I agree with Dr. Manzi.
I also participated in a three thread discussion at TAS, as well as the discussion here.
Here is my closing comment, call meh a naive hysterical child if you like.

And…Consumatopia is right.
I have, actually, been called a naive child on the torture issue.
I did, actually, argue Alyosha’s answer in Russian Lit.
Torture is so grievous an insult to the human condition, so immoral and so deeply and profoundly wrong , that I marvel that the perps that designed and implemented this horrorshow, this slur on the name of a Great Republic, don’t either just curl up and die from shame or fall on their dishonored swords.

— matoko_chan · Apr 29, 06:21 PM · #

nope, torture is obviously something a person would die to avoid.
Worse than death.
I want to know the Aristotelian/Thomist differentiation between rape and torture.

Also...much like Palin.....this appears to be an issue where the majority of the rightside braintrust is completely divided from the base.

Waiting for First Things to weigh in.

The central moral evil in interrogating someone by means of torture is that it overrides the victim’s moral agency. That is, the whole point of the exercise is to render the victim incapable of moral self-governance, so that your will, the will of the torturer, becomes entirely sovereign. This is intrinsically wrong both in Aristotelian/Thomist thought and the various moral philosophies derived from Kant. Since, in classical moral philosophy (and indeed in the moral reasoning we use in everyday life) you can’t perform an action that is intrinsically evil in order than good may come about, you can’t torture someone to get information out of him even if that information would save many lives.

As a side note, you would think that this would all be clear to the good people at First Things, who’ve read their Aquinas and their dogmatic constitutions. I know First Things is against torture. I hope we hear some clarification from them soon.

Who the hell is Mary Worth?

It’s sickening

Torture is sickening. Rape is sickening.
You honestly think theres much of a difference? You honestly think that if our elected officials had a jackbauer scenario that required rape, they wouldn't do it?
I thought your whole pragmatism argument depended on that.

What is the difference between rape and torture?

alongside a situation so dire that our most trusted, and reviewable, public servants felt that engaging in such loathsome behavior was the lesser evil.

But that is your exact argument for waterboarding.
And that is what our most trusted, reviewable public servants did.
They tortured.

I think drugs will be reviewed as to whether they hold the potential for torture, and torture drugs will be outlawed. I was thinking of oxytocin, the "trust" drug.
Torture, in Consumatopia's definintion, is the state where death is preferable to more torture.

But...... I am not sure if dollhouse-style neural imprinting would be classed as torture....I think when we have that technological capability, there will have to be new rules and new laws.

But I am not trying to persuade.....like my shayyk says, each seeker must find their own path.

Consumatopia helped me pose the thought experiment that resolved the issue for me.
The Highlanders arguments do have validity and weight...and he is right that I am more of a dostoyevskian idealist than a machiavellian pragmatist.
The Brothers K made a big first impression on me.
In Russian lit we argued Alyosha's position. ;)
But to consider if we would support say...female terrorists being systematically raped in order to extract information.....well...
rape, torture and slavery are the same basically.
The negation of humanity.
What does it mean to be human?

it was possible to maintain achieve a union with the divine in which the human self melted away.

the wiki is wrong.

/sigh

I don't like to speak about my faith.
But here is a simplified version of the answer to your question.
The Sufi believe that some humans are born "open-channel" to Allah, like say....Issa...our word for Jesus. ;)
The rest of us can work toward that goal, ending in faana, the union with the Divine Beloved.
Of course there is free will...you can chose your path, you can choose not to work though the seven stages, not to study. You can choose against faana.
It is your choice.
Even Issa could choose, even al-Hallaj (the Sufi saint that was crucified for his beliefs), even Rabi'a could choose.
Freewill.

yes.

OOO!
I forgot this .....from Sully's reader bank

I sort of think of torture like rape: It may not kill the victim, but it gives so much power to the person inflicting it and causes so much trauma to the victim that it’s obviously beyond moral second-guessing: it’s wrong beyond the pale. Rhetorically, I suspect that if we were officially raping females suspected of terrorism, there would be legitimate outrage.

