Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register

should never be used

reviewed by Ridgewalker

Ridgewalker
05/26/2009

should never be used 1

I'm a hedonist...not in the sense that I put my pleasure above that of others...but in that I believe that large decisions should be made based on the overall long-term perceived consequences of an action. I also believe that we shouldn't separate "torture" with "the threat of torture". When we see a video of an American denouncing America, they certainly were facing the threat of torture. Do we get reliable information from captured terrorists? Of course we do. Most recently, plots to level Chicago and L.A. were uncovered. I don't believe that there is any sane person who would deny they we are in a pre-holocaust predicament. There are some fucked-up people who are plotting, as we speak, to cause horrors on our soil. Who wants to look back, after the fact, and have to admit that "being nice" caused the "most good" only for the ones reveling in sending us back to the Dark Ages?

15 minutes of instilling fear and non-lethal pain in a handful of people intent on killing, versus the deaths of thousands of innocent people (American or otherwise) doesn't seem like much of a choice. What would you do if you caught the person who kidnapped a loved one. What would you do if you needed to find out where they were? Personally, I think I'd do whatever I had to do to extract that information. I'm sorry, but life isn't all about rating good movies and bad movies, to Twitter or not to Twitter. At that level, there are no threats.

Most Americans value a single human life. Most Americans live in a world where their comforts and security aren't threatened on a moment-by-moment basis. We live good lives. But, this is not how much of the world lives. Not knowing this is what makes us naive and vulnerable. Obviously, we have been close to disaster on more occasions than we will ever be told about. Why? Because there are people out there...people who understand the consequences of doing nothing...people we will never see on the news or read about...people who will fade into history with no one being able to thank them for our safety and comfort. The fact that we have only absorbed minor incidents since 9/11 isn't because "they" have decided to back off. If a threat of torture, or torture, itself, is required, then so be it. Personally, I don't place much, if any, value in the life of anyone who's sole purpose is to kill innocent people. And I question anyone who's priorities are so warped that they give more compassion to a terrorist than to his/her victims, or potential victims.

Never? No...not never...

Join to vote! 6 Helpful / 0 Funny / 5 Agree / 3 Disagree
Showing 56 Comments
You must be logged in to comment. login now.
Astromike commented 179 days ago.
(Edited 179 days ago)
Awesome review Ridge.

Dealing with the issue of torture will always be complicated. Waterboarding is a brutal interrogation method, but it has worked. It was CIA waterboarding that got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to spew usefull info, and I dont feel sorry for that guy at all.

callitdowntheline75 commented 179 days ago.
Brilliant review, Ridge =)

Ridgewalker commented 179 days ago.
(Edited 177 days ago)
Thanks, Mike. Me either. He's a cockroach.

Hey, callit! Thanks, man!

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
"Do we get reliable information from captured terrorists? Of course we do. Most recently, plots to level Chicago and L.A. were uncovered. I don't believe that there is any sane person who would deny they we are in a pre-holocaust predicament."

As a matter of fact, torture has NEVER been considered a reliable source of information.

"Who wants to look back, after the fact, and have to admit that "being nice" caused the "most good" only for the ones reveling in sending us back to the Dark Ages?"

It's not about "being nice" but sticking to our values - even in the face of frightening times like these.

"15 minutes of instilling fear and non-lethal pain in a handful of people intent on killing, versus the deaths of thousands of innocent people (American or otherwise) doesn't seem like much of a choice."

It doesn't seem much like a choice because it's a false choice. Are there no other ways to obtain information without torture?

"What would you do if you caught the person who kidnapped a loved one. What would you do if you needed to find out where they were?"

I don't know, but I doubt I would torture. I believe that torture is illegal and immoral - regardless of when, how, why or on whom it's used.

"Personally, I don't place much, if any, value in the life of anyone who's sole purpose is to kill innocent people."

Shall we strike back at those who devalue human lives by devaluing the human lives of our enemies? If so, how are we any better than they are in that respect?

"And I question anyone who's priorities are so warped that they give more compassion to a terrorist than to his/her victims, or potential victims."

