McCain leads bipartisan opposition to Bush about torture!

[Sgt. Pepper]

L.A. Times article

Leading the senate in a bipartisan drive against the White House's proposed torture policy, Senator McCain from Arizona said "Let no one doubt our determination." These senators are including anti-torture provisions in normal bills to prevent the Bush administration from implementing the very techniques we condemned Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and countless other nations for.

I don't care whether or not he's shooting for the top spot 2008, McCain scores points with me on this issue. It pains me to imagine my beloved country openly institutionalizing such barbarism while still claiming to be more civilized as the terrorists we're fighting and their ideology. Aren't we better than to toture in the name of the flag?

Sgt. Pepper Reviewed by Sgt. Pepper on 11-06-2005. McCain leads bipartisan opposition to Bush about torture! L.A. Times article Leading the senate in a bipartisan drive against the White House's proposed torture policy, Senator McCain from Arizona said "Let no one doubt our determination." These senators are including anti-torture provisions in normal bills to prevent the Bush administration from implementing the very techniques we condemned Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and countless other nations for. I don't care whether or not he's shooting for the top spot 2008, McCain scores points with me Rating: 5

[Breukelen advocaat]

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html
Michael Levin
THE CASE FOR TORTURE

It is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age. Enlightened societies reject it outright, and regimes suspected of using it risk the wrath of the United States.
I believe this attitude is unwise. There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory. Moreover, these situations are moving from the realm of imagination to fact.
Death: Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4 unless ... here follow the usual demands for money and release of his friends from jail. Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10 a.m on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die. If the only way to save those lives is to subject the terrorist to the most excruciating possible pain, what grounds can there be for not doing so? I suggest there are none. In any case, I ask you to face the question with an open mind.
Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality. Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric. Indeed, letting millions of innocents die in deference to one who flaunts his guilt is moral cowardice, an unwillingness to dirty one's hands. If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn't bring yourself to apply the electrodes?
Once you concede that torture is justified in extreme cases, you have admitted that the decision to use torture is a matter of balancing innocent lives against the means needed to save them. You must now face more realistic cases involving more modest numbers. Someone plants a bomb on a jumbo jet. I He alone can disarm it, and his demands cannot be met (or they can, we refuse to set a precedent by yielding to his threats). Surely we can, we must, do anything to the extortionist to save the passengers. How can we tell 300, or 100, or 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, "I'm sorry you'll have to die in agony, we just couldn't bring ourselves to . . . "
Here are the results of an informal poll about a third, hypothetical, case. Suppose a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital. I asked four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back. All said yes, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it herself.
I am not advocating torture as punishment. Punishment is addressed to deeds irrevocably past. Rather, I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils. So understood, it is far less objectionable than many extant punishments. Opponents of the death penalty, for example, are forever insisting that executing a murderer will not bring back his victim (as if the purpose of capital punishment were supposed to be resurrection, not deterrence or retribution). But torture, in the cases described, is intended not to bring anyone back but to keep innocents from being dispatched. The most powerful argument against using torture as a punishment or to secure confessions is that such practices disregard the rights of the individual. Well, if the individual is all that important, and he is, it is correspondingly important to protect the rights of individuals threatened by terrorists. If life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved even at the price of hurting the one who endangers them.
Better precedents for torture are assassination and pre-emptive attack. No Allied leader would have flinched at assassinating Hitler, had that been possible. (The Allies did assassinate Heydrich.) Americans would be angered to learn that Roosevelt could have had Hitler killed in 1943, thereby shortening the war and saving millions of lives, but refused on moral grounds. Similarly, if nation A learns that nation B is about to launch an unprovoked attack, A has a right to save itself by destroying B's military capability first. In the same way, if the police can by torture save those who would otherwise die at the hands of kidnappers or terrorists, they must.
Idealism:There is an important difference between terrorists and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists' "rights." The terrorist's victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike his victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary.
Just as torture is justified only to save lives (not extort confessions or incantations), it is justifiably administered only to those known to hold innocent lives in their hands. Ah, but how call the authorities ever be sure they have the right malefactor? Isn't there a danger of error and abuse? won't "WE" turn into "THEM?" Questions like these are disingenuous in a world in which terrorists proclaim themselves and perform for television. The name of their game is public recognition. After all, you can't very well intimidate a government into releasing your freedom fighters unless you announce that it is your group that has seized its embassy. "Clear guilt" is difficult to define, but when 40 million people see a group of masked gunmen seize an airplane on the evening news, there is not much question about who the perpetrators are. There will be hard cases where the situation is murkier. Nonetheless, a line demarcating the legitimate use of torture can be drawn. Torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents, and the line between "US" and "THEM" will remain clear.
There is little danger that the Western democracies will lose their way if they choose to inflict pain as one way of preserving order. Paralysis in the face of evil is the greater danger. Some day soon a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of lives, and torture will be the only way to save them. We had better start thinking about this.

