The Political Slot: "Torture and the Terrorist"

["Sixhits"]

The use of torture by the US is absolutely indefensible. In endorsing such practices abroad we open ourselves up to such abuse domestically.

I've often said that I don't mind torturing terrorists if it will get us the information that we need, but in reality, I am not much for torture.  That said, why don't I ever hear anyone attack those countries that use torture on our soldiers?  Like the gross inhumane torture that our POW's endured during WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc.  I never hear the left speak of these things.  Only that we shouldn't be doing it.  Personally, I'd like to see us attacking the foreign policy of nations that use torture on our soldiers BEFORE I start talking about how bad it is that we use torture.

I'll hazard a guess as to why. Perhaps it's because we are supposed to be better than them.

Or perhaps it's because we as American citizens have a duty to police our government's actions. Or perhaps it's because you just don't listen to orgs like Amnesty International.

But I like to think the reason why you're hearing so much criticism of our Government re: torture nowadays is because we're doing it on a near official policy level.


It actually gets me pretty pissed off to see people defending our use of torture. What, the bad guys do it so it's cool? Jesus. Worse, we know that torture does not produce good intel. The real world isn't the world of Jack Bauer.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Puzzled as to why no one will answer the question.
What is the viable, sucessful, PRACTICAL alternative?

All im hearing are reasons why its bad..i STARTED by agreeng with that premise.
I KNOW its bad.

What do you replace it WITH?
Hell, letting it go, and not applying the means to the end turns out badly as well...
Ask anyone whos lost a father son, mother or child at the hands of 'insurgents' in their own country, who are just meaning to disrupt and STOP the rebuilding process in its tracks.

Sure, its not the world of Jack Bauer, but neither is it the world of "LAW And Order" where bringing the bad guy ten glasses of water, till he has to piss, and then using the bathroom as a motivator to get the info you need.

And SixHits, im sorry that asking difficult questions 'really pisses you off'.
I gave the premise already..Torture is not good..who is arguing that? No One.
Problem is, people getting to thinking that the solutions or easy..or not messy.
Solutions like this are NEVer easy..theyre ALWAYS messy.

What really pisses ME off, is people that take a Complex Moral dilemma, just to take an indignant stance, simplify it straight into black and white, at the same time, actively NOT telling me what goes in its place.

(although id willing grant most of those posting here that they make GREAT points..problems is, they arent offering solutions.)

Saying that we're 'supposed to be better' than them, does NOTHING in practical terms.
Being better doesnt have to mean that you cant make difficult moral gambles...and perhaps the assumption that we ARE better is what misguides us in the first place...
In this particular issue (torture for intel) Ive asked you to get off the fence to make a definitive statement on how to get intel, when its CRITICAL. Simply "Being Better" doesnt cut it in their eyes as a motivation to tell us their plans.

I think that its a great question to ask who Jesus would torture. Would he turn the other cheek so that the opposition can succesfully detonate their IED at a mosque, where two hundred people are worshiping God or training to protect, repair and secure their country? Or would he trade the discomfort of someone that meant harm, to save two hundred? And claim that the dead were Martyrs and lambs without the need for protection?  Im not being sarcastic when i say..thats a hell of a question..and you have to be able to asnwer that definitively in order to take a superior moral stance on its use...

Im not sure any of us are that insightful....


(sorta sounds like im being agressive, Im really not. Im not suporting torture, and im not attacking those who've commented on it...just to make it clear..im sort of 'devils advocating' to perhaps clear up my own views on it all)

[BFG]

Morning all

hehe sorry shiex but the call of sleep in Europe cut my responce to you short!! But i think its a great question and one id like to try and respond to... but bear with me!!

As with most things i think we need to break the argument down into the different cirucumstances and situations where what we're talking about takes (or is alleged to take) place. Ok that wasn't clear - let me do my theoretical situations again:

1. Your theoretical example was a goodone. lets look through it.

Please imagine you are the commander of a convoy that delivers infrasctructure parts. You have in your cell, someone that has been handed over by his peers (perhaps for money) and you are suspecting that he has connections to an imminent attack that is rumored to target YOUr convoy, and YOUR men.

A man has been handed over (perhaps for money) by his peers. If money is involved then the legitimacy of the whole situation is instantly deeply flawed. I could be a guy in need of cash - i know the US wants info and i have a neigbour i don't like. So i tell them i have overheard him talking about attacks and job done - i get money and my nasty neigbour is removed.
Say money wasn't involved though. Lets just say his peers genuinely have information that has led them to suspect he has information valuable to you. i don't want to put words into your mouth but your question was basically what do we do with him? or rather to what point are we willing to do anything to extract that information?
We have no hard proof about what this man may or may not know. Yes he might have information that could stop an attack against your men, but at the same time he may not have any information.

Im stressed, im scared and i don't want either myself or my men to be blown up. I want this son of a bitch to tell me everything. In the interrogation he simply repeats that he 'dosn't know anything'. I think he's lying... he gets a kicking and he's asked again.. still nothing. he gets a second heavier beating and is then forced into stress possitions... still nothing and so it goes on. Does he really know anything or have we got the wrong man? After the third beating a mock execution is carried out. The guy is a shaking wreck begging for mercy and has defecated himself.
Still no information... so is he just a tough nut to crack or do you keep on going?

Lets move it around a bit and pretend our theoretical detainee is actually an insurgent and has been involved in a planned road side bomb attack on your convoy. - The problem is we don't know that! If under interrogation he admits to somthing - how do you know what is true or false and wheather he just couldn't take the pain anymore?


IF a forign goverment believed that you had information about what they deemed to be terrorist activity and they interrogated you how would you feel. You keep telling them you don't know what they are talkinga about and that they have the wrong guy... But they are scared and they are under attack. They need information to stop these attacks - so they beat you til your unconsiouse. After months of interrogations and torture one of two things might happen. 1: you can't take it anymore and will confess to whatever they want as long as the pain stops. 2: they realise they have the wrong guy and they let you go.

So where does that get us? Lets say that you do get 'the right man' he has information but he won't talk. you torture him and eventually you get information from you. Your convoy is ready and expecting the attack and takes the necessary actions to counter it. Is that the ideal outcome? - thats a genuine question i really don't know.

