Moral Niceties and the CIA

 

It’s only natural for a leftist to quip “we are better than that.” That pretty much sums up the moral orientation of the liberal. The critique is little more than a wish for pleasant things that work. The self-righteous preener rarely has an answer to the question “what would you suggest to make us better than that?”

Comedian Evan Sayet has a test for identifying the liberal in the room: he’ll be the one who chooses evil over good. The test is extraordinarily accurate. On abortion a lefty will choose death over life. On economics he’ll see the maker as a greedy money grubber, and the taker as the victim who is denied social justice. He’ll defend the terrorists, who he sees as the oppressed, and who only behead because the imperialists have a foot on their necks.

At this point, I’ve read the initial Findings of Fact in the report, together with supporting footnotes. Some of it is pretty gruesome, and there may have been some serious lapses in discipline and oversight. Those are legitimate areas of concern. But on balance I have few qualms with the methods employed. But as the old saying goes, it’s best not to see how sausage is made. And if you’re going to demand the sausage maker be better than that, intellectual and moral honesty requires you to suggest an alternative means to the end.

Unfortunately, there likely is no alternative. The issue ultimately comes down to whether the end justifies the means. Except that is not the proper question. The end always justifies the means since the end sets the terms for its accomplishment.

The right question is “does the end justify any means?” The standard answer is that an intrinsically evil means can never be used even to achieve a good end. That, however, is colored by extant circumstances. Ordinarily it would be wrong to use excessive force to stop a bandit. But when the bad guy is gunning for your family such niceties must give way. If the assailant won’t stop his attack it is entirely permissible to shoot him in the arms, legs, and other sensitive body parts. That’s a form of torture, but your family is more important than subtle ethical pleasantries. You do what it takes to bring down the bad guy.

So, too, in the war on terror, the circumstances define the appropriate means. The first principle is that we are on the side of the angels.

The 9/11 attack was an act of war, and in war the combatants must inflict pain. A lot of pain. The Japanese would not surrender until the pain became agony. While abstract moral issues can be debated amidst the luxury of peace, but Truman didn’t have time to consult the sages when hundreds of thousand, perhaps millions, of US soldiers were sure to die invading the homeland of a nation of fanatics, Truman also knew that the Emperor had militarized the entire population, civilians as well as soldiers, to defend the homeland. Truman surely foresaw the blood bath in which women and children would be mowed down by US troops. He didn’t need a crystal ball. All he had to do was look at the Saipan Suicide Cliffs, over which Japanese women threw their children to their deaths, then jumped themselves. These civilians were promised immediate entrance to paradise. Sound familiar? Truman did what had to be done.

So must we.

So the question for Dianne Feinstein and her ilk remains: what would make us better than that?

The first, foremost, and fundamental function of government is to protect the lives of its citizens. In war that means bringing the enemy to his knees. It also means depersonalizing him. Soldiers are trained to hate the enemy. Christian love demands that we love our neighbor, even our enemy, but the question at hand is “who is my neighbor?” In times of war only the people who share our common purpose are our neighbors.

That doesn’t justify pointless cruelty. The military has rules against unnecessary barbarity. But in war you must be all in and do what it takes to achieve victory. As the Patton of the movie told his troops, “wade into the enemy, make him die for his country.” Make him suffer. Make his mother suffer. Break him that you may break his confederates.

If that upsets the leftists moral sensibilities then, it must be said again, let’s have them offer a detailed plan that makes us better than that. And have the intestinal fortitude to stand before the families of the dead and tell them to weep for the enemy. Then ask them to demand that the survivors praise America’s haters’ for their moral superiority. When they boo and throw rotten tomatoes tell them that they are moral inferiors. Self-righteous gasbags, however, rarely show such courage.

In the coming days we’ll hear complaints that we’re no better than our enemies. We should be better than our enemies. Better, I say, that we find out what they plan, where they hide, and where their weaknesses lie. If that means brutal interrogation techniques, we must learn to stomach the ugliness that is inescapable in the battle against an abject evil.

