Thursday, October 06, 2005

Counterintelligence

***QUOTE***

White House Attempt to Justify, Fuzz, and Fog Torture Rebuffed by Senate

Note who's leading the charge. As I've been predicting, both Hillary *and* McCain will be running against the ghost of Dubya in '08. McCain is (rightly) distancing himself from this Administration's attempts to get around prohibitions against torture.

http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/

***END-QUOTE***

Mark Shea is indulging in the sort of political correctness that endangers us all. He and others of his ilk slap the word “torture” on something to shut down legitimate debate. The issue should not be framed in terms of “torture,” which is a prejudicial and question-begging designation.

Rather, the question should be framed in terms of what are the most efficient methods of sorting out the high-value detainees from the know-nothings, and, having done that, what are the most efficient methods of extracting actionable intel from unwilling informants.

This is not a question of torture, but interrogation. What needs to be done to get the job done as expeditiously as possible.

2 comments:


  1. This is not a question of torture, but interrogation. What needs to be done to get the job done as expeditiously as possible.


    Whoa. I hesitate to even ask after having had this debate once already with another. But...I'm curious...at what point IS it a question of torture? I mean, there have been many things thrown around that are not torture...maybe they're unbecoming, but not torture.

    Yet other reports, and even pictures I have seen, (not the well known ones) are disturbing.

    Not to say any of these things have been done, but by way of definitions, what falls within your evaluation here? When is it torture? When they starve them? Little cuts? Play russian roulette? Smash fingers? Genearlly physically abuse them?

    Are these things justifiable if it is "what needs to be done to get the job done as expeditiously as possible"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "at what point IS it a question of torture?"

    An excellent question, shamgar. However, the statements following it lead one to surmise that the question is merely a rhetorical roadblock to prevent the very discussion that the query ostensibly invites.

    I have no problem with some starvation (not to the point of death or vital organs shutting down, for example). I have no problem with detention, sleep deprivation, loud music, deception, and even humiliation.

    The abuses of Abu Ghraib were not the result of a lack of definition on what constitutes "torture", but a lack of adherence to those definitions. Similarly, the "controversy" of Guantanamo results not from torture, but of the Left's (via the MSM) paranoid fantasies of possible torture, which have by and large been debunked - the infamous "Koran flushing" allegations being the proverbial tip of the iceberg in that regard.

    In short, this boils down to several individuals that need to be and have been singled out for excesses and abuses rather than a systemic institutional policy of inhumane treatment.

    ReplyDelete