Yes, “enhanced interrogation methods” is an Orwellian euphemism for torture. The Bush administration allowed it, though drawing the line at techniques that caused serious physical injury or death. The Obama administration draws the line at harming prisoners at all. But what possible good will it do to release to the public all the details and more Abu Ghraib-like photographs? Lawbreakers can be punished, but what is the purpose of the publicity? Is more demonization of George Bush worth the damage to our military, the CIA, and our country’s reputation?
[Reference: Will pursuing torture truth derail Obama's agenda?]
{ 113 comments… read them below or add one }
Publicizing the techniques used in interrogation gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
I don't know, but isn't transparency important for the citizens of a democracy? I wish there were a way to have national but not international news.
Perhaps the paper, "Intelligence Secrecy and Transparency: Finding the Proper Balance From the War of Independence to the War on Terror" will help address your rhetorical question.
While one might argue that Americans (along with the world) should be informed that torture is (or was) used by intelligence organizations, there is really no "need to know" the specific details and information extracted from such interrogation methods.
It would…if everybody didn't already know that we did it. But they do. We air our dirty laundry. That's what makes us different. Whether everyone knew it already or not, I would actually think releasing pertinent information to illegal interrogation programs and policies, as well as information relating to how they were executed, is a big step towards reclaiming the moral high ground.
In any event, I'm afraid I see a striking practical dichotomy between punishing lawbreakers, which is apparently acceptable, and condemning publicizing what they did. Wishful thinking, Professor.
This is a little off topic, but it seems to me that if Obama wants to be consistent in taking the 'high road' then he should denounce the genocide of the Armenians (as promised to them) in Turkey. Isn't genocide is even more serious than torture?
It also strikes me that since we are under international law in regards to prosecuting torture that we cannot avoid prosecuting everyone involved and our government may be liable to turn some of these people over to other nations to be prosecuted under their laws.
I would also like to point out that Obama should be more self-critical. He seems to think that he is above the law in a few cases already (and he has not yet been in office for 100 days). I do not think the president is showing wisdom in dealing with his policy disagreements with the previous administration. He may find himself liable for investigation at the end of his presidency by the next incoming president? What crimes might he be liable for in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and etc. over the next 4 years?
Here are some quotes from an article in the NY Post: 100 Days, 100 Mistakes
7. In early February, the 2010 census was moved out of the Department of Commerce and into the White House, politicizing how federal aid is distributed and electoral districts are drawn.
27. By releasing the torture memos, Obama opened American citizens up to international tribunals. A UN lawyer said the US is obliged to prosecute lawyers who drafted the memos or else violate the Geneva Conventions.
37. "The Obama administration has directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010 budget data with individuals outside the federal government." — Defense News, 2/19
46. Obama asked Congress for an extra $83.4 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a special funding measure of the kind he opposed while in the senate. As a candidate, Obama promised to cut the cost of military operations.
54. After saying he wouldn't have lobbyists in his administration, Obama made 17 exceptions in the first two weeks in office.
63. "The GAO study asserts that officials from most of the states surveyed 'expressed concerns regarding the lack of Recovery Act funding provided for accountability and oversight. Due to fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff — limiting their ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds.' " — ABC News, 4/23
71. "Ahh, see. I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here." — Brushing off questions from the White House press corps
77. "President Obama failed to consult Congress, as promised, before carving out exceptions to the omnibus spending bill he signed into law — breaking his own signing-statement rules two days after issuing them — and raised questions among lawmakers and committees who say the president's objections are unclear at best and a power grab at worst." — Washington Times, 3/24
80. Forced banks that didn't want TARP money to take it, then added on stipulations about pay and government control after the fact. Secretly forced Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch, then allowed the bank to be criticized for overpaying.
87. "There are more than 6.5 million trucks in the United States. The program Congress terminated allowed 97 Mexican trucks to roam among them. Ninety-seven! Shutting them out not only undermines NAFTA. It caused Mexico to retaliate with tariffs on 90 goods affecting $2.4 billion in U.S. trade coming out of 40 states." — Charles Krauthammer, 3/20
96. The Obama Administration is trying to scuttle a lawsuit filed in federal court against Iran by former US embassy hostages. The lawsuit alleges that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers who interrogated the captives.
1 of 1
1) First, The admin promises rule of law. This does not mean no harm to prisoners. What the law says is clear here. Ignore "fair and balanced here". There is no debatable point here as to what defines torture or when it is a felony. NONE:
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboa...
2) What good would come of "publicity"?
The right to an open trial is a foundational "ancient" one. Rights can be suspended in war. In an undeclared endless war, would this not be an invitation to tyranny? Consider: what then would keep "comrade Obama" , for instance, from doing this to become dictator? Or better, Imagine “comrade obama” prosecuting bush with a secret trial and a press gag order, arguing as you do that propaganda would be bad. No. this is lame thinking.
This link is about Canadian law, but the issues all apply to us as well:
http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/issues/bal...
1 of 2
1) First, The admin promises rule of law. This does not mean no harm to prisoners. What the law says is clear here. Ignore "fair and balanced here". There is no debatable point here as to what defines torture or when it is a felony. NONE:
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboa...
2) What good would come of "publicity"?
The right to an open trial is a foundational "ancient" one. Rights can be suspended in war. In an undeclared endless war, would this not be an invitation to tyranny? Consider: what then would keep "comrade Obama" , for instance, from doing this to become dictator? Or better, Imagine “comrade obama” prosecuting bush with a secret trial and a press gag order, arguing as you do that propaganda would be bad. No. this is lame thinking.
This link is about Canadian law, but the issues all apply to us as well:
http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/issues/bal...
2 of 3
3)"demonization". If someone potentially (I am not here accusing anyone) committed a felony, is the press or government "demonizing" them by pursuing the facts in a lawful way. "by the book"? Shame on using that word "demonization" as though it is an indisputably correct characterization Dr Vieth.
4) A sitting president was impeached for lying about getting a b**w j*b. Was it wrong to pursue obstruction of Justice. I think NOT! The president must be held to a standard even higher than anyone else. So what about possible complicity in torture? what then?
5) What about the argument that the CIA was "only following orders" also "what if torture really DID worK" ie that it gained actionable intelligence that potentially saved lives? IF it is clear these acts were felonies, what should a christian´s view be on this?
3 of 3____6) It seems to me that we can cut through alot of BS here.. Alot of constitutional rights are simple until lawyers complicate them: Imagine what Peggy Noonan´s stance would be if it was her son who was incarcerated in a 3rd world country without access to legal counsel or able to communicate with her. when you consider these issues. make it personal. things become clear.____7) what about the argument that this is a partisan witch hunt? I think democratic congressmen (Pelosi, et al) were informed that torture was happening. I think this explains the silence of democratic leaders. They should not escape investigation. This is AMERICA. WE. DO. NOT. TORTURE. PEOPLE. And if we do, our republic is in direct and grave danger.____fox news was eloquent on this point than I could be here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEtFMj6ZiHM&eu...
I am not at ALL confident that the Obama admin will no longer torture. Bush/Cheney handed him nearly unlimited power. Power intoxicates. It is exactly like Tolkein´s Ring. Some things must NEVER be used. Torture/coerced confession is one of those things.
