You want to get me started?

first of all, Cheney was lying. There was no evidence, other than his assertion, that torture actually worked. same with Scalia. also, they only made them to friendly interviewers, knowing their claims wouldn't be challenged at the time. When pressed in debates, all the other torture advocates (not Scalia or Cheney who would never deign to have their opinions publicly challenged) backtracked on the statements.

I don't have enough time to find the links right now (will do later tonight), but there were a number of FBI AND military intelligence officers who resigned and publicly complained that torture was counter-productive, and the "torture enthusiasts" were actually ruining their intel by causing previously cooperative witnesses to clam up, lie, DIE FROM TORTURE, commit suicide, or go insane. google it.

furthermore, it was well established that torture isn't a useful intelligence tool; it's a propaganda tool. it doesn't produce intel, it produces false confessions, since the victims say whatever the torturers want to hear just to make the pain stop. (google that too...)

and lastly, the whole "ticking time bomb" scenario dreamed up by Fox & the government in the "propaganda disguised as television" show 24 isn't realistic. and even if it was, you could always pardon an agent if they had to do it out of necessity; no sense making it an official policy of the US gov't. I mean... how despicable and contrary to our claims to be a "beacon of democracy and freedom" is that?

The ends does not justify the means.

If it did we would have ended every war by dropping atomic bombs.

Torturing terrorists just makes the people doing the torture terrorists themselves.

A little background, this is an excerpt from a paper my 17 year old step-daughter asked me to proofread for her AP English class. Sure, I'm a dick for posting this on the internet, but I honestly thought it was a joke paper at first. There are some other beauties, but I liked that section the best. "911 was terrible, but at least it allowed us to start torturing people. And torture is good and effective because Dick Cheney says so."

I tried my best to only look at the grammatical stuff, and not get into any of the policy stuff since she's been brainwashed beyond repair by her Grandmother (on her father's side, she's been heavily involved in her life, much more than him) who's a fox news shill, but I had to at least point out the weakness of her argument. Using Dick Cheney as your source of truth on torture is kind of like using my opinion on whether or not Radiohead is a good band.

We've gotten into it before and I've resigned myself to just trying to get her to understand that it's important to know and understand both viewpoints of an argument, but after reading this I've apparently failed. I even reminded her before writing the paper that it would be more effective to bring up the opposing viewpoints in a respectful manner, say that they're valid concerns but put her spin on it, so she can discuss them on her terms if her instructor does actually provide feedback, but no, she didn't even broach things like the possibility of torturing innocent people, or the ramifications this may have on our soldiers who get captured. She even went out of her way to call the Abu Ghraib scandal "minor". Say what you want about what happened, the actual scandal side of it was huge.

The sad thing is, she's a 4.0 student and I'm guessing she'll get an A on this, based on how previous papers have been graded. I just hope her teacher has the balls to point some of this stuff out so she sees it's not only her stupid step-dad who thinks it.

Edit: Oh, one funny thing, you mentioned the "ticking time bomb" scenario...she actually had a section devoted to that. I didn't say anything about it, but there was also a "kid gets kidnapped and is running out of air in a cell" scenario, and I asked if she got that from Law & Order!

MI_Thumb said:

....
Torturing terrorists just makes the people doing the torture terrorists themselves.

Click to expand...

I made that point, but I'm sure it was in one ear out the other.

michchamp said:

You want to get me started?

first of all, Cheney was lying. There was no evidence, other than his assertion, that torture actually worked. same with Scalia. also, they only made them to friendly interviewers, knowing their claims wouldn't be challenged at the time. When pressed in debates, all the other torture advocates (not Scalia or Cheney who would never deign to have their opinions publicly challenged) backtracked on the statements.

I don't have enough time to find the links right now (will do later tonight), but there were a number of FBI AND military intelligence officers who resigned and publicly complained that torture was counter-productive, and the "torture enthusiasts" were actually ruining their intel by causing previously cooperative witnesses to clam up, lie, DIE FROM TORTURE, commit suicide, or go insane. google it.

furthermore, it was well established that torture isn't a useful intelligence tool; it's a propaganda tool. it doesn't produce intel, it produces false confessions, since the victims say whatever the torturers want to hear just to make the pain stop. (google that too...)

and lastly, the whole "ticking time bomb" scenario dreamed up by Fox & the government in the "propaganda disguised as television" show 24 isn't realistic. and even if it was, you could always pardon an agent if they had to do it out of necessity; no sense making it an official policy of the US gov't. I mean... how despicable and contrary to our claims to be a "beacon of democracy and freedom" is that?

Click to expand...

It always worked for Jack Bower. Like the time where he had to improvise a torture device by pulling the power cord out of a hotel room lamp, dumping a bottle of water on the guys chest, and then jabbing his nipples with the exposed wires. Man I miss that show.

Ok, one more excerpt. This is actually pretty good stuff in a literary sense, but....

"Interrogation is comparable to painting; it is perfected by some and the process may be slightly different depending on what style is used. If interrogation is painting, then torture is just one of the many painting styles that can be applied to a blank canvas to make a beautiful piece of art. The blank canvas, or the person being questioned, needs different styles to make it a piece of art, or in this case important information. If in the end the blank canvas is turned into a wondrous work of art, does it really matter what specific painting style was used?"

