144 replies to this topic

[CrimsonLine]

I believe there is a good argument to be made that waterboarding is not torture. For one thing, our troops undergo it as a part of their training. For another, many activists willingly undergo it during protests against the technique.

[SDG]

CrimsonLine, on 03 May 2011 - 08:09 PM, said:

I believe there is a good argument to be made that waterboarding is not torture. For one thing, our troops undergo it as a part of their training. For another, many activists willingly undergo it during protests against the technique.

Yes, waterboarding is torture, and no, what we do to our own troops is not remotely the same thing.

What you voluntarily submit to, what is done to you by your comrades, with rules understood and agreed to beforehand, under sympathetic and vigilant oversight, the duration and timing known to you in advance, with the ability to call a halt to at any time, and the knowledge that you will be free to comment afterward on your experiences, is ipso facto different from what is being done to you in incarceration by scary enemies whose rules you don't know and who in any case may or may not decide to abide by those rules, under God knows what sort of oversight or lack thereof.

Here is a question worth considering: If your wife, your sister, your mother were abducted and it was done to her, would it be torture? Then it's torture.

Edited by SDG, 03 May 2011 - 09:01 PM.

[tenpenny]

CrimsonLine, on 03 May 2011 - 08:09 PM, said:

I believe there is a good argument to be made that waterboarding is not torture. For one thing, our troops undergo it as a part of their training. For another, many activists willingly undergo it during protests against the technique.

Voluntarily undergoing waterboarding, for training or demonstration purposes, at the hands of friendlies, where the "victims" are free to opt out at any time, where the "torturers" are alert and careful to ensure the safety of the "victims" at all times, and, most importantly, where the "victims" know all of this... is entirely different than undergoing waterboarding at the hands of unfriendlies - where both the gloves and the scare quotes come off. Malice makes a world of difference.

Never mind that historical precedent says, unequivocally, that waterboarding is torture.

How do you feel about extreme sleep deprivation? Extended stress positions? Is it not torture unless, for example, limbs and/or digits are removed, power drills are applied, or electric shocks are administered? I hear we did threaten to use power drills on detainees, up to the point of showing them the drills. But I guess that's okay because we didn't actually use the drills on them, and the detainees knew we wouldn't use them - although just how they'd know this, given all the other excruciating things we did to them, isn't clear to me. I'm just trying to figure out where the boundaries are...

Oops, I see Steven beat me to it.

Edited by tenpenny, 03 May 2011 - 09:02 PM.

[Greg P]

CrimsonLine, on 03 May 2011 - 08:09 PM, said:

I believe there is a good argument to be made that waterboarding is not torture. For one thing, our troops undergo it as a part of their training. For another, many activists willingly undergo it during protests against the technique.

I've never heard or seen anyone who allowed the technique to be "properly" used on them, who did not declare it to be torture. (See: Christopher Hitchens)

[Peter T Chattaway]

M. Leary wrote:
: Which was an act perpetrated by Yahweh himself.

This seems to me like a difference that makes no difference. The question is not who perpetrated the violence, but how people responded to it -- in this case, by celebrating it. The death of Osama bin Laden was perpetrated by Navy SEALs, but most of the people who have been celebrating it are *not* Navy SEALs. So the identity of the perpetrator is neither here nor there.

Andy Whitman wrote:
: Imagine the assassination of Queen Elizabeth of England, another outdated figurehead without political power in any official sense.

Actually, most of her power IS official, rather than, for lack of a better word, practical. It might be the Prime Minister who screens candidates for, say, the Archbishopric of Canterbury, but it's the Queen who "officially" appoints the Archbishop. And since Queen Elizabeth is also the Queen of Canada, I might as well point out that our own Prime Minister passed a very unpopular law about 20 years ago by getting the Queen's permission to stack the Senate with his own appointees.

CrimsonLine wrote:
: Saul was not acting with the permission of any authority that had the right to pronounce a death sentence on people.

True. But how much actual killing was Saul doing? Acts 8:3 says "he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison." Acts 9:2 says he went to Damascus to find Christians and "take them as prisoners to Jerusalem." Acts 9:14 quotes Ananias telling God that Paul had come to "arrest all who call on your name."

Now, yes, Acts 9 does tell us that Jews tried to "kill" Paul in both Damascus (9:23) and in Jerusalem (9:29) -- though note how Paul says in one of his letters that he fled Damascus not because of the Jews but because of the Nabatean government, which had jurisdiction over Damascus at this point in its history (II Corinthians 11:32). And 9:1 says that Paul himself was issuing "murderous threats" prior to his conversion. And of course the mob DID rush upon Stephen and kill him without waiting to get permission first. So the possibility of lethal violence was certainly "in the air".