Some things must never be used. ESPECIALLY when they work. Exactly like tolkein´s ring.
mary jack: what about those people in 3rd world countries who look to our moral leadership and as a beacon and country that would never torture or hold people for years to rot in prison without a fair trial or day in court? isn´t this what is best about america? we DO air our dirty laundry. we are a nation ruled by law and NOT by men? we correct ourselves where we are wrong? no man is above the law?
i say: if the world could believe that america NEVER tortures, this would remove aid and comfort from the enemy more surely. people would see us as defending justice and truth and them as pursuing destruction and evil. we would beat them. they would find no friends or safe havens.
I say: let´s put our faith in our principles, and trust that if we follow those, even under extreme duress, that the best outcome will happen. maybe not complete safety, but we will preserve freedom and justice. can I suggest that these are higher goods than safety?
I have to confess I absolutely detest the notion of prosecuting former Bush administration officials. The same I can say for CIA line officers carrying out their orders. There is, in my view, a worrisome aspect of this enterprise that naggingly asks, "what would you have done?" (For full disclosure purposes: the prospect of holding some congressional democrats accountable as well is more palatable…but that's my sinful nature)
That being said, I pray to the Lord above that I would have used better judgment. At the least, I would hope I would have been able to tell the difference between legal advice meant to honestly interpret and "legal advice" meant to ease my conscience. To answer Prof. Veith's question, I would argue that, if war crimes were committed (and it appears that they were), the perpetrators should be held to account, with the full due process of law, and with full disclosure (if, for no other reason than ensuring that those holding them to account are themselves accountable).
And if President Obama believes war crimes to have been committed and does nothing, he himself, as I understand our international obligations, is culpable for aiding and abetting. There is nothing partisan about this.
Treaty law does NOT require anywhere that we turn anyone over to a foreign court. It does absolutely require that an independent judiciary (ie our own courts) do hold trial.
question to those here who disagree: why don´t you argue for the USA to remove itself from the treaty Reagan passionately pushed for: the convention against torture?
I don't like the fact that the Obama administration released the memos because it endangers Americans. Our terrorist enemies know that they are protected from any type of "harsh" interrogations. They will not provide information to us especially if they are bent on destroying us. We are not dealing with a typical criminal, we are faced with people who are willing to murder themselves and others to destroy us.
FWS – It is naive to think that we should never use torture. What baffles me is you refuted your statement before you even stated it by your previous posts. Basically, you would rather the enemy have an upper hand because we are limited by perceived torture methods. These methods ought not to be used at all, but in extreme circumstances, during or after terrorist attacks they must be available in order to defend ourselves and protect our citizens and others.
I imagine you would probably say the U.S. should of never dropped the atomic bomb too and that we were wrong in doing executing civilians? Nonetheless, we saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
What we did to the terrorists was not torture in the strict sense of the word. We did not interrogate them for sadistic purposes. What physical punishment occurred to these people? According to the liberals definition of torture, if you look at them funny that would be torture or if you don't provide 3 meals to them that is torture. A good definition of torture would be physical violence like pulling their finger nails out, etc. We did no such thing based upon the memos.
As far as a Christian ethic is concerned. We say that torture or physical abuse of another is evil because God does not want us to destroy His creation. However, due to our sinful situation in life we are required at times to choose between a lesser of evils. We are damned no matter what we do. For instance, if we do not use harsh questioning techniques and the terrorists murder more citizens then we failed to protect and defend our neighbor. Hence, we sinned. Regardless, our sin no matter what the situation should be confessed and we should turn to Christ for forgiveness. In a fallen world, we are placed in difficult situations due to our sinfulness thus no matter what we do we are bound to sin.
Where I see the problems with the liberals and others is that they acknowledge that torture is wrong and they want to eliminate any use of it in order to justify themselves as being righteous. What they assume is utopian is possible and that others will not use torture too and the world will become perfect. This is what Kant called the "perpetual peace." This is the view of Europe as a whole, we seem to be moving that way. Robert Kagan' wrote a great article which I think exhibits what is really at stake here (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/kagan.h... Liberals forget that we can take away guns, torture, etc, and the fact still remains that we live in a fallen and evil world that evil will persist.
May I point out that Obama is succeeding in having the Bush Administration tried in the court of public opinion without full disclosure of the facts? Much of the useful information that would offer understanding of the situation was redacted and Obama ignored the people in charge of our military and security forces who begged him not to release the classified information?
Is withholding pertinent facts transparency? Not in my view. Did Obama harm our nation? He did in my view and it will not be over for a long time. There are both Republicans and Democrats (like Pelosi) who will need to be examined in this mess. Our nation will be embroiled in this mess instead of going forward to address the economy, the middle eastern war, and etc.
Obama has not even filled most of the positions that need to be filled and he is going to have to prosecute a large number of people and will probably have more trouble filling the needed positions in government. Has anyone noticed that positions in government are not filled to address the Swine Flu Outbreak? Obama is making a huge unnecessary mess to demonize his opponents at our nation's expense. Wasn't it enough to end the interrogation practices and set his own policies of how to deal with terrorists (err… what is the PC term now)?
For what purposes is Obama damaging our military and security forces abilities to fight terrorists? (Please note that we are fighting terrorists not military forces.) I wish I understood why Obama embraces our enemies and disrespects our Allies. How about this lulu for a known dangerous leader who denies the Holocaust:
Obama is considering dropping a key demand to Iran, allowing it to keep nuclear facilities open during negotiations.
Here are a few quotes from the Washington Examiner: Obama Hides the Whole Story
consider how flagrantly President Barack Obama violated his repeated promises that he would run a transparent and honorable administration. His administration’s selective and highly prejudicial release of only partial information about CIA interrogations clearly was designed to gin up outrage against former Bush officials. The release of the information was a pure political hit job masquerading as an act of openness.
The administration ignored near-uniform pleadings by respected intelligence professionals to keep the interrogation descriptions classified, yet refused to declassify the evidence that the interrogations saved countless American lives. Obama highlighted the alleged sins while withholding (often directly redacting) the context, the justifications, and the practical benefits gained. Then his administration went even farther. Not only did it refuse to declassify the exculpatory intelligence, but also it selectively and misleadingly edited a memo by its own national intelligence director about the program.
As reported by the New York Times’ Peter Baker, intelligence director Dennis Blair wrote a memo that included these lines: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country.” Baker then reported: “Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”
That last deleted line read as follows: “I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time….”
Without Baker’s reporting, those highly important judgments by Obama’s own appointee would have been buried from public view, thus stacking the deck against those whom Blair would absolve. Such dishonesty from a White House borders on the Nixonian – and violates every reasonable American’s innate sense of justice.
For as smart as everyone thinks Obama is, I can only see a disastrous intelligence on many different fronts.
"There are both Republicans and Democrats (like Pelosi) who will need to be examined in this mess. "
AGREED! ergo: this is not a partisan issue. This is about being America. The rule of law.
Bring it on.
"Basically, you would rather the enemy have an upper hand because we are limited by perceived torture methods."
This is a preposterously audacious thing to say. I would think that FWS, whomever he (or she) is, is an unlikely cheerleader for the terrorists' upper-hand. An unfortunate news alert for the non-naive Trey: we ARE limited in so many other ways NOT involving torture that to use this line of argument is to expose yourself to a virtual anything-goes mentality.
Due process? Not for the terrorists (even domestic ones, American citizens). Traditional rules of conflict? Not for the terrorists (or, more importantly, the people around them). Any concept of the rule of law? Not when the terrorists are still out there…
It's absolutely absurd that right-wingers are so appalled by Obama's DHS putting out memos blacklisting them, but in the same breath they would give Obama (or at least condone the claiming by Bush of) the power to do virtually whatever he wants when it comes it Islamic terrorists. And herein lies the problem that anyone with any sense of history whatsoever instantly recognizes: when you destroy the rule of law for purpose X, the corrupting power of arbitrary authority inevitably expands the scope of purpose X to include purposes A, B, and C as well.
