The Obama administration recently released four controversial OLC memos (in largely unredacted form; available here 
) that discuss in detail specific harsh interrogation techniques that, in the opinion of the memo authors, are permissible under certain circumstances. The Obama administration has withdrawn the memos but has also promised that those who carried out procedures authorized as legal will not face prosecution. Partially for my own convenience in organizing my thoughts and partially in response to some discussion I've seen elsewhere, I wanted to make a few simple points.
I will take as a definition 
of torture "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession... when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
0. The guilt or innocence of the detainees is a distinct question. This is a preliminary point but one that often corrupts discussion. It is not an irrelevant question, obviously, but it should be addressed separately from the issue of how we treat detainees. Appeals to emotion by claiming that (the majority of) detainees are "evil" or "innocent" obscure rather than clarify.
1. Some of the techniques are likely properly categorized as torture. Waterboarding 
is the most obvious example (see also Hitchen's first-hand account 
). This simulated (or controlled) drowning inflicts severe pain or suffering, both physical and mental. This is now acknowledged by relevant parties: the head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, stated that 
"I believe that water-boarding is torture and it's wrong" and that the President does not have the right to order torture: "Nobody is above the law", and AG Eric Holder has also classified 
waterboarding as torture.
2. Some of the techniques are likely not properly categorized as torture. The authors did at points take pains to stay within the letter, if arguably not the spirit, of the law. For example, the "unbelievably ugly and grotesque" (quote 
) memos include detailed discussion of how to utilize insects without crossing the line into torture: "As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure that you are outside the predicate act requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain." One can certainly question whether even non-torture harsh methods should be utilized (and I believe that is why the CIA is currently restricted to the Army Field Manual techniques) but let us keep a sense of historical perspective here.
3. The interrogators have a valid legal defense for their actions. Contra conveniently confused Kossacks 
, this is not a "just following orders" defense ala that employed by rank-and-file Nazis. Obeying an illegal order is illegal. The problem is that the legality of orders instructing utilization of the techniques in question was legitimately unclear at the time. (Unclear as in disputed; this is also not an "ignorance of the law" attempted defense.) This is not only because the OLC wrote a memo, it is because many of these techniques fall into a gray area within which there can be good-faith disagreement as to whether "enhanced interrogation" or "torture" is the proper label, even working from the same definitions.
4. The lawyers have a valid legal defense for their actions. With due respect to Spanish prosecutors 
, we have a long legal tradition of holding accountable those who order or facilitate a crime just as we do those who carry it out. The problem is that it is not indisputable that the memo authors went beyond their legitimate role of providing advice as to the interpretation of the law and instead transgressed into constructing a legal facade for actions they knew constituted torture.
I don't know what should happen next. It seems to me possible to construct a case against senior members of the previous administration who instituted and authorized this program. It also seems to me that such a case would face significant legal, practical, and political challenges, far beyond those acknowledged by many progressives eager for prosecutions.
Regardless, it is past time that we as a nation owned up to these actions. The release of these memos sheds some painful but essential light on how we prosecuted the war on terror.
Comments :
This is an excellent write up...
... Brendan. Thanks.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Thanks
Hopefully this is complementary to rather than repetitive of the discussion here
.
I do acknowledge that the insects thing can be viewed as more sinister
than I've presented it.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Hello Brendan, we've not met, nice entry.
However, we are talking about pretty serious stuff here in terms of the evil doings the interrogators are attempting to prevent.
So when I look at what I guess, I, define torture as, chemical injections, bamboo up the fingernails, cutting off body parts, electrical shock, inverted suspension and the like, it strikes me as a tad provincial to get all squirmy about these rather innocuous techniques in comparison. After all, it is "simulated" drowning, nudity, bugs in a box, etc.
I get the we don't want to be as bad as the bad guys themselves kind of thinking, but we need to have the ability, when it comes to National Security, and the consequences are so great, to have the latitude to do these things.
I also think it is not a proper topic of everyday conversation, it should be dealt with the same way other top secret covert national security operations are.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
The problem with enhanced interrogation techniques
You mentioned in the open thread that the events at Abu Ghraib were not acceptable. But do you not think that these events were in large part a result of the change in Pentagon policy towards "enhanced interrogation techniques?" When the top brass is telling interrogators that it is actually OK to smash prisoners against a wall, strip them naked in hypothermic conditions, put them in a box with insects, etc., it dehumanizes the prisoners, and makes abuses like what happened at Abu Ghraib all the more likely.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I disagree SL.
