Blogs and Stories
Torture's Moral Toll
Conor Friedersdorf blogs at True/Slant and The American Scene. Follow him on Twitter at Conor64.
Brennan Llinsley / AP Photo
If waterboarding works, The Daily Beast’s Conor Friedersdorf wonders, why is it that the U.S. keeps triumphing over nations that torture?
If you’re the kind of person who doesn’t care that the laws of the United States forbid torture, and whose moral code is summed up by the phrase “the end justifies the means,” you may be more interested than most in a recent Washington Post story headlined “How a Detainee Became an Asset: Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding.” The story concerns the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a principal architect of the 9/11 attacks also complicit in many of the most significant terrorist atrocities of the last 20 years. Only if he is cannibalized in Dante’s ninth circle of hell will his punishment fit his crimes.
The Washington Post reader is reminded that KSM was diapered, shackled, deprived of sleep for seven days, and waterboarded 183 times. “The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less-coercive methods would have achieved the same result,” reporter Peter Finn writes. “But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken.”
In praising the treatment of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and arguing that it ought to be standard detainee policy, conservative pundits never consider the significant strategic drawbacks to the tactic of torture—like eliciting false intelligence that squanders man hours; the fact that a torture policy causes some upstanding intelligence professionals to resign; that torture pushes more Muslims into the radical camp, increases anti-American sentiments, aids terrorist recruiting efforts, and undermines support for the war on terror even among significant numbers of Americans.
A cadre of conservative writers, normally loathe to trust the Post’s reporting, quickly pronounced the piece definitive evidence that the practices they refuse to call torture “work.” National Review’s Andy McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney, offers an instructive example. The mainstream media has spent the last five years “arguing against experience and common sense that tactics like sleep-deprivation and waterboarding were not effective,” he wrote. “Clearly, they worked, and to great effect… that case should now be closed.”
He goes on:
"Obviously, there is still a principled argument to be made that the nation should not engage in such practices. But the burden of making it in a principled way should be to say: "While this is an excruciating choice, it would be better for thousands of Americans to be killed than to allow the CIA to use non-lethal coercive tactics (that cause no lasting physical or mental damage) on a terrorist who refuses to tell us what he knows about ongoing mass-murder plots."
Not so fast. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that waterboarding and sleep deprivation sometimes elicit accurate intelligence—and even that waterboarding an imprisoned man 183 times causes “no lasting mental damage,” a suspect proposition for which there is no evidence.
Mr. McCarthy and all those for whom he speaks make a myopic assumption: that if even one tortured terrorist reveals useful intelligence, the general policy of “enhanced interrogation” is strategically vindicated. But what if a torture regime produces good intelligence in the short term, even as it results in sundry strategic disasters that on balance make us less safe?
In praising the treatment of KSM, and arguing that it ought to be standard detainee policy, McCarthy and like-minded pundits never consider the significant strategic drawbacks to the tactic of torture—among them eliciting false intelligence that squanders man hours; the fact that a torture policy causes some upstanding intelligence professionals to resign, and others to remove themselves from interrogations, hurting our capacity to gather good intelligence; that torture pushes more Muslims into the radical camp, increases anti-American sentiments, aids terrorist recruiting efforts, and undermines support for the war on terror even among significant numbers of Americans; that it causes allied countries to cooperate less with our counterterrorism efforts; that it reduces the morale of soldiers and intelligence professionals; and that “enhanced interrogation techniques” have demonstrably bled into military prisons, undermining our mission in a critical theater and leading to the rightful imprisonment of American soldiers, who were denounced even by the Bush administration.
What kind of national-security analyst ignores all that to argue that because KSM was waterboarded, sleep deprived, and later gave some useful information, the strategic case for “enhanced interrogation” is definitely vindicated?
Though I cannot say definitively whether torture is or isn’t an effective utilitarian tool, I am mightily influenced Jim Manzi’s observation that “we keep beating” torturing nations. “The regimes in the modern world that have used systematic torture and directly threatened the survival of the United States—Nazi Germany, WWII-era Japan, and the Soviet Union—have been annihilated, while we are the world’s leading nation,” he writes. “The list of other torturing nations… has won no competition worth winning. The classically liberal nations of Western Europe, North America, and the Pacific that led the move away from systematic government-sponsored torture are the world’s winners.”
