Spectacular Torture Op-Ed in WaPo

Scott Adams (think Dilbert) has opened a can of whoop-ass on torture, in a manner that will appeal the all sides of the "debate":

Lately I've moved from "pretty certain" to "doubtful" about the effectiveness of torture.

Today I'm addressing only whether torture sometimes works better than conventional interrogation. If torture doesn't work better than the alternatives, not ever, then you don't need to discuss morality or world opinion because torture doesn't even pass the first filter. I'm not saying that morality and world opinion aren't important -- you just don't need to worry about them unless torture at least produces good results.

Can he be serious? For the "yes and no" answer, see below...

Adams continues:

I used to think that torture probably worked well, at least in selective cases, based on the fact that it is so often the method of choice. All of those law-enforcement professionals around the world couldn't be wrong, could they? Plus, I imagine that if someone attached electrodes to my scrotum, I'd be talking plenty compared with the "let's be friends" interrogation method. So torture certainly passes the sniff test.

So torture smells okay to Scott, but maybe it doesn't taste so good:

Now granted, it may be hard to find someone who will confess to being a torturer. And it may be even harder to find someone who was tortured and then is willing to endorse it. But it seems that with all the torturing going on, you could at least find a friend of a friend who saw it work.

Now, I don't want to ruin the read for you, or violate "fair use" (although why be fair to a former torture-lover?), so I'll just add this tidbit:

The other day I was watching Bill Maher on his HBO show, "Real Time." That's where I turn for useful political opinions. (I wish I were joking about that.) Maher made a point that put things into perspective for me. He noted that if the situation arose where torturing some terrorist would clearly save American lives, it's going to happen no matter what the law says.

Bill Maher? Yup, sure.

Read the whole thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

•  Tip Jar

  and a hat tip to another diarist, who mentioned this first but in another context. You know who you are :-)

  by MarkInSanFran on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:05:53 PM PDT

  •  haha

    I'm glad you put this up. Boy is my face red...

    by OneCrankyDom on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:16:37 PM PDT

    •  Serves you right for being

      a Dominionist :-)

      by MarkInSanFran on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:23:46 PM PDT

•  Torture's Dirty Secret

  That was good, but I think this point is a little off the mark:

  The burden is on torture's proponents to produce some evidence that torture makes sense as a policy. I don't rule out the possibility that it can be effective in some cases, but if it's being done in my name, I want some frigging evidence that it works.

  Naomi Klein said it well in the Nation last spring:
    Torture's Dirty Secret:  It Works

  (Hint:  the question is, "... works at what?"   or rather "who is the target?")

  by shock on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:15:45 PM PDT

  •  Torture works very well

    at getting confessions from innocent people. Worked great for the commies, etc.

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:24:53 PM PDT

    •  In their eyes...

      ...there is no such thing as "innocent people".  (What an old-fashioned concept!!)

      More seriously, torture also works well at scaring people into submission (and here I'm not just talking about prisoners).  For example, every time I've gone to the airport in the last couple years I've thought of Maher Arar and Jose Padilla, and I  have to admit that there is some fear in the back of my mind that does affect my behavior whether I intend to let it or not.

      by shock on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:38:03 PM PDT

    •  Hundreds of confession in the Salem witch hunts

      And ten of thousands in Europe. Yep sure taught those witches a lesson.

      People that believe in the efficacy of torture are still stupid enough to believe in witches

      by bernardpliers on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:06:48 PM PDT

    •  Torture works very well

      There is a reason why torture is hard to eradicate and all the thugs of the world is using it.

      1. it's a VERY effective instrument of terror. I scared the shit out of people. The point of torture is to torture. No more, no less.

      2. It gives deep satisfaction to the people who does it. (eg. feeling more powerfull, feeling something is being done, etc)

      ---------

      no, torture doesn't work for extracting information. But it gives the torturer whatever it wants, except truth and justice.

      by fugue on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 11:01:01 PM PDT

•  Real men don't torture.

  Consider the famous example of Maj. Sherwood Moran, the best interrogator the Marines had in the Pacific in WWII.  Unlike Scott Adams, whose closest experience with torture is a sales meeting, Sherwood Moran wrote the book on interrogation.

  Professionals still follow his example today.  I wish I could say the same about the contractors they hire to commit atrocities in our name.

  by 8ackgr0und N015e on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:31:07 PM PDT

  •  Luftwaffe interrogators used the same

    methods and got the best results of any.....

