Pharyngula::Torture, PowerLine Style

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Torture, PowerLine Style

PZ Myers • 105 Comments (last page)

As long as I'm dirty from wallowing in the sewers anyway, I thought I'd see what PowerLine was up to. Oh, the usual thing: making excuses for torture.

But wait, this is amazing. Not only does Hindrocket make excuses for torture, but he claims that our actions are testimonials to American greatness and high principles. You can almost hear the brassy, triumphant theme song swelling in the background as you read it.

By the way, there is a serious point to be made here. No one thinks that playing Christina Aguilera music, shaving a guy's beard off, and putting him in the same room with a woman are the most effective ways to extract information from a detainee. The reason why these unorthodox methods were used, obviously, is that the more effective, but less humane, techniques that have been used since time immemorial were banned by our civilian authorities, and the American military took seriously the restrictions under which they were operating. The mildness with which terrorist detainees have been treated stands as an imperishable monument to the greatness of the American spirit and the moderation of the Bush administration.

It's accompanied by a cartoon from the odious Chris Muir, showing a couple of prosperous Americans "standing for hours, listening to loud music, in the company of beautiful females." Oh. Guantanomo Bay is like an upper-class party now. At which you may end up dead or maimed, and men with guns don't let you leave, and you didn't want to go anyway but you were dragged there in chains. And Paris Hilton never shows up.

Here's the greatness of the American spirit, as defined by John Hinderaker.

Makes a fella proud to be an American, don't it? It's so inspiring. And notice the sneaky implication in his comment…why, we're using less effective techniques, no doubt because of those pansy liberals. If only we could use the traditional, conservative techniques that have been used since time immemorial, think how the American spirit could soar!

I thought that the Book of Hinderaker was a parody, but it looks like it was a case of understatement, instead.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2434/ue9zwmOp/

Comments:

#28725: — 06/16 at 02:21 PM
Crooks and Liars has a good video clip of the treatment of US prisoners, as witnessed by a FBI agent. Christina Aguilera indeed.

#28727: — 06/16 at 02:26 PM
Examples in the photos aren't the "torture" (methods of interrogation) that is happening at Guantanamo, which is what he's referring to. Those photos are examples of abuse, and were never condoned or encouraged.

These sites say it quite clearly and put things back in perspective. Time for a reality check.

#28728: — 06/16 at 02:31 PM
Torture is not define as being done during interrogation. It is often done, during interrogation, but it is not part of the definition. Not in US law, international law or in common usage.

#28729: — 06/16 at 02:34 PM
Oh, and linking to someone who refers to Charles Johnson of LGF as "my blogfather" is a fast way to ensure that your argument is dismissed. You'll have to find a better source.

#28730: — 06/16 at 02:36 PM
Remember, folks, it's still okay if we do it because we're not doing it as bad as they did. Just think, we can cut off toes and fingers, and it's still okay! We're not beheading people and dripping acid on them, right? What's a finger or two? You don't even need your pinky toes, really.

#28732: — 06/16 at 02:54 PM
Just pointing out that the term torture is becoming ridiculously subjective and exaggerated: i.e., above, Cecrops Tangaroa(#16) states that the prisoner was subjected to "freezing" temperatures while the article he links to says the prisoner was subjected to "cold" temperatures, which tells us nothing about whether or not it was torture, merely that he wasn't comfortable.

From the sound of it, treating the prisoners in a way that they do not like is considered torture. If that's the case, we should just let them all go since keeping them imprisoned is "torture" to them.

Oh, and if you're unable to stand a site because its agenda obscures the content, Kristjan, why are you here?

#28733: Chris Clarke — 06/16 at 03:02 PM
Splitting hairs about the terminology we use to describe our mistreatment of prisoners is the main field mark of the American Neostalinist.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson

#28734: — 06/16 at 03:08 PM
Yes, let them go! Even having them there is torture! And just letting them go is inhumane! How will they find food there!? They do not know the language. You americans are too cruel! They do not even get Al Jazeera there. So let them go free and bring them back here so we can give them knives and strap bombs to them and they will die a respectful death! Besides why do you do anything to our men there!? Do you not know that some of them may have information that would lead your army to my hiding place! It would be unfair if they gave your army this sort of information. Your army would not have to pay the full price in dead soldiers for finding me if you continue to cheat by attempting to extract information from our captured warriors!