We’re on the right side and our actions should be judged from that perspective.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 80 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Basil Fawlty: True. In today’s context I think “torture” simply means “an interrogation or coercion technique I find to be too extreme.”

    Likewise, “enhanced interrogation techniques” is a synonym for “interrogation and coercion I find morally and tactically appropriate.”

    I would agree.

    • #31
  2. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Al Sparks: And now there are headlines on Drudge that this was payback by Diane Feinstein. John Hinderaker on Powerline read the report and says that it confirms there was no torture, despite the tone of the report. He also thinks Feinstein was showing some animus towards the CIA.

    I think it’s “payback” from the Dems in general for the midterms. They’re trying to resurrect the specter of that old devil, Dubya to try and turn the public against the GOP.

    • #32
  3. Son of Spengler Member
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    Umbra Fractus:

    Al Sparks: And now there are headlines on Drudge that this was payback by Diane Feinstein. John Hinderaker on Powerline read the report and says that it confirms there was no torture, despite the tone of the report. He also thinks Feinstein was showing some animus towards the CIA.

    I think it’s “payback” from the Dems in general for the midterms. They’re trying to resurrect the specter of that old devil, Dubya to try and turn the public against the GOP.

    I think it’s payback for alleged CIA spying on her committee.

    • #33
  4. user_1938 Inactive
    user_1938
    @AaronMiller

    Exactly, Egon. While I use the word “torture” to refer only to method, many people believe it includes the motivation of sadistic glee. For such people, torture is always evil. If torture may be devoted to less sinister motives, then it can be a brutal but necessary means of interrogation.

    Undoubtedly, all Ricochetti reject sadism. Mike’s post is a defense of conditional brutality, which most conservatives support by limited degrees and circumstances.

    One consideration in regard to torture/interrogation is the significance of fleeting moments in human life. Physical pain generally becomes nothing more than an abstract “memory” when it is over. A person doesn’t experience the pain again upon reviewing the memory. He only retains the vague notion of having suffered greatly.

    Of course, painful interrogations function by instilling fear of further pain and want of relief. Memories of fear, unlike memories of pain, can be relived long after the original event. So there is the consideration of how pain can be maximized while lingering fear is minimized, to prevent lasting damage.

    But is it enough only to minimize lasting damage? Is torture less brutal (regardless of whether it is justifiable or not) if it can be forgotten? How important are those fleeting moments?

    • #34
  5. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Aaron Miller:Exactly, Egon. While I use the word “torture” to refer only to method, many people believe it includes the motivation of sadistic glee. For such people, torture is always evil. If torture may be devoted to less sinister motives, then it can be a brutal but necessary means of interrogation.

    Undoubtedly, all Ricochetti reject sadism. Mike’s post is a defense of conditional brutality, which most conservatives support by limited degrees and circumstances.

    One consideration in regard to torture/interrogation is the significance of fleeting moments in human life. Physical pain generally becomes nothing more than an abstract “memory” when it is over. A person doesn’t experience the pain again upon reviewing the memory. He only retains the vague notion of having suffered greatly.

    Of course, painful interrogations function by instilling fear of further pain and want of relief. Memories of fear, unlike memories of pain, can be relived long after the original event. So there is the consideration of how pain can be maximized while lingering fear is minimized, to prevent lasting damage.

    But is it enough only to minimize lasting damage? Is torture less brutal (regardless of whether it is justifiable or not) if it can be forgotten? How important are those fleeting moments?

    Or, to put it another way, does torture always involve permanent physical damage?  I’ve never found this standard particularly useful.

    In some ways, the torture debate mirrors that involving the justification of theft.  Everyone is against theft, but does theft at some point become acceptable to save your life or health or that of family member?  Under such circumstances, is it still theft?