My sense of all this is, it was a subject we had not really had to deal with, at least not for a long long time, in any meaningful way, and then in short order we had our hands full.
Being an officer in the military myself for 6 years, I can tell you one thing, we know how to follow directions very well. Really good at that.
So it is my belief, now that all these things having come about, they should proceed with a set of TO's to mark under what circumstances what can or can not be done, not rule out the water boarding etc techniques, and we should never see those Abu kind of atrocities again.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Perhaps
I actually think you are giving the military too little credit, though! From what I have heard, the first 100 days at GTMO were run exclusively by the military, and it was run very well. They weren't given any rules to follow, so they followed the rules they knew, the Geneva Conventions. It wasn't until the civilian leadership (by which I primarily mean Donald Rumsfeld, and the CIA) stepped in, when things started to become hellish.
The military dealt with prisoners of war on a pretty large scale just a dozen years prior, during the Gulf War. Obviously not for the extended length of time that they were now dealing with, but do you really believe that they'd forgotten how to do it properly?
I mostly agree with your last sentence, except that I think the set of TO's that were already in place, that have been tried and tested, and worked just fine for the 50 years before the Iraq War, are the ones to use.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I certainly agree we could do it without the stuff we all know
was outrageous and wrong.
I would still retain the right of some element of the military, or CIA, etc to use water boarding in these matters of high importance to national security.
Did you know according to the last four CIA directors, including Leon Panett, these memo's should not have been released. I feel it was merely a political play on the part of the current administration to regain some lost favor with their more liberal supporters, and to humiliate the former administration.
50% of the what became absolutely indispensable intelligence we received from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed came from water boarding, and he got up and walked away the same man.
Would I happily make that arrangement again with the evil Sheikh, you bet.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Thank you, it's nice to meet you
I certainly agree that relative to historical practices of torture, these techniques are mild in comparison.
I still think that waterboarding in particular falls on the wrong side of the current laws, and it's my impression that this belief is widely shared (including by McCain
, for what that's worth). One can even read the memos themselves 
as acknowledging that at least as initially practiced waterboarding constituted torture.
I believe most of the techniques discussed in the memos were already known to have been utilized (e.g., via various
Red Cross reports 
, some leaked) so I don't expect there are significant security consequences in this particular case. If there are clear top-level guidelines in place to prevent torture and safeguards to ensure compliance with those guidelines then I agree that the details of specific techniques are better kept confidential, to retain the element of surprise.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Waterboarding
I personally think waterboarding is obviously a form of torture, but perhaps by the letter of the law, maybe it doesn't result in "prolonged mental suffering." (I believe that is the standard that the OLC memos rely on.) I find it extremely hard to believe, however, that waterboarding one person 60 times per month (which is what the Bradbury memo says is OK) would not constitute prolonged mental suffering in and of itself, never mind any continuing mental damage from the experience.
By the way. glad you posted this here Brendan! Good to hear from you again. Not sure if you've seen the fairly lengthy torture discussion
on the Open Thread, but I think your diary may provide a bit of focus for continued discussion.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
a slap in the face
would not be considered torture. But what about a thousand slaps in 2 hours.
Waterboarding someone for 5 seconds might not be considered torture, but pouring water on someone's face for three solid minutes, 60 times a month would be.
So you could say that water boarding is not torture, and that might be a true statement, but concensus is that when one says waterboarding it means torture, not some playful event.
I'm only half stupid
Well, all the torture hyperbole aside.
Do you even realize how isolated these cases were.
Last I heard, water boarding had only happened on 3 occasions.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
As hilzoy notes
here
, there was data on hand when the Bradbury memo was written as to the quasi-long-term effects of these techniques on mental health.
There is also the SERE training data, but I would think from a mental health standpoint the multiple applications you reference are much different, and the lack of consent makes a huge psychological difference.
I did indeed see the discussion (although I haven't been able to read SC nearly as much as I would like to anymore), and am glad to see here that there still seems to be some ground remaining worth covering.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Look people ...
I don't think anyone here is going to argue that waterboarding isn't pushing the limits. But pushing the limits is what these interrogators need to be able to do sparingly. To hear people here talking everyone in Gitmo gets sent regularly down for their daily waterboarding treatment. Of course no such thing happens. We all know this. This is never going to be used on Joe Schmo Jihadist that knows nothing.
The only people who have received this treatment are the top leaders in al Qaeda. There is no doubt whatsoever that they had valuable information. Extracting that information was imperative. So a handful of people were waterboarded. If waterboarding actually crosses the line into torture then obviously even that would be unacceptable. But there is legitimate disagreement on where that line is and whether waterboarding, especially as applied in this case, constitutes torture.
