The USA Has Used Waterboarding

[fuelair]

No offense, but you will have to do your homework on that. My primary, but not exclusive source with multiple examples was NPR news. The exampled mostly were persons who had been turned over by locals for rewards from the US govt. which were at , shall we kindly say, what were exhorbitant levels for Iraq and so pretty much pulled in anyone locals were not that happy with and could likely not quickly prove they were not combatants.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is certainly my premise - especially since in the movie's/tv, the guilty party is quite clear. I admit that real life (as I said, I know the difference) is not always that way but if I have no reason to doubt the guilt (legitimate, verified evidence/multiple id testimony/gloating admission from the perp) yes, I am right - especially if it is likely the perp will have a lawyer known to be excellent at getting the guilty off. (Without using his body parts)

But this is real life, and not movies. There are mistrials. There are miscarriages of justice. You have every reason to doubt those who sentence you.

How will you get a fair trial, if you will be confronted with what you have said when waterboarded?

Once you use torture, you throw every ideal of "fair trials" out the window. You are already guilty, because you have "confessed" before the trial.

 

[fuelair]

But this is real life, and not movies. There are mistrials. There are miscarriages of justice. You have every reason to doubt those who sentence you.

How will you get a fair trial, if you will be confronted with what you have said when waterboarded?

Once you use torture, you throw every ideal of "fair trials" out the window. You are already guilty, because you have "confessed" before the trial.

You are (I am quite sure not on purpose) applying one set of my responses to the wrong response of mine. The quote you are using has nothing to do with torture. It is about street (as opposed to court system) execution of persons guilty of capital crimes (murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.)and refers to cases where the perpetrator is absolutely known to the potential executioner as the real and only guilty party. That is why I noted that in movies the audience has no question the person about to be shot is guilty, but in real life it may only be known by unassailable evidence or the (not under torture) confession of the guilty party with evidence verified by same.

I am not really concerned about trials if the torture saves a US convoy from
being destroyed and it's personnel killed. If you get my drift.

 

[BPSCG]

This is a handy way to deal with cognitive dissonance. The issue at hand is the US government torturing people who have not been proven in a court to have done anything

You are making the same error here that others have repeatedly made. I'm calling it an error out of charity towards your argument, but when I see the same "error" being made over and over again, I start to think the arguers are not simply making a mistake, but deliberately miscasting my position.

Once again - this is probably at least the sixth time I've said this, so I don't understand why people don't grasp it, unless they're deliberately being obtuse - I believe torture is pointless for extracting confessions to crimes already committed. So stop setting up that straw man. I've said - again, repeatedly - that it should be used only as a last resort, only where time is of the essence, and only where people may well die if that information isn't obtained quickly.

So first you make up an emotive analogy (woman versus rape victim), and cast the world's sole superpower as the rape victim

As has been pointed out, I did not make up the rape analogy. And pardon me, but the U.S. was the victim on September 11, or haven't you been reading the papers?

and tell anyone who doesn't buy your ludicrous analogy to piss off.

Damn betcha. I have little time for people who think that the U.S. doesn't have the right to defend itself when attacked.

After all, they started it. If they started it then it's okay to torture anyone you like to keep yourself a bit safer.

Strawman duly noted. Let me know when you plan to set it afire.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I note a number of you conflating being detained at Gitmo and being tortured. They are non synonymous. Granted, being a detainee there is bound to suck.

Mind you, this is Parade Magazine, a snippet I saw this weekend, so let's not consider it a burning bush, but it's worth looking at the details provided. Cylinder has likewise pointed out to where the Congressional oversight is involved.

Air Force Gen. Mike Hayden, the CIA director, talks with PARADE about what his agency is doing to gather intelligence.
What is our greatest challenge today in collecting and evaluating intelligence?

We’ve had many successes, but we need even more people in the CIA who are fluent in the languages vital to national security—including Arabic, Farsi and Chinese—and experts in fields like Middle Eastern and South Asian studies.

Do you agree with those people who say that the CIA failed to see the rise of Islamic terrorism?

