 |
May 19, 2007Maguire's Flim-FlamAndrew Sullivan beat me to the punch with this post. Look, in my view, supporting torture is somewhat akin to, say, still being in favor of slavery. Which is to say, re-institution of torture should simply be considered beyond the pale in any leading Western democracy in the post-Enlightenment era. I'm saddened to see Tom Maguire endorses it, and further regret that he appears to think this debate is something akin to a ribald game where the key is to score debating points (look, St. McCain would be for it too, in the obscenely low on the probability cure ticking-bomb hypo!). McCain had fought tooth and nail against torture, and reluctantly conceded the CIA carve-out last year (in a terribly dissapointing bow to political realism, given his Presidential run) which I'm confident he'd reverse were he to gain the Presidency. (As for Glenn Reynolds, who links Maguire's "St. McCain" post with the usual lame non-endorsement/endorsement link, the better so he can assure the old Yale Law crowd later he's not pro-torture, the less said, the better. Suffice it to say though, I cannot take his views regarding national security matters with the slightest shred of seriousness anymore. Space and admin law, perhaps. Foreign policy, not in a million years). P.S. I do want to quickly address this Maguire comment left at my blog, if I might. Maguire writes: I think we are debating whether, for example, playing loud music is "torture". I don't believe any of the Republican candidates would favor electric shocks, dismemberment, or beatings, for example. Is waterboarding, which is scary but part of SERE training for our own troops, "torture" in the medieval sense? I don't know why we can't debate that. And the debate moderator did posit a ticking bomb scenario. Tom, why does torture have to be "in the medieval sense" to be torture? This seems to be a common misperception among the frothing right blogospheric goose-steppers eager to describe anything short of the rack as non-torture. There are various generally accepted definitions of torture. So I don't appear a sissy and quote U.N. Conventions (god forbid!), here's 18 U.S. Code § 2340, which is to say, binding U.S. law: "As used in this chapter— (1) 'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; If Maguire doesn't think protracted sleep deprivation, long exposure to frigid temperatures, water-boarding, and other such tactics constitute torture, well, I'm afraid I can't take his views in good faith anymore and would lose much respect for him. But Tom aside (we're just unimportant wee little bloggers, after all), our press corps, if they're capable of it, need to ask Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani (let's not waste time with cretins like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo), whether mock execution (which is what water-boarding is) constitutes torture. We know Mitt, eager to please the legions of rabid LGF/Hewitt/Reynolds types, would likely tell us he'd double the number of water-boarding interrogations, but I'm curious to know what Rudy meant at the recent presidential debate when he said: In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of -- "Every method they could think of", eh? And Maguire tells us he doesn't think Rudy had "beatings" in mind. Smells disingenuous, doesn't it? Oh, and memo to Tom: SERE training is, you know, training. People know it's, er, not real. When you're a captive at a secret detention center in Romania and you're being water-boarded, you don't have a effing clue if it's real or not. You think you might die. This isn't a Steve Harrigan stunt, for ratings and assorted hoopla. Again, it's a mock execution. Did we win the Cold War so we can perform mock executions in penal colonies in Castro's Cuba or post-Ceausescu Romania? How sad, if so. Tom, in his comment, continued: As to the corrosive effect of the use of "torture" - I agree that Rumsfeld messed up the distinctions with Abu Ghraib, but - I don't know why we can't have a "No Enhanced Techniques" rule for the military and separate rules for special prisoners in special CIA prisons. That was the plan in Iraq, as I understand it - Krulak/Hoar say a breakdown in discipline is inevitable, but I don't see why. What happendd to "People follow orders or other people die"? Cute use of quotation marks Tom, around "torture". And Rumsfeld didn't just "mess up" distinctions, he basically instructed a general in his chain of command to 'Gitmoize' Iraq detainee centers. What arguably "worked' at Gitmo, far from a conflict area and with good guard to detainee ratios, well, near 'hot' battle zones, where people's buddies are getting killed, and mortar shells are flying in, use of dogs, sexual abuse, even death--all these things resulted from said 'mess up'. Oh, and our soft power around the entire god damn globe took a massive hit, but hey, no biggie. The distinctions just got a tad blurred, see? Tom, you might not think much of Krulak and Hoar (and you're right to suspect they'd think little of you), but it is quite a lot to ask a 19 year old from Idaho in the middle of Mesopotamia with his life on the line daily to understand distinctions between what the CIA can do and the Army, or whether one is an enemy combatant or a POW, and so on. Thus the former commander of the Marine Corps, and Colin Powell (another cheap "saint", for Tom, I suspect), and Jack Vessey, and so many others--they all want a bright line prohibiting torture period. The stakes for our national reputation, for our armed forces, for our dignity, for our democracy--they are unacceptably high--if we allow a right to torture (even if limited to the CIA), which again, includes "enhanced interrogation techniques" like waterboarding. Maguire concludes: Anyway, this from Krulak/Haor is laughable: Maguire, alas, misses the point. Of course al-Qaeda will chop off heads Nick Berg style whenever they deem appropriate. But there will be other wars, with other foes. Some of our enemies will be just as brutal, others perhaps less so. Regardless, we need to retain the moral high ground, so we can proceed with unimpeachable confidence--and so that not a single credible and serious government can accuse us of hypocrisy--that only the enemy is torturing, because we are better than they. Isn't that what this entire struggle is about, finally? Civilization, versus barbarism? With us ostensibly representing the former? Tom, a final plea, come back to the light--buck the commenters who pollute your site fanning their small fears and pro-torture hysterics. Lead, don't follow. UPDATE: Maguire has responded to Sullivan (scroll to bottom), and writes, "I question "routine", and "cadre" seems awfully melodramatic - can't we just call it a Brute Squad?" I'm guessing we're not going to have a serious discussion here, as Bruce Moomaw suggests in comments. As Nietzsche once put it, "a joke is the epigram on the death of a feeling." The feeling here being, I'd suggest, caring two whits about America's (heavily diminished, alas) reputation as leading avatar of human rights on the global stage. Tom doesn't get the stakes, I fear, and so simply isn't serious on this issue, and therefore, not particularly credible either. Comments
