Unsubscribe Me
Watch this short commercial by Amnesty International. Then click the link below. Then let’s talk about waterboarding.
Click here to unsubscribe: http://www.unsubscribe-me.org
If we are willing to commit human rights violations in our so-called War on Terror, then what have we become? What is worth protecting if we abandon our principles? I have said before, and I will say again, if you are willing to sacrifice your principles when it is inconvenient to keep them, then you have no principles.
In a democracy, the people create the government and ultimately set policy through elected representatives. The people also bear the moral responsibility for the actions of the government.
Even if “moral principle” isn’t enough of a motivation to oppose torture techniques like waterboarding, at least we should look to international law. The United States is a signatory to dozens of human rights treaties and conventions. And although we once helped lead the “free world” in the fight for universal human rights, the United States today appears far more interested in shirking international law whenever possible. Frightening memos circulate around the White House, telling the president that he is authorized to ignore domestic and international law any time he judges it to be contrary to his view of national security.
Fortunately, it appears that our next president will switch directions, at least on this issue of torture. Those people who think that any action that perpetuates and protects the state are justified scare me. Some of the Republican primary debates scared me when the candidates kept trying to one up each other in how brutal they were willing to be with detained terror suspects in the fictitious “ticking time bomb” scenario.
Maybe this is something to pray about today, since it is the National Day of Prayer.
Yes, god awful shame — no doubt. Living in an international system built upon the realist paradigm doesn’t make room for Human Rights. Individuals are seen as expendable. They are used for power and position aggrandizement of the state.
For more information on Torture Tactics sponsored by the United States of America, see the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation manual.
You can thank Allan Dulles, Ewen Cameron, the Canadian Defense Board, and the CIA for this fine piece of work in the field of human torture tactics.
See you in Room 101!
And even if you can’t come to accept that torture is inhumane and illegal (inhumane is enough for me), how about the ineffectiveness of torture.
I can’t count the number of CIA, military, and psychological experts who stated that torture is not an effective method of interrogation.
And then there’s the reciprocity effect. Aren’t these types of field techniques going to encourage the same type of activities, perhaps worse, from the “enemy”? I think that has already been historically proven.
And finally, after practicing, witnessing, or being subject to this type of savagery, what are the implications as one tries to reenter society.
Gino, you’re so cute
JSC, I think our relationship and bond is growing at a healthy rate. I also think you are cute, little man.
I’ll take your comment as an indication that you disagree. So, maybe you can learn me.
Torture is not constitutionally and internationally illegal?
Torture is not inhumane?
Torture is an effective interrogation technique?
Torture will not create reciprocal violence/torture/revenge?
The savagery of war and torture will serve to help people as they try to assimilate themselves back into some semblance of normalcy in society?
Help me out JSC, because I really want to be a fan of torture.
“Individuals are seen as expendable.”
Sadly enough Denney, that is a human truism that reaches far beyond this discussion.
People don’t value other people. Especially those of darker skin color. If I were to take a straw poll, sample size 100, asking people whether or not they thought it ethical to torture an America citizen of Arab descent, named Ibrahim al-Wasab, who is “suspected” of ties to certain terrorist organizations. The possible answers are: “Yes,” “No,” or “Don’t Know.”
What would be the total percentage of each response?
80%, 10%, 10%.
It is amazing to me because sometimes the nicest people in the world – people who would jumpstart your car or lend you money or whatever – turn into crazed maniacs when they talk about what rights criminals and terror suspects have. I witnessed one of my teachers rant the other day about how much he personally wanted to execute that Austrian incest guy. It was scary.
They’re willing to help you because you’re a member of their tribe. How many of these “nicest people in the world” would help jumpstart the car if the people broken down were Mexican laborers?
Similarly a lot of these “nicest people in the world” just don’t care about torturing dark skinned people from other countries.
Alright gino, here’s the dealio. From an individual perspective, i think torture is reprehensible. Inhumane. Just plain bad. But a nation state is not an individual. Nor should it reflect individual moralities or scruples. I tend to take the Machiavellian view on this sort of thing. And I don’t think America is superior/special. If Iran catches a CIA agent and wants to extract info out of him, waterboard the shit out of him. However, I also subscribe to utilitarianism. Meaning, a nation state should only use torture (and we could have a separate debate over how broad the term “torture” has become) if it will yield credible info. Otherwise, it inflicts needless suffering, and even a nation state should avoid the infliction of needless suffering.
