How for Home and Freedom

Read Time:5 Minute, 6 Second

Now that ex-president George Bush is on tour to promote his memoir, Decision Points, parts of the book are being released to gather up publicity.

In one of the more startling excerpts, Bush makes clear that he personally approved the use of water-boarding on prisoners. Asked for his approval by the CIA, he writes in his book that his reply was “Damn right”.

Some might consider that to be  a confession to war crimes. A clear violation of the rules of the Geneva Convention.

But this is not the first time in U.S. history that the controversy of water-boarding was in the spotlight.

Torture by water-boarding has been around for a very long time. It is not some new technique developed after 9/11. In fact, water-boarding was actually investigated by a Senate Committee…. way back in 1902.

“Torturing to make them confess — what? Truth? Or lies? How can one know which it is they are telling? For under unendurable pain a man confesses anything that is required of him, true or false, and his evidence is worthless.”

To whom would you guess can be attributed to that quote? Maybe Cindy Sheehan? Or perhaps the latest spokesperson for Amnesty International?

No, the quote is from Mark Twain. The same person that wrote “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”.

In 1898, the U.S. had decided to invade the Philippines in what would become the Philippine-America war.

Support for American actions in the Philippines was justified by those in the U.S. government and media who supported the conflict through the use of moralistic grounds.

Stuart Creighton Miller writes “Americans job was to protect the Filipinos from European predators waiting in the wings for an American withdrawal and to tutor them in American-style democracy.”

In reality, it was to gain a important trade route for Far East China by not allowing the Philippines to declare sovereignty after their revolt from Spain.

But the Philippine invasion wasn’t going so well for Americans, quickly turning into a “damnable quagmire” that lasted over 12 years.

Harsh methods began when American Brigadier General Jacob Smith instructed soldiers to transform the island into a “howling wilderness,” to “kill and burn” to the greatest degree possible—“The more you kill and burn, the better it will please me”—and to shoot anyone “capable of bearing arms.”

When asked to clarify what this last stipulation meant in practical terms, General Smith defined it as any male over the age of 10 years old. Officers routinely resorted to the “water cure” in order to extract information from Philippine suspects as necessary to gain information.

Some of the U.S. soldiers that were in the middle of this scorched earth policy started mentioning the atrocities when they wrote letters back home. These letters came to attention of Senator George Frisbie Hoar, of Massachusetts, an opponent of the war, who called for an investigation.

He proposed the formation of an independent committee, but Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge insisted that the hearings take place inside his own, majority-Republican Committee on the Philippines.

The Lodge Committee investigation began at the end of January, 1902, and in the months that followed, two distinct visions of the hearings emerged.

Anti-war Democrats hoped for a broad examination of the conduct of the war. Lodge, along with the Republican majority, wanted to keep the focus on the present, and was “not convinced” of the need to delve into “some of the disputed questions of the past

Some of the testimony during the investigation came from William Howard Taft, who was appointed governor of the Philippines. He shocked many people when he testified before Congress that the “so-called water cure” was used “on some occasions to extract information.”

Testimony was conflicted. One witness would state that nobody was actually harmed by the “water cure”. At the same time, a soldier would reveal that he had used the “water cure” on 160 people and only 26 had survived.

But with little success in February 1903, Lodge’s Republican-controlled committee voted to end its inquiry into the allegations of torture. The public was no longer interested in something that only months earlier been alarming revelations.

As early as April 16, 1902, the New York World described the “American Public” sitting down to eat its breakfast with a newspaper full of Philippine atrocities:

It sips its coffee and reads of its soldiers administering the “water cure” to rebels; of how water with handfuls of salt thrown in to make it more efficacious, is forced down the throats of the patients until their bodies become distended to the point of bursting; of how our soldiers then jump on the distended bodies to force the water out quickly so that the “treatment” can begin all over again. The American Public takes another sip of its coffee and remarks, “How very unpleasant!”

As to my opinion of “Is water-boarding torture and did it effect America?”, I will answer with part of a poem from Katharine Bates….

The flag that dreamed of delivering
Shudders and droops like a broken wing.

1902 Picture of Philippine "Water Cure"

Here in it’s entirety ..

Poem ” In the Philippines” by Katharine Lee Bates, the author of “America the Beautiful,” written in response to the war against the Philippine insurgents in 1899.

Silvery rice-fields whisper wide
How for home and freedom their owners died.