But still. I wonder.

: Remember that the Jewish leaders needed the permission of Pilate to have Jesus crucified.

Yeah, and according to Josephus, James the brother of Jesus was killed by the Jewish leaders during the gap between one Roman governor's death and the next Roman governor's arrival -- an act which led to the Jewish high priest being deposed for exceeding his authority like that.

: Saul had permission from the Jewish leaders to persecute Christians, but NOT the permission of the government that actually had the power of the sword over the land.

Well... let's just say that the Romans don't appear to have had jurisdiction over Damascus at this point in the city's history. And if we wanted to harmonize Acts and II Corinthians, we could suppose that the government of Damascus WAS in cahoots with certain Jews who had an interest in killing Christians. But of course that would still leave us with the question of what Saul intended to do to the Christians after he had transported them back to Jerusalem. (And it wasn't always the Roman governors who dictated terms in Jerusalem, either; every now and then the Herods were in charge.)

: When I was thinking this all over, it struck me that in the old days, when a judge passed down a death sentence, he usually said that - "and may God have mercy on your soul." It was an acknowledgement that even the criminal has value in God's eyes, and that human justice does not circumscribe divine justice - or divine mercy.

Yeah.

Greg P wrote:
: I've never heard or seen anyone who allowed the technique to be "properly" used on them, who did not declare it to be torture. (See: Christopher Hitchens)

Heh. I was just about to mention him.

Of course, the question of whether the technique is morally justifiable is entirely separate from the question of whether or not a particular word can be attached to it.

[mrmando]

Peter T Chattaway, on 04 May 2011 - 12:10 AM, said:

True. But how much actual killing was Saul doing?

Well, in Acts 22:4 Paul confesses: "I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons." That could well be read to mean that Paul was aware that people had died as an indirect result of his persecution, and that he felt responsible for their deaths in some measure. The Acts account of Stephen's stoning takes some pains to point out that Saul was not directly involved, but he stood guard over the stoners' coats and approved of what they had done.

But I can't bring to mind an example of Saul/Paul actually, directly killing someone.

Quote

Of course, the question of whether the technique is morally justifiable is entirely separate from the question of whether or not a particular word can be attached to it.

True, although if you define that particular word to signify, in part, "actions that are never morally justifiable under any circumstances," you have in effect fused the separate questions.

Another word that has been bandied about is "assassination." I wouldn't have thought that word applicable after hearing Asst. Secy. Brennan, in Monday's press conference, imply that taking Bin Laden alive was not an option because he was involved in the firefight. But on Tuesday we heard that Bin Laden actually was unarmed when he was shot, although he was "resisting" capture. Which makes it sound more likely that this was indeed a shoot-to-kill mission. I'm not sure how much of a credible threat an unarmed 54-year-old diabetic* poses to a team of Navy SEALs.

I can think of a number of pragmatic reasons our govt. would not want to take Bin Laden alive -- for one thing, look at all the problems involved in bringing lower-level Al-Qaeda operatives to trial; those problems would be magnified in the boss man's case. His trial, if he ever got one, would undoubtedly be 100 times as much of a circus as the Zacarias Moussaoui trial was. Whatever the reason, with the information made available at this writing, it would appear that the thought of live capture did not receive serious consideration.

*Edit: the notion that OBL was on dialysis (something that Michael Moore, among others, made a big deal of) is evidently an urban legend whose original source is none other than Gen. Pervez Musharraf, former leader of Pakistan. So, never mind.

Edited by mrmando, 11 May 2011 - 03:08 AM.

[Ryan H.]

mrmando, on 04 May 2011 - 02:01 AM, said:

I can think of a number of pragmatic reasons our govt. would not want to take Bin Laden alive -- for one thing, look at all the problems involved in bringing lower-level Al-Qaeda operatives to trial; those problems would be magnified in the boss man's case. His trial, if he ever got one, would undoubtedly be 100 times as much of a circus as the Zacarias Moussaoui trial was. Whatever the reason, with the information made available at this writing, it would appear that the thought of live capture did not receive serious consideration.

I had a long conversation with coworkers the other day about how that a "shoot to kill" mission was likely the case, even though we had no information to support it. It has historical precedent, anyway (I understand Winston Churchill gave "shoot to kill" orders regarding Hitler, if he were indeed cornered).

