Mr. Bush: Apologize for Torture (Atlantic Magazine) (2 Viewers)

[champ76]

What about the reports and research that have concluded that in the global War on Terror (2001 - 2008) the United States employed policies of systematic "abuse" (and sometimes expressly called "torture") - and that those policies were authorized by the White House?

Is it really your position that anything closely resembling torture committed by U.S. Forces in the last eight years is the result of "disobeying orders" or going "beyond the standards in handling prisoners"?

My intent isn't to get into another debate of what is or isn't torture. There have been a dozen or more threads on that already. I simply don't think it's a good idea for a past or current president to apologize for the enhanced interrogation techniques used on suspected al Qaeda terrorists. There is nothing to be gained by it and it once again opens up the whole can of worms.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It also presumes that (1) these techniques will result in the acquisition of knowledge of the attack; and (2) the "information" given by the prisoner will be reliable.

When you look at what types of techinques were employed (exposure to temperatures, extreme sleep deprivation, sensory overload) - they are designed to break down the person's body and mind. Beyond whether it is torture (which seems unassailable to me), do these techniques really lead to much reliable information? How can a person who hasn't slept in a month give you precise, reliable information about an impending attack?

As the article points out (and as Colin Powell argued in his memo), "information" gained in such circumstances is generally wholly unreliable.

Yep thats why in past threads i laid out why people were missing the mark with most of their justifications:

The question is not whether the methods used worked (well, at least its not the only question). The questions should be more along the lines as followed:

Were the enhanced interrogation methods used the only ones that can illicit actionable intelligence?

Can the more commonly used conventional methods that dont violate international laws or treaties illicit that same actionable intelligence?

What advantages or disadvantages are their when comparing the conventional methods with those of the enhanced interrogation method?

Was the information that was gained through these enhanced interrogation methods only attainable through those methods? In other words, was torture the only way we could have gotten this information?

Did we get information that was verifiably true because of torture? Or did we get a specific amount of information that was false? And to what level of false information did we attain and how did those false leads and bad intel hamper our effort in various military operations and in terms of meeting our goals?

What are the costs relative to the benefits? Knowing the blowback and anti-american sentiment that these methods have raised that has led to the recruitment for the enemies we seek to eradicate or defeat, are these methods beneficial enough in comparison to their obvious costs? Basically, does torture induce more terror than it helps eradicate?






Of course those are just some basic questions on the viabillity of torture as a means of illiciting info, it doesn't even fully delve into the morality of whether torture should ever be used as common policy.

And from all the research i have done, including the info from this article. The evidence seems to weigh heavily against the arguments that proponents of torture have so far used to justify its continuation.​

 

[superchuck500]

My intent isn't to get into another debate of what is or isn't torture. There have been a dozen or more threads on that already. I simply don't think it's a good idea for a past or current president to apologize for the enhanced interrogation techniques used on suspected al Qaeda terrorists. There is nothing to be gained by it and it once again opens up the whole can of worms.

I think it really boils down to the fact that many of us believe there is something to be gained by it: A legitimate argument that it was an aberration of American policy and tradition rather than a chapter of it. Leaving it alone renders it a chapter and a stain. Prosecuting is obviously undesirable as well for many reasons. But we can address it, rather than refusing to talk about it - like some unwanted scar.

History is a *****, especially when it comes to human abuses. Does anyone really remember anything about the Inquisition other than that it was an awful chapter of human abuses? Nazism is probably associated with the Holocaust more directly than just about anything else that happened in Germany between 1933 and 1945. My Lai is one of the more potent memories of Vietnam despite being a very minor incident. There are many examples of this.

Going on record now may help to restore the morality that so many of us believe this nation tries (at least) to rely upon. Many of us like to believe that our nation is supposed to operate on a core set of principles, regardless of those in the world who wish to oppose our principles. Disregarding those principles in engaging opponents renders us no better than those who we proclaim to defeat in the name of liberty.

If that isn't worth something, I think we come from two different places.

 

[blackadder]

I think the first goat herder family owes the other goat herding family an apology. I doubt that will happen, either.