    • #35
  6. user_309277 Inactive
    user_309277
    @AdamKoslin

    I’m perfectly fine with us torturing people, but if we’re going to do that we have to stop pretending that we’re somehow a uniquely moral people.  If we want to get our hands dirty in the blood and muck of realpolitik, that’s fine.  It might even be good for us – it certainly worked for the Byzantines – and for all I know it may well be a good idea to enact some sort of Carthaginian solution on our enemies.  However, it most certainly isn’t compatible with anything resembling “American Exceptionalism” or the “shining city on a hill.”  America cannot be an empire and a republic at the same time; nor can it torture and still claim the moral high ground.  If we’re gonna be villains, we have to accept that we made the choice.

    • #36
  7. user_645 Member
    user_645
    @Claire

    Simon Templar:.Most of my fellow Marines and I, in and out of “the sandbox” for the last umpteen years, always felt that the A-bomb on one of their major cities would have sent the proper signal.

    I reckon I’m with you. That would have been “Wrong but spectacular,” as opposed to “Wrong and just pathetic, disgusting, and perverted.”

    The actions described in the report (what I’ve read so far) don’t say, “Dare you ever again commit such an abomination against us again, be sure that the wrath of a God of Old Testament fury will be upon you. We will slay you without mercy and salt the earth. You, your people, and even their memory will cease to exist; the whole world will never forget the savage and righteous wrath and vengeance you managed to unleash.” It says, “Well, we weren’t sure what to do, so we found ourselves a couple of bozos who figured we could try shoving raisins into someone’s rectum.”

    • #37
  8. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Claire Berlinski:It says, “Well, we weren’t sure what to do, so we found ourselves a couple of bozos who figured we could try shoving raisins into someone’s rectum.”

    Is it torture if you enjoy it?

    • #38
  9. Pilli Inactive
    Pilli
    @Pilli

    Claire Berlinski:

    Simon Templar:.Most of my fellow Marines and I, in and out of “the sandbox” for the last umpteen years, always felt that the A-bomb on one of their major cities would have sent the proper signal.

    I reckon I’m with you. That would have been “Wrong but spectacular,” as opposed to “Wrong and just pathetic, disgusting, and perverted.”

    The actions described in the report (what I’ve read so far) don’t say, “Dare you ever again commit such an abomination against us again, be sure that the wrath of a God of Old Testament fury will be upon you. We will slay you without mercy and salt the earth. You, your people, and even their memory will cease to exist; the whole world will never forget the savage and righteous wrath and vengeance you managed to unleash.” It says, “Well, we weren’t sure what to do, so we found ourselves a couple of bozos who figured we could try shoving raisins into someone’s rectum.”

    While I don’t disagree that using a nuclear weapon to make a very unambiguous point about attacking America would be effective, I have to ask exactly which city or cities would you target?

    The 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.  Should we take out Mecca, Medina or Riyadh?

    Much of the instigation for terrorists comes from Iran.  Should we take out Tehran?

    At the time, Libya supported terrorists.  Should we have taken out Tripoli? (almost a moot question now.)

    Would it really matter what city we targeted?

    • #39
  10. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    I have neither the time nor the inclination to read the report -I’m not sure I’d believe it if I did -so I’m withholding all judgment.

    I would be interested in hearing an explanation for some of what I’m hearing second hand -rectal nutrition and hydration for example.  I have learned that “I can’t imagine a reason to do such a thing” is usually a sign of lack of imagination, not reason.  Bureaucrats are often wrong, inconvenient, and troublesome, but they usually don’t get their jobs by being stupid.

    What I believed before today and will continue to believe after today is that our desire to do limited damage has caused us to do incomprehensibly more damage.  We didn’t want to be imperialists, we didn’t want to harm the innocent, we didn’t want to destroy the surrounding people -we only wanted to bring the terrorists to justice.

    War is not a means of bringing people to justice.  It is death and destruction and you cannot make it better.

    So, to avoid a Carthaginian Peace, we chose the CIA’s program.  We have no peace, and we have still ravaged the countryside.

    • #40
  11. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Let’s go back to the dropping of the Atom Bomb. The first question is whether this was proportional to the risk. Once that question is asked and anwered we have a framework in which to judge the means. Then we can balance one means against the other to determine what is morally acceptable. In the case of Japan we had only three options.

