The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Morality and the Torture Debate

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Morality and the Torture Debate

By Philip Klein on 4.23.09 @ 11:07AM

In a series of earlier posts, I delved into the pragmatic debate over whether interrogation techniques such as waterboarding were effective at extracting actionable intelligence from terrorists who otherwise would not be willing to talk. But, clearly, for many people, this is not the determining issue in the debate.

Citing a video in which Shep Smith used colorful language to describe his stance that America should not use torture under any circumstances, Andrew Sullivan, added, "for Americans to be discussing if torture worked - if it worked - is staggering." Now, a lot of people whose moral judgment I respect have more or less expressed this view to me, so I have no desire to belittle it.

But for me personally, I believe it is morally justifiable to waterboard a terrorist such as KSM if doing so is necessary to save the lives of thousands of innocent Americans. When I think of all of the lives that were shattered on 9/11, all of the fathers and sons and brothers and sisters who perished because of a deranged ideology that celebrates death, there's no way in good conscience I could say that it's worth suffering a repeat of that attack in order to protect a terrorist from waterboarding, sleep deprivation, or some of the other techniques that were employed. Now, some people may respond that such a scenario never plays out in real life and that we didn't gain useful intelligence that we didn't already learn through other means. As I've noted previously, I'm open to persuasion on that point. But that brings us back to the debate over whether or not using such techniques worked, and moves us away from the narrower moral question as to whether it would be justifiable to use those techniques if they were effective.

One way in which Sullivan, and other absolutists, try to convey the immorality of waterboarding is to note that it was a technique used by the Chinese communists and the Khemer Rouge. However, even if we concede that waterboarding is torture, it's important to note that not all forms of torture are created equal, and we have to take into account the reasons why such techniques were employed. After all, the Nazis, like Americans, used guns, but they were used in different ways to achieve different ends.

The website of Cambodia's Killing Fields Memorial Museum describes Toul Sleng prison (aka S-21):

The families of offenders were often brought to the prison as well in order to keep the deaths of their loved one from being avenged. Almost all of the prisoners had worked in the armed forces, factories, or administration. Upon arrival at S-21, the prisoners were photographed, tortured until they confessed to whatever crimes their captors charged them with, and then executed in Choeung Ek or the Killing Fields.

A recent AFP story on a the confession of the regime's prison chief explained:

Only a handful of people are known to have survived their time at Tuol Sleng prison, which is now a genocide museum lined with photographs of some of the more than 15,000 men, women and children who died there….

"From the day it claimed its first victim, the policy was that no one could leave S21 alive," [prosecutor Robert] Petit told the court.

Waterboarding may have been one technique used against the prisoners in Cambodia, but it was far from the harshest technique:

"Victims were beaten with rattan sticks and whips, electrocuted, had toenails and finger nails pulled out, were suffocated with plastic bags forcibly tied over their heads and were stripped naked and had their genitals electrocuted," Petit said.

While Sullivan likens the Bush administration to other authoritarian regimes based on very narrow factors, it's important to draw a distinction. Bush wasn't routinely rounding up political opponents like members of MoveOn.org, Code Pink or, say, Sullivan, beating them until they confessed to being traitors, and then executing them. The idea was to employ techniques such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation to prevent future attacks against innocent civilians, and Bush made his decisions in the wake of the worst attack on U.S. soil in the nation's history. If somebody wants to argue that the interrogation program was an utter failure and that it damaged our reputation while producing little value, that's one thing. But calling it "staggering" to think that Americans would be open to the idea of waterboarding terrorists to prevent attacks on innocent civilians is another.

View all comments (78) | Leave a comment

Pete| 4.23.09 @ 11:35AM

It is absurd and dangerous in the post 9/11 world NOT to use any and all methods available to extract infomation that could save American lives. As for our moral standing, there are fine examples above of he kinds of things our people would be subjected to in other countries. I'd say we are still on the very very high ground here.

Angel| 4.23.09 @ 11:53AM

KSM is alive and well now, and so are the many thousands of Americans this monster tried to kill. President Bush and his advisers should be lauded for their courageous defense of the USA, not vilified.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 12:14PM

This is another thoughtful and useful piece on this issue.

One reason why its important to note that waterboarding and other forms of torture were used by totalitarian regimes is that these regimes primarily torture to get FALSE information.

Lacking democratic legitimacy, totalitarian states need "confessions" of wrong doing publicly declared. Torture helps them acquire these "confessions."

We need intelligence, not confessions. The fact is that terrorist organizations who are capable of threatening the U.S. are too sophisticated to send multiple persons who know about one another's activities.

There is NO evidence, not one shred of hard evidence, that torture yielded information that would not have been discoverable by legal means.

If some evidence emerges, I still think the "absolutist" position is very difficult to argue against.

There just are not many "ticking time bomb" situations. That is not primarily what our intelligence officers face.

Torture sent FBI and CIA agents chasing phantoms all over the world. The so-called "second wave" of attacks, believed to be coming after 9.11, were postulated based on information acquired using these techniques. So second wave was discovered or, as far as we know, even planned. Al Quaeda seems to have thrown everything they had at us at once, and they USED our fear against us. That cannot be allowed to happen if we hope to defeat them when the second wave really does come.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 12:17PM

Pete --

You are beginning with a false assumption.

Look at reports emerging today and yesterday: field agents of the CIA -- the experts in discovering intelligence -- largely rejected these methods.

It was private contractors who often requested these legal clearances. More and more we're learning that torture was the result of jaw-dropping incompetence as much as any sinister (or noble) intent.

ncatty| 4.23.09 @ 12:30PM

Maybe plausible deniability needs a comeback. Go ahead and torture but don't tell us about it and, if it is disclosed, you pay the price. If you, the torturer can't handle this arrangement, then find another job. Maybe piloting drones and firing missiles into villages.

Pete| 4.23.09 @ 12:33PM

I don't know where to start with your post, Mr. Paine - I could easily throw out "facts" as if I were in the room as well. But let's suppose everything you say is true down to the last detail. Let's look at it from the deterrence angle. Let's say I am some Islamic extremist lunatic sworn to kill and maim as many 'infidels' as possible. Let's see, if I get caught, not only will I now NOT get "tortured" or even made to feel uncomfortable, but I am likely to not even be incarcerated for long either. Further, as I plot again with my jihadist buddies over a warm cup of goat's milk back home, I can read about how those who used to question my countrymen that did get caught are being prosecuted for being "mean." How does that sound? Between that, a blatantly anti-American President and an underfunded military, I feel super safe.