This is seriously difficult. We are basically asking is it ok to torture somone if it means saving other peoples lives? We can't ask that though - we don't know if that person has the information that could save that persons life.

If our detainee was innocent... When we release him what do you think he will think of us? Here he has an occupying force that invaded his country to remove a dictator who did horrific things to his people - the stories of torture and killings are grusome. And yet here is this occupying force doing much the same thing
- doing the very thing that they are suposidly fighting against!

Whats the odds he does everything he can to help the people fight against this invading force - they are no different from the dictator and his cronies before - they say one thing but do another.

Solutions? I don't know. Shiex to be honest i can't answer your question. I don't know what i would do. Its difficult to imagine yourself in that situation - and im not going to pretend that when im scared and angry and i have someone before me in a case of "him or me" then im not going to get physical. I have never been in that situation.

But rather than it being a case of "provide an alternative to torture and we'll do it" it should be the other way round - "we need a effective stratagy because what ever happens if we use torture we undermine the very reason for our fight.

I need to get back to work, and mull this all over some more.

[BFG]

I think that its a great question to ask who Jesus would torture. Would he turn the other cheek so that the opposition can succesfully detonate their IED at a mosque, where two hundred people are worshiping God or training to protect, repair and secure their country? Or would he trade the discomfort of someone that meant harm, to save two hundred? And claim that the dead were Martyrs and lambs without the need for protection?  Im not being sarcastic when i say..thats a hell of a question..and you have to be able to asnwer that definitively in order to take a superior moral stance on its use...

Im not sure any of us are that insightful....

One thought that just came up. Lets reverse the situation.

Im an insurgent in Iraq. I have kidnapped westoners and threatend to torture or execute them if the occupying forces do not pull out and stop arresting detaining and torturing innocent iraqi's or do i sacrifice the life of this westoner in order to try and save the lifes of my countrymen?

Dunno if i have made my point clear there - will probably have to re-write it but you might get my gist.

[BTs_FahQ2]

I think this example is better for us americans and touches on BFG's example.

Hostage situation in Townville USA.  Two men holding up 5 people in so me store threatening death to all unless George Bush says he is sorry for the inability to think correctly. 

Well, in the US we send in negotiating teams and do every effort to save the lives of all involved so that they can be brought to justice.  Usually the law enforcement officials find the identities of the perpetraitors, but, they then do not go out and find the relatives of said men or those we believe are cohorts of said individuals in order to torture them to get the actual offenders to "give up".  Nor do we just exterminate all involved in a whim.  So if we don't do that to our own, then why would we do it to others? It makes it look as though we value our own and consider everyone else second class citizens. Back to the arguement of my tribe vs yours or all humans striving for a better life.

So does torture make sense, not really. Fact of the matter shows that most information given up during torture is false and holds little validity.  Take the various witch trials into account or the persecution in Spain in the medieval ages.  Under much pain and duress most people admitted to being fairies, witches, satanic believers and what not all while having their nuts scratched off with sand paper.  Basically there is a point where anyone will say anything to have the pain or torture stopped. 

I could go on more and more but please rebute

[BFG]

I guess it comes down to this:

If people are happy with what the US is doing in regard to people it believes or suspects to be terrorists/linked to or have information regarding terrorism or in some way threaten its security then people must also understand that every other country regime or combat group may also apply the same 'rules' treating suspects etc in exactly the same manner.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

thanks to the both of you for taking the time to be thoughtful with this.

I cant rebut that Fah. I think you nailed it. Torture intel is unreliable..and Bfg is dead on by saying that on TOP of being unreliable..it breeds a deeper rooted contempt.

Part of me wants to take the next step of delineating the circumstances that separate the types of application we're talking about. (ie psychological pressure vs true traditional torture) Bu i think in the end, they both sort of breed the same reaction, because by the time the stories hit the streets, they are all melted into the same category. (therefore, functinally undifferentiated-although they are drastically different) And the only reason i would go into thses, is to show that interp of Torture, is affected by guys with a bunch of different perspectives, and theres no way to describe torture with a blanket statement. this diversity in intent..is why this is sooo fucking complex. Somtimes its jus tPsych pressure, sometimes its brutal agression..

Type 1. Thoughtful sensitive veteran who may have served in prior conflists, and as an elder, is saddle with the responsibility of protecting his men. He hands over the interrogation to one of his more aggressive guys, with the inference that he just wants intel, but doesnt need to know how its derived. He knows brutal torture is bad, but recognizes his tricky situation, so passes it off in the interest of 'making a tough moral decision"..a nesessary evil. His mental intent, is that psychological pressure is to be used...water, darkness, stress position...but NOT brutal life threatening violence.

Type 2. we have the sargent this job has been passed off to...hes pissed hes there..hes pissed about the IEDs..hes pissed in general. not Only does he have a job to do, hes pissed about having to do it. Hes likely to start striking, and the more extreme version mentioned in #1. He understands that he is the agressive arm of Type 1. Hes ok with that, and may take a few extra puches and kicks for his frustrations. KNows he should use lighter methods, but doent mind taking it up a notch.

2a young kid recruit looks up to type 2, because he knows this guys just want to jhelp type one protect men. Hes a young agressive midwestern football kid with a bit too much warlust, and acts without thinking at ALL like one and two have..hes merely reacting to the anger of #2. He throws lots of strikes, take trophy pics to send home, and is too young to really get the value of life. He gets off on the poser trip of having another human at his control. The hajis are animals, and they need to suffer for the bomb on Radio Raod... Hes got too much testosterone flowing. He hasnt thought it all thru. he will when he gets home tho...it will likely haunt him for the rest of his life..