    First, we could have continued the fire bombing, which killed many more Japanese than did the A-Bomb. Moreover, fire bombing was magnitudes worse than the Bomb. People were indiscriminately burned alive–women, children, passersby.

    The second option was to invade the homeland. This would have required months of non-stop shelling by the Navy and Air Corps. Millions of Japanese would have perished.

    Option three was to drop the Bomb, which killed around 140, 000 instantly, plus an indeterminate number dying of radiation poisoning. It did not, however, lead to anywhere near the mass casualties of an invasion.

    Taking those facts into consideration, we found ourselves in moral ambiguity. At that point we needed to consider Burke’s observation that we must sometimes do bad in order to avoid the intolerably worse.

    We could, I suppose, have measured the risks and decided to forego final victory. But that would have left Japan able to continue its brutal campaigns in Asia. It would have given them time to re-arm. It seems to me that we had no option than to choose the ugly to avoid the morbid.

    cont.

    • #41
  12. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Now let’s consider the issue of torture. I’ll avoid the phrase Enhanced Interrogation Tehcniques” as it glosses over relaty. Water boarding is a form of torture. But consider the alternatives;

    First, we had the option of engaging in a brutal, no holds barred campaign to root out Bin Laden and his allies, but hundreds of thousands would have died.

    Second, we could have relied on satellites and drones to ferret out the bad guys. But you cannot win a war with satellites.

    The third option, and one that had been gutted by the Church Committee, was to acquire on ground information (not the right term, but I’m  bit sleepy). We had little time to wait. Can there really be any doubt that Al Quaeda would swiftly act again to achieve its goal of demoralizing America and its allies? We had to act swiftly–that was our duty to our citizens–and that meant using all available means except those that are intrinsically evil. But, as I argued in the OP, there are few bright lines for identifying the methods that fall into that category. It is certainly true that some methods were both brutal and unsuccessful, but that could not be determined in advance. And both considerations must be given their due.

    I haven’t read John Yoo’s new book yet, but from listening to him and reading his other articles, he makes clear that we were in uncharted territory. He had no on point precedent so he had to look to whatever analogous authority he could find. As a lawyer I can say that that is a very difficult task. He tried to set guidelines, but, out of necessity, he had to rely on the men and women on the ground to figure out what was and was not permitted under those guidelines. If an interrogator had reason to believe that an attack was immanent he had to choose his methods with that urgent risk in mind.

    Yes, police tactics might have produced usable information. But if today you get A, but tomorrow you need B, to save lives, your approach takes on another hue.

    I am wading through the report and will then turn my attention to the Republican response and the CIA’s rebuttal. Some techniques left me a bit squeamish, e.g., forcing a man to stand on his broken leg for hours. But, then again, I have no idea what the interrogators were after, nor do I know how immediate was the threat.

    Lastly, I reject the argument that we are no better than our enemies. We do not fly airplanes into buildings. We do not bomb buses full of civilians, women and children. We do not grab a soldier and cut his head off. I’m afraid my squeamishness would disappear quickly if I had the opportunity to stop even one of those atrocities. We are the good guys who have a duty to pound evil into the ground. A war against a brutal enemy that hides out among civilians cannot be waged under the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

    • #42
  13. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    “Lastly, I reject the argument that we are no better than our enemies. We do not fly airplanes into buildings. We do not bomb buses full of civilians, women and children. We do not grab a soldier and cut his head off. I’m afraid my squeamishness would disappear quickly if I had the opportunity to stop even one of those atrocities. We are the good guys who have a duty to pound evil into the ground. A war against a brutal enemy that hides out among civilians cannot be waged under the Marquis of Queensbury rules.”

    This.