Don't hold your breath; Maguire has always been the Oscar Wilde of right-wing political bloggers -- all Witty Comments and careful mental unseriousness. Actually confront him seriously on any issue, and his spittle starts flying. It is, as I E-mailed you yesterday, amusing to watch both him and "Cassandra" squirm when somebody asks them to officially define what circumstances THEY think interrogative torture might be permissible under. (Who is "Cassandra", by the way? She's just intelligent enough to make her frequent stupidities and her smartass mannerisms more annoying.) Sullivan nailed them pretty neatly; in the event of that Ticking Nuclear Bomb -- or some other extremely rare circumstance in which military torture might be justified -- the President (or, in a real emergency situation, one of his underlings) could order a go-ahead on it and knowingly run the risk that he'd suffer for it if -- and only if -- 2/3 of the Senate and a DA and all 12 members of a jury thought his action was a case of unjustifiable assault and he SHOULD suffer for it. Failing that, if we are going to insist on a clear firewall to allow such extremely rare torturings without letting them start spreading steadily like a spill, we need to set up a Permissible Torture Court, similar to FISA, which would allow torture to go ahead in any individual case if a (large) supermajority of the justices agreed. And we had better GIVE the Court that official name, instead of falling back on the dangerous euphemisms we're all so used to. I can't resist throwing in one final passage, from Winston Churchill's "The World Crisis": "The Great War differed from all ancient wars in the immense power of the combatants and their fearul agencies of destruction, and from all modern wars in the utter ruthlessness with which it was fought. All the horrors of the ages were brought together, and not only armies but whole populations were thrust into the middle of them...When all was over, torture and cannibalism were the only two expedients that the civilized, scientific Christian States had been able to deny themselves; and these were of doubtful utility." Not any more, according to our current two Guiding Intellectuals. Let's hope Cheney doesn't get too hungry on those hunting trips... Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 19, 2007 10:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
What I’d ask someone like Tom is – why stop at torture? Sure, it can help us (feel) more secure, but it can’t ensure that we’ll catch all the threats out there. What if a tightly insulated group has a nuke, and none of its members or anyone with any knowledge of them have been caught? Torture won’t do us any good, then. So why not allow the police (or army or CIA or FBI, etc.) to start conducting random (or even ethnically or religiously targeted) raids? Think how much terrorism, not to mention crime, we could stop that way. And for that matter, what about stops and searches on the road, in the malls, in schools, in churches? And what would be wrong with wiretapping all citizens? If you’ve got nothing to hide, then why should it bother you? Yes, seemingly childish questions, sure. As Tom would probably say, no one is talking about stuff like that. Right – not yet. But considering that we’ve already got a significant portion of the population so easily sold on throwing out habeas corpus, welcoming torture, and allowing the executive to claim powers akin to those of a dictator (sorry, decider), then what will the conversation be after another attack, especially if on the scale of 9/11 or larger? In the course of figuring out how to make us safer, it would be foolish to ignore the threat of an overly fearful populace. So this crap has to nipped in the bud now. And perhaps the key to that is to get people in this country to understand (and accept) that living in a free and open democratic society comes with potentially huge risks. We’re always going to be more vulnerable to attacks, from meager to horrific, than a locked down, pervasively spying, no-trust (hopefully benevolent and intelligent) dictatorship. That doesn’t mean we can’t try to minimize our susceptibility, but there have to be some clear lines in the sand that are nonnegotiable. I trust that even Tom has some ideals so essential to his idea of what America is and ought to be that he would never let them fall by the wayside in exchange for any amount of increased security. And that’s the conversation we should be having. The starting point should be the understanding that we will NEVER entirely eliminate foreign threats to our lives. Not without completely sacrificing what this country is all about. (The funny thing is that I think most of us already accept this in terms of domestic threats – i.e., crime.) So when we’re thinking about altering our country’s stance on such core ideals as habeas corpus, torture, etc., we should be seriously asking ourselves if the gain in risk reduction (not elimination!) is worth the cost in character. Simply put – being “America” requires some nerve. If we can’t collectively show some, we’ll necessarily lose what we profess to love.
And this was a world that had signed the 1929 Geneve protocols, one problem of course, the enemy didn't observe them, The Churchill is an instructive source on the matter, but not the ultimate
So, is Narciso saying that torture is justified in the current situation or not? And if it is, what kinds of limits do we put up to make sure it doesn't start being used on a wholesale, careless basis (as this administration has been doing)? George Washington totally forbade it during the Revolution and FDR during the Pacific War -- despite the fact that their enemies didn't reciprocate the favor at all, and despite the fact that those were genuine wars of national survival -- because they were aware that torture turns up little useful intelligence but DOES mass-produce lasting America-haters. Now consider how important that is in the current conflict, where our potential body of enemies is the entire damn Moslem world. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 20, 2007 03:41 AM | Permalink to this comment
While I strongly disagree with Giuliani about his stance on abortion, I think he is the only credible Republican candidate who has the right stuff to be President in these perilous times. I was very impressed with the way he tore Ron Paul's head off, figuratively, when Paul made his idiotic remark about 9/11. And I am sure he could do it literally, if the need arose during his Presidency. He is the only Presidential candidate I trust to have absolutely no qualms about defending this Republic against all enemies foreign and domestic (especially the latter, who are more dangerous).
If Maguire doesn't think protracted sleep deprivation, long exposure to frigid temperatures, water-boarding, and other such tactics constitute torture, well, I'm afraid I can't take his views in good faith anymore and would lose much respect for him. As Bruce points out, Maguire's writings are notably chiefly for their twee unseriousness. (Though Bruce flatters him by comparing him to Wilde.) I'm not sure what's worse: advocating torture merely in rhetorical sport, or advocating torture because he really believes it's effective. The latter is wilfully ignorant; the former, morally demented. (In that, at least, Maguire does accurately represent his fellow travelers in the pro-torture camp.) Frankly, Greg, while it's always good to see quotes from famous and revered statepersons condemning torture, you might as well be talking to a window when you quote them at Maguire et al. Insofar as they've thought about the issue at all beyond the rhetorical neener-neener, they envision themselves as plucky iconoclasts who dare to challenge dusty old moral and ethical precepts which are irrelevant to the world today. It's as if no human culture has ever confronted a conscienceless adversary before; as if no one had ever grappled with the consequences of becoming equally conscienceless in response. History refutes them at every turn? Very well, they will ignore history. History doesn't apply to them, because they are New Men, freed from the burdens of the human past, acolytes of the New Reality which the Bush Administration has created. In that New Reality, Will and Force are the sine qua nones of American might; and torture is a good thing, because it projects Will and Force. All hail the New Man!
Take a look at Maguire's 6:26 PM comment: "Sort of in the 'Note to Self' file: At some point in a discussion of 'torture' versus 'enhanced interogation techniques', someone ought to quote Nietsche's 'That which does not kill me makes me stronger'. Don't think of it as torture -- think of it as character development." As I say, the man is a barrel of laughs.
