Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[Jester]

The way to win is to be steadfastly who we are, work with the moderates who don't want us dead, and to continue to give terrorism no safe haven and establish international cooperation in all nations to root it out from their soil.

If you want to support moderates, you have to give them ground to stand on. If you make every issue a "reform now, and we won't do business or diplomacy with you until you do XYZ" matter, then you're going to polarize those countries. Every dictator will paint the US as the global bully (not entirely inaccurate), and moderates will be unable to complain without appearing anti-national. This kind of polarization happened in practically every nation in Latin America, including the ones that are ostensibly on your side.

If you want to establish international cooperation, you're going to have to deal with the fact that the US sits at the far end of this issue, and that other countries feel differently. If you're willing to tell them where to stick it, then you'll certainly appear strong and decisive, but you're also not going to get any cooperation.

If you want to eat the cake, eat the cake, but don't expect to see it on your plate afterwards.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If you want to support moderates, you have to give them ground to stand on. If you make every issue a "reform now, and we won't do business or diplomacy with you until you do XYZ" matter, then you're going to polarize those countries. Every dictator will paint the US as the global bully (not entirely inaccurate), and moderates will be unable to complain without appearing anti-national. This kind of polarization happened in practically every nation in Latin America, including the ones that are ostensibly on your side.

If you want to establish international cooperation, you're going to have to deal with the fact that the US sits at the far end of this issue, and that other countries feel differently. If you're willing to tell them where to stick it, then you'll certainly appear strong and decisive, but you're also not going to get any cooperation.

If you want to eat the cake, eat the cake, but don't expect to see it on your plate afterwards.

-Jester

I would ask then what good are the "principles for which we stand", if we must forgo them in the attempt to out woo our opponents?

[Jester]

I would ask then what good are the "principles for which we stand", if we must forgo them in the attempt to out woo our opponents?

You don't have to "forego" your principles in order to be realistic about foreign policy. You can do whatever you like, domestically. But when you step into the world of foreign policy, you just have to acknowledge that the world does not simply obey your commands if you yell loud enough. There are realistic, constructive ways to promote your principles, and there are quixotic, destructive ways to try (and no doubt fail) to cram them down the throats of other countries. Even Nixon, of all people, had that much figured out.

-Jester

[--Pete]

hi,

I would ask then what good are the "principles for which we stand", if we must forgo them in the attempt to out woo our opponents?

Just which principles are you speaking of? The equality of mankind? Rule by law? Freedom of expression? Freedom of choice?

How are we forgoing any of these by trying to work together with out allies and, yes, even with our enemies? Because *they* may not follow those principles, does it mean we've given them up? Or do you think we can win them to our side with "our way or the highway" diplomacy?

Has it occurred to you that in diplomacy, you need to be diplomatic? Yeah, 'carry a big stick', but don't forget the 'speak softly part. After all, in spite of what many seem to think, geopolitics is not a WWF smack down. Large quantities of ignorant bluster does not allies make.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Insofar as the excesses and wrongs committed (partly in pursuit of information, partly due to the breakdown of discipline) have been identified and fixed by the system itself, then that reflects well on the system. In almost all cases, the rule of law still governs the US, and both your country and the world is better for it.

Roughly, yes.

But if you say often enough that exceptions are going to be made, that this particular enemy, for whatever special pleading reason requires going beyond the rules, the rules will quickly cease to mean anything.

No, by your own point above on self correction, and below. ;)

This is not how the US has proceeded internally, and that is to their credit, even if the initial actions are not. I agree, not enough disciplinary action was taken, especially higher up the chain. If it is made clear that the only people who will suffer are the poor shmucks who do the dirty work, then that removes all credible deterrent for the brass not to order it, or not to look the other way when it happens.

We agree. Sadly, in politics, the McNamaras and Cheney's of the world don't get held to account. That is reality.

What goes on through rendition in places like Uzbekistan is another matter. The CIA is apparently willing to cross lines that the military is not.

So long as they are following guidelines and rules we Americans have in place, I don't much care whose nuts they fry. The problem is: are they breaking American law? If so, that must be addressed.

I do not believe torture has provided much useful intelligence.

Gien that neither you nor I are in teh business, and that professionals who have actually been involved both agree and disagree with you, what you believe isn't of much weight. Since a great deal of what General Hayden and ex VP Cheney assert was useful info is apparently still not in the public domain, we are left wondering, at best. That you are skeptical of them, given this being politics, is understandable.

Almost all of what we know about Al Qaeda, or its Iraqi namesake, has been obtained by other means.

