Home › Blogs › chemjeff's blog ›

On Truth Commissions and Witch-Hunts

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 09:37
in

For those of you who support "truth commissions" on the issue of torture, you must provide me with some concrete assurance that it would not devolve into a witch-hunt.  As of yet, I see no reason why it wouldn't.  A witch-hunt is the exact opposite of the rule of law; it is, instead, rule of the mob.  The danger of witch-hunts, of course, is that the zeal of the mob is so strong and so unrestrainable that it ends up destroying those which it shouldn't.  Note that I didn't say "it ends up destroying the innocent" because that is only rarely the case.  Targets of witch-hunts typically aren't innocent angels; they themselves may be guilty of some sin.  Even most of the infamous Salem "witches" were guilty of something (e.g., drinking on the Sabbath, lying to investigators, being 'juvenile delinquents'), just not witchcraft.  But, in the self-righteous atmosphere of the witch-hunt, every sin is considered an irredeemibly damnable offense, and yet one more reason to "dig deeper" to find the "real truth". In this case, I think the most likely result would be that the so-called "truth commission" will end up criminalizing political decision-making.  You can say that George Bush made some poor decisions, and I'd be the first to agree with you.  But that doesn't mean he's a criminal and a traitor, and I don't see any evidence that the mob won't be satisfied until George Bush is put away for treason.  Once the mob gets going, though, there's no way to know where it will end.

If you really favor the rule of law, the answer is simple: prosecute the alleged torturers themselves using the existing law.  Not lawyers, and not politicians.  But it's the truth commission itself, though, that would be corrosive to the rule of law, because it would demonstrate that the law can be sidestepped at a moment's notice by the unrestrained passions of the mob.  Suddenly, the laws on torture would mean nothing; what would matter instead is what the inquisitors of the truth commission thought, using their politically motivated and emotional views on torture.

If you think the law itself insufficiently prohibits or punishes torture, again the answer is simple: change the law.

For you Trekkie fans out there, the TNG episode "The Drumhead" is the classic example of the witch-hunt.  It behooves a re-evaluation at this moment as this nation may soon be thrown into the abyss of drumhead trials.

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Comments

what for you would qualify as

Submitted by molotov on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 09:50.

what for you would qualify as "concrete assurance"?

goals

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 10:03.

Well, to start with, why don't you first clearly and concretely specify the goals of the truth commission that you would find ideal?

what goals would give you

Submitted by molotov on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 10:20.

what goals would give you assurance?

assurances

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 11:06.

As of right now, I'm not sure if anything would.  But I'm open to suggestions.

Mainly I see it as a gigantic mine field.

understood. but you do

Submitted by molotov on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 12:05.

understood. but you do realize that if you cannot articulate what would give you comfort vis-a-vis a truth commission, it is impossible for any commission not be considered a witch hunt in your eyes?

that is not a knock on you. it's just an acknowledgement of how tricky these issues are.

people on both sides of the issue are going to have to find a way to meet somewhere in the middle.

the main point of a truth commission is not to prosecute people

Submitted by Maleficent on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 10:29.

but to investigate and create a timeline of what happened. This is of invaluable use to prosecutors, who will work using the already established laws.

I believe that any interrogator who spoke up about how wrong what they were doing is, should not be punished to the same extent as a willing accomplice. Even people who stayed around, and compiled careful notes for whistleblowing purposes... (I'm minded to be generous here, as there are a number of compelling reasons for a professional to stick around, even when forced to do illegal crimes, such as the prospect of Gosslings taking over the interrogation room).

I think the root of the problem is the higher ups, and that they deserve to be punished.  "The buck stops here" and all that -- but the real person that needs to go to prison is Dick Cheney, not George Bush.

It's not like we don't know

Submitted by Repack Rider on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 13:48.

...that torture took place, despite the protestations of the wilfully blind.  The only questions left are who goes to prison for it.

