Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
A Lesson For Mukasey: Why I Had Myself Water-Boarded
Share:
by nk | December 13, 2007 at 05:16 am
581 views | 20 Recommendations | 12 comments
Photos
By April of 2006 the debate about coercive interrogation and its most controversial technique, water-boarding, had started to spill into the headlines. I was in graduate school at the time. As I watched the debate unfold, and listened to both pundits and policymakers give their opinion on whether this technique constituted torture, I was struck by the strangeness of the debate. All of these people were lobbying opinions about a subject they had never seen or witnessed, and that struck me as problematic in a healthy democracy.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (12)
at 06:35 on December 13th, 2007
Thanks for bringing us this story NK, this stuff is too important to set aside.
at 09:38 on December 13th, 2007
nk, good stuff.
I liked this story not because I agree with it but because it is reasoned and actually showed someone getting waterboarded. One thing in particular I thought was interesting was what Alan Dershowitz (sorry, I might have slaughtered that spelling) had to say.
He wanted some responsibility put on the president for this type of thing. All of these guys who put their butts on the line for their country are going to get the brunt if something goes wrong (like the guy who's now in trouble for destroying those tapes).
But the fact is probably that during every president's term techniques that are considered torture have happened. What are we suppose to do, try each president at the Hague? No, that's not reasonable.
In my opinion what should happen is this: if we capture a soldier from a nation that has signed the Geneva Conventions there should be no torture. Terrorists are another story.
If the trained professionals or the men/women on the ground think there is a need for torture so as to get information then it can happen. Torture should not be allowed as a punishment and situations like Abu Ghraib should be punished.
From what I have heard from people who have tortured others is that it does work. I remember one story from a man in Vietnam who captured two Viet Cong. He asked the detainees what their side was planning on doing. They wouldn't talk so he had his sargeant slit one of their throats. After that happened the other detainee told them the exact plans.
Killing this one man (which caused psychological torture on the other man) saved a couple dozen American lives. This situation and others I have heard about compel me not to be against torture in all cases.
It has worked in the past and it will continue to work. Torture has saved many lives. And after looking at what the enemy does to the prisoners it takes I don't think America has lost the higher moral ground.
Good stuff.
at 11:32 on December 13th, 2007
BigT, I have to disagree here. I don't understand as you see it: the difference between a terrorist and an enemy soldier. You wrote above:
In my opinion what should happen is this: if we capture a soldier
from a nation that has signed the Geneva Conventions there should be no
torture. Terrorists are another story.
If the trained professionals or the men/women on the ground think
there is a need for torture so as to get information then it can
happen. Torture should not be allowed as a punishment and situations
like Abu Ghraib should be punished.
From what I have heard from people who have tortured others is that
it does work. I remember one story from a man in Vietnam who captured
two Viet Cong. He asked the detainees what their side was planning on
doing. They wouldn't talk so he had his sargeant slit one of their
throats. After that happened the other detainee told them the exact
plans.
Killing this one man (which caused psychological torture on the
other man) saved a couple dozen American lives. This situation and
others I have heard about compel me not to be against torture in all
cases.
I don't think that "torture" is just legal jargon, it's also a moral one. The current debate and controversy in the US over waterboarding stem from those who ignore the moral issues of "torture" by hiding behind its legal definition. And to borrow your words, I do think America loses its higher moral ground by engaging in the same practices for which they criticise their "enemies."
at 13:02 on December 13th, 2007
Terrorists are people who do not fight in a uniform and do not fight for a country that has signed onto the Geneva Conventions. Osama bin Laden and every member of al Qaeda is a terrorist and does not have Geneva Convention protections in my mind.
The elite Quds Force in Iran's Revolutionary Guards should be considered so as well because their sole purpose for existence is to undermine foreign governments by cooperating with terrorist organizations.
As far as the morality of torture is concerned I have to disagree with you as well. Psychologically damaging one man to save lives seems like the moral thing to do in my mind. I know that there are many who believe that torture is immoral and that's fine. But the moral imperative for me is the answer to "how can we save the most lives, especially innocent ones?" If that involves torturing someone who knows what the plans are then that is alright with me.
at 12:13 on December 13th, 2007
It also seems very sketchy as to who determines who is a terrorist.
If the government comes to your door and labels you a terrorist (which they can now do thanks to the revised patriot act), then under your definition they can torture you.
It becomes a very slippery slope.
