So now Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) and five self-confessed 9/11 co-conspirators are to be tried not as war criminals in a military tribunal but rather in civilian court just blocks from Ground Zero.
A civilian format will allow challenges of evidence obtained under duress (ie. water-boarding), question the legality of KSM’s 2003 capture, and even negate confessions extracted without the full protections of the Constitution being first explained to the detainees. And thus do I have a horrible feeling that these trials will degenerate into a case against the Bush Administration as much as the terrorists themselves.
As for demonstrating to the world our righteousness, I do not think that the subtleties of the American justice system will be adequately explained in Arab newspapers. Do you? What WILL be reported as this drags on interminably will be the many claims by the defense of so-called “torture” without any context or pretext of fact-checking. Call it a hunch.
A civilian trial could also provide an intelligence boon to our enemies. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissible, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction. As the Wall Street Journal reports:
Osama bin Laden learned a lot from the 1995 prosecution in New York of the ‘blind cleric’ Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for the first World Trade Center attack. His main tip was that the U.S. considered bin Laden a terrorist co-conspirator, leading him to abandon his hideout in Sudan for Afghanistan.
Lost in all of this, of course, are the victims of these terrible war crimes and their families. (I know several.) They demand and deserve justice. A conviction that takes years, provides the murderers a megaphone to the world to spew radicalism, grants them the public martyrdom they so desire, and in the process reveals our vital secrets while turning the tables and putting this nation itself on trial, would be anything but.
41 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Nov 17, 2009 at 9:28 am
Liberals have always had this notion that America had to prove itself to the world.
They used it during the civil rights movement too: We needed to restore civil rights to blacks–not just because it was an intrinsic moral imperative (as Martin Luther King Jr. asserted), but because we needed to “prove to the world” that America had gotten beyond racism. (This is the “world” that includes the French treatment of immigrants as second-class citizens, the slaughters in Biafra, Rwanda, Darfur, etc.)
Now they’re using that same argument with the KSM trial: We’ll show off our judicial system to “the world.” Actually I expect that Europeans (especially the British) will sneer at it, comparing it to their own judicial systems; and the Arab Muslims will be told it’s a drumhead show trial of innocent Muslims who were tortured by the infidels. The notion that America has to prove itself to a nation like Germany, which in the 20th century established a record for aggression, brutality and genocide that will be remembered for centuries, is grotesque.
America should always strive for the moral high ground. But we should never do it out of a sense of neurotic guilt. America has a tremendous lot to be proud of–a lot more than some of our critics do. Let’s walk tall.
2 sinz54 // Nov 17, 2009 at 9:39 am
The big difference between a military commission and a civilian trial is that the right of discovery is more limited in military commissions.
In a civilian trial, the accused (or at least his defense counsel) has the right to see ALL the evidence presented against him. That could compromise sensitive intelligence sources. This already happened with previous trials like the bombings of 1993 and 1996. Our soldiers have since raided al-Qaeda hideouts and found some of that intelligence data given to those defendants at those trials. Whereas in a military commission trial, the judges are under no legal obligation to give the defendant any intelligence data used against him.
In some civilian trials, a deal was struck where the defense attorneys could see the intelligence data but not the defendant. However, traitorous left-wing lawyers like Lynne Stewart showed that lawyers with a political agenda can’t be trusted to keep such secrets.
And courts have ruled that a defendant always has the right to defend himself without counsel, acting as his own counsel. If KSM suddenly dismissed his attorneys and insisted on defending himself, he would have the automatic right to see ALL the intelligence data against him.
Notice that intelligence data is often NOT of the form of a video or even a direct eyewitness. It’s shadowy, often one informant reports that someone told him that the defendant did something. In intelligence gathering, that information can be priceless–and a military commission can use it. But in a civilian trial, it would be tossed out as hearsay evidence–after having blown the cover of the informant.
Civilian trials represent an unnecessary risk to our intelligence apparatus, which even liberals tout as the most important tool for fighting terrorism.
