"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Carter said
October 10, 2007 6:47 PM   Subscribe

Jimmy Carter speaking out today with statements "The United States tortures in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. "I don't think it. I know it," Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Carter said.
posted by Rancid Badger (168 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
you tell 'em Jimmy...
posted by workinggringa at 6:55 PM on October 10, 2007


for the first time in my life

Uh... I highly doubt that.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:58 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


He'll be called "irrelevant," part of the "old Europe." Nothing will change. Bless him for trying, though.
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:58 PM on October 10, 2007


Jimmy Carter is a good man.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:05 PM on October 10, 2007 [12 favorites]


I tend to believe that Jimmy Carter is ignorant, agitating, or just plain stupid to make comments like that.

I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the terrorist might intend to kill. I am fairly certain that our country has done so, and will do so in the future given reason.

Saying "this particular activity is flat out wrong" is asinine without placing such activities in the context of their occurence, IMHO. Your opinion might be different, but that's mine.
posted by insulglass at 7:06 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


if george bush gazes upon a terrorist with hatred then has he already committed torture in his heart?
posted by quonsar at 7:08 PM on October 10, 2007 [13 favorites]


I used to wonder how the people of 1930's Germany allowed a madman like Hitler to make them do such inhuman acts. I no longer wonder. The basic state of human nature is that of a savage. We subvert these urges because of the social contract. Once that tenuous bond is broken all is lost and life becomes war.
posted by any major dude at 7:09 PM on October 10, 2007 [13 favorites]


What are Billy Carter's thoughts on this?
posted by rolypolyman at 7:09 PM on October 10, 2007


Never mind, I guess that would have to come from a seance.
posted by rolypolyman at 7:11 PM on October 10, 2007


I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the terrorist might intend to kill.

Torture doesn't work, though. Because of that, you can't torture a terrorist in order to preserve any rights or lives. Therefore, if I'm reading you correctly, you would not be willing to engage in torture.

Or maybe I'm attributing intelligence to you unfairly.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:14 PM on October 10, 2007 [8 favorites]


Or I could be more succint and quote Nice Guy Eddie from Reservoir Dogs:

"If you fucking beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it fucking so!"
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:16 PM on October 10, 2007 [5 favorites]


insulglass: The problem is that we wouldn't be torturing only the terrorists--we'd be torturing anyone we detained to determine whether they were a terrorist. "What? They didn't admit to knowing Bin Laden? We must not be torturing him harshly enough!!"

That is, of course, only one minor and more pragmatic issue with torture. Your statements are so myopic and uninformed that I assume you're either joking or regurgitating the poorly supported arguments that come from the far-right.

The situation would be different if Bush & co said "We torture because we think it's a good idea". Instead, they torture while constantly changing the rules of the game and claiming that the US "does not torture". How do we know it's not torture? Because if it were torture, we wouldn't be doing it. So, by definition, anything we do is not torture.

My problem with Bush is not his audacity, but his mind-bending dishonesty.
posted by null terminated at 7:18 PM on October 10, 2007 [5 favorites]


I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the terrorist might intend to kill. I am fairly certain that our country has done so, and will do so in the future given reason.

And what if raping his wife would help? What if murdering his children.

You want context, here's context: There are certain things so abominable they cannot be justified, even at times of war. These are called war crimes. You cross that line, whatever the justification, you are the enemy.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:19 PM on October 10, 2007 [69 favorites]


Torture doesn't work, though.

I kind of hope this is the 2nd most important argument in people's minds. But I keep on being disappointed.
posted by dreamsign at 7:19 PM on October 10, 2007


Or maybe I'm attributing intelligence to you unfairly.

+2 points.

Anyone who has read Carter's work or listened to him speak would not conjecture that he is "just plain stupid." ("Plains" stupid, maybe, haha!)

Carter was perhaps the last decent man to hold such a high office. That his tenure wasn't all that successful, well, what can you do. Still would have him back in a heartbeat.
posted by maxwelton at 7:19 PM on October 10, 2007


AZ ftw.
posted by dreamsign at 7:19 PM on October 10, 2007


I'd rather sacrifice my life than my principles. (There was a time when that was the tacit preface to "bring it on")
posted by klarck at 7:22 PM on October 10, 2007 [3 favorites]


Jimmy Carter is weird. I think he's the only President in my lifetime that has had living relevancy after office. Kudos to my favorite peanut farmer!
posted by snsranch at 7:22 PM on October 10, 2007 [3 favorites]


It is another brick in the wall. This is an Annapolis Naval Grad, Nuke Boat Admiral, Former President, and a hardcore Christian (Southern Baptist at that). He is calling Bush a liar and with the Ken Burns WW2 doc as a backdrop. where we are fighting the , The contrast between WW2 good war and this war morass is stark This is starting to really piss people off, they want to be the good guys. Christian of the conservative persuasion are having a harder time pushing the PRO WAR Republican BS.
posted by Rancid Badger at 7:22 PM on October 10, 2007


I think "torture doesn't work" is a very valid statement if put in the general sense, as a policy torture is unreliable and may provoke many false positives and lead to policy desensitization creep. In specific instances torture may provide accurate information but leaving the extremely moral repugnance aside the trick is knowing when that information is correct and when not. And if you act on information obtained under torture that is false and kill innocents who is responsible? No, torture is ineffective enough that it really is a tool of desperation in the hands of the feeble minded.

The only thing I would nit pick of Carter's statement would be to add "publicly" in front of "abandoned".
posted by edgeways at 7:23 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


The whole White House position that "we do not torture" is silly and transparent. They refuse to elaborate so all they are doing is redefining the meaning of the word torture.

I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the terrorist might intend to kill. I am fairly certain that our country has done so, and will do so in the future given reason.

and you think Carter is ignorant?

(by the way it would be nice if the words containing the links actually pertained to the link itself rather than just dispersing the links randomly through the words in the text of the fpp)
posted by caddis at 7:23 PM on October 10, 2007


homunculus post
posted by Rancid Badger at 7:24 PM on October 10, 2007


I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the terrorist might intend to kill.

A) We don't seem to be torturing anyone convicted of, or even charged with, terrorism.
B) Our own professional interrogators tell us torture is counterproductive to good intelligence.

But even if A and B weren't true, do you really think a policy of violating humanity to protect ourselves from risk is ultimately beneficial?
posted by zennie at 7:32 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Pope Guilty: See, that's not the point. It makes the would-be-torturer feel like they are a badass because they can temporarily suspend their morality if there is even a possible inkling of a reason to do so. It's never been about saving lives. It's about torturing terrorists.

Parse that sentence carefully, and you'll see that insulglass is all about torturing someone who "might intend to kill", and thus, making them a terrorist deserving of torture before they've actually terrorized anyone. Not actually attempting to acquire information to prevent terror, no, torturing someone who might commit terror.

It's always been my opinion that in the astronomically rare circumstance where torture would be a viable ethical alternative, it should still be punishable by law. If I were to find myself in such a highly unlikely situatyion where torturing someone would absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt save lives, I would gladly suffer the punishment for committing the heinous crime of torture. It should never be legalized or permitted.
posted by Freen at 7:32 PM on October 10, 2007 [7 favorites]


I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the terrorist might intend to kill.

Why limit it to just terrorists? Given that you apparently live in a world where the authorities can be trusted to only torture the right people at the right time, why not do it to criminals too?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:33 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


are you okay with enemies torturing our captured soldiers?

Am I misremembering a WH statement soon after the original installment of "illegal combatant" hilarity, that U.S. special forces, while not technically meeting the provisions of the Geneva conventions (identification) were to be treated as POW's if captured?

Wait, here it is. Gold.

Q So applying the Convention here is being done solely to protect U.S. citizens, and namely, U.S. soldiers, who may be in a situation overseas held by a foreign government. Is that correct? Is that's the principle that's being upheld?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the principle is that this country and this President, of course, believe in and adhere to the Geneva Convention. In any case, the United States would always be covered by the Geneva Convention, our military, because as I mentioned, under Article 4, you have to wear a uniform, you have to wear an insignia, carry your weapons outside, be distinguishable from the civilian population, all of which covers our military.

Q But the concern, the debate here was about if you don't do it here, then U.S. soldiers could be mistreated abroad. Isn't that correct? And so isn't that a big motivation here, to make sure that U.S. soldiers get this same kind of treatment?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's important for all nations, throughout the world, to treat any prisoners well. And that is something the United States always expects, and the United States always does.

We have time for one more question, and then there's a pool. David will get one more, and then we'll --

Q Can you just be responsive to the specific point? Wasn't this an important concern? I understand what the expectations are, but it was important for this administration to be able to say, look, we want to be able to protect our soldiers in similar situations down the line. And if we don't afford privileges under the Geneva Convention, then our soldiers could be in peril?

MR. FLEISCHER: David, I was not in the NSC deliberations where various issues were raised. And so I really -- there's no way I can accurately answer that question.

Q What about the U.S. special forces? They don't -- they often do not wear uniforms. They often do not carry their weapons outwardly. If they are captured, they wouldn't be prisoners of war?

MR. FLEISCHER: The terms of the Geneva Convention apply to all, and those terms speak for themselves.

Okay, thank you everybody.

posted by dreamsign at 7:33 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


At 4:26 the POST by homunculus World War II veterans who interrogated Nazi prisoners of war

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,"

"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."


As Nice Guy Eddie says in Reservoir Dogs "If you bet this guy enough, he'll tell you started the Chicago fire, but that don't make it so!" from jonmc post in the same thread
posted by Rancid Badger at 7:33 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wasn't living through Carter's disco years torture enough?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:41 PM on October 10, 2007


I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist [snip]"

Who decides that he or she is a terrorist? So far we're not giving them trials. Right now a lot of people are in Gitmo because they were sold out by their neighbors to U.S. forces for the bounty. The phrase "settling old scores" comes up a lot in discussions of this phenomenon.

So, you'd have no problem being tortured if someone who didn't like you turned you in for money and you never got a trial to determine if you were actually guilty of anything and it was left to some guy in the field to decide whether it was worth trying to rip some intelligence out of you?
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:41 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Good on Jimmy Carter.

We're torturing people. End of story.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 7:46 PM on October 10, 2007


G. W. and Jimmy Carter don't exist on the same plane morally, intellectually, or in any way that count. Carter was, arguably, the most decent, thoughtful and honest man we've ever had as president. Unfortunately, the American public would rather be lied to as long as it doesn't require any action on their part.

During the "energy crisis", Carter had the temerity to give his famous "malaise" speech; he told people they needed to get off their asses and help by driving sensibly and adjusting their thermostats a little cooler in the winter. He was pilloried. Modern politicians got the message - the truth will set you free ...from office.

