In Support Of Dick Cheney
OK, I fully admit that's a provocative title for me to write. To be more accurate (and a lot less sensationalistic) it should probably read: "In Support Of Dick Cheney's Call To Declassify The Evidence To Prove Whether Torture Worked Or Not." Call me biased towards openness and knowing what was done in the American public's name, but I support Cheney's recent call for more (not less) disclosure in this case. Whether it makes logical sense to anyone's argument about the subject or not.
The right's argument currently is that President Obama's release of the Bush Torture Memos was "dangerous" and "irresponsible" and put our national security at risk, and even may have been aiding our enemies. This is not overstating their case -- if anything, it understates their case. The release of the memos was dangerous and naive, they argue, and was solely a political move designed to embarrass former president Bush. In other words, Obama sacrificed American national security for politics. Keep this in mind, we'll return to this argument later. But first....
Enter Dick Cheney. Now, for those of us who are accustomed to loudly humming "Darth Vader's Theme" from "Star Wars" every time Cheney is shown, an interesting side note from Maureen Dowd needs attention. She actually asked a man who should know something about the subject -- George Lucas himself -- and here is what he had to say on the matter:
Lucas, the creator of "Star Wars," had told me that I had gotten Dick Cheney completely wrong, that Cheney was no Darth Vader.... Lucas explained politely as I listened contritely. Anakin Skywalker is a promising young man who is turned to the dark side by an older politician and becomes Darth Vader. "George Bush is Darth Vader," he said. "Cheney is the emperor.... You know, Darth Vader is really a kid from the desert planet near Crawford, and the true evil of the universe is the emperor who pulls all the strings."
Well, I stand corrected, Mr. Lucas! I shall never refer to Cheney as "Darth Cheney" again, and instead will use "Emperor Cheney" instead. Ahem. But I digress. As I was saying...
Enter Dick Cheney. In a recent interview, Cheney spoke about the Bush Torture Memos specifically:
"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained."
While Cheney's statement that he had formally requested release of such documents was initially doubted in the blogosphere, new reports indicate that he requested them through the National Archives (there is more than one channel to make such an official request, which explains the initial confusion).
And, I have to say, I support the former vice president in his request. We have heard time and again from the Bush administration that, essentially, "torture worked" and thus kept us safer, but we have never truly seen any definitive evidence which backs this case up. And if we are going to debate the subject in public, then Cheney is right -- we should see all the evidence either side of the debate wishes to cite.
Now, a very strong argument can be made that this makes no sense whatsoever when seen in the light of all the garment-rending from the right over how "dangerous" it was for Obama to release memos which merely confirmed what had already been detailed in the press in a very thorough manner. Obama didn't give away any secrets, in other words, he merely confirmed what everyone already knew anyway. But the same argument (on national security grounds) simply cannot be made for making public the types of memos Cheney wants released. Because that would be new information, and thus may impact national security negatively if it were released.
Of course, this logic is not spoken of from the right when faced with Cheney's statement. Because it would show that Cheney is actually the one advocating release of national security information for purely political reasons -- to justify what the Bush administration did.
If this sounds farfetched, then you have simply not been paying attention to the record. Luckily for all of us, Dan Froomkin at WashingtonPost.com has. Froomkin has never been convinced that any solid proof that torture ever worked has ever been offered, which he documents in exhaustive detail -- as well as documenting the Bush administration propensity to declassify things when it helped them politically. [While this is an extremely long excerpt, it is also the best collection of links of the history of the "does torture work" argument which I have seen yet.] From his column today, a post titled "Call Cheney's Bluff":
Former vice president Dick Cheney, widely suspected to have been the prime mover behind the Bush administration's adoption of torture as an interrogation technique, last night dared President Obama to release more memos, these ostensibly chronicling the "success of the effort."
Obama last week released four deeply disturbing documents, in which government lawyers attempted to justify, in chilling detail, flatly unconscionable and illegal acts such as waterboarding, slamming detainees against a wall, and stuffing a prisoner with a fear of insects into a small box with a bug.
"There are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified," Cheney shot back last night in an interview on Fox News with Sean Hannity. "I formally asked that they be declassified now....If we're going to have this debate, you know, let's have an honest debate."
Please, Mr. President, call Cheney's bluff. But don't stop there. Also urge people involved in or knowledgeable about the interrogations to speak publicly about what happened. And encourage the Senate Intelligence Committee to hold its planned hearings on the subject promptly and in public.
Because, while Cheney is not entirely bluffing -- the fact is that there are inevitably a host of cover-your-ass memos that went up and down the chain of command, attempting to justify the unjustifiable -- the Bush administration has already made its best argument that torture made America safer. They've already given it their best shot, declassifying plenty of information to do so. And their claims fall apart under even modest scrutiny.
For Cheney to portray himself as the victim of secrecy is more than laughable. His signature modus operandi was for Bush aides to selectively leak or declassify secret intelligence findings that served their political agenda -- while aggressively asserting the need to keep secret the information that would discredit them.
So time and time again, when it was politically necessary, the Bush White House declassified material ostensibly related to terrorist plots thwarted by heroic means.
Back on October 6, 2005, for instance, to back up a speech he was making in an attempt to rally support for the war in Iraq, Bush declassified a "Fact Sheet" listing 10 terrorist plots he claimed had been disrupted by the United States.