[Darren H]

Lawrence Wright talked to Terry Gross about the dead or alive decision on Monday's episode of Fresh Air. It's a brief and interesting conversation.

[Greg P]

The Daily Show, for the win!

Edited by Greg P, 04 May 2011 - 08:15 AM.

[Thom Wade]

Persiflage, on 03 May 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

Invading Iraq was good al-Qaeda recruitment over the years, but it was the sort of recruitment we want - forcing al-Qaeda to fight in order to prevent their own people from being free instead of to fighting at our homeland is winning the fight within both public relations and national security spheres.

Um...huh? You realize that for much of the decade we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted-right? He wanted us to go into Iraq. He wanted us to be pouring money into unending war upon unending war. He wanted to do to us what he did to the Soviet Union. Exhaust us physically and financially. And when I listen to people talk about our financial future in this country? It sounds like he may have won the war. His death strikes me as much less a clarion call (even with people celebrating) that would necessarily fulfill that. Granted, I can see how if we followed the suggestions of some (burying him in pig fat, his head on a pike at ground zero) would incite some... but there is a reason we did not.

[Peter T Chattaway]

mrmando wrote:
: Well, in Acts 22:4 Paul confesses: "I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons." That could well be read to mean that Paul was aware that people had died as an indirect result of his persecution, and that he felt responsible for their deaths in some measure.

Ah, thanks for mentioning that. I remember thinking that I should check Paul's accounts of his conversion from the later chapters of Acts, but I forgot to do so in the end.

: True, although if you define that particular word to signify, in part, "actions that are never morally justifiable under any circumstances," you have in effect fused the separate questions.

So we're back to haggling over the distinction between "killing" and "murder", then, I guess. For some people there is NO distinction. For others there is. And so it goes.

: Another word that has been bandied about is "assassination."

Which, as I understand it, is only illegal in your country if the person being targeted is a head of state -- which Osama definitely was not.

[Andy Whitman]

Peter T Chattaway, on 04 May 2011 - 09:40 AM, said:

mrmando wrote:
: Another word that has been bandied about is "assassination."

Which, as I understand it, is only illegal in your country if the person being targeted is a head of state -- which Osama definitely was not.

assassinate: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack, often for political reasons

Works for me on all counts. It's interesting to see people backpedaling from the word, though. Osama was resisting, so it couldn't have been an assassination (as if people complacently let other people stroll up and shoot them in the head). Osama was armed (actually, no he wasn't).

Call it what it is. It was an assassination. This is what we're cheering.

[mrmando]

Peter T Chattaway, on 04 May 2011 - 09:40 AM, said:

So we're back to haggling over the distinction between "killing" and "murder", then, I guess. For some people there is NO distinction. For others there is. And so it goes.

Well, "torture" was the word I thought we were discussing, although the spectrum of opinions does more or less mirror that associated with the killing/murder/capital punishment debate.

Quote

: Another word that has been bandied about is "assassination."
Which, as I understand it, is only illegal in your country if the person being targeted is a head of state -- which Osama definitely was not.

Legal, schmegal (Smeagol?). I'm sure there are excellent reasons for declaring it legal. But was it, morally/ethically, or even tactically, the right thing to do? And how should we react? Those are the questions we're considering here.

[Christian]

Andy Whitman, on 04 May 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

This is what we're cheering.

No. We're cheering because the policy of the U.S. government for nearly 10 years has been to get Bin Laden. That's been achieved. You can argue about the way it was done, and you can disagree with the policy itself. This is America. Think what you want. Say what you want. Vote for the better candidate.

But this government, whether you or I like it or not, was put on place by the Lord, and part of its purpose is to carry out what happened:

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.--From Romans 13

I don't think you have a problem with Romans 13 in principle, Andy, so I'm left to think your problem is with the application of that text to this situation. I'm open to counter-arguments on that score. But please don't say that "we" are cheering because Obama was killed, or because of how he was killed. That's part of it, but my own cheering is because of a sense of closure. Is there an element of chest-beating to my reaction? Yeah, probably. But I honestly think I'd be just as excited if the man had been captured, tried and executed. Because death is what he deserved, and I'm fully confident that's what he would've received through a prolonged legal process.

Edited by Christian, 04 May 2011 - 10:21 AM.

[Andy Whitman]

Christian, on 04 May 2011 - 10:21 AM, said:

Andy Whitman, on 04 May 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

This is what we're cheering.

