I didn't see this video when it first aired on TV. This is great! Bush gives Matt Lauer the smackdown. Bush also makes it clear that he is doing exactly what needs to be done and authorizing exactly what needs to be done in order to protect Americans after September 11, 2001 attacks on America and its citizens.
H/T The Last Tradition
Showing posts with label enhanced interrogation techniques. Show all posts
Showing posts with label enhanced interrogation techniques. Show all posts
John Yoo Interview With Jon Stewart
I have been trying to post the videos of Jon Stewart interviewing John Yoo, who was a Bush lawyer that wrote interrogation memos, but my computer or blogger is not cooperating, so I posted the links below so that you would be able to view this most fascinating and interesting interview. Enjoy!!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/daily-show--exclusive---john-yoo-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/exclusive---john-yoo-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/exclusive---john-yoo-extended-interview-pt--3
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/daily-show--exclusive---john-yoo-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/exclusive---john-yoo-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/exclusive---john-yoo-extended-interview-pt--3
Bush Lawyers Vindicated by Justice Department
Thank goodness that this particular witch hunt by the Obama administration is over. In a report by Reuters, the Bush administration lawyers have been cleared of any wrongdoing. YEA!!! The Justice Department concluded that the lawyers used bad judgement, but did nothing criminal. I would hardly call authorizing these necessary techniques for use on terrorists as bad judgement. After 9/11, the lawyers authorized these techniques, which were necessary to keep this country safe for 7 1/2 years during the Bush years. John Yoo and Jay Bybee are my heroes for thinking about the safety of the United States and its citizens first and putting partisan politics second. Our safety is by far more important than the terrorists so-called rights. I am proud to be an alive American today, and thankful to these fine men, John Yoo and Jay Bybee, for their efforts to keep us safe from terrorists.
Lawrence Loses Coherence & Marc Thiessen Proves that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Prevented Terrorist Attacks
This video shows Lawrence O' Donnell going nuts when interviewing Marc Thiessen. This shows him spewing vitriolic and ad hominem attacks at Thiessen because Lawrence doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Marc Thiessen: Courting Disaster & Debunking the Lies Spewed by Press Regarding Interrogating Terrorists
Today is the official publication date of Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack by Marc Thiessen. Thiessen has unusual credentials to address the subject of his book. As White House speechwriter for George Bush, Thiessen was locked in a secure room and given access to the most sensitive intelligence when he was assigned the task of writing Bush's September 2006 speech explaining the CIA's interrogation program and why Congress should authorize it. Few public figures in a position to address the subject publicly know more about these CIA operations than Thiessen. We invited Marc to explore the subject for us in connection with the publication of his book and he has kindly provided the following post:
On Christmas Day, a new terrorist network--a mysterious branch of al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula - almost succeeded in bringing down a commercial airliner over one of America's largest cities. If the plane had exploded and crashed into downtown Detroit, thousands could have perished. Only luck saved us from catastrophe.
We did not see this attack coming. By the Obama administration's own admission, we know very little about this new terror network or its plans to attack America. In Courting Disaster, I explain that the reason why we were caught by surprise on Christmas Day - and the reason why we are in growing danger of suffering another terrorist attack - is that Barack Obama has eliminated the most important tool our nation has in the fight against terror: the ability to detain and effectively interrogate senior terrorist leaders.
Intelligence is like putting together a puzzle without being allowed to see the picture on the cover. We can collect pieces of the puzzle through many means - intercepted phone calls and emails, sources we recruit inside al Qaeda. But only captured terrorists like KSM - who know the full scope their plans to attack America - can explain to us how the pieces all fit together, and show us the picture on the cover of the box.
The reason we have not suffered another attack like the one we experienced on 9/11 captured and questioned KSM and other top al Qaeda leaders and got them to share their plans. But today, thanks to Obama, we are no longer trying to capture the leaders of al Qaeda alive, and bring them in for interrogation so they can tell us what the cover of the box looks like.
Courting Disaster takes you behind the scenes at the CIA "black sites" and introduces readers to the actual interrogators who broke KSM and his fellow jihadists. It tells the story of how, in the months and years that followed 9/11, we captured many of al Qaeda's top operational leaders--the terrorists tasked with carrying out the "second wave" of attacks--and got them to tell us what they were planning. It explains how:
Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the arrest of an al Qaeda terrorist named Jose Padilla, who was sent to America on a mission to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the United States.
Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of a cell of Southeast Asian terrorists which had been tasked by KSM to hijack a passenger jet and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.
Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, KSM's right-hand-man in the 9/11 attacks, just as he was finalizing plans for a plot to hijack airplanes in Europe and fly them into Heathrow airport and buildings in downtown London.
Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of Ammar al-Baluchi and Walid bin Attash, just as they were completing plans to replicate the destruction of our embassies in East Africa by blowing up the U.S. consulate and Western residences in Karachi, Pakistan.
Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the disruption of an al Qaeda plot to blow up the U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, in an attack that could have rivaled the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut.
Information from detainees in CIA custody helped break up an al Qaeda cell that was developing anthrax for terrorist attacks inside the United States.
In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, CIA questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al Qaeda--giving U.S. officials a picture of the terrorist organization as seen from the inside, at a time when we knew almost nothing about the enemy who had attacked us on 9/11.
Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, intelligence officials say, well over half of the information our government had about al Qaeda--how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks--came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.
Consider that for a moment: without this capability, more than half of what we knew about the enemy would have disappeared.
Former CIA Director George Tenet has declared: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than what the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."
Former CIA Director Mike Hayden has said: "The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work."
Former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has said: "[T]his is a very, very important capability to have. This has been one of the most valuable, if not the most valuable ... human intelligence program with respect to Al Qaeda. It has given us invaluable information that has saved American lives. So it is very, very important that we have this kind of capability."
Former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has said: "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened."
Even Obama administration officials have acknowledged the value of the program.
Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has said: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."
Leon Panetta, Obama's CIA Director, has said: "Important information was gathered from these detainees. It provided information that was acted upon."
And John Brennan, Obama's top counterterrorism advisor, when asked in an interview if enhanced interrogation techniques were necessary to keep America safe, replied: "Would the U.S. be handicapped if the CIA was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities? I would say yes."
Indeed, the official assessment of our intelligence community is that, were it not for the CIA interrogation program, "al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland."
And in his first forty-eight hours in office, President Barack Obama shut the program down.
Obama not only put a stop to the CIA interrogation program, several months later he released sensitive documents detailing our interrogation methods of high-value terrorists. With these actions, Barack Obama did arguably more damage to America's national security in his first 100 days of office than any president in American history.
In shutting down the CIA program, Obama eliminated our nation's most important tool to prevent the terrorists from striking America. And in releasing highly sensitive documents describing the details of how we have interrogated captured terrorists--and the legal limits of our interrogation techniques--Obama gave critical intelligence to the enemy.
These were two of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts an American president has ever committed in a time of war. It is as if Winston Churchill had shut down the ULTRA program which had broken German codes, and then shared secret documents detailing how it worked with the public--and thus with the Nazi leadership in Berlin. President Obama has given up a vital source of intelligence needed to protect our country. And al Qaeda will now use the information Obama released to train its operatives to resist interrogation, and thus withhold information about planned attacks. Americans could die as a result.
Today America no longer has the capability to detain and effectively question high-value terrorists. By eliminating this capability, the president is denying America's military and intelligence professionals the information they need to stop new terrorist attacks before they are carried out. And that means that America is significantly less safe today than it was when Obama took office.
This is one book that is deinitely a must read for me.
I found this video via Chris at his blog, Conservative Perspective
H/T to Powerline Blog
When All Else fails Liberals Resort to Ad Hominem Attacks
Liberals usually resort to ad hominem attacks when they have no leg to stand on, when they have no argument. This post is called coercion and torture on Vox Nova. This is why liberalism has infected Catholicism. Now the disease unfortunately runs throughout Catholicism. This post is yet one more example of this. The liberals didn't know the difference between a Military Tribunal and a Civilian Trial and I didn't feel like it was my place to give them a high school social studies lesson. This proves how low even a so-called friend will allow his liberal friends to go. Here is the part of the conversation that I was involved in and where it led to:
Kevin Rice Says:
January 18, 2010 at 9:40 am
I believe that a terrorist in custody who withholds information to aid in a threat against civilian holds the power and holds the cards that are the key to stopping the threat against innocent civilians and indeed are still a threat both to civilians but even to the place where they are being detained as well. I do not believe that the terrorist is powerless since he controls the key to the information that will in fact harm innocent lives. In a scenario where the CIA agents only have a limited amount of time and cannot court him to talking I believe that coercion is the only possible way to obtain information.Kevin Rice Says: This was actually me. I accidentally left Kevin's name in the box.
January 18, 2010 at 9:57 am
Oops! Teresa wrote the above comment but either she did not change the name or the computer messed with her (it messes with me all the time).
What she wrote is better than what I would have written. I will only add that I think a terrorist who is involved in a plot and who could stop it with a phone call or by imparting the information he has to authorities is not rendered harmless merely by being physically captured and detained. The idea that the only significant threat of harm a person like that can pose is the physical harm he can dole out in his immediate vicinity with fists, feet, blades, bullets or chest-strapped booby-trap bombs is a crude one. Even captured and personally disarmed, he remains a threat as long as he withholds the information necessary to eliminate the danger. By withholding that information, he continues to participate in murder and mayhem.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 10:43 am
You speak of “the terrorist” in custody. Are you limiting your comments, then, to persons who have been tried and convicted of an act of terrorism? If that had been the case, then presumably most, or all, of that person’s relevant information would already have come into the hands of authorities in the course of investigation and trial. Or are you willing to torture men and women in order simply to find out if they might have information that could be used to stop future acts of terror? In other words, are you willing to risk torturing the innocent in order to prevent a hypothetical future event, which other events might well conspire to prevent in any case?
And for how long after a person is taken into custody can it be expected that his information will remain “actionable?” If he is a “terrorist” and it is known that he’s been captured, won’t his fellow terrorists realize that he may be disclosing information–with or without having been tortured–and altered their plans?
Do you completely discount those veteran interrogators who insist that torture is a poor way to get good information? Have you forgotten about all those “witches,” back in the day, who confessed to having sex with devils under torture?
Finally, will you risk losing your soul in order to protect the security of your world?
Kevin Rice Says:
January 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm
My answer to nearly all of your questions is NO, except for ‘If he is a “terrorist” and it is known that he’s been captured, won’t his fellow terrorists realize that he may be disclosing information–with or without having been tortured–and altered their plans?’. My answer to that is “Not necessarily.” But I am concerned with real terrorists, not “terrorists” with dismissive scare quotes.
To put it as succinctly as I can, I do not believe that coercion or even torture is always wrong, necessarily and intrinsically. But that hardly makes me an enthusiastic supporter of torture, does it? I am not in favor of using these techniques as a matter of policy just to find out whether a terror suspect is the kind of sustained threat that would justify using these techniques on him in order to render him truly harmless.
Teresa Says:
January 18, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I am not for the willy-nilly use of coercion. I don’t believe our government targets perceived non-threats in a willy-nilly fashion either. When a terrorist is known to be hiding a plot that he is involved in or that other terrorists are planning I believe that it is in our country’s national security interests and the country’s duty to find out the truth about the terrorist plot. And, if that means allowing the use of coercion in those circumstances in order to neutralize the threat and stop terrorists from harming or killing many innocents than I can in good conscience allow those techniques to be used on rare occasions and I believe my soul can take solace in the fact that our brave men and women are doing all they can to prevent innocnt lives from being killed.
David Nickol Says:
January 18, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Rodak,
You have tossed aside the premises of the two messages written under the name of Kevin Rice and are criticizing an argument other than the one they made. They’re talking about the ticking time bomb scenario, and the premises are that you know the person in custody is a terrorist, you know there is a ticking time bomb, and you know the terrorist has, and is withholding, the information about how to disarm the bomb.
The presumption of innocence is an important principle in our legal system, but it is very limited. It does not prevent the proper authorities from apprehending and imprisoning suspects. And suppose one or several persons were holding a group of hostages and executing one per day until their demands were met. If the only way to put an end to the hostage situation were to kill the hostage takers, they would not be protected by the presumption of innocence.
Also, the Rice messages talk of coercion, and you talk of torture. I think we have established that “truth serum” would be considered coercion. The ticking time bomb scenario is usually used to raise ethical questions about torture, but in this case the Rice messages do not specify torture, and Kyle Kupp’s original post specifically sets aside questions of torture in order to consider other techniques of coercive interrogation.