The memos make it very clear that there were strict protocols in place specifically to safeguard the detainees from any long-term physical or mental harm. I sincerely doubt that John Macain's captors worried about any such limitations. I sincerely doubt that Stalin or Hitler issued any such restrictions. To compare us to those regimes is ludicrous even in the face of using waterboarding in the manner that is prescribed in these memos.
The only technique in that memo that even pushes the line is waterboarding. The "attention grab"? Seriously? That's a torture technique? Give me a break. Grabbing someone by the shoulders and jerking them firmly to grab their attention is not torture. And I don't care how many times you do it. It's just laughable.*
And these interrogators had to get permission to even do this? And that permission was only given for a handful of people? If people think that we are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler they are seriously delusional.
If they had to get written permission to grab someone by the shoulders and pull them forward to get their attention, then all those people for whom no such permission was granted must have had a real cake walk, other than being detained obviously. I mean it must have been horrifying to have to sit there, in a chair, in a room, with people asking you questions? All kinds of questions. Oh the humanity? Please stop asking them questions. Oh how can they stand it?
And the catepillar thing. Give me a total break. Putting a catepillar on someone is torture? I let my little 18 month old daughter hold catepillars and she loves it. She had a moth on her just this weekend in fact. Please don't call children's services on me. I didn't realize I was torturing her when I let a moth walk on her, and right on her skin. Please don't turn me in?!?!
These are people who are willing to kill us by the thousands. These are people who are willing to cut off someone's head as a propaganda stunt. And we're seriously having a debate about whether it's humane to put a catepillar on them? Unbelievable.
Maybe we deserve to lose the war on terror if this is what we have become. Hell, if putting catepillars on us is considered terrorifying it's actually hard to imagine what they could do that WOULDN'T be considered terrifying.
---------------------------------------------
* It's so laughable in fact that I believe I have devised a new "enhanced" interrogation technique. I call it the "I'm not touching you" technique. The technique consists of having the interrogator poking their fingers at the detainee without actually touching them while chanting "I'm not touching you!" in an annoying tone of voice. This process is repeated ad nauseum until the other interrogators in the room demand that you stop. But as a safeguard to prevent any psychological damage to the detainee (no physical damage can ever occur with this technique) you are only allowed to administer this technique for at most 1 minute at a time and at most 3 times a day with at least a 1 hour rest period between applications.
Parents Magazine has reported that this same technique has caused millions of people to actually consider suicide.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The way that last main paragraph sounds...
It's sounds like it's coming from someone that hates the UFC after they stopped allowing unconscious fighters from being repeatedly hit while knocked out.
100 years ago, the US considered simulated drowning to be torture
------------------------------------------------
Reservoir Dogs 1992:
Nice Guy Eddie: If you ****** beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it ****** so!
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I've got children's services on the line.
Did you happen to confine your daughter in a box and tell her that the bug crawling on her might be poisonous?
Just wondering! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
What about Mohammad al-Qurani...
the guy that Obama was, according to you, suppposed to be beating up at Gitmo every single day since 20 days before he was elected?
By the way, I'd like to note that I was confused on that point before-- I've got to read your articles more carefully... the guy was pissed that nothing changed when Obama was elected, not when he took office; obviously he wasn't up to speed on the finer points of the transition of power in this country, and didn't know that Obama did not take power the day he was elected.
That's over 3 months of ill treatment before Obama took office, according to him.
So I have some questions:
1. Do you believe this guy's story?
2. If your answer to question (1) is yes, then does an almost daily beating constitute torture?
3. If your answer to question (1) is no, then how do you maintain your stance that Obama is "worse than Bush" on detainee treatment, when you use stuff that you don't even believe as evidence for the claim?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Bait and switch there, skymutt?
Yea, it would appear so. You're gettin' sloppy again. I like how you switched to a different source to create your strawman argument here. I suggest that you go back and "read MY article
more carefully" and what MY source actually reported:
Don't try to hold me accountable for the inaccuracies being printed in your inferior Australian news sources. Seems likely to me that it is just the Aussie reporter that is confused about when Obama "came into power", not the detainee.*
Even so, I have already addressed this point here
. Whether this treatment began 20 days or 3 months prior to Obama taking office the point is that he hasn't stopped it.
It doesn't matter what I believe. This is what is being reported. I am holding Obama to the same standard that the Democrats held Bush to. When the detainees complained about mistreatment under Bush you believe them then, so now that they are complaining about mistreatment under Obama why don't you want to believe them now?