In ongoing nuclear attacks against successive American cities, Mr. Manzi would support an effective torture regime—he doesn’t believe the practice is always immoral—but to those who argue that our present circumstances justify torture, he notes that even annual September 11-style attacks would threaten the average American with a mere 0.001 percent chance of death. “A republic demands courage—not foolhardy and unsustainable ‘principle at all costs’, but reasoned courage—from its citizens,” he writes. Demanding that risk be averted via official torture is pathetic, “the demand of spoiled children, or the cosseted residents of the imperial city. In the actual situation we face, to demand that our government waterboard detainees in dark cells is cowardice.”
The cowardice happens to be questionable even as strategy, or so I gather from the fact that prominent backers of harsh interrogation haven't even bothered to analyze many of the factors that help determine whether it makes us more or less safe.
If you’re the kind of person who doesn’t mind that the laws of the United States forbid torture, and whose moral code is summed up by the phrase “the end justifies the means,” that ought to cause you to reject the practice, pending proof that it does more good than harm. Those of us who object to torture on other grounds will be happy to count you provisional allies.
Conor Friedersdorf writes for The American Scene and The Atlantic Online's ideas blog.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
The Coulter Wars
Conor Friedersdorf blogs at True/Slant and The American Scene. Follow him on Twitter at Conor64.
Mark Levin's Big Lie
Conor Friedersdorf blogs at True/Slant and The American Scene. Follow him on Twitter at Conor64.
Immigration Policy Gone Loco
Conor Friedersdorf blogs at True/Slant and The American Scene. Follow him on Twitter at Conor64.
Humor-In-Uniform
Fact: 2998 people (including 24 presumed dead) died in the attack. Many jumped to their death to avoid the flames in the building....I can imagine that was torture.
Fact: Over 6291 people were physically injured by the attack. Their mind's tortured daily by the sights and sounds they endured. People raining down around them and splattering on the pavement next to them.
Fact: Tens of thousands of survivors affected by the loss of loved ones and friends. These people tortured emotionally by never knowing how their loved ones and friends perished....if it was quick and painless or prolonged and painful...they will never know.
Making KSM a little uncomfortable to prevent something from happening again? Doing it to less than a half dozen others for the same reason?
ABSOLUTELY!!!
Pastmeridian
You obviously missed the point of the article. The author was arguing that there is no real evidence that the utilization of such tactics will indeed make us safer. KSM giving up the goods (so to speak) doesn't prove that to be the case, as some have argued.
People are rather short sighted in general, and this should be avoided in weighing the efficacy of interrogation tactics. If certain methods that we employ serve to energize the enemy, weaken our connection to allies, and undermine support at home, those tactics might be best avoided unless absolutely necessary (where to draw that line being the ultimate question).
lx-Isaac
u dont get the entire argument here do you?
nothing to do with end justifying means. There is no viable end to speak of. Torturing doesnt prevent anything. It only makes us lose the moral high ground and acts as ammunition for our enemies.
Humor-In-Uniform
The moral high ground? This is only "torture" because your people are going after the former administration? Making a captive uncomfortable isn't torture. We waterboard our own people during SERE training...it's uncomforatble, but not torture. What the Vietnamese did to John McCain was torture...breaking bones, constant beatings, cutting off appendages etc....that's torture. You all are like dogs with a bone on this and you won't let go because you hate Bush. If the current administration hadn't declared it "torture" you lemings would be going about your day looking for the next thing to believe in.
Our enemies celebrate people like you....you encourage and empower them.
meglon978
Humor:
It's only torture because it's been define as torture since WW II, when peopel were put to death for carrying out torture. I understand you have your head buried up your ass because of your posts, but try to learn a little history.
You bring up McCain. Yes, he was tortured, and oddly, yes, he says what we're talking about is torture.
Many of our "enemies" are our enemies because we've basically said "fuck the rest of the world, we'll do what we want to" for so long, and that is coming back to bite us.
Perhaps you should submit to this form of being made uncomfortable, so we can learn all of the terrorist activities you've been party to. I'd be willing to bet after a week or so, at most, you'd be confessing to all sorts of shit.
ElLamer
yes 911 was horrible, but what does that prove?
The CIA and many others who are experts on the matter say that the fact we have tortured detainees has increased hatred of the US overseas and increased recruitment for al qaida. On the other hand, contrary to what cheney claims, there seems to be no evidence that torture worked. We got more info from most before we tortured them than after and we also got sidetracked by misinformation resulting from torture.