The ticking time bomb scenario is very unlikely, but it is not impossible. I don’t think we should base our laws on highly unlikely scenarios. I do not think it is difficult to imagine situations in which all the premises of the ticking time bomb scenario are present and one is faced with a situation where you have someone in custody whom you know possesses knowledge that, if extracted, will allow you to save innocent lives. There are any number of television shows that invent variations on the ticking time bomb scenario once a week.
Kyle R. Cupp Says:
January 18, 2010 at 1:45 pm
A few thoughts on the recent comments:
1. It’s fair to consider a known terrorist in custody as dangerous and a wielder of power, and we’d be naïve to consider him otherwise, but those realities or potentialities do not negate the fact that the terrorist is in custody and that his being in custody ethically prohibits certain actions against him that might be called for on the battlefield.
2. If coercion and torture can be justly used or are sometimes the only means available to save innocent lives, why keep their use to a minimum? Why use them rarely? If they are effective methods for keeping us safe, why not use them more often?
3. I’ve been following the debate over interrogation techniques for some time, and what I (and others) have noticed is that the people who once justified coercion and sometimes torture (yes, by that name) in cases of the “ticking-time-bomb scenario” now justify their use in many more situations. What was argued for as the exception is now argued for as the rule. Why? Perhaps because if torture and coercion are acceptable (if not good) actions to keep us safe in the one situation, then it’s difficult to say why they should be avoided, morally speaking, in many other situations.
4. I cannot stress enough that the aim of keeping us safe cannot alone make means and methods aimed at safety just, not without embracing a moral relativism in which the realm of self-defense is held outside the moral law. Just because an action keeps us safe doesn’t make the action just. We may even find ourselves in a situation in which it seems the only way of saving lives is to commit a truly evil act. That situation doesn’t render the evil act good.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm
David–
Under our system of law, a suspect does not have to answer any question which would incriminate him; much less should he fear being tortured. We can stick to what made us great, or “we” can become like “them.”
Moreover, I don’t see that the two Kevins have restricted their tolerance for torture to the “ticking bomb scenario.” Nor have the Americans who have been using “enhanced interrogation” techniques. There has not been, and almost never would be, such a scenario in the real world.
All of that said, the ends don’t justify the means for moral agents. For amoral and pragmatic materialists, they do.
David Nickol Says:
January 18, 2010 at 4:32 pm
All of that said, the ends don’t justify the means for moral agents.
Rodak,
This is such a cliche and a cop out. If the end don’t justify the means, what does? Now, not any end justifies any means. And some means may never be justified. But some are justifiable. The principle of double effect is invoked frequently in Catholic discussions. If a woman is pregnant and wants to get rid of the baby, she may not do so. If a pregnant woman has cancer of the uterus and removing the uterus (along with the baby, which will surely die) is necessary to save her life, the end (saving her life) justifies the means (removing the uterus even though the baby will die). The end justifies proportionate means. The Church (at least up until very recently) endorsed capital punishment — but not for shoplifting. It is a case of the end, in extreme circumstances, justifying extreme means.
Under our system of law, a suspect does not have to answer any question which would incriminate him;
Grant him immunity from prosecution. He no longer has a Fifth Amendment right to withhold what he knows. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
What Kevin and Teresa are saying, as I read them, is that there are some circumstances in which coercion (they never used the word torture may be used to extract life-saving information from a known, would-be murderer. I think there is a reasonable argument that torture may never be used (although I don’t necessarily agree with it), but this thread is about any form of coercion, and I don’t agree that something like truth serum, or hypnosis, or some other means to subvert the will is always impermissible.
Suppose a lie-detector test could be administered that would reveal the information against the terrorist’s will. Would that be impermissible?
David Nickol Says:
January 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Just because an action keeps us safe doesn’t make the action just.
Kyle,
But just because an action is one that should be used only under extreme circumstances does not make it evil. Police use deadly force too often, in my opinion, but I would not argue it is never justified. I can imagine situations in which police snipers would be justified in killing someone holding hostages and executing them one by one. But not every hostage situation need be ended by killing the hostage taker. And deadly force is certainly not justifiable to stop a shoplifter or some other petty criminal in the act.
It seems reasonable to me to say that authorities must limit themselves to the use of proportionate means, and in a ticking time bomb situation, those means may be more extreme than in many other situations.
If someone who has been granted immunity refuses to testify in court and is held in contempt, does imprisoning them indefinitely until they will talk constitute coercion?
Teresa Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Actually in the real world the “ticking time bomb” does exist today. Realists understand the grave threat that these terrorists pose to this world, unlike normative thinkers who do not live in the reality or the now, and want us to live in a fantasy land that that they believe should exist.
amoral is being against saving lives. People who force their morality of the normative state, and make judgments that allow others to die, instead of facing the reality of the threat, are not facing the reality of the threat like rational human beings. In addition, people who perceive that they are taking a moral high ground even though that moral high ground may in effect aid in or allow the killing of innocent lives may be relying on theories of peace from a textbook that is not applicable in the real world. Using coercion is along the same lines as self-defense but national security is much more important because that affects more lives.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:15 pm
“This is such a cliche and a cop out.”
It’s an abbreviation, but neither a cliche’ nor a cop-out. It is usually understood to mean that instrinsically evil means never justify even the best of ends. If one does not believe torture to be intrinsically evil, then one will use it with impunity, to be sure. If there is a price to be paid for that, it probably won’t be paid in this life.
All of the torture advocates commenting here keep putting forth scenarios in which violent means are used to subdue evildoers who are free and in the act of harming others; no argument with that.
The scenario in which the alleged terrorist is in custody, however, raises completely different issues. Granting a prisoner immunity so as to be able to torture him is a drastic perversion of our rule of law. Does he have the right not to accept that immunity? Are you really proposing to torture him, and then set him free because he can’t be prosecuted for his involvement in the crimes you force him to talk about? The hypotheticals that the torture advocates introduce to the discussion may make good debating points, but they seem to bear little relevance to what might reasonably be expected to transpire in the real world.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:21 pm
“People who force their morality of the normative state, and make judgments that allow others to die, instead of facing the reality of the threat, are not facing the reality of the threat like rational human beings.”
We are all going to die. And some of us, unfortunately, are going to die violently. Would you also ban the ownership and use of private automobiles because of the certainty that thousands of people will be killed on the highways every year? The world is not safe place to live. Never will be. But it is a place in which one can choose to live morally, even if that means accepting some risk.
Alien Shore Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:22 pm
The principle of double effect is indeed invoked in Catholic discussions precisely because the ends do not justify the means. That’s not a cop out on Rodak’s part. St. Paul said that one may not do evil that good may come.
First, double effect is more concerned with ends than means. Basically, an evil or undesirable end can be tolerated if the good end intended is proportionate or greater. However, those who invoke double effect are quick to point out that the means used to achieve the desired good end must itself be moral or at least neutral.
In the example you give of the cancerous uterus, the means is a surgical procedure to remove the uterus. The intended end is to remove the cancer and save the life of the woman. The end tolerated is that the fetus will also die. But, those Catholics who invoke double effect would typically tell you that a direct abortion is never justified, even for a good end such as saving a mother’s life.
Sure, certain extreme ends might call for extreme means. But it is not on that basis that the means finds its moral justification.
That is basic Catholic moral teaching.
Teresa Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Alien,
You mention the intension with regards to double effect and the removal of the uterus in order to save a person’s life.
It seems to me that coercive techniques being used to save innocent lives is also making use of a good intension- the intension to save lives.
Teresa Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:53 pm
You comparing automobiles with terrorists is nonsensical. There is a HUGE difference between automobile accidents and terrorists or terrorist attacks. Automobile accidents are just that, accidents, whereas terrorist attacks are well thought and purposeful. Are you saying that we should ignore a kidnapping because what the heck it might be the kids time to die? Or a teenager in a car accident? Oops, no medical help for you because you might as well die sooner than later. Your above statement is extremely callous.
So, you don’t think that every life is precious.
Alien Shore Says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Teresa,
Correct. The end in view, or intention, is to save innocent lives. So if the principle that the ends doesn’t justify the means is true, whether a given “coercive technique” is justifiable is not able to be determined by the intention.
You seem to be saying that a good intention is the means (i.e. “making use of a good intension”). I don’t see, at least in Catholic moral theology, that a good intention–and end–can be converted to become the means. One does not “make use” of the desire to save innocent lives to save innocent lives. One makes use of a means in order to achieve a desired end. So I would disagree that employing coercive techniques is identical to making use of a good intention. That would seem to conflate means with ends.
David Nickol Says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Are you really proposing to torture him . . .
Rodak,
I am willing to grant (at least for the sake of this discussion) that torture is intrinsically evil, and consequently is never allowable. However, what I am discussing here is this statement Kyle Kupp’ made: “I oppose all coercive interrogation techniques, whether or not those techniques fall into the category of torture.” He has, in effect, declared all coercive techniques to be intrinsically evil. Is the use of truth serum or hypnosis intrinsically evil? I don’t know how that can be maintained. Kupp says, “To be sure, we may take away a person’s liberty by putting him in prison, but the prisoner is for that imprisonment no less of a free, moral agent, capable of making free, moral decisions.” Try telling a person who is imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to testify that imprisonment is not coercion. It is, and it is intended to be. Remember Susan McDougal, who wouldn’t answer three questions about Whitewater? She spent 18 months in prison for refusing to talk. Remember Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who refused to reveal a source and spent 85 days in jail because of it? Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court’s order continues: once the party complies with the court’s order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to “hold the keys” to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process.
Incarceration for contempt of court is clearly coercive, and I can’t see how Kupp is going to consider it justifiable if a person may never be coerced to tell what they know.
Teresa Says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:39 pm
In a non-Catholic view or in a realist view, I must disagree since the use of coercion intention would be to save multiple lives whereas the unintentional killing of a life is in order to save one life. I think the benefits of using coercive techniques outweighs the risks. Plus, the benefits of the use of coercive techniques could be great as opposed to the detriment to life if not used.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:54 pm
David–
Susan McDougall, it seems to me, illustrates and supports Kyle’s argument, rather than yours. Although she was imprisoned, she remained free NOT to testify. Her will was not coerced, although her freedom of movement was severly curtailed. In prison, she continued to do that which she was doing prior to prison, which was to refuse to cooperate with the demands of the court. Had she been administered a truth serum, or been hypnotised, her will would have been suborned, in effect, by force; this would have been a violation of her human dignity and, from a Christian viewpoint, a sin.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:56 pm
NOTE: I meant to say it would have been “an evil”–although, for someone, it would also have been a sin, I suppose…
Kyle R. Cupp Says:
January 18, 2010 at 8:37 pm
David,
You wrote:
But just because an action is one that should be used only under extreme circumstances does not make it evil.
I agree.
In response to your question about whether or not imprisoning someone who refuses to testify in court constitutes coercion, I think it depends. Certainly in the broad meaning of coercion it qualifies. The court is attempting to force a person to testify. However, I’m not sure the aim or the effect is to render the person incapable of making free, rational decisions. I suppose if someone had a great fear of prison to where imprisoning him would cause such mental or emotional anguish that the person began to lose the capacity for free, rational decision making, then I would consider the imprisonment coercive in the narrow sense to which always and everywhere I object.
I should add that my saying something is intrinsically evil doesn’t necessarily mean that it is very, very bad. I think use of a truth serum would be immoral because of what it does not a person’s will, but I don’t hold it to be as grave a matter as, say, torture, or even necessarily as some actions that are not intrinsically, but are rather conditionally evil.
Alien Shore Says:
January 18, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Teresa,
I believe we are talking past one another here. First, I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with since I didn’t state a position with regard to the rightness or wrongness of coercion. What I did was to say that the intention to save lives and the means employed are not the same. Calling it a “coercion intention” doesn’t change that. I can intend to coerce someone to achieve the intention, or end, of saving lives. In the context of this discussion, one is not so much intending to coerce as if coercing were the end to be achieved. Another way to say it, I may intend to employ coercion as a means to the end of saving lives. An end can be an intention, but not all intentions are ends in terms of double effect.
