McCain in McPain
I've been hearing rumblings regarding McCain and his anti-torture bill. Mostly from the talking heads and mostly along the lines of, "look I know he was tortured, and so clearly he has issue with it, but he will also tell you he broke, and it worked." Until now I haven't seen any actual references to what McCain said about his personal experience, but a web site called newsmax.com had an editorial about it by some guy named Carl Limbacher. Not to be dismissive, his bio is pretty impressive, but I've never heard of him. Anyway he makes the point that " Nearly forty years ago, however - when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp - some of the same techniques were used on him. And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked! " I thought, "well that's interesting," but when I read what Mr. Limbacher considered "worked" I missed it. McCain said he gave up his ships name, squadron number, and target, instead of the just name, rank and serial number. And then, after another episode, and 5 1/2 years later, signed a prepared document confessing to war crimes that he obviously didn't commit. I admit that I'm not a general, but I don't see the first "give"of information being that helpful, and the second is a joke. If we're looking to torture to get people to sign sheets of paper after 5 1/2 years, then OK. But in the most common hypothetical, a nuclear bomb is in the US and about to blow, I'm willing to bet that it would have blown after 5 1/2 years. The case against torture isn't that people will admit things under torture, its that they will admit anything. To call McCain's torture a success based on those two events is wrong. 5 1/2 years of torture isn't helpful, its sadistic. Maybe that's why he's so concerned with this. I'm sure he views the torturers and the government that supported them in a certain way, and he's honestly ashamed that his own leaders are now embracing the same useless assault on detainees.
Posts
8 comments:
I think it would be very hard to make the argument that toture does not work. UBlo seems to be attempting this when he says McCain did not offer up anything good so the tortue failed. Did McCain have anything good to offer? If he broke several years after capture, clearly he would not have had any information that would have had battlefield impact for the enemy. I don't think that torture is done solely for the pleasure of certain sadistic governments so it seems reasonable that it does work.
That being said, the idea that it is wrong has not been trumped. You can say torture is effective and also say it is wrong. I think that is a more reasonable position. And it leads to the question of what torture is. I'm all for the administering of drugs that help illicit responses. That is not torture to me, but to many others it is. However, I'm against electrodes attached to genitals. So, I'm skeptical of any "anti-torture" bill because if torture is poorly defined it will weaken our intel gathering ability too much and for no good reason.
I completely agree with my good friend that America should be above barbarism. But we may not agree on what "barbarism" is. That is the debate that we should be having.
I have to admit that I rarely see the "if people are doing it, it must work" defense. At least since Mother v. Son in 1237, where the mother used the now famous "if everyone doth jump from yon bridge, would'st thou?"
But I do think it is fair and reasonable to ask if it works. Granted I'm no expert on torture, but everything I've read says either its hard to tell, or flaty, no. I do think its a very nuanced arguement. What is the torturer looking for? Depending on the goal, lots of things could be concidered "success." In McCain's situation, signing a document was success, and therefor the torture was a success. Looking for an admission of guilt? As many know, a bad cop can beat an admission for anything out of just about anyone. So torture also works there. So for Hussein, for example, if he just wanted evidence that his secret police did indeed uncover a coup, then tortured admissions were admissions, and he met his objective. There is also the affect of knowing you at least tried everything. That also explains the use of torture. It allows interrogators say things like, "well if he didn't talk after all that, then he doesn't know anything." But for me, the question is does it produce crucial, truthful and timely information that cannot be found out by other means? Here, as far as I can tell the answer is "no." Some quick guides: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html and http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/5746990.html and many, many more say and site that this. Even Ashcroft said, "“This administration rejects torture,” Ashcroft said. Later, he added: “I don’t think it’s productive, let alone justified.” In a scenario where you have 10 people and one may know something, if you torture them all, you will get 10 answers, but you are no closer to the truth. If it is time sensitive, you may get the truth, but it may be too late. If someone knows, for example, where Binny is, all they have to do is hold out until Binny's defense protocals change, then give up the info. Info that is useless, and would have been given up by other means. Look, I'm all for the movie version of truth serum. But I don't think it exists. From what I've read, a good interrogator will get better information faster than a torturer I agree with Mr. Malone. There are three distinct questions. Does torture work? Is torture wrong? And, finally, what is torture? I believe the first two are, no, and yes. The third, I also agree, it tricky.
