Wiretaping and Torture

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 15 2006, 11:16 AM) [snapback]303513[/snapback]</div>

I haven't read as much about this as I probably should have. Do you have a link to an article detailing what was done? I'd really appreciate it.

That being said, I just can't condone torture under any circumstances. While it may be effective, I think the short-term gain will be offset by long-term problems. Specifically, the nut jobs will use it to rally around as yet another reason that we're "The Great Satan". Catching 10, 20, 50 crazies but potentially creating 100 more doesn't seem like a good trade off to me.

Plus, torture doesn't seem to be a very "Christian" thing to do. And, what if it didn't work? What if the people being tortured were completely innocent?

The biggest problem is there's really no way to win when you're dealing with crazy people. We torture, they use it as a recruiting tool. We act like the civilized people we are, they think we're weak.

As Spider-Man says, "With great power comes great responsibility." We're the most powerful country in the world. We have a responsibility to act in a way that shows the world that our way of life is something to aspire to.

 

Wow - this thread will bring them out of the woodwork...

Damn straight we should adopt them - or, more accurately, re-adopt them. Used to be there was such a thing as "national security" around these here parts - secret wiretapping was really secret, the other methods used for gathering intelligence were still secret, profiling was not only done, it was taught to law enforcement and intelligence operatives, and we didn't coddle scumbags. No matter what you hear, the wiretapping does have controls - they have no interest in what you and your girlfriend do for phone recreation. They only tap the calls of scumbags, and it has to be under the OK of a judge. Period. The NSA doesn't actually listen in on every conversation, their computers scan for catchphrases. Period. If the catchphrases exceed a threshhold, they still have to get several layers of approval to even gather more intel, much less institute an actual tap.

The things called "torture" by the media are a long ways short. Take, for example, the so-called "abuses" of the prisoners that were photographed at Abu Ghraib - all they did was humiliate the prisoners. Oh, jeepers, they made the poor scumbag feel bad, and they damaged his little self-esteem - think of his fragile male ego, after all! The cultures these scumbags come from would *start* with beatings, and progress rapidly to removal of body parts without anaesthetic. Taking a picture of a guy on a leash, or of a cheerleader-type dogpile, is somehow worse than removing body parts while he's conscious. Huh? Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, etc. may be unpleasant or downright terrifying, but they're still a long ways short of being pinned and having your arm chopped off, or having to watch as your daughter is raped. If it results in the disruption of planning, or in the discovery of weapons stockpiles, or in the capture of other scumbags who want to hurt us, then rock and roll. If it happens to an innocent, based on an honest mistake in intel, then make it up to that individual.

Profiling used to be carefully taught - I know it did, 'cause I had it taught to me when I was a sheriff's deputy in the early eighties. Someone please explain to me why it makes sense to single out an 87-year-old Scandinavian lady for a random detailed search. If terrorist activities are being perpetrated primarily by pre-middle-aged males of Middle Eastern descent, then why should screeners and law enforcement personnel not be able to keep a closer eye on them? Train the people exactly *what* to watch for and *how* to watch for it in individuals, and turn them loose. If innocent people get scrutinized a bit more closely, it's one of the prices that must be paid for a more-secure society. I *always* thank the screeners when I get pulled aside and checked more closely in one of their random picks - I'd rather they check me and catch the scumbag, than allow the scumbag to get through just to avoid damaging his poor ego.

There are prices we must all pay to live in a more-secure society when there are scumbags out there who want to take it all away from us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 15 2006, 05:16 PM) [snapback]303513[/snapback]</div>

Are you implying that the U.K. has used torture, and that information gained from this was important in preventing a planned terrorist action?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 15 2006, 12:52 PM) [snapback]303561[/snapback]</div>

How do you guarantee that the torture will save 3000 lives? Just because it happened in this case (again, I'd really appreciate a link to an article so I can better educate myself) doesn't mean it will happen every time.

Was it necessarily cause & effect in this case? If the torture led to the capture of the terrorist right before they got on the plane, then yes. But could the terrorists have been caught without torture? Maybe. We don't know. We only know what was done.

What if the methods used to save the 3000 lives today create more terrorists that succeed in killing 5000 people some other day? Also, as I asked before, what if you're torturing somoene who's not a terrorist? That's not saving any lives and it's hurting innocent people.

I personally don't belive torture is the answer. As I said, I think in the long run we'll end up worse off as a country if we go down that road. Do I have another solution? No. If you believe it would work and it would be the best solution, that's fine, too. I happen to disagree. Having the freedom to debate issues like this is a beautiful thing, no?