I'm 55 years old. I'm a baby boomer. I grew up in the shadow of the mushroom cloud. Until I was about 30 years old, I honestly believed there was a better than even chance I'd be annihilated by a nuclear bomb. I remember nuclear drills in elementary school. (Duck and cover, anyone?) Yet through all that, the Constitution survived. We Americans stood in solidarity against unwarranted surveillance, torture, coercion. That was what the Russians did, not us. What happened on 9/11 was horrifying. But not more horrifying than what many human beings face face every day. Not more horrifying than what the people of Europe and Asia endured through WWII. Are we less brave than them? Have we become so fearful that we are going to do to ourselves what no enemy could possibly accomplish? Become torturers? Give up our First Amendment rights? Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." They weren't hollow words. Our founding fathers were in peril of their lives and liberty when they rebelled against the English crown. Are we now so craven that we will trade our dignity, our ideals, and our freedoms for a promise of safety? Not me. I want no part of it. There is no way to ensure your safety. Not if you listen to every phone conversation and read every email in the country. In the end, we're all going to die. So why trade 200 years of freedom and decency, of a system the whole world once admired, for base authoritarian methods that the whole world now fears? I have been worried for my country many times, and afraid for myself many times. But not until the GWB administration was I ever ashamed of my country. Evidently we've come down to arguing about how much torture is "okay." The right answer is: none. I am not afraid of what terrorists can do to us. Yes, they might kill some of us. It happened on 9/11 and it could happen again. Just like the Russians could have launched ICBM's against us, or we could all come down with avian flu. But none of that can destroy our precious civilization, our Constitution, our liberties. Only we can destroy those things... and it appears we are well on our way. Posted by: Jan Lewis at May 20, 2007 07:05 AM | Permalink to this comment
Incidentally, where is that "reply to Sullivan" on Maguire's site? I can't find it, and his latest update ends suddenly in the middle of a word. (Not that it matters, if the intellectual quality of those 2 new comments of his is any indication.) Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 20, 2007 07:14 AM | Permalink to this comment
What I find most interesting is that it is the issue of torture that has created the schism among conservatives who initially supported this war. People like Greg, Cole, and Sullivan peered into the abyss of torture, and backed away from it, and the war itself, while the Maguires and Hewitts jumped in..... and continue their descent into irrationality as their pronouncements are constantly reinforced by an even more rabid commentariate. Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 20, 2007 01:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
If Maguire doesn't think protracted sleep deprivation, long exposure to frigid temperatures, water-boarding, and other such tactics constitute torture, well, I'm afraid I can't take his views in good faith anymore and would lose much respect for him.I note you don't respond to his point that we do precisely the same things to our own troops at SERE school. And yeah, it sucked, but "torture?" Don't think so. (They also didn't feed you for several days, which to my mind was the worst part of the whole experience.) Here are the standards we're talking about. Note the "protracted sleep deprivation" is a minimum of four hours of sleep a night, not to exceed 72 hours. Note that in the "exposure to frigid temperatures," the interrogator must remain with the detainee. Here's the worst thing we're talking about: waterboarding. Can you honestly claim there can be no debate whether that's "torture"? Because, sorry, that doesn't look like a "good faith" argument to me. Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 20, 2007 03:41 PM | Permalink to this comment
Cecil Turner, I think we should force all American men to go through SERE training. It would make men out of them and save Western Civilization. Posted by: someotherdude at May 20, 2007 05:03 PM | Permalink to this comment
Tom doesn't get the stakes, I fear, and so simply isn't serious on this issue, and therefore, not particularly credible either. I disagree. He's suggesting the matter is open for debate and mocking (appropriately, IMO) the counter position. You claim "There are various generally accepted definitions of torture" and cite 2340A. But in the only serious attempt to define torture, the infamous "Bybee memo," specifically claimed the contemplated standards did not meet that definition: We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A’s proscription against torture. When you're a captive at a secret detention center in Romania and you're being water-boarded, you don't have a effing clue if it's real or not. You think you might die. This isn't a Steve Harrigan stunt, for ratings and assorted hoopla. Again, it's a mock execution. Waterboarding induces panic. It's not the same as pointing a gun to someone's head and them having a rational fear of the trigger being pulled (that's a "mock execution")--and Steve Harrigan's "stunt" illustrates clearly why it's hard to resist, even if you know you're not going to get hurt. And what of the other techniques? Is the detainee convinced he is going to freeze to death from the cold room, or die from exhaustion during sleep deprivation? Obviously not . . . he's uncomfortable and he wants it to end. And yes he's afraid, but this isn't "torture," or the word has no meaning (or such severe gradations in degree that we're going to have to make up a scale for things like thumbscrews, bamboo shoots, and tiger cages). And the "anti" folks debating this want to obscure the actual techniques, because they suspect the average American is going to side with the folks who say waterboarding for the worst dozen detainees is probably acceptable. So McCain spouts "Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition" in an attempt to conjure images of medieval torture chambers . . . and that's simply not on. Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 20, 2007 05:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
why not put all children through SERE training? this scenario is much more like the terrorists wrt lack of consent (unlike our troops who have explicitly agreed to give up most control over their lives). that someone can sincerely suggest the troop training equivalency is just mind-boggling. has anyone in a position of authority made this argument or is just the keyboard commandos?
Nah, it's not torture. Cecil, how many SERE students survived this? Posted by: Davebo at May 20, 2007 05:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Davebo, according to the article you linked, that was "from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, ...." and further mentions "the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case." The argument that this treatment was policy, or condoned, seems just a tad weak. Greg, the problem with this whole discussion is that everyone is against "torture", but no one can agree on what it is. So, how about you propose, for debate, a definition of torture that allows interrogation and can't be read to define "torture" down arbitrarily. After all, we've just been presented with the spectacle of one "torture victim" whose "torture" included poorly inflated soccer balls and clumsy maid service. Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at May 20, 2007 05:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
Nah, it's not torture. Is your point that kneeing the guy in the leg until he has a heart attack is torture? No argument. As is raping a teenager and killing her family (or is that just an atrocity?). Since neither is an "enhanced interrogation" procedure under discussion, nor practiced at SERE school, I'd suggest it's slightly off-topic. But it's probably more pertinent than the Spanish Inquisition.
Charlie, Yes many were charged, the vast majority aquitted, and the worst sentence to those convicted being 5 months in prison and a bad conduct discharge. Tell me, with two men dead, do you consider that sufficient? Are you making a statement that torture will not be allowed, or are you saying keep it up guys, we can usually look the other way? Posted by: Davebo at May 20, 2007 06:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
I was wondering when Turner would get in on this. For the record, Cecil, the "cold" treatment involves not only turning the room terperature down to 50 degrees but wrapping the subject in a wet sheet to suck the heat out of his body, which I rather doubt is done simultaneously by the interrogator in the room with him. The technique was very popular with Stalin, and (as Sullivan documents extensively) there have been quite a few cases in our own use of it where the subject had to undergo emergency treatment for hypothermia. As for sleep deprivation: the accounts provided by Sullivan include not only being kept awake, but being forced to stand upright for 72 consecutive hours. Try it sometime. And sleep deprivation, of course, was another of Stalin's favorite techniques, described by both Solzhenitsyn and Menachem Begin as one of the most excruciating torture techniques there is. Now combine this with the number of actual interrogators who have complained that they were engaging in flat-out, unambiguous torture (in such places as the Washington Post op-ed column), and you'll forgive me if I doubt your authoritative expertise on this subject. What is beyond doubt is that the decision to use any such techniques had damn well better be made by more than one man.
