Torture is Wrong in So Many Ways

Aside from all questions of policy,tradition, religion, ethics, morals, and "decency" there is a practical reason for not resorting to torture. In our own nation's history--and not so long ago-- police used "physical persuasion" to get confessions. It really works...even if one is innocent. So rough up the suspects. If you don't have a suspect, pick one of the "usual suspects". The step from federally sponsored torture to the local level isn't that long a step.

The most effective torturers are sadistic pyschopaths - they bring great enthusiasm and creativity to their work.

The problem is, they're not looking for information, since the work is an end in itself - they're also notoriously hard to control, make their own rules, and decide arbitrarily who gets tortured.

Religious rulers and totalitarian governments alike have employed these 'specialists' to achieve their own ends - and it never has to do with preserving the well-being of the society at large.

Who would recommend that our government stoop to such a level of inhuman perversity?? There is no 'upside' to torture - period.

Regardless of what Dick Cheney says....

The most effective torturers are sadistic pyschopaths - they bring great enthusiasm and creativity to their work.

The problem is, they're not looking for information, since the work is an end in itself - they're also notoriously hard to control, make their own rules, and decide arbitrarily who gets tortured.

Religious rulers and totalitarian governments alike have employed these 'specialists' to achieve their own ends - and it never has to do with preserving the well-being of the society at large.

Who would recommend that our government stoop to such a level of inhuman perversity?? There is no 'upside' to torture - period.

Regardless of what Dick Cheney says....

To Farnaz from Daniel. Thank you for the links Farnaz. I read the book on multiple intelligences by Gardner some years back. I also read a book on emotional intelligence by I believe Goleman. Interestingly, about the Gardner book, I read a piece in a magazine which somewhat criticized it in that the magazine piece said that although multiple intelligences might be true, one must have an above average I.Q. to really realize a particular intelligence. It might be after all that speaking well is a sign of above average intelligence. I had forgotten that article.

On the subject of whether torture actually works--purports to arrive at a definite and particular result for which it is the means--I find it strange that anyone should question such a thing in this manner. Torture has been around for milleniums and anyone can see it at work in the average schoolyard what with the bullies getting this and that from individuals they threaten. To those who question whether torture works, have you not heard someone say in your life "I'll kick your ass if you don't tell me". Far from torture not working, simply hinting at it is enough to make a person give in.

Specifically on the subject of torture today, Cheney said documents will show that valuable information has been extracted from suspects by waterboarding. All Obama has to do is release those documents to prove Cheney once again lied (for it seems everyone considers him a liar). Why is Obama hesitating to release those documents?

This of course is not to say I am for torture. For man to have to torture--for a society to have to torture specifically--is perhaps the worst and most apparent symptom that something is wrong with the body politic. It is something of a last resort defense mechanism. But if we do not make a serious effort to keep the body politic healthy it will do what it has to do to survive. So we should all work toward the health of society.

Part four

And it is we it seems, who will keep torture alive and flourishing. Alive and flourishing because information from individuals simply must be had--whether we educate people to make use of their minds or torture them for information--in a world man seems more intent on destroying than bringing to life. We cannot get out of all these developments which are still largely ahead of us by leaping to an idealistic Democratic party view and thrusting all these developments on the Republican party and blaming them. Quite simply it seems we have before us the continued development and refinement of WMD, the destruction of the environment, the continued development of technology to allow a society of total surveillance and of course an increasing acceptance and refinement of torture because along with all the other problems we have we have an increasing power of the individual--power beyond such things liberty, and more like the individual becoming explosive. Beyond that it is difficult not to see that we will attempt to change man by a variety of methods--to create a man that can handle what he himself invents. Certainly we should hope we do not have to torture man too much to get him to become responsible. But then again, we are dealing with man--and when has man ever been really responsible? A working together by all of us to prevent the dystopian society....

Part three

But the Democratic party simply saying it is for all this and against that is meaningless, and even more disturbing is its attempt to locate these problems with the Republican party, as if these problems can be simply voted away. In fact the Democratic party attempts to thrust what essentially are problems that largely are in our future--will come to together and reinforce each other in the future--on the party which people call conservative, representative of the past. Why the Democratic party would do such is very strange when anyone can simply observe that science and technology are making us increasingly Godless; science and technology have led to WMD; science and technology have led to the destruction of the environment; science and technology have led to the possibility of a society of total surveillance; science and technology--do I really need to continue? All that remains to be said is that it seems the dystopian view is inevitable.

In short, for all Republican and Democratic party bickering in the U.S.--the mutual attempts at laying blame--it seems we are inevitably led to a world which is not the fault of any one of us but rather all of us. Our scientific advancement and wrenching of ourselves out of religion have led us to become existential--and perhaps more and more paranoid for the simple reason we no longer have recourse to God but only ourselves. It is we who have developed WMD and become mass movements and often disgruntled individuals seeking more and more powerful weapons and strategies for delivering them. It is we who are refining asymmetrical warfare. It is we who are destroying the environment. It is we who are moving toward a society of total surveillance in an attempt to gain control, to prevent ourselves from destroying ourselves.

Part two

Probably the greatest sign so far of man caught in a battle of free will versus determinism came in WW2 when all attempts of man to remain peaceful not only came to naught, WMD came on the scene to possibly forever put the concept of free will into question. And things have only gotten worse. Types of WMD have arisen (biological, nuclear, chemical), proliferation of such has been occurring, and the phenomenon of asymmetrical warfare has truly come into existence. Even without WMD and the proliferation of such and asymmetrical warfare, we would have man increasingly without God, environmental problems, and communications technology threatening the possibility of a life of total surveillance--and the latter is increasingly becoming augmented by the science of genetics, which is to say it seems all too soon enough we will be able to say to a great degree what a person is likely to be like and even what he is likely to become simply by running tests on the baby after--or even before--birth. Talk about a circumscription of life.

And the truly troubling thing about all these problems is that if one happens to be an American--and I am one--one cannot help but see these problems are being reduced to starkly political terms, as if one can overcome these problems by voting for this political party or that. Roughly speaking the Republican party in the U.S. is associated with religion; with the development and spread of weapons (and of course those of mass destruction); with the destruction of the environment; with police state behavior (society of total surveillance); and of course torture. The Democratic party is clearly idealistic, not seeing that all the problems before us (significant ones of which have been brought up in this small essay) cannot be reduced and overcome by associating them with a particular political party. The Democratic party is roughly against religion; for science (keeping alive the revolution of such and the Enlightenment); against WMD and the proliferation of such; against destruction of the environment; and of course against a society of total surveillance and torture.

Daniel12

On the probability of the refinement and spread of torture in the modern age.

Part one

We all know the old story. We all have heard of the foundation and promise of a truly wonderful age within Western civilization. We all have heard of the Greeks and Romans, the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. We all know that superstition and even religion has given way to methods by which we can potentially eradicate disease, master the environment by technical advancement and promise to everyone a life of liberty and love as if we no longer need to die or even be especially good to receive what in Western civilization religion--Christianity--is known as heaven.

But then the rude awakening. First it was the question of how harmful science is to religion. What meaning life without God will have. This development alone was enough to make us ask if for all the promises of science and technological advancement ahead of us we might be headed toward hell rather than heaven. Even with the continued progress of science and technology and the putting at bay the feeling we might be hubristic according to religion, we have at least had to endure a setting upon us of great responsibility, the realization that our lives are existential, that no God can help us and we are on our own. This was enough to make us wary--wary of everything and not just our fellow citizen.

Then things became more and more difficult. Among them, significantly, we have man trying to stay abreast of technological advancement, to not be left without a job, or even be rendered obsolete due to some invention or development. Then we have weaponry leaping ahead in power of destruction (the atomic bomb the undeniable realization of that) and the population explosion, big politics dealing with the increasing and evermore demanding masses. Then came fears that man will destroy the natural world around him (environmental problems) and fears that the increasing refinement and spread of technology of communications will lead to a society of total surveillance. No need to state that this is enough to describe where we are now. And disturbingly, all these developments ensure that the concept known as historical determinism--that we are swept by forces beyond our control--stays at the forefront of our consciousness no matter how we try to emphasize the opposite, free will.

test, test, test

since we are reopening this debate...i say EVEN IF (big if) dick chaney right we still shouldn't torture...

HI DANIEL12,

I wrote a lengthy post to you on Susan's previous thread, replete with links on Multiple Intelligence theory and on Learning Styles, both of which, I think, might interest you.

Also, an applied question that goes to "genius" and development.

Remarks on studying writing.

Farnaz

Danielinthelionsden wrote:

"People falsely assume that torture works, but it does not. That is a justification for its use, which in reality has more nefarious motivations."

This is an absolutely fascinating generalization. Can you back it up with something like, oh, say, just for the fun of it, FACTS? Actually, one would do.

I have a visceral dislike of torture, for any reason. My arguments against it would be greatly enhanced if you could provide me with facts to support your remarks.

Why ask for a comment when you can't accept opinions that are adverse to your ideology, and can't dispute?

"People falsely assume that torture works, but it does not. That is a justification for its use, which in reality has more nefarious motivations."

DanielintheLionsDen,

So, so true. The myth that torture "works" -- that is, achieves the gain of some useful intelligence from the victim -- is as absurd as the myth that the death penalty is a deterrent.