We’ve set the torch to their bamboo town,
And out they come in a scampering rush,
Little brown men with spears.
Shoot!
Down they go in a crush,
Sickening smears,
Hideous writhing huddles and heaps
Under the palms and the mango-trees.
More, still more! Shoot ’em down
Like brown jack-rabbits that scoot
With comical leaps
Out of the brush.
No loot?
No prisoners, then. As for these—
Hush!

The flag that dreamed of delivering
Shudders and droops like a broken wing.

Silvery rice-fields whisper wide
How for home and freedom their owners died.

(New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1911).

Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

47 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cory
13 years ago

Getting even was the basis of many primate semantic confusions, such as “expropriating the expropriators” “an absolute crime demands an absolute penalty,” “they did it to me so I can do it to them,” and, in general, the emotional mathematics of “one plus one equals zero” (1+1=0).

The primates were so dumb they didn’t even realize that one plus one equals two (1+1=2) and one murder plus one murder equals two murders, one crime plus one crime equals two crimes, etc.

They did not understand causality at all.

The few primates who did understand causality slightly called it karma. They said all sorts of foolish things about it.

They didn’t even know enough mathematics to describe quantum probability waves. They said, in crude hominid metaphor, that bad karma led to “bad vibes.”

–R.A. Wilson, The Universe Next Door
=====================================

The defense of torture as a means of information gathering always *assumes* a guilty victim, and never assumes only the facts; namely, that they are a fellow human, that they are a primate just as we are, and that torturing a human still seems horrendous, be them guilty of many crimes or none at all.

13 years ago

That’s very clearly stated Krell. It puts a salve of “amen” to it. TY for your understanding. It is an excellent post on a timely topic… ala Bush. O dear! Yet again. **sigh**

13 years ago

First and foremost, before I comment on anything else…

I applaud Gwen and the passion that she has for the things that she believes in and gives strength to. She has been fighting the good fight for quite a while now and if only MORE people were like her, this country wouldn’t be in the shit hole mess that it’s in right now. Does her comments seem angry? Perhaps…but EVERYONE’S comments should be angry on this one! EVERYONE! Thank you,Gwen,for your comments and thank you for being a friend.

Okay, let’s put aside the obvious moral and basic human decency aspect and look at this from a legal standpoint and perception.

The USA ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 1994. Under UNCAT, in EVERY case where there is evidence against a person of their having committed or attempted to commit torture, or of having committed acts which constitutes complicity or participation in torture, the case must be submitted to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, if the individual is not extradited for prosecution.

The authorities must take their decision whether to prosecute in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offense of a serious nature under the law of the state.

Failing to proceed with a prosecution on the basis that the accused held public office of any rank, or citing justifications based in “exceptional circumstances”, whether states of war or other public emergencies, is not permitted by UNCAT. Torture is also defined as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, meaning that investigation and submission for prosecution of all cases of torture in situations of international armed conflict is an express obligation under those treaties.

When Obama gave a speech before the UN Human Rights Council in 2009…

“Make no mistake, the United States will not look the other way in the face of serious human rights abuses. The truth must be told, the facts brought to light and the consequences faced”

Hillary Clinton giving a speech in Jan, 2010 at the UN….

“A commitment to human rights starts with universal standards and with holding everyone accountable to those standards, including ourselves… When injustice anywhere is ignored, justice everywhere is denied. Acknowledging and remedying mistakes does not make us weaker, it reaffirms the strengths of our principles and institutions.”

When we went to war with Iraq, one of the trumped up reasons were violations of UN imposed mandates. But yet we continue to ignore anything that we chose when it applies to us.

With a war in the 21st century, communications and perceptions can be just as important as winning a battle. Remember that slogan “Winning the hearts and minds..”? A terrorist war can come down to just that. Like it or not, Osama Bin put us on the world stage with 9/11.

When the very symbol of Saddam’s brutality, Abu Ghraib prison, was used as TORTURE CENTRAL by us and exposed by all those photographs, what do you think the perception was?

When we ignore international laws that we ratify and give speeches about how important they are, all it does is expose the hypocrisy. It turns against us and becomes a tool that increases the anger and recruitment power for the other side.

Not only do we not pursue the perpetrators of these violations, we watch the person that approved the torture on talk shows selling his book and bragging about his “Damn Right” decision.

Perceptions. We lost that battle a long time ago.

Bee
Reply to  Krell
13 years ago

You’re my hero, Krell 🙂 Seriously, dude, most excellent post!

I saw a clip last night of Bush on the Oprah show. He made my skin crawl. Literally crawl. had to turn it off. Oprah had a look on her face like he was making her skin crawl, too. Which begs the question of why she would ever let that sad sack on her show, book or no book.