    There is a reason that most combat vets rarely speak directly of their experiences to “civilians”. It is in part because, like sausage making, they don’t really want to know the details. Combat is hard – on your mind, on your soul. Asymetric combat is harder yet – and until you have done it, it is difficult to criticize those who do harsh things while “on the battlefield”. I would hazard to guess every combat vet has stories that he/she would never tell to a non-combat vet. I know just from reading some of the incidents in WWII that those dudes were tough, and there was no nonsense. You did whatever was needed to help have your people come home. If the choice was one of yours or one of theirs, it really wasn’t a “choice”.

    • #43
  14. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Dev:

    My dad fought his way through the Pacific. Tinian, Saipan, Iwo. He rarely spoke of it except to say that it was something else.” But from my reading I know how brutal it was. On Iwo the Japanese were so dug into the rock that weeks of Navy shelling did virtually nothing. As the Marines made their way inland the Japanese would sneak out of their bunkers, fire away, then retreat to safety. About the only effective way to get them was the flame thrower. That is probably the worst pain that can be inflicted. Ordinarily we’d think burning someone alive was torture, but even so is it intrinsically wrongful to use such a weapon?  When you’re left with only bad choices you have an obligation to use the least terrible–that will get the job done. If there was a less brutal means I defy anyone to tell us what it is.

    • #44
  15. user_348483 Coolidge
    user_348483
    @EHerring

    Until they stick a pair of scissors in the skull and suck out the brains to collapse the skull, they have not exceeded the moral limits of what our society accepts.

    • #45
  16. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Devereaux: In peace it is easy to be benevolent. One should not torture civilian subjects of the country. There is never a reason that cops should torture apprehendees. But war is different. War is by its nature out of the bounds of normal civilized behavior. Else how do you explain all the actions of soldiers in the “normal” course of war.

    While I completely agree that war — even a murky one like the GWOT — is very different than policing a free populace, I think the tactics and procedures used by cops provide something of an answer to Mike’s challenge regarding alternatives.

    Even with the added handicaps of standards of evidence, the rights of the accused, and the difficulty of proving things in court, police are still able to do real, meaningful work that involves life and death without resorting to torture, torture-lite ®, or enhanced interrogation. Surely, there must be some middle-ground between police tactics and those used in the GWOT (I’m not trying to imply that the middle position is necessarily superior, only that it likely exists).

    Tom:

    The police do use coercion. They may not use physical pain, the govt. engages in extortion against criminals on a daily basis. I one represented 1 22 year old kid who was tangentially involed in a marijuana conspiracy. The USA gave him two alternatives: plead to his own possession and do 5 years, or go to trial on the conspiracy charges and do 35 years. That may not be torture in the strict sense, but it is coercion of a different kind. Would, however, we had such tools available in the WOT.

    • #46
  17. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Mike Rapkoch: The police do use coercion. They may not use physical pain, the govt. engages in extortion against criminals on a daily basis. I one represented 1 22 year old kid who was tangentially involed in a marijuana conspiracy. The USA gave him two alternatives: plead to his own possession and do 5 years, or go to trial on the conspiracy charges and do 35 years. That may not be torture in the strict sense, but it is coercion of a different kind. Would, however, we had such tools available in the WOT.

    Mike, I have a lot of respect for you, but this is absurd. We have — rightfully! — a lot more leverage over Jihadis in military custody than over the common criminal. I’m hardly above coercing these guys and — under some very narrow circumstances — I would absolutely condone torture (I’m also, frankly, aghast that none of them have been executed). That doesn’t mean that we made the right decision at the time.

    I’ve a longer response, but I need to get something else finished.

    • #47
  18. user_1030767 Inactive
    user_1030767
    @TheQuestion

    Son of Spengler:

    The other approach is to define torture as the deliberate infliction of pain for its own sake. Under this alternative approach, enhanced interrogation is not torture because the goal is information, not punishment.

    I agree.  Inflicting pain on a helpless prisoner would be torture.  An active conspirator in a murderous plot is not a helpless prisoner.  They have the power to protect or sabotage that murderous plot.

