rvg, some couple of years later?

[rvg]

Citation required.

Furthermore, all these "offshoots" that you mention are nowadays as far removed from the Muslim Brotherhood as the Marlboro Baptist Church is from the Vatican, theologically speaking.

Certainly:
The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمون‎, often simply: الإخوان المسلمون, "the Muslim Brotherhood", transliterated: al-ʾiḫwān al-muslimūn) is the Arab world's most influential[1] and one of the largest Islamic movements,[2] and is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states.[which?] Founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement by the Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna,[3][4][5][6] by the end of World War II the MB had an estimated two million members.[7] Its ideas had gained supporters throughout the Arab world and influenced other Islamist groups with its "model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work".[8]

That's wikipedia.

You tell me, I'm not an expert on what the Secretary of State can and can't or should and shouldn't say.

You're the one accusing her of being involved in the 2006 campaign...

I could just go the easy way and say: "read Cleveland's book, maybe just maybe you'd understand why."

Yeah, let's do it the hard way.

The hard way, of course, will be the one to take: the rise to power of secularist and authoritarian regimes largely went hand-in-hand with an increase in unemployment and corruption, which led to widespread disillusionment with the ruling regimes, which in turn led to the formation of political opposition parties which were then more often than not (violently) suppressed. As a result of these crackdowns, the only remaining form of domestic political opposition was through religious opposition.

Yes, yes, so far so good...

Examples of a dramatic increase of unemployment can be seen in countries as diverse and with completely different policies as Iran (the Shah vis-à-vis the Tudeh party),

From what I'm hearing out of Iran, people are fed up with the ayatollahs much more than they were with the Shah.

Indonesia (the failure of secular parties),

Failure? Could you elaborate on this?

Turkey (the rise of the AKP)

And their recent cleansing of the military is very troubling...

and more recently Egypt and Tunisia, in which the two dominating political parties were Islamist in nature.

And there already are some troublesome signals coming from Tunisia. Still, too early to judge either one.

The only places so far where we've seen the reverse are Libya and Lebanon, the latter primarily because a sectarian civil war that has lasted more than thirty years has made the people sick and tired of sectarian mumbo-jumbo, to put it mildly.

Libya was a pleasant surprise indeed. Nonetheless, it's too early to tell.

Basically, Islamism was a logical consequence of the dominating policy concerning political opposition in many different countries.

Oh, it's certainly logical. The question is: is it positive?

And it should be treated, in my opinion, as a completely legitimate political current.

Up until the Arab spring islamism manifested itself via Hamas, Hesbollah, and the dear Islamic Republic of Iran. Needless to say, I have a healthy skepticism when looking at islamist movements.

[Kadagar_AV]

We don't torture our own people, so torturing other people is crossing an obvious and easy-to-see moral line in the sand.

Don't know what else to say, really. Apologists gonna apologize.

That's kind of the same as:

We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

But yeah. I actually would have less against it if the US didn't simultaneously try to picture themselves as "the good guys".

IF, and only when and IF the states and its people come out saying "Yeah, we are as bad as the rest, and the world is filled with grey scales" - I can somewhat have some understanding.

It's the damn "We are gonna lead the civilized world against the horrors" that gets to me. As the US is very VERY much part of what other people find horrific.

[rvg]

We don't torture our own people, so torturing other people is crossing an obvious and easy-to-see moral line in the sand.

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

[Sarmatian]

Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

That's the exact same thing the chicken said about the road.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

That's an incredibly dangerous thing to say, it implies above all that the US Government is an immoral entity - such a government has no legitimacy, and it therefore follows that it should be overthrown.

There remains the unanswered question regarding the information extracted during torture - it is by and large useless. torture was used to extract confessions of witchcraft and, most famously, it was used to discredit the Knights Templar and paint them as heretics.

[Kralizec]

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

Kadagar, your sig needs to be updated.

No offense to you rvg, I can understand and sympathize with your opinions most of the time, but in this case I just disagree completely.

EDIT: lol, not one but two people actually jumped to reply to it before I could.

to further clarify, if I were the leader of a country and put in a position where someone came up to me that a ticking bomb scenario had just kicked with 3.000+ deaths at stake in and there was one chance, a realistic one, that those lives could be saved for sanctioning torture this one time I just might approve. I'm enough of a realist to admit that I'd seriously consider it. What bothers me is that people use the ticking bomb scenario as a hypothetical scenario to justify a policy of fighting terrorism in general, even as a strictly preemtive measure - even though that's not equivalent to the ticking bomb scenario.

[Kralizec]

I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.

To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....

