´óÏó´«Ã½

Amendment VIII

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Ever see or hear of a criminal suspect required to post a million dollars or more in bail? How about remand until trial, no bail at all because the suspect is a flight risk or presents too great a danger to society in the magistrate's opinion? How about a corporation fined many millions of dollars for say polluting the environment or causing someone's death, disfigurement, or lifelong injury? We have those in the US. Waterboarding is not applied as a punishment but as a technique for extracting information from suspected terrorists. The founding fathers never could have envisioned that in a matter of hours, a criminal suspect on bail could be on a plane halfway around the world. Or that a corporation could destroy an entire river, forest, or make entire regions uninhabitable through industrial accidents. Nor could they have imagined that a handful of people could potentially kill millions in one swift clandestine attack. If they had, they would have worded the 8th amendemend differently. The US Constitution is not a suicide pact. The survival of the many cannot be sacrificed for the discomfort of a handful. If it is, and terrorists succeed in even one major act of mass murder on the order of destroying an American city, then there will be a compelling argument that a free and open society as the one we have now cannot survive in the modern era because it cannot protect the lives of its citizens and ALL of our liberties will be lost forever. The constitution will fall and a military dictatorship will become the new American government. Even in the past, in times of dire theat to the nation such as during the Civil War and WWII, some civil liberties have been temporarily suspended so that in the long run, all civil liberties would be preserved. Failing to understand that would be a fatal mistake for the American nation.

Mark, the point may be that a society that stoops to these methods is not really a free and open one. Indeed, if you are giving the green light to this sort of abuse, you are putting yourself even closer to that military dictatorship (or even accepting it de facto), and it may only be a matter of time before you or your loved ones are being waterboarded with no panic button.

Don't kid yourself.

No orange pyjamas after all we’re in the marching season.

Just watched the film, seemed truly terrible.

Seems to me that at all times the state ought to uphold the rule of law and act within it, not abandon it.

This means treating all suspects, and the guilty too, when placed in prison, with respect and dignity.

Even if confronted with the possibility that the guilty may go free, this is ultimately better than the innocent being prosecuted.

Well, Hitchens has conceded that waterboarding is justified in at least one circumstance - to make a public statement about the treatment of terrorist suspects. If it's justifiable in one context, why not when lives are at risk?
I actually think torture should never be legal, and never means never. I don't need Hitchens' experiments to put drowning on the list.
In any case, could Hitchens make a sober judgment?

Graham Veale

Graham, surely the point is that he volunteered to try out the procedure; how is it torture if it's voluntary?

If you have read the Vanity Fair article by Christopher Hitchens you may have noticed something intriguing, maybe even disturbing.


"I find I don't want to tell you how little time I lasted."

"no Hitchens is going to do worse than that...
...then I said, with slightly more bravado than was justified, that I'd like to try it one more time"

"I still feel ashamed when I think about it."


How is it that the propensity of human beings to torture others can be linked to the willingness we demonstrate to torture ourselves, or at least to see whether or not we can endure it?

John
A doctor cannot carry out barbaric treatments on a patient simply because they have the patients informed consent. The nobility of the patients motives do not matter either. You cannot volunteer to be given a terminal cancer for the sake of scientific research.
So volunteering to be tortured doesn't mean you weren't tortured.

Graham Veale
Armagh

Graham- That it was voluntary is supreme. It simply means that Hitchens is in charge of himself and that nobody (including you or government) can tell him he can't be tortured if he wants to be and someone else agrees to help. He's an adult individual with rational faculties making decisions on behalf of himself - I'd say that's bloody important to honour.

It's kind of a silly point you're making, to be honest.

Heliopolitan #2

Wrong. The writ of habaes corpus was suspended by President Lincoln during the Civil War and when it was over, everything returned to normal. Thousands of Japanese and Japanese Americans were interned in the US during WWII and when it was over society returned to normal. Yes there were injustices to innocent individuals in some cases. This happens but it is a price we pay to guard our freedom. Not pretty but necessary.

