Clinton joins the chorus of the damned
Sep. 21st, 2006 11:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThis morning I heard him on the radio, when asked about torture he waffled, said it might be needful sometimes.
He bought into the ticking bomb.
1: We have Osama bin Laden's right hand man (would this be the "Number Two Man of Al Qaeda, number "x"?) in custody.
2: We know a bomb is going of, in a major city, within 24-72 hours.
3: We know he knows where it is.
4: Only "coercive" means can extract the info.
Sigh. First, if we know all that, we can find the bomb by other means (because if we know, really know all that) then we got it from other means (because evidence obtained from torture has to be confirmed by other means before we can call it intel).
Second, there's no way to know the answers he gives are true (even if we use, as Clinton included in coercive methods, "lots of drugs,"), so it will take a fair bit of work to check the stories out.
Third, if the evidence we have is off, the answers we get will be wrong (say the bomb is in "Washington" and the interrogator thinks it to be D.C., the torture will be geared to extracting where in D.C. the bomb is. When the guy says it's in the Capitol, much effort will go into searching the Capitol building, and Seattle will blow up).
Fourth, this just doesn't happen.
Fifth (and this is the part which is hardest to get across to people, because seems; somehow, counter-intuitive) torture doesn't work.
Maher Arar confessed to travelling to Afghanistan, to study jihad. Only one problem, he didn't study jihad in Afghanistan, because he never went to Afghanistan in the first place.
Dilawar didn't know anything. His interrogator was convinced he did. Dilawar was therefore beaten to death (that's the charitable spin, the less charitable is that the interrogator just though Dilawar wasn't responding right/disrespectful, and so he was beaten to death).
That's two examples. We don't know how many more there are like that. We don't know how many false leads, blind alleys and wasted efforts are the fruit of people who "confessed" to things they didn't do, or about things they didn't know.
We can't know how may people are dead because of bad info leading to corrupted intel.
As much as good things go, Clinton, at least, wants to limit it to warrants (he said in this case the people who needed to "coerce" the truth out of Al Qaeda's number 2, should be able to go to the FISA Court and get approval), or to a justification defense; when they were tried for it.
Yippee.
If we allow the "ticking bomb" we will come to decide that anyone might be a step in the chain, and so deserves to be at the end of the swinging fist.
Abuse, beatings, and the like, should not be part of the price of being suspected (or accused; think of the possibilties for revenge. Calling the cops and saying someone sells drugs out of the house will get the house tossed, they may even be arrested, but that's [usually] where it stops. Being accused of "terrorism" will be so much more effective, because there isn't need for evidence; a case can be made that lack of evidence is evidence of being a part of a "sleeper cell" because they get trained to avoid leaving signs, then they just disappear).
If these are things we prohibit as punishment, how can we allow them as non-punishment?
For this, Clinton deserves censure.
He bought into the ticking bomb.
1: We have Osama bin Laden's right hand man (would this be the "Number Two Man of Al Qaeda, number "x"?) in custody.
2: We know a bomb is going of, in a major city, within 24-72 hours.
3: We know he knows where it is.
4: Only "coercive" means can extract the info.
Sigh. First, if we know all that, we can find the bomb by other means (because if we know, really know all that) then we got it from other means (because evidence obtained from torture has to be confirmed by other means before we can call it intel).
Second, there's no way to know the answers he gives are true (even if we use, as Clinton included in coercive methods, "lots of drugs,"), so it will take a fair bit of work to check the stories out.
Third, if the evidence we have is off, the answers we get will be wrong (say the bomb is in "Washington" and the interrogator thinks it to be D.C., the torture will be geared to extracting where in D.C. the bomb is. When the guy says it's in the Capitol, much effort will go into searching the Capitol building, and Seattle will blow up).
Fourth, this just doesn't happen.
Fifth (and this is the part which is hardest to get across to people, because seems; somehow, counter-intuitive) torture doesn't work.
Maher Arar confessed to travelling to Afghanistan, to study jihad. Only one problem, he didn't study jihad in Afghanistan, because he never went to Afghanistan in the first place.
Dilawar didn't know anything. His interrogator was convinced he did. Dilawar was therefore beaten to death (that's the charitable spin, the less charitable is that the interrogator just though Dilawar wasn't responding right/disrespectful, and so he was beaten to death).
That's two examples. We don't know how many more there are like that. We don't know how many false leads, blind alleys and wasted efforts are the fruit of people who "confessed" to things they didn't do, or about things they didn't know.
We can't know how may people are dead because of bad info leading to corrupted intel.
As much as good things go, Clinton, at least, wants to limit it to warrants (he said in this case the people who needed to "coerce" the truth out of Al Qaeda's number 2, should be able to go to the FISA Court and get approval), or to a justification defense; when they were tried for it.
Yippee.
If we allow the "ticking bomb" we will come to decide that anyone might be a step in the chain, and so deserves to be at the end of the swinging fist.
Abuse, beatings, and the like, should not be part of the price of being suspected (or accused; think of the possibilties for revenge. Calling the cops and saying someone sells drugs out of the house will get the house tossed, they may even be arrested, but that's [usually] where it stops. Being accused of "terrorism" will be so much more effective, because there isn't need for evidence; a case can be made that lack of evidence is evidence of being a part of a "sleeper cell" because they get trained to avoid leaving signs, then they just disappear).
If these are things we prohibit as punishment, how can we allow them as non-punishment?