You think torture is swell. Fine. But don't confuse your enthusiasm for torture with the requirement that our elected officials follow the rule of law. It matters not whether torture works, from a legal perspective. It matters that we as a society and as a world (Reagan, and, until recently, everybody else, included) decided that torture was inhuman would be illegal, and those who did it, those who authorized it, and those who failed to hold them accountable are all culpable.
One other thing, if I may. We waterboarded suspects, some dozens of times. We put Japanese interrogators to death for waterboarding American troops during WWII, calling it torture. We had, until recently, universally agreed that waterboarding was torture. The Japanese who were put to death were simply collecting intelligence on U.S. military positions, tactics, strategies, etc. There was nothing "sadistic" about it, so your implication that what we did was not done sadistically, and ergo not technically "torture," rings hollow.
wow.
"These methods ought not to be used at all, but in extreme circumstances, …they must be available….. "
"What we did to the terrorists was not torture ….
Response:
Advocate repeal of the treaty signed by Reagan because it is too liberal.
You argue that breaking the law is ok. I disagree.
Article 1.
1. … torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person …[to obtain] …information or a confession,…intimidating or coercing him or a third person, .., with the aquiescense of a public official…. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, …war or a threat or war, …or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer…may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2...
Why are we still debating this?
can you please distill the argument in this paper to it´s essense in your view carl? thanks!
the evolution of John McCain:
"But we are not asked to judge the President's character flaws. We are asked to judge whether the President, who swore an oath to faithfully execute his office, deliberately subverted–for whatever purpose–the rule of law," – John McCain arguing for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury in a civil suit, February 1999.
"Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot," – John McCain, October 2007.
"We've got to move on," – John McCain, April 26, 2009, reacting to incontrovertible proof that George W. Bush ordered the waterboarding of a prisoner 183 times, as well as broader treatment that the Red Cross has called "unequivocally torture."
Pelosi:
“We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used,” she said.
However, that account seemed to be contradicted by a Senate Intelligence Committee timeline that found House leaders were briefed “in the fall of 2002, after the use of interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaida. CIA records indicate that the CIA briefed the chairman and vice chairman of the committee on the interrogation.”
Porter Goss:
“The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists,” Goss wrote. “I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues.”
pelosi is not above the law either. Follow the law, by the book. whereEVER it leads.
US Legal code section 113c – torture
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_...
geneva convention
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
other treaties:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The united nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, signed by Reagan, ratified in 1994, provides that each Party shall undertake to prevent orture, and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”
for a brief yet exhaustive analysis and listing of all us laws and domestic court decisions on waterboarding, torture and the illegality of officially sanctioned cooerced confessions please see…
washington university, st louis law review:
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboa...
please note that most of my posts drive back to links to the ORIGINAL texts of usa law and us treaty law. these are NOT partisan documents. The logic that the us government has committed war crimes is inescapable.
If you think that is justified under the circumstances. fine.
the fact still remains.
why are we still arguing about this?
FWS…
I am curious…
1. How do you propose to protect our nation from terrorists who are planning to harm us?
2. How do you propose dealing with the captured terrorists and where should the GITMO prisoners be released? (It seems that we are too humane to send them back to their own counties since they would most like be executed. Yet, they are too dangerous to release here.)
People may find the methods used to attain this information appalling. There will still be a question as to whether it was breaking the law. As far as I know the treaties in question do not protect terrorists. The Geneva Conventions are very intentional about excluding them from the protections.
I don't think it helps when people try to make Bush out to be a Malosavich. Especially when many of the methods under question were also used for training purposes on our own soldiers, that is to train our soldiers to resist methods of interrogation we know to be effective.
Here is former Speaker Gingrich discussing whether the Khmer Rouge torture technique displayed at the Cambodian museum of torture is against the Geneva Conventions:
VAN SUSTEREN: But you said a minute ago that it was torture, waterboarding…
GINGRICH: No, I said it's not something we should do.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. Is it torture or not?
GINGRICH: I — I — I think it's — I can't tell you.
VAN SUSTEREN: Does it violate the Geneva Convention?
GINGRICH: I honestly don't know.
How many times in human history do you think Newt Gingrich has said "I honestly don't know"?
George bush in an interview on arba TV after agu gherab:
"It's important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there's an allegation of abuse … there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered. … It's very important for people and your listeners to understand that in our country, when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act. And we act in a way in which leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. … In other words, people want to know the truth. That stands in contrast to dictatorships. A dictator wouldn't be answering questions about this. A dictator wouldn't be saying that the system will be investigated and the world will see the results of the investigation."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5DaY2Uyu64&eu...
I'd be interested to see a citation to an international accord to which we are a party that specifically exempts any class of individual from the prohibitions on inhuman treatment.
"We didn't kill them. We didn't cut their heads off. We didn't shoot them. We didn't cut them and let them bleed to death. We just did what we were told to soften them up for interrogation, and we were told to do anything short of killing them," – Lynndie England.
"If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong," – Jonathan Fredman, a lawyer for the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, October 2002, as per the Senate Armed Services Committee report. Fredman says he did not put it quite like that.
In order to qualify as illegal torture, physical pain "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death," – a legal memo authorizing abuse of prisoners, approved by president George W. Bush, primarily authored by John Yoo.
FWS…
You have taken Bush's words out of context and used his words to justify your position. It does not work in the situation at hand.
Your usage of Gingrich's answers are also not helpful. He is not a legal expert on the subject and as such, he can truthfully say he does not know.
Never mind that for a moment. How many times in human history has it been Fox News that asked Gingrich a question for which he didn't have a ready answer?
Not being FWS, but having a lot of time on my hands today, allow me to proffer an answer (given my agreement with FWS on this issue, I hope you don't mind).
To your first question: assiduously. Zealously. Sedulously. Vigilantly. But, really, I for one reject the premise of your question: namely, that NOT torturing captives exposes us to the terrorist threat more than otherwise. That you assume this to be true does not make it so; there are very compelling and reasonable arguments on either side.
Deeper, still, one must wonder about the character of people who are so openly, unapologetically willing to shed the rule of law for the sake of temporal and ephemeral notions such as "safety." We could be safer than ever, I would suppose, by building a wall around the country and keeping everybody in small cells, letting robots run the world. At least we wouldn't be harming each other. But I digress.
As to your second question…I must have missed the correlation in Prof. Veith's post between torture and the geographic specificity of detainment decisions. I'll let FWS handle that one.
BurkeOhio — please source that statement — "we put Japanese interrogators to death for waterboarding troops during WWII, calling it torture. We had, until recently, universally agreed that waterboarding was torture." First, with respect to Japanese war criminals — we put them to death for waterboarding? I don't think so. Maybe they waterboarded, but we put them to death for shooting soldiers to death for falling out of line during a forced march (Bataan), not feeding the prisoners, not treating medical conditions of the prisoners, inflicting actual physical harm on prisoners to extract information (real torture), etc. I have read an awful lot of WWII history, and I never saw waterboarding mentioned in the list of charges. Maybe I missed it.
Second, "universally"? I don't think so. We have always waterboarded our own special forces troops to prepare them for capture.
1)by trusting methods that worked fine in wwII our government and the brittish did fine with gathering intelligence in pressure filled situations. they NEVER tortured. there is no false choice here.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnis...
by taking the moral high ground.
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/04/stating...