From what a NY Times reported admitted in an interview with Charlie Rose a few weeks ago, even though he was personally opposed to waterboarding and other torture, its effectiveness is debated by experts but he also said US intelligence claims it got some very useful information from Mohamed Sheikh Khalid and others. Don't kid yourself, these terrorists are not choir boys. They won't sing just on command. It takes a little convincing.

John

1) My analogies from Medical Ethics show that consent is not sufficient to make something moral or permissable.
2) If Hitchens can be waterboarded to protect civil liberties, then why can't we waterboard terrorists to save lives? Does his consent make that much difference? Does it carry more weight than protecting innocent lives?
3) This was a media stunt. He isn't volunteering to undergo the same torture techniques that the Pakistani government uses to provide the US and UK with intelligence. (Even if he volunteered, it would be illegal and immoral to help him).
4) If Hitchens actions are illogical, they are not likely to be persuasive.
5)It's a little off the topic, but if you maintain that I can do whatever I want to a person so long as I have their consent, you're not just being silly, you're downright dangerous. Sorry to be so blunt, but you started it.

Graham Veale

Since this blog is about religion, it might be appropriate.....to mention....that only a few centuries ago....among the world's torturers was....the Catholic Church. Now confession is purely voluntary though. Too bad we can't get the terrorists to save us the trouble of torturing them to reveal their diabolical plots. Why can't they just go into a booth and confess....to a CIA agent?

I don't think there is anything wrong with torturing Christopher Hitchens. I've seen him on TV quite a number of occasions and I think it's time he received some of his own medicine :-)

Graham- No, I'm suggesting that if a journalist consents to going through a procedure by his own choice for whatever reason then that is his business and his alone. Or are you claiming that he is NOT the owner of his body, desires and actions?

Mark, you are operating under the assumption that you live in a free society. I suggest you have been brainwashed. You say that these measures are introduced to protect your "freedom" (whatever that means in this context). What measures do you think that your countrymen should *not* adopt in order to protect American "freedoms"? Are there any limits?

Yeah, terrorists are not choirboys - I don't think I said or implied that anywhere, so I suggest you are simply talking cobblers. Your faith in your military and your intelligence services is touching. I think you may have been watching too many movies. Real life is more complex than cowboys and indians.

-H

John
I see my mistake- of course Hitchens should be allowed to have his legs and arms amputated if it would give him something to write about. Doctors should be allowed to give humans cancer if they consent for the sake of medical science.

For the record, I am not my own property. Two religious viewpoints. Monotheism - I belong to God. Buddhism - I am dependent on everything and everyone else.

Again, come back to the central issue. You are prepared to applaud waterboarding when someone has consented to it. Now if consent can make it permissable, why not the duty to save innocent lives?

Given that this was Hitchens, I'm going to be skeptical and say it was an unhelpful media stunt.

Graham Veale

Heliopolitan;

The number one freedom is the right to stay alive. That means that if there are terrorist organizations who want to destroy your nation through clandestine means or foreign nations by more conventinoal warfare, your government should take ALL the necessary steps to protect you from those who would kill you, destroy your society. Their obligation is to you, not to the enemy. As rational people we can understand that in times of grave national peril like we face now, some of our freedoms may be restricted until the threat is eliminated. And this is what has happened in the past and is happening now. This seems entirely reasonable to most people in America and to the majority of people in Congress who represent them. That is why the Patriot act and other supportive measures were written and passed into law. If a democratic open society like America's cannot survive because it does not have the political will or wisdom to see this, then it will be replaced with something far more sinister that will take effective restrictive measures which will never be rescinded.

I am not surprised that those who hate America whether living in foreign countries or here in the US would deprecate what is by far the freest nation on the face of the earth. Today on July 4, 2008 we celebrate the 232nd birthday of the great event which proclaimed the invention of this idea and experiment. It has been successful without parallel in all of human history.

