Not a particularly good move for customer relations, Facebook.
CIA supervisor says he used fire ants on detainees. Given all the depravity we’re now learning the CIA used on terror suspects over the last eight years, I find it darkly amusing when defenders of these techniques still refer to them as “enhanced interrogation” or “so-called torture.” At this point, what techniques would we need to learn were used in order to use the word torture with no qualifiers? The rack? Thumbscrews?
Granted the book is 30 years old, but the matter-of-fact discussion of forced abortion, sterilization, and mandatory adoption for single mothers in a book co-written by Obama’s science czar is pretty disgusting. But I’d add that the mere fact that guy co-wrote a book with Paul Ehrlich ought to disqualify him as “science czar.” Talk about ignoring hard science in favor of ideology.
Eight-year-old with autism spits at, “inappropriately touches” school instructors. So naturally, they had her arrested.
My new pup inspires another rescue. Nice!
South Carolina judge rules the state’s 21 drinking age unconstitutional. But under the state constitution. And his ruling pertains to possession, not purchase.
Interesting study finds that people are much more likely to return a found wallet if it includes a picture of a baby inside.
Social Security Administration throws $700K bash for its employees at a swanky Arizona hotel.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, July 16th, 2009 at 12:43 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Alcohol, General Criminal Justice.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Apropos of none of the above, but I have a question for the lawyerly folks in the audience.
If you are charged with contempt for failing to report to jury duty, is it legal for the judge to sentence you without offering the opportunity of defense?
I’m extremely angry right now, so I’ll withhold the rant and stick with the important questions.
The follow-up question would be, if it is not legal, then what is your recourse?
Alright… now I’ll read the links. *sigh*
I am going to play devil’s advocate here and side with the school in the case of the “autistic” student. The headline says autistic, but the copy says Asperger’s. Asperger’s is, in my nonprofessional experience, much milder than Autism. My mother worked with an Autistic boy for quite a while, and, were this child Autistic, I would side the other way, but I am against the very definition of Asperger’s based on the diagnostic criteria presented in DSM. If the child knew what they were doing, and the staff felt like they were in danger, the school has a responsibility to act. While I will consider the possibility that they may have gone too far, they were looking out for the best interest of the staff and other students.
And the hypothetical “you” in my question does not, in fact, mean “me”.
Your first link isn’t working, Radley – Error 500
Reading the article, this was a drunken boast by the guy, who claimed to have put fireants in a helmet and stuck it on some guy’s head to “make him talk”. I don’t buy it.
I have fireants in the yard right now. Putting them into a helmet and putting it on someone’s head is not a realistic way to torture someone with them, unless you’re attempting to make them laugh at you. A realistic way to torture someone with them would be to tie them up and throw them on a hill in such a way as to disturb it and bring the ants out in attack. I don’t think you could get enough into a helmet to do that.
Science Czar just sounds so draconian. Can Fox News stop reporting about celebrity gossip for ten minutes and do some worth while commentary on a cabinet member that would have made Hitler proud?
Granted the book is 30 years old, but the matter-of-fact discussion of forced abortion, sterilization, and mandatory adoption for single mothers in a book co-written by Obama’s science czar is pretty disgusting.
Do you just not know any scientists, or something? It’s pretty common to have these sorts of discussions; how we would solve a problem if ethical concerns could be ignored for a moment. You can’t write a scientific paper or book where every other sentence has to be tempered by reminders that it would be unethical. That’s up to others to decide, and it has no bearing on the data.
The truth is that ecologies have a certain carrying capacity that cannot be exceeded. The world where we’ve engaged in draconian population control measures may – may – be better than the one where the entire human species runs headlong into K-selection at 80 miles an hour.
John Holdren is in an administration that wants to control healthcare… this just looks creepy.
“The truth is that ecologies have a certain carrying capacity that cannot be exceeded.”
Bullshit. “Ecologies” don’t innovate. Humans do.
Can Fox News stop reporting about celebrity gossip for ten minutes
Fox who? Ich don’t think so.
Bullshit. “Ecologies” don’t innovate. Humans do.
Bullshit on your bullshit. Organisms have been innovating for billions of years. They did it before we were around, they’ll do it after we’re gone.
As a person who works outside in fire ant territory… yes you can get enough in a helmet… and besides that… what if the guy is allergic, that’s what kills people… BOTTOM LINE… I wouldn’t want someone doing that to a U.S. Soldier if he were captured.
Bullshit. “Ecologies” don’t innovate. Humans do.