I'd reopen the timeliness issue, but won't boher. Not enough time.;)

I'm a pacifist in approximately the sense that Russell was, although I don't agree with him about everything. Ends which can be accomplished without violence, should be.
I can agree with that without being a pacifist. I generallly do.

Ends that require violence can only be justified on grounds of necessity.

But maybe I'll ask this: is there anything you'll kill for?

I know what I'll kill for. I had to answer that, to myself, over a decade ago, or leave the service and sell my guns.

I did neither.

Occhi

[Jester]

But maybe I'll ask this: is there anything you'll kill for?

Pragmatically, I have no idea when I would kill. Never been presented with such a choice, not sure how I'd fare. But philosophically...

I'd kill to prevent more killing. I'd kill if I was convinced it was necessary to keep civilization going, especially the preservation and production of knowledge. I'd kill to prevent a sufficiently horrible atrocity, like the torturing of innocent people.

But, the key even in all those situations, is that I would only kill under fair certainty that those would definitely be the consequences of my not killing.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You don't have to "forego" your principles in order to be realistic about foreign policy. You can do whatever you like, domestically. But when you step into the world of foreign policy, you just have to acknowledge that the world does not simply obey your commands if you yell loud enough. There are realistic, constructive ways to promote your principles, and there are quixotic, destructive ways to try (and no doubt fail) to cram them down the throats of other countries. Even Nixon, of all people, had that much figured out.

I think there is a difference between those nations that "know" the difference between right and wrong, yet choose to do wrong things. For example, I wouldn't expect the same behavior from Saudi Arabia that I would from Switzerland because of their differences in traditions. Yet, I would condemn equally the barbarity of both nations when it is exhibited. I don't have multiple standards, but when some nations fail to meet the standards I'm not surprised, whereas when others fail, like the USA, I am flabbergasted. Diplomacy is something different than engaging in free trade and open borders.

[Jester]

Diplomacy is something different than engaging in free trade and open borders.

Well, as of 2008, with Cuba, you had no formal diplomacy to speak of, a 50 year old embargo on practically everything, and an absolute travel ban. There's miles of policy space between that, and free trade and open borders. There is no other country on earth, not even North Korea, where the restrictions are so severe. Would it be "prostrating" to maybe treat them with as much friendship as close allies like Iran? Because right now, and for half a century, relations haven't even been that good. Cuba is literally the rock bottom case.

Out of curiosity, which group does Cuba fall into, the "don't expect any better" camp, or the "how could they possibly" camp?

-Jester

Edit: Changed "right now" to "as of 2008" in light of recent small, but important, modifications to the travel ban.

[kandrathe]

Well, as of 2008, with Cuba, you had no formal diplomacy to speak of, a 50 year old embargo on practically everything, and an absolute travel ban.

It would be OK if the US government wanted to try to have an embassy in these places, as long as they are guaranteed safety. But, we all know the history of US embassies in hostile territories.

There is no other country on earth, not even North Korea, where the restrictions are so severe. Would it be "prostrating" to maybe treat them with as much friendship as close allies like Iran? Because right now, and for half a century, relations haven't even been that good. Cuba is literally the rock bottom case.

Yss, we should treat criminal regimes equally, so I have no problem in adding Iran and North Korea to the list of people that we treat like Cuba. These would be the people at the "D-" rating on an A through F system, where F is "At war", and "A" is "most favored nation status". They would be "F" if we cared enough to risk American lives, but there is no reason to actually fight with them. I believe technically, we are still in a cease fire with North Korea, but the War is in stasis. In 2007 the official US position was, ""We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War." I think Cuba got the "D-" when they put the USSR's nuclear missile silos on their soil, and we haven't moved past that yet. And Iran, well, Iraq was much about showing Iran what we'd really like to do to them, if only we cared enough (and securing our supply of cheap oil of course).

Out of curiosity, which group does Cuba fall into, the "don't expect any better" camp, or the "how could they possibly" camp?

"how could they possibly" -- it is telling that the most vocal advocates of Castro come from Phd's outside of Cuba.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/02/18/cuba...-remains-intact

[Jester]

Yss, we should treat criminal regimes equally, so I have no problem in adding Iran and North Korea to the list of people that we treat like Cuba.

Is it perhaps telling that in none of these countries have your relations improved in at least three decades, nor has hostility produced any substantial progress in furthering your principles, ever?

-Jester

From your link:

The counterproductive US embargo policy continues to give the Cuban government a pretext for human rights violations.