The FBI has extensive records of interrogations that netted useful results when alleged terrorists were treated humanely and given something simple that they wanted rather than being beaten, drowned, shocked, stuffed in boxes, or hung from ceilings. Sometimes a decent meal and a low, non-aggressive voice have been all that was necessary to find out startling information that was later found to be true.

Likewise, the death penalty will never be a deterrent to violent crime for the simple reason that no one who commits violent crime ever thinks he's going to get caught. Totally obvious. Duh, even. But, of course, acknowledging that simple fact deprives the macho law-and-order types of their swagger potential. So, we have to keep the death penalty alive so that they can feel like real tough guys meting out "justice."

It's all pretty pathetic, isn't it?

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

I sent a long message to David Waters, as you advised. Here's hoping something can be done.

He also posted on the matter of impersonators on the main thread.

Thanks again for your help!

Farnaz

Hi DITLD:

"I advise, as I have in the past, that you click on the "report offensive comment" link, and write a very long email; I think that would help more than posting things here."

I'm not sure I know what you mean by advising me (?) in the past, but I have, in fact, emailed OnFaith when problems occured on previous occasions and will do the same now.

Truthfully, emailing hasn't proven as effective as I would have liked, but I will try again now.

Btw., I doubt my "Help" helped much!

Farnaz

DITNLD,

I reported a number of those fake posts to the WAPO, including the ones posted under my name and Arminius's name. It takes a while but they will delete them.

I am so sick of this game playing. Arminius informed me that his posts are also held by the blog owner no matter how he tries to phrase his posts.

These lame individuals really should get a life or something.

Farnaz

I went back and read over the main thread. There was alot of bogus posts there by the phantom poster. Almost all of them have been deleted, now. So, someone at WaPo is aware of this. Maybe your post got help up because they are sincerly confused about who is the real you and who is the fake. That is the goal, I assume. I advise, as I have in the past, that you click on the "report offensive comment" link, and write a very long email; I think that would help more than posting things here.

Hi Susan,

I is painfully obvious that some people like to talk to themselves under various screen names.

You are worried about entries that question peoples' identities, yet the Washington Post has not made improvements to the logon process that prohibits people posing has others to spew their hatefulness.

Case in point, look at all the entries made under your name. It appears that someone is intent on destryoing the OnFaith website all together.

I sure wish your and the WAPO staff could put a stop to all this nonsense.

Sincerely, Gaby

DITLD,

Point of clarification: Of course, if we notice fake postings, if ANYONE sees fake postings, s/he should point them out.

Again, thanks!

Farnaz :)

DITLD,

Well, so now someone, God(?) knows whom, is posting under my name.

I guess the simple fact is that it as easy as one wants to make it to incrimminate other bloggers with fake postings.

Frankly, like a lot of others, I was having trouble keeping up with the multiple Anonymi, and, therefore, thought that Susan's idea of requring people to sign in was a good one.

I still do; however, it is becoming evident that nothing will stop anyone with the technical wherewithal from posting in ways that impugn the credibility of others so as to distract from what they say or to have what some might consider "fun," etc., as, I assume, was the objective in the present case.

Whoever is doing this now may or may not have done the same or similar things in the past. Or, there may have been more than one blogger involved in these doings. Who knows.

Hopefully, the Management will remove the fake postings from this thread. I've only given a preliminary glance at those posted under my moniker, and the following are NOT mine:

Posted by: FARNAZ1MANS0URI1 | May 3, 2009 5:54 AM

Posted by: FARNAZ1MANS0URI1 | May 3, 2009 6:15 AM

Posted by: FARNAZ1MANS0URI1 | May 3, 2009 2:34 PM

It would be good if more didn't appear.
________________________________________

DITLD, what do you think of this idea?
Susan Jacoby took the time to write an essay for us.

How about those interested in this matter blog on it, and we concern ourselves with the contents of their postings and nothing more?

Finally, thank you very, very much, DITLD, for showing us how we can distinguish authentic from inauthentic postings.

Farnaz

On Faith Panelists Blog | FARNAZ1MANS0URI1 | Torture is Wrong in So Many Way

On Faith Panelists Blog | Farnaz1Mansouri1 | Torture is Wrong in So Many Way

Obvioiusly, someone is impersonating other people's screen names. I think it is Statbear. He is doing it by noting that most screen names are given in upper and lower case letters, but the WAPO only lists the names in upper case letters so it is hard to tell what this person is doing.

An easy way to see the true screen name in upper and lower case letters is to click on the link "report offenseive comment." You will then see the screen name listed in the comment line.

By doibg this, I have demonstrated that there are two people posting under Susan Jacoby's screen name, one as Susan_Jacoby, the true Susan, and one as SUSAN_JACOBY, the fake Susan.

I am clueless? I don't think so. On the contrary; I am starting to understand the whole scheme.

To Stadtbear from Daniel. I knew you would respond in such a manner. Quite a shock for you, eh? The world not as selfish as you imagine? But I did reason clearly and arrived at a conclusion. For all your Rand I am quite certain I see more deeply. Altruism does not exist? Even in the most selfish act a person cannot help helping someone, even if that person is only himself. It is the exact same thing as you said when I said the extreme of altruism is helping someone you hate. You said concerning what I said that selfishness still exists because one is striving for a goal. Well the opposite exists as well. Again, even in the most selfish act a residue of altruism remains--even if one is only helping oneself. Or are you going to maintain that it is possible to get away from having to help oneself? selfishness/altruism is identical to yin and yang--or any other pair of opposites you care to imagine. It seems to me that you and Rand are lopsided people--thermostat malfunctioning and stuck on icy selfishness rather than being able to regulate correctly between hot and cold.

Daniel12 wrote:
"So we can say both altruism and selfishness are necessary because both cannot be escaped--ever."

I don't know who "we" are but it definitely does not include me, buddy. I simply do not believe that altruism CAN exist.

DanielInTheLion'sDen:

So, in your febrile little mind, you have concluded that I am mimicking Susan Jacoby and others. You are entitled to your beliefs—anyone can imitate me. I don’t really care what you “think” because I have seen examples of your “thinking” and I am singularly unimpressed.

But in your rush to express your half-formed ideas, you have overlooked the obvious, to no-one’s surprise. She (and I am sure it is a she) is exchanging the letter O with the numeral 0. That is how it is being done. She is creating entirely new screen names that only LO0K (at first glance) like the originals.

Now run along and find an adult to do your thinking.

To Stadtbear from Daniel on the subject of selfishness, whether it creeps into all human acts,--and on the subject of altruism as well and whether it too creeps into all acts.

Roughly we can state that there are acts most people call selfish for obvious reasons. We do not have to waste words giving examples of such acts--they are plainly selfish. Then there are acts which most people call being altruistic but these acts are usually directed to someone the person likes (or is compatible with, etc,) or someone in distress who causes no great offense. Therefore they are acts which really are not as selfless as we like to imagine. Finally there are those acts at the extreme toward altruism which most people do not imagine and of which the best example I can give is doing something good for someone you hate. But of course even in this extreme of altruism we can say selfishness exists even if it is only the desire to reach this goal--self service still remains.

But the opposite applies as well. In other words there are acts which are at the extreme of altruism and which contain a minimum of selfishness--again, as an example, the act of doing something good for someone you hate. Then as we move down the scale to the less extreme acts of altruism we arrive at the middle of our scale with acts which people do for others but are questionable as to their altruism because these acts typically are directed toward people one likes or does not find offensive. Finally we arrive at acts which are extremely selfish--all would agree such acts are selfish. But even here altruism cannot be escaped, a residue of altruism remains because even in extreme selfishness one cannot help but help someone even if this person is only oneself.

So we can say both altruism and selfishness are necessary because both cannot be escaped--ever. And really we should not be surprised at this relationship between selfishness and altruism because the world is full of opposites such as black and white or male and female, etc. At the extreme of altruism a residue of selfishness remains. And at the extreme of selfishness a residue of altruism remains.

The question is how many people are moral enough to be aware of this dance.

Is an interesting manifestation to have screen name impersonation on this thread after all the accusations of multiple screen names batted around, probably validly, and Susan laying out housekeeping rules. I agree with the housekeeping rules at least from the position that one must do something, and when participants cannot behave in a civil way then civil rules must be made. It is always the few that ruin it for the many. Perhaps some people, valueless in their own eyes, find a dizzying feeling of exuberance being an irritant to many.

A fleas raison d'etre.

How adolescent is this chatter, though! My God, reading some of this meaningless garbage is like being back in elementary school. Petty and boring. Am I in elementary school? Or is it just K - 12 and I have to take the childish tripe along with the bit of stimulating discourse? One can only skip over it.

Arrogance and judgmentalism are easy enough for me to bring up. Perhaps torture should be allowed, under certain conditions....

Farnaz

I copied and pasted your screen name from a comment that sounded like you, and from one that sounded like Statbear, and here they are, obviously different:

Farnaz1Mansouri1

FARNAZ1MANS0URI1

I expect he will start doing this to me next. I don't care. I have confidence that the WaPo will delete all his impersonated posts and block his further posting. He is just a bratty little pest who makes other people go through alot of extra trouble work, claaning up after him.

Farnaz

Statbear is mimicking Susan's screen name because her screen name is Susan_Jacoby, but Statbear has used the name SUSAN_JACOBY to impersonate her with his idiotic remarks, as if no one could tell the difference.

When the WaPo prints the user name, it always uses capital letters, so the two names look the same.