So if you add the other relevant facts to the facts you have stated the conclusion that torture increased the chances of an attack is, in my hones opinion, unavoidable.
good research = good patriotisum
Humor-In-Uniform
Our presence overseas has increased recruitment, not "torture." These people actually respect it when you are tougher than them.
Your post proves you don't really understand the culture and depth of fanaticism these people have....they celebrate you too....congrats!
jarussell
Humor
Yes, you have become one of them. I understand their culture and the fanaticism of them, and I hope to god they do celebrate me, because I'm different, and better than them. You my poor misguided friend, are not. If anything, you are lower than them because you DO understand and choose to think/act in that way despite your obvious advantages.
Take a lesson from John McCain.
I don't care who you are, he's got more experience than you on this.
amanda07070
You are them.
amanda07070
Try getting waterboarded and let us know if you were a "little uncomfortable".
Dramatically describing the horror of 9/11 and completely downplaying the horror of torture negates your point.
EgyptSteve
Humor-in-Uniform: You can define torture any way you want, just like you can define "assault" or "robbery" or whatever. But no one cares what you think "torture" is. The only thing that matters is what the law says it is. Here's the law as it stood in 2000, when the Bush regime took power:
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE
-HEAD-
Sec. 2340. Definitions
-STATUTE-
As used in this chapter -
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality; and
(3) "United States" means the several States of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths,
territories, and possessions of the United States.
Even the threat of torture is torture legally, and is a felony. Threatening to torture or harm someone else is legally torture. So, those who threatened prisoners with power drills or threatened to rape their mothers or kill their children are torturers, plain and simple, within the meaning of the law. That Cheney and Bush were able to come up with some gangster mouthpieces to try to rationalize their criminality doesn't make it less criminal. It only means that the conspiracy was broad and deep.
So -- be honest. Admit that torture occurred, and just argue that it was necessary, that the president can abduct and torture anyone he likes, if he thinks its necessary for national security purposes, and that he gets to decide what that means. Then, good luck to you and all of us.
Humor-In-Uniform
Steve, I appreciate the thoughtful post. I've had buddies that were waterboarded in SERE training and though it sucked; it wasn't torture. Playing mind games with them...you can argue back and forth on. My take is this....when presented with a large scale attack and how to handle individuals you've just captured, it's easy to play arm chair quarterback 8 years later, than to be the one making the hard decision. Disagreeing is easy, being the one who is responsible for stopping a follow on attack is another.
JohnnyA
Since waterboarding is a technique that is based on SERE training, I thank you for mentioning SERE. SERE training is based on the North Korean treatment of captured forces (primarily US airmen) during the Korean War. The treatment of these forces, was characterized by United States military and politicians as torture. It was also proven by the North Koreans that the torture subject will tell the interrogators whatever the interrogators want to hear - the intelligence is of no value for anything other than propaganda. Our military has invested in training their personnel in what to expect when torture is encountered.
Waterboarding was specified as torture by the United States government.
Information obtained is of questionable value at best.
Known interrogation techniques yield better intelligence.
Americans that were doing their jobs to keep us safe were overruled by those whose job it was to keep us afraid.
dr-rieux
"a little uncomfortable"? What we did to KSM was far worse than anything the Vietnamese did to Sen. McCain, though there are some similarities. Simulated drowning has always, universally acknowledged to be torture, until now. The U.S. convicted and executed Japanese soldiers for simulated drowning torture during WW2, and Cambodia displays a water board used by the Khmer Rouge for such in their torture museum. Simulated drowning was considered *too harsh* by the Viet Cong, which is why they didn't do it to McCain. We do it during SERE training, *because* it's the kind of torture that before recently, was done by our worst enemies, not by us. You want our standards to be lower than those of the VC?
Beatings and bone breaking: torture. Water boarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions: torture. It is insane that this is the least bit controversial.
tblunt
Interrogation of enemies is about intelligence gathering, not retribution, unless your a grand inquisitor...Put KSM in front of a firing squad, I've got no problem with that...Some of us have always cheered on a good lynching in the name of Christ and Americanism.
UponFurtherReview
Columnist Conor Friedersdorf throws plenty of pseudo-logic and straw man arguments against the wall in his attempt to make something stick.
But as he himself admits, "I cannot say definitively whether torture is or isn't an effective utilitarian tool." Right, Conor ... so why embarrass yourself by proving that to the world?
For instance, Mr. Friedersdorf trots out the usual leftist claim that harsh interrogation techniques elicit "false intelligence that squanders man hours."
