| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
And Now We Get Witch Hunts
Submitted by macaoidh on Tue, 04/21/2009 - 18:48
This story from the AP on our wonderful President and his mildly-stated suggestion that maybe there might be prosecutions for officials in the Bush administration who devised some legal authority for interrogating enemy jihadists during the recently-terminated War On Terror is just another example of the dangerous times we're in.
Regardless of whether you think things like waterboarding or making a prisoner stand up for a long time constitutes torture, and regardless of whether you think those methods are illegal, it's hard to imagine why it's a good idea to go after a bunch of lawyers for writing legal opinions on whether certain methods are beyond the pale or not.
This has "witch hunt" written all over it. It also invites recrimination against this administration for whatever it might do that a subsequent administration doesn't like. And who is going to tackle controversial issues or act decisively if they can be prosecuted after the fact for it?
The Obama administration stood silent when a gaggle of Spanish socialists laughably investigated the possibility of indicting several Bush officials like Douglas Feith and Jay Bybee for giving advice to the President. When that gambit on the part of the Spanish collapsed under the weight of common sense, it now seems that Obama is considering picking it up. Couple that with the ongoing flap about the CIA memos that Obama released to the public despite the overwhelming counsel not to by virtually every intelligence professional in Washington, and one wonders what part of America's national security apparatus Obama actually likes.
Let's remember that intensive interrogation of terrorist suspects, whether you call it torture or not, wasn't something Bush's people put into practice to get their jollies. It was done in an attempt to stop future attacks. Dick Cheney was on Hannity last night addressing this topic, and Cheney made the point that if Obama wanted to release the CIA "torture memos" he should release everything - because the American people ought to know what was revealed in those interrogations. Were it made commonly known that those interrogations actually saved American lives, as Cheney suggests, I'm not sure Obama would see this as such a great political move.
This is the Apology Tour in action here at home. It's not enough to apologize to our enemies abroad; now we've got to dismantle the framework of intelligence, counterterrorism and covert operations which RIGHT OR WRONG has kept this country free from terrorist attack since September 11, 2001.
I hate to make this prediction, but the odds have always been that we were going to get hit again with a terrorist attack, and it's going to happen. I'd say America is going to suffer an attack at some point regardless of who the president is. But given current events, where Obama is eliminating and possibly prosecuting the collection of high-value information about those who would conduct those attacks, one gets the impression the likelihood of a future attack is growing.
And should such an attack happen, heaven help Obama and Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano. The public perception is going to be that these people were spending their time trying to demonize political opponents and military veterans as potential terror threats rather than DOING THEIR JOBS. And at that point, Obama's pumped-up popularity ratings (he's only at plus-2 in the Rasmussen presidential popularity tracking poll right now, which means he's polarizing and not popular) are going to tank very quickly.
I am very much interested in seeing Obama fail - but not like this. But it's his actions which put his presidency and the safety of the American people in jeopardy, not those of the folks who don't like what he stands for.
Would someone please tell these people to grow up?
Cross-posted at www.thehayride.com.
(3 votes)
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
TaylorD
0 comments
FMeekins
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
cringinghere
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Recent comments
-
Joseph Hertzlinger
-
samuelajanaku
-
Robin1
-
OzarkGuru
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
Where to start? ... maybe
Where to start?
If there were legal authority in existing domestic law, military law or the Geneva Conventions, it would not have been necessary to 'devise' some legal authority for those interrogation techniques.
You may be interested to learn we prosecuted Germans at Nuremberg for similar techniques although, apparently, Hitler's lawyers were unable to 'devise' authority for waterboarding, because it wasn't included in the Nuremberg prosecutions or listed in the German enhanced interrogation protocols; we did, however, prosecute a Japanese officer for waterboarding.
Of course this is what Cheney "suggests." Knowing full well, of course, that the Administration must consider national security issues tied to what was revealed in the interrogations right down to what questions were being asked. He is counting on his knowledge that the Administration cannot release them for national security reasons, so that he can commence with his 'Torture Rocks!' tour in which he repeatedly "suggests" that some credible, actionable intelligence was obtained from the torture -- conveniently, of course, without providing any proof of that.
There is absolutely no evidence, other than Cheney's suggestions, that any high-value information was obtained through these methods.
Think about this for a minute. If the lawyers are correct that these methods do not violate any of our laws, then they can be applied in any county jail in the country against American citizens. Do they look different in that light? It took us 60 years to go from prosecuting these methods to embracing them as our own; in 30 years, will we be employing them against every alleged domestic criminal who is uncooperative with authorities?
Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. Waterboarding is torture as are many other techniques employed by us on both innocent and guilty captives, none of which have ever had a trial. Torture is illegal in U.S. law, military law, and international law. Endorsing these techniques puts American servicemen and women at greater risk as well as any other American travelling in another country. If it's acceptable for us to torture it can only follow that it is acceptable for another country to do the same to Americans being held.
That's a mouthful...
...it's not particularly impressive analysis, but it's voluminous - I'll give you that much.
Your first contention would seem to suggest that the law is cut and dried in every event. Would that were so - we would need far fewer lawyers and government would run much more smoothly.
The fact is that law surrounding enemy combatants in the Long War was - and probably still is - murky. Thus Bush's advisors were forced to develop a legal regime for dealing with those enemy combatants is hardly an unexpected eventuality and it certainly doesn't imply guilt.
The fact that we prosecuted Germans and Japanese for war crimes following World War II, even including waterboarding, is wonderful. Unfortunately it does not control in this instance. Germany and Japan were both signatories to the Geneva Convention; Al Qaeda is not. It was the opinion of the Bush administration, and not without reason, that Geneva had no application to those people since they represented no nation, fought with no uniforms and failed to abide by the treaty's precepts.
If you believe that Dick Cheney is so mendacious as to suggest that a full release of the CIA torture memos would add to the discussion of this issue on the basis of a bluff, then by all means let's put the cards on the table and see if he's lying. Cheney is not Joe Biden; he didn't get where he is by making stupid, demonstrably false statements all his life. Neither is he bombastic or an attention whore. Cheney might be espousing a position that history will judge to be wrong, but he wouldn't be arguing for full disclosure if he didn't feel strongly that the Bush administration would be at least partially exonerated by the revelation that their methods produced positive results. The evidence indicates that the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad helped foil the plot to perpetrate a 9/11-style attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles, and that could well have resulted in the death of 6,000 Americans.
Furthermore, there is no reason to indicate that methods to be used in interrogating high-value enemy detainees for national security reasons have any application to American citizens in drunk tanks or county jails or even state penitentiaries. No one is arguing here that American citizens don't have the protection of the Constitution - the question is whether those protections extend to terrorists who are trying to kill us. I am saddened, dismayed and confused that this seems to be a difficult issue for some to grasp; the average American seems to understand the difference very clearly.
Finally, if you think that intensive interrogation techniques used against jihadists captured in war puts our servicemen at risk you obviously haven't been paying attention to what happens to Americans - or non-Muslims of any kind - when they fall into the hands of these people. Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl might be able to enlighten you but for their current condition.
we don't treat CRIMINALS this badly!
We are a rogue state, and you are defending our status as such.
America deserves to be bombed into the fucking stone age for such atrocities. Just like the Khmer Rouge.
Luckily, we have a justice system in this country, where such wrongs can be addressed in court.
Pray that they are addressed fairly... and pray for the souls of the torturers.
As they say, Jesus is watching.
DOES POPLAWSKI DESERVE TORTURE? DOES THAT MAN FROM TENNESEE WHO WAS PLOTTING TREASON? HOW ABOUT THE AMERICAN TERROIST MCVEIGH? HOW ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO SLEW DOCTORS AND BOMBED ABORTION CLINICS?
American Torture is a wonderful recruitment tool, from what I understand from listening to actual intelligence agents and not that quisling who used to be our vice president. You know, the same one who authorized LSD to be administered to American Citizens, along with other toxic chemicals.
Uhh...
Uhh...to keep them from doing it again?
Well...
...you go that route and what you're going to get is nobody wanting to offer any opinions at all. Or perhaps worse, the President will ask for advice and what he'll get is nothing but Beltway CYA answers rather than honest opinions - and that is no way to run a country in wartime.
as if gosslings weren't already doing this
you poor poor ignorant soul.
we have LOST OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENTS.
They are already gone, kicked out by Porter Goss.
I'm sorry, but if there is a terrorist act on America, some share of the blame lies on those who kicked out any Loyal To The Constitution and their Job Republicans.
And replaced them with neoconservative loyalists who would say whatever was necessary.
It's called
"Deterrent"
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
I'm an Army veteran. These monsters disgrace our country. The cowards who value "safety" over basic humanity do not deserve to be Americans. If you have to choose between freedom and safety, always go with freedom, and "freedom" includes humane treatment of helpless prisoners, no matter how heinous their crimes, and a fair trial before imprisonment..
