Torture — Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
Actually, real torture is awful. I just wanted to be provocative.
I believe exerting pressure on enemy combatants in order to extract information is sometimes necessary. What I mean by that carefully-worded statement is that yes, I “support” torture as a last resort method to save lives.
What do I mean by torture? Withholding food, depriving prisoners of sleep, letting them thirst a little bit, irritating them with foul odors and extremely loud sounds, offending their sensibilities, religious or otherwise, that kind of thing. Based on the definition of torture, what I support is not torture.
To some folks, it is. If a murderous thug of a man (who just happens to be Muslim and non-American) refuses to tell what he knows and is deprived of food until he sings, it’s considered torture to some people, especially leftist people. But they’re wrong:
Whereas the Baghdad detainees appeared to have been starved and were covered with lacerations and bruises, terror detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have bulked up from their three square Halal meals a day and are receiving sophisticated medical care—often the first medical care they have received in their lives. The Baghdad prison contained instruments of torture, like a medieval-style mace; the American rules for interrogation in every theater of conflict required that the detainees be treated humanely, and the authorities have investigated and punished any deviation from that standard. (Source)
Ah! Don’t forget about Harry Potter, Ms. Mac Donald. Iraqi prisoners were wild about the boy wizard. And they ate better than most of us do. Torture, indeed. Those men were treated better in American prisons than they ever will be again, the Abu Ghraib abberation aside. By the way, I think the whole panties-on-the-head thing, though sophomoric, was overblown.
I deliberately sidestepped the “Vice President of Torture” storm last week (Or was it a few weeks ago?) because the whole thing was silly, as usual. I doubt Dick Cheney advocates the wholesale physical torture of people, even terrorist Muslim thugs. Then again, what do I know?
I’ll let you read Mac Donald’s column and come away with your own conclusions, but I’ll leave you with this statement:
When the history of the war on terror is written, the strangest chapter will address why so many American intellectuals were so determined to believe the absolute worst about U.S. behavior.
I have three questions for you. Leftists can answer them, too:
1) Do you believe Americans should torture prisoners of war and enemy combatants for information?
2) For Christians in the audience, if you support torture, is there biblical justification?
3) Why do some Americans hate their country, one that allows them, ironically, the freedom to tell the world they hate their country?
Related items:
Update: From commenter Frank:
Modern interrogation techniques include the use of drugs – which is more humane and reliable than physical coercion.
Truth serum? (Veritaserum, for us Harry Potter freaks) Wicked!
Update II: Idiot American terrorist Jose Padilla is indicted. More at Malcontent, Counterrorism, and Debbie Schlussel’s blog.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 32 comments }
La Shawn:
Modern interrogation techniques include the use of drugs – which is more humane and reliable than physical coercion.
For those few that need “something extra” – a few dozen at the most (high value targets), this doesn’t come close to Americans “tortured” by Al Queda – doesn’t anyone think that Americans burned alive and jumping out of the WTC were “tortured”?
Intil we “torture” the number of Americans “tortured” (3000 on 911 2001; 2000 in Iraq – and the number of Iraquis “tortured” (how about the mass graves – possibly 1 million, we are far from “even”.
And I am amused how the spoiled brats of the EU are so concerned about “secret prisons” in Eastern Europe.
As a Hungarian Sicilian with a Polish wife, I am damn proud that at least one prison is allegedly in Poland. And I would be disappointed it the Hungarians didn’t also have some.
Can you think of a better use for abandoned Soviet prisons?
1.) I think torture is justified in these situations.
2.) God told Israel to make war and kill others in order to protect themselves and to establish their land. I believe they probably used torture to get info from the enemy. This is justified. Though I dont believe the Iraq war actually protects us here in the homeland, soldiers wishing to protect themselves from these insurgents should be able to use torture to protect themselves while they are there.
3.)I havent seen or heard of any Americans who say they hate America. Disagreeing with policy doesnt mean you arent patriotic. Bush even said this recently.
The CIA’s interrogation tactics which were recently revealed dont seem like torture to me. Going as far as you can without causing permanent physical harm or death aint torture.
