NowThisIsGoingToHurtALittleBit

OK, I'll admit it: Sullivan is finally wearing me down on the torture issue. Maybe his obsessive streak isn't so bad after all.

I'm not so stridently pro-war that I can't be moved by first-hand reports like this. In fact, it's beginning to feel as if any responsible pro-war advocate would have to find this Administration's weasel-like power plays on the issue disturbing, and quite likely dangerous to the war effort itself. I would certainly rather err on the side of less torture-esque methods of obtaining information if possible. Barring any reasonable proof that things like water-boarding have actually secured life-saving data from prisoners, I'm inclined to find the practice, and those who would champion it, un-American.

Comments

[Kevin (QC)]

Aatom - Sullivan is a total bombast on this issue. Don't fall for his histrionics.

[Michael S]

Aatom, tell Sullivan in your inimitable way that war is not a tea party, and only the winners get to keep the marbles. Does he imagine anyone could get information from these dogs by asking politely?

Ask him how he feels about getting on the London undergorund. Screw nice. Maybe he'd like to visit the hospitals or morgues where they send the remains of those innocents who were blown up by a roadside, or tortured, murdered and dumped.

[scott]

Aatom as a former U.S. Marine who has graduated from S.E.R.E School (Google it, I think you'll find it interesting) I can only tell you what I and every person who attends that school learns on day one and thats simply that torture doesn't work and any information obtained during it's use is completely suspect. There is a reason Aatom that all of the former military people in the Senate oppose its use. And Aatom, "waterboarding" is nothing more than a tarted up version of the famous Chinese Water Torture and it is what the archaic name implies, torture plain and simple and something that we should never do.

[Aatom]

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing wholeheartedly with you on this issue, Scott, and your experience as a dedicated Marine certainly gives you an authority on the matter that most cannot claim. And honestly Kevin, I'm getting a little weary of the argument "Sullivan is a pretentious bore" to counter everything that he says. I'd rather argue the issue without allowing my personal feelings about him get in the way. In other words, I'm open to the idea that he may be wrong sometimes even though I respect his writing immensely and read his site everyday - and I'm also open to the idea that he may be right even when he drills something into the ground to the point where you just want him to shut up for a minute.

[Jason]

Read about the effects of torture, if you haven't already. Understand how it changes not only the one being tortured, but the one performing it as well.

Also, if we are truly modeling our torture techniques after the Soviets then we need to accept the fact that those techniques weren't designed to gather information. Rather they were designed for intimidation and subjugation.

That is, those techniques were used to "allow" people to see how 1 + 1 = 5.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Scott and Jason are correct in that the information obtained during torture is usually relatively useless.

However, what isn't acknowledged is that the threat of torture often produces excellent information and desired compliance. As the old saying goes, you don't actually have to shoot someone to get them to go along with you; most of the time, you just have to convince them that you WILL shoot them if they don't.

The problem being, however, that, unless a threat is occasionally carried out, it loses its effectiveness. Hence the examples of waterboarding and the like.

Abu Ghirab, on the other hand, had nothing to do with information; that was merely an example of the Stanford Prison Experiment at work.