Also I think that in theory, a president should be able to be brought to the hague. Dictators, despots and leaders of all other countries have been tried there for crimes against humanity, what should protect a United States president? Realistically it will never happen, but look at France looking into allegations of Cheney's involvement with torture?
at 12:27 on December 13th, 2007
if you set aside theory and morality (none of which work in war) and peeked at reality, America has been torturing people to one degree or another since Thomas Jefferson. This is an Iraq war argument, in the 90's we would hand the terroists to Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Never heard a complaint from anyone. If my family member was in danger and a terrorist had information that can save their lives I truly would not care how the information is recovered and would consider the terrorist a casualty of war. We do not make the rules in a war that has no rules. Those who insist we play by rules the other side ignores can not come to grips that it is what it is. Waterboarding is a day in the park compared to what Saudi Arabia would do to someone we want information from.
at 13:06 on December 13th, 2007
Good points.
at 14:11 on December 13th, 2007
British authorities condemned Irgun as terrorists in the 1930s. An 1988 study by the United States Army found that more than one hundred definitions of the word exist and have been used. Too often it means a fighter who is not fighting with methods we sanctioned or simply for the goals we define worthy.
Be careful with your zeal about "torture is useful". Ask yourself, how are you different if you do that from the one you torture.
You want to fight terrorism? Find out why they hate you and fight the cause. It might be not so simple...
at 14:53 on December 13th, 2007
Your first paragraph does make sense. We need to define who is and who isn't off limits.
Your second paragraph smacks of moral relativism though. Our torturing of someone who is responsible for the murder of civilians in order to prevent further murder of civilians is nowhere near the same thing as a terrorist beating, cutting, and burning someone right before they cut off their head in front of a video camera. Torturing a terrorist to save lives in the future is, I believe, moral while torturing and killing a civilian is not.
The last paragraph is a little odd to me. Why did the Nazis hate the Jews? There is no real answer to that. The fact is that radical Islam has declared war against the West and either we respond now or we wait until it's too late. If we can destroy their networks now by taking the fight to them and, yes, torturing some of them to find out the necessary information we will be saving many more lives in the future in both the West and the Middle East.
Torture is not something I contemplate often. In a vast majority of the cases it would be abhorent to use. But if the people we entrust to protect our way of life use torture techniques to extract valuable information from terrorists then I am for it.
at 15:03 on December 13th, 2007
I appreciate everyone's comments and arguments here. I don't mean to pick on anyone individually. But I do want to point out few points in people's comments:
From BigT: As far as the morality of torture is concerned I have to disagree with
you as well. Psychologically damaging one man to save lives seems like
the moral thing to do in my mind. I know that there are many who
believe that torture is immoral and that's fine. But the moral
imperative for me is the answer to "how can we save the most lives,
especially innocent ones?" If that involves torturing someone who knows
what the plans are then that is alright with me.
--In the example you cite about Vietcongs, you describe where a US soldier slit the throat of a Vietcong captive to "psychologically" torture his fellow Vietcong captive. That was beyond "psychological torture." It was an execution.
--"How can we save the most lives, especially innocent ones?" Who are the "we" in this question? And how do "we" determine who the "innocent" are? People have tried to justify ethical and moral decisions, playing the numbers game: i.e. the sacrifice of the few for the greater good. This may be a rational way to approach certain policies and decision-making, and I don't doubt it happens in war. BUT is it morally correct? Some would argue that it's not morally justifiable to sacrifice even a few when there is no full-information to whether that would even lead to the greater good. What if that surviving Vietcong didn't have the correct information?
NK is right, torture is not always useful, because it can lead to false information.
Waterboarding is a terrible term to describe such a pernicious form of torture. mpress, I doubt anyone who has experienced waterboarding would agree that "Waterboarding is a day in the park," even in comparison to what happens in Saudi Arabia.
at 16:50 on December 13th, 2007
Nothing in a war is morally correct. There is only winning or losing. If I had a choice of no information or 50% of the right information I will choose the 50%. Maybe the problem is some people think that there is a war going on and some think there is no war..I think I will do all of my deep thinking about our morality after defeating or stopping those who wish me and my family harm. So I am not concerned with how the terrorist is treated when no one can get the local media to notice all the Journalists being tortured a few miles from Gitmo. This has turned into a political football and selective outrage is easy to see. And yes to some anything other than death could be considered a day in the park it's just a manner of speaking....not to be taken literally..
at 19:06 on December 13th, 2007
I am shocked, honestly. "not always useful"? So, sometimes it is? And others, actualy condone turture? What kind of people you are? I do think that if you turture someone else, you are no better morally than the terrorist you are fighting.
About how to fight terrorism... Another question. Have you ever seen a nation nurturing terrorism if the nation as it is does not live in poverty? You mention Nazis, best example -- the primary reason for their rise was the Great Depression.