You asked about the Bible’s take on torture.
The main objection to torture in most contexts is the commandment to love our neighbor, but this begs the question “who, then, is my neighbor?” Is my neighbor the captured jihadi or the people who would be saved if he tells everything he knows? Now, I’m just a sinful human, but I consider the innocent people of Iraq my neighbors rather than the jihadis.
On the question to Christians:
No, I don’t support torture. While we’re on the subject, I oppose assassination. If we mirror the enemy, we become the enemy. The enemy’s favorite trick: pulling us down to their level and saying, “See, there’s no difference between us and you!”
This war on terrorism is, at its most basic level, a war over the definition of right and wrong. If the Christians start with the Muslim approach to torture and assassination, we lose even if we “win”. Mohammed, founder of Islam, was known to order the torture of prisoners and have his critics assassinated. Christ never had prisoners, much less tortured any; never ordered any assassinations either. We can’t go there. Open honest war.
In simple punishment, there’s a limit to how much the person has to suffer. Don’t kid yourself on torture: if it’s going to be effective, there can be no limits. If you’re squeamish, they’ll just out-endure you and you’ll have become a monster and still have no results to show for it.
Questions for anyone who is pro-torture: How do you torture without becoming as bad as the monsters you’re trying to defeat?
God told Israel to make war and kill others in order to protect themselves and to establish their land. I believe they probably used torture to get info from the enemy.
Actually, God told Israel to do that to accomplish His own good purposes. He did not direct them to openly invade other countries of their own volition. And when they went to war without His direction, He did not support them.
Further, you make a huge leap from the demonstrable truth that God commanded the israelites to make war to a presumption that they might have tortured their enemies. This doesn’t make a biblical argument.
As for my own answers:
1) I have actually answered this one a lot. So much I’m sick of it. I’m flatly against torture of any kind. However, I define torture as stated above. As La Shawn rightly noted, limited use of sleep deprivation and isolation, and the like are not torture. I think these things need to be tightly limited however, and closely monitored by the people. It is a definite grey area. However, torture, as defined above, is not acceptable, and is prohibited by the sixth amendment.
2) I don’t, and no, I don’t believe there is. Paul makes it quite clear that we are not to do evil that good may result. I think there are solid biblical arguments for war, and for self defense. I do not believe there are solid arguments for initiating force on another for the sake of potential good.
3) I have no idea. However, this seems to be more of an inflammatory rhetorical question than an honest query, so maybe I’m not supposed to know. However, we believe the worst about our government, not necessarily the worst about our country. The two are not the same. I love my country, but I fear my government.
Why do I fear they’re using real, definitional, torture? I think they’ve given sufficient evidence to suspect it. They have tried to hide their activities, and when prohibited from torture done their best to provide themselves loopholes.
You say that prisoners in Guantanamo bay were treated well. Perhaps those captured from Iraq. I have a hard time agreeing that men taken from a life of freedom as american citizens and imprisoned for months in Guantanamo bay away from their family and stripped of their rights really qualifies as being treated well..or better than previous.
(1) For a bona-fide POW, no. This means someone for whom the Geneva conventions apply, so most of the detainees (perhaps all) do not fall into this category. For the terrorists captured, I still wouldn’t advocate “real” torture, but making them a bit uncomfortable and using psychological techniques is justified. One psychological technique is the threat of real torture. The whole “Vice President of Torture” bruhaha may actually be useful in this regard, as it makes the threat more credible.
(2) I don’t know of anything in the Bible to support or refute this position.
(3) I have no idea. One of my friends is a Marxist, and even he doesn’t buy into the whole “Bush=Hitler, America is Evil” BS.
PS What’s this?? A fundamentalist Christian who doesn’t think Harry Potter is the embodiment of evil??
Nope! See Harry Potter and the Charmed Christians.
I have a serious problem with the premise of this debate. It seems that there is a Clintonian attempt by the far Left to redefine the word “torture”. La Shawn is right – withholding food, depriving prisoners of sleep, letting them thirst a little bit, irritating them with foul odors and extremely loud sounds, offending their sensibilities, religious or otherwise, is not torture, no matter how much Amnesty International and others gas to the contrary.
