Article

2007-09-14 Home Front: WoT

How the CIA broke Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-09-14 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 Thought they plucked him in the middle of the night. He was wearing a tux then was he?

Posted by Iblis">Iblis 2007-09-14 00:39|| 2007-09-14 00:39|| Front Page Top

#2 "Using torture says that we aren't any better than countries that historically tortured people. What are we telling the world about the United States?"

OK, answer me two questions: Why does the US us "torture"? When you're done wringing your hands over that one, please tell me why terrorists use torture?

See the difference?

Now for a question that's been bugging me for some time: How does KSM know where to stop shaving?

Posted by gorb 2007-09-14 02:26|| 2007-09-14 02:26|| Front Page Top

#3 Kill 3ooo people, you have the right to be tortUred

Posted by Boss Craising2882 2007-09-14 02:41|| 2007-09-14 02:41|| Front Page Top

#4 Sorry, Mr. Garrett, it's not about you, or your moral narcissism, or their extension - what "others think" about the US. It's about results.

Look, there's a large German industrial city. Go destroy it and kill many of its inhabitants, tomorrow, that's an order. OK.

Look, there are several million Japanese civilians who must be killed by bombing to break the Jap war machine and system. OK.

And the nation that did those things, Mr. Garrett, founded the UN, fought and defeated totalitarianism in various forms, invented human rights as an international cause, liberated millions and provided the spark of hope to many millions more, went to the moon, invented information technology and communications that changed lives everywhere, broke down the barriers of feudal and other dead-end economic systems, invented and to this day is the driving force behind humanitarian relief - and that's just a sampling. All of it by the same nation that slaughtered millions of civilians, rightly, and without hesitation, to serve the greater good for all concerned.

Mr. Garrett, did you know that one of the victims of the Abu Ghraib abuse (was it 4 or 5 hours on one night, I can't recall - oh, and some scary dog sessions, call Robert Conquest and Solzhenitsyn, they'll have to junk everything they've written and recalibrate their moral-historical scales to include this galactic barbarism that stretched over a couple of days and harmed no one), a Shi'ite Iraqi, had expressed a desire to immigrate to the US following his release? Hmmm - what to make of that, Mr. Garrett? Guess that even he has the ability to reason. An actual VICTIM of the horrible Americans whose fondest desire in the aftermath was to .... become an American.

If poorly educated Iraqi Shi'ites caught up in a detention operation can reason so clearly about America's moral character, Mr. Garrett, why can't people like you? NOT a rhetorical question.

Moral narcissism is contemptible in its own right. It is altogether more despicable when it's merely a cheap shield to protect one from the pressures and responsibilities of making moral decisions and choices. Just as an enemy combatant can be shot down on sight in war, without any due process or rights whatsoever, illegal combatants who may pose threats to large numbers of non-combatants can be treated any way that removes that threat. Common sense.

Garrett and Co. should take their moral narcissism and focus it on some exruciating ethical dilemmas like embryonic stem cells. Their histrionics concerning interrogation of terrorists are vapid and unimpressive. (Sorry, Sen. McCain, so are yours - "moral authority" is an inherently fallacious concept, as principles are above and apart from people, but to equate abuse intended to produce propaganda value from legitimate uniformed POWs and attempts to extract operational info from mass murdering terrorist illegal combatants is either plain stupid or calls into question your good faith).

Apologies for the .... uh, well, see title of website.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-09-14 02:43|| 2007-09-14 02:43|| Front Page Top

#5 YNETNEWS > US deletes parts of Mohammed interrogation/interview due to propaganda value.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-09-14 03:07|| 2007-09-14 03:07|| Front Page Top

#6 Using torture says that we aren't any better than countries that historically tortured people.

This is the very worst sort of moral relativism. I'll be the first to go on record as defying such nonsense. America has the finest track record in all history of treating its prisoners of war in a humane fashion. I could care less that "water-boarding" may well even represent some sort of torture.

The fate of modern civilization is at stake and its salvation does not hinge upon whether some incredibly evil people suffer in the process of preserving it.

Cast reciprocity aside, for one surely knows that Islam willingly exceed honor's boundaries at the drop of a hat. Cast aside all notions of individual rights or common decency because these things simply do not exist for our enemy. Cast aside all concept of humanity because this is exactly what we are fighting: Namely, the single most inhumane and malignant entity known to modern man.

If we are not willing to discard all previous known restraints, we may well become the victim of our own humanity. Islam does not flinch at perverting the very finest concepts of dignity and courtesy into weapons to be turned against us without a moment's hesitation.

Welcome to the ultimate betrayal of all integrity. It's name is taqiyya and it marches under the banner of Islam. This one single tactic epitomizes the core of deceit and treachery that all Muslims willingly resort to in their attempt at overturning a millennia of Western progress.

Does anyone sincerely think that we are at risk of losing our souls in defending ourselveswith any means possibleagainst those who seek to reverse the dearly won results of a thousand years' struggle against barbarism?

This foe is so vile that there is no possible way for Western civilization to sink lower than Islam in our efforts to defeat it.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 05:28|| 2007-09-14 05:28|| Front Page Top

#7 Absolutely superb post, Verlaine.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 05:34|| 2007-09-14 05:34|| Front Page Top

#8 I guess I'm going to be the far outlier in this Rantburg bell curve. I find the tactic of waterboarding, and the discussion that has sprung from it above, quite odious.

Waterboarding is not just "a professional interrogation technique", as the government describes it. It's torture. I find it abhorrent.