    • #48
  19. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Mike Rapkoch: The police do use coercion. They may not use physical pain, the govt. engages in extortion against criminals on a daily basis. I one represented 1 22 year old kid who was tangentially involed in a marijuana conspiracy. The USA gave him two alternatives: plead to his own possession and do 5 years, or go to trial on the conspiracy charges and do 35 years. That may not be torture in the strict sense, but it is coercion of a different kind. Would, however, we had such tools available in the WOT.

    Mike, I have a lot of respect for you, but this is absurd. We have — rightfully! — a lot more leverage over Jihadis in military custody than over the common criminal. I’m hardly above coercing these guys and — under some very narrow circumstances — I would absolutely condone torture (I’m also, frankly, aghast that none of them have been executed). That doesn’t mean that we made the right decision at the time.

    I’ve a longer response, but I need to get something else finished.

    I realize the comparison is tenuous. Perhaps I didn’t phrase my response with sufficient acuity. All I’m saying is that coercion is an essential aspect of interrogation. The issue is how well measured are the means used?

    As I read through the report–and it is unpleasant–I have gotten a bit more critical, especially because so much of what was done was inept. Still, given the situation, the powers that be had to make critical choices because to do otherwise would have been a breach of duty with potentially dreadful consequences.

    I’m all in favor of releasing the report as it think the people need to have some idea of what has been done in our name. We can debate it. But we should debate with an eye towards the situation that existed at the time. As the WOT goes on it will, I think, still be very difficult to establish absolutes.

    I’m looking forward to your longer response. This is exactly the debate we need to have. It would be great if more people looked to Ricochet where issues can be discussed and debated in a civil manner.

    • #49
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    From Harper’s (in 2009!!):

    Advocates often portray torture, like waterboarding, as black magic that quickly enables the interrogator to break through his subject’s defenses and force him to divulge the location of the bomb that will destroy Los Angeles. But what does the scientific literature say? A 2006 Intelligence Science Board flatly noted that there was no data supporting the claim that torture produces reliable results. The 372-page report would be summed up by this passage: “The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information. In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that ‘compliance’ carries the same connotation as ‘meaningful cooperation.’ ” In other words, waterboard someone or smack his head against the wall, and sure enough, he’ll open up and talk. But does that mean you’ll get reliable info that you couldn’t have gotten using more conventional techniques? Absolutely not.

    There is another factor that casts doubt on the reliability of statements made by a torture subject. O’Mara puts it simply: “while I’m talking, I’m not being water-boarded.” It’s a sort of Pavlovian conditioning—if I talk, the torture will stop. Such circumstances virtually guarantee that a subject will talk. They just don’t make it more likely that he will tell the truth. In fact, just the opposite. “To briefly summarize a vast, complex literature: prolonged and extreme stress inhibits the biological processes believed to support memory in the brain,” writes the Irish scholar. “Coercive interrogations involving extreme stress are unlikely, given our current cognitive neurobiological knowledge, to facilitate the release of veridical information from long-term memory.” Let’s translate that: torture tends to make the information provided less reliable.

    • #50
  21. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    So unsurprisingly, from the Senate Report:

    The Committee finds, based on a review of CIA interrogation records, that the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation technique was not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation.

    For example, according to CIA records, seven of the 39 detainees known to have been subjected to the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques produced no intelligence while in CIA custody.  CIA detainees who were subjected to the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques were usually subjected to the techniques immediately after being rendered to CIA custody.  Other detainees provided significant accurate intelligence prior to, or without having been subjected to these techniques.

    While being subjected to the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques and afterwards, multiple CIA detainees fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence.  Detainees provided fabricated information on critical intelligence issues, including the terrorist threats which the CIA identified as its highest priorities.

    At numerous times throughout the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program, CIA personnel assessed the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees the CIA considered to be the most “high value”, was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the Intelligence Community.   CIA officers regularly called into question whether the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques were effective, assessing that the use of the techniques failed to elicit detainee cooperation or produce accurate intelligence.

    • #51
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    So why engage in torture?

