Friday, April 24, 2009

2,974 Reasons For Supporting "Enhanced Interrogation"

The "torture" debate continues tonight, with articles at the Washinton Post and The Plum Line (via Memeorandum).

Cartoon Credit: Investor's Business Daily.


Anonymous said...

Yes, we should torture in order to obtain a slew of false leads to chase after. This, rather than try to establish rapport with detainees in order to get credible, useful information. Besides, if you already have a story you'd like to receive support for, torture is the best way to coerce people to give you that supporting testimony. And, it really enhances our reputation as the beacon of freedom and liberty in the world, not that we care.

Van Zan said...

A great number of detainees tortured - some to death - were unconnected with terrorism or insurgency.
They were innocent. Like those people in the towers.
Also... call it "torture", will you? Or is that a post-modernist term?

Tim said...

Never underestimate the power of reducing a horrific tragedy to appeal to the basest instincts of the populace.

I understand the sentiment here, but it is truly for the simpleton to make sense of.

Sarge Charlie said...

IBD cartoons seem to get right to the point

sek said...

What are you saying? That the prohibition of torture is situation dependent? That if more than a given amount of your citizens is killed, then torture becomes legal?

Then, above how many casualties does torture become legal?

Obviously, we were wrong during both world war II and the cold war because we took many more casualties and did not torture. Somehow, we still won.

The funny thing with your approach is that then the north vietnamese were right to use torture. So were countless other States that the US condemned even though they suffered many more casualties than the US did in 2001.

Or does your theory (that when you take more than so many casualties you are entitled to torture) apply only to the US.

Kenneth Davenport said...

I think Deranged Leftwing Baker has done a marvelous job of summing of the utter confusion on the Left as to the nature of the threat we face. The idea of "establishing raport" with those who are committed to a radicalized ideology that calls for our total destruction is unfathomable to me. There is not a single value that we have in common with these terrorists. What kind of raport can we have the would lead to a constructive engagement? It is unbelievable to me that people still think this way.

Deranged -- did you happen to view the video that Donald posted earlier? The one of the Taliban beheading Pakistani soldiers? Think there is a basis for raport there? Best of luck on that.

repsac3 said...

As long as people continue to judge what is and isn't torture by comparing our actions favorably to those of our enemies, rather than comparing our actions to our ideals, our morality, our values, and our founding principles, we're going to continue to see these shameful excuses for going against the moral, spiritual, and legal laws that have traditionally made this country the land of right and freedom it has always been.

Dave said...


The idea of "establishing raport" with those who are committed to a radicalized ideology that calls for our total destruction is unfathomable to me.It isn't all that unfathomable when you consider that many of those who publicly state that we should establish a "rapport" with these barbarians share many of the same goals of our enemy.

Most lefties have been taught to despise Western society, and particularly the United States of America, and everything associated with it. Never mind that it has liberated millions from tyranny and has brought a higher standard of living to this planet that any other society in recorded history.

They will shed no tears over its demise, at least not until well after it is gone, and they are left residing squarely in the center of the global hell that will surely replace it.

They refuse to support the idea of coercive interrogation that could potentially save hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Americans from being killed in a terrorist attack. The reason they do not care is that they are cultural relativists, and can see no distinction between advanced cultures, and those whose members still stand around urinating in their drinking water.

The Islamists have used negotiation as a tool for buying time to regroup and regain strength. Once they have done so, they promptly renege on their agreements and resume the offensive. This pattern has remained essentially unbroken for 1400 years.

They are merely following what the Qur'an, which is essentially an instruction manual for conquest, instructs them to do.

The Islamists are not interested in coexistence, peaceful or otherwise. They are only interested in conquest.

Those who fail to understand this are painfully ignorant of the history of Islam, and therefore doomed to be extinguished by it.


Anonymous said...

KGD, first off, the word is spelled rapport. Hate to be a spelling Nazi, but since you spelled it wrong 3 times...

If you're cool with the idea of torturing people, then I'd say maybe you and the Taliban do have some values in common. You may not remember this, but we managed to face down the Soviets and Red China, both of whom were armed with nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them.

And Dave, we on the left do love Western societies, especially the US; that's why we hate seeing her image sullied by people with your neocon mindset.

Anonymous said...

KGD, you have a master's in IR, Douglas has a doctorate in PoliSci (so I'm told to both), why is it that neither of you guys can spell?

The educational system in this country really is a shambles.

cracker said...

What part of this dont you guys get?

You cannot espouse, cling to and demand recognition of the principals that make this nation and its people great........while simultaneously betraying them...

Its easy to think that torture is helping to win the battle (especially with pandering cartoons like this, no one can ask them if they'd approve of torture in their names or numbers!).....but its also a big part of why we will lose the war....

If you cant see the forest through the trees will be contributing.