That's typical shirking of your part in the equation, your responsibilities.

The damage is done, the pile of corpses left, the seed of hatred planted and then you just move on and expect to be thanked. And later you ask "why do they hate us?"

Your thinking and your attitude is what destroyed this country's reputation and is at the root of why our foreign policy usually fails.

It also fails because you let yourself be led into boondoggles by incompetent "intellectual" civilians with agendas, who are smart enough to know that if they wave the flag and scaremonger, you will "snap to" and march in with nary a question.

You let idiots like Henry Kissinger run the show when they have nothing in mind but their own schemes for the world.

Here's a fun quote from Henry Kissinger, which I think is somewhat reflective of all the neoconservative laptop bombardiers -- the effete intellectuals who wouldn't last 5 minutes on a battlefield but sit in Washington and create wars with their pens (See Bill Kristol):

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.”

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080829163144AAAY2UB

How is this guy allowed into councils of government? How do you follow schemes cooked up by these guys?

"Beam me up Scotty."

Enough is enough.

 

[champ76]

That's typical shirking of your part in the equation, your responsibilities.

The damage is done, the pile of corpses left, the seed of hatred planted and then you just move on and expect to be thanked. And later you ask "why do they hate us?"

Your thinking and your attitude is what destroyed this country's reputation and is at the root of why our foreign policy usually fails.

It also fails because you let yourself be led into boondoggles by incompetent "intellectual" civilians with agendas, who are smart enough to know that if they wave the flag and scaremonger, you will "snap to" and march in with nary a question.

You let idiots like Henry Kissinger run the show when they have nothing in mind but their own schemes for the world.

Here's a fun quote from Henry Kissinger, which I think is somewhat reflective of all the neoconservative laptop bombardiers -- the effete intellectuals who wouldn't last 5 minutes on a battlefield but sit in Washington and create wars with their pens (See Bill Kristol):

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.”

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080829163144AAAY2UB

How is this guy allowed into councils of government? How do you follow schemes cooked up by these guys?

"Beam me up Scotty."

Enough is enough.

Wow. Been having that bottled up inside for awhile? I make the point that if one goat herder falsely turns in another because of a feud between the two, that it's more of a problem between goat herders, and you play the Henry Kissinger card.

I don't like seeing bodies fall from skyscrapers that have been attacked by terrorists. My attitude and the attitude of 99% of the country at that time was, don't let it happen again. Controversial, though not demonstrably illegal, enhanced interrogation techniques were employed to make sure it didn't happen again.

You call me a sheep whose buttons can be pushed by those smarter or more powerful than me to support their agenda. Let me say, you don't know me. You don't know why I think the way I do. And quite frankly I resent being labeled that way. I have a picture of my two sons on the top of the WTC just one week before it was attacked. That pushes my buttons. I don't want them or anyone else's sons to die the way those 3000 did.

I say, **** the terrorists that got caught and underwent enhanced interrogation. And I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for it. Someone is always going to hate us, my friend, and there is damned little we can do about it. The best thing we can do is to protect ourselves as best we can.

 

[nickalbo]

I honestly don't think we as the american public need to know about the interregation techniques of our military. As long as it works and further attacks on innocent americans are prevented then I don't care what they do to these people. No smoke without fire. It isn't as if we were choosing people at random and torturing them, there was good reason.

 

[blackadder]

Wow. Been having that bottled up inside for awhile? I make the point that if one goat herder falsely turns in another because of a feud between the two, that it's more of a problem between goat herders, and you play the Henry Kissinger card.

I don't like seeing bodies fall from skyscrapers that have been attacked by terrorists. My attitude and the attitude of 99% of the country at that time was, don't let it happen again. Controversial, though not demonstrably illegal, enhanced interrogation techniques were employed to make sure it didn't happen again.

You call me a sheep whose buttons can be pushed by those smarter or more powerful than me to support their agenda. Let me say, you don't know me. You don't know why I think the way I do. And quite frankly I resent being labeled that way. I have a picture of my two sons on the top of the WTC just one week before it was attacked. That pushes my buttons. I don't want them or anyone else's sons to die the way those 3000 did.