2) Full answer: We will follow the law. by the book. wherever it leads us. We have elected authorities sworn to do what? "protect and uphold the constitution" , and in so doing protect us.
I am afraid that I have much less confidence in the Obama administration to be the upholders of the rule of law on any issue or under any set of circumstances. I think anyone who believes that this issue was raised by the Obama administration for other than partisan reasons is almost hopelessly naive.
Clearly, this is a good move for the Obama administration politically. By raising the possibility of prosecuting those who endorsed and ordered waterboarding the administration has triggered a response from talk radio types in which they are trying to defend the use of these techniques. This puts them in the ridiculous position of trying to stand for the rule of law while defending torture techniques. One of them who I find most obnoxious has started using the term "statism" to mean the unrestrained use of government power, especially in contrast to the Constitutional concept of limited government. The thing is, I really agree with him on this issue. But I don't know how anyone can argue credibly against statism while simultaneously arguing that the government ends ought to justify any means as long as those means "kept us safe".
1) No bror.
there is no question at all here about a) what is the legal definition of torture or b) whether or not it is illegal, or even c) if the govt has the option not to investigate and/or prosecute. can you cite for us where the geneva convention excludes excludes them?
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboa...
b) No one administrating the SERES program was an experienced or professional interrogator. This is because it was the UNIVERSAL judgement of the ENTIRE military that coercion made the victim say whatever the interrogator wanted and so the info was not reliable or useful. the program was therefore a "survival program" like teaching the troops how to live off the land if necessary…
and so what if it DID work. would that mean it should not be called a crime. Brother Bror!!!
hehehehehe. great point.
As the title of the paper stated, there has been a long history in this country of finding the proper balance between secrecy and transparency in the intelligence community. The author points out that especially since WWII, "the United States has begrudgingly accepted the need for a robust, aggressive and permanent intelligence apparatus to protect the nation in an increasingly dangerous world." The key to achieving an acceptable and needed balance is in the successful coordination of the various intelligence organizations, the ODNI, the Executive Branch oversight, and the oversight committees of Congress.
And as we know from belated admissions of key political players, the oversight efforts during the Bush Administration did include Congressional members from both parties, who approved of the interrogation methods (which were not torture). Some of these politicians are now engaged in revisionist history, aided by an administration whose views toward the U.S. are suspect, and the fifth column MSM, whose views toward the U.S. are despicable.
1) how have I take bushes words out of context? exactly?
2) You can read the links I have provided to the actual laws and case law, and international treaty law for your own self. I am not a rocket scientist, neither are you. You don´t need to be to get the point.
3) read up and get back to me. this issue is not partisan. get over it.
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboa...
Regardless of what anyone today thinks about waterboarding, the idea of going back on a witch hunt and prosecuting Bush administration officials, CIA interrogators, etc. for what was done years ago is nuts. First, officials of both parties and in both the executive and legislative branches at that time acquiesced to waterboarding, including Nancy Pelosi. Of course, she conveniently forgets her attendance at those meetings where she was informed of the waterboarding tactics now that the political winds have shifted. Second, what a horrible precedent to set. One of the great things about America is the peaceful seamless transition of government from one administration to the next, even when power shifts between political parties. For what reason would we want to jeopardize the historic cooperation outgoing administrations give to incoming ones? What goes around comes around. Does Obama want this kind of scrutiny on every political decision he made after he leaves office? No one should be in favor of this kind of ridiculous, vindictive talk respective to legitimate political policy decisions.
don, if obama commits a felony act I want him prosecuted.
just as clinton was for the seemingly insignificant crime of lying under oath. He needed to be impeached to uphold the integrity of the rule of law.
what a wonderful precident to set. follow that precident.
laws do not exist to be followed only when it is easy to do so. change the law against torture and make exceptions if you think that is right don. but do not advocate lawless government.
"You have taken Bush's words out of context "
how?
"and used his words to justify your position. "
which is what in your opinion? I am not confident that you understand my position SjB
"It does not work in the situation at hand."
why not? what is the "situation at hand" and how is it different than abu gherab?
I am profoundly embarrassed to say I cannot find a reliable source. I made the comment in recollection of Senator McCain saying so; tells you something about trusting the word of a politician, eh? Thank you, really, for pointing out the inadequacy of my assertion.
This op-ed may be instructive:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
It is written by a former Navy JAG officer and now law professor, and it details some history of the technique known as \”waterboarding.\” It does not, suffice it to say, point to any primary source regarding the sentencing of Japanese interrogators as they related to waterboarding. It does, however, offer some useful history.
In any event, waterboarding is included in SERE training, among other things, to train our most at-risk-of-capture special forces in enduring enemy interrogation tactics. My assertion that waterboarding was, until recently, universally understood to be \”torture\” is derived primarily from my inability to find any source – those emanating from the Bush administration notwithstanding – arguing that it is not, or that it was not understood to be so. Though cautiously aware of the fact that winners tend to write history, there is no source, to my knowledge, of waterboarding being used on a western nation or people without its use being condemned and punished. Please let me know if I am mistaken. Seriously, I do enjoy being corrected.
"I am afraid that I have much less confidence in the Obama administration to be the upholders of the rule of law."
Bingo. that is my über-point! we are ruled by law and not by men EXACTLY so we don´t HAVE to trust "comrade obama" as he is called here.
"I think anyone who believes that this issue was raised by the Obama administration for other than partisan reasons is almost hopelessly naive."
You are saying the ONLY driving motive is a partisan one? Pelosi and other key dems are sweatin like pigs in a bacon plant. they need to! I hope the republicans INSIST that the dems also get investigated for their role.
If the right thing is done. by the book. for partisan motives. I am soooo cool with that. We are america. we should never torture. where we do we should prosecute. simple.
you are an attorney. let us know what you think of this….
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboa...
Just go read them!
Anyone who has been in the armed services knows who they do and do not apply to. If you are armed on a battlefield, or otherwise fighting you had better have a uniform.
Thing is whether you agree with the previous administration for exploiting the loophole or not it is there. They knew it. Do you honestly think that they are stupid enough to blatantly break the law in this manner?
The result of this is no one will be prosecuted. It will blow up in Obama's face and he will lose the next election because he has gone about making a fool of himself and our country.
Let's see: President Obama condoned the shooting (in the heads by expert sharpshooters) of three men (pirates to be sure) when the life of ONE U.S. citizen was in jeopardy. But he is prone to condemn the use of waterboarding–a technique used in training for our own military–used with declared terrorists and intended to elicit information that saved the city of Los Angeles.
Obama objects to a sitting President attempting drastic (draconian?) measures in a time of war–kinda like Roosevelt did with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor (though that issue is not addressed by the Democrats.)
And Obama seems to want to prosecute (persecute?) legal advisers to President Bush for giving advice but he dismisses the possibility that his own advisors might be so prosecuted in the future.
Frank, I agree with you that if Obama or Bush or any president committed a felony in office they should be prosecuted. Nixon was on the verge of that when he resigned, and Clinton was prosecuted for the felony of perjury. Presidents are not above the law. But here, we are talking about political policy which both parties signed onto, during a period of great turmoil and fear about terrorism within our borders. Despite your pronouncements, waterboarding is not specifically prohibited under either international or national law (at least prior to the 2006 statutes, which I have not closely reviewed). It's just not. The mental torture provisions specify a period of long duration — waterboarding is a matter of a few seconds. Also, many of the treaty provisions do not apply to stateless terrorists, but rather only to legally constituted combatants. (cont'd below)
(cont'd) It is best for everyone concerned to move on. Make whatever policy changes you want, but don't look back and apply today's standards to yesterday's activities. Even liberal lawyers recognize, and have stated, that a successful prosecution cannot result. We don't need more political theater. Obama ran on the notion of healing the country — this kind of move is not healing and its not bipartisan.
please source that statement — "we put Japanese interrogators to death for waterboarding troops during WWII, calling it torture. We had, until recently, universally agreed that waterboarding was torture."
it is ALL right here Don. Please read up.