Nice knee-jerking. Read what he said and don’t pick on the one word he misused. Ecologies certainly do evolve into crazy things a designer can barely imagine, and evolution is just a small definition change away from innovation. Wrap your head around this statement and say it a thousand times…Nature is bigger, crazier, weirder, and more complex than you or anyone will ever comprehend ever in a million forevers. Our current science is a flashlight on the dark side of the moon, but it’s the only real light we have.
Chet is right. There MAY be paths we take which will lead to utter destruction. Does that mean ours will? No. Could it? Yes. How do we know? By studying nature, studying ourselves, and making testable predictions. What’s the best path to take for libertarians if we find a natural road sign that says “everyone work together or die painful deaths?” Dunno! But it’s worth asking ourselves and not just discounting research not conforming to our worldview with platitudes.
I believe we are better off without a “science czar”, but that doesn’t mean it’s unethical to study something that has ethical problems in practice.
@2
Asperger’s syndrome is a type of autism. It’s on the “autism spectrum” and has a serious effect on the way someone with this issue itneracts with others and udnerstands social normas and cues.
Radley’s point is that “arresting” someone is a very deliberate process whereby you are choosing to crank up the gears of the criminal justice system. What you’re describing (”school had a responsiblity to act”), CRN, is an entirely different, and more in-the-moment decision to respond to someone’s behavior. In other words, it is not at all difficult to imagine the possibility where a police officer physically retsrains an individual with, say, a Taser or a billy club but then does not arrest them afterwards. They are not necessarily or by definition or in any other way the exact same thing, or inextricably linked.
While almost surely any adult warranting a billy club to the skull is committing acts worthy of arrest, an *8 year old child with Asperger’s* probably can be restrained and removed in a way that “looks out for best interests of staff and students” without thereafter being arrested and charged with an actual crime.
#12:
I’d rather they used fire ants instead of the usual beheadings.
Abu Zubayday gave up Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He couldn’t have possibly been an innocent bystander and be the one guy who happened to know where KSM was hiding.
If I’ll agree that using fire ants is torture will the rest of you agree that the myth of “torture never works” is just that, a myth?
I have a better question, now that we’ve gotten all the useful info out of this ass, why is he not hanging by his neck?
It would have been nice of the washington examiner to give credit to the guy who broke the holdren story 4 or 5 days ago, since they didn’t:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Regardless of whether the kid had autism or asperger’s (which is much, much milder than autism), WTF are schools having 8 year olds arrested for? Do we seriously send our children to public schools in this country simply so they can obtain first-hand knowledge of arrest/detention?
To Brownwyn (#1) contempt (whether civil or criminal) can be punished by incarceration, so you’re entitled to counsel. However, in civil contempt, you must be given the opportunity to purge yourself of contempt before going to jail. Contact a local attorney for better advice.
Hmm…I feel fairly certain that most people can see a rational self interest in working together when needed without being forced into it. Nor do I doubt that scientists put ethics to the side temporarily to thoroughly discuss the world’s problem.
But the science czar isn’t trying to think outside the box here to solve a problem. This guy is trying to pass his opinions off as some kind of infallible, factual dogma because…well, he’s a scientist and how could a scientist be wrong. To quote the book…
“Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”
The worry warts have been screaming about over population for a long time. There is plenty of evidence that we can produce enough food on this planet for a world wide population of 12 Bill, maybe more with new technology. This alarmist science is about as credible as Dick Cheney saying the terrorists are going to get us unless we destroy all individual rights. Fear mongering is fear mongering whether it’s scientists, the pope, the CIA, whatever. When people are afraid, they’ll believe anything.
CRNewsom:
“I am going to play devil’s advocate here and side with the school in the case of the “autistic” student. The headline says autistic, but the copy says Asperger’s. Asperger’s is, in my nonprofessional experience, much milder than Autism.”
I speak from both professional and nonprofessional experience (my son has Asperger’s) when I say this is utterly uninformed.
“My mother worked with an Autistic boy for quite a while, and, were this child Autistic, I would side the other way, but I am against the very definition of Asperger’s based on the diagnostic criteria presented in DSM.”
Neither this situation nor this child is a suitable arena for you to get on a diagnostic hobbyhorse. I, personally, am against people trying to throw children with special needs under the bus because you don’t like the specifics of DSM-IV.
“If the child knew what they were doing, and the staff felt like they were in danger, the school has a responsibility to act.”
Big “if”, isn’t it? An eight-year-old, even having a full-on psychotic fit, might endanger a group of adults and certainly might endanger other children.
But I can assure you that an Aspie child in a super-high-stress social situation in an unfriendly environment can act out in extreme ways and be entirely unaware of “what they are doing” – in the sense of understanding how their behaviour is affecting others. In fact, being unaware (or only aware with great effort and difficulty) of how one’s behaviour affects others is the hallmark at the very centre of Asperger’s.
