Bin Laden's Death Doesn't Vindicate Torture

Jacoby also supports amnesty for illegal aliens.
What does this tell you?!

He does not belong on a conservative blog.

Pragmatic thinking has its place in a desperate struggle. Those that would create such villany in their attacks on the US cannot expect restraint at all time. We don't cause physical harm as they clearly demonstrated as to head loppings and the like. We can fight fire with fire and know that we have done right. You will not be able to charm these people into giving information. Remeber as enemy combatants in civilian clothing they are the same as spies and saboteurs which are executed under the Geneva Conventions so if we let them live and do enhanced stuff they are better off than dead and more useful to us.

Good grief...we can blow bodies apart, explosively rip arms and legs off, but it's immoral to pour water on someone's face in order to save lives? What kind of "morality" is that? Japanese waterboarding often resulted in death...a water hose stuffed down a throat or prisoners dunked upside-down and drowned. It seems that KSM endured 183 waterboardings and is still kicking. Give me a break!!

Hear, hear1 We also shouldn't "blow bodies apart, [or] explosively rip arms and legs off" either.

War is bad.
People who make war are bad people.
People who even _condone_ war are bad people.

You can't have it both ways.

Let's keep it short: What crap!

I don't know who said it first...but...NO POINT IN ARGUING WITH AN IDIOT.......wait till you or yours is at stack.....

The main reason the libs don't want to admit waterboarding works,is that hey would have to admit that Bush helped get obama ,when we all know it was obama all by himself.If you don't believe me ask him

jax33; You miss spelled Osama, it's easy to do, I do it all the time!

Does waterboarding inflict SEVERE pain or suffering? I say no. Ripping out fingernails or beheading now that's severe.


Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

Convention that we are not legally bound by...

Hey Jacoby up yours

So now we have Mr. Jacoby's opinion to go along with a few thousand others who's opinions differ widely on the subject of Waterboarding. To date no US Court or any International Court has ever found "Waterboarding" as used by the US as part of our enhanced interrogation of terrorists, to be torture.

I guess Mr. Jacoby and Barack Obama would rather offer them an ice cream cone or a chocolate donut if they agree to cooperate.

Seems to me that everyone who's been waterboarded is still living (or at least hasn't died from that). So while struggling to breathe is "uncomforatble", it's a lot more comfortable, I imagine, and less permanent, than having your head cut off, which is what they do to us!!!!!

But it gives them bad dreams for a long time to come, wet ones I'm guessing!

What foolish mental execises - - -
Man points a gun at me and says he'll kill me and mine - - I kick him in the crotch without argument or discussion or negotiations or explanations ! !
Have I interfered with some international law, robbed him of his future, caused him unnecessary pain and discomfort ? ? ? ?
You mental giants don't deserve the freedoms and privileges you enjoy ! ! ! ! ! !
Go live in some mongolian monastery & contemplate the nature of some inane thing or another ! ! ! ! Others are paying your way every day you live ! ! ! !

Senior: What an odd and inapplicable analogy. You refer to your oppositions ironically as mental giants when it is you who offers such an over simplification. Then you compound matters by suggesting they leave when you would most likely take great offence if the same was said to you. However, I do like how you use all the extra exclamation points and question marks to express emotion. It lends the comical affect that makes for the perfect finishing touch.

Otherwise, a more accurate scenario would be that someone did point a gun at you and after holding him off; you rounded up his associates and kicked them in the crotch while they were unable to defend themselves until they divulged the names of everyone involved in the crime and any future plans for crime they may know of.

The word 'Torture' is being applied too broadly. IMHO, Waterboarding falls somewhere between physical 'torture' and interrogation. The use of this word is sensationalism. Years ago, this word had the connotation of physical, pain generating techniques that left physical scars. In that context it is repugnant. However, placing a crime suspect in an emotionally trying interview is considered perfectly legitimate. Clearly, waterboarding creates an emotional condition of stress. It does not physically harm the victim. It is a technique that carries psychological interrogation to the edge that produces valuable information. Use of the word 'torture' with its emotional connotation is a way of biasing the argument in a specific direction.

Jeff,

Let's be clear on two points:

First, torture DOES work as a means of extracting timely, accurate and actionable intelligence. Those who claim otherwise are disingenuous and disregard history.

Second, the United States does not employ torture. I have met people who really have been tortured, and nothing we did to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or other jihadis subjected to enhanced interrogation methods rises to that level. Even waterboarding does not break the threshold of torture in the manner we use it--in fact, we subject most of our aviators and special operations troops to the same procedure during their Survival, Escape, Evasion and Rescue (SEER) training.