But as Sara Kehaulani Goo wrote in The Washington Post at the time, the list was exaggerated at best: "The president made it 'sound like well-hatched plans,' said a former CIA official involved in counterterrorism during that period. 'I don't think they fall into that category.'"
In a February 2006 speech, responding to pressure to justify his warrantless domestic spying program, Bush suddenly went into more detail about one alleged plot, this one to crash a hijacked commercial airliner into the Library Tower, the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles.
At that point, Peter Baker and Dan Eggen wrote in The Washington Post that "several U.S. intelligence officials played down the relative importance of the alleged plot and attributed the timing of Bush's speech to politics. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to publicly criticize the White House, said there is deep disagreement within the intelligence community over the seriousness of the Library Tower scheme and whether it was ever much more than talk.'
And in September 2006, partly in response to The Washington Post's disclosure of a network of secret CIA prisons around the world, and partly as a political gambit during the mid-term election campaigns, Bush delivered another speech. In this one, he described what he called an "alternative set of procedures" used by the CIA on key detainees, and went into great length about the valuable information he said Abu Zubaida -- the first detainee to be tortured at the direct instruction of the White House -- had provided as a result.
That same day, the Director of National Intelligence obligingly declassified a Summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee Program.
But as I've written at length before -- see my March 30 post, Bush's Torture Rationale Debunked -- many of Bush's assertions have been repeatedly contradicted by investigative reporting.
And as Jane Mayer wrote in her book The Dark Side, "whatever their motives, it appears the President and the Director of Central Intelligence gave the public misleadingly exaggerated accounts of the effectiveness of the abuse they authorized. Some might impute dishonest motives to them. But it seems more likely that they fooled not just the public, but also themselves."
Very much along the lines of Cheney's argument, former Bush speechwriter Marc A. Thiessen returns to the Washington Post op-ed page this morning with more circular arguments, citing unsupported justifications written by torturers and their enablers as irrefutable proof of the value of what they did.
Thiessen writes that one of the memos released last week notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.'...In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques."
But quoting the CIA's belief doesn't really settle anything. And much of what Thiessen writes today is basically a repeat of his January 22 Post op-ed (itself a repeat of Bush's September 2006 speech) which I debunked here.
For instance, Thiessen writes: "Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques 'led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the "Second Wave," "to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into" a building in Los Angeles.'...The memo explains that 'information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the "Second Wave."' In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York."
But remember, this is the same plot that some intelligence officials told The Post in 2006 may have never been more than just talk.
So, yes, by 2005, senior Justice Department and CIA officials were in full CYA mode -- trying to defend what they had done and tell the White House what it wanted to hear -- and they most assuredly generated a lot of paperwork to support their views. But that doesn't make what they said true.
And, indeed, when it comes to the detainee whose interrogation we know the most about -- Zubaida -- accounts from outside the complicit chain of command suggest the assertions that torture worked are nothing less than delusional. As I noted just yesterday, Scott Shane writes in Saturday's New York Times that Zubaida provided some valuable information -- but before the torture began. Shane quotes a former intelligence officer involved in the case as saying that after the torture began, Zubaida "pleaded for his life... But he gave up no new information. He had no more information to give."
There is something crazy about arguing over whether torture works or not. After all, it really doesn't matter, if you believe that torture is never justified. But since at least early last year, the main defense of the Bush apologists has been to argue that the ends justified the means. And you can't just leave their assertions unaddressed.
Because this call for releasing memos (which document the use of torture and what we learned as a result) now comes from a Republican (who was at the center of it all), the right simply cannot justifiably start screaming about the "dangers to national security" such a release would cause. It came from one of their own, and they have shown no propensity yet for being consistent in applying rigorous intellectual standards to both the accusations they quite freely make against Democrats, and making such accusations (or even criticizing) one of their own. I am not expecting many righty commentators to denounce Cheney for even suggesting such, in other words.
But anyone interested in the debate, from any viewpoint whatsoever -- left, right, pro-torture, anti-torture -- should be able to agree that more information about what was done would certainly be a good thing for the debate itself. Of course Cheney will try to cherry-pick the memos which support his case. But if that happens, and there is further data which contradict the memos Cheney selects, the right simply will not be able to intelligently make the case that releasing the whole story could "harm national security" -- not when Emperor Cheney himself is the one who called for declassifying his side of the story.
Which is why, loath though I am to admit it, I support Dick Cheney's call for more Bush Torture Memos to be declassified and released to the public. Call it my own journalistic bias if you will -- I'm almost always in favor of knowing more about what was done in our name than less.
-- Chris Weigant
First!
Oh, wait, we don't do that here, do we?
:-)
I just wanted to publicly admit that I have fallen way behind addressing comments -- specifically last Friday's column. This column is a partial response to the debate. But only partial, and I will now go over to Friday and wade into the fray.
Sorry for being so remiss in my duties.
-CW
First!
Oh, wait, we don't do that here, do we?
Oh, for the love of god, please NO!!!! :D
I see that a LOT over at TaylorMarsh.com and that has GOT to be one of THE most immature and ridiculous actions ever to be taken in blogging....
Before he was waterboarded, when al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.â€
According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack — which KSM called the “Second Waveâ€â€“ planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.â€
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949
Thousands of people in Los Angeles are alive today that WOULDN'T be, if the hysterical Left had had their way…
Kinda really brings it home, doesn't it??
