Sunday, December 14, 2014
Meanwhile in Yemen...they're crucifying "alleged" spies for the US. Mildly graphic (bloated dead body shown)
Read the story here.
I didn't comment on the "torture" allegations that had so many in our nations capitol in an uproar for one simple reason.
Torture has been dumbed down.
My fear for America? We're dealing with barbarity of a type that hasn't been seen on the earth since the Middle Ages. And we're trying to deal with that barbarity with modern sensibilities. Military leadership knows better (I hope) yet no one is stating the obvious. We've got to harden up or else those goat fucking bastards will throat punch us all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Sol you have hit on something here. The situation in Yemen could get a LOT worse. Take a look at the chart on this page http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=YM for Yemen's oil production. Years ago the govt. could buy off opposition forces with oil money. Now with their production having gone from 450k barrels a day to around 150k along with collapsing prices and the country is simply broke. It is already the poorest country in the Arab world, which is saying something, and is going to get worse. Also, the water situation there is maybe the worst in the world. http://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-policy/un-official-yemen-could-be-first-country-run-out-water-303678
ReplyDeleteAgree with the general idea about "torture having been dumbed down", but have to add that it suited the US well to brand EIT as "torture" at a time when it was being used against US military personnal. So why should it be called otherwise now that the US have employed some of these techniques ? I'm not adovcating for their use, that's not my point, just saying no double standards. Waterboarding was torture when used by Japanese during WWII, why should it be called different nowadays ?
ReplyDeleteOther point is that is sets a dangerous precedent in so far as you gonna have other forces and powers taking excuse of US "Torture memo" and do the same, arguing that it wasnt Torture when the US did it, so why shouldnt they ?
My personal take on it, we're not living in a perfect world. In a perfect world, you should be able to interrogate terror suspects using police techniques and try and get them to cooperate in their own interest. This is not possible, for obvious reasons. On the other hand, the EITs used by the US and the whole strategy of coercion of terrorists has been handled by a bunch of amateurs, nothing of real value came out of it, despite what advocates of that program haven been saying ... Even the OBL chase finally achieved its goals thx for a combination of other crucial methods.
Now what i'm gonna say now may seem cold and is definitely contrary to international law and geneva conventions, but torture can only work in conjunction with a wide array of other intelligence acquisition methods. It can work only (to defeat an ennemy who works in conspirative and concealed way) when practised on very large scale and is applied methodically, you have to accept that you gonna have a large number of deaths resulting from torture and you probably will have to physically eliminate those who talked but survived.
Good example of "efficient" use of torture is what the French did in Algeria from 1954 to 1962. They broke down the terrorist networks in Algiers in particular and beat the insurgents militarily. Didn't change anything in final outcome though... that should also be taken into account, a 'bad deal' (whenever possible) is always better than a 'good war'.
In the case of Yemen, i would tend to say that we shouldn't fall into their trap and fight fire with fire. Besides, barbarity on such nature has been very common in most colonial wars ... Another example of that of the Portugese commandos in Angola in the 1970s, chopping off rebel heads and putting them on sticks, very much like ISIS ... google it for graphic detail if you need to.
More fundamentally, we need to "harden" the f*ck up, meaning being prepared to face such horrendous acts and still answer in a way that is in line with our own ethics. I think it is possible. But if we want to go "medieval" we better do it right, and not stick to half-assed stuff like the US did.
On a lighter note, this guy has got it right i suppose, Ronnie Johns, aka Chopper Read:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y
Sorry, but I could not disagree more.
DeleteTorture is torture, whatever spin one puts on it.
Where I can understand the anger and frustration leading to wanting to cross lines it is the burden of a civilized society that we can not, or at least should not lower ourselves to the level of opponents such as in current times Taliban, IS or .. Putin..
I am not American, but come from a similar background of constitution, laws and human rights. You fought for them against the British, The Dutch had their own struggles. A society loses too much when given in to these baser instincts.
If such a reasoning is not sufficient I point out that it was non other then Ronald Reagan who banned these methods and it is one of the bravest men in American political history, John McCain, who based on his own experience and his principles speaks against them. It is not a sign of weakness, to oppose torture even though a weak president like Obama might make it seem that way.
But.. regardless of my political views, or yours.. the biggest problem with torture is that IT DOES NOT WORK!
It has shown again and again to not be effective, among with by the American military. Of course it is possible that there was some singular instance where the exception proved the rule, that the CIA can now try to point at. But we will never know if this information would not have been attained in different ways.
Now, if there is no downside, besides a philosophical, christian, humanitarian or constitutional one then one could argue : No harm, no foul.
Sadly though there is a huge downside in that slips like this by democratic nations delegitimize protests by 'us' towards the likes of IS, Putin, China and others. wile they can point towards our mistakes in justifying theirs. We lose the moral high ground. Sometimes honor, law, and constitution is worth more then sadly lost lives.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry couldnt reply earlier ... so basically i think we agree if you've read my post through:"being prepared to face [terrorism] and still answer in a way that is in line with our own ethics", meaning no torture.
DeleteAs for its efficiency, it's the wrong thing to debate, as this will always be used as a fallacy to legitimize torture by those who want to use it. What i meant, is that for torture to work, you need to implement it on a scale and in a way that is not compatible with democracy, rule of law and human rights. What you can't do is have it both ways, like the US tried to do with their torture memos, i.e. legalize torture and still make it look like they're respectful of international law and US constitution.
As for Mc Cain, think even though he was a long term guest in Hanoi Hilton, he still advocated for use of EITs recently ... but maybe i'm mistaken about that one. Only read about the interesting point of view of Justice Scalia regarding torture being banned under 8th amendment as "punishment" but not as way of extracting information. That is what i call a twisted logic ! Either you endorse it or not, but you don't make it look like you still within the rule of civilized nations.