I was replying to a previous comment on double effect. Because this is a Catholic blog and double effect is present more so in Catholic moral reasoning, I referred to Catholic moral thought. But double effect is not foreign to moral philosophy in general. It is not exclusively the property of Catholic moral thought. If we are appealing to double effect, then we need to use it correctly. My original response to you was because you suggested in light of double effect, that coercion was “making use” of the intention to save lives, essentially converting an end to a means. Regardless of whether Kyle is right about coercion, what I was pointing out is that your use of double effect was not in keeping with the principle itself. When you are talking about unintentional killing, coercion, saving lives and so on, you need to identify, if you appeal to double effect, which is an means, which is an intended end, and which is an unintended end. You are essentially tossing the terms around trying to get them to fit without any real regard to the formal structure of double effect.
For the record, I think (along with Anscombe) that double effect, while a valid form, has been the most abused and misused principle among Catholic moral thinkers. When misused I think it can help one avoid difficult moral issues. Not good.
Lastly, I have no idea what you mean by a non-Catholic or realist view. What non-Catholic view are you appealing to? They are not all a single piece. Plus, what do you mean by realist? In Catholic moral theology, especially conservative, realism is generally considered to be the Catholic position. At least metaphysically. I am going to deduce that by realism you just mean the way the “real world” is out there. Discussing the realities of the world is neither Catholic or non-catholic necessarily.
In any case, the “real world” shows us that the abstract principles of moral reasoning don’t always fit neatly. Yet, we do not jettison moral reasoning on that account. Your approach from what I have read on this thread seems to be more of a consequentialist approach–i.e. we don’t want this bad thing (and killing innocent lives is indeed bad) so anything that stops this bad thing is good by that fact. In the theological/philosophical sense, this position is anything but realist. In the sense of the “real world out there” a better approach than consequentialism might be what I would call a “phronetic” approach. Following Aristotle, Paul Ricoeur referred to the role of phronesis, or practical judgment, when addressing that gray area between the objective, abstract moral principle and the real world situations that don’t easily fit into the idea.
Ricoeur’s approach (which I can’t explain here. I’ve already gone on too long) takes seriously moral reasoning while recognizing the difficulties presented by that pesky real world. Yet he does it without falling prey to dogmatism with regard to the abstract nor does he fall prey to the consequentialism which is an easy out when moral principles don’t fit nicely.
And I thought Kyle might enjoy a Ricoeur reference since he is clearly a Ricoeur enthusiast (as I am). :-)
Of course, I may be wrong as to what you mean by realist. If you mean it in the philosophical sense, you are wrong and my point stands. If you mean it in the sense that I have described about the “real world” then you are wrong and my point stands.
Gerald A. Naus Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:17 am
Torture usually doesn’t render valid results. Not when the Catholic Church did it, nor now that the US engages in it. People will confess to anything just to make the pain stop – in the Middle East, being gay is one thing men frequently “confess” to, in addition to a laundry list of crimes.
Frequently, the tortured will implicate others, no matter if they’re guilty or not. They then vanish into one of the CIA planes, without charge, without lawyer, without rights. This is what the US always claimed to be against. To
it’s credit, the military did not want to get involved in it – as far back as the Revolutionary War, the US prided itself on treating prisoners well. The US had worked to outlaw torture, then Bush changed the definition of torture.
The degree of sickness is astonishing, the humiliation, sleep deprival, sexual degredation, electro shocks, keeping people in coffins, you name it. All done by the US and its allies. Some things are so atrocious, even the Bush pack outsourced it (even while calling Syria axis of evil material, renditions were going on, suspects delivered to a special hell in Damascus.) the connections to former US-sponsored torturers helped, too – contractors from Latin America, what Cheney called the Salvador option.
CIA agents who resigned over the horrors state that, no matter how repulsive it
might be, showing a suspect respect goes a long way. It’s idiotic to think by destroying their Korans their hearts and minds will be won.
Not to mention that committing vile acts damages the perpetrator, too. When you look into an abyss, the abyss will also look into you. The US simply has lost any credibility when
it comes to human rights. It belongs next to Syria and other Middle Eastern countries, after all they’re doing the dirty work for the US (as well as some Eastern European countries – you know, not the derided “Old Europe.”$
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 9:20 am
Gerald,
Is torture evil only when the US and its allies do it? Or is it evil when Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, North Korea, and Al-Qaeda do it?
I condemn the use of torture by the United States, but you make it sound like if you had a choice, you would rather deal with al-Qaeda justice than US justice.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 10:41 am
David–
That’s a cheap shot. Self-criticism does not in any way imply endorsement of the practices of any other group.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 11:47 am
That’s a cheap shot. Self-criticism does not in any way imply endorsement of the practices of any other group.
Rodak,
It is not “self-criticism” to be constantly harping about how horrible the United States is without acknowledging that it is in a battle with a ruthless, evil organization that is bent on killing Americans, whether they be military or civilian, wherever in the world they are. To the best of my knowledge, Gerald is not in the United States, and whatever his citizenship is, he is not speaking as an American criticizing his own country.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 11:57 am
It is hypocritical to apply different standards to other countries around the world with regards to International laws and International laws opposition to torture and then apply a different standard to the United States and other leading countries (members of G-8) in the world. Instead of penalizing the U.S. while applying justifications for its use by other countries around the globe the laws must be consistent for all of the countries around the world.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Okay, David–If you have knowledge that Gerald is not an American, so be it. I, nonetheless, agree with him. And I AM an American. What I said stands.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Rodak,
I have no problem whatsoever with your statement: “Self-criticism does not in any way imply endorsement of the practices of any other group.” I am not objecting to self-criticism. I am objecting to criticizing the United States alone. I think the United States went seriously astray under the Bush administration when it came to handling prisoners. However, I hope you would acknowledge that they were acting in response to a totally unjustifiable attack on civilians without any knowledge about what might be coming next. I agree that the United States should stick to its principles when fighting a ruthless enemy, but I do acknowledge that the United States really is fighting a ruthless enemy, and justifiably so. Extraordinary measures are justified, but not all extraordinary measures.
Let me put it this way. If the United States were to ask me to help fight al-Qaeda, and simultaneously al-Qaeda were to ask me to fight the United States, if I had to choose, there would be no question that I would side with the United States. I wouldn’t maintain some kind of moral equivalence between the United States and al-Qaeda.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“I wouldn’t maintain some kind of moral equivalence between the United States and al-Qaeda.”
Oh, please. Climb down off it. The United States has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in fighting its never-ending series of wars in the past century. What were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if not state terrorism? Japan was already defeated; the targets were civilians. Certainly the second bomb, if not the first, was unnecessary.
Moral equivalence is as moral equivalence does.
My position is that we should be much, much better than we’ve been to-date. And I make no apology to you, or to anybody else, for holding that opinion.
Come to me when your hands are clean, and I’ll praise you to the skies.
Kyle R. Cupp Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Here’s a disturbing investigative report by Scott Horton that three deaths at Guantanamo ruled suicides by the official narrative may not have been suicides at all. Evidence suggests our government may have tortured people to death and covered up the evidence.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:29 pm
My best guess there is that they tortured one of the men to death, perhaps accidentally, and then just murdered the other two in cold blood to make certain that the story was never told. It stretches credibility to think that they simultaneously killed all three inadvertantly.
Kyle R. Cupp Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:35 pm
It’s good to see the U.S. MSM is all over the story.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:42 pm
It seems like Scott Horton’s report is supposition and not filled with any evidence to prove that these terrorists actually did not commit suicide. These terrorists were already on a hunger strike so the possibility that they actually did commit suicide and that the report is correct is very likely.
The MSM will pick up any story with an anti-american agenda to it. Today, the “green” movement is the old “red” movement. Communism is arising in our country and destroying our country because of the MSM, the Democrats and their ilk.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm
It is, indeed.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm
My position is that we should be much, much better than we’ve been to-date.
Rodak,
I don’t disagree with that. But if I thought the United States taken as a whole was no better than al-Qaeda taken as a whole, I would move to another country. There is a difference between being deeply flawed and being dedicated to evil.
Gerald A. Naus Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
I live near San Francisco. Born in Austria, married to an American from Ohio. I’m a permanent resident. Of course, none of that is relevant. Your nativism is rather sad, what’s next, “go back to Russia, boy” ?
Other governments murdering and torturing doesn’t change a thing. There’s no medal for being better than North Korea. I observe frequently how people identify government with country – and thereby defend the former. It’s a godsend for criminals.
What makes the US system so despicable is the claim to moral superiority when in reality it’s just another aggressive empire.
US courts have been dismissing law suits re: torture, citing state secrets. The secret being torture, of course. How can a country bring “freedom and democracy” to anyone when it eroded its own long-cherished principles ? Torturing innocents, no legal recourse, no lawyer, no charge. that’s a banana republic.
In a just world, Bush and Cheney would be sitting in Den Haag on war crimes charges. To defend the American system because one happened to have been born here seems second nature, and I’m sure it’s common in all countries. The problem starts with identifying with a country to begin with.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 2:10 pm
In my book, Bush and Cheney are my heroes, and if people had an understanding of what it takes to win a war, like in WWII and in previous wars, than Bush and Cheney would be revered as heroes around the world also, instead of the MSM compromising our national security by leaking classified documents and in doing so, aiding our enemies while allowing our enemy to cause grave harm to our brave men and women serving overseas and protecting our country from harm.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 3:35 pm
“There is a difference in being deeply flawed and being dedicated to evil.”
If one is dedicated to one’s deep flaws, and those flaws are evil, then there is no such difference.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I live near San Francisco. Born in Austria, married to an American from Ohio. I’m a permanent resident.
Gerald,
I have two basic points regarding your messages. First, you seem to be saying that the United States is morally no better than al-Qaeda. Two, wherever you live, and whatever your citizenship, when you criticize the United States, it is not “self-criticism.” I am more than willing to criticize the United States. I think Bush and Cheney did serious damage to the country. But I don’t believe the United States and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent. I don’t think it is necessary to be an American to be of that opinion. The NATO countries and the United Nations don’t seem to see a moral equivalence between the United States and al-Qaeda.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I don’t take your criticism of the United States to be “self-criticism,” and it does seem to me you seem to delight in criticizing the United States in a way you don’t in criticizing other countries (if you do so at all).
I agree with you a lot of the time, and I enjoy the way you needle people when you disagree with them, except in this case your needling gets to me. But I promise not to try to have you booted out of the country as long as you oppose Proposition 8.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 3:52 pm
In my book, Bush and Cheney are my heroes . . . .
OMG!
I take back anything I said that might be construed to support Kevin Rice and Teresa! Bush was a terrible president, and largely because of Cheney. I am willing to support coercive interrogation in theory, but virtually everything Bush-Cheney did in terms of handling prisoners was not merely wrong, but counterproductive.
There may someday be a ticking time bomb, but there has not been yet, and to use ticking time bomb tactics in the absence of a real ticking time bomb threat is totally unjustified.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:15 pm
There is a huge difference in using flaws to both allay people’s fears and using them to fight terrorists(flaws as perceived by others) (some would consider what others call flaws in actuality necessities to win wars) and Al-Qaeda which is using its evil to kill innocent civilians.
Or do you believe that there is a moral equivalency between innocent civilians and terrorists?
The terrorists are using evil to kill innocent civilians, whereas the Bush administration was using all neccessary means to fight that evil. Besides, I consider people who are willing to sacrifice themselves and be suicide bombers as violating their own humanity and possibly entering a sub-human category that deserves any type of harsh interrogation methods as such as is necessary to provide for the United States’s national security interests. We have no obligation, as a nation, to consider our enemies so-called human rights or their feelings being hurt as human rights organizations would have you believe. This is about winning war and we cannot let human rights organizations dictate how we fight a war, or lose the war due to them pleasing terrorists.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:28 pm
@David
First, my husband thinks to at least to some degree differently than me regarding Bush and Cheney.
But, I believe in certain circumstances where there is a “ticking time bomb” scenario or where there is a limited amount of time to follow up on a threat and to stop that threat than I believe coercive techniques of all kinds are justified to use on the terrorist. As much as I am glad that the poll showed 58% of Americans wanting the underwear bomber to be water-boarded and people realizing the reality of fighting a war and the threat posed against our nation, I don’t think that the underwear bomber was of high-value, like KSM was, so I don’t see it as a necessity to water-board him.
But, I do think considering 9/11, which was an Act of War, and all the issues surrounding that event after that tragic event, that Bush and Cheney did the right thing and the necessary things to protect this country. Obama has weakened this country greatly and as you saw on Christmas Day, the terrorists are taking advantage of his weak presidency.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:33 pm
We have no obligation, as a nation, to consider our enemies so-called human rights or their feelings being hurt as human rights organizations would have you believe.