The far Left and their MSM mouthpieces routinely refer to al Qaeda terrorists as “insurgents”, “rebels”, “minutemen”, and even “freedom fighters”. I don’t see how they have the moral authority to comment on the question of torture – none, zero, zilch, zip, nada, end of debate. Where is their outrage about “minutemen” torturing and killing innocent Iraqis? I doubt if the NY Times and the Washington Post have lost any sleep over it.
Why should we believe those whose tongues seemed to be permanently attached to al Qaeda’s boots?
As LaShawn tacitly suggests, whether or not one believes in torture depends on how one defines “torture”. There’s a rather large gray area. For example, I suppose many would agree that the simple act of withholding food is not torture; on the other hand, actual clinical starvation probably is.
At what point does the former become the latter? There’s no right answer, but it certainly complicates the debate.
When trying to gauge my own reaction, I find it helpful to engage in a simple thought experiment: would I consider something “torture” if it were conducted on captured American soldiers?
But before I get too long-winded, let me leap to LaShawn’s “two” questions:
(1) The short answer is “no”. And there are two reasons for this: (a) We lose the moral high ground. Put another way, we sell our soul; and (b) Most experts agree that torture doesn’t work. “Torture” may get the prisoner to speak, but the information you get is probably unreliable.
So the cost of torture usually outweighs, by far, the supposed benefits.
(2) No. I find much from Matthew helpful here, e.g., “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?”
(3) I have a hard time taking this loaded question seriously. It rests on the silly assumption that people who disagree with a certain political policy must do so because of their “hatred of America”. I know people of all political stripes, and I don’t know a single one who “hates America”.
1) yes
2) very simply and generally – respect the law (soldiers do as they are told), render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (when the government asks for information get it and provide it as if it were currency) and Jesus paid the price for our sins (all CAN be forgiven).
God does not expect us to live moral and just lives, he expects us to recognize we don’t and accept his son into our lives. Soldiers have a job to do and their job must be done. Jesus has already paid the price for their actions, God will forgive them if they ask to be forgiven.
3)They hate themselves and they can’t admit it.
And before all the naysayers start asking for versus and interpretations, don’t. It’s a very simple and succinct answer to the question, not a treatise on religion and torture from the holiness himself.
Happy Thanksgiving!
1. YES, if the information is crucial.
For example: the whereabouts of Bin Laden. And, certainly no torture that comes anywhere close to the torture terrorists inflict on civilians…… Decapitations/911—-talk about torture!
2. I don’t know.
3. I don’t think they hate America. I think they hate GWB. These baby-boomers are still caught up in 1960s hippie mode. They need someone/something to rebel against. Iraq is the perfect catalyst for them to re-engage in their tired counter-culture protests.
#1: I do not believe in torture. Moreover, I do not believe in using the word “torture” inappropriately.
I am all for coercion. For instance, “water-boarding” is a procedure that makes the person fear he is drowning. He could drown if the “coercers” allowed it to happen. Likewise, food deprivation at some point becomes starvation.
So long as the coercive actions have understood protocols, I put them among other useful methods in the interrogation toolbox.
We should all join the chorus opposing torture, but we should be explicit about its limited definition and not allow it to absorb a laundry list of trifles.
#3: “Why do some Americans hate their country, one that allows them, ironically, the freedom to tell the world they hate their country?”
This is a no-win question, because it only leads to name calling. The “extreme” left is so consumed with rage that they are engaged in a great national temper tantrum of classic proportions. Whenever I agree to let one of these people take on my core principles, he immediately jumps from subject to subject and tosses one spurious assumption after another without allowing any room for discussion or fact clarification.
An argument is only valid (classically) if each side agrees to disagree. Its purpose is to delineate the differences in opinion in order to establish common ground and the areas of true disagreement. The “extreme” left is wrapped up in the Cindy Sheehan political propaganda game and it is in no manner interested in an honest debate.