(For those of you who may need to....Read your scriptures for goshsakes and see which master you are choosing to serve, cause ya cant do both.) cannot simultaneously espouse the principals of freedom and morality to your children or your foes......if you are betraying them by torturing.

Benaiah said...

Capitalism ‘threatens life on the planet’

“We, the Heads of State and Government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela [Willima Ayer's and Obama's friend Hugo Chavez]…

1. Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction…

2. Capitalism has caused the environmental crisis, by submitting the necessary conditions for life in the planet, to the predominance of market and profit…

3. The global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis are the result of the decay of capitalism, which threatens to end life and the planet…”

So, when does Obama apologize to the UN-Americans for the United States leading humanity and the planet to extinction, for the environmental crisis, for the global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis?

So, when does the DHS add “capitalists” to Obama’s list of “domestic terrorists”?

Benaiah said...

An open letter to IWI:{3E31AB82-2BB0-11D7-92D3-0080AD76B634})

United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas states the following:

“…the framers …understood that for liberty to exist the populace needed to be educated enough to understand liberty and to be able to defend liberty. They also understood that liberty was not on automatic pilot, that liberty would not exist simply because it was once started, and that having won it it was very delicate and had to be protected…”

Please open a manufacturing facility in the State of Montana, so right-wing extremists, like Clarence Thomas, will be able to “defend liberty”, for “liberty” must be “protected” from arrogant unconstitutional left-wing extremist elitists and their followers, the uneducated left-wing extremist populace, who don’t “understand liberty”, but are willing to exchange their “liberty” simply for false “Hope” and “Change”.

Dave said...

And Dave, we on the left do love Western societies, especially the US; that's why we hate seeing her image sullied by people with your neocon mindset.Then why are so many on the left working so hard to try and turn this nation into something it was never meant to be?

This country was not built on the socialist model. It won't long survive in its present form under full blown socialism, either.

Look at how just merely flirting with socialism over the last 70 years has nearly driven us to the edge of bankruptcy as a nation. Obama and his "plan" have only served to make things far worse-so much so that our ability to maintain anything resembling the military power we have now may very soon be financially impossible.

As for what the rest of the world thinks of us, countries the world over have hated this nation since the ink was even dry on the Constitution. Turning us into a wimpier version of France will not change that.

They are always going to hate us, even when they are begging us to save their asses.

Just as there is always one big kid on the block, there will always be one nation that is going to dominate.

Far better it be us than say, Russia, China, Iran, or a combination of all three. These countries aren't exactly friendly to the idea of individual freedom.


Rich Casebolt said...

Looks to me like the previous Administration took great pains to avoid actual torture ... same as the military does in SERE training, IIRC, to avoid permanently whacking out those they are training ... while capitalizing upon the expectations of the captured al Quada regarding how we would treat them (i.e. they expected to be executed horrifically, because that is what they do to their detainees) to bring them around to facilitating "enlightenment" regarding their plans.

Therefore, the only way this could be "torture" is if torture is defined like sexual harassment sometimes has been ... on the basis of the perception of the offended party.

A rather weak justification, given the gravity of the issue and the character of the offended parties, IMO.

DLB, too often building rapport ends up with those trying to do the building, being played like a Stradivarius by their enemy instead ... and care to prove your assertion, Van Zan? Even if true, that happens in wartime.

Critics, you might find building rapport with those of us who believe enhanced interrogation methods are justified somewhat easier, if you didn't try ... as this Administration is now doing, just as its ideological predecessors did ... to emasculate and/or limit to the point of impotence our ability to gather actionable intel in the name of "ideals".

Said emasculation, IMO, is one reason why this Administration is dealing as it is with this issue ... they want to poison the well so that we "will have no need" for such enhanced interrogation techniques ... by rendering them useless through public exposure.

They risk blood on their hands ... and the emasculation of their ideals, one or more dead bodies at a time, at the hands of the enemies of life and liberty ... by doing so.

Anonymous said...

This country was not built on the socialist model. It won't long survive in its present form under full blown socialism, either.It was built on a model that permitted the ownership of slaves (and indentured servants) and the exploitation of every immigrant group that came to our shores. Thankfully, due to the political philosophy of liberalism this has changed, though Mexican immigrants today are doing jobs we long-time residents won't.

As for what the rest of the world thinks of us, countries the world over have hated this nation since the ink was even dry on the Constitution.This is absolutely, positively ridiculous.

And, long story short, waterboarding is a war crime, internationally and in the US; it was ordered and facilitated by members of the Bush administration. Therefore, the Bush administration committed war crimes. I, personally, believe it was to get ginned up evidence to go to war against Iraq. Obviously, just a theory, but we'll see. It makes more sense than torturing people you've had in custody for months, in order to get any relevant info out of them.

Dave C said...

regardless if you agree with it or not..

NEVER show the enemy your strategies.

If Obama abhorred waterboarding as much as he did.. He should have QUIETLY stopped the program and given all the detainees free HBO instead.