Though one can’t be sure. I’m constantly surprised by what we tolerate in this country.

At Ta-nehisi's we had a discussion of Joss Wheedon's Dollhouse...Ta said he thought it was a rape fantasy.....in the every week overwriting of the protagonist's memory..... I analogized rape and slavery.
It's the same! Rape, slavery, torture, Dollhouse.
The act renders the individual enslaved, raped, tortured or overwritten with a neural imprint into a non-human.

Perhaps we could discuss why you actually buy the rather silly notion that anyone actually possesses free will in the strictest sense?

Geek??
Of course I believe in free will.....I'm a Sufi.

You can live a rich life without ever experiencing a single one.

but.....do I want to?
domo arigoto gozaimasen sempai_sama.

Victory?
I achieved understanding of why torture is wrong for humans ruled by law.
If it is anyone's victory, it is yours, Mathematikos.
Sure, you didn't persuade me to your viewpoint.
But I listened and I learned ...me, I learned what I believe.
You are supposed to be teaching me to think for myself.....not how to think like you.
;)

Its over for me.
Realizing that torture is based on the exact same premise as slavery finished it.
The negation of free will, the negation of what it means to be human.
I don't think you have any arguments left that can touch me.
Game over.

Read my lips, Geek.
Torture is the same as slavery.
The negation of free will.

We signed a treaty defining torture.
Then we changed the definition.

Game over.

Highlander....
We tortured. We went against the rule of law.
Its over.
When Reagan signed the treaty we agreed on the definition.
It may or may not have been LEGAL for Bybee to redefine torture to exclude waterboarding...the truth commission will explore that.
I am pretty sure there will be a truth commission now.
And there is no reason not to protect ourselves with Stephens drugs, deceit, drink, and threats skilled interrogations.
But neither men or republics can be above the law.

And I would not...I understand your utlilitarian pragmatism...one torture for many lives....but I'm Alyosha.
I would not take one slave, not waterboard one terrorist, not torture one child.
I could not.

Done.
We tortured, it was wrong, do this next.

Back to topic, another good Manzi thread.

And, even better than my Dostoyevskian argument, a new epiphany for me, courtesy of commentor Consumatopia--

Even under simple preference utilitarianism, this is way worse than simply killing someone. Killing someone erases their preferences. Torturing them negates their preferences, like we cut them off at some sort of cartesian pineal gland, dividing their body from their will.

My response--
Torture, exactly like slavery, is the negation of freewill.
And that is the antithesis of humanity.

Ok.....I agree completely about teh conservo intelligentsia and Palin....they should respect the base or form their own party.
They are simply not going to be able to either scold or browbeat the base into submission.
But...right now you are leading a horse with an empty saddle towards 2012.
Obama was a contender right from his 2004 speech at the DNC.
Times runnin' out.
;)

I think you project a bit much and invest a bit too much in your intuitions about your own age cohort and where its head will be in future years.

I don't. People growing conservative turns out to be myth in the 21st century. There is also another body of research suggesting that voting patterns intitally formed don't change.

Lots of us old farts never would have believed that Rev Wright’s spiritual stepson and loyal congregant could have been taken seriously as a candidate, much less elected Prez, in the good ol’ USA. Lots of other people were sure that the mythical American bigot cavalry would ride to the rescue at the last moment.

heh.
And you would have been absolutely right about both those things but for the Econopalypse.
Alas, the demographic timer is about to run out on the bigot calvary-- in 2020 cauc becomes a minority.

I think....the only way Palin could be a contender in say....2016 would be an evquivalent event comparable to the Econopalypse.....say....a Great Depression or nuke strike on American territory....but even that might not be enough to overcome her negative branding with the New Liberal Majority.