ARealist| 4.23.09 @ 12:34PM

Folks like Andrew Sullivan, Obama, Holder, Pelosi, etc. etc., are total hypocrites and liars when they state torture should NEVER be used, regardless of the circumstances.
If the children, wives, parents, or other loved ones of these "torture is never acceptable crowd" was to soon have their head sliced off by your typical fanatic muslim nazi and a person in custody - an associate of the killers - was known to have information that could lead to the rescue of the victims, you can bet you entire bank account + house+car+ everything you own, that the anti- torture individual would INSIST that information be obtained USING ANY AND ALL MEANS if there was a high probability it would save his/her loved one.
Do you honestly believe that the family member of the victim would say, "...naw, just make sure the person in custody has an ACLU lawyer and treat him like an ordinary criminal; just don't hurt the guy, please."
Sure.
What the anti-torture crowd counts on is that any of the possible victims of terrorists will not include their loved ones. In effect, they are saying, if they do not know the soon-to-be-dead individuals, then they - the victim, and the victims family can go to hell.
AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ME (the anti-torture folks).
Typical of left wing progressives (i.e., communists and nazis), they feel they are better, smarter , superior and more intellectual than common folks, so if torture can save thousands of common folks, it should NOT be used. If torture can save the loved one of Mr./Mrs. Anti-Torture, then, by all means, get to it post haste.
The aristocratic sense of superiority of the left is evidenced every day in Cuba, and all the former communist countries where the aristocracy (the nomklatura, the ruling class, the ruling elites) denied individual freedoms to the common folk while reserving these same privileges (to travel, have nice homes, cars, unlimited food to eat, etc) for themselves. This aristocratic attitude is totally understandable if you just realize that they truly believe ordinary folks are simply not worthy human beings. They are simply more akin to pets - just follow the rules and if you get out of hand, well, off to the vet. for that one final shot.
Just like the Nazi's decided which groups were untermensch and un-worthy of living, the liberal left progressives (communists and Nazis) have reserved for themselves the right to dictate under what circumstances torture is "allowed."
If it benefits them or their loved ones, any and all torture is acceptable. If it benefits the untermensch (that's everybody else), well their lives are not worth saving and they can all go to hell.
God forbid we have another terrorist attack. Let's all pray it never happens again, anywhere.
But if it does occur again in this country and people are going to die, then I hope those that are the unfortunate victims are the loved ones of those most vocal and zealous in opposing torture.
Let's see then, if they feel the same way.

Angel| 4.23.09 @ 12:46PM

The willful incompetence of Bill Clinton led to the 9/11 debacle which was dropped in George Bush's lap (only 7 months into his presidency). President Bush worked heroically to protect our country from more terrorism and was successful. Obama is fortunate that he can rely on the national security structures that Bush put into place. The democrats are playing with dynamite if they pursue this revenge-minded witch hunt over policy differences. I believe most fair minded Americans are truly grateful for Bush's courageous and successful national security policies that have protected us for eight years. It would be nice if the democrats spent time and treasure on present terrorist threats rather than engaging in petty political payback. Democrat fecklessness knows no bounds.

Bob| 4.23.09 @ 12:47PM

I certainly cannot speak to the efficacy of this type of torture today, but I can reflect on Vietnam where I was in a field G2 (intelligence) and was involved in both interrogations and psyops. They type of torture then was far more heinous than those methods used in the Bush administration. We consistently let the ARVN or ROK's do the interrogation and cutting off fingers, killing another person in front of the person to be interrogated, putting salt in wounds, etc., were used. The result was little in terms of good information and lots of dead ends pursued with good resources. Furthermore, it hurt our psyops operations as trying to convince a village that we were the good guys when they had seen us torture hurt our efforts. In the end, it did more damage than good even though we obtained a couple of good leads. Furthermore, it lead to more deaths of our soldiers as our enemy had support of the villagers who would tell the Vietcong our positions. In other words, it was an excellent recruitment tool.

We should also be careful about assuming the Bush administration kept us safe. It could well be that the terrorists want to hurt our allies more than us as it alienates us and gets our allies to blame us for their problems.

The problem here is that for every action there is a reaction. It could be, as we've heard from a number of Iraq veterans, that for every person saved, multiple people, not necessarily Americans, are killed.

Facts are important on both sides of this argument. The methods represented in the memos are not anywhere near as severe as those used in Vietnam. But then again, war is different today and communication vehicles are multitudinous and immediate for terrorist recruiting purposes.

I'm in the camp of looking at the data and coming to a reasoned decision. Given my experience, I think, like John McCain, that it did more harm than good and that saving one life and losing 10 is not a good ratio.

Angel| 4.23.09 @ 1:00PM

Well, maybe if it was YOUR wife, husband, child, mother or father who was saved, it wouldn't be hypothetical to you. It's so friggin' easy to sit in your warm, snug abode and pontificate on the merits of 'reasoned decision'. God deliver us from all of these moronic Monday Quarterbacks.

Bob| 4.23.09 @ 1:06PM

Angel, if this resulted in more people killed than saved would you feel the same way? If it was your son or daughter in the military that was killed it wouldn't be so hypothetical to you? I've fought in a war and know what its like. Have you? With your viewpoint, obviously not. That's why those of us who have fought for our country generally come down on the side against torture.

MattSwartz| 4.23.09 @ 1:14PM

Prisoners (all of them) either have human rights or they don't. If they do, and if we are going to be a nation of laws, not of (vengeful) men, we had better put a stop to any and all consequential analysis of when torture might be okay.

It's never okay. The reason violence in the punitive stage of the justice process is acceptable is that by then guilt has been proven.

The earlier article this morning about Dostoevsky's question regarding the torture of one innocent baby in the hope of saving the whole world is very relevant here. Ends don't justify means. They stand or fall on their own, and this one (torture) clearly falls before any kind of uniform, God-ordained standard of justice.

Angel| 4.23.09 @ 1:15PM

If my son or daughter CHOSE to join the military and died, at least they had made a conscious decision to take that risk. I couldn't say that if my daughter was merely working at her desk without knowing the agonizing death that was shortly coming her way. Stupid analogy.