As an American, I would vehemently disagree with Marcus Aurelius's comments. Our Declaration of Independence records the signers' anger against the King over "Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices" (US Attorney Scandal, anyone?), "[R]ender[ing] the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power" (Military Tribunals, anyone?), "[T]ransporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences" (Guantanamo?), and exciting Indian attacks ("Bring it on"?).

Further, our Founding Fathers said the rights they fought for didn't belong to Americans or Britons but to all men, according to the aforesaid declaration. (True, they didn't include women, Native Americans, Blacks and even non-landowners among that group, but the principle was there...)

Further, even if Habeas Corpus could be suspended in wartime (Though, technically, the US has not declared war since 1941...), Warrants are required for ALL searches, according to the Fourth Amendment (In all fairness, this has been ignored long before 9/11- which still doesn't make it right.).

I'm sure America isn't the freeest nation on the face of the earth, but I want it to be so again. And I certainly oppose all those who want to limit our freedoms (See George W. Bush's infamous quote on that topic, said on May 21, 1999.)

"Now join hand in hand, brave Americans all,
By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall.
No tyrannous acts can suppress our just claim
Or stain with dishonor America's name." - John Dickinson (1732-1808), 1768, sung to the tune of "Hearts of Oak"

Or, to quote another American poem to the same tune:
"Not the glitter of arms, nor the dread of a fray,
Could make us submit to their chains for a day;
Withheld by affection, on Britons we call,
Prevent the fierce conflict which threatens your fall."- Anonymous, Boston, 1768

Orvillethird

All you left out was asking the congregation to join you in singing Kumbaya. I'm not one bit surprised you disagree with me. I think a lot of confused Americans, mostly on the left of center do. I'd say about 99% or more of Europe does. The good news is that for the time being, more pragmatic views hold sway in America so far. If they didn't, we'd probably have been attacked again by now...with something far worse than what hit us on 9-11. Have you considered the likely consequences if and when that happens? I suggest you read what Kennedy told Khrushchev in his cable during the Cuban missile crisis about his concern regarding how much longer he could control his generals.

As I said above, the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the authors of the Constitution could never have anticipated the kind of threats we face today. Our entire civilization was far beyond anything they could have conceived of. IMO They would not have wanted their creation to have been destroyed because two and a third centuries later, people took the literal meaning of words written in the context of that era and insisted they be applied thoughtlessly to the realities of this era. That is why they made provisions for amendments. Perhaps that is what we really need but until one is proposed that passes, we will have to get by on laws like the Patriot Act.

One irony is that those who would have the Supreme Court write their own laws to advance their social agendas through what Conservatives call "judicial activism" would tie their hands when it comes to ruling favorably on actions intended to save the entire system from destruction.

They say people get the government they deserve. If our Constitution falls because we did not have the political will to use the means at our disposal to protect ourselves because we were slaves to an obsoleted doctrine which no longer applies precisely to our times, then those of us who survive will get an entirely different form of government, one far less tolerent of dissent, far more ready to act anywhere on the slightest provocation, far less restrained in eliminating even the slightest suggestion of a threat domestic or foreign with any and all means at its disposal. A nightmare scenario for us and the world.

Graham says, "...if consent can make it permissable..."

Consent can make ANYTHING permissible. The only potential trouble-spot is establishing in certain cases that consent was actually given (like in cases of euthanasia, the ultimate act of consent), but there are ways of making sure that happens. And I don't buy into the ideologies you suggest remove from me the ownership of myself, so what's the best way to run a society where people don't believe the same things about that? Ironically, you are CONSENTING to believe in those things and submit yourself to the will of God or Buddha, and you'd continue to be free to do so under my 'consent' principle (as would Hitchens be free to consent to a torture experiment).

You want to infringe on others' ability to consent on behalf of themselves, while you consent yourself to things that others may want to disallow. Beautiful, isn't it?