    Torture only makes people say what they THINK the torturer wants to hear.

    Maybe we should torture torturers to find out the truth about this method?  Wouldn't THAT be an interesting experiment?

    by xrepub on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:04:49 PM PDT

•  Garfield is already down the tubes, if you

  ruin Dilbert for me - I WILL hunt you down and strap you to the waterboard myself.

  That goes for you too, markinsanfran.

  by klondike on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:39:40 PM PDT

•  and while I'm at it ...

  why the f--- are cartoonists getting opeds in the wapo?  Are they cheaper than bloggers?

  by klondike on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:41:02 PM PDT

  •  I know a commedian

    who did an op-ed in the NYT. Unfortunately, he is a neocon, and was just singing the song that was popular at the time. :-(

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:43:46 PM PDT

    •  I suppose anyone can sing in the choir

      as long as they know the words.

      by klondike on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:46:57 PM PDT

    •  A neo-con cartoonist?

      How the HELL can they possibly be funny? Or anything other than scary?

      by madgranny on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:50:21 PM PDT

  •  Adams...

    ....is a libertarian activist in addition to being a cartoonist, which is a part of the reason, I'm sure.

    That being said, the NYT ran an op-ed by Rick Moranis about what he has in his closets recently.

    by Jay Elias on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:51:34 PM PDT

    •  I love Dilbert dearly

      but Scott Adams needs to stay the hell off the oped page of the wapo if he's not going to put on his serious hat and bring his A-game to the keyboard.  

      I say we run our controlled torture experiment on a group of libertarian cartoonists.  Waterboard them until they agree to draw a Nancy, or a Family Circle cartoon.  Then we'll talk about morality.

      Frankly, the only time I start believing the right-wing BS about how soft and decadent our society has become is when I hear what passes for thinking on the wrong side of the Iraq debate.

      by klondike on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:26:43 PM PDT

      •  Wow...

        ...people need to have their funny bones checked.

        As a libertarian activist, do you think he is being even in the slightest bit serious?  Do you think he was ever for torture, or is he sarcastically adopting that guise to make a point about how lost in all the rhetoric about this is the fact that torture doesn't work?

        by Jay Elias on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:28:42 PM PDT

        •  consider my sense of humor seriously challenged

          on this subject.  When you get space in the wapo and dogbertian snark about torture is the best you can do, you're not doing anyone any favors.  

          I'm dilbert, I'm wally, I'm phb, and Scott Adams is more my representative than Bill Delahunt will ever be.  To see him get a clean shot at this issue, shoot a spitball at it and miss is REALLY aggravating.

          by klondike on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:37:09 PM PDT

        •  Satirists need to realize that MOST people ...

          ...in this age don't understand satire. When I worked at the now-defunct Los Angeles Herald Examiner, we finally had to insert a large subhead into every William Safire column (he wrote satire in the 1980s) because huge numbers of letter-writers complained about his proposals in those columns, taking them seriously even when the columns were so obviously - as the Adams column is not - satirical.

          by Meteor Blades on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:48:31 AM PDT

      •  Damn, looks like I was too subtle

        in the diary.

        Klondike, snark-scanners to maximum!

        by MarkInSanFran on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:32:23 PM PDT

        •  no, I got the snark and it still pisses me off,

          but then again I'm up at quarter of two with a massive sinus infection so maybe my humor ducts are clogged too.

          I'm totally serious - that snark was weak, imho, and the Smirk Brothers enemy combatant policies literally leave me 'keyless'.  There are few illusions that I hold as dearly as the notion that the United States armed forces tries to conduct itself with more dignity than those who oppose it.

          Diary's fine, some will find Adams' contribution valuable.  At least you didn't say "write off the cartoonists".

          Returning to pathetic nose blowing ...

          by klondike on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:44:33 PM PDT

          •  Have a Klondike

            on me :-)

            Perhaps at the next yearlykos.

            by MarkInSanFran on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:58:21 PM PDT

            •  hey, at least I got the comment count up

              and this is just my evil plot to get someone to pay me to go to yk as "the man with no sense of humor".

              by klondike on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 11:01:14 PM PDT

              •  Your hired

                You can be my straight man.

                Btw, no, that doesn't mean I'm gay :-)

                by MarkInSanFran on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 11:12:01 PM PDT

•  This is no cartoon

  Refusals to answer questions were met with electric shocks, "hand beatings," and threats of rape, Abu Omar claimed. "I was hung like slaughtered cattle," he wrote, "head down, feet up, hands tied behind my back, feet also tied together, and I was exposed to electric shocks all over my body and especially the head area to weaken the brain. ..."

