NoaIzumiLeon Panetta, Jack Bauer, and the Bad Guys, by David R. Stokes
January 13th 2009 17:31
A couple of days ago, David Stokes, radio host and pastor wrote this piece in Townhall.com. A pastor defending torture, isn't that a kick?
Really Long Link
“And GITMO? Well, we’re going to shut that bad place down and bring its residents to our mainland – maybe even a backyard near you."
This passage is just an aside to the main point of the article, but I want to remind people we already do keep extremely dangerous people on the mainland. They’re called criminals, and we keep them in prisons.
“we need to understand that our enemies are not going to be impressed with our “humanity.”
Our enemies may not be, but what about our potential enemies? Stokes (and a lot of other columnists who have made the same point) seems to think that we’re fighting the war in the Heinlein classic Starship Troopers, where the enemy (a race of intelligent insects) is hatched from the egg, hating humans and ready to fight. Recruits aren’t born into Al Qaeda, most join it at some point after growing up. Some would have probably joined no matter what, but the majority had a reason. No one is born hating America; if they were, Al Qaeda wouldn’t have to put out all those recruitment videos.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Of course, Al Qaeda would probably still exist if we disavowed torture or left Iraq, or even left Saudi Arabia or pulled our support from Israel. But there’s no way they’d be as strong as they are, because a lot fewer people would be falling for the “American wants to destroy Islam” line.
“But, if it is permissible and considered as a necessary evil by a just society to kill terrorists, to bomb them, to send missiles their way, and to otherwise fight them will cruel might, why is torture, under certain circumstances, where we draw the “moral” line?
Maybe because there’s a big difference between attacking active, armed terrorists and torturing a guy who’s been captured and is no longer a threat. And couldn’t you make the same argument about using nerve gas or bombing civilian populations? The way Stokes talks about drawing the moral line makes me wonder if he wants to draw one at all.
“We can’t target enemy leaders for death, launch missiles, or drop bombs to kill terrorists, but say at the same time that we won’t rough up a “detainee” to obtain vital life-saving information."
Again, big-ass difference, and the techniques the government has admitted to using (or had someone use for them) go way beyond punching a guy in the face a few times.
““Gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail.” ... It’s a pretty good thing we grew out of that notion"
Henry Stimson said that referring to the Black Chamber, the first peacetime cryptanalytic organization in the United States. It was devoted to breaking the codes of foreign countries. Not the same thing as torturing someone. By the by, Stimson had altered his position by the time World War II started.
“how about when a “detainee” is believed (strongly believed) to have important information – the kind that, if known, would save the lives of civilians or military personnel?"
Of course, that assumes that you’d actually obtain life-saving information. Would you? Or would the prisoner give the interrogators a cock and bull story (either made up on the spur of the moment or pre-prepared)? If you were a fanatical terrorist operative, wouldn’t you try and misdirect the enemy?
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
And frankly, isn’t the burden of proof on the people who claim that torture does work? Can someone show me a single proven instance of a planned attack that was prevented by information gained by torture, an attack which would not have been detected in time by normal intelligence methods? I keep hearing that it’s necessary to fight the war on terror, but if that’s true, shouldn’t there be concrete examples of its necessity and effectiveness?
“Should we put all our trust in overt sources of information, diplomacy, and the peaceful arts – and hope are enemies will not take advantage of us?”
But isn’t that exactly what we did, throughout all the crises that our nation faced in the last century? Did we torture prisoners in World War II? Did we torture prisoners during the Cold War?
Really Long Link (Article about military interrogators in WWII).
This last link isn’t in response to any specific part of the Stokes piece, but I ran across it in my research, and it’s a good point to leave you with.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
“And GITMO? Well, we’re going to shut that bad place down and bring its residents to our mainland – maybe even a backyard near you."
This passage is just an aside to the main point of the article, but I want to remind people we already do keep extremely dangerous people on the mainland. They’re called criminals, and we keep them in prisons.
“we need to understand that our enemies are not going to be impressed with our “humanity.”
Our enemies may not be, but what about our potential enemies? Stokes (and a lot of other columnists who have made the same point) seems to think that we’re fighting the war in the Heinlein classic Starship Troopers, where the enemy (a race of intelligent insects) is hatched from the egg, hating humans and ready to fight. Recruits aren’t born into Al Qaeda, most join it at some point after growing up. Some would have probably joined no matter what, but the majority had a reason. No one is born hating America; if they were, Al Qaeda wouldn’t have to put out all those recruitment videos.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Of course, Al Qaeda would probably still exist if we disavowed torture or left Iraq, or even left Saudi Arabia or pulled our support from Israel. But there’s no way they’d be as strong as they are, because a lot fewer people would be falling for the “American wants to destroy Islam” line.
“But, if it is permissible and considered as a necessary evil by a just society to kill terrorists, to bomb them, to send missiles their way, and to otherwise fight them will cruel might, why is torture, under certain circumstances, where we draw the “moral” line?
Maybe because there’s a big difference between attacking active, armed terrorists and torturing a guy who’s been captured and is no longer a threat. And couldn’t you make the same argument about using nerve gas or bombing civilian populations? The way Stokes talks about drawing the moral line makes me wonder if he wants to draw one at all.
“We can’t target enemy leaders for death, launch missiles, or drop bombs to kill terrorists, but say at the same time that we won’t rough up a “detainee” to obtain vital life-saving information."
Again, big-ass difference, and the techniques the government has admitted to using (or had someone use for them) go way beyond punching a guy in the face a few times.
““Gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail.” ... It’s a pretty good thing we grew out of that notion"
Henry Stimson said that referring to the Black Chamber, the first peacetime cryptanalytic organization in the United States. It was devoted to breaking the codes of foreign countries. Not the same thing as torturing someone. By the by, Stimson had altered his position by the time World War II started.
“how about when a “detainee” is believed (strongly believed) to have important information – the kind that, if known, would save the lives of civilians or military personnel?"
Of course, that assumes that you’d actually obtain life-saving information. Would you? Or would the prisoner give the interrogators a cock and bull story (either made up on the spur of the moment or pre-prepared)? If you were a fanatical terrorist operative, wouldn’t you try and misdirect the enemy?
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
And frankly, isn’t the burden of proof on the people who claim that torture does work? Can someone show me a single proven instance of a planned attack that was prevented by information gained by torture, an attack which would not have been detected in time by normal intelligence methods? I keep hearing that it’s necessary to fight the war on terror, but if that’s true, shouldn’t there be concrete examples of its necessity and effectiveness?
“Should we put all our trust in overt sources of information, diplomacy, and the peaceful arts – and hope are enemies will not take advantage of us?”
But isn’t that exactly what we did, throughout all the crises that our nation faced in the last century? Did we torture prisoners in World War II? Did we torture prisoners during the Cold War?
Really Long Link (Article about military interrogators in WWII).
This last link isn’t in response to any specific part of the Stokes piece, but I ran across it in my research, and it’s a good point to leave you with.
Really Long Link
| 28 |
| Vote |
