Maybe, Just Maybe, Good Was Done?

[tannji]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14590-2005Mar7?language=printer

 

"Could George W. Bush Be Right?" asked Claus Christian Malzahn in the German newsweekly Der Spiegel. Essayist Guy Sorman asked last month in the Paris daily Le Figaro (by subscription), "And If Bush Was Right?" In Canada, anti-war columnist Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star answered: "It is time to set down in type the most difficult sentence in the English language. That sentence is short and simple. It is this: Bush was right."

 

The tipping point came last week when Lebanon's pro-Syrian government fell. The international online media, much of which had been critical of Bush during his first term, had to acknowledge democratic developments on the American president's watch. Many commentators also cited free elections in Afghanistan last fall, Palestinian elections in early January followed by the Jan. 30 Iraq elections. Then came local elections in Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement of constitutional changes allowing his opposition to challenge him electorally.

 

Given Bush's insistence that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would lead to a democratic political order in the Middle East, many Europeans are "somewhat embarrassed" by these developments, Sorman wrote in Le Figaro.

[Guest Phil1934]

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement of constitutional changes allowing his opposition to challenge him electorally. He did have his opponent arrested after several names on his petition were found to be bogus. Bigger news the last two days is the U.S. practice of abducting people and sending them overseas for torture. This has forever ruined the moral high ground the U.S. held.

[Pop N Wood]

This has forever ruined the moral high ground the U.S. held.

 

 

When was that?

[johnc]

Rendition is the practice of sending captured terrorist suspects to other countries for interrogation. Yesterdays WaPo has a pretty thoughtful article about the practice.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18709-2005Mar8.html

 

Before you make an easy judgment about rendition, you have to answer the disturbing question put to me by a former CIA official: Suppose the FBI had captured Mohamed Atta before Sept. 11, 2001. Under U.S. legal rules at the time, the man who plotted the airplane suicide attacks probably could not have been held or interrogated in the United States. Would it have made sense to "render" Atta to a place where he could have been interrogated in a way that might have prevented Sept. 11? That's not a simple question for me to answer, even as I share the conviction that torture is always and everywhere wrong.

 

I agree that torture is not only wrong but generlaly not very effective. But, given the above example and the hindsight we all now have, torturing Atta would have been the right thing to do.

[JMortensen]

I have absolutely no problem sending a law breaker back to his country of origin. Why anyone would is beyond me.

 

As to torture not being effective, I had a class on Vietnam where we had a couple of former POW's come in and talk about being tortured in the Hanoi Hilton. They seemed to think that it was pretty effective. They said that all of their training had convinced them that they would not give in under torture, but less than a week into their captivity and being subjected to the "rope trick" they were spilling the beans and crying like babies. They were also EMPHATIC that NOBODY could hold up to it, and said that EVERYONE they were in there with had broken, and broken quickly, and had told the interrogators EVERYTHING asked of them. "Torture is not effective" is a false mantra IMO, and I think my sources are pretty firm on this one.

 

EDIT--I do agree that you can get a false confession out of someone very easily thru torture. But if you're looking for information... that is a different story.

 

2nd EDIT-- http://vailtrail.com/newsdetail.cfm?NewsID=2718

[Pop N Wood]

But, given the above example and the hindsight we all now have, torturing Atta would have been the right thing to do.

 

But if we had the hindsight we wouldn't need the torture. And without the hindsight, well, do you really think hooking Richard Jewel up to a couple of batteries would have solved the olympic bombing case any more quickly?

 

There are better ways.

[tannji]

Without coming off as supporting torture... what are the better ways?

[Pop N Wood]

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

 

Works for me.

[johnc]

But if we had the hindsight we wouldn't need the torture.

 

Again, I don't think torture is right and, although I can't find the link, I've read a number of research reports where information gathered through torture tends to only reinforce the torture's preconceived ideas. The person being tortured tends to tell the interrogator what they want to hear.

 

Without hindsight Atta would be an immigrant doing something vaguely suspicious and with our pre-911 mindset nothing would have come of it. If we had enough information to indicate that Atta was a real and immediate threat, torture wouldn't have changed anything because our pre-911 mindset wouldn't have believed him or Al Queda capable of what they eventually did. Atta would have told us what we wanted to hear, and I don't think the interrogators would have asked about flying 4 passenger jets into various buildings.

[JMortensen]

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

 

Works for me.