Amen.

[kandrathe]

Is it perhaps telling that in none of these countries have your relations improved in at least three decades, nor has hostility produced any substantial progress in furthering your principles, ever?

The DMZ is a metaphor for the intransigence of both sides. Why do liberals around the world always devote themselves to telling the US to blink first? Where is your righteous anger for Kim Jong Il, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or the Castro brothers? Why not organize your protests and marches all over the world to call on these thugs to join the ranks of friendly nations? No, you want us to step up, swallow hard, set aside our principles and bend over. I don't think we have to, and I don't think we want to, and I'm not sure what good purpose it would serve other than showing other thugs that we will set aside our principles. Maybe next time we'll do it after 50 months, or 50 days instead of 50 years. You know, I view myself to be a pretty tolerant person, but I'm only tolerant to a point. If they act like a horses ass, then I feel we have the right to not have anything to do with them. They are free to choose a different course, but from what I see, they are still being the horses ass.

From your link:

I like HRW, however, they too buy into the post modern concept that we can win by lowering our standards. That is not a win in my way of thinking, it is double speak for capitulating.

[Jester]

Why do liberals around the world always devote themselves to telling the US to blink first?

Right. Like you were losing some childish game. Like cooperation was weakness. Like the cold war just kept on going, the great nuclear staring contest. Do you really think you're going to win some kind of prize by 'not blinking'? By having the courage to maintain the most unproductive and antagonistic policies? Nobody is judging this contest. The results are all we have, and judging so far, the results of this strategy seem to be terrible.

Where is your righteous anger for Kim Jong Il, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or the Castro brothers?

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Kim Jong Il, and regularly call North Korea "the worst country in the world". (Haiti is the only serious competitor, though Zimbabwe is trying very hard these days.) I have no sympathy for Iranian theocracy, and I despise the populist blowhard of a president they currently have. Cuba is in a slightly different category, but I have no problem assigning the lion's share of the blame for their ruined economy or their repressive government: this is Castro's fault. For all these countries, I eagerly await the day when they have open, free, sensible governance.

However, these countries are not listening. They are dictatorships, except Iran, whose theocracy is close enough. I could protest them until my legs fell off, and it would matter not a whit. The United States is an ally, a country with whom I feel broad sympathy, and whose influence is enormous. And yet, I feel that these policies are mistaken, and not just that, but mistaken in ways which are impeding the progress of things I believe in, like freedom. When the US moves in the wrong direction, the consequences are serious. And so, my criticisms are focused there, at the place where there is the power, and possibly even the will, to change things.

No, you want us to step up, swallow hard, set aside our principles and bend over.

Why is it always sexual? This isn't a muscle beach. You don't win with steroids, by being the man's man, by showing your enemies that they're the one that has to "bend over", "prostrate" themselves, be "humiliated". This is out and out machismo, and as far as I'm concerned, it is the single most useless idea in all history. Neither strength nor principle is measured by how little you are willing to engage, listen, and compromise where appropriate.

-Jester

Edit: Extra negatives to not help get one's point across!

[--Pete]

Hi,

This is out and out machismo, and as far as I'm concerned, it is the single most useless idea in all history.

Second most useless, at best. And probably as old as the most useless, but not as lucrative.

As to the whole "don't even talk to the bad guys" concept, look at how well it worked out in . . . hmmm, I'm sure I'll remember where in a bit.

--Pete

[eppie]

Gien that neither you nor I are in teh business, and that professionals who have actually been involved both agree and disagree with you, what you believe isn't of much weight. Since a great deal of what General Hayden and ex VP Cheney assert was useful info is apparently still not in the public domain, we are left wondering, at best. That you are skeptical of them, given this being politics, is understandable.
I'd reopen the timeliness issue, but won't boher. Not enough time.;)

Occhi

Torture might sometimes have yielded some useful information. However I think that the damage done to our credibility, the increase in anti-western sentiments, the increase in the size of the stick to beat the US government with and because of this the increase in willingness of eg farmers in the middle of Aghanistan that have never travelled to another country to get involved in terrorism, have had a much larger impact.


Look at what the russians have been doing in chechenya for years.....I mean if your army commits such artrocities you shouldn't be surprized if you become a victim of terrorism. That is not nice, but that is how things work.

If you are the most powerful nation in the world, the only way to go is to behave correctly....all other options will make you lose credibility and support.

eppie


ps the only reason for the Cuba boycot was the fact that the rich could show off by smoking nice cuban cigars that normal people were not allowed to buy. So in that sense comparable to the ban on drugs....using cocain is so much nicer if it also showsother people that you are rich and succesful.