Van Zan said...

"care to prove your assertion, Van Zan?"

You ARE kidding...?
The "mosaic" approach to intelligence is the rounding up of people in a given zone regardless of their probable innocence. Lawrence Wilkerson, Republican chief of staff to Colin Powell said
"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent" Further he said some "clearly had no connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pakistanis turned many over for $5,000 a head."

"Even if true, that happens in wartime"

people aren't tortured to death innocent or not if the Geneva Convention is adhered to. Reflect for a moment what would have happened to American POWs in WW2 Europe were it not for that code.

"NEVER show the enemy your strategies"...

America got the strategy of waterboarding FROM former enemies. Further, the US executed some of THOSE practitioners on the grounds that these strategies amounted to "war crimes" (also known as "enhanced interrogation" as the preferred term of pudgy armchair heroes who have never had it done to them, and for whom morality is negotiable and honor just a word)

Anonymous said...

I dont know about you Van Zan,

but I might like to carry out some "enhanced interrogations" on those "pudgy armchair" douchebags that you speak of :)

Not that I am a spiteful person or anything, but lets try it on the people that propose such tactics, before we buy it?

Sounds good to me.

Rich Casebolt said...

Van Zan, yes, let's talk about WWII Europe ...We know about the horrific German massacres of American prisoners, but little about instances of Americans' shooting German captives well before the Battle of the Bulge. Such murdering was neither sanctioned by American generals nor routine — but nevertheless it was not uncommon in the heat of battle and the stress of war. No inquiry cited Generals Hodges, Patton, or Bradley as responsible for rogue soldiers shooting unarmed prisoners. Whom to blame?Read the whole thing at the link above ... it is enlightening.

OTOH, today, no one has been tortured to death, Van Zan ... and only three were waterboarded.

Tell me, are "pudgy armchair heroes" anything like "pudgy intelligence analysts", who derived their Utopian ideals while living in a peaceful nation ...

... oblivious to the fact that their nation had remained peaceful during much of their life, because in an earlier time other men were not restrained by "ideals" from associating with the shady characters who associate with our enemies -- or from sharing information with others in that nation who shared their burden of its security -- or from telegraphing our ability to interdict the enemy to the enemy a priori in the name of "transparency"?

Those ideals are part of the ideological history of those who now control our Congress and Executive Branch ... the same rotted roots from which also sprang the present hysteria over "torture".

Until they PROVE that they have the perceptual ability to accurately assess REAL threats, instead of whistling an idealistic tune through a graveyard under construction ... they have no standing to criticize those who have exhibited such maturity.

Besides, they need to be careful what they ask for ... for while they are in a disclosin' mood, we might even "accidently" find out that there really were WMD ... and their existence had been kept secret for legitimate national security reasons.

Now THAT would be the Mother of All Facial Eggs.

Rich Casebolt said...

... or from telegraphing our ability to interdict the enemy to the enemy a priori in the name of "transparency"?should have read:

and they were free from the requirement that they telegraph our ability to interdict the enemy to the enemy a priori in the name of "transparency"?

CS said...

Richie-boy, World war 2 was about 60 years ago.

I dont know about you, but with time most people have developed into more sophisticated thinkers, lawyers, doctors, scientists and philosophers.

that would also mean that we should probably learn from these wars of the past. It doesn't, however, indicate that we should be using these wars as a measure of how we should conduct ourselves in times of conflict.

I know some of you have massive orgasms over the thought of reverting to some previous point in history, for some obscure reason.

Van Zan said...

Interesting article on that link, Rich... (I mean even apart from this disagreement)

But the point of that article is... that error in war is unavoidable even by the winning side(?)

Rounding up people not verified as enemy combatants and torturing them as part of the "mosaic' intelligence strategy was not an "error". Orders were given to do that. The culture of prisoner abuse that led to the Abu Ghraib scandal - which immeasurably damaged America's claim to be leading a just war - was blamed on low ranking grunts who were hung out to dry, spurned by the very people in power that encouraged that behavior.

I get your point (or a point I think you are making...) that good men sometimes sanction terrible things in the name of life, liberty and justice. But no-one in a just society gets to trash the Bill of Rights, torture people, conceal information for no other reason than to cover their ass and manipulate public opinion, hypocritically claim their own soldiers acted shamefully at Abu Ghraib, all the while failing - FAILING - to end the war in less time than it took to defeat Hitler, failing to find/kill Bin Laden, succeeding in killing more of their countrymen by their own ineptitude than died that awfully bloody day on 9-11, and then say "everything's fine" "I did the right thing" and claim that waterboarding (which America has executed others for doing) is not "torture".

I like your hypothetical about disclosure leading to some hitherto suppressed information that Saddam did indeed have WMDs of the scale that was the official reason for the war. More photos of Rumsfeld chumming up with him would be less edifying, however.