As for wiretapping, as long as the people doing the wiretapping are following the protocols that glenhead mentioned, then I have no problem with it. Same thing with profiling. Profiling can be useful, as long as we don't start seeing a terrorist in everyone wearing a turban. The biggest problem is making sure that there's accountability if the system is abused. If the wiretapping is really secret, who's overseeing it and making sure it's not being abused? If it's truly secret, we don't know ... it's secret.

The problem for me is I just can't see these issues as "black & white". I agree the terrorists are evil and if we can wipe them out we should. And I'm willing to give up a reasonable amount of "civil liberties" in the name of security. That's the world we live in today. I don't like it, but I have to live in it.

 

I think torture is a dangerous precedent. Plenty of other countries view our country as hostile and probably have a definition of the U.S. as a terrorist. I heard on a radio program that most European nations are more fearful of our direction than they are of any arab state if this is telling enough. If we advocate the use of torture, we will be subjecting our military to the same end. After all, they have civilians and infrastructure to protect as well and we aren't exactly wanted in all corners of the world in which we reside.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 15 2006, 02:17 PM) [snapback]303656[/snapback]</div>

yes, absolutely i would most certainly want to hold our side to different level of rules or conduct. the world hasn't been "civilized" for thousands of years and to say that we should continue reverting to our old mechanisms is not considered progress by me. the u.s. has taken on the task of dictating,er advising, other countries how they should conduct themselves (by economic means or military means) and if we assume such a role, we should be leading by example. we should not lower our bar to that of the terrorists. especially at a time when this administration is supposedly spreading democrcay and freedom throughout the world. the conduct of this country shouldn't be tit for tat. maybe i'm just naive........

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 15 2006, 08:51 PM) [snapback]303639[/snapback]</div>

Man, you need to be a bit more sceptical about yourself. :huh: What you are presumably referring to is that Ian Pearson recently said that evidence obtained under torture could not be ignored if it might prevent an attack. But that's totally different from your claim that the U.K. itself has used torture! This refers to torture done by some other, independent country, outside the control of the U.K. Mr Pearsons words were:
"When we get to the situation where there is evidence that might prevent a future atrocity and we have suspicions that evidence might be obtained from torture, well I think we have to use that evidence. I don't think you can completely ignore what might turn out to be vital evidence that will save the lives of UK citizens"

Most modern democracies has a law that sais that evidence obtained under torture should be disregarded. Mr. Pearson wants to weaken this under certain circumstances. But there is no doubt that the U.K. totally forbids torture, under any circumstance. And if you have any proof that torture was recently used by the U.K., I can only recommend you to sell it for a very large price to the press. You will be a rich man.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 15 2006, 03:05 PM) [snapback]303691[/snapback]</div>

What we need to keep this discussion civil is a good definition of "torture". In my view, nothing that we've heard about from any of the actions that have been elevated to the level of scandals has reached the point of actual torture. Humiliation doesn't qualify. Sleep deprivation doesn't qualify. Extended periods of loud music doesn't qualify. Subjecting the recipient to temperature extremes, without causing physical damage (heat stroke or frostbite), doesn't qualify. Waterboarding comes close, but the interrogators who use it have been carefully trained not to cause damage, so it doesn't quite qualify IMO. (The two guys I know who actually received waterboarding as part of an interrogation resistance training exercise are my sources for my opinion on it.) OTOH, breaking the skin, breaking bones, electrode use, actually abusing family members, any sort of sexual activity, beatings - those qualify as torture.

Also, when you make a blanket statement like "give up our civil rights", please list the explicit civil rights you personally have had to give up, and what impact that loss has had on your life. If you can't list any, then perhaps we should set such a statement aside. I honestly cannot come up with a single one - if I've missed something, I'd like to know it. I'm quite willing to change my mind on subjects if warranted.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Aug 15 2006, 09:11 AM) [snapback]303540[/snapback]</div>

Christians have tortured people since the beginning of time.

Having said that I do fear that a blanket statement in regards to this is just not the thing to look for. Anytime you go to limit the rights of another individual you had better make damn sure that you have grounds for it.

One of the other scenarios that goes with something like this is that old "what if" game. What if it was say 5-6 years back and you had knowledge of the future WTC bombing. If OBL was standing in front of you would you murder him?? Would it make a difference or is this a snake with many heads?

 

dbermanmd, could you please point to some evidence that torture and wiretaps were imperative in breaking open the latest terror plot?

It had been asked earlier in the thread, but it must have slipped by you. While it'd be nice to have some "hard" evidence, a news story or even a blog claiming this would be interesting to see.