Finally, on a personal note, I do think there is some sort of sadism in torturing. And that may be the most controversial thing I say on this blog. I just don't see how, in a free society, one volunteers to torture another person. In pre-war Iraq, maybe. If you know that either you can torture someone, or have your family killed, then torture away. But for an American? I just don't see it. I don't think the soul of a free person can inflict systematic harm on one or several people. I'm not talking about battlefield emotions/anger/fear, I'm talking about prison abuse. If you're not warped enough to enjoy it, it will kill you inside.
Let me just make some quick statements and then get to what I find really interesting in this comment:
First, I have no idea what "torture" is when you are the media use that word. So I have no idea how anyone can comment in its effectiveness if they don't say what it is?
Second, it seems unreasonable that so much time and energy would be put into something that the media and UBlo says obviously does not work. Perhaps it has limitations, but to say it catagorically does not work seems a bit wishful.
I could not disagree more with the statement that a free person would not inflict systematic harm on another. Inflicting harm on one another is what we do...free and non-free alike. Just look at the Kelo ruling. Now, you will balk at that bacause you only meant phyiscal harm, but I say what is the difference? Harm is harm, if we are willing to step down that road, then many will gladly go all the way to the end.
The motives of the human being are selfish and destructive and that does not change based on political systems. Now, there will be those who are capable of breaking free of this condition, but they will always be a minority. I find it wonderfully idealistic to think that members of a free society would not do systematic harm to others...unfortunately, it simply is not true.
Seriously, "harm is harm?" Before I get into this, is this just a debate point, or do you really equate Kelo with torture?
Also, are you really sticking with "people are doing it, and they've been doing it for a long time, so it must work" point?
I know that abstract associatons make you uncomfortable, but yes, harm is harm. Your statement that free citizens do not harm one another is way too big. You probably meant it more specifically, but you didn't state it more specifically. I try not to assume too much...I'd rather have you frustrated at my over clarifications than angry at my putting words in your mouth.
I think the belief that torture does not work is silly. Please show me some evidence for this other than the opinions of the media.
I don’t have a problem with abstract associations, just bad ones. We’ve had this discussion in the past. What you think are clever abstract examples, I think are watered down discussion points that have so little connection to the topic that they are meaningless. It’s akin to my singing. If I’m singing around you, and you ask me to stop, is it because you have a problem with singing, or is it that I’m a bad singer?
To the “harm is harm.” In order for you abstract to work, it should be similar to the topic so that I’m forced to consider new information in a different way and then work my way back to the topic, but with a different understanding, one that hopefully is closer to your views (from your perspective). However, since I’m willing to bet everything I own that if you polled the worlds population and asked the following question, “Would you rather have your house purchased from you against your will at market value (or possibly less), or would you rather spend 5 years in prison cell where you are repeatedly beaten, sodomized, electrocuted, frozen, mutilated, and your family is brought in to suffer the same consequences because someone thinks you might have some information that could be helpful” which would you choose? The answer would approach zero for the torture. Because your abstract bears no resemblance to the point at hand, it’s useless as a tool. Furthermore, if you hold to these abstracts, I don’t see how you navigate your daily life. If all harm is equivalent, you must live in constant pain and fear (which could explain your anger issues). But I also don’t see how you can allow yourself these insane abstracts but get riled up when someone else does. You tend to get into a big huffy when any liberal compares a Republican to Hitler. But surely at some abstract level some thread links the two, especially under your “harm is harm” rule. By that definition calling someone a mean name is on par with the holocaust, so they are probably right. Assuming you understand your own methods, you should nod your head in agreement, or at least understanding, instead you get angry and launch into long tirades against the liberals. Why do you allow yourself these huge leaps of faith abstracts but no one else? This is why I’m forced to believe that you really don’t believe that “harm is harm” but rather are trying to win a debate point. I cannot imagine that you would talk to a Soviet Gulag survivor and say, “Hey I know exactly how you feel, just today my friend the Unknown Blogger called me a sissy. Solidarity bro!”