BigHarryH
Reply to  Bee
13 years ago

Whatever happened to Question of the Week?

thejeanmachine
13 years ago

I loved this. It was great and I learned a lot. The comments were great too except for Gwendolyn who just seems so darn angry.

Torture, by the way, is terror, regardless of who we torture, we are terrorizing. Does that somehow make us superior?

Reply to  thejeanmachine
13 years ago

You have a point Jean. I did respond with anger. Not with rage. And I said exactly what I thought. I always have tried to here. I have been ‘condescended’ and even insulted and I realize that plays into my responses here today. I’m just another one of those who has had enough. No harm. Peace.

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

To my knowledge Gwen there is no one else who has had enough. I think most understand that discussions can become lively, and this one is no exception. When you mentioned “condescension” I felt it incumbent on me to look into it. I may claim to be a lot of things but “perfect” is not one of those things.

As a result I contacted 25 regular readers and asked them to review author’s posts. After doing so they tell me they don’t see anything but the occasional heated discussion and a whole lot of people having a whole lot of fun discussing our world today. At no time did they feel the management of MMA was condescending to any of its great writers.

Trust me when I say if anyone had accused me of that I would have apologized for it would never be my intent to condescend or patronize. I have nothing but the greatest respect and affection for this fine group of people and their many, many talents.

In conclusion I wish you all the best Gwen and you are welcome to comment, or post, as you will and as you wish.

Peace…..:-)

JL
13 years ago

You guys are good.

Reply to  JL
13 years ago

Thanks JL. We kinda think so 🙂 We hope you come back.

BigHarryH
13 years ago

This is the most fun I’ve had in months.

osori
Reply to  BigHarryH
13 years ago

Hi Harry,
Hadn’t seen you here in awhile. We don’t always agree but I respect your opinion.

13 years ago

Wow.

Reply to  C.H. McDermott
13 years ago

This is what it’s all about. A stirring, intelligent post that can encourage some heated discussion. I love the smell of napalm in the morning 🙂

Reply to  Professor Mike
13 years ago

I’d like to nominate this response as the best comment in show. Making clear, of course, that I in no way condone the use of napalm, unless I’m playing devil’s advocate. 🙂

13 years ago

Whatever Mike.
I feel like I’m playing a part in desecrating a friend’s post here.. now. Not good. No parrie. No thrust. Done.
Thanks David, for a good post.

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

There is no desecration here. None. There are just divergent opinions.

13 years ago

How can an opinion be wrong? Its just disagreeable.
I don’t buy the explanation that was offered after there was negative commentary. Mike, you place your comments with skewed timing for effect… too. But ya know, a few expletives don’t make me hate filled…
whereas
water boarding quite fits that description, don’t you think? And I invite the hypocrisy back into that direction.
Larry, I’m a Miss or Ms. not a Mrs. (just a bugaboo of mine 🙂
I think war wrong. I think terror wrong. I think of America as a foremost Human Rights nation… that’s just me. The commentary above was in opposition to that. And that, btw, all I expressed was an opinion too. You seem to think that water boarding is well thought out peace. It’s an opinion I disagree with.
It’s shocking that Human Rights are cast aside so easily. Still. Perhaps if Bush-Cheney had been prosecuted, it would not be so easy to do?
Was that part of your point, David?

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

Nowhere did either Alan or I advocate water boarding. Perhaps you should read the comments more carefully?

13 years ago

I’ve been following this little site for a long while and wish to extend my good wishes to its architects. You folks have come a long way and if I know my web sites you will be most successful.

I only comment here today (I’m not a commenter) in response to the post written by Mr. Krell. It was well considered, well thought out, and historically accurate. That is refreshing given that I spend what seems like half my life travelling blogs and web sites.

I also enjoyed the comments, all of them, with the possible exception of Mrs. Barry whose remarkable hypocrisy caught my attention. She responds with a hate filled, expletive ridden diatribe attacking those who simply expressed their opinions. I don’t understand such a violent reaction in such a common sense forum.

I saw no condescension from Mr. Scott, only a well reasoned outspoken thought that speaks not to ideology but to practicality. I certainly found no fault with Mr. Ender’s equally well thought out response wherein all he did was tell the truth. As to prosecuting the Bush administration. Let’s be reasonable. Mr. Ender rather well answered that question.

