Over at Marshall Art's, there have been a series of opinion pieces concerning torture, waterboarding, or whether waterboarding is torture. I've made my thoughts known on waterboarding in previous posts, and actually find myself in agreement with Dan Trabue, one of the more stubborn of the opponents of torture, in that I believe waterboarding is indeed torture.
This is a point on which I tend to part ways with my Conservative comrades.
That agreement notwithstanding, I have repeatedly asked Dan one simple question regarding the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" for the purposes of gaining important information on possible impending terrorist attacks on the United States, a question he has steadfastly refused to answer. If one would bother to ask Dan why he refuses to answer, he would undoubtedly insist that he is no longer replying to me because I insulted his Aunt. But that's an issue for another time, another place.
Instead, I believe he won't answer because he has no answer. At least no answer that wouldn't make him look a total fool.
Dan's contention is that the interrogation techniques currently in use are not only inhumane, but don't work, despite all evidence to the contrary.
With Dan's questionable conclusions in mind, I have endeavored to ascertain what methods Dan would employ, given the opportunity, to illicit the information America needs to prevent further terrorists attacks.
My question to Dan is quite simply: What would you do to obtain the pertinent information from terrorists captives that would prevent further attacks and loss of innocent American lives? In other words, what type of humane treatment would Dan deem effective in obtaining such information?
Since he won't answer the question, I have endeavored to offer a scenario that illustrates what we can only assume must be Dan's position on how to effectively obtain information from terrorists in custody:
Original artwork provided by yours truly.
The scene is a room somewhere on the grounds of GITMO at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The room is bare except for a desk, and three folding chairs, upon which three men are seated, one behind the desk, one in front of the desk and one sitting at a slight distance behind the man at the desk. The man behind the desk is an anonymous CIA Interrogator. The man in front of the desk is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, leading al Qaida terrorist. The man in back is a referee, selected by the Obama administration to make sure the interrogator doesn't employ any illegal torture techniques.
Interrogator: Now, Mr. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Please tell me anything you know that might possibly be helpful to us in helping us prevent further Terrorists attacks on America. Pleeeeeease?
KSM: You will see soon enough, Pig!
Interrogator: Aw, c'mon Khalid, pretty please?
KSM (grinning): Nope!
Interrogator: I'll give you a cookie if you tell us.
KSM: With sprinkles?
Interrogator: Uh...sorry, Mr. Mohammed, we only have chocolate chip.
KSM: Then....no!
Interrogator: OK, OK, OK, we'll get cookies with sprinkles. Someone get Mr. Mohammed a cookie with sprinkles! But remember, if I give you a cookie with sprinkles, you'll tell us when the next attack is coming, OK?
KSM: If it's a good cookie, with lots and lots of sprinkles, I'll tell you. I promise.
Interrogator (handing KSM a cookie. With sprinkles): Here. Here's a cookie with sprinkles. Would you like some milk to wash it down?
KSM: Yes, thank you. (eats cookie, and washes it down with a cup of milk)
Interrogator: OK, now. Tell us what we want to know.
KSM (grinning ever wider): Ha Ha ha! You will know soon enough! Ha Ha Ha!
Interrogator (slams his palms down on desk, exasperated): Darn! Now what can we do?
Referee: Well, unless you have a nicer, more polite interrogation technique, I guess you'll have to let him go.
Interrogator: Darn. I really thought we were close this time.
MSNBC news in background: A 747 jet airliner has just crashed into the Federal building in Los Angeles. Estimates are that there are as many as 5,000 people inside. So far there is no word on who's responsible, but MSNBC analysts suggest it was an attack perpetrated by former President George W. Bush, in retaliation for the loss of the election to our revered Messiah, Barack Obama. Now, for a word from our sponsors.
KSM: He he he he he!
The preceding dramatization could be the result of Obama's stupid, naive, "One world of Peace" political philosophy.
I'll thank the administrators here to leave my name out of the perverse fantasies of your contributors. I have quit commenting here because of your general wackiness and joyful celebration of evil.
ReplyDeleteThat being the case, I would ask that you keep my name out of your posts, as I don't care to be associated with you.
Thank you.
Mark what do you think the United States did to obtain intelligence before 2003? Do you think we'd only been using cookies up until then?
ReplyDeleteHow do you think police departments and the FBI manage to interrogate criminals? Trained interrogaters know how to use conversation, bribery, emotional manipulation, and lie detection to uncover knowledge and secrets. This may not seem as effective as the Jack Bauer method of crushing testicles, but in fact it is more effective.
There is a reason that all the intelligence professionals in the military and FBI and most of the CIA believe that torture is counterproductive to our overall mission.
Hey, Danielsan....you forced yourself into the fray at each and every one of our blogs. When it was obvious that you were bothersome and unwanted...still you persisted.
ReplyDeleteAnd now you announce that you are off-limits in our conversations?
Kiss my ASS, you freaking self-centered little schmuck!