Teresa,
We followed the first three of the four Geneva Conventions in our fight against Hitler, and all four of them through the Cold War. Everyone has basic human rights, otherwise they wouldn’t be called “human rights.”
Extreme times call for extreme measures, but they don’t call for pitching human rights and American values out the window. If we go down that road, the United States really will become as bad as Gerald and Rodak claim it is.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Obama has weakened this country greatly and as you saw on Christmas Day, the terrorists are taking advantage of his weak presidency.
Teresa,
Al-Qaeda is reduced to putting lone individuals on airplanes with explosives (that don’t explode) in their underpants, and you say Obama has weakened the country?
I think it is playing right into the hands of al-Qaeda to make a big deal of the failed attack on Christmas. Terrorists want to intimidate, and if you are frightened by not having absolutely perfect security, then they have won.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:48 pm
@David
First, EIT’s and the actual torture committed prior to the Iraq war are on way different levels. Plus, The Japanese waterboarding was of a different method than the United States used. There is a huge difference in using certain unconventional methods in order to save innocent lives and the terrorists beheading a reporter or soldier, in fact targeting innocent civilians.
In WWII, there were NO reporters that could endanger the Nation’s national security interests. And, who knows exactly what techniques were used during that war that people don’t know of. But, now most of our hidden secrets that aided in our national security interests are shot to heck because of the MSM and their anti-american sentiments.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:56 pm
David,
Its not just that terrorist attack but also, the Ft. Hood terroist shooting. But, there are other signs of Obama’s weakness in office, like treating terrorists as civilian criminals. That is unconsionable. Never, in the history of this country has an enemy combatant that has been captured on a foreign battlefield been considered a mere common criminal.
I am not frightened. Just pointing out the weakened security. But, I am ambivolent on whether we should have body scanners or not.
National Defense does not go against our American values.
Joshua Brockway Says:
January 19, 2010 at 6:36 pm
“Never, in the history of this country has an enemy combatant.”
Where is the War…Congress has not declared war. Even if they did, what state would be the Enemy? We are talking about a stateless, loose coalition of people. How is Hasan an enemy. He has no links to funding by Al Qaeda. At most he is a domestic terrorist…akin to McVeigh.
So if these “enemy combatants” are not common criminals, does this mean their punishment is somehow worse? Is the Geneva Convention wrong for placing limits on what a state can do to a prisoner of war? Even the Nazi’s were tried as criminals, in a court with representation with expectations of rights.
No, National Defense does not go against our values…but the WAY we are defended can. (But apparently David thinks this is a cop out, which is a debate for a whole other thread).
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 7:45 pm
@Joshua
It is proven that Hasan had ties to al-Qaeda. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/09/abc-fort-hood-shooter-hasan-tried-contact-al-qaeda
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873
Since you state that there is no one particular country that is our enemy than the Geneva Convention does not apply. There needs to be a new convention that specificallly focuses on terrorists and the threat of terrorism. These terrorists do not use conventional warfare and do not wear uniforms and follow warfare rules so the United States must accomodate its strategy and do whatever is necessary to kill these evil terrorists, and thus should come a new Treaty focusing on terrorists or Muslim Jihadists.
The Trials at Nuremberg were Military Tribunals.http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/Baker_00/03-04/Baker-scl-cap-3-04/nuremberg_war_crimes_trial.htm
Like there would have been already if it hadn’t been for Eric Holder and his cronies. http://reginaantonioy.blogspot.com/2009/12/eric-holder-and-his-leftist-comrades.html
So, Justice would have already been served if it wasn’t for Eric Holder and his comrades defending terrorists por bono.
Military court is far different than a civilian court.
Gerald A. Naus Says:
January 19, 2010 at 8:14 pm
“certain unconventional methods”
Teresa Orwell, I presume ?
There also is little difference between intentionally killing civilians or accepting the fact that my actions are going to kill them, day after day, without any good reason. Murder 1 vs Murder 2.
Joshua Brockway Says:
January 19, 2010 at 8:26 pm
So Al Qaeda funded and trained a lone gun man? Just because he sought out the group does not mean he was Al Qaeda.
I am not even going to touch your dismissal of the AG. I am sorry but the office deserves more respect than that.
Now, please explain to me how a military court is far different, and apparently better, than a civilian court.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Military court is far different than a civilian court.
Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 8:37 pm
“…accepting the fact that my actions are going to kill them…”
There it is; there is the crux at which we make an idol of our “flaws.”
Joshua Brockway Says:
January 19, 2010 at 9:10 pm
“Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.”
Does that mean it needs a good Sousaphone?
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Am I your high school social studies teacher?
And, Yes, justice would have been served to terrorists in Gitmo, if it wasn’t for AG Holder and his comrades aiding the terrorists by donating many, many hours pro bono.
Joshua Brockway Says:
January 20, 2010 at 12:02 am
“Am I your high school social studies teacher?”
Apparently your arrogance has gotten in the way of clear expression and definition of your terms.
I don’t need to engage in a discussion with someone who can’t respect me long enough to actually answer my question.
Any one else care to talk?
samrocha Says:
January 20, 2010 at 12:17 am
I have come to mediate this dispute and disclose my up-to-now hidden identity: I AM YOUR HIGH SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHER!
There you have it. Settled.
Joshua Brockway Says:
January 20, 2010 at 12:34 am
Ah, its been so long!
Now about that C…
Kyle R. Cupp Says:
January 20, 2010 at 8:27 am
Now that the matter is settled, let’s return to debating the questions of coercion and torture. Not that I hold out hope for settling those, but the conversation has been interesting, to say the least.
I must say that I had a little fun with my last comment regardless of whether it is posted or not. I said, "Liberal intelligenstia has ruined people's intellect."
So if anyone wants to join in on the discuusion have fun!! Here is the link to the post.
Kevin Rice Says:
January 18, 2010 at 9:40 am
I believe that a terrorist in custody who withholds information to aid in a threat against civilian holds the power and holds the cards that are the key to stopping the threat against innocent civilians and indeed are still a threat both to civilians but even to the place where they are being detained as well. I do not believe that the terrorist is powerless since he controls the key to the information that will in fact harm innocent lives. In a scenario where the CIA agents only have a limited amount of time and cannot court him to talking I believe that coercion is the only possible way to obtain information.Kevin Rice Says: This was actually me. I accidentally left Kevin's name in the box.
January 18, 2010 at 9:57 am
Oops! Teresa wrote the above comment but either she did not change the name or the computer messed with her (it messes with me all the time).
What she wrote is better than what I would have written. I will only add that I think a terrorist who is involved in a plot and who could stop it with a phone call or by imparting the information he has to authorities is not rendered harmless merely by being physically captured and detained. The idea that the only significant threat of harm a person like that can pose is the physical harm he can dole out in his immediate vicinity with fists, feet, blades, bullets or chest-strapped booby-trap bombs is a crude one. Even captured and personally disarmed, he remains a threat as long as he withholds the information necessary to eliminate the danger. By withholding that information, he continues to participate in murder and mayhem.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 10:43 am
You speak of “the terrorist” in custody. Are you limiting your comments, then, to persons who have been tried and convicted of an act of terrorism? If that had been the case, then presumably most, or all, of that person’s relevant information would already have come into the hands of authorities in the course of investigation and trial. Or are you willing to torture men and women in order simply to find out if they might have information that could be used to stop future acts of terror? In other words, are you willing to risk torturing the innocent in order to prevent a hypothetical future event, which other events might well conspire to prevent in any case?
And for how long after a person is taken into custody can it be expected that his information will remain “actionable?” If he is a “terrorist” and it is known that he’s been captured, won’t his fellow terrorists realize that he may be disclosing information–with or without having been tortured–and altered their plans?
Do you completely discount those veteran interrogators who insist that torture is a poor way to get good information? Have you forgotten about all those “witches,” back in the day, who confessed to having sex with devils under torture?
Finally, will you risk losing your soul in order to protect the security of your world?
Kevin Rice Says:
January 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm
My answer to nearly all of your questions is NO, except for ‘If he is a “terrorist” and it is known that he’s been captured, won’t his fellow terrorists realize that he may be disclosing information–with or without having been tortured–and altered their plans?’. My answer to that is “Not necessarily.” But I am concerned with real terrorists, not “terrorists” with dismissive scare quotes.
To put it as succinctly as I can, I do not believe that coercion or even torture is always wrong, necessarily and intrinsically. But that hardly makes me an enthusiastic supporter of torture, does it? I am not in favor of using these techniques as a matter of policy just to find out whether a terror suspect is the kind of sustained threat that would justify using these techniques on him in order to render him truly harmless.
Teresa Says:
January 18, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I am not for the willy-nilly use of coercion. I don’t believe our government targets perceived non-threats in a willy-nilly fashion either. When a terrorist is known to be hiding a plot that he is involved in or that other terrorists are planning I believe that it is in our country’s national security interests and the country’s duty to find out the truth about the terrorist plot. And, if that means allowing the use of coercion in those circumstances in order to neutralize the threat and stop terrorists from harming or killing many innocents than I can in good conscience allow those techniques to be used on rare occasions and I believe my soul can take solace in the fact that our brave men and women are doing all they can to prevent innocnt lives from being killed.
David Nickol Says:
January 18, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Rodak,
You have tossed aside the premises of the two messages written under the name of Kevin Rice and are criticizing an argument other than the one they made. They’re talking about the ticking time bomb scenario, and the premises are that you know the person in custody is a terrorist, you know there is a ticking time bomb, and you know the terrorist has, and is withholding, the information about how to disarm the bomb.
The presumption of innocence is an important principle in our legal system, but it is very limited. It does not prevent the proper authorities from apprehending and imprisoning suspects. And suppose one or several persons were holding a group of hostages and executing one per day until their demands were met. If the only way to put an end to the hostage situation were to kill the hostage takers, they would not be protected by the presumption of innocence.
Also, the Rice messages talk of coercion, and you talk of torture. I think we have established that “truth serum” would be considered coercion. The ticking time bomb scenario is usually used to raise ethical questions about torture, but in this case the Rice messages do not specify torture, and Kyle Kupp’s original post specifically sets aside questions of torture in order to consider other techniques of coercive interrogation.
The ticking time bomb scenario is very unlikely, but it is not impossible. I don’t think we should base our laws on highly unlikely scenarios. I do not think it is difficult to imagine situations in which all the premises of the ticking time bomb scenario are present and one is faced with a situation where you have someone in custody whom you know possesses knowledge that, if extracted, will allow you to save innocent lives. There are any number of television shows that invent variations on the ticking time bomb scenario once a week.
Kyle R. Cupp Says:
January 18, 2010 at 1:45 pm
A few thoughts on the recent comments:
1. It’s fair to consider a known terrorist in custody as dangerous and a wielder of power, and we’d be naïve to consider him otherwise, but those realities or potentialities do not negate the fact that the terrorist is in custody and that his being in custody ethically prohibits certain actions against him that might be called for on the battlefield.
2. If coercion and torture can be justly used or are sometimes the only means available to save innocent lives, why keep their use to a minimum? Why use them rarely? If they are effective methods for keeping us safe, why not use them more often?
3. I’ve been following the debate over interrogation techniques for some time, and what I (and others) have noticed is that the people who once justified coercion and sometimes torture (yes, by that name) in cases of the “ticking-time-bomb scenario” now justify their use in many more situations. What was argued for as the exception is now argued for as the rule. Why? Perhaps because if torture and coercion are acceptable (if not good) actions to keep us safe in the one situation, then it’s difficult to say why they should be avoided, morally speaking, in many other situations.
4. I cannot stress enough that the aim of keeping us safe cannot alone make means and methods aimed at safety just, not without embracing a moral relativism in which the realm of self-defense is held outside the moral law. Just because an action keeps us safe doesn’t make the action just. We may even find ourselves in a situation in which it seems the only way of saving lives is to commit a truly evil act. That situation doesn’t render the evil act good.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm
David–
Under our system of law, a suspect does not have to answer any question which would incriminate him; much less should he fear being tortured. We can stick to what made us great, or “we” can become like “them.”
Moreover, I don’t see that the two Kevins have restricted their tolerance for torture to the “ticking bomb scenario.” Nor have the Americans who have been using “enhanced interrogation” techniques. There has not been, and almost never would be, such a scenario in the real world.