“While I will consider the possibility that they may have gone too far, they were looking out for the best interest of the staff and other students.”
How you can know that, based on the brief info presented in the article, is gobsmacking to me. You must have the power of second sight, or the new Industrial Strength Jump to Conclusions Mat.
(I’m not drawing any conclusions. I do know that bringing in uniformed cops to haundcuff an eight-year-old Aspie kid and hauling
her off to the lockup, is an incredibly stupid thing to do if you have the best interests of the students at heart).
@1,
IANAL and this is not legal advice, but yes. He waived his right to defend himself by not showing up.
Julian Simon’s work is available online free. Making it cheaper than when the book first came out and more plentiful!
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
@Tokin #12
I thought that Zubaydah gave up KSM without torture?
Having been diagnosed with Asperger’s I’d like to add my post-inflation 24 cents. During my pre-medication days in school, and in particular in grades of 1 through 4, I was very difficult to be dealt with. There are two things to know: First, we’re very uncomfortable among people. It doesn’t matter whether it’s family, friends or strangers. Just being in a group of people generates a lot of stress. Second, we take any deviations from routine or any surprises very badly.
I still remember times when seemingly minor situation caused me to go berserk. A typical example would be the teacher brushing against by school desk and knocking down my set of color pencils or my book. I immediately started screaming at her, ordering her to pick it up and put it on my desk exactly as it was before, and I wouldn’t stop until she did so or I was taken out by the school nurse. If the teacher argued with me or ignored me, I would probably have gotten violent as well.
When I first read the article, I found the girl’s behavior completely natural for an Asperger case. Then, reading the comments, I noticed a misconception about the syndrome. I assume the misconception is caused by most people knowing only adults with Asperger’s. Such people are usually much more mellow – they are either on meds and/or were able to organize their lives in a way that reduces the high-stress situations of socialization and deviations from routine.
Sure, I wouldn’t either. But there’s no reason to believe some drunk bragging about his torture credentials with fireants is telling the truth, particularly given that nobody else around him seemed to believe it.
As you admit, someone would have to be allergic to really be harmed by it. Most forms of torture don’t require allergies for effectiveness…
OT, but qwints (#20), a person NEVER waive his right to defend himself simply by failing to show up. You could be on the lam for 20 years and still be able to demand a trial. You can not be convicted in absentia. At least not yet. Give Sotomayor some time to work her “law and order” magic.
Interestingly enough, many Supreme Court cases dealing with schools are predicated on the assumption that the school is a place of involuntary detention and that school adminstrators are “wardens” deserving of special consideration because they have a difficult job maintaining discipline and order among the inmate population…er, student population, excuse me. I guess I should just shut my mouth and be happy that SCOTUS has bravely and wisely ruled that their “special considerations” don’t include reaching into 13-year-old girls’ panties (yet…)
I have fireants in the yard right now. Putting them into a helmet and putting it on someone’s head is not a realistic way to torture someone with them, unless you’re attempting to make them laugh at you… …I don’t think you could get enough into a helmet to do that.
I also grew up with fire ants. It doesn’t take more than a couple of bites to create some pretty severe pain, as I’m sure you know if you have them. Out of a large scoopful, I’m fairly certain quite a few would feel the need to start taking chunks out of you. One of my old drill sergeants took particular glee in making up drop right in ant piles – they weren’t even fire ants and we got tore up.
If the “case against torture” relies on drunken ramblings at a bar for evidence, then I feel a lot better about my support for enhanced interrogation of unlawful combatants.
Here is a cached copy of the first link
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:et1e13sqYOsJ:www.culturesmithconsulting.com/change-your-facebook-settings-or-else/+change+your+facebook+settings+or+else&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The worry warts have been screaming about over population for a long time. There is plenty of evidence that we can produce enough food on this planet for a world wide population of 12 Bill, maybe more with new technology.
I’m very optimistic that technology and innovation can indeed solve problems. If anything, I think your 12B estimate is low when it comes to food production for the population. The big question IMO is: will an innovation be developed in time to solve or mitigate the issue?
Let me provide two examples, (albeit imperfect ones). First, look at Easter Island. If you’ve read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond, it is covered extensively there. The gist of the story is that they cut down all their trees. When the last one was gone, their population collapsed because they no longer had the resources to build boats. No more efficient fishing, no way to escape or trade with other islands (since it is an extremly remote island). Was there a way they could have innovated? Maybe they could have created boats out bird feathers for all I know. Even if someone thought of that on the island, by the time the last tree was cut, it was too late. The population plunged. The second example (again, I admit it is imperfect) are vaccines. Crude vaccination goes all the way back to 200 BC if wikipedia isn’t lying, and the Turks were using the technique in the 1600s. This incredibly powerful innovation would eventually save millions (billions?) of lives. It took another couple of centuries after the west heard of it for the innovation to start helping people in large numbers.