I live in Tallinn, about two blocks from the former KGB "interrogation" house. Waterboarding was a preferred sport of Stalin's goons.

They liked to loosen up "enemies of the people" by putting them in a room where you had to stand on a platform for days. The platform was about the size of a stool. The area around the platform was surrounded by cold water. Fall off the platform, and you get soaked. Then you got the waterboarding afterwards.

So I guess, definitionally, since waterboarding isn't torture, neither is the cold room.

But it's not about what people think, right? -- it's about "results." People that kill 3000 deserve what they get, after all.

I can't sign up for that. Instead, I accept the word of John McCain, who says it's torture. I decided in 2000 that I would never vote for the man, but I honor his service. I think he might -- just might -- have more of an insight into the difference between 'interrogation techniques' and 'torture' than some of the keyboard warriors of Rantburg.

Shiat, even the Israelis don't do this. They're under a hell of a lot more "ticking bomb" scenarios than we are, and they've found it counterproductive. My citation is Mark Bowden's excellent article "The Dark Art of Interrogation" in the Oct. 2003 Atlantic Monthly. You have to be a subscriber to get the entire article, but this is the start: Bowden
They've found many ways to psychologically co-opt their sworn enemies. And none of them involve physical violence of any sort.

Don't get me wrong. I don't cry for KSM. He is human vermin. I do a happy dance every time I think about him rotting in Colorado's SuperMax.

But we need to be better than some of this medieval shiat. At best, like with KSM, we get pretty good stuff (although it's been suggested that he was lying when he said he was involved with Pearl's death), and then we get the "not so best", like Abu Ghraib.

IMO, living outside the U.S., there has not been one more single, destructive event in world opinion regarding Iraq than that one. You invade a country without them crossing the border, you better damn well have the moral high ground. Abu Ghraib is when we lost it. And we're still struggling to get back to where we were before.

We are the farkin' USA (Hell, yeah), dammit. We're better than this shiat.

/End Rant
//Flame-retardant suit on
///agree with Steve - The wife-beater hair-mussed agitprop is the best detail of this article. That's how you win the propaganda war ...

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2007-09-14 05:52|| 2007-09-14 05:52|| Front Page Top

#9 This foe is so vile that there is no possible way for Western civilization to sink lower than Islam in our efforts to defeat it.

No. You're dead wrong on that, Zen. Dead wrong.

Any civilization, any culture, any person can, if they rationalize it, justify actions that sink lower and lower over time. Any one.

Many years ago my father, whose family suffered greatly under the Communists, told me, "It could happen here too, if people start telling themselves that their cause is so important it trumps all moral issues."

Many years later, having seen it in some places, I realize how wise he was. The Soviets practiced hideous torture on political enemies, including the deliberate use of drugs to drive people mad, then letting the person go through horrid withdrawl only to start it up again.... And that doesn't count the physical tortures.

The Nazi horrors need little recounting.

But maybe it's worth remembering what has happened in the jungles of Columbia/Venezuela under FARC, or in the cocaine gangs in Mexico, or what the IRA did again and again in Ireland.

Islamcism needs squashing, hard. Their combination of fundamentalist fanaticism combined with tribal practices is particularly hideous.

But you make a fatal mistake if you think that there couldn't ever be the same degree of barbarism in the West. It's not all that long since a Queen of England applauded merrily while watching William Wallace be drawn and quartered while alive. Or since the burning of heretics at the stake in Europe. Or since the brutal and often fatal shipments of slaves to America.

That it HASN'T happened here - yet, at any rate - is due to a lot of people walking a knife's edge balancing morality with a desire to protect us.

Many of them never sleep well afterwards - which is how it should be.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-14 06:19|| 2007-09-14 06:19|| Front Page Top

#10 You're dead wrong on that, Zen. Dead wrong.

I sincerely believe that you underestimate just how incredibly evil Islam is, lotp. I also believe that you overestimate the fragility of America's inherent decency. Do you honestly believe that we could ever permanently descend to Islam's current level of inhumanity in the effort to defeat it? If so, I will venture that you have a niggardly estimation of just how durable and substantial America's core values are. Thank goodness we live in a country where we can agree to disagree.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 06:38|| 2007-09-14 06:38|| Front Page Top

#11 The Abu Ghraib humiliations never bothered me. Dehumanization serves to induce moral ambiguity in the subject, causing them to break off loyalties. However, I am with the civil libertarians as far as keeping conditioned evidence out of the courts.

Posted by McZoid 2007-09-14 06:48|| 2007-09-14 06:48|| Front Page Top

#12 No, I don't underestimate Islamicism. I've been in the Middle East.

Do I think we are at that point of vileness? No.

Do I believe that there is no possible way for Western civilization to sink lower than Islam in our efforts to defeat it?

No - I think that is an incredibly naive and dangerous thought to comfort yourself with.

My Israeli friends agree - men and women who have fought for Israel's survival over many long years.

My friends in the intel world agree too. And those in law enforcement. And so too the soldiers I've talked to who have been on patrol in Ramadi, Fallujah, Kandahar. Who've called in air strikes on houses where they knew there were children. Who've had to make an instantaneous decision about whether to shoot or not, risking the possible death of US soldiers or the possible murder of innocents. And yes, there are innocents in the Muslim world.

Zen, you tend to see things in black and white. It's comforting to try to make sense of the world that way. All well and good for rallying the keyboard troops here at the Burg.

But in the real world, real men and women have to find their way through situations where the facts aren't nearly so clear as the online crowd imagines. And where the struggle to both be effective and to save their own souls and self respect is an ongoing one.

