Torture: Finally, A Real Values Issue

Ahh The poor Jihadist, still suffering from her Islamic brainwashing and still believing in "pwtfft"s!!! And note again not one word about the country that perfected terror and torture i.e. the Islamic terror theocracy of Iran.

But again we offer her and her fellow Islamics our Five Step Deprogramming method:

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to the your brainwashed neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Really???? Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) is more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron deletion. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Welcome back, Jihadist!

We are agreed on Concerned.

Dear Schmoozealert -

Sorry to disappoint, but Christianity doesn't measure up to those things in life that anger me. It isn't any more an antagonism to me than is, say, a deep belief in the paranormal.

Anger is the wrong word as anger doesn't enter into the equation for me when considering religion. Mild bemusement and bewilderment comes closer to what I feel about religious beliefs in general. That doesn't mean that I treat the subject flippantly when posting here.

My anger is reserved for the actions of primates like gw bush and his cronies.

As to disdain. You have a point there.

>>So, why do I lump all Xians together? For the same reason that you lump all of the bushies together. The exception to the rule IS A GIVEN. But until that exception becomes the MAJORITY aspect of a group, then the not-so-flattering generality stands.

Mr. Mark's 'generalities' obviously stem from many years of disdain toward Christianity as a whole. As he is playing judge toward Christians and Christianity, one could equally ponder how many not-so-flattering generalities would apply to him, too. Certainly not an easy person to have dialogue with. Alot of anger there.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:)

Hello pussycat. Miss lobbing missiles and nuking me here? And always missing but hitting everyone else as collateral damage? I'm still standing:)

I'm a Muslim. We're used to self-torture and being tortured in one way or another. Go ahead, torture me with Madonna's latest public persona and music styles.

I see you've been busy doing "shock and awe" even on your fellow Americans on the question of torture. The "firstist" and the "mostest", eh.

I don't recall anyone of them making first strike at you.

Aren't you supposed to defend your fellow Americans, and not to carpetbomb them?

And stop torturing Victoria. She's your fellow American even if she's a Muslim. American Muslims have rights like other Americans, no?

Ah, the creative need for torture. Waterboarding is right up there with oral sex when I have to explain them to my children. So, now we know waterboarding is not a cool new watersport.

Sleep and food deprivation for two days? With water allowed? Won't work for me as a form of torture. Used to fasting and staying up all night for prayers during Ramadan. And going for up to four days without food and sleep and just liquids to finish up term papers and work projects.

Torturing people with very loud crass rock music on speakers around their home is one way. Ask Noriega when he was holed up in a Holy See.

You: "War is Hell!!!"

Moi: "Good to know that you've watched that movie, "All Quiet on the Western Front" to use that as a quote here. Now, go rent or buy "Dr. Strangelove" and "Full Metal Jacket". And reread Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and Clausewitz's "On War".

You: "For all those global "sideliners" and "goody goodshoes", welcome to Hell and all its terror and torture of waterboardings, beheadings and bombs!!!"

Moi : Global "sideliners"? You mean those "sidelined" of their lands, homes and lives for one's objectives attained with guns and bombs?

"Goody goodshoes"? Is is not goody two shoes? And what is wrong with being a goody goodshoes or goody two shoes. They never start fights.

Short notes:

Waterboarding is a form of torture.

Beheadings is a form of punishment.

Showing beheadings is a form of torture for the living.

Bombs are life and environmental killers and not just punishments, vengeance, revenge or war-enders.

But, never mind. As you've served five years in the military, perhaps one should understand that you're trained to kill, kill, kill and see enemies everywhere. If none, create one.

Perhaps one should understand that a soldier is needed to be brainwashed to see the enemy as evil and vile to make it easier to justify and rationalise torturing and killing them and keep one's conscience clean.

Unfortunately, I was never in the military and never a soldier who have to witness or torture, shot, bomb and kill people without question and as directed by my superior officers.

Unfortunately, I never have to be linguistically crass all the time to desensitise myself to what I have to do to hate, torture and kill.

Unfortunately, I never have to think of and come out with creative forms of torture and to kill because it is for God and country.

Unfortunately, I have seen the impact of the too coldy planned and efficient military killings, bombings and tortures. Soldiers move in, move out after their task is done. Civilians are left to pick up the pieces.

Perhaps some soldiers after leaving the service, should do a Five Step Prgramme to at least "demilitarise" their communications with their fellow Americans. With me, go ahead Rambo. Nuke away. Bomb away, shot away, militant baby:)

"J"

Karen writes:

"I don't think it would too tough for you to say: some christians or even most christians..."

Why do you need a qualifier? When someone says "Democrats care for the poor," we don't require a qualifier like "some" or "most." Same with, "Republics support bush in spite of his treason." No "some" or "more" needed there, either.

As I said, the exception to the rule is a given, whether it's Christians, Democrats or fish mongers. No special pleading is needed just because we're speaking about some religious group. Every "group" moniker is generalized. Even you write to Daniel as "a fellow Christian." There's lots of differences between Xian sects. Shouldn't you be more specific in addressing Daniel if he belongs to a different sect than you? Aren't you "lumping him in with all Xians?"

Unless you are going to start writing "some or most" for each and every group identity you mention in your posts, I don't see why it should be required of me when I mention a religious group.

As far as "setting up barriers between us," I would only mention that there are plenty of barriers between the Xian sects right now. As a Xian, you might do well to work on tearing down those barriers first.

Re: my being offensive - that's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Concerned: don't have a copy, but I doubt the UCMJ says torture is ok as long as the subject's leaders haven't signed the Geneva Convention. and if you can believe the military has been torturing prisoners for decades and successfully keeping it a secret, you can believe anything.

To: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

I notice that you are, for the time being, at least, actually posting your real thoughts, and not just copying and pasting the same thing over and over. I am actually reading your comments, to find out what you think. Isn't that better, don't you think?

Even if terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Conventions, that is unimportant. The Geneva Conventions were not designed and adopted to restrain Americans from torturing anybody, since it has always been tabooed and forbidden under the American ethos. We can do just as well with it, or without it.

The Geneva Conventions have only one purpose: to establish legal accountability for parties that DO torture. We, Americans, shouldn't have to split hairs over what may or may not be torture, since it goes against the American ethos. Hair-splitting over torture is for people like Putin, or Mushrif, not for us; since we don't torture at all, period! That is, up until the advent of Bush.

Karen

Upon reminding me, I think I saw your reply, but it got all mixed up with Rich, since he copied and pasted your remarks a few times. I got a little mixed up about who was commenting on whom. I suppose it is kind of mixed up mess here, just like real life.

Mr Mark: The reason I said Bush and Co. was for brevity's sake and for the significant fact that it is Bush and Co that set policy, the likes of Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil having had to leave in frustration because they could not make themselves heard and could not influence the decision making process. So I really don't think that your comparison stands.

For my part, I do not lump all atheists together because I know that they are a diverse group just as christians are a very diverse group. There are atheists who have nothing but contempt for people like me and always grace us with the amazing news that no one with half a brain or any intellect could possibly believe in God. Then there are those who are very considerate like A Hermit who say let's us agree to disagree but work together on the things that we agree on such as the environment, human rights etc.

I don't think it would too tough for you to say: some christians or even most christians...Unless you really mean to set up barriers between all of us and be offensive, thus deterring the possibility of dialogue.

A. Hermit and Joet,

Sleep tight tonight and we accept your not so appreciative words as evidence that we continue to protect free speech unlike the countries of Iran, North Korea, China and Russia.

Hmmm, "Me thinks", terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Therefore the US Military Code of Justice is a non-issue.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/genevaConventions/gc-schmitt.html

And the success of interrogation will never be reported in a terror filled world in order to protect those that "ratted" on their fellow low lifes.

Karen asks:

"Mr. Mark and others in the same vein:
why do you keep lumping all Christians in the same bag? So many of us have so many times posted to say that we do not approve of Bush and Co and have not voted to put them in office."

Why do YOU keep lumping everybody in the bush administration together? That's what you do when you write, "and Co," isn't it? Yet, there are surely have been and continue to be a few exceptions to the rule in the bush administration, people like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke who served in the bush administration but came out swinging against them once they left.

So, why do I lump all Xians together? For the same reason that you lump all of the bushies together. The exception to the rule IS A GIVEN. But until that exception becomes the MAJORITY aspect of a group, then the not-so-flattering generality stands.

Daniel: as a fellow christian, I did respond to you I think on thursday or friday, as well as to Norrie Hoyt and Mr Mark. Did you not see my response?

Dear Duckphup -

I couldn't disagree more with your last post.

I'd say that you are the one who has, "thrown up their hands and said, 'Oh, well, I know that torture doesn't work, but what the hell. I'm out of ideas.' "

Strange how you don't apply the same standard that you do for torture to a belief in deities, as in throwing up your hands and saying, "Oh well, we can't explain everything, so what the hell? We may as well believe god did it."

Why anyone would believe that a time constraint of 24 hours would make torture methods effective when the same methods have proven unreliable time and again when employed over days, weeks and even months? It's beyond reason.

There is always a better option than torture, an option that will actually produce a good result. The fallacy is in assuming that torture would have a chance of extracting good information in the scenario you outlined. The chances of that happening are about as good as Jesus making an appearance to get the information from the subject. The problem is in the "eventually" of the methods used, and torture has a worse track record at getting info than do other methods.

We have to accept that in some situations, there is no answer that will appear as a knight in shining armor to make it all better. Sometimes, the bomb will go off no matter what we do. Deluding ourselves to believe that torture will somehow step in to save the day is as ludicrous as believing that a fervent prayer to Jesus will have the same effect in the same situation.

I usually find myself in agreement with you. Not this time.

Concerned: you just keep dodging. If your SAC generals would waterboard, they would be courtmartialed - period, end of debate. what difference does it make that the Geneva Convention allows stuff that would still be unpleasant? are you suggesting that the UCMJ is just window dressing that any decent general will ignore?

On Thursday, I posted this:

"To: Pierre PC

You are exactly right. Among the vocal Christians on this page, there is a distinct and disturbing disconnect. They are Christians and believe in God, Jesus, the resurrection of the soul, and Heaven. Yet they also support torture, which is against God, against Jesus, against all normal and standard morality that I have been taught or that I have even ever heard of.

And they are afraid. They are afraid of what may happen next. Their belief in God, in Jesus, in the ressurection of the soul, and in Heavan is all for naught, and empty and hollow beliefs, if they can not find even a tiny ounce of assurance and courage in these beliefs, that they can live moral and upright lives, in the hope of a happy future, without devolving into torture.

What sayest thou, fellow Christians, to this?"

There was no response, for or against. I would like one of the "Christians-for-torture" to explain why torture is a Christian value.
(Hint: think about it good and hard, before you start to type).

CCNL bleats:

..."Old A. Hermit is having a bad day hiding in his cold Canadian cave as US spy satellites keeps him safe and free just like I proudly did in the 1960's"...

Actually those ABM silos just South of where I grew up were probably the biggest threat to my safety at the time; like painting a big old bullseye next door to Grandpa's sugar beet fields...

And somehow the thought of those spy satellites keeping track of us and our communications doesn't make me feel safer, just violated by the "Daddy State" you bedwetters need to kep you feeling protected from the Bogieman...

Thanks for nothing...;-)

Duckphup stated, "Never say 'never'.

Assume: We have certain knowledge that a nuclear device (purchased from rogue elements within the Russian miitary) has been smuggled into New York city... and that it has been set to explode in the next 2 hours. We have captured a known terrorist who we have long suspected to be involved in a plot to accomplish exactly that... and we have every reason to believe that he knows where this device is located."

So, we could somehow find out 1) the exact type of device involved, 2) exactly how it was acquired, 3) the city in which it is currently placed, 4) the exact time of detonation, and 5) one individual who positively knows the exact location. However, the exact location is unknown to us? How could we possibly determine all of that specific information? We couldn't, and that's why such "examples" are meaningless.

Duckphup then asked "Would you not do whatever might be necessary to extract the required information from the individual?"

No, I would not become that which I detest.

Duckphup continued "SOMEBODY would have the MORAL courage to rise ABOVE the prevailing law and sense of ethics, put the safety of the community above the inevitable consequences and penalties associated with his actions... and do what was necessary to extract the information that would terminate the inevitable calamity."

If you aren't willing to do it yourself, personally, then you shouldn't be condoning it. Because, if you couldn't personally do it, then you know it's wrong.

For the imagined scenerio described above, in which millions of people might die, depending upon the rapid extraction of vital information from a prisoner, would torture be acceptable?

That is a special case, the most extreme case imaginable, which is unlikely to happen. But if it does happen, the people involved can decide what to do at that time. If they think they could get the information by torturing the prisoner, then that is a decision that they would have to make at that moment, whether it is legal or not.

People violate the laws all of the time, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for reasons that are not so good. When such cases are tried, there is a legal term called "mmitigating circumstances" which alters the guilt of the accused in the eyes of the law.

I do not think that torture should be legal to cover this particular case. If I and my family were starving, I might steal food, but that does not mean that I believe that stealing should be legal. I would commit an illegal act due to the extreme circumstance.

I think people are a little confused here about the rule of law, and what it means. The theory of our politcal and economic system is founded on the concept of rule of law. The whole society is synchronized around the rule of law.

People mostly go along with the rule of law because that is instilled in us from an early age. There is a sort of agreement among us all that we all accept and believe in the rule of law. And mostly, we obey the laws.

However, people can violate the laws anytime they choose. People speed; people smoke marijuana; people have sex in public.

Some people take it further; some people rob banks; some people steal cars; some people commit murder. They do all of these things, despite the fact that there are laws forbidding all these things.

I think that under our rule of law, torture should be forbidden and tabooed. However, if there is an extreme occasison, when the lives of millions may depend upon the rapid extraction of vital information from a prisoner, then the people involved at that time must decide what they are to do, knowing that they may be violating the law.

Bizarre and far-fetched scenarios that might somehow justify the use of torture on one or perhaps a few individuals in order to save millions seems more like the feverish exercise of a vivid imagination rather than anything based in real-world possibilities.

Ironically, the threat of nuclear holocaust implied here is also a work of the imagination, and one unlikely to be undone by the torture of one person. No body stopped us in Japan as I recall.

Had the USA pursued Islamic extremists/terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than setting off an endless war in a country posing no threat to America, we may not even be having this discussion - but who knows?? Today is what it is, with no end in sight.

It might be better to employ our collective imaginations in finding a solution to problems
that we've helped to create ourselves (never forgetting the elected representatives that largely got us where we are today).

But no one is going to dissuade advocates of torture and/or Bush foreign policy on this blog. More is the pity.....

In my previous life way back in the 60's I was a flight controller for fighters, bombers and sundry aircraft for the USAF, so I've seen it up close and personal like. That said, I'm not an advocate of torture under any circumstances - it's both futile and de-humanizing as many here have pointed out in countless ways.

Old A. Hermit is having a bad day hiding in his cold Canadian cave as US spy satellites keeps him safe and free just like I proudly did in the 1960's. Time to bill him for the service??

And the key to all this torture/terror talk is to simply outsource it to Islamic Pakistan. Or simply use the more effective two day sleep and food deprivation, or booze and/or truth serums. War is Hell!!!

Hmmm, the codes of US Military Justice and the Geneva Convention?? I dare say there are some provisions for appropriate, effective interrogation methods that "goody goodshoes" probably would not approve of.

Sternberg regurgitates the Party Propaganda Line:

..."Torture in olden times broke both bodies and mind and was used to extract desired confessions.
The US does none of those things, but instead uses phsychological warfare to gain information that can be verified. We then leave the Interagatee, whole and capable of performing every act of skill or mental acumen that he was previously capable of."...

I'm guessing Sternberg and the rest of the torture fans here have never met someone who's been tortured...it's not the physical scars that are the worst; it's the loss of humanity; it's never feeling safe again, the never ending nightmares and fear that torture inflicts.

Your government is now doing this, often to innocent people, just so the bedwetters can feel safe and enjoy the vicarious thrill of a perceived revenge.

As Pogo said "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us."

Regards

A Hermit

Concerned the Christians squeals:

"Hmmm, unless you can show written documentation that the SAC generals would not have used/approved the (topic) torture"

There are written documents to that effect; its called the Geneva Conventions and the US Military Code of Justice.

You might want to refer to the WWII war crimes trials of Japanese camp guards who convicted of using waterboarding, or to the history of the Spanish American War, during which American soldiers were convicted by American courts-martial for using waterboarding Phillipino prisoners.

Sounds to me like you're a disgrace to that uniform you say you wore...American soldiers are supposed to be men of honour, not savages.

Regards

A Hermit

Never say 'never'.

Assume: We have certain knowledge that a nuclear device (purchased from rogue elements within the Russian miitary) has been smuggled into New York city... and that it has been set to explode in the next 2 hours. We have captured a known terrorist who we have long suspected to be involved in a plot to accomplish exactly that... and we have every reason to believe that he knows where this device is located.

Would you not do whatever might be necessary to extract the required information from the individual?

Screw water-boarding... chances are, enduring that was a part of his training regimen. Bring on the burning bamboo splinters under the fingernails. Heck... I'd be looking into the torture manuals and procedures from the Spanish Inquisition. There was one particularly innovative method that involved placing a rat on a person's abdomen... strapping a metal bowl over it... and then setting a small fire on top of it, so that the rat's only means of escape was by burrowing...

Yeah... that might do it.

I most certainly agree that resort to such measures should not be a routine part of doing the routine business of interrogating and extracting information... and I would strongly oppose anyone who advocated such measures. However... despite my moral objections (based primarily on squeamishness... and the idea that if it was OK to torture people in general, then it would be OK for somebody to torture me), I would hope that in such circumstances that I have described, SOMEBODY would have the MORAL courage to rise ABOVE the prevailing law and sense of ethics, put the safety of the community above the inevitable consequences and penalties associated with his actions... and do what was necessary to extract the information that would terminate the inevitable calamity.