I think it's pretty obvious. Information can be given:

A) freely, voluntarily, free of any duress or coersion
B) under the conditions imposed, the subject calculates that it isn't worth the hassle
C) blackmail or other forms of coersion not considered torture (broad, and not particulary relevant here)
D) inflicting pain, or other stimuli severe enough to be considered equal or worse, that causes so much stress that the subject mentally breaks and begins to talk

Everything under category D is torture in my view. I can imagine situations where there the distinction between pressure and torture becomes blurred, such as sleep deprivation with intermittent interrogations. Waterboarding is, by definition, a procedure that causes your body to "believe" it's in the process of dying, and should always be considered torture. Wether it can ever be acceptable is, of course, another question.

[rvg]

to further clarify, if I were the leader of a country and put in a position where someone came up to me that a ticking bomb scenario had just kicked with 3.000+ deaths at stake in and there was one chance, a realistic one, that those lives could be saved for sanctioning torture this one time I just might approve. I'm enough of a realist to admit that I'd seriously consider it.

Soooo, how is your position different from mine?

There remains the unanswered question regarding the information extracted during torture - it is by and large useless. torture was used to extract confessions of witchcraft and, most famously, it was used to discredit the Knights Templar and paint them as heretics.

If we ever get our hands on Templar Ayman al-Zawahiri, yeah, let's just say that it'll suck to be him.

[Kadagar_AV]

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

Kadagar, your sig needs to be updated.

Yeah.. Just, me having that in my signature would give whole other connotations... I still would never in any circumstance defend the view though. No matter what you talk about.

[Kadagar_AV]

DP,

To use the blunder to answer RVG though:

Soooo, how is your position different from mine?

Because there is a massive amount of situations where you have tortured people without a ticking bomb scenario?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Soooo, how is your position different from mine?

Ultimately, he probably wouldn't authorise it because there's very little chance it would work. Plus, he's be impeached, tried and convicted if caught.

If we ever get our hands on Templar Ayman al-Zawahiri, yeah, let's just say that it'll suck to be him.

So utility is just an excuse then? The real reason the inmates in Gitmo are tortured is because they can't be tried in a legal court.

[rvg]

Ultimately, he probably wouldn't authorise it because there's very little chance it would work. Plus, he's be impeached, tried and convicted if caught.

Oh, if that's the reason and if he puts his personal safety ahead of that of thousands of his compatriots, then he shouldn't be in a position to make that judgement call.

So utility is just an excuse then? The real reason the inmates in Gitmo are tortured is because they can't be tried in a legal court.

It might come as a surprise, but I really do not advocate torturing people for fun. So no, no need to torture Al Zawahiri if he cooperates.

Because there is a massive amount of situations where you have tortured people without a ticking bomb scenario?

Just because this tactic can be misused does not invalidate it when the situation really calls for it.

[Kralizec]

Soooo, how is your position different from mine?

Well, you've not exhaustively defined the conditions under which you'd approve torture, but you seem to have a basically utilitarian approach to the thing.

My general stance is that torture is unacceptable, but that I would probably not be able to resist approving it when there's 5 minutes left to save thousands of people and it's the only way, and a way I knew had a realistic chance of saving those people. Your stance seems to be that torture is wrong on principle, but that we should have a pre-designed policy of breaking that principle when dealing with terrorists.

Basically, the ticking bomb scenario strikes me as a red herring because it's used to justify a policy of torture for cases that clearly are not ticking bomb scenarios.

[rvg]

Well, you've not exhaustively defined the conditions under which you'd approve torture, but you seem to have a basically utilitarian approach to the thing.

My general stance is that torture is unacceptable, but that I would probably not be able to resist approving it when there's 5 minutes left to save thousands of people and it's the only way, and a way I knew had a realistic chance of saving those people. Your stance seems to be that torture is wrong on principle, but that we should have a pre-designed policy of breaking that principle when dealing with terrorists.

Basically, the ticking bomb scenario strikes me as a red herring because it's used to justify a policy of torture for cases that clearly are not ticking bomb scenarios.

This reminds me of the late Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin. Not long after he took office, the Israeli security forces apprehended a guy whom they suspected in being involved in a suicide bomb plot. They asked Rabin for a go-ahead on torture to extract the plot from the guy. Rabin, declined, the suicide bomber went kaboom, a bunch of people died. A few months (or was it years) later, same scenario. Only this time Rabin agreed to put a suspect on the rack. The suspect sang like a bird, everyone involved was apprehended, plot was foiled.

The moral of the story is that even a liberal and peacenik like Rabin came to the understanding that sometimes you have to be just as ruthless or even more ruthless than your enemy. Otherwise innocent people die.

[Tellos Athenaios]

With just five minutes left you are going to waste time on physics equivalent of howling to the moon to extract life saving info?