You do them ill justice if you fail to realize that part of what makes this society worth defending is the service of those who are willing to take on that hugely difficult balancing act during unconventional warfare and the long civilizational struggle.

The rise of a group convinced that their cause justifies murder, torture, intimidation: it could happen here. We're not close to it. And it's true that PC tactics on the left are making the balancing act harder and harder to manage.

But don't kid yourself that we could not see the rise of such a movement here at some point in the future.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-14 06:59|| 2007-09-14 06:59|| Front Page Top

#13 Although lotp addresses the concerns of the people "in the room", and I'm more about the top-down "what is permissible" -- I couldn't agree more.

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2007-09-14 07:13|| 2007-09-14 07:13|| Front Page Top

#14 Fuck him, too bad they didn't pull his finger nails off. If he's given up all the intel he has, then I want to know when his execution is.

Posted by JerseyMike 2007-09-14 07:46|| 2007-09-14 07:46|| Front Page Top

#15 In a war like this we need ways to get information from uncooperative subjects. And often we need it quickly. Ice cream sundaes aren't going to do it.
Having never endured it I don't understand why waterboarding works, but apparantly it does. It also seems to do so without causing lasting physical damage. This seems to distinguish it from most other practices we call torture (electric drills through the kneecaps etc.) I don't LIKE using it, but if it works, and works better than other techniques, I would do it.
If there was some drug that worked better I'd use it, and no doubt be castigated for it. (Of course neurologic drugs often cause permanent and/or recurring psychological damage - not that one could tell, with these guys.)
To me the problem is not the specific use of the waterboard technique, but the likelihood its use will become something casual, and its practitioners will become damaged themselves.
All that said, how is it that we find out about this stuff? And how much of what we find out is truth and how much is disinformation? If I wanted to improve my interrogation efficiency, I think I might want to spread the word that I had a technique that would terrify, that would cause even the strongest to crack in minutes, and that would be undetectable later - make the prisoners both fear the possibility and be encouraged to talk without using it because no one could resist in the end anyway.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-09-14 07:55|| 2007-09-14 07:55|| Front Page Top

#16 I predict that Mizzou Mafia will be banned from Rantburg by the end of this year.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-09-14 08:59|| 2007-09-14 08:59|| Front Page Top

#17 Why, MikeS?
I thought we liked reasoned discourse here, even if we were not always in agreement.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-09-14 09:09|| 2007-09-14 09:09|| Front Page Top

#18 From Just and Unjust Wars, one of several books discussed in the ethics classes at West Point:

The world of necessity is generated by a conflict between collective survival and human rights ... Thomas Nagel has described our situation at such a time in terms of a conflict between utilitarian and absoutist modes of thought: we know that there are some outcomes that must be avoided at all costs, and we know that there are some costs that can never rightly be paid.

We must face the possibility, Nagel argues, "that these two forms of moral intuition are not capable of being brought together into a single, coherent moral system, and that the world can present us with situations in which there is no honorable or moral course for a man to take, no course free of guilt and responsibility for evil."

I (ed. the author, David Warren) have tried to avoid the stark indeterminacy of that description by suggesting that political leaders can hardly help but choose the utilitarian side of the dilemna. That is what they are there for. They must opt for collective survival and override those rights that have suddenly loomed as obstacles to survival.

But I do not want to say, any more than Nagel does, that they are free of guilt when they do that. Were there no guilt involved, the decisions they make would be less agonizing than they are.

And they can only prove their honor by accepting responsibility for those decisions and by living out the agony. A moral theory that made their life easier, or that concealed their dilemna from the rest of us, might achieve greater coherence but it would miss or repress the reality of war.

Warren was looking back at the firebombings of Dresden, at Hiroshima and at My Lai when he wrote that, but it's applicable today as well IMO.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-14 09:22|| 2007-09-14 09:22|| Front Page Top

#19 Mizzou doesn't need censoring - he has every right to present a different perspective. You all think we can win this thing with a one-way only approach? I agree with McCain about torture. Anyone who has gone through advanced SERE school (especially the R part) knows what I mean. This is purely CIA conventional wisdom. None of these guys spent 6 years being systematically tortured (I mean real physical torture) and still not given up the ghost. McCain and his fellow POW's did and survived and stayed honorable. They were strong - KSM was and is weak. You have to be weak to be an AQ type to begin with. Yeah, you can be clever and ruthless but that doesn't mean you are strong and resistant. I still say you can break these guys without torture but you can demonstrate it to them, show them what is in wait for them, etc. It may take a little time but torture never works on a strong determined patriot like McCain and it sure is not necessary for a scumbag like KSM and his ilk.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2007-09-14 09:31|| 2007-09-14 09:31|| Front Page Top

#20 Mr Mizzou Maffia

I was born in a land where terrorists didn't doubt a second in implaing babies like me, in machinegunning mery-go-rounds the kind I went there years later, to detonate bombs in front of schols and kindergartens like the one I assisted to or in trying to blow school busses (the kind, I fortunately didn't use because I lived close to school). I would probably be dead if some people hadn't thought that protecting babies from being killed was more important than being chivalrous with people who had no sense not merely of chivalry but of common decency.