Or... I suppose... everybody could just throw up their hands, and say "Oh, well... threats and harsh language did not work... and it's against the law and prevailing secular humanist ethics to cause this guy any discomfort. So... we might as well just have a cup of coffee and wait for the bomb to go off, and get incinerated along with the 4.2 million other New Yorkers who can't get out of town. We can, however, die smug and satisfied in the knowledge that this miscreant will die with us."

I don't know about you Susan... but I'd be one of the guys who was running around looking for a rat, or a suitable metal mixing bowl and a strap... arguing about which would have the greater psychological impact... heating the bowl with a propane torch?... everybody forming a circle and doing it with their Bic lighters?... building a small fire?...

Joet,

Hmmm, unless you can show written documentation that the SAC generals would not have used/approved the (topic) torture e.g. waterboarding or sleep/deprivation, your childlike observations are outside the realm of reality. Of course, with the weapons under their command, they already imposed mental terror and torture on the citizens and military of the USSR.

Too bad that you don't want do some minor self-"terroring"/torturing. You would learn a lot from the experience.

Concerned: why would I try it? thanks for your service. I was born at a SAC missle base hospital while my dad was serving in the Phillipines. Any general in that war would have been executed as a war criminal for waterboarding (which was the topic, not sleep deprivation).

Joet,

Hmmm, my buddies and I protected the USA citizens in USA cities with local Nike Missiles and radars. No enemies to torture. The general I served under, however, would have had no problem with imposing some sleep and food deprivation.

How goes your self-imposed torture i.e. two days without sleep and food?

Concerned: so he who tortures the mostest fastest wins? I'm sure war and torture come in degrees, but the difference between them isn't just one of degree. I dare say you never served under any general who thought torture was a tactical option.

and if a couple sleepless nights without food is enough to crack you, I'm glad you weren't captured with any usefull information.

Joet,

I learned a lot in my five years in the US military to include two important principles i.e. "War is Hell" (General Sherman's burning of Georgia) and "The Firstist with the Mostest" wins the battle/war".

Hell/War is terror and torture, so yes indeed terror/torture come in degrees/scale.

Another thing I learned is that most individuals will sell their mothers after two days without sleep or food i.e. waterboarding not needed.

Rich,

My questions to you were in response to you claiming 3 innocent people tortured were not enough for you. And you take that as me saying the people who died in the World Trade Center towers were guilty of something? Talk about grasping at straws.

You said:
"Mistakes will be made and innocent people will die. I guess you thought all those people in the towers were guilty of something then, right?"

By your logic in that statement, America was responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Nice.

Rich: I believe it's Marquis, not Marcus. are you really arguing that since Osama hasn't signed the Geneva Convention we get to torture anyone we label a terrorist? We considered the Japanese subhuman in WWII, and I don't recall McCarthur ever entertaining torture as appropriate. Dont recall anyone calling him a pinko pansy.

Concerned: are you really arguing that the only difference between dropping the bomb and torturing an individual is scale? as soon as we call it war, anything goes?

"Marcus of Queensbury rules will not protect us. "

This is what it all boils down to for people like Rich; "I'm afraid" he whimpers, "please protect me, I don't care who you hurt or how you do it, just please please make me feel safe Daddy!!"

Unprincipled, unthinking cowardice is all it is. Pathetic, really...

A Hermit

Andrea:

Rich,

How many innocent people tortured would be enough for you? Is one enough? Do you need more innocent people to be tortured in order for you to acknowledge the fact that it's ineffective? What's your limit?"

According to your logic there Andrea then we should do nothing for fear of making a mistake. Do not bomb or attack a house or area for fear of hitting the wrong person. Your logic would imply then that we simply wait till they are attacking us here so as not to hit the wrong person. Mistakes will be made and innocent people will die. I guess you thought all those people in the towers were guilty of something then, right? Marcus of Queensbury rules will not protect us.

Andrea:

Rich,

How many innocent people tortured would be enough for you? Is one enough? Do you need more innocent people to be tortured in order for you to acknowledge the fact that it's ineffective? What's your limit?"

According to your logic there Andrea then we should do nothing for fear of making a mistake. Do not bomb or attack a house or area for fear of hitting the wrong person. Your logic would imply then that we simply wait till they are attacking us here so as not to hit the wrong person. Mistakes will be made and innocent people will die. I guess you thought all those people in the towers were guilty of something then, right? Marcus of Queensbury rules will not protect us.

Pierre JC:

Hey Rich:
Thanks for proving my point.
Of those who oppose torture, you said, "Their argument is you are a Nazi or Hitler or Stalin or the Romans, a liar, stupid."
You deliberately avoid the obvious issue (Is Torture Moral?) because you obviously cannot win that argument.
Torture is immoral, but you are too much of a coward to admit it. Or else you are so morally retarded (i.e., conservative) to understand that fact; you believe that torture is sometimes a good thing. How sickening.
You also said, "You fire those words off to anyone that does not tow your line." That's right, Rich, I exercise freedom of expression! This is clearly an affront to you. Too bad you live in a democracy where people can express any political idea they please.
"I know you want to lump everything in as one." Actually, Rich, you don't have the faintest idea of what I want. You presume to know what I think, even without my expressing it. How do you do that, Rich -- does Jesus whisper my thoughts into your ear? Thanks for providing such a clear and unmistakable example of the vile egotism of the typical conservative. You have proven my point most brilliantly. Bravo!

You also said, "You fire those words off to anyone that does not tow your line." That's right, Rich, I exercise freedom of expression! This is clearly an affront to you. Too bad you live in a democracy where people can express any political idea they please.
"I know you want to lump everything in as one." Actually, Rich, you don't have the faintest idea of what I want. You presume to know what I think, even without my expressing it. How do you do that, Rich -- does Jesus whisper my thoughts into your ear? Thanks for providing such a clear and unmistakable example of the vile egotism of the typical conservative. You have proven my point most brilliantly. Bravo!"

Pete, that is your name, right? Simply saying I prove your point doesn't make it so. Now you need to do a little more reading of my posts before pulling things out to fit your own view. Now it would seem all you have is name calling to back you your opinion. I think your post here just proved my point that all the left can do is call you names. Here is just another quote by you in this post:

" Pierre JC: Torture is immoral, but you are too much of a coward to admit it. Or else you are so morally retarded (i.e., conservative) to understand that fact; you believe that torture is sometimes a good thing. How sickening."

Talk about proving my point. I could hardly say it better myself there Pete. Keep up the good work and I will not need to post other then repeating your own words. Keep up the hate there Pete. It works well on the left.

A Hermit:

Rich:
I see form your reply that you can't be bothered to look at the facts; did you visit any of the links I gave you?

Innocent people are being tortured in your name; are you so frightened that you are willing to let that happen?

You should be ashamed...

Regards

A Hermit"

I seen some of your websites and I am just not buying what they are selling. Also, you pointed to three people and yet proclaimed nearly all of those at gitmo. Now that to me sounds like a big difference. Maybe you need to go back and read your leftists sites again to double check your own facts. I need better sources then the Anti-American ACLU. Everyone knows they are not an American organization. Heck they are fighting for illegal aliens now. Tell me that is an American group.

Paganplace,

It depends on your definitions of torture and terror. I see no difference.

On a microscale we have waterboardings and beheadings or a threat thereof.

On a macroscale, we have dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. You might argue the morality of it all, but it did effectively end WWII.

Paganplace,

Hmmm, you bring up the subject of torture by Islamics. Actually, I point out the flaws in the founders and foundations of Islam as noted below. Note the absence of the word "torture".

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic Shiite terror theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Of course, I have noted that torture and terror are sometimes synonymous as noted below:

Torture and terror come in different degrees. Micro torture/terror would be waterboarding as supposedly practiced by our military and intelligence agengies or beheadings of Iraqi Shiites by Sunni intelligence groups and vice versa.

Well worth repeating: thank you SJ.

There may not be a just God, but there is always a reckoning for sanctioning or turning a blind eye to practices that violate fundamental human rights.

TORTURE IS MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE IN EVERY CASE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PERPETRATOR OR THE OBJECT OF THE TORTURE.

Rich:
I see form your reply that you can't be bothered to look at the facts; did you visit any of the links I gave you?

Innocent people are being tortured in your name; are you so frightened that you are willing to let that happen?

You should be ashamed...

Regards

A Hermit

I mean, hey, Concerned, didn't you spend a few months obsessively-telling us we should hate all Muslims *because* some Muslims and their governments use torture?

Why should we be thought of any differently if we go there?

Why don't we stand up, as you say Muslims should, and *stop our government from doing it?*

I'd like to, but I'm a Pagan, ...all-but-totally denied a voice in what the government does in my name.

About the best I *can* do is say no.

A majority of Americans, in fact, say no, but our 'faith-based' government simply disregards those voices as 'liberal' or 'ungodly' or 'unpatriotic.'

Personally, the more I hear from those who support torture, the *less* I feel that some fantastic 'extenuating circumstances' could even be *recognized* by these people, never mind adhered to.

There's a reason the Constitution denies them this power, and our pious President's signing statements aside, they still should be.

All the more.

Concerned, we've already learned that torture is no way to win wars in the first place, as if torturers deserved to win, anyway.

There is nothing religious or humanly moral about Hell but sometimes we must go there to learn the methods to win wars.

Frankly, I have a hard time taking anyone who claims there is any religious or humanistic justification for torture seriously.

Rich, are you serious? You make me ashamed to be an American. To think that we have to destroy a country (that had nothing to do with 9/11) to be secure? You have offered nothing to any of these arguments but typical smug right-wing nonsense straight from a politician or Rush Limbaugh. Do us all a favor. Don't vote.

War is Hell!!! For all those global "sideliners" and "goody goodshoes", welcome to Hell and all its terror and torture of waterboardings, beheadings and bombs!!!

In a posting above, Rich has generously provided us with the essential nature of the morally bankrupt conservative:
"I know the left has no qualms about giving up a few more Americans so we do not have to crawl into the gutter to catch the rats."
Anyone with intelligence understands that governments make mistakes, sometimes quite often. Rich understands this, too. If the U.S. engages in torture, some innocent people will inevitably be tortured. In all liklihood, they will not be white, nor Christian, nor American.
So here is the essence of Rich's point of view:
There's something terrible about innocent Americans being tortured, but nothing wrong with innocent non-Americans being tortured.
What hateful, idiotic, tribalist nonsense.

Hey Rich:
Thanks for proving my point.
Of those who oppose torture, you said, "Their argument is you are a Nazi or Hitler or Stalin or the Romans, a liar, stupid."
You deliberately avoid the obvious issue (Is Torture Moral?) because you obviously cannot win that argument.
Torture is immoral, but you are too much of a coward to admit it. Or else you are so morally retarded (i.e., conservative) to understand that fact; you believe that torture is sometimes a good thing. How sickening.
You also said, "You fire those words off to anyone that does not tow your line." That's right, Rich, I exercise freedom of expression! This is clearly an affront to you. Too bad you live in a democracy where people can express any political idea they please.
"I know you want to lump everything in as one." Actually, Rich, you don't have the faintest idea of what I want. You presume to know what I think, even without my expressing it. How do you do that, Rich -- does Jesus whisper my thoughts into your ear? Thanks for providing such a clear and unmistakable example of the vile egotism of the typical conservative. You have proven my point most brilliantly. Bravo!

Rich: We are (I mean, we were) discussing Susan Jacoby's essay. Scroll back up to the top and read it. Then maybe you would have more of a clue about the topic. It was a fairly intelligent exchange of ideas, but now, it has sort of fizzled out. Thank you very much.

Arminius:

Daniel,

You came to your senses. Might as well argue with a brick wall - at least it won't insult your intelligence.

To all you pathetic, benighted souls who support torture: it might interest you that at one time, it was illegal in the good ol' US of A. Even a sheriff in Texas - yes, Texas, home of that sad moron who's now leaving knuckle-dragging tracks in the White House carpet - that sheriff was sent to jail for 10 years for waterboarding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

Read it and weep."

Since when is this about anyone other then Gitmo or terrorists. Me thinks you want to change it to something else. Unless this guy was deemed an enemy combatant and sent off to gitmo I think you are arguing about something else then. Take that case up with your state rep. I am sure he would be more then willing to look into it for you.

Ok Hermit, you listed three names. That is a far cry from most of the people being held there. Care to revise your remarks? I'll stick with the numbers from the government, sorry. I guess you are of the mind we have put down around 650k or more Iraqi's. Am I correct. With the millions that have left the country should be getting empty. We need only keep the pressure on and we can start over. Maybe make that the 51st state or something. Ignoring the real threat in front of your face will be what brings down the country. I am not of the mind that feels we should wait till they are building a new golden mosque in downtown Pittsburgh for us all to kneel to before doing something.

Daniel,

You came to your senses. Might as well argue with a brick wall - at least it won't insult your intelligence.

To all you pathetic, benighted souls who support torture: it might interest you that at one time, it was illegal in the good ol' US of A. Even a sheriff in Texas - yes, Texas, home of that sad moron who's now leaving knuckle-dragging tracks in the White House carpet - that sheriff was sent to jail for 10 years for waterboarding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

Read it and weep.

Don't mind Rich. He is not a serious person. Why argue with him?

But we are not talking about being in a death match, or fighting hand to hand combat, or defending our homes and families from thugs breaking in and trying to kill us.

We are talking about pre-meditated torture as an instrument of government policy, conducted by government bureaucrats, who are cool, calm, and collected.

Rich is a little mixed up.

Rich replies:

..."Now can you back up those numbers there Hermit? Can you give us a list of those torture tactics that been applied to all these innocent people? Now going without cable or having to touch pork is not torture, keep in mind."...

You can start here:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/ourcases/current-cases/freedom-information-act%3A-ghost-detention-and-extraordinary-rendition-case

or try Amensty INternational, Human Rights Watch and the Red Cross.

Or google the names of Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nureddin and Ahmad El Maati (all Canadian citizens illegally detained by Amrican officials, illegally deported to third countries and tortured on your behalf) all were exonerated of any links to terrorism; or look up the case of Dilawar; the Afghan taxi driver tortured to death in American hands at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan.

It's not about "going without cable", by the way, it's about being beaten with cables (one of the methods used on Arar in particular.)

Wake up Rich! Your country is in peril, but not in the way you think it is...

Regards

A Hermit

Rich,

How many innocent people tortured would be enough for you? Is one enough? Do you need more innocent people to be tortured in order for you to acknowledge the fact that it's ineffective? What's your limit?

Rich says:

.."It is what it is Hermit. That is exactly my point. We all have our opinions and yours, mine or his makes no matter as neither of us are running the show."...

Public opinion does matter in a Democracy, and in this case the opinion of of people like Nance and others who have actual first hand experience of these things matter very much. (That's why they are asked to testify in fronmt of government committees.) As for the rest of us, we have a duty as citizens to be as informed as possible, and not to just follow the Leader or accept official pronouncements without criticism or dissent. You, and too many of you r contrymen, have allowed the terrorists to accomplish their goal; they have cowed you into abandoning your principles. As demonstrated by your next comment:

..."Being on the winning side in death match is enough moral high ground for me."...

So "might makes right" does it? Even if this was a "death match" I wouldn't agree, since if we abandon the principles by which we have established a free society we have effectively killed that society ourselves.

In truth it is not the terrorists who will destroy America; they do not have that power, never did and never will. If America dies it will be because too many people have chosen, as you have, to kill all that was good about America for the sake of their own misguided fear. Turning a blind eye to horrors like torture practiced in your name is the first nail in the coffin.

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit says:

Are you aware that many of the people tortured by American forces, or on behalf of you and the rest of your so-easily terrified countrymen have turned out to be innocent of any connection to terrorism?"

Now can you back up those numbers there Hermit? Can you give us a list of those torture tactics that been applied to all these innocent people? Now going without cable or having to touch pork is not torture, keep in mind.

Ender,

The update on the War on Terror stands on its own merits and can be verified by simply reading/watching the news (e.g.CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS)every day.

And apparently you have never served your country in any respect other than paying your taxes and voting for Gore and Kerry??

And we should allow our military members who are or have been in combat decide proper interrogation methods. During my short (five years) service in the military, I took on the Russian bear and beat him. The closest I got to combat was the inspection of viscious guard dogs around Nike Missile sites and also one three day escape and evasion course. The simple lack of food and sleep for two days plus a few threats to put you in a 4'X 4' X 4' box for a few hours, broke most participants. Muslims are not any tougher even with all the koran has taught them.

Daniel:

To: Ender

(Rich copies and pastes other people's posts under his own name, as a setup to his snappy replies at the end, but he doesn't put any quotes, or references, or separation marks to let you know what he is doing, and it all sort of runs together; that is what the problem is I think).

I sent a complaint that he was being a pest. I am not sure if the WaPo filters out pests or not, but it would be nice if they did."

If you read the posts you would see the quotations at the end that separate your posts from my rebuttals. I know someone fighting back against your edicts would be considered a pest as you would like the sheep to just follow you to the slaughter. Complain all you want. Typical left, silence those that do not agree. I guess I should then report you as well, right Dannie?

It is what it is Hermit. That is exactly my point. We all have our opinions and yours, mine or his makes no matter as neither of us are running the show. Being on the winning side in death match is enough moral high ground for me. Now if you want to give up your life because we should play by Marcus of Queensbury, then feel free. I'd like to think we can do without war but like or not there is evil out there and sometimes you just have to crawl in the gutter. In the famous words of Rooster Cogburn: is the rat catcher to tough on the rats?