To discuss whether or why they “hate America” is to meet them on their turf and play by their rules. I would rather ask them to lay out their plan and commit to it. Something John Kerry avoided like the proverbial plague in his run for the presidency.
Question #1) I whole heartedly support the use of “Withholding food, depriving prisoners of sleep, letting them thirst a little bit, irritating them with foul odors and extremely loud sounds, offending their sensibilities, religious or otherwise, that kind of thing” as a means of extracting intell from terrorists.
Question #2) As for biblical justification for “torture” of this sort…the Bible is silent. I do believe using any biblical verse as a way to disavow the torture described in #1 above is fallacious. Most biblical passages deal with person to person relations (turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc). Soldiers in the theater of war are operating as part of an overall government entity…and we know the governments are established by God and we are to respect and obey the authority of the government in all ways that do not directly contradict scripture (i.e. if the government demands you deny Christ, then you defy authority). The government has the responsibility to protect its citizenry. I pose a hypothetical question…we get wind of a possible attack on a school Anywhere city, USA (like what happened in Beslan), your child attends a school in Anywhere city. We capture one of the members of the cell we know is planning on conducting this attack. As a parent of that child, what do you do to that detainee to extract the info that could save the life of your child and the lives of other parents children?
Question #3) God only knows what motivates the America hating kooks.
La Shawn,
As usual, very thought provoking!
1)As far as my own opinions go, I have to agree with many of your commenters who disagree with the use of out and out torture but can live with milder forms of “coercion”. The problem we run into in these types of discussion is one of semantics. As we have seen, those on the Left are constantly trying to redefine items of policy disagreement, so we begin to have a problem with exactly where “coercion”ends and “torture” begins. I do think that it is a mistake to put in writing what we will and will not do in prisoner interrogations, because it gives the enemy a defined limit that they can train to hold out to. Better to endlessly recycle this debate and leave them guessing as to how far we are willing to go.
2) I’m not sure about this. There probably are passages which can be interpreted is a manner which justifies it, but then there are others which can be interpreted as to disavow it.
3) Unlike some of your commenters who seem never to have run into anyone who literally hates this (their own) country, I have encountered many who do. The problem is that most of these type of people only go off the deep end if there is a conservative administration in power. I have found many who would sacrifice the whole country over their hatred of specific politicians. Often they claim that they are simply against violence, but stunningly, are willing to use violence against those who disagree with them.
Coming from the Left:
1) I am against torture. To say that it is ok because they fall outside of the Geneva Convention is not a credible response. Experts have been saying for years that torture does not produce credible information so I don’t see the point. And to say we only believe in human rights if it falls under the protocols of a document, then that is to say that our morality is based on list of agreements that at any time can change. We are saying that we have no standards for human rights within us.
2) There is no biblical basis outright supports or rebukes torture. But we can make judgment based on the word of God and what He says about the sanctity of life. If we are to say that because the bible does not explicitly disavow torture and the government does and God established government, then we become beholden to the morals of a government in areas where the bible is silent. The bible speaks nothing of internment camps, does not disavow slavery, speaks nothing of genocide, segregation and a host of other issues. If we think abortion is a big deal, imagine the day when the government decides that it is legal to lobotomize a man if it is possible he has information about a possible terrorist attack. So what is the point in not believe in torture if the bible is not clear about it. Is it only because the government says that it is wrong? If the Congress passed a bill tomorrow allowing torture in police interrogations, what moral ground would you have to be against it if the bible is not clear on it and the government sanctions it?
3) As someone that has fought in a war for my country and oppose the administration’s handling of the war on terror, I find it insulting that people think that I hate my country. There are those of us who simply do not believe that Bush is the right man for this job. I think a lot more Americans are coming around to seeing that as well. My uncle in against this war. He fought in Korea and still has his medals hanging on the wall. How is it that he hates his country? GW Bush will be gone in three years. If you do not support the policies of the next president, Republican or Democrat, does that mean that you hate this country?
1. No. We have always taken the higher road, it reflects our ideals, and elevates us in the eyes of the world.
2. I know it’s trite, but WWJD?
3. I don’t have an insight into the Right’s hatred of We The People. I’ll let the Conservatives speak for themselves on this one.
