Today's Akron Beacon Journal editorial has it wrong. That comes as no surprise to me. Those who write the editorials for the Beacon have been way behind the Bush curve for years. There would be no reason to expect a change now.
The editorial calls the Bush-Cheney torture regime "a failure of imagination". Sorry…. it's a bit more than that. Unbelievably, the Beacon editorial, reflecting on the torture revelations of the last few days, concludes by saying this about George W. Bush….
The decision to use torture was deplorable and damaging. It also reflected a state of fear, President Bush having made clear his determination to take all necessary steps to prevent another such attack. The motives were genuine. The methods were unsound, in large part, because the president and his aides failed to imagine the full consequences.
Here's just one brief glimpse into Bush's "genuine" motives in ordering illegal and barbaric torture to be practiced on detainees at Gitmo…..
A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.
"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al-Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."
If, in fact, Bush's motives in ordering torture were "genuine", why did the interrogators carrying out the torture spend most of their time "focusing on trying to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq"? Why would Bush and his senior officials, in contact with Gitmo torturers daily, place extreme pressure on those torturers to spend "a large part" of their time, "most of 2002 and into 2003", "demanding proof of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq"?
2002 and the first 2 months of 2003 found the Bush administration blanketing the nation with propaganda about Iraq…..a country without a history of any working relationship with terrorist organizations, a nation posing no threat to America.
Does the Beacon think that this is a "genuine" coincidence…..
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.
What's "genuine" about that exchange is the genuine and concerted effort to pre-justify attacking and occupying Iraq through the means of torturing false confessions out of Gitmo detainees. The very purpose of the detailed and gruesome Chinese-Korean-Communist torture program, from which the Bush administration took it's torture tactics virtually word for word, was to illicit false confessions.
Bush and Cheney ordered Khalid Sheik Mohammed to be waterboarded 183 times in 30 days in order to produce something, anything, connecting al-Qaeda to Iraq….even if it was false.
How fu*king "genuine" is that motive?
I challenge the Beacon editorial writer to brush up on Bush-era, you know, reality, by taking the time to watch this excellent piece from last night's Rachel Maddow show…..if you're in a hurry, start at the 6 minute mark, and pay close attention to what Ron Susskind says……
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Bush and Cheney's plan before taking office was to invade and occupy the country of Iraq. That's the "genuine" truth about the Bush presidency. That had been the neo-conservatives long-desired objective as outlined by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Invading Iraq was the Bush/Cheney plan before 9-11, as well as after 9-11.
The neo-cons knew that, barring provocation, or a "new Pearl Harbor" event, American consent to attack Iraq would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Even with the 9-11 event, the Bushies still had to fabricate and manipulate information, and lie, to build a consensus in favor of attacking a non-threatening, sovereign country.
But even that wasn't enough for the Bushies, the most wicked of all American administrations. These worthless fu*kers instituted a fully illegal program of savage torture for the purpose of sqeezing false confessions out of Gitmo detainees, in the hopes that those confessions would connect al-Qaeda to Iraq. That explains why Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in 30 days, 6 times a day on average. The Bushies wanted a false confession from KSM connecting al-Qaeda with Iraq…and if they had to kill KSM's brain to get it….so be it.
That was Bush's "genuine motive". Only, unlike the Beacon, I would describe it as a "genuine" crime.
Update: It's very important to read the account from the man who first interrogated Abu Zubaida. A must read.
Update #2: Today's NY Times…
"the memorandum then lists among Abu Zubaydah’s revelations the identification of Mr. Mohammed and of an alleged radiological bomb plot by Jose Padilla, the American Qaeda associate. Both those disclosures were made long before Abu Zubaydah was subjected to harsh treatment, according to multiple accounts."
Update #3: Listen to Fox's Shep Smith use the F-word about the torture subject….
Jeebus. "We are America. We do not f*cking torture," says Shep.
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
"I know this [enhanced interrogation] program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us." – George Tenet in 2007, who was the CIA head during the 2002-2003 interrogations.
That's why they did it.
And that FBI agent you linked to, Ali Soufan, didn't participate in the enhanced interrogations, so how would he know what was learned and what wasn't ? Every CIA chief from Tenet forward contradict Soufan. Current National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair contradicts Soufan. The 2005 CIA memos contradict Soufan. Former VP Dick Cheney contradicts Soufan.
