http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/11/05/state-dept-lawyer-thinks-waterboarding-is-ok/ Thoughts by Stephen Soldz on war, peace, politics, psychoanalysis, and research methods Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:53:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/11/05/state-dept-lawyer-thinks-waterboarding-is-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-131510 Florida Dui Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:03:07 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/11/05/state-dept-lawyer-thinks-waterboarding-is-ok/#comment-131510 people in the intelligence business will tell you that inflicting physical pain to obtain actionable intelligence doesn’t work people in the intelligence business will tell you that inflicting physical pain to obtain actionable intelligence doesn’t work

]]> http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/11/05/state-dept-lawyer-thinks-waterboarding-is-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-125683 Richard Badalamente Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:57:49 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/11/05/state-dept-lawyer-thinks-waterboarding-is-ok/#comment-125683 Given the confirmation hearings for Michael Mukasey, the President’s nominee for Attorney General, it seems appropriate to revisit the debate on torture and its use in intelligence collection -- what is it, do we or don’t we, does it work, and why do we care? I'll be brief. In the context in which we are discussing torture: (1) it is the infliction of physical or mental suffering to coerce information; (2) yes, we do it, but we call it “enhanced interrogation;” (3) for the most part, people in the intelligence business will tell you that inflicting physical pain to obtain actionable intelligence doesn’t work; (4) we care because: (a) torturing people is morally reprehensible; (b) we are signatory to the Geneva Convention, which prohibits torture, without any exceptions whatsoever; (c) what goes around comes around; (d) sometimes innocent people are the victims, subject to extraordinary rendition and tortured by people in foreign countries that in the past we’ve considered barbarians. The President’s policy on torture was formulated by a hawkish group of politically appointed lawyers. The barbarians are not “at the gates,” they’re inside. Given the confirmation hearings for Michael Mukasey, the President’s nominee for Attorney General, it seems appropriate to revisit the debate on torture and its use in intelligence collection — what is it, do we or don’t we, does it work, and why do we care? I’ll be brief. In the context in which we are discussing torture: (1) it is the infliction of physical or mental suffering to coerce information; (2) yes, we do it, but we call it “enhanced interrogation;” (3) for the most part, people in the intelligence business will tell you that inflicting physical pain to obtain actionable intelligence doesn’t work; (4) we care because: (a) torturing people is morally reprehensible; (b) we are signatory to the Geneva Convention, which prohibits torture, without any exceptions whatsoever; (c) what goes around comes around; (d) sometimes innocent people are the victims, subject to extraordinary rendition and tortured by people in foreign countries that in the past we’ve considered barbarians. The President’s policy on torture was formulated by a hawkish group of politically appointed lawyers. The barbarians are not “at the gates,” they’re inside.

]]>