Once you know the bank has been robbed, you INVESTIGATE to find out who did it.  Despite the destruction of millions of White House emails in violation of federal law, there should be plenty of written information about who communicated with whom and what they communicated about.

Let's read it and THEN draw conclusions as to who committed the crimes that we already know took place.

Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury are already convicted by their own written memos.  Saying that torture is legal in order to cover for actions already taken does not make it so.  Slamming a prisoner's head against a wall is PERMITTED?  Who ARE these monsters?  I want them on a witness stand, any witness stand, testifying under oath and under penalty of perjury.

obvious guilt?

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 16:22.

If it's so obvious that they are already guilty, then prove it.  Cite the law that they broke and their actions that broke it.  I don't believe you can.  I think, instead, that you read what they wrote justifying enhanced interrogation techniques, it offended your moral sensibilities, and you believe that they deserve to be punished for it.  I can totally understand that feeling.  But, it is not consistent with the rule of law. 

Please

Submitted by Repack Rider on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 17:51.

it offended your moral sensibilities, and you believe that they deserve to be punished for it.

If it didn't offend YOURS, then your parents should be ashamed.  I hope you do not consider yourself a practicing Christian.

Laws are written by men with agendas.  Jesus was tortured to death by people who had the law on their side.  Do you believe that the Pharisees had the moral right to nail Him to a Cross to die in agony over a day or so, just because it wasn't against their law? 

I ask myself who Jesus would want tortured, and it's hard to see Him coming down on the side of the Pharisees.  Which side would you choose?

rule of law

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 19:48.

Well of course they did.  What do you think I am, some kind of monster?  But I also have the sense to know that you don't arrest someone based on how much or how little my moral sensibilities were offended.  You arrest someone because he's broken the law.  The written words of the law.  Not what we wish the law was, but what the law actually says.  That is the rule of law.  I don't appreciate being on the side where I appear to be defending torture.  But I really, really like the rule of law and I don't want to see it sacrificed in favor of demagogues who let their passions run wild and, oh by the way, who have a big axe to grind against Bush and Cheney.

Well said chemjeff

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 20:00.

This all comes down to the law VS lynch mob.

I for one am willing to let the facts come out and let the chips fall where they may. I think we will find that reasonable measures were taken to protect the US in a time of great crisis. 

Had we been attacked again, many of the same people would be attacking Bush for "not doing enough to protect us".

Its always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

law vs. lynch mob

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 21:22.

Thank you.  It is the law vs. the lynch mob, indeed.  The exact same thing that the framers of our Constitution grappled with.  Funny how some questions and controversies are timeless.

If there is something that should unite thinkers on the left and the right, it ought to be a defense of deliberative democracy and a resistance to submit important questions to the passions of the mob.

 

Completely deluded

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 22:36.

You are deluding yourself with your allegations of witch hunts and mobs. Was the Watergate investigation a witch hunt run by a lynch mob?

we're united on that, chemjeff.

Submitted by Maleficent on Tue, 05/19/2009 - 09:31.

I may be steamed as hell, but I do like the rule of law, and if the rule of law causes there to be a less-harsh penalty than I would give, so much the better (honestly, I know when I'm running hot).

I remain certain that there exists some law that they can be prosecuted under (disbarment, if nothing else.)

Hell's bells, when you fire all the professionals

Submitted by Maleficent on Tue, 05/19/2009 - 09:29.

and then get attacked because you lost all the good men who had devoted their lives to our country... of course you get flamed! I would NOT say the same thing about HW Bush, nor about any other Republican ALIVE.

But there is something called cause and effect, and I will not back down from a logical and accurate argument, simply because I might be considered partisan.

Had 9-11 happened under Bob Dole and a subsequent attack happened, I would not bitch. GWBush did specific, concrete actions that weakened the security of our country. That played a major factor in who I voted for, last election.

Actually, we don't.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 13:58.

For those of you who support "truth commissions" on the issue of torture, you must provide me with some concrete assurance that it would not devolve into a witch-hunt.

Actually, we don't. Because the delicate sensibilities of Chemjeff are not as important as the rule of law.