No court in the country would accept a confession extracted by these methods, for a very good reason. We are NOT like our enemies, because if we were we would not be enemies.
I want to see a LOT of people answer for this stain on our history, with LONG prison sentences. Should they get off more easily than rapists? Not in my book, because they are no different from rapists, no matter whether they wielded the whip or wrote the memo.
Monsters?
They were presidential advisors struggling with the question of how to handle irregular combatants in a war outside of the framework of the Geneva Convention. These prisoners are not criminals, they're enemy combatants. The idea we can use our justice system in dealing with them was largely rebuked by the experience of the 1990's.
I'm in agreement with you on the value of freedom over security - when the question revolves around American citizens. Saudi, Egyptian and Pakistani terrorists are hardly the people contemplated by the Framers in their crafting of our founding documents; in fact, our nation has a long history of treating extralegal combatant enemies in ways not including dragging them through the courts.
I'll accept your statement that you're a veteran, and I thank you for your service. However, I find it strange that as a military veteran you don't see a difference between enemy combatants and criminals - putting captured war prisoners on trial during a time of war, in fact, is a violation of the Geneva Convention, and it has never been done in modern American history.
Furthermore, your contention that presidential advisors should be prosecuted by Justice Department officials of a succeeding administration is a very dangerous one. What kind of country would we live in had that practice been a standard one? My guess is the rule of law would be much less firmly rooted - and our longstanding tradition of peaceful transitions of power considerably less likely to have been continued - had this week's events not been a departure from our traditions.
YOU could be next
If you're taking away the enemy's rights, everything is okay.
If you pass a laws allowing you to wiretap and enter any property without a warrant, it's okay as long as it's the bad guys.
When W requested a report on right-wing extremism, now it's not okay to take away freedoms.
You don't allow anybody to take away anybody's rights, because you could be seen as the threat the next time, and have your rights taken away.
Is it so difficult to grasp...
...the difference between American citizens entitled to the protections of the United States Constitution and foreign enemies bent on doing us harm?
Nobody is suggesting that the rights of American citizens should be impinged upon without due process, and that is not at issue in any of the CIA torture memos leaked by the Obama administration. That straw man can be laid to rest.
People need to be held accountable
First off, not everybody they detained or tortured was guilty. Enemies are afforded protections under the Geneva Conventions.
Making up legal opinions that give permission to flout the rules of law is punishable.
Once again, depending on who they are threatened by, they could justify anybody's rights being taken away.
Accountable?
Why weren't there congressional hearings making a finding of illegality with respect to Bush's advisors? No such finding was made, and the Democrats were in control of the levers to cause such hearings and make such findings in 2007 and 2008.
Not everybody tortured was guilty? Not everybody let go was innocent, either - better than 60 of those released from Guantanamo were caught fighting our troops again.
"Making up legal opinions that give permission to flout the rules of law is punishable." We'll need a lot more jails, then, because it seems like an awful lot of criminal defense lawyers play in that sandbox.
"They could justify anybody's rights being taken away" is hardly a very impressive position to take when the "rights" in question are those of folks who are trying to kill Americans.
you listen to cheney too much
the man's math skills are not correct.
CIA and FBI DO NOT BACK HIS NUMBERS.
Apparently one of those "caught fighting our troops" was in the midst of shooting a documentary in england on the torture he went through.
You I believe, underestimate the number of Americans who want to Kill Americans.
Let me make this clear to you -- the Secret Service doesn't give itself fair odds of preserving our President's life from American Citizens bent on killing him.
Let that stand, and then think about how many rights you want to give those fuckers with guns.
Absolutely!
It is absolutely impossible to believe that so-called patriots do not believe the words of their own Declaration of Independence: "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." Our nation has a proud history of extending rights to its enemies, beginning with John Adams (one of our most noble patriots, and a man who wasted and wore out his life in the service of this country) representing the British soldiers who fired on the crowd at the Boston massacre to ensure them a right to a fair trial. He took a lot of flak from his own cousin, Samuel Adams, whose side I would imagine you would have been on had you been in Boston.
Real patriots recognize that the American experiment is a belief in the fundamental dignity and decency of every human being. Torture fundamentally compromises that dream and brings out the basest and meanest elements of humans: if you need proof, take another look at those Abu Ghraib pictures. America is a great nation precisely because even the rights of its enemies to basic human dignity are designed to be preserved, and anyone who thinks otherwise is not a patriot. End of story. Anyone who advocates torture is a totalitarian at heart who is intent on replicating an Orwellian master state, and that applies to dictators on either side of the political spectrum and their sniveling sycophants.