So I absolutely think innovation, invention, and technology can save us, but I reject the notion that looking at all the options (even the distasteful ones) and planning prudently should somehow be verbotten.
To all those who present an argument opposing mine:
What do you suggest the school do in this scenario?
I propose a hypothetical situation where the school does nothing, using the very informative posts you have provided:
1. Student is provoked by outside stimulus (any of your mentioned situations will do, as the specifics of this case are not known at this time)
2. School allows child to continue behavior or removes student from classroom to alternate location (counselor’s office, school office, etc.)
3. Child continues tirade and turns violent. (biting, spitting, etc.)
4. School officials ???
I ask because I do not know either what I would do nor what school policy dictates in this situation.
It is unknown if the child was in a standard classroom or one for children requiring special needs. If the latter, the schools behavior is clearly unacceptable, as they should be prepared for such situations in that environment. If the former, perhaps the child should be placed in the care of said special needs personnel.
It is also unknown if the child was currently on maintenance medication for the syndrome, or if the school had notice that the child had the syndrome.
I am not trying to be snarky. I am only trying to provide a forum for debate as to the proper way for the situation to be handled.
Fire ants aren’t lethal? That’s pretty funny, since people that aren’t allergic to them die all the time.
Even if you don’t take allergies into consideration, you have to look at the place they’re kept in. The ants and the prisoners swarm with various bacteria. Fire ant bites get infected quite easily, which could prove just as fatal as anaphylaxis.
(I normally don’t issue a warning with links, but this one I am. It’s a bee sting, rather than an ant bite, but the principle is the same. Do *not* click this if you have a weak stomach. Necrotizing Fasciitis is not a pretty sight. I just wanted it made absolutely clear it’s quite possible to die without being allergic to the venom. The bacteria that causes it is extremely common, and fasciitis is easier to get started when your immune system is already wierded out in the area…say….by ant venom.)
We’ll assume infection is impossible, just for the hell of it. Should enough ants bite you, especially about the face and neck, you can still look forward to a coffin fitting.
“Can’t get enough ants into a helmet”? Are you kidding me? Stir them up and they’ll swarm over absolutely anything they can get on. If the guy isn’t lying about this, either he found a long stick to carry the ant-hat on, or he’s got some balls. I sure wouldn’t want to tote a hat full of pissed off fire ants around.
Maybe it is just me, but the SSA story has no link. Here is one I found.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/investigators/story/Social-Security-spends-700-000-on-Phoenix/RrHYWi4IRka1mC7wJTm4uQ.cspx
This story isn’t quite as damning as Mr. Balko’s headline, IMO, though I agree it was a waste of money, and others will disagree over the scale of the waste.
Tokin42 (#15): Perhaps the reason they can’t hang the guy is that they don’t have any evidence that’s admissible against him due to the “enhanced interrogation”. As noted in #22, there’s question as to what methods actually got the info from him, and I don’t feel like researching it right now.
But even assuming that it worked, that doesn’t mean we should do it. If I want to know what time it is, hitting you in the back of the head with a baseball bat and then cutting your hand off at the wrist so I can see your watch may “work”, but that doesn’t make it right. Nor does it prove that it was more effective than asking you the time.
Further, terrorism “works”, too, and evidently a lot better than torture. If the basis of whether or not behavior is acceptable is its effectiveness, then we’re no different from those we’re trying to fight.
Phelps (#28), do you also feel better that one of the key decision-makers in the CIA regarding “enhanced interrogation” is prone to drunken ramblings in a bar, and that at least one of his former colleagues considers him a “bullshitter”?
I don’t think I’d want him to be one of the key decision-makers at the Blockbuster down the street.
Tokin42,
Let’s not forget that all that great intel on how Iraq had lots of weapons and was so dangerous came after we “enhancedly interrogated” a few people. So we’ve got one piece of information about how in this case we actually have the right guy (not that we would have let him go) and on the other hand we have lots of innocent dead people and lots of wasted money. Yay torture!
I don’t think people are saying that torture NEVER works, but that it leaves tons of room for inaccuracy, and/or is usually inaccurate. Some reports quote interrogators as saying that 90% of what came out of suspects was bulshit and then resources were wasted tracking down everything that came out.