I figured it out by oopying and pasting the different names to an msword document, and there they appear, as different as night and day. And it only took me a minute to figure it out.

I hope, somehow, the WaPo fan ban him from this sight forever.

I assume it is Statbear impersonating Susan, because of his trademark "hahahahaha" which no one else uses but him.

justillthen'

I'm back! I had to leave for a bit because of the demands of ordinary life and the fact that my hackles were rising. It is never good to speak or act out of anger. Let me just say that asserting that "I don't believe your fairy tales" or "I don't watch television" is not a marker of intellectual or moral superiority.

You wrote, "Atheists sometimes see more clearly than those that are certain of their own spiritual lineage."

That is no doubt true. My main problem with athesists is the extent to which they have taken the the "establishment" clause of the Constitution to drive any discussion of the philosophical basis of morality from the public square. Making certain that no mention of "God" ever occurs on a venue touched by public dollars is a disservice to society. Many people find the discussion of morality impossible to proceed without the mention of "God". Banishing all such references from schools, for example, creates a defacto atheist society. My harping on the idea of where the origins of the idea of "human dignity" is appropriate to the discussion. Even Jefferson, possessor of an enlightened view of the "Creator" realized that he could not assert rights from whole cloth, but appealed to a universal idea, at the time, of an Absolute to justify his assertion that rights existed outside the realm of the present human condition.

My own faith, in the Lotus Sutra, provides such an universal basis. The Mystic Law, the Law of Life, the Law of Existence, states that beings capable of choice, are rare in the universe. Human beings, as such, are precious. Being capable of that choice means that they are also capable of acting in ways that directly contravene the Mystic Law and represent the forces of choice.

Islam represents that flawed view in our present situation. It is a faith that is rampant with Kantian rules against all manner of everyday choices. It is a legalistic religion. It ignores John Stuart Mill.

In the real world, people who put their lives and "souls" in the service of our country have chosen the Mill's way and have tortured people who, IMHO, oppose a great risk to our countrymen and the idea of individual liberty to choose.

I am not about to climb on the Kantian horse to deny their good intentions or humanity.

"It doesn't matter whether torture is conducted in the name of Yahweh...."

Some day, someone on this blog has got to tell me who this Yahweh fellow is. I recall learning awhile back that he frequented Starbucks, was a caffeine addict. Surely, there is more....

Does he have a last name? Is he a one-named celeb, like Cher? Madonna?

Ayn Rand. "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal."

Still unknown, thand nonGod, but getting there.

"The Fountainhead." Howard Rourk = Frank Lloyd Wright. Architecht as quasi-heroic figure, a trope of the period.

Beginnings of modern Public Relations, mind control through the media. Much loathed by Rand.

See Stuart Ewen. "All Consuming Images."

Rand had the kernel of something. Never quite made it there. Feared the mob. And the mob producers (nascent media). Fear them, me too. Don't like much.

I do not believe in all the history of mankind that torture has ever been used to gather reliable information about anything. It has always been combined with sadism, punishment, and cynical psychopathy to obtain some pre-determined goal.

Therefore, all of these extreme ticking bomb scenerios are absurd. People falsely assume that torture works, but it does not. That is a justification for its use, which in reality has more nefarious motivaitons.

There are tried and true established methods of interrogation that get good results, that do not include torture.

This belief does not make me weak, or uninformed; quite the contrary, it makes me much more worldly, knowledgable, and sophisticated than those little pip-Squeak pro-torture Bushies who don't know what they're talking about.

I hope passive people are never made in charge of homeland security, war is human nature. We kill therefore we are. I would like to see how under different circumstances we'd have dealt with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the mastermind behind 9/11.

Hypothetical situation; below please find the new and improved way to deal with an enemy. Alternate treatment to that dreadful Water Boarding or other Terror Torture Techniques (TTT).

Hello Khalid, As-Salam-Alikum!! Did I pronounce that right? Was that hillal goat meal good? We flew in your special chef Mohammed Boota from Pakistan to prepare roti's and hillal meats for you. Now that you are comfortable, how do you like that bed by the way? Sleep well? The mattress is a Serta you know; our nations best! What's your sleep number?

Now, tell us why you hate us so much? Were you abused when you were a child? Oh! my bad! I hope I did not hurt your feelings? Help us help you, your human rights are protected, you are safe now. Some day when you feel like it please tell us are there any more plans out there to bomb us?

Hello volkmare,

I would agree that our road is at greater elevation than the particular terrorists that you used as example. But there is no doubt that we have chosen the low road over a series of junctions during these last years since 9/11. These choices have led to an unmistakable corruption and corrosion of American moral standing, influence and value within our own culture, not to mention an invaluable loss of such in the world. The cost of the war in Iraq is astronomical. Unable to leave well enough alone, we invaded Iraq and opened up Pandoras Box, and we do not have the ability to put the lid on it anymore. It has caused the ire of the 'muslim world' and given fuel to the fire that disenfranchised muslim youth have felt for generations. That dynamic has given resources and an energized standing army, (though they stand in the shadows, all the worse!), to the radicals that could only have hoped for such a boon.

We, by our actions an particularly those on the low road, have directly supplied our enemies with purpose and motivation, and a burning desire to retaliate.

Low road choices are invasion of Iraq no doubt. But doing so in an arrogant yet inept fashion, unable to consolidate and control our military victories, assured everything from initial looting of Baghdad to the widening of the sectarian rifts and eventual virtual civil war.

Low road choices include Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and rendition. Each are symbols of American unwillingness to live by civilized wartime ethics. Semantics may attempt to change soldier to enemy combatant, but it does not change the truth. We apparently do not need to follow Geneva Conventions as every other civilized country agreed to, ourselves included. In arrogance we place ourselves above the law when convenient, which effectively buys the low road and the gutter.

Volkmare,
continued:

Torture as an acceptable practice for a world power like America places America squarely in the moral gutter as well, rolling down the drain into the sewer of base emotion and ego.

We have lost our moral compass, Mark, and your post is an example of that. Those that support torture are voices for the base and profane. It is a shame and disgrace that many of these voices are also those that say they love a Loving God.

Actions speak louder. Torture as an acceptable practice pounds it's message across the world like a cosmic boom box. There is noone out there that does not have a sinking feeling hearing that scream out.

Just a bit on the end of this rant, Mark. You exemplified the torture and persecution of Jesus to save the good. You are a bit twisted, man, to use that example in a defense of torture. How do you get off, exactly? The story has Jesus as the one being tortured, yes? His death is seen to Redeem. His act of submission, (Islam?), to his tormentors is viewed as embracing of his fate and so insuring it. Love and compassion was his truth to the end.

This is not the perception afforded to Pilot, or to the soldiers that fulfilled the punishment laid on Jesus. What of those? I understand that certain christian teachings extend forgiveness on the perpetrator, but does the heart do so willingly? Do those that are not believers in compassion and forgiveness find love for the tormentor? Did the followers of Jesus even embrace forgiveness of the murderers of their Saviour?

No, the natural thing is to revile he that tortures, for whatever reason.

This is not the Jesus position. It appears, though, that it is the current 'Christian' position.

Curious, no?

Interesting article from CNN today. An excerpt:

"More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did."

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/30/churchgoers-more-likely-to-back-torture-survey-finds/

Who WOULD Jesus Torture?

The accomplishment of ANY desired end - no matter how laudable - is NEVER justified when the means employed to accomplish that end are questionable at best. I am a christian and I am sickened to learn, according to a recent Pew Research Poll, that there are many American christians who apparently deem the use of torture appropriate in some instances. It is the torturer who loses his/her own soul and it is an indictment of any society that supports its use as an instrument of public policy. This president has got it exactly right: the use of torture has a corrosive effect on the soul of a nation. Democracy is frequently a messy and inconvenient enterprise. But Lincoln was exactly right, for all time and forever, when he said: " Let us strive to learn that it is right that makes for might." God help us all, if we succumb to the temptation to take some convenient "short cuts" in the search for the "evil doers" and attempts to bring them before the bar of justice. For in the doing, we will have become just like them! The moral high ground is the only viable position for us to take as a nation, seeing as how we have been crowing about our own exceptionalism for a very long time.

hello Rubytuesday,

Nice post. Great questions. We are.

FROM SUSAN jACOBY

During the past 24 hours, a few comments on the pointless subject of other people's screen names and identities have crept back on to this thread. They have now been removed, and I want to remind you that all such posts will continue to be removed. Without these childish comments, the content and argument this week have been vastly improved.

Charles Krauthammer, that brilliant leader of neocon thought, has an article in today’s WP explaining when torture is OK…

First “…the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility…”

Second “…the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives…Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding…”

Did it work? Mr. Krauthammer cites George Tenet and Michael Hayden (former CIA directors) who claim that “enhanced interrogation” alone yielded more information than the FBI, CIA and NSA put together.

He mocks President Obama saying: “Could we not, as the president repeatedly asserted in his Wednesday news conference, have obtained the information by less morally poisonous means? Perhaps if we'd spoken softly and sincerely to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, we could equally have obtained high-value information.”

To Stadtbear from Daniel. I thought your critique of what I said about a truly selfless act being doing something good for someone you hate brilliant.

I would have to agree with you that yes even doing something good for someone you hate has a measure of selfishness precisely because, well, as you stated so clearly: it is self-serving, you are trying to satisfy a goal.