I say, **** the terrorists that got caught and underwent enhanced interrogation. And I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for it. Someone is always going to hate us, my friend, and there is damned little we can do about it. The best thing we can do is to protect ourselves as best we can.

I was about 5 miles from the Pentagon on 9/11 and not too far from where a 3rd Jet would likely have come down. Within blocks.

I resent the whole thing, in the big picture, of why it happens.

It takes two to tango. There's an equation and it involves policies cooked up by people like Kissinger and the fallout and accumulated baggage created by those policies.

You have a wiring that allows you only to see the role of others in the whole dynamic. You block out the tawdry details and stupidity from this end. I step out and see the whole picture, put myslef into the shoes of others and ask if I would tolerate it if I were them.

I wouldn't.

Yeah, we have a different world view.

We've been trying things based on your world view for some time and the hole only gets deeper.

Time for something new.

What reason does the goat herder in an isolated valley in Afghanistan have to give you a moment's thought until ordnance starts falling on his crops or home?

I think my approach is more likely to work over time.

Yours, which encompasses the torture and rendition policies of Bush, only ensures that the reservoir of hate and mistrust is constantly refilled, with the ever present threat of another terror attack, because you continue to motivate new terrorists.

My way drains the swamp.

Your way perpetuates the cycle ad infinitum, mine can end it.

Does it please your vanity to think that you are so overwhelminhly and impressively virtuous that some poor goat herder on the other side of the planet MUST hate you, just because you are you?

 

[superchuck500]

I honestly don't think we as the american public need to know about the interregation techniques of our military. As long as it works and further attacks on innocent americans are prevented then I don't care what they do to these people. No smoke without fire. It isn't as if we were choosing people at random and torturing them, there was good reason.

So it should go without saying that you would not object to such techniques used against Americans (whether military or not) - so long as the people detaining the Americans believe that they are protecting themselves.

I'm not prepared to make that concession. Not because I don't want Americans treated that way, but because I don't think human beings should be treated that way.

 

[nickalbo]

So it should go without saying that you would not object to such techniques used against Americans (whether military or not) - so long as the people detaining the Americans believe that they are protecting themselves.

I'm not prepared to make that concession. Not because I don't want Americans treated that way, but because I don't think human beings should be treated that way.

Sometimes sacrifices have to made in order to protect the greater good. And no I don't think ANYONE should be tortured but if it is neccesary to do so in order to obtain information that is vital in the interest of protecting america and it's people then I believe that it would be justified.

 

[champ76]

I was about 5 miles from the Pentagon on 9/11 and not too far from where a 3rd Jet would likely have come down. Within blocks.

I resent the whole thing, in the big picture, of why it happens.

It takes two to tango. There's an equation and it involves policies cooked up by people like Kissinger and the fallout and accumulated baggage created by those policies.

You have a wiring that allows you only to see the role of others in the whole dynamic. You block out the tawdry details from this end. I step out and see the whole picture, put myslef into the shoes of others and ask if I would tolerate it if I were them.

I wouldn't.

Yeah, we have a different world view.

We've been trying things based on your world view for some time and the hole only gets deeper.

Time for something new.

What reason does the goat herder in an isolated valley in Afghanistan have to give you a moment's thought until ordnance starts falling on his crops or home?

There is no reason BA, but civilians are always caught in the crossfire, and always will be. We went into Afghanistan to topple a government that had given aid and comfort to an enemy that had declared war on the US and followed up with an attack that killed 3000 of our civilians. We didn't go in to bomb the goatherder.

There is no "playing nice" in this world I'm afraid. Trouble will always come to your doorstep. Neighbors don't get along. Fights break out. Fans of opposing football teams don't get along. Fights break out. Family members don't get along. Fights break out. There is literally no way to completely remove this nation from what goes on in the rest of the world. And sooner or later, someone's toes will get stepped on; someone's belief system assailed; or some foreign leader with an atomic device will wake up and decide he wants to go out with a bang. I want to be in control of my fate; and if that means being proactive in world affairs, that's the price that must be paid, I suppose.

