Skip to main content

View Diary: CIA torturer incriminates self during interview with ABC (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well it matters, you see... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anna M

    whether or not the torture is productive. If people start gabbling after being tortured, then there's a justification for it, even if it's wrong.

    Depends on your definition of justification.

    •  And further, the word "productive" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smintheus, drbloodaxe

      could be twisted.  It could be read as "a lot came out of it"  even if it was useless stuff that was produced.

      I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

      by beemerr90s on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 04:06:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To Be Honest (0+ / 0-)

      I understand the dilemma that Kiriakou -- and probably all of us under the same circumstances -- struggle with: ethical behavior vs. pragmatic behavior in a time of perceived high threat.

      I'm not sure that, in those same circumstances, I would not choose water boarding myself.

      I'm no moral god.

      They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

      by Limelite on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 04:25:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  except that the full interview (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MKS, KenBee, drbloodaxe

        reveals Kiriakou to be a bull-thrower extraordinaire, as I say far above.

        •  It Is the ABC News (0+ / 0-)

          writer's assessment that Kiriakou struggles with ethics vs. pragmatics.

          It would be mine, too.  Regardless of what someone says, what someone does or doesn't do speaks louder to me.  I don't think this guy is less human than I am; I don't think I'm more righteous than he is, either.

          They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

          by Limelite on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 05:46:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Perceived high threat? (0+ / 0-)

        So as long as I perceive high threat, I'm allowed to torture folks?

        I feel George W Bush is the greatest threat this world has known since Hitler.  Where's my bucket of water and table to strap him down?

        I'm sorry, but 'perceived high threat' to deliberately torture someone fails the test of LAW.

        You're allowed in SOME states to use deadly force if you perceive an IMMEDIATE threat to your life or that of others if there is no way to avoid said threat.  But none of those states is going to legally protect you if you shoot the guy robbing you, and THEN tie him up and rip his fingernails out while he screams.

        I'm a pacifist, but I believe I could kill someone if I knew they were about to kill others or had already witnessed them killing others and planning to kill more.  I couldn't torture them based on 'perceptions' or 'ideas'.  That's as bad as laws that punish people for what they think, rather than what they do.

        Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

        by drbloodaxe on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:16:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site