Regards.

Rich states:

...Now as far as one man goes, that is his opinion but we can find doubters even among the Lord. Yes I remember there was Judas that thought the Lord's way was not the right way. He is entitled to his opinion and last time I check there was no draft and he could surely step aside or blow the whistle were he not inclined to do what is asked. Now I would surely love to see that long list of murder and torture our friend in the military stakes out...

Well, read the link if you want to see, Rich. Are you suggesting this veteran is a Judas, because he has a different (and undoubtedly better informed) opinion than you do? So much for "supporting the troops" I guess!

And it's not just this one man's opinion, Rich; it is the opinion of the retired JAG officers who wrote to Congress to oppose Mukasey's nomination; it is the opinion of the expert interrogators who have spoken publicly about this issue.

Are you aware that Nato and American forces have killed more civilians in Afghanistan this year than the Taliban have? DO you think that endears us to the population there?

Are you aware that more Iraqi civilians have died as a result of Coalition airstrikes than from terror attacks? Does that help our cause?

Are you aware that many of the people tortured by American forces, or on behalf of you and the rest of your so-easily terrified countrymen have turned out to be innocent of any connection to terrorism?

Does embracing brutality and inhumanity make you proud? Is being "not quite as bad as Saddam? a good enough moral standard for you?

I'd like to think we can do much, much better than that.

Regards

A Hermit

Daniel,

I've read through all these posts (it took quite some time!) and I agree with your posts. The only thing I would like to say is - what's with all the cat-torture references? Could you please pick a less-endearing and less-intelligent animal...like...say...a dog to use as a comparison? A cat would never stay in a bag long enough to fasten it to a pole. ;)

Joking aside, the responses from some people on this topic have been eye-opening. There are really people out there who see no problem with intentionally harming others.

Rich's posts are enough to give anyone the boo-boo jeebies.

To: Ender

(Rich copies and pastes other people's posts under his own name, as a setup to his snappy replies at the end, but he doesn't put any quotes, or references, or separation marks to let you know what he is doing, and it all sort of runs together; that is what the problem is I think).

I sent a complaint that he was being a pest. I am not sure if the WaPo filters out pests or not, but it would be nice if they did.

Rich
Take what home?

Dan, I thought so. Please take it home with you this weekend and work on it though. I am sure you can come up with better stuff after a weekend of thinking on it. Good luck.

Rich, yeah, that's all I got.

ender:

You really are an f'n moron, rich or anonymous or moron or whatever your handle of the moment may be. You called for torture of Iraqis freedom fighters, and Sunnis trying to avoid extermination by the Iranians WE PUT IN POWER IN IRAQ. How can they be terrorist if they didn't commit any acts of terror against us before we illegally attacked them?

Are half of your post to yourself? You seem to call yourself rich and respond to anonymous and vs versus. Has living in Bush's Arse World made you lose track of your identity? Is it a Dark and Scary Place little Cowboy? Is everyone "OUT THERE"(outside Bush's Arse) a big Bad TERRORIST?"

I thought I had you pegged right earlier. You are a leftist America hater, right? You are free to go over and help out those Iraqi freedom fighters. I doubt anyone would stop you. Heck if you are lucky maybe we will catch you and dunk you. Maybe when you get over there those freedom fighters might mistake you for being an American and show you what real torture is all about. Either way I doubt the ending for ender would be all that happy. Feel free to give it a try and show America what for there buddy. I think they can use your help, things seem to be making a turn against them now.

Well Dannie, is that all you got. I know you can't argue you the facts so the name calling starts. Really I think if you dig deeper you can come up with some better stuff than that buddy. Think about it, try some out on the wife and kids and get back to me later. Just think of this as a little homework.

Rich

You posted the following"

"You really are a moron Rich"

Well, Richeeey, I gotta agree with you on that.

And a pest too.

You really are an f'n moron, rich or anonymous or moron or whatever your handle of the moment may be. You called for torture of Iraqis freedom fighters, and Sunnis trying to avoid extermination by the Iranians WE PUT IN POWER IN IRAQ. How can they be terrorist if they didn't commit any acts of terror against us before we illegally attacked them?

Are half of your post to yourself? You seem to call yourself rich and respond to anonymous and vs versus. Has living in Bush's Arse World made you lose track of your identity? Is it a Dark and Scary Place little Cowboy? Is everyone "OUT THERE"(outside Bush's Arse) a big Bad TERRORIST?

That last one was from me responding to dead-ender. Sorry if I confused anyone. Except dead-ender that is.

ender:

You really are a moron Rich. Even your MORON IN CHIEF HAS ADMITTED THAT SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. HE HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. HE OFFERED PALESTINIAN SUICIDE BOMBERS FAMILIES MONEY WHEN THEY ATTACKED ISRAEL. HE DID NOTHING AGAINST THE US. ISRAEL IS IN VIOLATION OF MORE UN RESOLUTIONS THAN SADDAM.

GWB HAS LOST TWO WARS. WE ARE NOW LESS SAFE THAN WHEN HE CAME INTO OFFICE AND OBJECT OF WORLD RIDICULE.

'Those terrorist' in Iraq are in a civil war that we caused, and it is none of our damn business.

I know you think you are a tough American Gunslinger like the coke head in the oval office, but you're just a scared little man that thinks we can kill them all.

We'll we can't, cause once the whole world thinks we are aggressive war mongers, they stop doing business with us, and our economy collapses. Oh wait, that's part of the problem now.

You really oughta get your head out of Georges arse. Cheney's hand is already in there so its got to be crowded, and there is a whole world of new information that has been covered up in Bush's Arse World"

Sorry, you can't seem to read. Go back and check out my post and point out where I said Sodumb had anything to do with 911. Please post that info for me. Now, you seeing that you are wrong will not prompt an apology but the facts are the facts. Now slip in some more personal attacks, call me some names. Funny how smart you look when you can't even read a simple post in front of your eyes. Keep up the solid work there endie. I know you think America is evil, I just wonder when you are ready to move to the middle east and really defend your brothers.

You really are a moron Rich. Even your MORON IN CHIEF HAS ADMITTED THAT SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. HE HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. HE OFFERED PALESTINIAN SUICIDE BOMBERS FAMILIES MONEY WHEN THEY ATTACKED ISRAEL. HE DID NOTHING AGAINST THE US. ISRAEL IS IN VIOLATION OF MORE UN RESOLUTIONS THAN SADDAM.

GWB HAS LOST TWO WARS. WE ARE NOW LESS SAFE THAN WHEN HE CAME INTO OFFICE AND OBJECT OF WORLD RIDICULE.

'Those terrorist' in Iraq are in a civil war that we caused, and it is none of our damn business.

I know you think you are a tough American Gunslinger like the coke head in the oval office, but you're just a scared little man that thinks we can kill them all.

We'll we can't, cause once the whole world thinks we are aggressive war mongers, they stop doing business with us, and our economy collapses. Oh wait, that's part of the problem now.

You really oughta get your head out of Georges arse. Cheney's hand is already in there so its got to be crowded, and there is a whole world of new information that has been covered up in Bush's Arse World.

Hermit, just you don't get the wrong impression about my legs. I was born with a club foot although mine was corrected as much as could be but it kinda leaves you with not the greatest feet or legs but at first glance there is nothing obviously wrong with my legs. They just don't last like someone who has normal ones. Shorter leg and shorter foot doesn't help you much in walking any distance or running. Foot drop as well. But compared to people that were not able to get their club foots corrected mine is normal.

Anonymous:

Rich;

Did you take the time to read the link I gave you?

What would you say to the author, Malcolm Nance, who has actually fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, experienced waterboarding, and taught interrogation resistance for the Navy SEALs?

Here's what he says about this issue:

"We live at a time where Americans, completely uninformed by an incurious media and enthralled by vengeance-based fantasy television shows like “24”, are actually cheering and encouraging such torture as justifiable revenge for the September 11 attacks. Having been a rescuer in one of those incidents and personally affected by both attacks, I am bewildered at how casually we have thrown off the mantle of world-leader in justice and honor. Who we have become? Because at this juncture, after Abu Ghraieb and other undignified exposed incidents of murder and torture, we appear to have become no better than our opponents."

----

Come on Rich; be a man. Send an E-Mail to this special operations veteran and tell him he's on the terrorists side, why don't ya?

Or maybe you could just read what he has to say and consider the possibility that you might be wrong here.

Regards

A Hermit

PS, sorry to hear about your legs; I'm pushing 50 myself, and not an American but if I felt my country were truly threatened I would find a way to serve. What about you?"

I have found some way to serve and that is supporting my government. Now as far as one man goes, that is his opinion but we can find doubters even among the Lord. Yes I remember there was Judas that thought the Lord's way was not the right way. He is entitled to his opinion and last time I check there was no draft and he could surely step aside or blow the whistle were he not inclined to do what is asked. Now I would surely love to see that long list of murder and torture our friend in the military stakes out. Lets put this very simply: there is no comparison to what America has done and the chopping off of heads and blowing up of women and children and the daily torture that goes on by these terrorists. Now those that want to make that claim lose all cred as far as I am concerned. Maybe I am right maybe not but that is where I stand.

Hey Richeee-Baby, buddy boy

Dear old Richeee:

Good-ole Richeeeee!

You did post that you are a committed Christian, only you had copied and pasted Karen's post.

(Maybe you should stop doing that; it is a confusing practise).

I guess am just too stupid to debate a real genius like you, with all the clever subtleties of your steel-trap mind.

Rich;

Did you take the time to read the link I gave you?

What would you say to the author, Malcolm Nance, who has actually fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, experienced waterboarding, and taught interrogation resistance for the Navy SEALs?

Here's what he says about this issue:

"We live at a time where Americans, completely uninformed by an incurious media and enthralled by vengeance-based fantasy television shows like “24”, are actually cheering and encouraging such torture as justifiable revenge for the September 11 attacks. Having been a rescuer in one of those incidents and personally affected by both attacks, I am bewildered at how casually we have thrown off the mantle of world-leader in justice and honor. Who we have become? Because at this juncture, after Abu Ghraieb and other undignified exposed incidents of murder and torture, we appear to have become no better than our opponents."

----

Come on Rich; be a man. Send an E-Mail to this special operations veteran and tell him he's on the terrorists side, why don't ya?

Or maybe you could just read what he has to say and consider the possibility that you might be wrong here.

Regards

A Hermit

PS, sorry to hear about your legs; I'm pushing 50 myself, and not an American but if I felt my country were truly threatened I would find a way to serve. What about you?

Karen:

Rich: I never said that I do not want to be protected. My point is that there ought to be a limit that we should not cross in our efforts to protect ourselves because, once we cross that line, we get the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Most of the people that were tormented at those jails were eventually released because, guess what, they knew nothing. So we got nothing, and lost the moral high ground in front of the rest of the world. Right, wrong and honor may seem like quaint, useless notions to you, but not to me"

Yes those are real horrors in gitmo and abu. Those guys wearing ladies panties were pretty scary. Now as far as gitmo goes, can you name the horrors there that you speak of because I seem to have missed those photos. Maybe you are privy to something I am not. Yes we lost the high moral ground when we gave them three square and cable while they chopped off heads. Also, from what I have heard some of those released have shown up again on the battlefield. So that does not sound like good policy there unless you think we should take them in, beef them back up, get them healthy and then send them back out to kill us. Good policy there, hey Karen?

Daniel:

Rich

You are a very rude person. You claim to be a committed Christian. I am glad that you told us that, because otherwise, no one would ever be able to tell.

Now I will sit back and wait for your childish and mean-spirited reply. And also, please try and post at least ONCE, without proclaiming what the "lefties" would do or want. That is pretty irrelavant."

Come on Dannie, now what am I saying that you find rude? I have not called anyone liars or nazi's or hitler or the like. I think you are getting confused with what you and others call people. Also, where did I say I was a committed anything? Can you post that? I know facts are something the left tries to ignore but heck if you are going to say something about another person posting here you could at least tell the truth. Now I will sit back and see if you can find some facts to back up your post, good luck buddy.

Rich

My apologies to you, Rich.

Because you put another person's entire post in our own post, before you make your rude remarks, I read Karen's claim that she was a committed Christian, and I thought that it was your post (your name appeared at the top, after all). So, I apologize for mistaking you for a committed Christian.

(I knew that couldn't be true).

ender:

Rah Rah Rah America the great - Nation of War Criminals!

Rich - Most of American and the rest of the world understand that when we attacked a nation that had committed no attacks against us or supported any terrorist that had, and had no WMDs, we committed and illegal act of agressive war.

Our war against Iraq was completely based on lies, and now thanks to Momma's Little Cocaine Cowboy, we are all complicent in war crimes against that nation.

You would now ask our troops to commit further violations of international law, and torture those that we illegally attacked.

Every death in Iraq caused by us is not an act of war. It is an act of murder"

Too funny, Sodumb was just a good ole boy passing out cash for terror but don't let the facts blind your hate for America. I know in your world you must rely on the word of the U.N. in order to protect America and the world. They are doing such a fine job in Darfur. They also did a real bang up job with sanctions against Sodumb. So good that both Sodumb and Kofi's boy and others were making millions or even billions. Good work, keep your faith in them and I will keep my trust in my government to keep America safe. Lastly I bet you thought those jihadists that hit the towers were in the right and America got what she deserved. Come on, you can be honest and answer that question.

Rich

You are a very rude person. You claim to be a committed Christian. I am glad that you told us that, because otherwise, no one would ever be able to tell.

Now I will sit back and wait for your childish and mean-spirited reply. And also, please try and post at least ONCE, without proclaiming what the "lefties" would do or want. That is pretty irrelavant.

Your update was provided by GWBs propaganda factory, and shows your ignorance.

Iraq is now in the middle of a civil war and is a training ground for the thousands of new terrorist we created around the world with our illegal atttach.

Iran is laughing at us. GWB is the first American President TO LOSE TWO WARS. Iran considers us a paper tiger that can be defeated in a guerrilla war.

There has been a peep out of Libya in 15 yrs. BFD.

North Korea is still exporting nuclear technology exampled by Israels recent bombing of a shipment of North Korean "plumbing supplies" in Syria.

Irelands economy is on a upswing. That's all it took.

The walls are not following the'48 accords and are in fact in direct violation. Israel has escalated its terror campaign, and we have supported them.

Bin Laden has been hiding in a CIA safe house in Virginia and making propaganda movies for the Bush administration. Hey, itsa job.

You're a hoot. We can't even secure our own borders and you think 'walls' would help Pakistan and India. Are you a complete f'n moron?

An update on our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (besides fighting the civil war in Bahgdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil and has recently been threatened by OBL for being friends with the USA.

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. The US Navy recently assisted the North Koreans in getting back some of their citizens and ships from the Islamic pirates operating off the coast of Somalia.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, "The Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or were punished.

12. Islamic Darfur and Islamic Somalia are still terror hot spots.

An update on our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (besides fighting the civil war in Bahgdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil and has recently been threatened by OBL for being friends with the USA.

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. The US Navy recently assisted the North Koreans in getting back some of their citizens and ships from the Islamic pirates operating off the coast of Somalia.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, "The Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or were punished.

12. Islamic Darfur and Islamic Somalia are still terror hot spots.

Rah Rah Rah America the great - Nation of War Criminals!

Rich - Most of American and the rest of the world understand that when we attacked a nation that had committed no attacks against us or supported any terrorist that had, and had no WMDs, we committed and illegal act of agressive war.

Our war against Iraq was completely based on lies, and now thanks to Momma's Little Cocaine Cowboy, we are all complicent in war crimes against that nation.

You would now ask our troops to commit further violations of international law, and torture those that we illegally attacked.

Every death in Iraq caused by us is not an act of war. It is an act of murder.

A Hermit:

Rich: read this:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

Then go take it up with the author...he's actually been to Iraq.

By the way; if the terrorists are such a dire threat, why aren't you over there fighting them, Rich? Too afraid?"

Last attack of the left, if you are not in the service or fighting over there then you must not speak your mind. Were I 20yrs younger and two good legs I would have no problem signing up so put that in your pipe and smoke it. I know your only fear is the real enemy, America. I can sense you agree with OBL that America is the great Satan. Why don't you sign up to join his army? When are you going to strap one on for him? I guess you missed that whole thing on 911. I guess that was not a real threat. Are you one of Rosie's army that believes it was an inside job, hence the thought that terrorism is no real threat. I guess you are one of the proud left that feels we can manage terrorism like it is some sort of chicken pox or something.

Karen:
Welcome (or as my father's people say, Bienvenue).
Expecting people to behave lke people is neither foolish nor idealistic. Even in extreme situations such as war, there are lines that we simply must not cross.

Rich: I never said that I do not want to be protected. My point is that there ought to be a limit that we should not cross in our efforts to protect ourselves because, once we cross that line, we get the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Most of the people that were tormented at those jails were eventually released because, guess what, they knew nothing. So we got nothing, and lost the moral high ground in front of the rest of the world. Right, wrong and honor may seem like quaint, useless notions to you, but not to me.

The Realm of Reality: War is Hell!!! We enter Hell to include its torture and terror to win said wars!!! That is and has always been the nature of war.

Comparisons: waterboarding vs. suicide bombing massacres? waterboarding vs. loss of arms, legs and/or sight? waterboarding vs. five hundred pound bombs? waterboarding vs. fire bombing? waterboarding vs. cluster bombing? waterboarding vs. hydrogen bomb holocausts?

And of these items which ones are acts of torture and which ones are acts of terror?

And I see a lot of conjecture about torture and terror not being useful in gathering intelligence or stopping acts of terror but no references to back up said conjecture.

