The Media Manifesto
Foreign Affairs, Media, Politics — By Robin Dembroff on April 19, 2009 at 11:37 pmIn Sunday’s edition of the New York Times, an editorial with the pretense of being yet another rant on the Bush administration’s torture policies appeared with the eye-catching and eyebrow-raising title, “The Torturers’ Manifesto.”
Granted, the article was sparked by the Justice Department’s recent release of memos regarding the legality of torture methods in detained terror-suspects’ interrogations. However, the memos offered no justification for the vicious accusations the Times proceeded to level against Pres. Bush and his administration, and thus the Times instead managed [quite cunningly, I might add] to turn an article on 2001/2002 legal memos into a political tool for the Obama administration.
First, regarding the memos themselves and the Times’ treatment of their information:
The opinion presented in ‘Manifesto’ is that since 1) the 2001-2002 memos written by the Bush administration’s Assistant Attorney General’s office advocated abusive “interrogation techniques” in such a manner (both legal and practical) that 2) the current office condemns and annuls the opinions of the former office, then 3) the earlier memos were obviously a dishonest attempt to “provide legal immunity for acts that are clearly illegal, immoral and a violation of this country’s most basic values.”
[As a minor caveat, understand I am not an advocate for interrogative use of torture, nor did I come to that decision lightly, seeing as there are solid arguments on both sides of the table. Nevertheless, I found the Times' editorial in shockingly bad taste regarding the (at best) assumptions and lack of respect shown when commenting on the Bush administration.]
Even the government is free from ex post facto law, except apparently, when the New York Times is attorney, judge, and jury. Of the nine memos released, seven date from 2001 and 2002, and the last two are from within the past nine months. In the memo dated January 15, 2009, the reader is first asked to consider that the opinions of former years were “issued in the wake of the atrocities of 9/11, when policy makers, fearing that additional catastrophic terrorist attacks were imminent [as we all did], strived to employ all lawful means to protect the Nation. Attorneys…confronted novel and complex legal questions in a time of great danger…” [emphasis added]
The memo contains no exaggeration insofar as lawmakers truly did face “novel and complex legal questions.” Captured terrorists were not prisoners of war according to Geneva standards, but neither were they unlawfully seized aliens or American citizens. So what’s the standard when there’s no legal precedent? Or, where does the executive branch’s authority concerning foreign treaties end and Congress’ begin? Or, where is the line at which our means to protect America undermine America as such?
For the Times to render the individuals struggling through these difficult questions “dungeon masters” is both insensitive and hasty. Evidence is completely lacking from the Times’ editorial as to why they feel qualified to claim that these public servants were (as they put it) ‘depraved’, ‘mob-like’ (yet ‘bureaucratic’?), and criminal. Article space is spent begging the question of the administration’s heinousness to the point that they ignore actually using the documents they are automatically citing as evidence to their claims.
Perhaps zealousness carried them away…or perhaps they were faced with the fact that the recent memos do not support an accusation of the 2001/2002 office’s illegality. To the contrary, the latest memo spells out in details every proposition that was eventually overruled or modified, and states that the Office of Legal Counsel has not “relied” upon said propositions for legal advice since 2003: long before President Obama came to civilize government.
…which brings me to my second point in writing this article: I believe President Bush had little to do with the Time’s agenda in publishing “The Torturers’ Manifesto” except as a incidental that allowed, through aggrandized contrast, a pseudo-critical endorsement/approbation of President Obama. His name was mentioned nearly as frequently as Pres. Bush’s (nine times to Bush’s eleven), and though a politic criticism is thrown out regarding Obama’s merciful promise of immunity to C.I.A. operatives who unwittingly do illegal actions while following orders (the poor Times is not “comfortable” with the “following orders excuse”), there can be no doubt that the entire topic was used as a pretext for praising Obama.
If the Times loathes Pres. Bush and his administration so much, you would think they would deem it unnecessary to compare Obama to Bush in order to emphasize Obama’s qualities.
