Waterboarding Lies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many times did terrorists attack U.S. soil after 9/11? I'm glad the CIA had the guts to do what they needed to do. Terrorists never play by the rules, that is why they are labeled as terrorists! Was 9/11, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing playing by the rules? Let's say it is early post 9/11 and you are the person interrogating these guys. Do you want to tell the families of their next victims, we didn't try everything would could to get more intelligence out of our captives, because we wanted to play nice.

You are actually in the majority, according to a Gallup poll released yesterday.

A new Gallup Poll finds 51% of Americans in favor and 42% opposed to an investigation into the use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects during the Bush administration. At the same time, 55% of Americans believe in retrospect that the use of the interrogation techniques was justified, while only 36% say it was not. Notably, a majority of those following the news about this matter "very closely" oppose an investigation and think the methods were justified.

While a slim majority favors an investigation, on a relative basis the percentage is quite low because Americans are generally quite supportive of government probes into potential misconduct by public officials. In recent years, for example, Americans were far more likely to favor investigations into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys (72%), government databases of telephone numbers dialed by Americans (62%), oil company profits (82%), and the government's response to Hurricane Katrina (70%).

Support for an inquiry into the Bush-era interrogation policy may be relatively limited because a majority of Americans believe the use of the techniques for questioning terrorism suspects was justified.

[Anonymous]

Support for an inquiry into the Bush-era interrogation policy may be relatively limited because a majority of Americans believe the use of the techniques for questioning terrorism suspects was justified.

And so begins the moral decline of America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And so begins the moral decline of America.

Not to disagree with your sentiment, I'd say we've had our ups and downs throughout our history. Personally, I think the important thing is to get a national consensus that torture is not a tool we use, and I'm not sure prosecution leads to consensus.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Not to disagree with your sentiment, I'd say we've had our ups and downs throughout our history. Personally, I think the important thing is to get a national consensus that torture is not a tool we use, and I'm not sure prosecution leads to consensus.

If I robbed a bank would you feel that a consensus against bank robbery was more important than my prosecution? If laws were broken by those who ordered torture, then those individuals should be prosecuted just like any other criminal.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not to disagree with your sentiment, I'd say we've had our ups and downs throughout our history. Personally, I think the important thing is to get a national consensus that torture is not a tool we use, and I'm not sure prosecution leads to consensus.

If I robbed a bank would you feel that a consensus against bank robbery was more important than my prosecution? If laws were broken by those who ordered torture, then those individuals should be prosecuted just like any other criminal.

Forget Yoo and Bybee.
Put Jeff away and toss the key!

[Anonymous]

Not to disagree with your sentiment, I'd say we've had our ups and downs throughout our history. Personally, I think the important thing is to get a national consensus that torture is not a tool we use, and I'm not sure prosecution leads to consensus.

And right now the national consensus is that torture is OK as long as Americans are doing it?

[Anonymous]

There is a wide variety of opinion about precisely where interrogation stops and torture starts. It's like trying to define pornography. Conversations on the subject become rabid, and no one listens to each other.

I too believe that prosecuting people who believed they were working in our country's best interest is a non-starter, precisely because there is no clear boundary between interrogation and torture.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:There is a wide variety of opinion about precisely where interrogation stops and torture starts. It's like trying to define pornography. Conversations on the subject become rabid, and no one listens to each other.

I too believe that prosecuting people who believed they were working in our country's best interest is a non-starter, precisely because there is no clear boundary between interrogation and torture.

But, people have already been prosecuted for waterboarding. There is legal precedent. It's not simply a matter of opinion. And, as others have pointed out, most "evildoers" believe they are working in the best interest of their countries. Saddam always defended his actions because he was protecting Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a wide variety of opinion about precisely where interrogation stops and torture starts. It's like trying to define pornography. Conversations on the subject become rabid, and no one listens to each other.

I too believe that prosecuting people who believed they were working in our country's best interest is a non-starter, precisely because there is no clear boundary between interrogation and torture.

Wow, too bad we executed or imprisoned those Japanese interrogators who waterboarded American soldiers during World War II. We should have realized that they were only being patriotic.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/yes-we-did-execute-japanese-soldiers-waterboarding-american-pows

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a wide variety of opinion about precisely where interrogation stops and torture starts. It's like trying to define pornography. Conversations on the subject become rabid, and no one listens to each other.

I too believe that prosecuting people who believed they were working in our country's best interest is a non-starter, precisely because there is no clear boundary between interrogation and torture.

We prosecute cases involving pornography all the time. It is not acceptable to say "there are many opinions, therefore nothing should be done". And pretty much every torturer connected to a government thinks he is working toward his country's best interest. So what makes us different from the Shah of Iran, Khmer Rouge, the Salvadoran death squads, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, Pinochet's Chile, .... ?

Well, what makes America different is that we are a free country founded on the inalienable rights of man (woman) that come from a political heritage of natural law. But if we let our government violate these principles, then we are no better than all the above. We become just like them.