On another equally sticky note for you, torture simply doesn't work. Cheney can blather however much he wants, but he hasn't produced one single, solitary piece of evidence to show that it does work (and he lied about claiming that he's asked the CIA to release proof). If you want a really strong and thorough analysis of why torture is far less productive than traditional interrogation, check out Robert McFadden (the NCIS agent who interrogated, among others, Salim ahmed Hamdan - bin Laden's driver - and other high-ranking al-Qaeda members). Those who ACTUALLY KNOW what they're talking about - not Gingrich, not Cheney, not Limbaugh - know that no real expert or real American would EVER advocate torture.
If you claim to be a patriot and a conservative, friend, you should seriously rethink your position. Torture does not keep America safe, and it fundamentally threatens to destroy the very values that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to protect. Your advocacy of torture is a direct slap in the face to our Founders, and I hope for your sake that you seriously reflect on the tremendous totalitarian power you seem so desperate to cede.
What's sticky is the idea...
...that making somebody stand up for a long time is torture.
Your speech is an eloquent one and I commend you for it. But I have a question - has our previous experience of dealing with unlawful enemy combatants in our history produced this Orwellian society of which you speak?
By the way, the pictures of Abu Ghraib abuses hardly show the systematic torture of prisoners. They show idiot guards having a good time at the expense of their charges, for which they were justly punished.
If torture really didn't work, I doubt they'd have used what was used. It's not just Dick Cheney who said the methods America used were effective; George Tenet said the same thing. The Library Tower in Los Angeles wouldn't be where it is now had it not been for intelligence gained by those interrogations.
What you need to explain is how intensive interrogations of high-value enemy intelligence assets tear our country to shreds and yet the prosecution of former officials by current officials for legal and policy opinions they differ with will do no damage. This is going to make for some interesting reading, to be sure.
Endemic in the system
I would hardly dismiss the Abu Ghraib torture pictures merely as the product of "idiot guards." Yes, they were idiots, I will agree with you there. However, they were also products of a torture-based system that refused to honor the basic dignity of human rights, and it is the integrity of this system that you and I are debating. I argue that torture has created the underpinnings of an Orwellian society, and that the failure to check these egregious abuses will lead to the perpetuation of that system.
On another note, I would be hesitant about using the Library Tower (or the "Liberty Tower" as President Bush referred to it when he claimed that it was a target) as a shining example for the success of torture. Most credible experts don't believe that Mohammed had even created a preliminary plan to attack the Tower, and that his claims of an impending attack (if they even existed) were merely a tactic to stop from being waterboarded (not that it worked, since he was waterboarded 183 times). This is not particularly different from John McCain giving the names of the Green Bay Packers' O-line to his Viet Cong torturers in an effort to stop the beatings. If there is proof that torture did reveal an actual plot, I'd love to see it: Cheney, however, despite his fighting words yesterday, is not planning on asking the CIA to release any of that information.
Now, to your question: how can intensive interrogations of high-value enemy intelligence assets tear our country to shreds and yet the prosecution of former officials by current officials for legal and policy opinions they differ with do no damage? (I hope that's right; if I'm misquoting you please let me know.) You're asking a two-part question here, so I will try to take each part at a time.
First, how can intensive interrogations of high-value enemy intelligence assets tear our country to shreds? I don't believe that "intensive interrogations" harm our country at all. You mentioned in your post that you don't think that making someone stand up for a long time is torture. That might be the case, but the torture techniques listed in the released memos clearly go far beyond that, ranging from the painful (stress positions, sleep deprivation) to the barbaric (waterboarding, walling). The use of these techniques harms our nation in two important ways. First, their very existence discredits our national credibility and undermines the very liberty that our soldiers fight so hard to protect. I covered that pretty extensively in my last post, so I won't spend more time on that here. Secondly, since torture is a completely ineffective way of gathering credible information, those who torture waste time eliciting false confessions when legitimate interrogation techniques (such as those practiced by McFadden) would lead to actionable intelligence.