Daisy| 4.23.09 @ 1:20PM

The innocent baby wasn't a killer of thousands of Americans, trying to torture and kill thousands more. I'm glad they waterboarded those evil b@stards. Absolutely no regrets here.

MattSwartz| 4.23.09 @ 1:24PM

Daisy,

Don't you get it? We have courts to determine who's guilty and who isn't. If someone is actually, materially guilty of killing thousands of Americans, they will be (should be) dealt with in a manner much sterner than waterboarding.

The point is that unless you have a trial, it's just one person's word against another. What's the justification? How many innocent people is it okay to waterboard? How many innocent people's genitals should we shock with electricity? How many should be sodomized with fluorescent light bulbs?

The answer is none.

And the only way to ensure that result is to treat people humanely until after their trials.

MattSwartz| 4.23.09 @ 1:40PM

Daisy,

If I were as wrong as you are, I'd build my argument around the idea that trials are too slow and that my opponent is an idiot and a rape victim/homo.

Your type of argumentation is about all pro-torture people have left...

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 1:54PM

Many of you don't seem aware of the fact that military men and intelligence agents have been coming forward for years to speak out against torture.

The people who are for torture tend to be civilians with little or no actual experience fighting wars.

You all should read Jane Mayer's outstanding reporting on torture. She was given high level access at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. The fact is that those who really KNOW how to defend our country were appalled by these tactics and worked hard to get them stopped.

One other thing should be pointed out. Many of these tactics were in fact shelved during the Bush administration. People inside the administration were opposed to many of these tactics and worked to have them stopped.

The idea that somehow those who oppose torturing people are pacifists or anti-American rabble rousers is simply not supported by the facts. I say this for the handful of you who seem interested in facts.

The emotionalism and irrational fearfulness of many of the posts is very instructive. When people are angry or afraid, they make stupid decisions. We need to be smart, not fearful.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 1:59PM

I think Klein's piece above and some of the other pieces he's written on this topic have been very useful and interesting. I hope he does more. I disagree with him, but he makes a good argument.

It's important -- I think -- for those of us opposed to torture not to frame our arguments against people who disagree with us as though they're medieval dungeon masters. This is a complicated topic, and it's for the grown-ups to discuss. Terrorism is a grave threat to the U.S. There is no question about it. Bob's post makes some excellent points as well.

ARealist| 4.23.09 @ 2:02PM

To Bob;
You are correct, there is a reaction to every action, but history has demonstrated unequivocally what the reaction will be to a given action.
Neville Chamberlain , Jimmy Carter, the world's response to the Somalian pirates - just to cite a few examples, demonstrates that if you treat the enemy with gentle kindness and love and respect, or just merely provide the impression that you are a weakling, they will slice off your head real fast.
If you respond forcefully to terrorists and make every effort to kill them before you get killed, you will be far better off and have a greater chance of survival.
The best example I can think of - again, is Soviet Russian.
The Soviets ruled eastern europe - post WWII - for about 50 years, oft times using straight up brutality. They also supported with guns and money the PLO and other terrorist groups around the world.
Have you ever wondered why the Soviets never had hostages taken, had terrorist attacks on their soil or on their embassies, or ever had their ships - merchant or naval - attacked? Have you ever wondered why they seemed immune to reprisals despite the terror they inflicted on millions of people for 50 years??
It's because everybody knew that if you messed with them, you and your family would wind up dead. They never bothered with utopian notions of "under what circumstances should torture be considered."
The Russians, to this day, do not take crap from anybody.
The USA does.
Which is why our ships, embassies, people, diplomats , etc ., have been murdered and attacked.
I am not suggesting that we adopt Soviet style tactics. I am suggesting that indeed, there is a reaction to every action , and history has clearly shown what the reactions will be by your enemies if your action is to try and "understand your enemy."
They will kill you.

Torture, if used judiciously, with good, solid evidence that it's implementation will save innocent lives should, and must be used.
This is totally different than how torture has been used by the Nazi's or Bolsheviks or Mexican drug dealers - they use it in furtherance of committing more crimes and mass murders; not in an effort to save the lives of innocent victims.
Most normal folks can make this distinction.
Left leaning progressives, just like Nazi's and Bolsheviks, cannot.
This just demonstrates that there is precious little difference in how "progressives" view the world (i.e., the common folks) as compared to Nazi's and Bolsheviks view common folks.

Sheila| 4.23.09 @ 2:02PM

Liberal 'grownups' like Bill Clinton were responsible for the murders of 3000 Americans. No thanks, morons.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 2:06PM

Pete --

Deterrence? Good Lord, man. Where have you been for the past twenty years?

There's no deterring the kind of terrorist we're talking about here. That's what makes this such a difficult issue.

We don't torture because we're Americans.

This is really the point. We're the GOOD guys. The good guys don't torture people.

We didn't capture Soviet agents and torture them when that country had tens of thousands of missiles pointed at us. We didn't abuse and torture Nazis. We executed Japanese officers for waterboarding our soldiers on the grounds that such activity constituted torture.

Angel| 4.23.09 @ 2:08PM

Why doesn't Obama's order to send killer drones into Pakistan killing innocent women and children bother you, liberal trolls? Hmmmm? What about Obama's order to kill the three teenaged pirates? No one died being waterboarded--why the fuss over this non-issue? You certainly don't seem to lose any sleep over Obama's slaughter of these folks--many who are innocent victims. Selective outrage--wouldn't you say? Hypocrites.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 2:08PM

ARealist --

Where are the Soviets now?

NavyBrat| 4.23.09 @ 2:09PM

To think that we can prosecute this war (that's what it is, despite the doublespeak to the contrary) against an enemy who's "rule of law" (if you can even call it that) is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to ours. We use these tactics on our OWN PEOPLE in SERE training. And for all you willfully ignorant folks who say, "sob, sob, it doesn't work," read the ENTIRE memo(s), not just the parts that your Party Apparachiks tell you to. The west coast plot was foiled by this method. And does anyone mean to tell me that locking some jihadi schmuck up in a little box WITH A CATERPILLAR, & telling him its going to sting him, is considered TORTURE?! Anyone who thinks that needs to hold onto that one thought, lest it DIE of lonliness. Our enemy has no due process. They kidnap & behead CIVILIANS on the internet. THEY SAW THEIR HEADS OFF!!! Please excuse me if I'm not upset that Aziz the soon to be welfare recipient terrorist got some water poured down his throat at one time. Cry me a damned river. I have not one shred of sympathy for these monsters. If they want sympathy, tell them to look it up in the dictionary between sh*t & syphilus. Why incarcerate them anyways? A big tall tree & a short piece of rope will work just fine.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 2:10PM

Angel -

You don't seem capable of following the discussion or understanding the issues at stake.