Nate - you are twisting your words with a grace that only allah can appreciate. Loving me and stabbing me at the same time with those words! So clever. You will have a host of angels and many women (maybe 6, 2 virgins) waiting for you in heaven! Allah asks that you go there now.

#28735: — 06/16 at 03:11 PM
You people are just desperate to jump on any anti-Bush band-wagon that comes along. So, yeah, it was pointless to try to bring logic and reason into a debate that is so obviously based on emotion.

#28737: — 06/16 at 03:13 PM
Ahmed, please explain, with the patience and detail necessary for a simpleton like myself, how I have twisted your words. If you notice, I quoted your words. If that is not what it says, or the implications of your reasoning that I provide are somehow not true, describe to me where I strayed.

#28739: — 06/16 at 03:22 PM
Walt,

One of your links documents Saddam Hussein's use of severe sleep deprivation as a torture method. Severe sleep deprivation is documented as a torture method used at Guantanamo.

It's all well and good to bring logic and reason into the debate, but you need to bring honesty and facts too.

#28742: — 06/16 at 03:36 PM
Why waste time even talking to these idiots? I for one am sick of them, and sick of their pathetic justifications. The criminals they make their excuses for have brought shame on this country that a hundred years may not be enough to expunge. To hell with all of them.

#28748: Tom Ames — 06/16 at 04:04 PM
I think Walt's distinction between "torture" and "abuse" is revealing. Apparently, "abuse" is what is not condoned. "Torture," according to Walt and the administration spinners is a "method of interrogation."

And outrage at inhuman and illegal actions is jumping on an "anti-Bush bandwagon."

This country used to be a beacon of hope for progressive human rights, and people like Walt have allowed our reputation to be thrown away over the course of a couple of years.

Shame on you!

#28749: — 06/16 at 04:15 PM
'At what point is torture acceptable? Never? Is that how you'd feel if your son/daughter was being held by thugs and you had one of the thugs in your hands?'

One of my friends was killed in the Iraq war by insurgents.

Torture is still ethically unnacceptable and still scores a practical own goal during interrogations. Instead of torture one may aswell directly funnel the money used to extremists; you're arming them well enough with powerful rhetoric by legitimising abuse against POWs (and prisoners who may or may not have anything to do with any war, and the children at Guantanamo Bay. It is not '[your] men' alone that are being held there.)

That foreign nations, organisations and terrorists may treat POWs much harsher than our own militaries and mercenaries does nothing to ameliorate the crimes of our own countries. It does nothing to change the fact that Bin Laden's and others' wild ravings about imperialism are given credence in the eyes of those who are moderate when stories of prisoner abuse surface. That British and American excesses may be infrequent does nothing to excuse the individuals involved in such crimes or the wider failures that allowed such abuse to happen.

It does not win our countries as a whole any friends overseas.

-Schmitt.

#28761: David Heddle — 06/16 at 05:53 PM
The mistreatment of the prisoners is an embarrassment. I hope it is being exaggerated, but it is clear enough that it has happened.

I don’t know what techniques should be used on prisoners who are suspected of withholding information that can be used to save innocent lives, so I am not going to say that the problem is trivial. However, for us to use methods involving sexual humiliation and human excrement is a national disgrace.

At Gitmo, I have no problem with detaining those with proven ties to terrorist organizations indefinitely. No sense releasing them just so they can take up arms against American soldiers and Iraqi police or civilians. But they should be treated humanely, which I am still confident is the rule rather than the exception.

#28763: — 06/16 at 06:05 PM

At Gitmo, I have no problem with detaining those with proven ties to terrorist organizations indefinitely.

Neither do I (well, maybe a little - I'd like to be able to reassure myself that the 'ties' are strong enough to warrant life imprisonment), but the Bush Administration's public comments on this issue don't give me much confidence that they're interested in proving those ties.