Opposing torture has nothing to do with having compassion for terrorists, but for standing up against a morally bankrupt policy.

In World War II, high-ranking Japanese officers were convicted for torture because they used waterboarding on their prisoners - US troops. What realities about torture have changed since then? Do you not think that it's hypocritical to say: "We don't want our enemies torturing our troops, but it's OK for us to use the same torture techniques when we feel frightened by terrorists"?

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
(Edited 179 days ago)
Our enemies have cut heads off their prisoners, and stuck bamboo between fingernails. We dont go near that far. Also the key words are "high ranking (al quida) terrorists." We do not interrogate/torture every terrorist we have confined.

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
"Our enemies have cut heads off their prisoners, and stuck bamboo between fingernails. We dont go near that far. "

Great, but we shouldn't even go so far as to use waterboarding.

"Also the key words are "high ranking (al quida) terrorists" not every terrorist we have confined. "

It doesn't matter who is waterboarded. If it was wrong for high-ranking Japanese officers to use waterboarding in WWII, it's wrong for us.

Ridgewalker commented 179 days ago.
Okay, so when information is given...at that point...no one knows if it is reliable. But, when followed as a lead, can you, or anyone, actually say that information extracted in a session has NEVER been of value? How the hell would you know that? Dream on, Ringo. That's very naive...but I understand...you're young. Same with your comment on values. Nothing is absolute...not even values. Would you rather see people die than sacrifice your values in an extreme situation? It's people who don't give a rat's ass about your values (which, I assure you WILL change many times in the course of your life) who protect you for the greater good. And, lastly, do you think so little of Americans that...like blood thirsty animals...they go straight for torture? Very naive, man...As a point of clarity, I wish that such extreme measures never had to be taken...but then, again, I'm not naive about this stuff.

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
The Geneva Convention was created after WW2. I'm sure those Japanese officer's (the same country that was recruiting kamikazi piolots) methods of water boarding were quite more EXTREME compared to what the U.S. is currently doing. Which is why are country (liberal media), America is the only country making a big stink about it.

Lena commented 179 days ago.
Spain is investigating key members of the Bush Administration whose actions enabled and authorized torture. The officials under investigation are: former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, chief of staff and the principal legal adviser to Vice-President Dick Cheney; John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer; Douglas Feith, former Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy; and lawyers Jim Haynes and Jay Bybee.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyI d=102474382

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
Ridge:

"Okay, so when information is given...at that point...no one knows if it is reliable. But, when followed as a lead, can you, or anyone, actually say that information extracted in a session has NEVER been of value? How the hell would you know that?"

In general, the information obtained through torture is not reliable.

"That's very naive"

It's naive to recognize that torture is illegal and immoral to use?

"but I understand...you're young"

Age has nothing to do with my views.

"Nothing is absolute...not even values. "

Normally, I'd agree with you. I generally see more gray than black and white. But not on this issue. There are some things that are ALWAYS wrong - regardless of the issue.

"Would you rather see people die than sacrifice your values in an extreme situation?"

What's the point of having values if we eliminate them during every crisis?

"It's people who don't give a rat's ass about your values (which, I assure you WILL change many times in the course of your life) who protect you for the greater good."

It's not MY values, but the values this country claims as its own: treating prisoners in our care with basic respect.

"And, lastly, do you think so little of Americans that...like blood thirsty animals...they go straight for torture? Very naive, man...As a point of clarity, I wish that such extreme measures never had to be taken...but then, again, I'm not naive about this stuff."

I'm not either.

Astro:

"The Geneva Convention was created after WW2."

Whenever it was created, the Japanese officers responsible for the waterboarding were convicted of war crimes.

"I'm sure those Japanese officer's (the same country that was recruiting kamikazi piolots) methods of water boarding were quite more EXTREME compared to what the U.S. is currently doing."

Wikipedia:
'This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#World_Wa r_II

Doesn't sound any different than the methods we use.