I'd bet my last dollar on this simple theorem: If Bush says one thing and Carter says the opposite, you'd be an idiot to believe Bush.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:47 PM on October 10, 2007 [16 favorites]


If we are torturing anybody, then they are freedom fighters.
posted by Brian B. at 7:47 PM on October 10, 2007


I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the terrorist might intend to kill. I am fairly certain that our country has done so, and will do so in the future given reason.

These WWII interogators disagree with you. But hey, some of them are oppossed to the current war, so they must be phony soldiers anyway, right?
posted by homunculus at 7:58 PM on October 10, 2007


I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised the that the US tortures. While the Bushes have made torture official policy, I'm sure in our last hundred years of foreign policy adventures, torture has played some consistent role. Hasn't the CIA been doing stuff like this for years? At the very least we've been teaching torture techniques to other countries through the School of Americas. And while Carter can play innocent and pure, let's not forget that the CIA under him was just as corrupt and vicious as it is under Bush.

I'm not equivocating between Carter and Bush, all I'm saying is that if you look at the track record for the United States we have employed torture when it suits us. Obviously that sucks, because torture sucks. But to act surprised when this shit has been going on forever is bullshit.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 8:05 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the terrorist might intend to kill. I am fairly certain that our country has done so, and will do so in the future given reason.

This guy disagrees with you.
posted by EarBucket at 8:05 PM on October 10, 2007


I don't think Carter is taking this very public position lightly, as if he were writing in a blog. He is a former president and as such represents the nation to a certain extent.

We have a 'war' criminal in the executive office: don't you think he (or more importantly his lawyers and advisors) hear the message?
posted by geos at 8:06 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Will the public ignore Carter? Will the public finally get the point? Will the Republicans finally conduct their Putsch and have Carter "suddenly" die of "old age"? These are exciting times.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:12 PM on October 10, 2007


Tell the truth. If Gore announced today that he was running for President, that Obama was his choice for Vice President and that Jimmy Carter had agreed to be the Secretary of State under his Presidency, what do you think the Gallup polls would show tomorrow?
posted by spock at 8:14 PM on October 10, 2007 [5 favorites]


For one thing, crude oil prices would drop precipitously on the news.
posted by spock at 8:15 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Torture does work. It doesn't provide good information, true, but that's not why it's used.

Torture is a form of terrorism. Directed against other nations and groups, it creates fear of us. It is Kissinger's "madman theory" writ small. In place of nuclear weapons, we threaten with waterboarding and thumbscrews.

Directed against one's own nation, it intimidates the internal political opposition (perhaps subliminally, but who among us is not a bit afraid of Homeland Security?).

More importantly for the Bush administration, it projects an image of toughness in a climate of fear (itself created and managed by the govt.). Thank god we have a president who is willing to be a tough guy and torture to protect us. Save me, Daddy.

Of course the average dittohead will maintain that torture really works like it does on 24. But that's not why Dick Cheney likes it.
posted by words1 at 8:17 PM on October 10, 2007 [13 favorites]


If anyone's expecting insulglass to come back and defend his opinion, his posting history seems to suggest that he won't. A pity, really, since I'd like to see someone who's bought into the whole "ticking time bomb" scenario try to justify the unjustifiable.
posted by ooga_booga at 8:17 PM on October 10, 2007


If you had told me in 1979 that I'd find myself cheering Jimmy Carter on from the sidelines in 2007, boy that would've been a horselaugh.

Now it doesn't seem funny though.
posted by ikkyu2 at 8:20 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


to act surprised when this shit has been going on forever is bullshit

I don't think this shit has been going on forever as you say, certainly not on this scale, institutionalized by the highest reaches of the government. This is not a few soldiers going off the reservation in a time of war, but is rather our government's reversal of long standing policies. It's pretty shocking really.
posted by caddis at 8:21 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


My country is torturing people. I am so ashamed. I want to do SOMETHING to stop this insanity. I want to find a way to let the rest of the world know that this administration's policies are not condoned by all Americans, not even by most of us. How can we do this? It's all so depressing. Jimmy Carter is right, we have abandoned the basic principle of human of rights. Not WE but our administration. That's not the way the rest of world sees it though. They bunch us all together with George W. Bush and I am tired of it. America is not George W. Bush.
posted by wv kay in ga at 8:21 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Of course the average dittohead will maintain that torture really works like it does on 24.

And if you disagree, they'll send you hate mail.
posted by homunculus at 8:29 PM on October 10, 2007


We really are losing everything that so many good men and women fought and died for. These cretins have torn it all away. They have done their best in tearing this nation, it's people apart.

We have lost the republic. Brazenly stolen.

All we could do is stare. Numbing silence. Quiet despair.

It's all going away... the election a show... nothing more.

This is irrelevance. This is Empire.

These fools will never see what they truly are.

They will never see what truly threatens us.

They have what they want.

The price will be terrible.

They will pay.

We all will.

The Northwest Passage is fully navigable.

Just close your eyes, shut your mouth.

Ease your mind, and cover your ears.

Shhhhhh.

It is too late.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 8:29 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Can a sitting president be sued and if so by whom?
posted by Rancid Badger at 8:31 PM on October 10, 2007


Defy. Anyone. Who. Agrees with. Torture.

DAWAT. I invite everyone to do likewise.
posted by humannaire at 8:31 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


words1 one makes an important point.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:34 PM on October 10, 2007


What makes Carter decent is that he keeps doing the right things, no matter what kind of ancient lusted-in-my-heart, Billy-beer jokes people throw out at him. Republicans one and all sneer at the man for failing to appeal to their kill-the-brown people instincts during the hostage crisis, and for acknowledging the real problems America faced after Vietnam and Nixon. He did the unforgivable by saying what he really saw, not what they wanted to hear. He is still doing so, and good for him.

I had the pleasure of meeting him many years ago while working at one of his book signings, a brutal affair which took hours while throngs of people filed past and thrust books into his hands. He never once faltered, never failed to smile and look each one in the face, never acted like anything but the good person he is.
posted by emjaybee at 8:37 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Well, Jack Bauer tortures people, so it must be okay right?

I'm kind of curious when people make statements that justify torture, are they doing so because they honestly believe comitting one atrocity to prevent another is justifiable, or do they picture themselves being capable of inflicting human misery for a dubious good?
posted by Talanvor at 8:38 PM on October 10, 2007


Defy. Anyone. Who. Agrees with. Torture.

But like... how?
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 8:53 PM on October 10, 2007


This is torture's true purpose: to terrorize--not only the people in Guantánamo's cages and Syria's isolation cells but also, and more important, the broader community that hears about these abuses. Torture is a machine designed to break the will to resist--the individual prisoner's will and the collective will.

This is not a controversial claim. In 2001 the US NGO Physicians for Human Rights published a manual on treating torture survivors that noted: "perpetrators often attempt to justify their acts of torture and ill treatment by the need to gather information. Such conceptualizations obscure the purpose of torture....The aim of torture is to dehumanize the victim, break his/her will, and at the same time, set horrific examples for those who come in contact with the victim. In this way, torture can break or damage the will and coherence of entire communities."
-- from Torture's Dirty Secret, The Nation, 2005
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:53 PM on October 10, 2007


You know, I wanted to add that it has been said before, but it never ceases to amaze me that all these Righties who used to at least be able to avail themselves of a bit of a macho swagger have turned into the biggest cringing cowards imaginable. I mean do you motherfuckers pee a little every time the screen door slams or what? I picture you kind of running all bent over with your hands cupping your genitals from your house to your car.


I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the terrorist might intend to kill.


I smell callow flop sweat all over that sentiment, well, flop sweat and the tortured logic that only the truly fearful are capable of.

Sack up you fucking babies.

I'm very fond of Jimmy Carter, he's a mensch.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:55 PM on October 10, 2007 [5 favorites]


Tell the truth. If Gore announced today that he was running for President, that Obama was his choice for Vice President and that Jimmy Carter had agreed to be the Secretary of State under his Presidency, what do you think the Gallup polls would show tomorrow?

The polls would show that the red states had turned a shade of red that is unknown to science.

Sadly, I doubt there can exist a Democrat that is sufficiently electable that can both extract the nation from the Grand Guignol mistake that is Iraq and effectively prosecute a Global War on 7th Century Jackasses.

As they say, only Nixon could go to China. Where have you gone, Tricky Dick? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:05 PM on October 10, 2007


My admiration and respect for Jimmy Carter grows every time he speaks (and he seems to be growing more publicly vocal recently).
posted by hangingbyathread at 9:30 PM on October 10, 2007


LOL. What hypocrisy. Do you honestly think that the USA hasn't been doing this for years? I'm pretty sure that the USA didn't invent torture, and my guess is that the USA doesn't even perform the MAJORITY or WORST torture currently ongoing in the world today.

The odds are, many of you simply do not know what you'd do when dropped smack dab in the middle of circumstances that might warrant torture. Say if your child was kidnapped, your wife worked in the Murrah building, or something similar - some unlikely situations to be sure, but we're not talking about someone infiltrating a weekly bridge game, are we? Yeah, I know I don't live in the world where "24" takes place. But can you possibly envision SOME circumstance where lives might be saved through the extraction of knowledge from a person unwilling to share it? I can. I have friends in the US Military that are faced with such choices of information extraction frequently.

For the record, I'm not advocating that we shove splinters under the fingernails of every prisoner who's current address is the Hotel Guantanamo. I certainly have a problem with wanton abuse of prisoners by USA or other military and government representatives - I can't see how that would be justified at all. What I don't have a problem with, is a directed, specific, and scientific approach where there is a targeted set of knowledge to be obtained.

What is so funny to me is that I clearly stated an opinion, and furthermore recognized that others might have a different opinion. That's fair enough, there are many things about which we can agree to disagree. But failing to recognize that somtimes desperate measures are necessary is foolhardy at best.

You guys are arguing with an OPINION. Lighten up.
posted by insulglass at 9:31 PM on October 10, 2007


I'm really glad to see that this thread is so pro-Carter. I read his last book after I came back from Egypt and was trying to get a clearer sense and a variety of insight on the Middle East. I thought he was brave for voicing his opinions, most of which don't coincide with the propoganda of the American government.

Seemed to me that there was far more focus on his choice of the word "apartheid" in the title than on any of the book's content. To me, it appeared overwhelmingly as though people were just trying to silence him and create a distraction from any discussion of his actual opinions or the facts he put into his book.

