One used to be told—and surely with truth—that the lethal fanatics of al-Qaeda were schooled to lie, and instructed to claim that they had been tortured and maltreated whether they had been tortured and maltreated or not. Did we notice what a frontier we had crossed when we admitted and even proclaimed that their stories might in fact be true? I had only a very slight encounter on that frontier, but I still wish that my experience were the only way in which the words “waterboard” and “American” could be mentioned in the same (gasping and sobbing) breath.
July 2, 2008
"Believe Me, It's Torture"
Hitchens chooses to be waterboarded and he still has nightmares about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Did Hitchens also put himself in a tall building and have someone fly a plane into it so that it collapsed on him and crushed/burned/suffocated him to death?
Nah. He doesn't believe in God and that illogical reasoning ability only allows him to conduct what will support his dismissal of the obvious to an even greater extent.
Yep. Our morals are decided on the metric of if it is better than people who behead journalists and fly planes into buildings. Russell, we have been repeating here (since 9-11) that it isn't about who they are, but who we are.
Who are we? Do you have it all neatly defined? Do we harm others to defend ourselves? Do we put criminals in jail if they violate the law? If you saw someone pointing a gun at your child and weren't sure if they would shoot, but they appeared (to your best judgement) like they were going to, would you fire first?
We are better because we extract information to protect our people. If we did it to take over countries (we helped rebuild Europe and Japan) then you might have a reason to think differently. You are also being idealistic and have never had to make such decisions. If you did you'd realize that reality is not as cut and dried as you pretend it is.
Your Hawaii pics were incredible.
Tim,
Let us know when you have had to make such decisions, or quit harping on it.
I don't understand. First, is this Dallas Tim? Second, are you suggesting that because we put criminals in jail or shoot someone who is threatening to shoot an innocent--that is the same as taking a person accused of being a terrorist (important because we have tortured people who we later found out were not terrorists) and waterboarded or fake buried or some other technique that every other western democracy determined as a war crime?
Third, if the justification is that we do things to protect our innocents, then the solution is unlimited, practically. Right? Why stop at waterboarding? That was Hitchens point. Once you waterboard, then the thumbscrews, rack, and other hideous techniques follow.
Fourth, did you read the entire story?
Not sure who or what Dallas Tim is (I assume someone in Texas). I guess he's shares my views. Good for him.
If every other western democracy is our standard, then we have lots of adapting to do don't we? I guess the rules will keep changing as we try to keep up with everyone else.
An "unlimited solution" is a ridiculous notion. Let's see... do we lock them up for starters? According to you we can't even start there until we know for sure. I guess a show of hands from all those who are terrorists will work. So what do we do with someone we think might be involved? We ALWAYS start somewhere. We have to. Of course once we detain, then comes the rack and then thumbscrews can't be far behind. Sure, that makes sense. Of course our prisons are full of people who live in a dungeon and are tortured because that's what naturally follows, right? Every prison in America is a vast torture facility where prisoners (some boasting of their guilt) are put on the rack or in the stocks. We have three instances of people being boarded (yes you can claim more, but I say prove it) and those three were the worst of the worst. Again, realism always trumps idealism.
The "unlimited solution" is bunk. We do what works. If that involves waterboarding, so be it. If other western democracies (many of whom have had to have the U.S. bail them out due to our unethical practice of putting our foot on the enemy's throat when our allies couldn't do it themselves) have such a clear hold on ethics, then let's go ahead and just do EVERYTHING they do. I mean if you're actually saying that what we do to protect ourselves has to have Europe's stamp of approval, then let's go all out. My only question is, who's going to bail US out the next time?
Actually, there is little evidence that waterboarding works, but that is really beside the point.
Your logic is deeply flawed. Because we here at the blog object to waterboarding, you suggest that we are hypocritical because we don't mind if a suspected terrorist is detained? That is ridiculous and a logical fallacy.
The problem with the Bush approach is that our basic system of laws and values has been thrown out the window (by some). Innocence and guilt become meaningless. The Bush people took some of their techniques from the Chinese Communists--who, it should be noted, used these techniques to elicit false confessions that they knew to be false.
I think I speak for others here at the blog (regulars) who believe that we can both fight terrorism and hold some basic human values. That includes not committing war crimes and not using torture techniques perfected by the Spanish Inquisition, KGB and others. It isn't about who they are, it is about who we are. And Americans don't torture. Christians sure as hell don't torture, and unfortunately, American conservative Christians seem to have forgotten that.
I think you are being honest concerning your feelings and I am not trying to pick a fight.
I also realize that if our military thinks one or two of the guys (known to be terrorists) that we have in custody have info that will help prevent further incidents (this is the case according to those involved) then we do it. Doing it because we don't like Muslims or becasue someone won't bow down to Jesus, or because they are black is a problem. However, doing it to the three we did it to was likely the only way to quickly get them to tell us what they told us.
Believe what you will, when our enemies fly planes into our buildings, you can be sure that our military (Democrat or Republican) will simply smile at those decrying waterboarding while they continue to do whatever it takes to get info from the terrorists. "If I get you a donut will you tell me what I want to know" simply doesn't work.
I appreciate that you are trying to be civil.
But the problem still remains. You present my argument as if I am suggesting that we give suspected terrorists fluffy pillows and a Playstation in hopes that they will give us what we want. Our options are not just between that ridiculous extreme and using techniques that are torture and war crimes. There are options in between, which most professional interrogators and CIA operatives will tell you.
And since we are discussing this, why shouldn't we use more extreme measures? If the standard is their willingness to fly planes into buildings, why don't we take those three... (I don't assume those three are the only ones we tortured, btw, as the evidence shows that we tortured far more and actually killed some in the process). But why don't we take those three and remove a finger until they talk? If the standard is that they are evil and willing to behead reporters and fly planes into the building, and that is the justification for waterboarding them--why not do more extreme interrogations?
Post a Comment