By the standard that was applied to Bush, the answer would be yes. So in the case of Obama the answer must also be yes. My opinion on the issue does not matter.
Again, my personal answer is irrelevant. What matters is the standard that was applied to Bush and that the same standard be applied to Obama.
The standard I set forth for including this in the list I started here
was:
So if I was a bit overzealous in my subject line here
, I apologize. This is a case where Obama is 
]. Either way, though, the assessment being used is that of the detainee as reported in the news media, not mine.
just like Bush, not worse.[Update: worse than Bush----------------------------------------------
* For reference here is the original Al Jazeera version
.:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Alright...
Point taken that the Australian source was not yours, and thanks for posting the original al Jazeera source. However, phrases such as "became President" and "took charge" might be sources of confusion for non-Americans... as we see the Australian reporter pparently 'confused' by the difference between being elected and taking over as president, is it not possible that the non-American detainee with limited access to news was similarly confused in thinking that Obama's election date was when he "became President" and thus "took charge"?
A weak cop out. I ask for a simple gut opinion from you and you can't provide it. Since you won't provide your opinion, I am forced to assum that you do believe the detainee's story, on the basis that you posted the source to begin with. And given that, I find it a bit ironic that you are focusing on moths crawling on skin and shoulder grabs when you yourself have posted allegations of daily beatings and used those allegations as if the claims within were settled fact.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I'm pretty sure they had a good idea of ...
... when he took office
, probably better than the average Aussie. And even if the change in the pictures was not enough to give them a clue, I have no doubt that the guards would have been talking about it and so they would have known that way too.
Well, I like to learn from history
rather than repeating it. :) And it's not a cop out. It's a legitimate point that what is being reported is what we should use to judge Obama, not the partisan opinion of a right-winger.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh
That picture was taken in some office of Guantanamo that prisoners likely never see. Or do you have proof that the detainee saw that picture? Didn't think so :-)
Even the prisoners who don't understand English?
Lord have mercy, back to that?? I told you right off the bat that I wasn't comparing you to Campanis. At most, there was maybe a slight firecracker element in using that quote-- you know all about the use of firecrackers don't you? So because big ol' mean skymutt threw out a little teeny firecracker one time in his life, you're going to use that as a cop out for offering your honest opinions for how long? months? years?
By the way, here's an Amnesty International case sheet on this detainee from 2005 that indicates a strikingly similar beating, presumably from sometime before 2005:
Sound familiar? Perhaps something got lost in the translation between the detainee and the al Jazeera reporter? Color me skeptical that this alleged beating happened under Obama's watch.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well, I would throw you a bone here ...
by observing that while I am using al Jazeera as a source and you are using Amnesty International as a source we could call it a draw since they are roughly equal credibility-wise ... but as you see I now have a second incident as well and this guy explicitly states that things are worse under Obama than they were under Bush.
Well, yea, but to be fair how many ways ARE there to describe beating someone, pepper spraying them, and smashing their head into the floor? Remember this is happening almost daily now per this detainee AND his lawyers who have first hand seen the after effects of his physical abuse at the hands of Obama.
Hmmm. Well do you believe the ICRC report regarding Bush Administration abuses which were based on detainee accounts? If so then I'll color you hypocritcal instead. If not then I'll accept your statement in good faith.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Compromise?
Would you be willing to consider waterboarding off-limits, while retaining other lower-intensity techniques?
I could live with that for now.
I agree with you regarding the severity of the insect thing but at the same time state-of-mind and consent are key to assessing the potential for mental pain.
Iran is currently holding
a US reporter on (trumped-up) charges of espionage, for which she was sentenced to 8 years pending appeal. Supposing for the purposes of discussion that we take her guilt/innocence out of the equation (following point 0 in the diary), what techniques do we think Iran would be justified in employing on her to obtain information?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Am I wrong?
or was the insect thing simply a matter of the interrogators using one of the detainees fear of caterpillars against him.
If so, I just do not see that as torture.
We can not tailor make our interrogation policy to suit the detainees personal needs and dislikes - in their favor anyway ;-)
I see that as a way to harmlessly gather intelligence.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
The psychologists
hired by the CIA to do personality profiles specifically to taylor the interrogations to each individuals psyches beg to differ.
Besides wasn't Brendan's question about how the Iranian prisoner will be treated in light of US policy?
