Bulgaroctonus

From The Week 9 December 2005 issue:

Torture
Coming to terms with ‘the dark side’.
12/2/2005

After months of abstract debate and vague denials, said The Washington Post in an editorial, we’re finally getting a fuller picture of how the Bush administration interrogates suspected terrorists. With political pressure mounting to ban torture, CIA sources last week described six “enhanced interrogation techniques” to ABC News. These include “shaking or striking detainees in an effort to cause pain and fear,” and soaking prisoners in cold water and forcing them to stand naked and shivering in a 50-degree cell for hours. Then there is “waterboarding,” whereby a prisoner is bound to an inclined board, his face wrapped in cellophane, while water is poured over him; within seconds, he begins gagging and is overcome by the terrifying sensation of drowning. CIA director Porter Goss insisted that all of the “unique and innovative ways” the U.S. collects “vital information” are perfectly legal and “not torture.” This administration insists on playing “games with words,” said David Luban in The Washington Post , but no one is being fooleI AM d. It’s obvious to Americans, and to the world, that we’ve crossed the line into “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.”

The only remaining question, said Elisa Massimino in the Los Angeles Times, is why the Bush administration won’t back off. The U.S. Senate, by a 90–9 vote, has backed Sen. John McCain’s amendment to bar American authorities from using degrading interrogation methods. But the White House is so instinctively opposed to any limits on the “powers of the commander in chief” that it has vowed to veto the amendment. In a “civilized society,” said The Boston Globe in an editorial, it “should not be necessary” to ban torture. But with a vice president who insists we must be willing to go to “the dark side” to fight terrorism, we have to spell out some limits in black and white.

Actually, that would be a mistake, said Charles Krauthammer in The Weekly Standard. In the global war on terror, black-and-white distinctions no longer apply. Terrorists live “outside the laws of war,” wearing no uniform, hiding among civilians, targeting innocents. When we capture an al Qaida leader, our “moral duty” is to find out what he may know “about plans for future mass murder.” And this is not just some “hypothetical” ethics problem. After the U.S. captured 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan, aggressive interrogation techniques yielded intelligence that helped thwart other suicide hijackings. Waterboarding was particularly productive, with Khalid begging for a chance to confess after just two minutes. “Should we regret having done that? Should we abolish by law that practice, so that it could never be used on the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?”

Yes—and here’s why, said Rosa Brooks in the Los Angeles Times. For every drop of useful information torture produces, it can produce a flood of misinformation that can badly backfire. Consider the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al Libi. The alleged al Qaida official was captured in Pakistan in 2001 and taken to Egypt, where he was subjected to waterboarding. Eventually, he “confessed” that Iraq had offered to supply and train al Qaida in chemical and biological warfare. That claim formed the centerpiece of Colin Powell’s pivotal U.N. speech justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Libi later recanted, and it now appears he “was just desperate to stop the torture.” By allowing Libi to be tortured, U.S. officials made “a pact with the devil.” That bargain “has not only cost us our national soul, but has contributed, indirectly but surely, to the loss of more than 2,100 American soldiers in Iraq.”

Still, let’s be honest, said Andrew McCarthy in National Review Online. Does anyone really believe it would be wrong to torture a terrorist who, say, knew about a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in Washington or New York? Even McCain has admitted that in that “ticking time-bomb” scenario, officials would be justified in ignoring a legal ban on torture. So let’s acknowledge that there are times when harsh measures are appropriate, and require the “personal approval” of a “very high-ranking executive branch official, who would then be accountable.” Rather than pretend that torture doesn’t work, or is never justified, we need to look our new, post-9/11 reality straight in the eye.

indianguy4u

Are all of above authors democrats?

__________________
Hala Madrid!!

Leader

No, the Washington Post, the Weekly Standard and National review online are conservative publications. The LA Times is liberal generally. The Boston globe is really just filled with non-sense. It's owned by the NYT.

__________________

Parihaka

Most of the techniques outlined in this article were taught at the School Of Americas during the sixties and probably to late seventies. they've always been a bone of contention so I'm surprised at the 'surprise' shown now by the media.

Leader

*cough*Let me correct myself.

The Washington post isn't a conservative publication. The Washington Times is a conservative publication. The Washington post is like the NYT. I would go back and edit it, but that’s kinda like tampering with the scene of the crime.

Shek

Senator McCain is a centrist Republican and Krauthamer is a conservative realist.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

indianguy4u

Interesting info .

Any thoughts about Fox News?

Bulgaroctonus

Let's have a debate about torture, instead this damn tiresome debate about what newspapers are too liberal or too conservative. Sometimes its useful to find the biases of sources. However, it seems like a lot of people on this board feel free to completely write off opinions of papers they deem out of their own political alignment. I think this is irresponsible, and generally lazy.

Shek

Fox News is conservative.

Shek

No, it's important to know the bias of an organization so your radar is up and screening for BS. However, as long as a news source isn't radically biased, then it's lazy to completely dismiss that source.

I agree with Krauthammer's piece - I posted it about a week ago, I believe.

Bulgaroctonus

I know the value of detecting a bias, I did say that. My point is that people here write off things like the New York Times every day. Alright, so the the New York Times doesn't give the most flattering picture of the President or Conservative America. But the NYT is not a liberal propaganda machine, its bias is light. Of course, many people will immediately take issue with this point.

All of the sources that were included in the OP article are not radically biased, although I often disagree with things like The Weekly Standard. However, I'll always answer Krauthammer's points and not just ignore him.

Maybe you can see my point now.

Bluesman

Me, for instance. The NYT's own ombudsman is on the record as stating, in print and categorically, that the NYT is a liberal newspaper, and its biases are reflected by its columnists.

Its bias is most certainly NOT light; its colors everything they do.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Shek

The NYT is more than lightly biased at times. Not radically biased, but more than lightly.

Leader

Well, it's clearly more conservative then any other news network. Conservatives are the target audience for Fox. For decades, conservatives had no news outlet that they saw as fair. Fox filled that void and is a huge success. Most shows on Fox are opinion based. Mainly with a host interviewing/debating some guest. The hosts tend to be conservatives or moderates. There’s a liberal on in the evening, but he's paired up with a conservative. It's the worst show on the network IMO mainly because it devolves into a screening match with everyone talking over each other though I'm not a fan of their primetime (8-11pm ET) line up for one reason or another. Fox, like all the other networks, sees fit to waste hours a day talking about some blond girl that went missing in Aruba months ago or whether some guy in CA killed his wife. Overall, I've found it a reliable source of information though I will always get most of my news from the internet.

Leader

It's not a debate. Indianguy asked a question. The debate about torture is tiresome as well. It's been discussed here ad noseum.