One more thing and then over to you, Highlander.
Palin was used as a tactic, when she should have been a strategy.
Copacetic?

the behavior of the “reform conservatives” toward her exposed how tactically inept,

hmm....even strategically inept. I admit, I thought Palin was a ludicrous pick for this slice of spacetime. Then when I understood how invested the base was in her i got terrified. I think you must admit, Highlander, that she failed her job description, to be ready on Day One. I would have been much more comfortable with Palin being the VP of a different presidential candidate than a 72-year old 4x melanoma survivor. That was Colin Powell's objection I believe.
btw my paternal grandfather died of the "farmer's disease", so im sure that contributed to my perspective.
You are absolutely correct though.....the conservo intelligentsia doesn't respect the base. See.....I can recognize this....Palin IS the "real deal" like Reagan was (and like JTP said). A Jeffersonian "noble yeoman farmer", a true Jacksonian populist, not a stealthy elite pretending to be everyman like Bush or Nixon.
I think Palin was just colossal mismanagement on the GOP's part.
Everyone knew Bristol was pregnant and that would create a sh*tstorm of unpleasant publicity. I also wonder about Brook's substrate issue.....so much wiser to wait until 2012.
I think Palin could have been elected in 2012 easily, if she hadn't run in 2008.
But she was thrown away, used up as a traditional "attack dog" in the kabuki theater of MacCain's campaign.
People my age will simply never forget the SNL parodies.
So, as a Machiavellian pragmatist, what do you do with Palin at this point?

Since this is relevent to The MacLeod's OT on the conservo braintrust, I'm a copy my reply from the frontpage thread.

As we work things out, instead of focusing on that individual’s and our flaws, his and our failure to treat the reform conservatives as the be-all and end-all of the conservative intellect, they can mediate a little - politely - while trying to bridge the gap between the base’s passions and intuitions and everyone else’s prejudices.

I just
I just had an epiphany, Highlander.
tyvm, lol.
Its all about teh RESPECT isnt it?
LIke how the commentariat only found Couric funnie in AllahP’s autotuning mock…….when Hannity + Angry Gorilla was obviously the funniest.
The SNL mocks on Palin really stung, didn’t they?
Well…..I think she’s your choice, and NOW instead of shredding her and mocking her the conservo intelligentsia should be trying to fix her, help her, right?
Instead of pissing and moaning about how impossible she is and how stupid the base is to insist on her, gtf up to Alaska and help her, give her some decent advice, educate her on foreign policy.

R-E-S–P-E-C-T!
;)

strangelet on April 27, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Maybe teh Mathmatikos will make a thread on it.
;)

I got class, l8r dudes and dudettes.

hahahaha!

A Sully link!!!!!
All Hail the Highlander!
Gratz, man.

Why haven’t they been doing that? It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that it’s because they’re social-climbing, fingers-in-the-wind, bed-feathering and -wetting opportunists.

CK MacLeod on April 26, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Nah, they are just Aspergers Positive, like meh and Larry Summers.
;)

Or...tell Frum et al to just step on.
Are the reform conservatives actually a part of conservatism at all?

Do you what I think conservatives need, Highlander?
You need a bridge.
You need someone with unimpeachable conservative credentials that can translate Frum and Larison and Douthat for the base.
I thought about Reynolds, but hes impeachable on abortion and hESCR.
I would pick Michelle Malkin.
I think she must be a lot smarter than she writes, or AllahP wouldn't be so into her.

I sent the Derb a copy of Snowcrash, but he wont even talk to meh after I wrote a mock on K-lo and Goldberg on the SS Conservative Titanic at Culture11.
I loved Culture11.
It was perfect for meh.

Sowwy Highlander.
You brought it up, tho.

but was finally banned (or part-banned)

I got you beat. ;)
I've been banned at dKos and lgf, and althouse AND feministe, and AllahP banns me perodically when i get too raw. I been banned at Sadly No, and at TAS, but they always let me come back, and right now I think im still banned at Secular Right, my beloved old friends Razib and the Derb.
;)
I'm sort of an equal opportunity internet pariah.

From my perspective, the Bush Doctrine is an Epic Fail.

And you cannot argue the results.
Iraq is an islamic state that is still undergoing sectarian violence.
Afghanistan is just as bad as when we went in, and Pak has now ceded sovereign territory to the Taliban.

