Um, glad to have you on board and all, Greg. But the appeasement-minded terrorist-lover tag has been liberally applied for the last five years.

Still, glad you're noticing it n' all.

Posted by: Azael at September 17, 2006 01:32 AM | Permalink to this comment

I'm rather shocked that neither Vessey nor Powell mentioned one of the chief reasons why torture is a bad idea--- intelligence gleaned from torture isn't reliable. ( Unless, of course, you aren't interested in actual facts or information, but merely to cite "intelligence reports" of various nefarious acts one can use to sell a foreign policy position -- then torture works like a charm. That may well be why Bush is so pro-torture...it works for him!)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 17, 2006 01:52 AM | Permalink to this comment

Hey Greg, have you seen this story in the Washington Post, about Kate O'Beirne's husband and his rather odd idea of who to hire to join the CPA and run Iraq?

Posted by: Jon H at September 17, 2006 05:59 AM | Permalink to this comment

You get confessions; "facts" are not needed.

When McCain was being tortured, they only needed confessions, not facts.

Posted by: NeoDude at September 17, 2006 06:02 AM | Permalink to this comment

Right now Christianity Islam and Judaism are leading us all against each other into the Apocalypse Nuclear World War 3 the extinction of life on Earth forever. The sick part is that the Christians and Muslims are trying to hasten the Apocalypse because they believe that this will usher in the advent of the Messiahs Jesus Christ and The Mahdi. Only The Temple of Love - The World Peace Religion makes peace among and unites Christianity Islam Judaism and Everyone else as the first step towards World Peace. It is the plan laid out by God of Mount Sinai aka God the Father, Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit, Allah and Adonai through every single Biblical Prophet of all 3 religions.

Posted by: World Peace Religion at September 17, 2006 04:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

Thanks for this, Greg. Glad to have you here. Keep it up.

Posted by: Jeb at September 17, 2006 07:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

Here's some Food For thought:

Have we ever had a conflict with a signatore of the Geneva Convention?

Is al-Qaeda a signatore of the Geneva Convention?

I think in retrospect, the Geneva Conventions, specifically the ones applying to wars and armed conflict, were wishful thinking, premised on ignorance about the nature of war; and if conflicts ever arose in the future, those future leaders would simply ignore any past agreements that their predecessors had signed.

We should be applying the full amount of force and coercion necessary, depending upon the circumstances, needed to exact information from terrorists, especially when terrorists are believed to contain actionable information or intelligence that can save other lives. Does this constitute torture? It depends on how you define the word. But rest assured, our definition of "torture" is nothing compared to what is practiced in Asia, the Middle East, etc. And if we truly wanted to not engage in "torture" or rough interrogation, we would not outsource it to the Egyptians or Pakistanis. We would simply say to enemy combantants- you are under our jurisdiction now, and our generous interpretation of Article 3 is what applies to you as long as your are in our detention.

I also believe that harsh interrogation tactics should be ceased against enemy combatants once information is exacted from an enemy combatant or terrorist, and they should be then placed in isolation. We should not wantonly apply these tactics, it is with great reluctance that we should apply coercive techniques- their goal is to save other lives, not to maliciously debase or hurt others.

Are these guidelines somewhat ambiguous? Sure. Is information gleaned from harsh interrogation reliable? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt. But the same thing can be said for much less harsh interrogation tactics. The bottom line is that harsh interrogation needs to be left on the table as a viable alternative.

Posted by: Vince at September 19, 2006 04:34 PM | Permalink to this comment

Is information gleaned from harsh interrogation reliable? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt. But the same thing can be said for much less harsh interrogation tactics. The bottom line is that harsh interrogation needs to be left on the table as a viable alternative.

Vince, clearly we need more information about when torture is appropriate. And we won't find that out without careful measurement and careful records.

So here's my suggestion -- apply torture only after a trial that clearly establishes guilt and clearly establishes that the defendant knows something we need. Then we can torture half the victims and use other methods with the other half, and see which gives correct information the most often and the soonest and all that. And publish the results.

If we're going to give up our morality we might as well learn something from the experience.

Posted by: J Thomas at September 20, 2006 12:21 AM | Permalink to this comment

"apply torture only after a trial that clearly establishes guilt and clearly establishes that the defendant knows something we need."

Should we conduct those trials before or after a dirty bomb or nuclear bomb is detonated, or other smaller-scale terrorist attack, for that matter, is executed?

C'mon J Thomas- in instances where we need actionable intelligence, we can't be treating terrorists and terrorism within a legal framework. We need much more flexibility when dealing with these individuals who will never be constrained by any of these niceties which only wind up granting them more leeway to conduct their terrorist activities. Would you have approved of conducting one of your hypothetical "trials" on September 10, 2001, hoping that such a proceeding would first decide if someone might have actionable intelligence before giving them the business that would make Dectective Sipowicz proud?