Whoops: almost forgot to mention that, when the Japs used waterboarding on American POWs, it was not only routinely described by us as "torture" but got at least one Japanese officer a lengthy prison term for war crimes. So let's knock off the word-chopping, hmm, and admit that under this administration things have gotten a bit out of hand in this respect? (As in most others, of course.) Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 20, 2007 07:09 PM | Permalink to this comment
For the record, Cecil, the "cold" treatment involves not only turning the room terperature down to 50 degrees but wrapping the subject in a wet sheet to suck the heat out of his body, which I rather doubt is done simultaneously by the interrogator in the room with him. Of course it was. If we're going to discuss the definition of torture, why don't we start with the techniques referenced in the DOD manual that everyone has breathlessly insisted is the real mccoy. And those, as listed, do not involve wet sheets and do require the presence of the interrogator. The technique was very popular with Stalin . . . Don't forget the Spanish Inquisition! Again, let's stick with the ones in the current debate, shall we? What is beyond doubt is that the decision to use any such techniques had damn well better be made by more than one man. Hence the directives outlining them and training for interrogators? I agree. And in fact, most of the examples of actual torture dredged up are instances in which there was no directive to do so, no real need (detainees with no particular knowledge), and a clear breakdown in discipline leading to criminal acts. The usual means of managing that sort of thing is to have courts-martial for the offenders. Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 20, 2007 07:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
How about calling waterboarding 'mock baptism' instead of 'mock execution', and how about recognizing that it does produce actionable intelligence? And where's the proof it generates lasting enemies of America?
Whoops: almost forgot to mention that, when the Japs used waterboarding on American POWs, it was not only routinely described by us as "torture" but got at least one Japanese officer a lengthy prison term for war crimes. Did it? Because tracking down that claim (originated by Sen Kennedy, I believe), he got several facts wrong. In the first place, it wasn't a Japanese Officer mistreating a US civilian, it was a Japanese contract civilian mistreating US POWs. And checking just one of the specifications, it was a bit more than waterboarding: Specification 2: That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them, by forcing water into their mouths and noses; and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies. [emphasis added]Further, we're talking POWs here, and the rules for them are strictly hands-off . . . one of the main distinctions between them and unlawful combatants. Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 20, 2007 07:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
If torture doth prosper, who dare call it torture? The arguments against waterboarding for inefficacy fail, those against it for it's inhumanity remain, for humans to decide, as the need to decide arises.
Waterboarding was one of the chief accusations in that trial, Cecil, and one of those mentioned most prominently in the indignant US newspaper headlines about it. (Presumably if the Americans tortured in this way had been uniformless guerilla fighters against the Japanese, there would have been no complaints from us on their treatment.) The US interrogator who did the Post op-ed, by the way, was Eric Fair, whose account can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801680.html . Apparently he's another of those limp-wristed, snivelling pantywaists who doesn't appreciate how you have to fight a real war, like George Washington. As for the accounts of actual US tortures we're hearing (from sources other than the prisoners themselves): damp sheets and 72-hour standing sessions figure prominently. (Coming up shortly: my list of fascinating tales collected by Sullivan.) And as for it "not being authorized from above": really. Note that Jay Bybee's memo is "infamous" precisely because it declares that torture isn't torture unless it involves pain" equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death", or purely mental pain that results "in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." Which, of course, leaves open all sorts of fascinating excruciative possibilities. As for those "directives": they are, of course, ultimately authorized by one man, Cecil, which is exactly what I was talking about. Particularly when the one man possesses the level of morality and responsibility we've seen from Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. Thus my previous reference to the fact that, if we're going to do this sort of thing, it had better be allowed in any individual case only when a supermajority of members of a court resembling FISA allow it.
The US interrogator who did the Post op-ed, by the way, was Eric Fair, whose account can be found at [here] Apparently he's another of those limp-wristed, snivelling pantywaists who doesn't appreciate how you have to fight a real war, like George Washington. He's another guy who was given an illegal order in direct violation of the guidelines for interrogating prisoners. And, as he correctly points out, he didn't resist it sufficiently. And again, this has little or nothing to do with the question of the enhanced interrogation guidelines, which never applied in Iraq and which any competent interrogator should have known didn't apply. I can sympathize, however, because resisting illegal orders can be very difficult, even when you're sure they're illegal. (And thanks for the link, I didn't know what you were talking about earlier.) As for those "directives": they are, of course, ultimately authorized by one man, Cecil, which is exactly what I was talking about. Are you now arguing for a unitary executive? In any event, until we change the Constitution, the Executive predominates in warfighting. And if the choice is between that and a "Permissible Torture Court" . . . well, no thanks. Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 20, 2007 08:08 PM | Permalink to this comment
During my stroll through the first 50 of Sullivan's 519 listed comments on torture, I've found the following entries. Note that almost all of them are from this year alone. There are LOTS more whose veracity I remember as being rather difficult to ignore, and I'll be providing a sampling of those, too, later today. I'll be interested in Mr. Turner's comments (provided that they don't involve any veiled references to Sullivan being a soft-hearted homo, like Gen. Krulak):
And, no, Cecil, I'm not arguing for a Unitary Executive. That seems to be your specialty. Nor am I aware that the Executive's "predominance in warfighting" should allow him to personally order any damn war crime he happens to feel like. I rather dobut that the Framers thought so, either. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 20, 2007 08:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
Cecil Trner is slightly more agreeable to discussions that don't favor his narrow POV, here at least. 'Waterboarding induces panic" as opposed to holding a gun to the head in a mock execution. What is the source of the 'panic', survival instinct? How is the fear of dying from drowning different from the fear of death from a bullet? When pressed, this parsing of 'torture' vs 'torture' (by the Grand Inquisitor) breaks down quickly. Posted by: semanticleo at May 20, 2007 08:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
" And what of the other techniques? Is the detainee convinced he is going to freeze to death from the cold room, or die from exhaustion during sleep deprivation?" Except when they do freeze to death, which happened at a CIA site in Afghanistan. And "forced standing" leads to people being chained up and suspended from a window sill or door frame when they are no longer physically capable of standing--also implicated in more than one death. You're disgusting. Disgusting. I shivered in my house when the pipes froze and the temperature dropped to 50 degrees. I was wearing multiple layers, but when you sit still for an extended period it's hard to get warm. It's very different from walking outside on a fall day. The description of "cold cell" involves being kept naked in a room that's 50 degrees Fahrenheit and having cold water poured on you, for an extended period. It's design to induct hypothermia and it does. In at least one case, fatally. And you thing that the fact that your body's gag reflex kicks in and induces panic in waterboarding makes it BETTER than mock execution? You make me ill. Posted by: Katherine at May 20, 2007 09:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
The framers gave the power to declare war to the legislature and the power to make war to the executive for one simple reason; it is far easier to get into war than to get out of it. Given an extreme scenario during wartime, who else but the Executive should decide?