#28773: — 06/16 at 07:23 PM
"Anti-Bush bandwagon." Hmmm. As far as I can tell, an anti-Bush bandwagon consists of anyone criticizing anything that Bush or any of his advisors, cabinet, etc. do or say at any time. I am waiting for the next question: "Why do you hate America?" After all, any criticism of Bush & Co. obviously aids the terrorists..."You're either with us or against us" was, I believe, the way the President put it...

#28786: — 06/16 at 11:24 PM

At Gitmo, I have no problem with detaining those with proven ties to terrorist organizations indefinitely.

I certainly do. The definition of a terrorist organizations is up to debate - was the ANC a terrorist organization? Was the Danish resistance during WWII? How about the legitimate reasons one might have a tie to such an organization? The Taliban started out as a movement against the Soviet, and became strong when they brought peace to Afghanistan by enforcing law on the warlords.

And even if there might be legitimate reasons why a specific person should be locked away for life, why can't it be handled by the normal court systems? The big problem with Gitmo, aside from the treatment of the prisoners, is that the people held there has no chance of defending themselves - there is no court, no hearings, nothing!

There has been stories of people held there, who was held as hostages until someone in their family would given themselves up. Also, there has been stories about people being given to the Americans as terrorists, in exchange of a bounty - without having any ties to terrorist organizations. All such stories should be investigated, and if they are true, the people responsible should be prosecuted under US and/or international law.

Regarding being anti-Bush. I never liked Bush II, but the reason I have come to detest him, is exactly because of things like Gitmo. He shows a willingness to accept behaviour of the worst kind, and seems to disregard international law - international law, which the US has agreed to, so US soldiers are protected as well, as senator Biden pointed out to Rumsfeld, when he Rumsfeld refused to hand over the torture memos.

#28787: — 06/16 at 11:28 PM

Oh, and if you're unable to stand a site because its agenda obscures the content, Kristjan, why are you here?

It depends on the agenda - LGF have a long track record of racism and wile behaviour of the worst kind, so anyone who affiliate themselves with them, are assholes in my opinion, and I won't spend any time on their sites. My browser is set up to block content from LGF.

I can go and read Power Lines, Instapundit even Free Republic, but LGF will never get a visit from me again.

#28788: — 06/16 at 11:35 PM
I am not an American so I hesitate to participate in this discussion. Maybe I can offer a friendly outsider's viewpoint. The American military I know are dedicated professional people, certainly no sadists. For us, foreigners, the scenes pictured above are comical, far removed from the concept of "torture" we know. The pics are bad for America, because they inspire no fear nor respect, but indignation. Imagine the reaction to these pictures of Islamic fanatics who just filmed themselves starring in the bloody beheading of an innocent civilian hostage, or the people smoking narguile in a tea house, enjoying the execution on local TV. I am glad that PZ and the other side agree that Abu Ghraib is bad, and hope you will work out soon what is to be done.

#28789: — 06/17 at 12:21 AM
That drift towards politics takes another post for a run through the mill. This blog is so much better when it sticks to science.

Here's my $0.02. Torture is wrong! But I must borrow from Alan Dershowitz - If a person is held and it is a known fact (not a guess or a hunch, an absolute) that this person knows of/has information about/is part of a planned terrorist attack that will kill/maim/injury is it ok to torture him/her to get the information to stop the attack? I'd rip the finger nails out myself if it would prevent a 9/11, Madrid or Bali (no one has to agree)

Combatants who are captured out of uniform or without an identifying insignia do not get POW status (look that up if you want). They do not get attorneys and do nor get to appear in federal court. Outside of the fact that Guantanamo is probably the safest place to hold dangerous terrorists the reason they are is so that they don't acquire rights they are not entitled to from being held on US soil.

If we assume the detainees are POWs, they still don't get lawyers or get to appeal their detention in federal court, they merely have different treaty rights than their non-uniformed comrades.