"If we're going to give up our morality we might as well learn something from the experience."

We are NOT giving up our morality by roughing these individuals up- we are protecting our way of life which UPHOLDS morality and the dignity of the person, the very way of life that these individuals would love to destroy. Yes, these people are human beings, but they are acting in the most sub-human of ways- it's time to stop apologizing to these people, stop treating this as a law enforcement issue, and get tough with them without compromise.

What separates us from them, specifically what separates the West from Radical Islam is that WE are not targeting innocent civilians with our operations, WE are not engaging in intentional acts of barbarism against innocents, WE are the ones who desire peace, not the subjugation and wanton of destruction of others, and WE are not motivated by a primordial hatred of their people and civilizations, as contrasted by their burning hatred of Jews, Americans, and non-Muslims, in that order. We are not "Sacrificing our Morality" merely because we are going to (or should) turn the screws on unapologetic terrorists who will respond in many instances to nothing other than blunt force.

Posted by: Vince at September 20, 2006 03:01 AM | Permalink to this comment

Should we conduct those trials before or after a dirty bomb or nuclear bomb is detonated, or other smaller-scale terrorist attack, for that matter, is executed?

C'mon J Thomas- in instances where we need actionable intelligence, we can't be treating terrorists and terrorism within a legal framework.

You are assuming your conclusion. You are assuming that torture works better than other interrogation methods. The interrogation experts say this is not so -- at least it is not so for interrogation experts.

How do we find out whether youi're right or the experts are right? There's no point in doing these stupid things without knowing whether they actually are any improvement. So we should find out whether they work with controlled tests.

We are NOT giving up our morality by roughing these individuals up- we are protecting our way of life which UPHOLDS morality and the dignity of the person, the very way of life that these individuals would love to destroy.

No, this isn't a question of personal morality. The fallback way our way of life UPHOLDS morality is our legal system. If we can't protect our society in a legal way, we can't protect it -- it's gone.

We desperately must protect ourselves from possible corrupt government. Once you tell the government they have the right to secretly torture people, you're giving them the right to secretly torture you.

You say it's only terrorist suspects they torture? They can secretly say you're a terrorist suspect and secretly torture you.

You say it's only real terrorists they can secretly torture? They can secretly say you're a real terrorist and secretly torture you. Who'll know? If your friends make a fuss they can say your friends are terrorists too.

You think -- on no evidence -- that we have to give the government permission to become a police state or the terrorists will get us. But there's no evidence so far that torture works better to get information. It's only known to be effective at getting confessions.

You are giving the government permission to torture you until you confess to whatever they say.

What separates us from them, specifically what separates the West from Radical Islam is that WE are not targeting innocent civilians with our operations,

If you let our government catch terrorists and torture them in secret, you're trusting them not to target innocent civilians. And you're trusting them so much that you don't even want to find out whether they're abusing your trust or not.

During the Soviet purges for a long time the public didn't believe it was happening. They worried about the "saboteurs and wreckers" who were threatening the society. The people who got caught could hardly believe it. "Oh, if only Little General Stalin knew what his government was doing he'd stop it." They could not believe it was happening in their wonderful society. They couldn't believe it was happening to them.

Posted by: J Thomas at September 20, 2006 01:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

"You are assuming your conclusion. You are assuming that torture works better than other interrogation methods. The interrogation experts say this is not so -- at least it is not so for interrogation experts. "

Firstly, I am admitting the possibility that such attacks are very possible, even likely, in Europe and the United States. To deny that such attacks cannot take place on a moment's notice is to be culpable of willful ignorance. We need to respond quickly, to prevent or curtail these attacks,

Secondly, "Interrogation Experts" are not unified in their opinions about "torture" for exacting information. In fact, it can be very useful towards terrorists of a certain mindset and disposition. Kahlid Sheik Mohammed was Waterboarded, and he definitely let us to a treasure trove of information, planned attacks. And this is just one documented instance of a "torture technique" as some would define it, producing actionable intelligence. So for you to say otherwise is factually incorrect. What I am asserting is very rough interrogation tactics need to be a viable alternative, one of many tools for the CIA and other Intelligence agencies to have at their disposal.

"How do we find out whether youi're right or the experts are right? There's no point in doing these stupid things without knowing whether they actually are any improvement. So we should find out whether they work with controlled tests."

Im sure the real experts in the field of interrogation know there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to which interrogation techniques work best with different individuals. Hardened terrorists probably need different techniques applied to them than their lackeys and associates whom they have less trust with. Psychological tests can determine which methods will work best- why should we be constraining ourselves from using these tools when it comes to enemy combatants or terrorists? Aside from sexual degradation and other forms of brutal torture which goes on unnecessarilly too long (both of which no one approves of) there are many methods that we shouldnt dispose of.