"who else but the Executive should decide?" I guess any executive, except THIS Executive. Is that what you were looking for? Posted by: Semanticleo at May 20, 2007 09:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
Y'all are hypocrites; in the midst of waterboarding you'd happily agree to that of someone else. Imagine another scenario with your women and children being driven before you. Would you waterboard to stop it?
Interesting to see situational ethics justify torture, isn't it?
I hear that if you beat someone with a bag full of oranges it leaves no outward signs, but dislodges the internal organs making it difficult to shit right again. Is that ok? I mean, if one of my own were being held captive and I rounded up all the brown-skinned men with two-days of beard growth wouldn't I be justified in flaying them alive on the 1% chance they might have information that would help me? Posted by: Semanticleo at May 20, 2007 09:44 PM | Permalink to this comment
. . . provided that they don't involve any veiled references to Sullivan being a soft-hearted homo, Y'know, there's lots of name-calling and ad hominem in this thread, starting with the title and "frothing right blogospheric goose-steppers," and extending through the comments section. Throughout, I don't recall referring to anyone as much of anything at all. And no, I don't feel like digging through Andrew's 500+ comments, which I generally find unenlightening. If you have an on-point example, please point it out (preferably with a link). The ones you've given so far aren't particularly persuasive. Nor am I aware that the Executive's "predominance in warfighting" should allow him to personally order any damn war crime he happens to feel like. Hey, that's funny, because I believe that's exactly McCain's contention. In any event, I agree. The problem is your definition of "war crime" which seems overly broad to me. Again, we're not talking about POWs, but unlawful combatants. The only protection they have is the Convention Against Torture, and expanding the definition of torture to cover things like belly slaps is unconvincing. You're disgusting. Disgusting. [. . .] You make me ill. Yet more reasoned discourse. Does that mean I "tortured" you? Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 20, 2007 09:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
"I mean, if one of my own were being held captive and I rounded up all the brown-skinned men with two-days of beard growth wouldn't I be justified in flaying them alive on the 1% chance they might have information that would help me?" Again, I say it. If one has loved one's being beheaded by terrorists, is there any torture technique that is not justified, even if scores die in the process of seeking info? Why limit ourselves to the tepidity of Torquemada? Posted by: Semanticleo at May 20, 2007 10:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
Your scenario is unconvincing, SC.
"Your scenario is unconvincing, SC." Just want to know how far you will go. In addition, I wish you and Cecil tell us about how confident you are in giving your proxy to government agencies who would be charged with calibrating and executing the limits you are comfortable with. Posted by: Semanticleo at May 20, 2007 10:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
I've not been convinced anything but waterboarding works.
"I've not been convinced anything but waterboarding works" Unresponsive.. Posted by: Semanticleo at May 20, 2007 10:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
kim; I've noticed you're big on getting responses, but not too keen on providing responses of your own. Posted by: Semanticleo at May 20, 2007 10:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
Completely responsive.
You don't understand the new paradigm. Waterboarding is safe and effective. It's also cost effective, a whole lot more so than the CIA.
Kim; You're a lot like Cecil. Posted by: Semanticleo at May 20, 2007 10:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
"a whole lot more so than the CIA." Let's privatize our local police force. More cost effective. Posted by: Semanticleo at May 20, 2007 10:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
Now someone will still want to call it torture, and such limits will be placed on it such that the intended recepients, when necessary, will have learned to stymie the technique. In fact, it's already neutralized.
You have absurd arguments, SC. What does that mean?
"What does that mean?" I know it seems absurd through the Looking Glass, but you are just like Cecil. He too, parses the portion of the question he feels most comfortable with. I believe they call it a 'defense mechanism'. Posted by: Semanticleo at May 20, 2007 10:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
It means, SC, that your argument is ad absurdum. You criticize my point from scenarios which make little sense. You don't think our military would be able to use waterboarding effectively and humanely? Why not?
WTF is your def of 'humane'? Is it similar to Cecil's who condemns mock execution as 'inhumane'
I've already been through humane. See above.
You are the one who seems to have trouble with the boundaries of humanity. See you above on 'flaying alive' and beheading.
Or how about eviscerating, drawing, quartering, AND beheading?
I have found intellect to fall into two distinct categories. The first understand the nature of rhetorical questions. The second group must find an answer. Posted by: Semanticleo at May 21, 2007 12:01 AM | Permalink to this comment
OK, Mr. Turner. Here's the other unquestionably relevant Sullivan items I've found so far. If you don't want to look at them (and at the articles and accounts to which he hyperlinks in them), fine with me; we can all draw the obvious conclusion. If you DO look at them -- or even a modest assortment of them -- you're going to have a hell of a hard time denying that this administration, from the top down, ordered the explicit torture of detainees -- and not just by CIA agents, either. This evidence -- to put it mildly -- adds up. By torture I don't mean "belly slaps", shredded Korans, or panties on the head; I mean good old sometimes fatal physical torture like Torquemada used to make. And it was NOT decided upon by low-level military men on their own. (Note: In some cases, there is more than 1 relevant post per day. Also note that this is the list I ended up with AFTER I tried to remove redundant posts on the subject.) In 2006: In 2007:
A few footnotes: (1) By "non-redundant" entries, I mean entries in which Sullivan actually describes evidence on the subject, as opposed to just rhetorically denouncing the Administration's policies. I've also tried to avoid listing redundant evidence, although I may not have completely succeeded there. There was an awful lot to go through. (2) And by "evidence", I don't mean accusations by prisoners themselves, which of course in themselves would be almost worthless. I mean accounts by third-party observers, and (in some cases) leaked government documents. The amount of such evidence that turns out to exist is absolutely amazing -- but then, the whole thing is amazing. And it is this that upsets so many of us so much. (3) To the list of interrogation techniques I'm NOT referring to, you can add even "threatening prisoners with vicious dogs". (4) It's reassuring to learn that Turner himself apparently wants no part of doing this sort of thing even to "enemy combatants" -- which is more than can be said for Maguire. What he hasn't discovered yet is the extent to which it HAS been going on, thanks to the fact that -- by pure bad luck -- we elected two incredibly irresponsible men as President and Vice-President, and they located a kindred spirit to be Defense Secretary. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 21, 2007 01:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