... Yeah, that'll work.

[Beskar]

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

No, it doesn't.

There is of course, relative morality which stands by the notion that your actions are justified on the basis on the need but such an situation isn't acting immoral or against the spirit of morality.

If a person was going to pull a trigger which would kill 100 people, the act for you to "prevent the immorality" is your moral responsibility. Ultimately, as such, a large array of tactics are employed (Should as asking the person to stop) with final "trump cards" as a last resort and only to be used as a last resort.

This is not "crossing that line" because your actions are completely justifiable and follows the spirit of the principles you uphold.

However, members of the Taliban should be treated with the same provision as an enemy combatant during the opening stages of the war (at minimum), since they were members of the regime. Since the regime has been supplanted, they are still citizens of that nation and their actions and crimes should be dealt by that nation. It is not the place of the "outside power" to deal with this and further more, that outside power should not be rule-lawyering like a "tax avoidance" cheat to clearly abuse the framework and system.

[Major Robert Dump]

This one time, I tortured a Taliban by having a 22 year-old female private come in and rub her breasts on his face until he vomited. We call that Boobie Boarding.

Another time, we tied a Taliban face down onto a peice of hard metal, then raised his head, where I pranced about in a thong with little sheep on it, gyrating my buttocks in his direction, to the beat of a Shakira song. The sheep and my manly, hairy buttocks was a double whammy, as his erection pressed against the metal and caused much discomfort. We call this Boner Boarding.

Both scenarios were successful. In the first, he confirmed his own innocence and allowed us to focus on other potential threats. We then erased his mind and dropped him on his Qalat porch, rang the giant bell, and ran off.

In the second scenarion, he was guilty, and led us straight to the one-armed man.

[Kadagar_AV]

Edit: forum is really playing up with me today!! Thunderstorms in Sweden or something else?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

With just five minutes left you are going to waste time on physics equivalent of howling to the moon to extract life saving info?

... Yeah, that'll work.

Well, quite.

Torture - just say no.

[Xiahou]

This one time, I tortured a Taliban by having a 22 year-old female private come in and rub her breasts on his face until he vomited. We call that Boobie Boarding.

Another time, we tied a Taliban face down onto a peice of hard metal, then raised his head, where I pranced about in a thong with little sheep on it, gyrating my buttocks in his direction, to the beat of a Shakira song. The sheep and my manly, hairy buttocks was a double whammy, as his erection pressed against the metal and caused much discomfort. We call this Boner Boarding.

Both scenarios were successful. In the first, he confirmed his own innocence and allowed us to focus on other potential threats. We then erased his mind and dropped him on his Qalat porch, rang the giant bell, and ran off.

In the second scenarion, he was guilty, and led us straight to the one-armed man.

I notice you called boobie boarding torture- but not boner boarding. Why is that?

[Strike For The South]

"Well Enough"

Dead Americans, Dead civilians, A more unstable region, A region that hates us more than ever, Wars which have given leaders propaganda for years to come, states which are blackholes for money, states which will topple as soon as we leave.

I shudder to see your definition of average.

As a citizen of this republic I am fully culpable for the actions of my government, especially if I continually allow them to peruse these types policies.

I fully understand the realism of situation, however most America does not. Their kids are dying and our government tells them to wrap themselves in the flag, remember they died spreading democracy, and posts photos of motorcycle brigades, crying wives and opining dogs.

Dressing up the pawns as if they are martyrs in order to silence dissent.

I hold no love for terrorists, mind you. The killing of innocents is very wrong and they certainly deserve no praise or even equivalence. However,you will never hear me defending my government nor wondering why the hate happens.

Shining city upon the hill my ass. Nothing more than another in the long line of superpowers.

[Major Robert Dump]

I notice you called boobie boarding torture- but not boner boarding. Why is that?

It was just an accidental omission, as he was unable to reach me due to being restrained, made all the worse by the fact that it was Man Love Thursday. For what it's worth, he did try to tip me a dollar as we whisked him away blindfolded on a Korean Brackhark.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it seems rvg is arguing for the sociopathic state, where every evil can be excused by claiming you're fighting the other side.

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

That's ridiculous, as is you're original quote about abandoning principles. We never need to give in to fear.

One of the best reasons, of course, is that doing evil things to the enemy always leads to an expansion of the definition of enemy. Right now it's considered fine to have the President order the assassination of an American citizen without evidence, trial, judge or jury. How long until we do away with more rights in order to get criminals?

Abandoning principles destroys those principles.

Plus, I cannot support immoral actions.

CR

[HopAlongBunny]

Democracy-we had to destroy it in order to save it (tm)

[Ironside]

It's fine where it is now: in the grey area. Not legal, but still being used when the situation warrants it.