Sorry, Dan (not really) but you continue to refuse to answer the questions I ask, and since you have so far failed to make a cognitive point, I will invoke your name whenever I damn well please.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, you make stupid arguments and when you're called on them, you can't deal, so you do your self-imposed exile thing, and blame it on others.
That won't wash here.
If you truly don't care to be associated with us, by all means, take your Marxist ant-Christian comments elsewhere.
I don't understand how Dan's opinion has any bearing on national security. Why are we dragging Dan's name into a discussion about the fake [as in "misleading"] waterboarding story. I thought you guys wanted men like Dan to leave us alone?
ReplyDeleteCute story, however. It certainly drives home the point that liberals couldn't save anyone from a terrorist attack with their flaccid interrogation tactics.
Seriously guys, Dan Trabue is not the center of evil in America. What is Dan doing [besides voting democrat] that continues and deepens the loss of liberty in this country? Why are we attacking Dan? Because he's not likely to hop in his can and drive to our homes and punch us in the face? What does that say about us?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, when was the last time Dan commented HERE??? If you have problems with Dan at other blogs, why don't you deal with him there?
ReplyDeleteI, too, have waited for an answer, to be given some example of a "nice" technique that has procured info from an otherwise uncooperative captive in a "ticking time bomb" scenario. I'be gotten nothing so far (see my blog for details). I've conceded waterboarding to be torture. In fact, I've conceded absolutely anything that could in any way fall under the broadest definition of torture, including the incarceration/detainment of enemy combatants itself. I'm not concerned with the label for the technique anymore. What I want to hear is what alternative techniques have worked in such a situation. I want to know how can anyone be certain that it will work on every subject we might ever have to question. I want to know how anyone can promise that harsh techniques won't work ever for anyone. I want to know what's wrong with people who are willing to risk lives, that is allow people to die, where they will be dead for pretty much ever, rather than cause temporary discomfort to a known scumbag in order to get life saving info it is believed he possesses. If morality is the issue, trading lives to prevent discomfort to an asshole is pretty damned immoral in my book.
ReplyDeleteI say we give them nothing but Fig Newtons, as much as they care to eat, six days a week. Let them fast on the seventh... fasting is good for the soul.
ReplyDeleteLet them eat fruited cake...
Until they either tell us what we want to know, or they burst.
How can subsisting upon a diet consisting solely on Fig Newtons and water hurt anyone? Or offend their conveniently religious sensibilities? Surely Hitler's Germany NEVER gave those starving Jews a SINGLE Fig Newton.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Waaaaugh, waaaaugh, waaaaugh.
Sniff!
Sob!"
To suggest that because intelligence officers are no longer allowed to torture detainees leaves them with no effective means of doing their jobs demonstrates a whole host of failures.
ReplyDelete1. failure of imagination. to think that if there is no torture there is no means of intelligence gathering.
2. failure of logic.
3. failure of perception. you fail to see that interrogations and intelligence gathering happened before torture was allowed.
4. failure of faith. you have no faith in the abilities of the men and women of the armed forces or america's intelligence departments that they can do their jobs.
5. failure of patriotism. America does not torture. it is the anti-thesis of the idea of american morality and exceptionalism.
6. failure of courage. to suggest that we can't survive anything terrorists can throw at us and still follow our laws and ethics.
Bent,
ReplyDeleteIn response:
1) I'm all for imagination and have no doubt that someone will use it to come up with the perfect set of techniques that will work in every circumstance on any individual, sane or insane, willing or not. Hasn't happened yet. Not willing to risk lives when a given suspect is considered to possess intel that will prevent those lives from being lost.
2) The failure of logic is yours. It is illogical to avoid using the tactics that will get the job done. When desperate times call for desperate measures, the comfort of the evil-doer is logically of less concern than the lives he puts at risk.
3) This makes no sense. Torture has always been around. What now passes for torture used to be considered simply harsh techniques. Clarify this one.
4) I have absolute faith that in general, the people charged with the task of extracting information know when a given technique makes the most sense, including that which is now called "torture". They may be wrong now and then, and some might actually be sadistic. But I believe these are not the norm.
5) I'm patriotic enough to assume our people do what's necessary as determined by the situation in which they find themselves. The question of what is torture, that is, specifically how it is defined has been broadened to include methods that in the past didn't fit. The interpretation has been broadened to the point of handcuffing our people in the field to unreasonable lengths, making their jobs tougher, thus putting in jeapardy more of our own people and allies. That is NOT patriotic in the least.
6) What's courageous about risking the lives of other people? You are perfectly free to let yourself be put at risk. You have no right to make that decision for others.
I invite you to take a look at my blog, where you will be shown my opinion of why what seems so wrong can be the righteous and moral action to take. Knowing the distinction is what can enhance our exceptionalism.
Eric, I am simply trying to draw Dan into the discussion, as he refuses to answer a simple yes or no question.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it has anything to do with principle, since he has demonstrated he has none. It has to do with the fact that Dan's a coward, and/or just not as smart as me.