I strongly disagree, but I’d also say that intelligence demands constant improvements. We’ve transformed how we share information among government agencies, and we’re taking bold steps overseas to fight terrorists.

Some charge that the CIA has used interrogation tactics that amount to torture. What’s your response?

The CIA’s terrorist detention program has been run according to U.S. law, which prohibits torture. It’s been subjected to repeated legal and policy reviews, and Congressional oversight committees also have been briefed. It’s involved fewer than 100 hardened terrorists, less than one-third of whom required any special form of questioning. Our methods have been legal and safe, producing intelligence that has disrupted terrorist operations and saved innocent lives.

In another news item, the director pointedly stated that three people have been waterboarded. This looks to be related to Crossbow's OP.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/terrorism/

Spy Chief Confirms Three Waterboardings
By Mike Nizza

Gen. Michael Hayden, head of the Central Intelligence Agency, confirmed one fact in a debate not likely to end soon:

“Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees,” he told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “It was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
It was used on Abu Zubaydah.
And it was used on [Abd al-Rahim al-]Nashiri.”

Like John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. operative who managed one of the waterboardings and then told the world about it, Mr. McConnell said the measure was justified in the aftermath of 9/11, because “catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable.”
Unlike Mr. Kiriakou, Mr. McConnell refused to say that use of waterboarding was no longer necessary. But as our colleague Brian Knowlton is reporting today, it now involves a lot of red tape:

Mr. McConnell, in his testimony on Tuesday, said that new procedures were in place to limit authorization for using the technique: General Hayden would have to notify Mr. McConnell, who would have to ask Mr. Mukasey, who in turn would have to obtain the president’s approval before authorizing a waterboarding

There have been some hundreds of people through Gitmo, the number is now below 300, last I heard, what with people being returned to home governments.

While I don't think anything he said is false, he chose his words with some care. Of course he did. Spin feeds off of careless utterances.

I note some of the posters have suggested that torture does not work. This keeps coming up, and it is a curious position to take if one is arguing about its effectiveness, rather than its moral quality.

Physical duress, and torture, can get answers, in some cases can get right answers. In other cases, bad info is gleaned, and anything is provided that gets the procedure to stop. This makes it unreliable (depending upon the reliability index you demand) and at least variable in effectiveness. I don't know CI well enough to know what confidence intervals are considered "reliable" and "not reliable."

Likewise, asking no questions gets you no info. That's a non starter. So, interrogate, interview, whatever.

Any form of interrogation gets you some lies, some bad info, some useful info, pressure or no. (Cops are fully aware of this.)

NO style of questioning is universally effective. Each is variable in effectiveness. The experiences of the American POW's in Viet Nam is loaded with examples of all of the above. Eg: One of the things I learned in SERE was how often you can be tripped up by non-stressful interrogation if you are tired, or just not on your toes, or you let your guard down during a good cop - bad cop session.

The other point again being missed is that the captures happened on a battlefield, and in a war zone, at first. As time went on, some captives came about via use of informants. The very process by which folks were assigned to Gitmo for detention seems to have fused the PoW model and the criminal model. Small wonder it's a bit of a mess.

DR

 

[fuelair]

You are making the same error here that others have repeatedly made. I'm calling it an error out of charity towards your argument, but when I see the same "error" being made over and over again, I start to think the arguers are not simply making a mistake, but deliberately miscasting my position.

Once again - this is probably at least the sixth time I've said this, so I don't understand why people don't grasp it, unless they're deliberately being obtuse - I believe torture is pointless for extracting confessions to crimes already committed. So stop setting up that straw man. I've said - again, repeatedly - that it should be used only as a last resort, only where time is of the essence, and only where people may well die if that information isn't obtained quickly.

As has been pointed out, I did not make up the rape analogy. And pardon me, but the U.S. was the victim on September 11, or haven't you been reading the papers?

Damn betcha. I have little time for people who think that the U.S. doesn't have the right to defend itself when attacked.

Strawman duly noted. Let me know when you plan to set it afire.