A military commission is the best way to send KSM to hell, without muss or fuss.
And that should remain the goal: Not cleansing our supposed guilt over waterboarding or impressing “the world” with our judicial system or digging up old news about the Bush Administration. It’s clear by now that liberals consider fighting terrorism to be a very low priority, compared with their anti-Bush and anti-Cheney vendettas, or prostrating themselves before the world asking for forgiveness for their nation.
3 Independent // Nov 17, 2009 at 9:41 am
excellent article, brad. well written.
“I have a horrible feeling that these trials will degenerate into a case against the Bush Administration….” of course they will. the obama people are still smarting over having lost 2 big battles to the bush team. and if it does, they’ll lost a third major battle to the bush team.
this is an administration that tried to serve some redmeat to their far left base by tossing ‘em dick cheney, round #1, on the waterboarding is/isn’t torture mini-debate. the obama administration lost that round decisively when dick cheney called their bluff and asked them to release the full memo showing the extent of intelligence the bush administration did obtain from enhanced interrogation techniques on 3 terrorists. chirp, chirp went the crickets at the white house.
later, in dick cheney, round #2, the administration tried to spin away from the charge they were dithering away our men in afghanistan while picking lint from the white house staff’s collective bellybutton by claiming that the bush team dithered too… and they lost that one when dick cheney pointed out that the obama administration had implemented a secret bush administration plan on afghanistan in march… a plan that the obama administration has asked to keep silent, secret, quiet from their far left base. chirp, chirp went the crickets at the white house.
of course the obama people will make the terrorist trials about the bush admininstration and, of course, that will hurt america’s image abroad and undercut our allies… but, then, that’s par for the course for the obama administration. and they’ll lose on dick cheney, round #3 when they try it.
speaking of charges used as a foil on dick cheney, has the obama administration captured osama bin laden yet? they’ve had a year to do it. how about iraqis taking on more security details? when are they going to decide what they want to try in afghanistan? did secy clinton get any concessions on nuke warhead security when she gave away $7.5b? did she get anything when she gave away an earlier $4.8b?
i know from health care that this is an administration who has trouble distinguishing billion from million –and thinks more in terms of trillions– but what are we getting in pakistan for all these billions and billions? some photo-ops for the obama administration? can’t we just fly air force one over a major pakistan monument and get the same thing for 1/1000th of the price? they did it for the statute of liberty and their next campaign brochure… can’t they do that if they need these photo ops to show some progress where none is indicated?
4 Raider1 // Nov 17, 2009 at 10:11 am
Sinz…well said sir. Well said!
5 sinz54 // Nov 17, 2009 at 10:44 am
This column by Ann Woolner is a perfect example of what I was referring to:
That’s an ridiculous and even offensive statement. Based on recent polls, I’m sure that the vast majority of non-liberal Americans would reject it.
The United States has lost ALL its moral authority??? We no longer have anything to be proud of??? We should hang our collective heads in shame, just because a few terrorists were waterboarded in a misguided but desperate attempt to head off a “second wave” attack following 9-11???
And only the Obama administration can restore our moral authority, by bowing to the Left’s demand for civilian trials. And this will hopefully “send a message” that Obama has rescued us from our moral abyss.
Liberals are just suffused with this nonstop neurotic guilt and shame about their country, and its history.
6 Raider1 // Nov 17, 2009 at 10:49 am
I wish liberals would just pack up an leave.
7 teabag // Nov 17, 2009 at 10:54 am
“I wish liberals would just pack up an leave.”
What you mean to say is I wish I could put them up against a wall and shoot them.
8 Raider1 // Nov 17, 2009 at 10:55 am
Funny. I actually thought I meant “I wish liberals would just pack up and leave.” If you feel this country is so terrible, then why stay? That must mean there are other countries better. Oh that’s right, there aren’t any better. So you rather just sit here and throw spit balls at your sugar daddy of country.
9 MI-GOPer // Nov 17, 2009 at 11:09 am
sinz54 opens with: “Liberals have always had this notion that America had to prove itself to the world.