I'm only half stupid
I think you're right,
that the interrogators were attempting to exploit the detainee's fear of stinging insects, but to me that customization makes it more likely that the technique will induce "severe mental pain." As far as I know there is no standard "caterpillar" technique; it appears any tailoring was an attempt to find a way to break this particular detainee, as ML gets at below.
Having said that, I find the memo in this particular case almost reassuring, in that they are careful to say that the interrogator can't even lie to the detainee and tell him that the (harmless) insects are going to inflict severe pain on him. Like I said above, I don't mean to minimize the potential for inflicting psychological harm, but this seems pretty low on the outrage scale.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I keep trying to....
... to figure out the most reasonable way to look at this stuff, and thus far I think it has eluded me.
But sometimes it's instructive to take a step back and look at the broader picture, I think. So speaking only in general terms, and without any reference to any specific techniques, etc... I guess the fundamental question seems to be something like:
Can torture ever be justified?
Mostly, people who'd answer with a 'yes' point to some variant of a 'ticking time bomb' scenario -- arguing that if the only way to get vital information that could prevent a great loss of life is to torture one person, then it is justifiable.
People who'd answer with a 'no' point to the fact that outcomes are never certain -- you can never know for certain that the person has the information, you can never be certain that the person will give truthful information, and you can never be certain that torture was the only (or even most effective) way to obtain that information. The only thing you can be certain of is that torture is against our moral standards, so we have an obligation to ourselves not to use it. I am pretty much on this side of things, I think.
Too, it also seems to be true that most people draw a line somewhere.... there are certain things that, even in a 'ticking time bomb' scenario, most people think should not be used. Example -- torture of a prisoner's children or spouse to extract information from the prisoner, or certain types of truly extreme harm/injury -- flaying alive, systematically breaking bones, drilling teeth, burning, etc. So, as far as I can tell, proponents of circumstantial, one-time torture in an extrordinary circumstance still mostly believe that there are some lines that should not be crossed.
In the past, I think, even before the current controversy, most people have understood that the CIA and other clandestine groups have very probably engaged in illegal interrogation practices from time to time in the name of National Security. This is the type of thing for which there is very little public information, but probably includes the use of chemical agents, psychological, and physical techniqes that fall outside the scope or actions that would be sanctioned for military or law enforcement use.
And that, to me, is sort of the crux of the matter. It is one thing to have 'black ops' groups who very occasionally do these types of things in secret, and it is quite another to have very specifically detailed government policies for intelligence agents, medical stafff, and contractors that outline how much cruelty and humiliation can be applied to prisoners and under what circumstances -- how often, for how long, etc.... walking right up the boundaries of legality, while attempting not to cross them. We've seen the danger that these type of guidelines can have time and time again.... once allowances are made, and methods are prescribed, it is virtually certain that they'll be exceeded in the name of 'emergency'.
Were the lines crossed into illegality? I don't suppose we'll know the extent to which that may have happened until the courts rule (if they do). Was the intelligence that was gathered accurate, and did it help to prevent attacks? I'm not sure we'll ever know that, unless the classified details are made public. Was the use of these techniques limited to high-value prisoners, or were they used more indiscriminately? Again, we don't know for sure.
This is all very complicated stuff. I wish I were smart enough to figure it all out, but I don't think I am.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Nice thoughtful post
It seems clear that as practiced most of the waterboarding cannot have taken place under a ticking bomb scenario, just due to the sheer number of events. To me that means that people who seek to justify torture on such grounds should nonetheless condemn these particular interrogations.
Good point about proponents of torture (or enhanced interrogation) still mostly being unwilling to cross certain lines. If the justification being offered is that this is absolutely necessary to save a large number of lives, why the reluctance to use truly extreme measures?
It seems strange to me to claim that the legal justification for torture depends on the circumstances (like degree of perceived threat), but I gather that is an argument
being made. How that doesn't open up a huge can of worms in terms of objectively evaluating imminent danger is beyond me -- it seems like essentially a blank check.
I think there are pros as well as cons to having torture/enhanced interrogation out in the open. My opinion is that all the rules and regulations make it less likely that lines will be crossed, not more, if only because it would be clear what was and what was not permitted. (Possibly Abu Graib contradicts this.) And I feel that if we as a nation deem it necessary to conduct interrogations in this manner then we shouldn't hide from it.