I don't mind people who are opposed to waterboarding. It's a controversial practice that was stopped in 2005, long before Obama arrived on the scene. But I do object when people dishonestly claim the interrogations didn't work when there is so much evidence that they did. In order to believe Soufan, I have to accept the idea that the White House, the CIA, other national security persons, and Congress are ALL lying. I don't accept that.
And I have ZERO problem with our interrogators asking terrorists about possible Al Qaeda connections to Iraq. Why do you think we engage in intelligence, anyway ? It's to LEARN things we didn't know before. Saddam had known connections to other terrorist groups and some tentative connections to Al Qaeda. It would have been derelict NOT to ask the terrorists about Saddam.
Let's see. On one hand an administration that waterboards 3 known terrorists and goes to war against Iraq with the blessing of the UN. On the other hand an administration that illegally rounds up 120,000 Japanese-American citizens, steals their land for its friends, allows the Navy to almost be destroyed at Pearl Harbor so that it has a reason to join World War II. Which one is the most criminal?
How's it look from way out on that limb, King?
Tenet…"It's a slam dunk, Mr President."
Cheney…"There's no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted his weapons program."
The reason that all those people are lying is obvious…..to tell the truth means confessing to a crime.
And sadly, you're also totally wrong about Dennis Blair. Blair said that the Bushies only got organizational information by using torture. No terror plot unravelings. No saving of lives.
Padilla and KSM info was obtained before the torture of Zubaida.
King, you've been buying in to the phony justifications for a criminal regime for quite awhile. Now it's time to acknowledge reality. We all make mistakes. Toss these criminals to the curb of history and be done with all the nonsense.
Soufan participated in the interrogation of Zubaida before torture started. When he witnessed what the CIA henchmen were doing, he got out. FBI Chief, Mueller, took all FBI agents away from those interrogations at that time. I wonder why Mueller would do something like that? Don't you?
Bubba….so Franklin Roosevelt, not Bush/Cheney, is the real criminal?
That's pretty funny…..in a twisted way.
And I hate to break it to you…..the UN never condoned or approved of the American aggression against Iraq. Bush knew he didn't have the votes, so he dropped his resolution…..and went to war anyway. That's what happened. Fox and Rush, I know, tell a different story…but then, it's Fox and Rush.
Bush and Cheney used detainees by torturing them in Gitmo. The goal was for the tortured detainees to spew forth phony information connecting al-Qaeda to Iraq that could be used to justify an American attack. Take a moment to think about that.
Seriously, Bubba…the cover-up is over. Reject these torturers for the criminals they are.
Here's how America handles torturing people. They turn the criminal over to their enemies and the enemies beat them half to death until they get the information they need to keep the America hating whiney-asses in our country that have no idea what they are talking about. Waterboarding is a cake walk compared to what the mid-east countries will do to each other.
Rev,
The level of fear in an individual is directly proportional to their acceptance of torture.
.
I think you have something there, frank.
average….why stop there? Waterboarding is probably like a trip to Disneyland in comparison with the ancient Mayan rituals….Roman crucifixions…..Spanish Inquistion….Attilla the Hun, etc.
I'm not joking about that. I was at a funeral yesterday and I talked to a man that used to be in the special ops in previous recent wars. We discussed waterboarding and he too says that it isn't torture. He was waterboarded during his training. He claims it is uncomfortable and psychologically terrifying but compared to the things other countries do, it is a cake walk.
He also said that by our govt publically tearing down a previous administration concerning these processes has left us in a dangerous situation and less secure than ever. He is worried about it because he knows the enemy.
A classic, frank!
You should write it in pink lipstick on your bathroom mirror or something.
Listening to Shep on his little tirad. Why is America always held to a higher standard? Why are there always stipulations when we fight a war or protect ourselves? Vietnam, Korea, Kuwait, Afghanistan and the rest. It reminds me of the old Bll Cosby skit about the British fighting the settlers.
larry d.,
Oh, I get it. Real men torture. So that's why.
Who cares whether torture is effective??????? It is irrelevant. It is illegal. It is a war crime. It is prohibited by numerous laws. Amen. All this "effective" discussion is a smoke screen. America does not torture. Redefining it or hiring someone to do it or sending someone somewhere else where it will be done is like "putting lipstick on a pig." It is still a pig and it is still torture.
On the rightwing flank, "everything has changed" sinced 9-11. So, mary, the trembling group, as frank pointed out, have unilaterally "changed" the discussion concerning torture.