Second, how does the prosecution of former officials by current officials for legal and policy opinions they differ with do no damage? I would absolutely agree with you if we were talking about mere opinion differences. For example, if the Obama administration has a different opinion on federal spending than the Bush administration, President Bush's financial advisors should not be retroactively punished because their advice was not criminal in nature. The authors of the memos can be distinguished, however, if their advice amounts to conspiracy to commit crime. This is a big if, which is why I think Obama and Holder are playing it smart by not calling for indictments until Holder has had a chance to review the memos more carefully (if only TARP plans and stimulus packages were reviewed more closely).
I don't know yet if the memo plans reach that level; however, if they clearly aid and abet human rights violations, their authors clearly should be punished at an appropriate level, as should the government officials AT ANY LEVEL who authorized them, as should the operatives who implemented them. This all needs to be done openly and fairly without partisan rancor; however, in this country those who violate the Constitution and break the law need to be held responsible. Those who torture need to be held accountable; like the Nuremberg trials, "just following orders" is not an excuse. Govt. agents like McFadden and others had the same options and chose NOT to torture in favor of more effective and more legal techniques: those who chose otherwise are accountable for their actions. That's what makes us different from the enemy, and that is what we must protect if we are to uphold our sacred honor.
*snort* no, arresting stupid imbiciles does not keep our
buildings standing. Soemoen who draws a note on a piece of paper saying "let's blow this building up" is not an actual danger. He's just dumb. Often too dumb to ask why Al Quaeda agents would seek him out (actually cia).
They used what they did so that they could fabricate evidence, find some way to pin Al Qaeda on Sadaam. This is a documented fact from people who were in the administration.
One is a flouting of the rule of law, by which none of these extreme interrogations, TORTURE, if you will or if you won't, I don't blasted well care about your nambypamby sensibilities when you want to smash people's heads into walls until you cause brain damange.
The other is a simple criminal case, decided by judges in accordance with the laws of our country. You do still believe in Innocent until proven Guilty, right?
hold on a second...
How about the Ron Paul fools who were smuggling guns to Venezuela to overthrow Chavez?
Can Chavez now kidnapp them and torture them like we did?
After all, they are foreign enemies bent on harming his country through inciting violent unrest... Terrorists if you will...
One name...
One name: Jose Padilla. He was detained on American soil and put in a US brig and tortured for years. He was subjected to indefinite solitary detention, total sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and, according to his lawyers "hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of 'truth serums.'"
An American citizen. His American citizenship was no protection. Don't count on yours being any protection either, if you endorse torture regimes.
Well, in extreme times, you need to shoot the morons.
Since Cheney is unlikely to disappear, and indeed appears to be trying to subvert the current administration through moles...
I mean, seriously, there's well documented evidence that the CIA withheld crucial information from Carter so that Reagan would get elected.
That in my book is worth throwing the book at them.
What do you think?
I think that We're better served by prosecuting these fools in our American Courts, as what they did BROKE THE LAW.
Do you understand the Rule of Law?
I don't think so, as you seem so willing to break any rule for your security.
here here!
Though I do support torture under limited circumstances (including being done outside the law, and with the person doing it willing to answer for his deeds with a long prison term, should the truth ever get out. Those sorts of consequences make agents understandably wary about using the sordid deed)... it should NEVER be legalized. We are America, and the only thing separating us from the Dictators of the World is our insistence on treating our prisoners properly.
Can we make sure Jay Rockefeller pays too? And Jane Harman?
how is it a crime
all these lawyers did was render opinions.... if thats a crime ..iguess anyone who renders a crappy legal opinion commits acrime.. that means who ever loses an appeal should be liable to criminal prosecution ..has the country gone mad.. i rendered an opinion favoring gay marriage it was over ruled did i commit a crime ,,, tell these zealots to go back to their caves
umm... when OLC says that something is legal
and it very clearly isn't.... that's a criminal offense. it's supposed to be nonpartisan, and offer good opinions. not flout the rule of law because of pressure from Nixon/Cheney.
In the poster's own words...
they 'devised' a legal authority. They were not rendering legal opinions; they were political hacks ignoring precedent and basic legal tenets to arrive at the authority their superiors wanted.
Truly ... I'm curious, as one of the 'zealots' -- I would love to hear what you think I am 'zealous' for?
Actually...
...rendering legal opinions is precisely what they were doing.
Government lawyers do exactly what these guys did all the time.
The fact that you might disagree with what they did does NOT make them criminal.
Perhaps you should ponder the long-term effect of charging presidential advisors with crimes for rendering advice to presidents. I'll give you a hint - it ain't good.
So if Obama decided to invade Canada
So if Obama decided to invade Canada and got someone in the DOJ to give him a memo saying it was OK, then it would be OK?