[Ashock]

ps the only reason for the Cuba boycot was the fact that the rich could show off by smoking nice cuban cigars that normal people were not allowed to buy. So in that sense comparable to the ban on drugs....using cocain is so much nicer if it also showsother people that you are rich and succesful.

I believe I stopped responding to your posts several years ago, but really... I could not resist this one, forgive me. If you tried.... real hard... to appear... let's just say... somewhat slow, you could not have done a better job than by writing this one passage. LOL. You are not the Speaker of the House by chance are you? If there's a House of Reps where you live. Anyway...

[eppie]

I believe I stopped responding to your posts several years ago, but really... I could not resist this one, forgive me. If you tried.... real hard... to appear... let's just say... somewhat slow, you could not have done a better job than by writing this one passage. LOL. You are not the Speaker of the House by chance are you? If there's a House of Reps where you live. Anyway...

And I believe I stopped replying to your posts. The only reason I do now is because you have such a cool avatar.

[Kevin]

If you are the most powerful nation in the world, the only way to go is to behave correctly....all other options will make you lose credibility and support.

And who decides "correctly". The Chinese wouldn't think we behave correctly. Most of Europe has never felt we have either. We are at the same time too liberal and too conservative. We have been accused of using our power too quickly and not using it quickly enough. We've been asked to help police the world and we've been asked to "keep your interfering nose out of that situation" on the same situation by close allies who you would think agree with us.

You can not make a statement like that. You may have been trying to convey that you have to take the moral high ground when you have the strength to do whatever you want. But do the correct thing is a very poor way to state it.

Even morally. Is it better to spend many lives now on a chance that removing some leader who is doing horrible things will stick? Is the morality measured by the total amounts of lives saved or lost by making a change or doing nothing? Oh and just saying "Oh you're bad" isn't doing anything. Developed countries that do that and then increase trade levels or sell them weapons annoy me. And yes I'm annoyed by the United States a lot on that front too.

I don't disagree that the US should try to be as moral and open as possible. But there is no universally accepted agreement on what that is.


Oh and you're little PS, I wanted to think you were joking but based on past comments you've made I think you were serious. So yeah, everything in this country is controlled by the almighty dollar and people will do horrendous things just for status symbols. Yep, that controls EVERYTHING you are so right on. < /sarcasm >

[eppie]

And who decides "correctly". The Chinese wouldn't think we behave correctly. Most of Europe has never felt we have either. We are at the same time too liberal and too conservative. We have been accused of using our power too quickly and not using it quickly enough. We've been asked to help police the world and we've been asked to "keep your interfering nose out of that situation" on the same situation by close allies who you would think agree with us.

I was just pointing at torturing, not about the Iraq war. Liberal or conservative doesn't make a difference. Torturing does. If you fight against barbarism, don't use torture because nobody takes you serious.

I can make a comment related to this, but about the war in Iraq. I don't want to discuss if it was right or wrong to go there and if it is good or not what the west tries to do there, I want to discuss about image.

If you go and fight such a war you know you are going to be critized, no matter how well you behave. But still, if the whole Abu Graib scandal didn't take place, what would that have done for the opinion of the people about this war? And how much higher would be Bush' approval rate? I think chances would be very big that even you would have had a different president right now. And this was just talking about the influence on the american people. The image of the US in the world (as you probably know) also changed a lot.
You should realize how big consequences such small things can have. So instead of torturing somebody hoping to find number 635 on the list of most wanted terrorists (or just for getting a nice picture) maybe they should have thought about all that was lost when they started doing it.


And about your last remark? Well maybe you should try and look at things from different perspectives sometimes. Or do you also believe that now Obama is looking at getting better relations with Cuba the chances of Cuba (with their massive Army) invading Florida have increased dramatically?:)

(by theway; my remark which was half joking and that as I expected got allready some angry replies was about the fact that Cuban cigars were illegal in the US, and that many people were anyway still smoking them, and that it should at least be slightly funny to make it illegal to import cigars from a country....I hope I got my facts right here.....if it was not correct please tell me so that I can edit it away and apologize)

[kandrathe]

Torture might sometimes have yielded some useful information. However I think that the damage done to our credibility, the increase in anti-western sentiments, the increase in the size of the stick to beat the US government with and because of this the increase in willingness of eg. farmers in the middle of Afghanistan that have never traveled to another country to get involved in terrorism, have had a much larger impact.

