Posts with the tag 'torture'
Can be read here, Torture is a Moral Issue, A Catholic Study Guide (PDF). While I have not considered the document in its entirety, nor spent any long time in contemplation of what it teaches, I’d like to put out a few observations of my own.
In what will surely please the critics of the Bush Adminisration, the document says we must stop using euphemisms in our discussion - no more “enhanced interrorogation” when we really mean something quite harsh. This will please the left - but only up to such time as they actually start thinking about it and realise that this means we’ll also have to stop using “pro-choice” as a euphemism to cover up “pro-abortion”. This is an important thing to keep in mind, because at bottom the issue of torture is a life issue, and thus intrinsic to the whole debate on whether or not human beings have an inherent dignity which must be respected at all times, no matter what the particular human being has done. If we have an inherent dignity then we can’t torture - but we also can’t kill the unborn or, indeed, allow such things as the degradation of pornography to continue unabated (side note: when you start getting into Catholic teaching, dear readers, you’re going to get a lot of things like this: “narrowly focused” is not something which applies to Catholic teaching…the Church isn’t universal for nothin’, ya know?). As a very strong pro-lifer, I have to put myself down, then, as opposed to torture - and this would include the sort of torture which might be used to elicit information on a bomb set to go off.
As we carry on this war against a cruel and wicked foe, we must always conduct ourselves as best we can. Realising that we are fallible humans and, especially, that it is a tricky business to second-guess a soldier in the field, we still must ever strive for the highest standards possible in our conduct. But there are some things to keep in mind:
Irregular combatants are not covered by the Genevea Convention - unless an armed enemy is part of a clearly and immediately identifiable military organization, such a person is liable for a quick court martial and swift execution, all fully in accordance with the Convention. Given this, the fact that we take prisoners at all - and then almost invariably treat them very well while in captivity - is already a sign of our respect for the inherent dignity of those human beings who have chosen terrorism as their means to an end.
While a regular soldier can only be required to state his name, rank and serial number if captured and a civilian law enforcement official is carefully bound by the provisions of the Constitution and long-held US law, an irregular soldier doesn’t really even have a rank or serial number to provide, and to provide lawyers and the full panalopy of US law to captured terrorists is actually unworkable if our goal is to eliminate the terrorist threat. A captures enemy combatant is at our mercy, in a very literal sense.
A captured enemy is still a human and still has an absolute and non-negotiable right to insist that we treat him with the dignity inherent to man and endowed by God - on the other hand, a captured terrorist must not be given a right to remain silent. Once captured, they must tell us all we need to know, or we must in some way compel them to do so. And here we get into that grey area - not really covered in the linked document - of just what is torture. I cannot hold that an act by the interrogator which does no physical harm can be considered torture. Feeling bad about it afterwards isn’t good enough - there has to be a bruise, a broken bone…something, anything to indicate that someone applied brute force to the body of the terrorist. Keeping a terrorist up all night would make him quite exhausted, but it doesn’t actually rise to the level of torture.
The balancing act is to figure out how far we can go, and then work out systems to ensure that we never go any further. Most Democrats are worse than fools in their demands for closure of Gitmo based on flimsy evidence of torture. In the end, we need a prison like Gitmo and we need the ability to ensure that the terrorists give us all the information we require. Providing a statute for the military to work from would be the best idea, but one step at a time - and that first step must be in keeping Gitmo open, and rather unpleasant to be in. But however harsh we might make it and however painful (in a mental sense) interrogations might prove, the dignity of the people incarcerated must be maintained, even for those who accord us no dignity at all.
Tags: Afghan Campaign, Global War on Terrorism, Iraq Campaign, torture
June 28th, 2008
A Muslim girl was murdered by her father, reportedly for her refusal to wear a hijab.
Where is the outrage in the streets from this woman’s sisters at NOW? A perusal of their website denotes no outrage, not even a mention of this story, nor any other story of oppression and/or torture of women at the hands of male Muslim counterparts!