I.e. Praising George Washington’s honesty by saying, “See? Look how much better than Nixon!” is insulting.
Nonetheless, that’s not what is seen in this article:
“We do not think Mr. Obama will violate Americans’ rights as Mr. Bush did.”
“At least Mr. Obama is not following Mr. Bush’s example…”
“After eight years without transparency or accountability, Mr. Obama promised the American people both.”
If the New York Times decides to publish a real editorial on the legality of the post 9/11 judgments made by the Attorney General’s office, I hope they’ll let me know. As for this editorial, some journalistic honesty and dignity seems in order.
If they are going to title an article as provocatively as “The Torturers’ Manifesto,” I expect 1) evidence and 2) a lack of moth-like magnetism to the topic of President Obama and his glowing contrast to the ‘dark ages’ of the Bush administration.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
39 Comments
yeah, editorials are no place for personal opinions
After all this huffing and puffing I have no idea what Robin’s position is. Sounds like she is against torture but also against any harsh criticism of torturers.
Boonton is right.
Robin, in your critique about the New York Times lack of journalistic rigor and integrity, you didn’t make a comprehensive argument about your position on torture. Seriously Robin, if you expect us to take you seriously when you weigh in on journalistic integrity, then you’d better diffuse the focus of your article in order to give us comprehensive arguments in defense of your obviously right-wing positions on non-related issues.
Derek,
When possible, one should provide some evidence for their claims even when expressing an opinion. The New York Times editorial section is not an ultimate authority and does not get exemption from that rule.
To add, I’d also be very careful how I belittle things like the “just following orders excuse” or “it was a crazy time and no one should be held to the standards of a normal time” insinuation.
Maybe I’m finding conclusions that aren’t there, but I’ve spent the last year and a half analyzing Nazi arguments in their own defense after the fact, and some of your allegations in this article walk down the slippery slope to Nuremburg.
And yes, I realize that now that I’ve invoked Nazis, my argument doesn’t mean anything anymore – but I don’t do so lightly. There are some real, careless historical parallels here that you might want to rethink.
I think there exists enough preliminary evidence to bring criminal charges against Bush and Cheney. I can understand, though, that while Obama ran on ‘transparency and accountability’, such a prosecution would become so politicized so as to make it impossible to really do justice.
Robin should acknowledge why, though. Because people on her side would scream bloody murder regardless of the facts of the case and any conviction would be seen as de facto illegitimate regardless of how carefully the prosecution and judge conduct themselves.
That being the case, I don’t think it’s fair to put people who were at the bottom in jail while giving people on the top a pass (which is what the Bush administration did when it hung US troops out to dry in Abu Ghraib while punishing no one higher up). Also I think llinds has a point, the US was not running death camps. The “just following orders” is a defense when those orders were supposedly vetted by the administrations best legal minds and cleared by those at the top. Yes there are valid times when orders are so wrong they should be rejected no matter who says they are ok. For example, Bush’s Woo asserted that the President had the right to order that a suspect’s child could be tortured in front of him to get him to talk. IMO that type of order rises to the Nuremburg level and if it was ever given any person who carried it out should be charged with a crime.
I would respect Robin greatly if she is trying to tell us that Obama should not only release the information but also go after everyone with criminal charges. But she should say so directly and directly assert she feels the former President should be considered for criminal charges. But I’m wondering if she is trying to have her cake and eat it too….bash Obama for not arresting George Bush when she knows if he did do such a thing she would happily join the chorus of screaming on the right that would result.
Dustin, the problem isn’t that Robin doesn’t provide justification for the various right-wing opinions she holds, the problem is that she’s a liar. She’s dumb, yeah, as she has repeatedly demonstrated, but no one is dumb enough to believe the Times editorial says what she claims it says. She claims that the Times editorial bases its opinion of the legality of the Bush torture techniques on the Obama administration’s current opinion. It doesn’t do any such thing, it forms its opinion of the Bush torture techniques independently of what the Obama administration has done or said. Robin claims the editorial says something it doesn’t say. She’s a liar.