Now, if torture works, why won't we employ it? Not because of our humanitarian concern for our prisoners--any prisoner worthy of being tortured is unworthy of our concern or pity. No, we do not torture because of our concern for what it does to our people, and specifically the interrogators who have to employ it. Such methods are psychologically damaging to normal people, and we would not want to employ those who do not find it scarring.

That leaves enhanced interrogation techniques, which are, to be sure, unpleasant, disorienting, humiliating and scary. But one must consider that such methods are used only on prisoners who are believed to possess high value intelligence, and who have proven resistant to normal interrogation techniques. The purpose of such interrogations is not to build a viable prosecution (as is the case in criminal interrogations), but to extract actionable intelligence in a timely manner. We could, no doubt, gradually break down prisoners by ordinary, uncoercive methods, but the expiration date on the kind of intelligence we need may be measured in hours or days, not months or years. Enhanced, coercive interrogations are meant to accelerate the process, not to gratuitously inflict pain and suffering.

The benefits of using enhanced interrogations in a judicious, well-considered manner are obvious from the results. Not so obvious is the effect knowledge that the U.S. will use such methods has on Jihadis we take prisoner. Go back a decade, and al Qaeda detainees were confident, even cocky about their ability to resist our interrogation techniques. The taunted our interrogators to do their worst, because they "knew" the United States would not use coercive techniques on them. Now they know differently, which means they are more willing to talk immediately.

We’ve had a number of posts discussing the water boarding of servicemen as part of their training. One even described the attention paid to detail in using mock prison camp setting. It’s a good point but one thing strikes me and that is the psychological effect. How long are these servicemen kept in the prison camps? How many times are they water boarded? At any point in their training was there a time where they may lose their status as a trainee and become a permanent prisoner, possibly never seeing home again?

Jeff - war is a very hard business. It is sometimes difficult to see a clear path through the moral thickets that confront us when we are under attack by an absolutely unprincipled enemy who is dedicated to our annihilation. The conundrum always remains "how do we obtain vital information that will preserve the lives of thousands of our citizens/soldiers/friends when our enemy will not provide the information willingly"? Speaking for me personally - I am willing to see almost anything done to known enemies to save the lives of my family members, citizens, and friends...including yours. It is better to have you alive to challenge the morality of an interrogation technique than mourn your terrible death when it could have been prevented.

Torture is obviously wrong when used for purposes other than gleaning information that is intended to save lives. I almost always agree with you Jeff, but I take a different stand here. I do not view waterboarding as torture when you have several people working and overseeing the procedure. Killing OSBL has afforded us information that shows there was clear intent to harm us again this coming September 11. These people want to rid the world of infidels; Christians and Jews because we will not wrap our arms around their warpped sense of religion. We must do everything we can to protect ourselves and unfortunately we are at a place that means using means some find shameful. I have to believe that God understands and forgives those who must perform these horrible acts for the sake of others.

Everyone wants to run around claiming the moral high ground by claiming "no, of course, we shouldn't torture." Since 9/11, we have defined and redefined the term torture and subsequent techniques trying to cover our tail so we can still say we don't torture. Ridiculous - it's all ridiculous.
We shouldn't torture? Under any circumstance? I say, why not? By whose standards should we not torture? Not mine. I will say what no one wants to say or admit. No more pussyfooting around waterboarding and the issue. We SHOULD torture, albeit under certain circumstances. When torture is needed or thought to help in the safety of American life in a time of war, you bet. Go for it.
Does that make us "like" or "as low as" the enemy we are fighting in a war? NO, absolutely not. If we were like our enemy, we would be bombing and blowing up every city in the middle east just because we wanted to. We wouldn't try to spare civilian life; civilian life doesn't matter to our enemies. You can't compare the morality of the US govt in a time of war with the morality of the murderous barbarians who have been terrorizing humanity for decades. And, it's absurd to try and make such a comparison. Would you say the same for a mother in defending her children upon attack or kidnapping and a serial killer who ravages the countryside with bodies? Are their moralities comparable because the mother tortures her victim to find the whereabouts of a child and the serial killer tortures for pleasure and satisfaction? I think not.
We didn't ask for this war. We didn't start the deaths that initiated this war. But, we must protect our citizens and bring to justice those who have murdered our citizens.
Should we have tried Osama? KSM? NO, absolutely not. Do we try any of the combatants that are met with a bullet on the battlefield? No, of course not.
The legality of the issue depends on us. We may have ratified the international convention, but we did so with a stipulation. We reserved the right to our own sovereignty and laws on torture that would bind us, not international law. Therefore, the international convention holds no weight legally - it is a pinky swear, at best. We decide how to define torture and when or if we use it - not the UN. So, the only true argument anyone has against torture is a moral one. Again, I say by whose moral standards? Those who would see another ten thousand Americans die in the name of moral superiority because we don't torture? I think not...

