• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On Torture, America Must Reckon with More than Gina Haspel

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,292
Reaction score
81,299
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
On Torture, America Must Reckon with More than Gina Haspel

defense-large.jpg


By Nate Chrostiansen
March 17, 2018

Writing in 1958, Jean-Paul Sartre pondered the tortured victims of French colonialism and wondered how his country could have fallen so completely. “Happy are those who died without ever having had to ask themselves: ‘If they tear out my fingernails, will I talk?’” Sartre wrote. “But even happier are others, barely out of their childhood, who have not had to ask themselves that other question: ‘If my friends, fellow soldiers and leaders tear out an enemy’s fingernails in my presence, what will I do?’” The same question now looms over the United States, as it has ever since we debased ourselves by accepting torture. In doing so we have foolishly squandered our reputation and endangered critical alliances. Gina Haspel’s prospective nomination as the next CIA director indicates to our allies that we have learned nothing, and perhaps we have not. Refusing to clearly confront past atrocities has only made their repetition more likely, and harmed our national security by sowing distrust and resentment the world over. Because we have never confronted our odious legacy of torture and black-masked kidnappings domestically, allies may now be forced to choose between their obligation to international law and loyalty to an old friend.

James Mitchell, one of the psychologists who charged the U.S. government millions of dollars while shaping its torture program, has sought to shirk his responsibility by claiming that “we were soldiers doing what we were instructed to do.” His defense draws uncomfortably near to that given by the defendants at Nuremberg, and should give us pause. In today’s United States there live men and women who conspired to drown people so that they could revive them and then drown them again. Gina Haspel’s nomination is therefore more than a momentary political problem. It underscores a festering sickness in our society that grows from our unfounded presumption that we are above atrocity. The idea that torture was done in service of the nation begets the question of what sort of nation is served by it. “Anyone who is tortured remains tortured,” wrote Austrian philosopher and Auschwitz survivor Jean Améry, “anyone who has suffered torture never again will be able to be at ease in the world, the abomination of the annihilation is never extinguished. Faith in humanity, already cracked by the first slap in the face, then demolished by torture, is never acquired again.” This is true not just of torture’s victims but of its perpetrators, enablers, and purported beneficiaries. The most enduring harm done to our nation has come not from the external enemies who challenge us, dangerous though they may be, but rather from our own tolerance for depravity when it is done in our name. The former we can confront with clear hearts, while the latter will fester until it sours our nation.

Trumps choice here for our CIA Director is inexplicable. Hopefully, Gina Haspel will not be confirmed by the US Senate.

Related: Gina Haspel, Trump’s Choice for C.I.A., Played Role in Torture Program

Rand Paul Issues Filibuster Threat on Trump’s State and CIA Nominees
 

Let's be clear here -- waterboarding (which the US subjects its own special forces to) is not the same as ripping out fingernails.

I don't know anything about this gal, and I might not like her for other reasons, but just the fact that she followed techniques that were then allowable by law is not a disqualifying factor, in my opinion.
 

This illustrates a problem the left has. They rule from the heart rather from the head. She is a good choice for the position and after 911, most Americans would have gladly held the A-rab down while information was extracted about follow on attacks.
 
Let's be clear here -- waterboarding (which the US subjects its own special forces to) is not the same as ripping out fingernails.

Yes, let's be clear by all means. Since 2009, all US intelligence agencies are required to abide by the US Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners.
 
My question: if the left and the government in general saw no problem with her for 15 years to accuse and maybe "hold her accountable", why now?

My answer: Only because Trump wants her.
 
Let's be clear here -- waterboarding (which the US subjects its own special forces to) is not the same as ripping out fingernails.

I don't know anything about this gal, and I might not like her for other reasons, but just the fact that she followed techniques that were then allowable by law is not a disqualifying factor, in my opinion.

Do you know why countries have treaties between them banning the use of torture? Not to be merciful to enemies but to protect your own people. If your country tortures prisoners, God help any of your people who fall into enemy hands.
'Course, the Gina Haspels are unlikely to be captured, so what the heck, get at it.
 
Yes, let's be clear by all means. Since 2009, all US intelligence agencies are required to abide by the US Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners.

To be very clear and concise, the US Army Field Manual forbids waterboarding. In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act (by which Federal funds are allocated to the military) specifically forbids any US federal agency to participate in waterboarding.
 
Do you know why countries have treaties between them banning the use of torture? Not to be merciful to enemies but to protect your own people. If your country tortures prisoners, God help any of your people who fall into enemy hands.
'Course, the Gina Haspels are unlikely to be captured, so what the heck, get at it.