If we legalize torture then we could extend particular authority to utilize it to the CIA or to interrogators of suspected terrorists, with the expectation that the methods used will be fully within the guidelines and the circumstances will demand such treatment. Full transparency should be mandatory, with as little as possible hidden for security reasons. If, on the other hand, we reject torture, then it seems best for that to be the law regardless of the situation. If agents conducting black ops or operating in an emergency engage in illegal torture, I think they should expect to be held legally liable (as should whoever ordered it). If their actions are necessary to prevent a massive attack then the legal fallout is a small price to pay, and leaving that safeguard in place could prevent wanton and reckless abuse.
I dunno, it's complicated, like you say. I tend to disregard those who claim otherwise.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
This presumes, of course, that everyone agrees ...
that waterboarding as defined in the memos constitutes torture. As I have said, I believe that there is legitimate disagreement on that point. And to some level I would even argue against its use under the ticking time bomb scenario if we were all agreed that it was actual torture.
For example, would these same people advocate cutting off fingers, hands, and limbs in this case? I wouldn't. Electric shocks to the genitals? I wouldn't. The killing of family members in front of the detainee? I wouldn't.
But waterboarding which causes very short-term discomfort and when monitored has very little probability of actual harm of any kind? Sure, I could support that under those circumstances.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4A Rush to Torture
This article from the NYT written by Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, shows why this 'liberal rag' is the paper of record.
A well written piece that highlights the time line of what happened and how essentially all parties were in a rush to get information and that no one really took the time to understand that the methods that they were going to use had in fact been condemned by the US.
The article explains the confusion about why and how the use of methods during military training by the US could not possibly be torture. We see where Dick Durbin got his reference to Pol Pot, and we see that most folks were trusting that the Justice Dept had verified that these methods were legal.
They key is that the methods had wrung false confessions from American pilots during the Korean War. Also that the SERE program was decades old
At the time what the administration was frantic to use these methods to get a confession of a link between Iraq and al_Queda.
I'm only half stupid
This just keeps....
..... getting worse.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
It's old news
in my opinion.
What I find interesting is on Sept 10th there were plans to cut the money that was designated to oversee al_Queda's activities. I wonder if all this tough guy stuff was an over reaction to lax policies.
One other possibility, is that these folks who were more interested in redecorating their offices, actually had no clue that al_Queda was so riled up and really really thought that Saddam was responsible for the attacks on 9/11.
They just didn't get that after cynically using bin Laden (indirectly through Pakistan connections) to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that these 'ragheads', these impoverished dirt farmers would actually expect the US to keeps it's promise to rebuild Afghanistan. Instead after the 'victory' the US just pulled out, left the destruction and the weapons behind. There has been so much hubris on the part of the US policy makers.
Did you see the Rachel Maddow interview with Philip Zelikow? He gives truth to the rumor that Condi Rice and Dick Cheney were at odds over all this. He said that he was appalled by the lack of legal reasoning on the memos. Also that Bush's side of the team worked hard to correct the problem (after it was too late).
I'm only half stupid
Cheney and Rumsfeld
seem to have been the primary drivers.
For all the talk of Bush being a good manager he doesn't seem to have had a cohesive team, or to have had firm control over it.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Iron Fist = Good Manager?
I don't think so. The best managers pick a good team and then get out of the way and let them do what they do best. The best managers delegate reponsibility not micro-manage or overly control things. The best managers are only there to make the tough calls that actually bubble all the way to the top.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4True
I do think Bush was on board more so at first. His mistake was trusting Cheney, who has a reputation for being secretive (and mean).
After the Abu Ghraib mess, though I think Condi's side, and that of her aides, prevailed.
Remember how mad conservatives were at Bush for firing Rumsfeld the day after the R's took a thumping in the 06 elections.
My personal opinion is that Cheney is trying to protect his long time lawyer David Addington. He's already lost Scooter Libby (he is still furious with Bush for not pardoning Scooter) and he sure has heck doesn't want to lose Addington, who was at his side through out Iran/Contra.
I would relish Addington's demise. He's an arrogant b*stard.
I'm only half stupid
Geeze.
OK, obligatory tit for tat response here: But what about Obama's reputation for palling around with domestic terrorists and anti-American preachers?
And you know this how?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Link please?
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4oops
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html?ref=politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html?ref=politics
I'm only half stupid
Well, this is all I had to read.
Anonymous sources are known to be unrealiable. Unless there is a name to tie to the charges being made, the entire piece is fiction as far as I am concerned. I will no longer accept anonymous sources as being credible.
That and the fact that the entire piece is biased to the POV that waterboarding as defined in these memos = torture. I respectfully disagree and have argued as much.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4As long as we are going to quote from this "liberal rag" ...