...yes, she actually compared torturing a human being to creating a beautiful work of art.

well, to be fair, she's only 17. my dad is 57, has a PhD, and he still believes this garbage.

go back a decade and torture was only something the evil terrorists and communists in Russia, China, and Vietnam did.

the Army's own field manuals on this sort of thing - predicated on decades of study, and international law and treaty - make it pretty clear. yet... Dick Cheney, John Yoo, David Addington, George W. Bush, Fox News, and Nino Scalia apparently know better.

deathroh said:

Ok, one more excerpt. This is actually pretty good stuff in a literary sense, but....

"Interrogation is comparable to painting; it is perfected by some and the process may be slightly different depending on what style is used. If interrogation is painting, then torture is just one of the many painting styles that can be applied to a blank canvas to make a beautiful piece of art. The blank canvas, or the person being questioned, needs different styles to make it a piece of art, or in this case important information. If in the end the blank canvas is turned into a wondrous work of art, does it really matter what specific painting style was used?"

...yes, she actually compared torturing a human being to creating a beautiful work of art.

Click to expand...

don't discourage her! The government needs propagandists. She has a lucrative career working for the Pentagon's public relations department (and also appearing on Fox, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS as a "guest columnist")

tell her about the cool DC/Northern Virginia condo she'll live in someday, along with the BMW she'll be able to drive with her high salary!

Get her started writing some justifications for the invasion of Iraq that completely gloss over the mountain of dead bodies, maimed and mentally damaged veterans, and billions of wasted taxpayer dollars, and instead trumpet the "vibrant democracy we've built" or something like that.

$$$$!!!! WOOO!!!!

you'll be sure to get some trickle down benefits, like tickets to see Radiohead in DC!

michchamp said:

well, to be fair, she's only 17. my dad is 57, has a PhD, and he still believes this garbage...

Click to expand...

It's more about not having an open mind that bothers me, not that she got suckered by propaganda. I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle since I've only known her since she was 14, and that stuff is probably ingrained in a person to a degree by that point, but hopefully I can plant a few seeds and she has a good college experience.

michchamp said:

don't discourage her! The government needs propagandists. She has a lucrative career working for the Pentagon's public relations department (and also appearing on Fox, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS as a "guest columnist")

tell her about the cool DC/Northern Virginia condo she'll live in someday, along with the BMW she'll be able to drive with her high salary!

Get her started writing some justifications for the invasion of Iraq that completely gloss over the mountain of dead bodies, maimed and mentally damaged veterans, and billions of wasted taxpayer dollars, and instead trumpet the "vibrant democracy we've built" or something like that.

$$$$!!!! WOOO!!!!

you'll be sure to get some trickle down benefits, like tickets to see Radiohead in DC!

Click to expand...

When you put it that way.....

Torture...I'm sure Jesus would approve.

deathroh said:

It's more about not having an open mind that bothers me, not that she got suckered by propaganda. I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle since I've only known her since she was 14, and that stuff is probably ingrained in a person to a degree by that point, but hopefully I can plant a few seeds and she has a good college experience.

Click to expand...

well, in my own experience, I was kinda similar. Being raised in a conservative catholic family, and surrounded by a certain worldview does that, and as a kid, you want to please your parents and family, so you tend to go along with them.

I remember taking a stand a couple times against racist or prejudice stuff said by certain older family members and getting ganged up on by the adults in the family, so a certain worldview is enforced.

It wasn't until I got to college and started reading more shit on my own that I started to really question the orthodoxy. Of course, the more ignorant way of thinking is that "liberals" corrupted me. The possibility that one could objectively consider two points of view and come to the conclusion that one was "wrong"... and that one happens to be their view makes their head explode.

they tend to avoid discussing politics, race relations, history, etc. with me these days.

michchamp said:

well, in my own experience, I was kinda similar. Being raised in a conservative catholic family, and surrounded by a certain worldview does that, and as a kid, you want to please your parents and family, so you tend to go along with them.

I remember taking a stand a couple times against racist or prejudice stuff said by certain older family members and getting ganged up on by the adults in the family, so a certain worldview is enforced.

It wasn't until I got to college and started reading more shit on my own that I started to really question the orthodoxy. Of course, the more ignorant way of thinking is that "liberals" corrupted me. The possibility that one could objectively consider two points of view and come to the conclusion that one was "wrong"... and that one happens to be their view makes their head explode.

they tend to avoid discussing politics, race relations, history, etc. with me these days.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm really hoping that college does the trick. She is one of the more bull headed people I know though. Goes out of her way to "prove" that she's right no matter how ridiculously wrong she may be. Obviously I have a little of that in me so I understand to a degree (though i'm never "ridiculously" wrong) and I'm trying to use that to relate to her so she becomes a little more self aware.

Ha, yeah, I'm sure if she ever talks to her nanny about this (yes, they call their grandma nanny) she'll hear that I'm just some crazy liberal trying to pollute her head.