Well and truly said. And strawed in lots of places.

 

[KateHL]

The US was the victim on 9/11, you're absolutely right. If anyone disagrees with that then it's a pretty sad day for us all. I'm pretty sure nobody is arguing against that, though. And we do have the right to defend ourselves, you're right on the money again. What we're discussing here are methods of doing so. Judging from your posts, you believe torture is an effective method of extracting information (before an incident, I understand). What many of us want to know is whether or not it's truly effective. This discussion is not really going to go anywhere until someone can produce evidence either way. I feel very much that your style of arguing this is one I've encountered before: if you don't agree with me then you're anti-American. Maybe this is not how you are intending to come off, but it's how it seems to me. And don't get me wrong. When I think of someone who has information regarding a future attack I'd probably smash him about, myself. I'm just not sure it should become a positive official position.

The other discussion here is whether torture is justified despite its effectiveness. It seems to be an easy leap from 'torture is okay in this one instance' to simply 'torture is okay, period.' I for one cannot be okay with an approved position on torture in any form for this reason. If exceptions are made in extreme cases then that's where the position gets fuzzier. I'm conflicted on how I feel about that at this point.

 

[CFLarsen]

The English language has many fine dictionaries. Pick one.

No, you tell me what you meant.

If you are not sure, you could always scroll back up the page and find out.

I'm asking you.

Let's say that you had a vague connection to Terrorist X, and this terrorist was suspected of planning an attack. But you don't know anything about the attack. You are hauled in for interrogation:

Them: "Do you know X?"
You: "No!"​

They water-board you.

Them: "Do you know X?"
You: (gurgle) "....Yes! Please stop!"
Them: "Not yet. When and where is the attack?"
You: (gurgle) "....I don't know!"
Them: "Yes, you do. Answer!"
​

They water-board you.

Now what? What "truth" would you tell them to stop?

If anyone can be tortured, how can you say you live in a just society?

You are (I am quite sure not on purpose) applying one set of my responses to the wrong response of mine. The quote you are using has nothing to do with torture. It is about street (as opposed to court system) execution of persons guilty of capital crimes (murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.)and refers to cases where the perpetrator is absolutely known to the potential executioner as the real and only guilty party. That is why I noted that in movies the audience has no question the person about to be shot is guilty, but in real life it may only be known by unassailable evidence or the (not under torture) confession of the guilty party with evidence verified by same.

I am not really concerned about trials if the torture saves a US convoy from
being destroyed and it's personnel killed. If you get my drift.

The problem you have is that you have to live with the cases where innocent people are tortured and no information is revealed.

 

[BPSCG]

The US was the victim on 9/11, you're absolutely right. If anyone disagrees with that then it's a pretty sad day for us all. I'm pretty sure nobody is arguing against that, though. And we do have the right to defend ourselves, you're right on the money again. What we're discussing here are methods of doing so. Judging from your posts, you believe torture is an effective method of extracting information (before an incident, I understand). What many of us want to know is whether or not it's truly effective. This discussion is not really going to go anywhere until someone can produce evidence either way.

I keep saying "Khalid Sheikh Muhammad," but all I get back is "Lalalala I can't hear you my fingers are in my ears lalala..."

I feel very much that your style of arguing this is one I've encountered before: if you don't agree with me then you're anti-American.

I do not consider anyone to be anti-American just because he or she disagrees with me. But I do say that anyone who solemnly and seriously claims that the U.S. is no better than the terrorists it is fighting is anti-American, yes.

The other discussion here is whether torture is justified despite its effectiveness.

Um, it shouldn't be. If I didn't think torture was effective, I would be utterly against it.

It seems to be an easy leap from 'torture is okay in this one instance' to simply 'torture is okay, period.'

How about "torture is okay under very strict, very limited circumstances"?

I for one cannot be okay with an approved position on torture in any form for this reason. If exceptions are made in extreme cases then that's where the position gets fuzzier. I'm conflicted on how I feel about that at this point.