So Mr Mizzou Maffia I suugest you go to a jihadist site and preach them about Genava conventions (BTW Geneva Conventions are based on reciprocity: if you violate them then the nenemy is no longer restrained), torture and so on instead of trying to tie the hands of the good guys. In the interim I suggest you put your moralistic speech where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-09-14 09:45|| 2007-09-14 09:45|| Front Page Top

#21 Methinks somebody is trying to drive the first ~~Spike~~ nail in Mizzous coffin, for some reason.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-09-14 09:53|| 2007-09-14 09:53|| Front Page Top

#22 Jack is Back said:

It may take a little time but torture never works on a strong determined patriot like McCain and it sure is not necessary for a scumbag like KSM and his ilk.

Only problem is that while you take your time, bombs are exploding, complices are escaping and innocents are dying.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-09-14 10:02|| 2007-09-14 10:02|| Front Page Top

#23 JFM:

Point to one instance where we had someone with prior knowledge and something bad happened because we did not torture the thruth out of them? Just one. Names, dates and event is all I want.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2007-09-14 10:39|| 2007-09-14 10:39|| Front Page Top

#24 The Clinton administration comes to mind.
The murder and coverup of Vincent Foster.
The murder and coverup of Ron Brown.
I'm not going on, but I would require their passing a water board inquiry before I vote for a democrat.

Posted by wxjames 2007-09-14 11:01|| 2007-09-14 11:01|| Front Page Top

#25 But in the real world, real men and women have to find their way through situations where the facts aren't nearly so clear as the online crowd imagines. And where the struggle to both be effective and to save their own souls and self respect is an ongoing one.

Please do not think for one second that I have no appreciation for their efforts and sacrifices. If their experience dictates other than my perceptions I will certainly reconsider what I believe.

You do them ill justice if you fail to realize that part of what makes this society worth defending is the service of those who are willing to take on that hugely difficult balancing act during unconventional warfare and the long civilizational struggle.

Every single soldier and citizen is supposed to be guided by their own conscience and rationality as they pick their way through this moral minefield. I have no desire to undermine our military's efficacy or the public's ability to contribute constructively.

The rise of a group convinced that their cause justifies murder, torture, intimidation: it could happen here. We're not close to it.

I'm really glad you think so, as do I.

And it's true that PC tactics on the left are making the balancing act harder and harder to manage.

Here you get to the crux of the matter. Politically Correct thinkingand the Multicultural poison that it is usually handmaiden tois far more likely to summon forth abject cruelty and viciousness than even the most hawkish elements of our society.

Cultural relativism and morral equivalency continue to fetter our military's appropriate role in vanquishing this nation's enemies. It is this dawdling about that best guarantees a descent into barbarity. As we delayout of misplaced humanity where none is forthcoming in returnall that this self-imposed interregnum serves to do is increase the butcher's bill.

Senator McCain experienced torture at a level of savagery that I have no intention of supporting. Nowhere do we need to mix small white pebbles into cooked rice so that POWs would crack their teeth if they ate normally. Nowhere do we need to coerce POWs or detainees to assist in the manufacture of propaganda against their home country. Nowhere do we need to impose deprivation and intense suffering brought on by untreated disease and malnutrition. Most especially, nowhere do we need to apply such intensely vicious measures across the board as did the Viet Cong. It is precisely that sort of inhumanity we are fighting.

That in no way prohibits us from applying excruciating force or coercion against key terrorist operatives in the pursuit of organizational information or pending attacks. There is a huge difference between these two approaches and little risk of one blurring into the other.

As Wafa Sultan noted, we are not engaged in a clash of religions or civilizations but are instead battling against a mentality that is more at home in the Middle Ages. Victory is not an option, it is the only way civilization is going to survive.

While I continue to hope that the West's population obtains some moral clarity from our excessively humane efforts at containing Islam, none appears to be forthcoming. There seems to be an almost willful aversion to this clarity. Consider the North Carolina principal who banned all flagseven the Stars and Stripesat school on 9-11 so that educators would not be forced to pick one flag over another. So it appears with much of the West. Rather than exercise reason in the comparison of Islam and modern progressive culturea task that quickly polarizes perceptionsthey would simply prohibit all discussion of the matter as if that avoidance somehow constitutes problem-solving.

This is precisely what will increase the use of torture. Prevented from applying conventional military force, Islam's asymmetric assault upon the West will require less and less conventional means to combat it. If we were making the necessary inroads against Islam's power structure, I would not be typing these words.

Instead, out of an erroneous delicacy and completely mistaken sense of ownership in terms of who should be putting Islam's house in order, we are hastening ever more horrendous atrocities. Were we to have the courage to begin targeted killings of Islam's clerical, academic and financial elite it would obviate almost all need for torture. Instead, we so severely constrain ourselves that intelligence becomes of monumental importance because so many other measures intentionally are made unavailable.

Nothing could be more clear than the need to permanently eradicate political Islam in its most prominent form: Islamic theocracy. That we continue to countenance shari'a law and turn a blind eye to its manifold abuse of human rights represents signal failure in comprehending the threat we face. It is this continued refusal to confront reality that will drive the use of or need for torture.

Until we overcome this wholly inappropriate squeamishness I'll merely paraphrase Dennis Miller:

If defeating Islam requires hooking up known terrorists to car batteries, I have only two things to say:

Red is positive and black is negative.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 11:35|| 2007-09-14 11:35|| Front Page Top

#26 I've been on record before about this, and I posted the article because I thought it was interesting. I shouldn't be surprised that we rekindled a debate.

For the record, Mike S., Mizzou Mafia is nowhere close to being banned. He presents a viewpoint that I, for one, agree with. I'm with lotp and Jack: torture is wrong, it's always wrong, and we shouldn't do it.

