I’m sure this was directed at FundingFather but I’ll respond anyway. My answer is: I don’t know. </p>
<p>First, as a society, let’s recognize that interrogational torture may be necessary in certain extreme circumstances. Second, let’s identify in advance in what circumstances we might or might not consider torture. Third, let’s consider the methods we would accept in theoretical circumstances. In other words, let’s do what the police and the military do every day - think about what we might do in certain situations; formulate guidelines; and practice techniques to determine which ones are effective. Frankly, I hope we’re already doing this because we’re going to need it.</p>
<p>Finally, if we acknowledge that we might use interrogational torture in some situations, we make it harder for our enemies even if we rarely or never employ torture. If we as a society take step 1 above and acknowledge we might use torture, our enemies might find it harder to recruit jihadis and to trust those they have recruited.</p>
<p>That’s actually a good question (what is too far?). To many people they think of “torture” as anything more than demanding “name, rank and serial number”. I think there is a whole range of treatment that needs to be consistent with the circumstances and the demarcation between forced interrogation and “torture” is one for debate. </p>
<p>Not being an expert on interrogation like CGM, I’m not sure how I would define torture and what is “going too far”. Certainly if the results of the interrogation is known to save lives, more pressure can be applied than no lives are immediately at stake. And, certainly the more lives that are at stake the more that can be tolerated - if, without the information known to be held by the prisoner, a whole city would be at risk, I’d say the sky is pretty much the limit. However, once you get into the area of coerced interrogations, this should only be done at the approval of the highest level of elected office. Never should this type of interrogation be okayed by the equivalent of a police detective - or even the chief of police. Also, it should never, under any circumstances, be done as a means to obtain a confession - it can only be considered as a preventative measure when there is a very high probablity that a deadly terrorist attack can be prevented if and only if this information is obtained.</p>
<p>For you my question would be “if the jihadists are willing to die for their cause, what torture works?” So I don’t think our acknowledgement of torture in some cases would be a deterent to recruitment. True? </p>
<p>What is and isn’t acceptable needs to be established just as it is currently for police investegations. A line needs to be created with consquences for crossing. Without this, anything goes, that is our current problem the lack of a policy without recourse for overstepping boundries.</p>
<p>Part of living in a free society is risk. If we ask our government to eliminate risk, or levels of risk, we also have to give up freedoms. I’ve given up enough already. Instead I’ll focus on our foriegn policies and the root causes for some of our problems. Then I can vote for those whose ideas for our policies reflect what I think.</p>
<p>That is a far better answer than I honestly expected. Sorry, but I had thought of you as an extreme righty. My bad. </p>
<p>Would you agree that established policies should be in place with agreed upon boundries that crossing would or could result in a consquence for the responsible party?</p>
<p>In todays news a “contracted” agent is being charged with “assault” for beating a prisoner to death with a maglite flashlight while in custody in 04. Is an assualt charge which can a carry a sentence of a few days to 11 years appropriate for beating a prisoner to death while trying to get information? </p>
<p>As the inquisition proved some people just like to torture other people. They get their ya ya’s off that way. Should written rules be in place so an interrogator can’t off a suspect, without consqence?</p>
<p>*You sleep save in your bed only because rough men stand the night ready to deliver a terrible violence upon those that would seek to do you harm. *</p>
<p>You may not like it, but that’s the reality of the world we live in.</p>
<p>FF. i know I would break under torture and would lie, and would try my best not to implicate innocent people, are you saying you wouldn’t break and give false information</p>
<p>Well, let us look at the cooerced confessions from innocent people, lets look at the women who were tortured and confessed they were witches, lets look at the innocent people that are tortured all the time by the same people you seem to admire…</p>
<p>so guess it would be okay for the “enemy” to torture our soildiers, our women, our young men, that would be okay with you I guess cause it is war after all, and if they want information, when they capture on of our young men and want to know what the “plans are” they can torture him…</p>
<p>I actually think that both things can be true at once. That innocent people can/will break under torture AND that it can sometimes be the only way to gain life-saving information.</p>
<p>For me, I guess, the keys are intelligence and prudence. If Rauf was tortured and a plot really was planned, then so be it. One would hope that the authorities would have been really sure he was up to something. I like FundingFather’s distinction of never, ever torturing for a confession. I hate the idea of torture as I hate violence, but I think burning alive in an office building or choosing to jump 100 floors is its own form of torture and, working right smack in Times Square, I’d really like to prevent a further attack. It’s not theoretical. There really are lots of people who want nothing better to kill us and I want to stop them.</p>
<p>“so guess it would be okay for the “enemy” to torture our soildiers, our women, our young men”</p>
<p>Because they don’t do that already, right? Did you know that those two soldiers (one from Texas) who were kidnapped in Iraq earlier this year were castrated, beheaded and disemboweled?</p>
<p>We can continue to torture and kill terrorists and potential terrorists indefinitely, but they multiply much faster than we can stamp them out. And demographics are on the side of the Islamic fundamentalists, not ours.</p>
<p>The violence in Iraq is substantially worse since Al-Zaqawi was killed. Even offing BinLaden at this point isn’t going to stop terrorism. No matter what “leader” is killed, another plot is hatched.</p>
<p>Clearly, this has been going on years already, and I don’t see that the world is an iota safer.</p>
<p>“We can continue to torture and kill terrorists and potential terrorists indefinitely, but they multiply much faster than we can stamp them out. And demographics are on the side of the Islamic fundamentalists, not ours.”</p>
<p>True that. And if we stop torturing, they’ll still continue to multiply and kill us whenever they can. It sometimes feels that we’re stuck in some cosmic game of Whack-a-Mole.</p>
<p>yeah, but we have no highhorse to stand on, do we zoosermom…nope, our soliders raped and killed people, murdered people and tortured people…what do we expect in return…we killed innocent Iraqs long before those two soliders where killed, but guess if you an Iraqi and innocent and a child, you don’t count</p>
<p>Our soilders played soccer with the heads of beheaded victims,if we act the same as the enemy, we deseve what we get…</p>
<p>But, let me guess … you subscribe to the approved DNC mantra of “I support our troops”. With a post like this, I guess the next step is to start organizing groups to spit on the troops as they come home … just like the good 'ol days of the Vietnam war.</p>
<p>“yeah, but we have no highhorse to stand on, do we zoosermom…nope, our soliders raped and killed people, murdered people and tortured people…what do we expect in return…we killed innocent Iraqs long before those two soliders where killed, but guess if you an Iraqi and innocent and a child, you don’t count”</p>
<p>You are really fond of overwrought statements, aren’t you? Do you actually think that these folks would play nice if we did?</p>