"We desperately must protect ourselves from possible corrupt government. Once you tell the government they have the right to secretly torture people, you're giving them the right to secretly torture you. "

Yes, we must protect ourselves from corrupt government, but a FAR more pressing concern is protecting us from terrorists who want to kill civilians and upend that government that protects them. It's a matter of priorities, no? Isn't the terrorist far more of an immediate threat to our collective physical safety than an incompetent bureacrat? There is no moral equivalency here whatsovever.

"If you let our government catch terrorists and torture them in secret, you're trusting them not to target innocent civilians. And you're trusting them so much that you don't even want to find out whether they're abusing your trust or not."

Yes, I do trust the present members of my government - President Bush, VP Cheney, Sec. Rumsfeld, and our wider national security apparatus- far more than I trust al-Qaeda for my protection and security. Sure, I want to know generally what they're up to in terms of policies. But specific classified information best remains that- classified. There will always be a domain of information not accessible to the public in free societies. And we have to trust that these people in power are discharging their responsibilities effectively. If you're not comfortable with that fact of life, perhaps you would consider moving to a totalitarian society or dictatorial regime where you wouldnt have to worry about that fact?

I think its wrong for you to imply that is no difference in the ethos and morality of our elected leaders and terrorist organizations. I believe in our Constitution, and I believe that non-citizen enemy combatants who wish to undermine our Society and that Constitution have no rights that they can expect under that same Constitution.

Posted by: Vince at September 20, 2006 03:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

VInce, I'm a little surprised that you'd embarrass yourself this way, but I'll respond again.

"Interrogation Experts" are not unified in their opinions about "torture" for exacting information.

Sure. That's why we need controlled tests to find out whether it's ever useful, and if so when it's worth doing. Silly to just throw away our legal system and our international agreements on the assumption that it's necessary, when there's no agreement and no testing.

Kahlid Sheik Mohammed was Waterboarded, and he definitely let us to a treasure trove of information, planned attacks.

This is also under dispute.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211.html

Nobody thought Khalid was important before 9/11. Later they decided that he was some sort of mastermind behind a variety of attacks. The claim is that he actually wasn't very important and didn't know many secrets, but under torture he made up a lot of garbage that they took seriously.

Psychological tests can determine which methods will work best- why should we be constraining ourselves from using these tools when it comes to enemy combatants or terrorists?

You're advocating giving psychological tests to terrorists to decide how to interrogate them?

Once again, the reason I don't want the government to secretly capture people and secretly torture them is that a corrupt government may do it to me. Or you for that matter, but if you want to give them permission to kidnap and torture you then I'm fine with them doing it to you.

Yes, we must protect ourselves from corrupt government, but a FAR more pressing concern is protecting us from terrorists who want to kill civilians and upend that government that protects them. It's a matter of priorities, no?

No, it isn't a matter of priorities. You can say in WWII there was a matter of priorities, should we fight the germans first or the japanese first. But we had to win against both of them. It wasn't enough to beat one and lose to the other. If we give up all our rights now, there's no reason to think we'll ever get them back if some day the terrorists are all defeated. It means we lose.

There is no moral equivalency here whatsovever.

Agreed. Corrupt empires and religious fanatics have no moral equivalence. I'm not saying they're the same thing, and I'm not saying one is as bad as the other. I'm saying that both of them are our mortal enemies and if we surrender to one hoping to protect us from the other, then we lose everything.

Yes, I do trust the present members of my government - President Bush, VP Cheney, Sec. Rumsfeld, and our wider national security apparatus

If you can say that with a straight face after Katrina then you have no credibility whatsoever. None. Come back with a new name, this one is used up.

And we have to trust that these people in power are discharging their responsibilities effectively. If you're not comfortable with that fact of life, perhaps you would consider moving to a totalitarian society or dictatorial regime where you wouldnt have to worry about that fact?

You surely have noticed by now that you are advocating we should have a dictatorial regime here. Everybody else here has surely noticed by now that this is what you want.

I think its wrong for you to imply that is no difference in the ethos and morality of our elected leaders and terrorist organizations.

That isn't what I said and you know it. Islamist terrorists don't like us. Our government wants to own us. Two different things. We mustn't put up with either one.

I believe in our Constitution

Give us some sort of evidence of that. What you advocate means destroying the Constitution.

The USSR Constitution was better than ours -- on paper. But they didn't follow it. Wnen you give the US government the right to drag anybody they want off in the night and hold them secretly and torture them, from that point on you don't have any rights.

You think you have a right to keep a gun in your house? If they think you have one and they don't like it, they can break your door down and come get you and your gun and if anybody asks, they can say you were a terrorist.