Ok, now I'm just being mean...

"However, before the people of a country are protected by the use of torture as an interrogation method, they must first learn more about it. Some people have a problem with torture because they really don?t understand what it means and that blocks them from being able to comprehend uses for torture. To them torture is just a glittering generality they use when explaining having to sit through a chick flick their girlfriend dragged them to, having to spend time with the in-laws, or the word torture makes them think of gory scenes from scary movies. If the general public doesn?t have an understanding of what torture really is, then they won?t ever want for it to be used by the government, even if it was being used to protect them."

she then goes on to give the 1985 UN definition of torture that includes, "Interrogators also used religious and sexual humiliation", implies that she approves of these methods, yet later says, "Recently there was a minor scandal at the criminal detention base at Abu Ghraib; a few low-ranking soldiers were posing in pictures with undressed inmates. This is not, and should not be, tolerated." and "The disgrace at Abu Ghraib". Whoops!

some pretty crazy rationalizations follow...

"It doesn?t matter if people think it is immoral; if it is necessary, it should be used. Think of it this way; the criminal put innocent lives in danger, does it seem like that is moral? If killing innocent people is someone?s moral, does torture sound horrible compared to that. If torture is immoral, then which is less immoral: many innocent deaths or one criminal being tortured? Similarly, if torture is immoral then what is war? If a country is willing to send thousands of soldiers to die for it, then it should be able to torture criminals for the safety of its citizens. "

i just don't know what to make of this...

"However, if people think that torture is too horrible, and too immoral, then there are ways to fix that while still using torture. ?If our intuition about the wrongness of torture is born of an aversion to how people generally behave while being tortured, we should note that this particular infelicity could be circumvented pharmacologically, because paralytic drugs make it unnecessary for screaming ever to be heard or writhing seen. We could easily devise methods of torture that would render a torturer as blind to the plight of his victims as a bomber pilot is at thirty thousand feet. Consequently, our natural aversion to the sights and sounds of the dungeon provide no foothold for those who would argue against the use of torture? (Harris, ?If a Nation?). If critics think that torture is immoral because of the way people behave during torture, they have no argument because there are drugs that change that. If they think it is immoral because another human being is torturing another, methods could be devised to fix that. Just like a bomber pilot doesn?t have to witness the horrible killing he released below his plane, the torturer wouldn?t have to know what the criminal being tortured is going through. If the only problem with torture is that some people think it is against their morals, that is no reason for never using it."

From Twain's A Defense of General Funston

Funston's example has bred many imitators, and many ghastly additions to out history: the torturing of Filipinos by the awful 'water-cure,' for instance, to make them confess--what? Truth? Or lies? How can one know which it is they are telling? For under unendurable pain a man confesses anything that is required of him, true or false, and his evidence is worthless.

deathroh said:

Yeah, I'm really hoping that college does the trick. She is one of the more bull headed people I know though. Goes out of her way to "prove" that she's right no matter how ridiculously wrong she may be. Obviously I have a little of that in me so I understand to a degree (though i'm never "ridiculously" wrong) and I'm trying to use that to relate to her so she becomes a little more self aware.

Ha, yeah, I'm sure if she ever talks to her nanny about this (yes, they call their grandma nanny) she'll hear that I'm just some crazy liberal trying to pollute her head.

Click to expand...

In your shoes, I might warn her that it's difficult to foresee just how much information will be searchable in the future and that comparisons of torture to art might be an unfortunate thing to be associated with.

I've personally found a homework assignment that I'm not particularly proud of on the internet in a search for my name. Posting the assignment to the web was never discussed in class.

redandguilty said:

From Twain's A Defense of General Funston

Funston's example has bred many imitators, and many ghastly additions to out history: the torturing of Filipinos by the awful 'water-cure,' for instance, to make them confess--what? Truth? Or lies? How can one know which it is they are telling? For under unendurable pain a man confesses anything that is required of him, true or false, and his evidence is worthless.

Click to expand...

Good point, I didn't even get into that.

deathroh said:

Good point, I didn't even get into that.

Click to expand...

It goes back to what Champ said right off the bat; nobody has even asserted 1 specific useful detail was learned through torture. Some claim it was useful in general terms, but when pressed for a specific example, nobody has offered a single case when torture produced new, useful information.

redandguilty said:

In your shoes, I might warn her that it's difficult to foresee just how much information will be searchable in the future and that comparisons of torture to art might be an unfortunate thing to be associated with.

I've personally found a homework assignment that I'm not particularly proud of on the internet in a search for my name. Posting the assignment to the web was never discussed in class.

Click to expand...

They do submit their assignments to turnitin.com, which checks for plagiarism.

Not sure how much good this warning would do though, she was pretty proud of that section. I do think that she's focusing more on fulfilling the stylistic requirements of the paper rather than the actual content, so I don't know that she believes absolutely everything she's saying, so your point is valid...she will be slapping her name on this thing. I just think at this point she's not going to admit that anything she's done is wrong so she won't change anything. I tried to come at it in a way that doesn't blatantly scream, "You're wrong!!!", to mitigate that, but in this case it's pretty hard to do.