Wouldn't he need congressional authority?
I believe he would.
Bush got congressional authority for both the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and as such neither war was illegal. Were Obama to get a vote in Congress authorizing an invasion of Canada that would be legal as well.
This is a system that has worked quite well in our history. The only time it wasn't followed was when Bill Clinton bombed the Serbs from 30,000 feet without consulting with Congress in advance.
I'm quite surprised we're arguing basic civics here.
Reagan, Grenada?
Remember Reagan invading Grenada? Bush I and Panama? Obviously not. I guess invasions are like deficits - perfectly OK if it is a Repubulican president, the end of civilization as we know it if it is a Democratic president.
I'm not sure I understand your parallels...
...as Grenada was a rescue operation intended to save Americans threatened by a communist government. A congressional study group dominated by Democrats concluded that it was justified.
I answered your initial question, however, and I see little reason to carry the conversation beyond issues discussed in the original blog post.
I was just pointing out the gaps
I was just pointing out the gaps in your historical knowledge, which are as large as the gaps in your original reasoning that something on DOJ letterhead magically makes everything OK.
Torture is illegal. It's
Torture is illegal.
It's against the law.
It is a crime to advise somebody that breaking a law is okay.
What's so hard to figure out here?
National Shame
Yeah, you're right. Waterboarding is "no big deal." That's why we prosecuted its use against us in WWII.
As an active duty member, I was dismayed, horrified, and ashamed that the honor of our service was subjected to this wickedness.
For those who don't have the experience, the military has a detailing process that allows some limited choices as to where you end up on a tour. People make their choices based on a variety of factors (extra cash, a desire to see action, local educational opportunites...even how exotic the women are rumored to be). You could still end up in a lot of different places in you pick a deployable unit that could be sent, for example, to France for exercises. For tours at non-deploying units, you can pretty much bank on staying in one location and working like a 9-to-5er. Sometimes the choices are REALLY limited, but you take what you can get and live with it. That's a part of service.
A few years back, I was unfortunate enough to have only a couple of choices. One was at a place that was well known to isolated, unpleasant, and with a few fellow servicemembers as the major company for years. The other was Gitmo.
My detailer was surprised that I chose the "crap" tour. He asked me why I didn't want to go to Gitmo. I told him in no uncertain terms that I wanted nothing to do with the disgraceful actions rumored to be taking place there. He said that wouldn't be my job. I told him that I knew that, but I didn't even want to be supporting those we WERE doing that disgusting job, at any place in the direct chain of command. Going to Gitmo was no choice at all.
What do you think his reaction was? Did he get angry? Did he dress me down? No. He said he understood my position perfectly, felt the same way after a moments thought, and gave me a couple of additional choices.
Had he simply detailed me to Gitmo against my will, I would have gone. I took my oaths, and I'll stick with them. I would have done the normal job in my specialty, and maybe some of the "above and beyond" that is called for from time to time. But I have the moral conviction to know that, though I lack the strength of position to stop torture, I would never willingly engage in it.
There is a line that a truly free and moral people can draw. I am sad to admit that my own personal lines are not as unwavering as I know they should be. But I DO have a line, and so should my country. Are we cowards, that we should use the tools of of evil to safeguard ourselves?
A true and upright lover of man and freedom accepts risk before taking on the trappings of tyranny.
Do you have ANY principles that you are willing to accept risks for?
out of curiosity...
if you could rally many/most of the men at GITMO to resign... would you?
I think a mass resignation would have some sort of affect on the Political Climate, or at least I'd hope so!
Oh, and as for...
...your comment about the lawyers not breaking any laws, I'm no expert but I do believe that twisting, bending, and reinterpreting established law to suit the purposes of ANY master is at least unethical, if not illegal. There should be consequences.
I like that.
I think framing an investigation into American WAR CRIMINALS as a "witch hunt" is a responsible, pro-liberty approach. Run with it. Asshole.
Defending rapists now? the right has really degraded itself.
http://brokenlives.info/?page_id=69
Short-Term and Lasting Harm from Tortureand Ill-TreatmentAll the detainees experienced severe, even excruciatingphysical pain from being kicked, punched, choked,shocked or sodomized, and many were terrorized by boththe experience of the assaults on them and threats ofmore to come. Most of the detainees lost consciousnessat least once as a result of beatings or other physicalassaults. Some experienced bruising and trauma totheir genitals. Some of the men were not only severelyinjured as a result of torture, but they then had to endureadditional pain from the exploitation of those injuries bytheir tormenters. Almost all of the men PHR interviewedcontinue to experience physical after-effects from thetorture they experienced, including chronic headaches aswell as persistent pain in their limbs, joints, back, muscles,and ligaments from being beaten or kept suspended orin other stress positions for long periods of time.
