Waterboarding was supposedly initially invented by that humanitarian group known for gentle interrogation, The Inquisition. Through the subsequent centuries, it has been used by other organizations and countries with little concern about using torture. That our nation has used it even once is a disgrace. That we admit to using it three times is beyond disgrace and is indefensible. Once we are indistinguishable from the terrorists, there is little reason to continue fighting against them.

While I agree that it's use is not defensible, I disagree that the three time use of a single style of torturous interrogation could be called making ourselves indistinguishable from the terrorists. It is certainly an unwelcome step in that direction, but it does not take us instantly from the beginning slip to the bottom of the slope.

Our use of it certainly tarnishes our international reputation, and compounds the problems we have always had in fighting inhumane treatment of people by less salubrious regimes.

But let's not just throw up our hands and give up the ghost, here. Such hyperbole is not warranted, and sets the extremes of the argument, which is not useful.

In fairness, rwah, the government has only ADMITTED to three uses. I don't think you'd argue that the Bush administration has been something other than forthcoming about things that make them look bad.

That may be true, but until you see videos of US troops decapitating prisoners, you CANNOT equate us with the terrorists! Especially when one sees folks like you and ethwc protesting the bad behavior!

Now if you ever change your tune, and we DO see such videos, it'll be too late for me to move to Canada!

I never equated us with the terrorists, how you made that logical leap i'll probably never know. My point is, the Bush administration doesn't automatically deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Just for clarification, your acceptable standard for our nation's conduct in the war on terror is "everything's ok as long as the terrorists are slightly worse"?

chris,
I think he was referring to my statement.

In my opinion, the gradation between a single episode of criminal behavior (in this case torture) and full blown criminal conduct is exactly that, gradation. How many episodes of officially sanctioned torture are we willing to allow before we consider ourselves as unacceptable? Granted we have not yet decapitated prisoners, however, crime is crime. Tell the family of a person dying under torture that he or she was not subjected to decapitation and see how relieved they are.

This country should stand as a pillar of right for the world not a "we are not as bad as they are" plaint.

I am travelling in Europe at the moment with our granddaughter. The history of these nations is replete with examples of lack of ethics, bad behavior, and outright criminality of the leadership. At what point does Crazy King Ludvig become insane Fuerher Hitler? When you can provide me a distinct point, I will be willing to allow for our forces to engage in "light" torture. In the meantime, the difference is simply one of gradation.

Please note that I did NOT say it was ok.



Is that a concurrence with torture? It was not meant to be, I was objecting that one cannot EQUATE us with the folks that cut off innocent heads, set car bombs that kill not only Americans but innocent Iraqi kids, and kidnap members of opposing groups and leave their bodies by the side of the road.

Dislike, abhor and condemn waterboarding all you want - that is well and proper, and I'll agree with everything you said about that.

But I will not set our actions equal to those of the opposing side.

Oh, and he's right, Chris, I was commenting on ethwc's post, not your remarks! Sorry...

One of the things that doesn't get commented on enough about this subject is that torture, for the most part, isn't effective anyhow. To some extent, yes--a person with incentive to avoid pain is likely to comply and provide information and detail. But one who is threatened with torture is likely to say anything that the other guy wants to hear. Thus, not only is torture inhumane and, as mentioned, indefensible, but it's not likely to produce accurate or intended results.

rwahrens,
I did not suspect that you condoned torture. However, I do disagree that we should feel any complacency at all in finding that we have not used it extensively or to the degree that our enemies have done. It is sort of like the old medical silliness of describing a patient as only having a "little bit of cancer." there is no such thing as a "little" bit of torture. We need to condemn its use and prosecute those of our citizens who use it. If they really believe that they are doing it for the "good of the country", they should be willing to go to jail for that same reason.