I have to disagree with that. Other countries will do whatever they want regardless of how we treat prisoners. History and not so long ago events tell us that.
 
Yes, let's be clear by all means. Since 2009, all US intelligence agencies are required to abide by the US Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners.

But, when Gina Haspels was involved, they were not required to abide by the Field Manual, were they?
 
Do you know why countries have treaties between them banning the use of torture? Not to be merciful to enemies but to protect your own people. If your country tortures prisoners, God help any of your people who fall into enemy hands.
'Course, the Gina Haspels are unlikely to be captured, so what the heck, get at it.

They'll do it anyway.

Three decades after the U.N. Convention Against Torture imposed measures to eradicate the practice, torture still happens in 141 countries — many of which are signatories to that convention — according to Amnesty International’s annual report on torture released Tuesday.
Amnesty: 141 countries still torture | Al Jazeera America

But, how can we call waterboarding torture, when we do it to our own special forces?
 
Let's be clear here -- waterboarding (which the US subjects its own special forces to) is not the same as ripping out fingernails.

I don't know anything about this gal, and I might not like her for other reasons, but just the fact that she followed techniques that were then allowable by law is not a disqualifying factor, in my opinion.

Torture, including waterboarding, was illegal under 18USC2441 when George Bush assumed office. Your grasp of recent history must be weak indeed, but he hired John Yoo and a few others to develop sophistry that would fool the public and others regarding torture. Hence the euphemism for torture, "enhanced interrogation techniques", embraced by torture enthusiasts everywhere.

Yes, today's torture enthusiasts, POTUS being one, love to delude themselves. They are all for torture as long as it's somebody else being tortured. That you so strongly support torture shows how effective the Bush/Yoo sophistry worked.

What we supposedly learned from Nuremberg was destroyed by Bush, Yoo, Gonzalez and ordinary citizens who are thrilled by torture.
 
But, when Gina Haspels was involved, they were not required to abide by the Field Manual, were they?

If all was kosher, why weren't they doing such interrogations at the CIA HQ at Langley?

Why a black site in Thailand, plus other black torture sites in Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, Romania, and Poland?

Because they knew it constituted torture, that's why such interrogations at Langley wasn't happening.

Which is why Ms. Haspel destroyed 92 videotapes of 'enhanced interrogations' (a euphemism for torture) at her Thailand black site.
 
If all was kosher, why weren't they doing such interrogations at the CIA HQ at Langley?

Why a black site in Thailand, plus other black torture sites in Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, Romania, and Poland?

Because they knew it constituted torture, that's why such interrogations at Langley wasn't happening.

Which is why Ms. Haspel destroyed 92 videotapes of 'enhanced interrogations' (a euphemism for torture) at her Thailand black site.

Let me ask you a question -- suppose a kidnapper had taken your small daughter and buried her somewhere and she had only 12 hours of air until she expired. Let's say that the FBI caught the kidnapper but he refused to reveal where your daughter was buried.

Would you be in favor of waterboarding him?

Or, would you sit quietly by while the hours ticked away, along with your child's life?

What say you?
 
If all was kosher, why weren't they doing such interrogations at the CIA HQ at Langley?

Why a black site in Thailand, plus other black torture sites in Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, Romania, and Poland?

Because they knew it constituted torture, that's why such interrogations at Langley wasn't happening.

Which is why Ms. Haspel destroyed 92 videotapes of 'enhanced interrogations' (a euphemism for torture) at her Thailand black site.

We didn't want to bring them to Langley -- heck, we ended up parking them off-shore at GITMO so they wouldn't be subject to US laws.
 
Let me ask you a question -- suppose a kidnapper had taken your small daughter and buried her somewhere and she had only 12 hours of air until she expired. Let's say that the FBI caught the kidnapper but he refused to reveal where your daughter was buried.

Would you be in favor of waterboarding him?

Or, would you sit quietly by while the hours ticked away, along with your child's life?

What say you?

What is the probability that this kiddnapper would actually tell the truth if he was tortured?
 
We didn't want to bring them to Langley -- heck, we ended up parking them off-shore at GITMO so they wouldn't be subject to US laws.

They're still subject to US law.


Congress has enacted 4 statutes and also ratified 2 treaties that prohibit torture of all kinds. Period. Any reasonable reading of the statutes clearly show that waterboarding is a crime. It is also considered illegal under both Senate-ratified treaties.