They used it during the civil rights movement too….”
Liberals have made lots of these exact same mistakes throughout history… like when we abandoned the Shah of Iran because he wasn’t moving fast enough for JimmineyCricketCarter’s human rights agenda… like when we abandoned our allies in Rhodesia because a well-run, prospering, thriving jewel in the midst of typical African squalor wasn’t kosher to America’s new-found affirmative action sensibilities… like when we engaged in economic boycott of another African ally in South Africa because a segment of American sentiment was bowing to international pressure to be more politically correct than everyone else given we were stigmatized by our residual slave-holding past.
And now with Obama and muslims, we’re stuck on stupid again. We can’t call out the terrorist Islamists who conspire to kill our people and want western civilization destroyed by all means possible… we can’t focus our attention properly on combating the international network of terrorists because our allies don’t think we have the staying power given all the dithering over Afghanistan and the only “War of Necessity”–according to Obama, pre-health care debacles. Pakistan wonders if we’ll be helping them tomorrow or throw our lot in with al Qaeda and the Taliban after we cut a deal with them to topple another Pakistani govt.
We are soldily stuck on stupid. And naive. And indecisive.
It’s sounding more like JimmineyCricketCarter’s 2nd term more and more. When does the Obama give a Malaise Speech indicting Americans for keeping the recession going?? When will $410b in foreign aid be classified by the Obama as “not enough”?
We are solidly stuck on stupid like we were under JimmineyCricketCarter.
10 MI-GOPer // Nov 17, 2009 at 11:14 am
teabag whines @ #7: “What you mean to say is I wish I could put them up against a wall and shoot them.”
Oh, now TeaBag is going to stop being a first class troll from the sewers of the democrat underground and play the Pity Card, the Victim Card. “Woe is me”; what a piteous & sorry lot you are TeaBag.
Put down the Democrat Party play cards and try being sincere, honest and fair in your commentary here and maybe so many folks here won’t hold you in such great contempt. Just saying….
11 Raider1 // Nov 17, 2009 at 11:18 am
Does anyone know if Schaeffer has a column in any paper or just here?
12 balconesfault // Nov 17, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I do not think that the subtleties of the American justice system will be adequately explained in Arab newspapers.
As if the Arab newspapers haven’t extensively covered examples of American abuse of detainees in the past?
The DOJ would not be bringing this trial if they believe that all evidence against KSM will be dismissed. The trial may well reveal and document once and for all what many involved in the interrogation have been saying in other forums – that the most valuable information obtained from detainees was obtained through legal means, and that the loss of moral standing caused by extra-legal interrogation methods far outweighed the value of any information those methods produced. In that case, this will be a useful demonstration for the country going forward.
13 Raider1 // Nov 17, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Balcon…is your thesis that the most valuable information was obtained not through enhanced interrogation but through legal means? Is that why Dick Cheney, who would have the most to lose if this were true, whose defense of EIM would collapse if this were the case, was challenging the Obama people to release ALL the records from the EIM sessions, including the information revealed? What was that, one huge bluff? (Don’t answer that, I know what you will say, giving Cheney a Specter-like power of prescience). And furthermore why then did the Obama people NOT release the transcripts he called for? Could it be that he was right and the Obamanauts are cynical polictcal animals who care more about retaining power than getting to the truth of a matter (from Chicago? That bastion of political ethics?? No!!!)
Bottom line. When one guy says “fine, let everything be revealed!” and the other says “no way Jose” which side do YOU think (in ANY such matter) is the one who is being truthful and the one with the most to hide? Sunlight is the best disinfectant as they say. Looks to me like its the Obamanauts, not Cheney people, who are keeping the shades drawn. Gee, why is that???