We're talking about what agents of the government do to people who are incarcerated and rendered helpless.

Don't listen to me. Listen to all the military people and people from the CIA who have spoken out against torture and continue to do so.

Also -- generally when you call names, it makes you sound hysterical and it weakens any point you might be trying to make.

David| 4.23.09 @ 2:11PM

This is an important debate, and we should not belittle anyone for making rational arguments.

The argument that torture can or should be used to protect innocent lives is a pragmatic one. No one I have read says torture is good; all of them say it is unpleasant but necessary, i.e. the end justifies the means.

I consider myself a (U.S.) constitutionalist, and the eighth amendment prohibits "cruel" punishments of any sort. Of course, much of the torture Americans have wrought occurred on foreign soil, where U.S. Constitutional principles need not be implemented. But are we not obligated ethically to uphold the spirit of our constitution, wherever we go, even when it's not necessary? Even when our prisoners have no right to invoke its protections? I think we do.

When exactly did we become a nation of cowards? I for one am willing to incur a slightly increased risk of dying if it means protecting civil liberties and upholding the highest of human values -- wherever I or my government happens to be.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 2:12PM

NavyBrat --

Just like our laws are not determined by the values of criminals, the policies that guide our soldiers and intelligence officers are not determined by the values of those we're fighting.

I think someone would military training would understand that. Maybe ask Dad?

CH| 4.23.09 @ 2:13PM

Did the Soviets kill 3000 Americans? How did I miss that? The Japanese did far worse than water board our guys--only 1 out of 9 of American POWs survived Japanese prison camps. Muslim extremists torture innocent civilians!! Waterboarding is nothing compared to their barbarism.

Angel| 4.23.09 @ 2:21PM

You are a hypocrite, TP. Justify Obama's actions. You can't because there is no justification. You liberals are just trying to destroy George Bush and his administration. You don't give a damn about principles because you have none: You are just using them as a weapon against a Republican President. I am thankful that President Bush had the courage to protect our country after a horrific terrorist attack. You'd better hope that our moron-in-chief does the same.

NavyBrat| 4.23.09 @ 2:21PM

"We executed Japanese officers for waterboarding our soldiers on the grounds that such activity constituted torture."

No, T. Paine. They didn't waterboard them. They stuck a fire hose in their throats, turned the spigot on until the prisoner's belly became distended, then the guards jumped up & down on his stomach until his innards ruptured. Either that or they'd bayonet them. Kinda different than what we're doing.

As for "where did the Soviets go." Well, the recruits they trained in the anti war movement have made their way to colleges, Congress, the State Dept. & the White House. They've been able to make good on Kruschev's assertion that they could take over our country without firing a shot.

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."...Nikita Krushchev

CH| 4.23.09 @ 2:24PM

You don't call those innocent women and children blown to bits while sleeping in their humble abodes helpless? That's convenient. Liberals always have 'convenient' principles. Self-serving, that is.

Angel| 4.23.09 @ 2:30PM

He's a lib-troll ass, Navy Brat. Just a fascist liberal powermonger. Trolls don't care about right and wrong, they're just trying to hurt President Bush. Screw 'em.

NavyBrat| 4.23.09 @ 2:34PM

I did ask my Dad about this before he died. He agreed. While he wasn't a combatant (dentist & Vietnam vet), he still knew aviator buddies of his who went through SERE. Now, keep in mind this was during the end of & right after Vietnam, before the "kinder, gentler" military came into being. SERE students were waterboarded, starved, & sometimes beaten. My Dad told me some guys would hand in their wings. Now, of course, they don't BEAT on these guys anymore, but that's about it. I think the rules need to change to confront a specific enemy. That's how you win wars. To stand rigid in tactics is to become inflexible to the movement of the enemy. That leads to defeat.

As for torture not working, I would look up the case of Beirut CIA station chief Bill Buckley. Buckley was a Green Beret Vietnam combat vet. He was kidnapped in Beirut by Hamas. He was held captive for a year & tortured VICIOUSLY. Two weeks after his torture, almost ALL of the CIA assets in the mid east were compromised, many "disappeared". Of course Hamas sold this info to the KGB in exchange for more moolah, & our network there hasn't been the same since.

Alan Brooks| 4.23.09 @ 2:39PM

what the trolls dont get is that this is AS, not ChomskyBlog or HomelessGayWhales.
do we here stay up at night worrying about waterboarding?

Anyway, rightwingers are supposed to be meanspirited, as liberals are squishy, and commies and fascists are supposed to be genocidal

Bob| 4.23.09 @ 2:45PM

I find it ironic that those here who complain about moral relativity in saying ALL abortions are wrong, are now willing to apply it to torture. Torture is either wrong or right. If you believe it is wrong -- don't do it. If you believe it is right, then do it and don't complain when it is done to us.

As I said before, I experienced us torturing the Vietcong in Vietnam. You do get some information -- but that is not the issue. The question for you moral relativists is whether you end up doing more harm than good. My experience is that you do end up with more people on your side hurt.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 2:46PM

Many of the responses to my remarks above are more irrational emotionalism.

I guess the philosophy is we're supposed to go on being terrorized by terrorists.

For those of you arguing that this is a Republican vs. Democrat debate, you clearly are ill-informed.

I will never be persuaded by the argument that these are such evil people we need to abandon our principles to fight them.

NavyBrat brings up the case of Bill Buckley. I've never heard of this story and will look into it. It sounds interesting.

However, U.S. law, international law and treaties, military law, and the policies circumscribing our intelligence community forbid torture.

Are all of these institutions peopled "liberal fascist morons"?

I think some of you people need to learn how to question your suppositions.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 2:51PM

Bob, I think, is right.