The fact is war is not a happy time and bad things happen to good people. Bad things also happen to bad people. Terrorists are bad people and don’t deserve the same courtesy extended to common criminals. Their goals are to kill as many of us as they can. While I do not advocate torture I have to ask myself what I would demand of the authorities if one of these creatures held my family hostage with the threat of death hanging over their heads. Would I ask the interrogator to follow the Geneve convention? Interesting question. I don’t know what I would do for certain but I have a pretty good idea.

I hope all of you keep up the great work. You are an extraordinary team. I visit every day, and sometimes more often, at least when my wife lets me on the computer.

osori
Reply to  Larry David
13 years ago

Sir,
Thank you for reading and your comments.

I would like to say that both Mr Scott and Ms Barry are expressing their considered opinions, arrived at thru research and blended into their own emotions.

Both are my friends and both care deeply for their nation and its people, as well as the world and its people.
I saw nothing hate-filled in Gwen’s post, neither to me was it a diatribe. Rather she feels deeply about injustice, those strong feelings were reflected in her comments.
Both she and Mike are old friends.You may have gotten the wrong opinion but I assure you Gwen is no hypocrite.

How would you feel about US soldiers being waterboarded?

Should one apply the same standards to our troops that we apply to civilians in the middle east they would certainly fit the profile-they commit violence against civilians for political purposes.

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter-Ronald Reagan classified the Mujahadeen and the Contras as freedom fighters, yet both regularly committed atrocities against civilians.

I don’t believe Krell as much opposes torture of terrorists as he (and myself)oppose torture of innocent people. People guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time,guilty of defending their nation from aggressive war or merely guilty of following Islam instead of Christianity or Judaism.

Jess
Reply to  Larry David
13 years ago

So terrorists want to kill as many people as they can right. Here is a test IMO for this. How do you feel about the Timothy McVeighs, Eric Rudolphs of the world just in general. They try to instill fear in people, the same way that suicide bomber does, should they get a nice water treatment also? What about the people like Glenn Beck, who go up to the line of inciting some poor misguided person to an act of terror, should he be held accountable and tortured? I’m just curious to see whether a nice white man/woman can be a terrorist/sympathizer or is it just brown skinned people that deserve the spa treatment and where do we draw the line at who is a terrorist and who is not. Who makes that ultimate decision to water torture another human being? I don’t have the answers and am always looking for differing opinions see if I may be wrong with my going against barbaric methods of punishment. I really don’t think I am but never know, someone might bring up a situation where I might ask myself, why didn’t I think of that before now.

Reply to  Jess
13 years ago

Good points Jess. This is a blurred line indeed.

Reply to  Larry David
13 years ago

Thanks for taking the time to comment Larry. It is nice to know that you visit MMA!

13 years ago

Holte,
Until the precedent is set to prosecute leadership for such atrocities, they continue to be quasi-grandfathered as ‘ok’ under circumstances. I am, as you can obviously see, against it. Don’t mean to sound nasty, either. Please excuse if I do.

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

I’m against it too Gwen, all I am saying is prosecuting them wouldn’t fly, I wish it would, they would be pardoned by the next (soon) republican president. I can wish and dream but mostly I’m a realist.

Reply to  Holte Ender
13 years ago

I can understand that Holte. Many folk have retired the hope in justice. I haven’t. I haven’t retired my manners either. I know you have valid point considering the majority
It’s about Human Rights.
About actively being against the war.
Liberal crap. 🙂

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

I haven’t retired my hope for justice Gwen, I still hope we get it. I just don’t believe we will. Not for many years. It will be up to the historians and true people of honor, they are in short supply in this day and age. Perhaps one day we will become a true Social Democracy, but not now, the majority of people are way too conservative and full of fear and desperation. Desperate men do desperate things.

Jess
13 years ago

Didn’t we also try someone for waterboarding back in the day and he was hanged? I get the willies when I hear anyone say let’s look forward anymore. How could anyone possibly condone this barbaric method of getting any info is entirely beyond me.

I am now to the point of dry heaves about Bush and now PO, continuing his “special interrogation techniques” because I have done my throwing up about it. I’m not lying here people, when I heard what was happening, I took to vomiting, it made me so physically ill that this was being done in my name.

As far as the public, that is where the apathetic citizens of this country need to get up off their collective asses and start screaming in the streets, Not in my name you don’t. It won’t happen though and if it did, it would not be talked about. It would be like everything else, oh look , over there, Linsday Lohan got busted for showing her hoo ha on television or John Travolta’s new baby name is…. Makes me sick.

osori
Reply to  Jess
13 years ago

Right on the $ Jess. One of the crimes Imperial Japan was accused of was torture, specifically water torture. And you are correct there were executions of Japanese soldiers at the Tokyo Trials for it, convicted by American judges and hung.