I'm really in awe of the man for being so strong, for continuing to stand so firm in his beliefs and for always openly sharing his opinions no matter what, solely because he feels it is his patriotic duty to stand up and speak his mind instead of being safely silent as people would prefer an aging ex-President to be. Personally, I think he's a very good and admirable man, and that he represents our country to the world far better than the majority of politicians we have, in office or otherwise. And also? He makes a point to give people hope that no matter how old you are you are always able to make a difference. And that kicks ass.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:33 PM on October 10, 2007


You want context, here's context: There are certain things so abominable they cannot be justified, even at times of war. These are called war crimes. You cross that line, whatever the justification, you are the enemy.

The logical conclusion from that statement (with which I wholeheartedly agree) is that the current American administration is the enemy of humanity, or one of them.

Yeah, I guess I'm OK with that. But even if it's a new idea to some, it's been true for a long time, long before the Bushite nadir of the last 7 years or so, unfortunately.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:35 PM on October 10, 2007


G. W. and Jimmy Carter don't exist on the same plane morally, intellectually, or in any way that count. Carter was, arguably, the most decent, thoughtful and honest man we've ever had as president.

I agree with you Benny Andajetz and always liked Jimmy Carter, in spite of his messes, including his brother, Billy becoming a Libyan agent.

Thanks for the post Rancid Badger.

People are piping up against the use of torture in other countries too, such as Egypt. Interestingly, the use of cell phone videos being uploaded to YouTube is getting the information out and the outrage is having an impact in helping to stop it.

In the past atrocities and torture have been committed by our and other governments in secrecy. Burma shut down international communication so they could to brutalize and murder protesters this week. But by the information getting out, via the web in particular, it means people are speaking out more, knowing more. Now it's a matter of people taking political action, using our votes, writing letters, doing what we can, in our individual ways, to make constructive changes.
posted by nickyskye at 9:36 PM on October 10, 2007


You know, I wanted to add that it has been said before, but it never ceases to amaze me that all these Righties who used to at least be able to avail themselves of a bit of a macho swagger have turned into the biggest cringing cowards imaginable.

It's not that much of a surprise. These Republican assholes were bullies from birth, and everyone know bullies don't have an ounce of real courage in them. So they bully their way through life, from drunken college mixers to law school to the White House. When they can't get away with bullying they have their rich daddies do it for them. They only know how to lead through fear and entitlement.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:38 PM on October 10, 2007


LOL. What hypocrisy.

The only hypocrisy here is yours. You've stated the opinion (or to put it your way, OPINION), that committing an act of terrorism is okay, as long as the person on the scene truly believes (in his OPINION, naturally, since no judge or presentation of evidence is involved here) that doing so will prevent some kind of worse terrorism.

The thing is, this is a fantasy scenario indulged in by people who simply want torture. You've never encountered a situation where you have certain knowledge that an evil will occur and you have in custody someone who has information to prevent it and will divulge it under -- and only under -- torture. Who has? How many times does that happen in real life? How many instances of torture in the real world ever involved this comic book scenario? I venture to suggest they are vanishingly few.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:40 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Spiggott, did you not see where I stated:

"What I don't have a problem with, is a directed, specific, and scientific approach where there is a targeted set of knowledge to be obtained."


I tried to imply that I could advocate the use of torture only where a known favorable outcome might have a high percentage of success, but perhaps you did not infer that.

Have I ever personally encountered such situations? No. And you probably haven't either. But to deny that scenarios where torture has value to gain information to save lives in the near future is again, foolhardy. Again, as noted, I DO know US servicemen who have been in this very situation in the Middle East. Even your own statement using the word "vanishing" implies that such scenarios have and did exist. Or did you use the wrong word? I don't think such situations happen everyday, or are even common. But they DO exist.

Oddly enough, I'll accept your labeling me as a hypocrite within a certian context. I'm not one much for situational ethics, but I somehow feel that the argument of torture deserves merit of discussion based on circumstance. Once again, just my opinion.
posted by insulglass at 9:54 PM on October 10, 2007


It has been quite clear for some time that torture is rarely effective in general, and almost never effective among the people we commonly imagine torturing. Put yourself in the jihadist bomber's shoes--will he deal with a few hours (the "ticking time bomb" scenario) of great pain and fear in order to get his heavenly reward, or will he buckle under to our hopefully inexperienced interrogators and suffer eternal damnation? Do the math, people.

Americans should be able to proudly say that our country does not torture. The cowardly prevarications of this Administration make that impossible.

I fail to understand why a move that earns us so much respect in the world and costs us nothing is such an anathema to these people. I suspect that it's because they have no interest in understanding the enemy and have been brought up on "24" like movie scenarios, as unlikely as those are.
posted by lackutrol at 9:59 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


grrr. That you could, with a straight face, say "lighten up" about torture is just abominable.
posted by Justinian at 10:00 PM on October 10, 2007


You don't destroy the enemy by becoming them; at best you just replace them as a principal source of evil in the world. We're supposed to be better than they are. But if we don't act like it, we're not. Pride in who you are has to be earned. Americans are not automatically great just because we were born in a certain geographical region. If we're great it's because we walk a hard road and an honorable one. And if we don't, then we're not better than anyone else who doesn't. I choose greatness, in the form of being honorable even when it's risky, dangerous or fatal. I think any real American should choose the same.

Or as a comedian once rhetorically asked of George W. Bush, "what part of 'land of the free and home of the brave' do you have a problem with, Mr. President?"
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:03 PM on October 10, 2007


Gee, Justinian, that's not the way to help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion as noted below.

You might not like my opinion, but what's cowardly is that you don't even HAVE an opinion. Just a quick swiping "fuck you, Mr. Pathetic Excuse". I'm glad you carefully considered that.

I might not like or agree with some of the opposing viewpoints here, but I respect them for what they are. And sometimes it causes me to think in a whole different direction or re-examine my beliefs. I enjoy reading viewpoints differing from my own because that's how I learn and refine my personal stance and dogma. That's why I read Mefi, not for the "fuck you's". So yeah, you need to lighten up.
posted by insulglass at 10:07 PM on October 10, 2007


But the Supreme Court doesn't want to hear about it, so none of this matters. Move along, people.
posted by homunculus at 10:08 PM on October 10, 2007


but I somehow feel that the argument of torture deserves merit of discussion based on circumstance.

No.

Torture is ineffectual and only stupid people use it; torture is wrong and only evil people use it; by promoting it, you're proclaiming yourself as both stupid and evil.

Oh, and "situational ethics" really means "ethics when convenient" means "no ethics". Don't kid yourself.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:19 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


I might not like or agree with some of the opposing viewpoints here, but I respect them for what they are.

That most certainly doesn't force us to respect your morally evil viewpoint, now does it?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:26 PM on October 10, 2007


So yeah, you need to lighten up.

Torture is not something that you "lighten up" about. Torture is not something that good men will agree to disagree upon. There is no middle ground to torture. If you are a torturer, you're out of humanity. Out. Gone. You're not one of us anymore. You're something else. Some other kind of creature.

You offer us these scenarios wherein we might be tempted to torture in order to ensure our survival, or the survival of others. But such scenarios are not a way of shedding light on a situation: they are, in fact, an invitation to madness.

Once you've crossed the line and said "I will do anything to protect myself, my friends, my family..." you've crossed over the horizon of sanity into a very real and literal Hell. Once a man has done away with his common decency -- even for an ostensibly greater good -- he has become a Monster.

Yes, there is a bit of monster in all of us. There is a monster within each of us that would kill or torture or commit genocide if we thought it might improve our lot, or protect our loved ones. Good men resist that monster -- yet you would have us embrace it. You would have us believe that some things in life are worth hooking a man's genitals up to a car battery, or threatening death upon his children. You would have us break a man's bones and smash his face in with a hammer if it meant protecting our physical well-being -- as if our mental or spiritual well-being could survive such an act intact.

Such are not the thoughts of sane and courageous men. Yours are the rantings of a lunatic. A cowardly madman who would offer up his innermost being to the gnashing jaws of Fear in the vain hope that it would devour everyone but himself.

Lighten up, indeed.
posted by Avenger at 10:41 PM on October 10, 2007 [44 favorites]


What Avenger said, and bravo. With the added observation that this is why we have laws that govern our officials: we don't put them in a position of making that moral choice, we don't count on them to do the brave and noble thing. We take that burden from them by not giving them the choice. We say simply "you may not do this". A commander or an officer in the field, when faced with this terrible choice, should be relieved of it. We deny him this choice as a mercy to him and his humanity, and as a mercy to ourselves.

He need not ask himself "must I do this terrible thing?" We tell him in advance, "no, you may not do this thing." And we take what comes. And maybe, just maybe, he finds another way.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:51 PM on October 10, 2007 [9 favorites]


Torture is ineffectual and only stupid people use it; torture is wrong and only evil people use it; by promoting it, you're proclaiming yourself as both stupid and evil.
posted by caddis at 11:01 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Avenger, I'm not asking anyone to "lighten up" about torture. It's obviously a serious thing to contemplate. My plea was to lighten up regarding the lack of civility and the automatic wave of posts like the "fuck you" above when someone shows up with an opposing viewpoint.

Hey, someone wants to disagree with me, fine. Your post above is thought-provoking and passionate. You're clearly a lot more eloquent and probably 200% smarter than I am. But what you don't see from me is calling someone else an idiot just because I disagree with them. Just a few posts above, I was labeled as a pathetic excuse for a human being - how ironic, don't you think, coming from someone who does not even know me, the remainder of my beliefs, and the evidence of my deeds? On the basis of a single forum thread? Jeez.

I have been reading Metafilter for years, and yes, I'm usually in the minority when it comes to the pervase opinion structure of this forum. I even "bought" my membership one day with a contribution (back in 2000 or so?). I prefer to read and lurk, and don't post very much - and frankly don't see me posting much in the future. Sadly, it seems to me that whenever I try to speak up with the simplest of opinions, there's a lot of shouting and not much argument. Mefi has become so polarized that it's too mcuh struggle to even try to participate much anymore.
posted by insulglass at 11:01 PM on October 10, 2007


Torture is ineffectual and only stupid people use it; torture is wrong and only evil people use it; by promoting it, you're proclaiming yourself as both stupid and evil.

bears repeating
posted by caddis at 11:03 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]



I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve
the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the
terrorist might intend to kill."


Okay, no shouting here. You're okay with torturing
someone who is known to be a terrorist. That would be
sometime after the trial, right?

But then you say that you would do so to preserve the
lives of those the terrorist "might intend to kill." That sounds
like sometime before a crime is committed or prosecuted.

Which is it? Due process and followed by cruel and unusual
punishment, or a pre-emptive police state, where
suspects are tortured until they confess something?

Or is there some third "context" that I'm missing?
posted by the Real Dan at 11:07 PM on October 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


But what you don't see from me is calling someone else an idiot just because I disagree with them.

