The Justice Department has publicly declared torture "abhorrent"...(but privately declares hypocrisy "exquisite").
Hadrian said 03/11, 05:39 AM
The Justice Department publicly declared torture ???abhorrent??? in a legal opinion in Dec. 2004. But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales???s arrival as attorney general in Feb. 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing ???cruel, inhuman and degrading??? treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion that declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.
Yet, last month, the administration openly acknowledged for the first time that it had used waterboarding on three prisoners. And last week, Bush vetoed a law that would have banned the CIA from using certain torture techniques. The Bush administration seems determined to defend the principle of unrestrained executive power in authorizing the US military and intelligence agencies to operate without any legal constraints.
In this administration's eyes, the only thing it tortures is -- the truth.
ShawnF said 03/11, 11:13 PM
I'll accept the torture of a guilty few, opposed to the many innocent deaths caused by not "pursuading" the truth. It astounds me that people want to protect the same people that behead innocent civilians on videotape. The CIA deals with scum you and I will never meet. They deal with people who think if they die while killing innocent people they will forever be rewarded by their God. I guess you believe the CIA should sit them down over a cup of coffee and ask them if they will please tell them the truth. I'm sure this method will be very effective. I'm sure they will break under this immense pressure. Give me a break. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the CIA knows what they are doing. They've been doing this for some time now. But hey why don't you start a human rights campaign for terroists! Then maybe when the CIA had that chance to get that needed information to stop the deaths of 1,000s of people, but couldn't because you fought for their "rights" and could only talk to the terrorist, you will see how useful and justified these methods were.
Hadrian said 03/13, 07:25 AM
Torture can save lives? The torture of an al-Qaeda operative produced a confession that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. More American lives have now been lost in Iraq than on 9/11, thanks in part to the imaginary ???life-saving??? power of torture.
Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was interrogated by both the US and Egypt. He claimed that Iraq had trained al-Qaeda members to use chemical and biological weapons. Al-Libi's testimony was used by the Bush administration to help prove that Iraq was ready to provide al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.
And so we went to war to prevent this nightmare - weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, under Osama bin Laden's control. What better proof that torture works?
But in January 2004, al-Libi recanted his confession, saying he had invented the information to stop the torture. If the consequences of torture are as catastrophic as embarking upon the Iraq War on the basis of fabricated information, it cuts the balls off the claims by torture's defenders that the practice saves lives.
References in the comments.
ShawnF said 03/19, 10:36 PM
This example just shows a president who was gun-shy and deadset on invading Iraq. But this in no way shows that torture doesn't work. It's easy to pull the one public example we have up and make a generalization about how ineffective torture is. But we don't know about the day to day operations of the CIA, or all of the cases that it was effective. Why is this? Because the CIA is a top-secret operation. If we knew everything they were doing then they would be ineffective. I just know I love feeling safe and secure in the US. After 9/11, I saw who the CIA deals with. I saw what extremists are capable of, and I'm all for any means necessary to make sure another 9/11 doesn't happen again. I can't comprehend how you could be so concerned about the "rights" of a terrorist who would love to kill every American if he could. Until I hear of innocent people being tortured, then I am all for the security and safety the CIA brings America and by any means they see necessary. While I can see where your anger from being in Iraq comes from, we are there now and should finish the job at hand. I would hate to see all of those soldiers and Iraqi civilians die in vain!
Hadrian said 03/20, 12:29 AM
"Until I hear of innocent people being tortured, then I am all for the security & safety the CIA brings America & by any means they see necessary."
Indeed, torture is not a legitimate way to obtain testimony from suspects for use in judicial inquiries. That would be torturing innocent people -- or at least people not yet determined to be guilty by the legal process. With that in mind, the US is now re-interrogating people at Gitmo without using torture to get evidence that can be use in court.
There are indeed people who have been tortured & then been cleared of wrong-doing. For example, Mamdouh Habib signed confessions of involvement with al-Qaeda, which he then retracted. He was released without charge from Guantanamo Bay in January 2005.
Interrogators in Iraq saw an big increase in rapidly obtained, valid & high-value intelligence after coercive practices were banned. The secret? "A rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect & dignity, & having very well-trained interrogators".
The fact is, the US does torture--and lies about it. Thats what this debate is about.
ShawnF said 03/20, 09:02 PM
They have to lie about it because people such as yourself take the side of terrorists. The CIA does not have the luxury of time to go through criminal proceedings. They have to react to intelligence recieved and view it as an immediate threat to safety of the US and our allies. I'm glad they do what they do. I love the fact that I can live my day to day live in safety, a luxury most people in the world don't have. The fact of the matter is that if every pilot that hi-jacked planes on Sept. 11 were caught before carrying out their terror plot, they too would have been innocent in your eyes. Were they criminals when they woke up that morning? No. Were they at the end of the day? Yes. I hope the CIA continues to do the dirty work, I just hope they do a better job of keeping it quiet so there isn't any more discontent from people such as yourself.