OK, Mr. Turner. Here's the other unquestionably relevant Sullivan items I've found so far. Okay Bruce, I started to dig through his archives per your list. It's a pain. I presume your first entry is this one (the only remotely pertinent thing from Jan 30, 2006, AFAICT): Signing statements - and Bush's innovative use of them - are important, as I insisted a while back. Dahlia Lithwick gives an excellent summary of the issues here. She also writes one of the cleanest paragraphs on how Bush's interpretation of unchecked executive power led to the endorsement of torture. [he goes on to quote a paragraph from the cited post on how the Administration "telegraphed" its willingess to go along with torture which led to the youngsters abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib]To put it mildly, this is unconvincing. The Taguba Report gives a good summary of what happened at Abu Ghraib, and it had nothing to do with signing statements. If this is indicative of what you're proffering as evidence about King George™ condoning torture, I don't see the percentage in digging through the rest of Sully's archives. Why don't you pick your best three (and provide links, please). Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 21, 2007 01:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
Bruce: why are you wasting your time with cecil turner? he called the bybee memo (upthread) "the only serious attempt to define torture". this guy is either disingenuous in the extreme, or a total idiot (actually, I'm thinking something of a combo). but I like the name, Cecil Turner. Sounds out of a Kipling novel. Think rattan wood canes, and striking the burmese underlings to get through the rangoon traffic quicker. what an ass. Posted by: timewaster at May 21, 2007 01:31 AM | Permalink to this comment
OK; how about my best 10, with links? (Sullivan, by the way, is well aware of the Taguba Report, and its limitations.) Coming up once I sort through them. Meanwhile, another interesting tidbit has just turned up via Sully: the Military Times' online poll today found 70% of its respondents supporting "torture" (under that name) as a ROUTINE technique for the interrogation of all POWs: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/the_military_an.html . Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 21, 2007 01:36 AM | Permalink to this comment
"this guy is either disingenuous in the extreme," He's not an idiot. Idiot Savant, maybe. You know, the kind of guy who can memorize the NYC telephone book, but needs help getting across the street? Remember the parable of the three blind men who were asked to describe an elephant? Each focused on the closest physical portion. That's Cecil. He refuses to acknowledge those characteristics which are outside his narrow field of view. Posted by: Semanticleo at May 21, 2007 01:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
Time's a wastin' on oriental fantasies; the elephant stomping through your tangled logic is that waterboarding is effective and nearly harmless. Is that torture?
Semanticleo makes us touch his most creative ad hominem, and timewaster just wishes we would.
Kim, I'm trying to understand your stance. You seem to have no moral qualms about waterboarding and are 100% convinced of its effectiveness. But, sort of similar to what Semanticleo was asking before, if you had such a dire situation that you felt waterboarding was justified, what would you do if it didn't work? Perhaps the prisoner was strong enough to hold out or had been previously trained to withstand it. (You seemed to be concerned that the latter was a real possibility.) Either way, what then? Is that the end, and the interrogation is over, despite the looming consequences, i.e. nuke, family members beheaded, etc.? What would the next step be?
Sullivan, by the way, is well aware of the Taguba Report, and its limitations. Right. Have him explain "TACON" to me, and why it's significant. If he understood it, he'd be placing the blame where it belongs, on the commander. Every post I've seen by him on the subject is clueless. Sounds out of a Kipling novel. Heh. You know, I really like it when opponents can't find a substantive rebuttal. By the way, I'd note Charlie couldn't get any love on his request above for a definition of torture, and you didn't provide an alternative "serious attempt to define torture." Could it be you don't have one? Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 21, 2007 02:34 AM | Permalink to this comment
I'm one hundred percent convinced of waterboarding's effectiveness; I'm not at all convinced that it is effective one hundred percent of the time. You do see the difference?
Sure I see the difference, Kim. And that's perfectly rational of you. So, again, in those instances in which it is not effective, what next?
So, again, in those instances in which it is not effective, what next? Nothing. That's the whole point of having a list of authorized procedures, it keeps the knuckleheads from making up their own (like the CIA newbie who ordered the guy chained without his clothes in Afghanistan; or the idiots who thought "leg strikes" were appropriate for a misbehaving prisoner; or the guy in Bruce's WaPo link; or the particularly stupid panties on head pyramids at Abu Ghraib). But before we can list acceptable procedures, the question that must be answered is "where's the line?" And we're back to needing a definition of "torture" because that appears to be the line for unlawful combatants. (As opposed to POWs, who "may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.") Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 21, 2007 02:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
Cecil, that is precisely the question I'm asking. Given the impending nuke scenario, if waterboarding failed to produce a satisfactory result, what next? Do we just let all those innocent people die? I'm asking what Kim (and you) personally think the line should be. At what point does the interrogation end and we just accept the potential losses?
"And we're back to needing a definition of "torture"..." You can forget it Cecil. To produce a definition would make it clear. They would allow any US city to be destroyed rather than hurting their sensibilities. Posted by: barry at May 21, 2007 03:04 AM | Permalink to this comment
OK; here's all the links to the relevant Sullivan items from February through July 2007 -- along with separate links to the articles for which his own hyperlinks no longer work. (I don't feel like holding Mr. Turner's hand continuously, so I'll take a few hours' break before proceeding with the list of later relevant items. I hope he doesn't find this too exhausting.) http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/02/mora.html Ah, yes; just lower-level bad apples with no endorsement from above, yes indeed. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 21, 2007 03:05 AM | Permalink to this comment
Jason, why don't you answer your own question? Posted by: barry at May 21, 2007 03:06 AM | Permalink to this comment
Because, Barry, I'm curious about Kim's and Cecil's answers. (And now yours.) I'm genuinely trying to understand your views, but if don't feel comfortable explaining them, then that's your right. (Though I'd be confused as to why you post comments in the first place.) But if you must know, I'm for what the standard was pre-9/11. And yes, I understand that means accepting significant risk. I know you'll probably use that view to invalidate me in your eyes and thus avoid discussing this, but I hope you won't. I really do want to understand if you think there ought to be any limits on what should be done in order to save a city. And if so, why?
What was the "pre-9/11" standard you refer to? I have no problem with answering. I would like to see if you will spell out your answer. I do not believe you will. Here is mine. In the nuclear scenario, or one similar were many lives were at stake, nothing would be out of bounds. Trying to save the lives of tens of thousands by using a tactic the perpretators themselves use does not make us "like them". It does not destroy democracy. It preserves liberty. Those who wish to enslave or murder us can be met with any force, including real torture, in order to preserve our lives and liberty. I would attempt to save your life. Are you willing to save mine? Posted by: barry at May 21, 2007 03:28 AM | Permalink to this comment
By the way, Cecil already answered. Read his post. Posted by: barry at May 21, 2007 03:30 AM | Permalink to this comment
Barry, I rechecked the comments Cecil wrote, but he seems to have two conflicting views. In one comment, he seems to be agreeable to the idea that the Executive may do pretty much anything to an unlawful combatant, with no limits. But in answering my question about what to do if waterboarding failed, he said "nothing", thus implying a limit. Perhaps I'm misreading those comments, and if so, Cecil is welcome to set me straight. But again, Barry, how about you?