{One just has to enable that bit of freedom….}

coldwarrior on April 26, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Watever you call it cold, enabling or forcing, why can you not admit that Bush was essentially clueless about how incredibly difficult the enabling would be?
Alternatively, I bet someone told him it was impossible, or near impossible, and he ignored them.
Since....I am sooooo clueless about what the Bush Doctrine is (apparently) please, by all means, enlighten meh.
I await revelation and epiphany.

by assumptions about the former president’s character

I have never for a heartbeat thought GW was evil. He was a well-intentioned evangelical bumbler. The evangelical part, of course, conditioned him to believe he was right when he was not, and to dismiss any advice or contraction.
For example.....the Bush Doctrine.....did not a one of his advisors explain to him that democracy cannot be forced?

The Founders were true Machiavellians, in many ways - and Machiavelli was a democratic republican.

CK MacLeod on April 26, 2009 at 11:33 AM

I believe this, Highlander.
I also believe that even though he was himself tortured, Niccolo would have absolutely supported torture in the vein that you support it.

NONONONONO!

the beginning of life, the nature of marriage, the censorship of pornography, and even what constitutes racial discrimination (whether or not includes affirmative action),

The TRUTH of all these things are proscribed by natural laws, whether they be the laws of science, natural law, or the rule of law exemplified by our constitution and the bill of rights.
All the right sides arguments boil down to to "because MY god says so."

The preachers of epistemological humility when it comes to one set of beliefs become the Christianists they loathe when it comes to another set of beliefs, but they offer no account as to why this is so.

Lie.
For anyone above a certain IQ arguing for life-at-conception, for denial of citizen rights to minority citizens in a pluralist republic, for censorship and for discriminination represents not epistemological humility but intellectual whoring.
To deny the truth in service to the twin beasts of supernaturalism and tribalism.

lol

I'll put a footnote on the thread thread, an epitaph, a tombstone.....here's my summation.
The MacLeod, channelling Niccolo Machiavelli--

“How one lives and how one ought to live are so far apart that he who spurns what is actually done for what ought to be done will achieve ruin rather than his own preservation.”

Strangelet, channelling Fyodor Mikhailovitch Dostoyevski--

“Neither man or nation can exist without a sublime idea.”

Can those two positions ever be reconciled?
I think not.
;)

No...coldwarrior, Highlander....this is wrong...

The days of fortress America are gone. We are the world's superpower. We can sit on our hands or we can become engaged to improve global human conditions.

We are simply not going to do this anymore....we can't afford it.
We can't be the Superawesome World Police. We can't afford it and it makes people hate us.
The Bush Doctrine was an Epic Fail......in practice, with the American people, and with the global community.

Democracy cannot be forced...but it is highly contagious.

Didn't you tell meh .......Right makes might?
Democracy will spread far better if we lead by example and believe in the power of our memes.
And one of our memes is America doesn't torture.

selective releasing/redaction against people who are constrained from speaking in detail in their own defense.

I kinda agree here, but I think the selective release was a pragmatic action designed to get this guy to drop the charges.....which will likely happen.

I think all the docs should be released, not just the two Cheney is requesting.
And immunity for all.

Incidentally, the Inquisitors viewed torture differently than I believe you realize. The objective of Inquisitorial torture was often not to extract confessions, but to validate confessions in the subject’s spiritual interest.

Partly...but mostly they viewed the Inquisition as a sort of memetic hygiene, testing for infection and stopping the spread of mutated memes. Pretty well documented in cognitive anthropology and EGT. So the veracity of results derived from torture would be critical to them....otherwise they would have destroyed and innocent rep of their tribe.

And...it is my understanding that Bybee and Yoo will be judged by a jury of their peers......
I don't think blanket immunity can protect them from disbarrment or impeachment.

O Mathematikos!
In your opinion is Obama not-a-machiavellian, or not-a-pragmatist?
Or neither?

And...let us make blanket immunity and/or pardons a precondition of any further release of the torture memos and documents. Could you then accept the dispostion of the judgements and rulings by the DoJ alone?

I appreciate your attempt to sum things up on the way to moving forward, but I must point to ..