Consider: If someone is tailgating your car while you're driving 55 mph….it would be "effective" to turn around, point your 38 caliber at him and blow him away. That would be "effective" in solving your immediate problem. Murder? You betcha. But "effective".
That's how the 'for torture' group thinks.
And average….man, we can't have it both ways…..if America is "exceptional", then it goes without saying that the standard we're measured by should be higher. I mean, right? Otherwise, we're just a paler looking Zimbabwe.
Who's measuring, Reverend? Is there a list somewhere that ranks the moral standing of nations? Or do nations deal with one another pretty much according to whatever is in their best interests?
frank, I didn't mean to imply anything 'macho' about torture, etc. It's just that your empty bit of pop psychology comedy reminded me of that old Al Franken SNL routine (Stuart Smally?).
Hilarious!
What are you so afraid of, larry?
And what do you want to do…argue about the morality of torturing people?
Are you saying that if torturing detainees is in our best interest (I'm not sure who gets to decide that) then….whatever?
Any room for the rule of law in those arguments?
No Rev, It must be fair and equal, we can't fight with one arm tied behind it's back. Our govt's first priority is the safety and secutrity of it's citizens, not the rights of terrorists. We pay for these services, we expect at least that. This debate has gotten so muddled by the press and the fingerpointers it stinks. We don't torture. Waterboarding IS NOT torture except in the eyes of Bush hating liberals. It is not in the Geneva convention. It is part of a broad description and definition. These people aren't almost drowning. Were their any deaths? Were their any permanent injuries? None. These tactics do produce results and we only used them on 3 people. The top guys directly responsible for 9-11. Sorry we didn't have time to build a relationship with them to get them to spill their guts as to what their plans were for thier next attack. Next time maybe we can get DR Phil and Oprah to help them open up about their childhood and ask them what would motivate them to ruthlessly and cold bloodily innocent Americans by ramming a jet full of citizens into the side of a building.
What I do kow is that while everyone is arguing about this we are being spent into debt that 5 generations of Americans won't be able to payoff.
Our president is making friends and apologizing with known enemies. He is lying just to appease them.
Our govt is forcing legislation through with cap and trade that will skyrocket energy prices and will COST hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Calling CO2 a dangerous gas? HUH?
And a young man with a bright future was found mysteriously hanged in his home.(another Vince Foster?)
I can think of any number of actions taken during wartime that are far worse than waterboarding THREE top-level Al Qaeda terrorists, which leaves no permanent damage, but I don't remember all this wailing and gnashing of teeth over those far worse wartime actions. War itself is far worse than waterboarding THREE terrorists. In war, people are killed and maimed. They lose limbs. Families lose loved ones. Innocent people die. All that is far worse than THREE terrorists who were trying to kill innocent Americans being waterboarded.
FDR interning innocent Japanese-Americans. Truman nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. D-Day. We killed 100,000 Iraqis in the Gulf War. On and on. They don't say 'war is hell' for nothing. It is hell.
KSM KILLED NEARLY THREE THOUSAND INNOCENT AMERICANS ON 9/11, and PLANNED FUTURE ATTACKS AGAINST INNOCENTS. My friend's father was killed by KSM on 9/11. KSM is a murdering animal. Yet, here you are, Rev, wanting me to cry over KSM being waterboarded in order to extract information about future plots from him, and calling me some kind of extremist because I don't weep about it. F that. How about a little perspective here ? Maybe you don't get it, but we are trying to DEFEAT Al Qaeda, not win a humanitarian contest with them.
Torture is a 'feel-good' issue for the Reverend and frank.
It's pretty unseemly to want to feel good about such a thing after 3,000 people have been murdered, but there it is.
Nothing 'feel good' about it.
For years I've been calling for accountability of the Bushies. Over these same issues. And by the way, I've been proven to be spot on time and time again.
I wanted all extremists associated with 9-11 killed. Not rounded up and tried….killed. That's how 'feel good' I was after 9-11.
What I didn't expect to happen was the Bushies conspiring from, at least, 9-12, to attack Iraq……and seeking to find fig leaf justification for attacking Iraq by torturing detainees into spouting phony confessions of an al-Qaeda/Iraq connection.
No one could 'feel good' about such deviancy.