I have a simple rule to separate torture from exerting pressure. I believe if the interrogator uses techniques that are completely healed in a week then it is not torture.
I would allow paper cuts but not pulled fingernails. I would allow water boarding but not drowning. I would allow sleep deprivation and food deprivation but not starving. Loud music would be allowed but not loud enough to cause deafness.
There is survival, and the failure to do so. Those are the ultimate win/lose parameters in war. If a situation is serious enough to start killing people over (and war is organized killing) then I hold the premise that there are rules that must be followed to be invalid and a dangerous way of thinking. When you drastically over match your opponent you can be gracious in war, and voluntarily stop short of destroying him, but if you’re not absolutely prepared to go the distance and if needed utterly destroy those who would destroy you then you’re playing at war and wasting lives for no reason.
In that context I don’t really care whether we torture people or not. People that argue that it’s not effective are wrong; a good interrogator can break anyone. traditionally we’ve had a simply negative incentive to not torture, namely the gentleman’s agreement that the enemy treats our guys okay and we treat their people with respect. That incentive is absolutely removed when all our troops can expect is a videotaped beheading if captured. So what happens? Our troops, understandably upset, have a high priority target in their sights, and a fresh memory of an atrocity against one of their own. Capture him and treat him with kid gloves is the policy, capture him and smack him around a bit to loosen his tongue and your on the hook, put a bullet in his eye at 300 yards and it’s simply war. This perverse incentive structure in the name of avoiding squeamishness is truly asinine.
In war you intentionally kill, maim, scar, and cripple as you shoot, bomb, shell, and grenade, often times with the knowledge that there will be unintentional and blameless victims, and we perform amazing acts of rationalization and convince ourselves that because there are declarations, proclamations and rules that it’s all unfortunate but legal and right. However, make the calculated decision to apply a measured amount of pain and/or damage to a specific individual, with no chance of collateral damage, and a significant chance that lives will be saved, and this is a soul destroying act of depravity. Is torture the best solution in every circumstance? Certainly not, it’s a very dangerous tool to screw around with. But rather than basing the discussion on emotion we should be asking the simple does it enhance our chances of survival, or winning, or not. Everything else is fluff.
1) Torture, no. Torment? Yes. There is a thin line between extreme torment and minor torture, but if you find your self closer to the Marquis de Sade than tickling your siblins till they pee, you’re probably in the torture zone.
2) Nothing in the Bible really speaks to torture, pro or con, directly. But I think it is clear that the ends do not justify the means. I think that if you commit sinful acts to get to your goals, they are sinful, period.
3) I do think that some people here in the US do have a strange hatred for the country. The kind of people that pay money to wear a Che shirt and attend rallies to rant against Israel and the US, without seeing a single touch of irony. I think part of it is self loathing… they see the flaws in our culture and system, but if they denounce it hard enough, with enough passion, it excuses them from giving up the benefits they have derived from being here. Personally, I’ll listen to a legitimately underprivledged person, politely and with little comment (I cannot avoid a little Socratic method, it is my nature), but I have much less tolerance for folks firmly in the middle and upper classes. Poseurs.
I ran across this interesting bit elsewhere:
“”Remarkably, of the nation’s major newspapers, only the Wall Street Journal has editorialized in support of torture as a useful tool of American intelligence policy. Regrettably, that position does a huge disservice to the nation and its soldiers. There are really only three issues in this debate, and the Journal carefully turned a blind eye to all three: (1) is torture reliable, (2) is it consistent with America’s values and Constitution, and (3) does it best serve our national interests?
No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been “rendered” to the tender mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD. It appears that this confession was the only information upon which, in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state repeatedly claimed that “credible evidence” supported that claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his “confession,” and a month later, the CIA recalled all intelligence reports based on his statements.
Exhibit B is the case of Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi deemed a “high-value” target by the CIA. After being beaten to an extent that he had several broken ribs, he was subjected to a form of crucifixion known as “Palestinian hanging. Forty-five minutes later, he was dead, never having revealed whatever vital, ticking-bomb information his American interrogator was seeking.”