Ok, I accept Hemingway's contra. tyvm for the link and the advice.
Is the rest of my summary flawed in anyway?
Are there other points of disagreement?

you guys have a tendency to fall in love with certain ideas

lol, I won't apolo for my better angels.
You should dig Obama, Highlander, you're isomorphic.
He's a pragmatist and a machiavellian.
And so are you.

The suggestion of blanket immunity in the event of hearings might facilitate actually learning something useful

I would support blanket immunity and/or pardons.
This is not a partisan issue for me, although it seems to be one for you.

...and....like Sesqui says....what profit him to gain the world if he should lose his soul?

Ummm....this has been revelatory for me at least.
I hope I am not behaving as a stereotypic troll..and you certainly are not behaving as stereotypic wingnuts, (for the most part.)
I think it is a good discussion of an important question.
I listened, I learned, and formulated and reformed my opinions.
Like a good aukosmatikos.
;)

Allow me to unpack our progress so far---
The definition of torture....we have currently a consensus definition, an operational definition, defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which the US was a signatory as of 1988. We did, like Sesqui says, IPOF, hang Japanese waterboarders for torturing our troops. The Bybee memos are an attempt to legally change the operational definition of torture so that waterboarding could be systemically practiced in the US, where torture was illegal. The MacLeod argues that torture is actually undefined (false) wants to discard the consensus definition of torture and instantiate a flexible "organic" definition that adapts to time and circumstance, and is also transparent to the public.
Sesqui is arguing about the efficacy of torture as a methodolgy. Dr. Manzi also does here, arguing that not-torturing is both strategic and conservative, since traditionally the US has not had a torture policy, because torture was illegal.
As for me....I would like ALL the memos to be released, and the DoJ to take over, to decide if there was torture practiced, or if it was legal to change the consensus defintion, and if it was costviable, and if there should be prosecution if there is determination of guilt.
Like President Obama, I would not support prosecuting CIA agents that performed on their orders. We also ask our soldiers to perform anti-human operations in service of their country.
Alyosha cannot be a soldier, but neither can he condemn Ivan if he were to soldier. So much depends on the individual wiring.
;)
I would like us to use legal interrogation techniques. Churchillian and Israeli techniques, excluding sodium pentathol if that is classed as torture, but definitely drugs, drink, deceit, threats....and skill.
I expect that there may be occasions where torture is practiced spontaneously, in-situ, and in theater for extracting intell. But it should still be extralegal, and not part of an offical torture policy.
Because America doesn't torture.
I understood that growing-up.
Didn't you?

As to whether the Founding Fathers would’ve institutionalized torture, one would have to note that the inquisitions of the past were fresher on their minds then than now. They probably would’ve abhorred it (seeing as how it was used and what it was used for, and battlefield intelligence was best gotten by scouts, or careless enemies) but I also think that a few of them (perhaps even Washington) might have used it if he deemed necessary. I don’t think they would have institutionalized though: too much like the inquisition.

Chaz706 on April 25, 2009 at 2:14 AM

I liked your answer Chaz, I very much agree it. That is kind of my impression of the Founders. I worship Jefferson, actually. ;)
The Inquistions institutionalized torture in the pursuit of what the Founders saw as restricting religious freedom. But if the goal of an inquisitioner was extracting intell in the service of saving someone's soul or deterring apostasy and heresy.....don't you see a lot of similiarities? And what value did the extracted intell actually have?

taboo on April 25, 2009 at 12:39 AM

w/e it takes.
I think I remember an Israeli interrogator using sodium pentathol, but I could be wrong. I was riffing off the Churchill post.
Oxytocin is not torture...yet.
And the cannabis would be offered freely, not forced.
;)

4) that Barack Obama’s behavior this week appears confoundingly stupid, insane, and irresponsible - altogether dangerous.

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2009 at 12:28 AM

Ummm....you lost me there. I quite like his proposal to cut private lenders out of the student loan loop and have the unis administer the loan allocation. He apparently also plans to funnel the 94 billion in savings into Pells and lower interest rates.

So......Highlander, since you are so wise.