Admin
13 years ago

What a great discussion!! It was also a great post Krell. Thanks. There is much food for thought. By the way, having spent many, many years as an interrogator both with Army Intelligence and law enforcement I am proud to say I never even once tortured anyone, nor would I consider it. Again brilliant writing.

13 years ago

Actually supporting water boarding? Did I just read that? This post isn’t the kind of dirty laundry designed to attract the attention of lowbrow rubbernecking that has come to dominate here. It’s an actual opinion, well written, researched and given considerate thought. It is a progressive, liberal Democratic opinion that was once touted to be the masthead here. What utter nonsense that is!
Alan I’m surprised at your projection: “The same would happen now, if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were to be tried, by the time it got into the courtroom people would be sick of it and some new President would grant a pardon.” Like are you fucking nuts? It’s a precedent! The insurance of the law! The actual right and fucking wrong of American constitutionality.
Mike, your condescending remarks, devoid of any common sense argument, are the rant of a child. Take a real look at it! I thought you had more to you than that… despite the fact that it’s all you’ve ever shown me in disagreement. But as you say, it’s your site, you can say what ever you want.
Maybe you can work a little Christ bashing into it….
unbelievable!

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

Gwen I could be nuts, who knows for sure, but I believe that wanting the war criminals Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to pay for their crimes against humanity, and getting it done are two different things.

Nixon did tremendous harm to democracy, and the first thing Ford did when he took over, was pardon him. The same thing would happen again. We have very little control and wishing doesn’t achieve anything.

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

It goes without saying that I am somewhat taken aback by the ferocity of your attack Gwen, but you have the right to express yourself, as do I when I construct hypothetical situations. See my emails 🙂

Reply to  Professor Mike
13 years ago

I guess I should just reply in kind, Mike. See my emails.
The condescending is obvious and I’m not reacting, I’m responding to it. Just kind of tired of the circular aspect in it. It seems that whenever you are painted into an attitude corner with a post that does not conform to your opinion and you comment and someone rebukes it, you retreat to a ‘devil’s advocate’ stance and hope it mainstays your character in the argument. I don’t buy it. I am in my own integrity to say so.
I hope you don’t ban me from commenting… but it will be easy enough to do so in FB messages. I don’t need an audience.

You know, David worked on his post. He spent the time researching and giving considerate thought to it. I responded in the same ‘vain’ of commentary. I’m only standing up here for my own thoughts and actions… and they concern a post written well. What the whole magilla is about.

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

I have no concerns about my “character.” I do not shirk from accepting responsibility for what I say, think and believe.

I would never, ever intentionally “condescend” to the great writings of this fine team. I think sometimes such assumptions are in the eye of the beholder.

As to Krell’s great post do you know that I did not respond to him in a more personal forum, thanking him for the great work that he did? Do you know what goes on behind the scenes at MMA? I think not.

In closing I do not need to hide behind any “devil’s advocate” stance. You of all people should know that I do not shy away from expressing my clear thoughts and beliefs. Playing devil’s advocate is a mechanism designed to encourage and stimulate discussion. Part of a publisher/editor’s job is to do just that. Clearly it worked.

As I said you are always welcome to comment and I look forward to reading your thoughts and observations.

Reply to  Professor Mike
13 years ago

Mike, I don’t buy this either…

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

Gwen you know little to nothing about me. You are not informed enough to draw conclusions about my motives.

13 years ago

Has there been a true peace in the Philippines since 1900, one or two dictators and an insurgency that won’t go away.

The public was no longer interested in something that only months earlier been alarming revelations . .

The same would happen now, if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were to be tried, by the time it got into the courtroom people would be sick of it and some new President would grant a pardon.

Reply to  Holte Ender
13 years ago

Holte, I just have to believe that a public fascinated for months about a president getting a blow job, could hang in there for a president that admitted to war crimes as determined by the rules of the Geneva Convention.

But what do I know? I never would have believed that a reality show could be made about a pawn shop.

Reply to  Krell
13 years ago

Clinton was in office at the time of the blow job, Bush, Cheney etc., are now private citizens. Not quite sure on how the law works, but I imagine any lawsuit would have to go through the court system. I think the only way the war criminals will be served justice, would be down the road and posthumously. Pursuing a president over a wayward blow job is a little different than chasing one down for war crimes. The Clinton/Lewinksy saga, sadly, amused lots of people, wtaerboarding trials would not have the same impact on the population. They would get pardoned.