As to her second point, that the editorial compares Bush to Obama in order to praise Obama by the contrast, I think her argument in this case can be attributed to dumbness. The three excerpts she quotes aren’t in praise Obama, they are used in criticism of Obama by showing how his positions and actions, while different from and better than Bush’s are still not what they should be. The incoherence of her argument suggests that this argument isn’t a deliberate lie, but rather a sign that no one ever taught her to read and understand English.
Mike,
It makes you and your position look so much smarter when you call someone a liar and dumb.
Join the adults in the conversation or go play in a different sandbox. There’s room for grace in fierce criticism and if you want to be taken seriously, you should find it.
Mike provided reasons for calling Robin’s post dumb. Does Linds challenge either the facts that Mike provided or his reasonong? No he does not.
I realize that in your kangaroo court, you would probably convict them of the criminal charge of breathing, but what real-world crime do you suggest they be charged with?
Obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, for a start. I’ll yield to lawyers to be more specific.
In an ideal world I’d add failure the waterboard the stupid out of smmtheory….but then again the earth’s surface is only 2/3 water.
More seriously smm’s post demonstrates the problem nicely. Why would criminal charges be a kangeroo court? Because people like smm cannot comprehend gov’t as anything but a tool for partisanship. Does this mean then that politicians cannot be charged with criminal activity unless it is by an administration run by their own party (which presumably would only prosecute one of their own because he was guilty)? To date Obama has not done anything to indicate that the Justice Dept. would be politicized like it was under Bush. If he wanted to do so, he could have sat on the misconduct committed under the Bush admin. that almost put Republican Senator Ted Stevens in jail.
Why is pouring water over someone’s face and scaring the crap out of them “torture,” but ripping off an unborn baby’s arm or sucking out its brains not torture?
This is the most stupid discussion of Bush/Obama I’ve ever heard. Trivial. Pointless. Myopic.
Where is the real torture happening? At Planned Parenthood. And someday those who perpetrate these crimes will also say, “What I did was legal.”
Boonton,
I’m a she. :)
And I didn’t critique Mike’s argument because I agree with him. His childish demeanor just makes me not want him arguing on my side. His pettiness makes what I believe to be true look bad.
Jill,
So we must only take on one injustice at a time? What other humans rights violations should take a backburner until we fix the horrific practice of abortion?
Did I say ignore it? No. I said that your guidelines for “torture” are absurd. Do you folks who have your knickers in a twist over the “torture” of terrorists also decry the actual torture of the unborn?
Just looking for consistency here.
Jill,
How do you know what anyone’s definition of torture is? If you mean to decry the inconsistency of the federal government’s contradictory policy that condemns torture but advocates abortion, a policy constitutionally supported by every president since the passage of Roe, then I’m right there with you.
If however, as I suspect, you mean to imply that anyone who disagrees with Robin’s point in this discussion must share that inconsistency, then I think you’re being needlessly inflammatory. You have no way of knowing, and assuming is silly. The abortion issue wasn’t mentioned until you brought it up as a non sequitur.
Abortion’s a big deal. It’s the great crime of our generation. We shouldn’t cheapen it by using it as an inflammatory talking point anytime we disagree with anything anyone says. That’s one among many reasons why we pro-lifers are losing this battle. As you know, the stakes are too high to be careless like that.
Obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence
Destruction of evidence? It seems to me that if they were going to destroy evidence, they would have destroyed the memos outlining their policies for the treatment of captured terrorists. Obstruction of justice? Do you have any non-destroyed evidence of this? Seriously, Obstruction of justice is rapidly devolving from an actual crime to the left’s way to go after opponents that they can’t defeat politically.
More seriously smm’s post demonstrates the problem nicely. Why would criminal charges be a kangeroo court?