Given the impending nuke scenario, if waterboarding failed to produce a satisfactory result, what next? Regardless of the hyperbole (and presidential hopefuls' debate posturing), there's no answer to that one. It's obviously impossible to define procedures in the case of unforeseeable scenarios, and vanishingly unlikely they'd ever be implemented. What is possible is to define procedures for use by CIA officers in the event of capture of a high-value Al Qaeda operative. And those are doubtless in place, and really ought to be kept secret. I don't feel like holding Mr. Turner's hand continuously . . . Good thing, too, cuz you've exhausted my patience for nonsense. Jeeze, Bruce, I hope you're kidding. I signed on to read your top three, and they approach the ridiculous:
The jury took less than five hours to reach the verdict [. . .] The jury of four Army officers and six senior enlisted men rejected the defense argument that Graner and other guards were merely following orders from intelligence agents at Abu Ghraib when they roughed up the detainees.Nice try. If the head of the MI section at Abu Ghraib told young Sgt Graner to abuse detainees, he did it because he wanted to. If he'd told him to go burn the sh*tters, Graner'd have told him to kiss his a**--because he didn't work for him. Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 21, 2007 03:49 AM | Permalink to this comment
"But again, Barry, how about you?" I already answered. Your turn... Posted by: barry at May 21, 2007 03:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
. . . he seems to be agreeable to the idea that the Executive may do pretty much anything to an unlawful combatant, with no limits . . . Recommend rereading the above. The limit, for an unlawful combatant, is "torture" (not allowed under the CAT). He does not get the benefit of the Geneva Conventions, which are far more restrictive (prohibitive, in fact). Posted by: Cecil Turner at May 21, 2007 03:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
Oops. Sorry, Barry, I missed your comment answering my question. By pre-9/11, I simply mean the standards we already had in place regarding interrogation before this administration changed them. I object to this idea of "enhanced" techniques. They may perhaps be occasionally more effective, but that is by no means sure. (This is a whole other debate.) But my main concern is what the costs are for that supposed benefit, in terms of morality, foreign relations, potential for abuse (both intentional and unintentional), and ease of gradual expansion. I believe that there is a point at which, officially at least, we as a country will almost unanimously draw a line. But even at that point, there is still risk. There always will be, and we just have to accept that. So, Barry, concerning the nuclear scenario, if outright torture didn't work, would you consider getting the suspect's family brought in and tortured in front of him? Raped? Vivisected? Honestly, I'm not trying to be melodramatic, but you said no limits, and I'm just making sure I understand you correctly. Posted by: Jason at May 21, 2007 04:09 AM | Permalink to this comment
Here's the second batch of relevant Sullivanian pieces of evidence, through Dec. 2006: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/08/evading_the_war.html It is excruciatingly clear to anyone who isn't desperately willfully purblind that those "uncertain definitions of torture" that Turner complains about were DELIBERATELY left unclear by this Administration, in order to enable almost any techniques to be used. At any rate, coming up later is my third and last batch, covering the year 2007 so far. There are, needless to say, sources on all this other than Sullivan (at least one of which I intend to add to that final batch), but he has been one of the most thorough inspectors on the subject and deserves credit for that. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 21, 2007 04:17 AM | Permalink to this comment
Ok, Cecil. When I first read that, I thought you were agreeing with your interpretation of McCain's view. I see what you meant now. But I still am not sure I understand you opinion as to what ought to be allowable under the law for any human being, labels such as unlawful combatant or POW aside. And when that ceiling is reached, why it is not justified in going further.
Gregory D: Frankly, I don't see much respect in evidence here, when you start out asserting that Tom Maguire "endorses" torture -- an accusation which depends not just on rejecting the distinctions he makes out of hand, but also on skipping over a key point the very definition of torture you, yourself, supply. Your characterization of water-boarding, for example, as torture per 18 U.S. Code § 2340 is highly debatable. You take up the "threat of imminent death" while completely ignoring the fact that such a threat satisfies the definition of torture when it results in "prolonged mental harm." To my knowledge, no one has disputed the temporary nature of the panic induced by waterboarding -- quite the contrary, in fact. The distinction here is not a trivial one, and if you are not prepared to make it, you need to find a different authority upon which to rely. When it comes to matters of good faith, it strikes me that Tom Maguire's view takes the threshold specified in § 2340 into account where yours does not. I also find your defense of John McCain more than a little disingenuous. While I agree that the ticking time bomb scenario is apocryphal, McCain has said that he expects the President to take extreme measures in exigent circumstances. Your pique at Maguire for taking the Senator's name in vain seems overwrought when you, yourself, frankly acknowledge that McCain conceded the CIA carve-outs for patently political reasons. How exactly does that square with simultaneously demanding that he be treated as a paragon of principle on this issue? You may be confident that he'd reverse that policy as president himself, but I haven't heard him say so, have you? You may choose to put more stock in his show of reluctance than his actual vote, others do not. Maguire's real sin apparently consists of addressing McCain's inconsistencies with mirth, instead of the righteous indignation and ad hominems that pass for argument on this side of the issue -- because, of course, you'll really brook no contrary view at all, whether thoughtful or otherwise, will you? I'd suggest that broadly describing those who disagree as "frothing right blogospheric goose-steppers" does more to debase and trivialize public dialogue than any wry commentary from Tom Maguire ever has. Posted by: JM Hanes at May 21, 2007 04:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
"would you consider getting the suspect's family brought in and tortured in front of him? Raped? Vivisected?" No. But I would allow him to *think* we were doing those things. Jason, you still have not answered the questions. What is acceptable as a routine interrogation techniques? What would you do, precisely, in the scenario you gave, "in order to save a city."? Posted by: barry at May 21, 2007 04:28 AM | Permalink to this comment
Barry, why not? And how would you fake it? What if he didn't believe you, and the only way to convince him was to actually do it? Should we still go through with it? I believe your answer at that point would still be no. (At least I hope so.) And at that point, what would you do, now that the interrogation has failed? Simple - you'd look for other leads and pursue other avenues to try and avert disaster. You don't give up, after all. But you'd still have to realize that at that moment, you might be allowing a catastrophe to occur due to the limits on what you'd allow for an interrogation. But I wouldn't call you morally preening at that point.