 

[blackadder]

There is no reason BA, but civilians are always caught in the crossfire, and always will be. We went into Afghanistan to topple a government that had given aid and comfort to an enemy that had declared war on the US and followed up with an attack that killed 3000 of our civilians. There is no "playing nice" in this world I'm afraid. Trouble will always come to your doorstep. Neighbors don't get along. Fights break out. Fans of opposing football teams don't get along. Fights break out. Family members don't get along. Fights break out. There is literally no way to completely remove this nation from what goes on in the rest of the world. And sooner or later, someone's toes will get stepped on; someone's belief system assailed; or some foreign leader with an atomic device will wake up and decide he wants to go out with a bang. I want to be in control of my fate; and if that means being proactive in world affairs, that's the price that must be paid, I suppose.

You know, here we go.

Is there any evidence that the Taliban had any knowledge of or complicity of any plots by Bin Laden and his Saudi operatives spread around the globe?

I don't think there is. Not even Dick Cheney made that claim.

The claim was that by refusing to round up AQ and capture Bin Laden on our order that it was defacto "aid and comfort" I guess.

There is a mission in Afghanistan. It's structure and purpose should have been vastly different than what it has evolved into, and the fact that it woud evolve into something unwinnable is the constant risk when we stick our fingers into these places, which is why, informed by history -- all of the history -- I generally oppose these interventions.

When you look at the past it gets hard to believe that we would go down this path again of staking so much on a corrupt government in a place 500-1,000 years behind the level of development associated the government and values that we state we are trying to install there.

All we have to do is stay on the tail of foreign jihadis trying to organize and train out of that region. Getting mixed up beyond that gets us where we are now.

I can't see how you are going to send soldiers to convince villagers and tribesmen to shave their beards and give up their conservative religious way of life, which is popular and which is why the Taliban has a broad base of support that allows it to melt into the populace when convenient.

The Taliban was not synonymous with AQ, and need not be. The Taliban to me is stuck 1,000 years in the past in a way of life I can not fathom.

But it is not my country or my culture and as such I am disinterested. I accept that the world has a lot of strange, barbaric in my view and violent places and I am glad that I don't live in them and don't lose sleep at night because they are different, and don't have a burning desire to show them how to live at great expense at a time when we are broke.

 

[superchuck500]

Sometimes sacrifices have to made in order to protect the greater good. And no I don't think ANYONE should be tortured but if it is neccesary to do so in order to obtain information that is vital in the interest of protecting america and it's people then I believe that it would be justified.

So you would support the torture of Americans being detained by others as long as they believe the torture is necessary to defend themselves?

 

[nickalbo]

So you would support the torture of Americans being detained by others as long as they believe the torture is necessary to defend themselves?

Of course not! I am an AMERICAN. I am sure they do not "Support" us torturing citizens of their countries.

 

[jpcdolphan]

Of course not! I am an AMERICAN. I am sure they do not "Support" us torturing citizens of their countries.

Would you support the torture of American citizens by other Americans, for instance the police, in the interests of public security? Even if there will doubtless be innocents rounded up and tortured? If not, what's the difference?

Gangbangers have killed a lot more Americans than Al Qaeda ever did.

Of course, this leaves out the whole argument that torture has yet to be proven to act as a disincentive in attacking us.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Sometimes sacrifices have to made in order to protect the greater good. And no I don't think ANYONE should be tortured but if it is neccesary to do so in order to obtain information that is vital in the interest of protecting america and it's people then I believe that it would be justified.

Then lets stop beating the bush around. Interrogators should be allowed to line up a suspects children and shoot one every 5 minutes til a confession is obtained and the right information divulged.

If a police officer suspects you of being guilty, he deserves the authority to torture you in anyway he sees fit to ensure he gets the best information to protect the greater good.

If an innocent little girl is the key to finding the location of a suspect who may or may not harm Americans, we have the right to torture her anyway we see fit until she confesses the location.

If your argument for justifying torture is because it will protect the greater good, you have no room to argue that what i just listed aren't acceptable tactics or policies.