Oh, they’re having a bloody cow over the reinstatement of Don Imus. But of course, calling someone a “nappy-headed ho” is a much more an egregious offense than strangling a girl to death, or mutilating her genitalia. They’re lobbying Congress for “hate crime” legislation, but I’ll bet not one word is said about the hate crimes that are perpetrated daily against their Muslim sisters.
Where are the demonstrations in the streets? Where are the hoardes at U.C. Berkeley who protested the supposed torture practiced by the CIA? (yes, I know that waterboarding is much more heinous than murder and beheading or lifelong subjugation of women)
Where is the outrage on the Left regarding the murder of Aqsa Parvez?
Could it be that there is no political gain or agenda to be advanced in demonstrating against Islamist atrocities? Could it be that the moonbat left has a problem pointing out that which may actually give credence to the reasons behind our war against radical Islam?
Could it be that the suffering of women isn’t really important to them at all?
Could it be that there must be a political payoff before they’ll demonstrate about anything? Or that any outrage that they do display is contrived and calculated to get the maximum political benefit?
Could. It. Be?
Tags: agenda, Extremism, Islam, Liberal hypocrisy, torture
December 19th, 2007
On largely party lines, the Democrat-controlled House voted to outlaw using harsh interrogation methods against terrorists.
I’m sorry, but I can’t understand how they could vote in such a way… Five years ago, Democrats wanted to do whatever was necessary America. Now, as 9/11 has faded from their memories, they’ve decided that scoring short term political points with their extremist base is more important than winning the war on terror.
Oh, Democrats can say that using harsh interrogation techniques is torture, that it harms our efforts to fight terror, or that it puts Americans at risk by angering terrorists… but the only way it can anger terrorists is by exposing our interrogation techniques to the world, by, for instance leaking tapes of interrogations to the media — something that only enraged Democrats, clearly disappointed that they lost an opportunity to put our soldiers at risk by leaking those tapes before they were destroyed.
Tags: CIA, Defeaticrats, defeatism, torture
December 14th, 2007
So, we find out the other day that not only were members of Congress (including Nancy Pelosi) briefed on the interrogation techniques used against capture terrorists, but that they were supportive and some even urged interrogators to “push harder.” Yet, Despite this information, Democrats are still hot and bothered over destroyed interrogation tapes and Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence, is claiming that Democrats were not informed.
Congress summoned CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden to Capitol Hill to explain his agency’s destruction of interrogation videotapes, as multiple investigations began into who knew about and approved the decision.
Hayden is to testify in a closed session Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and on Wednesday before the House Intelligence Committee.
Among the questions he’ll face is whether Congress was notified about the tapes’ destruction. The chairman of the House panel, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said Hayden’s assertion last week that lawmakers were informed “does not appear to be true.”
According to the Washington Post article “Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support.” So, obviously, there’s not denial that a briefing occurred, it’s just the memory game… pseudo-denials by claiming they don’t recall what was discussed, or just not commenting.
I think the Democrats need to be pressed on this. Obviously at one point they were more interested in doing what was necessary to protect this country. Unfortunately now, it’s just politics.
Tags: CIA, Iraq Campaign, liberal lies, Michael Hayden, Nancy Pelosi, Obama Deceptions, Silvestre Reyes, torture
December 11th, 2007
This story from the Washington Post clearly proves how today’s objections to waterboarding, particularly from Congressional Democrats, is purely political grandstanding. When briefed on the interrogation techniques used against captured terrorists, the reaction from those in the room “was not just approval, but encouragement.” Even current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was there and “did not raise objections at the time.”
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
[...]
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”
And where does this newfound disapproval come from? The answer is obvious, and I’ve been saying it for a long time. Democrats have forgotten 9/11 and the lessons they should have learned from it.
“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.’ ”
Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 — by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding — did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey’s confirmation hearings for attorney general.