14 MI-GOPer // Nov 17, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Raider… can I answer for BlankHead? Here’s what he’d say… no tongue in check either:
He’d say that “it doesn’t matter what Dick Cheney, the nearly impeached, totally disgraced, Haliburton grubbing militarist who put American boys on the pikes of Iraq and Afghanistan, has to say about anything. The Obama can’t release the documents because of… well, because of… well, because, ummmm, oh! The White House is going through a change of Legal Counsel; hey, let’s let them get settled in before dunning them for documents from the far distant past. It took Bush 42 years to find his lawyer and have him locate the filing cabinets after all.” And then he’d try to spin you away to other topics like “Did we tell you the govt monopoly of a public option would create competition? It’ll cut costs without cutting benefits too. And solve the unemployment problem. And clear out the natl deficit. And make America the center of world wide solar power.”
At the end, BlankHead would hope you didn’t recall the question.
He’s happiest that way.
15 ottovbvs // Nov 17, 2009 at 7:55 pm
…….I can understand why the right is running scared………there’s no doubt these guys will all be found guilty…….thus justice will be done and even more important it will be seen to be done and the US will emerge with its reputation enhanced……the problem for the right is that the conduct of the Bush admin will not share in this enhancement….. their criminal behavior is going to be there for all to see and the harm they have done to this country’s reputation…… so they and their suppporters here are wetting their knickers at the prospect of this……..perhaps Yoo, Addington and Cheney should have thought of this when they were signing off on this stuff
16 ottovbvs // Nov 17, 2009 at 7:59 pm
MI-GOPer // Nov 17, 2009 at 11:09 am
“like when we abandoned the Shah of Iran because he wasn’t moving fast enough for JimmineyCricketCarter’s human rights agenda”
“like when we abandoned our allies in Rhodesia”
“likewhen we engaged in economic boycott of another African ally in South Africa because a segment of American sentiment was bowing to international pressure to be more politically correct”
……..The window opens on mi-goper’s worldview……you’re a real credit to today’s GOP
17 balconesfault // Nov 18, 2009 at 1:46 am
Is that why Dick Cheney, who would have the most to lose if this were true, whose defense of EIM would collapse if this were the case, was challenging the Obama people to release ALL the records from the EIM sessions, including the information revealed?
Sure. Could be information in the records that the Justice Department wants not released for various reasons unrelated to the torture squabble ( you know … like national security).
Could be that the Holder Justice Department wants to demonstrate a principle that they’re not Dick Cheney’s monkey. If Cheney wanted to release those records, he had ample time to press his case while he was VP.
The Justice Department is not under obligation to release information upon request of private citizens, unless the information is deemed subject to FOIA. I guess private citizen Dick Cheney could certainly file a FOIA appeal.
18 MI-GOPer // Nov 18, 2009 at 9:45 am
automaticBS contends: “The window opens on mi-goper’s worldview……you’re a real credit to today’s GOP.”
No one here will be surprised you missed the point, again, automaticBS… sigh. The point was that the world won’t believe Obama’s new found concern over Pakistan… nor should Pakistani leaders. Democrat presidents as far back as Roosevelt consistently prove one point in foreign relations… the Democrats will cut and run faster than a full tray of BoTox syringes can be passed out at a Democrat Congressional Caucus meeting.
Carter did it more often than most… he left the Shah high and dry and brought forward the greatest threat to Western Civilization since the Muslim Horde… the Islamic Republic of Iran. Way to go, JimmineyCricket. Way to go Democrats.
And our allies dare question American resolve? LOL. They better in their own self-interests.
19 MI-GOPer // Nov 18, 2009 at 9:50 am
BlankHead offers, as some plausible excuse for fumbling the Cheney-Torture memo: “Could be that the Holder Justice Department wants to demonstrate a principle that they’re not Dick Cheney’s monkey.”
Oh yeah… you go with that one, girl. It’s working for you.
Of course, the “Holder DOJ” lost that argument because Cheney called their bluff and bluster. Just like he won the “dithering” on Afghanistan decisions debate… that time we learned that the Obama Administration implemented the Cheney recommendations in March and asked, pleaded, begged the Bush Administration not to tell the far Left that Obama was marching to a Cheney tune.