No one called you an idiot. We're calling you evil because you advocate torture.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:10 PM on October 10, 2007


*Today a scary threat to American society, going by the internet name of insulglass, was apprehended at the mall. He is currently undergoing humanitarian interrogation, in a 55 degree room wearing nothing but a pair of handcuffs behind his back and a pair of his daughter's panties on his head, but with all the loud music playing he can barely hear the dogs barking into his genitals. His neighbor, a true patriot, called the authorities about this potential terrorist after many disputes over the exact location of a property line dividing their two lots. As his neighbor alleged that he threatened to politically nuke the mayor and town council for denying him a zoning variance, insulglass is being held in an offshore prison without access to counsel, and will be blindfolded, head smacked, ritually drowned, and kept naked and cold in solitary confinement for the next five years. No trial, counsel, or due process are available as the President has deemed him to be an enemy combatant based upon his next door neighbor's good word.
posted by caddis at 11:25 PM on October 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Sadly, it seems to me that whenever I try to speak up with the simplest of opinions, there's a lot of shouting and not much argument.

Where's your argument? Let's see some links supporting the efficacy of this "directed, specific, and scientific approach" that you "don't have a problem with."

If you're going to merely state your "OPINION" then don't get so butthurt when other people do the same.
posted by sklero at 11:36 PM on October 10, 2007


I'm bored with all this self righteousness.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 11:38 PM on October 10, 2007


Jimmy Carter is the America admired and respected the world over. George Bush is the America reviled and ridiculed the world over. Every country has one of each generally ... it is just that the US has disproportionate power so its good deeds along with its harmful actions are greatly magnified.

It behooves every patriotic American to support Carter, to show him the respect and admiration he deserves, at a time in a country where leadership, extant and anticipated, is rather cowardly and pathetic.
posted by Azaadistani at 12:44 AM on October 11, 2007 [4 favorites]


I realize this quote has been used so much it's become somewhat cliche but I think it fits here.

He who fights with monsters should be careful least he thereby becomes a monster. When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you. - Friedrich Nietzsche
posted by Bonzai at 12:46 AM on October 11, 2007


The odds are, many of you simply do not know what you'd do when dropped smack dab in the middle of circumstances that might warrant torture. Say if your child was kidnapped, your wife worked in the Murrah building, or something similar - some unlikely situations to be sure, but we're not talking about someone infiltrating a weekly bridge game, are we?

While we're dishing out fantasy scenarios, I would probably be okay with torturing someone if a giant eel were growing out of their back, and that eel were evil and were seizing control of their soul, and the only way to save the person would be to torture them beyond what the evil eel could endure, so he would flee back to the eighteenth dimension.

But this is the real world, and we expect arguments that support acts that are universally regarded as evil to be rooted in reality, not in convenient fictions that support the evil act.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:54 AM on October 11, 2007 [3 favorites]


An undiscussed point so far is that a reputation for torture may have significant operational benefits for the forces which gain that reputation, that may outweigh the fact that any intelligence actual torture directly produces may be of questionable accuracy.

For one thing, it forces an enemy to consider that any of its personnel may become an unwilling information source to the torturers, if captured. That, we know, in Iraq and in previous conflicts going back to before WWII, forces an insurgent force into operating from small, discrete cells, whose members may never have much operational knowledge, individually. That limits the tactical flexibility of an insurgent force, by complicating its command effectiveness. An insurgent force organized in small cells, can do small scale operations, like plant IEDs, or produce car bombs, but they are less effective in any situation which would call for tactical coordination of hundreds of fighters, in pitched battles, making operations such as the 2004 Najaf mosque battle less likely.

A second possible effect of having a reputation for torture might produce, is that a force whose own soldiers know that they, at least potentially, have professional torturers who they are expected to hand over prisoners to, may feel less need to try to force interrogations in the field. If you're an American line soldier in Iraq, it might not be much of a stretch to think your best move with an Iraqi civilian you stopped, who was running away from the scene of a car bomb explosion that just injured or killed some of your comrades, might be to turn the Iraqi over to military intelligence, whole, rather than to pull the trigger on his foot or arm, while you ask him questions, yourself. You might well think "Better get this guy to MI in one piece, because they'll make it worse for him, than I ever can." before you shoot. Being a force that has a reputation for torture, may even, thus, weirdly save insurgent lives, at the point of young men's M-16's, sometimes. This is borne out by admissions of some WWII vets from hard fought battles in France and Italy, who felt that sending German prisoners to the rear was too good for them, and so precipitated "shoot to kill" situations. And it limits the kind of thing Seymour Hersch has talked about, from his days reporting the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, which he says was possibly partly due to the frustrations of an American force that felt under constant threat from a Viet Cong "enemy" they could never see in uniform, or fight against effectively on a battle field. Bad enough that this conflict has already produced an Haditha, but in terms of relative horror, even that may be better than an Iraqi incident on the scale of My Lai.

Finally, a fresh, constant flow of prisoners, even if they individually know very little, over time, builds intelligence, and gives you many options when fighting an insurgency, even if few are actually tortured in processing. That's important, in a war against an insurgency. You learn things about an insurgent enemy, just by seeing the kinds of people they can involve in their operations, and cataloging them. And if you turn some of these prisoners loose, eventually, without torturing or mistreating them, you may make it harder for them to honorably re-join any former operational cells to which they might have belonged, simply because letting them go, unharmed, makes their insurgent comrades suspicious that they might have talked early, to avoid torture.

I'm not condoning actual torture. But I am saying that in a conflict against an insurgency, the Geneva Conventions are not only very difficult to apply, but perhaps counterproductive in ways not immediatey obvious.
posted by paulsc at 1:05 AM on October 11, 2007


insulglass: if you're serious, you have to think, beyond their being a bunch of liberals and such - "what are these people so upset about, really?"

If you can, don't take it personally, and try to seperate the dross from the actual insight. "Fuck you, you fuckin..." is maybe something to ignore, but Avenger's comment stakes out some serious moral and intellectual territory it we be best for all of us (Americans especially) to re-aquiant ourselves with.

It could be that you're under the impression there is some kind of 'scientific' (empirical(?)) type of torture that is distasteful, but effective. I wondered this when the whole torture argument came up and so I did a bit of reading (manuals and histories of intelligence gathering), and the consensus seems to be that it pretty much turns out not to be so.

word_1's comment bears a lot of serious consideration if you actually want to think about how torture does and doesn't work. We are told a lot of stuff these days, we see a lot of different positions. The one thing it helps to bear in mind is that people lie and much of what we see, read or hear might not be for the stated, specific purpose.

Lastly, I've always thought - you know, personally, if someone threatened or god-forbid hurt my family, I'd react in a pretty savage way. I know that my reacting that way is not the _best_ way. It might be what I would do, but it would most likely land me in jail, where I would have a much much harder time helping my family/or myself). And even if I grant myself the leniency to act like a savage in the face of great emotional stress, because I know it is not what is best, the same kind of behavior is unacceptable from my government.

If I'm going to bother with one at all, I need my government to embody my best self, I need it to be smarter and better than me - otherwise what, really, is the point? I need my government to not do the thing that feels right in any given situation, I need it to do the thing that is right - the thing I'm not smart enought to know because I'm one person, not the considered experiences of millions.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:17 AM on October 11, 2007 [5 favorites]


Have I ever personally encountered such situations? No. And you probably haven't either. But to deny that scenarios where torture has value to gain information to save lives in the near future is again, foolhardy. Again, as noted, I DO know US servicemen who have been in this very situation in the Middle East. Even your own statement using the word "vanishing" implies that such scenarios have and did exist. Or did you use the wrong word? I don't think such situations happen everyday, or are even common. But they DO exist.

I just hope that if anybody follows up on your publicly stating that you know violators of the Military Code of Justice that they believe you when you spill your guts because if they think there is more actionable intelligence to be had who knows what will happen.
posted by srboisvert at 2:01 AM on October 11, 2007


Gee, Justinian, that's not the way to help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion as noted below.

No. You don't get to ask for a healthy, respectful discussion about torture. Shall we have a healthy, respectful discussion about whether whether all women should be required to have a full cliterodectomy for their own good? Shall we have a nice polite back and forth about whether the Jews deserved to be rounded up and killed? It's the same goddamn thing.

A healthy respectful discussion is what you have about whether the tax rate should be 15% or 30%. A healthy, respectful discussion is what you have over school vouchers. You do not get to ask for healthy, respectful discussion when advocating evil.

The people in power who advocate evil are very big on calling foul when called names. They love "healthy, respectful" discussions under their terms. Because it plays into their hands and legitimizes their position. It makes disagreeing about whether its a good thing to fucking torture people no different than disagreeing about whether or not the speed limit should be 55 or 75.

Stop being polite and respectful about evil. This shit is personal. If you want to advocate evil, go for it, but I will not deal with you as if we are discussing whether or not ketchup belongs on a hot dog or not. I will not acknowledge you as an okay guy who happens to disagree with me on a trivial issue.

You are not an okay guy who happens to disagree with me. You think it is okay to torture people, and if some innocents get tortured along the way, well, you can't make an omelette without torturing people I guess.
posted by Justinian at 2:19 AM on October 11, 2007 [9 favorites]


On a tangential note, people wail and gnash their teeths about what we can do in the face of a powerful group of people and their supporters who don't give a shit about all the millions of people who politely and respectfully disagree with them.

You stop doing that. Respectful, reasoned disagreement does not work on irrational people who hate you. You have to make it personal or you'll be ignoredl. If they advocate evil, you call them on iit.

You don't hem and haw about how, well, torture isn't all that effective anyway so maybe we could, you know, possibly stop torturing people if it's not too much trouble... please? Instead you point out that they are evil bastards.

Yeah, it's impolite. Politeness is about not giving offense... unintentionally. Insulglass isn't going to change his mind because people argue with him politely about torture. All that does is give him positive reinforcement that it's just an opinion that reasonable people can disagree about. Don't give people like him that power.

He probably thinks I'm an asshole. Maybe some other people do too.

I can live with somebody who advocates torture thinking I'm an asshole more than I can live with continuing this charade that everything that's going on these days is just a simple disagreement about policy matters. I'm done with that.

Can y'all live with continuing to be good Germans Americans who are kinda against this whole torturing and killing thing but would rather be polite and not rock the boat?
posted by Justinian at 2:29 AM on October 11, 2007 [4 favorites]


Bravo Avenger, well put. I, question, however the argument that torture doesn't 'work' (both in the sense that it invokes fear in the population and extracts information). I only have anecdotal evidence to this, but Russia used it successfully on Afghan prisoners, and the French used it successfully in Algiers to get information on the FLN. I also know that if I was tortured I would spill my guts in a heartbeat.
posted by YouRebelScum at 2:45 AM on October 11, 2007


Justinian I agree with you, but sometimes people are smart enough to listen, think, and then re-form their opinions. You have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

And if that doesn't work you take them out back and work 'em over with the jumper cables. I kid, I kid.