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboa...
excerpt:
"After World War II, the United States prosecuted and convicted a number of Japanese officers for torturing captured American servicemen by waterboarding.[54] Great Britain prosecuted another group of Japanese officers who had tortured British soldiers using this technique, and sentenced them to death.[55] Over a century ago, the United States prosecuted and convicted American military officers who used waterboarding against prisoners in the Philippines.[56]"
Don, I sincerely believe that you will not be persuaded no matter what objective evidence you are presented with. Follow the footnotes of the linked document and argue after that. Prove me that I am wrong about you.
We had, until recently, universally agreed that waterboarding was torture."
1926 the "liberal" mississippi supreme court, in reversing the conviction of a black man convicted of murdering a white. why? he was tortured (no quotes around that) with the "water cure"
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/11/if_it...
More evidence:
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboa...
the "water cure" in the philipines in the spanish american war. american soldiers were convicted for doing it. link:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080...
the "water cure" used by japanese in wwII. the war crimes trials convicted for this, the brittish executed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cure#Police
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I hope that does not describe you here brother Don.
Bush was talking about a specific case (abu gherab) where the actions were not authorized, the case was investigated, and it was judged in a military court.
The case at hand are the policies that were developed by the Bush Administration. It was not done without the proper examination by legal experts, congressional officials, and the proper authorities. These matters involve a lot of information that we are not privy to and it is very difficult to understand without all of the facts. If/when the facts are known, I doubt if there will be a consensus on what the best way was to handle the dangers to our citizens from the terrorists threats.
Rather than add to a lot of sub-threads, I'll just give this general comment. I am not impressed by "ends justify the means" arguments. Even if severe torture were to get prisoners to talk, I would truly hope that there are lines that all Americans would agree that we should never cross when it comes to "coersed interrogation". I mean, there comes a point when even the possibility of "saving American lives" comes at too high a cost in our integrity as a people. I am sure that the Japanese we convicted as war criminals for waterboarding could have argued that (a) they didn't actually hurt anyone and (b) they were just trying to save Japanese lives. If they did, it doesn't seem to have helped them.
So, the next question is where is that uncrossable line? Until recently, Americans seem to have agreed that waterboarding was on the wrong side of it. And a big red flag for me is inconsistency. A major indication that principles (or the rule of law, if you will) are being discarded is when someone takes an position opposite from what he had consistenly done before, at a time when it justifies something he now wants to do.
no you go read them brother bror:
the international treaty on torture championed and signed by reagan. ratified as law by the senate in 1984:
Article 1.
1. … torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person …[to obtain] …information or a confession,…intimidating or coercing him or a third person, .., with the aquiescense of a public official…. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, …war or a threat or war, …or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer…may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
yes bror. they new what they authorized had always been called torture. there was no "loophole". read!
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboa...
they thought they could do it secretly and no one would know.
Not stupidity Bror, hubris and arrogance and lawlessness. unchecked power our constitution was designed to protect against. check and balance didnt work because the democratic congress was complicitous. top democrats new everything. "checks and balances" here failed.
Wow, the comment thread this relates to seems to have disappeared from the site right now. Anyway, Frank, I went back through those footnotes (they appear to source statements made by John McCain and Paul Begala regarding the Tokyo War Crimes trials held in 1946-48). Here is a link to an account of those trials, and the outcomes: http://www.cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/NMTT.html
/> There is nothing in that account about so-called \”water cure\” charges. I won't at this point dispute that they were made. I doubt, however, that they were the sole charges made against any particular person charged. Also, I don't dispute that we would still bring charges against anyone waterboarding our properly uniformed soldiers. That is clearly inhumane treatment under the Geneva Convention, with respect to properly uniformed POW's of fellow signatory nations.
From: notifications@intensedebatemail.com
To: dstout4@hotmail.com
Subject: fws replied to your comment on Publicizing torture
kerner, after reading the washington university review, and checking the wording of the 3 treaties and 4 domestic statutes, can you really tell me that the department of justice has any option other than to investigate and prosecute?
I am dying to know your reasoned legal opinion based on these treaties and statutes.
great post JoanO! kerner, how would you respond to this one?
BurkeOhio,
Please do not assume that I support torture. I do not. As for your answer, I could not see that you answered my first question. You used a number of adverbs but no verbs describing how you would protect the United States from terrorist who seek to harm and destroy us.
I asked the questions because they are not easy questions for any of us to answer. I have noticed that Obama has done a 180 degree turn on his positions regarding military spending and vacating the middle east. It seems that there is some serious classified info that we are not privy to.
I also notice that Obama has not provided for a fair hearing of the facts in the court of public opinion. Since we are not privy to what the Bush administration had to wrestle with in order to keep our nation safe, I prefer to not try them or judge them. I am convinced that Obama will not manage to get through the next 4 years in the middle east with committing mistakes that are debatably criminal too. I am also of the opinion that Obama's abortion policies are criminal, much more so than Bush's 'torture' charges.
FWS,
WWII is not an appropriate comparison to Islamic terrorism. They are two different critters. The enemy we engaged in WWII played by the rules of war. Unfortunately, the terrorists have no respect for rules of war or the Geneva Convention. I do not advocate torture. I do think that the facts of the case need to come out before anyone can even begin to judge (see above answer for BO)
if what you say is true, how would you respond to Joan O´s post ?
how is torture different legally or morally or practically from:
using it in training on our troops
killing japanese in hiroshima
ordering to shoot pirates in the head?
(cont.)
Even if there are good intentions involved, abandonning principles because of a state of fear (even fear of the loss of innocent American lives) is never, not ever, a good or ethical idea.
I am not as certain as I wish I were as to exactly where the line should be drawn. The term "degrading" is pretty subjective to me. Surely being imprisoned at all could be considered "degrading". Also, what may be irritating to one person may be psychological torture to another. Like being confined to a small room to a clausdrophobic. I am not sure that frightening someone who is not in any real danger is beyond the boundary. But we NEED some clear rules, and moving the line under stress, as I believe the Bush administration did, is asking for the kind of trouble it is now getting.
Sure it does. It will help us to know what techniques our masters will use on us as the noose continues to tighten on free thought.
Don. what you say, that treaty law does not specifically apply, would only be true if it were true that waterboarding was never regarded as torture officially or legally by the united states courts or government. you are sooooooo incredibly wrong on this Don. where does that leave you buddy?
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/11/if_it...
so this 1926 "liberal" mississippi supreme court decision calling water boarding torture ,without quotes around the word, would not apply then in your legal opinion as legal precident? do you doubt that I have MANY more cites for you to prove that waterboarding has always = torture? so now what?
funny. george soros founded the ultraliberal "MoveOn.org" to persuade americans to "move on" and not impeach clinton for lying under oath.
Soros was wrong. I mean that sincerely. As a democrat, It seemed like a witch hunt. at the same time, clinton as the chief execute-ive of american law needed to be impeached. held the rule of law.
did you agree with george soros at that time? I doubt you did! correct me if I am wrong. you are not being consist or right here brother.
