Return to Article: CIA veterans speak out against torture
-
39531
What isn't understood is that torture encourages terrorism. It is part of the vicious cycle of retribution. Once one side uses torture, the other side feels justified in whatever means it chooses to seek revenge. People who have been tortured often become bombers or train bombers.
This situation is made worse because many innocent people are often victims. (Torture presupposes that the torturers do not know what the victim knows, so innocent people are of necessity going to be victims.) What results from torturing these innocents? Terrorism seems unthinkable to most Europeans, but what might any of us do if our wives or husbands or children were tortured? Given that the identity of the torturers would be hidden, might there be a temptation to use any means possible to attack a faceless enemy?
Torture seems like a sudden and new "issue" for many Americans. We have not studied the lessons of the French in Algiers. Supporting torture means supporting terrorism.
-
13939
I am categorically against torture. The problem with much of the discussion is what is being called "torture." What I went through as an initiation into the varsity club in school fits the description, so do many other Boy Scout, Girl Scout and other organizations. Even the rites of the Free Masons would from what I've been told.
I think nobody questions the fingernail removal or electrode application is torture. But putting a bag over someone's head, letting dogs bark and snarl? Letting their minds run with what might be coming? We used to go to "horror" films by Alfred Hitchcock to do just that.
I don't want the torture prohibition being so confining that our enemies feel they can act with impunity, anymore than I want the United States to unequivocally sign on to a non-first-strike treaty; let the threat do what we never would do.
And a point of order for those that keep making the point: "What if it was Americans being tortured?" It is. Look around the world, primarily in the Arab countries under the Islamic fatwah to eliminate the "enemies of Islam."
-
13900
Actually, we did go after those who attacked us first, in Afghanistan, and are still there "going after" them. It will take some time, because in the real world, it's not easy catching someone who doesn't want to be found.
-
13884
Yay! We're slightly better than dictators, mass murderers, terrorists and war criminals! That's good enough for me!
-
13844
The priority should have been to get those who attacked us first. Bush failed to do that. Because of that, they have been free to attack many other countries around the world. He brought the war on terrorism to Iraq, not the terrorists. He created terror central in Iraq. He invited terrorists to bring it on. Considering terrorism has only grown since Bush has been in office, I don't see how you can believe we are winning or that Bush actually has some kind of plan. So let's just become like the people we're fighting. How does that make us any different?
-
13811
After 9/11, President Bush and his administration committed the U.S. to go after terrorists no matter where they are, not just Bin Laden (go back and watch the media coverage yourself if you don't believe me). Funny how nobody in Congress or elsewhere complained then.
The "War on Terror" has many fronts. Just as the United States didn't just go after Japan after Pearl Harbor (remember those other foes, Germany and Italy?) we can't just stop at Al Queda, when there are numerous others seeking to destroy us and our way of life.
Regarding Iraq, Hussein did commit atrocities; he did have and used WMDs against the Kurds, Shiites, and Iranians; he did support the families of suicide bombers in Israel and Gaza; he did offer refuge and support (including funding and medical care for wounded terrorists) to a variety of terrorist leaders and groups; and so on. That's why the United States has troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, Africa, and many other places, because they are all fronts in the War on Terror.
Just a little reminder to those of you who forgot what happened on 9/11, and what has taken place since then. By the way, I survived the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and the 9/11 attack, so forgive me if I don't shed any tears for terrorists we have captured. The treatment they are receiving is far better than the treatment received by those they capture!
-
13780
Have you forgotten that my statement said nothing about Saddam Hussein being connected with 9/11? I was talking about terrorists, not Hussein. Geez, get over yourself.
-
13749
Have you forgotten that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? That was Osama Bin Forgotten, not Hussein. Most of the people being held seem to have little or no connection to terrorism. It's hard to determine since you can't believe anything this administration says. Considering the 9/11 commission has given Bush failing grades in most of the recommended areas for improving national security, I don't see how torturing some petty criminal in Baghdad is helping us to be safer. You are buying into the sound bite mentality of Bush and his cronies. We have to be smarter than that if we want to win the war on terrorism. "Stay the course" is a slogan, not a strategy.
-
13726
For you phony "Christians" who believe in an "eye for an eye," that was Old Testament stuff. Read the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. Jesus said not an eye for an eye, but rather turn the other cheek. This is exactly why it is way too hard for most people to really be true Christians. Meantime, my point still hasn't been addressed: the torture advocates still haven't explained how we can be sure our government would only torture real, actual terrorists as opposed to random people picked up as "suspects."
-
13691
Have all of you forgotten what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 and all the bombings before that? Terrorists don't want a big group hug. They want to kill Americans, even taking their own lives to do it. I say do whatever it takes to protect me and my family from these psychopaths. And the Baby Boomer remark is probably the dumbest one I ever heard. What would generation X'ers have us do? Listen to head-banging music on our iPods while Middle Eastern terrorists kill all Americans? Better yet, use it as a means of torture!