I really have no comments on selfishness at the moment. Obviously some measure of selfishness is necessary--not least because it does seem impossible to do a truly selfless act. But how selfish should someone be?

It seems most of the human race is somewhere in the middle, grasping that certain acts are selfish for quite obvious reasons but believing that being selfless is doing something good for others--and these others are typically people rather similar to themselves or pathetic people who cause no offense and just need help.

Obviously we can critique this "middle of the road" selflessness by saying it really is not that selfless to help someone similar to oneself because of course in a way oneself is being helped (likeness helped by likeness)--and of course helping the pathetic has its rewards...

But to push for greater selflessness is to lead to what I said: helping someone you hate. Sure, as you said, that is still not a truly selfless act, but it is getting there--is as close as I can imagine. And is this really desirable, that people should become so selfless that they routinely help people they hate?

I have to think about this some more--an excellent essay problem. Thanks for the conversation. Hope I somewhat satisfied your questions.

Why do verbally abusive parents and spouses try to justify their choices with pitiful excuses like, “well, it’s not like I hit them”? Why are blood injuries considered abuse and humiliation is not? Who drew this line?

How many times have you heard a company preference some selfish, morally corrupt act with “It’s not personal. It’s just business”. How does the unbridled pursuit of money make wrong actions right? How many people have to loose their homes over this moral failure?

Why do so many Muslim nations rail against the “terrorist” American state while enforcing laws that require any of their citizens who convert from Islam to Christianity to be stoned to death?

Why do smokers believe the stench they exhale isn’t litter?

The crime of murder justifies capital punishment. Tell me, how can twelve votes make Right that which is Wrong.

We do bad things to a certain point and so long as we don’t cross some imaginary line it’s okay. We justify our “limited” bad behavior with excuses. We negotiate with Sin.

Do you think war isn’t torture to the innocents who have to live everyday with the sounds and smells of death? Do you think the cold isn’t torture to a man who lives in a cardboard box? Do you think unemployment isn’t torture to a man who wants only to provide for the needs of his family?

It’s not enough to say “Let’s not torture anymore”. No one will ever agree on exactly where that imaginary line lies. We must embrace the idea of being good even in the little things that shouldn’t matter. Good must become a verb, not an adjective. You and I and everyone else must overcome our base selfish natures to become, not better than anyone else, but better than ourselves.

Instead we draw imaginary lines and look for someone farther out on the scale of Right and Wrong to blame. Is it any wonder why the world is the way it is?

Bush and Chaney aren’t the problem. We all are.

When the fearful people speak out in favor of torture, they do not talk about principle; they give precise and exact examples. But they are all imaginary examples of what might happen, or what could happen; they are all hypothetical "what-if's."
I cannot design a whole philosophy of life on all the many unlikely "what-if's." What-if ... what-if ... what-if ...??” That is a paralyzing game that could go on forever, until you are so twisted up in fear that you cannot do anything. That is a symptom of mental distress, more than a principle of life.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney both suffered from this neurotic distress, that anything bad could happen at any moment, and we should all be always very afraid of our imagined, yet unmade futures.

If President Bush is a Christian, as he claimed, then it seems that he should have gotten some sort of assurance from his belief in God and Jesus, but he did not seem to. Christians who live in perpetual fear of terrorism are not getting the assurance from their faith in Jesus, that they claim to believe in. There is something wrong here.

As a general principle of life, I believe that torture should be restored to its former status as forbidden and taboo. This is my belief, without citing any laws, or the International Geneva Conventions, and without worrying about the enemy's practice of torture. Their principles of life are different than mine.

How does torture produce any good result? How do you know if you have a real culprit with potential life-saving information to be extracted? Or should we just torture alot of people and hope that some of them are the true culprits?

Who makes the decisions on who should be tortured, and who decides on the instruments and methodologies of torture? Someone who is very wise, I hope.

How are these wise people chosen? And how does the practice of torture extract information?

Might some people resist all torture--out of true courage and fearlessness--or out of desperation that they are doomed no matter what they say? Or, might some people say anything, invent any kind of deception, to end the torture? Is this not an arrogant, even obnoxious, point of view--that a person in a position of physical superiority, may subject other human beings to animal brutality, and then assert righteous and indignant defiance when questioned, as though the torturer is the one being wronged?

Some of us feel great empathy for others. Some of us feel nothing. Most are somewhere in between. Whether a person thinks torture is a good idea or a bad idea really depends more on this inner feeling of empathy, than it does on any kind of rational logic. The logic is merely invented to support the feeling that torture is ok, or that is not ok.
Despite the arguments of some previous commenters, it is hard for me to acknowledge what good could ever come of institutionalized torture under the American system. By that, I mean torture in which a hired, paid torturer is waiting with the instruments of torture in a torture chamber, for the next prisoner to be brought up before him, from a cell where he may have been detained for a long, indefinite period of time, for a criminal charge that was never formally made, and that may even have been forgotten.

Until recent times, it was common, ordinary, and normal for the governing authorities to engage in torture. The rise of popular democracies in recent times has put the brakes on torture. Now, evidently, torture has become such a thing of the past that people who do not read, have all but forgotten about it, and apparently do not even realize how horrible it was. They seem to think, that it's ok for good people, like us, to engage in torture, for good purposes; but bad people should not engage in it. Instead of preaching to these people about the evils of torture, maybe it would be better to refresh their faded memories a little.

When I think of torture, I first think of the Roman Empire. The Romans beat Jesus using a whip with little hooks in it, and then they nailed him to a cross.

And then I think of the Aztec Indians with their infamous religion of human sacrafice, and tearing out the living hearts of their victims.

And then, I think of Tudor England, which made the Tower of London famous--Henry VIII who used torture to move forward his program of nationalizing the Cahtolic Church--and his daughter, Mary Tudor, aka "Bloody Mary" who slow-roasted Protestants in the name of Jesus Christ (surely, this would be a case of good people using torture for a good purpose, wouldn't it?) and her sister, Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen, Gloriana, who literally tore men's living body's apart to root out Catholic heresy and treason against her protestant authority.

And then I think of Salem, Massachusetts, in which the most pious and innocent of people had heavy weights placed on their bodies to coerce confessions of witchcraft, and then once confessed, executed.

And then I think of slavery in America, lasting 256 years, in which human beings where kept in bondage subject to any kind of unchecked secret torture the human heart might dream up.

And then I think of Stalinist Soviet Russia, and Hitler's Third Reich, and Mao's Cultural Revolution, and North Korea's Kim Il Sung , and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

I do not want my country ever to be associated in anyone's mind with any such list as this.

What is behind this trend to accept torture as legitimate when formerly, it was taboo and forbidden? I believe it is ignorance and fear--ignorance of the past, when torture was commonplace, fear in our hearts that terrorists will strike at us at any moment.

Daniel12:

I'd be very much interested in hearing what you have to say about selfishness.

Do you consider it a necessity; an alternative; obligatory?

What do you think of Ayn Rand? I think she is coming back into vogue now. When I was an undergraduate, I BECAME The Fountainhead!

Susan Jacoby:

"The problem with using broad philosophical or theological rationalizations for or against anything is that they do not take specific reality into account."

Then, are you saying that there might be occasions during which torture would be permissible?

Btw., Jeremy Bentham is the source of the quotation you attribute to Mill. In full, it reads:

"It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong."

Theme of utilitarianism, as it were.

Daniel12 wrote:

"To Stadtbear2 from Daniel12. Your comments on altruism remind me of an argument I had with several people years ago. It was on selfishness. We concluded that the only true selfless act is to do something good for someone you hate. Notice how far we are from doing that. The human race...."

Ah, but the 'selfless act' of doing something for someone you hate is itself self-serving, gratifying. Your goal is to achieve a truely selfless act, but it cannot be selfless if it serves to satisfy your goal.

I agree: we are far from that. Ultimately, we are alone, and our attempts at 'selfless acts' are attempts to avoid aloneness, to have some link to 'other'. Certainly gratification of self, in the long run.

edbyronadams,

I did not claim that we did not or do not act with restraint. But let us not prove restraint by our choosing not to annihilate our 'enemies'. In fact, I would question that we can. We have clearly had plenty difficulty even finding our enemies in some cases, or those that know where they are. Sure, give us coordinates and we can send a smart bomb.

I do not know that I have invoked an Absolute. Deity worship or belief is not the sole realm of human dignity, decency or virtue. Humans have those qualities inbred, along with compassion, intelligence, reason and logic, and hatred, bigotry, violence. The attribution of these qualities, or more exactly only particular ones of these qualities, on to belief in God, is a false acquisition. No doubt that dignity and decency ARE attributed to to God, and as a gift of God, but that is the way of religion. Attach all that is Good to their version of Creator.

I do not ridicule the idea of supernatural causality. I am a believer in it. But the ego of some religionists to think that they own the source of Goodness is one of the biggest reasons for a fall from truth, and the fog that disallows clear vision.

Atheists sometimes see more clearly than those that are certain of their own spiritual lineage.

However, I am again left a bit confused by your comments. You seem to stand up for the 'Golden Rule' and a concept that there is a moral and spiritual common ground, but then say: "I will admit because to invoke the idea of the greater good, you have to be clairvoyant. However, outside the murky edges, it is mostly clear."

If one must be clairvoyant to perceive greater good, then how is it that knowledge of that is claimed?