Free assembly? Free speech? Fifth amendment? All they have to do is tell themselves they think you're a terrorist, and it's all gone. What does it mean to say you don't have to incriminate yourself, when they can torture you until you confess and then not bother to give you a trial? Do anything they don't like and they can call you a terrorist and torture you.

It's possible you haven't thought this out. The alternative is that you're posting this stuff because your boss hopes other people haven't thought it out, and your job is to keep them from noticing.

Either way, nobody will listen to you again on this blog. Change your name and try again with a different line.

Posted by: J Thomas at September 21, 2006 03:10 AM | Permalink to this comment

J Thomas-

It really doesnt bother me if "no one will ever listen to me on this blog". Nor have you disproven any of my assertions. You've got a conspiratorialist bent which up until now has remain hidden, but now it is in full view for all to see. I guess you wouldn't "trust" anyone other than yourself to competently govern, which is a bit ridiculous. Your other assertions barely merit a response, because I do indeed believe in the U.S Constitution. As I said and but ignored, terrorists and enemy combatants enjoy NO RIGHTS under that same Constitution. In case you havent checked, none of the rights you've enumerated have been revoked or ignored, and your statements are nothing more than irrational fearmongering. Habeus Corpus was only suspended once in this country's lifetime, and guess what- It wasn't done by V.P. Cheney! Or Halliburton, for that matter.

Im not sure what country you're from, since this is the "Belgravia Dispatch"- im assuming you are from the London area? Im curious to know. Because you display an alarming ignorance of FEDERALISM. To blame the Bush Administration for Katrina is so wildly off base, you are only apeing Democratic Party talking points. You see, State and Local Authorities have primary jurisdiction for evacuation and rescue in such matters, not the Federal Government. But we are seriously digressing when we discuss the collapse of leadership of Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco in the context of this thread.

If you are from Europe, I will understand, since nowadays most of your local control over many matters has been ceded to the European Union, and Europeaners seem fine with outsourcing their sovereignty on so many fronts.

I am a bit surprised that you didn't give me credit for giving you Today's News Yesterday: CIA Interrogations Worked!

See here for yourself:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/

Posted by: Vince at September 21, 2006 05:24 AM | Permalink to this comment

For god's sake, Vince, change your name. Pretend you're somebody else.

Posted by: J Thomas at September 21, 2006 06:07 AM | Permalink to this comment

Vince,

Even if you do change your name, as J Thomas suggests, I'd like to know on what basis you can still trust George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al about anything. They have been wrong on so many things and have made so many mistakes, I can't understand how anyone can believe anything they say.

Leading up to the Iraq war, they started practically every statement with "9/11" and ended it with "Saddam Hussein". Today, they claim that no one ever said that Saddam was linked to 9/11, but they repeated their mantra often enough that Americans believed it. These false claims don't make me trust this administration.

Rumsfeld said that he knew exactly where the WMDs were. But, guess what? There were no WMDs. He also thought that we would be in and out of Iraq in a matter of weeks, believing that the Iraqis would be laying flowers at our feet. That didn't happen. And because he thought they would be in and out in a short time, he said he would fire anyone who mentioned post war planning. Boy, was that a mistake.

After the US military took over Iraq, it disbanded the Iraqi army and sent the soldiers home with their weapons. The US military fired all of the Baathists, who just happened to be all of the professionals, lawyers, doctors, architects, and bureaucrats who could run the important institutions of the country. More big mistakes.

Bush said that they didn't torture, but when Matt Lauer asked him if he admitted there were secret torture sites, Bush said, "So what?" We now know that there has been torture, and plenty of it. I guess if the President of the United States lies to us, we are supposed to say "So, what?" Does that build your trust in Mr. Bush? Or does it make you believe in his trustworthiness when he says that we are not wiretapping domestic calls, but, by golly, it turns out we have?

On September 6, Mr. Bush named Abu Zubaydah as someone who gave up important al-Qaida information after being interrogated with an "alternative set of procedures." It turns out that Zubaydah is crazy as a loon, and I suspect that he gave a confession in order to stop those alternative procedures. Again, I am hard pressed to see how these statements can make someone trust the President.

It would be easy to continue listing all of the times our administratian was either wrong or imcompetent. But, I want to switch gears here. I want to just say one more thing about torture.

For me, the issue of torture is not about how bad "they" are but how good we are supposed to be. I have an image of America where we try to be better than everyone else and that we have moral superiority. We lose when we become like "them", i.e. when we torture, engage in "disappearing" people, hold prisoners without charges or due process of law, and drop bombs on neighborhoods where innocent people die.

When we become as bad as the terrorists, the terrorists have won.

Posted by: Jay K at September 22, 2006 06:51 AM | Permalink to this comment