No, if reasonable discussion doesn't work, you make plans around them or drag them along as you strive to put things back in order.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:57 AM on October 11, 2007


Possibly unlike many posting to this thread I've seen the effects of torture in the flesh*. I've also known actual torturers who committed these crimes. Its hard to speak academically about such matters when you've witnessed the terrible scarring (physical and psychological) that torture has left on both victim AND torturer. However, I thought I would say a few things on the matter.

The primary purpose of torture has always been akin to terrorism as someone already stated. Terrorism of the individual and of the community the individual comes from. Strike fear into their hearts so that they will submit themselves to your will.

Extraction of information is never the purpose. Extraction of a confession of guilt perhaps but torturers don't look for information but validation. And a person under enough duress will validate any position you put to them. There are no techniques of resistance, no will strong enough that a determined torturer with time and inclination cannot debase a human being to the point of submission.

Torture performed by soldiers is a crime of the state not the individual. Yes, the old "I was only following orders" excuse doesn't absolve guilt or responsibility but soldiers who have been "ordered" (or at least subtly directed towards) torture are victims of state policy as much as they are perpetuators of crimes against humanity. They are damaged beyond repair and if you believe in such a thing, their souls have been lost.

The act of inflicting intentional suffering on another human being is so degrading that not one of the people I know who have inflicted it will ever be whole again. So I would think it our duty to protect our own people from becoming monsters by demanding they never exercise such a monstrous tool. And importantly, to punish leaders who either through negligance or intent allow people, who have such heavy burdens of responsibility to protect us from those who would harm us, from being so damaged.

Our soldiers sacrifice their lives to defend our values and our lives. Must we also ask them to sacrifice their souls? And can we live with the guilt of standing idly by as they do so?

* I was born and lived through the atrocities of the early Iranian regime where torture was a matter of state policy. I never thought I would say the same about America.
posted by monkeyx-uk at 3:37 AM on October 11, 2007 [49 favorites]


... Russia used it successfully on Afghan prisoners, and the French used it successfully in Algiers ...

Neither was ultimately successful. By using torture, both countries made torturers of some of their citizens. Not a new thing for the Soviets, of course, but making more torturers is not a benefit to any society.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:50 AM on October 11, 2007


Kirth - agreed. Both with the French in Algeria and the Soviets in Russia the position was untenable and torturing was never going to make it better (I think to say that torture is never used to extract information is perhaps too sweeping). But from what I have heard, from Afghans who were in Soviet prisons, you can achieve short term benefits to your operations.

I worry about putting too much emphasis on the "it doesn't work" argument. If that's proved to be inaccurate by counter-examples, then the real argument may be undermined - that it's a horrific, dehumanising evil practice.
posted by YouRebelScum at 4:03 AM on October 11, 2007


"What, what if they don't even want the Sheik, have you considered that? What if what they really want is for us to herd our children into stadiums like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!"
--From "The Siege," released in 19-freakin'-98.
posted by EarBucket at 4:22 AM on October 11, 2007 [3 favorites]


I, question, however the argument that torture doesn't 'work' (both in the sense that it invokes fear in the population and extracts information). I only have anecdotal evidence to this, but Russia used it successfully on Afghan prisoners

How'd that work out in the long run?

Osama bin Laden argues that getting bogged down in an expensive slog in Afghanistan played a major role in destroying the Soviet Union. When one man with a $1,000 shoulder-mounted rocket launcher can take down a multi-million dollar helicopter, it becomes a very, very expensive proposition to occupy a hostile nation. And torture does very little to endear you to the locals.

I also know that if I was tortured I would spill my guts in a heartbeat.

Sure you would. You'd confess to anything and everything they told you to. You'd confess to stealing the Lindbergh baby. So, yes, torture works just fine if your objective is to extract confessions for previously committed crimes and you don't much care about finding out if the suspect is really guilty or not. It's next to worthless for getting useful intelligence about future plans.

Oh, and torture's about to break into mainstream American awareness in a big way, hopefully.
posted by EarBucket at 4:32 AM on October 11, 2007


Earbucket - as I said, with the Soviets in Afghanistan, the position was untenable from the point of invasion onwards, and torturing made the Afghans hate the Soviets the more. They undermined an already weak position by pushing for short-term gains. But from what Afghan acquaintances have told me, the Soviets used torture to extract information and not just to cow the population - and by these accounts they got information out of it. That's no more than anecdotal, second hand, evidence.
posted by YouRebelScum at 4:47 AM on October 11, 2007


Justinian I agree with you, but sometimes people are smart enough to listen, think, and then re-form their opinions. You have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Within reason, From Brkln. There is a point at which the whole "polite discussion" thing is just a ruse by the other side to prevent you from taking any real action. Do you think all the polite discussion in the world has had any effect at all on the current administrations torture policy?

After years of this crap why should I give them the benefit of the doubt anymore? Do we keep giving them the benefit of the doubt when they start torturing drug suspects? How about when they torture you or your family? When do you stop with the charade that they might change their minds and admit to yourself that they're just bastards who feel powerful if they can hurt somebody?
posted by Justinian at 5:52 AM on October 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


"It's next to worthless for getting useful intelligence about future plans."

Then why do we train our soldiers to resist torture and other countries/organization's train theirs?

Not really just a rhetorical question. Presumably it could have some benefit in getting troops to fight more bravely. Excellent front-line medical-care is thought to have this effect, if you're wounded you'll be o.k. or less un-o.k. than you would've been. Is torture resistance training just more of the same?
posted by Jahaza at 5:52 AM on October 11, 2007


Then why do we train our soldiers to resist torture and other countries/organization's train theirs?

I'm not sure anybody does this outside of movies. From what I've heard from the couple of (British) spec-ops soldiers I have met they are told nothing that they cannot reveal if captured and told to reveal anything they can if it would spare them their lives.

However, I am not a soldier nor have I researched this properly so I would be interested to know if what I was told is accurate and applicable to US forces.
posted by monkeyx-uk at 6:28 AM on October 11, 2007


No. You don't get to ask for a healthy, respectful discussion about torture. Shall we have a healthy, respectful discussion about whether whether all women should be required to have a full cliterodectomy for their own good? Shall we have a nice polite back and forth about whether the Jews deserved to be rounded up and killed? It's the same goddamn thing.

Just because you feel passionate about something and feel there is an injustice, that does not negate the need for a healthy, respectful discussion. If anything, where emotions are involved it is FAR BETTER to be mature enough to have one, and to learn from others. It is in the absence of healthy, respectful discussion that things often do not change, when people are far too busy concentrating on the other person being wrong than on solving anything.

I could give examples connected to your list above, if you like. Here's a good one. You can just call people who circumcise their daughters as barbarians. Or you can step back from your judgments and understand that many people in Egypt are illiterate and had been led for many generations to believe that FGM was in the Quran, and that leaving their daughters uncircumcised would make them unwanted by potential suitors. Turns out that rather than being anti-female barbarians, Egyptians were just trying to be good parents in the same way that their parents had tried to be good parents... that like most people, they were just not automatically questioning that their tradition was leading them accurately.

So... enter the outsiders telling them otherwise. If these FGM activists (often people who were not from the culture -- which makes them automatically distrusted in regards to cultural issues) yell and scream at these people for being barbarians, you think they're going to drop their traditions and listen? NO. It was continued discussion and activism that inspired gradual change until finally FGM was banned this year and people slowly realized that it IS harmful to girls. I can guarantee you there was respectful discussion involved to create that kind of a big social change in a culture where loyalty towards tradition is so heavily ingrained in its people.

No cultural or human issue is ever "the same goddamn thing." Not if you're trying to actually find a solution and instill change instead of just spouting off your opinions. Just sayin'.
posted by miss lynnster at 6:43 AM on October 11, 2007 [11 favorites]


Back when Jimmy and the boys funded the invasion of East Timor, that wasn't an abandonment of the principle of human rights. They just left it on someone's doorstep and never came back to get it. Not the same thing at all.
posted by Clay201 at 6:45 AM on October 11, 2007


Egypt tortured Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual founder of Islamist terrorism, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the co-leader of Al Qaeda. Their torture radicalized them and their followers.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:50 AM on October 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


Torture. From what I can tell I think we all agree that it's been going on in US jails.detention places pretty well since 9/11.
It's illegal. When the Government is the perpetrator of the crime the crime is much more heinous coz it effects every last citizen. The rule of law is there coz it works best in tempering every public and private action.
Second: is it efficacious - ie does it work? It seems that many experts don't think it does. Even if they are in the minority, is it worth the risk that maybe destroying another person deliberately as an exercise of power will give no good result and prove that we are the god loving infidels. For a Christian country the US has a real problem justifying torture.
Thirdly - has it worked so far? It seems to me there are more terrorists in more places who more than ever have justification for their actions than there ever were b4 9/11 - and do they shrink because they are afraid of American torturers?
You tell me.
posted by dodialog at 7:13 AM on October 11, 2007


What miss lynnster said. Justinian, your passion on this issue is admirable but you're being a jerk. The importance of a moral issue does not justify disengagement from polite debate in favor of "you are evil" attacks. Imagine if pro-lifers descended on the site and unleashed vitriol towards others on the ground that abortion is such an important moral issue that it's okay to make personal attacks.
posted by brain_drain at 7:14 AM on October 11, 2007


I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life" for those the terrorist might intend to kill. I am fairly certain that our country has done so, and will do so in the future given reason.

This mentality echoes too closely with the methods of the Soviets to preserve the life of their hallowed state.
posted by inqb8tr at 7:28 AM on October 11, 2007


Wait, tell me more about the giant eel thing? Do they get those anywhere near Maryland or upstate NY?
posted by newdaddy at 7:47 AM on October 11, 2007


In case you missed it, this comment deserves reading and maybe even a sidebar link.
posted by spock at 7:50 AM on October 11, 2007


Then why do we train our soldiers to resist torture and other countries/organization's train theirs?

Western militaries train people to resist interrogation. Not torture. There is a difference.
posted by dangerousdan at 8:22 AM on October 11, 2007


insulglass writes: Avenger, I'm not asking anyone to "lighten up" about torture. It's obviously a serious thing to contemplate. My plea was to lighten up regarding the lack of civility and the automatic wave of posts like the "fuck you" above when someone shows up with an opposing viewpoint.