All of that said, the ends don’t justify the means for moral agents. For amoral and pragmatic materialists, they do.
David Nickol Says:
January 18, 2010 at 4:32 pm
All of that said, the ends don’t justify the means for moral agents.
Rodak,
This is such a cliche and a cop out. If the end don’t justify the means, what does? Now, not any end justifies any means. And some means may never be justified. But some are justifiable. The principle of double effect is invoked frequently in Catholic discussions. If a woman is pregnant and wants to get rid of the baby, she may not do so. If a pregnant woman has cancer of the uterus and removing the uterus (along with the baby, which will surely die) is necessary to save her life, the end (saving her life) justifies the means (removing the uterus even though the baby will die). The end justifies proportionate means. The Church (at least up until very recently) endorsed capital punishment — but not for shoplifting. It is a case of the end, in extreme circumstances, justifying extreme means.
Under our system of law, a suspect does not have to answer any question which would incriminate him;
Grant him immunity from prosecution. He no longer has a Fifth Amendment right to withhold what he knows. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
What Kevin and Teresa are saying, as I read them, is that there are some circumstances in which coercion (they never used the word torture may be used to extract life-saving information from a known, would-be murderer. I think there is a reasonable argument that torture may never be used (although I don’t necessarily agree with it), but this thread is about any form of coercion, and I don’t agree that something like truth serum, or hypnosis, or some other means to subvert the will is always impermissible.
Suppose a lie-detector test could be administered that would reveal the information against the terrorist’s will. Would that be impermissible?
David Nickol Says:
January 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Just because an action keeps us safe doesn’t make the action just.
Kyle,
But just because an action is one that should be used only under extreme circumstances does not make it evil. Police use deadly force too often, in my opinion, but I would not argue it is never justified. I can imagine situations in which police snipers would be justified in killing someone holding hostages and executing them one by one. But not every hostage situation need be ended by killing the hostage taker. And deadly force is certainly not justifiable to stop a shoplifter or some other petty criminal in the act.
It seems reasonable to me to say that authorities must limit themselves to the use of proportionate means, and in a ticking time bomb situation, those means may be more extreme than in many other situations.
If someone who has been granted immunity refuses to testify in court and is held in contempt, does imprisoning them indefinitely until they will talk constitute coercion?
Teresa Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Actually in the real world the “ticking time bomb” does exist today. Realists understand the grave threat that these terrorists pose to this world, unlike normative thinkers who do not live in the reality or the now, and want us to live in a fantasy land that that they believe should exist.
amoral is being against saving lives. People who force their morality of the normative state, and make judgments that allow others to die, instead of facing the reality of the threat, are not facing the reality of the threat like rational human beings. In addition, people who perceive that they are taking a moral high ground even though that moral high ground may in effect aid in or allow the killing of innocent lives may be relying on theories of peace from a textbook that is not applicable in the real world. Using coercion is along the same lines as self-defense but national security is much more important because that affects more lives.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:15 pm
“This is such a cliche and a cop out.”
It’s an abbreviation, but neither a cliche’ nor a cop-out. It is usually understood to mean that instrinsically evil means never justify even the best of ends. If one does not believe torture to be intrinsically evil, then one will use it with impunity, to be sure. If there is a price to be paid for that, it probably won’t be paid in this life.
All of the torture advocates commenting here keep putting forth scenarios in which violent means are used to subdue evildoers who are free and in the act of harming others; no argument with that.
The scenario in which the alleged terrorist is in custody, however, raises completely different issues. Granting a prisoner immunity so as to be able to torture him is a drastic perversion of our rule of law. Does he have the right not to accept that immunity? Are you really proposing to torture him, and then set him free because he can’t be prosecuted for his involvement in the crimes you force him to talk about? The hypotheticals that the torture advocates introduce to the discussion may make good debating points, but they seem to bear little relevance to what might reasonably be expected to transpire in the real world.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:21 pm
“People who force their morality of the normative state, and make judgments that allow others to die, instead of facing the reality of the threat, are not facing the reality of the threat like rational human beings.”
We are all going to die. And some of us, unfortunately, are going to die violently. Would you also ban the ownership and use of private automobiles because of the certainty that thousands of people will be killed on the highways every year? The world is not safe place to live. Never will be. But it is a place in which one can choose to live morally, even if that means accepting some risk.
Alien Shore Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:22 pm
The principle of double effect is indeed invoked in Catholic discussions precisely because the ends do not justify the means. That’s not a cop out on Rodak’s part. St. Paul said that one may not do evil that good may come.
First, double effect is more concerned with ends than means. Basically, an evil or undesirable end can be tolerated if the good end intended is proportionate or greater. However, those who invoke double effect are quick to point out that the means used to achieve the desired good end must itself be moral or at least neutral.
In the example you give of the cancerous uterus, the means is a surgical procedure to remove the uterus. The intended end is to remove the cancer and save the life of the woman. The end tolerated is that the fetus will also die. But, those Catholics who invoke double effect would typically tell you that a direct abortion is never justified, even for a good end such as saving a mother’s life.
Sure, certain extreme ends might call for extreme means. But it is not on that basis that the means finds its moral justification.
That is basic Catholic moral teaching.
Teresa Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Alien,
You mention the intension with regards to double effect and the removal of the uterus in order to save a person’s life.
It seems to me that coercive techniques being used to save innocent lives is also making use of a good intension- the intension to save lives.
Teresa Says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:53 pm
You comparing automobiles with terrorists is nonsensical. There is a HUGE difference between automobile accidents and terrorists or terrorist attacks. Automobile accidents are just that, accidents, whereas terrorist attacks are well thought and purposeful. Are you saying that we should ignore a kidnapping because what the heck it might be the kids time to die? Or a teenager in a car accident? Oops, no medical help for you because you might as well die sooner than later. Your above statement is extremely callous.
So, you don’t think that every life is precious.
Alien Shore Says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Teresa,
Correct. The end in view, or intention, is to save innocent lives. So if the principle that the ends doesn’t justify the means is true, whether a given “coercive technique” is justifiable is not able to be determined by the intention.
You seem to be saying that a good intention is the means (i.e. “making use of a good intension”). I don’t see, at least in Catholic moral theology, that a good intention–and end–can be converted to become the means. One does not “make use” of the desire to save innocent lives to save innocent lives. One makes use of a means in order to achieve a desired end. So I would disagree that employing coercive techniques is identical to making use of a good intention. That would seem to conflate means with ends.
David Nickol Says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Are you really proposing to torture him . . .
Rodak,
I am willing to grant (at least for the sake of this discussion) that torture is intrinsically evil, and consequently is never allowable. However, what I am discussing here is this statement Kyle Kupp’ made: “I oppose all coercive interrogation techniques, whether or not those techniques fall into the category of torture.” He has, in effect, declared all coercive techniques to be intrinsically evil. Is the use of truth serum or hypnosis intrinsically evil? I don’t know how that can be maintained. Kupp says, “To be sure, we may take away a person’s liberty by putting him in prison, but the prisoner is for that imprisonment no less of a free, moral agent, capable of making free, moral decisions.” Try telling a person who is imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to testify that imprisonment is not coercion. It is, and it is intended to be. Remember Susan McDougal, who wouldn’t answer three questions about Whitewater? She spent 18 months in prison for refusing to talk. Remember Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who refused to reveal a source and spent 85 days in jail because of it? Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court’s order continues: once the party complies with the court’s order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to “hold the keys” to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process.
Incarceration for contempt of court is clearly coercive, and I can’t see how Kupp is going to consider it justifiable if a person may never be coerced to tell what they know.
Teresa Says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:39 pm
In a non-Catholic view or in a realist view, I must disagree since the use of coercion intention would be to save multiple lives whereas the unintentional killing of a life is in order to save one life. I think the benefits of using coercive techniques outweighs the risks. Plus, the benefits of the use of coercive techniques could be great as opposed to the detriment to life if not used.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:54 pm
David–
Susan McDougall, it seems to me, illustrates and supports Kyle’s argument, rather than yours. Although she was imprisoned, she remained free NOT to testify. Her will was not coerced, although her freedom of movement was severly curtailed. In prison, she continued to do that which she was doing prior to prison, which was to refuse to cooperate with the demands of the court. Had she been administered a truth serum, or been hypnotised, her will would have been suborned, in effect, by force; this would have been a violation of her human dignity and, from a Christian viewpoint, a sin.
Rodak Says:
January 18, 2010 at 7:56 pm
NOTE: I meant to say it would have been “an evil”–although, for someone, it would also have been a sin, I suppose…
Kyle R. Cupp Says:
January 18, 2010 at 8:37 pm
David,
You wrote:
But just because an action is one that should be used only under extreme circumstances does not make it evil.
I agree.
In response to your question about whether or not imprisoning someone who refuses to testify in court constitutes coercion, I think it depends. Certainly in the broad meaning of coercion it qualifies. The court is attempting to force a person to testify. However, I’m not sure the aim or the effect is to render the person incapable of making free, rational decisions. I suppose if someone had a great fear of prison to where imprisoning him would cause such mental or emotional anguish that the person began to lose the capacity for free, rational decision making, then I would consider the imprisonment coercive in the narrow sense to which always and everywhere I object.
I should add that my saying something is intrinsically evil doesn’t necessarily mean that it is very, very bad. I think use of a truth serum would be immoral because of what it does not a person’s will, but I don’t hold it to be as grave a matter as, say, torture, or even necessarily as some actions that are not intrinsically, but are rather conditionally evil.
Alien Shore Says:
January 18, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Teresa,
I believe we are talking past one another here. First, I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with since I didn’t state a position with regard to the rightness or wrongness of coercion. What I did was to say that the intention to save lives and the means employed are not the same. Calling it a “coercion intention” doesn’t change that. I can intend to coerce someone to achieve the intention, or end, of saving lives. In the context of this discussion, one is not so much intending to coerce as if coercing were the end to be achieved. Another way to say it, I may intend to employ coercion as a means to the end of saving lives. An end can be an intention, but not all intentions are ends in terms of double effect.
I was replying to a previous comment on double effect. Because this is a Catholic blog and double effect is present more so in Catholic moral reasoning, I referred to Catholic moral thought. But double effect is not foreign to moral philosophy in general. It is not exclusively the property of Catholic moral thought. If we are appealing to double effect, then we need to use it correctly. My original response to you was because you suggested in light of double effect, that coercion was “making use” of the intention to save lives, essentially converting an end to a means. Regardless of whether Kyle is right about coercion, what I was pointing out is that your use of double effect was not in keeping with the principle itself. When you are talking about unintentional killing, coercion, saving lives and so on, you need to identify, if you appeal to double effect, which is an means, which is an intended end, and which is an unintended end. You are essentially tossing the terms around trying to get them to fit without any real regard to the formal structure of double effect.
For the record, I think (along with Anscombe) that double effect, while a valid form, has been the most abused and misused principle among Catholic moral thinkers. When misused I think it can help one avoid difficult moral issues. Not good.
Lastly, I have no idea what you mean by a non-Catholic or realist view. What non-Catholic view are you appealing to? They are not all a single piece. Plus, what do you mean by realist? In Catholic moral theology, especially conservative, realism is generally considered to be the Catholic position. At least metaphysically. I am going to deduce that by realism you just mean the way the “real world” is out there. Discussing the realities of the world is neither Catholic or non-catholic necessarily.
In any case, the “real world” shows us that the abstract principles of moral reasoning don’t always fit neatly. Yet, we do not jettison moral reasoning on that account. Your approach from what I have read on this thread seems to be more of a consequentialist approach–i.e. we don’t want this bad thing (and killing innocent lives is indeed bad) so anything that stops this bad thing is good by that fact. In the theological/philosophical sense, this position is anything but realist. In the sense of the “real world out there” a better approach than consequentialism might be what I would call a “phronetic” approach. Following Aristotle, Paul Ricoeur referred to the role of phronesis, or practical judgment, when addressing that gray area between the objective, abstract moral principle and the real world situations that don’t easily fit into the idea.
Ricoeur’s approach (which I can’t explain here. I’ve already gone on too long) takes seriously moral reasoning while recognizing the difficulties presented by that pesky real world. Yet he does it without falling prey to dogmatism with regard to the abstract nor does he fall prey to the consequentialism which is an easy out when moral principles don’t fit nicely.