Jack makes a great point about our hero-soldier-warriors like Mr. McCain, Adm. Stockdale, Col. Day and others who resisted torture, at great personal cost, precisely because they had the honor and moral strength that KSM lacks. Thanks for that observation, Jack, it had slipped by me.

As to waterboarding, it's on the borderline between torture and just rough treatment (my opinion), and I'm not sure what to do about it.

Now then, Zenster: while you have many interesting observations, you've been consistently wrong on this one point. It's not necessary for us to sink to the same level of barbarity as Islam, and indeed, it would be catastrophically counter-productive.

Please read the many milblogs about how the average Iraqi man, woman and (especially) child respects American soldiers. Ask yourself why. I have the answer: it's because we treat them decently. Even when we know there are scoundrels and terrorists amongst them, we treat the average person decently. We gather evidence. We treat people as though they have human rights. We're patient. We don't torture people.

While the average Dhimmicrat can't see the difference, the average Iraqi can. They've lived under Saddam and they're living under us, and they see the difference.

I will NOT sacrifice that to beat Islam. And indeed if we do sacrifice that difference, we'll lose.

And I won't have my daughter in a burlap sack.

Now to JFM: yes, we Americans haven't lived in a land where torture, bombings and impalings are part of the fabric of life. So Mizzou and I have a some different viewpoint than you.

With respect: ours is better. Especially in the long-term, ours is better. The latest proof will be Iraq, should we succeed there, and I think we will. I won't denigrate your experience, but eye-for-eye, torture-the-bastards philosophy is an end-game loser.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-09-14 11:36|| 2007-09-14 11:36|| Front Page Top

#27 Zen, did you have to use the word "niggardly"!?

(just kidding. Someone in DC government got fired a few years back for using the word -- in its proper context! Words no longer have meaning)

Posted by Captain Lewis 2007-09-14 11:42|| 2007-09-14 11:42|| Front Page Top

#28 For the record, Mike S., Mizzou Mafia is nowhere close to being banned.

Bravo! Civil expression of an opposing viewpoint should never be discouraged. Personally, I think Mike S. is attempting to be provocative and nothing else.

Steve White, your last post was most likely without reference to my own latest submission. I'd really enjoy reading your response to it if you have the time.

Incidentally, I too feel that intentionally displaying KSM in disarray was a stroke of genius. Why this sort of propaganda approach is not being used across the board is a total mystery. We could be making much more significant inroads by doing so.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 11:47|| 2007-09-14 11:47|| Front Page Top

#29 I'm going to send this to all my friends and family who think Rantburg is only for right-wing extremists (like me? Which I am not.) Intelligent, educated discussion. Relevant personal experiences from over the world. Civil, well-reasoned discourse. Bravo!

Bu messing up his appearance, before the photo? Genius! How long before that counts as 'torture'?

Posted by Bobby 2007-09-14 12:33|| 2007-09-14 12:33|| Front Page Top

#30 Every single soldier and citizen is supposed to be guided by their own conscience and rationality as they pick their way through this moral minefield.

Service members are guided by the Code of Conduct.

I have no desire to undermine our military's efficacy or the public's ability to contribute constructively.

And yet, by making black and white demands for the utter destruction of Islam you fail to acknowledge the moral damage sustained by leaders and troops who would carry out such a policy.

"The rise of a group convinced that their cause justifies murder, torture, intimidation: it could happen here. We're not close to it. "

I'm really glad you think so, as do I.

But if many were to adopt your position in the real world we'd get there pretty quickly.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-14 12:43|| 2007-09-14 12:43|| Front Page Top

#31 As I recall, it was standard policy during WWII to shoot any wounded enemy soldies on the battlefield to prevent them from attacking other troops moving up. I don't know the actual policy at that time, but I don't recall ever reading of any prosecutions of US or Brit soldiers for this battfield tactic.

Currently that would be considered a War Crime under UCMJ.

My question is: were these soldiers guilty of war crimes?

Posted by Brett 2007-09-14 12:50|| 2007-09-14 12:50|| Front Page Top

#32 Service members are guided by the Code of Conduct.

And a conscientious and rational soldier who swears an oath to follow it will do so.

And yet, by making black and white demands for the utter destruction of Islam you fail to acknowledge the moral damage sustained by leaders and troops who would carry out such a policy.

My position is dictated by Islam's black and white desire for my death and that of billions of others. It is Islam that polarizes my thinking and not my thinking that demonizes Islam. Such self-demonization is something that Islam constantly performs by implementing shari'a while condoning terrorism and its atrocities.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I would prefer Islam to be dismantled. While I continue to predict a Muslim holocaust due to Islam's intransigence, it's something I'd rather see avoided. If Islam cannot be reformed or dismantled, then it needs to be destroyed. It is nothing short of a black plague and serves only to bring more death and destruction into this world. At some point the moral penalty of not neutralizing Islam will exceed the moral penalty of allowing it to persist. Current Islamic doctrine guarantees that such a tipping point will be reached. I hope like hell that the penalty for allowing Islam to persist does not include the nuclear destruction of several major Western cities. That penalty would be far greater than any moral burden carried by those tasked with destroying Islam.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 13:07|| 2007-09-14 13:07|| Front Page Top

#33 Maybe - but you're awfully glib in your eagerness for others to bear that burden.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-14 13:27|| 2007-09-14 13:27|| Front Page Top

#34 Jack is back

Name one case? Very simple. When I told about a schoolbus it was a real case of the Algerian war and it was prevented by making the guy speak. But I can give you loooooooots of examples if I want.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-09-14 13:40|| 2007-09-14 13:40|| Front Page Top

#35 I for one would pay to be strapped down and interrogated by a red-headed female CIA officer.

