Posted on Tuesday 15 November 2005
Here’s one of the most laughably bad articles I’ve seen about how what the US does isn’t torture but…wait for it…interrogation. Try to follow the logic here. First, the author is against torture because it’s not allowed by law and here’s his definition:
Torture is already against the law. It is, moreover, the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain…
Fine…”severe physical or mental pain”…fair enough. Now what is it that he doesn’t want to see forbidden by the McCain amendment:
That manual expressly forbids any use of force, coercion or intimidation in conducting questioning, even if such tactics fall short of torture…
OK…so force, coercion, and intimidation…good…severe physical or mental pain…bad. Go ahead and bring it home, my friend:
By the McCain logic, the killing is fine but the infliction on a terrorist of non-lethal discomfort to obtain the intelligence necessary to do the killing should subject the inflictor to prosecution.
Now it all makes perfect sense: the US should be allowed to use force, coercion, intimidation, and “non-lethal discomfort” that does not inflict severe physical or mental pain. Here’s my question: what exactly are examples of specific tactics that fall in this most unique category? Noogies, Dutch rubs, wedgies, swirlies, Indian burns, purple nurples, wet willies? Where the heck are we training the interrogators these days? Local middle schools? I think all other arguments have just been pwned by the impeccable logic of this author.
Another thought on torture. If it’s so effective in saving innocent lives in the “ticking time bomb” scenario, what are some specific historical examples that it has been of use in such cases? There must be such examples if it’s so incredibly useful, right?
Tags: interrogation, mccain-amendment, News and Politics, torture
Oh, I don’t think you should call them Indian burns…that’s so hostile and abusive man.
Technology will overcome. I think there is an MRI imaging technique which can tell if a person is lying based on blood flow and brain pattern activity. However, it is rather difficult to administer in the field. Givie it another 10 years and it may be miniaturized enough to go with the boys. Meanwhile, give interrogation the benefit of the doubt. A terrorist doesn’t deserve to be treated humanely. Don’t be too hard on the troops unless you have been in their shoes, literally I mean. As for McCain – his ego is bigger than most batallions. He is one of the RINOs – Republican In Name Only.
How about Native American burns instead?
Nope, that doesn’t work either. It can’t be associated with any race at all. It should just be an arm burn or something. It’s like how you used to sit “Indian style” in kindergarten…well now it’s called “criss cross applesauce.”
Criss cross burn? What about Caucasian burn…can I use my own race without being hostile and abusive?
No, I don’t think you can even use your own race – unless you are the only member of that race, or if you get the approval of everyone in the race because if there is even ONE person who is miffed about it then it wouldn’t be politically correct or something.
FOB, I don’t understand how the MRI technology addresses this problem…even if you can tell someone is lying (which will never be 100% accurate), you still have the issue of how to convince someone not to lie, no?
Second, what is the definition of “interrogation”? The Bush administration has never told us. What’s the exact definition of “terrorist”? What about all the Gitmo detainees the US has just released after a couple years of holding them? Were these people terrorists one day and then the next day they ceased to be? We need a systematic way of answering these questions.
Thirdly, hasn’t McCain been in the shoes of the troops…literally…much more so than you or I, yet you obviously think you understand the situation better than him…right?
Finally, wouldn’t Bush be considered a CINO…conservative in name only? That is, if fiscal responsibility, a commitment to free trade, skepticism of centralized power, and meritorcracy are still considered conservative principles
Now that you and Leigh Ann are done with your blog-fest about multi-cultural head rubs (don’t you talk to each other in person instead of the net?), you get serious about interrogation. Webster says it is “to question formally and systematically.” Of course, the purpose in war is to obtain useful information which will help save lives, even those who are against the war in the USA. If there is a technology that can tell when a person is lying, it could eliminate the need for aggressive interrogation, which I guess you are against.
One of my definitions of terroist is in fact one who tortures others for no other purpose than torture itself. It never would be confused with interrogation by rational people.