Of course, torture is immoral and illegal, and that’s all that needs to be said, let alone that it’s inaccurate and will be (and has been) performed on innocent people by the U.S. and then in turn is more likely to be applied to our allies and own people, once we implicitly approve of it.
CRN,
The answer to your hypothetical is very simple. You claim to be responding to those who argued against you but you plainly fail to respond to my distinction between forceful or even violent methods of response and an official arrest.
So, the easy answer is that the school would call in security or police or just have a regular old teacher *physically detain the student by grabbing his arms or torso so that he can not kick and bite people* Hell, the school could strap him down to a sofa and inject him with sedatives and this is still not an ARREST. (Of course sedatives are not a good idea and tyng someone up is only called for in the most dire of situations….)
What you need to respond to is why AN ARREST is the only option to the hypothetical you’ve drawn up. Are you aware that the police could show up w/ guns and badges and slap on the handcuffs and put the kid in the back of the squad car AND STILL not have placed him under ARREST? Are you aware of this? Yes or no?
South Carolina judge rules the state’s 21 drinking age unconstitutional. But under the state constitution. And his ruling pertains to possession, not purchase.
I don’t know crap about South Carolina’s constitution, but in a system where 18year olds can join the military, get married, act in porn films, take out a loan, enter into other binding contracts and get prosecuted as an adulta 21 year old drinking age is nonsense.
A 18-20 year old is an adult or not. MADD can kiss my posterior.
Social Security Administration throws $700K bash for its employees at a swanky Arizona hotel.
When AIG did it, it was an outrage. This is OK since Social Security is on such sound fiscal footing.
What?
Your first link isn’t working, Radley – Error 500
Not only did the post about the Facebook ads disappear, but the whole BLOG has disappeared. Sort of adds a conspiracy element to the story if you ask me…
Nick T,
Will you please understand that I am not saying that arrest is the only option?
For the sake of debate, I will answer your questions:
1: Elementary schools typically do not have security, so police would need to be called. Supposedly, a police officer cannot detain you against your will if you have not committed a crime. If you have committed a crime, you are typically under arrest.
2: School officials, under threat of lawsuit, are barely able to touch children. Sadly, this has not always been the case. Had the teacher tried to restrain the student, there would still be a lawsuit.
3: If the child were to act violently, and the school acted in a way with which the parents disagreed, there would be a lawsuit. The real question becomes is there a way to handle this situation that the parents will not sue? Personally, I don’t think there is, but I invite you to enlighten me.
Chance,
I agree with you about technology, innovation, and considering all the options. That is not my problem. My issue is that the “science czar” isn’t considering all the options. I don’t think he came to these conclusions via a hypothosis and benevolent, objective, critical thinking. I think he is trying to justify a very sinister belief in eliminating individual rights. He doesn’t seem to discuss any other avenues of birth control or even consider the fact that maybe population control isn’t a problem.
#37 | Nick T
a school injecting my kids with sedatives or strapping her down on the sofa would have serious issues with me. imagine the potential disasters of teachers and security guards ’strapping’ kids down- airways easily become blocked with incorrect head placement. a physician would have to prescribe the sedative and I can’t imagine the circumstances where a physician would prescribe sedatives for an 8 year old, without seeing the patient. Lots of people have died after being sedated with haldol in volatile situations, and that’s considered a pretty stable drug.
to me, holding an 8 year old is manageable. the next step, as I think it should almost always be when dealing with kids, is to call the parents.
#22: You’re right, but that isn’t the whole point.
After he gave up KSM he stopped talking. They knew he had more info but he was refusing to cooperate. That’s when the “enhanced” interrogation techniques kicked in. We don’t really know much, but what we do know is damning to the idea that “torture doesn’t work”. During his 83 (I think) pours he also gave up Ramzi bin al Shibh, which stopped an attack in europe, and Jose Padilla, which stopped an attack here.
Everyone still think the use of fire ants (if it’s true) wasn’t worth it? You willing to tell the thousands of family members of the next terrorist attack that they should hold their heads up because we took the “high road” when it came to dealing with the threat? “Buck up people….I know they blew the fuck out of your city killing thousands, but hey, at least we didn’t scare that poor misunderstood, known terrorist, and muslim extremist with insects”.
They (the cia) were trying to walk right up to the line of what was legally permissible and sorry, but that’s what we pay them to fucking do.
What?
Try to make it through one of the multiple beheading videos online and then try to accept that, even if you scare someone with insects, you’re still a better person than they are.
“Organisms have been innovating for billions of years.”
Bullshit. Mutation is not the same thing.
@#46 Billy Beck
What’s your point?
#47… you and I are obviously mutants, incapable of understanding such matters. However, just for giggles… what exactly is your point there Billy Beck?