Admin
13 years ago

Let me get this straight. I just want to understand after all.

A seriously bad guy is taken into custody. The best interrogators ever are questioning him in a traditional manner.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that he possesses information that could save millions of lives.

Do we say oh gosh by gosh by golly. That doesn’t matter. We are not going to give him a bath. That is just nasty, nasty, nasty.

Well what about the millions of lives that could be saved because of the information that he has?

It doesn’t matter. We are America. We are above that. Those millions will just have to die.

Now please don’t anyone tell me that traditional techniques work all the time. Please don’t tell me that.

I am curious though if you would be willing to trade Manhattan for the ideological dream?

Peace in water-boarding!

osori
Reply to  Professor Mike
13 years ago

I’m no expert, but what I’ve read is the experts – not the politicians and pundits, the experts – agree torture doesn’t work.They get more bad information/people telling them what they want to hear, than good information.

Your hypothetical victim is a terrorist.The real victims are generally people who informants turn in for $, or who are unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity of an IED attack, or who just happen to be the unfortunate person grabbed off the street.

Reply to  osori
13 years ago

It is true my hypothetical victim is a terrorist. As for interview and interrogation I was court certified as an expert in May 1977. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I had no up close and personal look at extreme measures. I did, however, have the benefit of a lot of training, both academic and practical. I can assure you that the United States Army frowned on harsh measures. Their position was that the better you are the less the need to rely on prohibited forms of interrogation.

Reply to  Professor Mike
13 years ago

All right! The hypothetical bad guy with a nuke about to blow up a million. Hadn’t heard this one in quite a while.

Okay, Mike..say that it is okay to torture someone to save a million just for this absurdum. Would you say that it is okay to torture the bad guy to save a 1000 people? How about 50 people?

Say that there was only a 50 percent chance that the bad guy had the mystery combination. Would you still torture him to save 20 people?

What if you could only find the location of the bad guy if you tortured his family to save those 20 people? Would that still be okay?

Your example presents conditions of an extreme certainty used for imaginary situations given by radio talk show hosts.

Of course if that situation happened in real life, the answer would be to torture. But real life seldom is like the TV show 24 hours.

Real life is snatching somebody off the street, taking him to some hell hole prison, making him stand on one foot for 48 hours while his balls are hooked up to the AC wall socket for the POSSIBILITY of getting some information.

Real life is sensory deprivation to groups of prisoners so that they eventually go completely insane and starting talking like infants curled up in a fetal position for the POSSIBILITY of some information.

Since you gave an example, I get to give one as well.

Suppose there was a gathering of 300 people for whatever reason…uh..say it’s a wedding. One of those 300 had a cell phone that would set off an IED. You do not know where the IED is or how many it will kill. Do you use a drone strike on that group? You have the knowledge that the drone strike will kill all 300. What would you do?

osori
13 years ago

As regards foreign policy, Obama’s the same as Bush is the same as Roosevelt is the same as…..

Obama supports war and supports torture.Period.Is he comfortable with it? I have no way of knowing.

Is it better to be tortured with the approval of someone less comfortable with it than his predecessor? Don’t know that either but I wouldn’t think so.

Is it more palatable when your family is killed in drone attacks ordered by a Black man? I would very much doubt that.

The problem is very much a partisan one. Democrats opposed the wars and opposed torture under a Republican president.

Under a Democrat, we’ll hear that he ended the Iraq war.

How do you end an aggressive war of your own making while leaving 50,000 occupying troops and untold mercenaries to prop up what is seen by the Iraqi people as a collaborationist puppet regime?

How do you not initiate a war crimes tribunal against the torture and state terrorism of the previous US regime? The president won a Nobel Peace Prize-he should therefore work towards peace.

Torture and state terrorism and aggressive war are wrong. There is nothing to debate here.

Great, great post Krell.

13 years ago

The flag that dreamed of delivering
Shudders and droops like a broken wing.

What else is there to say ?? We should caring about the emoting of a war monger failure President?
The article is fantastic… it brings it to point: from my point of view: how punked do I feel that the choice I made to work for a fellow sitting in the oval office now with essentially very little difference in foreign policy and war strategy. I didn’t think Obama that back of it all… but he is. That’s very apparent, now. Is it still going on? And never has it been addressed legally.
Punked.

Well writ Krell!

Previous post Dogs win big in Missouri-Puppy mill capital of the nation
Next post What does Atheism offer me? Read it all….
47
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x