What do you think should happen with the OLC memos and Bybee and Yoo and Bush and Cheney and Condi and Congress and the CIA?

Sleep well tonight, secure in the knowledge that your hands will never be soiled because others will do the dirty work on your behalf.

walkingboss on April 24, 2009 at 10:13 PM

I said before...I'm Alyosha.
I neither expect others to be Ivan on my behalf, or judge them if they are.
It is a matter of freewill, and what it means to be human.

CK (Sir MacLeod?),

It is The MacLeod, of Clann MacLeod.

Somehow the idea of a process is more disturbing to her than a society that would excuse someone going “Jack Bauer” on a detainee.

Fighton03 on April 24, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Yes, because it is normallized. The MaCleod touched on this....torture is awful, horrific....normalizing it, making it banal takes its power.
And this is another thing you don't understand, Highlander..... Saw and Hostel are about revenge. Everyone in the Saw movies deserves what they get because of something they did. In Hostel I beautiful teenagers get what they derserve for being beautiful teenagers. Hostel II is one of the best revenge movies of all time. The neuro-receptors for revenge are co-located in the small neocortical area also responsible for opiate addiction and sexual pleasure.
That is why Americans approve torturing KSM in polls.
Revenge.

Exaggerate much?

hillbillyjim on April 24, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Not usually......release the memos and prove me wrong.
;)

under open democratic oversight

exactly.
Release ALL the memos and let the judiciary decide.

compulsively expressed disdain for “gun freaks, jesus freaks and pro-life nuts,

Also, I MUST take exception to this.
I'm well armed for a grrl, I own a browning 12 gauge and a ruger pistol.
I learned to shoot skeet when i was 8 and that browning knocked me on my butt everytime.
I would neverever diss anyone for owning a gun.

If your objective is to reduce the morall abhorrent incidence of torture

Highlander....I want torture NOT to be banal, NOT to be SOP, NOT to be cluttered with the minutiae of equipment and protocols and definintions and funding.
I want torture NOT to be normative.
For example, we ALREADY defined waterboarding as torture when the Japanese and the NK and the VietCong did it to our soldiers. The Bybee memos redefined it to be NOT-torture so we could make it SOP.

donabernathy on April 24, 2009 at 8:50 PM

Pardon, but that has nothing to with the topic here.

and yet you spend significant amounts of time trying to either persuade or browbeat others.

Fighton03 on April 24, 2009 at 8:42 PM

I am one of the aukosmatikoi of this Mathematikos.
I am listening.
But listening is a process of discovery and self-examination.
I did not truly understand why the torture memos bothered me until I listened here.

Fighton03 on April 24, 2009 at 8:27 PM

I am really only concerned with myself and what I have learned in discussion with the Mathmatikos.
I'm Alyosha.
"I could not do it."
You have to decide who you are for yourselves.

And actually that was not Buchenwald, it was Dachau.

Terrye on April 24, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Pardon, you are correct.
Dachau

Are you talking about the same founders who hanged Muslim pirates without trials?

Guardian on April 24, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Yup.
Would they have approved systemic institutionalized torture?

The founding fathers thought otherwise. Our declaration of independence gives us the duty to.

At some point, tolerance MUST go out the window and inevitably replaced with war.

Chaz706 on April 24, 2009 at 8:09 PM

Well, what would the Founding Fathers do????
Tell meh.
Would they have approved of institutionalized torture?

This isn’t about legality, this isn’t about being proper. This is about political power and demonstrations of it, pure and simple.

Fighton03 on April 24, 2009 at 8:17 PM

It is not a matter of politics for me.
Like I have said repeatedly, release all the memos and let the judiciary decide.
What would the Founders do in this situation?

Torture done on a regular/uniform basis by an organization (i.e. it’s a common fallback)? That’s what I think you’re getting at.

No insult intended. Just wanting a definition.

Further more, some of these pansies being interrogated will call it torture no matter what we do.

Chaz706 on April 24, 2009 at 8:12 PM

For example, we defined "water torture" already. The Bybee memos attempt to redefine the practice as not-torture. It became SOP with government approved equipment, trained personnel, procedures, protocols, and funding.
Systemic, institutionalized torture.