Tokin42,
Unfortunately, too many people believe that the appropriate response is to send people who commit evil acts to a weekend spa and resort. If we don’t give terrorists full-body oil massages, then we’re no better than they are. Unless we are absolutely perfect, then we’re no better than Charlie Manson.
It is always people who are trying to do the right thing who are the real problem. The goal, it seems to me, is to support evil by getting those who want to do good to give up. That’s why they always defend the monsters against those who try to defeat them.
Too many people who live in America genuinely believe America to be the most evil country that has ever existed, based solely on the fact that America isn’t perfect.
Try to make it through one of the multiple beheading videos online and then try to accept that, even if you scare someone with insects, you’re still a better person than they are.
If your metric on “better” is “how nasty that looks on TV”, then sure.
If your metric is raw human life lost in the pursuit of your goals, it’s hard to claim we took the high-road with our adventure in Iraq.
But it’s not productive to sit around and make a hierarchy of evil because in a BS discussion like this, the ends will ALWAYS justify the means for the group you support. We should get our own house in order regardless of what others in the world do. America will never be perfect, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hate our evil sides. Really, we should.
Just, you know, to stay on topic, we shouldn’t put fireants on someone’s fucking head either. Nor should we protect those who do. Nor should we try to justify it.
I’ve seen the beheading videos, and yeah, we shouldn’t do that either. But where do you draw the line between waterboarding, fire ants and sawing somebody’s head off? Because once you abandon your principles, how far do you go if you’re still not getting the results you want? It’s also unfortunate that the terrorists specifically, intentionally target innocents, but because we have no due process for this kind of thing, we’re also hurting innocents, and no one is held responsible for that, either.
The terrorists use these methods, which are absolutely reprehensible, because they are desperate, and other methods will not get them the results they desire. We, on the other hand, are violating our own principles out of fear of this small group of desperate people.
Re: #32:
I never said fireants aren’t lethal. The fireants that you could get into a helmet probably aren’t.
As for the other issues you bring up (infections and such), again, this isn’t useful for torture.
“Now, hold still, boy, we’re gonna put fireants on you. They’re in a helmet over- crap, all my fireants ran off, someone get some more. Anyway, if you’re allergic, you’re screwed. Otherwise, well, you *might* get a nasty secondary infection in a few days from now. Boy is that gonna suck. You ever had an infected fireant sting? You ready to talk yet?”
Get the drift?
Compare that with “talk or we’re going to leave you chained to the floor here for another couple of days with no clothing and the A/C set at 60 degrees”.
No comparison.
Note that there are some nasty biting ants. Fireants don’t bite, they sting with formic acid. Yes, it sucks, but again, the helmet story and all that doesn’t make sense. Given that it came as part of a drunken bragging speech that nobody else believed, I don’t either.
The real issue I have with this stuff is that our country *did* engage in real torture. Even talking about this silly story about fireants simply gives ammo to the Charles Johnsons and Michelle Malkins of the world who will talk obsessively about a discredited fringe story like this to draw attention away from incidents that actually did happen. Don’t help them.
There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that fire ants were ever used in interrogation. Getting outraged over something that never happened is kind of silly. There’s absolutely zero evidence for this. None whatsoever.
I fully support prosecuting any kind of torture, as we did the mischief at Abu Ghraib. Although people will always quibble over whether a particular thing is or is not torture, hopefully we can all agree that there is a need for interrogation. If the goal is to abolish interrogation altogether, that’s a completely different debate.
Bullshit. “Ecologies” don’t innovate. Humans do.
No innovation in the world can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Can we invent a word for when pro-torture wanks devolve every discussion into “Well, they behead.”?
JohnJ,
“Unfortunately, too many people believe that the appropriate response is to send people who commit evil acts to a weekend spa and resort.”
No one thinks this.
“If we don’t give terrorists full-body oil massages, then we’re no better than they are.”
No one thinks this.
“Unless we are absolutely perfect, then we’re no better than Charlie Manson.”
No one is asking for perfection. Many are asking not to torture any one. No one mentioned Charlie Manson.
“It is always people who are trying to do the right thing who are the real problem.”
No one thinks this.
“The goal, it seems to me, is to support evil by getting those who want to do good to give up. That’s why they always defend the monsters against those who try to defeat them.”
No one thinks this or falls for this.
“Too many people who live in America genuinely believe America to be the most evil country that has ever existed, based solely on the fact that America isn’t perfect.”
No one thinks this.
Try again, JohnJ.