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
So you found one country. They can try and investigate all they want to. They will not be successfull. They did not torture. Its only going to make Spain look bad. The era of pointing the finger at Bush/U.S. military/CIA has wained world wide.

Ridgewalker commented 179 days ago.
(Edited 179 days ago)
This issue...and opposition to it...reminds me of a case study with an autistic and self-destructive 8 year-old boy. I worked with the man who conducted the study. The boy was totally dysfunctional. He would bite himself to the bone and would bash his head until he cracked his skull. He couldn't tie his laces, dress or feed himself because his time was consumed with wounding himself. This man, a Behavioral Psychologist, was called in to help. After observing the boy, he brought in a cattle prod. Everytime the boy made a motion to injure himself, he got zapped. OUCH! Bad man! But, in less than a week, the boy discontinued his self-destructive behavior and was then able to focus on the basics and learned to tie his shoes...learned to dress and feed himself. It was agreed upon that he would never run a multi-billion dollar company...but he became functional. Now, the question is, was the Dr. cruel, or compassionate? For the greater good, I believe he was compassionate and I know that he didn't enjoy doing what he did. But, it's just an example...one that people like Ringo just haven't lived long enough to experience and fold in to the mix of their values and experiences. I understand this. I was once like you, Ringo: focussing on getting rid of the Bad and not taking into consideration what is necessary to sustain the Good.

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
Astro:
"They can try and investigate all they want to. They will not be successfull. They did not torture."

If they waterboarded, they tortured.

Ridge:
"one that people like Ringo just haven't lived long enough to experience and fold in to the mix of their values and experiences."

I see. You can't argue the issue of torture effectively, so you're playing the patronizing "my opponent is too young to understand" card. Pathetic.

"I was once like you, Ringo: focussing on getting rid of the Bad and not taking into consideration what is necessary to sustain the Good."

What is necessary to "sustain the good" - becoming evil to fight evil?

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
I know what waterboarding is buddy. The U.S. does this no longer then 20 seconds. they know what they are doing. They would never intentionally kill a prisoner. They know how far they can go. NO prisoners have ever died by the U.S. military using waterboarding.

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
"I know what waterboarding is buddy."

So do I: torture.

"The U.S. does this no longer then 20 seconds. they know what they are doing. They would never intentionally kill a prisoner. They know how far they can go. NO prisoners have ever died by the U.S. military using waterboarding."

While that's all good to hear, none of it proves that waterboarding isn't torture. Torture does not have to kill in order to qualify as torture:

'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.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCAT#Definition_of_to rture

Waterboarding is torture. If we waterboard a prisoner - any prisoner - for twenty seconds, that's twenty seconds too long.

Ridgewalker commented 179 days ago.
Yes, age and experience are factors, here. I understand your POV. You are fixated on one POV. I'm not patronizing or dismissing you, man. I was just aiming to try to create a broader vision...which I know is futile, because I was just like you. No one could have changed my mind about certain issues back in the 60s. But if you can't see the point in inconveniencing a few people...in light of what their intentions were...to save the lives of innocent people, well then, I would highly recommend that you not be put in charge of investigating terrorist activities.

Gotta run...

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
(Edited 179 days ago)
I need to remind you that waterboarding is still being debated. There for it is has NOT officially been ruled as torture. Case in point, the recent story of the CIA using waterboarding on high ranking terrorists was prefectly legal. Just ask Nancy Pelosi, who claimed she wasn't informed. Now, If wateboarding becomes banned and a new law is created banning its use, then we have a whole new argument.

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
"Yes, age and experience are factors, here."

I don't see how the legality and morality of torture are affected by age.

"I understand your POV. You are fixated on one POV."

There only IS one POV: torture is wrong.

"But if you can't see the point in inconveniencing a few people...in light of what their intentions were...to save the lives of innocent people, well then, I would highly recommend that you not be put in charge of investigating terrorist activities."

It's a false choice to say that either we save innocent people OR we waterboard. Are there not other ways to obtain information without torture?