The laws that apply here are:

A. The federal Anti-Torture Act
B. The federal War Crimes Act that even as amended by the Military Commissions Act, bans acts such as waterboarding
C. Various federal criminal assault laws that under the PATRIOT Act, apply to all assaults by or against Americans on or in overseas facilities designated for the use of the federal government
D. The McCain Amendment in the Detainee Treatment Act
E. The Senate-ratified Convention Against Torture
F. The Senate-ratified Geneva Conventions (particularly Common Article 3, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees).

Bush himself has admitted he ordered acts contrary to these laws to be carried out.
 
I have to disagree with that. Other countries will do whatever they want regardless of how we treat prisoners. History and not so long ago events tell us that.

The Eastern Front is a good example of what happens when people decide "**** the rules of war, we'll do what we want".
 
They're still subject to US law.


Congress has enacted 4 statutes and also ratified 2 treaties that prohibit torture of all kinds. Period. Any reasonable reading of the statutes clearly show that waterboarding is a crime. It is also considered illegal under both Senate-ratified treaties.
.

If it is truly a crime, why do we do it to our own special forces?

And, if we do it to our own special forces, how can we say it's not permissible to do to our enemies?

Does that make sense?
 
What is the probability that this kiddnapper would actually tell the truth if he was tortured?

I don't know. Perhaps the probability would be low -- but isn't a slight probability that you might save your child's life better than no probability at all?

What would YOU do?
 
Does anyone wonder why type of enemy Sartre faced when he wrote these words? I find judging from the safety of our homes just as appalling as unnecessary interrogation techniques. Be there, know all the facts and circumstances, know all the threats, know all possibilities and tools available before you think you have a right to condemn or condone.
 
Torture is abhorrent, and torture by the US government is illegal in all its permutations. Period. Full stop.
 
If it is truly a crime, why do we do it to our own special forces?

And, if we do it to our own special forces, how can we say it's not permissible to do to our enemies?

Does that make sense?

Not any more sense than your other posts on this topic.

I'm guessing you never served in the military, and therefore do not fully appreciate what military training is all about.

Though not water-boarded, I still remember the old SERE training when I was in, and "Escape & Evasion". The military is big on training, properly so. Training means the trainee accepts how he is trained. He is not being assaulted and battered, he is voluntarily undergoing training.

Actually waterboarding a person without their permission is battery against the person.
 
Let's be clear here -- waterboarding (which the US subjects its own special forces to) is not the same as ripping out fingernails.

I don't know anything about this gal, and I might not like her for other reasons, but just the fact that she followed techniques that were then allowable by law is not a disqualifying factor, in my opinion.

Sorry, defending waterboarding is gross. No it's not the same as ripping fingernails out...ripping fingernails out won't kill you if done incorrectly, for one thing. According to what I was able to find on a quick Wiki search:

Besides death, waterboarding can cause extreme pain, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, and lasting psychological damage.

I'd rather let you have my fingernails.

Make no mistake, waterboarding is a massive stain on America's claim to moral superiority.
 
Sorry, defending waterboarding is gross. No it's not the same as ripping fingernails out...ripping fingernails out won't kill you if done incorrectly, for one thing. According to what I was able to find on a quick Wiki search:



I'd rather let you have my fingernails.

Make no mistake, waterboarding is a massive stain on America's claim to moral superiority.

The definition of "unsubstantiated claim!"
 
Sorry, defending waterboarding is gross. No it's not the same as ripping fingernails out...ripping fingernails out won't kill you if done incorrectly, for one thing. According to what I was able to find on a quick Wiki search:



I'd rather let you have my fingernails.

Make no mistake, waterboarding is a massive stain on America's claim to moral superiority.

It's interesting that you choose that wording, "moral superiority," because morality is subjective.

Let me ask you a question I've asked others here -- but no one has had the guts to answer -- perhaps you'll humor me.

Suppose you have a young daughter and a kidnapper buried her in a box only big enough for her to have enough oxygen to sustain her for, say, 24 hours. The cops catch the kidnapper but he refuses to tell them the location of your child. Would you want to torture him? Or, would you let the hours tick by and let your daughter die?

You see, there is nothing moral about treating your enemy well, when the result of that treatment is the death of your own.

Torture for torture's sake, of course, is unethical. Then, it's just a desire to torture and that says more about the person doing the torturing than anything else. But, if you have a chance to glean information that saves the lives of your family (or countrymen), how ethical is it to allow them to perish because you're focused only on one side of the moral equation?
 
Back
Top Bottom