Well ... of course it does, Conor, but pray tell, what interrogation method DOESN'T produce "false intelligence"? By all means, if you know of one that's 100% foolproof, then in the words of John Lennon, "we'd all love to see the plan."
Otherwise, complaining that waterboarding doesn't always produce accurate information is about as much of a revelation as the fact that Al Qaeda members are Muslims.
The point isn't whether waterboarding succeeds every time it's tried, but whether it produces useful ANY time it's tried.
After all, it doesn't matter whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed spits in your face 199 times in a row if, in the 200th instance, he sings like a canary about the planned mass bombing of several airliners. You can make all the abstract moral pronouncements you like from the safety of your own computer chair, but the reality is that if you or one of your family members had been scheduled to fly on one of those targeted planes, you'd now be celebrating waterboarding like Mardi Gras.
Another silly argument is that "even annual September 11-style attacks would threaten the average American with a mere 0.001 percent chance of death."
Well ... sure, Conor, but even assuming this figure is true, if that's your standard for what is and isn't a national problem, just think of the other issues we can now dismiss as irrelevant.
Since the average American probably has about a "0.001 percent chance of death" from a plane crash, we can stop devoting so much of our time to airline safety!
Since the average American probably has about a "0.001 percent chance" of getting killed by an AK-47, we can stop worrying about whom we're selling them to!
Gosh, isn't the world a shinier, happier place when we don't have to worry about all those silly problems that aren't likely to happen to us anyway? Let's all quit worrying about Islamic terrorism and start thinking about who's going to win the next "Survivor."
UponFurtherReview
meglon978
Perhaps you should submit to this form of being made uncomfortable, so we can learn all of the terrorist activities you've been party to. I'd be willing to bet after a week or so, at most, you'd be confessing to all sorts of shit.
_____________________________
*** The point isn't what somebody MIGHT confess to ... the point is how much of it can be verified as factual, and most importantly, how much of the information results in saving innocent lives.
Obama's own intelligence director, Dennis Blair, admitted in a memo that harsh interrogation techniques did, in fact, produce useful intelligence. As he put it, "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."
And I'd venture to say that the trade-off -- putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the dunk tank for a couple of minutes versus watching another 3,000 of our innocent countrymen die in cold blood -- is a no-brainer to most Americans.
So, what you or I or Humor-In-Uniform might confess to under pressure is irrelevant, because presumably we don't know anything that would help save innocent lives.
Besides, no one has ever suggested that we subject every American or even every Gitmo detainee to waterboarding. Only THREE known terrorist leaders were waterboarded, and that was for the purpose of eliciting life-saving intelligence. That's hardly in the same moral universe as slicing Nick Berg's head off with a knife while whooping it up like barbarians home from the hunt.
I presume that saving innocent American lives matters to you, especially if they happen to be those of you and your family. Or would you prefer to have you and your family die in the next terrorist attack, just so you can proudly proclaim with your last breath, "At least my country didn't waterboard any terrorist leaders! It's worth sacrificing myself and my family for such an important ideal!"
By the way, if you believe that everybody who believes in waterboarding should submit to waterboarding themselves, then -- assuming you believe in legalized abortion -- perhaps you should avoid any appearance of hypocrisy by submitting to an abortion.
smitisan
Dayam! Gimme some more of dem Fox talking points. So we should waterboard everybody 200 times, well, 300 to be sure. Man, they got you scared silly, don't they?
Nusayler
So, become the barbarians that our enemies are and that will make things right? People like you who think so little of this country, who are so quick to write off our decency, our honor, our idealism should be either be tried for treason or exiled. I'd rather die than let people like you crap on our country and try to turn it intro a another Taliban nation.
smitisan
Do the math, my man. We don't waterboard our troops in SERE training 183 times. They know it's a training exercise and that they're not in any real danger. You're comparing apples to habaneros.
penscott
Whether you call it torture or enhanced techniques, it got results. The claim that
we fail to "consider the significant strategic drawbacks to the tactic of torture-among them eliciting false intelligence that squanders man hours" is naive and nonsensical. Gentle questioning also elicits false intelligence. Everything a hostile prisoner says has to be checked out by other means.
smitisan
You're still overlooking the point of having a moral high ground in the first place. If we can do it, so can they. If they can ram planes into buildings and kill civilians, so can we. So when will we go there? How close did we come to nuking Hanoi? Fact is, the world was on our side after 9/11 BECAUSE we had the moral high ground. Once. But we blew that when we invaded Iraq, a move we had to know would kill more than a few thousand civilians, on false pretenses that anyone with half a mind could see through. Think about what's bringing the country to its knees: war, finance, and insurance, all of which prey on INSECURITY, aka FEAR. Being the biggest bully in the schoolyard is setting us up for a big fall.
dr-rieux
Is there anything that would be wrong to do regardless of results?
noseeum
Penscott, unless you can produce your interrogation credentials, you are quite literally talking our of your arse. You don't know if any of these things are true:
1. torture got results - the only people making this claim are the torturers themselves. Those professionals who did not participate have consistently criticized the entire charade as being counterproductive.