My objections to torture, once again, have nothing to do with inconveniencing or feeling compassion for terrorists. The morality of torture doesn't magically change according to the situation. If it was wrong during WWII, it's wrong now. Period.

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
"I need to remind you that waterboarding is still being debated. There for it is has NOT officially been ruled as torture."

OK...it's being debated. So what?

As a matter of fact, waterboarding is torture, according to the definition established by the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT):

'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.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCAT#Definition_of_to rture

Waterboarding is defined thusly:

'Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.'

The effects of waterboarding:

'In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[2] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Waterboarding fits the definition of torture.

The UNCAT applies to the US because we signed the convention.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCAT#Signatories_of_C AT

Waterboarding IS torture.

Ridgewalker commented 179 days ago.
So, we've come to it:"There only IS one POV: torture is wrong". That's where I'll say you are wrong. One POV indicates narrow-mindedness. There are no absolutes...

Now, I REALLY have to run...thanks for the debate. Feel free to carry on without me...

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
" So, we've come to it:"There only IS one POV: torture is wrong". That's where I'll say you are wrong. One POV indicates narrow-mindedness. There are no absolutes..."

It's not narrow-minded to connect the dots and see that the definition of torture hasn't changed in sixty years. If torture was wrong during WWII, it's wrong now.

FranksWildYears commented 179 days ago.
I'm reminded of that line from Apocalypse Now - "Charging a man with murder in the middle of all of this is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500".

Why is torture unacceptable when dropping bombs on indiscriminate targets from way up in the sky permissible? There are hundreds of weird; seemingly absurd lines drawn in the middle of a war aren't there? You can kill a man without any second guessing as to your methods, motives or impacts, but if you capture him he must be treated with humanity and attention paid to his comfort and dignity.

Sadam Hussien was taken alive for the purposes of execution, his trial being merely a formality of accountability.

It's a tough, ugly world. A civilized society has a hard time remaining so when enters into the fray. Maybe we are hanging on to an illusion of our decency by refraining from torture. Maybe we should embrace the notion of an eye for an eye and just get the job done, as completely and as efficiently as possible.

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
(Edited 179 days ago)
Have those members of the CIA that "tortured" that prisoner with waterboarding been tried for war crimes? NO. They still have their jobs and Pelosi was embarassed over the whole issue.

Bottomline.....your entitled to your opinion, and so am I, but I think the current ratings show how most people feel over the issue.

3 Helpful/3 Agree and 0 Disagree

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
"Why is torture unacceptable when dropping bombs on indiscriminate targets from way up in the sky permissible?"

I don't like bombing targets from above either, but it's not the subject at hand.

"You can kill a man without any second guessing as to your methods, motives or impacts, but if you capture him he must be treated with humanity and attention paid to his comfort and dignity."

Would you want to be treated with humanity and dignity if you were captured by the enemy?

"Sadam Hussien was taken alive for the purposes of execution, his trial being merely a formality of accountability."

Nevertheless, it was right to at least give him a fair trial.

"It's a tough, ugly world. A civilized society has a hard time remaining so when enters into the fray. Maybe we are hanging on to an illusion of our decency by refraining from torture"

It may be a tough and ugly world, but that doesn't mean that we have to compromise our values in the name of security.

"Maybe we should embrace the notion of an eye for an eye and just get the job done, as completely and as efficiently as possible."

The "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" philosophy is morally bankrupt. If we repaid like for like, we would not be any better than our enemies.

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
"Have those members of the CIA that "tortured" that prisoner with waterboarding been tried for war crimes? NO. "

Not yet. That doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. If they tortured, they deserve to be tried for war crimes.

"Bottomline.....your entitled to your opinion, and so am I, but I think the current ratings show how most people feel over the issue."

I'm not interested in the current ratings. One million people could say the same thing and still be completely wrong.

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
I never said u or me or they were right or wrong. I was just showing the results at the time. I said that you had your opinion and I have mine (agree to disagree). If you think someone is wrong because they do not agree with you is silly.