So, please.. Don't continue the fiction that torture is NEVER effective and NEVER saves any lives…
Michale…..
Michale -
I just knew someone would get a laugh out of that "First!"
I'm busily answering Friday's comments, but haven't gotten to the one where you cited this story, so I have to admit I haven't read it yet. More to come...
-CW
I find it funny (in a sad sort of way) that Froomkin treats as gospel the released info that paints the Bush Administration in a bad light. Yet, with words like "may have" and "maybe" and "probably", Froomkin totally disregards that SAME source when it shows the victories that have occurred.
One either believes the released info or they do not.. One can't have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously...
The simple fact is, there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US proper since 9/11. This FACT is solely and completely due to the actions of the Bush Administration. Deny it all you want, but it's a fact that is undeniable..
If some terrorists scumbags have been inconvenienced along the way??? Well, forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over that...
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Captain Spock
Michale.....
Leave it to George Lucas - and, why not!? - to articulate the quintessential description of the Bush-CHENEY dichotomy. He’s bang on, of course, and Maureen Dowd is probably still trying to figure it all out in terms of its classical mythological underpinnings...but that would be just par for her course.
I must admit that Cheney did make a very good point in calling for the release of the memos that purportedly report the ‘success of the effort’...on a number of different levels, many of which he most certainly did not intend. For starters, Cheney may have played no small part in fast-tracking the process of independent investigations, by the Justice Department and by Congress, into the Bush administration’s policies regarding the use of torture. And, in a deliciously ironic act, Cheney’s call for the release of the memos may have substantially increased the likelihood that these investigations can avoid being turned into a media circus and a vitriolic, partisan-driven process that would benefit no one.
Dan Froomkin wrote,
“There is something crazy about arguing over whether torture works or not. After all, it really doesn't matter, if you believe that torture is never justified. But since at least early last year, the main defense of the Bush apologists has been to argue that the ends justified the means. And you can’t just leave their assertions unaddressed.â€
I would argue that this is the absolute crux of the matter and should define the debate about torture which we finally appear ready to begin. In my view, torture should NOT be legalized or regulated, under ANY circumstances. That is not to say, however, that interrogators, acting in good conscience, will never decide to resort to using torture if they believe it to be absolutely necessary to save innocent life under the circumstances of an imminent terrorist attack...but, EVEN THEN, I completely agree with Michael Ignatieff (Canada’s next Prime Minister - I hope - and author of A Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror) in that the torture used should NEVER be justified or labeled as anything other than the evil it is. While the exigent circumstances may mitigate the use of torture in a court of law for the purposes of reducing the penalty for its use, the practice itself cannot be condoned.
In Ignatieff’s A Lesser Evil, I found two passages that may be of interest here:
“The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that an agent of the state may make a defense of necessity if accused of torturing someone: this excuse might mitigate the penalty for violating the law, but it would not excuse the torture itself, which remains criminal.†(Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil, p.13)
“...the ‘necessity’ defense has the effect of allowing one who acts under the circumstances of ‘necessity’ to escape criminal liability. The ‘necessity’ defense does not possess any additional normative value. In addition, it does not authorize the use of physical means for the purposes of allowing investigators to execute their duties in circumstances of necessity. The very fact that a particular act does not constitute a criminal act (due to the ‘necessity’ defense) does not, in itself, authorize the administration to carry out this deed and, in doing so, infringe upon human rights.†(Israeli Supreme Court Judgment on the Interrogation Methods Applied by Israel’s General Security Services, September 6, 1999)
We can assume that the ‘necessity’ defense would be used in the rarest of circumstances, if ever. But, even then, it should not be used as an excuse for engaging in torture or as a justification to avoid criminal liability for the use of torture...period.
Michale: yours is a persistent delusion.
Liz,
Very well written. You seem to follow the same idea that CW made before. Towhit, keep torture illegal, but allow mitigation if it is used and can be shown that it's use is necessary. In essence, allow for men (and women) of conscience to do the wrong things for the right reasons..
In a perfect world, that concept would work.
But, as we saw with the TelCo "trials", this isn't a perfect world and such a concept doesn't work. Invariably there will be those who will, SOLELY for political gain, use the "illegal" actions as a political baseball bat.
It's simply not fair to our men and women in the CT field to be forced to become criminals in order to save lives and safeguard this country. If essence, to do their jobs.
The point that Froomkin and many many others just cannot seem to grasp is that quite often, the end DOES justify the means.
In the reality of today's dangerous world, it's a sad fact of life.
I honestly can't understand the resistance. It's not as if we are talking about people here. We're talking about terrorists. Does anyone REALLY care about the convenience and comfort of an animal that would just as soon slit your throat for your compassion?? Truly???
Osborne
A handshake is always helpful when you are trying to bring the rest of the world to your side.
So, you would advocate a handshake for Laden? Dahlmer? Gacy? Bundy? Hitler? Stalin?
The problem with treating psychotics as honored and honorable human beings is that it only serves to re-enforce their delusion that they ARE honored and honorable human beings.
Take the issue with Iran. The Obama Administration puts out that they might be interested in dealing with Iran. The very next thing, Iranian President Achmedjihadist is crowing about how this proves that the US is in the wrong and is coming crawling to the Iranian government and people.
Why is it that those on the Left would embrace the scum of the Earth as brothers, yet wouldn't spit on a fellow American (who's sole "crime" is different political beliefs) if they were on fire?
