Well done vid ... I'm constantly shocked, in all of the debate whether we should torture or not on moral grounds, how absent all the evidence that we should not on security grounds is. I personally think the former (that we shouldn't torture because it's wrong and opens our people up to the same from others) is compelling enough, but for those who are callous or "driven" enough to ignore those arguments, i'd think they'd consider all the evidence that says torture produces dubious and/or bad intelligence.

Good post Remove & great comment Brendotroy.

Thanks, folks. This is obviously a relevant and timely issue.

The moment you allow torture to take place, expect the same to happen to your own combatants. It would only lead to more intense standoffs.

RIGHT.... the insurgents are constantly checking CNN and MSNBC to verify if they are OK to torture USA troops based on the latest news. Hmmm, nope, guess what, they are going to torture and/or kill our guys when they catch them.

So instead of:
> The moment you allow torture to take place,
> expect the same to happen to your own combatants.

Maybe:
The moment you send USA troops where they have no business whatsoever, meddling in other countries affairs, based on internationally spread lies, expect your troops to be hated, tortured and/or killed.

If we said, and stood by, "We will NEVER torture the enemy", at the end of the day we are still fanatically hated just the same. We still have no legitimate reason to be there. Our torture policy is irrelevant to theirs.

Probably best to blame the lying politicians in Washington.

deathcow, I'm confused ... you clearly don't think we should be there (I agree, at least to the extent that we shouldn't have gone in the first place, for what it's worth), but do you think it's okay to torture our captured "combatants" or not?

I think you're absolutely right about al Qaeda and other terrorist groups committ atrocities largely just because of our presence, bombings, etc, but I do think that our actions towards them contributes (i.e. it's undeniable that a ton of people in the Arab world, even those who were previously moderate, were upset by Abu Ghraib).

Also, though, I think we have to remember that we won't be fighting *just* "the war on terrorism" forever; there will be more "symmetric" enemies (nation states) whose actions will be guided by our previous ones - i.e. we torture, so they do on our prisoners.

Also (end of this long comment, I promise) - thanks, benjee.

I think deathcow is correct that the 'quid pro quo' argument (it's wrong and opens our people up to the same from others) is pretty empty.
I don't believe that even any 'nation state' will be deterred from torture merely because there is an international agreement. Particularly when the US under GWB has little intention of abiding by any international agreements.

brendotroy's second point (the actions of the U.S. have real-time consequences and scant intelligence benefits), however, is where the good argument lies. It is undeniable that in most Middle Eastern countries, there is a struggle between moderates and radicals. The GOP's newly enacted love and embrace of torture only further radicalizes those populations. If dictator #6 is a torturer and GWB is a torturer, then the populations in those countries need only decide which torturer provides better garbage pick-up and security. Unfortunately, organizations and individuals like Sadr, Hamas, and Hezbollah are better positioned to provide both to poor and frightened people. The wildly successful (to Dick Cheney) nationbuilding folly in Iraq is despairing proof of this.

The new Military Commissions Act is a bill that Stalin would have loved. It is a pity that GWB's America stands only for political convenience, sloganeering and fearmongering.

The oath of office I took when I was sworn in as a 2nd Lt in the Marines said I would support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I went into the Marines with the idea that I was defending American ideals. One of those ideals was that we would treat enemy combatants with respect-- not because doing so would keep them from torturing our troops, but rather simply because it was the right thing to do.

Asking our troops to fight and die to defend American ideals is difficult but understandable. Asking them to fight and die for any other reason is treason.

Well, in response to Deathcow, I think you're underestimating what terrorists and people in general in the middle east know about what we do.

After allegations of abuse at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib arised, they started dressing in orange jumpsuits like our "detainees" do, in solidarity with them in their propaganda videos. They watch television just like us.

I'm not underestimating them at all. I'm sure they are shrewd, intelligent, and aware of whats going on.

It's funny that America is slowly losing everything it was worthy protecting for. Namely civil liberities. One must be vigilent at times of war.

"The moment you allow torture to take place, expect the same to happen to your own combatants."

Who did journalist Daniel Pearl torture to earn his slow beheading by koranimals?

Torture by American forces is probably extremely rare. Considering all the wussies begging for terrorists to be given American legal protection as if they were jaywalkers, it's probably Disney-type stuff. 'Water boarding?' Harsher stuff probably happens every weekend at S&M clubs.

If a koranimal knows when an ambush on American troops will take place and torture is the only way to get that information...grab your ankles, Achmed.

"probably extremely rare"... "it's probably Disney-type stuff. 'Water boarding?' Harsher stuff probably happens every weekend at S&M clubs."

You probably are an idiot. Maybe after you turn 17 and maybe get laid, you will realize what an asshole you've become... probably.

One unnamed U.S. official quoted in the Washington Post stated, "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."

However, in its pursuit of total victory at all costs, Japan chose to ignore its obligations under the Geneva Convention of 1929, using torture, slave labor, and other forms of abuse against military and civilian prisoners. After the war, Japan was widely condemned for the inhumanity of its policies, and many Japanese military officers were tried and convicted of war crimes under United States law. One of those war crimes was an interrogation practice markedly similar to what we now call waterboarding. Japanese interrogators covered the prisoner's face with a cloth (Our CIA uses cellophane.) and then poured water on it to create the sensation of drowning, and one Japanese doctor was sentenced to 25 years in prison for that and other abuses.

The National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture, in Chile, issued a report in November, 2004 describing the use of the “submarino” in the early 1970s. One account reads: “Man, detained in September 1973: . . . [T]hey put cotton in both eyes, then adhesive tape on top, and a black hood tied at the neck, they tied my feet and hands tightly and they plunged me in one of those 250 liter barrels of oil which contained ammonia, urine, excrement, and sea water; they submerged me like this until my breath couldn’t hold out, nor my lungs, and they kept repeating this again and again, along with blows and questions, this was what they called, in [the world of] torture, the famous submarine.”

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment signed by US in 1994:
[I]n order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and … mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from:
(1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(3) the threat of imminent death; or
(4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

By the way, people can die from waterboarding. Even the most hardened CIA officers can only take it for about a minute.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by burdturgler.