After WWII, the only nation on earth that could be trusted to head the unprecedented trials of Nazi war criminals was the United States.

No one considered letting the Soviets or even the Brits organize and basically run those trials.

The U.S. lived up to its international reputation and literally changed how the world responds to genocide.

We did not seek retribution, we sought justice. The rest of the world KNEW we would do this because of our really unprecedented moral authority on due process and law.

We have gradually lost that moral high ground, and torturing prisoners with NO evidence that it is helping our cause -- and plenty of evidence it is hurting our cause -- is a bad idea.

Angel| 4.23.09 @ 3:07PM

TP, you are a liberal troll--you have no moral high ground. Everything you post is suspect because you have an agenda. Your sermonizing is annoying, and so is your arrogance. I repeat: Thank God for George Bush and his successful strategies that prevented post 9/11 terrorist attacks. Let's see what you liberals do, TP--you are on the hot seat now.

NavyBrat| 4.23.09 @ 3:07PM

"Two weeks after his torture,"

Sorry, I meant to say 2 weeks after his C-A-P-T-U-R-E.

PS. Bob, First, thanks for your service. I'll always be proud of my Dad & all Vietnam vets. I've heard the stories about the ROK Marines from my Dad & my Godfather, who was part of Naval Security Group (I think that's what it was called-REAL hairy spook stuff that I never heard much about), dropping sonobouys out of P 3's onto the Ho Chi Minh trail.

I will have to step out & tell you that I, for one, don't think ALL abortions are wrong. Now, I'm younger than probably the majority of my conservative brethren here (I'm 30), so I feel as if EVERYONE f's up, especially kids. I know I did. I'm a beleiver in the "you get one free chance" theory. After that, too damned bad for you, unless its rape or incest. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to the late term abortions such as those that Obama supported by not voting for the "born alive infant protection act". That's INFANTICIDE! We aren't Sparta. And while we aren't Sparta with regards to the treatment of our young, we would do well to remember their "win at all costs" philosophy when it comes to dealing with the enemy.

Angel| 4.23.09 @ 3:26PM

Bob and TP are both Spartans when it comes to the innocent unborn; neither would mind throwing newborn infants out to die alone on a barren, frozen hillside. But, vicious, murdering savages like KSM, who are responsible for the hideous, agonizing deaths of thousands of their fellow countrymen--now that's another matter for Bob and TP. Suddenly, they are concerned about their 'moral high ground'. Effing jokes. I have nothing but contempt for both of you.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 3:31PM

I do not care about Angel's insults and obnoxious remarks.

However, just for the record, I am opposed to abortion.

I'm not sure how Angel decided to make me a killer of unborn children, but I can assume she believes, as many who educate themselves by watching Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, that their political opponents are the embodiment of evil and all hold the same positions about everything. God, what a bore.

Freya| 4.23.09 @ 3:35PM

To Pete at 12:33,

Reading your post, I can't tell. Are you trying to obtain actionable intelligence, or are you simply out for some payback?

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 3:47PM

You can follow this link to some excellent reporting by Jane Mayer on military people who fought within the administration to end abusive interrogation techniques.

A central figure in this story is a man named Alberto Mora, who was the chief lawyer for the Navy.

He was a supporter of the war and an active participant in fighting terrorism (unlike most of us).

Angel --

You are an offensive and shallow person.

Bob| 4.23.09 @ 3:47PM

NavyBrat -- It is tremendously disappointing to hear about how torture is good from people who have never served in the military. I believe one of the reasons that Cheney, et. al., pursued torture is that they were also comfortable with their deferments. I believe that everyone should VOLUNTEER to serve in our military -- women included.

Beyond that, with full disclosure, I support an individual's choice in terms of either abortion or gay marriage. But I, like you, think that abortion in the third trimester should not be allowed unless the mother's life is in danger-- and that is extremely rare.

Angel would not serve in our military but has contempt for those that did? He is an appropriate example of moral depravity.

Alan Brooks| 4.23.09 @ 3:58PM

Tom,
I'm offensive and shallow, too-- a rightwing assh*le.
We must have forgotten to tell you that this is AS, not Mother Jones.

So if you want sugar and spice, then go to pink prancing pansy poofter site.

ARealist| 4.23.09 @ 4:03PM

Tom Paine;
The Soviet Union is now gone because of three main reasons.
1. communism does not work, period.
2. margaret thatcher and Reagan conspired to spend the Soviets into oblivion; which is what they did.
3. Gorbachev , prior to his ascendency to power, traveled with his wife throughout Europe and saw first hand how far advanced the standard of living was in Europe vs. the Soviet Union.
This is where he learned that it was communism that was the cause of his countries' backwardness and corruption. Of course, you cannot let a small amount of liberty - perestroika - out of the bottle and expect the rest to stay within the jar. Crack open the lid, and all of it will pour out. Though, you must give Gorby credit, because unlike all his predecessors he really did want to improve things for the average Ivan/Ivana; thus his perestroika experiment.

Note that the Jimmy Carter approach to the soviets - "let's understand them," etc., did not do the job. Nor did the 50 years of liberal tripe that the US should disarm, and make nice to the Soviets do the job.
Loving the Soviets extended their tyrannical regime.

As to the notion that torture is either right or wrong and if it's wrong, it should never be used; well, torture is wrong 99.9% of the time, and in a very few exceptional cases, it is morally justified and must be used.
If innocent lives can be saved and if AMPLE AND RELIABLE information exists that a suspect - if broken - can provide information that will save lives of many innocent people, than it must be used.
Otherwise, you are condemning to death - willfully and purposefully - perhaps thousands of innocent people; a death sentence that is preventable.

As for the US running the Nuremburg trials and changing how the world views genocide, well, that notion is baloney and contrary to historical facts.

The Soviet Union - one of the countries
that sat in judgment of their first cousins, the Nazis, was still in 1946 the country that had exterminated more people than any other country in world history. They made Hitler and his Nazi thugs look like rank amatuers when it came to exterminating people.

And look at all the genocide that has occurred since then in Africa and in Saddam's Iraq (poison gas , anybody?) . You will note that it is - surprise , surprise, the left leaning countries that look the other way - China and Russia as regards Somalia and Sudan, and the Western European left leaning intellectual socialists, that could not say enough good things about Saddam and, hopefully, make some bucks in the process.