So no oversight outside the small group of "hard men making hard choises". That will go well, as it has been doing so many times in history.

Must? Nobody said that. Can. Can do and need to do. Occasionally. It's a useful tool when dealing with fanatics like those of al-Qaeda. No amount of religious instruction can trump good old fashioned pain. Everyone feels it, everyone fears it. So you apply it, make the guy wish he was never born, and then he talks. Oh, and make it clear that if he's lying, he'll be introduced to a whole new level of pain. Information received. Terrorist plot foiled. Everybody's happy.

Outside confessions, where the confession is certain from the beginning, torture is hardly a golden bullet. Many people doesn't give useful information, even when they are known to have important information.

[HopAlongBunny]

We never need to give in to fear.CR

This.

Giving in to fear is handing terrorists a pure win. Roll back rights (win) compromise principles (win) transform into a "torture state" (win); what victory have you actually denied you persecutors?

[Fragony]

Giving in to fear and understanding there is a threat is not the same thing.

@all, if someone kidnapped a loved one and straps up timed explosion with 2 hours on the clock on said loved one, and he's sitting right on front of you but refuses to talk, wouldn't you be prepared to torture him?

[Beskar]

@all, if someone kidnapped a loved one and straps up timed explosion with 2 hours on the clock on said loved one, and he's sitting right on front of you but refuses to talk, wouldn't you be prepared to torture him?

I addressed that in this post.

It is a completely different situation and you have to be honest, torture is probably one of the worst ways to get him talking. "All I need is hold out a little longer.. then I win!", with that kind of motivation especially when they have a conviction to die themselves, your loved one will blow up.

Most logical choice would be is to try to be reasonable with the said person, whilst in the background, you start doing things like "When was he last seen two hours ago on the CCTV.." "He called that number at roughly that time and there.. ok, the victim might be at 22nd Street.."

You would be employing a vast amount of resources which are far more liking to produce the results you want in that situation and that person knows full well if you kill him, you lose anyway so it would have to be some extreme torture, which unfortunately, would take days and weeks to the point he tells you so you may allow him to have a quick death. The example is fundamentally flawed and counterproductive.

Also on amazing note, you have all those people in Gitmo getting tortured for years and none of them dobbed on Osama Bin Laden and he was found through detective work and deduction.

[Fragony]

I addressed that in this post.

It is a completely different situation and you have to be honest, torture is probably one of the worst ways to get him talking. "All I need is hold out a little longer.. then I win!", with that kind of motivation especially when they have a conviction to die themselves, your loved one will blow up.

Most logical choice would be is to try to be reasonable with the said person, whilst in the background, you start doing things like "When was he last seen two hours ago on the CCTV.." "He called that number at roughly that time and there.. ok, the victim might be at 22nd Street.."

You would be employing a vast amount of resources which are far more liking to produce the results you want in that situation and that person knows full well if you kill him, you lose anyway so it would have to be some extreme torture, which unfortunately, would take days and weeks to the point he tells you so you may allow him to have a quick death. The example is fundamentally flawed and counterproductive.

Also on amazing note, you have all those people in Gitmo getting tortured for years and none of them dobbed on Osama Bin Laden and he was found through detective work and deduction.

Not counterproductive if you torture him really badly. It isn't a very nice thing to do but I can think of a few situation where it is the best out of bad choices. If every second counts bring on the fishing-hooks, I would certainly do what I would really hate doing. I'm not an agressive or a sadistic person but I will do it if I don't see any other way. Saying you would never torture a person or kill a person is nonsense. Everybody will if the stakes are high.

[rvg]

We never need to give in to fear.

It's not about giving in to fear, it's about putting lives above principles. If you don't want to torture a terrorist in order to prevent an attack, that's your prerogative. Me? I'd light a fire under him in a heartbeat. As for whether or not it is moral or immoral, ask the families of the victims of the terrorist attack that could have been prevented. To me, saving the lives of my compatriots is of higher priority than respecting the rights of a person whose life's aim is the utter destruction of our way of life.

Doing something that is wrong because you are overcome with righteous and violent emotion, understandable to all? We have something for that in our legal system, called a Crime of Passion. It is still a crime. nate or spontaneous. It was cold, calculated, and involved many top white-house lawyers and many layers of secrecy.[

Its moot anyway, though. The process that legitimized torture under the Bush administration was far from passion

What emotion? What passion? It's a matter of logic. If you don't obtain information A, people die. Suspect B has information A, but refuses to relinquish it. So you do what needs to be done to obtain A. End of story. This isn't vengeance, it's intelligence gathering.