To Stadtbear2 from Daniel12. Your comments on altruism remind me of an argument I had with several people years ago. It was on selfishness. We concluded that the only true selfless act is to do something good for someone you hate. Notice how far we are from doing that. The human race....

Danielinthelionsden wrote:

"Would you like for your son to grow up and be an official US agent of torture?"

An excellent question, which begs another:
What happens to those who are taught to torture? What do they become?

Daniel12 wrote:

"getting people to become more altruistic,"

The dictionary definition of altruism is "the unselfish interest in or care for the welfare of others."

And I maintain that altruism exists only in the dictionary, not in reality.

NOBODY does ANYTHING out of selfless reasons. Regardless of the personal risk, sacrifice and/or potential suffering involved in any interest or act of caring for the welfare of another ALWAYS has a motivation. It may be silent self-satisfaction, the sense of meeting some self-assumed 'obligation', the religious belief that one is satisfying a tenet of one's religion....whatever, self is ALWAYS served, in some way or other, by "selfless" acts on behalf of others.

Susan Jacoby:

"And I certainly don't want to hear right-wing Republicans contend, yet again, that torture isn't torture if the governing administration says it's not torture."

An argument that sounds a similar if distant Republican trumpet: "If the President does it, then its legal", according to Mr. Nixon.

Edbyronadams wrote:

"Your claim that we have not acted with restraint is laughable on its face."

Your logic is, to be kind, fuzzy. You are mixing apples and oranges. Annihilation and torture of individuals are two entirely different matters, and two entirely different discussions. In our torture of individuals, we have NOT shown restraint.

Whenever the subject of torture comes up I inevitably begin thinking of an essay I wrote long ago.

I began wondering what would occur if for all our technology and progress toward humanity rather than barbarity our grasp of technology were to falter, if technology would continue to become more "sophisticated" and be able to not only kill greater numbers of people than in the past, but to become more and more available (proliferation).

It struck me that in all probability that precisely because developments toward getting people to become more altruistic, humane, would lag behind such horrifying technological advancements that society would become more and more a process of constraining individuals, the business cubicle philosophy strengthened, and that eventually experiments in breaking people would more and more take place, and we would scientifically determine the efficacy of torture and that we would continue pursuing the project with the aid of technology (in an ironic countermovement against technology which potentially kills many people) until torture were to become truly efficacious, and then we would have truly horrifyingly technology on one side increasing such things as WMD and on the other side technology becoming more efficacious in driving people toward altruism even if it means breaking them down psychologically...

Need I say more? A true dystopia.

justillthen,

Okay, I'll make it simple. If you want to invoke an absolute, it seems reasonable to me to ask what standard you use for an absolute. Human dignity or decency as an idea in history is definitely connected to the idea of a Deity. If it isn't God, what is it? It, indeed, seems fuzzy to me. Perhaps you can clarify.

Utilitarianism is a bit fuzzy, I will admit because to invoke the idea of the greater good, you have to be clairvoyant. However, outside the murky edges, it is mostly clear. I do not shed a single tear for the treatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He is obviously guilty of grievous acts against many and had unique information.

Your claim that we have not acted with restraint is laughable on its face. The US possesses the power to eliminate most of its enemies in a manner of days. The fact that we haven't is manifest restraint and a good thing.

Politically, the entire debate is a tempest in a teapot. Having pushed back the threat of domestic terrorism for a time, people want to climb up on a moral high horse that Kant holds. That mounting will last until the next big domestic terrorist attack. I hope that is a long time coming.

Farnaz,

I am mystified that you think I am CCNL. You are much more intelligent than that.

Hello edbyronadams,

Thank you for the reply. I cannot say that it did much toward "clearing up the confusion". The paradox remains for me and I am left felling that you like many of us pick and choose what works.

Self restraint is not something that I would expect from most of those we would call enemies. It is something that I would expect from us. But then, we are not the shining beacon of morality and hope that we advertise ourselves to be, are we Edbryon?

So I speak in agreement with the third argument of Susan Jacoby's that you cite, human decency or dignity, as reason enough to prohibit torture. I find it a conceited of you to negate her comments because she is an atheist. How haughty, no? Atheists do not have morality, to you? Inferior morality? Perhaps just fuzzy morality, like as if they believed in some myth or fairy tale that they read from a Book?

My last point remains. If we jump into the ring of torture we will lead the next decline down to hell instead of up to hope. Seriously.

And if you torture because "he did it first!" you not only show your self value but your spiritual, emotional and moral maturity. You show that you are a follower of a sewer track instead of the River Jordan, (to call on spiritual symbolism, of course!).

You show your wool with your quote of a television show. Can't say that I indulge in tv, mostly a waste of time so I don't 'tune in', but the message was clear enough. I got your tune! Tune up, don't tune out.

Tune up as a euphemism for torture... Glad it is easy for you. America is currently the worlds most famous torturer, even if we have not been busy at it for long. We are the talk of the town. It is disgusting and we will have a long climb back up that moral molehill now.

Look to the Dark Force, EdByron!

Torture is immoral and criminal activity. Are American agents who engage in this ugly practice paid from my tax-dollars?

And when these agents of torture target a person for torture, how do they know this victim knows anything? How do they know if any particular individual is really "torture-worthy?"

If the victim denies any knowledge, then how do the agents of torture know if he is telling the truth or not? What if the victim is telling the truth, and does not know anything? Then the agents of torture commit their devious acts upon him, in vain. But, I suppose if you are sadistic, then there can be no such thing as wasted or mistaken torture.

When the agents of torture are administering the torture, how do they know how to do it? In waterboarding, for example, there must fine and delicate techniques, so as not to kill the victim. Remember, the movie the Wizard of OZ? The Wicked Witch of the West puzzled over how to do away with Dorothy; "...these things must be done delicately..." she said. Yes, President Bush, she is a good role model for our little children.

How would the agents of torture learn it and become accomplished at it? Would they practice it on "expendable" people? Or would they practice it on cats and dogs, perhaps? But wouldn't that amount to animal cruelty? We DO have laws against that. Even Hitler loved his dog.

What kind of people do we want to be agents of torture? Do we want to recruit sadistic and psychopathic people to do these dirty deeds, even if they enjoy it TOO much? Mightn't they pose a threat to society, later on, after all this torture "unpleasantness" is behind us?
But what about the good and kindhearted wholesome types, who wouldn't harm a fly; should they be recruited and trained in the black arts of torture? Wouldn't that amount to ruining their lives, dragging them down into the mud, from which they could probably never emerge?

Maybe doctors should be recruited to torture, since they are already familiar with blood, injury, broken bones, and suffering. But would you go to a doctor who also tortures people? Isn't that getting a little to Hitleresque?
There are alot of details to think about as we embark upon this long road of torture. If this is truley the road we wish to strike out on, there is a large body of literature on the Nazi experience and Nazi Germany that we should study, so that we can know what may be in store for us.

If you support torture, then you do need to think of these things. Would you like for your son to grow up and be an official US agent of torture? Would you be proud? Or would you be afraid, of the holidays, when he would come to visit?

Preemptive war is justified by an imminent threat of attack, a clear and present danger that the country in question is about to attack you. In such a case a preemptive attack is recognized as justifiable.

An example might be Israel’s attack during the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel attacked first, but Egyptian and Syrian troops were massing on the border and airplanes were being mobilized.

What the previous administration did in 2003 was to attack Iraq to prevent or neutralize a potential future threat. That’s very different from an imminent threat. This was a preventive war and was a first in the history of the US.

It is no coincidence that the same administration that erroneously launched a preventive war against Iraq also brought us torture.

FH123 may have a point. Those who decry US torture should also decry the disastrous preventive war in Iraq, with the war in Iraq being by far the gravest sin. And generally that is the case I think. Only the 24% of Americans who are still proud to call themselves Republicans after the last 8 years approve of both the Iraq War and torture. I think we would be hard pressed to find someone who approves of one and disapproves of the other.

Susan, you are EXACTLY right. All of this "rationalizing" about torure makes me sick.

I am not confused, nor do I see this as a grey area, nor do I anguish over the supposed extreme scenerios, which we all know will never happen, to justify torture in general.

And FH123's condemnation of the US for engaging in warfare is hypocritical, since ALL nations jealously reserve the right to wage war, any time they think it is necessary, and without any international controls. The US is not guilty of inventing war, only of being the most powerful military power, at the moment.

I am all in favor of outlawing war. I am all in favor or pinning down every single nation, France, China, Pakistan, Iran, tbe US, all without exception, to an international agreement banning war for all time. HOWEVER, this is not relevant to this discussion of torture.

One of the great advantages of not being a philosopher or theologian, but simply a sensible and sensitive observer of human bahvior, is that one need not engage in tortured logic to "prove" that torture is wrong. The problem with using broad philosophical or theological rationalizations for or against anything is that they do not take specific reality into account. John Suart Mill's "the greater/greatest good for the greater/greatest number" formulation tells us nothing about the morality of torture, because it tells us nothing about whether the imposer of torture is correct in his definition of "the greater good" or, for the matter, the greater number." Read the memoirs of the tortured, which speak to us throughout the ages, and the fallibility of human judgment becomes clear. Moreover, the idea that torture is some sort of "rational" project--that it does not inevitably partake of the worst human tendencies toward sadism and cruelty--is utterly naive. A society that allows torture inevitably harnesses the impulses of those who actually enjoy inflicting pain.