There's the old joke about the guy talking with a pretty lady in a bar:

He: "Would you sleep with a total stranger for a million dollars?"
She: "Yes, I believe I would."
He "Would you sleep with me for fifty dollars?"
She: "How dare you? What do you take me for?"
He: "We already established that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

Would you agree to torture someone if you it was the only way to get information he was withholding, that would save a million lives?

If so, then you don't oppose torture, and we're just haggling over where to draw the line.

 

[KateHL]

I keep saying "Khalid Sheikh Muhammad," but all I get back is "Lalalala I can't hear you my fingers are in my ears lalala..."

This threw me off quite a bit. I feel frustrated when I make an effort to understand another person's take on a subject and try to rephrase it to see if I'm correct and admit I may well not be and give the other person an invitation to correct me and ... I get this in return. I want to understand your side but this negativity makes me want to give up. I'm being respectful to you. Please give me the same consideration.

I do not consider anyone to be anti-American just because he or she disagrees with me. But I do say that anyone who solemnly and seriously claims that the U.S. is no better than the terrorists it is fighting is anti-American, yes.

I believe the position was that would be true if the US supported torture tactics which I took to mean 'anti-torture' or 'anti-US policy' and not anti-American. We all have our feelings on the subject, though.

Um, it shouldn't be. If I didn't think torture was effective, I would be utterly against it.

How about "torture is okay under very strict, very limited circumstances"?

I'm not sure if you're stating your position or asking me a question. If the former then fair enough and thank you for clarifying your position. If the latter then I have to say that I'm not comfortable agreeing to that.

Would you agree to torture someone if you it was the only way to get information he was withholding, that would save a million lives?

If so, then you don't oppose torture, and we're just haggling over where to draw the line.

Do you know without a doubt he has information? Do you know that by torturing him he will give you the information you need? As I stated before I'm not sure where I stand right now. I'm not comfortable with any official approval of torture. Your example is certainly extreme, though. It lends to a greater conflict of ethics, doesn't it.

 

[Garrette]

I've said - again, repeatedly - that it should be used only as a last resort, only where time is of the essence, and only where people may well die if that information isn't obtained quickly.

I understand that this is your position. What I do not understand is your implication that these criteria applied to KSM.

What information was he suspected of having which would result in deaths if not obtained quickly? And what other methods were tried first and for how long?

Perhaps I'm not googling well enough, but I can find nothing to indicate that:

1. The United States suspected KSM of having information meeting your criteria

OR

2. KSM revealed any information meeting your criteria

I do not consider anyone to be anti-American just because he or she disagrees with me.

Nor do I.

But I do say that anyone who solemnly and seriously claims that the U.S. is no better than the terrorists it is fighting is anti-American, yes.

As a blanket condemnation, this stance would be mistaken. There is a difference between saying "The behavior of the United States in this instence is no better than the behavior of those it opposes," and saying "Because the United States engages in such behavior at all it is overall on the same level as the terrorists."

I think few if any here are saying the latter, while quite a few are saying the former.

One of the reasons I am certain of a general moral superiority of the United States to terrorists is the United States' aversion to cruel tactics. While instances may arise when cruelty is called for, the aversion remains. In my view, the only way to make it clear that the aversion remains is to be willing to suffer the moral repercussions of morally questionable actions at the individual level.

Offical (and actual) policy must be to forego use of those actions because in your own criteria outlining an immediacy of need, official sanction is not timely. Even if obtainable in a timely fashion, the bureaucracy cannot make a moral decision to step across that official boundary; it takes an individual decision to do that.

And if the individual has determined that the need justifies the action, then the individual needs to be prepared to back it up by saying I did this of my own accord, willingly, based on my assessment that only these reprehensible actions could avert the coming tragedy. While I feel vindicated that I did, in fact, avert the tragedy, I recognize that the cost includes my own status. I now surrender myself to the legal authorities for proper disposition."

If the individual (or the individual agency) is not prepared to pay that individual price, then I submit that their justification for the torture was hollow blathering to begin with.