Can you explain this inconsistency to me?
America has always reserved the right to overthrow South American elected officials. We even tried it with Chavez --
Really?? From your own link...
"Because of allegations, an investigation conducted by the U.S. Inspector General, at the request of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, requested a review of U.S. activities leading up to and during the coup attempt. The OIG report found no "wrongdoing" by U.S. officials either in the State Department or in the U.S. Embassy."
Obama got something he wanted, which is a promise for Chavez to quit playing the anti-American card.
And do you HONESTLY and SERIOUSLY believe that Chavez will stop playing the anti-American card?? Seriously??
I'll remind you of this when Chavez goes on his next anti-American rant..
As David Axelrod put it today, "anti-Americanism isn't cool anymore."
The same Axelrod who called legitimate and PEACEFUL protesters losers and morons??
'nuff said on THAT...
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times over the course of one month
SO???
Who cares?? The man planned the attacks on YOUR country that killed over 3 thousand of your fellow human beings who were completely innocent of any crime...
Do you know what I call this scumbag being waterboarded 183 times?
A good start!
The problem with those who think like you is that, in your minds, it's all theory and arm-chair quarterbacking. It's ooohhh so kewl to be backing and supporting the "underdog" without giving a thought to the innocent victims of the terrorists ya'all want to protect and pamper.
Michale.....
WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/
Here is another interesting part
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.
Isn't it interesting that the SUCCESS of torture was deleted from the original release?
Now, why would that happen??
Michale.....
"I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given."
- President Obama
This is why President Obama is my president!
Michale.....
@CW
First you are defending Sarah Palin...
Now you support Dick Cheney..
Awww right!! Who are you and what have you done with the REAL Chris Weigant!!!??? :D
Michale....
Elizabeth,
"Necessity" is not an excuse. You don't get your own set of facts or your own English language.
And unless the Constitution was amended when I wasn't looking, the President is still charged with defending the nation, and there's no "unless you have to torture" in it. So torture is not a crime if necessary to defend the nation.
The problem is that routinely torturing people to "prep" them for interrogation is not necessary to defend the nation, and IMHO was simply politically motivated like most torture was historically, and that is illegal and makes it war crimes.
But this whole torture is just WRONG, and we should never torture under any circumstances...
We've only begun repairing the damage of eight years of ideology trumping reality in policy-making. Pres. Obama has been in office about three months, -- could we... maybe... agree to wait at least SIX months before we begin repeating the Republicans' mistakes?
LewDan,
I couldn’t possibly agree more when you say that ‘necessity’ is not an excuse. That’s exactly what I said and I’m glad we’re on the same page on that point.
But, then you lost me. Are you saying that torture is not a crime if necessary to defend the nation because the Constitution does not expressly prohibit it? If that is the case, you may want to consider another Constitutional amendment! ...or, I hear that Congress may soon act to make torture illegal, if they haven’t already done so. I’m not completely clear on that.
Although, after reading your post again, I think it is possible that we may agree on nothing. Are you really saying that ‘necessity’ is not an excuse to prohibit torture? If that is the case, not only are we on different pages but I fear we are most likely in parallel universes.
You know what...your post has really confused me. Are you saying that torture should never be justified under any circumstances, as I am saying...or, are you saying that torture is not illegal if it is deemed necessary to defend the nation? I’m hoping you’ll want to elaborate...if for no other reason than to set me straight!
As for you, Michale!
We actually disagree on this issue far more than you think, sadly.
And,I'm thinking a conference call would be a much better method of debating the merits of torture, or lack thereof, than replying to blog posts - so much seems to get lost in translation!
Anyway, just to be clear as mud...I am saying that the end should never justify the means when we are talking about an agent of the state commiting an act of torture...NEVER, even in the case of a 'ticking time bomb' type situation. I am also saying that the 'necessity' defense may be used only to mitigate with respect to reducing the penalty for commiting torture which would remain a criminal act, regardless of the circumstances under which it was used.
You say that "it's not as if we are talking about people here...". Actually, people are precisely who we are talking about here - the people in whose name the torture was committed, the people who are in the unenviable position of having to committ the torture, and all of the people who will use the act of torture by the US as a proven successful tool for recruiting more terrorists.
I doubt my perspective will matter much, but from an early age, around eight or so, one of the many morbid things I thought about was torture. Being terrified of pain, my young self concluded that any normal person would say ANYTHING to make it stop. Therefore, anything said under torture was questionable at best. I truly believe that to this day.
Elizabeth, I'll try to be clearer. An excuse is an explanation to free one from an obligation, to attempt to gain forgiveness. NECESSARY means essential, obligatory. In other words necessities ARE obligations not attempts to avoid them.
Murdering people, maiming them, blowing their arms and legs off, in short, war, is worse than torture. Dead is permanent, torture isn't. People have at least the possibility of surviving torture. We accept war, maiming and killing by the thousands as legitimate means of defense when NECESSARY, but torturing one person can never be acceptable, even in defense, even if NECESSARY?
That's not being civilized. That's not being humane. That's exhibiting an irrational prejudice.
If you want to unconditionally ban torture then why not unconditionally ban guns, disband the military and arm police with sticks? Don't you consider killing people immoral, barbaric and inhumane? It is. Even when NECESSARY.