Finally, I don't believe that much of substance is going to come of this. I think that the Obama administration is going to use this opportunity to get conservatives to try and defend torture. Conservative media outlets are already falling for this, and I believe that they will continue to do so. Average Americans, who want to think of the USA as the "good guys" will be repelled by conservatives, and this is Obama's goal.
Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, who DID participate in authorizing the use of waterboarding, will simply deny everything. Their denials will be reported in the mainstream press; the fact that they are lying will not be reported except in media that mostly conservatives listen to. So the reputations of Obama's political allies will not suffer very much.
And there will be no real investigation into this matter. An investigation would not increase the damage already done to conservatives, but it would bring to light the truth about the Democrats, so Obama has no reason to have an actual investigation happen, nor any prosecution afterward.
dear don, the seres program was originally known as "the communist interrogation model" it falls under the heading "survival training" in the us and brittish military who have similar programs.
You really think that having troops experience waterboarding for survival practice to withstand torture is the same as actual torture?
I am exiting the subthreads as well, because half of the time various comments seem to disappear and reappear. Frank, in general response to you, your assertions that the law is unequivocal that waterboarding is torture are nuts. The things you are citing are nowhere near specific condemnations of waterboarding under all circumstances. Any prosecution of officials based on this policy, especially since both parties were involved and approved the tactics, would be very detrimental to the country. That is all I am saying. Your assertion concerning Clinton is irrelevant. First, I actually did oppose the impeachment of Clinton. I thought it was a silly waste of time, and a political loser for Republicans. But, that being said, in that case there was a specific felony by a sitting president, which was indisputable. Not so in the present case.____If we want to clarify policy for the future, I'm all for it. We should do that, using the political process. But the idea of engaging in a politically-motivated prosecution to score political points for Democrats is not healthful for our nation.
I am exiting the subthreads as well, because half of the time various comments seem to disappear and reappear. Frank, in general response to you, your assertions that the law is unequivocal that waterboarding is torture are nuts. The things you are citing are nowhere near specific condemnations of waterboarding under all circumstances. Any prosecution of officials based on this policy, especially since both parties were involved and approved the tactics, would be very detrimental to the country. That is all I am saying. Your assertion concerning Clinton is irrelevant. First, I actually did oppose the impeachment of Clinton. I thought it was a silly waste of time, and a political loser for Republicans. But, that being said, in that case there was a specific felony by a sitting president, which was indisputable. Not so in the present case.
If we want to clarify policy for the future, I'm all for it. We should do that, using the political process. But the idea of engaging in a politically-motivated prosecution to score political points for Democrats is not healthful for our nation.
don. there are many treaties against torture and humiliating and degrading treatment. with clear definitions. the legal issue does NOT hinge on whether those tortured by us are wearing a uniform or not? where in the world did you get the idea that it does? the law outlaws torture and waterboarding IS torture.
the geneva convention is only one of 3 treaties and 4 us laws that govern. they are clear . water boarding is torture.
this is a legal fact.
The first is the easiest. Military training consists largely in preparing our troops to function effectively under horrifying conditions. To do this we subject them to conditions that are similar to the stresses, and even the horrors of war. Even ordinary marines are subjected to "the gas chamber", which is a room filled with irritating, but not toxic gas, and ordered to take off their gas masks. Pliots are trained by simulating a crash into water, and they must strap themselves into a seat fully clothed, have the seat thrust in to a swimming pool upside down, and escape from the seat while holding their breath. People have passed out, vomitted, and/or ultimately failed to graduate from their training after these exercises. Nobody wants marines to be gassed nor for pilots to crash. But they volunteered for this training, and they want and need to be ready if the worst happens.
I just want to say I hate intensedebate. I can't find my own comments much less the ones I want to respond to. And the notifications fill up my box.
FW. I was referring to the Geneva Conventions. I don't know about the treaty you are ranting about, but who signed it? I'm sure the Taliban didn't. This is where things are going to get hairy. I am not trying to defend torture. I'm just saying these are the arguments that are going to be used if it ever gets that far. And you are not going to see it go that far. It just won't. And these are the reasons.
Was it torture when we did it to our own troops for training purposes? It will be argued if we can do it to our own troops for training we can do it to a terrorist. Had they actually been fighting for a country that was recognized, and were wearing uniforms things probably would go down different. But it is precisely to deture this type of activity with a threat that you would not be protected under the Geneva Conventions that the Geneva Conventions were written the way they were. Since the men did not heed the warning they are finding the threat was not hollow.
The order to shoot pirates is also pretty easy, at least to me. The pirates were actively engaged in piracy when they were shot. Even though piracy is an inherrantly dangerous, even deadly, crime, the navy seals waited until they could observe some objectively dangerous conduct before the shot them. Shooting a pirate in the act is like shooting an enemy soldier during a battle. This is an activity that is outside civillian law and under a different kind of law, and rightly so. You will notice that the pirate who gave himself up was not summarily hanged from the yard arm. He was taken to a US federal court and will be dealt with according to law. But this is AFTER the event. DURING the event, the use of deadly force is well within the limits of the law, and it should be.
To get information from a terrorist (or other murderer) who was about to kill my friends and family and blow the arms and legs off of innocent young children, maiming them for life (the ones that survived),
I would gladly waterboard, or keep the little bastards awake for days on end…and if I had to get rougher than that, I would not hesitate.
Joan O also asked about the internment camps for Japanese Americans during WWII. The answer there is that there is almost no difference. Interning the Japanese Americans was racist and, in my opinion, a war crime. But we won, and we weren't going to prosecute each other. Should someone have been criminally prosecuted for interning the Japanese Americans. I guess I haven't really thought that through. We were a fairly united country when it came to WWII, unlike now when one party seems to want the military commitments of the other to fail, so they can use the failure to their political advantage. But if we do prosecute the architects of guantanimo, then it is pretty hard to say we were right to give FDR's advisors a pass for what they did.
You can see my reply to this in the other thread where you asked this question.
finally, I have mised feelings about the use of the atomic bomb. it has been argued that it actually saved both American and Japanese lives in that an invasion would have resulted in a lot more deaths on both sides, including the deaths of a lot of Japanese civilians. On the other hand, intentionally killing large numbers of civilians (including women and children) as a means of pressuring the Japanese government to surrender would be pretty hard to justify according to our ethics nowadays. I have a tough time really exploring that question in a blog comment thread.
General comment: These are difficult issues, but beware of slippery slopes. The rule of law isn't always comfortable, and doesn't always provide the answers we are looking for (evidence and warrants come to mind). But not following those rules are perilous in the long term.
Regarding publicizing the issue: If it is only to score points off the other guys, that is despicable. However, what none of you have mentioned yet (I think, I also dislike intense debate) is the impact such a m ove has outside of the US: It gives the impression that America is serious about chaning its percieved (IMPOTANT WORD) cowboy-style of operations, and is willing to confront its own wrongdoings. That restores the moral impact of the US in now small way, and will cool the anti-American rhetoric by not a little.
(cont.) These things are very much issues of perception – but in the world of politics and international relations, perception is nearly everything.
Also:
read up and get back to me. this issue is not partisan. get over it.
Your charges are false and since you do not know how well I am informed or if I am partisan or if I need to get over something, I would ask you to keep your barbs at my person to yourself.
I don't know Steve. History records a lot of pretty revolting things people have done to get a prisoner to talk. I'll bet you would hesitate to commit at least some of them, even if the safety of your friends, family and young children were at stake.