Torture and terror come in different degrees. Micro torture/terror would be waterboarding as supposedly practiced by our military and intelligence agengies or beheadings of Iraqi Shiites by Sunni intelligence groups and vice versa.

Macro terror/torture would be dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. Some might consider the result quite effective.

Karen;

Good comment. Have a look at Greg M. Epstein's post here, too. We need to support each other, regardless of our personal religious beliefs.

Regards

A Hermit

Rich: read this:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

Then go take it up with the author...he's actually been to Iraq.

By the way; if the terrorists are such a dire threat, why aren't you over there fighting them, Rich? Too afraid?

Karen:

I am afraid that I do not have time to read all the entries but I feel so strongly about this subject that I feel I must post again after a long absence from this site.

To Norrie Hoyt, Mr Mark, JC Pierre and fellow Christian Daniel in response to comments and questions that you have posted:
As a committed Christian, I believe that torture is wrong and indefensible under any and all circumstances, period. Indeed, since I do believe, as Norrie pointed out, that I will be spending eternity in heaven with God, I do not feel that my life on this earth should be defended and protected by the use of torture and abuse. Jesus taught us that the end never justifies the means, that the means are as important as the end, and not to get too attached to this earth but to keep our eyes on our ultimate home. So if people have to be tortured for my protection, I say don't do it for me, I don't need that kind of protection. If it is time for me to meet my Maker, I'll just go without someone's blood and pain on my conscience. I have two young children that mean the world to me but even for their protection, I would not want torture to be used.

Mr. Mark and others in the same vein:
why do you keep lumping all Christians in the same bag? So many of us have so many times posted to say that we do not approve of Bush and Co and have not voted to put them in office. Have you read Brian McLaren’s posting on this subject? He is an evangelical Christian and he too abhors the idea of torture. Many if not most of my devout bible-believing friends feel the same way. We are not famous or on the news to demonstrate to you that we are not all automatons that have turned in our brains and our hearts at Bush's door. And FYI, we are not living in the fear of Hell. That would contradict Jesus’ teachings and promises. In summary: you protest when all atheists are lumped together, so why to do you persist in lumping all Christians together? How about saying “some Christians” and not sounding so prejudiced?

Finally, for those that would say that I am a fool and an idealist, let me just add this. I grew up in a war zone. I was shot at, almost kidnapped and had friends killed. So I am plenty aware of the evil lurking in the world. But on the day that I took my oath of citizenship as a US citizen, I was proud to be part of a country where human rights meant something, a country that had been a beacon to the rest of the world. So I cannot believe what I am reading here and in the polls: how can Americans be supporting the use of torture and waterboarding after prosecuting others for those same crimes? As horrific as it was, is 9/11 all it took for us to forget who we are and what we are about? Since when the only justification we need for wrongful acts is that others do them and so must we? I keep thinking that one day, the real America will wake up and be a beacon again. Otherwise, let us immediately stop lecturing the chinese and the burmese and the north koreans and so on because we can no longer claim that we have the high moral ground. Truth is not relative to the circumstances we find ourselves in, it transcends them, and so do right and wrong"

Since you think you do not need protected why don't you head on over to Iraq. They need some to practice on. We need more people like then we could just fold up our tent and start kneeling on the carpet 5 times a day. Good post Karen.

I am afraid that I do not have time to read all the entries but I feel so strongly about this subject that I feel I must post again after a long absence from this site.

To Norrie Hoyt, Mr Mark, JC Pierre and fellow Christian Daniel in response to comments and questions that you have posted:
As a committed Christian, I believe that torture is wrong and indefensible under any and all circumstances, period. Indeed, since I do believe, as Norrie pointed out, that I will be spending eternity in heaven with God, I do not feel that my life on this earth should be defended and protected by the use of torture and abuse. Jesus taught us that the end never justifies the means, that the means are as important as the end, and not to get too attached to this earth but to keep our eyes on our ultimate home. So if people have to be tortured for my protection, I say don't do it for me, I don't need that kind of protection. If it is time for me to meet my Maker, I'll just go without someone's blood and pain on my conscience. I have two young children that mean the world to me but even for their protection, I would not want torture to be used.

Mr. Mark and others in the same vein:
why do you keep lumping all Christians in the same bag? So many of us have so many times posted to say that we do not approve of Bush and Co and have not voted to put them in office. Have you read Brian McLaren’s posting on this subject? He is an evangelical Christian and he too abhors the idea of torture. Many if not most of my devout bible-believing friends feel the same way. We are not famous or on the news to demonstrate to you that we are not all automatons that have turned in our brains and our hearts at Bush's door. And FYI, we are not living in the fear of Hell. That would contradict Jesus’ teachings and promises. In summary: you protest when all atheists are lumped together, so why to do you persist in lumping all Christians together? How about saying “some Christians” and not sounding so prejudiced?

Finally, for those that would say that I am a fool and an idealist, let me just add this. I grew up in a war zone. I was shot at, almost kidnapped and had friends killed. So I am plenty aware of the evil lurking in the world. But on the day that I took my oath of citizenship as a US citizen, I was proud to be part of a country where human rights meant something, a country that had been a beacon to the rest of the world. So I cannot believe what I am reading here and in the polls: how can Americans be supporting the use of torture and waterboarding after prosecuting others for those same crimes? As horrific as it was, is 9/11 all it took for us to forget who we are and what we are about? Since when the only justification we need for wrongful acts is that others do them and so must we? I keep thinking that one day, the real America will wake up and be a beacon again. Otherwise, let us immediately stop lecturing the chinese and the burmese and the north koreans and so on because we can no longer claim that we have the high moral ground. Truth is not relative to the circumstances we find ourselves in, it transcends them, and so do right and wrong.

Pierre JC:

To all readers of this Comment page:
The above writers have woven a compelling dialogue, and they clearly occupy two distinct camps.
First, there are the anti-torture writers, and they post far more Comments than do their opponents. They use plain language to argue their point, sometimes with restraint, other times with passion. And they have the higher moral and logical ground in every argument.
Then there are the few pro-torture contributors. Those of us who oppose torture welcome their comments, for they carry important lessons. They elucidate the mindset of those who, paradoxically, proclaim their support of indefensible actions (such as the deliberate near-drowning of another person) as proof of their moral superiority.
All these writers have to offer is vapid sanctimony and illogic. They share a colossal and undeserved egotism. They think they are so morally good, and yet they would sanction actions that, in our country's own legal history, have been treated as a crime against humanity. They consider themselves pious Christians, yet they cannot bolster their arguments with a single shred of their ample scriptures.
The next step for those of us on the anti-torture side, is to better understand these frightening people, so as to better guard against their further harming society.
So I pose this hypothesis: In order to explain the mighty sense of self-importance that these right-wing scumbags, I suggest that ego, like gambling, can function as an endogenous drug addiction, feeding a compulsion to repeatedly indulge in a particular behavior -- in this case, that behavior would be the conservative's habit of thinking highly of him/herself.
And I ask these questions: How much of a role does the religiosity of these conservatives play in their detachment from moral wisdom? Does the fact that the overwhelming majority of supporters of torture are fervent believers in God not indicate the danger of faith to one's moral groundedness? (After all, rarely does a supporter of torture identify him/herself as an atheist, but they almost invariably identify themselves as religious believers."

Talk about some sanctimonious writings. Go back and read all the verbal attacks by the left. Their argument is you are a Nazi or Hitler or Stalin or the Romans, a liar, stupid. You fire those words off to anyone that does not tow your line. I know you want to lump everything in as one. This is war whether you wish to believe it or not. Don't worry there are people out there that will protect you anyhow so you do not have to compromise your moral high ground. I am sure you are against abortion too, right?

Daniel:

How does torture produce any good result? How do you know if you have a real culprit with potential life-saving infomation to be extracted? Or should we just torture alot of people and hope that some of them are the true culprits?

Who makes the decisions on who should be tortured, and who decides on the instruments and methodolgies of torture? Someone who is very wise, I hope. How are these wise people chosen? And how does the practice of torture extract information?

Might some people resist all torture--out of true courage and fearlessness--or out of desperation that they are doomed no matter what they say? Or, might some people say anything, invent any kind of deception, to end the torture? Is this not an arrogant, even obnoxious, point of view--that a person in a position of physical superiority, may subject other human beings to animal brutality, and then assert righteous and indignant defiance when questioned, as though the torturer is the one being wronged?

Some of us feel great empathy for others. Some of us feel nothing. Most are somewhere in between. Whether a person thinks torture is a good idea or a bad idea really depends more on this inner feeling of empathy, than it does on any kind of rational logic. The logic is merely invented to support the feeling that torture is ok, or that is not ok.

Despite the arguments of some previous commenters, it is hard for me to acknowledge what good could ever come of institutionalized torture under the American system. By that, I mean torture in which a hired, paid torturer is waiting with the instruments of torture in a torture chamber, for the next prisoner to be brought up before him, from a cell where he may have been detained for a long, indefinite period of time, for a criminal charge that was never formally made, and that may even have been forgotten.

I would like to say that my feelings on torture are based on my Christian upbringing, or my university educational exposure to the European Enlightenment. But, it is really more, just my inner feeling that I cannot tolerate even the thought of such treatment of one human being by another"

Can you share your feelings on abortion? Just like to see how consistent you are about torture. I guess you would be against killing of any of these terrorists if they attacked you as well. We must not forgot due unto others. You know the golden rule.

Jihadist

Where are you when we need you? Say something funny, to make us all laugh.

LDS Mark;

Read this:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

How does torture produce any good result? How do you know if you have a real culprit with potential life-saving infomation to be extracted? Or should we just torture alot of people and hope that some of them are the true culprits?

Who makes the decisions on who should be tortured, and who decides on the instruments and methodolgies of torture? Someone who is very wise, I hope. How are these wise people chosen? And how does the practice of torture extract information?

Might some people resist all torture--out of true courage and fearlessness--or out of desperation that they are doomed no matter what they say? Or, might some people say anything, invent any kind of deception, to end the torture? Is this not an arrogant, even obnoxious, point of view--that a person in a position of physical superiority, may subject other human beings to animal brutality, and then assert righteous and indignant defiance when questioned, as though the torturer is the one being wronged?

Some of us feel great empathy for others. Some of us feel nothing. Most are somewhere in between. Whether a person thinks torture is a good idea or a bad idea really depends more on this inner feeling of empathy, than it does on any kind of rational logic. The logic is merely invented to support the feeling that torture is ok, or that is not ok.

Despite the arguments of some previous commenters, it is hard for me to acknowledge what good could ever come of institutionalized torture under the American system. By that, I mean torture in which a hired, paid torturer is waiting with the instruments of torture in a torture chamber, for the next prisoner to be brought up before him, from a cell where he may have been detained for a long, indefinite period of time, for a criminal charge that was never formally made, and that may even have been forgotten.

I would like to say that my feelings on torture are based on my Christian upbringing, or my university educational exposure to the European Enlightenment. But, it is really more, just my inner feeling that I cannot tolerate even the thought of such treatment of one human being by another.

One of the things so frightening about this, is that we are asking young Americans to commit these torturous acts. In a fictional Jack Bauer world, I can possibly see where a human could overcome their natural revulsion, and do really ugly things to a person that they were sure had information that could save a family member, or thousands of people and that that information was going to be something that could be acted upon ie the location of the bomb.

But to have American Soldiers engage in torture on a regular basis is insane. We are going to create monsters from decent and brave human beings.

Torture is almost as harmfule to the practisioner as it is to the victim.

It dehumanizes a person in a most obscene way. The advocates here must thing their biblical forgiveness will make it OK, while the atheist knows nothing could forgive this, or remove it from the persons memory and psyche in a way they would ever be 'whole' again.

To: LDS Mark

How many ways can you split a hair? You think waterboarding is not torture. Fine.

But try this: put a cat in a sack, suspend it from a pole and hold the bag under the water for long periods of time. Could you do that? Probably not.

But if you could, you could be arrested for cruelty to animals.

LDS Marks:

Merriam Webster:

a: anguish of body or mind (!!!): agony
b: something that causes agony or pain

Suffocating is pain, agony.

Your must be a very pious person: Fundamental Christians for torture!

Atheists: Defenders of human dignity.

For those that haven't seen this yet, once again, Olbermann Rules!

http://keitholbermann.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=13686

It's Olbermann's comments on torture, and the failure of the Democratically controlled congress to get a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the administrative branch for crimes against humanity.

To: Pierre PC

You are exactly right. Among the vocal Christians on this page, there is a distinct and disturbing disconnect. They are Christians and believe in God, Jesus, the resurrection of the soul, and Heaven. Yet they also support torture, which is against God, against Jesus, against all normal and standard morality that I have been taught or that I have even ever heard of.

And they are afraid. They are afraid of what may happen next. Their belief in God, in Jesus, in the ressurection of the soul, and in Heavan is all for naught, and empty and hollow beliefs, if they can not find even a tiny ounce of assurance and courage in these beliefs, that they can live moral and upright lives, in the hope of a happy future, without devolving into torture.

What sayest thou, fellow Christians, to this?

To: Pierre PC

You are exactly right. Among the vocal Christians on this page, there is a distinct and disturbing disconnect. They are Christians and believe in God, Jesus, the resurrection of the soul, and Heaven. Yet they also support torture, which is against God, against Jesus, against all normal and standard morality that I have been taught or that I have even ever heard of.

And they are afraid. They are afraid of what may happen next. Their belief in God, in Jesus, in the ressurection of the soul, and in Heavan is all for naught, and empty and hollow beliefs, if they can not find even a tiny ounce of assurance and courage in these beliefs, that they can live moral and upright lives, in the hope of a happy future, without devolving into torture.

What sayest thou, fellow Christians, to this?

LDS Mark; you haven't responded to my earlier comment. I'll repeat it for you:

Water boarding was defined as torture in the war crimes trials following WWII; those who experienced it call it the worst of the methods used on them.

Can you cite even one case where waterboarding has "worked?" (Unless by "worked" you mean extracted a false confession, produced misleading information or psychologically broke the victim...)

Regards

A Hermit

To all readers of this Comment page:
The above writers have woven a compelling dialogue, and they clearly occupy two distinct camps.
First, there are the anti-torture writers, and they post far more Comments than do their opponents. They use plain language to argue their point, sometimes with restraint, other times with passion. And they have the higher moral and logical ground in every argument.
Then there are the few pro-torture contributors. Those of us who oppose torture welcome their comments, for they carry important lessons. They elucidate the mindset of those who, paradoxically, proclaim their support of indefensible actions (such as the deliberate near-drowning of another person) as proof of their moral superiority.
All these writers have to offer is vapid sanctimony and illogic. They share a colossal and undeserved egotism. They think they are so morally good, and yet they would sanction actions that, in our country's own legal history, have been treated as a crime against humanity. They consider themselves pious Christians, yet they cannot bolster their arguments with a single shred of their ample scriptures.
The next step for those of us on the anti-torture side, is to better understand these frightening people, so as to better guard against their further harming society.
So I pose this hypothesis: In order to explain the mighty sense of self-importance that these right-wing scumbags, I suggest that ego, like gambling, can function as an endogenous drug addiction, feeding a compulsion to repeatedly indulge in a particular behavior -- in this case, that behavior would be the conservative's habit of thinking highly of him/herself.
And I ask these questions: How much of a role does the religiosity of these conservatives play in their detachment from moral wisdom? Does the fact that the overwhelming majority of supporters of torture are fervent believers in God not indicate the danger of faith to one's moral groundedness? (After all, rarely does a supporter of torture identify him/herself as an atheist, but they almost invariably identify themselves as religious believers.)

CAMERON:
You asked: “Can you explain why waterboarding does not meet your definition of torture”.

It's not my definition.

From The American Heritage® Dictionary
torture(n.)
Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

Water Boarding is NOT infliction of severe physical pain.

It’s like ignoring parts of the bible because they are not convenient.
Calling water boarding torture makes those that do it look foolish, because they are ignoring the definition of torture as it is not convenient.

mark

On the subject of torture, a lot of people seem to be suprisingly open to it. They don't seem to have any historical knowledge or memory of torture, nor any reflex against it. It does not seem to give them heartburn, nor even a bad taste in their mouths.

If I am forced to consider the rationale for the international conventions against torture (which I have never had to do, before President Bush raised the question), I would say that it is a legalistic purpose, to hold our enemies accountable to some legal standard should they ever engage in torture against our people. It was never intended to restrict the President's powers to wage war, since, under our ethos, torture is forbidden, and taboo anyway, and should never be considered as a legitimate tool of conduct, no matter what international conventions may or may not say about it.

And one would think that legalistic hair-splitting about the definition of torture would also be forbidden and taboo, since even the discussion is an acknowledgement that maybe it isn't so bad, after all. It is a little hypocritical for Republicans to villify Bill Clinton for his legalistic hair-splitting over what constitutes sex, and Bush's hair-splitting over what constitutes torture. One is a minor drip, and the other is an ethical tsunami.

Until recent times, it was common, ordinary, and normal for the governing authorities to engage in torture. The rise of popular democracies in recent times has put the brakes on torture. Now, evidently, torture has become such a thing of the past that people who do not read, have all but forgotten about it, and apparently do not even realize how horrible it was. They seem to think, that it's ok for good people, like us, to engage in torture, for good purposes; but bad people should not engage in it. Instead of preaching to these people about the evils of torture, maybe it would be better to refresh their faded memories a little.

When I think of torture, I first think of the Roman Empire. The Romans beat Jesus using a whip with little hooks in it, and then they nailed him to a cross.

And then I think of the Aztec Indians with their infamous religion of human sacrafice, and tearing out the living hearts of their victims.