On the other hand, several people mentioned that Americans tend to view the lives of those w/ darker skin as more expendable. They often do. I have news for you: the average American is trashy, poor, uneducated, has horrible taste, is ugly, fat and smelly.
I think people often forget that in reality, a nation state is only obliged to look after its own interests, as expediently as it can. To hold it to a higher standard is childish.
“[A] nation state is not an individual. Nor should it reflect individual moralities or scruples. I tend to take the Machiavellian view on this sort of thing . . . If Iran catches a CIA agent and wants to extract info out of him, waterboard the shit out of him. Meaning, a nation state should only use torture (and we could have a separate debate over how broad the term “torture” has become) if it will yield credible info.”
This is quintessential example of pernicious logic. To call yourself Machiavellian in respect to torture is implying that you take the Caesar Borgia approach to the problem — torture deters and is therefore effective. However, this isn’t the case.
Time and time again it has proven to not yield credible info, but just the contrary. It has proven to yield falsified information. Anyone will say anything to end torture. Torture is inhuman and ineffective. Your justification is that a nation state is above the laws of moral and ethics. This is just wrong. “Might does [not] make right,” as the adage goes. It is neither just nor lawful for a state to practice torture tactics. Didn’t you read up on the Nuremberg War Trials? Your sticking to an anachronistic approach to justice and your bleeding vile.
“the average American is trashy, poor, uneducated, has horrible taste, is ugly, fat and smelly.”
Is this satire?
“I think people often forget that in reality, a nation state is only obliged to look after its own interests, as expediently as it can. To hold it to a higher standard is childish.”
You sir, are childish, pernicious, and backwards in logic. You take the approach that I described above. You don’t value human life. To call yourself a Machiavellian is anything but a compliment.
You could have been more suave about this and taken the utilitarian approach. However, you chose the low road in lambasting those who value human life. Your views on how a nation state ought to conduct itself reflects your individual perspective. You can try and compartmentalize them all day long, but in the end human life is human life.
Pernicious? Lambasting? Bleeding vile? My good man, you’re becoming irrational! What I wanted from you was an intellectual argument for why a sovereign nation should refrain from engaging in brutal interrogation tactics that it feels are in the interest of its national security. What I got was an emotional rant. Remain dispassionate, after all, there’s nothing you can do about it anyway. Which brings me to my second point: we have to comparmentalize when discussing how a nation should conduct itself, for the simple reason that what you or I think about the actions of our government is less than irrelevant.
Finally, one of the things i like about you and manes is your tendency to avoid ad hominem attacks. Why start now? You said “You don’t value human life.” Really? Could you be more dramatic? If you disagree w/ what I wrote all the better, but don’t take the “low road”, to borrow your phrase; stick to the arguments.
PS: what I said about the average american was actually the only thing I wrote that wasn’t satirical; i have little/no respect for the average denizen of our native land
“…..why a sovereign nation should refrain from engaging in brutal interrogation tactics that it feels are in the interest of its national security.”
As has been stated already: Because it is inhumane, illegal, and an ineffective interrogation method. Can you refute that?
“….i have little/no respect for the average denizen of our native land.”
So you must be spiffy, rich, educated, with good taste, handsome, thin, and sport a good cologne.
“PS: what I said about the average american was actually the only thing I wrote that wasn’t satirical…”
Does that mean that all of your other points were satirical?
Good work….
So, you set me up?
Well, since you don’t know me real well, I am very susceptible to emotional rants that occasionally involve ad hominines — I’ll admit it. But let’s be honest for a second. When we’re dealing with the inhuman treatment of human life, can you be completely set apart from emotion? I’m sure some can, but I haven’t reached that stage of argumentative maturity. I’m a Romantic at heart and I often lose to my inner emotions.
So, set aside the emotional jargon, I did provide rational support.
#1 The Machiavellian approach to torture, which for anyone who knows Machiavelli, knows this is a referral to the toleration of torture as a means of deterrence. In its proper historical context, the Machiavellian toleration of torture referred to Machiavelli’s praise for Caesar Borgia’s torture/scare tactics to rule the province of Bologna. However, as most historians and political scientist will point out, this was not a good example of how to properly run a province.
#2 Torture as a means to extrapolate data from contained subjects does not work. Subjects will say anything to alleviate the pain. They will give falsified information in order to put an end to the torture. Furthermore, most torture tactics breakdown the mind to the point that humans are neither cognizant nor rationale rendering the information obtained in this manner cannot be regarded as authoritative.