Also, one has to confront difficult questions of why? The old quote says that One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It depends on perspective and yes, perception. From a different perspective, Wasthings do look (surprise surprise) different. I lived in Apartheid South Africa as well as post-apartheid South Africa. How different events where perceived by different sides of the conflict is quite an interesting study. And, neither side had a monopoly on truth. But perception by the international community played a major role in the outcome. Thus, Obama's move, though upsetting many, might (and I say might) be very good for the US in the long run, as it changes PERCEPTIONS.
Politics is never clear-cut nor clean…..
When the lives of innocents hang in the balance, I would not hesitate to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to save them.
I believe this would be the right thing to do.
If a sniper was picking off students at an elementary school, one at a time, and if any of you could stop him by pushing a button that would immediately disable him, but then he would die a slow, agonizing death for two days…how many of you would opt to let him keep killing the innocent children?
Is that Christian love?
(Last comment, then I have to go)
Thanks be to God for the majority of fighting men and women in WWII, who were baptized Christians, who did their duty, which often included bombing cities with non-combatants in them.
We're it not for their clear view of the big picture, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
Steve, you are mixing categories.
I fear we are oversimplifying this issue because we have the luxury and temporary safety that allows us to do so.
A simple question. Would any of you use waterboarding to obtain information from someone who had taken your children and intended to kill them? Or would you let your children die to preserve the idea that obtaining information from someone by scaring them senseless somehow equates to torture and destroys our moral fabric?
Regarding the circumstances in which the CIA used enhanced interrogation techniques, or torture, consider for a moment that instead of an intended strike on Los Angeles, we instead faced detonation of nuclear devices in New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Chicago. Staring that in the face, would we find it so easy to be highminded and say these tactics are in fact torture and we best not use them? To be clear, I am not advocating situational ethics. Instead I am suggesting that we may be intellectualising this discussion without the proper context needed to give it meaning. Depriving some one of sleep, food and scaring the living daylights out of them to prevent mass murder really constitutes torture? I think maybe the needed outcome is that we revisit just what constitutes torture.
One final thought. It would have been perfectly acceptable and not in the least controversial to have not used enhanced interrogation techniques on these individuals and instead flown them back to Pakistan, relased them, tracked thier whereabouts and had a drone fly a missle down thier chimney killing all of them. Not a sinle member of Congress would have blinked and the world response would see it as the horror of war. And Los Angeles would most likely have been hit.
Frank, your assumption that the Bush administration tortured prisoners with illegal interrogation methods is mistaken. If you would take time to read the four Office of Legal counsel memoranda on interrogation methods, you'd find that the very purpose of the memos was to keep the interrogation within the confines of American and international law.
Today in a WSJ article, Misconceptions About the Interrogation Memos: Their goal was to allow the CIA and military to stay within the parameters of a murky area of the law , WILLIAM M. MCSWAIN writes as follows:
As the Church Report concluded, after a thorough review of all Defense Department interrogation policies, the pictured abuses at Abu Ghraib bore no resemblance to approved policies at any level, in any theater. The 2004 Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense Detention Operations — whose four members included two former secretaries of defense under President Jimmy Carter — also stated that "no approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in fact occurred. There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities."
Similarly, the critics like to default to Guantanamo as a symbol of the kind of abuse that Mr. Bush's antiterror policies allowed. Yet, at the time of the Church Report, there had been more than 24,000 interrogation sessions at Guantanamo and only three cases of substantiated interrogation-related abuse. All of them consisted of minor assaults in which military interrogators had exceeded the bounds of approved interrogation policy. Notably, the Church Report found that detainees at Guantanamo were more likely to have been injured playing recreational sports than in confrontations with interrogators or guards.
MCSwain was the editor of the 2005 Review of Department of Defense Detention Operations and Detainee Interrogation Techniques (The Church Report).
Frankly, you don't know what you are talking about on this issue, and you have slandered American officials who in good faith and competence sought to protect the American people. I doubt whether Obama will go forward with what amounts to the criminalization of legitimate policy differences, though should he do so, sooner or later the American people will realize that the Bush administration was correct to use rough techniques of interrogation against terrorist enemy combatants who had no rights as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention rules of war.
The Scylding,
I think the underlying principle is the same.
I do realize there are complexities to the national "torture" discussion, but when you get down to brass tacks it's a lot closer than you might think.
google under "water cure" for some reason waterboarding was called that until recently burke.
2> more specifically, by treaty law, we are forbidden to release persons to countries where there is a good chance they will be tortured or persecuted.
we will not be able to use any evidence obtained through torture should we choose to try them in the us court system.
I don´t know what we are going to do. whatever that is, it needs to follow, by the book, our laws. I am pretty sure that executing them or a life sentence at gitmo is not an option. what do you think?
We don´t know that they are "too dangerous". My assumtion is that they are. I would like to trust that Bush et cie were not totally arbitrary.
But what would be your and my basis for knowing? our govt simply saying "trust us"?
And so now you bring me to THE point.
In america we are ruled by law: we go by the book. We are not , in contrast , ruled by men as in: "trust what we say is so., or, we get to decide what is best. We are the law." This IS what makes America, for all her faults, different from Brasil, where I live now.
americans and their non-communist allies never once tortured. not once. why was that? the axis powers and the communists DID torture.
i believe you are right Kerner, and I hope you are wrong. I hope the DOJ has an investigation.
I am dying now to hear your legal opinion, after reading the 3 treaties and 4 us laws , as to whether the doj has a choice not to prosecute. the convention on torture of 1984 championed by reagan would suggest that obama must do so.
I think gingrich, the democrats and others refuse to use the T word, as in "yes we tortured" because they KNOW that that would trigger automatically, the legal necessity to prosecute. and they know almost the entire leadership dem and republican under bush would be in really hot water. can we really contemplate prosecuting essentially every leader of that period as a practical matter. probably not.
When referring to the immediate previous Pres. of the U.S., it is most accurate to render his name the way he used it in office and in official documents…George W. Bush. This distinguishes him from his father who went by George Bush as V.P. and Pres.
Your opinions make more sense to me now that I know that you are from Brazil. Yes, we are supposed to be a nation ruled by law. Unfortunately, we have seen a gross erosion of this over the last decades as the judicial branch has begun to overthrow laws we voted on and has begun to legislate from the bench instead of our legislators. We also saw a lot of power transferred to the office of the president after 9/11. Our rule of law has been eroded over the years and treaties can be used to nullify our rules of law in detrimental ways.
Another problem is that our own laws can be abused and misused in our legal system. Honest mistakes can be made and dishonest manipulations of the law can be employed and used to convict people wrongfully.
We are also dealing with problems with our media agencies. There has been a growing truth decay in our news agencies and facts are used to spin stories by only presenting partial facts and emphasizing one set of facts to the exclusion of other facts. It can be very difficult to find the facts in order to discern the truth in a situation and honest men are being persecuted for upholding our laws. We have a Phoenix, Az sheriff being attacked for enforcing immigration laws right now.
In our present scenario with the memos, it appears clear that Obama wants this news to happen. He has been persistent in trying to scapegoat Bush to deflect attention away from a lot of undesirable things that he is doing. Obama is also using the news agencies to help him spread partial facts instead of full disclosure of the facts in order to destroy his political foes and even to exact revenge in some cases. Obama is a very charming character and I do not think he is trustworthy. He could cripple the conservatives for quite a number of years in the future and effectively remove his opposition.
