{Definitely Spam?} Should we torture Bin Laden?

[John Simon]

Hi guys...and merry Xmas,

Generally torturing a prisoner is not a great idea. You can get more
reliable and useful information by using softer techniques, given that you
have a little time. My problem with the whole argument is the definition of
torture, it seems anything more than a steak and 50 channels of cable
qualifies in some circles. There are a lot of techniques of interrogation
that are more productive, but plenty of folks object to such "pressure"
techniques. Plenty would not. I've had as much from our own troops during
authorized military training.
We certainly need to ensure that the ideals of freedom and respect for
human rights are protected but this does not mean we should be required to
be utterly friendly to our detainees either. The use of the word torture
to describe the vast majority of unfortunate abuses by individual US troops
on detainees is a significant "stretch" to be PC. The debate over real
torture is moot, it's not terribly productive and not so good for our image,
conscience and national self respect. The debate is what constitutes
torture... While I recognize the impropriety I have had a few chuckles in
this regard over the past year. Many may be more serious and don't merit a
chuckle, and many, many more are a simple farce. Either way, just because
it ain't right doesn't mean it's torture. Not saying it doesn't happen,
but as they say...don't believe everything you read or see on TV, they lie
or are mistaken all too often.


Cheers and happy holidays...


John

-----Original Message-----
From: Flying Lobster [mailto:in_a_cloud@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:24 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Should we torture Bin Laden?


Marco Zee wrote:
Let me update the tally right here.

All those in favor of torturing OBL: Marco, Marc

All those against torturing OBL: Christy, Hugh, Joe, Mike

Unclear: Brian

Let me know if I have misstated your position.

Marco

PS: Hugh, we are not going to agree on torturing OBL but I'm glad that we
agree that we should maximize useful intel from them.
(end of quote)


No marco, I never said anything favoring torturing OBL.

Even though I'm agnostic I don't feel this is the appropriate day for this
kind of discussion. Even a die-hard neo-con can wish no ill will toward all
mankind on at least this one day, no?

marcothecompassionateNeo-ConGanja-BushMan

[Marco Zee]

John,

Very well stated and comprehensive review of the entire "torture" and "near-torture" debate.
Marc seems to think it is fine to drop a bomb or shoot these terrorists, or even turn them into catfood, while Brian seems to be ok with injecting them full of mind-altering drugs ( I would assume with no permanent brain damage as a result, but perhaps with permanent injury) and professionally "interrogating" them, all while videotaping them so as to discredit them amongst their followers. Very humanitarian.
But I am way out of line if I want to "torture" them to find their followers and supply lines.......I don't know.....their arguments seems pretty inconsistent to me.
As far as I am concerned, the leaders of these terrorist groups should expect NO RIGHTS when captured, and we should allow the CIA, NSA, or any other agency "all options" when dealing these thugs.

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

John,

Very well stated and comprehensive review of the entire "torture" and "near-torture" debate.
Marc seems to think it is fine to drop a bomb or shoot these terrorists, or even turn them into catfood, while Brian seems to be ok with injecting them full of mind-altering drugs ( I would assume with no permanent brain damage as a result, but perhaps with permanent injury) and professionally "interrogating" them, all while videotaping them so as to discredit them amongst their followers. Very humanitarian.
But I am way out of line if I want to "torture" them to find their followers and supply lines.......I don't know.....their arguments seems pretty inconsistent to me.
As far as I am concerned, the leaders of these terrorist groups should expect NO RIGHTS when captured, and we should allow the CIA, NSA, or any other agency "all options" when dealing these thugs.

Marco

Unfortunately, you have an extremely strong disposition towards selectively processing information to fit your predetermined biases--much like, oh well, you know who I'm talking about.

The administration, and apparently you, take the position that pretty much anything goes in this new age of "war on terrorism."

My position on the issue of torture is that the issue of how captured combatants are treated impacts directly on how our own troops can expect to be treated in future conflicts--not to mention the country's percieved position as the world's leader in democracy and human rights.

If you're going to commit our nation to a war--then I believe that nothing short of absolute clear-cut, no holds barred total vanquishing of the enemy is necessary as a precondition to asking our military personell to make sacrifices--including their lives.

So, in the case of OBL and Saddam, its a lot simpler to find them and target them and then accept their departure from this existance as casualties of war than it is to try them in some kind of murky, quasi-legal world/national justice system. And the potential for publicized torture abuses goes up once they enter into custody--which in turn feeds the propaganda machine that helps fuel the insurgency against our troops.

By now it should be obvious to you that there is another huge downside to all this. The more instances of abuses, secret prisons, unwarranted surviellences etc. that come to the public's attention, the more likely all the intelligence and military operations are going to face increasing public scrutiny. This is as it should be--but unfortunately it does have the effect of compromising the effectiveness of these services. Blame the media is the administration's response--but in my opinion its their own dumb-ass fault for allowing these operations to see the light of day to begin with.

marc

[Spark]

...
Unfortunately, you have an extremely strong disposition towards selectively processing information to fit your predetermined biases--much like, oh well, you know who I'm talking about.

much like Everyone on the Planet.

[Flying Lobster]

...
Unfortunately, you have an extremely strong disposition towards selectively processing information to fit your predetermined biases--much like, oh well, you know who I'm talking about.

much like Everyone on the Planet.

Touche! O wizened sky-prophet.

marc

[Marco Zee]

Marc Stated: << Unfortunately, you have an extremely strong disposition towards selectively processing information to fit your predetermined biases--much like, oh well, you know who I'm talking about. >>

Reply: Gosh, I guess you nailed me on that one Marc...I cannot think of anyone else on this earth who does that.

But seriously, I go out of my way to listen and understand the Lib point of view, but for the most part, I just do not find their arguments strong, convincing, or pursuasive. And with the Dems latest strategy of immediate withdrawal (ie Murtha and Howard Dean), the Left cannot be taken seriously with regards to national security issues.

The Dems have not developed "a better plan", but instead have proposed defeatist and worse plans.....and it is unfortunate that they keep doing so.

Marco

[deveil]

from the 'for what it's worth' and the 'some do create their own reality' departments:
the american dialect society named "truthiness," coined by stephen colbert on comedy central's "colbert report," (lately of jon stewart's "the dailey show") the word of the year for 2005, saying it "refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true."