What do I mean by torture? Withholding food, depriving prisoners of sleep, letting them thirst a little bit, irritating them with foul odors and extremely loud sounds, offending their sensibilities, religious or otherwise, that kind of thing. Based on the definition of torture, what I support is not torture.
No thats not torture. Sounds almost exactly like the conditions at my dorm last year.
-no sleep
-bad smells
-offensive lectures
-LOUD roommate
-Lack of edible food/Raman for weeks on end.
*shrugs*
1. No. The only possible exception being if we had very reliable info on an imminent WMD attack on American soil.
3. Because they can. And, they’re spoiled brats who don’t realize how they got the rights they have.
This is really an insane debate. Before the age of 24-hour cable, we wouldn’t even be thinking about the appropriate torture or not for terrorists. The media has become witness, jury and judge of every single issue on Capitol Hill and we, the public, are the tortured captives of 24/7 cable channels. Whatever happened to the good old days when 1/2 hour of nightly news told us everything we ever needed to know and the CIA just did what the CIA did?
When the history of the war on terror is written, the strangest chapter will address why so many American intellectuals were so determined to believe the absolute worst about U.S. behavior.
For the same reason the pinhead intellectuals were so enamored over Stalin’s empire in the 1930’s and after. They value nuance over that which is obvious to anyone with only a third grade education. They respect only the abstract while denying reality. They have no moral compass since there are no ’studies’ showing the relative value of a moral code versus intellectual obtuseness.
They are awash in a sea of valueless, intellectual perdition and they are trying to take the rest of us with them. They will not succeed.
I support torture because I want my version of justice, not God’s.
The Harry Potter reference makes me smile.
I agree with post #1. We put these Al Queda operatives in cells decorated to look like Haight-Ashbury crash-pads of the late sixties, keep them dosed on LSD for days, and constantly play the acid rock music of that era. We might not get any useful info out of them, but they would no longer be effective terrorists!
I’m not sure about my answers to the three questions. It does seem to me that the sword wielded by governments (written of in the NT) is for execution/punishment, and not for torture, but I have not studied the issue.
It just struck me, upon reading LaShawn’s definition of not-really-torture : “Withholding food, depriving prisoners of sleep, letting them thirst a little bit, irritating them with foul odors and extremely loud sounds, offending their sensibilities, religious or otherwise, that kind of thing” are (perhaps not the food and drink so much) all things that most parents experience on a regular basis.
I’m all for subjecting terrorists to the worst form of torture I can think of – it’s called “rap music” (and the ultimate oxymoron).
This set of questions and the answers to them are just fantastic! Great fun!
I suggest you read the comments starting with the answer to question #3. That particular question is so utterly insane that the answer to it pretty much tells you pretty everything you need to know about the commenter. Once you know whether the commenter is a loon, then you can read their answers to questions #1 and #2 in context.
It’s a wonderful device and I strongly encourage it in future polls! Thanks LaShawn!
LaShawn wrote “I have three questions for you. Leftists can answer them, too:”
The posts above have a smattering of responses from the “leftists” and they are true to form: including snickering elitism and a “factual report” about CIA atrocities from an anonymous source.
Hopefully, other leftists will offer reasoned responses to the questions.
1) The more I think about it, the more I think torture makes sense esp. when it comes to dealing with terrorists. In order to be taken seriously sometimes we are forced to use methods that while on the surface may be extreme, they are the only methods our enemies can understand and respect.
2) I don’t know if the Bible speaks directly about torture, but I do know that God isn’t just the loving God that so many on the Left love to embrace. Not only is God a loving God, but the Bible speaks of other aspects of what God is about, that God is a vengeful God. Hebrews 10:30-31 says, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. And again, the Lord will judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God”. Most people like to think of God as just being cute; but that’s not true. On the day of judgment, the majority of people will find out just how fearful God is.
3) I dont think that most on the Left hate their country, so much as they take for granted the freedoms they are allowed here in this country.
Comments on this entry are closed.