  He also described being tied up and placed on a mattress that was hosed down with water and connected to electricity.

  Even when he was not being tortured, he wrote, "I was placed near the torture chambers for long periods of time to hear the screams of the tortured and their moans and their howls so that I would collapse psychologically."

  According to El Zayat, Abu Omar has tried to commit suicide at least once in captivity.

  http://www.chicagotribune.com/...This should be a Diary on the rec list. I'm too tired to write another diary, the last one was a mess anyway lol.

  by OneCrankyDom on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:56:53 PM PDT

•  in case anyone missed this

  Ted Koppel: 'The Price of Security'

  listen to these people in particular, links on left of website:

  Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who has represented Guantanamo detainees, on torture: 'It's illegal, it's immoral, and a lot of the time, it doesn't work.'

  and

  Alberto Mora, former general counsel of the U.S. Navy: 'America will cease to be America if we accept the application of cruel and human and degrading treatment, or torture, as one of our tools in the war against terror.'

  Alberto Mora said that there are people who torture if they think they can get info on an impending disaster, but they also know that if they get caught, they will have to pay the consequenses.

  the last statement of the night:

     

  "You want absolutely security? You want to be totally protected against terrorism? I have a proposal for you: A one way ticket to Panmunjom in North Korea. Guarantee you, they have absolute security. You will have absolute protection against terrorism."

  Ted Koppel

  by sc kitty on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:03:32 PM PDT

•  Bill Maher is right and there is a legal way ...

  ... to deal with that already.

  It's called presidential pardon.

  If the ticking nuke situation was to arise and a military / CIA / police agent was to use torture under the emergency, especially if he was to use torture with success, that person would never see the inside of a court. He would get the President to sign him a pardon and a medal the very next day.

  This whole torture legalization debate is such bullshit ...

  by Farugia on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 11:03:21 PM PDT

  •  Such a very

    good point. Exceptional resolution for exceptional circumstances. An interesting and widely-applicable pattern.

    by MarkInSanFran on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 11:15:04 PM PDT

    •  It is so obvious

      I don't understand why that glaring self-evidence was never brought forth during the torture debate. It's just beyond me.

      Everybody knows the law can be a complete arse in some exceptionnal, unforeseen circumstances. Duh !

      And guess what ? The Founders already knew it and have already solved the problem. Re-duh !

      by Farugia on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 03:53:53 PM PDT

•  Due process also helps fight terrorism

  http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/...

  One purpose of having rigorous rules of evidence, high burdens of proof, and trained counsel to help an accused mount a defense is to improve public safety. Rigorous rules put the government to its proofs when it carries out its crime-fighting and national security duties. Rigorous rules protect us all by helping ensure that the government is truly ferreting out crime and not just putting on a show.

  by Ningen on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:55:15 AM PDT

•  Interrogation/Torture

  John le Carre and Dostoevski contain examples of effective interrogation techniques.  You ask the same questions over and over, invite the subject to cooperate with his own theories of how a crime might have been committed, bring up contradictions with their previous utterances - eventually, they are anxious to tell the truth - just to get you to SHUT UP.

  Colombo, played by Peter Falk, was in fact based on the inspector in "Crime and Punishment."  

  by willb48 on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:57:45 AM PDT

•  Bill Maher used to date Mann Coulter.

  He's a tosser.

  by Intercaust on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 02:29:58 AM PDT

  •  Mann Coulter...

    ...is not appreciated here, where transgender people are welcome.  Coulter is not one of us, so please don't imply that she is.

    by rserven on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 09:33:48 AM PDT

•  Satire? If so, poorly done.

  I know satire, and this is no Jack Kennedy.

  Adams should stick to cartoons, where there is a built-in subtext available for satire. The op-ed page does not have that subtext as a given.

  by Jeff Boatright on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 06:58:21 AM PDT

•  All this for oil..

  Republicans just do not get it.  By saying we are superior we can torture whoever we want to, not only do other countries torture our kids then we are no better than that guy that boils people alive ..We used to be civilized until republicans brought us into the gutter..Guess bush thinks we are not smart enough to get information without torture.  Karma is going to be very bad for George and Cheney, I just hope we dont go down with them..

  by bayside on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 07:18:54 AM PDT