There is simply no evidence, historical or otherwise that demonstrates that how "nice" a country acts will, by default, render a country immune from invasion or terrorism.
In fact, the evidence is clear, that countries that engage in brutality and torture and violence (Cuba, Soviet Union, N. Korea, E. German, etc. ) are, in fact, mostly exempt from terrorism.

While its common to hear that a country that engages in torture makes the country less safe, this statment is totally unsupported by any historical facts.
It justs sounds good and probably makes those who utter such inane remarks feel better and smarter and more "intellectual."

I am NOT suggesting that torture and brutality become standard operating procedure for the USA; it is an abhorrent practice. But it must be used in those very few circumstances where the lives of many innocent people are at stake and where abundant and overwhelming evidence exists that a suspect can provide information that will save these lives.

We do not live in a theoretical utopian world where merely being correct and good and wholesome and always "moral" will guarantee the safety of the citizenry; this attitude is simply a quick path to suicide.

NavyBrat| 4.23.09 @ 4:05PM

T. Paine. Here's a link to a comprehensive story about Buckley.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/thomas102506.htm

By, the way, I also get much of my info from Hannity & Beck. I, & I'm sure Angel as well, am my own person & don't always agree with them on everything. But MOSTLY everything. I DO think that you're way of thinking is anathma to me, just as I'm sure that you feel the same about a lot of conservative tennants. Now, I don't think that makes you "evil". "Mis-guided" might be a better word. Then again, I'm sure, as before, that you think the same of me. I'm just not cool with giving Constitutional rights to jihadis who seek to use the sentiments of well meaning folks like you to weaken us. There is no Geneva Convention that covers these men. They are stateless murderers. Considering what you'll read about what Hezbollah (sorry, I thought it was Hamas) did to Buckley, I think that you'll agree that being made to feel as if you're gonna drown or get stung by an insect is considerably less "barbaric". Wars are to be won, not lost due to inaction. We didn't start this mess. They did. In that case, all the moral high ground is to me is a good place from which to sight artillery.

"You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing & using a timing which the enemy does not expect."...Miyamoto Musashi

"A prince should therefore have no other aim or thought, nor take up any other thing for his study, but war & its organization & discipline, for that is the only art that is necessary to one who commands... And one sees, on the other hand, that when princes think more of luxury than of arms, they loose their state. The chief cause of the loss of states, is the concept of this art."...Machiavelli, The Prince

NavyBrat| 4.23.09 @ 4:11PM

"We do not live in a theoretical utopian world where merely being correct and good and wholesome and always "moral" will guarantee the safety of the citizenry; this attitude is simply a quick path to suicide."

ARealist. Thanks for putting into words so eloquently what I couldn't seem to. Brilliant explanation!

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 4:13PM

NavyBrat --

I am grateful you do not consider me evil.

Nobody I know supports granting "Constitutional rights" to terrorist who are not American citizens.

The Geneva Conventions do indeed offer detailed rules about how uniformed ("regular") soldiers are to be treated.

However, they also offer broad parameters about how ANY prisoners are to be treated. The Geneva Conventions outlaw any "degrading" or "inhuman" treatment -- which obviously precludes all forms of torture.

This does NOT mean terrorists, for example, must be separated by rank, or given sporting equipment to play with, or any of the rest of it. It does mean we are obliged by that treaty (in addition to our own laws) to treat even terrorists decently.

I look forward to reading about Buckley.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 4:18PM

ARealist --

Jimmy Carter, contrary to popular myth, was by no means "soft" on the Soviets. He loathed the Soviet Union and communism and did NOT approach them "with understanding."

Under Carter's direction, the CIA plotted out a plan to outspend the Soviets on offensive nuclear weapons that eventually played an important role in their downfall.

I've read your post, but I see no reason to accept that American soldiers or agents should compromise their honor or debase themselves torturing anyone.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 4:20PM

Carter (who was a Navy man, remember) oversaw, in addition, what was then the largest increase in military spending since WWII, primarily on offensive nuclear weapons. This strategy was carried on by Ronald Reagan and broke the Soviet government.

NavyBrat| 4.23.09 @ 4:23PM

Well, as I said, these jihadi pukes are stateless. That means that they aren't citizens of Geneva Convention signatories. Also, think for a minute. While the Conventions have a noble goal, they were written at a time when the threat we're facing now was UNIMAGINEABLE. They are outdated, firstly. Secondly, NONE of the countries where these pukes hide out are signatories of the conventions either.

This is a slippery slope, prosecuting a former admin for differences in policy. They do that in 3rd rate bannana dictatorships. Prosecuting LAWYERS who wrote leagal OPINIONS is bad juju. Your namesake even has a quote about it:

"I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies others this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."...Thomas Paine

kmichaels| 4.23.09 @ 4:37PM

Leftist claim ... "Look at reports emerging today and yesterday: field agents of the CIA -- the experts in discovering intelligence -- largely rejected these methods."

Truth:

Actually experts in the fields, including the 2005 CIA memo claimed that these methods were extremely successful in getting additional and valuable information from the top three terrorists that we had in our custody, most notably KSM.

But, as in any argument, the leftists at the MSM are more than happy and more than capable to pay for what is weakly reported as "expert witness". We had hundreds of "expert witnesses" that reported that silicon breast implants were dangerous when the truth is that they were more safe than any other sort of implant and substantially better at getting the intended job done.

So leftists like Tom Paine on this board are anxious to pass along the myth that these techniques dont work.

Well, CIA leaders tell us otherwise. The CIA leaders talked directly with the CIA interrogators of the key top three terrorists and concluded that these techniques not only worked but they worked extremely well.

So, obviously, beware of liars leftists and fools (triple redundancy) trying to pander they myth that these techniques do not work.

One simple proof of the leftist lies is that if they did not work then why were they ever employed by the TOP CIA INTERROGATORS against the TOP THREE TERRORISTS that we had in our custody?

So, next time CNN prances out some military guy that claims he is an interrogation expert, ask yourself if he is as likely as good at what he does (if actually in the field in question) as the TOP CIA INTERROGATORS that chose to use these techniques.

kmichaels| 4.23.09 @ 4:54PM

One more comment about the leftist blogger Tom Paine. I find it quite ironic and a sign of a lack of intellect when a person like him complains about name calling then turns around and name calls and insults half the other posters on this board. As for me, yes, I am attempting to insult Tom Paine by pointing out his lack of intellect and his obvious hypocrisy. But also, you wont find me pretending that I don't name call from time to time. But I have never been a hypocrite about it. For example I boldly state that liberalism is a mental disorder. And I truly believe it.