Type 3  A big young guy like BFG went into the service to pay for school..Highly principled..thoughtfull, Educated and caring to others around him. Hes been thrust into this situation..and is saddled with the responsiblity of retreiving intel. he knows the Geneva convention, wants to comply..Mostly does. Knows his superiors will hold him directly accountable for flaws or lack in his intel. He is deeply morally conflicted.
he knows the spectrum of conversion techniques. Draws  the line at violence. will NOT permit it in his unit.
he may have some 2a's in his group. Does his best to control them. Understnads their fear..but also knows  he will NOT be supported if/when he attempts to discipline 2a's that have gotten out of control. he has to live with this fact. He treats his suspects with basic human respect, but knows he needs the information...complys with Geneva, but realizes that most of the grunts around him wont understand or care about his moral convictions. He does his best to rule by example..but realizes that mostly its out of his hands, and he is forced to let some violence slide. Too much disciplining on terms of excessive violence, and he will be seen as a sympathizer. He is haunted by Day 1, that hes in this situation. he doesnt think we should be here in the first place..but still has these basic resposnibilites. What has gone on under his watch or around it will also haunt him for the rest of his life. But he gains some comfort by realisng that he has retrieved some intel with his lighter methods that may have saved lives..but mostly hes just haunted by the messy moral stance of ANy war.

Final Type 4.
Policy Wonk, whose job it is to define and parse what the meanding of 'IS" is...
book smart, very little time in the field..patriotic.
Knows Geneva inside and out..may have a law degree. He knows how the concept of TORTURE plays out in the media..and therefore, makes a mental differentiation between the different types. He kows the legal problems with torture, and therefore is insistent that our guys just use the lighter techniques..His subordinates know his stance on this and are reluctant to let him really see what goes on in the field. He holds authorty and can punish for violations, but since it is being covered up under his watch, and is hardly reported, hes under the impression that its not going on. Hes the one that faces the camera on Sunday morning utterly convinced that the media has blown it out of proportion. He may lead investigations..still unaware of the truly confusing situation on the ground and in his prisons. He is the guy justifying our tactics without really knowing how brutal things on the ground really on...

So..again, all im laying these out is to illustrate the extremely diverse conditions this 'torture' is taking place under. Sometimes it really is brutal..sometimes its merely psych pressure.
Super grey area, and at the end of it all..i throw up my hands and say..fuck..no idea what to do.

Probably illustrates the reasons we shouldnt be there in the first place..
Too fucking complicated for neat tidy solutions.
There was never a really thought out process to align our intent with those of the majority of Iraqi People..not to mention the influence the outside fighters are having. I promise this would have been settled had they not gotten involved..and they could give a SHIT about the iraqi people...They are just using it as an excuse to continue the war against america..and mixing the motivations of the Iraqis all to shit to the point that they have no choice but to hate us...But thats becuase the externaol groups are hiding in the population, making it appear as though (initially) this was coming from the Iraqi people. I woud say the Foreign Insurgency betrayed Iraq FAR worse than America did. Had the post Baghdad takeover been more peacefull..our stay would have been shorter, repairs been quicker, and infrastructure would have been set up in a matter of months...and we would have MOSTLy withdrawn by now.

That falls to the planners, who should have KNOWN that the conflict would draw these outside groups to muck things up.

ok...so...a big ball of string.
Thanks for taking the time to go thru it with me guys..
gives me hope that some of us are still thinking critically.

["Sixhits"]

What is the viable, sucessful, PRACTICAL alternative?

To Torture? I'd go right to humint. We need real people penetrating the orgs and countries that seek to harm us.

Ask anyone whos lost a father son, mother or child at the hands of 'insurgents' in their own country, who are just meaning to disrupt and STOP the rebuilding process in its tracks.

I am not concerned with the rebuilding process. I don't buy into the right wing clap-clap that "we broke it, we have to fix it." What I am concerned with is our country's real security interests. Building schools in Iraq - at this point in time - will not improve our security. Stopping torture -publicly condeming it and firing the proponents of it in the Administration - will improve our security. .

And SixHits, im sorry that asking difficult questions 'really pisses you off'.
I gave the premise already..Torture is not good..who is arguing that? No One.
Problem is, people getting to thinking that the solutions or easy..or not messy.
Solutions like this are NEVer easy..theyre ALWAYS messy.

Jesus fucking christ stop. What pisses me off is that nuts like you are willing to sell out American values. You say it's not good? Then oppose it.

Torture is not a solution to our lack of actionable intel. Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that torture fails to deliver. And what of the larger consequences? Our country has lost the moral high ground in this conflict. It's a hard thing to do, to lower oneself below the evil of people who fly planes into buildings, but we have. Why? One of the reasons is because we have INSTITUATIONALIZED torture. And betrayed ourselves in the process.

WAR is messy. Bombs miss. Bullets don't care about who they blast through. Trigger pullers can make poor snap decisions. So be it.

I'm a hawk. I accept war is not a perfect solution but can be at times the only one.

But torture is not a part of AMERICAN war making. Or wasn't until this Administration got in power. 

What really pisses ME off, is people that take a Complex Moral dilemma, just to take an indignant stance, simplify it straight into black and white, at the same time, actively NOT telling me what goes in its place.

In cases like this it's not complex. It's black and white. And here's a series of solutions:
1) stop torturing rendered prisoners.
    There is no benefit to torture. The CIA wants to stop anyway. Free them up to do what they need to do -     
    humint.
2) allow Congress to pass a ban on torture instead of threatening a veto.
    Remind the world that we can and do police ourselves. We are not the enemy. America will always do   
    what's right in the end.
3) fire and replace Donald Rumsfeld.
4) fire and replace Dick Cheney.
    The advocates of torture and the failed war in Iraq must go. They need to be replaced by soldiers, men or
    women who have fought and killed for our country and have the guts to do what is needed to win.
5) EITHER set metrics for success in Iraq - ie, a show us what the fuck we're fighting for OR set up a withdraw timetable. Show how to win or get out. I'm for getting out because I don't believe we can win. Confuckingvince me.

Saying that we're 'supposed to be better' than them, does NOTHING in practical terms.
Being better doesnt have to mean that you cant make difficult moral gambles...and perhaps the assumption that we ARE better is what misguides us in the first place...
In this particular issue (torture for intel) Ive asked you to get off the fence to make a definitive statement on how to get intel, when its CRITICAL. Simply "Being Better" doesnt cut it in their eyes as a motivation to tell us their plans.

This is a war as much of ideals as it is of blood. And we CAN win the war of ideals. We must be on the side of good not because we say we are - which is really what our situation is right now - but because we are undeniabliy good. I for one am unwilling to compromise on this issue. MY COUNTRY doesn't torture it's prisoners, not in war, not in peace. Doing so weakens us, makes our troops more vulnerable and makes it harder for America to bring real allies to the table.

I've already supplied my proposed alternative. Invest in humint. This of course brings its own set of issues and troubles but it's the best way to gather intel.

At the end of the day your devil's advocate argument is fundamentally flawed. You do not gain intel from torture. Period. Hence there can be no debate on this issue. This is my reference to the Jack Bauer of it all - on TV, you torture someone and they give you amazingly good intel that you can immeadiately act on. But it doesn't work that way. Just ask Sen. McCain about what he said when he was tortured.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Either you dont know what 'Devils Advocate" means or you didnt read the FIRST FUCKING sentence of my post before yours..

You were specifically not included to my thanks to those willing to get into the intricacies of this without regressing into a screaming pissing boat of internal contradictions.

Either way, you just wasted a bunch of time typing all that...

Telling me that youre not interested in the rebuilding process,
again tells me that your just slapping platitudes around with not a fucking clue about how it all works.
Rebuilding Broken societies and retraining Security that we've attacked is 'Right Wing Claptrap"? I guess humanitarian efforts are right wing claptrap unless the liberals suggest it.. You are an enigma...seriously..
Yeah i can see how rebuilding schools, water treatment, and pipelines is just RIGHT WING..instead of..o say..THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

And how splashing water on a guy is more injurious than the insurgents who are coming in from OTHER countries to PREVENT ANY CHANCE AT A PEACUFUL IRAQ BY Killing Iraqis by the HUNDREDS to make their point with us...Yeah dont look at them Six..its more messy 'stuff' to consider, and we all know you hate details..

Youd rather Break it and Leave it broke? What a fucking hypocrite...
You say youre a Hawk, and that you could support wars, but NOt the efforst to help those caught in the middle by lending some rebuilding and security effort? (becuase..well it might get morally messy) And i guess you dont think that the civilians deserve any protection from the foreign fighters insistent on pushing a wedge between both religious sects, and between america..

(im betting your not really going to examin that one..you just want to use the words 'Right Wing" without bothering to use it accurately..or using it in a contradictory form)

I wonder if you even have your defintions straight sometimes.

Saying that ""Im a nut that's selling out my country"" while QUOTING me,
where i say that "TORTURE IS NOT GOOD, and Im looking for a solution".... made you look retarded.
Calling me a nut while im AGREEING with the premise that you are screaming at the top of your lungs about??  ...puzzling beyond description.

On the one hand you claim that..... "WAR is messy. Bombs miss. Bullets don't care about who they blast through. Trigger pullers can make poor snap decisions. So be it.
I'm a hawk. I accept war is not a perfect solution but can be at times the only one." (end quote)

and follow it with  "In cases like this it's not complex. It's black and white."-endquote-

You gotta seriosly learn to work on your internal consistency if you expect to debate me on anything...
If its black and white, then those trigger Pullers DONT make mistakes, and when war happens it is the PERFECT solution. using YOUR logic.

And your HUMINTEL crap...
Yes the Iraqis are just lining the streets to run around spying on their ideological peers. And they are totally honest, and they NEVER EVER set us up for ambushes, nor are they summarily EXECUTEd just for being seen TALKING with american sympathizers...cmon now..think this thru a little bettter.

o wait..did you mean we should do like in TEAM AMERICA..and find some language expert, put makeup on him and a stick-on Beard and send him into a historically established neighborhood, to snoop around undetected by saying.."bakalakabakbak"? Allahuakhbar? thats more effective ya think??

Your debate style will assume a welcome level of maturity at the point in your life where you realize in a real way,(for the purpose of discussing issues with other intelligent adults) that most issues are complex..theres more than one side, more than one interpretation. and that simply becuase you can type a sentence where you SAY "black and white" doesnt make it true. Its probably the one copout youve used in many conversations weve had, so you dont have to get your hands dirty with any Grey area...No difficult moral decisions for you...

Like you..And John Rambo said sooo Majestically...
""""This is a war as much of ideals as it is of blood. And we CAN win the war of ideals. We must be on the side of good not because we say we are - which is really what our situation is right now - but because we are undeniabliy good. I for one am unwilling to compromise on this issue. MY COUNTRY doesn't torture it's prisoners, not in war, not in peace."""

yeah well maybe in Narnia...

That is so godamn Peach Fuzz, that i struggle not to cry at its naive simplicty. I remember when life looked that simple to me too..so i cant fault you for it. Problem is..thats not how it goes...as much as you want that...we alll do.


Anyhow, thanks for NOT contributing to a conversation that was actaully going well enough with those who were already involved in it. And good job on missing the tone, and not knowing what a devils advocate  really is. It makes you a standout on this thread...
And you might actaully read the posts that go before yours..and let the words in them soak in before you come in and rebut yourself..out of context..and totally out of the spirit in which the discussion among mature debaters was headed, and then you throw up an entire paragraph of what was already stated and agreed upon, and act as though you came up with the shit all on your own...

......to fucking debate the person that Said the shit in the FIRST PLACE.

Youre so busy debating, that you lost sight of the fact that when you came in..we were past the debate, we were discussing. And most of the stuff youre screaming about was already agreed upon.
Great way to get an A in debate team, poor way to work thru a real-life situation with peers.

You do this shit every time.

[onwig]

anyone fancy some fried chicken?

I'm getting some, just wanted to see if anyone else wanted anything

[BFG]

Im busy writing the mother of all replies so yeah wiggy get me a couple of spicy chicken wings could you? and some fries?

Oh and to shiex and six etc... soon as i've had my spicy chicken wings, some sleep, and find some spare time tommorow at work i'll get that responce done.

but in the mean time could we try not to let things nose dive into a screaming crazy shouting fest?

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

sorry boss...he frustrates me.

misses points..argues points already conceded...and contradicts himself just to be contrary to whatever is written...

it seems...so yeah..ill calm down.

["Sixhits"]

And he explodes.

Here were my salient points. That they happened to be the same one's Fah and BFG made managed to allude you. I say them My Way, but I say them.

Torture is not an American value. It also does not work. Advocating it - which you say you don't - is immoral and impractical. I don't find it complex.

Saying that *B E C A U S E* we broke it we must fix it is Right Wing clap-clap. It's just more manipulation to get us to stay... when our President can't even tell us why we went in there to begin with. We can have a debate on the moral issues of leaving Iraq in the state it's in, but what I was talking about was American security interests, not my personal feelings on being humanitarian. You may find it strange I think torture evil but don't want to spend more money and lives in Iraq rebuilding them, but I do. I don't think recontruction efforts in Iraq can succeed until the country is stable, yet we are failing to stablize the country. We lack the troops and the will and the leadership. I don't disagree that the right thing to do is to rebuild Iraq. But I don't think we can do it. Not right now, not in the state that it's in and now while American soldiers patrol the cities. It doesn't interest me was the wrong way to put it.

Your comment that I want to Break it and Leave it... well, it's the same sort of bullshit your representatives spew, that I'm part of the Cut and Run crowd. It's implying a negative. It's manipulative jargon. It doesn't represent what I'm saying or what I believe.

On being a Liberal Hawk: Anti-torture, for withdrawal, yet I claim to care about my country You want to find contradictions between my statement that I'm a hawk and that war is messy with my advocy for withdrawl and a ceasation of torture. I believe we have a military for a purpose and that purpose is to defend our country. When the use of our military - or the actions it takes in the course of conflict - makes us vulnerable, I am against that use and those actions. It's one thing to bomb a school by accident but another to torture prisoners in the very prison where the despot you deposed did. It's even worse when the world finds out our nation has been rendering prisoners to agreeable nations and setting up CIA run torture camps - and thus that torture wasn't an ACCIDENT but policy. That we don't NEED to torture those people - and yea, "splashing water" on them by foe drowning them over and over again is torture - just adds to the case against its use.

For me it's a simple thesis: if it helps us, do it; if it hurts us, don't. I'm awed that you think torture is a muddy issue - for me, it's black and white. It is in all ways a negative. I understand why you think withdrawal is muddy, tho I disagree with you. Do I really need to state all the naunces in my thoughts on withdrawl to state my thoughts?

Let's turn the tables: You tell me how we can win in Iraq? You tell me why torture has utility? These are things the President himself cannot articulate, tho advocates. But we've moved beyond this right? As Fah and BFG have articulated. 


and the answer to your question:


A better choice than torture: I tried to give you my concept of a better choice than torture. Wasn't that the fucking question? I put it first on the list and instead of discussing it you belittle it. I think if you asked any intellegence officer, they'd agree. Humint is the best sort of intel you can have. A person on the ground be it a local civie, a journalist, a CIA case officer or some other person - that person and hopefully a few dozen others - are the best sources of intel possible. We've actually done decently in Iraq by engaging with the local people and getting them to help us find the bad guys - that's humit. Grabing Yasim off the street corner because his borther in law "turned him in" for a 10K$ reward and rendering him to a camp in Uzbekistan or where-ever - is fucking stupid. We've done that too. You wanted what I thought was a better option that torture, you have it. That you think it's stupid is your arrogance speaking, not your mind.

[BFG]

Hahaha well firstly i've got to say thankyou guys, its been so good to get my teeth in to being able to discuss (mostly) this stuff secondly i've got to say sorry... because this is the longest freaking post ever coming up... its so big i've had to cut it into two because the forum dosn't allow posts containing more than 15000 characters hehe!! 

Anway.. On with the show!!

I am not concerned with the rebuilding process. I don't buy into the right wing clap-clap that "we broke it, we have to fix it." What I am concerned with is our country's real security interests. Building schools in Iraq - at this point in time - will not improve our security. Stopping torture -publicly condeming it and firing the proponents of it in the Administration - will improve our security. .

Id like to talk about the issue of rebuilding iraq etc for several reasons - including my argument that actually it is this rebuilding process etc which is exactly what is going to in the long term be in your countries (and ours) security interests. And of course Afganistan applies here to - maybe even more so given its plight being elipsed by the war in iraq.

But first the rebuilding issue in Iraq. During the invasion targets of bombing included vital civic structures and utilities including bridges and powerstations etc.

Imagine your an Iraqi citizen. During Saddams rule your brother or sister was arrested and beaten up - badly. They brought his/her body back to your house and dumped him/her on your doorstep. You rushed them to the local hospital which was in a very very poor state. the doctors had little resorces but did what they could to help your sibling.... who recovered.
Now in the invasion another sibling has been caught up in the conflict. Your brother or sister was wounded in a IDF attack. Again rushed to hospital but things arn't so good. The doctors are totally overwhelmed with casualties, they don't have regular power or medicines... its chaos.

Your first reaction? things were better before the US invaded - and your not going to want the US in your country. Im simplifiying the whole thing i know, but i've got to i can't write a whole book here and it would take way to long!
What if the hosptital was clean, well equiped and well stocked - all done clearly as a result of American asssistance. The treatment is brilliant and your sibling recieves all the medical attention they could need. - your responce? simplified; thank god the americans have done so much to help our country and repair the damage sadam did.

What this demands is massive investment. massive. huge investment. but and i know you guys have highlighted this, it also demands security. You cant do this if you don't have a secure environment to do it... So here we are a double bind situation - security comes with iraqis beliving the US wants to help regular iraqi's, being able to do that comes with security.
Ive really simplified things i know. but i think its clear enough to get my point across?

The same goes with schools and transportation etc. Things need to run smoother more effectivly, better than when saddam was in power. Iraq needs to be shown that the occupying forces can do a better job than the forces they defeated.

I don't think recontruction efforts in Iraq can succeed until the country is stable, yet we are failing to stablize the country. We lack the troops and the will and the leadership. I don't disagree that the right thing to do is to rebuild Iraq. But I don't think we can do it. Not right now, not in the state that it's in

Regarding security.. I really don't know what the US tatic is so its hard to judge. But i think if i was in the shoes of one of the guys calling the shots then id be seriously trying to beef up the security of iraqs borders. And that requires a massive increase of manpower. Im talking hundreds of thousands of extra troops, im talking about an immense mission to secure the borders of iraq which at the moment seem to be open to the flow of insurgents and their suplies. No not simply US troops but the iraqi police force is somewhat lacking.
If you want to kill a plant you don't cut the leaves off, you pull the roots out.