It seems that the Democrats in Congress were not objecting either. Nancy's insistence that she didn't realize the C.I.A. was planning to use these techniques is just bogus on its face. Why would the C.I.A. go to the trouble of briefing Congress on the legality of techniques that they never intended to use? She's lying to cover her ass and it is obvious.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Fred On the President's handling of these torture memo's.
These guys were doing the best they could to be professional and keep America not only safe, but honorable as well. It's a big mean world out there fella's, and when you've just had a 9/11 happen, and you have the chief operators in custody, they did the right thing.
By the way do most of you know that we learned about a cell that was going to attack LA
via those interrogations? Don't her much about that do you? Let's release the other memo's and see the whole story before we jump in and ruin these guys lives for doing their patriotic duty the best they could!
H/T to Dan Spencer @ RS
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Here's General McCaffrey's
Here's General McCaffrey's take.
H/T Al Rogers
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/22/723297/-4-Star-General-Calls-for-Probe-of-Bush-White-House
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Hi Puppet Head
Well here the good General is hypothesizing, people were murdered, etc. Come on?
I think those that sodomized detainees at Abu should have been punished, those who have done anything in the course of all this that brutalized those in their custody should be identified and held accountable.
We have no reason to think anything like that took place. What we are talking about here is a sitting president, who having combatants in custody - who were significant players in the enemies hierarchy, and having suffered a devastating terror attack from their group, asked for a legal opinion, having subsequently received it, gone on about the business of intelligence gathering.
No one went to work with a mad scientist outfit on - wanting to do evil deeds.
These guys are professionals as the General said, and they were only interested in keeping you alive, contrary to those being interrogated.
Here is a quick piece from your second favorite site RS
, makes some sense. I dare you to go over and say otherwise. ;-)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Hi Centinel
First, I don't any doubt that Sen. Thompson is sincere.
Second, I'll respectfully pass on making any comments over on RedState.... I used to participate a little bit over there a long time ago, and still read the site fairly regularly... but I haven't felt like there was much room for dissenting views on that site for quite a while (even polite ones). Maybe things will change some and I'll go back over there at some point and try again.
But, I also don't doubt that General McCaffrey is sincere, and while I don't know what specific information he might have that we don't, the number of deaths due to abuse at Abu Ghraib is still something of an open question. I try to take all of these things with a grain of salt, but here's something that would tend to support what he's saying:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4738008.stm
I do think it's instructive to look at a variety of views. I know the FBI pulled their folks from Guantanamo because they felt the CIA was engaging in 'borderline torture'. The military has been pretty solid in its condemnation of abusive treatment of prisoners. The CIA has maintained that it worked within the Administration's guidelines, and the Administration has maintained that it gave only legal advice and instruction. Clearly, in at least some cases, there was a breakdown.
As to the California plot -- The cell that was planning this was arrested in February 2002. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was not captured until 2003. I don't know how information gleaned from waterboarding KSM in 2003 could lead to arrests in 2002. Apparently, the plan was in very early stages -- pre-planning -- and a number of the plotters believed that it was not going forward. See here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/
So I don't know, man. There's so much to sift though in all of this stuff that impossible to know what actually happened. I'm just going to try to read as much of it as I can from as wide a variety of sources as I can and try to keep an open mind -- that's probably the best any of us can do at this point.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Parsing the definition of torture
Parsing the definition of torture could go on for eight years, much to conservatives delight. Discussing the details of what is or is not torture is a strawman.
I like Shep Smith's take. I don't care what the definition is. America does not torture. We the people, is us, and I don't want America torturing in my name. As soon as that starts I want off the train.
Pushing the definition with the fabled, ticking time bomb scenario, is just a ruse.
If we are going to be America's shining city on the hill. We do not torture. We don't do it.~ Shep Smith
video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/shepard-smith-torture_n_190350....
I'm only half stupid
I have not heard from anyone who thinks we should torture.
Hence the need to quibble amongst friends to discover what is, and is not, torture.
It's like being pulled over for speeding because the limit was not clearly marked, or you were unaware what is was, but reassuring the cop it's okay because, 'you don't speed, under any circumstances".
I have to come down on the side of anything 3000 of our service men and women have experienced in sere training (I did not), and categorically causes no pain, and is a simulated effect - compared to say the japanese like you brought up, (and the Batan death march's 67th year anniversary was yesterday by the way) where our soldiers had their fingernails pulled out, fingers removed, placed in metal boxes in the sun for days, etc is not torture.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Do you even understand
grasp or comprehend what the SERE training is? It is training POW's what the enemy does, not what the US does.