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
" I never said u or me or they were right or wrong. I was just showing the results at the time. I said that you had your opinion and I have mine (agree to disagree). If you think someone is wrong because they do not agree with you is silly. "

I don't think you're wrong because you disagree with me. I think you're wrong because the evidence seems to be against your position. But we can agree to disagree.

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
I gave you the evidence. When I said no CIA members have been tried or arrested (it occured back in 2002). They would have been terminated and arrested if what you said was correct.

"Not yet. That doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. If they tortured, they deserve to be tried for war crimes."

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
"I gave you the evidence. When I said no CIA members have been tried or arrested (it occured back in 2002). They would have been terminated and arrested if what you said was correct."

They haven't been tried YET, but it doesn't mean it won't happen. Under international treaty, torture is illegal.

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
(Edited 179 days ago)
I stand corrected after further reasearch I found that subsequently, the United States government released a memorandum written in 2002 by the Office of Legal Counsel that came to the conclusion that waterboarding did not constitute torture and could be used to interrogate subjects. It stated that "in order for pain or suffering to rise to the level of torture, the statute requires that it be severe" and that waterboarding did not cause severe pain or suffering either physically or mentally.

In January 2009 U.S. President Obama banned the use of waterboarding (big surprise). So prior to 2009 any CIA official that used it will be safe.

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
(Edited 179 days ago)
"Nevertheless, it was right to at least give him a fair trial".

A brutal dictator like Saddam didnt even deserve a fair trial. Can you imagine if he was found innocent, released?

numbah16tdhaha commented 179 days ago.
Could we all quit quoting each other? Damn...

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
"I stand corrected after further reasearch I found that subsequently, the United States government released a memorandum written in 2002 by the Office of Legal Counsel that came to the conclusion that waterboarding did not constitute torture and could be used to interrogate subjects. It stated that "in order for pain or suffering to rise to the level of torture, the statute requires that it be severe" and that waterboarding did not cause severe pain or suffering either physically or mentally. "

The definition of waterboarding disagrees with this memo:
'In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[2] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.'

I don't know on what basis the government concluded that waterboarding doesn't cause pain or suffering, but the government was wrong. Waterboarding IS torture, and torture IS wrong - and it was wrong before this 2002 memo.

"A brutal dictator like Saddam didnt even deserve a fair trial. Can you imagine if he was found innocent, released?"

EVERYONE deserves a fair trial - even Saddam Hussein.

numbah16tdhaha commented 179 days ago.
I could have sworn I raised an objection to all these quotes just now...

Astromike commented 179 days ago.
(Edited 179 days ago)
Ur absolutely right numbah, that is annoying. Sorry man. I just got caught up in the moment lol.

numbah16tdhaha commented 179 days ago.
Thanks, my friend. That was wearing on me almost as much as Ringo there...

ProgrammerRingo commented 179 days ago.
"Torturing a criminal is okay "

Nobody should be tortured - regardless of who they are or what they've done.

numbah16tdhaha commented 179 days ago.
Ringo, if you use quotes one more time, I'm going to waterboard you...

Wiseguy commented 178 days ago.
(Edited 178 days ago)
This issue has nothing to do with right and wrong, It’s pure politics. Now that the Libs have the power, they want to make sure that the G.O.P never gets it back. They're setting a precedence that is very dangerous.

FranksWildYears commented 178 days ago.
For some people EVERYTHING is pure politics.

Wiseguy commented 178 days ago.
Do you disagree with what I commented on? Or are you just being a smart ass again?

FranksWildYears commented 178 days ago.
I think its a FAR bigger moral issue than simple partisan political positioning can handle. But if that's all you got then that's all you got.

Wiseguy commented 178 days ago.
I thought it was the latter. Tkx

pugwash01 commented 178 days ago.
(Edited 178 days ago)
Wow people slow down and think about what you are writting. Regardless of the how much I think, It is hurtful, damaging or morally incorrect. I have one question for parrents and one for non. For the parrent; if this happened to your Son or Daughter how right is it then? For Non parrents; If this happened to your Mother, Dad, Brother or Sister how right is it then? Torture is torture and if your constitution or Goverment does not allow it for it's Citizens: what right do you have to do it to someone elses!!! Hey I understand why it was done, I'm ex- forces and understand the importance of fresh, good information in situations of national security. BUT not if it goes against the very core of what your country stands for as rights for its own people; not forgetting the moral aspects. Everyone has a right to express their point of view but lets do it the right way!! ;) (This is not aimed at anyone!)