King…why stay on the cul-de-sac of torture? Now you are seeking equivalency in history? Why? The evidence is overwhelming now that the Bushies conspired to go to Iraq. The evidence is overwhelming, and getting moreso daily, that the torturing plans were SOLELY for the purpose of extracting phony confessions.
We executed Japanese soldiers for doing the exact same thing our guys did.
This specific time will go down in history as the darkest American hour. Walk towards the light.
Mr. King, averagejoe5, & larry d.,
I would think that the thought of our government not only sanctioning but ordering the use physical and mental torture would be repulsive to those who generally want a smaller, less powerful government. One thing libertarians generally have right is that the people should hold the leash of government rather than the other way around. How can that happen if we allow the government to do things forbidden to individuals? Doesn't the ability to inflict pain or take an individual's life give the ultimate coercive power to the government at the expense of the individual?
This isn't about revenge. How can you cause KSM to die 3000 times? How can you inflict upon him the amount of pain he has caused for the 3000 and they're families? Let him rot in solitary with minimal food and care for sustenance.
This isn't an about an isolated incident of someone getting carried away and waterboarding some 3 really bad guys.
This isn't about some misplaced sympathy for KSM and other terrorists.
This isn't about justice. Any info derived can't be used in the legal system.
This isn't even about keeping our country safer. If the situation is so dire that we have to cross the line of civilization and torture, why aren't we investing in security at our ports, borders, chemical and nuclear facilities, etc.?
By now we should all know that a tortured individual will eventually find out what to say to end the abuse. One wonders what was the difference between session 182 and 183 for KSM. We all know that by torturing, we put our soldiers and civilian travellers at increased risk of reprisal. By torturing, we cede the moral high ground and provide incentives for recruitment.
We should also know our country's legacy, starting with Washington who, as a result of ordering the humane treatment of captives, caused the desertion of many British troops, to the leadership shown by America at the Nuremberg trials. We should also know that as signatories to the Geneva Convention, UN Charter, and US laws, torture is not only illegal, we are obligated to prosecute this crime.
Torture is illegal, morally repugnant, against American principles, and produces unreliable information. All torture produces is jollies for sadists, and propaganda in the form of false confessions and information. Apparently, the overriding concern here was to acquire statements to provide fig leaves for this illegal war.
If you still are comfortable with your government having a policy of torture, think of whose company that puts our country with. Would you want to live in any of them?
Frank – I disagree with waterboarding being called torture. Also you need to take into consideration circumstances. I don't think we should ever torture like the Vietnamese or the Russians or Hitler or Pol Pot those were crimes against humanity. I also don't believe in using enhanced interogation practices like waterboarding in all situations. However when we have the generals of our enemy and there is eminent danger and there are innocent American lives at stake and the generals are laughing at you because they know what is about to happen and they don't care if the die because they are martyrs. Do you tell the kids at the school where the bomb is about to explode to put their heads between their legs and kisses their asses good bye? Is it fair for an enemy to kill our kids because we took a pledge of not using enhanced questioning techniques. Would you sacrifice your kids or grandkids? Or would you do what you had to do to get whatever info you could. Rev never did answer the question.
I bet if Obama's kids or any of the senators or congressmen's kids were in danger they would do whatever they had to do to save them. Why should other Americans be any different.
This torture talk is a smoke screen and another way to villanize and discredit the bush administration. By the way Bush had a better 100 day approval rating in 2000 than Obama.
Great explanation frank. Thanks for fleshing out the reasons why torture is unacceptable.
average….you are conflating personal self-defense with legal military protocol. If we based our system of law and order on remote hypotheticals, we would carry out many atrocities….because like I've said before….ANYTHING is possible, which would give cause to torture at every turn.
We would all defend our own loved ones. What we wouldn't do is pick up, arbitrarily, a citizen, because we suspected he "knew" something, drag him to a basement and hold him indefinitely while we tortured him. Besides being illegal….think of what kind of society that would create.
The reason conservatives must back away from the Bushie torture stuff is because of WHY they did it. They were instructed repeatedly by SERE that it would produce unreliable information, and yet they did it anyway. So, they must have WANTED unreliable information. Just so happens that the Bushies were grasping at anything to justify their upcoming march to Baghdad. But the evil it takes to WANT unreliable information so badly that you would sadistically torture detainees to get it….is unmeasurable.
averagejoe5,
We executed Japanese following WWII for waterboarding and in Vietnam, soldiers were prosecuted for using it on suspected Viet Cong. But waterboarding is only one of a variety of techniques that were used. The program is essentially an adaptation of techniques used by the Communists in the Korean War. And this mistreatment of prisoners was not confined to only three prisoners. I have read that 104 of the prisoners in custody have died and that about 35 in incidents that are prosecutable.