It is training based on the torture that was done to US pilots after the Korean War. It is training based on Pol Pots techniques.
This training is not meant to be adopted as US policy. It was to brace specialized forces as to the gruesome tactics used by Cambodian Communists.
We are not the shining city on the hill IF we adopt torture, however you parse the definition, as US policy.
I'm only half stupid
Idiot!
Waterboarding ML, that is the technique at the heart of all this.
Waterboarding is done in SERE training, I personaly know individuals who have done it, do you?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
We're of like mind here at this stage.
nt.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Extreme case of Schadenfreude?
I find that about as appealing as Americans celebrating the bombing of German cities, which would also include Dresden, because some factories were bombed in other raids, or the invention of < a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb">napalm during WWII that was used to drop on civilians, because the napalm just so happened to hit some military targets too and like celebrating Old Yellow getting rabies, because it gave the kid a chance to put down the dog.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Does CIA agent Joe Wilson
get to join the parade.
This is all so Naziesque.
Parsing the definition of torture, then clapping and holding parades for those who crossed the line.
I wonder if Hitler had parades for the high stepping SS guards celebrating German Exceptionalism.
I'm only half stupid
So you prefer the alternative then?
A day of mourning for those lost in the attack that could have otherwise been prevented
?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Somebody is thinking they were under sniper fire
At best, somebody has faulty memory
at worst, there are bold face lies.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Too much D/Kos rots the brain Brutus14.
Be more thoughtful
before you try and debunk someone like KR.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Sooner
That was one of the first google searches used to refind a story.....
Plot foiled in 2002
KSM caught in 2003
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Oh I see, the right wing conspiracy again huh?
Bush, Cheney, Rove, the CIA and ll the people in the operation, are all covering this up, and the CIA is so stupid they can't get a time line right when they're fabricating a story.
We know so little about all this, to make claims utilizing only whats released is ignorant.
Apparently one could conclude they had begun interrogating him prior to that date, or there was a subsequent event, or... you'll have to wait, and maybe never know.
Bah_, Bah___ Bahrutus14.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Memory isn't perfect
I was saying is similar to stating that if someone claimed that Ryan Reynolds
choked Jim Sorgi 
that a conspiracy to protect Robert Reynolds must not be necessary. Might just be bad recollections taken as fact to confirm what people wanted to confirm.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I'm sorry Brutus14, your syntax is so sinuous I am lost.
nt.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Know Facts contradict CIA's claims
Someone stating that something happened, doesn't mean that person's memory is the greatest thing in the world.
ie Someone knew KSM was part of mock drownings in an effort to stock a "ticking time bomb", someone knew the plot to crash into the building in LA was foiled, they put the 2 events as being related in their head and started passing that information along.
Either that or they're of the same ilk and worse of people that claimed Pat Tillman died charging up a hill.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Maybe this will help
you get some clarity
on things.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
So, after mock drownings
KSM gave up information he thought the US already knew.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Hey Brutus14, pretend I posted really confusing oratory
and an unrelated video from You Tube...then you'll get it.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Laughing at Dems is too easy!
Dems: Lets get em, let's take em out, let's set up a "Truth Commision" AND MAKE EM PAY!
Public and DOJ to Dems: What did YOU know, and when did YOU know it?
Dems: (Nancy looking through papers on desk, lots of dems throats clearing...) Truth isn't so inmortant right now
.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Reps: Let's play change the subject!
All the posturing in front of a Truth Commission wouldn't matter anyway; that's what you set up when you don't want there to be any consequences for anyone.
I'll believe Dems are taking this seriously when I see some pit-bull US attorneys on the case. I'm not holding my breath.
This is a criminal matter.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Not yet.
There'd have to be some kind of quid pro quo. I agree it looks fishy and I would support an independant investigation.
Thing is, shoring up the FDIC may be a good idea on its own, and nothing precludes non-committee members from introducing that kind of legislation. The key here is whether Feinstein intervened beforehand on her husband's company's behalf, promising the FDIC legislative support for favoring her husband's company.
I don't like Dianne Feinstein and I find her far too chummy with entrenched power-brokers and corporate interests. I wouldn't be surprised if she were actually guilty of corruption here. I'd be happy with her resigning in disgrace. Only problem would be her replacement: winning a California senate seat is insanely expensive, which means you have to curry a lot of favors from special interests. There simply aren't enough Russ Feingolds (or from your point of view I suppose Tom Coburns) in public service to expect California would get a better replacement.
Abe Greenwald comes out with some interesting facts.
More from Abe at Comentary Magazine
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!