And then, I think of Tudor England, which made the Tower of London famous--Henry VIII who used torture to move forward his program of nationalizing the Cahtolic Church--and his daughter, Mary Tudor, aka "Bloody Mary" who slow-roasted Protestants in the name of Jesus Christ (surely, this would be a case of good people using torture for a good purpose, wouldn't it?) and her sister, Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen, Gloriana, who literally tore men's living body's apart to root out Catholic heresy and treason against her protestant authority.

And then I think of Salem, Massachusetts, in which the most pious and innocent of people had heavy weights placed on their bodies to coerce confessions of witchcraft, and then once confessed, executed.

And then I think of slavery in America, lasting 256 years, in which human beings where kept in bondage subject to any kind of unchecked secret torture the human heart might dream up.

And then I think of Stalinist Soviet Russia, and Hitler's Third Reich, and Mao's Cultural Revolution, and North Korea's Kim Il Sung , and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

I do not want my country ever to be associated in anyone's mind with any such list as this.

What is behind this trend to accept torture as legitimate when formerly, it was taboo and forbidden? I believe it is ignorance and fear--ignorance of the past, when torture was commonplace, fear in our hearts that terrorists will strike at us at any moment. The ignorance can be dispelled just by reading some historical articles, essays, or books, or even by watching some historical movies. As for fear, what about drawing close to your family and loved-ones? what about staying busy, helping others, going to church, even praying? Surely these suggestions are at least as good as engaging in torture.

You 'Cal'vinist Thomas Christians sure are a hoot. You want our gov't to authorize our troops to use an approved methodology of torture.

Now remember, in the case of Iraqis, these are human beings that never attacked our nation in any way, defending their homeland against foreign invaders.

Even the so called Al Queada in Iraq, is not the same people or group lead by bin Laden in Afghanistan.

So you are willing to compound an illegal war of aggression which GWB should face war crimes trial for, with our soldiers complicity carrying out a POLICY of TORTURE against the victims.

BushCo must have you completely brain washed, or you are evil in your own right. This behavior reeks of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Not only is torture immoral, it is still illegal under international law, and everyone in the administration that has helped create this policy should be tried for crimes against humanity.

George should hang from the same scaffold as Saddam.

I have no problem with the death penalty in the caes of George, Cheney and Rummy, the axis of evil.

The Realm of Reality: War is Hell!!! We enter Hell to include its torture to win said wars!!! That is and has always been the nature of war.

Comparisons: waterboarding vs. suicide bombing massacres? waterboarding vs. loss of arms, legs and/or sight? waterboarding vs. five hundred pound bombs? waterboarding vs. fire bombing? waterboarding vs. cluster bombing? waterboarding vs. hydrogen bomb holocausts?

This probably won't get posted, and may generate an investigation and phone calls to me but I need to ask the question.

In time of war, when no other viable options are available, isn't the use of deadly force authorized to prevent the commission of war crimes?

If Mukasey approves the use of waterboarding (by definition a form of water torture and internationally recognized as torture and with volumous historical precedent as a punishable war crime), and it is used, both he, and everyone who approved of his nomination will be guilty of conspiracy to commit war crimes.

First of all, most of the people posting here in favor of torture are either silly, flippant, and unserious about the subject, and think on it very lightly, if at all, (and I suppose, then, that we do not need to engage them in serious discourse, yesterday's Rich, for example) OR, they are very fearful.

When I say that I am opposed to torture, I am speaking, in general, as a principle that we should all live by, as a policy of life, as an attitude that we should all have, if we are ever engaged in war, such as we are now. I cannot cite any specific examples of torture, although I believe the evidence that Americans are physically torturing people and have accidently killed some, in this practice. I cannot cite specific examples because it is all done in secret. It is Bush and Cheney's secret program.

When the fearful people speak out in favor of torture, they do not talk about principle; they give precise and exact examples. But they are all imaginary examples of what might happen, or what could happen; they are all hypothetical "what-if's."

I cannot design a whole philosophy of life on all the many unlikely "what-if's." What-if ... what-if ... what-if ... that is a paralyzing game that could go on forever, until you are so twisted up in fear that you cannot do anything. That is a symptom of mental distress, more than a principle of life.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney both suffer from this neurotic distress, that anything bad could happen at any moment, and we should all be always very afraid of our imagined, yet unmade futures. That is why they have devised these meaningless threat levels, which no one understands.

If President Bush is a Christian, as he claims, then it seems that he should get some sort of assurance from his belief in God and Jesus, but he does not seem to. Christians who live in perpetual fear of terrorism are not getting the assurance from their faith in Jesus, that they claim to believe in. There is something wrong here.

As a general principle of life, I believe that torture should be restored to its former status as forbidden and taboo. This is my belief, without citing any laws, or the International Geneva Conventions, and without worrying about the enemy's practice of torture. Their principle's of life are different than mine; I understand that.

I take this position, not because I hate America and pray for the victory of the enemy, but because I have an inner assurance of things to come.

There are two kinds of people in America today. One stands in front of the flag and says I will defend, the others stands behind the flag and demand it defends them. I am proud to say I stood in front of the flag and defended it when it was my turn.

I am morally shocked that there is anyone who defends - in any way- torture. The ONLY reason the US is getting away with it - for now - is that we're the 800 lb gorilla in the room - and about as smart [apologies to gentle gorillas for the analogy]. The current administration deserves to be tried as war criminals using the same criteria as that used in Nuremberg. Clearly, Bush and Cheney are guilty of violating US and International law - they should be tried. Thomas Jefferson [possibly a closet atheist, but certainly no Christian] said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Our willingness to water that tree vicariously at a distance is demonstrated by the extreme measures [torture] we are willing to take to feel safe. For a spurious safety, we trade away liberty by empowering that gang of cut-throats and enablers in Washington. I am more than willing to risk my life and the lives of the people I hold dear in defense of the principle of civil liberty. Rich [and his morally bankrupt allies] claim that the mere threat of an attack justifies the extreme measure of torture - to protect us, but I am infinitely more likely to be killed by some drunk yahoo while crossing the street. Should we torture all people who drink at bars to discover who is most likely to drive drunk? Freedom entails risk - no one promised that we would be safe and FREE. There is nothing so safe as an animal in a zoo, but do we all want to become zoo animals with Cheney and company as the keepers.

Sometimes I think the Whitehouse spent too much time watching the TV series 24 Hours adapting what if scenarios with fear based on the actions of some nineteen programmed hijackers on 09/11.

Adapting a policy to catch this less than One-Percent threat probably created an information overload. In otherwords, a much larger haystack was created for finding a needle. The Virginia Tech shooter was an example of one such needle not exposed prior to a successful domestic terrorist act. Cho fit a mold in numerous aspects and yet his well known profile slipped through numerous community and bureaurcratic cracks.

I think monetary gain was just as much motivation as was adopting policies that go below the rule of law such as torture which shows an extreme fear of terrorism.

If the goal of terrorism is to produce fear the terrorists won. And certain Officials along with the fear-n-smear for ratings news/entertainment medium enabled that fear to spread through public broadcasts of dirty suitcase bomb and avain flu what if scenarios, perfect episodes of the TV series 24 Hours if you were to ask me.

And so, if our government claimed to be faith-based, what we got was quite the opposite, a government focused on the threat of terrorism which is still enabled in part by Bin Laden uncaptured. Be afraid, be very afraid, Bin Laden is still at large.

Sometimes I think the Whitehouse spent too much time watching the TV series 24 Hours adapting what if scenarios with fear based on the actions of some nineteen programmed hijackers on 09/11.

Adapting a policy to catch this less than One-Percent threat probably created an information overload. In otherwords, a much larger haystack was created for finding a needle. The Virginia Tech shooter was an example of one such needle not exposed prior to a successful domestic terrorist act. Cho fit a mold in numerous aspects and yet his well known profile slipped through numerous community and bureaurcratic cracks.

I think monetary gain was just as much motivation as was adopting policies that go below the rule of law such as torture which shows an extreme fear of terrorism.

If the goal of terrorism is to produce fear the terrorists won. And certain Officials along with the fear-n-smear for ratings news/entertainment medium enabled that fear to spread through public broadcasts of dirty suitcase bomb and avain flu what if scenarios, perfect episodes of the TV series 24 Hours if you were to ask me.

And so, if our government claimed to be faith-based, what we got was quite the opposite, a government focused on the threat of terrorism which is still enabled in part by Bin Laden uncaptured. Be afraid, be very afraid, Bin Laden is still at large.

Sometimes I think the Whitehouse spent too much time watching the TV series 24 Hours adapting what if scenarios with fear based on the actions of some nineteen programmed hijackers on 09/11.

Adapting a policy to catch this less than One-Percent threat probably created an information overload. In otherwords, a much larger haystack was created for finding a needle. The Virginia Tech shooter was an example of one such needle not exposed prior to a successful domestic terrorist act. Cho fit a mold in numerous aspects and yet his well known profile slipped through numerous community and bureaurcratic cracks.

I think monetary gain was just as much motivation as was adopting policies that go below the rule of law such as torture which shows an extreme fear of terrorism.

If the goal of terrorism is to produce fear the terrorists won. And certain Officials along with the fear-n-smear for ratings news/entertainment medium enabled that fear to spread through public broadcasts of dirty suitcase bomb and avain flu what if scenarios, perfect episodes of the TV series 24 Hours if you were to ask me.

And so, if our government claimed to be faith-based, what we got was quite the opposite, a government focused on the threat of terrorism which is still enabled in part by Bin Laden uncaptured. Be afraid, be very afraid, Bin Laden is still at large.

Sometimes I think the Whitehouse spent too much time watching the TV series 24 Hours adapting what if scenarios with fear based on the actions of some nineteen programmed hijackers on 09/11.

Adapting a policy to catch this less than One-Percent threat probably created an information overload. In otherwords, a much larger haystack was created for finding a needle. The Virginia Tech shooter was an example of one such needle not exposed prior to a successful domestic terrorist act. Cho fit a mold in numerous aspects and yet his well known profile slipped through numerous community and bureaurcratic cracks.

I think monetary gain was just as much motivation as was adopting policies that go below the rule of law such as torture which shows an extreme fear of terrorism.

If the goal of terrorism is to produce fear the terrorists won. And certain Officials along with the fear-n-smear for ratings news/entertainment medium enabled that fear to spread through public broadcasts of dirty suitcase bomb and avain flu what if scenarios, perfect episodes of the TV series 24 Hours if you were to ask me.

And so, if our government claimed to be faith-based, what we got was quite the opposite, a government focused on the threat of terrorism which is still enabled in part by Bin Laden uncaptured. Be afraid, be very afraid, Bin Laden is still at large.

Sometimes I think the Whitehouse spent too much time watching the TV series 24 Hours adapting what if scenarios with fear based on the actions of some nineteen programmed hijackers on 09/11.

Adapting a policy to catch this less than One-Percent threat probably created an information overload. In otherwords, a much larger haystack was created for finding a needle. The Virginia Tech shooter was an example of one such needle not exposed prior to a successful domestic terrorist act. Cho fit a mold in numerous aspects and yet his well known profile slipped through numerous community and bureaurcratic cracks.

I think monetary gain was just as much motivation as was adopting policies that go below the rule of law such as torture which shows an extreme fear of terrorism.

If the goal of terrorism is to produce fear the terrorists won. And certain Officials along with the fear-n-smear for ratings news/entertainment medium enabled that fear to spread through public broadcasts of dirty suitcase bomb and avain flu what if scenarios, perfect episodes of the TV series 24 Hours if you were to ask me.

And so, if our government claimed to be faith-based, what we got was quite the opposite, a government focused on the threat of terrorism which is still enabled in part by Bin Laden uncaptured. Be afraid, be very afraid, Bin Laden is still at large.

Sometimes I think the Whitehouse spent too much time watching the TV series 24 Hours adapting what if scenarios with fear based on the actions of some nineteen programmed hijackers on 09/11.

Adapting a policy to catch this less than One-Percent threat probably created an information overload. In otherwords, a much larger haystack was created for finding a needle. The Virginia Tech shooter was an example of one such needle not exposed prior to a successful domestic terrorist act. Cho fit a mold in numerous aspects and yet his well known profile slipped through numerous community and bureaurcratic cracks.

I think monetary gain was just as much motivation as was adopting policies that go below the rule of law such as torture which shows an extreme fear of terrorism.

If the goal of terrorism is to produce fear the terrorists won. And certain Officials along with the fear-n-smear for ratings news/entertainment medium enabled that fear to spread through public broadcasts of dirty suitcase bomb and avain flu what if scenarios, perfect episodes of the TV series 24 Hours if you were to ask me.

And so, if our government claimed to be faith-based, what we got was quite the opposite, a government focused on the threat of terrorism which is still enabled in part by Bin Laden uncaptured. Be afraid, be very afraid, Bin Laden is still at large.

Sternberg, you obviously haven't been keeping
up on the news over the past four years, have you?

Dave

Torture in olden times broke both bodies and mind and was used to extract desired confessions.
The US does none of those things, but instead uses phsychological warfare to gain information that can be verified. We then leave the Interagatee, whole and capable of performing every act of skill or mental acumen that he was previously capable of.
We have verified the information gained from these persons and it has saved US lives by the tens of thousands. That has been verified by Brian Ross, the Chief Investigative Reporter of ABC.
Susan Jacoby's article is full of innuendo and intentioanl deciet and is no more than an infomercial.

Concerned: amazing how not one general I have ever heard who has ever actually fought a war would agree with you that torture is a usefull, let alone necessary tactic. certainly not the author of your quote, no one in WWII, not even Westmoreland in Vietnam, nope, can't think of one. why is that?

Is torture ever justified? Yes, but only under the rarest and most exceptional circumstances. Attempt first to NOT torture.

The Realm of Reality:

War is Hell!!!! And Hell and War includes torture if we are going to win!!!

I'm no atheist, and you've written a lot I disagree with, so I thought I should post now because you wrote something I agree with 100%. No reservations. You're right. Unfortunately I'm not the person you needed to convince. :( I hope that Congress and (dreaming) the White House are reading this and heeding it.

I had hoped that after Abu Ghraib the advocates of torture would have hung their heads, but they are a very sprightly and resilient crowd. There has of recent years been a very popular and well-written television series, 24, dedicated to pounding home the idea that torture is effective and necessary and that Muslims particularly deserve it. O mi God.

Hunter grunts:

"War was declared when 19 Islamic Radicals decided to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. Liberals are such cowards. The US needs to do everything it can to prevent something like this from happening again."

The cowards here are the people who have allowed the terrorists to actually, you know, terrify them so much that are willing to abandon the very principles of liberty and human rights that Western civilization is founded on for some false sense of security. That's exactly what the terrorists want us to do!

You Bush sycophants need to stop wetting yourselves every time someone yells "terror, terror".

My first thought on hearing about the terror attacks on 9/11 was "How awful" my second thought was "I refuse to live in fear." I won't let a few fanatics force me or my country to abandon long cherished principles.

Regards

A Hermit

Rich, you can't have it both ways. If you're only concerned with American casualties then you have to look at them as a proportion of the number of Americans in Iraq, not as a proportion of the population of Iraqis! And if you're using the population of Iraq as the context then you have to look at the number of Iraqis who are being killed, which is a horrendously high number even if you only accept the 70,000 or so counted by the IBC (who make clear themselves that their number is only a small portion of the real toll, since most deaths in a war zone will go unreported.)

I read your link; it's nonsense. Here's one for you to read, from someone who actually understands statistics:

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/27/death-rates-again/

"...While such comparisons are basically misguided, Preston and Buzzell would have been better off calculating the standardized death rate for police officers in the U.S. as a whole and comparing that number to U.S. military deaths across the whole of Iraq. (Alternatively, they could have looked at violent death rates for civilians in Baghdad and compared that number to Philadelphia’s inner city, but I doubt the data are available, precisely because Baghdad is such a disaster area.) Here’s a quick estimate for the case of law enforcement. The BLS says that there are about 624,000 “Police and sheriff’s patrol officers” in the United States, not counting detectives, supervisors or other staff. In 2004, OSHA reports that 121 officers died in the line of duty, with 66 dying in some kind of road accident and 48 dying in assaults or other violent acts. So this ratio of 121 to 624,000—0.000193—gives us a rate of 0.193 deaths per 1,000 for 2004. Being a police officer is not an easy job, yet (you should not by now be surprised to learn) the line-of-duty death rate is an order of magnitude lower than the overall U.S. death rate of 8.42 per thousand cited by Preston and Buzzell, to say nothing of the 3.92 per 1,000 they calculate for U.S. soldiers in Iraq..."

Regards

A Hermit

Hunter: Ike, McCarthur, and Truman weren't liberal softies. We dropped an A-Bomb, but we didn't waterboard. War was just as declared at Pearl Harbor. the argument was the same. Ike, McCarthur and Truman knew what made America worth defending. You don't appear to.

And if you think waterboarding a few terrorists is the difference between winning and losing the war on terrorism, you're just deluded.

Rich has no integrity or empathy.

He would have made a fine Nazi.

Hunter,

So, in order to keep the terrorists from winning, we should become terrorists? That's not how logic works.

How is being willing to suffer to live according to one's principles cowardice? Please explain.

Torture is cowardice, and it *doesn't even work*.

That knuckle-dragging Troglodyte, Rich, wrote:
"Just check the murder rate in Philly. They are at about 500 or so right now for the year. The city has about 2 mil or so. Iraq has about 20 or so million. You do the math buddy."

There was a time when the total casualty count used to be reported - now we limit it to the *deaths* of American troops. Try adding in all the poor suckers with their legs blown off or their brains scrambled. Then add in all the Iraqi deaths (they're the people we're fighting for, right? Operation "Iraqi Freedom"??) and then tell me whether you'd rather take a stroll around Philly, or through an Iraqi marketplace.