For the scenarios you cite: Of course, I would do whatever was necessary. I wouldn't hesitate to break any law prohibitting torture if that's what I thought it would take. But what we are talking about is a government which not only allows but orders the torture of individuals. What is worse is that they ordered that torture not for information that would save anyone's life, but to obtain statements to justify the illegal war in Iraq.
Frank and Rev, where can I read about them using waterboarding to link Alkaida to Iran. I have googled it and come up with slews of conspiracy theory websites, No hard facts. I would like facts.
Frank, 104 people have been killed from waterboarding? How many Japanese were executed for waterboarding and what other forms of torture were used on our prisoners? How about electrocution? How about breaking bones of prisoners? How about killing them if they didn't talk? That isn't the whole story. Tell the whole story. I could prove any point by using partial information. It's the same as saying Obama is a terrorist because he served on the same board as Bill Ayers. It's guilt by association. What killed the American prisoners in Japan? The beating and bone breakings or the electrocutions or the firing squads, the inhumane conditions? Making them sit in water for days in covered pits and then if it rained the prisoners would drown. Or was it the waterboarding? Depends on which side I wanted to believe.
I'm not for random torture Rev. I am not sticking up for Bush. However I am tired of the same old conspiracy rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. If Pelosi knew about the torture should she be held responsible? What about the minutes of those meetings? Should Clinton be held responsible for not handling Bin Ladin? Should congress be held partially responsible for the war in Iraq? It was what the people in an inflamed moment in time wanted. 3 out of 4 Americans approved this attack. To oppose could have meant job suicide for these politicians. Were they going along with Bush because he tricked them (what the Libs say) or were they going along for the sake of holding their office?(more likely)
After we were attacked how many threats did America recieve? Were enhanced questioning techniques called for in this time of panic? Afterall we had just been attacked. Were their not anthrax threats etc? There was at a higher level of fear of the unknown by the president and VP at that time. Their job was to protect the citizens. Bushes approval rating soared because he was doing what the American people expected their leader to do.
You can piece the pieces together however you want to make the story your own, both sides do this. All I want is the truth. Again I guess the truth is governed by the individual's perception and core values. People will believe what they want to believe. I will have to disagree with you both on this subject, but it doesn't mean I am right or wrong.
There is so much to the story, so many scenarios so many lies and 1/2 truths told by each side.
How does policy get changed. Crisis? Diminished security? Fear? loss of gain? Panic? Confusion? Blame? Spin? Hypnosis? NLP? Those and many more. We are being duped and played like little tiny fiddles.
Here's a headline that would be comparable:
Dems hate middle class. "President signs treaty to send jobs abroad. President guts labor union contracts.." Is this the same arguement? Yes!
I'm glad you let all that out, frank and Reverend. Just the length of your posts tells me it is in fact a 'feel good' issue for you, so I hope you're feeling better now.
Rev says, "I wanted all extremists associated with 9-11 killed. Not rounded up and tried….killed. That's how 'feel good' I was after 9-11."
Frank says, "Let him rot in solitary with minimal food and care for sustenance."
Let the record note that both the Rev and Frank's proposed fates for KSM and company are far more extreme measures than being waterboarded or placed in a cold environment for a short time.
I think you're right, larry. They're just doing this for kicks.
Every person who agreed or signed off on torture should be held accountable. Democrats or Republicans, it matters not to me.
19 lucky unarmed Islamic f*ckers drew the winning jihad lottery ticket on 9-11. They were international criminals willing to kill themselves to make a statement of fear to America.
The Bush f*ckers parlayed that event into the torturing of captives to falsify "evidence" justifying an attack of Iraq. They outed a CIA agent to punish the Wilson's over revealing Bush's fraud-up to war. These are not coincidences.
The United States was controlled for 6 years by a criminal administration and a complicit, cover-up GOP Congress, who, together, temporarily overthrew the rule of law and the Constitution. This isn't fellatio,….this isn't even ordering a break-in of Democratic Headquarters….this is treason. The very definition of treason.