I'm not sure you're seeing the bigger picture here, insulglass. There's a complexity here that reduces to an ontological problem: there's no way to argue with madness. Past a certain point, we stop trying to deconstruct arguments point-by-point, especially when the person advancing them doesn't respond to legitimate criticism. If I may wax Godwinian for a moment, the community isn't going to respond intelligently to a heartfelt plea for an idea whose moral foundations are roughly as solid as those of genocide, because it's completely fucking insane: there's no conceivable way the benefits it would supposedly impart would outweigh the heinous evil that would be involved in undertaking the project, even if you buy into the nonsensical logic behind the proposition in the first place, and anyone who would advance the idea opens the door to all manner of unfavorable comparisons to a well-known pencil-mustachioed 20th century German. At a certain point, we stop giving you fiat, and resort to full out ad-hom, because you can't reason with someone who advances points that aren't grounded in reality.

This is a site full of moral relativists, people who can and will advocate for just about any ethos you can imagine, because there are situations in which all sorts of strange ideas are acceptable, and deserve consideration. The backlash you're seeing is because there is no conceivable construction of reality in which torture could be justified. None. Your friends in the armed services are flat-out wrong if they think there are circumstances (even wildly contrived--I'll give you carte-blanche to dream up a scenario tailored to whatever exacting circumstances you want to invent, and it will still be unacceptable) that justify the use of torture, because it is an idea so repugnant that it is anathema to anyone who has even a rudimentary moral code. The fact that it isn't universally repellent is, to many of us, evidence that the human race is fundamentally broken.

Even disregarding any of the ethical considerations, you're still ignoring the logistical problems that have been brought up repeatedly upthread: there's a huge body of evidence that interrogation relying on torture is substantively less effective than traditional methods; moreover, our attempts to selectively apply the conditions of the Geneva Convention are laughably transparent, and members of the armed services should be legitimately concerned that we've now sanctioned the use of torture on them by opposing forces.

So, yes, you could say that the short version of this argument is indeed 'fuck you.' Justinian has it exactly right: If you want to advocate evil, go for it, but I will not deal with you as if we are discussing whether or not ketchup belongs on a hot dog or not. I will not acknowledge you as an okay guy who happens to disagree with me on a trivial issue.
posted by Mayor West at 8:29 AM on October 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


insulglass:Sadly, it seems to me that whenever I try to speak up with the simplest of opinions, there's a lot of shouting and not much argument.

That's just it, however: your 'simple' opinion is offensive to most people I know who value human life and consider human rights progress a positive thing in this sometimes deadly, oftentimes sad, world. On top of all that, torture does not work. Simple as that.
posted by NationalKato at 8:30 AM on October 11, 2007


Torture is bad. But it still bothers me to hear a man born in Georgia in 1924 say "Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:55 AM on October 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


Just call it straight up: George Bush and his cronies have made the USA a terrorist nation against the will of the people. Period.

Congress -- even our recently-elected Democratic congress -- has yet to demonstrate the spine to stand up to this administration.

This cannot abide.
posted by deCadmus at 9:01 AM on October 11, 2007


Just a small, quick point. Opinions are the primary thing to argue about. Hard to argue about facts (although there are people who do, but in those cases you more or less just state your case and back away slowly as the tirade unfolds, which seems to be happening more and more as of late).
posted by edgeways at 9:21 AM on October 11, 2007


Much is made of the made-for-TV dichotomy: "torture or Americans die horribly", as if that were the decisive question. So fine, let's address it as if it weren't a kid's gotcha game but a real-world situation:

So here we are, torture is illegal, for everyone from the President on down, and suddenly this bullshit situation actually arises, where there really are no options, no way out, it's "do evil or have vastly worse evil done."

Okay, in that situation, the President or the official on the scene can decide to break the law, and take the consequences. But it still should and must be against the law, and the consequences should be faced properly in a trial. Even in a comic-book scenario made real, the President does not decide that right and wrong are different for him on this day than they are on any other day. Terrible choices must be faced squarely. We do not leave it to the President to decide for himself whether what he chooses to do is legal or not. It should always be illegal. We the people or our representatives might choose to exonerate or forgive the choice after the fact. But it is not for the President to say he or she much have that freedom of action in advance. We do not grant it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:37 AM on October 11, 2007 [7 favorites]


"Are you sure there aren't other ways of getting people to talk?" he asked me nervously. "I mean methods that are ... "

"Faster?" I asked.

"No, that's not what I mean."

"I know what you mean, Colonel. You're thinking of cleaner ways. You feel that none of this fits in with our humanistic tradition."

"Yes, that's what I mean," answered the Colonel.

"Even if I did agree with you, sir, to carry out the mission you've given me, I must avoid thinking in moral terms and only do what is most useful."

-- Paul Aussaresses, The Battle of the Casbah: Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in Algeria, 1955-1957
posted by blucevalo at 9:45 AM on October 11, 2007


Wait, tell me more about the giant eel thing? Do they get those anywhere near Maryland or upstate NY?

It's a Utica thing.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:48 AM on October 11, 2007


If george bush gazes upon a terrorist with hatred then has he already committed torture in his heart?

Murder, according to Jesus.

(How many people know that Carter was just quoting Jesus? And not misquoting or twisting his words, either.)
posted by straight at 9:55 AM on October 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


I applaud Jimmy Carter for speaking out against Bush's government and the atrocities it permits. However, while Carter was in office, the CIA committed many acts violating human rights, as did many countries allied with the US, and he does not speak out against this - and unfortunately this smacks a bit of hypocrisy, making his position in this issue less solid than it should be.
posted by Vindaloo at 10:03 AM on October 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


Let's tweak Mayor West's argument just a bit:

The backlash you're seeing is because there is no conceivable construction of reality in which tortureabortion could be justified. None. Your friends in the armed servicesmedical profession are flat-out wrong if they think there are circumstances (even wildly contrived--I'll give you carte-blanche to dream up a scenario tailored to whatever exacting circumstances you want to invent, and it will still be unacceptable) that justify the use of tortureabortion, because it is an idea so repugnant that it is anathema to anyone who has even a rudimentary moral code. The fact that it isn't universally repellent is, to many of us, evidence that the human race is fundamentally broken.

Can you see how dangerous it is to assert the view, "I'm so right and you're so wrong that I will not treat you with respect"?
posted by brain_drain at 10:30 AM on October 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


What say we torture insulglass just in case he's a terrorist? Am I right?
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:50 AM on October 11, 2007


There is a point at which the whole "polite discussion" thing is just a ruse by the other side to prevent you from taking any real action.

It is not necessarily a ruse but also a way that most people interact with horror. Dispassionately. On the TV. Around the dinner table. Unfortunately it seems to have made not a whit of difference that the actors this time are us. Yes, people need to wake up to the fact that you can't have polite conversations about evil. And yes, miss lynster is absolutely correct, that this is the same kind of no-ground issue as for some religious anti-abortionists. If I believed in the same premises, I would probably want to shake people out of their "polite" conversations about abortion. I would want to scream "this is murder!" from the hilltops. And this is why we can't have nice conversations about abortion.

That doesn't change the fact, though, that most people in N.A. seem to treat talk of torture like which is the better cheese, gruyere or gouda? Does it work? I've heard it does. Oh, did you hear about Algiers? No, tell me about Algeiers. WELL... This is bullshit. If torture is on the table, and not just torture but indefinite imprisonment without charge, without counsel, then this can only be yet another us/them issue, where I'll start being concerned when it starts happening to us, and only then when it isn't the poor and the landed immigrants but really has a chance of affecting my own, because fuck everybody else I don't give a damn about them.

And I think that attitude is not new. It's just that no circumstance has forced it to light until recently. Fuck everybody but me. If it makes me and mine safer, starve the rest, imprison them for no reason, torture them endlessly. I don't give a fuck. It's another story on the news. It's dinner table conversation at best.

The west has long been regarded as amoral, but I mean really, how long until circumstances force an amoral civiliation into complete immorality? You either care about the right thing, or you will eventually embrace the wrong. It is inevitable. The only thing new about this is the public nature of it all, and, surprise, just how fine the public are with it.
posted by dreamsign at 11:08 AM on October 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


Can you see how dangerous it is to assert the view, "I'm so right and you're so wrong that I will not treat you with respect"?

Hitler (at a cocktail party surrounded by pseudo-intellectuals): You know, I can't really explain it--I just really hate jews and think we should mobilize the vast untapped destructive potential of the German people to systematically slaughter as many of them as possible.

Smart Guy: Why, that's an interesting, if unorthodox, view, though one with which I'm inclined to respectfully disagree.

Hitler: Oh yeah? Which part do you disagree with?

Smart Guy: The part about killing jews.

Hitler: Oh, well, that's okay, the really important part of the plan is to use my fuhrership to produce all sorts of cool-looking nationalistic propaganda--not to mention absolutely fabulous military uniforms! I've already got some of the best designers in the father land working up a look and feel for the whole project. Oh, and maybe we'll kill some Jehovah's witnesses, too.

Smart Guy: Very cool. I hate those guys, always showing up at my door with one of those chintzy magazines. Count me in.

Hitler: Excellent... Excellent...

Can you see how dangerous it is to assert the view, "I'm so right and you're so wrong that I will not treat you with respect"?

Isn't it sometimes also dangerous to assert the view that every point of view is equally worthy of a respectful hearing and polite consideration? What if the position I'm arguing is that a certain neighborhood family practices witchcraft and should be burned at the stake? Should we call a special town meeting to calmly discuss the pros and cons of burning down the neighbors' house in the night while they sleep? Or should I be ignored, ridiculed or scoffed at wherever I go to espouse my view?
posted by saulgoodman at 11:11 AM on October 11, 2007


It's kind of disturbing when you live in times where a godwin is essentially on topic.
posted by dreamsign at 11:15 AM on October 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


Just because you don't agree with someone else, just because their beliefs aren't yours, doesn't make them automatically invalid. They are real to that person, just as real as your opinions are to you. And the best way to get your thoughts heard is to use that old golden rule and give the same respect. The other person may have known or understood all of the facts or experiences that led you to your beliefs... but also... vice versa. It can be surprising how your own strong opinions can shift over time when your mind is open, and -- okay, brace yourself -- that reconsidering your own opinion can often make you a better and healthier human being. You can learn something that changes you, or even have your beliefs confirmed: both can be positive transitions.

If you want to truly make a difference and understand all sides of something? You listen. You are patient and respectful as best you can be. You realize that you cannot control others, you can only control HOW YOU RESPOND to others. And after listening, if necessary, you can agree to disagree. But quite often what one neighbor considers witchcraft, upon further inspection could be nothing of the sort. Human beings are, on a regular basis, idiots who let our emotions and assumptions run away with us because for some reason we thrive on feeling superior to other human beings whenever possible. But if you take that need away and try to just treat others as a member of the same species? Often, upon truly taking some time to understand others and respect them, you find they aren't quite as evil as you thought, if anything it's almost that you just wanted to believe they were to make yourself feel more right. Sometimes you may still not agree with them, but when you're calm about it it's a lot easier to parse the information and see where they came upon their beliefs. Even if you may not join in them.