Because the things the people who are ostensibly to be investigated are being accused of is not destroying evidence or obstructing justice, but of having legal opinions that the people currently in power disagree with. Essentially what your side is trying to do is to criminalize the policy decisions of the previous administration. These are the actions of a “banana republic”, not a modern democracy. The long term implications of this are quite alarming. Unless you are planning on your guy setting himself up as “El Presidente de la Vida”, at some point the people who are advising are going to start basing their advice, not on their honest opinion, but on making sure the advice the give won’t put them in the cross hairs of some future opposition administration.
I’m a she. :)
Sorry about that linds. I’m not sure Mike’s demeanor was all that childish. Robin clearly either didn’t read the editorial, didn’t tell the truth about it in her post or simply can’t connect real life (the editorial as it was actually published) with her imaginary life (the things she imagines the editor saying if he was, say, confronted on the Bill O’Reilly show). I agree, though, you should only call a person dumb once in a comment. Do it more than that and you run the risk of sounding silly.
Jill,
Did I say ignore it? No. I said that your guidelines for “torture” are absurd. Do you folks who have your knickers in a twist over the “torture” of terrorists also decry the actual torture of the unborn?
How can the right get into a twist a few % points increase in the top tax brackets when unborn babies arms are ripped off them! Isn’t that the ultimate tax!
See Jill’s argument is nothing more than ’shut up and talk about abortion’. I’m happy to hold her to it from this point until the end of time. Should she ever talk about anything else, we should all remind her to shut up and talk about abortion.
But here is a difference, at least from the liberal persepctive abortion is out of the gov’t’s hands. Any abortion that does happen happens because the mother wants it and while not always, I’d usually trust a mother to stand in front of abuse of a child more than the gov’t.
The previous president, though, has asserted a Constitutional right to order child torture should he deem that it serves the national interest. Presumably it would follow should a pregnant terror suspect ever be caught, that reasoning would allow the gov’t to use either the threat or an actual forced abortion as a tool. I would say no there is no such right and those who think there is are deficient as human beigns. What does Jill say?
ucfengr
Because the things the people who are ostensibly to be investigated are being accused of is not destroying evidence or obstructing justice, but of having legal opinions that the people currently in power disagree with. Essentially what your side is trying to do is to criminalize the policy decisions of the previous administration.
1. Opinions themselves are not criminal. I’ll point it out again, the previous administration asserted that they had the right to order a child’s testicles crushed in front of his father. This opinion is about as abhorrant as it can get, but if that’s all it was it wouldn’t be criminal. If such an act was actually done, though, I think both the soldier who carried out the orders as well as the lawyer who tried to provide cover should both share criminal responsibility.
2. Some policy decisions can be criminal. Why is it automatically assumed that the issue could not be brought before the judicial branch in a standard trial using the rules of evidence? While the child torture opinion was thankfully never more than a hypothetical. It seems though not all of these opinions were just position papers or spin to Fox News blowhards and when laws are broken they cease to become just ‘policy differences’.
I’ll point it out again, the previous administration asserted that they had the right to order a child’s testicles crushed in front of his father.
That’s just not true. What really happened was the John Woo offered a legal opinion in a public debate that there is no treaty would prevent the President from doing that if he felt it was needed. That is quite different from the administration asserting that right.
I think both the soldier who carried out the orders as well as the lawyer who tried to provide cover should both share criminal responsibility.
Of course, there is no evidence that any soldier was given or carried out such orders. Additionally, you’ve offered no evidence that such a policy was accepted by the Bush administration. Essentially what you are arguing is that it is acceptable to the left to convict people of crimes for offering unpopular opinions in debates. Thought crime anyone.
That is quite different from the administration asserting that right.
So does it have such a right? If not why not?
Additionally, you’ve offered no evidence that such a policy was accepted by the Bush administration. Essentially what you are arguing is that it is acceptable to the left to convict people of crimes for offering unpopular opinions in debates. Thought crime anyone.