At some point you cross the line between being a bystander and being an accomplice. They knew what was going on! All those who would’ve fought against it had already started fighting, or died doing so.

Chaz706 on April 24, 2009 at 7:54 PM

But that is not my point....my point is that the soldiers were so horrified by the results of torture that they forgot their training and shot unarmed men.
Would they want us to have institutionalized torture?

I'm pretty sure WWII paratroopers might have pistol whipped some intell out captured prisoners. But that was extralegal, spontaneous, and in-situ.
And neccessary.

Bush could’ve used the psychological model of enhanced interrogation and many in the opposition would’ve still spoken out against it. What would you have said then?

Me? nothing. I am against INSTITUTIONALIZED TORTURE.
Is the psychological model of enhanced interrogation torture? I think that is what the Israelis use actually.

Dr. Manhattan on April 24, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Suspects often left the interrogation cells legless with fear after an all-night grilling. An inspired amateur psychologist, Stephens used every trick, lie and bullying tactic to get what he needed; he deployed threats, drugs, drink and deceit. But he never once resorted to violence. “Figuratively,” he said, “a spy in war should be at the point of a bayonet.” But only ever figuratively. As one colleague wrote: “The Commandant obtained results without recourse to assault and battery. It was the very basis of Camp 020 procedure that nobody raised a hand against a prisoner.”
Stephens did not eschew torture out of mercy. This was no squishy liberal: the eye was made of tin, and the rest of him out of tungsten. (Indeed, he was disappointed that only 16 spies were executed during the war.) His motives were strictly practical. “Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise.”...

Threats, drugs, drink and deceit....do you what oxytocin is? sodium pentathol? cannabis? Oxytocin is a neuro-hormone that can be used for empathy bonding.
We should be using those techniques...they don't to be redefined like water torture, which is what we called it when the Viet Cong and the Japanese did it to our men.
Let me make it clear.
Torture is illegal in America.
Release all the memos.
Let the DoJ decide.

This cowardice of “let that guy take the fall” is unserious.

Lehosh on April 24, 2009 at 6:40 PM

No...that is a personal decision. It every man's own choice to be Ivan or Alyosha.
"Following orders" is a cop-out.
I'm Alyosha.
I neither rely on the Highlander to be Ivan or judge him if he is.
Freewill.

The Highlander helped me understand what bothers me so much.
It is the institutionalization of torture as part of established American policy.

And strangelet has already decided that torture is whatever the Bushies did because the Bushies are bad Republicans. It is a rather inverted kind of logic, but what can you expect from the morbidly partisan?

Terrye on April 24, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Like I said, release ALL the memos and let the DoJ decide.
There is a thought experiment I'm fond of....what would the Founders do?

I think Obama should step out of this entirely.
The debate should not be partisan.

Strangelet how should we interrogate? Should we, even?

Dr. Manhattan on April 24, 2009 at 6:39 PM

I recommend the Churchill model.

When you do it.

And also Highlander.....know you are offered Alyosha's choice.

And in Buchenwald....when the Allies opened the camp....American soldiers forgot their training and began to slaughter unarmed germans. Americans driven to madness by the evidence of torture all around them.
And now their country wants to legalize it?
/spit
Should I support Cheney and Bush making a FREAKIN' INSTITUTION OF TORTURE? With procedures and protocols and legal justification memos and goverment built FREAKIN' TORTURE EQUIPMENT???
Sure, go jackbauer.
But do it in-situ, in theatre, and in the extremity of need.

Exquisite, my delightful Celtic homeslice, but you got me totally wrong.
In truth, discussing this with you has clarified and focused my objections, as follows, from one of AllahP's threads.
O Mathematikos!

Torture should be extralegal, spontaneous, and vanishingly rare.
Those obscene scumbags made an institution of torture in MY country, they legalized it and systemized it, and ginned up a whole bureaucracy to support it.
Release ALL the memos.
Let the DoJ, the Justice branch, deal with them.
Like the Founders intended.

I hope they hang ‘em high.