-
13682
Very well Taxpayer, I'll bite. How specifically would you have tortured Timothy McVeigh? How about current detainees? Would you have different protocols for known American citizens -- that is, more or less severe torturing as they could be either innocents wrongly accused or actual traitors? Come on now, be specific - what is it gonna be, finger nail pulling, electro-shock, dismemberments, mutilation of family members in front of the suspect? Also, will it be done publicly so as to discourage others and set examples to the world?
-
13665
I think all captured terrorists should be tortured. I think they should be locked in a room with Hillary, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, etc. They'll succumb within minutes. After all they're very adept at torture -- they've been torturing us for years.
-
13661
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Attributed to Gandhi
-
13650
You guys are missing the point. Torture is not necessary to achieve our intelligence goals. Even if the suspect says nothing, his clothes, phone, property, accent, prints, and on and on, will give him and his associates away. Indeed, this is how Spain was able to jump on their terrorists so quickly, phone calls and other information carefully put together with old fashioned foot-work.
Torture is for the ignorant, uninformed, and untrained small minds out there with limited intelligence.
-
13647
The adminstration said, "We do not torture." Richard Nixon said, "I am not a crook."
-
13629
Patricia,
A voice of reason! It doesn't matter who the enemy is, it matters who we are. It goes to show how low we've sunk as a nation when we are represented by a vice president who actually campaigns for torture. How does that make him any different from those we are fighting? We cannot say that just because our torture isn't worse than their torture that it's ok. It isn't.
"You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it." Malcolm X
-
13624
Since some of the captured so-called "terrorists" are innocent people turned in by Pakistani bounty hunters, others have finally been released by our government, and some are American citizens denied their right to a trial. How in the world can we even be sure that the proven liars and incompetents running our government even know that the people they want to torture really are terrorists? Moreover, as Sen. McCain points out, people will say anything under torture. All these torture-advocates should move to other countries vicious enough to suit their un-American desires. What a bunch of disgraceful cowards they are!
-
13622
An eye for a eye and a head for a head.
-
13614
If it were Timothy McVeigh and a possibility of another bombing, I would have no problem torturing him to get that information. Why would you?
-
13613
Of course I slammed the previous poster. He deserved it. He may have had an opinion, but not a suggestion. He claimed to be asking for a civil debate, then in the same breath ordered everyone who disagreed with him out of the country! That was a baldfaced lie, and I felt it had to be exposed as such. As did other posters. On top of that, I was angry, and sick of idiotic lies of that nature. Such madness is all too common.
I do apologize to you, Taxpayer, for the anger that bled over from the rest of my response. You at least attempted to make a point. However, you're offering a false choice. I think just about anyone would prefer torture to happen to a terrorist rather than a U.S. citizen if those were the only two choices. But they aren't. It's not just one or the other, both and neither are also options. Is there any compelling reason why we should make it official policy that anyone has to be tortured? I haven't seen one. And do you honestly think that torturing terrorists will prevent them from responding in kind? On the contrary, if we sink to their level we run the risk of emboldening them and endangering more innocent people. But that's not the only risk. If we win by becoming the very thing we hate, we haven't really won at all. They can't destroy America, but we can. I hope we wise up and realize what this country really stands for.
-
13607
If it were Americans that were being tortured "to get any information that will protect the [insert hostile country of your choice here] people, and that [hostile country of your choice] insisted that such interrogation techniques were necessary and devoid of negative consequences in dealing with real or suspected terrorists," would our reaction be the same? I fully expect that there would be much outrage expressed from both political parties. If we, as Americans, claim that we are fighting "a war against terrorism" we cannot become the terrorists -- we need to maintain the political high road of behaving in a just and moral manner. If we lower ourselves to their level, we become no better than the terrorists we are fighting.
The issue is not what political party did what when, but whether the American people -- whether Democratic or Republican, black or white, conservative or liberal -- wish to be perceived by the rest of the world, both allies and enemies, as the sort of people who torture those who disagree with us.
As to Taxpayer and unnamed "move to France" person: There are limits to what I would do to protect myself and my family. Believing in an afterlife, I would rather die having lived by my beliefs than to live by having to abandon them. And one of the things that I value about America is that we are free to express divergent beliefs -- to worship different religions, to belong to different political parties -- without fear of reprisal. If I have to give those beliefs up in order to remain American, then the concepts that made America "America" will no longer exist. So I will remain here and continue to stand up for what I believe.
-
13606
To the last poster,
You totally slammed the prior poster, who actually had an opinion and a suggestion. But you accused the poster of "spewing" while every hateful sentence you had written started with "you" this, or "you" that.And yes, I know I am not the only "taxpayer." It's called a description or portrayal.
As for the only actual points you made: Yes, I agree we should not use ineffective methods in an attempt to accomplish our goals. However, I am not apt to believe "experts" who have an agenda. In these times, I admit it is difficult to decide who is telling the truth. But as for torture, I'd prefer it happen to a terrorist, than to a U.S. citizen.