Angel| 4.23.09 @ 5:06PM

I have nothing but contempt for shallow liberal men who reject the basic worthiness of millions of unborn babies but will strenuously fight for the nebulous rights of heinous murdering terrorists. Now that's REAL offensive moral depravity Bob and TP can wrap their little minds around.

Daisy| 4.23.09 @ 5:10PM

Nancy Pelosi is claiming that she didn't know about the waterboarding. Disgusting.

Maria| 4.23.09 @ 5:15PM

We'll see what happens during the next four years.

Chemman| 4.23.09 @ 5:19PM

The problem on this thread is that everyone is talking about torture but few are using a common definition. Without a common definition no communications occur. That said:
Bob what facts do you offer that more people were killed as a result of the enhanced interrogation techniques than were saved as that seemed to be the crux of your argument.
Tom Paine what is your definition of torture, it seems I would be guilty of it for making subordinates train in chemical warfare suits for extended periods of time, entire shift, in the hot, humid weather of Guam on a quarterly basis. The training was required by AF regulations but appear to far exceed the stress levels of some of the enhanced interrogation techniques. As to your Carter argument it has limited applicability. He may have ramped up the nuclear arsenal but he was at the same time micro-sizing the military. The loss of mid level people in both the officer and NCO corps were appalling. As a 2nd Lt my first assignment was in a Majors slot because of those losses. Reagan started to rebuild the personnel side of the military after Carter but it takes time to develop good mid-level people especially since there were few good mid-level people to be mentors during this time phase. So with all due respect Carter actually was a disaster for the military not withstanding his increased spending on nukes.

ruth| 4.23.09 @ 5:29PM

TM: The SOUTH and eastern parts of California are Conservative. I've tried to live up north--there was no way. SoCal has traditionally been more Conservative than the north (Mid-West folks settled here after WW2/New Yorkers up north).

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 5:32PM

Chemman --

I think "defining" torture was part of the problem with the Bush administration.

These lawyers ended up with a "definition" that was absurdly narrow.

Torture is the deliberate infliction of extreme pain or distress. Admittedly, there are subjective valences to this definition -- but that's the way we generally understand the term.

Torturing someone can be purely psychological.

For example, telling a prisoner who is deprived of sleep (and therefore highly suggestible) that American agents are at that moment raping his sister might qualify as torture -- even if what is being told to the prisoner is a lie.

Shooting a person's family in front of him -- even if no physical harm is being inflicted on that person -- is torture.

The ways a person might be tortured is endless, and an "objective" definition would seem impossible.

But law works with similar concepts all the time, and I might appeal to the famous judge's definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it."

Pete| 4.23.09 @ 5:42PM

Mr. Paine,

I agree there is no deterrence with respect to these madmen - but just in case there might be, is it wise to advertise that a) we won't use advanced interrogation techniques (we shouldn't allow you to even use the term torture for what the US does) and b) we won't even detain you in Gitmo - we'll just set you free? I would change you line to "We don't torture for the sake of torture because we are Americans." Having said that, there is no reason on God's green earth that we can't use every method at our disposal to prevent the loss of American lives. International conventions do not apply to these people - it is delusional to think they would adhere to them to any degree. It's like signing a nuclear treaty with Russia and actually expecting them to honor their side of the bargain. It is stupid and dangerous. The GOOD guys have the luxury of being good and attempting to propogate that goodness by being strong and by defeating their enemies. Period. You don't defeat your enemies by adhering to silly treaties and broadcasting weakness and self-loathing at the national level. As my West Point buddy used to say "We do whatever it takes to get the job done." I couldn't agree more.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 5:45PM

Chemman --

I have heard some of the complaints about the regular military in the late 70s. I think people sometimes forget what was going on at the time. The country had just gotten through a war based on ceaseless lies and considerable incompetence. The military suffered tremendously because of this. Vietnam caused a massive brain drain, among other things. I really doubt Carter was as anti-military as conservatives like to claim. I think it's easy to forget that he was pretty much a man of the old Democratic party -- the commie-hating, militaristic, fight Korea and Vietnam wing -- and not the peacenik of his post-presidential days.

Colin Powell -- who was revered in my Army unit as the man who put the military back together -- has commented at length on the effects of Vietnam on the military. He saw those effects as lasting well into the 80s.

I realize that many of you probably now view Gen. Powell as a communist, terrorist, and fascist because he endorsed Obama. That would be a shameful and disgraceful surmise about one of our military's greatest leaders in recent decades.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 5:49PM

Pete and NavyBrat --

Our treaty and legal obligations not to torture are NOT dependent upon the national status of the prisoners.

It does not matter that the Taliban are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions.

Remember that in many ways these laws are ultimately in place to protect US, not terrorists.

We endanger ourselves in all kinds of ways by torturing.

It's wrong to look at the proscriptions against torture as somehow bleeding heart sympathy for terrorists. That's not what's at stake.

whiterb| 4.23.09 @ 5:57PM

Bob, you're fulla crap. If we could find a captured fellow soldier with some waterboarding the guys I served with would do it. And, we did rough up and scare captives and they did talk, allot of them were young and scared and a little this and that gained my unit some valuable info. The democrat party is now saying waterboarding a terrorist leader is immoral even if it can save lives. Morality to them is letting an elementary school and the kids inside be annihilated , rather than allowing pros to use their methods and save the children. We finally have a scenario where " saving the children" does not matter to democrats. And yet to all on this page who are not nuts, the mainstream media is working overtime to save the democrats on this one, and brainwash the public.It is time for a truly crippling and organized and effective boycott against these media monsters. It is time for 20 million patriot families to cancel their cable, cease going to movies and renting them, and whatever else to truly damage these vile traitors.

Pete| 4.23.09 @ 6:39PM

Mr. Paine,

Since I can't really find an argument in your last post, I can't really respond. But I'll bite for you on your generalized statements. Just how do the Geneva conventions protect the US with respect to our war against terrorists? Just how do we endanger ourselves by interrogating/torturing terrorists? Please don't respond by describing some liberal utopia where people all over the world really love each other but for the previous administration's horrificly insensitive actions, etc....