Look at this on a cost/benefit scale. The costs to torture: destruction of innocent life, wasted resources, tarnished prestige, loss of legitimacy, and possible legal action. These costs for a benefit that is rarely achieved that of information acquisition. This doesn’t even explore the realm of torture as applied to “terrorist,” as is the most pertinent to today’s geopolitical realm and the war on terrorism.
In the cases of the torture of terrorists there is virtually zero efficacy. Torture will not deter other terrorist actions. If anything, it will provoke further attacks. Also, the theory behind the torture of terrorist is mistaken insofar as it is built upon the presupposition that terrorism is monolithic entity that is interconnected and in constant communication. This simply isn’t the case. Most terrorist cells do not coordinate with other terrorist cells. Even Al-Queda is a multitude of independent acting entities.
#3 The political ideology of utilitarianism is cold hearted and arcane. Although many states still employ this mode of thought in justification of questionable acts, it doesn’t make it right. Under utilitarianism, human beings are seen as expendable costs for the majority, regardless of the infringement on human rights or the collateral damage.
#4 Compartmentalization come human rights is not acceptable. It should be both a personal and state maxim that human rights should be looked after and protected. It is anachronistic to think that we aren’t progressing in the field of human rights. The Nuremberg Trials is indeed a watershed in the assertion of human rights. We should not impede this progress with the allowance of “waterboarding” or any other torture tactic.
Bottom Line: Torture falls on its face when under scrutiny from a moralistic perspective and a cost/benefit perspective.
“one of the things i like about you and manes is your tendency to avoid ad hominem attacks. Why start now?”
Ok, you got me. I won’t deny that I employed ad hominine attacks, on you, nonetheless. Like I said, I tend to have a very volatile personality when it comes to issues I am very passionate about — this happens to be one of them. So, I don’t apologize, since you deliberately set me up, but I do acknowledge that debating the merits of the case is indeed better.
I have learned.
I hope you didn’t take it too personal. Since you really didn’t believe even yourself.
No, I didn’t take it personally, and I did not mean to take a cheap shot at you. I thought it was worthy of pointing out because, as I said, I like what you and Manes have going on here. In my opinion, one of the great things about the internet is the opportunity it gives us to have a dialogue, but at the same time be anonymous and therefore offer us an opportunity for true intellectual detachment (sometimes we fail on this, but it does give us the opportunity). I too am a Romantic, and face to face I can become quite volatile, particularly when dealing with an issue close to my heart, as you pointed out. I appreciate your second post: you laid out your arguments, and I think you have a sophisticated understanding of the way an organization like Al-Queda operates. As you said, it is made up of highly individualistic, self-sustaining cells that operate w/ little or no contact with the leadership, something that makes standard interrogation ineffective. Anyway, I havent really addressed the issues, but perhaps i will later.
Of course, you arent operating anonymously, but since we havent met it’s basically the same idea.
Well then, good talk.
I encourage you to point out some more issues. It’s always good to have dialogue, even if I go to arms sometimes.
S.C. accepted that the debate could be waged purely within the realm of the realist paradigm and the cost-benefit analysis; however I do not. The realist assertion that states should maximize their own power and nothing else represents too much of an old-fashioned worldview.
Neither pure realism nor pure idealism makes for a healthy foreign policy, but a combination of the two can be very effective. The idealist part of the world order that shows the most promise right now is collective security and international cooperation because states are finding that they can accomplish a lot more if they work together under common regimes than they could separately. Conventions and treaties against torture are some of the most fundamental to the entire Western international order. Undermining the rule of law between nations in this way undermines many other regimes that have a lot of promise for promoting peace and prosperity all across the world.
We also have to consider enlightened self interest and not just immediate self interest. It is in our enlightened self-interest to have a world in which states agree not to torture individuals, even if it is not in our immediate self interest in some interrogation scenario.
Finally, although I would agree with you that different sets of ethics apply to states from those that apply to individuals, I cannot accept a paradigm that removes any ethics other than utilitarianism from the state as an actor. In our constitutional government, we recognize a higher power than utilitarianism in our constitution. Even if it would be in our immediate self interest for the state to enact some policy (NSA wiretapping, etc.), our federal courts will stop it because in our own internal enlightened self interest, we realize that abiding by the limitations of our Constitution ultimately makes for the best system overall. In the international system, we may occasionally need to submit to some very commonly accepted ethical standards, some of which are codified into treaty and convention, even if abiding by those rules seems ineffecient in the short run.