These were innocent men, released because they had been held with no real cause.
As far as prosecuting any elected officials...
...for action taken at their direction while in office, as long as they sought for and obtained a legal opinion that such action was legal; I am pretty sure they can't be successfully prosecuted. Elected officials aren't experts in the law. The attorney who opined that an action was legal when, in fact, it was later determined somehow to be illegal, possibly could be prosecuted -- I don't know for what. Malfeasance, perhaps. Of course there are natural parameters to this point. You can't gas millions and say you thought it was legal because your attorney said so. But if an attorney told me that waterboarding was legal, I would accept that opinion, especially if lives were at stake.
Just as a point of interest, who has declared waterboarding illegal, or is that just some one's political point of view?
ex animo
davidfarrar
who has declared
18 U.S.C 2340.
Completely and totally wrong. Being an elected official and having a piece of paper from a corrupt lawyer do not magically release you from the normal operation of the law.
Okay...
...I didn't find any mention of "waterboarding" in 18 U.S.C 2340. Let me ask you again, what court of competent jurisdiction has declared waterboarding under 18 U.S.C 2340 torture?
Secondly:
It may not. But it would go to the issue of culpability. It would also allow any and all legal expenses to be paid for by the taxpayer instead of the accused, personally.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Do you really want to argue
that being waterboarded is not "severe physical pain or suffering"? I thought you were different from the Limbaugh crowd.
to Davidfarrar, re: waterboarding
Waterboarding was prosecuted as a war crime committed by Japanese soldiers in WW2. Here's a story with the reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR200711...
Well, yes; I do.
Hells-bells, lives were at stake, innocent lives. To me, just as a layperson, if it doesn't cause them any "permanent" physical harm, I would not call it torture. As far as mental harm goes, that's even harder to quantify. But I have heard of no examples of lasting mental harm being caused by any of the techniques used to interrogate these terrorists. I am certainly not aware of any court of competent jurisdiction rendering that decision, which to me, would be the only basis upon which the government can proceed with this matter. Unless you see no danger in a government proceeding without competent legal authority to do so -- which, if you think about it, is exactly what they are accusing the Bush administration of doing. Curious.
ex animo
davidfarrar
david, I posted the links within this diary.
we have at least eleven substantiated prisoner abuse cases, Torture cases, where people were sodomized, sexually abused, beaten, you NAME IT.
From multiple prisons...
These are substantiated with permanent physical damage, be they bone malformations, scars, or permanent damage to the nerves in a prisoner's hands.
READ THE FUCKING REPORT.
Doctors are competent to discover lasting physical and mental damage from these abuses, and they have So Discovered.
Yes, this ought to go to fucking trial. Every single man woman and child who tortured, aided in the torture, or "wrote memoranda" deserves to go to a War Crimes Tribunal, as we are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and that's what you do. You violate the international agreements on how to conduct a war, and you send your damn people, up to Rice and Cheney, to trial, trusting that the International Criminal Court (which has jurisdiction!!!) will proceed fairly.
We're Americans. We'll settle it here first, rather than having to admit that, yes, Americans can be tried by the ICC. But there will be consequences.
David, I am very close to someone who has been tortured. Do you know what it's like to have someone unable to wake up, because they are convinced that they are slowly bleeding to death? That their world is fading away? Try telling that to your fucking boss "I'm sorry, I didn't show up on time. It was a BAD DREAM" -- a bad dream with physical consequences, including mild to moderate shock.
We're talking functional disability, david. That's what post traumatic stress disorder is. And it has been substantiated in some victims of American Torture.
lives were not at stake. Abu had already decided to spillhisguts
using normal interrogation methods. you know, the ones that don't make people lie lie lie to make you stop stop stop the pain pain pain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Bush wasn't getting the information HE wanted, which was that Iraq == Al Qaeda. Which the CIA was repeatedly telling him was unsubstantiated.
listen to your military...
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/
Controlled DEATH. Hypooxia. Drowning. Killign someone over and over again, slowly, tortorously.
This is not WRONG?
This is not IMMORAL?
What ever happened to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?