And I thought Kyle might enjoy a Ricoeur reference since he is clearly a Ricoeur enthusiast (as I am). :-)
Of course, I may be wrong as to what you mean by realist. If you mean it in the philosophical sense, you are wrong and my point stands. If you mean it in the sense that I have described about the “real world” then you are wrong and my point stands.
Gerald A. Naus Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:17 am
Torture usually doesn’t render valid results. Not when the Catholic Church did it, nor now that the US engages in it. People will confess to anything just to make the pain stop – in the Middle East, being gay is one thing men frequently “confess” to, in addition to a laundry list of crimes.
Frequently, the tortured will implicate others, no matter if they’re guilty or not. They then vanish into one of the CIA planes, without charge, without lawyer, without rights. This is what the US always claimed to be against. To
it’s credit, the military did not want to get involved in it – as far back as the Revolutionary War, the US prided itself on treating prisoners well. The US had worked to outlaw torture, then Bush changed the definition of torture.
The degree of sickness is astonishing, the humiliation, sleep deprival, sexual degredation, electro shocks, keeping people in coffins, you name it. All done by the US and its allies. Some things are so atrocious, even the Bush pack outsourced it (even while calling Syria axis of evil material, renditions were going on, suspects delivered to a special hell in Damascus.) the connections to former US-sponsored torturers helped, too – contractors from Latin America, what Cheney called the Salvador option.
CIA agents who resigned over the horrors state that, no matter how repulsive it
might be, showing a suspect respect goes a long way. It’s idiotic to think by destroying their Korans their hearts and minds will be won.
Not to mention that committing vile acts damages the perpetrator, too. When you look into an abyss, the abyss will also look into you. The US simply has lost any credibility when
it comes to human rights. It belongs next to Syria and other Middle Eastern countries, after all they’re doing the dirty work for the US (as well as some Eastern European countries – you know, not the derided “Old Europe.”$
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 9:20 am
Gerald,
Is torture evil only when the US and its allies do it? Or is it evil when Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, North Korea, and Al-Qaeda do it?
I condemn the use of torture by the United States, but you make it sound like if you had a choice, you would rather deal with al-Qaeda justice than US justice.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 10:41 am
David–
That’s a cheap shot. Self-criticism does not in any way imply endorsement of the practices of any other group.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 11:47 am
That’s a cheap shot. Self-criticism does not in any way imply endorsement of the practices of any other group.
Rodak,
It is not “self-criticism” to be constantly harping about how horrible the United States is without acknowledging that it is in a battle with a ruthless, evil organization that is bent on killing Americans, whether they be military or civilian, wherever in the world they are. To the best of my knowledge, Gerald is not in the United States, and whatever his citizenship is, he is not speaking as an American criticizing his own country.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 11:57 am
It is hypocritical to apply different standards to other countries around the world with regards to International laws and International laws opposition to torture and then apply a different standard to the United States and other leading countries (members of G-8) in the world. Instead of penalizing the U.S. while applying justifications for its use by other countries around the globe the laws must be consistent for all of the countries around the world.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Okay, David–If you have knowledge that Gerald is not an American, so be it. I, nonetheless, agree with him. And I AM an American. What I said stands.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Rodak,
I have no problem whatsoever with your statement: “Self-criticism does not in any way imply endorsement of the practices of any other group.” I am not objecting to self-criticism. I am objecting to criticizing the United States alone. I think the United States went seriously astray under the Bush administration when it came to handling prisoners. However, I hope you would acknowledge that they were acting in response to a totally unjustifiable attack on civilians without any knowledge about what might be coming next. I agree that the United States should stick to its principles when fighting a ruthless enemy, but I do acknowledge that the United States really is fighting a ruthless enemy, and justifiably so. Extraordinary measures are justified, but not all extraordinary measures.
Let me put it this way. If the United States were to ask me to help fight al-Qaeda, and simultaneously al-Qaeda were to ask me to fight the United States, if I had to choose, there would be no question that I would side with the United States. I wouldn’t maintain some kind of moral equivalence between the United States and al-Qaeda.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“I wouldn’t maintain some kind of moral equivalence between the United States and al-Qaeda.”
Oh, please. Climb down off it. The United States has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in fighting its never-ending series of wars in the past century. What were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if not state terrorism? Japan was already defeated; the targets were civilians. Certainly the second bomb, if not the first, was unnecessary.
Moral equivalence is as moral equivalence does.
My position is that we should be much, much better than we’ve been to-date. And I make no apology to you, or to anybody else, for holding that opinion.
Come to me when your hands are clean, and I’ll praise you to the skies.
Kyle R. Cupp Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Here’s a disturbing investigative report by Scott Horton that three deaths at Guantanamo ruled suicides by the official narrative may not have been suicides at all. Evidence suggests our government may have tortured people to death and covered up the evidence.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:29 pm
My best guess there is that they tortured one of the men to death, perhaps accidentally, and then just murdered the other two in cold blood to make certain that the story was never told. It stretches credibility to think that they simultaneously killed all three inadvertantly.
Kyle R. Cupp Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:35 pm
It’s good to see the U.S. MSM is all over the story.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:42 pm
It seems like Scott Horton’s report is supposition and not filled with any evidence to prove that these terrorists actually did not commit suicide. These terrorists were already on a hunger strike so the possibility that they actually did commit suicide and that the report is correct is very likely.
The MSM will pick up any story with an anti-american agenda to it. Today, the “green” movement is the old “red” movement. Communism is arising in our country and destroying our country because of the MSM, the Democrats and their ilk.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm
It is, indeed.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm
My position is that we should be much, much better than we’ve been to-date.
Rodak,
I don’t disagree with that. But if I thought the United States taken as a whole was no better than al-Qaeda taken as a whole, I would move to another country. There is a difference between being deeply flawed and being dedicated to evil.
Gerald A. Naus Says:
January 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
I live near San Francisco. Born in Austria, married to an American from Ohio. I’m a permanent resident. Of course, none of that is relevant. Your nativism is rather sad, what’s next, “go back to Russia, boy” ?
Other governments murdering and torturing doesn’t change a thing. There’s no medal for being better than North Korea. I observe frequently how people identify government with country – and thereby defend the former. It’s a godsend for criminals.
What makes the US system so despicable is the claim to moral superiority when in reality it’s just another aggressive empire.
US courts have been dismissing law suits re: torture, citing state secrets. The secret being torture, of course. How can a country bring “freedom and democracy” to anyone when it eroded its own long-cherished principles ? Torturing innocents, no legal recourse, no lawyer, no charge. that’s a banana republic.
In a just world, Bush and Cheney would be sitting in Den Haag on war crimes charges. To defend the American system because one happened to have been born here seems second nature, and I’m sure it’s common in all countries. The problem starts with identifying with a country to begin with.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 2:10 pm
In my book, Bush and Cheney are my heroes, and if people had an understanding of what it takes to win a war, like in WWII and in previous wars, than Bush and Cheney would be revered as heroes around the world also, instead of the MSM compromising our national security by leaking classified documents and in doing so, aiding our enemies while allowing our enemy to cause grave harm to our brave men and women serving overseas and protecting our country from harm.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 3:35 pm
“There is a difference in being deeply flawed and being dedicated to evil.”
If one is dedicated to one’s deep flaws, and those flaws are evil, then there is no such difference.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I live near San Francisco. Born in Austria, married to an American from Ohio. I’m a permanent resident.
Gerald,
I have two basic points regarding your messages. First, you seem to be saying that the United States is morally no better than al-Qaeda. Two, wherever you live, and whatever your citizenship, when you criticize the United States, it is not “self-criticism.” I am more than willing to criticize the United States. I think Bush and Cheney did serious damage to the country. But I don’t believe the United States and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent. I don’t think it is necessary to be an American to be of that opinion. The NATO countries and the United Nations don’t seem to see a moral equivalence between the United States and al-Qaeda.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I don’t take your criticism of the United States to be “self-criticism,” and it does seem to me you seem to delight in criticizing the United States in a way you don’t in criticizing other countries (if you do so at all).
I agree with you a lot of the time, and I enjoy the way you needle people when you disagree with them, except in this case your needling gets to me. But I promise not to try to have you booted out of the country as long as you oppose Proposition 8.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 3:52 pm
In my book, Bush and Cheney are my heroes . . . .
OMG!
I take back anything I said that might be construed to support Kevin Rice and Teresa! Bush was a terrible president, and largely because of Cheney. I am willing to support coercive interrogation in theory, but virtually everything Bush-Cheney did in terms of handling prisoners was not merely wrong, but counterproductive.
There may someday be a ticking time bomb, but there has not been yet, and to use ticking time bomb tactics in the absence of a real ticking time bomb threat is totally unjustified.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:15 pm
There is a huge difference in using flaws to both allay people’s fears and using them to fight terrorists(flaws as perceived by others) (some would consider what others call flaws in actuality necessities to win wars) and Al-Qaeda which is using its evil to kill innocent civilians.
Or do you believe that there is a moral equivalency between innocent civilians and terrorists?
The terrorists are using evil to kill innocent civilians, whereas the Bush administration was using all neccessary means to fight that evil. Besides, I consider people who are willing to sacrifice themselves and be suicide bombers as violating their own humanity and possibly entering a sub-human category that deserves any type of harsh interrogation methods as such as is necessary to provide for the United States’s national security interests. We have no obligation, as a nation, to consider our enemies so-called human rights or their feelings being hurt as human rights organizations would have you believe. This is about winning war and we cannot let human rights organizations dictate how we fight a war, or lose the war due to them pleasing terrorists.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:28 pm
@David
First, my husband thinks to at least to some degree differently than me regarding Bush and Cheney.
But, I believe in certain circumstances where there is a “ticking time bomb” scenario or where there is a limited amount of time to follow up on a threat and to stop that threat than I believe coercive techniques of all kinds are justified to use on the terrorist. As much as I am glad that the poll showed 58% of Americans wanting the underwear bomber to be water-boarded and people realizing the reality of fighting a war and the threat posed against our nation, I don’t think that the underwear bomber was of high-value, like KSM was, so I don’t see it as a necessity to water-board him.
But, I do think considering 9/11, which was an Act of War, and all the issues surrounding that event after that tragic event, that Bush and Cheney did the right thing and the necessary things to protect this country. Obama has weakened this country greatly and as you saw on Christmas Day, the terrorists are taking advantage of his weak presidency.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:33 pm
We have no obligation, as a nation, to consider our enemies so-called human rights or their feelings being hurt as human rights organizations would have you believe.
Teresa,
We followed the first three of the four Geneva Conventions in our fight against Hitler, and all four of them through the Cold War. Everyone has basic human rights, otherwise they wouldn’t be called “human rights.”
Extreme times call for extreme measures, but they don’t call for pitching human rights and American values out the window. If we go down that road, the United States really will become as bad as Gerald and Rodak claim it is.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Obama has weakened this country greatly and as you saw on Christmas Day, the terrorists are taking advantage of his weak presidency.
Teresa,
Al-Qaeda is reduced to putting lone individuals on airplanes with explosives (that don’t explode) in their underpants, and you say Obama has weakened the country?
I think it is playing right into the hands of al-Qaeda to make a big deal of the failed attack on Christmas. Terrorists want to intimidate, and if you are frightened by not having absolutely perfect security, then they have won.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:48 pm
@David
First, EIT’s and the actual torture committed prior to the Iraq war are on way different levels. Plus, The Japanese waterboarding was of a different method than the United States used. There is a huge difference in using certain unconventional methods in order to save innocent lives and the terrorists beheading a reporter or soldier, in fact targeting innocent civilians.
In WWII, there were NO reporters that could endanger the Nation’s national security interests. And, who knows exactly what techniques were used during that war that people don’t know of. But, now most of our hidden secrets that aided in our national security interests are shot to heck because of the MSM and their anti-american sentiments.
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 4:56 pm
David,
Its not just that terrorist attack but also, the Ft. Hood terroist shooting. But, there are other signs of Obama’s weakness in office, like treating terrorists as civilian criminals. That is unconsionable. Never, in the history of this country has an enemy combatant that has been captured on a foreign battlefield been considered a mere common criminal.
I am not frightened. Just pointing out the weakened security. But, I am ambivolent on whether we should have body scanners or not.
National Defense does not go against our American values.
Joshua Brockway Says:
January 19, 2010 at 6:36 pm
“Never, in the history of this country has an enemy combatant.”