About the Author:
Michael Levin is a Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York and the Graduate center, City University of New York. He is well known in Libertarian circles and has written much about social issues in the US, especially feminism, race, crime, and other politically incorrect topics.

[hempity]

You are a snivelling little coward and a rat/snich.
do you think that hitler or stalin or mussolini or any of the rest of the evil little bastards didn't have justifcations to do what they did?
you are just justifying what you punks like to do anyway.
i use to feel sorry for you, now i am glad that you will die in fear, screaming for a saviour.
coward

[Breukelen advocaat]

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...+Torture&hl=en
Excerpted from study guide in this college:
http://www.bcconline.com

Warfare amongst the Native Americans was constant. There were three motivations for fighting: to acquire personal prestige, vengeance for enemy attacks and to obtain prisoners for sacrifice. Captured women over twelve would be raped and then killed. Babies had their heads bashed against trees. Children up to ten years old would have their throats cut. Children from ten to twelve years old would be taken to be sold as slaves. Captured men over twelve would be taken back for torture. Our information about Indian torture comes from survivors and white observers. Jesuit priests living with the Indians gave detailed reports, as did European troops who were allied with different Indian groups. There were very few captives who survived to tell the tale. The question is why would anyone allow themselves to by taken alive? The answer is that they still hoped to escape. The Indians would first tear out their captives fingernails and would bit off their trigger or bow fingers. They would then tie-up their victims with leather straps. The prisoners would have their arms tied behind their back and their feet would be tied so they could only walk in slow shuffle. The Indians would cut the captives neck and shoulder muscles so they would be unable to work-out of their bonds. As they passed other villages of their tribe they would stop and let them in on the fun. The victims would be stripped naked and forced to walk between lines of Indians who would cut them, burn them and hit them. At this point they might be saved if an Indian women took a fancy to them. They would then become married and the prisoner would be adopted into the tribe. This rarely happened however. The real torture started when they arrived at the home village of the warriors. The torture could last up to a week. The captive would first be given over to the bachelor warriors. They would build a bed of hot coals with Indians holding torches on each side. The prisoner had to run back and forth through the fire while also being burned by the torches. This continued all day until the captive became unconscious. The next day he would be rested and fed. The third day the 14-18 year olds would play with the victim. The youths would cut and stab him in the arms, legs and bottom and then quickly plunge glowing brands into the wounds to stop the flow of blood. This was followed by another day of rest and refreshment. The next group to have a go at the captive were the women. The torture they inflicted was so horrible that none of our witnesses would describe it. Again there was a day of recovery before the final ordeal. The morning of his last day the Indians would build a six-seven foot high scaffold. This would be built near a tree with an overhanging branch. The prisoners arms would be pulled up to the branch and tied while he stood on the platform. This was done so the entire village could see the prisoner squirm. First they would make the captive eat his own flesh. They would for example cut off his ear and force him to chew and swallow it. Hot brands were then thrust down his throat, into his eyes and up his rectum. They would then tear his scalp off and pour burning pitch on his head. When it was clear he was near death they would break open his head with a club and then cut it off. His stomach was cut open and his intestines were cut-up and put on sticks for the children to carry around, as a sign of victory. His body was then cut-up and eaten by the tribe.

[hempity]

oh yea, you are also an idiot, and your shit was written by frightened white folk

[Breukelen advocaat]

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...+Torture&hl=en
Excerpted from study guide in this college:
http://www.bcconline.com

Indian battle honors were rewarded with eagle feathers. Touching an enemy who was still alive and fighting was considered the greatest honor. They called this counting coup and they carried special coup sticks for this purpose. Rescuing dead and wounded tribe members was also an important honor. The Indians excelled at ambush, but only rarely would conduct a stand-up fight or an attack on a fort. They only fought when they thought they could win and did not like to take casualties. The loss of even one warrior was considered too much. They did not have a security system so their villages were usually caught unprepared for an attack. They also had a complete lack of discipline and this caused many of their planned attacks to fail.

[phareye]

i'm missing the whole native connection here.
are you saying that after decimating an entire nation we should now realize that the NA natives had (gasp) something worth offering?
and if so, why focus on the torture that was not about gaining info to help secure the tribe?
or are you just into primitive torture methods? granted, it is some cold, yet interesting, stuff.

[Breukelen advocaat]

i'm missing the whole native connection here.
are you saying that after decimating an entire nation we should now realize that the NA natives had (gasp) something worth offering?
and if so, why focus on the torture that was not about gaining info to help secure the tribe?
or are you just into primitive torture methods? granted, it is some cold, yet interesting, stuff.

I am not condoning, or condemning, the Native American "primitive" torture methods, or the rationale behind their uses. I was just pointing out that they did it, and appartently it was quite a tradition in their culture.