Just saying.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-09-14 13:40|| 2007-09-14 13:40|| Front Page Top

#36 But it's not about what people think, right? -- it's about "results." People that kill 3000 deserve what they get, after all.

Yes.

Posted by Natural Law 2007-09-14 13:46|| 2007-09-14 13:46|| Front Page Top

#37

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-09-14 13:57|| 2007-09-14 13:57|| Front Page Top

#38 Maybe - but you're awfully glib in your eagerness for others to bear that burden.

One more time. I am not "eager" for some one billion Muslims to die nor am I "eager" for anyone to carry the moral burden for having to ensure it. Despite what you may think, I do not approach this casually in the least. If I did, why would I take such pains to elucidate instead of just squawking "kill 'em all!" like others do around here? What I am eager for is putting a permanent stop to Islam's constant predations upon all other cultures.

If you know of a way of doing this quickly enough to avoid some major new atrocities and without employing some serious violence, I'm all ears. One of the few ways I can imagine doing this is by targetted killings of Islam's elite. For some insane reason this concept is repugnant to those who plot our military's course.

We are currently pursuing a bottom-up strategy against Islam that simply will not work. Especially so within the relatively urgent timeframe imposed by proliferation of nuclear weapons technology in the MME (Muslim Middle East). Muslims do not want democracy and the Koran specifically forbids it. If we do not begin a top-down process of eliminating those who entrench a literal translation of the Koran within the ummah, we expose ourselves to some serious calamities. I vote against leaving ourselves vulnerable to an enemy who has sworn to destroy the Western world.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 13:59|| 2007-09-14 13:59|| Front Page Top

#39

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-09-14 14:07|| 2007-09-14 14:07|| Front Page Top

#40 JFM:

And you know from first hand witnesses or your own witness that torture was used? I'd like to expand this discussion by having you present us with these actual ocurrances since I have my doubts. If you can break a guy in minutes or hours then he is very weak and not trained. My point is that the weak do not need torture. There are extremely useful mental and emotional interrogation techniques that work just as well on someone who would give up his Mother or country in a few minutes of physical pain.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2007-09-14 14:16|| 2007-09-14 14:16|| Front Page Top

#41 Maybe - but you're awfully glib in your eagerness for others to bear that burden.

Glib? Don't you mean pragmatic, realistic? There are plenty of us that would step forward and assume the burden from those that would not. I'd be quite willing to risk my "soul" to break Islam for all time.

Posted by Natural Law 2007-09-14 14:18|| 2007-09-14 14:18|| Front Page Top

#42 Bu messing up his appearance, before the photo? Genius! How long before that counts as 'torture'?

I'll bet that photo is causing far more lasting damage to his psyche than a couple of minutes of waterboarding. You can be sure they showed it to him.

Posted by KBK 2007-09-14 14:21|| 2007-09-14 14:21|| Front Page Top

#43 Anonymoose dear, please don't do that. Sensibilities could be permanently damaged in the more sensitive.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-09-14 14:27|| 2007-09-14 14:27|| Front Page Top

#44 A very eloquent and convincing postDave D.
One picture is worth a 1,000 ~~megatons~~ words.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 14:42|| 2007-09-14 14:42|| Front Page Top

#45 I'll bet that photo is causing far more lasting damage to his psyche than a couple of minutes of waterboarding.

And to his image among the jihadi. Same thing with the scruffy photo of Saddam.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-14 14:43|| 2007-09-14 14:43|| Front Page Top

#46 They water boarded KSM? yawn

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-09-14 15:23|| 2007-09-14 15:23|| Front Page Top

#47 Isn't much of this debate focused on the who and when with regard to waterboarding (and that is where I stop...anything beyond that doesn't work). If waterboarding is regarded as an extreme-only for very specific types of individuals, ie a case where lots of lives hang is the balance, then that is morally reconciliable. And it is those lives that cause me concern with blanket prohibitions against waterboarding.

We are making progress in Iraq and I firmly believe we will continue to do so over the coming months and yes, years (we are going to be there regardless of who the next president is). It is precisely because of the goodness of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that we will win.

I want more definitive action against the sources of islamo-facism. And yes, targeted killings, as odd as it is to juxtapose that against torture, is ok with me. Keep it painless, just like putting down a rabid dog.

Posted by remoteman 2007-09-14 15:48|| 2007-09-14 15:48|| Front Page Top

#48 Torture is bad ! Water boarding isn't torture.
Torture us when you slowly inflict pain and injury. Water boarding is faking the system into unknown fear. We should be using an MRI lie detector also. We should use these things on our elected officials, and on jerks like Joe Wilson, Al Gore, and a plethra of other a holes who take up more oxygen than they're worth.
We don't even need the theater of a jury trial any more. Lie detector and sentence. You need a prosecutor/lie detector operator, and a judge to determine if a law was broken. Let's bring investigations into the 21st century. While I'm at it, the Miranda is the biggest joke ever. You have the right to a Miranda, yet, ignorance of the law is no excuse. (but ignorance of your Miranda rights is ??????).
rant/

Posted by wxjames 2007-09-14 15:56|| 2007-09-14 15:56|| Front Page Top

#49 Jack is Back:

Yes I know it by first hand witnesses. In fact through the book from one of the main proponents (General Ausarress) of those methods.