    We’re not seeing too many “professionals” argue the case for torture–instead we see those who believe fighting terrorists is about some kind of contest of will between Islam and the West romanticizing criminal behavior as “necessary” because, for some reason, they think protecting American society requires that [we] take our cues from those we’re fighting.

    Iow not just incompetence but self indulgent thinking.

    • #52
  23. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Pilli: The 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.  Should we take out Mecca, Medina or Riyadh? Much of the instigation for terrorists comes from Iran.  Should we take out Tehran? At the time, Libya supported terrorists.  Should we have taken out Tripoli? (almost a moot question now.)

    Suppose Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber,” had been successful.  He was English.  Would the proper response be to nuke London?

    • #53
  24. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Mike Rapkoch: Christian love demands that we love our neighbor, even our enemy, but the question at hand is “who is my neighbor?” In times of war only the people who share our common purpose are our neighbors.

    No, I don’t think that’s the question at hand.  Jesus is pretty clear on this point:

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    Christian love demands that we love our enemies, and pray for them, even in times of war.  We should love them because our heavenly Father loves them, and because Jesus died on the cross for all of sinful humanity — including Nazis, Communists, and Al Qaeda.

    • #54
  25. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Michael Sanregret: If a rape is being committed, is there any moral limit on the amount of pain you can inflict on the rapist to induce them to stop committing the rape?  What if someone was involved in planning a rape, and refuses to provide any information about the rape because he wants the rape to happen?  If I beat the information out of that person, my conscience wouldn’t bother me, I don’t think.

    What if you suspect someone might be involved in planning a rape?  Would you torture them until they admitted it?

    When someone is in the act of committing a violent crime (rape, murder, terrorism) it is legitimate to use deadly force to stop them, and there is no ambiguity about the situation: there they are, right before your very eyes, committing the crime.

    Whereas when someone is charged with committing a crime after the fact, we afford them protections (such as “innocent until proven guilty”) on the grounds that we don’t want to hang someone who later turns out to be innocent.

    The situation becomes even more ambiguous when you’re dealing with someone you suspect might be plotting a future crime that hasn’t even happened yet.  Now we’re in Minority Report territory.

    • #55
  26. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Joseph Stanko:

    Michael Sanregret: If a rape is being committed, is there any moral limit on the amount of pain you can inflict on the rapist to induce them to stop committing the rape? What if someone was involved in planning a rape, and refuses to provide any information about the rape because he wants the rape to happen? If I beat the information out of that person, my conscience wouldn’t bother me, I don’t think.

    What if you suspect someone might be involved in planning a rape? Would you torture them until they admitted it?

    When someone is in the act of committing a violent crime (rape, murder, terrorism) it is legitimate to use deadly force to stop them, and there is no ambiguity about the situation: there they are, right before your very eyes, committing the crime.

    Whereas when someone is charged with committing a crime after the fact, we afford them protections (such as “innocent until proven guilty”) on the grounds that we don’t want to hang someone who later turns out to be innocent.

    The situation becomes even more ambiguous when you’re dealing with someone you suspect might be plotting a future crime that hasn’t even happened yet. Now we’re in Minority Report territory.

    The situation is even more complicated by the fact that we are dealing with an enemy that is not a state per se. I’m talking Al Quaeda not ISIS. Under some legal theories there is a distinction between laws regarding persons and laws regarding states. States (nations) are bound under both natural and positive laws. e.g., treaties. But what law applies to Al Quaeda? I might argue that the applicable law is determined by the enemy’s methods. They set the terms through their actions and we must respond in ways both effective and proportional.

    Somewhere Aquinas wrote that the preemptive killing of a tyrant could in some circumstances be justified if there was evidence sufficient to determine what evil acts he might commit.

    I used an analogy between self-defense and the defense of nations, but concede that it only an analogy. Would it be wrong to torture a rapist? Again, I think, the circumstances direct the response. If the rapist is sufficiently cruel, has the available means, and his attack is imminent then harsh action could be permissable. When dealing with terrorists there is an ongoing risk, the means may be imminently available, and the plot deadly. Under those circumstances some pretty tough stuff seems not only permissable, but required.