2. Gentle questioning also elicits false intelligence - While I'm sure this is true in some sense, it completely ignores the cases of degree. I don't know by how much (and neither do you), but I will trust the professionals who constantly testify that using tactics other than torture produces more reliable information.
penscott
You can have the moral high ground and I'll have security from fanatics.
Humor-In-Uniform
That's right, 183 times to break his resolve. Had we taken the liberal route by offering him a felafel with warm goat's milk, then cried about how they hurt our feelings...I'm sure that would have extracted the information immediately, right? You don't get it....
smitisan
So why stop there? Maybe he would've told us how he got Obama's birth notice in the paper if we'd done, oh, session 197.
pacifistgunslinger
Except for what the Bushies tell you, there is no evidence that torturing accomplished any goals whatsoever. What you're saying is that we need to torture all the Bushies to encourage them to tell the truth. Why stop there? Let's torture every criminal, or every suspected criminal. That'll speed up the cycle of justice! I say torture every prospective Supreme Court justice to get their real feelings on Rowe v. Wade. Regardless of what the Bush apologists tell you, it has been well known, from at least the time of the Spanish Inquisition, that torture doesn't yield useful information except by accident. Torture is merely a sign to the enemy that you're one badass dude, nothing more.
jarussell
Tortue is a coward's way of getting what they wants. It implies that one is so scared to death of what he/she doesn't know, that they will do anything, justify anything, to accomplish their end mission goal.
It imitates the behavior of animals, not thinking humans.
Make your choice. Is it going to be human or animal?
penscott
What weird grammar and syntax.
smitisan
Security from which fanatics? The Taliban, al Qaeda, Jim Jones, Doug Coe, Glenn Beck, Cheney? I recall the words of one of the Winter Soldiers way back when, that every time he went into a village he killed everyone there just to make damn sure they couldn't kill him. And yes, he came back alive, but he hasn't had a night's rest since. I had a friend always kept a gun by the door for security. His dog knocked it over and killed him. Security? Don't make me laugh, dude. Ain't no such thing.
jarussell
And yet, you didn't disagree with anything I wrote, contrary to what you posted above. When you can't find fault with the message, you find fault with the messenger. Typical of a mouth, not a brain.
noseeum
"What kind of national-security analyst ignores all that to argue that because KSM was waterboarded, sleep deprived, and later gave some useful information, the strategic case for 'enhanced interrogation' is definitely vindicated?"
The kind that has already committed torture and is looking to justify it after the fact. Asking the CIA or any participating member of the Bush administration whether torture works is the height of conflict of interest.
MOZART
Humor-In-Uniform- you are a master of rationalization, are you not? Makes me wonder if you get your jollies from using your pliers for some fingernail pulling.
I hear Mr. Cheney is thinking about running for President,,, if he wins you can get on his immediate staff and have a blast,.
The New York Times reported last week that approximately a hundred thousand people die in this country every year due to malpractise in our hospitals... I bet that did not bother you a bit, did it. 3,000 deaths.... bad 100,000 deaths... not good either. I hate to disagree with you, but it is not the rest of us that do not "get it"
penscott
Hospital deaths. How irrelevant to this discussion! No logic at all.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
penscott
I have noticed that whatever the topic, the weakest and most jejune comments come from eeasyrider.
Humor-In-Uniform
You're a funny guy MOZART, thanks for the reply. I'm just a realist my friend...I don't sit in a rose colored world and believe that good intentions will garner all my worldly desires.