Another tactic Obama uses is to dismiss his opposition as non-entities. This happened recently when hundreds of thousands of Americans had tea parties to protest the stupendous spending bills. It was reported that Obama did not know about the parties and the liberal media made vulgar oral sex jokes about the protesters. (Long story for that one)
Liberals who are like Obama do not want fair debates, they want to silence their opposition with words like: homophobe, racist, war hawk, torturer, misogynist, and etc. in order to make their opponents look like fools. We need to learn to address their dishonest tactics and unveil the garbage.
Everything you are trying to defend (rule of law), I agree with. But I know better. Obama is using the law to destroy our nation with abortion, same sex marriage (polygamy and more filth will follow as it has in Canada), nationalizing our medical system, embryonic stem cell research (yesterday he proposed spending 3% of our GDP on scientific research), nationalizing banks (and a few major businesses) and ad infinitum.
Basically, Obama is in the process of socializing our nation and putting our citizens into serfdom from the upcoming taxes over the future years. And he will do it legally through misinformation and changing our laws. He needs the focus on Bush and the 'torture' mess so he can keep America's focus distracted and he can push his agenda through congress.
He is also using the current swine flu outbreak to help push through a very scary pro-abortion appointee (Sebelius) as our new head of our health system. The vote is tomorrow and it is all over the news that we do not have a head of this agency to address the swine flu outbreak. Only the conservatives are pointing out that she is a scary appointee and that we still do not have 1/3 of the treasury department filled.
Obama is a smart man. But he is not the good kind of smart. I hope my thoughts help you sort through some things. If I remember correctly, one commenter wrote to you that you were naive. He is right. I do not say that to be disrespectful or snarky. I only want to help you realize that your view is still uptopian on how our rule of law is working here. May God bless you.
When conservatives say that 'we have to move on', itis an admission of guilt.
i am an american citizen who has immigrated to brasil. I am a conservative confessional Lutheran christian. and I happen to be gay. I am entering law school in June. hope it all still makes sense to you. The Lord´s Peace be with you.
I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought I had everything figured out – I only thought your comments only made more sense to me when I thought you said you were from Brazil. I thought I was helping a non-citizen understand how many parts and pieces there were to the story here in the U.S. Now that you corrected that… what can I say? Except, forgive me for misunderstanding?
Where will you be attending law school? Are your a permanent immigrant to Brazil or will you return to the U.S. anytime in the future? Peace be with you too.
My cousin is an expert historian on WWII. According to him, America and their allies had their fair share of crimes during and after WWII. As a Lutheran, I am sure you are aware of the dangers of putting too much confidence in the rule of law in the kingdom of men. American and her allies were sinful men.
I don't rule out rethinking the definition of torture. And it would not necessarily be orwellian to do so. But consider the dangers involved. Once we dicide that a certain practice is not torture, we forfeit the right to object to it when it is used against US. If terrorists decode to waterboard Americans to gain sufficient information to avoid capture (just saving terrorist lives) are we really ok with that? How about sleep deprivation, exposing Americans to extreme heat or cold, sensory deprivation, threats to harm loved ones? How about sexual humiliation as in Abu Grahaib? Of course, the techniques used at Abu Grahaib were specifically designed to be humiliating to an Arab. Would it be ok for Arabs to specifically design techniques to sexually humiliate Americans? Do you see why redefining what we consider torture could be opening a huge Pandora's box?
Have they not already done far worse things to those from western culture? Have we not seen them behead prisoners after submitting them to extreme humiliation? I think there is a reason our soldiers are submitted to waterboarding as part of their training. If you ask a US military person what they expect if they are captured, they will tell you that it is far worse than anything you suggested. They are prepared to be tortured and to die. My problem is this: you seem to think terrorists follow our lead and their behaviors are influenced by what we do. The facts are that their actions and words speak for them. They hate us, they call for our destruction, they have and will continue to torture, behead and destroy us and our allies at every opportunity. Their words and actions, not mine. Kerner, I respect and admire your passion about our nation and its laws. However I feel that this moved beyond the hypothetical some time ago. They don't care what we do nor will they follow our example. They will simply choose to hate and kill at every opportunity. Will we prosecute our own who acted to protect us when the actions in question fall into a grey area according to most legal scholars?
I hate to disagree with Dr. Veith, but to say that "enhanced interrogation methods" = "torture," I think, assumes facts not in evidence. I do not think that we would say that the American armed forces "torture" our own service members. But sleep depravation, waterboarding, close confinement, etc., are all part of many service members' military training. "Torture" is defined under American law as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." (18 U.S.C. sec. 2340(1).) As a lawyer, I do not think that it has been proven to any degree of legal certainty that the specific intent of the interrogators at Gitmo was to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." It seems to me that a lot of people are tossing around the word "torture" for pure shock value, and using it in its layman's connotation, which is different and much broader than its denotative meaning under federal law.
Part 2… It is also helpful to remember that we are discussing the treatment of unlawful enemy combatants, not POW's or run-of-the-mill criminal defendants. In the wake of 9/11, and even today, as evidenced by the number of cases winding their way through the federal courts, we are operating in an uncertain legal environment. The law of war and the law of criminal procedure mandated by the Supreme Court (think Miranda rights, exclusion from trial of unlawfully seized evidence, etc.) do not necessarily intersect. With such uncertainty, it seems to me to be a terrible precedent to consider prosecuting the lawyers who did their best to provide the Bush Administration with advice to navigate these uncharted waters. And it seems to be a terrible threat to our national security to plaster all of this information about military and intelligence operations on the front page of the New York Times.
I agree SjB. We are ALL capable of the attrocities of whoever the enemy is at the moment. The takehome point about columbine, auschwitz, abu gherab, bataan, members of al quaeda, is that "we" are no different than "them" in terms of being intrinsically better, more human, more righteous. The same is true for women/doctors who abort, child molesters, the self-righteous, the Pharisees, gays, Larry Flynt, [fill in the blank here with the most depraved group you can think of]. There is no intrinsic difference between us.
Even the law can be perverted. Power does corrupt. Absolute power does corrupt absolutely. Exactly like Tolkein´s Ring. It seduces even what is best in us.
This is exactly why war crimes must, very very unfortunately, be prosecuted. The Rule of Law is ALL that separates "us" from becoming "them". The only thing SjB. Don´t think I relish the politics of a war crimes inquiry. It will be messy and politicized. It is still necessary.
I don't think they follow our lead. I think we are following their lead. And the more like them that we become, the less standing we will have to complain about their behavior, because we are adopting some of that behavior ourselves.
I agree with you when you point out that terrorists are not criminal defendants (so the rules of criminal law do not apply), nor are they uniformed prisoners of war (so the Geneva Convention and other rules beween uniformed armies do not truly apply either). So, what ARE the rules?
I think it was the duty of the last administration, and maybe this one too, to develop and follow rules for this new situation. Maybe thay did, and maybe we will find out what rules they came up with. But I suspect that at least some elements of the Bush administration wanted as few rules as possible so thay could do pretty much what they wanted. I think that such an attitude must be restrained because unrestrained government power (no matter against whom it is directed at present) is always extremely dangerous.
One last thing. This is why we won't have a real investigation into "torture":
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/27/opinion...
We'll be teased with the PROSPECT of an investigation, so conservatives will keep talking about this, instead of coming up with and selling a plan for market based health care or nuclear energy or anything else that would be good for this country that Omama opposes. Obama is using this issue to keep conservatives on the defensive.
Well, ol' Doug Wilson just posted a good comment on the subject of torture – see http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&a... .
I often disagree with him, often very sharply, but I think in this particular instance, he might be on the money…
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer0501...
This puts it all into perspective (torture, that is)