The revelations over the last 10 days have only vindicated what I've been blogging about for years.
Many liberals and Democrats were fooled by the Iraq fraud-up. Many currently popular liberal bloggers were in favor of the Iraq attack. I never was. It was crystal clear from January, 2002 that the Bushies were pulling a fast one on the American people. The media helped the Bushies all they could.
It took awhile, but the majority of Americans caught on to the scam. Thus the elections of 2006, 2008.
Losing elections is all the GOP has to look forward to if they saddle themselves to torture.
averagejoe5,
I assume you meant AlQaeda and Iraq. I also hope that you read well enough to note that I didn't say that 104 people died from waterboarding. I read about the execution of Japanese waterboarders on various sites and heard about it on the MSM. This doesn't mean that it was the only torture perpetrated upon our soldiers.
You want facts. Then join the majority of people who want these facts established in front of Congress or the courts. The fact is that Obama doesn't want to pull on this loose thread for fear that the widespread corruption that is Washington will unravel like a cheap suit.
larry d.,
Sorry I couldn't condense it to bumper sticker size. My hat's off to you as the king of the two sentence snark.
Mr. King,
Careful, some of you entourage might think you are going soft on capital punishment.
Rev,
That was an awful windy way to avoid the point I made that you are, indeed, FOR torture, by your own words.
I propose both you and frank answer the following multiple choice question.
Which punishment would you prefer to undergo personally ?
1) Waterboarding
2) Be killed
3) Sit rotting in prison in isolation for the rest of your life
Well, fellas ?
Our nation has yet to conclude that imprisoning someone for life is cruel and unusal punishment. I don't make that conclusion either.
Once an "enemy" has been captured….waterboarding, or killing him is a crime.
al-Qaeda, under the direction of Bin Laden, attacked our country. Going after them, yes, to kill them, was a matter of self-defense.
Torturing them, once they're captured, is barbaric and a violation of national and international law.
None of this is new.
Mr. King,
I thought the subject of this thread was the efficacy, legality, and barbarity of torture as an interrogation tool. Torture as punishment is an entirely different subject.
But I suppose what you are really asking is whether option 2 or 3 are also torture. In my view, and the view of the courts, is that neither constitute torture. While I understand the harshness of isolation, I think some crimes are heinous enough to warrant that punishment. I don't agree with capital punishment but I don't think it is torture. But waterboarding is, and it is considered torture regardless as to who performs it or on whom.
So, putting a person in prison in a tiny little cell in maximum isolation for 40 years is NOT torture.
Killing a person is also acceptable (as punishment, we call it the death penalty).
But pouring water over someone's face through a towel for 15 seconds is a most grievous and barbaric offense against humanity, even if it is done to save innocent lives.
Got it. That's all I needed to know. You guys are moral paragons.
And neither of you answered my question about which of the three punishments YOU would prefer. I think I can safely assume it was because we all know that we'd all pick waterboarding over the others in a heartbeat.
Walk away from torture. Outside of the obvious savagery, sadism and violations of law contained in torture….nothing is to be gained in defending it.
Defending torture is part of the definition of being anti-American. Torturing prisoners runs a 180 on what America is all about.
Mr. King,
Of course, if one's choices were between life imprisonment, death, and a procedure that one knows will end, they will choose the latter. Talk about your straw man arguments. You have not replied as to the difference between interrogation and punishment. If you really don't think there is a difference, then you have found a new career as an anti death penalty advocate and prison reformer.
Sorry I didn't choose between doors 1, 2, and 3. I ain't playing that game.
I'll walk away from torture when you do, Rev.
Thanks for answering, frank. Since you answered my question, I'll try to answer yours. Yes, there's obviously a difference between interrogation and punishment, but there is no difference in the moral absolute of the acts involved. Putting a man in solitary confinement in a box for 40 years is WORSE than waterboarding, whatever the reason. Even the Bush OLC memos defined mental torture as something causing prolonged harm and/or pain, which would not apply to waterboarding, but would apply to 40 years of solitary. Just because we call it punishment as opposed to interrogation doesn't matter a bit in a moral sense. If you want to draw that line as the distinction, then let's just say we waterboarded KSM as punishment for killing nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. If that's all we did, KSM would have gotten off very light. However, waterboarding KSM as an interrogatory device to extract information that could save other innocent lives has more merit from a moral standpoint than merely doing it as punishment.