In regards to the child torture, I made it very clear that it was an example of an opinion that could not be prosecuted because it was NOT carried out. Essentially you are demonstrating you are unable to tell the difference between the actual discussion that is happening in real life and the imaginary one you are conducting with me in your head.
In regards to the child torture, I made it very clear that it was an example of an opinion that could not be prosecuted because it was NOT carried out. Essentially you are demonstrating you are unable to tell the difference between the actual discussion that is happening in real life and the imaginary one you are conducting with me in your head.
You’ve argued that Bush administration officials should be prosecuted, for obstruction of justice and destroying evidence, even though you’ve cited no examples where they’ve done either. In fact, the only thing you have cited has evidence of criminal misconduct is an opinion offered by John Woo in a public forum debate. Sounds like you’ve already convicted Woo, and for that matter, Bush and Cheney, which is the definition of a “kangaroo court”. Verdict first, charges later.
Is ucfengr going to answer the question in #19 or not?
Is ucfengr going to answer the question in #19 or not?
No, ucfengr isn’t going to. ucfengr thinks it is not relevant to the debate over whether it is appropriate to attempt to criminalize politcal policy disagreements and that it is a question designed to inflame passions, not foster debate.
I’m sorry, but I think my logic is perfectly coherent. If we were talking about taxes or education or pollution, I wouldn’t bring up abortion. That would be a true non sequitur. BUT, we are discussing, at least obliquely, the topic of torture, though Robin’s article concerns only an aspect of the topic. But all this compassion bubbling up for terrorists who are subjected to cold, or sleep deprivation, or fear is ridiculous. It’s like worrying about pesticides on an apple instead of the starving people who couldn’t give a damn but just want the apple. If waterboarding is torture, not what is too high a tax or a poor education, but what is abortion? It is the ultimate torture. I don’t care who says otherwise or what the law says or what mother is deceived into believing that torturing and killing her child is the best decision, this is the worst. When we protect all life from truly torturous death, I’ll find room for compassion for these cold, sleepy terrorists.
It is quite relevant given that the admin’s argument was basically one of unlimited executive power. It’s interesting that even when presented with a hypothetical that probably would never happen (we hope), they cannot even provide an confirm a hypothetical limit on executive power.
If you want to foster debate instead of passions be direct about what you’re trying to sell here. Answer the question.
Jill,
1. This is not so much about compassion for terrorists as much as a question what is moral and immoral for our gov’t to do.
2. Shut up and talk only about abortion.
Sorry that was probably a bit harsh but your point about abortion was addressed, now we all know abortion is an issue that by itself can generate a hundred posts. Is it really germane to this issue or is this more of an attempt to hijack the thread?
“When we protect all life from truly torturous death, I’ll find room for compassion for these cold, sleepy terrorists.”
Jill,
When you say something like this, you demonstrate a couple things.
1. You don’t understand the debate over the torture techniques okayed by the Bush adminstration.
2. You’re still asserting that until abortion has been stopped, you don’t care about other human rights violations.
Both are still rather foolish at best, wicked at worst. Edmund Burke said “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.” If we do nothing to prevent our government from unlawfully inflicting pain and suffering on untried suspects, we’re allowing evil to prevail, no matter why we choose to do nothing.
If you want to hold off until abortion is ended, hold off on something worthwhile. Go on a hunger strike. Don’t refuse to acknowledge injustice when you see it just becuase injustice exists in mutliple places. That kind of selective sense of justice leads people to pick and choose issues that matter. In fact, it’s one reason why abortion is a vibrant practice today.
boonton:
It is quite relevant given that the admin’s argument was basically one of unlimited executive power.
Unfortunately, you leave two stones unturned here.
First, what constitutes torture? Is it possible that definition could be politically colored? Or, to put it in innocent terms, is it possible to provide different, justifiable, definitions of the term?
Second, there is the element of context. If you are trying to get, or corroborate, information, what degree of coercion is acceptable?
I contend you cannot answer that question in the absence of context. Further, that there are conceivable situations for which crushing a child’s testicles in front of its parents might represent the least awful alternative.