War was declared when 19 Islamic Radicals decided to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. Liberals are such cowards. The US needs to do everything it can to prevent something like this from happening again. All of whinning liberals, I will buy you in a one ticket to baghdad or Tehran. Please go protest there. You will be killed instantly. FLUSH.

Rich,

Your last post has nothing to do with my point about the rate of death of Americans.

I do, however, share the concerns of commenters at the (2-year-old) link you posted that reporting about murders in Iraq is probably less than complete. Given daily or close-to-daily terrorist attacks that kill tens of people, it is unreasonable to think that Iraq is "safer" even in a numerical sense than anywhere in the United States after you include non-terrorism-related murders.

Your implication that drowning human beings is in any way analogous to dunking donuts is very disturbing. I hope you will be embarassed by your defense of torture one day.

Ok camie or beto, whichever name you are riding with now. If we accept your hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead we need merely add to it the millions that have flocked and we should have that country down to a zero population and problem solved. I am wrong? Are those not your numbers?

Ok ladies, I leave with some truths to chew on. Facts are facts. We are all entitled to our own opinions but facts are facts. Just do a little reading, find the truth and you will see the light.

Camie, I know you missed my last post. So I will disregard your comment and let you think on it again. It really is sad that murder rates here are much higher. We really should be calling out the guard into cities like Philly and Chicago and heck D.C. D.C. use to murder capital USA but I think Newark is taking that honors now. But I am getting off track. Stop the dunking, the donuts can not handle much more. You dunk too much and they just get soggy.

Rich,

You conveniently missed my point about more Americans dying in Iraq than in Philadelphia, out of a much, much smaller population of Americans in Iraq than in Philadelphia. As it turns out, you're just wrong.

One starts to think that you're not interested in a debate based on reality.

Here is a good link for those of you crying about murder rates in Iraq. Some honest sober assessment.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5iiMjJHpCsABY5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE5ZnM1ZGoxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0RGUjVfMTIyBGwDV1Mx/SIG=132qg7on1/EXP=1194558498/**http%3a//machiasprivateer.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-vs-iraq-murder-rates.html

If it doesn't post just google it. Not real hard. I accept apologies later.

Beto:

"Just check the murder rate in Philly. They are at about 500 or so right now for the year. The city has about 2 mil or so. Iraq has about 20 or so million. You do the math buddy. "

i think you math is a little fuzzy.. 10 times 500 is 5000, are you saying that less than 5000 Iraqis have died over the last year.. there are no exact numbers, but thats not even close, by a factor of 10-20. The fact that you don't realize that its the Iraqis, as colleteral damage, who are taking by far the biggest hit, is rediculous. And i will even give yout that murder rates in iraq have gone down.. but only due to the fact that so much of it has already been ethnically cleasned, either that or people have left the country.

So don't come here with your just as likely to die in philly.. thats beyond rediculous and insulting to the hundreds of thousands Iraqis who have died."

I am talking Americans here buddy. You can talk Iraqis all you want too. Just for giggles here, how about you give me the number of Iraqis you say have been killed. I bet you are in the about 650k or more crowd, am I right?

Little Richie squeals:

"It seems you have a soft spot for the enemy."

You're the one who sympathizes with their methods...torture is a form of terrorism.

Do we win anything by becoming as brutal and morally depraved as our enemies? Is "not quite as bad as Osama" the kind of moral standard we should strive for?

How pathetic; your unreasoning fear is turning you into the very thing you say you hate.

Regards

A Hermit

Rich,

Will you please explain why it matters if OBL signed the Geneva Conventions? Do you think that the United States should measure its actions by comparing them to what a terrorist would do?

There's always a Rich. He should be ignored, not debated.

Rich

No! OBL did not sign the Geneva Conventions. So what? SO WHAT?

What is your point? What is your ridiculous point? You sound like a whiney little kid.

Hermit is exactly right: you are a simpering little coward.

Daniel:

Rich,

You are a fool; you are a liar; you think by being mean, sarcastic, snide, and rude, you can win an argument, and make other people back down. But on this, you are wrong.

Why dont you tell us why you are so proud of the Nazi-inspired Bush and Cheney program of "Verschärfte Vernehmung."

Checkout this website. There is a picture of a corpse, a man tortured to death by Americans.

Yeah, Dear Rich! I am sure that if you prop up his dead body to watch his cable TV, and force pork into his dead mouth, he is alot better off than I am.

If you go to this website and look at this deadman on whom your tax dollars were spent in torturing to death, I am sure you can think of some silly, flippant, and sick things to make fun of him about, and mock him, and laugh at his dead features, and you can imagine and suppose all of the crimes he committed to end up that way, even though neither you nor I know if he was guilty or innocent of anything.

I do not want my tax dollars spent on this moral depravity. "

Heck, I do not want my tax dollars going to a lot things but unless you vote them out you get what you got. I would bet you were no too upset about seeing those American soldiers with their heads cut off and mutilated bodies. Were you? It seems you have a soft spot for the enemy. I am batting wits with OBL? You get pretty good reception in that cave? Get back to me on that stuff. I am interested in your response, really.

Its just another case of the Bush Administration telling us not to look behind the curtain, that they have everything handled, that we don't need to worry because they know who the bad guys are and how best to handle them. Fear, and social and religious division are their calling cards. Torture is just another means to their ends. They don't care about what is right and where they are talking the country if we endorse these kind of practices. The old schoolers in Congress and on the campaign trail aren't speaking out because they are stuck in the same old system and don't have the vision or backbone to change things.

If it is true that torture does not work, what is being debated. If it does not work, it should not be used. I feel that the real reason it is still supported is that it is a way for us to vent anger and hatred for terrorist. Hatred is at the root of torture.

Its just another case of the Bush Administration telling us not to look behind the curtain, that they have everything handled, that we don't need to worry because they know who the bad guys are and how best to handle them. Fear, and social and religious division are their calling cards. Torture is just another means to their ends. They don't care about what is right and where they are talking the country if we endorse these kind of practices. The old schoolers in Congress and on the campaign trail aren't speaking out because they are stuck in the same old system and don't have the vision or backbone to change things.

"Just check the murder rate in Philly. They are at about 500 or so right now for the year. The city has about 2 mil or so. Iraq has about 20 or so million. You do the math buddy. "

i think you math is a little fuzzy.. 10 times 500 is 5000, are you saying that less than 5000 Iraqis have died over the last year.. there are no exact numbers, but thats not even close, by a factor of 10-20. The fact that you don't realize that its the Iraqis, as colleteral damage, who are taking by far the biggest hit, is rediculous. And i will even give yout that murder rates in iraq have gone down.. but only due to the fact that so much of it has already been ethnically cleasned, either that or people have left the country.

So don't come here with your just as likely to die in philly.. thats beyond rediculous and insulting to the hundreds of thousands Iraqis who have died.

Rich,

You are a fool; you are a liar; you think by being mean, sarcastic, snide, and rude, you can win an argument, and make other people back down. But on this, you are wrong.

Why dont you tell us why you are so proud of the Nazi-inspired Bush and Cheney program of "Verschärfte Vernehmung."

Checkout this website. There is a picture of a corpse, a man tortured to death by Americans.

Yeah, Dear Rich! I am sure that if you prop up his dead body to watch his cable TV, and force pork into his dead mouth, he is alot better off than I am.

If you go to this website and look at this deadman on whom your tax dollars were spent in torturing to death, I am sure you can think of some silly, flippant, and sick things to make fun of him about, and mock him, and laugh at his dead features, and you can imagine and suppose all of the crimes he committed to end up that way, even though neither you nor I know if he was guilty or innocent of anything.

I do not want my tax dollars spent on this moral depravity.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html

Rich;

Waterboarding is not "dunking."

This is what waterboarding looks like:

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/this_is_what_wa.php

American and British veterans who were subjected to this form of torture by the Japanese in WWII say it was the worst thing that was dome to them; worse than beatings, worse than sleep deprivation, worse than "stress positions" (yes, those things are torture, too).

It was a crime when the Imperial Japanese did it, it was a crime when Pol Pot's fanatics did it, its a crime when the CIA does it.

The fact that it makes simpering little cowards like you feel safe is no defense.

Regards

A Hermit

JoeT:

Rich: the technique involves suffocation by water until the person actually loses consciousness when they can no longer resist inhaling, but there's no air there to inhale. then they are revived. they are held upside down so that no water actually goes far down the lungs so that they can be more easily revived. that's according to a retired general describing why we (yes, us) considered it a war crime when the Japanese did it to us"

I don't care if they tickle them till they pee. BTW the japs did not lot more then dunk but good to see you go the dems talking points on waterboarding. Also, I did not see where OBL signed the geneva convention. Can you point that out to me?

Rich,

You don't think that 5000 people have been murdered in Iraq so far this year? You're deluded. Hell, more *Americans* have been killed in Iraq than in Philadelphia this year (if your numbers are accurate), and there are less than 200,000 of them there!

Water boarding is not "dunking", it is drowning. Very different.

Comparing US torture techniques to opposition torture techniques is also not the point. We are supposed to be better than them.

Interesting how some posters claim torture is valid against Muslims. Acting like a terrorist to catch a terrorists only makes you a terrorrists!

The Law of Cause and Effect!

Using religion for the purposes of committing illegal acts; torture; against humanity only speaks about what America really believes.

Patrick

Interesting how some posters claim torture is valid against Muslims. Acting like a terrorist to catch a terrorists only makes you a terrorrists!

The Law of Cause and Effect!

Using religion for the purposes of committing illegal acts; torture; against humanity only speaks about what America really believes.

Patrick

Rich: the technique involves suffocation by water until the person actually loses consciousness when they can no longer resist inhaling, but there's no air there to inhale. then they are revived. they are held upside down so that no water actually goes far down the lungs so that they can be more easily revived. that's according to a retired general describing why we (yes, us) considered it a war crime when the Japanese did it to us.

Daniel:

Rich
Why dont you tell us why you are so proud of the Nazi-inspired Bush and Cheney program of "Verschärfte Vernehmung."

You want to compare dunking to getting your head chopped off, go ahead. If dunking and cable and three square is torture then torture away. I bet you would think torture would be taking away their quran's or making them watch the weather channel all day long. Those guys down in Gitmo are prolly living better then you. Heck they can pray all day if they like, get pork free meals and jerry springer and all the while not having to pay for it. Now tell me, are doing any better then that Danny?

Lets put an end to dunking now. We must send the storm troopers out to secure all local pools as well. We need neighbors to turn on neighbors to stop this torture at home as well. There should a hot line set up to report all dunkings and these evil people should be imprisoned for life. This dunking has to stop, now!!! It will be the ruin of western civilization.

Rich
Why dont you tell us why you are so proud of the Nazi-inspired Bush and Cheney program of "Verschärfte Vernehmung."

Cameron:

Anonymous,

I *highly* doubt your "more likely to get killed in Philly than you are in Iraq" statement. What is your source?

Thanks"

Just check the murder rate in Philly. They are at about 500 or so right now for the year. The city has about 2 mil or so. Iraq has about 20 or so million. You do the math buddy.

Getech said:

"Wonderful. Let's put our national security in the capable hands of Ms. Jacoby since she is eminently more qualified than those amateurs at the Dept. of Defense."

I was listening to CSPAN and a guest on the show said the the Military Code of Justice forbids torture, which includes forbidding water boarding.

So, Mr Getech, you're all mixed up. The Nazi-inspired program of "Verschärfte Vernehmung" does not come from the Department of Defense; it is President Bush and VP Cheney's idea and program. I think just about anyone is smarter then either of them, except of course for poor dumb Rich.

Anyone willing to support TORTURE should not consider themself a human being. History speaks to this understanding. The hague.

It seems the US spent many years calling despots whom use torture as criminals. What do you call a torturer?

How does that title escape the US Justice Department and the US Government in general as the US sends innocent people to foreign countries to be tortured; fully knowledgeable of the methods and manners of acquiring information; either by the CIA, FBI, or the Local police Department?

What is the difference if it is the local police, FBI, or the CIA, all American arms of justice.

if the US tortured American's I would imagine American's would be more concerned, if it was their relatives being tortured for what ever the purpose.

I we want to speak out against Mynamar/Burma, China committing torture against civilians.

What a joke!

Patrick

Daniel:

Rich

You're mean and you're demented. Anyone could be accused of a crime, and tortured, even you. It is not necessary to be a terrorist, nor even ever having committed a crime. Anyone can be accused; that is what mean people like you do, point a finger and accuse, people whom you don't like.

Why dont you tell us why you are so proud of the Nazi-inspired Bush and Cheney program of "Verschärfte Vernehmung," instead of trying to change the subject to abortion"

Just putting it all in perspective. I am guess you are pro partial birth abortion. Can you give me a list of those Americans that have been rounded up and tortured? Can you give me a list of those Americans that have had their rights violated? I will wait.

Also that was my post in response back to dead-ender.

Anonymous,

I *highly* doubt your "more likely to get killed in Philly than you are in Iraq" statement. What is your source?

Thanks

ender:

Are you speaking of the Iraqis that cut off the head of the moron American that turned up unarmed IN A COUNTRY WE ILLEGALLY INVADED?

If we were invaded by an Islamic(or any) nation, I would use a rusty butter knife to kill them, or anyone that was associated with them. I would be a terrorist. How about you? Or are you would stand back and invite them over for dinner?

The people you call terrorist NEVER ATTACKED US. Not in any way. They are fighting for their country which we have now blown the fk up and turned into the most dangerous nation on the planet.

Momma's Little Cocaine Cowboy and FauX news claim we are winning. Almost 30% of the population has left the country, and those left live in heavily armed enclaves. It is now considered as difficult to survive in Iraq as it is in Darfour.

And you think torture is going to get any worth while information out of people living in that?

Almost everyone we kept in Guantanimo has been released. Do you realize that means we 'waterboarded', isolated and used extreme and inhumane treatments ON INNOCENT IRAQIS AND AFGHANS THAT WERE GUILTY OF PISSING OFF THE WRONG NEIGHBOR, WHO PROBABLY REALLY WAS KILLING OUR SOLDIERS.

No wonder the world thinks we are populated by evil idiots. You are a prime example, Rich"

Lots of hate in there. Glad you are on our side. Can you tell us how you know we waterboarded all those gitmo people? From everything I have seen or heard dunking has only been used a couple times but why worry about the truth there ender. You want to start comparing things lets throw some real facts out there. You are more likely to get killed in Philly then you are in Iraq. Funny stat there hey ender. Come on, give me that hate. Release the hate you will feel better. I would venture to guess if we were invaded you would be the first one kneeling east and praying 5 times a day(notice the correction). I have no doubt you would do all you could to undermine this country now so we would lose in Iraq. Am I wrong? Let's wait till them come here so tough guys like you can fend them off with rusty butter knives.

Let's be clear here; it is not just that torture doesn't "work" in the sense of not making us safer. Even if it DID work it would still be morally unacceptable because of what it does to US.

Hitting someone over the head and taking their wallet "works" if you need money and they have it. Doesn't make it right...

A Hermit

Are you speaking of the Iraqis that cut off the head of the moron American that turned up unarmed IN A COUNTRY WE ILLEGALLY INVADED?

If we were invaded by an Islamic(or any) nation, I would use a rusty butter knife to kill them, or anyone that was associated with them. I would be a terrorist. How about you? Or are you would stand back and invite them over for dinner?

The people you call terrorist NEVER ATTACKED US. Not in any way. They are fighting for their country which we have now blown the fk up and turned into the most dangerous nation on the planet.

Momma's Little Cocaine Cowboy and FauX news claim we are winning. Almost 30% of the population has left the country, and those left live in heavily armed enclaves. It is now considered as difficult to survive in Iraq as it is in Darfour.

And you think torture is going to get any worth while information out of people living in that?

Almost everyone we kept in Guantanimo has been released. Do you realize that means we 'waterboarded', isolated and used extreme and inhumane treatments ON INNOCENT IRAQIS AND AFGHANS THAT WERE GUILTY OF PISSING OFF THE WRONG NEIGHBOR, WHO PROBABLY REALLY WAS KILLING OUR SOLDIERS.

No wonder the world thinks we are populated by evil idiots. You are a prime example, Rich.

Rich

You're mean and you're demented. Anyone could be accused of a crime, and tortured, even you. It is not necessary to be a terrorist, nor even ever having committed a crime. Anyone can be accused; that is what mean people like you do, point a finger and accuse, people whom you don't like.

Why dont you tell us why you are so proud of the Nazi-inspired Bush and Cheney program of "Verschärfte Vernehmung," instead of trying to change the subject to abortion.

As Orwell noted in his book, 1984, "The object of Power is Power. The object of Torture is Torture." That pretty much sums up the Bush administration in a nutshell.

Daniel:

Dear Rich

Your comment was mean and ignorant jerk. The Muslims pray to Mecca five times a day, they do not bow to the East three times a day. Someone should hold your head under water until you pass out, for being so stupid.

I am not afraid. I am not waiting around like a lamb for the slaughter. I am here, and ready to do battle against the enemy, who are people like you and the Hitleresque people who are seeking to destroy America and the Constitution.

I have no wish to "bow to the East three times a day" (as you so ignorantly put it) because I am a Christian and not a Muslim. And it is the duty, the obligation, and the responsiblity of all Christians to stand up against the institution of torture in American society, or else to go hide in fear and shame, in your relious hypocrisy"

Typical of the left. The enemy they see is America. You would fit right in with terrorists. Your own comment says you are for torture as you would wish to dunk me. I guess torture is ok with you as long as it is on Americans. Hey I'll chip in to help you get over there to do battle against the infidel's. Ok so I said three times instead of five. I hope I did offend any of those terrorist listening in. Now give me some more of that good old hatred you got there. I sense a lot of anger in your writings along with a lot of name calling towards me. If it spares your wife and kids from a beating, verbal or otherwise, keep attacking me.

