Re: DNA - India

Gives new meaning to "Blind Faith"

re: torture, I just wanted to make another recommendation.

There new documentary on torture and U.S. policy I've recently seen called Taxi to the Darkside, which I strongly recommend to anyone interested in this issue. It follows the development of U.S. torture policy and practice at Bagram in Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo. The director is Alex Gibney (who also did Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room). Bill Moyers did a helpful review here. (The film also recently won best documentary of the year at the academy awards, which hopefully means it will open in more theaters nation-wide). At any rate, the film also offers in-depth interviews from some of the soldiers at Bagram who used the controversial tactics--indirectly offering a striking and blood-chilling illustration of how relatively innocent seeming tactics can cause serious damage--as well as from one of the prisoners who was incarcerated at Bagram and Guantananmo, psychologists, and policy makers (including, much to my surprise, an extended interview with the notorious John Yoo). There is a detailed genealogy of some the interrogation tactics currently being used by U.S. forces, and an explanation of their characteristic physiological and psychological effects.

In other, these days typically American, news, the Discovery Channel bought the rights to the film to air after its theater run, but subsequently backed-down under intense pressure, and no longer plans to show it.

Gives new meaning to "Blind Faith"

Oh my, that is so much better than natural selection.

"Obama's false attack"..

In October 2006, Clinton spoke about exceptions to a no-torture policy when speaking to the New York Daily News. Clinton mentioned a "ticking time bomb" scenario in which a captured terrorist has knowledge of an imminent terror attack and interrogators want to use torture.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said. "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."

Then, on Sept. 26, 2007, Clinton said something different. During a debate, Tim Russert asked her about the ticking bomb scenario and here's what she said: "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period." She said she met with military generals who told her there is "very little evidence that it works."

In the days after the debate, the Republican National Committee criticized her for flip-flopping, and Obama said he would oppose torture "without exception or equivocation," according to Daily News reports.

Did Clinton change position because of her talks with the generals or because of the "politics of the moment"? We can't see inside Clinton's head, so our ruling doesn't reflect on that part of the statement. But it is clear she changed her mind about the "ticking bomb" scenario. So we rate Obama's claim True.

Factcheck.org came to the same conclusion

Torture: Obama is right

To our ears, that sounds like a reversal.

I don't see the reversal.

I don't like her answer, but I don't see how she reversed her position. In both statements she left the door open for exceptions if the presidents sees fit but said it would not be policy.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said. "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law." Then, on Sept. 26, 2007, Clinton said something different. During a debate, Tim Russert asked her about the ticking bomb scenario and here's what she said: "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period." She said she met with military generals who told her there is "very little evidence that it works."

I am loath, and I mean truly loath, to be defending Clinton, but her position on this is smart, informed, and consistent. There is a saying in jurisprudence: extreme cases make bad precedent. That's pretty much what she's saying. Whenever the topic of torture comes up, among the first of examples marshelled in its defense is what's known in the literature as 'the ticking-time-bomb scenario', referenced above. Of course, such a scenario has never happened and is not likely to happen with all the detailed conditions of the example being met, which are what makes it work--someone has knowledge of an imminent and devastating attack, of the bomb's location, at what time it will be detonated, by whom, and moreover, we know that they know all this. (As an aside: terrorist cells don't work like this. Every participant involved is typically limited to only enough knowledge to do his part. See here).

Clinton's point is that such example should not motivate a change in policy--perhaps because she understands that, historically, permitting a little torture eventually leads to permitting a lot of it. It is perfectly consist to admit exceptions for extreme cases without overhauling general and official policy, as the Bush administration has in fact done. It is perfectly consistent, for example, to hold that the only effective response to a nuclear attack that is a fait accompli is overwhelming retaliation; but of course, that would not commit the person who holds that view to advocating as a matter of policy that nuclear weapons be used on a regular basis. Likewise, reserve the right to any means necessary to prevent an imminent attack does not commit one to permitting those means as a matter of general policy.

There is a more detailed story on the Vatican's discovery of more mortal sins at the Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3517050.ece

Even the satirists couldn't make this up.

"The Pope also complained that an increasing number of people in the secularised West were “making do without God”.

He said that hedonism and consumerism had even invaded “the bosom of the Church itself, deeply undermining the Christian faith from within, and undermining the lifestyle and daily behaviour of believers”."

Also read about the punishments that await you.

I'm glad to see the collection from the Washington monthly. This issue needs to be kept on the table as something unacceptable - under any - ANY circumstances, including extreme examples.

We - as human beings throughout the globe - should not torture nor should we re-define torture to suit our aims. If we can't our country on board, why should we expect anyone else to follow?

The Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

I have the enemy and it is them.

If you're interested, here's a resource on the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and it's involvement in the Bush Administration and government sponsored religion: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=129046#129046

Ah, the tiresome "we should never torture" position. A logical fallacy wrapped in a pretty bow. From the article:

There is little or no difference between the account that KSM and bin al-Shibh freely volunteered to Fouda in the spring of 2002 and the version the commission published in its 2004 report

And then ...

What, though, of the administration's assertion that coercive interrogation techniques have saved American lives? It all sounds very frightening, except that there is no indication that these plots were ever more than talk.

So the information we gained without torture - which itself has no backing proof except for the fact that the event in which they claim to have been involved actually happened - is considered believable. But the information gained from torturing? Written off as false. Why? Because no terror event happened.

So the fact that torturing these people may have revealed information that stopped a terrorist attack is disregarded based on the ridiculous position that because we found out about it before it could happen, and thus potentially stopped it, there is no proof of it. Could the position be any more ridiculous?