Say you knew there was something awful afoot prior to 9/11, had a couple of involved people that you knew possessed relevant information, without which you cannot prevent the outcome.
Where do you draw the line? Where does the law draw the line?
I contend you cannot answer that question in the absence of context. Further, that there are conceivable situations for which crushing a child’s testicles in front of its parents might represent the least awful alternative.
Let’s keep this in mind the next time stem cell research comes up as a topic.
I don’t think the definition of torture is politically colored nor do I think it depends on ‘contexts’. And push come to shove, if given a hammer and told crush this child or another 9/11 will happen I’d have to say I should put the hammer down and refuse. Sometimes principles have will have costs and if that ends up being one of them so be it. I’m willing to share wher emy lines are drawn, I think others here should do the same.
Jill,
The abortion debate reminds me of an little spar we had when Joe was running the place. Back then the issue was Rudy G’s run to be the GOP candidate and the question was why was it important for a candidate to always be pro-life….. Joe had a post whose premise was being pro-life impacted not only abortion policy but all other types of policies such as whether or not to care about the children of Darfur.
Always enjoying to get Joe’s goat, I searched EO back for about a year or more and found that despite being pro-life, Joe had written basically nothing about Darfur, despite the supposedly superior humanitarian influence that being pro-life supposedly had. Needless to say, my empiracle observations were not appreciated.
Jill’s use of abortion here is a distraction. It essentially boils down to “anyone who has issues that annoy me I will shout down with ‘what about abortion’”. If taken at face value, her stance should apply to everything. “Why are there Tea Parties over a few % points of taxes when there’s millions of abortions!” But I guarantee you she won’t apply it to everything. When the issue is something more agreeable to her but supposedly less important than abortion you won’t hear any complaints from her that people are talking about it.
I don’t think the definition of torture is politically colored nor do I think it depends on ‘contexts’. And push come to shove, if given a hammer and told crush this child or another 9/11 will happen I’d have to say I should put the hammer down and refuse.
Well, you still haven’t defined it. And, until you, or anyone else, does in anything like a clear manner, inveighing against the Bush administration torture policies no doubt feels good, but it is empty.
Of course the definition of torture does not depend upon context; rather, the degree of justifiable coercion does, though.
That you would refuse to torture the child, thereby failing to elicit the information that prevents another 9/11 is clearly a stand on principal. However, I doubt you can make a case that an untortured child vs. 3,000 dead is necessarily the least awful outcome.
Which makes your position empty.
It is quite relevant given that the admin’s argument was basically one of unlimited executive power.
Then why was Congress briefed on the tactics and their concurrence sought? And apparently given, because there was no attempt by Congress to curtail the techniques. This is one of those memes the left puts out (that Bush asserted virtually dictatorial power) that really doesn’t hold up under any level of scrutiny. If you really want an example of an administration asserting “unlimited executive power”, look at the way the Obama administration is dealing with the auto industry and the banks. Frankly, I am a lot more concerned that Obama feels he can set the salary or even fire the CEO of a private business than I am about a few terrorists not getting a mint on their pillow before bed.
If you want to foster debate instead of passions be direct about what you’re trying to sell here.
I’m not trying to sell anything, I am arguing that it is foolish for the Obama administration to attempt to criminalize the good faith policy decisions of the Bush administration. But hey, if you think it is a good idea, why stop there? I am sure we can dig up some doddering old codger from the FDR administration who was involved in the imprisonment of US citizens of Japanese and German dissent during WW2 to punish. Of course, we might have better luck in finding someone from the Kennedy administration who was involved in the wire tapping of Martin Luther King. Maybe Bill Moyers is available.
Answer the question.
No.
Answer the question.
Just to follow up my non-answer, from my reading, John Woo argued that there was no treaty preventing the President from doing what you described. The easiest way to resolve this would be for you to cite a relevant treaty that the US is signatory to that would prohibit the practice.