EschewObfuscation commented 178 days ago.
Which is less deplorable: water-boarding a known terrorist in our custody (which we know worked and saved lives) or the rendition which took place with much greater frequency under previous administrations, including Clinton"s? Not aimed at anyone.

pugwash01 commented 178 days ago.
(Edited 178 days ago)
BOTH are deplorable!
When it comes to terrorists the USA has recently entered this horrible limelight with great magnitude, of which I wish nobody should have endured. But justifying torture because of maybe 1 possible help-line is not morally correct. My country has probably been responsible for allot of torture. But it has also learned that nine times out of ten it doesn’t always give credible evidence or help-lines. But it has proven that good intelligence by the old fashioned method of being a detective pays off with good solid results! Terrorism by it’s self is extremely hard to stop and most groups are from scattered cells. Torturing these individuals normally has NO effect because they are part of a much bigger picture. Plus they are normally prepared to a point when it comes to torture and play martyr for their cause! We need to be very careful when we use an excuse for an action.

ProgrammerRingo commented 178 days ago.
Opposition has nothing to do with politics, but with standing on principle: that this country is better than using torture to achieve our objectives.

Wiseguy commented 178 days ago.
You are a good little Liberal, Ringo, I mean that sincerely, but in DC, politics has everything to do with it. It always has, and it always will. The Left hates Bush and his gang so much that they want to go back and prosecute them as war criminals. The left is after more power…not principle.

Astromike commented 178 days ago.
Especially Pelosi

ProgrammerRingo commented 178 days ago.
Have you met every liberal in the country?

EschewObfuscation commented 178 days ago.
ok, pug and ringo, the point is that prior to the Bush Administration, we subjected captured terrorists to "rendition" where we didn't actually "do" the torturing, if that definition applies, but "we" turned them over to say, Egypt, where they were tortured (much worse than waterboarding) and we benefitted from the information gained.

We know that, on three occasions, we waterboarded captured terrorists and they gave us correct and accurate information about impending terror attacks and, by so doing, we averted the attacks and saved many, many innocent lives. So now, both are deplorable but, in fighting a war against terrorists, we might just capture more who have valuable information. We don't need the information? Is it the moral high ground when we bury the innocent dead but maintain our honor?

I don't think the answer to this is tidy and simplistic, like a bumper sticker. Like what Obama is saying. I don't know what the right answer is but if one of my loved ones is killed by such a terrorist and it turns out we "could" have gotten the information, Obama will have some difficult questions to answer. Theoretically.

ProgrammerRingo commented 178 days ago.
Even if we obtained correct intel through waterboarding, torture is still wrong. Rape doesn't become the right thing to do just because it benefits the rapist.


EschewObfuscation commented 178 days ago.
And it's good you are steadfast in your belief. I hope you never face that dilemma. Politicians don't usually like dilemmas, though. I guess you got the right guy in the White House for your beliefs. I'm horrified by him at times.

Victor83 commented 177 days ago.
Great review Ridge. As I said elsewhere, the military and intel professionals know what they are doing. Prince Big Ears and the bleeding hearts do NOT know better.

Victor83 commented 177 days ago.
In fact...EXCELLENT review!

pugwash01 commented 177 days ago.
I know I disagree with your view with torture EschewObfuscation and I believe you have some good points; however I will always say Torture is torture and if you don't torture your own people, for Intel, then you should not torture people from other countries for Intel!(It’s a moral ground for me!) I take your point of view and I accept that like a few of my senior ranked officers of past we agreed to disagree. I'm glad you too put out your thoughts, as this is what makes RIA so successful.
Showing 56 Comments
About This Reviewer
By the Numbers