Torture and the Right

[midcan5]

Did conservatism lose all sense of value when it condoned torture and the suspension of law after 911?

"My own view is that the American conservative movement's embrace or defense of torture was the moment its intellectual collapse became irrecoverable. When conservatism abandoned core values of American decency in favor of pure force, exemplified by torture techniques designed by Communists and Nazis, then it ceased to be conservative in the sense that Burke or Hayek or Oakeshott or Kirk would begin to understand. And watching the intellectual dishonesty of the right on this issue in the last few years has been a watershed for me. It has been, in my judgment, one long, awful surrender of truth to power. Take a moment with me to review what one leading light of the Republican blogosphere wrote when the Abu Ghraib scandal first hit the news in the spring of 2004." A.S.

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (December 15, 2008) - The Right And Abu Ghraib I
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (December 18, 2008) - Ross On Torture II

"So as far as the bigger picture goes, then, it seems indisputable that in the name of national security, and with the backing of seemingly dubious interpretations of the laws, this Administration pursued policies that delivered many detainees to physical and mental abuse, and not a few to death. These were wartime measures, yes, but war is not a moral blank check: If you believe that Abu Ghraib constituted a failure of jus in bello, then you have to condemn the decisions that led to Abu Ghraib, which means that you have to condemn the President and his Cabinet." R.D.

Thinking About Torture - Ross Douthat

 

[editec]

America isn't exactly morally bankrupt yet, but its ethical balance sheet isn't looking so good of late.

We can change though.

 

[Missourian]

If you had kidnapped my wife or child, I would torture you until you told me where they were. I may lose some sleep over it later, but I wouldn't hesitate for an instant.

If that makes me morally bankrupt, so be it.

In my more cynical moments I see the reality of human nature is the carrot and the stick. That for the most part those two ingredients make up 90% of the glue that binds our non-familial 'civilization'.

 

[Againsheila]

If you had kidnapped my wife or child, I would torture you until you told me where they were. I may lose some sleep over it later, but I wouldn't hesitate for an instant.

If that makes me morally bankrupt, so be it.

Further, the reality of human nature is the carot and the stick. For the most part, IMO those two ingredients make up 90% of the glue that binds our 'civilization'.

So I assume you'd have no problem with someone torturing you for information if they believed you'd kidnapped their wife and child?

 

[Missourian]

So I assume you'd have no problem with someone torturing you for information if they believed you'd kidnapped their wife and child?

They would need to have more than a 'belief'...they would need proof positive.

 

[Againsheila]

They would need to have more than a 'belief'...they would need proof positive.

Exactly what kind of "positive proof"? You saw them? What if they have a twin? What if someone dressed up as them? The truth is that in our country you are innocent until proven guilty and these so called terrorists are being tortured without being proven anything except in the wrong place at the wrong time.

To top that off, torture is an ineffective means of getting information. Many people under torture will make things up just to stop the pain.

 

[Missourian]

Everyone has the highest ideals until they actually are in the position of responsibility.

Here is the hypothetical:

You have capture a 9/11 hijacker on 9/9/01....he ain't talking, he wants a lawyer. You have solid intel that a terrorist attack is imminent. Your subject is a known Al-Quid a leader who is in the US illegally using an alias. He has detailed plans of the White House including first hand recon photos taken 9/08/01 in his possession.

Do you get him a lawyer or hand him over to Jack Bauer and CTU?

 

[Againsheila]

Everyone has the highest ideals until they actually are in the position of responsibility.

Here is the hypothetical:

You have capture a 9/11 hijacker on 9/9/01....he ain't talking, he wants a lawyer. You have solid intel that a terrorist attack is imminent. Your subject is a known Al-Quid a leader who is in the US illegally using an alias. He has detailed plans of the White House including first hand recon photos taken 9/08/01 in his possession.

Do you get him a lawyer or hand him over to Jack Bauer and CTU?

I would evacuate the white house and tighten security, I would not torture the man.

 

[Old Rocks]

Everyone has the highest ideals until they actually are in the position of responsibility.

Here is the hypothetical:

You have capture a 9/11 hijacker on 9/9/01....he ain't talking, he wants a lawyer. You have solid intel that a terrorist attack is imminent. Your subject is a known Al-Quid a leader who is in the US illegally using an alias. He has detailed plans of the White House including first hand recon photos taken 9/08/01 in his possession.

Do you get him a lawyer or hand him over to Jack Bauer and CTU?

Very nice theatrical. Unfortunetely, all too many of the people that we have tortured were guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some were tortured to death. You can present hypothetical cases all that you care to, we failed our own morality.

 

[Missourian]

Very nice theatrical.

It's is also a very realistic scenerio.

I'll take your response to mean you don't want to answer my Kobayashi Maru hypothetical.