And also? It's probably the only way others are going to consider your point of view. Nobody really wants to question their own firmly-held beliefs when confronted by any patronizing, self-righteous asshole.

Or I could just be speaking for myself, I dunno. YMMV.
posted by miss lynnster at 11:58 AM on October 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


Forgot an important word... "The other person may NOT have known or understood all of the facts or experiences that led you to your beliefs... but also... vice versa."
posted by miss lynnster at 12:02 PM on October 11, 2007




It depends on who you are talking to, miss lynster. And from what I see, the majority of people who don't particularly care about their government using torture haven't woken up to the fact that it's actually worth getting upset over. Once you realize that people are, maybe you start to think there may be something more to this than just another pop culture topic of the day.

But I don't know. YMMV.
posted by dreamsign at 12:26 PM on October 11, 2007


For the first time in my life...

Dude - you're fucking old. You were 18 when Executive Order 9066 hit the fan, don't you remember? No, because you're fucking old.

And to think I was the only kid (the only one!!) in my whole uptight Connecticut elementary school to vote for you over Reagan in a mock-election. I guess Mrs. Skawronski was right, after all.
posted by ericbop at 12:46 PM on October 11, 2007


"It's kind of disturbing when you live in times where a godwin is essentially on topic."

It's kindof disturbing that for years and years and since god knows when anytime anybody manned up enough to call a Hitler a Hitler they got drowned out in a near-universal cawing of GODWIN!!!1!

And here we are. And it's a beautiful day.
posted by Don Pepino at 1:00 PM on October 11, 2007


You know... I hate to admit I have no idea what "Godwin" is referring to.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:07 PM on October 11, 2007


for miss
posted by monkeyx-uk at 2:13 PM on October 11, 2007


If you want to truly make a difference and understand all sides of something? You listen. You are patient and respectful as best you can be. You realize that you cannot control others, you can only control HOW YOU RESPOND to others. And after listening, if necessary, you can agree to disagree.

No, I don't agree. I will never, ever, agree to disagree about torture. That's a ridiculous position to take; it's no different than looking the other way while your neighbors are rounded up in camps because, well, it's just a policy disagreement and not something to get worked up over.

You are not coming to grips with the fact that calling for polite discussion over an abhorrent practice is a cynical strategy on the part of the perpetrators of abhorrent practices. As I said it is a way of legitimizing their position and rendering opponents impotent and unwilling to take any real action.

Is there nothing so abhorrent that you won't sit down for some nice tea and crumpets while you discuss it? How about if somebody brutally rapes your daughter and then wants to have a polite discussion over the pros and cons of using a condom while he does it? Hey, everybody's position deserves to be understand and to be treated with respect and patience, right?
posted by Justinian at 2:41 PM on October 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


What miss lynnster said. Justinian, your passion on this issue is admirable but you're being a jerk. The importance of a moral issue does not justify disengagement from polite debate in favor of "you are evil" attacks.

As I said, I have spent quite a long time trying to be nice and polite. It's bought us nothing except bloody hands. If you continue to live with being a willing party to torture, so be it. I won't anymore.

Yes, engaging in nice, polite discussion over the issue like we're talking about whether to cut the marginal tax rate from 35% to 32% is being an accomplice. It is ineffective and we know it is ineffective so it is just a way for you to absolve responsibility and feel good about yourself for "opposing" torture while not having to feel uncomfortable about it or make others uncomfortable with your approbations.

Fine, I'm an jerk on this topic. But at least I'm not a patsy anymore like people who think you can be respectful of people advocating evil.
posted by Justinian at 2:45 PM on October 11, 2007


Justinian: Is there nothing so abhorrent that you won't sit down for some nice tea and crumpets while you discuss it?

Pssst. Just call miss lynnster a namedropper if you want to see the fangs come out.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:08 PM on October 11, 2007


It's kindof disturbing that for years and years and since god knows when anytime anybody manned up enough to call a Hitler a Hitler they got drowned out in a near-universal cawing of GODWIN!!!1!

Yes, that's something that's been wrong for a long time. Maybe we can finally dump that stupid Pavlovian response to mentions of Nazis, and admit that there are similar things going on now.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:12 PM on October 11, 2007


I'm with Justinian here. For a second that clever thing someone did where he replaced "torture" with "abortion" had me wondering, but then I realized why it doesn't make sense. If someone thinks my pro-choice position is so abhorrent to his moral values that he can't have reasoned discussion with me about it then . . . okay! Why do I give a shit? I'm not going to convince that person that women have a right to control their bodies and don't deserve to be punished for sex anyway, so why do I care if he engages with me or not?

So I'm happy to play "insulglass" on choice to the various fundamentalist "Justinans" (as bass-ackwards as that seems). If my position seems that repugnant to you (choice = torture) then we have nothing useful to talk about anyway. Come to think of it, that might be a lesson worth taking away from this entire thread. Thanks insulglass and Justinian!
posted by The Bellman at 3:33 PM on October 11, 2007


then I realized why it doesn't make sense. If someone thinks my pro-choice position is so abhorrent to his moral values that he can't have reasoned discussion with me about it then . . . okay! Why do I give a shit?

Makes sense to me.
It just goes to show that for some people, some issues have no middle-ground. Anyway, not my example. I was just agreeing with it.
posted by dreamsign at 4:51 PM on October 11, 2007


Ahhh, don't be silly. My fangs are totally the fake plastic kind that bend upon impact.
posted by miss lynnster at 4:57 PM on October 11, 2007


Unless you're John Fogerty...
posted by miss lynnster at 4:59 PM on October 11, 2007


And Justinian, perhaps the point I'm really trying to make is that when someone speaks only in self-righteous extremes, they often make other people bristle... even when they completely agree with that person on the topic.
posted by miss lynnster at 5:08 PM on October 11, 2007


Is there nothing so abhorrent that you won't sit down for some nice tea and crumpets while you discuss it? How about if somebody brutally rapes your daughter and then wants to have a polite discussion over the pros and cons of using a condom while he does it? Hey, everybody's position deserves to be understand and to be treated with respect and patience, right?

Can you not see that you are employing the same appeals to emotion that you are decrying? Your argument is that some behavior is so bad that civilized response is nonsensical. This is also the argument being used to defend torture. Evil can never defeat evil - it only makes evil stronger. If this is true for terrorists, it must be true for torturers. And if it is true for torturers, it must be true for those who would oppose them. Yes, the scale of offense is entirely different, but it is still the same argument. By using it, you empower those you disagree with.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:37 PM on October 11, 2007


And no, I'm not a pacifist. Far from it, actually. I'm not arguing your point, only your tactics.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:57 PM on October 11, 2007


Can you not see that you are employing the same appeals to emotion that you are decrying? Your argument is that some behavior is so bad that civilized response is nonsensical.

Well, to be more precise, I'm arguing that the behavior is bad enough to warrant it AND that civilized response is ineffective and playing into the hands of your opponents in this instance.

That's a pretty important second clause there. A civilized response is only effective against a civilized opponent; look at the example of Ghandi and the British. Yeah, the British could sometimes be right bastards (what country hasn't at some point?) but when it came down to it, the Brits could be shamed. And Ghandi knew it.

That's why peaceful resistance was effective in India. It's also why peaceful resistance was ineffective against Nazi Germany. The Nazis loved guys like Ghandi; it made it easier to round up and exterminate people if they didn't fight back.

You're arguing that the people who support torture are more like the British; they can be shamed and shown the error of their ways. I disagree, I think they can't be shamed and being nice and polite just makes it easier for them to go on being evil.
posted by Justinian at 6:14 PM on October 11, 2007


Shorter Justinian: your tactics must be tailored to your opponent. Peaceful, civilized debate is the solution to disagreements with peaceful, civilized people. Supporters of torture have proven themselves to be neither peaceful nor civilized and our response should be adapted accordingly.


Yay, I managed to distill my point down to one paragraph instead of pages of ranting!
posted by Justinian at 6:18 PM on October 11, 2007


Justinian: by distilling your thesis into a brief sentence, you have made it easier for your opponents to not read it.


(I kid, I kid)
posted by anthill at 6:48 PM on October 11, 2007


If one doesn't ever take the time to actually understand the opponent, where their beliefs stem from, and what makes them tick, the chosen tactics may be completely ill-suited and tailored like shit.

That said, some people are too busy thriving on being righteous to ever acknowledge, let alone notice, those failures.
posted by miss lynnster at 6:59 PM on October 11, 2007


Supporters of terrorism have also proven themselves to be neither peaceful nor civilized and our response should be adapted accordingly.

How is that a different argument?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:24 PM on October 11, 2007


Not that I'm trying to make that argument, understand. Just pointing out that "your tactics must be tailored to your opponent" is the exact justification the torturers use.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:28 PM on October 11, 2007


Peaceful, civilized debate is the solution to disagreements with peaceful, civilized people. Supporters of torture have proven themselves to be neither peaceful nor civilized and our response should be adapted accordingly.

Justinian, can't you see that this approach can be invoked for pretty much any hot-button issue? I'll say it again: replace the word "torture" in the paragraph above with "abortion," "the death penalty," "Christianity," "the war in Iraq," "terrorism," "Israel," or any number of other topics. These are the types of issues that most require peaceful, civilized debate.

Separately, all the Nazi/burning witches/etc. analogies brought up in defense of this tactic are pretty poor. There's a world of difference between appeasing Hitler and refraining from "fuck you" attacks against a well-meaning but wrong-headed participant on a website. Guess what? You can fight injustice in the world and be nice to people on MetaFilter.
posted by brain_drain at 8:25 PM on October 11, 2007


I'm not saying we should hold hands with terrorists & sing kumbaya...
posted by miss lynnster at 9:01 PM on October 11, 2007


Even people who think abortions are worth celebrating are not out to cause the embryo/fetus any more pain or suffering than is required. And they certainly aren't out to terrorize other womb-dwellers.

I think this is a faulty analogy.

Maybe there's a line here and it's with the people who think torture is worse than murder on the one side, and those who think it's less bad or equivalent on the other.

A bit of a derail on why this bothers me so much... (please forgive me)

I have a mental illness, and in 2001 and 2002 it was particularly terrible and landed me in the mental hospital twice. I'm a lot better now, and most of the horrific things that I experienced (inside my own head, perpetrated by my own brutal imagination) are relatively dim memories. It took years to get to this point.