Comments
Add Your Comment
First, I would like to know where Hadrian is getting these facts from. Secondly, I agree with ShawnF's points. If someone is willing to die for their cause than the only way to get information out of them is to torture them. I wish this wasn't the case, but it is. We have to fight extremists with extreme measures!
shrek | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
Part of the job of people in the CIA is to interrogate people. Shawn is right, they DO deal with the scum. It is the ultra-liberal "all we are saying is give peace a chance" folks who leave us and our allies vulnerable. This is what scares certain Americans about liberal foreign policies, i.e. coming to the table with no preconditions with just anyone. BTW, Progressive, it it'll save lives argument, let's add the fact that it will save INNOCENT lives, while extremists want to kill anyone and everyone who doesn't think as they do, Jews, Christians, Athiests, Buddhists, etc. You are right on ShawnF. ROTP
Rightonthispoint | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
For those who support torture I pose you this: how does the standard bearer of world morality justify the exercise of immorality in the quest for justice? If we can justify it, where is the cantilever for foreign regimes and entities who condone torture? Is our intelligence gathering capability this ineffective that me must revisit the Middle Ages to protect ourselves? Is there no ally we can depend on for reliable intelligence, enabling us to live up to our position as the moral authority and example?
illinoisman | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
shrek wants the source of my facts? FACT 1. The Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" in a legal opinion in Dec. 2004: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm FACT 2. U.S. secretly endorses torture: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin FACT 3. Justice Department issues 2nd secret opinion: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.html FACT 4. US admits to waterboarding: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm FACT 5. Bush vetoes bill outlawing CIA waterboarding: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0736443620080308 FACT 6. Torture is one reason we are now in Iraq. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.beers.html
Hadrian | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
No response to my last argument in almost a week. I'll take this as a default "win". Thanks Shawn.
Hadrian | 03/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
What a bunch of crap! He's not "taking the side of terrorists"; he's advocating the principle that we should be BETTER then they are! Sadly, small-minded, illogical rhetoric like that flies.
IamFry | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
I have to side with Hadrian on this one. Torture has been proven over and over again to be an unreliable way to get information. The US, which has spent much of its time advocating human rights cannot resort to practices which have so abhorred us in the past. ShawnF, to say that advocating against torture is "taking the side of terrorists" is quite desperate.
Ariyel | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
The Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" in a legal opinion in Dec. 2004. http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm Apparently the Justice Department is taking the sides of terrorists!
Hadrian | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Please then somebody humor me and inform me on the solution for extracting information from terrorists? I'm sure Langley would love the innovative views that you hold. They don't have the experience, I guess you do.
ShawnF | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
And yes torture is "abhorrent". I do not believe anybody thinks otherwise. But there are necessary evils in the world. You can't combat evil with kindness. They aren't two of the same.
ShawnF | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
The most surefire way to prevent repeat larceny is to cut a thief's hands off - that kind of practice tends to fly in parts of the world where many terrorists hail from; the reason we don't do that here is because, thankfully, there are enough civilized people in the country to prevent that sort of thing. While interrogative torture is a different situation, the principles of civility and barbarism still apply. It might bear repeating - I know that torture and corporal punishment aren't THE SAME THING, it's the same PRINCIPLE, to different degrees.
IamFry | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
ShawnF, When we give ourselves over to use of torture to extract information, the United States will be fundamentally changed. Once torture is authorized as a "necessary evil", where do you stop? How about hardened criminals or defiant witnesses? Define the limits when torture can be used. Once we start on that road, what ground will the US have to fight for human rights and dignity?
Ariyel | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
IamFry, you say we should show that we are better than terrorists are. This is the basis of why terrorists hate America. They believe we think of ourselves as better than them and their God. They hate America's materialism, capitalism, and religious tolerance. It's against everything they believe in. So on your point of view, I shouldn't use violence against the man who is trying to kill me because I might stoop to his level? Please, 2974 innocent lives taken by these extremists on 9/11 is enough for me!
ShawnF | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Although I do not support torture, my argument is more of a practicality issue. Let us imagine, for a bit, that you are tied to a chair. You have been blindfolded, beaten, subjected to simulated drowning, and now your 'host' has a Bowie Knife to your ****. And all he is asking is one question, which you have no idea what the answer is. Now, what would you do? Would you continue to tell him you don't know, and continue to be tortured, or would you begin to talk about anything and everything, hoping that he'll stop his session? Torture is an unreliable, easily-beaten method of information gathering that simply does not work in today's environment. No, I do not know the solution, and I doubt that anyone on ED has a solution to the current dilemma. This does not make us inable to debate, like ShawnF suggests with his earlier post. I think he forgets that this is a debate site, not a braintrust.
J.A.B.C. | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Shawn, the main reason we are hated by the terrorists is simply our policy of how we deal with the people and governments of the region, by exploiting the regions economically, by making sure large multi-national corporations control the oil funds, not the people, by support governments and dictators that use very harsh and evil methods to keep their people in line (remember your boy Reagan considered Saddam an ally). We have been using our economic might to work against the average citizens of these nations, we feel we have the authority to dictate their national policies, with the exception of Iraq, we have been trying to rule over the region not with military might but economic power. Now, I'm not saying we deserved the attacks bestowed upon us, or all those that have died, but when you engage in a hostile economic policy as we (and the French, English, Russians and more recently the Chinese have too) is the violence surprising to you? If another nation began to control your local government by way bribes and coercion so they could exploit the work you do to make more money for them, and less for you, would not even consider violence? So when we point out the all the flawed reasoning for continuing the violence, and torturing individuals, we only continue this vicious and morbid cycle.
base89 | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Shawn: You seem almost willfully ignorant about this issue. You ask "Please then somebody humor me and inform me on the solution for extracting information from terrorists?" That has already been done. Let me repeat it for you as I stated it in the 2nd argument in the debate itself: Interrogators in Iraq saw an big increase in rapidly obtained, valid & high-value intelligence after coercive practices were banned. The secret? "A rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect & dignity, & having very well-trained interrogators". Please note: 1.RAPID (in case of an emergency) 2. VALID (not tainted by torture produced false confessions) 3. HIGH VALUE. 4. RESPECT 5. DIGNITY. You may not like it, BUT IT WORKS!
Hadrian | 03/22/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
So i see ShawnF's argument as the classic "the ends justify the means" combined with " it'll save lives". "and who gives a damn". However,Hadrian provides the actual fact that hypocrisy is present and that the Rule of Law, our nations greatest tool is being twisted. The winner is clear on this one.
Progressive | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment