......What does the left consider

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think that " waxing poetic about the vurtues of torture " is a good description of what happened , nor were the Abu Graib incidents unpunished.

    What Bush actually did was set some limits.

=============================================
When they first invaded Afghanistan, Rumsfeld and Cheney both extolled how torture was the way to go. The "American Taliban" kid was trussed up on a stretcher and stuffed in a shipping container in the hot sun for over a day, and we were told that he deserved this treatment and that it was time for the USA to stop being Mr Nice Guy (when were we ever Mr Nice Guy?)

All the people at Abu Graib who were punished were underlings. The woman general in charge was a scapegoat and had nothing to do with the torture.


Bush did NOT set limits. He just started spewing crap about how the US does not torture at the same time they were waterboarding and doing all sorts of evil crap to their victims.

[sirs]

Yet, with all these responses, to this particular thread, only 1 liberal actually tried to answer the question posed, and even that was to go look at a link.  Imagine that         

[Xavier_Onassis]

The question is what do progressives think should be done rather than torture?

The answer is that torture is not necessary to extract information. It just takes intelligence.

Sort of like getting a job and saving your money vs. buying a pistol and knocking over liquor stores.

No amount of words would ever convince you of the truth, sirs, because you are just warped and on some sort of ego trip.

[sirs]

So, Xo answers the question by ducking it.  Smart, if not transparent move there, Xo.  At least Brass took a crack at it

[Michael Tee]

Brass actually did answer your question.

Apart from torture, investigators proceed by skillful interrogation, which includes deception, promises, inducements, trickery, ingratiation, planted informants, intercepts, relationship-building, etc.

How do you think police get information in domestic criminal cases when they aren't allowed to torture anyone?

[sirs]

Brass actually did answer your question.

To a point, yea.  He pulled a Tee, and said go look at this link.  As weak as it was, still better than ducking the question

Apart from torture, investigators proceed by skillful interrogation, which includes deception, promises, inducements, trickery, ingratiation, planted informants, intercepts, relationship-building, etc.

And no one that i'm aware of is denouncing anything above.  The point being, that when there's legitimate intel referencing an impending attack of some sort within the next month, how fast is your "relationship building" going to take?

Perhaps we should add that qualifier to the question 

How do you think police get information in domestic criminal cases when they aren't allowed to torture anyone?

Because Criminal investigation is far different than waging war.  Crimnals have constitutionally protected rights, foreign combants in war do not.  And FYI, the "extent" of torture we're really talking about is likely waterboarding.  No one that I'm aware, are we dismembering bodies, burning skin off prisoners, cutting ears off, ACTUAL acts of torture like that

[BSB]

Torture:

Hey, are you Al Qaeda?

No?

Duh, ((((((smack)))))

You Al Qaeda now?

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . when there's legitimate intel referencing an impending attack of some sort within the next month, how fast is your "relationship building" going to take?   >>                 

That's a valid point but I already conceded it in an earlier post.  There are situations where torture might be more effective than any other tactic in getting out information fast. 

The real moral issue is whether, even in that case, torture should be applied.  I would say no.  Better to suffer the surprise attack and its casualties and plunge back into the fight afterwards than to compromise the moral values that our society lived by, even in the darkest days of WWII.

It seems from the rest of your post that you're not all bad after all, that you would probably OK waterboarding but not blowtorching, even to root out the details of an impending attack.  Well, without being too condescending about it, I have to say that that is evidence of some small degree of enlightenment. 

I think the bottom line is the Golden Rule - - if you think it's OK for an enemy to waterboard your team, then it's OK to waterboard theirs.  I can't think offhand of too many people who wouldn't condemn the waterboarding of Americans, in fact I believe that after the war some Japs went to prison for exactly that crime, as well they should have, so I think it's kind of hypocritical for Americans now to suddenly discover that it's an OK thing to do.

[BT]

Sometimes people conflate humane treatment issues with politics.

For example I might go along with a universal ban against torture.

I might not go along with a call for a universal ban and a war crimes trial for Bush, Clinton and Obama.

The water gets muddied with approaches like this.

Keep it clear and you might get what you want.

[sirs]

<< . . . when there's legitimate intel referencing an impending attack of some sort within the next month, how fast is your "relationship building" going to take?   >>                 

That's a valid point but I already conceded it in an earlier post.  There are situations where torture might be more effective than any other tactic in getting out information fast. 

Glad we have some meeting of the minds

The real moral issue is whether, even in that case, torture should be applied.  I would say no. 

I would say yes, though obviously with the disclaimer that "torture" as the left likes to toss around, frequently implies some brutal Al-Qeada like component, such as the tearing of flesh, dislocation of arms, crushing of kneecaps.  I have NO problem with prisoners made to feel uncomfortable, their sleep patterns disturbed, being humiliated or made to wear funny underwear, the "threat" of a dog attacking them.  Even made to think they are drowning, even though they aren't.  Better to make the prisoner feel belittled, uncomfortable, and even scared, than to suffer a surprise attack that might take hundreds, if not thousands of innocent lives.

And yes, I'm already on record as accepting AlQeada, and its offshoots, to waterboard American prisoners.  If only they actually limited themselves to that, is the problem you have

[Plane]

<< . . . when there's legitimate intel referencing an impending attack of some sort within the next month, how fast is your "relationship building" going to take?   >>                 

That's a valid point but I already conceded it in an earlier post.  There are situations where torture might be more effective than any other tactic in getting out information fast. 

The real moral issue is whether, even in that case, torture should be applied.  I would say no.  Better to suffer the surprise attack and its casualties and plunge back into the fight afterwards than to compromise the moral values that our society lived by, even in the darkest days of WWII.

It seems from the rest of your post that you're not all bad after all, that you would probably OK waterboarding but not blowtorching, even to root out the details of an impending attack.  Well, without being too condescending about it, I have to say that that is evidence of some small degree of enlightenment. 

I think the bottom line is the Golden Rule - - if you think it's OK for an enemy to waterboard your team, then it's OK to waterboard theirs.  I can't think offhand of too many people who wouldn't condemn the waterboarding of Americans, in fact I believe that after the war some Japs went to prison for exactly that crime, as well they should have, so I think it's kind of hypocritical for Americans now to suddenly discover that it's an OK thing to do.

I like your thinking here.

So if the US actually uses Waterboarding on its own people , it becomes a more acceptable practice?

This might already be true.

[Plane]

Plane, XO anawered your questions nicely. However, to reiterate, no one in LBJ's administration went around waxing poetic about the vurtues of torture like those in the Bush administration did. Most of what went on at Abu Graib was sanctioned by Bush's Secratery of Defense. What I witnessed, after the fact, in Vietnam was not sanctioned by McNamara, and the one American involved in that interrogation/beating went to prison.

So, am I thinking clearly about Bush? I believe I am. The question is, how clearly was he thinking? I suspect not very.     

But this

"How many here have seen an enemy soldier come out of an interrogation with his head swollen to the size of a soccer ball, and then die an hour later?
"

Is on the list of things that President Bush expressly forbade ,how is LBJ innocent of incidents like this and Bush guilty when Bush did more to prevent such a thing than any p[revious President save Carter?

[sirs]

Excellent inquiry, Plane

[BSB]

Plane, the reason lawyers working for the Bush administration qualified the definition of acceptable, and unexceptable, torture, was to extend what they could get away with, not limit it. LBJ left things the way they were, which is what Bush would have done if he hadn't wanted to allow for more, not less, accceptable practices. 

[Plane]

Plane, the reason lawyers working for the Bush administration qualified the definition of acceptable, and unexceptable, torture, was to extend what they could get away with, not limit it. LBJ left things the way they were, which is what Bush would have done if he hadn't wanted to allow for more, not less, accceptable practices. 

Beaten to death is more not less.

The incident you mentioned is exactly the sort of thing that Bush wanted to prevent and would hve been exactly contrary to his orders.

So is it not the status quo that was more not less?