News-Record.com

You've got the straw man down pat, Doug,

This conversation must begin with the unavoidable question for the torture advocate: Is waterboarding acceptable treatment of US citizens in foreign hands? If not, explain how we are not to see such a position as situational ethics, with one set of expectations for us and another for the rest of humanity. Doug?

I'm not sure what you're saying. Usually your writing is clear, even when disagreeable.

Do you agree with Bowden or not?

Waterboarding has not been determined to be illegal under any statute applicable to either military or intelligence interrogators.
While it may seem "torturous" to some it is not "torture" per se as defined by law. The whole discussion of the practice of waterboarding is semantics and politics.
Use what works.

What constitutional guarantees does the member of a terriorist organiztion bent of harm to the U. S. and it's citizens have? I think none. Had we captured and interrogated a mastermind of the 9/11 attack with water boarding techiniques, before the attack happened, would we have violated his constituitional rights?

Had we captured and interrogated a mastermind of the 9/11 attack with water boarding techiniques, before the attack happened, would we have violated his constituitional rights?* Bill Knight

Sure we would have violated the constitutional rights of Bush and Cheney and a truckload of neo-con corporate 21 st first Century special fascist ops teams in order to save the inside job of 9/11.........

No doubt, the waterboard would have to be very large, like Whitewater fun parks.....

While it may seem "torturous" to some it is not "torture" per se as defined by law. The whole discussion of the practice of waterboarding is semantics and politics.
Use what works.* Jaycee....torture expert

That is easy for you to say Republican torture supporter! What you going to do when the local airport security taser you by mistake thinking you were a Obama supporter for wearing a scar over your head to keep warm? I wager that you are one of those wresting fans who really believe those body slams is torturing the heck out of those bad boys in the ring?

"Besides, saving an innocent child's life isn't worth breaking the rules of civilized society."

Wow. That's an amazing claim. An innocent child's life vs. the right of a potential child murderer not to be frightened into revealing the child's location. And you come down on the side of the murderer's rights.

CM, I be so glad when Bush is out of office, maybe the white house can be taking over by honorable democrats like we have in Raleigh!
Of course most of the honorable democrats are in jail are on the way to jail. Then when they get out of jail, we can give them a high paying job in the college system, where they can train the next group of jailbirds. Off to the golf course.

Mr. Zubaydah is not a straw man, Roch.

Do I agree with Bowden? Yes, in the case he presents. I'm not sorry this terrorist was waterboarded for the life-saving information he provided. In other cases? I don't know. We shouldn't torture prisoners. But how much should we pressure them for vital information? Bowden gives us the other side of this debate that's too often not heard over the pious pronouncements by people who get themselves offended by the way wars are won.

CM, I be so glad when Bush is out of office,* The Dog bites back

What makes you think that he leave the office? You are aware that every constitutional safeguard against tyrants has been remove to keep him and his corporate fascist buddies in? You should go rent out the 70's movie " Network" and understand your place in the bold new global world to come.

maybe the white house can be taking over by honorable democrats like we have in Raleigh!
Of course most of the honorable democrats are in jail are on the way to jail. Then when they get out of jail, we can give them a high paying job in the college system, where they can train the next group of jailbirds. Off to the golf course.* The Dog bites back

How about a bold new political party call the " Freedom Party" to ship off both parties to the slammer for a long time? You are aware that a massive new revolution movement is taking place right in front of your internet eyes?

Again, we see the conflict of abstract thought and harsh reality. Most likely the people who say we are in violation of the Constitution or we should not lower ourselves to torture since we decend to the level of the people who wronged us, have not been in a situation where they were tested with the ultimate test-having a loved one killed by terrorists.

You have to put yourself to a hypothetical test. If faced with immminent needless death of a loved one at the hands of madman which could be prevented by the waterboarding of said madman, which would you choose? These are really the only people who are in a position to make this judgement-and I think we know what the answer would be.

It's interesting that in a long and otherwise detailed article, Mr. Bowden can't provide a specific example of information that Zubaydah produced under torture.

Skeet,

There is a problem with your hypothetical and that is that it posits that we know with certainty that someone will commit or knows about an act. To make your hypothetical more realistic, it should consider the possibility that someone who lacks information could be tortured.

Your line of thinking (and Bowden's, Clark's, and the Bush administration's) is in line with the "one-percent doctrine," which states that if there is a small chance of a catastrophic terrorist act, we should do everything (including torturing, locking people away on suspicion, invading countries, etc.) to stop that act. There's certainly a logic to it, but there's also a very slippery slope. There are also long-term consequences from being wrong.

There's certainly a logic to it, but there's also a very slippery slope. There are also long-term consequences from being wrong.* David

It appears that Skeet Savage knows nothing of Germany history just before WW2...The first "final solution" was practice on the German people who were retarded, mentaly ill, and held in the mental institutions.

Thus, the term slippery slope makes Skeet a excellent candiate for a good tasering sometime in the coming Police State future.

Good points, Dave. Obviously everything in life is a risk/ benefit ratio situation.

And you're right. It would take great retraint to prevent "mission creep" to where you were torturing everybody.

"Your line of thinking (and Bowden's, Clark's, and the Bush administration's) is in line with the "one-percent doctrine," which states that if there is a small chance of a catastrophic terrorist act, we should do everything (including torturing, locking people away on suspicion, invading countries, etc.) to stop that act. There's certainly a logic to it, but there's also a very slippery slope. There are also long-term consequences from being wrong."

Hmmm.

Thanks for that line of logic, Dave.

I'll be sure to use it the next time someone starts talking about "scientific consensus" on "anthropogenic global warming" .

Bubba:

Can't take credit for it. The idea comes from Ron Suskind's book of the same title ( http://www.amazon.com/One-Percent-Doctrine-Americas-Pursuit/dp/0743271106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199845089&sr=8-1 ).

Hey Doug, I've been misreading you all along. Given the tone and tenor of many of your political posts, I figured you were a big fan of pious pronouncements.

Thanks for clarifying that.

My take on the alarming trend in moral relativism among newspaper pundits.

Thanks for the link, Anglico.

Your response to that particular Martinez column was correct in its first part but off point and illogical in its second. You didn't refute his statement on waterboarding at all but instead drew an absurd comparison: waterboarding is the moral equivalent of dropping a nuclear bomb. Right.

How do you answer Bowden's column?

I oppose torture and I oppose water-boarding. Every military professional I know personally (a few dozen senior officers) does too. They say there are some potential benefits to the "pressure" . . . but that those benefits pale in comparison to the moral and practical costs.

You misunderstood my point about dropping bombs - what I was trying to say is this: One can justify anything if one believes it is in the best interest of (fill in your own blank.) Just look at what one of North Carolina's high-profile Republican spokesmen had to say:

"If boiling people alive best served the interests of the American people, then it would neither be moral or immoral." Max Borders, Civitas Institute

Endorsing or rejecting Torture is a values question

"I'm not sorry this terrorist was waterboarded"

It is not a matter of whether you feel sorry, or don't feel sorry for the person being tortured.

Accepting torture as a tool of interagation, or for any reason, is a values decision that speaks to the core of who we are and what we hold true, moral and sacred.

I would like to think that torturing a person is not now, or will ever be an accepted form of behavior for Americans in America, or anywhere else they may be.

These doomsday scenerios we often here about, i.e., "There is a Nuclear device that will detonate in one hour and this guy knows where it is"..bla..bla...bla.. is dishonest and the person putting that scenerio forward as an actual point of debate is someone lacking any credable argument...