Jason, I answered your question. If you cannot stop the destruction, you cannot. I would try. "But I wouldn't call you morally preening at that point." I, of course, have never said you were "morally preening". I can understand the aversion to using real torture techniques. I would not advocate using them except in the most extreme circumstance. I would not "codify" them. You are, however, avoiding the questions. I find that to be somewhat dishonest. In any event, as I said, I would try to save you. Apparently, your answer is no, you would not try to save the city. And you will not define the limits of interogration. Good Night. Posted by: barry at May 21, 2007 05:10 AM | Permalink to this comment
"As for Glenn Reynolds, who links Maguire's "St. McCain" post with the usual lame non-endorsement/endorsement link, the better so he can assure the old Yale Law crowd later he's not pro-torture, the less said, the better." Projecting or assigning imagined motives onto Reynolds' method of posting links doesn't lend credence to your argument. I really can't understand why someone who is seemingly intelligent needs to resort to such a stupid and flawed thought process. Why can't you just stick to the issue without writing such stupid things? Yes. Everything is sinister. Boo! Posted by: sticky at May 21, 2007 06:08 AM | Permalink to this comment
Yup, it's late and I'm done, too. I did appreciate the discussion, though I could have done without the attempts to paint me as being completely apathetic to my fellow citizens' lives. At any rate, I'm not trying to avoid the question. And to be clear - I'm talking about what our interrogation laws should be, not what the president might do if push came to shove. (I'm glad you qualified your stance in that regard.) With that in mind, I said I supported the pre-modified standards, which are very well defined. No, I'm not going to go into exquisite detail right now simply because my answer would be quite long and, frankly, boring. And really, I don't think you would care about the details. What you'd focus on would be the fact that I would stop way before you. Wouldn't even get to waterboarding, I'm afraid. But that's not the same as doing nothing. Sure, my limits would be reached sooner than yours, but the important point is that we both HAVE limits. And at your limit, at least officially, you are also potentially allowing something bad to happen. Again, this doesn't mean that because we can't fully eliminate the risk that we just do nothing in terms of interrogation. But these enhanced techniques come with a whole lot of baggage, the magnitude of which I think you're seriously underestimating.
Here's where you FINALLY get to the meat of it... "Maguire, alas, misses the point. Of course al-Qaeda will chop off heads Nick Berg style whenever they deem appropriate." So far, so good. It's a good point, but then you much it up with the line that follows that one: "But there will be other wars, with other foes. Some of our enemies will be just as brutal, others perhaps less so. " WRONG! This is pure fantasy and beside the point! The notion that OUR behavior will somehow dictate a current or future enemy's behavior is a fantasy. Wishful thinking. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. No way to tell, and it is *NOT* why we shouldn't torture. Senator McCain said something along those lines, about our ways of treating prisoners somehow effecting the way the jihadists will treat captured US military. I cringed. So out of touch with reality. Finally, you get to the ONLY point that needs to be made. It has nothing to do with how US captives will get treated. And nothing to do with how others view us. ONe does not do teh right thing for others - one does them for themselves. To be better. To be civilized.
I disagree with the part about caring what other governments think. You cannot control that. Maybe influence it. But there will always be those who choose to think of the USA in the worst possible light. A country behaves in a civilized way because it SHOULD. Because it is the right thing to do. Not for brownie points from other nations. Not for imagined future treatment of US captives. Torture is wrong. Period. It is barbaric and uncivilized. What has been gained by the torture? Little, if anything.
So, if we're to believe J.M. Hanes, inflicting agonizing terror on somebody -- enough to make them talk to the same degree that inflicting agonizing physical pain does (including telling lies, if necessary, to keep it from happening again) -- isn't torture? Although waterboarding was called torture by US war crimes prosecutors during WW II? Right... Similarly, of course, inflicting agonizing pain on someone using electrical or chemical techniques may leave them with no lasting physical damage either, and -- if they're emotionally durable -- with no lasting psychological damage, so naturally that isn't really torture either. In fact, if you can survive the infliction of ANY kind of agonizing pain without being permanently mentally damaged, it isn't torture -- provided that it does no pemanent physical damage to you, either. Ah, me... (And that's to say nothing of the fact that, as we now know, quite a lot of the unpunished torture that US troops and CIA interrogators have been carrying out HAS led to permanent physical damage. Including death.) As for Hanes' appreciation of Maguire's twinkling wit: presumably this is the twinkling wit that led Maguire to use Nietzsche's quote "That which does not kill me makes me stronger" as a basis to giggle, "Don't think of it as torture; think of it as character development." Shucks; for the life of me I can't think why anyone would find that morally offensive. Whatever one says about Turner, at least he agrees that inflicting torture on anyone is a no-no (except, perhaps, in extremely rare situations) -- which puts him miles ahead of Maguire, Hanes and their charming ilk. His mistake is in refusing to recognize that the torture that US military people have frequently carried out was actually encouraged by high-ranking Bush officials. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 21, 2007 06:38 AM | Permalink to this comment
Jason: "Would you consider getting the suspect's family brought in and tortured in front of him? Raped? Vivisected?" Barry: "No. But I would allow him to *think* we were doing those things." This is the half-assed proposal "Cassandra" (if I understand her properly) has made on her blogsite: don't necessarily actually engage in torture, but let detainees THINK that we do so. It's rather hard to see how we could pull this off with any frequency whatsoever unless we actually DO torture detainees -- or, in this case, their families -- fairly frequently. And this takes us back, once again, to the fact that Barry is talking about extremely rare, one-in-a-million emergency situations in which torture MAY be morally justified -- but for which it need not be legalized, since in such cases almost certainly no DA would ever bring charges, and certainly no jury would produce 12 members willing to convict. It would fall into the category of "justified assault". The trouble with the Bush Administration is that it favors FREQUENT torture -- so frequent, in fact, that it feels the need to legalize it, lest the people doing it run into juries in which all 12 members WOULD agree that it was indefensible. This is both morally repulsive and strategically idiotic, but then those two traits have characterized this administration's military efforts from the beginning. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 21, 2007 06:48 AM | Permalink to this comment
And all of this takes us back to an extremely important point that Djerejian made at the start of all this: we need to start thinking seriously -- right now -- about just what kinds of laws and regulations we should impose during a really serious terrorist emergency, in order to strike the proper balance between individual rights and public safety in such a situation. That includes deciding, openly and honestly -- right now -- just what emergency situations might justify torture, and just how we define "torture". My suggestion of a Permissible Torture Court was one attempt to do so (albeit maybe half-baked) -- but in any case, we badly need to do it. What we do NOT need to do is what this administration has done: try to give the President near-dictatorial power in a "wartime" situation for which he himself admits there's no foreseeable end, and engage in wholesale lies and coverups to try to hold onto that power. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 21, 2007 06:56 AM | Permalink to this comment
|