Either you agree to 'extreme interogation' of one known terrorist or allow thousands to die.

It's a difficult choice, one I'm glad I don't have to make in real life.

 

[Againsheila]

It's is also a very realistic scenerio.

I'll take your response to mean you don't want to answer my Kobayashi Maru hypothetical.

Either you agree to 'extreme interogation' of one known terrorist or allow thousands to die.

It's a difficult choice, one I'm glad I don't have to make in real life.

The Kobayashi Maru is a no win situation... you either die one way, or you die another way. Nothing in there about torturing people. In fact, as a trekkie I happen to know that the Federation has a strict policy against torture.

 

[Missourian]

The Kobayashi Maru is a no win situation... you either die one way, or you die another way. Nothing in there about torturing people. In fact, as a trekkie I happen to know that the Federation has a strict policy against torture.

It's a no win situation because no matter what choice you make, you're wrong.

Plus it is a much more clear cut situation, since the variables are not in question as the outcome is known.

Not exactly a fair question.

But I think it underscores the fact that, as reprehensible as we may find it morally, there are situations where we can at least understand why the enemy must at a minimum believe we could and would use extreme interrogation techniques to extract the intelligence need...even if we have no intention of using them.

Sometimes the threat and fear of the unknown is enough in itself.

 

[Againsheila]

It's a no win situation because no matter what choice you make, you're wrong.

Plus it is a much more clear cut situation, since the variables are not in question as the outcome is known.

Not exactly a fair question.

But I think it at least underscores the fact that, as reprehensible as we may find it morally, there are situations where we can at least understand why the enemy must at a minimum believe we could and would use extreme interrogation techniques to extract the intelligence need...even if we have no intention of using them.

Sometimes the threat and fear of the unknown is enough in itself.

There are no wrong choices. Either choice you make, you are going to die. It's to find out if the person is command material. Are they willing to sacrifice everything for the greater good? Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with torture. Trust me, I've been a trekkie for a looong time. The federation is against torture and we should also be against torture.

Torture doesn't provide the benefits you might think it would.

 

[sky dancer]

Eight years of the Bush Adminstration has been torture.

Torture has been proven to be an unreliable source of intelligence. I agree with the OP.

 

[Missourian]

There are no wrong choices. Either choice you make, you are going to die. It's to find out if the person is command material. Are they willing to sacrifice everything for the greater good? Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with torture. Trust me, I've been a trekkie for a looong time. The federation is against torture and we should also be against torture.

Torture doesn't provide the benefits you might think it would.

I now officially wish I hadn't brought it up, but I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Your Kobayashi Maru choices are:

Answer the distress call, even though the Maru is in the Neutral Zone...breaking the Klingon treaty in violation of Federation law and risking galactic war or...

Don't answer the distress call and leave the passengers and crew of the Maru to die.

A choice of bad or worse...the no win situation.

Check it out on Wikipedia.

 

[Gunny]

Did conservatism lose all sense of value when it condoned torture and the suspension of law after 911?

"My own view is that the American conservative movement's embrace or defense of torture was the moment its intellectual collapse became irrecoverable. When conservatism abandoned core values of American decency in favor of pure force, exemplified by torture techniques designed by Communists and Nazis, then it ceased to be conservative in the sense that Burke or Hayek or Oakeshott or Kirk would begin to understand. And watching the intellectual dishonesty of the right on this issue in the last few years has been a watershed for me. It has been, in my judgment, one long, awful surrender of truth to power. Take a moment with me to review what one leading light of the Republican blogosphere wrote when the Abu Ghraib scandal first hit the news in the spring of 2004." A.S.

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (December 15, 2008) - The Right And Abu Ghraib I
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (December 18, 2008) - Ross On Torture II

"So as far as the bigger picture goes, then, it seems indisputable that in the name of national security, and with the backing of seemingly dubious interpretations of the laws, this Administration pursued policies that delivered many detainees to physical and mental abuse, and not a few to death. These were wartime measures, yes, but war is not a moral blank check: If you believe that Abu Ghraib constituted a failure of jus in bello, then you have to condemn the decisions that led to Abu Ghraib, which means that you have to condemn the President and his Cabinet." R.D.

Thinking About Torture - Ross Douthat

The usual crock from the usual crockpot.

Conservatism does not condone torture.

You're just a hack beating a dead horse.

 

[sky dancer]

Cheney condones torture. He's seriously on the right.

"Cheney acknowledged his approval of the torture methods the Bush-Cheney gang has employed in its hapless "war on terror."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=33714

 

[WillowTree]

I condone torture. Whatever it takes to prevent a 9-11. I condone it. There. period.

 

[sky dancer]

Merry Christmas torture condoner.

 

[WillowTree]

Merry Christmas torture condoner.

Joy and Peace sky dancer!