“No innovation in the world can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
It used to be only fundies who had no idea what the 2nd Law is but used it to justify their crazy ass beliefs. Apparently, internet warrior liberals are doing it now also. That’s like innovation, I think. (Hint: to the extent anything you say makes a bit of sense, you’re talking about the 1st Law)
“It’s pretty common to have these sorts of discussions; how we would solve a problem if ethical concerns could be ignored for a moment.”
Before I was a corporate whore, I was a scientist. I’ve never heard anyone discuss forced abortions or sterilizations. That’s really beside the point though because this asshole wrote a book advocating these things.
#55 Boyd,
It’s an easy argument for me to make when the opposition wants to engage solely in moral equivalency arguments. The philosophical position that “we’re no better than they are because we scared someone with fire ants” is, to put it kindly, retarded. Until we start beheading people we capture we’ll ALWAYS have the high ground.
#51 Bill,
There is one massive difference, intent. Did they use what you consider illegal methods just to torture this asshole or were they doing what they felt like they had to do to fulfill their sworn duty of protecting the nation. Daniel Pearl got his head sawed off with a dull knife, while he was still alive, because he was a jew reporter. abu zubaydah got roughed up because he was the highest value capture at that time and he had vital info we needed to protect our populace. This isn’t a slippery slope situation.
Tokin42,
You’re using the wrong standard. Do not evaluate whether something is ethical based on whether or not bloodthirsty savages would do such a thing. It should be based on what civilized people would do.
“… the mischief at Abu Ghraib…”
Mischief? Mischief is sticking gum in someone’s hair. Mischief is blowing spitballs. Mischief is cow tipping and egging houses.
What happened at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers was not mischief.
Boyd, I’ve talked to lots of people who think those things.
But do you agree with me that thinking that way is wrong?
Bronwyn, no one was hurt by the stupid antics of the guards at Abu Ghraib. People were humiliated, but let’s be realistic.
#62 | JohnJ
no one was hurt by the stupid antics of the guards at Abu Ghraib. People were humiliated, but let’s be realistic.
You are lying, uninformed, or self-diluted in your own BS. Either way, you just lost the thread.
Bronwyn, no one was hurt by the stupid antics of the guards at Abu Ghraib. People were humiliated, but let’s be realistic.
Wow. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
Rape, sodomy, battery, and homicide. Yes, it’s Wikipedia. Read the footnoted articles. Even the U.S. military admits as much.
Social Security Administration throws $700K bash for its employees at a swanky Arizona hotel.
I’ll bet that Arizona hotel didn’t feel like one penny was wasted.
Tokin (#58), “There is one massive difference, intent.” Well, I thought that the terrorists’ intent was to follow the will of Allah and get the Jewish oppressors and their American protectors off the Muslims’ sacred ground. And that our intent is to oppress and enslave the brown people over there and protect our decadent lifestyle.
No, of course I don’t believe that. But somebody does. Daniel Pearl was killed as he was, yes, because he was a Jewish reporter, but also to serve to terrorize others (they’re terrorists, right?) to apply pressure to advance their agenda.
Everybody thinks their intentions are noble, and that’s even before considering other factors that make things even more murky, like soldiers or agents fearing the consequences of disobeying their superiors, politicians and appointees wanting to get re-elected/re-appointed/promoted, and sheer anger at the perpetrators of 9/11.
It’s one thing to say, “It was unintentional, I slipped on a banana peel and in a chain of unlikely events, accidentally caused this guy to be waterboarded.” It’s another thing to say, “Yes, I engaged in torture, but my intentions were noble.” That is just another way of saying that the end justifies the means.
They don’t.
CRN,
The police can put their hands on a person, especially a child in a school, to protect their safety or the safety of others. They are not REQUIRED to arrest you in order to save you from injury or injury to others, and certainly you’re not arguing that once the polcie put thier hadns on you to help you be safer that they SHOULD just go back and arrest you to cover their asses. The whole thing about parents suing is also hogwash. I could sue you right now for stealing my screen name, or for having an ugly face. The LAW says that teachers are responsilbe with student safety and any reasonable means to achieving that end will be deemed legal by a court after applying a very loose standard that considers things from the teacher/school personnel’s perspective.
Tokin42. My poitn baout Iraq was that torture methods were used to elicit a great deal of information that supported the case that Iraq was very dangerous and connected to Al Qaeda. That information supported the invasion of Iraq. The point being that torture can be very inaccurate and end up with disasterous consequences.
I’m curious, were the torture apologists on this thread upset that Lyndiie Englund and Grenner were prosecuted for Abu Ghraib? Did they think it was ok what we did to those people there? It really seems odd to me that no one debated torture when Abu Ghraib came out, but now so many people seem to think it is a good idea. Was it the pictures? The low-level-ness of the perpetrators? Just a change of heart?
