a bunch of us? My priority is saving our folks.

Sure, any system can be abused. But, no matter how many laws you pass, somebody, somewhere, some time, is gonna abuse any system. Mexico has anti-pollution laws. Chad (IIRC) is on the UN Commission on Human Rights. The point is that any system of whatever sort will always be vulnerable to the people responsible for implementing it.

Better not to be hypocritical about what our needs are. That doesn't mean we gotta be happy about dealing with problems. If I gotta work some guy over to get info that saves the lives of my (hypothetical) platoon, I'm not gonna go leaping and dancing about, saying, "Hey, looky what I did! Ain't I neat?"

Art

All kinds of things are done in the heat of battle. I would apply to these the same standard I would apply to a similar situation in civilian life, i.e., hold the party to a reasonableness standard, taking the prevailing circumstances into account. Earlier I gave the example of the good citizen who thwarts a bank robbery. After gaining control of the situation, he finds out that the bank staff is in the safe with a time bomb set to go off in two minutes. The good citizen starts shooting off toes until the combo is given, and then rescues the captives from the bomb.

Some third party must evaluate the reasonableness of the good citizen's actions under the circumstances. In civilian life, that would be a jury of his peers. In the military, that would be some other kind of tribunal. But this is entirely different from making torture a policy of our military or intelligence agencies, which policy should never be tolerated in a Republic. We don't allow individuals to be the judges of their own conduct, and we cannot allow agencies to be the judges of their own conduct in a free Republic which values human rights and limited government.

That said, I will reiterate: Emergencies have traditionally been dealt with as something unique from normal policy, but must still be held to a reasonableness standard under the circumstances, not to be determined only by an internal self-assessment, but by some disinterested body along the lines of a grand jury and, if deemed necessary, a court trial.