Mr. Bush: Apologize for Torture (Atlantic Magazine) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

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

Support is the wrong word choice - what I'm getting at is whether you would think it's justified for others to torture Americans if they believe they're doing it for their own protection?

If it is morally justified for Americans to do it to others if Americans believe that it is for our own protection, then it has to be justified for others to do it to Americans if they believe it is for their own protection. How could it be morally okay for us but not them? If it's because we're somehow better or simply inherently more "just" than they are, it's no different than their belief that jihad is a just and holy conclusion of Islam. It's fallacy all around.

It just means that morality has nothing to do with it, and that's what bothers people. It's as if torture no longer means anything.

 

[nickalbo]

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.

Torture isn't used primarily as a "disincentive" for attacking the US. Rather it is used, very effectively I might add, as a way to obtain information.

And no I would not support the torture of american citizens. In america we are afforded the right of being innocent until proven guilty. I think that in some of the cases we are reffering to where such torture tactics were employed we weren't afforded the luxury of time in order to obtain the neccesary information, thus making torture the only viable option.

 

[nickalbo]

Support is the wrong word choice - what I'm getting at is whether you would think it's justified for others to torture Americans if they believe they're doing it for their own protection?

If it is morally justified for Americans to do it to others if Americans believe that it is for our own protection, then it has to be justified for others to do it to Americans if they believe it is for their own protection. How could it be morally okay for us but not them? If it's because we're somehow better or simply inherently more "just" than they are, it's no different than their belief that jihad is a just and holy conclusion of Islam. It's fallacy all around.

It just means that morality has nothing to do with it, and that's what bothers people. It's as if torture no longer means anything.

Because other countries have never tortured our citizens / soldiers...you're right America must be the only nation barbaric enough to engage in touture.

Gimme a break dude.

 

[superchuck500]

Because other countries have never tortured our citizens / soldiers...you're right America must be the only nation barbaric enough to engage in touture.

Gimme a break dude.

You've missed the point entirely.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Torture isn't used primarily as a "disincentive" for attacking the US. Rather it is used, very effectively I might add, as a way to obtain information.

And no I would not support the torture of american citizens. In america we are afforded the right of being innocent until proven guilty. I think that in some of the cases we are reffering to where such torture tactics were employed we weren't afforded the luxury of time in order to obtain the neccesary information, thus making torture the only viable option.

Effectively? Says who? The FBI's investigation heavily disagrees with you.

How is torture the only viable option? The case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi seems to beg the differ.

His is a case of needing vital and time sensitive information, a case where the conventional torture tactics used for over a year did not work. But under a new investigation and interrogation team led by Matthew Alexander (his alias) they managed not only to divulge information previously unextracatable from Zarqawi's confidants but ultimately led them to enough leads that the air force was able to zero in on his location and kill him.

This is a direct case where torture worked antithetically to our goals, where conventional interrogation tactics that had been used and honed since WWII, were not only more effective, but led to substantially less false leads that are so often associated with methods of torture.

His quote says it best:

"The American public has a right to know that they do not have to choose between torture and terror. There is a better way to conduct interrogations that works more efficiently, keeps Americans safe, and doesn’t sacrifice our integrity. Our greatest victory to date in this war, the death of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi (which saved thousands of lives and helped pave the way to the Sunni Awakening), was achieved using interrogation methods that had nothing to do with torture. The American people deserve to know that.

 

[nickalbo]

Effectively? Says who? The FBI's investigation heavily disagrees with you.

How is torture the only viable option? The case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi seems to beg the differ.
:

My apologies I should have known better than to enter in to this kind of discussion on SR I am actually not fully informed on all the details and particulars surrounding the subject matter, and base all arguments strictly on opinion and gut feeling.

 

[mister pc]

yeah right. W is not the kind of guy to admit he was wrong and apologize. was this guy paying attention at all during Bush's tenure?

 

[fingers]

yeah right. W is not the kind of guy to admit he was wrong and apologize. was this guy paying attention at all during Bush's tenure?

I'm sure W will apologize as soon as Clinton and Gore do, they started the rendition policy that was used during the Bush years. You guys are giving Bush way to much credit, these people are all the same. Until the world runs on magic pixie dust instead of resources, there will always be war.

 

[blackadder]

I'm sure W will apologize as soon as Clinton and Gore do, they started the rendition policy that was used during the Bush years. You guys are giving Bush way to much credit, these people are all the same. Until the world runs on magic pixie dust instead of resources, there will always be war.