Where is the War…Congress has not declared war. Even if they did, what state would be the Enemy? We are talking about a stateless, loose coalition of people. How is Hasan an enemy. He has no links to funding by Al Qaeda. At most he is a domestic terrorist…akin to McVeigh.
So if these “enemy combatants” are not common criminals, does this mean their punishment is somehow worse? Is the Geneva Convention wrong for placing limits on what a state can do to a prisoner of war? Even the Nazi’s were tried as criminals, in a court with representation with expectations of rights.
No, National Defense does not go against our values…but the WAY we are defended can. (But apparently David thinks this is a cop out, which is a debate for a whole other thread).
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 7:45 pm
@Joshua
It is proven that Hasan had ties to al-Qaeda. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/09/abc-fort-hood-shooter-hasan-tried-contact-al-qaeda
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873
Since you state that there is no one particular country that is our enemy than the Geneva Convention does not apply. There needs to be a new convention that specificallly focuses on terrorists and the threat of terrorism. These terrorists do not use conventional warfare and do not wear uniforms and follow warfare rules so the United States must accomodate its strategy and do whatever is necessary to kill these evil terrorists, and thus should come a new Treaty focusing on terrorists or Muslim Jihadists.
The Trials at Nuremberg were Military Tribunals.http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/Baker_00/03-04/Baker-scl-cap-3-04/nuremberg_war_crimes_trial.htm
Like there would have been already if it hadn’t been for Eric Holder and his cronies. http://reginaantonioy.blogspot.com/2009/12/eric-holder-and-his-leftist-comrades.html
So, Justice would have already been served if it wasn’t for Eric Holder and his comrades defending terrorists por bono.
Military court is far different than a civilian court.
Gerald A. Naus Says:
January 19, 2010 at 8:14 pm
“certain unconventional methods”
Teresa Orwell, I presume ?
There also is little difference between intentionally killing civilians or accepting the fact that my actions are going to kill them, day after day, without any good reason. Murder 1 vs Murder 2.
Joshua Brockway Says:
January 19, 2010 at 8:26 pm
So Al Qaeda funded and trained a lone gun man? Just because he sought out the group does not mean he was Al Qaeda.
I am not even going to touch your dismissal of the AG. I am sorry but the office deserves more respect than that.
Now, please explain to me how a military court is far different, and apparently better, than a civilian court.
David Nickol Says:
January 19, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Military court is far different than a civilian court.
Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.
Rodak Says:
January 19, 2010 at 8:37 pm
“…accepting the fact that my actions are going to kill them…”
There it is; there is the crux at which we make an idol of our “flaws.”
Joshua Brockway Says:
January 19, 2010 at 9:10 pm
“Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.”
Does that mean it needs a good Sousaphone?
Teresa Says:
January 19, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Am I your high school social studies teacher?
And, Yes, justice would have been served to terrorists in Gitmo, if it wasn’t for AG Holder and his comrades aiding the terrorists by donating many, many hours pro bono.
Joshua Brockway Says:
January 20, 2010 at 12:02 am
“Am I your high school social studies teacher?”
Apparently your arrogance has gotten in the way of clear expression and definition of your terms.
I don’t need to engage in a discussion with someone who can’t respect me long enough to actually answer my question.
Any one else care to talk?
samrocha Says:
January 20, 2010 at 12:17 am
I have come to mediate this dispute and disclose my up-to-now hidden identity: I AM YOUR HIGH SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHER!
There you have it. Settled.
Joshua Brockway Says:
January 20, 2010 at 12:34 am
Ah, its been so long!
Now about that C…
Kyle R. Cupp Says:
January 20, 2010 at 8:27 am
Now that the matter is settled, let’s return to debating the questions of coercion and torture. Not that I hold out hope for settling those, but the conversation has been interesting, to say the least.
I must say that I had a little fun with my last comment regardless of whether it is posted or not. I said, "Liberal intelligenstia has ruined people's intellect."
So if anyone wants to join in on the discuusion have fun!! Here is the link to the post.
Lord of the Rings & Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
This is a composite of the dialogue of two scenes in The Fellowship of the Ring - Gandalf's talk with Frodo in Bag End in the beginning of the book, in the chapter entitled Shadows of the Past, and at the Council of Elrond, in the chapter so titled.
'You have seen Gollum?' exclaimed Frodo in amazement.
Do you know that?'
GANDALF:
'Not so clearly. What I have told you is what Gollum was willing to tell – though not, of course, in the way I have reported it. Gollum is a liar, and you have to sift his words. For
instance, he called the Ring his "birthday present", and he stuck to that. He said it came from his grandmother, who had lots of beautiful things of that kind. A ridiculous story. I have no doubt that Sméagol's grandmother was a matriarch, a great person in her way, but to talk of her possessing many Elvenrings was absurd, and as for giving them away, it was a lie. But a lie with a grain of truth.
'The murder of Déagol haunted Gollum, and he had made up a defence, repeating it to his "precious" over and over again, as he gnawed bones in the dark, until he almost believed it. It _was_ his birthday. Déagol ought to have given the ring to him. It had previously turned up just so as to be a present. It _was_ his birthday present, and so on, and on. I endured him as long as I could, but the truth was desperately important, and in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him, and wrung the true story out of him, bit by bit, together with much snivelling and snarling. He thought he was misunderstood and
illused...
...my search would
have been in vain, but for the help that I had from a friend: Aragorn, the greatest traveller
and huntsman of this age of the world. Together we sought for Gollum down the whole length of Wilderland, without hope, and without success. But at last, when I had given up the chase and turned to other parts, Gollum was found. My friend returned out of the greatperils bringing the miserable creature with him.
ARAGORN:
I, too, despaired at last, and I began my homeward journey. And then, by fortune, I came suddenly on what I sought: the marks of soft feet beside a muddy pool. But now the trail was fresh and swift, and it led not to Mordor but away. Along the skirts of the Dead
Marshes I followed it, and then I had him. Lurking by a stagnant mere, peering in the water as the dark eve fell, I caught him, Gollum. He was covered with green slime. He will never love me, I fear; for he bit me, and I was not gentle.
GANDALF:
'What he had been doing he would not say. He only wept and called us cruel, with
many a _gollum_ in his throat; and when we pressed him he whined and cringed, and
rubbed his long hands, licking his fingers as if they pained him, as if he remembered some
old torture.
ARAGORN:
Nothing more did I ever get from his mouth than the marks of his teeth. I deemed it the worst part of all my journey, the road back, watching him day and night, making him walk before me with a halter on his neck,gagged, until he was tamed by lack of drink and food, driving him ever towards Mirkwood.
I brought him there at last and gave him to the Elves, for we had agreed that this should
be done; and I was glad to be rid of his company, for he stank. For my part I hope never to
look upon him again; but Gandalf came and endured long speech with him.'
`Yes, long and weary,' said Gandalf, `but not without profit....'
This post is a counter response to THIS. One of my friends likens the ring to EIT's, which he believes to be torture, and he believes that EIT's are wrong and intrinsically evil. But, how can a person be 100% certain that EIT's are intrinsically evil?
As shown above, the scenes from Lord of The Rings show that hash techniques were used to obtain the TRUTH, or force the truth from Gollum. Gollum was withholding the truth, information that he was holding inside him to aid EVIL. Gandalf used harsh means to extract the truth from Gollum in order to stop evil. These scenes show that harsh techniques were used in LOTR to get at the TRUTH and stop EVIL which is an apt comparison to the use of EIT's on terrorists.
Hotel Gitmo: CIA Got It Right & Kept U.S. Safe
My good buddy Rush and I would like to inform you that there will soon be some vacancies at this first rate hotel due to previous occupants leaving. Rush and I would like to invite all of you to the primo vacation spot in the world.Our wonderful guest(detainees) have had the pleasure of experiencing this four star hotel. The spectacular accommodations included a skylight above them and two 17 watt fluoresent-tube light bulbs. And throughout all hours of the day they could listen to the fabulous music called white noise, at 79 decibels. Heck, the residents (detainees) even get a little water spashed on them to make sure that they are hydrated.
CLUB GITMO
Here is some of the fabulous
musical talent at Hotel Gitmo!!!
Eric Holder, one of Obama's Chicago TOP THUGS has just ordered a special investigation of our CIA AGENTS, and how they kept the United States safe for over eight years. These CIA agents were following and carrying out their orders for President Bush in response to the catastrophic terrorist attacks of September 11. Attorney General Eric Holder appointed John Durham, who is a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut. These CIA agents are patriots serving our country and had a duty to protect us from another terrorist attack by gaining information. What the hell do these liberal pansies want us to do in order to thwart another terrorist attack? Libtards just want CIA agents to sit down peacefully with terrorists who are wiling to die for their cause. Liberals think that these terrorists who have been trained on how to kill, mutilate, behead and commit other horrific acts are just going to spill their guts about future attacks. These Chicago pussies have no clue what it takes to keep a country safe from terrorists. They just want to sing Kum Ba Yah and hold their hands and hope everything will turn out okay for U.S.
If I was in the CIA I would refuse to perform any interrogations at all unless I received a pardon from President Obama. This has immensely lowered the morale of our fine CIA agents who are supposed to be protecting us and gaining information to avert other terroristic threats, or attacks. Obama says he wants to move forward but he's not and by him ordering Eric Holder to conduct these CIA investigations proves that. He even said that he wanted these investigations to happen during the presidential campaign.He is trying to have it both ways which is really scummy in my book.
In a Washington Times article , Ben Conery stated regarding Eric Holder, "He made the decision over the opposition of CIA Director Leon E. Panetta and despite the often-stated wishes of President Obama to "look forward" and not become entangled in a debate over the past practices of the war on terror.
In a New York Times article, Scott Shane and Mark Mazetti wrote: "But the strong impression that emerges from the documents, many with long passages blacked out for secrecy, is by no means one of gung-ho operatives running wild. It is a portrait of overwhelming control exercised from C.I.A. headquarters and the Department of Justice — control Bush administration officials say was intended to ensure that the program was safe and legal."
Managers, doctors and lawyers not only set the program’s parameters but dictated every facet of a detainee’s daily routine, monitoring interrogations on an hour-by-hour basis.
"The interrogators’ objective," the background paper says, "is to transition the HVD to a point where he is participating in a predictable, reliable and sustainable manner." The policy was to use the "least coercive measure" to achieve the goal. The harsh treatment began with the "attention slap," and for three prisoners of the nearly 100 who passed through the program, the endpoint was waterboarding.
"Elaborate care went into figuring out the precise gradations of coercion," said David B. Rivkin Jr., a lawyer who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. "Yes, it’s jarring. But it shows how both the lawyers and the nonlawyers tried to do the right thing."
Among the chilling details in the documents, titled "Khalid Sheikh Mohammad: Preeminent Source On Al-Qaeda" and "Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al Qaeda":
• The identities of key participants in an al Qaeda program to develop the ability to mount anthrax attacks.
• The identities of about 70 people whom al Qaeda had "deemed suitable for Western attacks."
In a Fox News Poll, 94 % of Americans do not want an investigation to happen. So, What the hell happened to Obama's promise to listen to the American people? That went out the window, along with most of his other promises.
"Detainee reporting has helped thwart a number of Al-Qaeda plots to attack targets in the West and elsewhere," one of the reports said. That included plots to fly planes into buildings on the West Coast, setting off bombs in U.S. cities and planning to employ a network of Pakistanis to target gas stations, railroad tracks and the Brooklyn Bridge.
"These documents suggest that enhanced interrogation techniques prevented terrorist attacks and protected our country," said Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, which filed the request under the Freedom of Information Act.
The two CIA documents that were just recently released, have proven that indeed Dick Cheney was right all along regarding the effectivess of the enhanced interogation techniques.
The EIT's did WORK!!!! The high-amount of effectiveness that the enhanced interrogation techniques had led to an overwhelming domino effect of captures and information regarding future terrorist attacks.
Because of the Fact that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
Worked Effectively, They Created a Domino Effect.
An article by Rowan Scarborough, in the Human Events Newspaper dissected the recently released CIA documents very well. Here are some facts that the article pointed out:
1) After being water-boarded, Abu Zubaydah started singing like a canary, and revealed the name of a high-value Al-Qaeda member named, Khalid Shaik Mohammed (KSM), as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
2) KSM was captured. And, after being water-boarded he divulged high-value information ranging from how Al-Qaeda operated, ranging from the finances to recruitmant, revealed other attack plans, and the names of other terrorists who had not before been identified. KSM admitted to funneling money to Al-Qaeda operative Majid Khan.