 

[BPSCG]

This threw me off quite a bit. I feel frustrated when I make an effort to understand another person's take on a subject and try to rephrase it to see if I'm correct and admit I may well not be and give the other person an invitation to correct me and ... I get this in return. I want to understand your side but this negativity makes me want to give up. I'm being respectful to you. Please give me the same consideration.

I don't recall your being in the group that has been ignoring the evidence of KSM, so I wasn't referring to you. Sorry for any misunderstanding due to my ambiguity.

I'm not sure if you're stating your position or asking me a question. If the former then fair enough and thank you for clarifying your position. If the latter then I have to say that I'm not comfortable agreeing to that.

Both, actually (which gets me in trouble with Garrette, above). That is essentially my position. But I'm also asking, would you be opposed to torture under very limited, very strict circumstances such as I've described here?

Do you know without a doubt he has information?

I know only one thing without the slightest doubt, and that is that I exist. Everything else I think I know is clouded by a certain amount of doubt. The question becomes, how much doubt about whether the person has knowledge is acceptable before you torture him? Do you have to be 99.99999% sure? 99.99%? 95%? 50%? If you're 99.99999% sure that he knows where the bomb is that will kill thousands, and he refuses to talk, do you refrain from torturing him based on that 0.00001% chance that he's actually innocent?

Do you know that by torturing him he will give you the information you need? As I stated before I'm not sure where I stand right now. I'm not comfortable with any official approval of torture. Your example is certainly extreme, though.

Yes, it's extreme, but the point is, if you approve of torture in the extreme case, you have to decide where you draw the line. Torture is a horrible thing, and before we do it, we have to ask ourselves if it's worth the terrible cost. It's similar to the question of the death penalty, IMO; they are both a dreadful necessity (IMO), and our use of them does not ennoble us in any way. It brings out a savage side of our nature when confronted with those who savagely attack us, and we must be on guard not to allow that savage beast within to overmaster us.

It lends to a greater conflict of ethics, doesn't it.

Heh. When did I ever say it was easy? What's easy is simply saying, "No, we won't do it, no matter how many people might die, I'm not open to discussion, case closed."

 

[BPSCG]

I understand that this is your position. What I do not understand is your implication that these criteria applied to KSM.

Honestly, I don't know that they did. I've never heard anyone claim that the information gotten from KSM prevented an imminent terrorist attack. But that wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was that he did give up information, under waterboarding, that was instrumental in capturing other terrorists. It could be that waterboarding him might not have been justified under my criteria, but I've never claimed anything about his waterboarding other than that genuinely useful information was gotten out of him. That gives the lie to those who would claim that "torture doesn't work."

As a blanket condemnation, this stance would be mistaken. There is a difference between saying "The behavior of the United States in this instence is no better than the behavior of those it opposes," and saying "Because the United States engages in such behavior at all it is overall on the same level as the terrorists."

I submit that waterboarding someone - an experience from which one makes an almost immediate and total recovery - for what amounts to self-defense (on a national scale) is not remotely comparable to sawing someone's head off. I can understand people's finding waterboarding unacceptably harsh, but to compare it to slowly killing a noncombatant is abhorrent.

I think few if any here are saying the latter, while quite a few are saying the former.

I agree that few here are saying the U.S. is overall no better than the terrorists. But there are a few.

One of the reasons I am certain of a general moral superiority of the United States to terrorists is the United States' aversion to cruel tactics. While instances may arise when cruelty is called for, the aversion remains. In my view, the only way to make it clear that the aversion remains is to be willing to suffer the moral repercussions of morally questionable actions at the individual level.

Offical (and actual) policy must be to forego use of those actions because in your own criteria outlining an immediacy of need, official sanction is not timely. Even if obtainable in a timely fashion, the bureaucracy cannot make a moral decision to step across that official boundary; it takes an individual decision to do that.

And if the individual has determined that the need justifies the action, then the individual needs to be prepared to back it up by saying I did this of my own accord, willingly, based on my assessment that only these reprehensible actions could avert the coming tragedy. While I feel vindicated that I did, in fact, avert the tragedy, I recognize that the cost includes my own status. I now surrender myself to the legal authorities for proper disposition."