Right, BlankHead… Holder-the-Coward was just being resolute. Like the president’s desk? Yeah, you run with that one, girl. Don’t worry it doesn’t track with the other examples… they’re all just aberrations. LOL!
20 MI-GOPer // Nov 18, 2009 at 9:53 am
It does bear repeating:
At the end, BlankHead would hope you didn’t recall the question.
He’s happiest that way.
21 LauraNo // Nov 18, 2009 at 10:24 am
Try them both. Try them all.
22 sinz54 // Nov 18, 2009 at 11:04 am
ottovbvs:
I stated my reasons why I was opposed to civilian trial for KSM.
When we tried the Blind Sheikh for the 1993 bombing, sensitive intelligence information was given to his defense attorneys–and it ended up in an al-Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan. Evidently left-wing defense attorneys can’t be trusted to keep national security secrets. Lynne Stewart is going to jail for just that reason.
I am opposed to giving combatants the right of discovery, restricted only by the discretion of the judge. That might force a judge to have to decide between betraying national security information versus declaring a mistrial.
If you don’t agree, that’s fine.
23 sinz54 // Nov 18, 2009 at 11:07 am
balconesfault:
See, there you go again.
Over and over, liberals like yourself keep revealing that they want this trial, NOT so much to establish justice or closure for the worst atrocity on U.S. soil since the War of 1812, but to make one or more political statements. That is your main justification for this entire trial–politics.
I don’t think that’s what such trials are for in the United States. We don’t do show trials to strike fear into the hearts of political opponents, or to energize a political base.
The ONLY purpose of this trial should be RETRIBUTION–to punish those who had anything to do with that 9-11 atrocity. (Deterrence, the other purpose of the criminal justice system, is obviously ineffective against religious fanatics like the al-Qaeda terrorists, who look forward to a glorious death in jihad.)
24 Raider1 // Nov 18, 2009 at 11:38 am
Otto….the right is not “running scared.” The right is dumbfounded at the lack of common sense in this decision. It has nothing to do with whthere on not KSM will get convicted. We do think he will be convicted–if not it will not only be the end of Obama but the entire Democratic Party for a generation. They will never allow that to happen. And if you think getting an obviously guilty–hell he confessed–terrorist who wants martyrdom anyway convicted will be a feather in Obama’s cap, or that of the left, you are sorely misreading the US’ mood now. Obama’s approval is below 50% now and dips more and more with each far-left gesture he makes, be it on the economic front, social engineering that mortgages our kids’ fture with unsustainable deficits, expanded government, diminished influence abroad (where is counts) etc. And now this. You claim the right is “running scared” but you are clearly intelligent enough (at least Otto1 and maybe Otto3 is) to know that that is far from the truth. Your beloeved “One” will drive away all but core leftists by the time his term is over.
Schaeffer’s reasoning is sound. There is no reason to try these men in civilian courts when the military aveneue is avaiable. It defies common sense. Unless the idea is to, as Schaeffer points out, put the Bush administration on trial. If this is the true intent then these men are traitors by putting their own petty cynical agenda above the good of the nation they swore to protect and serve.
25 MI-GOPer // Nov 18, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Raider, there’s a very important reason that the Obama Administration is willing to expose America and NYC to another threat of terrorist attack… the Obama Administration’s need to placate their angry, far Left base. The base needs something right now; anything to recall why they fought so hard to get a radical into the WH.
We all know the Obama Administration is trying to back-out of its commitment to the far Left on securing a public option… if the OA could do that, it could end the blood-letting that now has the Obama approval ratings under 50%.
Plus we all know the Obama is going to irritate the far Left when it sends and ramps up the war in Afghanistan once all the dithering is done. We know that the withdrawl from the Public Option is what’s keeping the Obama all a’dithering on Afghanistan. The far Left, it’s felt, can’t endure a double negative whammy from their Celebrity in Chief.