LDS MARK,

If you are a member of the LDS Church, are you a reincarnation of one of the Mormon killers at the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

That might explain your view favoring torture.

Was an earlier version of Mitt Romney with your previous incarnation at the massacre? Mitt recently said that he too favored torturing those who said something other than what we wanted to hear.

The MMM Mormon killers were natural torturers.

They killed all the children eight years old and older. They spared the younger ones, thinking they couldn't provide coherent testimony against them.

Yours in Mitt and his coming Administration.

Will a statue of Moroni be placed atop the Capitol - and portraits in the torture chambers?

Wonderful. Let's put our national security in the capable hands of Ms. Jacoby since she is eminently more qualified than those amateurs at the Dept. of Defense.

Rich,

Fetuses are not babies, and "partial birth abortion" is a phrase made up to imply that they are. Also, fetuses are not tortured in any abortion process.

That's not what this discussion is about, though.

If anyone is to have human rights, everyone must have human rights. Even terrorists.

I wonder where these lefty's stand on the torture of babies. My guess is that most in here think partial birth abortion is great or it is just choice. Funny how low opinion they would have for their fellow American yet are all too willing to make a stand for that terrorist that just chopped off someones head.

LDS mark whimpers:

"Water boarding does not fit the definition of torture, and contrary to what you said, it does and HAS worked."

Water boarding was defined as torture in the war crimes trials following WWII; those who experienced it call it the worst of the methods used on them.

Can you cite even one case where waterboarding has "worked?" (Unless by "worked" you mean extracted a false confession, produced misleading information or psychologically broke the victim...)

Regards

A Hermit

Earlier, I posted this:

"The phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is German for "enhanced interrogation". This was the Nazi euphemisim for the torture that they practised; it is the same Orwellian phrase that President Bush and Vice President Cheney and all of their supporters use today."

I would like to hear what the defenders of torture think of this. I would like to hear from someone; does this make you proud? Tell us why ""Verschärfte Vernehmung" is good, and why we should all support Bush and Cheney in their "Verschärfte Vernehmung" policies.

Die Torture writes:

"The sight of my children being tortured would hardly evoke any sympathy or displeasure from the enemy."

How do you know? Besides, the hypothetical was that it not only DID evoke sympathy, but that it DID elicit good information, so your answer is a cowardly cop-out.

Why am I not surprised?

BTW - AFAIK, my hypothetical has yet to be tried and proven or not. YOUR belief that torture works, on the other hand, has been roundly proven to be a myth.

You may bellow all you want, but you're simply wrong.

Dear Rich

Your comment was mean and ignorant jerk. The Muslims pray to Mecca five times a day, they do not bow to the East three times a day. Someone should hold your head under water until you pass out, for being so stupid.

I am not afraid. I am not waiting around like a lamb for the slaughter. I am here, and ready to do battle against the enemy, who are people like you and the Hitleresque people who are seeking to destroy America and the Constitution.

I have no wish to "bow to the East three times a day" (as you so ignorantly put it) because I am a Christian and not a Muslim. And it is the duty, the obligation, and the responsiblity of all Christians to stand up against the institution of torture in American society, or else to go hide in fear and shame, in your relious hypocrisy.

Die Torture squwaks:

"How do you believe the communists were defeated by the Argentine, Brazilian, Peruvian, and Uruguyan militaries in the 1970s and 1980s?"

I posted this over in that moral degenerate Cal Thomas's thread; I'll repeat the story here for your benefit:

n 1977 I was 17 and attending a Mennonite Church conference in Ohio when I first met a torture victim; a young woman from Argentina who had been detained, along with the rest of her University sociolgy class and their professor because of their work setting up social programs for the poor in the Barrios of Buenos Aires. This activity made them suspect as "Communists", and justifed their detention and "agressive interrogation" by the military junta.

She was released because her mother was American, and had given birth to her in the United States, giving her citizen status, although she had never visited the US. She said her tormenters complained about the Americans' double standard; approving and aiding the "anti-communist" activities except when an American was involved.

I'll never forget the way she told her story; calmly, quietly, even smiling slightly now and then as she described the electric shocks, being raped with a wine bottle, forced to sleep on a cold concrete floor, chained to the wall with grain scattered around her to attract the rats...

This is the kind of thing you are defending here. Someone labeled that girl a "Communist" and that was enough to justify treating her like something sub-human. Today they use "terrorist" to do the same thing. For the morally bankrupt, like you and Cal Thomas, the fact that someone you can call "the enemy" is being punished is what matters. It makes you cowards feel safe.

I've also met victims of Pinochet's "anti-communist" campaign and refugees form Africa and Southeast Asia. Their tormenters always had an excuse; they were defending the country; the Church, the traditional way of life, etc. etc. from "Communists" "dissidents' "rebels" or "terrorists". The vicitms I've met were none of those things; they were students, teachers, a theologian, a soccer coach...

Makes me sick...

A Hermit

"Would you allow your children to be tortured if the sight of it caused a terrorist to give up real information that saved other lives?"

Dear Mr. Mark:

The sight of my children being tortured would hardly evoke any sympathy or displeasure from the enemy. I believe it would be far more useful and effective to torture his family and his children in his presence to extract information.

Tortured by Mistake
The case of Maher Arar shows why the Bush administration's secret detention program is wrong.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006; Page A24

A COUPLE of years ago, President Bush might well have counted Maher Arar as one of the success stories of the CIA's secret program for detaining and interrogating suspected terrorists. Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, was arrested at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 because he was on a watchlist; Canadian police said they believed he had connections to al-Qaeda. Rather than being returned to Canada, Mr. Arar disappeared into the CIA's secret system -- he was transported to Syria and handed over to its military intelligence service. For several weeks, Mr. Arar was tortured by his Syrian captors, who beat him with an electric cable. Eventually he broke and confessed that he had trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.

The problem with this story, as an official Canadian investigation reported Monday, is that Mr. Arar was innocent. "Categorically there is no evidence" that Mr. Arar was a terrorist or posed a security threat, the report stated. He never traveled to Afghanistan. The Canadian police intelligence about him was simply wrong. But after his coerced confession, he was held in a Syrian dungeon for 10 months and suffered "devastating" mental and economic harm before finally being released in 2003.

Mr. Arar's case vividly illustrates a couple of the points that veteran military and diplomatic leaders have been trying to impress on Mr. Bush about the dangers of the CIA program, for which the president is demanding congressional approval. From early 2002 until this month the agency held some al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons and subjected them to harsh interrogation techniques that, though they don't include beatings with cables, violate the Geneva Conventions and current U.S. law. Others, like Mr. Arar, have been secretly handed over to foreign governments known to use torture in interrogations, including Egypt and Jordan as well as Syria -- a practice known as "rendition."

Mr. Bush claims that the renditions, secret detentions and harsh U.S. techniques -- which most of the world regards as torture -- have yielded important intelligence. But as the military commanders who oppose such methods have insistently and courageously pointed out, it is well known that the information they produce is unreliable. Many detainees, as Mr. Arar did, will falsely incriminate themselves or others to avoid abuse. Over time, better intelligence can be obtained by working within guidelines mandating humane treatment of detainees -- such as those in the new Army interrogation manual released this month.

Moreover, as Mr. Arar's case illustrates, cruel treatment of prisoners, even in secret, eventually becomes known and can badly damage the honor and influence of the United States and its relations with allies. The mistreatment of Mr. Arar has hurt U.S. relations with Canada and could impede cooperation with its police and security services in the future. Other cases of rendition have similarly upset U.S. intelligence relations with Italy, Germany and Sweden.

It's no wonder that two former Republican secretaries of state, Colin L. Powell and George P. Shultz, oppose Mr. Bush's attempt to modify U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions to permit future secret detentions and renditions by the CIA. Or that military leaders ranging from Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the senior serving uniformed lawyer in the Army, also oppose the president's initiative. They understand well what Mr. Bush refuses to see -- that the price of his policies is bad intelligence, the criminal mistreatment of some innocent people, and damage to U.S. prestige and alliances that the country can ill afford.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901547.html

Dear Mark

Everyone should take a position on torture, against torture, that is.

And Mukasey is the nominated candidate for the office of Attorney General!!! not a judge!

The Attorney General, you know, the Minister of Justice? not a judge!

You'r mixed up with your facts, and you are flippantly and arrogantly dismissive of people who would like to reinstitute the old bans on torture.

Maybe someone should hold your head under the water until you learn your lesson.

Name some studies. I know the left has no qualms about giving up a few more Americans so we do not have to crawl into the gutter to catch the rats. According to her we really should not be killing anyone on the battlefield either. We should just sit like lambs to the slaughter and wait or put on the head scarf and bow three times a day to the east. We really debase out culture when we stoop to such levels as protecting ourselves from the enemy. How about she write this op-ed for the Al Jazzara.

To LDS Mark: What dim-witted person told you that wb does not fit the "definition" of torture? And what about other techniques that could be used as torture?
It is not a matter of liberals versus conservatives. It is just a simple case of humane and compassionate versus inhumane, cruel, sadistic, demented crooks like Cal and you!

Mark,

Can you explain why waterboarding does not meet your definition of torture, and why that definition of torture is reasonable or commonly accepted?

Thanks

LDS Mark

If you think waterboarding is so great, then why don't you get a cat, and try to drown it? Tie it to a board, and pour buckets of water over its face, to try and drown it; but make you sure you do it in secret, because there are laws against animal cruelty.

I assume the LDS stands for "Latter Day Saint." Promoting torture to flippantly, as you have done with your comment, undermines anything that you could have to say about your religious beliefs or church doctrine.

Torture is immoral, and people who support it are immoral as well.

Water boarding does not fit the definition of torture, and contrary to what you said, it does and HAS worked.

If water boarding has the potential to save lives, yes do it.

If a justice were to take a position on the definition of torture, he would not be fit for office. Therefore he did not.

Why do you liberals not understand that concept?
Or, do you just choose to ignore what is not convent?

Mark

Torture is immoral and criminal activity. Are American agents who engage in this ugly practice paid from my tax-dollars?

And when these agents of torture target a person for torture, how do they know this victim knows anything? How do they know if any particular individual is really "torture-worthy?"

If the victim denies any knowledge, then how do the agents of torture know if he is telling the truth or not? What if the victim is telling the truth, and does not know anything? Then the agents of torture commit their devious acts upon him, in vain. But, I suppose if you are sadistic, then there can be no such thing as wasted or mistaken torture.

When the agents of torture are administering the torture, how do they know how to do it? In waterboarding, for example, there must fine and delicate techniques, so as not to kill the victim. Remember, the movie the Wizard of OZ? The Wicked Witch of the West puzzled over how to do away with Dorothy; "...these things must be done delicately..." she said. Yes, President Bush, she is a good role model for our little children.

How would the agents of torture learn it and become accomplished at it? Would they practice it on "expendable" people? Or would they practice it on cats and dogs, perhaps? But wouldn't that amount to animal cruelty? We DO have laws against that. Even Hitler loved his dog.

What kind of people do we want to be agents of torture? Do we want to recruit sadistic and psychopathic people to do these dirty deeds, even if they enjoy it TOO much? Mightn't they pose a threat to society, later on, after all this torture "unpleasantness" is behind us?

But what about the good and kindhearted wholesome types, who wouldn't harm a fly; should they be recruited and trained in the black arts of torture? Wouldn't that amount to ruining their lives, dragging them down into the mud, from which they could probably never emerge?

Maybe doctors should be recruited to torture, since they are already familiar with blood, injury, broken bones, and suffering. But would you go to a doctor who also tortures people? Isn't that getting a little to Hitleresque?

There are alot of details to think about as we embark upon this long road of torture. If this is truley the road we wish to strike out on, there is a large body of literature on the Nazi experience and Nazi Germany that we should study, so that we can know what may be in store for us.

If you support torture, then you do need to think of these things. Would you like for your son to grow up and be an official US agent of torture? Would you be proud? Or would you be afraid, of the holidays, when he would come to visit?

Water boarding does not fit the definition of torture, and contrary to what you said, it does and HAS worked.

If water boarding has the potential to save lives, yes do it.

If a justice were to take a position on the definition of torture, he would not be fit for office. Therefore he did not.

Why do you liberals not understand that concept?
Or, do you just choose to ignore what is not convenient?

Mark

Water boarding does not fit the definition of torture, and contrary to what you said, it does and HAS worked.

If water boarding has the potential to save lives, yes do it.

If a justice were to take a position on the definition of torture, he would not be fit for office. Therefore he did not.

Why do you liberals not understand that concept?
Or, do you just choose to ignore what is not convent?

Mark

waterboarding does not fit the definition of torture, and contrary to what you said, it does and HAS worked.

If water boarding has the potential to save lives, yes do it.

If a justice were to take a position on the definition of torture, he would not be fit for office. therefore he did not.

Why do you liberials not understand that concept?
Or, do you just choose to ignore what is not convient?

mark

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

You said, "There may not be a just God, but..."
As an atheist, you have declared there is not a God of any sort, good or bad.
You should thus say, "There is no just God, but..."

Since there is no God, you must find your moral groundings elsewhere. Or... is there a God afterall? Maybe you find God in a sense of justice and fairness? What's wrong with that?

Brian

Die Torture:

I can't speak to the japenese prisoners, but as for the germans i remember an interview of several interogators where instead of harming and berating them, they played chess with them and actually got more information out of them that way then they would have otherwise.

As for the examples in south america, i hope you are not promoting that as anything other than what it was, dictators drunk with power, using the fear of communisim to keep power, and in the process killing 10s of thousands of their people. Do you understand how many people just disapeared at that time, and for what, so that tyrants such as Pinochet could stay in power.. Communism was the excuse to torture and kill, and the real reason was so that the government of these nations could maintain power. What happened in those nations was a travesty, the effects of which are still felt today, and are nothing to be admired.

As far as torture in general i have always been of the mindset that a democracy has the burden of fighting w/ one hand behind their back. If you say we believe in these rights... except when something scary happens... then the rights become meaningless. The real situation isn't there is a bomb and this one guy has all the information we need, the real situation is there may be an attack coming.. we have these 50 people, 40 of whom are completely innocent, 8 of whom have some kind of information or are sympathetic to the cause.. and two are involved and may have helpful information. Now do you torture all 50 of those people in hopes of finding something, knowing that the 2 who do know anything are the least likely to say anything real, and with chances of getting good information at about 1%.. i say no.

On Faith's resident Bush Buddy and XtianNeoNazi Cal Thomas has already jumped on to say torture is OK because the Islamic terrorist do it.

Thankfully jesus and the god of the Jews and the bible are myths, or I suspect there'e be some major asswhoopin' retribution happening to these supposed christians.

Yes, the conscience of America is the Secular Humanist, not the Brown Boot Nazis preaching christianity in this country.

In the next election those cowardly Senators will be claiming "If only I had known..." about Mukasey, just like they are doing these days with the Iraq war. Oh! But we didn't KNOW!

Die Torture:

I can't speak to the japenese prisoners, but as for the germans i remember an interview of several interogators where instead of harming and berating them, they played chess with them and actually got more information out of them that way then they would have otherwise.

As for the examples in south america, i hope you are not promoting that as anything other than what it was, dictators drunk with power, using the fear of communisim to keep power, and in the process killing 10s of thousands of their people. Do you understand how many people just disapeared at that time, and for what, so that tyrants such as Pinochet could stay in power.. Communism was the excuse to torture and kill, and the real reason was so that the government of these nations could maintain power. What happened in those nations was a travesty, the effects of which are still felt today, and are nothing to be admired.

As far as torture in general i have always been of the mindset that a democracy has the burden of fighting w/ one hand behind their back. If you say we believe in these rights... except when something scary happens... then the rights become meaningless. The real situation isn't there is a bomb and this one guy has all the information we need, the real situation is there may be an attack coming.. we have these 50 people, 40 of whom are completely innocent, 8 of whom have some kind of information or are sympathetic to the cause.. and two are involved and may have helpful information. Now do you torture all 50 of those people in hopes of finding something, knowing that the 2 who do know anything are the least likely to say anything real, and with chances of getting good information at about 1%.. i say no.

The phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is German for "enhanced interrogation". This was the Nazi euphemisim for the torture that they practised; it is the same Orwellian phrase that President Bush and Vice President Cheney and all of their supporters use today. Today, in the United States of America, the leaders are mimicing the leaders of Nazi Germany; they are their brethren; they are kindredd spirits.

But they are not my brethren nor my kindred spirits.

The writer talks about God and Morality. Interesting fact: 70% of "Christians" think torture is ok, we all know that the Muslims seem to also have no problem morally with torturing people. The real interesting part is that 68% of "Atheists" think torture IMMORAL!

So much for Religion being the "Moral Compass" of society!

Ask yourself how Christian America became a country of "an eye for an eye", and you are on the road to wisdom.

Dear Die Torture -

Would you allow your children to be tortured if the sight of it caused a terrorist to give up real information that saved other lives?

Die Torture:

Why are you defending the indefensable? Do you feel that you have some personal stake in torturing? Is your little world going to crumble if the former prohibition and taboo on torture is reinstated? What is your interest in promoting this practice?

Die Torture,

The "El Presidente" dictators of South America are not MY models, that I wish to imitate.

An argument over this isn't really necessary. You don't really need to justify your support of torture to me. I know it is immoral, and I know you are a bad and immoral person for supporing it.