Thats talking short term security though. thats not killing the roots its just cutting the stalk back. The only way to kill those roots off and to solve long term in my honest view is to go back to this rebuilding issue - to show that Oil isn't the only concern, to show that we want to give these people the opportunity to live the way they want to, not just repairing the immense damage done to the country by invading, but exceeding that repair and making thing better than before. Only then do you start to remove the flames that fanned the fantatical fire. As i said before, if you remove the evil, what the heck does your oppolent do to ' rally the troops' if there is no concievable evil to fight?

The same goes for Afganistan. Afgans need to really physically see inprovments in their life as a result of the Invasion. Afganistan suffered becasue the spot light moved to iraq.

Yes im talking the old British 'Hearts and Minds' strategy - which i can't stress enough i think is so so so inportant. I don't think its worth going into it all now - but there was a lot to be said for seeing soldiers in soft caps, without sunglasses with guns lowered, to helmeted soldiers, guns raised and faces hidden behind sungasses. Although id agree completely in those cases the differences in opperating circumstances were very very different.

The recontruction efforts in Iraq have to succeed - that i would say is a definate black and white situation. If iraq isn't helped to recover both from saddam and from the invasion then the situation will be significantly worse than anything before the invasion.

And id argue that it does need to be done right now, now before things degenerate any more. The two can and do have to happen at the same time - security and rebuilding rely on each other, one cant simply come before the other does (going back to the double bind situation) as far as i can see it in my honest opinion i dont see how else things can move forward.

Part of me wants to take the next step of delineating the circumstances that separate the types of application we're talking about. (ie psychological pressure vs true traditional torture) Bu i think in the end, they both sort of breed the same reaction....

I struggled with this one as well - breaking down and trying to tease out the 'levels of torture' - from stress positions to solitary confinement to beatings to electrocution and fake executions. But i came to the same conclusion  but from a different path. Under the Geneva convention these are all defined as forms of torture - and i think what has concerned a lot of people with the recent allegations against the US and the CIA is the attempts to 'reclassify' exactly what can be defined as or not as torture.

The UN defines torture as follows:
"Torture means 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..."

A lot depends on the definition of "severe." In a memo on 1 August 2002, the then Assistant US Attorney General Jay Bybee said that "the adjective severe conveys that the pain or suffering must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure." He even suggested that "severe pain" must be severe enough to result in organ failure death. That is worrying.

We are constantly reminded that this is a "war against terrorism". Most of us agree that the Invasion of Afganistan was (for lack of a better word) credible... There were large amounts of intelligence pointing towards Bin larden and Al Qaeda. The state of the country was terrible, the crimes commited appauling.


Things weren't quite the same with iraq however. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Yes Saddam was a dictator who ruthlessly persecuted the Kurds. Yes there are terrible cases of abuse murder and torture against his own people. This is not however terrorism. There were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. However becasue things have been handled so badly in iraq, it has become a focal battle ground in the middle east in which to attack America - like shiex pointed out, drawing 'insurgents' from around the world to fight against the occupying forces.

There was never a really thought out process to align our intent with those of the majority of Iraqi People..

Shiex i couldn't agree more - which ties to our discussions with just how badly the whole war and post war stratagy (or lack of) was developed.

There is the issue of the changes of power and control between Shiite and Suni Iraqi. A lot of iraqis reallly geniunely don't want the US or 'Coalition' in their country - The Shiite communities do not like the fact that as a minority in Iraq that was in 'control' under Saddam, they have now become a minority out of control. However what we are seeing are what id refer to as 'stability attacks'. If iraq dosn't have a large and effective police force it isn't going to survive. This isn't going to happen quickly though - Those training and organising the force have admited that the force is unreliable and 'unsafe' - itself penetrated by insurgents and the very individuals it is trying to combat.

[BFG]

Still with me? excellent here is part two promise not to post anything more after this hehe.

That falls to the planners, who should have KNOWN that the conflict would draw these outside groups to muck things up.

You bet. So much of what has happend is the fault of the invading powers - the fault of those who failed to plan out exactly what they would do after ordering the convoys of tanks to roll into the country etc. The war didn't end when Bush said so, hell the inportant part of the opperation should have just started then - winning the hearts and minds of iraqi's and showing them that their preconceptions were wrong, and that we did care about iraqis and wanted to help them. Don't get me wrong though - I don't think anyone could have invaded iraq with bunches of flowers and simply said "weve come to free you we love you here are some flowers" - what i do think though is the balence was wrong. And for every possitive that has happend it has been wiped out ten fold by such incidents as the abuse ant torture in American run Prisons in Iraq (ie Abu Girab)

Going back to the alternatives of Torture (although id repeat what id said that its not an alternative to torture - its a need for a effective stratagy that is not torture)

Stop feeding these people all the propaganda material they could ever want - really show people that they are here to help. I blame the planners of the iraq war (and in afganistan) big time. no bigger than big time. I am absolutly and totally and utterly shocked.
Im not talking about the Captains and Commanders on the ground, im talking about the planning and stratagies developed (or that should have been developed) by the suits in some boardroom (you know what i mean).

In my view had the 'after-action' procedure of rebuilding the country, helping those who have suffered under the regime of Saddam, and repairing and healing the damage of invading a country and killing innocent civilians... be carried out to even half of what it should have been we would have not created a situation where insurgents could have managed to grasp such a firm hold of iraq.

WAR is messy. Bombs miss. Bullets don't care about who they blast through. Trigger pullers can make poor snap decisions. So be it.
I'm a hawk. I accept war is not a perfect solution but can be at times the only one.

I wonder if you had been say living in Franch during WW2 if you would be so 'accepting' of war and its consequences. Or a Vietnamese villager during the Vietnam war. Or a Iraqi living in Fallujah during the bloody US offensive.
- Do you imagine those people sat around saying "awh well this is war, bombs will miss and bullets stray. Soldiers might mistake us as targets. But hey this is war so goodbye darling" I don't think so.