Plus, the Obama knows that it can’t get meaningful DOD cuts in place faster enough to assuage the far Left, red meat base of the Democrat Party. Budget cutting the military is always a great send-up with the far Left… but the Obama needs those dollars to support the war he’s losing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On top of that, the Obama knows that it can’t begin repealing all the Patriot Act statutes until they ripen in late, 2011. That would make the ACLU and alQaeda really happy… and it’s just the kind of red meat the far Left desires -right now. But that one, too, is on hold.
So with all of those checks and irritants angering Obama’s far Left base, what better thing to do than find a way to Bash Bush, Challenge Cheney and hoist up a Trial on Torture? They’ve got the vehicle; it’s a way to make the far Left forget all the stuff the Obama promised he would do as their Prez.
26 Raider1 // Nov 18, 2009 at 12:59 pm
MI_GOP if you are right then we have a groupd of extreme cynics who need to go running this country at the moment.
27 balconesfault // Nov 18, 2009 at 1:45 pm
sinz: Over and over, liberals like yourself keep revealing that they want this trial, NOT so much to establish justice or closure for the worst atrocity on U.S. soil since the War of 1812, but to make one or more political statements.
You completely decontextualized my response.
I am just saying that the Holder Justice Department is not under any onus to fully disclose the proceedings of all the interrogations simply because a private citizen who once was Vice President calls for them to do so.
Do you disagree with this principle?
That’s completely divorced from the question of whether the trials themselves should be carried out. Although I will say that the proper place for disclosure and review of some of these materials is in the structured proceedings of the courtroom, rather than the all out brawling of the court of public opinion from where Cheney has been launching his assults on the Obama White House.
28 Independent // Nov 18, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“The base needs something right now; anything to recall why they fought so hard to get a radical into the WH” –migop
as an independent who did vote for mr obama, i can tell you that i didn’t think all the commentary about his radical inclinations were true. they just couldn’t be and still have him beat mrs clinton.
but the one thing i’ve learned since nov 08, he is everything his opponents said he was. when someone at a mccain townhall, during the campaign, said she was fearful of obama… mccain kind of slapped her down and said there was nothing to fear.
i think he was wrong about obama. i think he was wrong in selecting palin. i think the republicans were wrong in picking him.
and i really do think mr obama would do anything needed to save his failing political operation and his falling polls. if that means tossing the far left some political scraps, he’ll do it in a flash. if it means exposing ny’ers to a likely terror threat, it means nothing to him because he’ll tell himself there’s no threat because he’s already apologized to the radical muslim extremists.
and he’ll be wrong on that one, too. is this the moment in time that joe biden warned us all about… that obama would make mistakes, they’d be terrible mistakes, and that we should rally around behind him and catch his back?
29 Independent // Nov 18, 2009 at 1:52 pm
balconesfault is a regular poster at the huffington post? no, it simply can’t be true. no.
30 Raider1 // Nov 18, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Balcon: “You completely decontextualized my response.
I am just saying that the Holder Justice Department is not under any onus to fully disclose the proceedings of all the interrogations simply because a private citizen who once was Vice President calls for them to do so.”
Balcon. So you think that revealing interrogation techniques without showing what was gleaned from these techniques is acceptable? So reveal the bad half (the methods) that betray the counrty but in the process make the Bush Admin. bad in some circles (not to me but to otehrs, especialy the wusses that are the world) , but not the good half – what was revealed because all of a sudden it is a matter or privacy??
The Bush-Cheney crew are being publically maligned as war criminals, and being set up for prosocecution possibly by the far left Holder, and yet you think Cheney has no right, nor does Obama have an obligation, to tell teh ENTIRE story? Gimme abreak.
I really wish you would just say “I HATE BUSH NO MATTER WAHT” put the DNC pacifier dunked in kool-aid back in your mouth and be honest for once.
31 balconesfault // Nov 18, 2009 at 2:22 pm
balconesfault is a regular poster at the huffington post? no, it simply can’t be true. no
Regular poster? Eh – not so much. I’ve responded occassionally, but let’s see … their archives say I’ve
posted 59 comments in 5 years … less than once per month. Your definition of regular and mine may vary, though.