No. We're cheering because the policy of the U.S. government for nearly 10 years has been to get Bin Laden. That's been achieved. You can argue about the way it was done, and you can disagree with the policy itself. This is America. Think what you want. Say what you want. Vote for the better candidate.

But this government, whether you or I like it or not, was put on place by the Lord, and part of its purpose is to carry out what happened:

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.--From Romans 13

I don't think you have a problem with Romans 13 in principle, Andy, so I'm left to think your problem is with the application of that text to this situation. I'm open to counter-arguments on that score. But please don't say that "we" are cheering because Obama was killed, or because of how he was killed. That's part of it, but my own cheering is because of a sense of closure. Is there an element of chest-beating to my reaction? Yeah, probably. But I honestly think I'd be just as excited if the man had been captured, tried and executed. Because death is what he deserved, and I'm fully confident that's what he would've received through a prolonged legal process.

I don't honestly have a problem with either the principle or its application in this instance. I totally get it from a governmental/temporal point of view. I just don't want to cheer it. It's a concession to the fallen world we live in, but that doesn't mean I want to shoot off fireworks in celebration of our fallenness. And that's the way the cheering strikes me. Whee. We got our man. Shot 'im in the head. Praise God.

[J.A.A. Purves]

Andy Whitman, on 04 May 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

assassinate: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack, often for political reasons

Works for me on all counts. It's interesting to see people backpedaling from the word, though. Osama was resisting, so it couldn't have been an assassination (as if people complacently let other people stroll up and shoot them in the head). Osama was armed (actually, no he wasn't).

Call it what it is. It was an assassination. This is what we're cheering.

"shoot to kill" order, assassination, manhunt, "targeted kill," whatever ...

Sun Tzu argued the value of assassinations in The Art of War. Machiavelli argued the same thing in The Prince. Elisha argued the same thing to Jehu. Is there anyone at all here who would have objected to the assassination of Hitler? I seem to remember Ehud doing just fine morally when he lost his sword in Eglon. There is nothing wrong with taking out a tyrant, terrorist, or other evil leader. The "Mossad" doesn't hesitate over little details about exactly how much resistance the "target" is putting up. There is nothing wrong in terms of speaking of the "good guys" and the "bad guys" here. All political incompetence and bad publicity aside, the Navy Seals in this instance were the good guys and they did their job well.

[Andy Whitman]

Persiflage, on 04 May 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:

Andy Whitman, on 04 May 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

assassinate: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack, often for political reasons

Works for me on all counts. It's interesting to see people backpedaling from the word, though. Osama was resisting, so it couldn't have been an assassination (as if people complacently let other people stroll up and shoot them in the head). Osama was armed (actually, no he wasn't).

Call it what it is. It was an assassination. This is what we're cheering.

"shoot to kill" order, assassination, manhunt, "targeted kill," whatever ...

Sun Tzu argued the value of assassinations in The Art of War. Machiavelli argued the same thing in The Prince. Elisha argued the same thing to Jehu. Is there anyone at all here who would have objected to the assassination of Hitler? I seem to remember Ehud doing just fine morally when he lost his sword in Eglon. There is nothing wrong with taking out a tyrant, terrorist, or other evil leader. The "Mossad" doesn't hesitate over little details about exactly how much resistance the "target" is putting up. There is nothing wrong in terms of speaking of the "good guys" and the "bad guys" here. All political incompetence and bad publicity aside, the Navy Seals in this instance were the good guys and they did their job well.

There's that pesky Jesus guy, though.

[Ryan H.]

Andy Whitman, on 04 May 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

There's that pesky Jesus guy, though.

Yeah, but you're gonna have to connect the dots on that one. I don't recall a passage where Jesus speaks about government-sanctioned assassination.

Edited by Ryan H., 04 May 2011 - 10:47 AM.

[mrmando]

Ryan H., on 04 May 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

Yeah, but you're gonna have to connect the dots on that one. I don't recall a passage where Jesus speaks about government-sanctioned assassination.

Uh... How about "Father, forgive them; they know not what they do"?

[Ryan H.]

mrmando, on 04 May 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

Ryan H., on 04 May 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

Yeah, but you're gonna have to connect the dots on that one. I don't recall a passage where Jesus speaks about government-sanctioned assassination.

Uh... How about "Father, forgive them; they know not what they do"?

Jesus' death was many things, but assassination it was not.

Edited by Ryan H., 04 May 2011 - 10:54 AM.