Personally i find the "bah so be it" approach pretty sickoning - i just cant stomach that kinda of view. sorry.

Do you belive that invading iraq was the only solution at the time? And what in your opinion was the problem to demand that solution?

Mrs Rice was very keen to repeat several times that the US and the CIA did not Torture any of its detainees etc... But one little question keeps niggling at the back of my head:

* If the purpose of moving these 'detainees' to secret prison camps or to forign irreputable security forces around the world - wasn't to bypass the laws of torture on US soil then why... Why secretly transport these detainees? If we've got the wrong end of the stick, - if all these men are simply fabricating these stories of torture please explain why they were abducted and transported to these locations in the first place. And why do these mens stories (in the case of the two men that Amnesty is investigating) corroborate so closely yet they had no knowledge of each others existance?

4) fire and replace Dick Cheney. The advocates of torture and the failed war in Iraq must go. They need to be replaced by soldiers, men or women who have fought and killed for our country and have the guts to do what is needed to win.

Regarding Dick Cheney and other stooges im not going to complain heh. But id ask one question from that quote.

Why exactly should it be people who have 'killed for their country' who should take these places? I find that a very very strange comment - although i might well be mis reading it.
However Has it ever occurred to you (not being sarcastic this is a genuine question) that sometimes having the 'guts to do what is needed to win' is not going to war or killing 'for your country'.
What we need (in my view) right now is the opposite - people who will not do 'anything' becasue they believe they are fighting the side of good v evil. Yes we need people willing to act - Im sickoned and have lobbied my MP repeatedly regarding the shocking events in Zimbabwe that have been allowed to continue unchecked by the  International Community. The same goes for Israel and its continued expansion of settlement lands and its security wall. What we need more than ever are people who are willing to act rather than allow atrocities to happen for fear of causing commercial or religious backlashes - or heaven forbid their political popularity in some areas.

5) EITHER set metrics for success in Iraq - ie, a show us what the fuck we're fighting for OR set up a withdraw timetable. Show how to win or get out. I'm for getting out because I don't believe we can win. Confuckingvince me.

I'll tell u whats on the table. Its about trying to repair the immense damage that has been done to the country. Its about trying to repair the stability of Iraq and the surrounding region. for the US its about trying to show that it doesn't just go in guns blazing on its own agenda and fuck everyone present before leaving with what it wanted.

The guys blowing people to bits in Iraq have a very simple and easy objective. They don't want a stable iraq. they don't want iraqi to be able to stand on its own two feet. They don't want the Coalition to suceed in what its goal should be - because as soon as that happens they loose their control over people - they arn't needed. How do you rally your troops against a great Evil if there isn't a great evil... what if that supposed great evil is actually providing your troops with houses, water, education, food, medical assistance, security, stability, and freedom? Suddenly your troops don't need you - they don't want to fight, they dont need to fight... you become obsolete.

This is a war as much of ideals as it is of blood. And we CAN win the war of ideals. We must be on the side of good not because we say we are - which is really what our situation is right now - but because we are undeniabliy good. I for one am unwilling to compromise on this issue. MY COUNTRY doesn't torture it's prisoners, not in war, not in peace. Doing so weakens us, makes our troops more vulnerable and makes it harder for America to bring real allies to the table.

No to be honest i don't think this is simply a war of ideals, and i certainly dont think it can be simply 'won'.  Besides i don't think there even two 'sides' at conflict here, certainly not two clear oppolents with different 'ideals'.  The damage has been done. Done a long long time ago - this isn't just one event that has sparked a clear responce. This isn't that whole 'black and white' situation that we keep referring to.

I've already supplied my proposed alternative. Invest in humint. This of course brings its own set of issues and troubles but it's the best way to gather intel.

We're talking about sticky plasters again though. This isn't addressing the root of the problem - its simply putting another bigger stickier plaster over the wound to try and stop the problem. In the short term i agree this is necessary, intelligence needs to be seroiusly and dramatically inproved I don't want to see more stories of student papers being used as evidence to invade a country ever again!! But pull all the troops out of Iraq right now and put in your spies and intelligence gathers and (excuse my language) your f*cking yourself in the ass again. Inteligence is vital - right now there isn't even enough stability or a suitable environment to even have a progressive inteligence gathering system in effect!

But at the same time forign policy has to change dramatically. The approach relationship and action towards other countries including the arab world has to change dramastically. And those involved in these cases of Torture and 'stressfull' interrogations including the US and UK need to clean their act up.

You gotta seriosly learn to work on your internal consistency if you expect to debate me on anything...
If its black and white, then those trigger Pullers DONT make mistakes, and when war happens it is the PERFECT solution. using YOUR logic.

Can't help but agree there. War ain't Black and white. By your very wording Sixhits, trigger pullers make bad desicions, bombs miss, men crack under pressure etc.

o wait..did you mean we should do like in TEAM AMERICA..and find some language expert, put makeup on him and a stick-on Beard and send him into a historically established neighborhood, to snoop around undetected by saying.."bakalakabakbak"? Allahuakhbar? thats more effective ya think??

I didn't just laugh.... hehe Durka durka mohmammed jihad where were we? (but in all seriousness no thats not going to work - but reaching a point where common goals mean that inportant intelligence can be gathered from willingly cooperating individuals on the ground.

"This is a war as much of ideals as it is of blood. And we CAN win the war of ideals. We must be on the side of good not because we say we are - which is really what our situation is right now - but because we are undeniabliy good. I for one am unwilling to compromise on this issue. MY COUNTRY doesn't torture it's prisoners, not in war, not in peace."

- To late. The damage is allready done. People arn't suddenly going to turn around and say "hey those guys are undeniabily good now, we better put our guns down" the damage is allready done. Reversing that damage is a priority yes, but don't think that suddenly the US's reputation is going to be gleaming in the sun in 6months time!

... Bugger despite cutting 30% of what i wrote out of this post im Still getting a damn
The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (15000 chara warning heh.

["Sixhits"]

Amazing reply BFG. I'd heap praise on you but I'd probably bury your points under it all.