I at least respect your honesty and clarlity and directness of thought.

But couldn't we work a lttle harder to get off the resources, than go right to the Empire/neocolonial option?

 

[purvis_guy]

Oh golly gee, another Bush-bashing thread, meanwhile this country is going to **** under the present President. When is he going to apologize to all the unemployed people out there looking for jobs while he seems to be more pre-occupied with Fox News, when is he going to apologize to all the soldiers in Afghanistan who is fighting a war while he seems more pre-occupied with consulting and listening to everybody except his commanders on the ground, when is he going to apologize? When? I'll tell you when, the next time he visits a foreign country and wants to kiss up to it's America hating leader, that's when.

 

[blackadder]

Oh golly gee, another Bush-bashing thread, meanwhile this country is going to **** under the present President. When is he going to apologize to all the unemployed people out there looking for jobs while he seems to be more pre-occupied with Fox News, when is he going to apologize to all the soldiers in Afghanistan who is fighting a war while he seems more pre-occupied with consulting and listening to everybody except his commanders on the ground, when is he going to apologize? When? I'll tell you when, the next time he visits a foreign country and wants to kiss up to it's America hating leader, that's when.

Terrible.

 

[Saintman2884]

Not trying to overreach here, but a quote from one Micheal Corleone from the Godfather part II fits in well with what I think distinguishes torture from imtimidation: Don't ever hate your enemies, it clouds your judgement. And most of us have heard most of the history of organized crime in the US. Torture has always been counter-productive althrough out history. The only way it might work is if you have a suspect you know a lot of information you want, but he knows this also, so to that, good luck getting out of him. The Nazis used more creative torture techniques(playing mind games, bait-and-switch taunting. They were very clever at inventing ways to make prisoners walk, all of which were illegal and blatant violations of the Geneva Convention. FTM, the NVA in Hanoi tortured POW's like John Mccain to the point where he tried to commit suicide his first few months in captivity, and left him with IIRC a permenent limp in his right leg. We heard stories about torture going on in Hanoi althroughout the Vietnam War, how POW's were forced to make propoganda speeches, or beaten until they broke to where they signed an affadivit saying they were imperialist capitalist aggressors. It's also why I will also hate Jane Fonda going to Hanoi in 1972 to possy her *** on a anti-aircraft gun, parading around with VC and NVA and making propoganda speeches. Then 7 years later all of a sudden she says her sorry, well **** that and **** her. I know this whenever I see those photos of her acting like a good little Marxist flying over from Hollywood. Her actons are unforgivable, I don't give two ***** about pretensious moralist arguments even giving her the slightest benefit of the doubt. The forgiveness clause might work on perhaps a murderer who committed a heinious crime when they young, reckless, and stupid, but not to her, no way whatsoever.


But to the overall topic of torture: It's totally immoral as an ethical plank, but from a practical standpoint: it's unwise, it's counterproductive, and not using better alternatives. It may require interrogators to be more creative and it may be harder to get information, but it won't leave a stain that stays once we've gotten our information but we won't feel conflicted on whether or not we did was right afterwards.

 

[mister pc]

I'm sure W will apologize as soon as Clinton and Gore do, they started the rendition policy that was used during the Bush years. You guys are giving Bush way to much credit, these people are all the same. Until the world runs on magic pixie dust instead of resources, there will always be war.

this is the second time you've gone with the "but clinton did it too" angle to deflect criticism from bush. i would like to clarify something: are you suggesting that the clinton and bush administrations both employed the tactics of rendition and torture equally? or do you think one president was more ambitious with torture and rendition?

 

[superchuck500]

Oh golly gee, another Bush-bashing thread, meanwhile this country is going to **** under the present President. When is he going to apologize to all the unemployed people out there looking for jobs while he seems to be more pre-occupied with Fox News, when is he going to apologize to all the soldiers in Afghanistan who is fighting a war while he seems more pre-occupied with consulting and listening to everybody except his commanders on the ground, when is he going to apologize? When? I'll tell you when, the next time he visits a foreign country and wants to kiss up to it's America hating leader, that's when.

It isn't a Bush bashing thread. It's much more fundamental than that IMO.

 

[DadsDream]

Andrew Sullivan went waaaay off the rails a long time ago. I'm surprised anybody would try to hang the "conservative" moniker on him anymore.

The demands for this leader or that leader to apologize has become a trite, tired and repetitious endeavor to garner propaganda points in my opinion.

So...might as well post something on topic, but humorous instead.