Wasn't there a nut in Germany who posted on the internet a few years ago advertising for someone to kill him? Did that make it permissible? What does permissible mean? I'm sure in that case it didn't make it legal.

I think he got waterboarding light.

"They knew about everything from unarmed combat to enhanced interrogation and, in exchange for anonymity, were going to show me as nearly as possible what real waterboarding might be like."

No, as nearly as possible is not good enough. I think he should go through it again for real this time. I knew all along he was a British redcoat spy working for the British Crown and M5. But did he admit it? I doubt it. That's the difference between play acting and the real thing. Time for round 2. And this time Mr. Hitchens, I hope it's for real. Let's find out what you are really about. As an American super-patriot, you are simply much too good to be true. Let's hear you swear off all allegience to King George III. Maybe that will convince me :-)

John
Are you being quite serious? The law should not ever interfere with autonomy? And that consent makes anything moral? Assisted suicide for philosophical reasons, say? What about Mark's example? Let's assume, just as a thought experiment, the man was not diagnosed with any clear mental illness. He just wanted to choose the manner of his own death. Would you allow his murder to go ahead?
That's not a widely held opinion. Kant would be horrified. But don't get me wrong, it's a coherent and serious position. And if you hold autonomy as something like the greatest good, then Hitchen's actions would count as heroic.

Graham Veale

If you think this is bad, then you should check out www.current.com/kajwaterboarded. Hitchens only lasted 2 minutes but this guy lasted 24!

In an interesting program on PBS which may have been co-produced by ´óÏó´«Ã½ (the announcer had a British accent) one episode in the series "War of the World" about WWII, it was pointed out that the allies had to adopt many of the most detested and inhuman methods of the totalitarian enemies they were fighting to win. This included massive bombing of civilians includng the fire bombing of Hamburg and Dresden and the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the villification of dehumanization of the enemy including racism to win. It also included an alliance with a totalitarian state, the USSR every bit as cruel and inhuman as Nazi Germany. The question of the temporary suspension of our morality and morality based laws for the expediency of fighting and winning a war for survival is one that troubles a lot of people. But they face stark choices. 1, recognize that you are in a war for your own survival and that of your civilization and 2. use any and all necessary means including those you detest most to win if your society has any chance to survive at all. The difference in winning and losing is that after the war is over, our society will pick up the pieces and rebuild what it lost while if we lose the war, that kind of society will be lost to humanity for a very long time, possibly forever. Under the circumstance, waterboarding is one of the least heinous acts we will ultimately have to make the difficult choice to use. And if we do not have the will to see past the immediate violation of our own morality to save it in the long run, we will not get another chance.

Mark - just curious - would you extend that to raping babies? Or dangling them over a cliff while their terrorist parents watch?

Where do you draw the line? *DO* you draw the line?

At what stage does our wonderful society become as bad as Cambodia under Pol Pot, Germany under Hitler, Israel under the Prophet Samuel, or Russia under Stalin?

If that happens, would you not acknowledge that at least some of the terrorists might have a point?

In regards to Marcus Aurelius's most recent remarks, the US/UK's lowering of their moral standards did have effects. After the heavy bombing of Germany, the pilots and aircrews who were shot down often were attacked by angry mobs of German civillians, angry over the bombings- with German soldiers having to rescue them.
In another vein US imprisoned a number of Japanese-Americans in WWII (not to mention a smaller number of German-Americans and Italian-Americans) While the Japanese-Americans (and see above) who were allowed to go into battle proved their valor, those who were imprisoned (despite the evidence of loyalty) often turned against the guards. (Ironically, Roosevelt and most of his cabinet favored taking harsh measures against the prisoners who rebelled. The lone holdout who fortunately won the day was the much-maligned Henry Wallace, who argued that America's mistreatment of the internees could lead to mistreatment of US prisoners in Japan.)

I'm a Christian and someone who tries to have concern for other people, but I agree with Nietzsche when he said something like whoever hunts monsters must see to it that he does not become a monster. (Or something like that...)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.