Nightline 6/17: When is torture OK? -- Follow-up to Wed. show

[Bozita]

THIS is gonna be good.


 
Nightline Daily E-Mail
June 17, 2004


TONIGHT'S FOCUS: When is torture permissible? Many Americans, especially in light of the shocking photos from Abu Ghraib prison, would say "never!" But what about today? An American is being held hostage in Saudi Arabia under threat of murder tomorrow. And in Baghdad earlier today, a car bomb killed over 35 people, and wounded more than 100 civilians who were waiting in line to join the Iraqi military. And today more chilling details of what transpired on 9/11 have come forward. If someone had information that could save the American hostage's life, or stop today's car bomb before it exploded, or most significantly, stopped the hijackers before that September morning, how could you resist committing torture to get that information? Tonight, we will have a continuation of last night's program about the treatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay: a debate about torture, terrorism and what the United States will allow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last night, Nightline's John Donvan laid out what is known about the treatment of detainees and prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay and the discussion of that treatment in at least some parts of the Bush Administration. At the end of the program Ted Koppel finished by calling for a debate about when torture is permissible - and promising that at least part of that debate would begin on tonight's program. This is what Ted Koppel said last night :

"One of these days, here in the United States, another terrorist cell is going to get lucky and we're going to be picking through the rubble again, carrying off our dead and injured. Then, the debate over torture will be essentially over. That is how, after all, in the wake of 9/11, we got detention without trial, an off-shore prison system, and denial of legal counsel for those suspected of terrorism. That's also how we got the Patriot Act for the rest of us. Mind you, all of these may be essential tools in the war against terrorism. But there are better times to conduct a debate on the subject than in the immediate aftermath of a national tragedy. Now, for example, is a better time. It is difficult to argue that there are no circumstances under which torture might be justified. The possibility, for example, of preventing the imminent death of thousands of innocents. But it should be unthinkable for any defender of the US Constitution to argue that there should be no clearly defined rules, no limits, no boundaries, no consequences for anyone who exceeds those boundaries. That is the territory that must be clarified beyond ambiguity. We insist that there will be clear labeling on our foods. Defining torture and when it can be applied in the name of the American public should require no less. Absent any major breaking news, we'll begin that debate on Nightline tomorrow."

So we begin that debate tonight. Ted Koppel will be joined by Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate's Judiciary Committee, Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. Attorney who led the 1995 prosecution of the first World Trade Center bombers, and reporter Jess Bravin, who has covered the law and terrorism beat for the Wall Street Journal since the September 11th attacks.

We hope you'll join us.

Sara Just and the Nightline Staff
Nightline Offices
ABC News Washington bureau

 

[mark414]

1. so wait....

they're going to debate whether or not it's ok? i thought that was a pretty simple answer....never!

[RC]

2. This whole Terrorist thingy would be a moot point if

the US would never have started meddling in other countries internal affairs. How would we feel if some one or more countries would come into this country and muck with us the way we do others countries?

[Bozita]

3. one hour

[BeFree]

4. Saving lives using torture

Most intelligence people say torture hardly ever gets you the answers you seek. There's that and then there is the idea of justice being involved before the torture starts. I mean, what, do ya just start grabbing people and torture them to see what they know?

I remember the Chrysler chairman some years back who fought against air-bags in cars. He said it wasn't worth the money. Now just about everyone else thought differently. Maybe if we tortured him he would have changed his mind? Woulda saved a few lives, eh?

Isn't it enough that we bombed them to smithereens with shock and awe? Wasn't that torture enough?

[coda]

5. Just started (kick)

:kick:

[Eric J in MN]

6. If Ted Koppel is saying that after the next terrorist attack, everyone

If Ted Koppel is saying that after the next terrorist attack, everyone will leap to the idiotic conclusion that torturing more people would have prevented it:

No, we're not all idiots.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Bogus WHAT-IF which never happens isn't the right context.

Koppell's WHAT-IF about what-if you knew that torturing someone would save thousands of lives is bogus, because it never happens that way.

It's like asking:

Should we revive the Apollo program?

Everyone would admit that if Usama bin Laden escaped to the moon, we'd want to go there to capture him, so let's debate the topic in the context of that what-if.

[coda]

9. I didn't see Rumsfeld's testimony till just now.

{paraphrased, of course}

"There's editorials, in fact a Washington Post editorial saying the governement allowed torture. Nobody allowed or condoned or orded torture......"

If so, why are there all these memos saying it would be allowed and under certain conditions, and who(example: if they were terrorists, they have no protection under the Geneva Convention) and prohibiting JAGs from being involved in the process, etc.....if they weren't going to use torture.

SOMEBODY was definitely asking. For the purpose of seeking cover, I would presume.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Torture would accomplish nothing

First of all, no one has a terrorist in custody.

Second, if we did and tortured information out of him, it could not be guaranteed to be reliable. Whatever he says would have to be checked out. It could turn out to be false, giving his accomplices time to do their worst. Time is on the terrorists' side in this situation.

Torture is seldom, if ever, both necessary and effective. Alan Dershowitz has presented a case for limited use of "non-lethal" torture under particularly desperate circumstances. A refutation to his position was published by on website in March.

[Eric J in MN]

13. The US has Khalid Shaik Muhammed

The US has Khalid Shaik Muhammed. He's a terrorist.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Clarification

The post was a response to anchor post:

When is torture permissible? Many Americans, especially in light of the shocking photos from Abu Ghraib prison, would say "never!" But what about today? An American is being held hostage in Saudi Arabia under threat of murder tomorrow.

Khalid, who is in our custody, is of little help in that matter.

[coda]

10. What a lying sack of shit.

"Are you trying to tell me, Senator Lahey, that Abu Ghraib made them madder than they already were?"


ROFLMAO

[LittleApple81]

11. The best was the question asked by Jess Bravin (WSJ): why hasn't

the congress have had anything to do with this when THEY are the ones supposed to come up with the laws for this?
Leahey said: exactly my question!!!!

[maggrwaggr]

12. I'm disgusted they would even ask the question

and leaving it open for the assumption that yes, perhaps the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib had it coming because they could have had info that would have saved lives had we known about it.

It's vile that they would even open up the possibility that it's okay.