Daniel,

"How could Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld suppose that their "strange proclivities" to torture would never be noticed, never be condemned, never rise to the level of acrimonious controversy, and never be punished?"

Perhaps they thought it was okay after Nancy Pelosi and seven of the current administration's 18 most senior officials, who were regularly briefed on the subject matter, neither said nor did anything in opposition.

Really, who are the cowards here? The one's who have the right idea but fail miserably in executing it? Or the one's who know the plan is dangerous and inherently wrong but say nothing because they want to keep their jobs?

That you can be up-in-arms about torture, but laissez faire about missile strikes in Pakistan is intellectual and moral hypocrisy on a monumental level.

A. We have not declared war on Pakistan, but are killing Pakistani civilians in their homes.
B. We have certainly been responsible for the deaths and mutilations (that's what shrapnel does folks) of Innocent women and children.
C. We are summarily executing terrorists suspects, who are outside the declared "war zone", without trial.

That citizens in the U.S. pick and choose when their moral compass is going to go south is much more damaging to our credibility than torture ever could be. How can you be so squeamish about being mean to a known terrorist, but O.K. with blowing little Muhammad's arm off because he was in the wrong house at the wrong time. This moral rationalization is most certainly laughable to anyone in the non-western world, and any thinking person in it.

justillthen,

"You confuse a bit here. On one hand you are critical of atheists, in this case, for setting up a "tragedy of the commons" while in a prior statement suggest that we should torture because others do."

To clear the confusion, self restraint, the kind you practice to prevent a tragedy of the commons has not worked for some time in armed conflict by our forces. There was little restraint either in Korea or Vietnam by our enemies. To expect any from our current antagonists is foolish.

So, to review Susan Jacoby's argument against torture there is the lack of efficacy, the mutual exclusion argument and some argument about human decency or dignity that is unclear to me, especially in its origins. The mutual exclusion argument is moot. The lack of efficacy argument is a shouting match with no definitive proof one way or the other. I don't understand the third, especially coming from an atheist perspective.

I see the entire argument from a Kant/Mills dilemma in an argument about moral philosophy. Some want to argue the Kantian strict rule of "no torture" while others want the Mills greater good argument. I tend to favor the latter but would use torture only in the circumstances advocated by Dect. Sipowicz on NYPD Blue. "Only tune a guy up if you are certain that he is guilty and he has important information you can't get anywhere else."

rick22407,
boy, it's weird but refreshing not to be ashamed of my president.

One would think that if Cheney knows of secret reports that justify terrorism based on critical, life saving information learned; President Obama would be aware of them as well.

At his prime time news conference yesterday on his 100th day in office, President Obama hit back at critics (including former Vice President Dick Cheney) maintaining that harsh interrogation techniques did not yield any information that could not have been obtained through other means.

Responding to the fallout over his decision to release secret memoranda that laid out the Bush administration’s legal justification for interrogation techniques like waterboarding — which Mr. Obama called torture — he said that none of the intelligence reports he had seen left him thinking such methods were justified or necessary.

“I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe,” he said. “But I am convinced that the best way to do that is to make sure we’re not taking shortcuts that undermine who we are.”

I think it is "Verschärfte Vernehmung."

"Vschärfte Vernehmung" is the German phrase that the Nazis used for enhanced interrogation techniques.

I think it is important to remmember that the Nazis were not demons from Hell; they were "perfectly orginary" human beings, who got their hands on power and used it. In fact, such "perfectly ordianary" human beings live among us, still, with their strange "psychopathic" proclivities.

How could Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld suppose that their "strange proclivities" to torture would never be noticed, never be condemned, never rise to the level of acrimonious controversy, and never be punished?

What a bunch of cowards, liars, and fools!

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "confessed" to everything under the sun. Were all the confessions true? I think it is highly unlikely. Did his false confessions of past crimes "save" any lives? I think it is highly unlikely.

In fact, how does any kind of "confession" of past crimes save any lives? Can any of these confessions coerced under torture ever be used to prosecute anyone? I don't think so, not unless our President is named King Henry VIII.

How come none of President Bush's tortorued detainees have been prosecuted? Because the practice of torture checkmates all future legal moves either against, or on behalf of the tortured victims.

What a mess Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have made of their tenures in office. What a mess they have left for President Obama to clean up.

When people argue in favor of torture, we don't learn much about the valute or the nature of torture, but we learn a great deal about the person making the argument.

Today’s NY Times editorial page talks of the decision by the federal appeals court in San Francisco to reject the claim that the government can prevent a judge from even hearing those who say they were hurt by federal policies and actions.

“The ruling is an opportunity for Attorney General Eric Holder to rethink the administration’s position on the abusive use of the state-secrets privilege.

Instead of appealing, and seeking to deny rendition victims the legal process required by justice and treaty obligations, Mr. Holder and the White House should be encouraging Congress to pass the State Secrets Protection Act pending in the Senate. The measure would protect legitimate secrets without undue compromise of people’s rights by establishing uniform rules for handling claims of state secrets, similar to the wise regimen set forth in the new decision.”

Many of us have argued that what is the point of terrorism? We never know if we are getting good information of not.

One example may defeat that argument; i.e. that of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed leader of the 9-11 attacks.

In this case, it was possible to “interrogate” the man, then evaluate in the field the information gained, then come back to confront him with the result.

And indeed this is probably the example Cheney speaks of when he claims that secret reports will validate the usefulness of torture.

Hello edbyronadams,

"Fine, just define your "truth" and others can judge whether it will work. I find atheism questionable because it sets up a tragedy of the commons situation for the public ethos. By my lights an atheist should convince everyone that he lives by the Golden Rule so that they get an orderly society and then cheat as much as they can get away with to enrich and enjoy himself. After all, what are the consequences? What are the consequences if we torture people?"

I suppose that you are saying that atheists 'have nothing to lose' re the spiritual ongoingness that is promised to religious adherents, and so they have no reason to give a hoot about others. This really is not my experience with atheists or atheism.

However, it does not change my belief that one must follow 'their own lights', their own truth, as opposed to doing something because others do it.

You confuse a bit here. On one hand you are critical of atheists, in this case, for setting up a "tragedy of the commons" while in a prior statement suggest that we should torture because others do. How is that not a setup for your "tragedy"? It has seemed to be Americas standard that we support individual liberty, justice and the common good. Torture has always been non-American. If we start torture as a standard practice then one of the worlds role models for righteousness and moral correctness will throw in for moral corruption. What nation would not follow suit? And we are getting that tragedy in the commons for what price?

edbyronadams,
this god to whom you attribute our morality, is it the same god who sent joshua in to slay the canaanites? is it the one who visits the inequities of the father on the son? or maybe it's the one the one who required the sacrifice of his son (or himself...considering the trinity...) to somehow make up for our sins (which themselves are the result of his curse on us for adam's sin)? that's hardly justice.

it must be some other god you're thinking of.

I cannot believe that we are even entertaining the idea that tortue is a useful and workable interrogation technique.

When you want information from someeone, you either want to know some specific thing, or you want general information.

When a person is being interrogated for some specific thing, he either knows it, or he does not.

When you torture someone, how do you know who knows the information, and who does not? If a person does not know the information that you are seeking, then, wouldn't he make up something to get you to stop torturing him? On the other hand, if he would happen to have the information, he might be brave and give false information to throw you off, or he might cave, and give the real information. So any way look at it, you can never be sure of the truth of specific information that you have tortured out of someone.

In the past, this kind of information was almost always used to extract false confessions for the purposes of "proving" something in a court of law, to demonstarte "due process."

I do not believe in all the history of mankind that torture has ever been used to gather reliable information about anything. It has always been combined with sadism, punishment, and cynical psychopathy to obtain some pre-determined goal.

In the other case, what if you are torturing someone for general information? How do you know that their silence indicates lack of knowledge, and how do you know that their confessions are real?

You don't. You know none of this.

What if there is a Hydrogen-Fusion-Bomb planted somewhere in Washsington DC, and you have a culprit, all tied up and restrained, and ready for torture? How do you know he knows where the bomb is? Perhaps he does not know. Perhapes he has nothing to do with it. In that case, you are wassting time, and torturing an innocent person.

If torture is ever to have some good purpose or benefit, it must be assumed that the people with the sought-after knowledge are being tortured. But how can you know that in advance? How can you know in advance that you are not torturing an innocent person?

I do not have have confidence in Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld, that they knew what they were doing, not at all. I have confidence that they considered the law as an obstacle to be overcaome in the inplementaion of their psycopathic programs, and I say PSYCHOPATHIC, because that is exactly what torture is, and people who support poliices of torture may also be skating dangerously close to psychopathy.

"What are the consequences if we imprison, mutilate, torture and gas 12 million people?"

From an atheist POV, that is a good question. As a Buddhist, the Law of Karma will get you.

Ebyronadams wrote:

"Notice that inconvenient Creator business."

I observe creation, and (admittedly illogically) I infer a creator.

That a creator is necessarily GOD is a jump I am not willing to take.

ebyronadams wrote:

"What are the consequences if we torture people? "

What are the consequences if we imprison, mutilate, torture and gas 12 million people?

justillthen

"It is obvious that we cannot use the justification that because others do it to us we should, indeed must, do it to them. One must live their own truth and by their own moral code, or he will get lost in the mire of 'others'."
__________________________

Fine, just define your "truth" and others can judge whether it will work. I find atheism questionable because it sets up a tragedy of the commons situation for the public ethos. By my lights an atheist should convince everyone that he lives by the Golden Rule so that they get an orderly society and then cheat as much as they can get away with to enrich and enjoy himself. After all, what are the consequences? What are the consequences if we torture people?

