On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:22:09 -0700, Chris Gehlker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/>
I don't think we disagree, unless you think Rush represents everyone. I know plenty of Republicans, and the overarching theme I've heard since 9/11 is one of fear, much more than reprisal. We've sacrificed civil liberties, seen the security apparatus in the US grow enormously, let illegal surveillance happen... all of this because of fear. > 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. I just want to be clear - I find the act of abusing prisoners abhorrent. I simply disagree with the notions that 1) the abuse is solely motivated by vengeance and the desire to inflict pain (while that may well be a personal motive by many involved, there is certainly a belief by many that these methods could be effective, and even if that's just part of the time that's good enough for them... not for me); and 2) that the methods are entirely ineffective - they may be more or less ineffective that humane interrogation, but if we insist that they are entirely ineffective our opposition to the methods will be shot full of holes as there are bound to be cases where people did know something tangible gave it up under coercion; hell, on right-wing KFI radio last night during my drive home I heard a good 45 minutes along those lines.... that the torture of Zubayda helped identify and stop a major attack on LA (the Library building downtown), and therefore these methods do work, and are really not so bad - in fact, they really aren't torture at all anyway. Efficacy doesn't make it any better (or worse) in my eyes, I think the argument should be first, and foremost, one of morality and humanity, not of efficacy. > > 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. Absolutely, which is why I brought up other instances in which I see a common thread, such as Guantanamo. > 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. I agree entirely. -R _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