Jim| 4.23.09 @ 7:04PM

The agruement here is not about torture, torture is the strawman the left is currently using for another attack on Bush to draw attention away from obama's other scams.
I have been to SERE school and have been waterboarded it does work. Beheading is acceptable, waterboarding isn't?

Mary| 4.23.09 @ 7:10PM

Has Obama rejected EITs now? Last I knew he retained the right to use as needed.

I like Rep. Hoekstra's challenge:

**Members of Congress calling for an investigation of the enhanced interrogation program should remember that such an investigation can’t be a selective review of information, or solely focus on the lawyers who wrote the memos, or the low-level employees who carried out this program. I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques.**

VP Cheney doesn't seem all that worried about letting it all hang out. In fact, he seems up for the fight.

I don't know if torture is always wrong. And given what I've read in the last couple of days, I don't even think we've retained the primacy of language to be able to hash this out.

Obama isn't really troubled by any categorical imperative. If he were he wouldn't be able to countenance the writhing, abandoned death of a baby born alive. He wouldn't be capable of thinking in terms of his stated "temporary life."

If he still retains the right to use EITs that's perfectly consistent.

I think those he's recommending for possible prosecution is consistent with his views on jurisprudence. He wants judges to base law based on empathy. Empathy for the young unwed mother and the hopeless terrorist.

He's going to have to keep us safe; he has no choice if he wants to continue to be president.

If we embark on this retroactive culpability hunt, I think an unraveling of history is in store for us. An unraveling that takes us back many decades. That may even be the point.

Mary| 4.23.09 @ 7:13PM

It is time for 20 million patriot families to cancel their cable, cease going to movies and renting them, and whatever else to truly damage these vile traitors.

I fervently agree with this.

Crusader| 4.23.09 @ 8:41PM

I agree. We shouldn't "torture" our muslim enemies. Just kill them. Kill them all. One round of 45ACP or 308Win is much cheaper than housing them, buying them korans, providing them their little kooky muslim meals, paying anti-American traitor muslim chaplins to "minister" to them, oh I also forgot our troops have to have white gloves to handle the korans because they are infidels and are forbidden to touch them. Let's not forget the taxpayer funded defense lawyers and court costs and blah blah blah islam blah blah religion of peace my a$$.

Sheesh. Know islam, no peace. No islam, know peace.

Tom Paine| 4.23.09 @ 9:01PM

Crusader --

You're a psychopath.

I think it's hilarious that I can be called every name in the book for making arguments that generals and admirals in the goddamned Navy are making, but you can type in this vile rubbish, and no one seems to care.

That hate will do you in someday, Crusader.

S. Freud| 4.23.09 @ 10:30PM

Crusader --

When that day comes when you decide to gather all your guns and ammunition and go on a shooting spree in a public place, culminating with a televised stand-off with police and self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, when this day comes, please do the world a favor -- and just shoot yourself first.

Basil Plumley| 4.24.09 @ 12:25AM

whiterb| 4.23.09 @ 5:57PM
Bob, you're fulla crap.

Truer words have never been posted. I get the feeling that IF Bob were in Vietnam, he served under Genghis Khan.

Basil Plumley| 4.24.09 @ 12:50AM

@Tommy Pain aka Jeremiah

What in the Sam Hill are you talking about? You cite Jane Mayer as an outstanding reporter? Gee whiz, why not throw in George Packer while you are going in that direction?

Mayer was given high level access at the Pentagon and the Intelligence community? By whom?
Don't you mean she was given classified access by folks with an axe to grind against the Bush policies. If she were credible, why is she NOT in the pantheon of reporters like Woodward, Bernstein, Anderson, et al.?

Like Packer, she is an ideologue who molds and shapes the facts/half-truths to support her ideology.

Please stop the moral relativism and the faux piety act. Just because you and your silly ilk are call waterboarding torture does not make it so. It is a logical fallacy.

It is my hope that you will give a much better effort in the future. A little sincerity would help you out; a lot.

kmichaels| 4.24.09 @ 12:29PM

Is killing somebody worse than torture? The answer in any thinking persons mind should be yes.

Does Obama support taking the steps of killing people suspected of serious crimes?

Answer again, having seen the teenage pirates killed at his comman, having seen him ok killing terrorists (and terrorist wives and kids) in Pakistan is a resounding yes, Obama is ok with killing terrorists.

So, which is worse? Killing them or waterboarding them yet leaving them safe, alive and well after the waterboarding is complete?

Obviously this whole argument has to do with the use of this subject being played by Obama and his team of drooling Obamabots to gain some votes to maintain their party in power at all costs.

Even if it hurts the USA national security leftists like Obama will take any steps to make sure he can smile at evil world leaders for a second term.

George| 4.24.09 @ 1:44PM

Like John McCain (a person who probably knows a thing or two about torture) said, The use of torture isn't about our enemies, it's about us. What type of people and what type of nation do we want to be? Morality isn't about circumstances.

Charlie| 4.27.09 @ 7:05AM

Okay people its simple. These animals are flying planes full of innocent men women and children into our buildings full of innocent men women and children. Cutting the heads off of human beings on TV. You think for one minute they are discussing our human rights. oh we shouldnt torture the americans its not humaine. No they are not god damn it they are killing us. They are not torturing us they are killing us. When did this country become so soft. So what if we use torturing a way to get any kind of information we can. What the hell do you think they would do if they captured you. They would go on some website video tape cutting your head off while reading something from the Koran. Its not a form of goverment or some country we are fighting, they are simply people with an opinion and belief like you or I who take it to the next level from debate they are murdering people.

jojo| 1.11.10 @ 2:15AM

nike shoes outlet
adidas shoes outlet

Bennett Callaghan| 5.26.11 @ 8:06PM

Hey everyone,

If you are reading this article, I assume you might be interested in morality and moral dilemmas. We are currently collecting participants for a study being conducted through John Jay College on moral dilemmas and decision-making.
If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey, which should take about an hour of your time, and afterward, you will be given the chance to enter your email address into a $300 lottery drawing.

Here is the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FCZCBD2

Thank you very much.