3) The CIA captured Khan, and admitted giving the money to another operative named Zumbair. Zumbair admitted working with Hambali, an Al-Qaeda leader in South Africa who pulled off the horrific 2002 Bali, Indonesia bombings that killed 240 people.
4)Khan's information led to the capture of Hambali, who is now at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. Then, Khan gave up the name of Hanbali's brother Rasmun Gunawan as his successor in Africa.
5) Gunawan was captured and ended up giving up mega doses of high-value information such as: He provided a vast array of mobs of terrorists to travel to Kurachi, Pakistan for training,and it was in their plans to send KSM to groom them to travel to the U.S. and unleash attacks. One attack envisioned by KSM as an encore to Sept. 11 was to hijack more aircraft and fly them into skyscrapers around the United States.
Other Plots Foiled:
1) KSM had recruited an Ohio truck driver named Iyman Faris-to kill Americans. He was arrested while it was in the planning stages. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
2) Khalid exposed yet another plot that he was conspiring with Sayf al Rahman Paracha to smuggle explosives into the U.S., to bomb buildings in New York City. Paracha was located and arrested before he could set off bombs, and is sitting in Guatanomo Bay, Cuba.
3) Bomb U.S. embassy in Pakistan
4) Truck- bomb the U.S. military base on the Horn of Africa and
5) to fly into airport terminals at Heathrow Airport.
According to the CIA Report titled, " Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al-Qaeda", it concludes that "Detainee reporting has helped thwart a number of al Qaeda plots to attack targets in the West and elsewhere. Not only have detainees reported on potential targets and techniques that al Qaeda operational planners have considered but arrests also disrupted attack plans in progress."
Are the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
the Reason Why We Have Not
Been Attacked in Over Eight Years?
Pelosi, Where's The Proof?
On May 14, 2009 Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of lying about the timeline of when she was informed on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Pelosi accused the CIA of deliberately misleading Congress over the use of techniques such as waterboarding.
Where's the Proof?
She called for a truth commision to investigate where the blame lay. The White House is against a truth commission since it would be looking backwards instead of forwards.
According to an article on Times Online on May 15, "."Republicans have insisted in recent weeks that Ms Pelosi and other senior Democrats were told that waterboarding had been used as early as September 2002, but had made no attempt to protest against techniques they have since condemned as torture."
In a press conference she rebutted such charges, saying: "To the contrary, we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used." Asked if the CIA had lied, Ms Pelosi replied: "They misled us all the time."
Where's the Proof?
In earlier statements Pelosi stated that she had not been told that waterboarding was being used during those briefings. One one hand Pelosi accuses CIA of withholding information then on the other hand she accuses the CIA of lying about waterboarding regarding the use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah.
As a former CIA director and former President of the United States George H.W. Bush is sticking up for the CIA amid the accusations manufactured by Nancy Pelosi.
In an interview that he had with the Washington Times, Bush takes a gentlemanly shot at the speaker for suggesting she was misled by the agency during a 2002 briefing on interrogations. Bush stated:
"I think she made most unfortunate comments, and I think she's paying a price for it, I think people see her as having been told — briefed on some things and then kind of acting like it didn't happen. So I'm a little disappointed in her."When asked directly whether the CIA lies "all the time," Mr. Bush said it does not.
It has been over a month since Pelosi's accusations against the CIA happened. Over the past month or so she has stated many different versions of what supposedly happened according to her. Yet, since then she has not provided any proof that the CIA has misled or lied to her regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques. The CIA has both consistently and repeatedly stuck to their same story. Pelosi's charge against the CIA, that they lied to Congress, is a very serious accusation which could also be considered a criminal offense. I believe that Pelosi needs to either provide proof that the CIA lied to her or she should make a statement apologizing to the CIA for making a false accusation against them. If these are classified documents and Pelosi wants to prove that she is not lying and making false accusations than I think she needs to request for the documents be declassified. I agree with her on one point that I would love a truth commision to happen in order to verify who exactly was lying and who was telling the truth. Let the American people find out the truth with reference to exactly which one, the CIA or Nancy Pelosi, was lying with regard to exactly when the information pertaining to enhanced interrogation techniques was released to the intelligence committee. I believe that the burden of proof lies with Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi since she is the one making the outrageous accusations.
Pelosi, Show The Proof
or Apologize to the CIA!!!!
Where's the Proof?
She called for a truth commision to investigate where the blame lay. The White House is against a truth commission since it would be looking backwards instead of forwards.
According to an article on Times Online on May 15, "."Republicans have insisted in recent weeks that Ms Pelosi and other senior Democrats were told that waterboarding had been used as early as September 2002, but had made no attempt to protest against techniques they have since condemned as torture."
In a press conference she rebutted such charges, saying: "To the contrary, we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used." Asked if the CIA had lied, Ms Pelosi replied: "They misled us all the time."
Where's the Proof?
In earlier statements Pelosi stated that she had not been told that waterboarding was being used during those briefings. One one hand Pelosi accuses CIA of withholding information then on the other hand she accuses the CIA of lying about waterboarding regarding the use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah.
As a former CIA director and former President of the United States George H.W. Bush is sticking up for the CIA amid the accusations manufactured by Nancy Pelosi.
In an interview that he had with the Washington Times, Bush takes a gentlemanly shot at the speaker for suggesting she was misled by the agency during a 2002 briefing on interrogations. Bush stated:
"I think she made most unfortunate comments, and I think she's paying a price for it, I think people see her as having been told — briefed on some things and then kind of acting like it didn't happen. So I'm a little disappointed in her."When asked directly whether the CIA lies "all the time," Mr. Bush said it does not.
It has been over a month since Pelosi's accusations against the CIA happened. Over the past month or so she has stated many different versions of what supposedly happened according to her. Yet, since then she has not provided any proof that the CIA has misled or lied to her regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques. The CIA has both consistently and repeatedly stuck to their same story. Pelosi's charge against the CIA, that they lied to Congress, is a very serious accusation which could also be considered a criminal offense. I believe that Pelosi needs to either provide proof that the CIA lied to her or she should make a statement apologizing to the CIA for making a false accusation against them. If these are classified documents and Pelosi wants to prove that she is not lying and making false accusations than I think she needs to request for the documents be declassified. I agree with her on one point that I would love a truth commision to happen in order to verify who exactly was lying and who was telling the truth. Let the American people find out the truth with reference to exactly which one, the CIA or Nancy Pelosi, was lying with regard to exactly when the information pertaining to enhanced interrogation techniques was released to the intelligence committee. I believe that the burden of proof lies with Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi since she is the one making the outrageous accusations.
Pelosi, Show The Proof
or Apologize to the CIA!!!!
Regarding National Security:Obama Blames and Cheney Fires Back
While President Obama claims that he wants to move forward and look to the future he is continually focusing on the past and playing the blame game. Obama has an obsession of pointing out how he wants to distance and differentiate himself from Bush administration policies. At every possible chance Pres.Obama criticizes the Bush administration and loves making a theatrical scene while promoting himself at the same time. Today, Dick Cheney took the opportunity to defend the Bush administration foreign policy decisions. Cheney even had the courage to challenge President Obama on much of his foreign policy rhetoric and claimed that Obama is putting politics before national security.
Cheney gave a very moving speech with an account of where he was and how he was touched and changed on September 11,2001. Cheney expressed how he and others' in the Bush administration realized that they had an obligation to protect Americans and prevent another terrorist attack from happening on U.S. soil again.
Cheney said:
"Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad...and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact - crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least - but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat - what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place."
As many Americans look back and ponder which of the Bush foreign policies including enhanced interrogation techniques worked or didn't work, whether they were justified or not, and whether any of these techniques constitute torture or not; we as Americans while in deep thought must remember the great threat Americans faced on Sept.11,2001.
I believe unless a person has actually has been in President Bush's shoes, or Cheney's shoes in having to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, in which these two officials knew that they had to protect Americans from another terrorist attack, a person would not know for sure exactly how they would have reacted being given the chance to be in that same exact situation. I believe No person has the right to judge the Bush administration in that regard. Even President Obama was not acting there as commander-in-chief on that tragic day, so how can he really know how he would have reacted had it actually been him who was commander-in-chief on that tragic day?
What gives a person the moral authority to judge others' when we have no idea what the "true" intentions of our commander-in-Chief consisted of after 9/11 happened? I believe Bush's interests were in acting for the good of the country in order to keep us safe from another terrorist attack. So, I believe we should give him the benefit of the doubt instead of judging him and others in the Bush administration harshly.
Yesterday, Obama said that the United States reacted out of fear. I know for me, when 9/11 happened that brought fear to the forefront. Were you afraid after 9/11 happened? I think fear in that circumstance was the most natural response a person could have had. As a United States citizen I feared that another attack would happen on U.S. soil. In reaction to this real, imminent and grave threat against the United States the Bush administration felt the need to stop the terrorists over in the mideast before the terrorists entered the United States.
For a President who wants to distance himself as much as possible from the previous administration, Obama, contrary to his mantra, has adopted many of Bush's foreign policy positions. He has adopted re-instating military tribunals, The Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, Iraq and Guantanomo just to name a few. I encourage you to read an article By Charles Krauthammer which includes more information on this topic.
President Obama even reserves the right to use or request the use of these enhaned interrogation techniques when necessary for the safety of our country. If he truly categorically rejects the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and believes that the Bush administration was taking the low road than why is he reserving the right to make use of these very same techniques?
I think that former President Bush and his administration deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they loved the United States so much as to want to do everything necessary to prevent another terrorist attack. That is exactly what happened for the past 7 or so years. I just am thankful that President Obama is adopting many of the same policies of the Bush administration. I say to everyone, let us hope and pray that all things necessary are enacted from henceforth in order to prevent another future terrorist attack.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/22/obama_in_bush_clothing_america_fights_on
Cheney gave a very moving speech with an account of where he was and how he was touched and changed on September 11,2001. Cheney expressed how he and others' in the Bush administration realized that they had an obligation to protect Americans and prevent another terrorist attack from happening on U.S. soil again.
Cheney said:
"Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad...and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact - crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least - but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat - what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place."
As many Americans look back and ponder which of the Bush foreign policies including enhanced interrogation techniques worked or didn't work, whether they were justified or not, and whether any of these techniques constitute torture or not; we as Americans while in deep thought must remember the great threat Americans faced on Sept.11,2001.
I believe unless a person has actually has been in President Bush's shoes, or Cheney's shoes in having to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, in which these two officials knew that they had to protect Americans from another terrorist attack, a person would not know for sure exactly how they would have reacted being given the chance to be in that same exact situation. I believe No person has the right to judge the Bush administration in that regard. Even President Obama was not acting there as commander-in-chief on that tragic day, so how can he really know how he would have reacted had it actually been him who was commander-in-chief on that tragic day?
What gives a person the moral authority to judge others' when we have no idea what the "true" intentions of our commander-in-Chief consisted of after 9/11 happened? I believe Bush's interests were in acting for the good of the country in order to keep us safe from another terrorist attack. So, I believe we should give him the benefit of the doubt instead of judging him and others in the Bush administration harshly.
Yesterday, Obama said that the United States reacted out of fear. I know for me, when 9/11 happened that brought fear to the forefront. Were you afraid after 9/11 happened? I think fear in that circumstance was the most natural response a person could have had. As a United States citizen I feared that another attack would happen on U.S. soil. In reaction to this real, imminent and grave threat against the United States the Bush administration felt the need to stop the terrorists over in the mideast before the terrorists entered the United States.
For a President who wants to distance himself as much as possible from the previous administration, Obama, contrary to his mantra, has adopted many of Bush's foreign policy positions. He has adopted re-instating military tribunals, The Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, Iraq and Guantanomo just to name a few. I encourage you to read an article By Charles Krauthammer which includes more information on this topic.
President Obama even reserves the right to use or request the use of these enhaned interrogation techniques when necessary for the safety of our country. If he truly categorically rejects the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and believes that the Bush administration was taking the low road than why is he reserving the right to make use of these very same techniques?
I think that former President Bush and his administration deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they loved the United States so much as to want to do everything necessary to prevent another terrorist attack. That is exactly what happened for the past 7 or so years. I just am thankful that President Obama is adopting many of the same policies of the Bush administration. I say to everyone, let us hope and pray that all things necessary are enacted from henceforth in order to prevent another future terrorist attack.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/22/obama_in_bush_clothing_america_fights_on
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