The Constitution applies to citizens of the United States or to situations which occur within the US' date=' and when dealing with citizens of the United States I would agree that we are bound by the Constitution. But if you catch a Saudi national in Afghanistan, the laws of the Constitution are about as valid as the laws in Saudi Arabia. And I have no problem with using either, or the Afghani laws for that matter. Fighters from other countries' armies get protection from the Geneva Convention rules, terrorists from any country don't get protection from the US Constitution.

 

Without hindsight Atta would be an immigrant doing something vaguely suspicious and with our pre-911 mindset nothing would have come of it. If we had enough information to indicate that Atta was a real and immediate threat, torture wouldn't have changed anything because our pre-911 mindset wouldn't have believed him or Al Queda capable of what they eventually did. Atta would have told us what we wanted to hear, and I don't think the interrogators would have asked about flying 4 passenger jets into various buildings.

But they know what questions to ask now or at least they have a MUCH better idea. The questions don't have to be so narrowly focused either. I don't think you're using your imagination as to what questions could be asked. Why does torture need to be differentiated from what we DO use, interrogation. I think you'd have a pretty tough time making an argument that interrogation doesn't work, so why wouldn't a little motivation along with some interrogation work even better.

 

I think I should state for the record that I'm not enthusiastic about the idea of torturing people, but to say that it doesn't work is bull. To say that it only works as well as the torturer is a much better argument. So if you have a very intelligent and knowlegable torturer...

[tannji]

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

 

Works for me.

 

 

LMAO..... while I admire the spirit of that, it didnt do a darn thing to prevent 9-11. Our constitution isnt meant to protect us against threats from beyond our borders, so I am a bit lost as to how that is supposed to have helped.... but as long as it works for you...... = ) I say not having been in one of the Towers worked considerably better for you than did the constitution. As for hindsight.... it is my hope and belief that the Intelligence services are now atempting to practice FORESIGHT and INTERROGATION, rather than preaching the benefits of hindsight. Conventions and pieces of paper are great for lawyers, great for people to display... but they rarely save lives or prevent violence by those who by definition do not respect them. Abraham Lincoln managed to leave a legacy matched by very few... but he did it recognizing that desperate times usually mandate desperate measures, and his real legacy is generally downplayed or ignored by the people who teach most of our history. I do not like the idea of torture, but I dont think many of the victims of 9-11 did either... There are times when events call for drastic measures and I am very grateful that I do not have to make a decision regarding torture.... I wouldnt want to have to weigh a suspects life and rights against my country's. In my mind, the scariest aspect of torture is the slippery slope we find ourselves on if we use it and accept it's use.... but I find the the situation we are in with terror and our means to combat it just as scary.

[JMortensen]

You tell 'em tannji.

[Pop N Wood]

LMAO..... while I admire the spirit of that, it didnt do a darn thing to prevent 9-11. .

 

It was never meant to. Why would you think it does?

 

In my mind, the scariest aspect of torture is the slippery slope we find ourselves on if we use it and accept it's use.

 

Now you are starting to see my point.

 

From some of your comments in the threads about the patriot act and gitmo I will assume you are playing devils advocate here.

 

We will never live in a world that is 100% safe from crazy people. Kind of foolish to even try. Eventually the fear will wear off and people will again realize they are at greater risk driving a car than being killed by a terrorist. When that happens we will fall back on system that has worked for us thus far.

 

The constitution doesn't technically apply to non US citizens, but I don't see any reason why it can't.

 

This is a somewhat academic discussion. Even the people who are asking “you have to wonder†are all saying they don’t support torture.

 

Guess my Richard Jewel argument went unnoticed?

[JMortensen]

The constitution doesn't technically apply to non US citizens, but I don't see any reason why it can't.

For the same reason that Americans can't be forced to apply sharia law by Iran. Now if you're in Iran, different story...

[johnc]

Even the Iraqi's think things are getting better:

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=1&u=/usatoday/20050316/ts_usatoday/mostiraqissayfuturelooksbrighter

 

Unfortunately, some folks refuse to believe that:

 

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin031605.php3

[Guest Phil1934]

Those Iraqis were polled by the IRI, the International Republican Institute. And they think the Pres is doing a fine job. Imagine that.

[tannji]

Those Iraqis were polled by the IRI, the International Republican Institute. And they think the Pres is doing a fine job. Imagine that.

 

 

OK, so are you saying the poll was fudged and they lied, or merely that if they had been polled by some Democratic Party organization, their answers would have been different? If you cant imagine that they would have a positive impression of President Bush (in comparison to their life under Saddam), all I can say is I wouldnt waste anymore of my time reading the news, (were I you) as you obviously have a rigid preset view of the world around you, and nothing you read or see is going to change that. I think I tend to agree with Mikelly......