I think that's well said. Government officials must always be held accountable for their actions, and be prepared to live with the consequences to themselves for them. Understanding, of course, that the investigation may not only convict them, but might vindicate them. Even when they acted mistakenly, but in good faith and using their own best judgment. A policeman may shoot someone one night because the suspect was brandishing a gun, only to discover that the gun wasn't loaded. He doesn't generally go to prison for that.

If the individual (or the individual agency) is not prepared to pay that individual price, then I submit that their justification for the torture was hollow blathering to begin with.

No argument from this quarter. But can we agree that the individual (or agency) must have some clear understanding of what the acceptable limits are?

 

[KateHL]

I don't recall your being in the group that has been ignoring the evidence of KSM, so I wasn't referring to you. Sorry for any misunderstanding due to my vagueness.

Noted. I feel better now.

Both, actually (which gets me in trouble with Garrette, below). That is essentially my position. But I'm also asking, would you be opposed to torture under very limited, very strict circumstances such as I've described here?

I think I'm inclined to Garrette's solution. Official position is no and if an individual decides to go against that he does so at his own risk. Now, I understand we need to protect the people who protect us but if it's an exceptional case and prevents harm then he can argue defense. If he does it on a whim without good reason or evidence then he can look forward to repercussions. I think that's fair.

Yes, it's extreme, but the point is, if you approve of torture in the extreme case, you have to decide where you draw the line. Torture is a horrible thing, and before we do it, we have to ask ourselves if it's worth the terrible cost.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I think the above solution will prevent a 'horrible thing' in most unjustified cases (though there will always be bullies in positions of power who think they can get away with anything).

Heh. When did I ever say it was easy? What's easy is simply saying, "No, we won't do it, no matter how many people might die, I'm not open to discussion, case closed."

No, it isn't easy. Not at all. I think healthy (if lively) discussions lead to better insight and introspection on the subject. It's difficult to separate the practical and rational from the emotional - on both sides of the argument. But at least we have open discussion. Aren't we civilized!

 

[Garrette]

Honestly, I don't know that they did. I've never heard anyone claim that the information gotten from KSM prevented an imminent terrorist attack. But that wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was that he did give up information, under waterboarding, that was instrumental in capturing other terrorists. It could be that waterboarding him might not have been justified under my criteria, but I've never claimed anything about his waterboarding other than that genuinely useful information was gotten out of him. That gives the lie to those who would claim that "torture doesn't work."

Okay, I follow all that and do not really have a substantive disagreement except the following, the first of which you may construe as simply semantic:

1. You're calling waterboarding torture. I don't know your personal historical stance on it, but many on this forum do not label it that way.

2. The one incident may be the white crow, but it is a far cry from a flock of white crows.

I submit that waterboarding someone - an experience from which one makes an almost immediate and total recovery - for what amounts to self-defense (on a national scale) is not remotely comparable to sawing someone's head off.

No argument here. Then again, I've never been subjected to either.

I can understand people's finding waterboarding unacceptably harsh, but to compare it to slowly killing a noncombatant is abhorrent.

Agreed.

I think that's well said. Government officials must always be held accountable for their actions, and be prepared to live with the consequences to themselves for them. Understanding, of course, that the investigation may not only convict them, but might vindicate them. Even when they acted mistakenly, but in good faith and using their own best judgment. A policeman may shoot someone one night because the suspect was brandishing a gun, only to discover that the gun wasn't loaded. He doesn't generally go to prison for that.

I don't equate it to a policeman's justified but mistaken shooting. It is a given (in the US at least) that policemen will sometimes shoot while on duty. It is not a given that interrogators will sometimes torture.

I haven't thought through all the details, but my general stance is this:

1. I choose to torture

2. The tortured person either does or does not reveal information of immediate need sufficient to avert a tragedy of terrible human cost

3. Regardless if the tortured person reveals such information, I turn myself in for legal proceedings.

4. The legal proceedings may not be terminated locally; they must proceed to jury trial (ignoring for the moment the possibility of national secrets and all that)

5. The results of the torture (i.e., the information obtained) may be introduced as evidence in my trial (for either side) but are not in themselves sufficient to "vindicate" my actions.