    • #56
  27. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Joseph Stanko:

    Mike Rapkoch: Christian love demands that we love our neighbor, even our enemy, but the question at hand is “who is my neighbor?” In times of war only the people who share our common purpose are our neighbors.

    No, I don’t think that’s the question at hand. Jesus is pretty clear on this point:

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    Christian love demands that we love our enemies, and pray for them, even in times of war. We should love them because our heavenly Father loves them, and because Jesus died on the cross for all of sinful humanity — including Nazis, Communists, and Al Qaeda.

    Yes, we love them, but in time of war we must also hate them and kill them. We could classify this as hate the sin love the sinner. But if we do not depersonalize our enemies while they do depersonalize us we could not defend the nation, or for that matter, ourselves. In this context the word “hate,” like so many terms in this debate, is ambiguous. I have three nephews who are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. They generally respected the peoples of those countries. But they did not make the mistake of equating peaceful Afghanis or Iraqis with the Jihadists.

    • #57
  28. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Zafar:So why engage in torture?

    Iow not just incompetence but self indulgent thinking.

    Okay. So what would you do to make us better than that?

    • #58
  29. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    Mike Rapkoch:

    Joseph Stanko:

    Mike Rapkoch: Christian love demands that we love our neighbor, even our enemy, but the question at hand is “who is my neighbor?” In times of war only the people who share our common purpose are our neighbors.

    No, I don’t think that’s the question at hand. Jesus is pretty clear on this point:

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    Christian love demands that we love our enemies, and pray for them, even in times of war. We should love them because our heavenly Father loves them, and because Jesus died on the cross for all of sinful humanity — including Nazis, Communists, and Al Qaeda.

    Yes, we love them, but in time of war we must also hate them and kill them. We could classify this as hate the sin love the sinner. But if we do not depersonalize our enemies while they do depersonalize us we could not defend the nation, or for that matter, ourselves. In this context the word “hate,” like so many terms in this debate, is ambiguous. I have three nephews who are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. They generally respected the peoples of those countries. But they did not make the mistake of equating peaceful Afghanis or Iraqis with the Jihadists.

    My theology on warfare is a little rusty, but I recall that soldiers should still love their opponents, even as they must kill them.  It’s not just a professional detachment, but a recognition that -though necessary -killing them should be done humanely and with respect to their status as humans.  Which is not to say you can’t blow people up with high explosives, but to say that we recognize the person we are destroying is made in the image of God, and that it is tragic that we must kill them because of the circumstances of a fallen world.

    It is tragic that so many Germans were Nazis, and thus we had to kill them.  Their being Nazis does not justify our hating them and therefore give us carte blanche to slaughter them.

    Though this is also not to say that a soldier cannot enjoy his work or take pride in doing it well -again, it just means recognizing that opposing soldiers to not exist to justify your bloodlust, and it would be better all around if war never happened.

    • #59
  30. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    Love and hate are a little hard to define in combat. More fear and rage. I am not sure you find many soldiers hating OR loving the enemy. But you will certainly find soldiers gripped with fear AND rage. They will do things driven by those emotions, often to the aid of their fellow soliders. Sometimes later they feel sorry about having done things, but that thought doesn’t cross their minds during the fight.

    And in all that noise, you do find acts of kindness and mercy. But usually only among the Western soldiers. The Japanese didn’t extend any quarter – and got none in return. See Mike”s comment #44. For perspective, on Iwo, 2/24 landed in the first wave, had 200 men as replacements added while deployed, and after a month of combat were pulled out as “non-effective”. They went in with 1400 men. When they were pulled 1 month later, 199 men walked off, and of those only 91 were unwounded. Think on those statistics to understand how the Marines fought on Iwo. IIRC 23,000 Japanese were ALL killed on Iwo – mostly their choice, but some because they got no real choice. “Captured” Marines, men taken during the night from a foxhole, were later found in caves tortured grotesquely. Tends to set you mind about taking prisoners.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.