But this country would not survive without the military. Because we need the military to be immoral, barbaric and inhumane in our defense, when NECESSARY. Without armed police no-one would be safe. The whole country would be immoral, barbaric and inhumane like you wouldn't believe. But its not, because we have police to respond with immorality, barbarism, and inhumanity of their own in our defense when NECESSARY.
Yes, torture would very rarely really BE NECESSARY but so are atomic bombs. We've only used them once, some sixty-five years ago, yet we stock thousands of them. And trust me, in the immoral, barbaric, inhumane and just plain depraved derby nukes trump torture hands down. It ain't even close. Yet somehow they're not illegal.
My point, to be blunt, is that if force is NECESSARY to defend against lethal force either morality goes into a holding pattern while survival takes over -- or you die. There is no third alternative. Just because you hire others to do the dirty deed and never soil your on hands doesn't change Darwin's Law or bestow moral superiority upon you.
And to my knowledge no country has been insane enough to pass laws removing the choice to defend oneself and requiring that you die rather than do what's NECESSARY. I'm not saying no-one ever did, just that if they did its no surprise they aren't around anymore.
Being "civilized" and "humane" means using the minimum force NECESSARY and only when NECESSARY, not the politically correct force or the one with the best reputation. Anything else is immoral, barbaric, inhumane and quite probably just plain stupid.
Bush/Cheney committed war crimes because they tortured indiscriminately and UNnecessarily and that is exactly what the Geneva accords sought to prevent, and what we should be outraged over.
Does that clear up my position for you?
Michale,
"The problem with those who think like you is that, in your minds, it's all theory and arm-chair quarterbacking."
Have you forgotten our previous conversation already? I'm no armchair quarterback. I used to be an Army interrogator.
"Who cares?? The man planned the attacks on YOUR country that killed over 3 thousand of your fellow human beings who were completely innocent of any crime…"
So the point of the torture is no longer information, but PUNISHMENT.
Who cares if waterboarding makes it more difficult to get actionable intel and stop actual terror attacks. Hurting the bad guys makes Michale FEEL better, and that is what really matters.
As for "my own link," it's a Wikipedia entry. And it contains this line: "Bush Administration officials acknowledged meeting with some of the planners of the coup in the several weeks prior to April 11, but have strongly denied encouraging the coup itself, saying that they insisted on constitutional means." Which you can believe, because Bush never told a lie and we don't torture, either.
But this is just called "changing the subject:"
So, you would advocate a handshake for Laden? Dahlmer? Gacy? Bundy? Hitler? Stalin?
Seeing as at one time the president of the United States DID shake hands with Stalin -- because both of them were against Hitler -- my point is made: if you're trying to win over the rest of the world to your view, a handshake is always helpful.
Throwing in bin Laden and serial killers...well, they aren't exactly world leaders, are they?
The problem with treating psychotics as honored and honorable human beings is that it only serves to re-enforce their delusion that they ARE honored and honorable human beings.
The problem with treating foreign leaders who don't like the American agenda like psychotics is that it only serves to reinforce the delusion that they are NOT rational actors. They are, even if you don't understand their rationale.
Take the issue with Iran.
I really don't want to; it's not germane. But oh well...
The Obama Administration puts out that they might be interested in dealing with Iran. The very next thing, Iranian President Achmedjihadist is crowing about how this proves that the US is in the wrong and is coming crawling to the Iranian government and people.
What a polemical characterization! I've written about this before. If Persian diplomacy comes across as schizophrenic, it's because they are playing to their domestic audience differently than their foreign one.
Why is it that those on the Left would embrace the scum of the Earth as brothers,
Franco? Marcos? Pinochet? The Contras? When, exactly, did the left "embrace" these people?
yet wouldn't spit on a fellow American (who's sole "crime" is different political beliefs) if they were on fire? Can you explain this inconsistency to me?
Yes. The inconsistency is due to your disorder.
LewDan,
You are saying that war is worse than torture and that dead is permanent but, torture isn’t...unless, of course, it results in death. Got it.
Though, I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you equate the belief that torture, in the context of a constitutional liberal democracy, should never be justified with irrational prejudice. Call me thick-skulled.
I hope you don’t mind my asking if you have ever served in the military. The reason I ask is that I have spent a fair amount of time over the last several years conversing - on-line, albeit - with many current and former members of the US military, the vast majority of whom have voiced their strong opposition to the use of torture and their belief that the use of torture in the interrogation process is not only ineffective but counterproductive. I think they would also strongly disagree with your assertion that “we need the military to be immoral, barbaric and inhumane in our defense, when necessaryâ€. But, I could be wrong - I certainly do not claim to speak for any of them...and, I think I get the point you are making by using those terms.
I guess my biggest disagreement with you is with your assertion of the equivalency of (1) the use of torture as an interrogation method, when necessary, with (2) war or the use of force as a necessary last resort. I believe the latter is justified while the former is not.
I would also take issue with the proposition - which, as I understand it, you are promoting - that one must be an absolute pacificist if one believes that torture is never justified. In other words, I firmly believe that, number one...torture, as an interrogation tactic, should never be justified and, number two...torture, as an interrogation tactic, cannot be equated with war or the use of military force as a last resort.
But, your last statement leads me to think that we may not actually reside in parallel universes, at least!
@Liz
As for you, Michale!