If you think 100,000 is bad, wait until we socalize medicine and doctors realize that patients don't have legal recourse anymore...that will be ugly!
cookslaw
I really think this article misses the issue and just really emotes - as do most of the comments. On the one hand most can agree that torture is bad in almost every way and eats away at the foundation of a society On the other hand most can agree that this is not an objection if the very existence of a society is at stake or potentially at stake. Here is where I come out. The decision to torture (I leave definitions aside since there is no lasting damage from water boarding) can nit be left to the ad hoc decision of the interrogator -- that ultimately becomes an unguided missile. Rather, if there is reason to believe that the prisoner has information critical information needed to protect society from a civilian attack, then application should be made to an independent body as to why it is justified. The only question left is what level pf proof is required to make the case such as clear and convincing evidence. I analogize it to obtaining a search warrant. Evn here in the current case, only 3 people were water boarded
smitisan
The "very existence of a society?" Oh, please. If said "society" resorts to torture, then maybe its "very existence" should be questioned.
octavio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------
September/02/2009
From:
octavio
To:
everybody
Dear fellow bestias,
Humor in uniform ----> wrong;This animal needs to change
his or her name to TORTURE IN UNIFORM;He or she
probably belongs to the KKK and it is obvious that this scum
has his head all the way up inside bushes' a*ss.
Republicans have always been in favor of torturing,
since the begining republicans were against blacks,women,
immigrants.These ---- scum --- republicans were always
saying lets don't let blacks vote,do not allow women to vote,
For years and years republicans were saying do not tax
the giant companies ( like the Exxon,or the Health Insurance
companies ) until around the early 1900's one republic presi-
dent said to the senators I have a great idea ----> lets tax the
big corporations.In response the republicans told him not to
be stupid,that he can not do that because the big corporations
are the ones giving them big bucks for their " campaign expen-
ses" The result was that the big corporations were not taxed,
These giant corporations have crooked lawyers working for
them.These lawyers spend all their time looking for tax-loop-
holes,in the end the giant corporations end up paying very
little in taxes or do not pay taxes at all.
These republicans --- without morals --- were
always against increasing the minimum wage,at the same
time they are always increasing their salary!Senators make
$ 200,000 or more per year ( they are completely overpaid )
compare $ 200,000 per year to $ 7 per hour that some in-
dividuals are earning right now!.In my opinion persons like
John Mccain or Dick Chaney should had been paid $ 5 per
hour.With people like this the republican party does not
have a good future.These republicans ---scum--- are the
ones that are against the Public Health Care Bill.
We need to ignore this scumbag torture
in uniform and pass the Public Health Care Bill!
Thank you for reading,
chao,
octavio
END!
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Humor-In-Uniform
Octavio,
It is quite apparent that your mental age never surpassed your 4th grade education. My 5th grader can write better than you....
gruber
With the anniversary fast approaching, check out this moving 9.11 story from inside the WTC building. http://thehappeningstory.blogspot.com/
DevilsLawyer
I think under certain circumstances torture as an individual act under duress can be justified. If it was a literal ticking bomb situation, it's not unlike killing someone in self-defense without the killing part. The act itself (killing, torture) is still wrong, but there are defenses against it (saving your life, the lives of thousands).
But justifying torture institutionally, as in making it a rule and not the very very very rare exception only in highly justified circumstances, is not only illegal and unconstitutional but morally repulsive and strategically unsound. It's letting drooling, unprincipled fear take over law enforcement and intelligence while abandoning the kind of clear-eyed assessment of risk and benefit needed to make sound choices about national security. It's the path of the brute and the coward, not the intelligent and the brave.
The point about how Al Qaeda operatives won't talk without torture ignores the obvious fact that these operatives WANT America to torture. And despite the fact that Al Qaeda is bent on the destruction of America, the pro-torture people seem oddly eager to play right into AQ's hands on this particular point. That's right, let's allow Al Qaeda to dictate U.S. security policy, what could possibly go wrong?
Nusayler
Ok, for the last time, listen up. To compare the waterboarding of a detainee to being waterboarded in SERE training makes you look like a total moron. Once a detainee has been waterboarded (or tortured in anyway) THAT IS ALL THAT DETAINEE CAN THINK ABOUT. Every sound...is them coming back for you. Every foot step outside your cell is them coming back to get you. Even when you know that the clatter of your cell door is a meal to be handed to you...you can only think they are coming back for you. Anyone who tries to help you only wants to keep you alive so they can come back to get you. Everyday, every hour, for the rest of the time you are detained--and for many it has been EIGHT YEARS with no end in sight--the thought that they are at that very instant on their way to get you AND that this time, they WILL KILL YOU is the fear that consumes you. You have ceased to be a human being and are a creature existing only for the purposes of your captors.
Now do you really think this is what our service people experience and do you think this IS NOT torture?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.