[Guest Phil1934]

As I keep saying. it's nice to know the whole story, so I went to the web site of this non-partisan orginization and clicked on the announcement of new staff members.

 

Elizabeth Dugan returns to IRI. During the 1992 election cycle, Dugan was deputy communications director at the Republican National Committee.

Ms. Dugan began her career in Washington, D.C. at the Republican National Committee working on local elections during the 1978 and 1980 campaigns. She then served as the director of candidate education and training at the National Republican Congressional Committee for four years.

 

Thomas Garrett, a native of Oklahoma, has 20 years of professional political and governmental experience including over ten years' work in democracy building programs outside the United States. Garrett began his career in Texas and Oklahoma where he worked as a consultant on statewide campaigns. When he returned to the U.S. he joined the staff of Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski.

 

Sonya Vekstein returns to IRI after having served as treasurer and CFO at the Nuclear Threat Initiative in Washington, DC from 2002-2005. From 1993-2002, Vekstein worked at IRI as a project accountant, controller and CFO. Prior to joining IRI in 1993, Vekstein lived in Kyiv, Ukraine where she worked as chief procurement officer for "Stolovie Pribori," a Ukrainian manufacturing plant and as an analyst for City Information Systems.

 

Lisa Gates joined IRI in December 2004. Prior to joining IRI, Gates served as public affairs officer and director of the International Press Center for the Coalition Provisional Authority and the U.S. Mission in Baghdad, Iraq. From March of 2003 to May 2004, Gates served as special assistant for public affairs at the U.S. Department of Labor. Gates has also served as spokesperson to Governor Jeb Bush of Florida. From April 2001 to January 2003, she served as deputy press secretary in the Executive Office of the Governor, deputy communications director on the 2002 Bush-Brogan campaign and communications director for Governor Bush's 2002 transition. Gates was an account executive at HMS Success Public Relations in Ohio. Gates got her start in public affairs working in the Communications Office of then-Governor George V. Voinovich of Ohio. She is a graduate of The Ohio State University.

 

Rob Varsalone, a native of New Hampshire, will serve as IRI's country director in Afghanistan. Varsalone is a former state legislator and a veteran of numerous campaigns. He ran Governor Craig Benson's first gubernatorial campaign and later served as senior advisor in the Governor's office. Varsalone has also worked for the New Hampshire Republican Party and New Hampshire Citizens for a Sound Economy. Most recently, Varsalone served as executive director of the Republican National Committee's coordinated campaign in New Hampshire.

 

IRI, founded in 1983, is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing democracy, freedom, self-government and the rule of law worldwide.

 

So if they can't even be honest about themselves, you don't think they are capable of slanting a question? I didn't address whether I thought the Iraqis were better off or not, just that this poll is in the same vein as a Jeff Gannon or Armstrong Williams story.

[tannji]

OK, if I am understanding you properly..... because it seems that the staff has conservative roots and background, they are lying when they say their work is non-partisan? So by that logic am I to assume that Jimmy Carter's work around the globe is partisan? Or that if I donate time, blood, or money to charitable causes, I do so to promote a conservative agenda? Perhaps I am to assume that the Democratic party's efforts to reach out to inner-city youth has no greater concern than that of recruiting potential voters? Remind me to ignore any study or poll that has its origins in a liberal organization, because the results must be skewed or biased, or those of conservative organs, because we have to be on constant guard against the schemes of the vast right-wing conspiracy. As it so happens, I consider myself a right leaning Independant.... and I regard as suspect anything coming from the parties.... but that doesnt extend to the world at large.

Unless I miss your point from the previous post, I think that ANYTHING you say should be taken with a grain of salt.... I stop short of calling you a liar.... (as you did the IRI) but I find your innuendo and references to hidden agendas strangely ironic. = )

[crazy280]

Guys, chill. I think what Phil is trying to say is that polls are only as accurate as the pollsters. I was always taught that when reading polls, if possible, you should always have access to: A) the question as it was asked the raw data C) who was asked, and D) who was asking. That way you could take into consideration whether it was the "KKK" conducting a poll on "race relations". It's not that they are outright lying, but any organization with an agenda is going to promote evidence that is supportive of that agenda. For example, you could word a poll question differently, and get strikingly different results. Or you could ask a different test group and get completely different results. I always laugh when reading polls about abortion from "Women's Right to Choose" groups and "Right to Life" groups. The two polls are completely different, because one used a question similar to "is killing babies ok?" and the other used a question similar to "does a mother have the right to choose?". I think Phil's point is not that this IRI group is lying, but that you should keep in mind what they're all about, you know?