Paganplace, Here is the rest of the sentence you lifted portions from: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Notice that inconvenient Creator business.

Edbyronadams wrote:

"Evolution is all about the propagation of superior genes through a population."

Oh, please. Surely you have heard of social evolution.

"Other, perhaps, than the fact that we can sink to the same level as those presumably less evolved."

Evolution is all about the propagation of superior genes through a population. I fail to see that application here although in context of the "clash of civilizations" it has some significance. The followers of Islam are clearly propagating their genes more successfully.

That makes for an interesting contrast for those who see the West's social evolution as superior. Which do you think will win over time, Darwin or the enlightenment?

I just find the thinking of many regarding moral philosophy confounding. They use the terms "right and wrong" as if the definitions were self evident and those without reference to an outside standard tend to use hand waving definitions or fall back on some "natural" right and wrong but when you examine evolution in detail, that does not support any idea of natural definition that most would find felicitous. Right by definition from Darwin principles would be to kill your rival and have lots of children. That's about it.

Understand, Ebryon? As Americans, we hold these truths to be *self-evident.* Not commanded. Self-evident.

Hello edbyronadams,

"I'm still searching for the reason Ms. Jacoby says it is "wrong". Since captured US prisoners have been regularly tortured since the end of the last declared war, the idea that we restrain and they restrain in return is nonsense. So what is the reason it is "wrong"? What standard do you use if you have no absolute to refer to?"

I cannot answer for Ms. Jacoby. However, if you are choices are driven by what others do or do not do, you are not free to decide from your own judgment, excepting the judgment that if others do then it is OK. Be a follower if you will. That will allow you many more choices, I will give you that.

You can then steal cars and lives, eat the neighbors cat when you get an urge, then beat their wife and rape their daughter before lighting up a nice fag. After your smoke, find something really good to smoke. After all, others do. In fact you should steal your money, cause others have stolen yours...

It is obvious that we cannot use the justification that because others do it to us we should, indeed must, do it to them. One must live their own truth and by their own moral code, or he will get lost in the mire of 'others'.

Posted by: | Ap

Ebryon:

"Where do rights come from other than God?"

They don't come from authority, whatever you think about God or Gods. They're innate to the essence of the thing. In this case that thing being a human. Unalienable is unalienable. Even by those who claim to speak for 'God.'

Edbyronadams wrote:

"Can't we use the same lack of efficacy argument here..."

Admittedly, I am thrown off by your efficacy argument...I'm not sure how you are applying it, nor to which side of the question.

Depriving Gaby1 of oxygen would certainly be an efficacious way of putting an end to her lies, bigotry and perverted fantasies (anyone can use a text editor to dummy up "emails" and claim they were received from someone else)--if I cared enough to do that. But mere efficacy is not an argument for taking an extreme, dehumanizing action against another human being (regardless of how unevolved he or she is), any more than revenge would be.

Of course we can behave in as primative a way as others can. But is "he did it first" a rational argument, let alone excuse?

Hello Stadtbear,

Me: "War of ideas and war for control of ideas is the same."

You: "You think so? Go live a couple of years among the Saudis, then come and telll me they are the same thing."

They are the same, effectively. The Saudis have won the War of Ideas on Saudi soil and continue the conditioning by megaphone and censure as the Controllers of Ideas. They are fully aware that they must keep up the propaganda and overt and covert operations in order to maintain control. So... the war continues with them, in Saudi Arabia, having the upper hand.

EDBYRONADAMS

Your post:

"I believe she mentioned human decency. Is that incomprehensible to you?"

Actually it is since the same humans capable of acts of compassion and altruism are members of the same species that practices xenophobia and genocide.

Help me out and define human decency.

This was not directed to me but I would like to reply.

Since we are fallen (imperfect) human beings with the gift and responsibility of free will, human decency could be knowing the difference between right and wrong and doing the right thing for the simple reason that it is the right thing to do.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Edbyronadams wrote:

"The Golden Rule is fine but in the case of torture, our warriors have been on the business end for some time."

And this proves....what? Other, perhaps, than the fact that we can sink to the same level as those presumably less evolved.

Edbyronadams wrote:

"Where do rights come from other than God?"

That is called a presupposition failure, in logic. Your argument presupposes the existence of god. Your argument also presupposes that I agree that god exists. It fails on both counts, inasmuch as you cannot prove such existence, and that I do not so agree.

stadtbear2

The Golden Rule is fine but in the case of torture, our warriors have been on the business end for some time. I don't see restraint having much of an effect. Can't we use the same lack of efficacy argument here in support of torture that you use against it as far as the reliability of information received?

It gets even better. I was unsure about the phrase "human dignity" so a wikipedia entry starts with this: "Dignity is a term used in moral, ethical, and political discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to respect and ethical treatment. It is an extension of enlightenment-era beliefs that individuals have God-given, inviolable rights"

Where do rights come from other than God?

Edbyronadams wrote:

"Actually it is since the same humans capable of acts of compassion and altruism are members of the same species that practices xenophobia and genocide."

'Human decency' was defined by Confucius, long before the definition was claimed by the christmongers, thus: do unto others as you would have others do to you.

You seem to suggest that all members of the human species have evolved to the same social, emotional, psychological level. Thats not true.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as altruism, except in the dictionary.

"I believe she mentioned human decency. Is that incomprehensible to you?"

Actually it is since the same humans capable of acts of compassion and altruism are members of the same species that practices xenophobia and genocide.

Help me out and define human decency.

Edbyronadams wrote:

"What standard do you use if you have no absolute to refer to?"

I believe she mentioned human decency. Is that incomprehensible to you?

Criminal investigators are always going on about how helpful lie detectors are in interrogations. I wonder why the government has not bothered to carry out interrogations using lie detectors and such drug as sodium pentathol.

Justtillthen wrote:

"War of ideas and war for control of ideas is the same."

You think so? Go live a couple of years among the Saudis, then come and telll me they are the same thing.

Pardon my understanding of the English language but I believe "lack of efficacy" means it doesn't work in the desired way. That includes misinformation derived from such.

I'm still searching for the reason Ms. Jacoby says it is "wrong". Since captured US prisoners have been regularly tortured since the end of the last declared war, the idea that we restrain and they restrain in return is nonsense. So what is the reason it is "wrong"? What standard do you use if you have no absolute to refer to?

Of course torture is one of the man's most reprehensible practices, which is one of the reasons America was right to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Since we're the Good Guys, we should never approve of a technique like waterboarding.

Flushing a Quran down the toilet, on the other hand...

Lack of efficacy is a secondary reason for my opposition to torture. As for evidence on this matter, professionals (ie., former interrogators who have written about the subject and prisoners who have undergone torture) regularly attest to the unreliability of information obtained through torture. It's a position John McCain took until he began running for presidency.

I don't think theirs enough evidence to make this case. For obvious reasons, those who gave valuable information when tortured would not disclose this. The number of former interrogaters who have written on torture's unreliablilty is not large.

One would not expect a protest from those who have had a different experience.
--------------------

Thanks for the information Globalone. No, I thought it was legit…sounds just Cheney doesn’t it?

Does torture work? Maybe yes, maybe no…we have no proof either way; though Cheney says proof exists in secret memos and is trying to get them released.

I think that if I “knew” with a very high probability, as Rabbi Brad Hirschfield says, that the lives of my children were at risk and could be saved by torturing a captive terrorist; then I would be in favor of torture.

But as Susan and the Rabbi point out, that is very seldom if ever the case. It is nearly always the case that we have no idea whether torture will produce a desired result or not. And I suspect the record will show that countless instances of torture have been perpetrated by our government with nothing at all to show for it.

So to answer the question I will say that torture is wrong because it violates human dignity (in agreement with the UN). The front line, low level minions should not be punished, but those in high office who originated the policies should eventually be tried and held accountable after a very carefully conducted nonpolitical investigation. What their punishment should be I have no idea. Merely being subjected to the process will probably be punishment enough.

My faith tradition, American humanist/atheist tells me that torture is wrong.

Rick,

Thanks for the laugh. That interview is a riot.

(I'm assuming you realize it's completely fictional of course)

there's a special place in hell for dick cheney.

“Well, all right then,” Mr. Hill said. “Let’s talk about the effectiveness of the torture or enhanced interrogation. How do you know it worked?”

“Look,” Mr. Cheney said. “I know it works. If I was tortured, I’d sing like John McCain did.”

“But Mr. McCain made a false confession when he was tortured.”

“What’s your point?” Mr. Cheney said.

“Well, the point is that torture gets people to say things that aren’t true just to stop the torture. Then you don’t know what’s good intelligence and what’s a false lead.”

“The terrorists wouldn’t lie because they’d be scared we’d do something bad to them.”

“Uh, well, let’s look at the waterboarding of the detainees,” Mr. Hill continued. “The recently released information reveals that two of the high value detainees were waterboarded 200 times each. If waterboarding works, did it not work the first 199 times?

“Hey, I told you they wouldn’t lie,” Mr. Cheney said. “We finally got the truth out of ‘em.”

A difficult problem this question of whether or not to torture a person for the sake of one's country during war.

