9/11 Flashback: When Libs Backed Torture

jimnyc

...
Aug 28, 2003
19,682
270
83
New York
In the months after Sept. 11, when the shock of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history still angered most Americans, even the most vigorous civil libertarians were in favor getting tough with detainees in the war on terrorism - even to the point of actually recommending torture.

It's a measure of how much the outrage of that dark day has faded that a handful of demeaning photos of detained Iraqi terrorist suspects has sent the nation into a convulsion of handwringing and recrimination.

Things were different when America still realized it was under attack from its enemies at home and abroad.

Leading civil libertarian, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, actually argued that the torture of terrorist suspects was legal under the U.S. Constitution, and should be employed when a suspect refused to divulge information about potentially deadly terrorist plots.

"Is it justified to resort to unconventional techniques such as truth serum, moderate physical pressure and outright torture?" Dershowitz asked in a Nov. 8, 2001 Los Angeles Times op-ed piece.

"The constitutional answer to this question may surprise people who are not familiar with the current U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination," he wrote.

"Any interrogation technique, including the use of truth serum or even torture, is not prohibited," the noted civil libertarian insisted.

Dershowitz explained that while evidence obtained through torture could not be used in a criminal prosecution, it "could be used against that suspect in a non-criminal case - such as a deportation hearing - or against someone else."

Since there was no Constitutional ban against torture, he argued that the U.S. courts could issue torture warrants in cases where terrorist suspects refused to talk.

"What if [torture was] limited to the rare 'ticking bomb' case - the situation in which a captured terrorist who knows of an imminent large-scale threat refuses to disclose it?" posited Dershowitz.

"Would torturing one guilty terrorist to prevent the deaths of a thousand innocent civilians shock the conscience of all decent people?"

With the wreckage of Ground Zero still smoldering, few if any Americans, he said, would object.

Likewise, Newsweek mega-liberal Jonathan Alter argued that it was time to take the gloves off with enemy detainees.

"It's a new world, and survival may well require old techniques that seemed out of the question," he wrote the same week Dershowitz spoke out. "In this autumn of anger, even a liberal can find his thoughts turning to... torture."

"Couldn't we at least subject [al Qaeda suspects] to psychological torture?" Alter wondered plaintively. "How about truth serum, administered with a mandatory IV? Or deportation to Saudi Arabia, land of beheadings?"

"Some torture clearly works," he noted. "Jordan broke the most notorious terrorist of the 1980s, Abu Nidal, by threatening his family. Philippine police reportedly helped crack the 1993 World Trade Center bombings [plus a plot to crash 11 U.S. airliners and kill the pope] by convincing a suspect that they were about to turn him over to the Israelis.

"Then there's painful Islamic justice," the Newsweek writer added, "which has the added benefit of greater acceptance among Muslims."

"Some people still argue that we needn't rethink any of our old assumptions about law enforcement," Alter said. "But they're hopelessly 'Sept. 10' - living in a country that no longer exists."

On that last point Alter was clearly wrong - at least about his media colleagues. If their hysteria over the so-called Iraqi prison abuse scandal proved nothing else this week, it's that they have very much returned to the America of Sept. 10.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/9/135645.shtml
 
I read Alan's book "Why terrorism works" in which he does advocate torture or atleast bringing it to a discussion in the community. Im not sure i agree with it though.
 
alot of people had the 'knee jerk' reaction and heavy emotional response. It was fear, in my opinioin.

Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information, at least accurate information.
 
People sometimes have emotional resolve and not sustained resolve. If I'm gonna be pissed, I'm gonna remain pissed until I've won. Not until my emotions calm down.
 
Originally posted by preemptingyou03
People sometimes have emotional resolve and not sustained resolve. If I'm gonna be pissed, I'm gonna remain pissed until I've won. Not until my emotions calm down.

Not all emotions, especially anger, hate, and rage are rational. would you hold on to an irrational emotion until you've won?
 
No. Like Tony Soprano says, it is the guys the smile at you, then get you when you're not looking that are more dangerous than the people who you know are mad.

I would be logical about my emotions. I wouldn't have destroyed the Middle East in a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11.
 
I would have done what Bush did. Bush waited until October 7th, to get a coalition, to get Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on the right side of the fence, before he went into Afghanistan.

Also like Bush though, I would have remained mad. Logically mad. Not emotionally.

If terrorism exists as a threat, our resolve must always be at 100%.
 
Sounds cool..i would have just made it a parking lot...Hell with fucking around just bomb the hell out of them.:blowup:
 
LOL.

It sounds like a strong stance... but you can never truely defeat terrorism militarily. You fight it militarily. But you defeat it ideologically.
 
Idealogical Warfare !-----I love it and also believe in its power against terrorism. Does the America have anyone who knows how to fight this way? The media has all the tools at thier disposal but they would fight on the wrong side. Even Americans can't criticize the media effectively because they will destroy you with propaganda or simply refuse to acknowledge your criticism. Think about it----try to attack the lies of those who control what you see and hear. Truth is of no value to those who prefer the "comfort" of ignorance
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
alot of people had the 'knee jerk' reaction and heavy emotional response. It was fear, in my opinioin.

Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information, at least accurate information.


DK, I seem to rememebr liberals weren't the only ones advocating torture. Am I crazy or is that true?
 
Originally posted by preemptingyou03
No. Like Tony Soprano says, it is the guys the smile at you, then get you when you're not looking that are more dangerous than the people who you know are mad.

I would be logical about my emotions. I wouldn't have destroyed the Middle East in a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11.


"Shit rolls downhill, money rolls uphill"
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top