And here I thought I was gonna get off the hook! :D
I am saying that the end should never justify the means when we are talking about an agent of the state commiting an act of torture…NEVER, even in the case of a 'ticking time bomb' type situation.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree... Because, to me, when it comes to saving innocent lives, ANYTHING should be on the table up to (but not including) terrorism itself.
You say that "it's not as if we are talking about people here…". Actually, people are precisely who we are talking about here - the people in whose name the torture was committed, the people who are in the unenviable position of having to committ the torture, and all of the people who will use the act of torture by the US as a proven successful tool for recruiting more terrorists.
As I have pointed out, there is NO empirical evidence to support the contention that the US torturing or Abu Ghraib or anything else done by the US had created terrorists that would not have been created by other means.
And, just to clarify, the "non people" I was referring to were the terrorists themselves...
Kevinm2
Therefore, anything said under torture was questionable at best.
And yet, there is plenty of evidence to (and more being released daily) that PROVES beyond any doubt that torture produced "High Value intel". Obama's National Intel Director's words, not mine.
It's a documented fact that torture has saved innocent lives..
So, let's look at things coldly, logically and rationally. On the one hand you have the comfort and convenience of a KNOWN and PROVEN terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children.. CHILDREN!!
On the other hand, you have the deaths of even MORE thousands of innocent men women and children..
Hmmmmmmmm
Is that really such a hard choice to make??? It isn't for me...
Osborne
Have you forgotten our previous conversation already? I'm no armchair quarterback. I used to be an Army interrogator.
Ahhh, my apologies.. I had indeed forgotten..
But, when comparing military and counter terrorism you are comparing apples and Eskimos.. In a strictly military environment, you and I are in agreement about whether torture is legal. It isn't.. It violates the Rules of War and the Laws Of Conflict..
In a CT environment, torture is a PROVEN useful tool and should be utilized under the strict guidelines I have put forth.
So the point of the torture is no longer information, but PUNISHMENT.
Not at all. The goal is and always SHOULD be the acquisition of actionable intel.
My point is, when it comes to terrorists, who are nothing but rabid animals, one shouldn't care about their comfort. The fact that some people, who should know better, still do is simply gabberflasting..
Who cares if waterboarding makes it more difficult to get actionable intel and stop actual terror attacks.
According to latest reports, apparently not THAT difficult. You are arguing fantasy, when the reality has been widely reported..
Hurting the bad guys makes Michale FEEL better, and that is what really matters.
No, not what matters.. Just an added bonus...
As for "my own link," it's a Wikipedia entry. And it contains this line: "Bush Administration officials acknowledged meeting with some of the planners of the coup in the several weeks prior to April 11, but have strongly denied encouraging the coup itself, saying that they insisted on constitutional means."
Which you can believe, because Bush never told a lie and we don't torture, either.
Do you have ANY proof that Bush lied about this?? No??
Then why are we debating it??
But this is just called "changing the subject"
How can it be changing the subject when you brought it up???
Yes. The inconsistency is due to your disorder.
By making your argument a personal attack, you completely and utterly negate the validity of any argument.
Thank you for your concession.
@Liz,
You cannot bring up aspects of torture vis a vis the military and apply those aspects to the realm of Counter Terrorism. It's comparing apples and Eskimos.
There are very specific and unequivocal rules governing military actions. Such is not the case in CT. We're making it up as we go along.
What works in a strictly military environment will not work in a CT environment.
The issue here is SHOULD terrorists, who are responsible for the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent men, women and children be tortured to produce actionable intel to prevent the deaths of MORE innocent men, women and children.
I am honestly and truly gabberflasted that anyone would answer NO to this.
Michale.....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html
Michale.....
Elizabeth,
I'm not saying military personnel are immoral, barbaric, and inhumane. I'm saying that the use of force to settle disputes is immoral, barbaric and inhumane, whether its law enforcement or military. Unfortunately its still often necessary.
Military personnel volunteered to make the sacrifice, even to risk their own lives, and do whatever is necessary to keep us all safe even though that may mean engaging in the immoral, barbaric, and inhumane acts of war. They trust their Commander-in-chief to only require them to make that sacrifice and take those risks, to be immoral, barbaric and inhumane when absolutely necessary in defense of this nation.
They were betrayed. The previous CIC waged an unnecessary and illegal war that killed more Americans than 9/11 and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. But the outrage is over torture? Not mass murder?
I'm saying your morality is relative. You are more against torture than war on moral grounds, without justification, it just is... and that is prejudice, a predetermination without regard to the facts.
You say torture should never be used even if necessary to self-defense... that is irrational, acting in ways that reduce or eliminate your ability to survive are the very definitions of irrationality and insanity.
I'm saying that if there's some substantive justification for your abhorrence of torture beyond blind prejudice or its being immoral, barbaric and inhumane I've yet to hear it.
And yes, long ago and far, far away I was once in a parallel universe known as the U.S. Army. The furor over torture doesn't begin to match my rage over the betrayal of our troops and the thousands dead and wounded in Iraq.
As to my equating torture to war, its quite simple, in life-and-death situations the ends do justify the means. You either live or die. You either survive or you don't. "Necessary to self-defense" means life-or-death situation not some abstract philosophical thought exercise. We like to believe we've evolved enough to do no more harm than necessary in order to survive but as I've said earlier, to do less is the definition of irrationality and insanity.