These men were never TRIED. They had no new intelligence to divulge! They were already FULLY COOPERATING with other interrogation methods.
More in sorrow than in anger
Really, David, I can't believe it is necessary to have this conversation.
Why did we convict Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American POWs in WW II?
If this were the case, and if there was even one case of useful acationable intelligence that was obatined from torture, the pro-torture crowd would have leaked it by now to defend what they were doing.
Let's see what the Constitution has to say about it...
David, I beileve you are active with the Tea Party movement and one of the major tenets of the movement is a return to constitutional governance. Copies of the Constitution were being distributed at some of the Tea Parties and kudos to them.
So, let's see what the Constitution has to say about the treatment of prisoners captured in war time. This is Article I, Section 8, enumerating the powers of Congress:
Congress has already ratified our signature to the Geneva Conventions as well as 18 U.S.C 2340. Given that we saw fit to prosecute Japanese military personnel for torture for their waterboarding of prisoners, it would seem clear precedent for subsequent cases involving that method has been established. Nevertheless, if there was question as to the legality of these methods the Bush administration could have sought Congressional approval of them if it could plausibly be argued our existing laws and treaties did not apply to Al-Qaeda combatants. Perhaps this would even have had a deterrent effect, in that terrorist operatives would be on public notice that we intended to treat them harshly. They did not choose to seek Congressional approval; no doubt, because pubilc debate of them would not have produced the result they hoped for. The Executive decided to usurp Congressional powers.
But aside from the legalese, I would ask if you are perfectly comfortable with the idea that if the Taliban shoot down a U.S. plane on a bombing run and capture its pilot, they are justified in carrying out the Bush torture program on the pilot because, after all, they would see it as necessary and effective to prevent another attack? You would view their position as morally defensible?
It seems to me that viewing these methods as a "mystery" and suggesting we should "just keep walking" (nothing to see here, folks, just move along) signals to Al-Qaeda and the world that terrorism works. Its purpose is to terrorize; I call it a victory for them when they terrorize us into abandoning our values, ideals and our reputation as a decent people.
Nonsense
You haven't heard of any instances because your sources of info are Fixed News and any Tom, Dick, and Hannity conservative radio talk show host who all operate from the same playbook.
There's plenty of info on how torture didn't work. The only people claiming it did are Bush administration officials who participated and apologists for the administration.
The complete garbage being pushed by the right about how torturing KSM led to foiling an attack in LA is EASILY disproven.
They broke up the attack in 2002. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070523.html
They arrested KSM in Pakistan in 2003. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_2.html# http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-4.html
Why did the CIA http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949, and Bush apologists http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html, make this up?
Maybe because torture didn't work and they have to cover their ass.
If the Republican Party wants
If the Republican Party wants to stake a claim that waterboarding is not torture and defend that claim then decline and fall of the party will be swifter and more lasting than even I have said it would be.
While I understand it is tempting to declare torture to be anything the US does not do, down that road is not so much a slippery slope but a cliff. The mere fact that the United States had torture a man 100+ proves than the torture did not work.
You guys are living in a fantasy world and if you want to drive the Republican party over cliff to maintain that fantasy so be it. But do not get to drive this country over along with it. You have no right to that.
Look, guys...
...I am sure you all have your cherished view points on this subject, as do I. But the fact of the matter remains, we are a nation of laws. If somebody, somewhere broke a law as they understand it to be; fine; file a complaint and let's take them to court. If somebody waterboarded someone until they experienced "severe physical pain or suffering", fine. Let's take them to court.
By the way, there is a doctor down in Miami who, upon hearing your sinuses are blocked, promptly lays you down on a table, tilts the table downward until your feet are above your head, and squirts a steady stream of salt water up through one nostril and out through the next for some five to ten minutes. Take it from me, it feels great and it cleans out your sinuses like you wouldn't believe. But I digress.
If someone has proof that higher ups specifically authorized the specific actions taken by the soldiers at Abu Ghraid, fine; let's bring them to justice. But as far as I am concerned, just because a US justice department legal memoranda released this week by Barack Obama show top attorneys in the justice department approved nudity and the deprivation of sleep and food as interrogation techniques: A. Doesn't necessarily mean they experienced "severe physical pain or suffering, or, B. That Pres. Bush, Rice, Rumsfield, Cheny, et al, authorized such actions. And even if they did, if they were acting under color of law, it would be extraordinarily difficult to convict them. It would be tantamount to mounting a political witch hunt.
ex animo
davidfarrar