[afx114]

Now that more details are trickling out, it’s all starting to make sense. It appears as if torture was used in an attempt to extract information that would tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

Of course, there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which probably explains why people like KSM had to be waterboarded 180+ times. I wonder if these guys figured that if they pushed hard enough that he would say anything, even that he was buddies with Saddam? That break would certainly justify the invasion in the minds of the administration and almost certainly in the majority of the US public. “See, we had to go into Iraq… to get Al Qaeda. Remember 9-11?”

Paul Krugman said it well:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Apparently the ‘success’ claimed by torture backers had to do with figuring out the power structure of Al Qaeda rather than any sort of pending attack upon America.

I just wish they’d release all of the info so that we can let the chips fall where they may.

Do any of these new details change anyones positions on torture? I suppose you could have different answers for both this specific case and torture in general.

I also wonder if the ‘do not prosecute’ crowd would have had the same argument in regards to the Japanese we executed following WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

[afx114]

Now that more details are trickling out, it’s all starting to make sense. It appears as if torture was used in an attempt to extract information that would tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

Of course, there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which probably explains why people like KSM had to be waterboarded 180+ times. I wonder if these guys figured that if they pushed hard enough that he would say anything, even that he was buddies with Saddam? That break would certainly justify the invasion in the minds of the administration and almost certainly in the majority of the US public. “See, we had to go into Iraq… to get Al Qaeda. Remember 9-11?”

Paul Krugman said it well:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Apparently the ‘success’ claimed by torture backers had to do with figuring out the power structure of Al Qaeda rather than any sort of pending attack upon America.

I just wish they’d release all of the info so that we can let the chips fall where they may.

Do any of these new details change anyones positions on torture? I suppose you could have different answers for both this specific case and torture in general.

I also wonder if the ‘do not prosecute’ crowd would have had the same argument in regards to the Japanese we executed following WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

[afx114]

Now that more details are trickling out, it’s all starting to make sense. It appears as if torture was used in an attempt to extract information that would tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

Of course, there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which probably explains why people like KSM had to be waterboarded 180+ times. I wonder if these guys figured that if they pushed hard enough that he would say anything, even that he was buddies with Saddam? That break would certainly justify the invasion in the minds of the administration and almost certainly in the majority of the US public. “See, we had to go into Iraq… to get Al Qaeda. Remember 9-11?”

Paul Krugman said it well:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Apparently the ‘success’ claimed by torture backers had to do with figuring out the power structure of Al Qaeda rather than any sort of pending attack upon America.

I just wish they’d release all of the info so that we can let the chips fall where they may.

Do any of these new details change anyones positions on torture? I suppose you could have different answers for both this specific case and torture in general.

I also wonder if the ‘do not prosecute’ crowd would have had the same argument in regards to the Japanese we executed following WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

[afx114]

Interesting that a “4/20 Smokeout” at University of Colorado drew 8,000-10,000 people, which is more than all of the tea protests in Colorado combined. Now that’s what I call “grass roots.” 😉

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/apr/20/420-cu-colorado-boulder-marijuana-pot-smoke-out/

[afx114]

Interesting that a “4/20 Smokeout” at University of Colorado drew 8,000-10,000 people, which is more than all of the tea protests in Colorado combined. Now that’s what I call “grass roots.” 😉

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/apr/20/420-cu-colorado-boulder-marijuana-pot-smoke-out/

[afx114]

Interesting that a “4/20 Smokeout” at University of Colorado drew 8,000-10,000 people, which is more than all of the tea protests in Colorado combined. Now that’s what I call “grass roots.” 😉

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/apr/20/420-cu-colorado-boulder-marijuana-pot-smoke-out/

[afx114]

Interesting that a “4/20 Smokeout” at University of Colorado drew 8,000-10,000 people, which is more than all of the tea protests in Colorado combined. Now that’s what I call “grass roots.” 😉

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/apr/20/420-cu-colorado-boulder-marijuana-pot-smoke-out/

[afx114]

Interesting that a “4/20 Smokeout” at University of Colorado drew 8,000-10,000 people, which is more than all of the tea protests in Colorado combined. Now that’s what I call “grass roots.” 😉

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/apr/20/420-cu-colorado-boulder-marijuana-pot-smoke-out/

[afx114]

I hope that Obama does release the complete info. Transparency is a good thing. Lets find out exactly what went on and whether or not it was effective. How else are we supposed to make education decisions on things if we don’t have all of the info? I do, however, find it ironic that the same crowd who claimed that releasing any information would put America at risk are now asking for more to be released. Welcome to the world of politics, I guess.

[afx114]

I hope that Obama does release the complete info. Transparency is a good thing. Lets find out exactly what went on and whether or not it was effective. How else are we supposed to make education decisions on things if we don’t have all of the info? I do, however, find it ironic that the same crowd who claimed that releasing any information would put America at risk are now asking for more to be released. Welcome to the world of politics, I guess.

[afx114]

I hope that Obama does release the complete info. Transparency is a good thing. Lets find out exactly what went on and whether or not it was effective. How else are we supposed to make education decisions on things if we don’t have all of the info? I do, however, find it ironic that the same crowd who claimed that releasing any information would put America at risk are now asking for more to be released. Welcome to the world of politics, I guess.

[afx114]

I hope that Obama does release the complete info. Transparency is a good thing. Lets find out exactly what went on and whether or not it was effective. How else are we supposed to make education decisions on things if we don’t have all of the info? I do, however, find it ironic that the same crowd who claimed that releasing any information would put America at risk are now asking for more to be released. Welcome to the world of politics, I guess.

[afx114]

I hope that Obama does release the complete info. Transparency is a good thing. Lets find out exactly what went on and whether or not it was effective. How else are we supposed to make education decisions on things if we don’t have all of the info? I do, however, find it ironic that the same crowd who claimed that releasing any information would put America at risk are now asking for more to be released. Welcome to the world of politics, I guess.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[afx114]

Well put. I can’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, except for a few shades of gray when it comes to definitions. I think this issue is really many smaller issues packaged together, so sometimes it helps to break them apart and take them individually. I see many questions arising in this debate:

– Does torture even work? This is an important question, but it can’t be answered until my next question is:

– What exactly defines ‘torture?’ The UN has tried to define it, but they are vague and don’t refer to specific techniques. Amnesty International has slightly different definitions (here’s a good read from them titled Torture & The Law). Can we possibly expect to ever achieve a perfect list of every possible form of torture (Barry Manilow I’m OK with, but Celine Dione is definitely torture)? Of course not. So this is difficult.

– Once torture is defined, who do the laws regulating torture apply to? Only to Americans? What about foreigners? Are we allowed to torture them because they’re not US Citizens and therefore aren’t availed the right to not be tortured? Or do we follow our supposed American morals to the necessary conclusion that certain rights are bestowed upon all men, regardless of country? What about enemy combatants? Do we subscribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ school of torture or do we try to retain the moral high ground?

– The larger issue that reveals itself is the slowness of the legislature in dealing with today’s urgent threats. It is certainly understandable that certain issues require instant action, but once you go down that road, what’s the point of even having the legislative process at all then? If all it takes is a national security scare to ram through some new legislation because “we don’t have time,” where are the checks and balances? My guess is that some sort of retro-active approval process similar to what FISA had. It should also probably be a temporary power that is pending further review. But then it begs the question you raised earlier about being retroactively charged with a crime!

So it seems like the torture issue is stuck in an infinite loop. These are all difficult questions, and there are no easy answers.

[Author]

Posts