I disagree. Water boarding is not torture; our own Special Operations Groups get water boarded during training. But the myth must be perpetuated by the Leftist who are in league with American hater’s around the world. Besides if I know that an individual being held by the US had vital information that could save 100’s possibly 1000’s of lives; I would use more that water boarding to get the information. If you can’t stomach it; get out of the way I do it! Other than that go watch a beheading in Saudi Arabia. You people are disgusting; you have no concept of what the world’s really like. But you think you have the right answers; well without substance; and the willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve success; you wouldn’t last a day in real world.

Apparently, you didn't read my post. I agree that waterboarding and torture, alike, should be used. I, also, think it is morally superior to use torture during times of war.
If torture could possibly end the fighting sooner, use it. That would be moral to our soldiers.
If torture could possibly lead to the heads of the enemy, use it. That would be moral to the victims of their crimes.
If torture could possibly save other Americans, use it. That would be moral to our countrymen.
If you reread my post, you will find I endorse the use of torture. I do not, however, play the semantics games with whether or not waterboarding is torture. I don't care if it is or isn't considered torture. I believe torture is a necessary useful tool of our government, and it is morally superior to use it.

What a sissy. My son is going to have to be water boarded as part of his training to be a pilot. We all understand human rights. How do you justify killing someone in war? I'll give you a choice, a little water boarding or a bullet in the brain. You pick.

Of course torture is wrong. The point is sometimes doing wrong to prevent even something worse becomes necessary. Read the "Prince" or the "Discourse" of Nicholo Machiavelli, if you don't understand the following questions which I am betting you will not answer:

I would no doubt 'torture' a murderous terrorist to save my wife's life and the lives of my children and grandchildren. I will do the same and would 'torture' a murderous terrorist if there was no other way to save the life of third party innocents. In my judgment the terrorist has become an animal that has forfeited his rights by his murderous actions, so I would accept the criticism and the consequences and make his torture and death my personal choice. This is a case where an individual would be justified in accepting that the end result justifies the means and in the name of justice and self-defense become judge and executioner. I am certain others would choose differently, that is their personal choice not soil themselves and commit such a heart rending deed of torture, and they would defend primarily their individual honor and purity, their untainted conscience and their righteous beliefs in their superiority as individuals over the rights and the lives of other innocent people under similar circumstances. As for me, call me a criminal, call me a torturer, call me a monster, call me anything you want, it does not matter. I would definitely save the victim even if I condemn myself. You may call a mother that protect her child a barbarian but you can never call her a weasel and a coward.

Answer this with either: Yes or No. "If in order to save your father, your mother, your wife, your children and yes even a stranger you have no choice but to torture someone, would you do it?"

I know what I would do. I am betting that your answer is No, or you will avoid or not answer by calling it a hypothetical question, or you would not know what to do until confronted with the specific question at that that specific moment, or ask yourself what would Jesus do in my place? or argue that you are just a layman and not the governments. Or will find any excuse not to give an honest and straight answer.

And of course, the government is us. If you don't believe me I invite you to read the following article entitled State or Private-Law Society: https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#search/State+or+Private+Law+Society/12fd5087711bd469 After you have studied and understood, as I have, "The Problem of Social Order" then perhaps you will begin to understand, going beyond your totally narrow understanding of life and illusory tradition, how the real world operates. If you are still not sure I particularly recommend the mind-blowing collection of Hans-Hermann Hoppe http://mises.org/store/Hoppe-Collection-C46.aspx and once you have educated yourself perhaps you will understand why letting your parents, your wife, your children and other human be killed without any response is the most disgusting, shameful and cowardly thing a human being can do. Shame on you.

Here's the thing: If you "waterboard" a bunch of guys and none of them say the same thing - then it didn't work. However, if they all very reluctantly and under deuress say the same thing - then I'd say it did work. Once it worked and you have solid information yo can use that to surprise others in the chain with that knowledge and maybe get more intel without using extraordinary means.