Torture does not work? There is no evidence torture works? I am not so sure torture does not work. Even a bit of psychological pain forces people to toe the line, to say, become patriotic and turn in potential traitors or to hew to a particular religion and turn in, say, the atheists. In other words, if the threat of pain has such a "positive" effect, how much more so the pain itself?

And about not torturing the enemy in war keeping the enemy from torturing one's own soldiers, I find that reasoning does not make sense. I suspect the country that can afford the luxury of not torturing people is identical to the country which is more sophisticated, powerful--more likely to win the war to begin with. And if the country fits this description, obviously the losing country will do everything it can to overcome the more powerful nation. In other words, the more powerful nation might not use torture, but this by no means guarantees its own soldiers will not be tortured.

As for the scenario of a nuclear weapon being placed in an American city and the location of which is concealed in the mind of a terrorist before you, I doubt there are any laws which would be enforced toward not torturing the terrorist. In other words, for all laws, I believe they would be tossed out by precisely the people existing to enforce them. Or to put it even clearer, no matter how one wants to enforce the law against torture in this regard I suspect when push comes to shove there will be a lot of shoving and kicking and beating the terrorist rather than merely pushing.

As to whether anyone should be pleased about "positive" aspects of torture, I seriously doubt that one is right with existence to feel such a thing is "positive".

“In a frank and wide ranging interview today with Post Hoc News Service reporter Sam Hill and former vice-president Dick Cheney discussed the recently released torture memos and pirates…”

Mr. Hill continued. “Are you saying that the techniques, if by some definition they are torture, were justified anyway because they worked?”

“Yes. Of course.” Mr. Cheney said. “We needed to protect the country and did what we needed to do to achieve that goal.”

“But couldn’t terrorists justify terror tactics by saying that these tactics are necessary to achieve their goals?” Mr. Hill asked.

“That’s absurd,” Mr. Cheney replied. “The ends don’t justify the means. And besides," he continued, "Obama's a fool for releasing memos about our techniques."

"Do you mean you think word hadn't gotten back to the terrorists about what happened at places like Abu Ghraib?" Mr. Hill asked.

Mr. Cheney stared without answering.
______________________

Stranger than fiction…

Lack of efficacy is a secondary reason for my opposition to torture. As for evidence on this matter, professionals (ie., former interrogators who have written about the subject and prisoners who have undergone torture) regularly attest to the unreliability of information obtained through torture. It's a position John McCain took until he began running for presidency.

There is no special "atheist case" against torture. What a silly idea! There is a human case against torture, which dehumanizes the torturers and their victims. That's really the whole point. We can only claim the right to torture by dehumanizing the object of torture and, in the process, dehumanizing and desensitizing ourselves.

Susan,

Clarification of one point in my previous post to you:

I wrote, "This, too, is a question of fact. And there is ample evidence to suggest that the use or nonuse of torture does not influence combatants."

What I meant is that there is ample evidence to suggest that if one side uses torture, it will continue to do so, whether or not the other does.

Farnaz

Hello edbyronadams,

You make the same rationalization and justification for torture as many defenders of the practice, is seems. They do it, so we should, (or, so we CAN, 'cause they do!).

I am with Susan Jacoby on this count. Regardless of the menial bits of questionable information that we may have gotten from torturing prisoners, it is a moral position that is crossed. We all know that when certain lines are crossed we cannot step back over it and consider ourselves with the same pride and regard. We have done to others what we detest in the others that we judge. We then have no choice but to judge ourselves as more base, for we are more base.

That reality spreads throughout society in some way. I never tortured a prisoner of my country, but my military did. Agents of my government did. It has affected me and my neighbors, and we are less in our self-esteem as a result.

Susan,

You make some very strong arguments. I do have reservations about some of your claims.

"Let's see, what would I do if I were being waterboarded and I knew a bomb was set to go off in Grand Central Terminal in five hours? If I hated America and was sufficiently determined, I'd probably tell the torturer that the bomb was located at Kennedy Airport. But if I didn't know where the bomb was--or even whether there was a bomb--I'd make something up.
And oh yes, there's another reason why torture is a bad idea."

The question as to whether or not torture is an effective means of obtaining information valuable to defense, etc., is an emprical one. It can be answered with data only, not speculation.

"If you torture your enemies, your own country's soldiers are not safe from torture"

This, too, is a question of fact. And there is ample evidence to suggest that the use or nonuse of torture does not influence combatants.
____________________________
On its corruption of society...

Not really measurable, but highly likely, given what we've seen of those countries where it is routinely used on prisoners of every sort.

There is more evidence on the corrupting effects of certain forms of punishment, on which, more later.
____________________
Frankly, the question is not as simple as it may first appear. Since we are not in a position to know whether torture has been used "successfully" by the US, we can only argue on moral grounds, on those alone.

The question, then, pits consequentialism (roughly, very roughly: The means justify the ends) agains moral absolutism: X is wrong under any circumstances.
_____________________________

"Ipfhigenia at Tauris" has been an endless source of discussion by legal scholars. More on this later.
____________________________
An argument not put forward here, but which has been discussed, is the moral and psychological harm that training soldiers to torture, having our military torture, does to those involved.

And, then, there is the innocent victim question. Which also goes to consequentialism vs. moral absolutism.
______________________
On the partisan posturing, I agree completely. It's already made a carnival out of this terrible period in our history.
Yes, there should be full public disclosure. Yes, someone should tell the Democrats in Congress, that registered Democrats are becoming increasingly disgusted with them.
_____________________

On Orwellian language:

How to stop it? Make it illegal? Censor it in public speeches? Classify it as a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Less drastic measures? Any ideas?

Farnaz

stadtbear2,

War of ideas and war for control of ideas is the same. The ongoing struggle inside Islam for the heart of the faith is a war of ideas. As in Christianity and Judaism and most others there is a struggle for preeminence of interpretation of scripture and prophesy. The same is true in the armed conflict between radical islam via al Qaida and the Taliban, and American and western forces. Usually who wins that war wins the armed struggle.

"Juliet,
The War doesnt determine who is right,it determines who is lost.
Man kheyli dooset daram."

Romeo,

Agree 100%. Also, thanks, and the feeling is mutual.

Juliet

Juliet,

The War doesnt determine who is right,it determines who is lost.

Man kheyli dooset daram.

"And oh yes, there's another reason why torture is a bad idea. If you torture your enemies, your own country's soldiers are not safe from torture."

If you look at the history of our POWs in Korea and Vietnam, you would find that they have not been safe from torture for quite a period already.

So, with the relative position of mutual exclusion moot, as an atheist, which moral position do you use to exclude torture? It seems Susan Jacoby condemns it for lack of efficacy.

Susan Jacoby wrote:

"ordinary American voters are complicit in whatever happened. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were reelected in 2004, and by then they made no secret of their contempt for international human rights conventions and for civil liberties at home."

Exactly! The fact is, we got what WE bought and paid for.

For Believers:

This is excerpted from R. Waskow's essay on this blog:

"The choice is whether America is to celebrate the Infinite God or the tyrannical Caesar. To affirm the Image of God in every human being, or to fall at the feet of Empire. Torture is both a grave sin and a major crime. Refusing to "look back" at the use of torture in the past, refusing to try as criminals those who committed the crime, failing to excommunicate those who committed the sin, means refusing to heal the future.
It would be the same as ripping the crucifixion out of Good Friday or the torture of the ten rabbis out of Yom Kippur. After all, it merely happened long ago. Under a long-gone Empire. What is the point of remembering?"

Screwed up. I meant to write "...war for control OF ideas."

Walter-in-Fallschurch wrote:

"This is not how to win a war of ideas."

I would agree with you. Torture is torture, regardless of who is inflicting it, "alternative rendition techniques" notwithstanding.

But I would also point out that and conflict between militant Islamic theocrats, and non-Islamic theocrats is NOT a war of ideas. It is a war for control.

"As far as human torture of other humans is concerned, the second thing wrong with torture is that there is no evidence at all that it provides accurate information. If you're in pain, you'll say anything to make the pain stop."

Does anything else work on people who think they're getting 72 raisins in paradise if they just sit tight?

In our effort to champion human rights, we can’t even go near torture, um, alternative rendition techniques. It doesn’t matter that militant Islamic theocrats do it. We don’t. We are better than that. Our respect for human rights precludes it. It’s that simple. But, practically speaking, it’s also part of the battle of ideas.

One prisoner, when released, will tell 100 people about what happened to him. He becomes a walking, talking advertisement for our values. Better he be puzzled by how humane we were than have him think we’re just like Saddam, the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda.

The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay revelations may be the worst thing to come out of this war. We can still plausibly claim ignorance on the WMDs, but we can’t possibly claim we accidentally tortured people. It was so grotesque, shameful and irresponsible. It says more about us than anything else. It’s a human rights violation. It doesn’t matter that our torture was less inhumane than Saddam’s. Most Iraqis know someone who was tortured or executed by Saddam. Now, they can balance that with a story of U.S. torture and hypocrisy. It is going to take many years to undo the P.R. damage of the Iraq war and its handling. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. We are not totalitarianists. We abhor inhumanity. Let the Red Cross in anytime they want. No redefining torture. No secret prisons. We are the good guys. Our tortured efforts to rationalize alternative rendition techniques only show that we think we’re different, exceptional – that torture is O.K. when we do it. This is not how to win a war of ideas.