6. A perfectly reasonable, just, and acceptable outcome would be: "We the jury find that Garrette acted at all times with the greater interest in mind; we are therefore loathe to pronounce our verdict but duty requires us to find him guilty."

I would undoubtedly be disappointed, even angry, but if I did not feel--before torturing another human being--that averting the potential tragedy was worth not only that human being's rights but my also my own, then I cannot say I acted in a morally superior fashion.

No argument from this quarter. But can we agree that the individual (or agency) must have some clear understanding of what the acceptable limits are?

Oh, yes. That line will always be hotly debated.

 

[BPSCG]

I think I'm inclined to Garrette's solution. Official position is no and if an individual decides to go against that he does so at his own risk.

Um, I have a problem with this. When you say, "the official position is 'no," what you're saying is, it's illegal. That's what an official position is.

Whatever our failings, we are a nation that tries to live by the rule of law. We can't have people being punished based on some arbitrary standard that isn't written down anywhere. That's part of the issue with waterboarding; as you may recall, when Mukasey was being questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee, they asked him if he considered waterboarding to be torture. Lots of people made angry sport of his answer that he didn't know. But in fact, Congress has had the opportunity to define waterboarding as torture, but has not done so. Why not? Interrogators know that torture is illegal, but Congress hasn't actually said that waterboarding is torture, being too busy with weightier matters like baseball steroid investigations, no doubt. Congress could end the debate over waterboarding today, but hasn't chosen to.

So if the AG doesn't know if waterboarding is torture, and Congress refuses to say, what is an interrogator supposed to do when presented with a stubborn terrorist who almost certainly has knowledge with time value that can save or end lives?

And should anyone be put into the position of being told, "Well, there's nothing in writing that says what you did was illegal, but we're going to punish you for it anyway"? Congress is full of lawyers; they should be able to write aqppropriate statutes.

No, it isn't easy. Not at all. I think healthy (if lively) discussions lead to better insight and introspection on the subject. It's difficult to separate the practical and rational from the emotional - on both sides of the argument. But at least we have open discussion. Aren't we civilized!

Frankly, I appreciate both your and Garrette's thoughtful contributions here, even if we aren't all on the same page. One of the things I love about this forum.

 

[BPSCG]

1. You're calling waterboarding torture. I don't know your personal historical stance on it, but many on this forum do not label it that way.

I know. I've been using the term pretty interchangeably with "torture" here, partly as shorthand (as opposed to "waterboarding, an unpleasant interrogation procedure which neither the administration nor Congress has formally defined as torture"), and partly because my own back-of-the-thumb sense of it is that it is something so unpleasant that if it isn't torture, it's certainly torture's first cousin.

I don't equate it to a policeman's justified but mistaken shooting. It is a given (in the US at least) that policemen will sometimes shoot while on duty. It is not a given that interrogators will sometimes torture.

Most policemen go through their entire careers without shooting anyone, let alone shooting someone mistakenly. I think you could as justifiably say most interrogators go through their entire careers without waterboarding anyone, let alone waterboarding without justification. I keep reading that we've only done it to three people since September 11, and not at all since 2005.

1. I choose to torture

2. The tortured person either does or does not reveal information of immediate need sufficient to avert a tragedy of terrible human cost

3. Regardless if the tortured person reveals such information, I turn myself in for legal proceedings.

In the same way that a policeman is investigated after every shooting.

But there has to be a legal foundation for whatever action is taken!
Otherwise the policeman or interrogator is subject to the whim of those doing the investigating.

I would undoubtedly be disappointed, even angry, but if I did not feel--before torturing another human being--that averting the potential tragedy was worth not only that human being's rights but my also my own, then I cannot say I acted in a morally superior fashion.

Are you saying that in a situation where...