Couple of things:
I don't think of war as a Good Thing with an awh shucks it happens attitude. I also don't think it's a "perfect" solution. But I do think that there are times when fighting is what you must do.

I was and am against the invasion of Iraq - for too many reasons to list. But, I do not crticize the prosecution of the war - bombs do miss and our soldiers can make mistakes despite intentions. It happens in war and we can never, ever prevent that. What you CAN prevent is, well, not really prevent but prepair for is... um, Victory. And for contingencies such as a home grown insurgency. What I protest is my government's incompetence.

We won the "war" in Iraq and are now losing the peace because, and you've pointed it out, our policy makers skipped post war planning. They lacked the troops and lacked the desire. When the Sec of Defense's comments in regards to looters running rampent through the streets of Bagdad is, "Freedom is messy" you know your leaders are mad men. So when I say it's time to start withdrawing the troops its in part a response to our inablity to win the peace. The other part is that it will show most clearly we do no intend to occupy Iraq. 

As you said, we need to be able to win the hearts and minds of the locals. But we've lost them. The vast majority of insurgents are local Iraqis. The vast majority of the Iraqi people in general want our troops out. If the purpose of reconstruction, is, then, to win their faith, it is too late for that. If the purpose of reconstruction is to be moral winners, to fix what we broke, it is too late for that as well - the people want us to leave rather than fix it. If the purpose is to make us fell good in our hearts after all the ill we've none, that's not a statisfactory reason. I disagree that American security interests are best served by staying there. Every day more soldiers are killed and we fall further and further into weakness with no plan for success, nor concept there of. Things have gone from bad to worse and will continue to do so because America lacks the will to get the job done - where would we get the troops needed to occupy Iraq fully? a draft - and we lack the leadership to develop a plan for victory. And really, what is "the job"? In as much as our objectives were stated before the war we have achieved them. Remove Saddam. End his "threat" of WMDs (which never existed). And bring a semblance of representative government. It's all rather shallow shit to wallow in, but it's what we've accomplished.

Here's another problem: our leaders cannot tell us what victory is. If they don't know, how can they achieve it? Frankly, at this point I don't think the administration wants to "win" in Iraq. They want to occupy it, keep bases there, and funnel the oil and it's profits into friendly corporations. Why should another American soldier die for that?

You're right. In an abstract sense... hell, in nearly every sense things were better for the Iaqis under Saddam. We had a chance to better their lives but now that chance has passed. Now it's time to make the hard choice of what is best for the United States. How can we win their hearts and minds? I don't see how we can do it without withdrawal. Our adminstration doesn't seem able to do it in any event. And building schools and getting water flowing to rural areas isn't enough. 

As for replacing the cowards who currently insist on a lost cause with Soldiers who have killed for their country, I don't mean it literally as much as I mean I want my war planners to be war fighters. I want them to know war, know it intimately. I want them to hate it and love it. I want them to hate it so much they never want us to fight one, but love it so much that when war comes they fight it to their best ablity and beyond. I want them to care enought to bother with, say, post war planing. And the only ideology I want them to bring to the table is a soldier's one - war is hell. It is hell given and hell received.


I do believe the US can still win a war of ideals. It's a long term process. (I mean this in regards to the greater "war" against terrorists, not just Iraq).

I think this country is the best country in the world and has, in its core, the most powerfully held faith in freedom, peace and equality. I don't mean this to simplify the fight down to a binary Good vs Evil thing. I mean it, such as it could become understood, that the US has not be represented by the actions of the torturers and the bad policy makers. I believe we can make no better single gesture in regards to who we really are than to grant the will of the Iraqi people - and state it as such - and withdraw from Iraq. The second most powerful gesture we can make it to publicly, loudly ban torture. Then to fire those that advocated that policy.

We all agree - i think - that the sort of conflict we're in is one that must be fought in the hearts of our enemy's recruits as well on the "battlefield". It's a simple concept with complex ways to resolve it. I think I'm best at outlining the broader concept than advocating the nuanced policy but am convinced that the two most powerful things we can do are begin or set a time to begin withdraw from Iraq and formally and publicly ban torture in all cases, even prosecuting the advocates or actors of. 

As for humit: I don't mean pull troops out; put CIA case officers in. I mean: stop torturing and direct the millions being spent on the maintaince, proliferation and secrecy of torture prisons into developing our humint resources. This is not a flip a switch and fix things, it's a process, but it's the right thing to do and the CIA wants to do it. We MUST have the ablity to gather good intel and we must deny ourselves the pleasure of seeing bad people hurt, from which we get shit intel. Would I enjoy Bin Laden being torn apart by dogs? Sure. Would be useful in our fight? No, it's counterproductive. Fah already said this.

Increasing our humint resources: It's simple in its concept, not its exicution. But it's what I think is a better choice.


Let me sum: Invading Iraq was not a solution to anything; it was a mistake that has created a new set of problems. Doing more of the same, including attempting to rebuild the country, is to further that mistake. We *could* have begun to rebuild - in a concrete sense rather than the contractors' taxpayer funded orgy we saw - the country two years ago if we had had a plan for peace after we conquered them. But we did not and now the chance to rebuild is over. We could reoccupy, placing a half million men in there, which might allow us to control the place long enough to effect change, but at the cost of showing that we really did come there to occupy them, not liberate them, and at the cost of radicalizing the home front. Or we can leave. Let them clean it up. Give them resources and the power to choose for themselves. Let the fight their civil war. But the sum of it is, there are no good choices left, just lesser bad ones. That's the Administration's fault.

As for who I want to lead me, I want men and women who know more than me on fighting war. I can trust an American soldier to do his duty, but not an American politician.

As for torture. it does not work and is evil. We can find sitation where we can rationalize the use of torture but that does not make it the right choice. That it is American policy to toture some prisoners is unacceptable and simply feeds the forces fighting us. it must stop. We must punish those that support it, even in a mild form.

I'm sorry if I have not addressed everything you said directly or indirectly - there is simply too much to reply to.

[BFG]

Amazing reply BFG. I'd heap praise on you but I'd probably bury your points under it all.

Oh no feel free mate i don't mind

All good stuff, looking forward to responding your last post, just going to need a day to recover and read everything and then respond