I really don't buy that argument. I might also make the argument that it dissuades an equal number who might not want to become involved in a struggle where there is a high likelihood of ending up in a place like Abu Garib, Gitmo, or some unknown "black" prison far from home. They might be fine with dying the martyrs death, but are they prepared to be stuck in a prison cell for the next 20 or 30 years while we argue what an "enemy combatant" might be as opposed to what a "terrorist" might be?

There may be some people who are teetering toward joining the jihad who may be influenced by the "they tortured" argument. I believe most are influenced by the "riches in heaven" argument, or the "expanding the power of the pan-Islamic revolution" reasons. Realistically, they are joining a movement who detonates explosives in crowded markets filled with Islamic women and children, and one that routinely beheads their captives on video tape. Do you really think the thought of their leader strapped to a board with their face covered with a wet cloth is going to outrage them much more than his capture and rendition?

Look at what the Russians have been doing in Chechnya for years.....I mean if your army commits such atrocities you shouldn't be surprised if you become a victim of terrorism. That is not nice, but that is how things work.

If you pile up your money in these banks, then you shouldn't be surprised if you are the victim of bank robbers. If you walk down the street unprotected, then you shouldn't be surprised when you are the victim of rape and murder. I don't accept that "you provoke me" logic either.

The modern battle field is no longer a place, it is in the will. Terrorism used by Chechen rebels, and the Russian armies use of their atrocities are both horrible attempts to attack the "will" of their opponent. Both are trying to up the ante, and to make staying in conflict untenable. The political question is whether Russia allows Chechen's to break away and become an independent state, or whether the Russians will force the Chechen's to bow to their will. If the struggle continues, the Russians will win. They are killing many more Chechen's than vice versa, so if the "Cleansing Operations" continue the result will be a Chechnya free of Chechen's.

If you are the most powerful nation in the world, the only way to go is to behave correctly....all other options will make you lose credibility and support.

See Useful Idiot and contemplate your position accordingly.

[Kevin]

I was just pointing at torturing, not about the Iraq war. Liberal or conservative doesn't make a difference. Torturing does. If you fight against barbarism, don't use torture because nobody takes you serious.

I've also stated that I'm against torture in this thread. I've stated elsewhere that I don't think going into Iraq was the right call either. The focus should have stayed on Afghanistan and a few other places. I'm willing to admit that there is a possibility that going into Iraq may actually end up doing some good, but I didn't like that method either.

I'm not happy with how we treat the Saudi's because was want their oil so bad either. Dealing with the crap going on in that country would help stop terrorism better than a lot of other methods.

You should realize how big consequences such small things can have. So instead of torturing somebody hoping to find number 635 on the list of most wanted terrorists (or just for getting a nice picture) maybe they should have thought about all that was lost when they started doing it.

Do you think I don't? Everything the US does has huge consequences, that was part of my point. It's hard for this country to "win" in foreign opinion, because every thing we do is put under a microscope. Other countries don't get treated in the same way by the rest of the world. I also don't think we've created more terrorist by torturing. I'm with Kan on this one. Most of those people are being influenced by other arguments. The reputation hit with other countries is real, but I also believe that we would have gotten that hit for something else.

As mentioned we send aid somewhere we take a foreign relations hit for sending the wrong aid or not enough or because someone doesn't like that country.

And there is a lot of stuff that gets positive foreign support that we do too. But if I were in charge my version of correct would likely be as criticized as all our other leaders. And of course I understand that some leaders make us look better than others, but our leadership changes relatively frequently. Congress and the President are rarely the same party at the same time and we tend to flip them around a lot. Eh whatever.

And about your last remark? Well maybe you should try and look at things from different perspectives sometimes. Or do you also believe that now Obama is looking at getting better relations with Cuba the chances of Cuba (with their massive Army) invading Florida have increased dramatically?:)

I've said I was for the steps that have been taken to lift the embargo. Cuba has made changes in policies recently and we are responding to those changes. This is good.

I've never thought Cuba was going to invade the US. But you're joke about the army is also uninformed as Cuba had the 3rd largest army in the Western Hemisphere for quite some time behind only the US and Brazil and it was very well trained. All the funds that Castro got from other sources while the US and much of the rest of the Americas were enforcing the embargo was funneled to the military. Cuba was very active in conflicts in Africa and successful in many as well because the military wasn't a joke. But that's not really central to the argument.

Part of the tone of my post was to see what assumptions you would make about me as well and yep you assumed many things that were not right as well.