He means if you want to convince him

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 14:10.

which you don't.

So go back to your shrill partisenship.

Concern for law and truth is "shrill partisenship"?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 14:40.

n/t

it is also helpful to realise

Submitted by molotov on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 16:18.

it is also helpful to realise that it is almost certain that torture was used, not in a ticking timebomb wet dream scenario, but to prove that Al-Queda and Saddam were working together.

that is perhaps the stain that will haunt the torture-camp in the weeks and months to come.

cheney may never see the inside of a prison, but he will be known ultimately as the leader of those who lead us into an unnecessary war based on nothing but a quixotic fantasy.

the blood of every american soldier, killed or wounded in Iraq, is on his hands. for me this is not about the republican party and whatever differences i have with some but not all of their philosophy.  this about respecting the lives snuffed out do what they were lead to believe was the right thing by men who saw them as little more than fodder to ground up to prove and unprovable point.

 

torture and Iraq

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 16:24.

it is also helpful to realise that it is almost certain that torture was used, not in a ticking timebomb wet dream scenario, but to prove that Al-Queda and Saddam were working together.

You know, I see this claim a lot.  I guess it must be making the rounds at Daily Kos.  What is your evidence for this claim?

here's one:

Submitted by molotov on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 17:15.

here's one: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/68315.html

also TPM Muckraker has more background including other links: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/focus_shifting_to_evidence_bushies_ordered_torture.php

also here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/

the timeline here is key:  late 2002 to early 2003 was when the Bush administration was putting together their case for war against Saddam.

OK

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 16:38.

So as the torture to prove Al-Queda and Saddam were working together meme, along with the there are photots of children being sodomized  by US soldiers as their mother watched meme,  are biuilding among the left.

You wouldn't have any legit links to share with us, would you?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist...

Submitted by thirdeblue on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 16:52.

...and I truly hope there are not pictures of U.S. soldiers sodomizing children (if the children's mothers were watching or not) but given the timeframe for known torture in 2002 - that the Bush White House actively used torture to push for threads betwen Al Qaeida and Saddam doesn't really seem like such a stretch.  Especially since they "found" said links that we're all cognizant of.

you saw the pics of Abu Gharib

Submitted by Maleficent on Tue, 05/19/2009 - 09:42.

(I didn't. no tv). I'm not saying that all of that was authorized from above, for christ's own sake!

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/report-2005-may.html

http://brokenlives.info/?page_id=69

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/report-2007-08-02.html

As I read these, I weep. I know someone who has been tortured. It is not something that leaves you easy. In the night, you wake screaming -- or sometimes wake not at all, dreaming that you were dead. Almost death is not pleasant, and the scars don't wash themselves away.

How about these for starters?

Submitted by thirdeblue on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 16:31.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/05/14/cheney/

http://current.com/items/89993408_ron-suskind-gives-evidence-torture-occ...

This is the truth of the Bush White House post-911.

four responses to the torture-iraq fuzzy link

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 17:25.

First, I'll just say that the sources for these articles are dodgy.  Lots of anonymous, unnamed sources.  Anyone can say anything when their true name is not behind what they say.  (Kind of like the Internet.)  That of course doesn't mean that they are false, just that we ought to be especially critical of their claims.

Second, Conason's piece borders on paranoid delusion.

Third, well OF COURSE the idea behind interrogiation is to extract information.  Considering that Iraq was a charter member of the Axis of Evil, OF COURSE interrogators are going to ask questions regarding links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.  They wouldn't be very good interrogators if they didn't!  I would hope as well the interrogators also asked about links between Al Qaeda and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, and a whole host of other nations that don't exactly have a morally clear relationship with terrorists in their borders.  We only hear about the Iraq questions because that's the country we invaded.

Fourth, consider two hypothetical orders the president might make to an interrogator:

(A) "I want you to find out what Mr. Al-Qaeda Terrorist knows.  Be sure to ask him about Iraq."