I don’t have a problem with the waterboarding and sleep deprivation, but the fire ant bit goes too far in my book. In waterboarding and sleep deprivation there is a minimal risk to someone’s life, while fire ants, as it has been pointed out could cause death from anaphalactic shock it the person is allergic. As far as Abu Ghraib is concerned, the person who put that unit in charge of a prison should be put up on charges. There is a reason that Military Police units handle prisons and prisoners.
It is a shame that Judge in South Carolina is in for a shit storm. Finally somebody actually follows the written law, instead of a precedant, the man should be commended, instead of becoming a target for everything MADD can throw at him. There was one statement in that article that inflames me every time I see it. It has to do with it being a “privilege to buy alcohol”. Who are these clowns to be granting US privileges?
I don’t have a problem with the waterboarding and sleep deprivation, but the fire ant bit goes too far in my book.
So torture is cool as long as it doesn’t kill. Got it.
And if waterboarding isn’t torture, and simply an interrogation technique, it must be cool if the local pd brings you in for a little simulated drowning before you request a lawyer, right?
Hold yourself to a higher standard, friend. This is the United States of America.
It used to be only fundies who had no idea what the 2nd Law is but used it to justify their crazy ass beliefs.
No, look. A human being has a minimum daily caloric requirement to stay alive. The sun provides a finite daily caloric input to the Earth.
That right there sets a thermodynamic limit on human population. The idea that human populations can grow unchecked indefiniately is absurd, and an obvious violation of physics. Sure, you can coast for a while on the ancient sunlight we’ve banked up, but the evidence is that we’ve peaked on those sources. At some point, the only energy available to humanity is that received in real-time from the sun.
In other words, we’re headed for K-selection, eventually. There’s no mutation or innovation that can defeat the second law; we can’t get energy from nothing.
Wait, maybe I do mean the first law. “You can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t get out of the game.” If that’s laws One, Two, and Three in that order, I guess it is the first I was talking about.
Let me fetch my eyebrows back down from my hairline, JohnJ.
Where have you been?
Chet, thank you for very eloquently proving my point.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Rape? Are you serious? The fact that you believe that American soldiers conspired to rape people who were arrested for terrorism, based solely on the word of people arrested for terrorism, baffles me. This is a bit like believing that the CIA covered terrorists with bugs based solely on a claim by Sy Hersh.
Look, I think we all agree that people in custody should not be tortured, raped, or murdered. And yes, the naked pyramid was wrong. And no, people should not be kidnapped off the street at random and waterboarded (where do you guys gets this stuff?).
Radley, thank you for responding. But I think you should actually read the articles to which you referred. There is simply no reliable evidence of the kinds of abuse to which you, and others, are referring. I’m as outraged by the abuse that did occur as anyone. And I’m glad that I live in a country that demands that such abusers be held accountable.
Of course means can be justified by ends. Let’s say I shoot someone. Is that bad in and of itself? What if the person was about to rape my wife and/or daughter and the only way I could stop him was by shooting him? Doesn’t that justify it?
Seriously, I just don’t know what else to say.
Is it just a presumption that anyone in a uniform must be guilty? I really want to understand. Is that what it is?
Just for emphasis, here’s one of the articles “proving” rape:
According to Prof Shaker, several women held in Abu Ghraib jail were sexually abused, including one who was raped by an American military policeman and became pregnant. She has now disappeared.
…
“A female colleague of mine was arrested and taken there. When I asked her after she was released what happened at Abu Ghraib she started crying,” Prof Shaker said.
“Ladies here are afraid and shy of talking about such subjects. They say everything is OK. Even in a very advanced society in the west it is very difficult to talk about rape. But I think it happened.”
Well, I guess that proves it! After all, Professor Shaker would never lie.
You guys seriously need to develop a little skepticism. Believe it or not, some of the people who hate Americans enough to kill them are actually willing to smear American soldiers with falsities.
Now I’m not saying no American soldier has ever done anything bad. Some people do bad things (even some people who aren’t soldiers do bad things, believe it or not). But let’s just be rational about this. First of all, the abuse that did occur does not prove that interrogation is torture. And yes, interrogation that does no permanent damage is preferable by far to interrogation that does. If you believe there’s no difference between waterboarding and acid baths, you are a lunatic. Please check yourself into the nearest hospital for your own safety.
A Johnny Reb in a Yankee World…
At Balko’s site, I got into a little bit of a debate with him and some of the commenters on torture……
“And I’m glad that I live in a country that demands that such abusers be held accountable. ”
What country do you live in? Oh wait, are you talking about America… HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAaaaaaa…. :(