This article also proves that Republican lawmakers were speaking truthfully when they said members of Congress had been fully briefed on the interrogation methods used against captured and suspected terrorists. Opposition to the practice makes for good political theatre when trying to make a spectacle of Mukasy’s confirmation hearings, or what is bound to happen over the issue of the destroyed CIA interrogation tapes. The bottom line is this: Democrats knew about waterboarding and supported it. Their opposition to it today comes from their desire to further politicize the war on terror, and undermine our national security.
Tags: flip-flopping, Global War on Terrorism, Iraq Campaign, Mukasey, Nancy Pelosi, Obama Deceptions, partisan, torture
December 9th, 2007
If Democrats were as interested in fighting the war on terror as there are interested in protecting the so-called rights and civil liberties of terrorists then I’d be a lot more confident in the outcome of the war on terror. But instead, Democrats use these alleged civil liberties issues to undermine President Bush and the war on terror.
So, my first reaction when I heard about these interrogation tapes that were destroyed I thought “Good, now we don’t have to worry about some Democrat leaking the video.” I mean, imagine the outrage if liberals across America saw that a terrorist was being interrogated in a room that was below room temperature, or was wearing prison clothes that wasn’t 100% cotton, or some other horrible torture like that.
Democrats predictably called for an investigation.
The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects - including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in CIA custody - to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said.
“But that excuse won’t wash,” Senator Kennedy said Friday. “Does the director believe the CIA’s buildings are not secure? Would it be beyond the agency’s technical expertise to preserve the tapes while hiding the identity of its employees? Does the director believe that the CIA’s employees cannot be trusted not to leak materials that might harm the agency?
Of course they can’t… and why should they? Does Teddy forget all the other examples of intelligence leaks in the past few years? Does he forget the infamous “Rockefeller Memo” which outlined a strategy for politicizing pre-war intelligence on Iraq? Or how about the secret “black ops” CIA satellite program leaked by Senators Rockefeller, Durbin and Wyden that severely compromised national security? Does Teddy also forget the leak of the NSA terrorist surveillance program? The Democrats have shown previous interest in politicizing intelligence and leaking classified information, both of which severely undermine the war on terror, that my only conclusion from the Democrats’ reaction to this story about the destroyed tapes is that they are furious they didn’t get to leak them first.
Tags: Defeaticrats, Global War on Terrorism, Iraq Campaign, leaks, President Bush, torture
December 8th, 2007
Looks like Democrats are trying to make waterboarding an issue in the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. Democrats want him to condemn waterboarding as torture.But, waterboarding is not torture, and I have no idea why Democrats want terrorists to be coddled, not interrogated. A friend of mine who served in the U.S. Navy gave me some firsthand information about the experience of waterboarding.
I was waterboarded during SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) Training as a new Naval Aviator prior to reporting to my first squadron. The purpose of this training was to prepare naval aviators for what they may experience if captured during a time of war. This training was based on the experiences of Naval Aviators and others who had been prisoners during the Viet Nam War. Mr. Mukasey is correct in his assertion that stating what types of interrogation techniques we will or will not employ, allows the enemy to prepare for these interrogation during their training.
So, torture or not torture? He explained:
Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was subjected to this interrogation technique and was able to resist much longer than would have been expected from an individual who had not been trained to resist waterboarding. This is an indication that our enemies are being prepared for the possibility of being captured.
So, not only are Democrats insisting that we no longer use waterboarding as an interrogation technique with captured terrorists, they want Mukasey to spell out what kind of interrogation techniques we would use, which is useful information for terrorists in their training so they are prepared for such techniques in the event they are captured.Whose side are the Democrats on anyway? They don’t want us monitoring terrorist phone calls, they don’t want to properly interrogate them, but they do want to inform terrorists of how we listen to them and what kind of interrogation techniques they should prepare for.
Tags: Iraq Campaign, Mukasey, torture
November 9th, 2007