Hempity, AKA "Running Chicken Scalper", says, about the Case for Torture, "you are just justifying what you punks like to do anyway". By "you punks", he is referring to European white people, especially those in America - whom he will always be against, no matter who the enemy is, or what they do. Well, the man is wrong once again - on several counts. He is a great liar about history, and he says whatever suits him. Since he's got a small audience of high-school and college kids, many of whom don't know better, and a few '60's burn-outs, on his side, he just writes whatever he thinks will cause people to hate America, and her role in the world.

I would say that my position is similar to that of Mr. Levin, who wrote The Case for Torture (above). I make no apologies for this: Since 9/11 thereâ??s been no attacks on American soil by terrorists â?? so if that was accomplished by torture, then so be it. Today's definition of "torture", as carried out by secret agences, is a far cry from the barbaric rituals of the Indians.

[bhallg2k]

Gee, we're a civilized bunch.

[nicholasstanko]

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html
Michael Levin
THE CASE FOR TORTURE

It is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age. Enlightened societies reject it outright, and regimes suspected of using it risk the wrath of the United States.
I believe this attitude is unwise. There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory. Moreover, these situations are moving from the realm of imagination to fact.
Death: Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4 unless ... here follow the usual demands for money and release of his friends from jail. Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10 a.m on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die. If the only way to save those lives is to subject the terrorist to the most excruciating possible pain, what grounds can there be for not doing so? I suggest there are none. In any case, I ask you to face the question with an open mind.
Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality. Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric. Indeed, letting millions of innocents die in deference to one who flaunts his guilt is moral cowardice, an unwillingness to dirty one's hands. If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn't bring yourself to apply the electrodes?
Once you concede that torture is justified in extreme cases, you have admitted that the decision to use torture is a matter of balancing innocent lives against the means needed to save them. You must now face more realistic cases involving more modest numbers. Someone plants a bomb on a jumbo jet. I He alone can disarm it, and his demands cannot be met (or they can, we refuse to set a precedent by yielding to his threats). Surely we can, we must, do anything to the extortionist to save the passengers. How can we tell 300, or 100, or 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, "I'm sorry you'll have to die in agony, we just couldn't bring ourselves to . . . "
Here are the results of an informal poll about a third, hypothetical, case. Suppose a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital. I asked four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back. All said yes, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it herself.
I am not advocating torture as punishment. Punishment is addressed to deeds irrevocably past. Rather, I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils. So understood, it is far less objectionable than many extant punishments. Opponents of the death penalty, for example, are forever insisting that executing a murderer will not bring back his victim (as if the purpose of capital punishment were supposed to be resurrection, not deterrence or retribution). But torture, in the cases described, is intended not to bring anyone back but to keep innocents from being dispatched. The most powerful argument against using torture as a punishment or to secure confessions is that such practices disregard the rights of the individual. Well, if the individual is all that important, and he is, it is correspondingly important to protect the rights of individuals threatened by terrorists. If life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved even at the price of hurting the one who endangers them.
Better precedents for torture are assassination and pre-emptive attack. No Allied leader would have flinched at assassinating Hitler, had that been possible. (The Allies did assassinate Heydrich.) Americans would be angered to learn that Roosevelt could have had Hitler killed in 1943, thereby shortening the war and saving millions of lives, but refused on moral grounds. Similarly, if nation A learns that nation B is about to launch an unprovoked attack, A has a right to save itself by destroying B's military capability first. In the same way, if the police can by torture save those who would otherwise die at the hands of kidnappers or terrorists, they must.
Idealism:There is an important difference between terrorists and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists' "rights." The terrorist's victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike his victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary.
Just as torture is justified only to save lives (not extort confessions or incantations), it is justifiably administered only to those known to hold innocent lives in their hands. Ah, but how call the authorities ever be sure they have the right malefactor? Isn't there a danger of error and abuse? won't "WE" turn into "THEM?" Questions like these are disingenuous in a world in which terrorists proclaim themselves and perform for television. The name of their game is public recognition. After all, you can't very well intimidate a government into releasing your freedom fighters unless you announce that it is your group that has seized its embassy. "Clear guilt" is difficult to define, but when 40 million people see a group of masked gunmen seize an airplane on the evening news, there is not much question about who the perpetrators are. There will be hard cases where the situation is murkier. Nonetheless, a line demarcating the legitimate use of torture can be drawn. Torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents, and the line between "US" and "THEM" will remain clear.
There is little danger that the Western democracies will lose their way if they choose to inflict pain as one way of preserving order. Paralysis in the face of evil is the greater danger. Some day soon a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of lives, and torture will be the only way to save them. We had better start thinking about this.

About the Author:
Michael Levin is a Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York and the Graduate center, City University of New York. He is well known in Libertarian circles and has written much about social issues in the US, especially feminism, race, crime, and other politically incorrect topics.

i noticed that your article used the most extreme HYPOTHETICAL situations to argue for torture's everyday use.

it reads as if a child wrote it, very imaginative.


coward.