This one's for you, Liz... :D
Seems like CW is not the only Cheney supporter out there... :D
Biden Less Popular than Cheney
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/04/23/vp-shock-biden-less-popular-than-cheney/
Michale quickly looks for something to duck/hide behind... :D
Michale......
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.
"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "
Let's repeat that last part...
'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'
That sounds suspiciously like, "The Ends Justifies The Means."
Michale......
Thanks, Michale...but, you shouldn't have. Really.
Just for the record, though...I have officialy given up the good fight and I really couldn't care less what people think about Biden anymore. If they don't know by now how fortunate they are to have Biden looking out for their best interests, they never will...they may as well be journalists.
Liz,
I like to tease you about Biden, but I do admire and respect your enthusiasm.. :D
But on another note, let me ask you (and anyone else who wants to field it) a question.
Do you have a problem with Animal Testing??
Animals that are "tortured" and killed to advance the frontiers of medicine so that millions of human lives can be saved...
Is this a problem for you?
Assuming the answer is "NO", then why is it a problem when the same things are done to terrorists (who are nothing but dangerous, psychotic and rabid animals themselves) to a accomplish the same goals?
If your answer regarding Animal Testing is that you are completely and unequivocally against it, then on these issues, we will find no common ground at all..
But that doesn't mean we can't still be friends... :D
Michale....
Michale,
We'll always be friends...even if you keep insisting on providing me with links like that...at least, this time, you gave me fair warning. :)
As for animal rights...I'm all out of energy right now...later, OK?
LewDan,
I fully agree with you that the previous Commander -in-chief and his foreign policy/national security team unnecessarily rushed to war in Iraq without any exit strategy, whatsoever, and without adequate and proper resources - a wholly unacceptable betrayal of the US armed services and of the American people.
This inexcusable betrayal, and other policies implemented by the previous administration that have negatively impacted national security, is what should outrage all Americans.
I share your rage over this betrayal of the troops and of the thousands of dead and wounded in Iraq...and in Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers have died as a direct result of the incredible levels of incompetence and ineptitude with which President Bush and his national security team executed their ‘war on terror’.
I’m not sure I would agree with your assessment of my moral relativity, but who am I to judge. I don’t think that I am more against torture than I am against unnecessary and unwarranted war. I am, however, not a pacifist and do believe that nations may be forced to go to war under certain circumstances and after all other conceivable options have been exhausted. I also acknowledge that war is hell - even if it is justified.
I have NEVER said that torture should never be used, even if necessary to self-defense. What I have said is that the use of torture should never be justified, condoned, or called anything but the evil it is. It should never be legal or regulated.
Here’s what I have said, above...
“That is NOT to say, however, that interrogators, acting in good conscience, will never decide to resort to using torture if they believe it to be absolutely necessary to save innocent life under the circumstances of an imminent terrorist attack…but, EVEN THEN....the torture used should NEVER be JUSTIFIED or labeled as anything other than the evil it is. While the exigent circumstances may mitigate the use of torture in a court of law for the purposes of reducing the penalty for its use, the practice itself cannot be condoned.â€
In other words, I can imagine (if I try really hard!) a situation in which interrogators may come to a conscientious conclusion that their absolute last resort to save innocent life is to engage in torture. In this case, the exigent circumstances could be used to mitigate, in a court of law, the use of torture in an effort to reduce the penalty for its use. But the act of torture itself would remain a criminal act. This is what the Israeli Supreme Court has determined, for example. To put it yet another way...the ends do not justify the means.
I tend to agree with the concept of the lesser evil morality that Michael Ignatieff describes in his book, The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. He writes, on page 8: “...necessity may require us to take actions in defense of democracy which will stray from democracy’s own foundational commitments to dignity...the best way to minimize harm is to maintain a clear distinction in our minds between what necessity can justify and what the morality of dignity can justify, and never to allow the justifications of necessity - risk, threat, imminent danger - to dissolve the morally problematic character of necessary measures.†In other words, political ethics in an age of terror involves the balancing of rights, dignity and public safety and neither can trump the other.
On a final note, I do not believe that the use of torture is an effective means to retrieve the kind of credible information that would provide actionable intelligence in the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario. At least, I am not aware of any credible evidence to the contrary. Perhaps Dick Cheney is but, you’ll forgive me if I don’t take his word for it.
LewDan,
By the way, I was just going through the posts under Friday Talking Points (74): Pirates and Torture...
I was thrilled to read the comment where you wrote,
“Bush as President for eight years, and none of it, especially not the brou-ha-ha over torture even scratches the surface of his war crimes. He misrepresented to obtain, and then misused an authorization to enforce U.N. sanctions to wage an unprovoked war when he knew the underlying WMD "justifications" were baseless.â€
I couldn’t agree more! It seems so very few people understand what the October 2002 resolution for the use of US military force in Iraq (AUMF) was all about or the context within which that vote took place. Most people equate a vote in support for the AUMF as a de facto vote for war. In fact, a vote in support of that resolution is more accurately described as a march to peace in an effort to avoid war, not to rush into it.
Here’s a great site for the congressional debate surrounding the AUMF...just in case you haven’t seen it,
http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/
Elizabeth,
A few (hopefully) brief points:
I agree with most of what you say. But accepting that it is remotely possible that torture may have to be used while insisting that it must never be "justified" is dishonest. You clearly would never accept the use of torture unless and it was completely justified by clear and absolute necessity. Let's all be honest enough to say so. That doesn't mean it isn't morally abhorrent, just unavoidable.
