On Apr 22, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Roger Howard wrote: > I still object to the notion that the sole reason for torturing (errr, > "enhanced-interrogating") people was vengeance - I think plenty of > regular > people, right or wrong, believe there is potential value in these > techniques beyond less-enhanced techniques, and therefore > vengeance/brutality was not the singular motive you make it to be. > Surely > there are some who might be motivated by that - a majority? I doubt > it... > but even if a majority, it's certainly not unanimous.
I guess we just disagree. I will concede that their may be *some* people who are motivated more by fear than by hatred but I have yet to meet anyone who genuinely cares about what we did to these people and yet thinks that we were compelled to torture for security's sake. I know lots of of people who use security as a rationalization after the fact. Check out Rush Limbaugh's 'Torture Works' video and then come back and tell me that he or any of his followers genuinely think it works as a security technique. They don't know and they don't care. <http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/18/limbaugh-mccain-torture/> > Look, these techniques are designed *as much* (and, likely, much > more) to > put as much of the public at ease with them as they are designed to be > effective evidence-gather tools... no pulling fingernails, no electric > probes on the nuts, no breaking bones. So plenty of people fall for > this > notion, casually and with some sense of necessity. People trust > authority, > as long as it doesn't offend their standards... and, in "dangerous" > times, > these standards are lower. But, from my perspective, most people who > approve of what's been done are simply convinced that 1) these are > really, > really dangerous people, ready and willing to eat their children and > piss > on Jesus, and 2) that smacking someone around is fair game if it mean > preventing a nuclear bomb from going off in LA at noon. I'm not > saying they > are right, wise, or moral, but that I don't see vengeance and > brutality as > the primary motivator; they are, at least in the abstract, afraid > and don't > see what the big deal is. Plenty of people did have bones broken, were subject to extreme physical and mental abuse and quite a few were tortured to death. Once you give a green light to some of these techniques it is very hard to stop the situation from escalating. And most of the more severe treatment was done not by CIA interrogators but buy enlisted soldiers who thought they had been ordered to 'soften up' the prisoners. The fact that prisoners were tortured to 'soften them up' before any specific questions were formulated and the existence of the 'mosaic theory' cast a lot of doubt on the notion that anyone in the CIA really though these techniques worked. The issue is not the specific techniques enumerated in the torture memos. The issue is the willingness to cross bright lines like the Geneva Convention. If a clerk gets killed during a robbery at a 4/11, everyone who participated in the robbery is guilty or murder, even the guy who just drove the get away car. I think by the same logic a lawyer who authorized Federal agents to violate the Geneva Conventions is responsible for any war crimes committed on his watch. > > On the other hand, I think there is an element of over the top > outrage on > the left that is distracting and almost getting into Godwins > territory - we > need to maintain perspective and recognize what happened for what it > is: > the calculated formation of policies designed precisely to work around > existing US and international standards on detainee treatment and > interrogation, and an integrated public relations (propaganda) > campaign of > the most cynical type. Torture is just one facet, along with > Guantanamo, > Abu Graibh, the mass internment of Muslims after 9/11, etc. I agree. I'm very concerned with the fact that this smells like a political vendetta sometimes. > > FWIW, I'm all for hearings and investigations modeled on Truth and > Reconciliation councils. 1) documenting the truth of what has > happened in > the US over the past decade is far more important, and a more > effective way > to prevent these things from happening again in the long-term; 2) > those who > are really afraid of prosecution, the policy makers, will be > absolutely > unwilling to provide a complete accounting of their actions, so > prosecutions will still be viable in many cases. There is a lot that can be done short of jail for the offenders. Disbarment for the lawyers and loss of their licenses to practice for the doctors seems appropriate. -- Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list! _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