-
13599
Sadly, Taxpayer, I would rather see my family die for an honorable cause. Having them tortured I do not consider to be an honor. Rather it's a cowardly act. Americans are not cowards, we do not trend in the darkness. Sadly, since the baby boomer have taken over the White House and the nation, we Americans are lost, slowly taking on a society in which question leads one to be called unpatriotic and care only about us today, do we not dare protect our own civil liberties for tomorrow's generation. There are better ways to extract information. Debate must be encouraged. The war in Iraq is another question to also ask. Sadly, they should have been asked in 2002, but Americans were too much in fear.
-
13594
Based on the Francophile tirade of one of the correspondents, maybe we should have invaded France rather than Iraq. And where is a freedom fry when you need it.
Poor Richard
-
13590
The moral fiber to do something about terrorism? Do you mean by increasing it? By helping it to grow? By issuing a rallying cry (bring it on) for every terrorist out there and then creating a place for them all to come and kill Americans - Iraq? By creating a world class training arena for terrorists in Iraq? What Bush has done is merely destabilize the region and the world further. How has that improved our safety? We can neither leave nor stay effectively because the party with the "moral fiber" had no plan to get in, get the job done or get out. They've yet to even define "win" or "victory" or "successful" or what it will mean when our mission is truly accomplished (which means more than Bush putting on a flight suit to play hero.) Our borders leak like sieves. How has that improved our safety? I love how the GOP claims that they are the party of moral superiority. Yet they have shown nothing but greed, contempt for the poor, hatred for minorities, gays and anyone who disagrees with them, and a love of money, power, big business, war and fear-mongering.
-
13588
To the poster who said: "Then let's have a civil debate with actual news stories that inform and enlighten, not diatribes masquerading as news."
You know perfectly well that you don't really want a civil debate. Your own post proves you are incapable of participating in such. You just want an excuse to scream at everyone who dares disagree with you. You speak of moral fiber, but it's an alien concept to you. You can't even manage basic honesty.
Perhaps I've been too harsh. Maybe you're so disconnected from reality that you actually think a civil debate is one in which everyone parrots back whatever the One True God Bush says, and all those with different opinions are screeched at and told to leave the country, with a healthy dollop of racism thrown in. So, dishonest or insane, which are you?
A civil debate would be nice, but it's not gonna happen as long as people like you keep spewing bile and denying reality.
And for Taxpayer (as if you're the only one in the country), did it not occur to you that someone might lie? There are quite a lot of experts arguing that torture simply does not work, resulting in false confessions and bad intelligence. Even if we were to ignore the moral issues (and we shouldn't), should we be using tactics known to be ineffective?
-
13587
Finally a call for "a civil debate with actual news stories that inform and enlighten, not diatribes masquerading as news." Followed with a suggestion for all that disagree with Mr. Bush to "decamp immediately to France, where you will be more comfortable eating cheese, offering to surrender to passers-by, and criticizing those who do the world's necessary dirty work for you."
What an enlightened thinker, asking for civil debate. As for me I suffer no disillusions. That idiot must surely be one of Rush Limbaugh's young, mind full of mush types. Unfortunately, he/she is probably old enough to know better. As for doing the dirty work, you ever had to draw down on a human being there buddy? It will give you pause, at least it will if you have any feelings at all and are not recently programmed. Then again, you are likely another Republican Chicken-Hawk big talker that never served a day under arms much less been in harms way.
As for who did what regarding Presidential actions, I had forgot - there were no terrorists before Clinton came along. While he was busy chasing skirts, Bush family friends from Saudi had a son go bad and start the terror threat. Yup, all the idiots know it's all Clinton's fault.
-
13580
This pretend news story is vile propaganda, of the sort that GovExec.com is lately proud to propagate, and it is not journalism. Your use of words like "conceit" and "crusade," and your claim that the war on terror is a Bush Administration invention rather than that of Osama Bin Laden--these are propaganda techniques.
Our last president killed thousands of Americans by failing to retaliate effectively against the terrorists, thus emboldening them. This president, at least, has the moral fiber to do something about terrorism. You don't like it? Then let's have a civil debate with actual news stories that inform and enlighten, not diatribes masquerading as news.
I suggest that you all decamp immediately to France, where you will be more comfortable eating cheese, offering to surrender to passers-by, and criticizing those who do the world's necessary dirty work for you.
-
13579
So, let me get this straight. The vice president of the United States wants an exemption to the law to allow the CIA to do something that veterans of the CIA itself say is both ineffective and immoral? Hmmm . . . "both ineffective and immoral" sounds like a slogan for this administration.
-
13578
Oh, please: Speculation with an agenda.
If someone was hell bent on murdering your family, you'd do anything to protect them, wouldn't you? Or is seeing your whole family slaughtered worth the price of peace and harmony?
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.