Whether the President has the authority to do something is a separate question from whether he should do something. But if you really want to go the full “24″ to try to make you point, why not go all the way? Let’s suppose that you’re right and the President doesn’t have that authority, then let’s suppose your terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in NYC and in LA, and there isn’t time to evacuate the cities. Now how far would you want the President to go to prevent those bombs from going off? Let’s further suppose your family is vacationing in NYC; now how far do you want the President to go?
Well, you still haven’t defined it. And, until you, or anyone else, does in anything like a clear manner, inveighing against the Bush administration torture policies no doubt feels good, but it is empty.
Well I think I defined at least one area that would be an upper bound, child torture. The memos from the Bush administration defined another line that some of the interrogators seems to have crossed. So we do seem to be drawing a line closer and closer to what it *should* be. In general, I think the traditional definition that we had both before Bush and now is fine….but I’m not a lawyer so I don’t intend to get into a a big discussion of its exact wording…unless I really have too.
I doubt you can make a case that an untortured child vs. 3,000 dead is necessarily the least awful outcome.
Which makes your position empty.
Are you sure it’s the ‘least awful outcome’? This seems very utilitarian to me.
Just as the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus with cleverly framed questions, political issues have been framed for us in such a way that we can’t avoid compromise. Do you want to be a democrat and oppose torture or do you want to be a republican and oppose abortion? Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I think the traditional definition that we had both before Bush and now is fine …
Unfortunately, that definition, since it could include almost anything, really isn’t worth much.
I just don’t see how it is possible to analytically discuss something without having a pretty good idea just what is included, and what is not.
E.g., is sleep deprivation torture?
Are you sure it’s the ‘least awful outcome’? This seems very utilitarian to me.
A great many decisions are utilitarian, which is to say they are dependent upon context.
What degree of coercion would you have been willing to apply to the 20th hijacker in order to corroborate enough information to prevent 9/11?
Do you want to be a democrat and oppose torture or do you want to be a republican and oppose abortion? Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Since there are pro-life democrats and republicans that oppose the Bush position on coercive interrogation (including the most recent Republican Presidential nominee), what’s the point of your question?
Unfortunately, that definition, since it could include almost anything, really isn’t worth much.
This is an interesting statement. Amazing that no one, including those such as members of Japan’s armed forces we tried and executed for torture of American POWs seemed to notice that our laws were meaningless all along.
Let’s note this next time any debate of moral relativism comes up.
A great many decisions are utilitarian, which is to say they are dependent upon context.
Except we don’t seem very comfortable with swallowing the utilitarian pill all the way. For example, suppose randomly killing and examining the brains of non-sick children from ages 1-18 will yield a brain cancer treatment that will save 3,000 people a year. From your POV this would dwarf even the case of preventing another 9/11. Yet no one would be comfortable with it.
What degree of coercion would you have been willing to apply to the 20th hijacker in order to corroborate enough information to prevent 9/11?
You mean like looking in his laptop? Ohhh wait, we didn’t bother to do that. The problem here is you’re hypothetical is the strained Hollywood type (“tell us where the bomb is hidden!”). In reality for torture to work it has to be utilized like any other intelligence gathering mechanism which means a lot of torture, a lot of abuse of torture and a lot of counter-productive torture. Notice the latest reports telling us a lot of torture was coming from pressure by the administration to ‘produce links’ to 9/11 and Iraq or Saddam and Al Qaeda.
E.g., is sleep deprivation torture?
Yes, provided it is sustained with the intent to produce extreme psychological or physical distress. Are your children war criminals because they are making noise at 11:30PM when you’re trying to sleep? NO
boonton:
Except we don’t seem very comfortable with swallowing the utilitarian pill all the way. …
Arguing from analogy is nearly always problematic: doing so often fails to clarify the point at hand; further, as here, it runs the risk of being completely inappropriate. I that, on reflection, you can see how your analogy fails on both counts.
—-
Rather than repeat myself, please read this.