But before you judge him read about what happened at Philippeville, he was there, he learned the information soon enough to avoid the bloodbath at Philippeville proper but too late to save the people around it. What the FLN people did to the children seems to have been particularly sickening.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-09-14 17:23|| 2007-09-14 17:23|| Front Page Top

#50 Some of the arguments being used here are pure BS: CIA agents waterboarding a terrorist MASTERMIND with innocent blood on his hand for 2 minutes makes them morally equivalent to Stalinist torturers who went after citizens SUSPECTED of POLITICAL disloyalty? Morally equivalent to North Vietnamese torturers who broke bones, teeth, and skin of legitimate Prisoners of War contrary to the Geneva conventions? THOSE guys KEPT TORTURING, while the CIA guys stopped right then and there. THEIR torture was politically motivated. The CIA had every expectation that this Terrorist MASTERMIND HAD SOMETHING BAD ON THE FRONT BURNER, and that being taken down would cause the others involved to SPEED UP the operation. What life-or-death issues motivated the Stalinists and North Vietnamese to do WORSE THINGS to those under THEIR hands?

Yes, apples ARE equal to oranges, but ONLY if you IGNORE DIFFERENCES. What aspects of one's morality allows them to overlook MITIGATING information? I don't call THAT sort of behavior MORAL.

Pure BS I say: a moral compass that states that such things are equivalent IS BROKEN. It serves no purpose but to be ignored and thrown away.

This is not the same as seeing a speck in the CIA's eye and ignoring the boulders in others: it's seeing the speck and saying its a boulder while justifying such a whopper of a misrepresentation by saying they're both made of the same material.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2007-09-14 18:28|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2007-09-14 18:28|| Front Page Top

#51 "Now that was a smooth move"

Heyits good chucks to juxtapose KSM as The Hedgehog but is Humiliation an effective deterrent against these fucks? Helljust publish a couple of cartoons and they want to blow shit up. And theres no doubt that the naked monkey-pile photos were a major turn in this campaign. Thinkabouditthat got even the garden variety Mooselimb all Jihadi-like. The experts tell us that the Ticking Time-Bomb scenario is rare. So perhaps we should give them what they desire. Death...you know...just with allitle... uhemm...dignity.

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-09-14 19:23|| 2007-09-14 19:23|| Front Page Top

#52 When I see a group of Iranian parasites chanting, "death to America," I don't look on them as misguided humans. I look at them as being as worthy of life as a mosquito that is biting my arm.

I am not a strict believer in the notion that the end justifies the means, but causing the illusion of drowning isn't an extraordinary means, given what it could prevent.

Posted by McZoid 2007-09-14 20:27|| 2007-09-14 20:27|| Front Page Top

#53 I want to clear up a confusion here.

Others assume that I am against torture and that I think waterboarding is the same as Stalinist torture or other atrocities. That's not what I wrote, although I can see how it would be assumed.

I don't think real torture works reliably. It just doesn't, by most accounts -- unless by 'works' you mean vengeance rather than producing actionable information that can save lives.

I think waterboarding is on the borderline, but not over it. Its use on KSM doesn't bother me. We did have every reason to believe he had information about planned operations and networks that would save lives.

We were right - the info gained from him was in nearly all cases validated (IIUC) and did save lives.

What I objected to was Zenster's blythe assertion that we are somehow immune from ever descending to the level of the worst in Islam, no matter what actions we take. That is IMO both naive and dangerous -- and all too very very convenient to assert.

Hard times make hard choices. There is no doubt in my mind that we are facing a really serious challenge from within and without. We may yet have to take actions we and our grandchildren will look on with regret and shame -- and relief.

My point is not to get too happy at the thought. Do what must be done, but don't take the easy route of thinking that relieves all guilt. And reserve the borderline treatments for cases like KSM where there is good reason to believe the moral stain, if any, is worth it.

No need for more on my opinion about this ... just wanted to clear up what sounded like a confusion about what I wrote.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-14 21:20|| 2007-09-14 21:20|| Front Page Top

#54 ~~blythe~~ blithe ... you knew what I meant ... ;-)

Posted by lotp 2007-09-14 21:21|| 2007-09-14 21:21|| Front Page Top

#55 This bears repeating. I tried to draw the same distinction but Ptah has done so well beyond my own efforts.(with added emphasis)

Some of the arguments being used here are pure BS: CIA agents waterboarding a terrorist MASTERMIND with innocent blood on his hand for 2 minutes makes them morally equivalent to Stalinist torturers who went after citizens SUSPECTED of POLITICAL disloyalty? Morally equivalent to North Vietnamese torturers who broke bones, teeth, and skin of legitimate Prisoners of War contrary to the Geneva conventions? THOSE guys KEPT TORTURING, while the CIA guys stopped right then and there. THEIR torture was politically motivated. The CIA had every expectation that this Terrorist MASTERMIND HAD SOMETHING BAD ON THE FRONT BURNER, and that being taken down would cause the others involved to SPEED UP the operation. What life-or-death issues motivated the Stalinists and North Vietnamese to do WORSE THINGS to those under THEIR hands?

I hope that those who have criticized my position will heed Ptah's immensely important clarification. I DO NOT advocate torture for the sheer glee of inflicting pain upon our enemies. That is babarism, plain and simple. I'll make additional note of how it is precisely barbarism of this sort that we are fighting.