For this, Clinton deserves censure.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-22 03:04 am (UTC)I got a laywer with me. You're gonna break my balls all you want, and then you're gonna send me back downstairs, and I'm gonna watch some tv and eat dinner. Suck my cock occifer. And put THAT on your fucking statement. "Two days I'm in front of the judge. I have no idea what you're talking about."
I know about interrogations from the other side.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-22 03:22 am (UTC)Yep, and you aren't a POW, and you will be let go, or charged when the whole thing is done. Odds are you get bail. You aren't going to be subject to any of the things you say aren't torture (and that's because they are, justly, illegal).
I've been there. Felony rap. I've also been on the other side of military interrogation.
It's not the same.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-09-22 03:53 am (UTC)Start tearing my fingernails out and drowning me. Burn me with fire. "DUDE THE PEOPLE YOU SAW WITH ME WAS MY LAWYER!"
Torture is fucked up.
At the same time though, sweatin' someone isn't torture. A few missed meals ain't hurtin' nobody. A little time in a room that's fifty something degrees, it's uncomfortable, but that's not torture by any means, right? That's what I mean by define torture. I haven't read what got passed today, or agreed upon (was it passed? I was at work). I do know that a lot of what some people call torture to me seems like pretty typical police bullshit. Be it military intelligence, city detectives, or county deputies. I also know that to some degree it is effective, especially with more serious offenses and mid to high level guys that have a whole lot more to lose with going to prison. Sometimes they just need a little coercion before they cooperate.
I've no problem with only offering a Muslim ham and cheese until he says something useful, and then he can have all the sheep he wants to eat.
Let's talk, "fucked up."
Date: 2006-09-22 07:32 am (UTC)"Dude I've been arrested countless times. I've spent DAYS in interrogation rooms. And I didn't say shit."
and,
"At the same time though, sweatin' someone isn't torture."
Here's the bad news: You just said that sweatin' didn't result in you saying shit. On the other hand, you also say,
"Put someone in a cold room --not hypothermia, just fucking cold-- and don't talk to them at all for a few days. Just stick a bottle of water in every 12 hours. They're ready to talk."
OK... So, here's the thing. Presumably, this has been done to you. Or else you wouldn't be wasting our time, right? Yet, as you say, you didn't say shit.
So... Do you really believe you're the biggest bad-ass in the world, and even though it didn't work on you, it works on everyone else?
Strangely, I'm of the opinion that someone sufficiently motivated to be a terrorist -- foreign or domestic -- is probably also motivated to be just as contemptuous of "sweatin'" as you are.
Even you agree that balls-out torture doesn't work in getting anything accurate. It's just a question of degree, as far as I can tell from what you're saying.
The whole, "define terrorism," thing you're offering is bullshit. If it wouldn't -- hasn't, right? -- worked on you, regardless of definition, why do you believe it'll work on the next guy?
Or you could grow up, and admit you're either a) not the biggest bad-ass on the planet, or b) that you're contradicting just for the sake of contradicting, and you don't really believe this crap. (Here's a hint: admitting all your time in police rooms helps in the "I alone escaped to tell thee," part, but doesn't do such great things on the honesty and credibility front.)
Re: Let's talk, "fucked up."
Date: 2006-09-22 08:03 pm (UTC)OTOH a big time guy, say--Khalid Muhammed-- well he's totally screwed if he goes to jail. He's NEVER getting out. In fact, he might just get executed. So what's the problem with pointing all that out to him, over and over, and then lettin' him think about it while he's cold and hungry? And maybe even piping it over an intercom the whole time.
Is that torture?
I didn't say define terrorism. I said define torture.
It's a slippery slope, on both sides of the hill. Because while we could come up with some real lax definition, and the occaisional growling dog starts off as okay, and then it becomes biting dog, then it becomes getting shocked while a dog bites you while you're having spikes driven into your feet posing naked and losing control of your bowels on the Koran.
The flip side is also a lax definition. One that gets stronger over time because of whatever. Sleeping on a two inch thick mattress is torture. Only one pillow is torture. Not having a thermostat is torture. Wearing a jumpsuiut is torture. No television? Oh it's fucking torture!
Re: Let's talk, "fucked up."
Date: 2006-09-22 08:12 pm (UTC)It's very simple.
Any physical or mental coercion.
Full stop. Any.
So the cold room, out of bounds.
The standing up for hours, out of bounds.
Feeding him food against his religion, out of bounds
Slapping him around,just a little, out of bounds
Telling him his family will never know where he is, out of bounds.
Not feeding him as the troops of the detaining power, out of bounds.
It is just that simple.
And it has the advantage of being both morally right, and working.
TK
Let's talk, "coercion."
Date: 2006-09-22 09:19 pm (UTC)Do those count as mental coercion?
Re: Let's talk, "coercion."
Date: 2006-09-23 05:44 pm (UTC)Re: Let's talk, "fucked up."
Date: 2006-09-22 11:56 pm (UTC)Everything you just said was just another variation of, "Hey, it wouldn't work on me, but I'm sure it'll work on the next guy."
The question remains: If it doesn't work on you, why should it work on the next guy? And the follow up is, Why waste our time and our honor on methods that don't work?
Re: Let's talk, "fucked up."
Date: 2006-09-23 05:37 pm (UTC)Read it again, slowly, perhaps aloud--often when I'm reading and trying to "get" something I read aloud to make sure it sticks--and then tell me again what you're trying to say.