As for "exigent circumstances may mitigate the use of torture..." Torture is either criminal or justified, there's no third option. How magnanimous to be willing to "mitigate" the crime of saving peoples lives. Nothing like the possibility of sending our benefactors to prison to show them our gratitude for protecting us.
Clearly I have a much lower tolerance for hypocrisy than you do.
And you keep talking about democracy. This has nothing to do with our political system. Maybe that's the problem between us.
This is about our physical survival. We're not talking about defending democracy, we're talking about how to protect peoples lives. The Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch hunts, Bush/Cheney all used torture for political purposes. That is evil. That is criminal. Always has been, always will be. The only way torture can not be evil and criminal is if its absolutely necessary to save lives, and that's non-political.
And you're right, torture is not an effective way to gather intel in general. That's one reason torture can never be justified unless the situation is both life-and-death, tightly constrained and fairly desperate. (Although Chris provided a Glenn Greenwald link in the comments you mention which made me aware that torture is illegal, without exception, under U.S. law.) Its also why Bush/Cheney = War Crimes.
LewDan,
If we could have a conversation...I mean, a real conversation, the olde-fashioned way...face-t0-face, then I'm sure we would agree on almost everything under the subject of torture.
I guess what I've been saying is that torture is evil, no matter what. It doesn't magically become less evil just because consiencious interrogators believe, in order to save innocent life at imminent risk, that (1) they have absolutely no choice to resort to it and (2) that it would have a reasonable
chance of being effective. It also wouldn't become less illegal! I'm saying that its use, in a case like this, could and would be mitigated, in a court of law, for the purposes of reducing the penalty for its use, but the act of torture itself would remain a criminal act. In this, I agree with what the Israeli Supreme Court has said on this subject in relation to actions taken by an Israeli state security agent...a subject they have considerable experience dealing with.
I don't see any of that as being either dishonest or hypocritical.
Yes, we are not talking about defending democracy. But, in a liberal democracy such as ours, torture is illegal and never justified...unlike under other, more odious political systems! :)
LewDan,
If we could have a conversation...I mean, a real conversation, the old-fashioned way...face-to-face, then I'm sure we would agree on almost everything under the subject of torture.
I guess what I've been saying is that torture is evil, no matter what. It doesn't magically become less evil just because conscientious interrogators believe, in order to save innocent life at imminent risk, that (1) they have absolutely no choice but to resort to it and (2) that it would have a reasonable chance of being effective. It also wouldn't become less illegal!
The use of torture, in a case like this, may be mitigated, in a court of law, for the purposes of reducing the penalty for its use, but the act of torture itself would remain a criminal act. In this, I agree with what the Israeli Supreme Court has said on this subject in relation to actions taken by an Israeli state security agent.
So, I think we are in agreement...I’m not saying that torture can be illegal AND justified...THAT would be hypocritical! I’m saying that torture is illegal and should never be justified
I don't understand why it is being either dishonest or hypocritical to say (1) that torture is evil and illegal AND that, if it is ever resorted to in extreme circumstances to save innocent life, it would not lose it’s evil or illegal label and that (2) its use may be mitigated in a court of law but not condoned or justified.
I think we are getting snarled up on semantics here.
Yes, torture is immoral, evil and wrong.
But sometimes it is necessary and, therefore, justified.
Just like killing another human being can be construed as immoral, evil and wrong.
Yet, no one, who is rational, will argue that fact that, SOMETIMES, killing another human being is necessary and, therefore, justified.
As politically incorrect as it is, sometimes the ends DO justify the means...
Anyone ever read FAIL-SAFE?? A perfect case study of the ends justifying the means.
Michale......
I think you're right, Michale...we are getting snarled up in semantics...this is a hard and complex subject to discuss on-line, even without a word limit!
Elizabeth,
WHY would something that "resorted to in extreme circumstances to save innocent life" automatically be "evil or illegal?"
Just what do you think "mitigated in a court of law" means if not "condoned or justified?" Or, more precisely, WHY would a court of law mitigate if it didn't think it was "condoned or justified?"
Its not semantics. I do agree with you 99%, but some of what you say is illogical and contradictory to me, and I don't think its miscommunication.
We don't try people so they can prove they're innocent. We only try people we're convinced are guilty, or, at least, we used to. Time was we believed, "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned." Now we seem to think, "better ten innocent men be imprisoned than one guilty man go free." That's moral decline, not enlightenment.
LewDan,
This has been interesting...but tiring. I must be getting too old, or something. :)
Torture is evil and illegal and it does not lose those labels after it has been put to use - under ANY conditions.
While the use of torture can never be condoned or justified or seen as anything but the evil it is and always will be, an act of torture MAY be mitigated in a court of law for the sole purpose of reducing the penalty for committing said act, based on extreme circumstances where innocent life was determined to be at imminent risk, but not to reduce all criminal liability since the act of torture remains a criminal act, regardless of the circumstances involved.
This is what the Israeli Supreme Court has decided and I fully concur.
I’m going to accept the fact, as you state, that we agree on 99% of this, quit while I’m ahead, and thank my lucky stars! :-)
Time was we believed, "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned."
In the here and now, when those ten guilty men can push a button and brutally murder hundreds or thousands or even millions of innocent men, women and children, that old adage is outdated and completely unworkable..
Michale.....