Here's proof that nonreligious people have higher ethical standards than believers, from a poll taken last year:
Percentage of respondents who think torture is never justified:

Catholics 26%
White Protestant 31%
White evangelical 31%
Secular 41%
Total 32%

This from a survey by Pew, reported by the National Catholic Reporter.

I'm sickened that Ms. Jacoby needs to write what is obviously true: waterboarding is torture, and torture is a sin.

Yes, it may may produce useful information in a small percentage of cases, but so what? Is our temporal bodily life worth the cost?

Matthew 16:26 -- "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"

Die Torture:

Wait, you're using torture committed in the Southern Cone of South America in the 70s and 80s to *justify* more torture? That would be hilarious if it weren't so effing sad. Torture was used to crush democracy, civil society, and human rights, not communism.

Joet:

If you believe that Japanese and German prisoners were not tortured by American forces you are an innocent. The example of the South American militaries may be too simple for you to understand: they all defeated communist insurgencies without having to call upon direct US military assistance and employing torture as one of the techniques for defeating the communists. What do you make of the habit of US soldiers collecting Japanese body parts as trophies? Do you believe that was an environment inimical to torture?

Torture is WRONG.
Any human being who sees humanity in another cannot torture that person. And perhaps this is the lesson -- religious fanatics (pick your religion, it applies to all) see believers in another faith as sub-human, other, animal. And so the immorality of the action of torture doesn't seem to apply.
Funny how, as an atheist, I see all human beings as my brothers and sisters, and could never condone beating, suffocating, cutting, hitting, tormenting, or humiliating my fellow humans.
Sad how so many Christians (not all of them, thankfully!) do condone these actions.

Thank you Susan for another good article.

Die Torture: If Ike and McCarthur didn't waterboard the Japanese in WWII (and prosecuted them for waterboarding our boys) - that's all the argument I need. The Argentinians? give me a break.

Hi, John Doe,

I don't usually reply to those who, like you, are so afraid to show themselves that they clothe themselves in anonymity.

I'm making an exception in your case because what you wrote is so stupid that I can't just let it pass. As we used to say in grade school, what you wrote is "dumber than whalesh-t on the bottom of the sea".

"What does believing in Heaven and Hell have to do with torture???"

Simple, dumbo: If you torture someone you're going to Hell, no ifs, ands, or buts. Capisce?

What are you, a reincarnated Roman? "Do unto others as the Romans did to my Lord?" Did you find that in the Bible?

Do you go to sleep reciting WWJT (Who would Jesus torture?).

"You make it seems as though Christians, which is a VERY broad category, are these weak, pathetic, stupid individuals who are not allowed to be angry or defend themselves, because once they do, they become a traitor to their religion...ABSURD!!!!"

Jesus said "Turn the other cheek". What do you think that means?

He also allowed Himself to be tortured and killed, though as the Living God he could have destroyed his enemies.

Does that mean nothing to you?

Always with the Inquisition with this lady. Honey, it was CENTURIES ago.

The very fact that we as Americans are debating whether or not torture is OK shows that in a very real sense, the slimeball bush and his slimeball friends have already won.

I will say one thing - I am not at all surprised that the defenders of bush's torture are the Xians. There are two reasons for this:

1. Xians are suckers who believe in the myths of the Bible, so it's quite natural to believe the Big Lie when told by bush, be it on WMD or torture.

2. Xians approach their lives from the perspective of fear. Fear of hell, fear of the unknown and fear of their shadows. The Republic doctrine of fear-over-all plays right into the fear cycle of the Xians.

Looks like it's time for me to send another donation to the ACLU, of which I'm a proud, card-carrying member.

As a nation that prides itself as the model of civility and good behavior, we can hardly condone any sort of torture. There is no reason to engage in it. It doesn't matter if someone has information you feel may be of immediate use to save lives, we can not compromise our standards, ever. If we do, we are no better than those we claim to be fighting.

Having said that, I don't believe that Mr. Mukasey ever insinuated that water boarding wasn't torture. I believe that, just as he did with a number of questions, he deferred judgment on the matter until he had the clearance that would enable him to fairly evaluate both the actions of our government and the laws that govern that action. Frankly, even having heard an explanation of water boarding, I still don't have a clear understanding of what it is and how it is performed. With his background as a judge, and his understanding of the responsibility of the office for which he was being vetted, I believe his response was reasonable.

The Democrats on the panel wanted him to condemn the presumed actions of the administration. If he is to perform his duties properly, he must enter into that office without bias, and act on solid information, not supposition and rumor. I am no fan of the current administration, but I will not condone the tearing down of this man's character because he will not play into the desires of the Democrats. Before the hearing, he was hailed as a fine candidate because he was a fair and reasonable juror. I don't think that has changed.

Daniel: How do you believe the communists were defeated by the Argentine, Brazilian, Peruvian, and Uruguyan militaries in the 1970s and 1980s? Torture was used by these organizations to gain valuable information on the plans, structure of organization, and membership composition of the enemy. You are writing concerning interrogations used for the purposes of extracting a confession, not for extracting information. Henry VII needed confessions in order to justify his taking a new wife in search of male heir. Do you still believe in the innocence of the Rosenbergs you idiot?

To Daniel: Yes there is an SOP, see Jane Mayer's The Black Sites (New Yorker, readable on the web).

To John Doe and E Favorite: Okay, try this one, "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of my brethren, you have done it to me." Hard to argue sects, it's a direct quote.

To Susan Jacoby: What these senators have done isn't just despicable, they are in violation of the Convention Against Torture, Articles 12 - 15, which compel states to fully investigate, prosecute, and provide adequate punishment of all instances of torture, and forbid information extracted using it from being used. Waterboarding isn't simulated drowning, it's drowning, aborted before death, and then repeated. The U.S. has ruled it torture repeatedly (1903,1947...). The senators are complicit in violating the "supreme Law of the Land" when they fail to prosecute, let alone vote in favor of letting it continue.

nicely said. the real truth about torture is (a) is is unreliable so often that it should not be considered, (b) the scenario where the guy knows when the bomb will go off, or whatever, is counter to the arguemnets for torture becasue the torturee knows his deadline to hold and and will do so.

Die Torture

Ann Bolyn, the second wife of King Henry VIII was executed, beheaded, because she wa accused of having an adulterous affair with her brother and with her homosexual music teacher.

How were these charges proven? Her brother and her homosexual music teacher both confessed; they were tortured.

Was there any merit to the accusations for which Queen Ann Bolyn was beheaded? No; they were all lies, dreamed up by the King, so he could get rid of his second wife, and move on to the third, Jane Seymour.

So much for torture, you fool.

Friend,

Let us go to a simple formula:

A = sin
B = sinner
C = who supports B but says I am a real Christian.

A - The sin is " Torture ". We knoe it has been done in Abu Gharayeb ( by the way it means The Father of Strange Action ), in prisons run by CIA, it has been done in is going on in countries which are sanctioned by US or in foreign prisons by the American agents. These are fact that even the administration admitted.
B - The sinner, Bush administration which sanctioned the torture and admitted to it, but said it is not torture. In another word, waterboarding it is not turture, raping, beating, dishonoring, insulting their religion, or may be beating them to death and suffocating, because they are bad guy. Who and which court of justice has proved they are bad
C - Those who support this administration, the evangelical Christian who voted, and still support this administration and the Republican Party. Question : Where in Bible or Chritianity or even Christ himself can you find one word of sanctioning torture ? This proves, the Evangelicals are not Christian, but just a part of the extreme right ( Call it Neo-Nazi ) movement who just want to wipe out any body who is not white-protestant - Christian from South.
By the way, I am not a Muslim, I became a practitionare Buddhist when I was 17 and now I have passed 70.

Istanbul, Turkey

Friend,

Let us go to a simple formula:

A = sin
B = sinner
C = who supports B but says I am a real Christian.

A - The sin is " Torture ". We knoe it has been done in Abu Gharayeb ( by the way it means The Father of Strange Action ), in prisons run by CIA, it has been done in is going on in countries which are sanctioned by US or in foreign prisons by the American agents. These are fact that even the administration admitted.
B - The sinner, Bush administration which sanctioned the torture and admitted to it, but said it is not torture. In another word, waterboarding it is not turture, raping, beating, dishonoring, insulting their religion, or may be beating them to death and suffocating, because they are bad guy. Who and which court of justice has proved they are bad
C - Those who support this administration, the evangelical Christian who voted, and still support this administration and the Republican Party. Question : Where in Bible or Chritianity or even Christ himself can you find one word of sanctioning torture ? This proves, the Evangelicals are not Christian, but just a part of the extreme right ( Call it Neo-Nazi ) movement who just want to wipe out any body who is not white-protestant - Christian from South.
By the way, I am not a Muslim, I became a practitionare Buddhist when I was 17 and now I have passed 70.

Istanbul, Turkey

Friend,

Let us go to a simple formula:

A = sin
B = sinner
C = who supports B but says I am a real Christian.

A - The sin is " Torture ". We knoe it has been done in Abu Gharayeb ( by the way it means The Father of Strange Action ), in prisons run by CIA, it has been done in is going on in countries which are sanctioned by US or in foreign prisons by the American agents. These are fact that even the administration admitted.
B - The sinner, Bush administration which sanctioned the torture and admitted to it, but said it is not torture. In another word, waterboarding it is not turture, raping, beating, dishonoring, insulting their religion, or may be beating them to death and suffocating, because they are bad guy. Who and which court of justice has proved they are bad
C - Those who support this administration, the evangelical Christian who voted, and still support this administration and the Republican Party. Question : Where in Bible or Chritianity or even Christ himself can you find one word of sanctioning torture ? This proves, the Evangelicals are not Christian, but just a part of the extreme right ( Call it Neo-Nazi ) movement who just want to wipe out any body who is not white-protestant - Christian from South.
By the way, I am not a Muslim, I became a practitionare Buddhist when I was 17 and now I have passed 70.

Istanbul, Turkey

Friend,

Let us go to a simple formula:

A = sin
B = sinner
C = who supports B but says I am a real Christian.

A - The sin is " Torture ". We knoe it has been done in Abu Gharayeb ( by the way it means The Father of Strange Action ), in prisons run by CIA, it has been done in is going on in countries which are sanctioned by US or in foreign prisons by the American agents. These are fact that even the administration admitted.
B - The sinner, Bush administration which sanctioned the torture and admitted to it, but said it is not torture. In another word, waterboarding it is not turture, raping, beating, dishonoring, insulting their religion, or may be beating them to death and suffocating, because they are bad guy. Who and which court of justice has proved they are bad
C - Those who support this administration, the evangelical Christian who voted, and still support this administration and the Republican Party. Question : Where in Bible or Chritianity or even Christ himself can you find one word of sanctioning torture ? This proves, the Evangelicals are not Christian, but just a part of the extreme right ( Call it Neo-Nazi ) movement who just want to wipe out any body who is not white-protestant - Christian from South.
By the way, I am not a Muslim, I became a practitionare Buddhist when I was 17 and now I have passed 70.

Istanbul, Turkey

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
--Matthew 7:12

"If slavery isn't wrong, nothing is wrong."
--Abraham Lincoln

This statement is even truer when applied to torture. Funny how people who claim to oppose "moral relativism" can find a way to rationalize torture.

"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel."
--Matthew 23:24

Ms. Jacoby's arguments are ridiculous. If the subject has information torture will certainly bring this out to the interrogators. There is a good reason Ms. Jacoby why torture is ubiquitous across cultures and across time periods: because more often than not it produces results. There is a wealth of knowledge of interrogation techniques passed down from generation to generation of interrogators on how to break down the human personality and extract information. It is neither pleasant nor nice but highly effective. It is also curious the belief that a subject can provide useless or false information and suffer no ramifications for his deception or lies. The interrogators will continue interrogating the subject until information is given by the subject or he is declared by the security forces as a good for nothing.

To: John Doe

I went back to read Norrie's post. She is quite right; you are flat wrong. First of all, ALL of the people now promoting torture are Christians, promoting torture in the name of Christianity, to promote "Christian" values. And that deafeaning silence of protest over torture, that is coming from Christians, too.

Torture is plain brute-animal cruelty; it is a sign of moral degeneration, not just its practice, but even entertaining it as a viable option.

President Bush and Vice-President are greasy sneaks, who prey on the fear of others to justify what can only be described as depravity, the lustful and machismo desconstruction, and destruction of other people's bodies, and of other people's minds.

Defending torture and torturers is revealing; it is revealing of a dark and nefarious heart, of a deap-seated malevolence towards ones fellow man.

Whomever would defend torture, in my opinion, would cast doubt on their own goodness, on their own dependability, on their own honesty and integrity, on their own character, on their own trustworthiness.

I would not respect anyone who would put forth any argument supporting torture.

I used to think that "turn the other cheek" was a recipe to end up with a red mark on the face, at best. Now, I see it differently: that by following the old law to exact an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, we become that which we condemn. It's not about being "nice," it's about saving ourselves. When "terrorists" are everyone that the group in power designates as such, and that group is allowed to decide for itself how to treat those so designated, then any one of us can be captured and treated any way the the members of the group so choose, and there is no way to stop them.

For all of you who think torture for terrorists is a good idea, suppose this was a "liberal" Democratic administration making these kinds of decisions about the rest of us, here and abroad. Would you not see clearly the danger to yourselves? Don't think it can't happen - what one administration gets away with sets a precedent for the next. It is worth remembering that Jesus who preached the message about turning the other cheek was captured, given a summary trial, and put to death as a political subversive at the hand of the dominant power in the region, the Romans.

RM-RF, well said.

Torture is not about information, and it never has been. It's about power. It's the about the ability for the strong to control the weak. If the U.S. takes nothing off the table, and we say to our enemies, "Attack us, and this is what will happen to you and your people", we take a percieved advantage.

Once again, history repeats itself, and we demonstrate our inability to learn a lesson. Placing that power in the hands of our leaders brings out the worst in them. How many times do we have to read these words...

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

...before we heed them?

Was torture sanctioned by the U.S. in WWII? Clearly, if torture is so great we should had endorsed it then - it was going to save troop lives! Was it sanctioned during the Cold War? We were fighting against an aversary armed with thousands of nuclear weapons! Why oh why do we need torture now? Are a couple of guys in caves so dangerous that we must give our president a blank check to imprison and torture anyone he feels is an "enemy combatant". I think Kieth Obermann hit on the reason W endorsed torture - torture might not get the truth out of people, but it sure gets them to talk! I bet the tortured terrorists made up all sorts of stories about plots just to get their interrogators to stop - then W could use that as an excuse to go to red alert (remember that?), bully congress into doing what he wants and scare the american people into giving him another term...

Yeah, Norrie - just because Jesus said, "turn the other cheek" doesn't mean all the various sects of Christianity interpret it to mean "Don't torture."

And as far is that "believing in Heaven and Hell" business goes -- didn't you know that's for Christians only? And that the people we're torturing are not Christians?

Please Norrie, loosen the screws in your head and try to start seeing things are they really are!

I believe there are all kind of tortures, specially pschicological which does not come to the headlines of Newspapers.

Norrie Hoyt

Is your head screwed on too tight? What does believing in Heaven and Hell have to do with torture??? It seems to me that you are trying to prove a nonexistent point using nonsense gibberish. If you want to bash Christians, do so using a little more knowledge about Christians and the Christian faith, and not just what you hear. Everything you hear on OnFaith are opinions from haters that candy coat their opinion with their own bias, and any "fact" they give is either completely made up, or exaggerated to prove their own bias.

You make it seems as though Christians, which is a VERY broad category, are these weak, pathetic, stupid individuals who are not allowed to be angry or defend themselves, because once they do, they become a traitor to their religion...ABSURD!!!!

I am not going to give my opinion on torture. But let me challenge you to, instead of being so quick to judge, do a little research. Rather then taking a few Christian leaders' opinions and accepting them as fact for EVERY Christian in the world, do some research. Like I said, Christianity is an EXTREMELY broad category that includes VERY opposite religions (i.e. Baptist - Roman Catholic), and opinions from one camp can be very different from those of another.

You take a very bold stand by saying all Christians are like that. I would just be a little more careful on how you word things.

It hurt Jesus.

We define who we are by what we do. If we torture, then all of us are less than garbage. I think America should define humanity as something more than that.

A little torture never hurt anybody.

Very well written peice Susan! I completely agree with you, torture in all forms should be condemned!

Torture, even entertaining the thought of torture, is sadistic and psychopathic; it is immoral and amoral. People who will post here in its defense may think that they are merely expressing a political opinion; but they will doing more than that; they will be revealing their own moral depravity.

A few things I would like to know about the practice of torture under President Bush: is there a code of torture, that explains how it is to be done? is there a torture SOP? how are the torturers trained? are there torture classes? is there a torture school? or is it just all improvised, on-th-job-training? and what of the individuals who actually administer the torture? are they the "good" American, the wholesome soldier from the American "heartland?" and what happens to the torturers when they leave the military and go back home? is there any follow-up to see if this depravity spills out into their personal and family lives?

And if waterboarding is not torture, would you volunteer to try it? But that does not really simulate the torture experience, since you would be volunteering; would you volunteer your children? that is a better question.

This is a slippery slope into Naziism. The Republican Party has become a group of self-important, morally arrogant Christian poseurs and God impersonaters; how dare any one of these tiny, little men to suppose they are better than anyone else.

Christians are enjoined to turn the other cheek and let themselves be destroyed rather than engaging in immoral actions such as torturing another person.

Where are all the Christian clergy who should be preaching this elementary Christian doctrine?

And please don't mention the Vatican's legalistic rationalizations of "just wars" and the "right of self-defense". That is not what Christ taught.

And, if these Christians really believed in heaven and hell, they wouldn't dare support torturing people.

That they do support torture shows that they really don't believe the Christian doctrine that they preach and try to enforce on others.