(B) "I have decided to invade Iraq.  Be sure to torture Mr. Al-Qaeda Terrorist in order to extract a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

Now the left really wants us to believe hypothetical (B), based on evidence such as the US Army psychiatrist claiming that he was "pressured" to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.  But the psychiatrist's statement could also be used as evidence that what the president really did was closer to hypothetical (A).  So it really is a tough burden of proof to demonstrate that the president use torture as a political tool to justify the invasion of Iraq.  Statements like those from Burney's are not sufficient.

:) Given what you've seen

Submitted by molotov on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 18:13.

:)

Given what you've seen about that administration through a host of issues from Pat Tillman's cover-up; to Jessica Lynch's faux heroism; to we know where the weapons are; to the outing of valerie plame; to Abu Ghareb scapegoating; to the "United States does not torture" . . . if you chose to give those guys the benefit of the doubt after that truncated list, then you are a saint amongst men and I tip my hat to you.

but the truth will out. the story is still early. it's dripping.

i suspect this is why cheney has been so visible lately. he's trying to get in front of what he knows is the other shoe to drop.

doubt vs. reasoning

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 21:08.

It's not a question of giving anyone the benefit of a doubt.  It's a question of logically proving one's argument.  I am not swayed by shoddy reasoning.  The fact that you apparently still think that Valerie Plame's outing is a scandalous affair... well, I wish I could say the same about you.

you do see the irony of this

Submitted by molotov on Tue, 05/19/2009 - 08:54.

you do see the irony of this post when gauged against your post that started this thread, i hope.

allow me to point it out to you.

you believe a truth commission will be a "witch hunt." your basis for this is your "feeling" absent any concrete proof. yet you insist on proof (found only through a thorough investigation) for any allegation that the Bush administration tortured prisoners not out of necessity, but to prove a fallacy.

there is no crime in trusting the Bush administration more than Congress but you should at least have the courage to layout that position.

doubt factors into reason. the two are not mutually exclusive.

it is not unreasonable after 8 years of Bush to have significant doubts about their motives in light of other circumstances in which they have been less than forthcoming.

It could, if only the reason for using torture was not considerd

Submitted by Maleficent on Tue, 05/19/2009 - 09:48.

Torture has historically been used to extract false confessions, which it is almost perternaturally good at.

Cheney approved torture.

They took compliant prisoners and began to torture them. These are prisoners who have already told the interogators what they knew. When the interogators asked to stop torturing them, they were forced to continue until the subject manufactured information about Iraq and AQ.

Cheney and Bush wanted the information on Iraq and AQ, despite the CIA's repeated strong objections that it did not exist. Despite our allies strongly saying that there were no LINKS.

This may not be "beyond the reasonable doubt", but it sure as hell reads as the lesser burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence"

Thanks for the links

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 17:00.

I will look at them this evening.

Cocktail hour is rapidly approaching  . . .

Dude it's a Monday.

Submitted by thirdeblue on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 17:03.

Slow down.  Your liver will thank you for it.

Probably

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 20:03.

Thats why I don't let my liver call the shots. (pun intended)

As I've said before, I'm no lawyer

Submitted by Maleficent on Tue, 05/19/2009 - 11:16.

but why not bring them up on charges of Agressive War, in front of the International Criminal Court?

... the same charges used at Nuremberg, I might add.

It seems appropriate, and justified, given the baldfaced lying and distortion of evidence, the blatant witchhunting of Sadaam Hussein (listen to that Treasury Secretary)...

As I've not sat in the court, I will withhold judgement as to whether or not the Bush admin is guilty, naturally. Though I do have some feelings on the matter.

no lawyer, but i can find interviews

Submitted by Maleficent on Tue, 05/19/2009 - 14:04.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/5/18/233835/741

we've got 7 years. why not use some sunlight? later on we can decide about criminal charges...

The CIA currently has an incorrect timeline, visavis the Congressional records of mutliple legislators. It's stuff like this that gets cleared up through sunlight.