Thanks Jeff for telling all of us about this horrendous event. What Americans don't get is that the military Industrila complex or Bush Obama handlers can use Selas to commit murder against anyone they determine is a threat. That is the power of a fascist police state. Sieg Hiel America as that is what we have become. Chambliss of Georgia is nothing but a stooge for this process. He would have loved the SS and the Nazis in Germany. He certainly appears to be one himself.

Did Bin Laden deserve to die? If guilty, yes but we had no declaration of war aginst any nation do we? Then such acts are nothing but premeditated murder. We are no better than what we accused him of being. Cold blooded murder in defense of liberty is neither a defense nor a protection of liberty unless war is formally declared by Congress.

Congress authorized the use of force of our military. Are we going to continue a semantics game? Are we to honestly continue with this "you didn't say mother may I" load of crap? When our military fires a weapon against an enemy, they are at war! Or, are we to believe they should stop, put down their guns and ask the enemy to be handcuffed and await trial?
We did not send our military into battle to simply make some arrests. We authorized our government to use our military to use their weapons. Is it war? How can it be anything but war?
No more word games. No more hiding from the truth. The cowardice in this country from calling a spade a spade is disgusting.
Bin Laden on trial? What a joke!

Water-boarding is not torture. It is a lawful, useful technique that produces results. All of our special forces have been water-boarded as part of their training. Have we tortured them? This arose when the left, along with the media, were attacking everything Bush for political purposes. Now that their guy is in office, all the complaining about Bush's policies have disappeared, which proves it was all done for political gain. Doesn't matter that it is despicable, the dems will make a political issue out of ANYTHING regardless of how it effects anything else.

When the ends justify the means, you have, in fact, become another bin Laden.

Fatuous nonsense. A little lonely on that high mountain of self righteousness you solely inhabit?

What a simple nitwit - -

There are three ethical arguments that the Pro-EITers inevitably fall back on. (1) EIT is effective. (2) EIT is a much lesser abuse than those employed by our enemies. (3) We do it to our own soldiers.

(1) This is not an ethical argument as Jacoby's Saddam shredder analogy effectively points out.

(2) An argument for a comparatively lesser evil is in itself an admission of evil-doing albeit lesser. It is not an argument for good.

(3) Torture works though an increase in intensity and duration until the experience becomes intolerable. A scheduled class with a known limit to duration/intensity never approaches such psychological limits of tolerance. No one experiences waterboarding unless it is applied by the bad guys with an open, unlimited end. I experience waterboarding everyday. Here, I'll take another drink of my water right now.

When these three arguments fail the final non-argument is insistence that Waterboarding is NOT torture ... Because. There are many posts that say simply that.

If torture could possibly end the fighting sooner, use it. That would be moral to our soldiers.
If torture could possibly lead to the heads of the enemy, use it. That would be moral to the victims of their crimes.
If torture could possibly save other Americans, use it. That would be moral to our countrymen.

Notice, I didn't say torture would be effective - only that it possibly could be.
Notice, I am not basing the use of torture on whether our enemies use it.
Notice, I am not referencing the use or nonuse of waterboarding as a training procedure for our soldiers.
And, finally notice, I am not debating the categorization of waterboarding as torture - I am suggesting torture be used.

It is moral to use torture in a time of war.

The comments section of this article, and the similar one that Chapman wrote, are remarkable for the passion with which EIT is defended. I see similarities between Pro-EIT adherents and Pro-Choicers. They both are passionate in their opinion. They both are insistent that it is a just right. They both elucidate the practical benefits of it. They both hold by unwavering conviction their underlying premises: "Waterboarding is NOT torture," "The fetus is NOT a Human Being." They both aggressively condemn any dissenting opinion that question the validity and therefore the morality of their basic premises. To question the morality of their pet causes is in itself an act of immorality.



I even wonder if the two positions display the attributes of "Group Think"?

Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977) Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment (New York Free Press), explores the concept of ‘Group Think,’ Eight symptoms of Group Think are listed below:

1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

4. Excessive Stereotyping: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.

5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.

7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.

8. Mind guards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

group think? sorry wrong people. we value individualism above all!

but let me ask YOU this;

which would you prefer;

1. waterboarding were you know you will live

2. a rusty scimitar where you know you will die?

You argue for moral relativism. See my post above.


At its very essence, war is a group activity. The specific issue of EIT is carried out entirely for the good of the group, not the individual interogator.