As far as your other point, you state, “it seems unreasonable that so much time and energy would be put into something that the media and UBlo says obviously does not work. Perhaps it has limitations, but to say it catagorically does not work seems a bit wishful.” I’m now forced to assume that you start every day diligently reading your horoscope to gain insight into your day. After all, it would be unreasonable that so much time and energy would be put into something that obviously does not work. Since using stars to gauge the future is a practice that is thousands of years old, and is today a multi-billion dollar industry, I’m forced to accept that you believe it works. I think its garbage, but who am I to fight the tide of history and effort. I’m also curious as to which gods you make your sacrifices? As you know sacrificing things, especially animals, is an ancient and contemporary practice. Do you sacrifice daily, or do you save it so that Poseidon protects you when you’re out on a boat? Lots of effort goes into rearing the lamb/chicken/cow and preparing it for sacrifice. Surely there is merit to its practice or why would people do it. Granted it may have limitations, but to categorically say it does not work seems a bit wishful.
As for proof, I’m throwing that one back at you. I gave several links, and I assume you disagree with the negotiators points in those articles. I’m not sure why given you have no experience here, but that’s fine. I also cited Ashcroft. So I guess you think he’s telling the truth but wrong, he’s lying, or he’s overstating his position for political gain. Since, honestly, I’ve seen nothing but evidence that shows that torture is not a more effective means of gaining access to useful information that normal interrogation, I’m asking you to show me some evidence that indicates that torture is in fact more effective at gaining useful, relevant, and rapid information than standard interrogation.
Finally, much like the habeas corpus thread, you did a nice job of introducing a point for me and then attacking it like it was my own. I never said that people in a free society do not cause each other harm. Go back and read the threads. What I said was, “I just don't see how, in a free society, one volunteers to torture another person. In pre-war Iraq, maybe. If you know that either you can torture someone, or have your family killed, then torture away. But for an American? I just don't see it. I don't think the soul of a free person can inflict systematic harm on one or several people. I'm not talking about battlefield emotions/anger/fear, I'm talking about prison abuse. If you're not warped enough to enjoy it, it will kill you inside.” Not really sure how to be more specific than that. But again, here’s my point. If I were living in Iraq in 1985 and Hussein says, “Torture that guy.” I’m grabbing the pliers because I know that if I don’t, me and my family are first in line when the next guy accepts the job. However, in America, you have to volunteer for that gig. I could never do it, nor could anyone I know (except possibly, as I’ve learned, you). Our political system allows each of us to exercise our moral/religious conscious. For the Iraqis, Soviets, etc, their system didn’t. I stand by that.
However since you are tortured everyday, I can see how you might see things different.
One final question. If this post has angered you, or caused you “harm” does that put me on the same level as Jeffery Dahlmer? While you may think so, I’m willing to bet your family would much prefer you to be hurt by my words, than cut up and stored in my freezer.
I gladly concede to Mr. Blo that I did poorly read his post and he was very clear on his points. I apologize to him and hope he will cease this endless torturing of me on this Blog. But it did provide a vehicle for some of his very best writing.
And now that the topic of torture has been deftly raised let me say that I accept the challenge to argue for it's, at least limited, effectiveness. In 1995 Abdul Hakim Murad was tortured for over a month by the Philippine police and as a result revealed various terrorist plans, including a plot to kill the Pope. Lt. Col. Bill Cowan stated that he was personally involved in "interrogations" that went beyond normal techniques and they often yielded "phenomenal information". Torture is described as "controversial" in the CIA interrogation ranks which is to say that some have had success and some have not. This is a very cursory search of support for my view...I would be happy to find more of necessary.
It goes without saying that torture has limitations including obtaining false statements by those interrogated. It may even be the case that there are more effective methods. But to hold the absolute belief (if anyone does) that "TORTURE DOES NOT WORK, PERIOD" is foolishness. The reality that it continues to be used is strong evidence that there is some benefit from the technique, no matter how mocking UBlow becomes of that point. There is no reason to choose an ineffective method over an effective method when success is vital.
All that being said, I am very sympathetic to the idea that America should not torture. I am much more interested to know what people mean when they say "torture" seeing as interrogation is vital to our national and human interests and "interrogation" to many is equivalent to torture.
Post a Comment