There are times when fire must be fought with fire. One excellent example is setting a backburn. Does this exceptionally effective technique involve kindling a blaze of equal proportion to the one being fought? HELL NO! The exact same pertains to dealing with known terrorists. These scum have no respect for human life. How is it that we should suddenly award them the milk of human kindness even as they seek to issue further orders to attack us from their very jail cells?

lotp, I politely inquired and I'll more pointedly ask right now a previous question:

If you know of a way of doing this [i.e. defeating Islam] quickly enough to avoid some major new atrocities and without employing some serious violence, I'm all ears.

An absence of reply will be interpreted as wholehearted support for our current and dubiously effective strategy against Islam. You have previously exhibited a willingness to exercise selective notice of my own posts so I'm hoping that this will not, yet again, be the case.

A colleague of mine once suggested that America's founding fathers simply could not have anticipated such an abject evil as Nazism when they framed our freedom of speech. Much as I feel Nazism's genocidal language should be subjected to official censure, so do I think that Islam and shari'a law merit some sort of legal prohibition. They simply transcend all limits of legitimate pursuit and amply meet any requirements for judicial proscription.

Islam, with its moral carte blanche of taqiyya and religiously sanctioned lust for global domination excludes itself from the circle of humanity's congregation. There is no compelling reason why any latitude or slack should be shown these monsters. In fact, doing so both legitimizes and validates their quest to kill billions of us. That is entirely unacceptable to me. Period.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 22:05|| 2007-09-14 22:05|| Front Page Top

#56 Well, well, a curious intersection of events.

I think waterboarding is on the borderline, but not over it. Its use on KSM doesn't bother me. We did have every reason to believe he had information about planned operations and networks that would save lives.

We were right - the info gained from him was in nearly all cases validated (IIUC) and did save lives.

Well alrighty then, suddenly we seem to be in significant agreement.

What I objected to was Zenster's blythe assertion that we are somehow immune from ever descending to the level of the worst in Islam, no matter what actions we take.

And I still assert that fighting fire with fire is called for in the specific case of Islam. The inhumanity of our enemy makes it vital that we do not flinch at imposing upon them the exact same measures they would accord us.

Do so on a continuing and permanent basis? In no way. As with what Ptah mentioned, such measures are to be used only so long as they are pertinent.

That is IMO both naive and dangerous -- and all too very very convenient to assert.

I'll await you own personal solutionsas requested in post #56before answering.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 22:17|| 2007-09-14 22:17|| Front Page Top

#57 Goddamn it Zenster! Chris, get yer own Fkn blog! if you have enuf traffic perhaps Fred will link it. I'm sick and tired of your repetitive bandwidth hogging, with your same f**kn message. Get over yourself, Jeebus!

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-09-14 22:24|| 2007-09-14 22:24|| Front Page Top

#58 There are plenty of us that would step forward and assume the burden from those that would not.

Then do so.

Posted by Pappy 2007-09-14 22:39|| 2007-09-14 22:39|| Front Page Top

#59 Perish the thought that such an important issue as torture should be sorted out in detail here at Rantburg. Heaven forbid the notion that I might be allowed the opportunity to answer those who challenge my assertions, even if my posts are of equal length to those of others who say the same thing. Your own lack of position upon this vital topic is duly noted, Frank.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 22:44|| 2007-09-14 22:44|| Front Page Top

#60 I've been up for 20 hrs now. I'm bone weary.

I took time to write a long response and Fred's spam filter ate it. I'm going to bed. Zen can believe whatever the hell he wants to about whether or not I have an approach to Islamicism. He will in any case.

Nite all.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-14 22:56|| 2007-09-14 22:56|| Front Page Top

#61 Then do so.

Right on, Pappy. Anyone who seeks to alter the circumstances of how we currently oppose Islamic terrorism had better well be ready to clearly explain their position.

To the best of my ability, I attempt to illuminate exactly why the measures I propose should be implemented. However much you might disagree, Pappy, I will at least take responsibility for my positions by developing them with substantial argument.

Pappy, youabove nearly all others here at Rantburghave had the decency to criticize me at all turns with invarying determination. Be it to my face or behind my back, there is no deviation and that is most certainly worthy. Whether I like it or not means squat in the face of how respectable your own consistency is.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 22:56|| 2007-09-14 22:56|| Front Page Top

#62 Zen can believe whatever the hell he wants to about whether or not I have an approach to Islamicism. He will in any case.

Bullshit. Please be sure to reply in detail when another opportunity arises.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 22:59|| 2007-09-14 22:59|| Front Page Top

#63 lotp, If you do not have the wits to realize that any submission of more than a few paragraphs warrants transposing it over to your notepad or a Word document then any estimation of your own work's worth and the veracity of your excuses fall into equal question. Plainly put, if you hold your own opinion in sufficiently high esteem, you'll take precautions to ensure it is transmitted without abberation. If not ... well then, that's another matter now isn't it? I'll leave it to others to post "the dog ate my homework" sort of snark.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-14 23:11|| 2007-09-14 23:11|| Front Page Top

#64 God Damn I hate that fat sweaty guy up on the cross with Jesus...

i gotta go take a shower...

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2007-09-14 23:59|| 2007-09-14 23:59|| Front Page Top

23:59 Red Dawg
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:27 Zenster
23:25 Zenster
23:22 Mike
23:19 Zenster
23:15 Zenster
23:11 Zenster
23:06 Beau
22:59 Zenster
22:56 Pappy
22:56 Zenster
22:56 lotp
22:44 Zenster
22:39 Pappy
22:34 Shieldwolf
22:29 Zenster
22:24 Frank G
22:24 JosephMendiola
22:17 Zenster
22:15 Frank G
22:05 Zenster
22:01 JosephMendiola
21:21 lotp