Is it just me, or is it kind of weird for someone to go searching the web for info on people who post here? FWIW, I’m pretty damn transparent about my opinions, I’d think.
Raider: So you think that revealing interrogation techniques without showing what was gleaned from these techniques is acceptable?
Yes. Absolutely.
When I was a child, one of the damning things always said about Soviet Communism was that for them, “the ends justified the means”.
I still believe that philosophy to be evil. And I still consider torture to be an unjustifiable means.
32 Raider1 // Nov 18, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Balcon. What is the purpose of revealing the techniques to the world but not the information gained? Please explain this to me.
33 balconesfault // Nov 18, 2009 at 4:00 pm
The world is already well aware of the techniques used … in many cases, there are probably stories spinning around of things that are worse than we actually did.
So the question among most of the world is not whether or not the US committed torture – but will the US publicly deal with the torture, which is the first step in a process to guarantee that this kind of human rights abuse and moral depravity is behind us.
As to the information itself … there may be information that KSM revealed or confirmed during torture that he had previously disclosed, and that may have been of sensitive nature. He may have also made false allegations against others, something which is very common during torture (a favorite tactic of the gulags, for example, getting subjects to confess to false crimes and to accuse others of complicity just to stop the pain, giving the state justification to expand their ring of interrogations).
I assume that when this information is not sensitive, it could be made public. That’s what the FOIA process is all about, and Cheney might be more successful invoking it rather than taking potshots from Sunday AM shows.
34 Raider1 // Nov 18, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Balcon. So you don’t think interrogation methods qualify as sensitive information? You do not think that in the future part of a terror camp training regimine will be learning techniques to resist US interrigation methods…revealed IN DETAIL now? (The world was not “well aware” of specific techniques and methodolgies, hence their effectiveness. On what imperical data do you base this claim?)
And your understanding of interrogation techniques seems to be what you know (or more likely do not know) of Soviet Russia.
And I would hardly call defending one’s reputation and the policies in office held while a sitting VP against a barage of charges as a war criminal that complete are devoid of any context in which the policies were formulated and adapted to be “pot shots.” I rather call it saying what had to be said for the good of a nation spinning into a dangerously naive mindset.
General question: Do you believe that the US is a force for good in the world? What nations do you hold in higher esteem and why?
35 Raider1 // Nov 18, 2009 at 4:39 pm
By the way Balcon. When the stakes are as high as terrorism where thousand of innocent AMERICAN lives could be at stake, absolutely the ends justify the means. Heck you wouldn’t break a man’s finger to get him to tell you the weatabouts of a bomb about to go off in your child’s elementary school? Of course you would. If you would not, then you are not only an irresponsible parent, but a hopelessly naive dreamer.
By the way. For the USSR, the end was continued subjugation of peoples and denial of God given rights of freedom…in the case of GITMO it was preventing another bloodbath of innocent lives at the hands of murderers. If you cannot see the moral difference, then I cannot help you. And so long as people who think like you are no where near any seat of national power, I don’t care. You’ll learn life’s lesson the hard way one day.
The key phrase you use in your post to justify your fairy tale approach to the world is “when I was a child.” As far as I am concerend, if you really believe lala land crap your peddling, you are STILL a child.
36 Raider1 // Nov 18, 2009 at 4:41 pm
And one more thing. If what went on at GITMO qualifies as “torture” then we need to come up with an entirely new lexicon for what went on in the Gulag and other wonderful places around the world whose approval you seem to feel we need so desperately.
Of course, if you really knew anything about the Gulag, you would have never brought it up as comparison. That tells me a lot.
37 balconesfault // Nov 18, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Raider1: So you don’t think interrogation methods qualify as sensitive information?
No. I believe that the American people have an absolute right to know what their government does to those it detains. It is critical to our freedom.
And I would hardly call defending one’s reputation and the policies in office held while a sitting VP against a barage of charges as a war criminal that complete are devoid of any context in which the policies were formulated and adapted to be “pot shots.”
I would say that accusing the Obama Administration of making the country weaker by abandoning portions of his anti-terrorism policy (although clearly large portions have been kept in place) is a pot shot. Particularly when most evidence suggests that the Bush Administration DID abandon almost all of the Clinton Administration anti-terrorism policy, in their desire to craft their own without any Clinton imprinteur.
Do you believe that the US is a force for good in the world?
In general, yes. In some specifics, no.
And almost everyone on the right would agree with me, although their specifics may be different than mine. The difference is that I won’t call them unpatriotic for being critical of some of what America does.
38 balconesfault // Nov 18, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Heck you wouldn’t break a man’s finger to get him to tell you the weatabouts of a bomb about to go off in your child’s elementary school?
If a man is crazy enough to place a bomb in my childs elementary school, and the almost certain knowledge that he will be put to death if it goes off, are not enough to deter him from this crime, I harbor no illusion that my breaking his fingers will produce anything except lies to buy time until the bomb actually goes off.
But if it’s not the real bomber, it may well produce accusations that others (also innocent) are involved, just to get me to quit breaking his fingers, and to go break theirs for awhile.
Torture is such a perversion, such an evil, that it is far too dangerous a weapon to put in the hands of government. It is the strongest tool for a wholly corrupt government to hold power.
39 Raider1 // Nov 19, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Balcon, you avoided the question. So your answer is that that scenario would never happen. So I come back to you: WHAT IF IT DID? What if by breaking a few fingers (not that anything we did was even remotely so terrible…hell arguing with you could be classified as “torture” given your very loose definition of it. Tell it to the guys on Bataan!) you were guaranteed to find the bomb and save the school? Do you do it? I do it in a heartbeat. Especially to a NON-US citizen doing harm to MY fellow Americans (that seems lost with you pepole. You are acting liek KSM was some poor shmuck caputured dragged into a car on the streets of Witchita as opposed to an enemy combatant on a foreign battlefield!)
And as to you hypothesis that a man so crazy to blow up a school would not crack under torture, I ask you…have you ever broken a bone?? Trust me, even psychos understand pain and will do what it takes to make it stop!
Sometimes the ends DO justify the means. Sorry. Welcome to the adult world.
40 MI-GOPer // Nov 19, 2009 at 1:01 pm
BlankHead says @31 “FWIW, I’m pretty damn transparent about my opinions, I’d think.”
Well, why then did you try to claim you’re a conservative? Was it your usual intellectual dishonesty or was it to gain some credibility debating someone who appears to be a real conservative?
And why do you use fake characters here and multiple faux names to appear to have people agreeing with you or– better in your book– able to make debate points that no one here would find credible coming from you?
Glad you finally admitted you’re a HuffPo regular and a far Left democrat activist, BlankHead. Wasn’t it one of your people who said “The Truth will set you free”?
41 balconesfault // Nov 19, 2009 at 1:28 pm
raider: Balcon, you avoided the question. So your answer is that that scenario would never happen.
No – my answer is that your basic assumption – that torture of whoever you captured would provide actionable intelligence that would save the school – is inherently flawed.
I would argue that rather than trying to gain truthful information in the time window described from someone in such a circumstance by breaking his fingers one by one – is as fanciful as arguing that the better solution is to bring in a master mesmerist to hypnotize him, or praying to God for a sign as to where the bomb is.
You threaten to break his finger. He tells you the name of another person who he says was actually responsible for bomb placement, that he has no idea of the final placement. Do you now go round up this other person and threaten to break his fingers? Do you start breaking his fingers anyway, even if it’s possible that he doesn’t know where the bomb is.
What percentage chance do you need to know that he’s actually involved before you start breaking fingers. Or is his being foreign enough justification to dispense with such weak-minded concerns?
A government which is granted the power to torture anyone will inherently contain the seed of the power to use torture to control people. That is something that the libertarian in me cannot abide.
You must log in to post a comment.