1. Many innocent lives were in imminent danger;
2. You were quite certain the suspect had information necessary to save those lives;
3. The suspect, a "hard case," refused to give up the information until he was tortured;
4. The information he gave up under torture proved accurate, and as a result;
5. Thousands of lives were saved;
6. When the waterboarding ended, the suspect immediately made a full recovery, with no lingering trauma...

...the interrogator should still be punished? He should go to prison and quite possibly suffer worse than the suspect?

Sorry, I can't agree.

 

[Garrette]

Most policemen go through their entire careers without shooting anyone, let alone shooting someone mistakenly. I think you could as justifiably say most interrogators go through their entire careers without waterboarding anyone, let alone waterboarding without justification.

To avoid gray areas in this post, I'll get away from waterboarding in particular and substitute "a technique that is undeniably torture like smashing toes with a sledgehammer." (I'm not equating the two).

Shootings by policemen are de facto investigated, but they are not de facto illegal. Torture is de facto illegal. Whether waterboarding falls under the legal definition of torture is a different matter, but whatever does fall under that definition is illegal, and--in my scenario--remains so.

I keep reading that we've only done it to three people since September 11, and not at all since 2005.

On the assumption that waterboarding is torture, that's three times too many as an officially sanctioned action.

But there has to be a legal foundation for whatever action is taken!
Otherwise the policeman or interrogator is subject to the whim of those doing the investigating.

Nothing I have said is contrary to this. Torture would be illegal. Those who torture have committed a crime. Those suspected of torturing are treated as other suspects.

Are you saying that in a situation where...

1. Many innocent lives were in imminent danger;
2. You were quite certain the suspect had information necessary to save those lives;
3. The suspect, a "hard case," refused to give up the information until he was tortured;
4. The information he gave up under torture proved accurate, and as a result;
5. Thousands of lives were saved;
6. When the waterboarding ended, the suspect immediately made a full recovery, with no lingering trauma...

...the interrogator should still be punished? He should go to prison and quite possibly suffer worse than the suspect?

Sorry, I can't agree.

Almost. I'm saying that given the scenario you describe, punishment could still be justified, though how you get "suffer worse than the suspect," I do not know. Unless it's a comment on the state of our prisons and the treatment expected there. That's another thread, though...

Look at it this way: There already exists (at least in the state's with which I have relevant experience) either the precedent or the law that says a lesser crime may be committed if its purpose is the aversion of a greater crime. For example, I can run a red light and drive 50 mph in a school zone if my purpose is to stop the arsonist about to torch the high school. In practice, I would likely not be charged with running a red light or speeding if I actually stop the arsonist, but I could be. If it went to trial, the fact that I stopped the arsonist would certainly be introduced in my defense. I would probably be acquitted, but in theory I might not be. The prosecution might successfully argue that while I was ultimately correct about the arsonist, one of two other things also pertains, and therefore I am guilty anyway:

1. There was a safer way to stop him (I had a cell phone and knew there was a campus cop I could have called)

2. My suspicions about the arsonist, while correct, were not reasonably arrived at; they amounted to a lucky guess which I used to justify a joy ride.


Torture is the same. Keep it illegal. (Define it better, too). Once it is used, and proven, then its use must be defended. Maybe I did stop the nuclear bomb exploding, but it turns out there were other methods that would likely have yielded the same information in the same amount of time. Or whatever.

I'm not expressing myself clearly on this, and for that I apologize, and I don't think I'll convince you, but I hope my stance is a bit more plain.

 

[kallsop]

So all this fuss is about running a little water up the noses of only three terrorists?

The procedure is useless now because the enemy is trained for it, and without the element of surprise, it's not effective - because it isn't torture.

 

[Garrette]

So all this fuss is about running a little water up the noses of only three terrorists?

No. It's about waterboarding, which your attempted cuteness does not adequately describe.

The procedure is useless now because the enemy is trained for it,

No.

and without the element of surprise, it's not effective -

Whether or not it is effective is at best marginally dependent on surprise.

because it isn't torture.

Debatable.