One a related issue but sort of a side note - If the treament of these prisoners is such a big deal (a hope they are all treated humanely) why isn;t there an outcry about what happens in US prisons? Are we being hypocritical here complaining about the treatment of a few/many foreign prisoners of war (assume they all are for this argument) all the while ignoring what happens here at home? I'll only mention the widespread torture that is prison rape - where is the outcry? Is there none because they are "bad" people that are being raped? Aren't terrorists bad people? One guy steals a car using a gun and has drugs in his pocket: The other makes bombs in his basement (ball bearing to make sure there is a lot of shrapnel) straps the bombs onto another human and then watches as people are blown to bits. Both are held in "prison" - one has constant loud music, dogs barking, uncomfortable room temperature and if unlucky - a few beatings while the other is one of his fellow prisoners new girlfriend - the difference is that one of prisoners has a worldwide cheering section while the other gets what he deserves - right?

As a disclaimer, I have voted against the Bushies 6 times - 2 each - so don't tag me as flyover state inhabitant with all its implications.

I've rambled enough.

Cheers all

#28792: — 06/17 at 12:59 AM

If a person is held and it is a known fact (not a guess or a hunch, an absolute) that this person knows of/has information about/is part of a planned terrorist attack that will kill/maim/injury is it ok to torture him/her to get the information to stop the attack?

Observer, that's a false dilemma - the ticking bomb senario never happens, and using torture to extract information is unreliable, so even if it did happen, torture would be a wrong way to get the information needed.

About combatants without uniform, they can be POW, as defined by the Geneva conventions (III). And for your information, POWs does get a hearing - this is clearly stated in the Geneva conventions (III). The prisoners at Gitmo is neither considered terrorists, which would allow them to go to court, nor combatants, which would give them POW status, so they have no rights - I don't know if it makes me a commie bastard, but I believe that everyone should have the basic right of having their case tried - either at a trial or at a hearing.

And why should we assume that they are all terrorists, just to allow you your argument? No one has proven that they are, and given the fact that some have been released as undangerous, it would seem like that not even the US military believe they all are terrorists.

In regards to prison rape, cute a few human rights organizations, including Amnesty International has tried to raise an outcry about if or years. However, you can hopefully see the difference between an act committed by other prisoners against the law, and acts committed by prisoner guards, with the blessings of the syste (here I am not talking about the acts in the photos above, but rather about all the milder forms of torture committed, as reported by FBI agents and others).
Also, I find the argument "but others are worse off" as bad as "but at least we are not as bad as Stalin".

#28800: — 06/17 at 03:38 AM
It seems that our all-knowing government agencies are certain that the people we are detaining indefintely, torturing frequently and killing occasionally, are definititely bad guys, yet they're not certain enough to risk taking their cases to court.

It would be permitted to detain them indefinitely IF AND ONLY IF they had been found guilty of a capital crime by a court of law, which they have not. (This is the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, by the way.)

The Eighth Amendment, whose scope is not limited to U.S. citizens, prohibits their torture before or after conviction. Killing them before conviction is a crime.

Too many commenters (and editiorialists) seem to have taken their high school courses in civics with the same lack of seriousness they displayed towards algebra.

#28801: — 06/17 at 06:01 AM
The argument about these being "less effective" interogation techniques than old-fashioned medieval torture is actually total bollocks. These techniques were originally developed by the CIA precisely because they're more effective, plus they have the handy side effect of not leaving as much physical evidence. If you read the KUBARK interrogation manual (easily available on teh Internets) you'll see that they specifically discourage the use of crude physical torture on high-value subjects because it simply doesn't work.

Personally, I tend to view any means of destroying an individuals will and personality with abhorence, no matter how it's done.

#28804: — 06/17 at 06:49 AM
After googling KUBARK (Thanks, Dunc!) it became obvious to me that Powerline is wrong, the pics illustrate no defficient interrogation techniques imposed by (deleted) liberals home, but standard handbook methods. Once more, PZ is right.

Page 2 of 5 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »

Next entry: Volokh's question

Previous entry: Evangelical junk mail

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Torture, PowerLine Style

Info