But when it comes to thinking about torture, my imagination is not on a leash, not even now. I cannot yank it back. I keep having images of myself being tortured, and thinking what would I do, what would I say? How could I provoke them into accidentally overdoing it and killing me just to make it stop?

And then there was Tuesday of this week. During most of the day at work, I kept having images of myself being tortured, specifically, having my eight-year-old daughter tortured in front of me. You want to share a little bit of my waking nightmare? I imagined them ripping her arms off. Right out of their sockets. Over and over and over again this went through my head. I pictured it. And you know what the worst part was? I kept imagining what her screams would sound like. It undid me.

This is the horrific shit that goes through my head when I start hearing about torture. You know, I try to console myself with saying "there is no possible realistic way anything like this could ever *really* happen to me", and so on and so forth, but it's cold comfort to know that such things and probably worse have been done to other people who are just as innocent as I am. And probably are being done to this very day. Such things make me want to renounce my membership in the human race, because I don't want to be associated with creatures capable of such things.

Yes, I have a sick imagination. I know it's not normal. I really wish it were, and were it in my power to make it so, I surely would. I just try to deal with it the best that I can and distract myself.

I am sickened beyond words that my country now tortures people, openly[1]. And is getting away with it. Apparently the weasel words and conveniently twisted definitions satisfy the majority of the populace, still, and that sickens me even further.

But something that does make me feel better is when I see people speak out against it, as so many have done so eloquently in this thread. Said it so much better than I could have (something I think all the time when I read mefi, which is why my main participation these days is just favoriting things).

I'm with the people who disagree with the notion that this is suitable for mere polite debate. I'm lost on what I should do about it though.

[1] At least before, it was done in secret, because they knew it was something to be ashamed of. But now they seem proud of it.

p.s. My Tuesday got a lot better - as soon as Fresh Air came on NPR and I heard the dulcet tones of Stephen Colbert's voice for the hour-long interview, I was well on my way to putting it out of my mind. And I can write about it now without getting all unglued.
posted by marble at 9:12 PM on October 11, 2007


Justinian, can't you see that this approach can be invoked for pretty much any hot-button issue?

Sure, because the argument is a strong one. Lots and lots of correct arguments can be used in favor of both good and bad causes.

Does the fact that people make an argument that homosexuality should be forbidden because it is immoral mean that we can never argue that capital punishment should be forbidden because it is immoral? Is the entire concept of morality out the window because you can invoke it in both good and bad contexts? No, we accept it in some cases and reject it in others.
posted by Justinian at 10:15 PM on October 11, 2007


Separately, all the Nazi/burning witches/etc. analogies brought up in defense of this tactic are pretty poor.

No, they're spot on. They are not meant, usually, to say that some deluded soul who thinks torturing ragheads is okay is as bad as Hitler. They are meant to show that virtually everybody who isn't a sociopath draws a line at some point as to what is suitable for polite debate.

Once you've accepted that a line exists it becomes a matter of "is state sponsored torture beyond that line" or not.

I believe it clearly is. Some people in this thread agree, some people don't. But the analogy holds up as long as it isn't meant to draw a direct equivalence but rather to make the point that everyone draws a line somewhere.
posted by Justinian at 10:19 PM on October 11, 2007


"After years of this crap why should I give them the benefit of the doubt anymore? "

Dude. You shouldn't. But nor should you engage with them if you can't do it constructively. Others can and will. Let them.

Look, let's consider the "conservatives" (I mean the Cheney-Bush revolutionaries, actually). For years (like, thirty plus) they railed against the liberal-elite, the left-wing media... what-ever. They really got their panties bunched up. Then, at some point, maybe (I dunno, specifically) 15 years ago (?) they got organized. Yes, they still railed publically against the left wing blah blah blah, but behind the scenes they were hard at it. Organizing money, organizing opinion, consolidating power and resources.

And look horrors they have managed to see to fruition.

So, my reply, Justinian is no, you don't have to reply to them reasonably or level-headedly. You don't have to reply to them at all. But you do have to act, to right the wrong you see them engaging in.

Well, actually, we all have to act. It's our moral responsability, and also our responsability (those of us who are) as American Citizens.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:48 AM on October 12, 2007


At least before, it was done in secret, because they knew it was something to be ashamed of. But now they seem proud of it.

Exactly. Point, set and match.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:45 AM on October 12, 2007


...to say that some deluded soul who thinks torturing ragheads is okay is as bad as Hitler.

I'm hoping you're saying "ragheads" in trying to channel the thoughts of the "deluded soul." Because otherwise I think the point I'm stuck on has never been that we need to have "polite debate with crumpets" in light of torture, but rather that strong, intelligent and calm discourse is far more likely to move an issue in a positive direction than the tactics generally taken by ignorant assholes who USE THE PHRASE RAGHEADS. Even in jest.
posted by miss lynnster at 7:29 AM on October 12, 2007


but rather that strong, intelligent and calm discourse is far more likely to move an issue in a positive direction

How has that worked out for us the last six or seven years?
posted by Justinian at 7:41 AM on October 12, 2007


“I'd have no problem torturing a terrorist in order to preserve the most hallowed human right of all, "life"”

Funny. I have no problem killing torturers in order to preserve the more hallowed rights of liberty and freedom.
But y’know, unlike most of y’all, I’m not speaking theoretically. Nice to sit at a desk and talk about how you would torture someone. Step outside and let’s see how big your balls really are. Go find a “terrorist”, torture him, see if you get any useful information. And know, whether you do or not, men like me are going to hunt you down and kill you.
Your ball, cuz.

“Inaction breeds doubt and fear. Action breeds confidence and courage. If you want to conquer fear, do not sit home and think about it. Go out and get busy.” -Dale Carnegie
posted by Smedleyman at 11:58 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Live free or die - just nice words?
posted by Smedleyman at 11:59 AM on October 12, 2007


Justinian? I don't know you, but seems to me you just like to argue. And to be right. Seems to me that is the exact tactic people are talking about. Makes it seem like it's impossible to reach any kind of middle ground even if we are on the same side and believe exactly the same things. There is no such thing as agreement with when someone is so focused on being correct and proving everyone else wrong. From some of your comments I've read, I get the impression that at times you really don't listen to others, even when they agree with you. Which SUCKS when people are trying to communicate and achieve a healthy discourse. Which, of course, is something you don't believe in. Which is also one of the main qualities I hate about our President, might I add.

Peace out.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:30 PM on October 12, 2007


Seems to me that is the exact tactic people are talking about. Makes it seem like it's impossible to reach any kind of middle ground even if we are on the same side and believe exactly the same things.

Not at all. We can reach a middle ground on all sorts of issues that we don't agree on. The response to people who believe it is okay to torture just doesn't appear to be one of them. That I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not listening.
posted by Justinian at 3:31 PM on October 12, 2007




Things in life are never black and white, simple, or one dimensional, Justinian. So in turn, neither are my initial reactions to any issue, no matter how that issue sounds on the surface. I think that's where we differ.

And yet, I feel the exact same about torture as you do. But you'd never know I was on your side, would ya? This is why just sitting around spouting these strong opinions changes nothing. If you can't even get people on your own side to feel solidarity with you, how could you ever change the world?

Sometimes people are just far more focused, as I said before, on being right than on wanting to make any difference. I don't care if I agree with them on the topic, I cringe at the tactic. Loudly critiquing from a distance is more empowering and less frustrating/confusing than trying to actually tear apart a problem unemotionally and understand it on a source level first. People love to jump into their comfy blanket statements, they make them feel secure. That's human nature I suppose. But I'm not a fan of it.

And as I said, anyone who will flippantly use the term "raghead" even by example, is clearly not someone who is capable of making any kind of positive difference in the world regarding this topic or any other regarding people of Middle Eastern descent. It's just obnoxious. It's like saying you have strong feelings that other people aren't unfair to faggots. Or that you wish people weren't acting so racist against "them thar niggers." Or that you really wish the bitches & hos were paid on an equal level as men. It doesn't matter if you're pretending to channel the racism of the people you consider to be doing the wrongdoing. Just repeating and recognizing those words on such a non-ironic level clearly shows that you really don't have much actual understanding of the people you are supposedly not wanting us to torture. For many people, it is an affront and unneccessary to acknowledge that those names exist.
posted by miss lynnster at 11:11 AM on October 13, 2007


And as I said, anyone who will flippantly use the term "raghead" even by example, is clearly not someone who is capable of making any kind of positive difference in the world regarding this topic or any other regarding people of Middle Eastern descent....For many people, it is an affront and unneccessary to acknowledge that those names exist.

Acknowleding and pointing out that people who support torture enable racists use words like "raghead" is about as bad as using it yourself in, as you say, a non-ironic way? That's just ridiculous. It's a bog-standard way of challenging racists with their own beliefs. It's like if someone starts ranting about the evils of homosexuality and you get in their face with the word "faggot" to force them to confront their own ugliness. You're misreading this in such an obvious fashion that it's either deliberate or it's such a huge hot button for you that your rational thought is short circuited.

It's almost as if... wait for it... you believe someone who uses a word like "raghead" non ironically would put them beyond the pale of constructive discourse. Ironic, that! Bit in any case it seems rather a lot backwards that you've spent a lot more effort here grappling with that (despite it being a complete misreading of the situation) than with, you know, torture.
posted by Justinian at 2:55 PM on October 13, 2007


Okay, so I was trying to be polite but... no. Actually, I do not feel it's okay even in an un-ironic way. I think it's only said by assholes. Period.
posted by miss lynnster at 3:24 PM on October 13, 2007


okay! Why do I give a shit? I'm not going to convince that person that women have a right to control their bodies and don't deserve to be punished for sex anyway, so why do I care if he engages with me or not?

The difference is that an advocate of torture is advocating something that affects you directly, i.e., anyone could be labeled an enemy combatant without recourse and subsequently tortured. Everyone is vulnerable. None of us are susceptible to abortion. And the advocates of banning abortion are free to practice their beliefs on themselves. With torture, not so much.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:19 PM on October 18, 2007


okay! Why do I give a shit? I'm not going to convince that person that women have a right to control their bodies and don't deserve to be punished for sex anyway, so why do I care if he engages with me or not?

The difference is that an advocate of torture is advocating something that affects you directly, i.e., anyone could be labeled an enemy combatant without recourse and subsequently tortured. Everyone is vulnerable. None of us are susceptible to abortion. And the advocates of banning abortion are free to practice their beliefs on themselves. With torture, not so much.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:21 PM on October 18, 2007


Torture has a long history...of not working.
posted by nickyskye at 6:06 PM on October 19, 2007


« Older The confluence of neoliberalism and...   |   New SyHersh video intvu Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments