Weekly Standard And Dick Cheney Versus Rest Of The World On Torture
Stephen Hayes, the Weekly Standard writer who seems so close to Dick Cheney that his posts sometimes read as if he’d written them while sitting on the former Veep’s lap, has a long piece attacking yours truly for pointing out that the CIA docs don’t prove Cheney’s claims that torture worked.
Incredibly, Hayes doesn’t even bother trying to claim — anywhere — that the two documents Cheney himself sought for release fulfilled his goal of bolstering his claims. That alone would seem to undercut Cheney’s argument pretty badly, but so be it. Instead, Hayes focuses only on the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report — which is not one of the two docs Cheney requested for release — saying this proves Cheney was right.
I’m going to link to three new stand-alone pieces by big news orgs — kudos to them — that all conclude that the totality of the CIA docs do not prove Cheney right. The Washington Post’s piece is here. Newsweek’s is here. The Los Angeles Times’s is here. Judge for yourself who has more credibility.
One more thing. Hayes suggests I think the disparity between coverage of Cheney’s original claims and the reality of what the docs show is driven by some kind of pro-Cheney media bias. Nope. Rather, the problem here is built in to our discourse: Controversial claims often get way more attention than the subsequent emergence of factual evidence to contradict them does.
That’s understandable in a way, since people have moved on by the time the new info is available. I say it’s a good idea for us to resist this tendency as much as possible and put in the effort to correct the record in retrospect. Now that some news orgs are doing this, it would seem to be getting awfully lonely in Hayes’ corner, but one imagines he’ll persevere…
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg, you should consider The Weekly Standard’s vitriol a compliment. Keep up the good work!
“One more thing. Hayes suggests I think the disparity between coverage of Cheney’s original claims and the reality of what the docs show…”
God that was well said.
When this is all said and done, those who tried to support Cheney’s view, like Hayes, will be denying they ever did any such thing.
It was remarkably difficult to find any members of the Nazi Party in Germany after WWII, too.
Now that you’ve gotten all these props, Greg, can I ask when I can hope that that damn Greenpower drop down ad is kaput forever?
Not my department Tena
Greg
I LOVE that you went at Stephen Hayes like you did. For people who don’t realize it, Hayes is the guy who is cowriting Cheney’s book with him. How they could even attempt to make it seem like he is an uninterested journalist is beyond me. That’s why everything he writes comes off like a press release from Cheney. Its because it IS a press release from Cheney.
Again my question for Dick Cheney, Stephen Hayes, and the rest of the people at the Weekly Standard is, are you calling Ali Soufan, an American hero who is still out there putting his life on the line for our country, a liar?! If they want to impugn the reputation of one of the real heroes of this country after 9-11 make them have to come out and say it plainly!
You demonstrate very clearly why it is that Democrats cannot be trusted with National Security. If torture will save American lives, I’m all for it. Any reasonable person would. But not you. You’d much rather that American lives be sacrificed so you can feel good about yourself. You’re simply a selfish prick.
The line they want to draw is that Cheney never calls it torture, but rather EIT. As we all know, EIT is still torture. Call it a pregnant girl in a pretty dress but it’s still a pregnant girl.
This, however, is what your blog is for, Greg. Very good job. There’s no reason a man with 5 deferments from military service should be the guiding light for the future security of this nation.
sghwhite – “For people who don’t realize it, Hayes is the guy who is cowriting Cheney’s book with him. ”
O wow! Greg – major score here. I love this!!
sounds like sbj is keeping his buddies at weekly well informed of every single thing you are posting greg…good work!
Kulis:
“Blah blah blah blahety-blah He isn’t a citizen! Blah blah blah blah He’s a Socialist! Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah He’s going to kill granny! Blah blah blah blah blah He sides with the terrorists! Blah blah blah He’s Black! Blahety blah blahety And Bill Clinton got a ******** in the oval office!
Kurlis~
Your line of thinking mirrors that of those that have tried to justify the torture of our own American soldiers when they are captured…good god, read up on what Reagan and McCain think of torture, your statement may make you feel good about your support of torture, but thankfully more intellectual heads had prevailed on this issue prior to Bush/Cheney…the abolition of torture use to be a bi-partisan issue…and if you talk to people like John McCain, who have actually been tortured, they would thankfully disagree with your “end justifies the means” way of thinking.
Kurlis
Hey dumb@ss even if you really only cared about whether it worked our not then you would think you would pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to whether or not it actually did or usually does. All evidence shows that it didn’t. Not only that, the people controlling the torture had never, not even once, interrogated a single person before they were allowed to torture enemy detainees. So you see Bush and Cheney put your safety and mine and the rest of the nation’s in the hands of two SERE school psychologists who didn’t have the first f*cking clue about what they were doing. Which is why we were fed bad information by detainees, why detainees died in custody, and why some detainees may get off because the evidence against them came from torture.
So basically what you are saying now is that you would allow torture whether it worked or not just as long as it made you feel better. This is not an episode of 24, this is real life and real interrogators who know what the hell they are doing and have made a career out of making people talk ALL say torture doesn’t work. And that is still setting aside the fact that it is both illegal and immoral.
You tell me how we can criticze Iran or North Korea or Sudan or any other dictator ship that tortures its citizens or any other now that we have shown ourselves to be just as depraved? Losing our moral authority in the world is yet another way that Bush and Cheney decided to put our nation in MORE danger by ordering torture. And you are just too blind in your macho chest beating to notice.
It is what it is.
Titles by Stephen Hayes:
Cheney: The Untold Story of America’s Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President (2007)
The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (2004)
Is there any reason anybody should believe anything this tool says, espcially when it relates to his man-crush Cheney and his biggest turn-on, torturing/killing Muslims?
Wait….did I just describe the entire writing staff at the Weekly Standard?
And Greg, I’m sure this idiot and Cheney are in regular contact. He’s Cheney’s primary attack dog/defender in the media today.
If torture will save American lives, I’m all for it. Any reasonable person would.
Yet another one nailed by Ben Franklin:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
You can’t adopt torture without giving up essential liberty. If truly embraced sooner or later you start torturing citizens (as we already have).
What those three articles show is that three liberal “reporters” said “how high?” when the lefty blogoshere said “jump,” and they got back on the alternate reality playbook you all follow after a couple of days of inadvertently letting the actual facts get in the way of the liberal narrative. Who has more credibility? Given that those three liberal sources scarcely even refer to the actual text of the documents, and in the only cases where they do the documents refute their thesis, I will go with Hayes, who actually quotes text that proves his point.
All that the “big news” articles prove is the same thing your tendentious posts prove: You will never stop denying reality, and there is no end of the parsing and hairsplitting and twisting that you will employ to claim that enhanced interrogation yielded no useful information, and that Cheney is a “liar” for saying it did. Your reading of the documents is strained and devoid of common sense at best, and flat dishonest at worst. There is no proof you would accept; that is all you have shown.
Do you really, Mr. Sargent, claim that enhanced interrogation yielded no useful information? Not a single piece of information that helped protect us? Do you claim that these documents prove this? If so, where? Or are you just quibbling that, as one of the articles you cite says, that they are not “definitive”? Does that prove that Cheney lied, as you have said, when he called for their release? Cheney lied because YOU can speculate that maybe, perhaps some of the same information would have been obtained with milder techniques? Your position is pathetic.
Do you really, Mr. Sargent, claim that enhanced interrogation yielded no useful information? Not a single piece of information that helped protect us?
The historic purpose of torture is not to produce useful information, but confessions of what one wants to hear.
“Do you really, Mr. Sargent, claim that enhanced interrogation yielded no useful information? ”
And do you, bat, really claim that if torture yields good information then we should engage in torture, even though it is illegal and considered barbaric by civilized people all over the world?
Is that what you want? Cause that is what it sounds like and the only thing I can think about you torture junkies is that you get off on it.
ah, return of the Franklin inapplicable quote. I have read Newsweek, the Wash Post, and LA Times, as you suggested.I would be very reluctant, if I were you, to stake any portion of whatever credivbility I had on the reporting of those “institutions”. Attack Hayes all you like, still there is no reason of substance given here to accept the analysis of those periodicals over his, other than they agree with your view and disagree with his. If you ignore what I think are pretty firm statements, for govt-speak, that the bulk of the useful intelligence was obtained after the use of EIT, then you can certainly say the connection has not been proved.But this was not the whole point of the exercise at the time they were written, and I’d be damned careful about jumping to conclusions on heavily redacted documents. Not that that will stop anyone.Lots of oxen to be gored.
Stalin’s answer to his critics really worked to shut them up – he killed them. Hitler’s answer to the Jewish Problem really worked – there are virtually no Jews left in Eastern Europe.
Genocide really works to solve whatever primitive tribal issues exist between two tribes of people.
What the hell difference does it make whether torture works?
If your infant keeps scratching at his face, and you want him to stop it, cutting off his hands really works.
What is the matter with the Right that they want to drag us back to some more primitive state of culture where we retrace old atrocities that never worked in all of our history?
Ali Soufan who was actually there getting information from people like Abu Zubaydah.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195089/output/print
“We could have done this the right way.””
Funny thing about life in this universe – that is almost always true across the board.
@Greg: Will you be addressing two substantial points that Hayes makes regarding your posts? (1) Your questionable editing to undercut Cheney’s defense of the interrogators, and (2) your misrepresentation of the developers of the “torture” program?
“So Sargent cut out two important passages to make his point. The first had to do with concerns among interrogators that they would not be supported if they were later targeted for their work — exactly the kind of support Sargent scolds Cheney for providing. And second, in his effort to portray CIA officers as victims, Sargent deliberately omits the view of the Agency officer who told the IG, “it has to be done.”
And whose policies were these? Sargent calls them the “Bush/Cheney torture policies.” Did he read the IG report? The EITs were conceived and developed by senior intelligence officers who wanted to find additional ways to extract information from terrorists.”
sbj, will you be asking Hayes to address the three major pieces by big, reputable news organizations that all conclude that the CIA docs don’t prove Cheney’s claims?
Tena: See, this is one of the problems with arguing with a liberal. You can never stick to the point. When you are refuted, you pretend the point was something else.
To remind you, Mr. Sargent’s point in these posts has nothing to do with whether we should “torture” if it works. His point was simply to call Dick Cheney a liar for having said that the CIA documents would show that enhanced interrogation produced information that helped protect the country. I don’t have Cheney’s original quotation handy, but calling him a liar for making this claim was your hero’s only point. Not should we do it if it works, but does it work. Get it?
My rhetorical questions were factual — does anyone here actually claim that the techniques you are condemning as “illegal” and “torture” produced no information that helped protect us? Your nonanswers amply prove my point.
Your rhetorical questions are meaningless contrivances loaded with your characterizations.
Oddjob said: “The historic purpose of torture is not to produce useful information, but confessions of what one wants to hear.” Interesting if overly generalized observation having nothing to do with any of this.
@sg: You might be interested in this link:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/confirming-the-obvious.html
Confirming that, yes, unfortunately, “Ali Soufan [in his] op-ed in the NY Times represents an absurd misrepresentation of the Zubaydah interrogation.”
Irrefutable proof that “Soufan’s statement that “the harsh techniques were introduced later in August” is not accurate.”
There are other posts at the same site.
for sg in particular:
“Last spring when Abu Zubaydah was in the news, former FBI Ali Soufan made news claiming that “traditional” interrogation techniques worked with Zubaydah while “enhanced” CIA techniques had been ineffective.
Yesterday the WaPo finally reported the blindingly obvious (to anyone who read the record) – contra the proposed Sofan timeline, enhanced CIA techniques had been employed almost from the outset. The WaPo confirms that some of the useful intelligence gleaned from Zubaydah followed the CIA involvement.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/18/AR2009071802065_pf.html
Kurlis | August 26th, 2009 at 02:40 pm
You demonstrate very clearly why it is that Democrats cannot be trusted with National Security. If torture will save American lives, I’m all for it. Any reasonable person would. But not you. You’d much rather that American lives be sacrificed so you can feel good about yourself. You’re simply a selfish prick.
—–
Yepper, but I have a feeling that if reality hit these folks in the face they would really torture someone not just scream at them or throw water on them, they would probably dismember their capture to get the infomation they needed!
And meanwhile while this blog is on a witch hunt another dnc money man has been arrested!!
How long until Holder drops the charges??
Democratic Fundraiser Charged in Citigroup Fraud
Published: Wednesday, 26 Aug 2009 | 3:00 PM ET Text Size By: Reuters
The U.S. attorney in New York on Tuesday charged a New York investor and major Democratic fund-raiser with a $74 million scheme to defraud Citigroup.
Source: nemazee.com
Hassan Nemazee
——————————————————————————–
Hassan Nemazee, 59, was charged with one count of bank fraud, and faces up to 30 years in prison plus a fine. His lawyer Marc Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Nemazee was a national finance chair of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and a supporter of John Kerry’s run for the White House in 2004.
He typically donates more than $100,000 annually to Democratic political candidates, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Charles Schumer, and sits on the board of the Iranian American Political Action Committee.
Actually, they have a lot to do with this. Torture does not, and never has, produced reliable evidence and anyone with even an ounce of common sense is immediately aware of that.
Confessions produced in duress are confessions of whatever the one in duress believes the oppressor wants to hear. Over time the one tortured says anything if they believe it will cause the torture to end.
Therefore, since torture does not produce reliable evidence, the obtaining of such is not the goal of torture.
“The purpose of torture is torture.”
- George Orwell
@Greg: “sbj, will you be asking Hayes to address the three major pieces by big, reputable news organizations that all conclude that the CIA docs don’t prove Cheney’s claims?”
He hasn’t been answering my emails!
I imagine that he might. Nevertheless, I think your defense is somewhat lacking without directly addressing these points.
pretty firm statements, for govt-speak
From whom? From Cheney?
oh those rightwing radicals trying to shut down the healthcare debate.
Is there anything illegal a DNC supporter won’t do for the cause???
One of two people suspected of shattering 11 windows Tuesday morning at the state Democratic Party headquarters has an arrest record and a history of helping a Democratic political candidate, public records show.
Police said that about 2:20 a.m., 24-year-old Maurice Schwenkler, now in custody, and an at-large accomplice took a hammer to the picture windows displaying posters touting President Barack Obama and his health care reform efforts.
Early Tuesday, Democratic Party chairwoman Pat Waak said the damage to her building in Denver’s art district was a consequence of “an effort on the other side to stir up hate.” She tempered her statement after Schwenkler’s political history was revealed.
—-
You bet she tempered her race baiting statement!
damn cheney why didn’t he just let them turn LA into a mushroom cloud. That is what they want apparently. Moral superiority is now letting thousands of Americans die to avoid upsetting a terrorist!
Oddjob, you first said the purpose of torture was to get confessions of what wants to hear, now you quote Orwell to say the purpose of torture is torture. You also seem to be unaware that our interrogators were seeking information, not confessions.
At any rate, your position is based on two major fallacies. First, of course, you blindly label all the enhanced techniques torture. Really, that is foolish, isn’t it? Or perhaps you haven’t actually read the relevant sources. Second, to say that a technique is prone to produce false information is not to say it does not produce true and useful information. Think about it, my fried, do you think that ordinary interrogation techniques do not produce plenty of false information, too? Should we not use them either??? Use your head. Interrogators and intelligence personnel have the task of sorting out the good and bad information from all the sources they have. This is something called “logic,” which seems lost on your side.
for sg in particular:
“Agency officials decided to let the FBI back into the interrogations, but on the condition that forced nudity and sleep deprivation be allowed to continue.
The CIA team lowered the temperature in Abu Zubaida’s cell until the detainee turned blue. The FBI turned it back up, setting off a clash over tactics.
Under FBI questioning, Abu Zubaida identified an operative he knew as Abdullah al-Mujahir, the alias, he said, of an American citizen with a Latino name. An investigation involving multiple agencies identified the suspect as Jose Padilla, the al-Qaeda operative later convicted of providing material support for terrorism.
“In two different bits, after sleep deprivation, is when Abu Zubaida gave clues about who Padilla might be,” the former U.S. official said. “When that was put together with other CIA sources, they were able to identify who he was. . . . The cables will not show that the FBI just asked friendly questions and got information about Padilla.”
bat – who is dodging what? You never came close to answering my question which is in fact the threshold inquiry here.
Cheney threw out the red herring that the torture “worked.” While you guys argue over whether the document support Cheney (when the CIA came as close as I ever expect them to to saying they didn’t) I want the very bottom line addressed. No one will touch it, either. But if you’re going to argue that Cheney’s saying it worked makes a difference to our national dialog, then you have to be prepared to address the threshold issue: what does it matter if it works if it is illegal and immoral?
It’s a fairly simple question and not one of the you Cheney Cheerleaders will address it. Well, sbj likes to change the definition of “torture” to address it, but that isn’t going to fly.
So tell me – what difference does it make?
And let’s get this straight: Waterboarding is torture. We executed Japanese for waterboarding prisoners after WWII.
You are not allowed to redefine words here.
@tena: This is harsh stuff but you should read the WaPo link I earlier provided:
“Interrogators wrapped a towel around Abu Zubaida’s neck and slammed him into a plywood wall mounted in his cell. He was slapped in the face. He was placed in a coffin-like wooden box in which he was forced to crouch, with no light and a restricted air supply, he later told delegates from the Red Cross.
Finally, he was waterboarded.
Abu Zubaida told the Red Cross that a black cloth was placed over his face and that interrogators used a plastic bottle to pour water on the fabric, creating the sensation that he was drowning.
The former U.S. official said that waterboarding forced Abu Zubaida to reveal information that led to the Sept. 11, 2002, capture of Ramzi Binalshibh, the key liaison between the Hamburg cell led by Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and al-Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan.
But others contend that Binalshibh’s arrest was the result of several pieces of intelligence, including the successful interrogation by the FBI of a suspect held at Bagram air base in Afghanistan who had been in contact via satellite phone with Binalshibh, as well as information gleaned from an interview Binalshibh gave to the television network al-Jazeera.
Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times over four or five days, and Mitchell and Jessen concluded that the prisoner was broken, the former U.S. official said. “They became convinced that he was cooperating. There was unanimity within the team.”
sbj – You didn’t answer my question. So what if it worked?
@tena: Do you have the details on the guy we executed for waterboarding? I can find some info on a civilian sentenced to 15 years to life for “water torture.”
Are we talking about waterboarding only? Is it torture? I don’t know. What do you want to do about it? The CIA developed the procedure, DoJ lawyers said it was legal. What are you gonna do?
It didn’t work, and I can prove that it did not.
We were after Bin Laden, right?
So if torture worked, then why did none of those high ranking captives, that we tortured, lead us up the chain, so that we could capture those above them, and then torture them, until they led us to Bin Laden and his wacky Egyptian Doctor side kick.
Since we were torturing those high value targets, and Bin Laden was who we wanted most of all, then why did we not torture up the chain, and get him.
I will tell you why: because we did not get those we tortured, to spill anything worthwhile. It is all just Cheney and CIA BS, just like their “Slam Dunk” WMD fabrications were.
“Are we talking about waterboarding only? Is it torture? I don’t know. What do you want to do about it? The CIA developed the procedure, DoJ lawyers said it was legal. What are you gonna do?”
Me, personally? O I wish. If I had my way they’d all stand trial for war crimes. In the Hague. All the way to the top.
This is not American – waterboarding prisoners is not my idea of America. We are a nation of laws and that was illegal. We claim to be a nation of morals and ideals and the Right likes to insist those are Christian – whatever – waterboarding prisoners, sleep deprivation, extreme body positions, threatening people’s families – those do not fit anywhere in either side’s professed vision of this country and what it stands for and has tried to stand for at least since 1865.
“Waterboarding is torture” Senator John McCain.
Right Winger, Mancow Muller claimed water boarding was not torture and decided to prove it, by being water boarding.
Here is the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0
Within seconds after he was undergoing the water boarding, he could not take it, and now says that it is definitely torture.
Now:
“absolutely torture” Mancow Muller
You DO realize that Mancow is not a right winger and the thing was faked?
“It is going to have to look “real” but of course would be simulated with Mancow acting like he is drowning. It will be a hoax but have to look real. Would be great if they could dress in fatigues and bring whatever is needed. We will supply the water.”
sbj
Are you serious? Do you not realize that you just made the case for me? The Washington Post article you just linked to showed exactly what I said, that torture didn’t work. Every time it was introduced Abu Zubaydah clammed up and then they had to bring Ali Soufan back in to restart the interrogation. I mean i guess you think the “after sleep depravation” line means Soufan was wrong but that is the way the CIA and Dick Cheney are spinning the flow of information. You could say that Zubaydah didn’t give up any information until after he was almost frozen to death but that would leave out the fact that he didnt’ start talking until the temperature was turned back up and the FBI took over interrogations again.
Lets take a look at Soufan’s under oath testimony to Congress.
Again this is on the record, under oath testimony, not anonymous sources in a Washington Post article. You can keep living in your fantasy world sbj where torture always works and Jack Bauer is a real American hero but the truth just does not add up to your world view.
I have a great question for you sbj. If we found out, unequivically, that torture did not work would you call for Dick Cheney to be prosecuted?
Of course you wouldn’t because you think torture is “doing everything we can to stop an attack” when Ali Soufan’s testimony shows conclusively that torture only wasted time that if there really was a ticking time bomb we wouldn’t have had.
sbj has now disavowed Mancow as a right winger so as to jutify waterboarding. Nothing else needs to be said.
Here is the link to the Congressional testimony by Ali Soufan. Again he is still out there today putting his life on the line to protect ungrateful @ssholes like sbj’s right to praise torture on a blog.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906
@tena: “waterboarding prisoners, sleep deprivation, extreme body positions, threatening people’s families – those do not fit anywhere in either side’s professed vision of this country and what it stands for.”
The admin you so love, tena, currently permits sleep deprivation. So what do you have to say about that? Will you finally condemn Obama for something?
“The amended Army Field Manual:Human Intelligence Collector Operations, has come under scrutiny by human rights organisations especially in relation to “Appendix M” which allows for isolation, sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation.”
http://www.amnesty.org.au/hrs/comments/20575/
Sorry, Tena, but you actually aren’t the authority as to what words mean, and you are in fact changing the subject.
Since you repeatedly refuse to address the one and only point of Mr. Sargent’s posts — Cheney lied/EIT produced no information — I am just going to assume you concede he is wrong.
I am not going to play your game of pretending that EIT=torture. Have you actually read the legal memos? I doubt it. If you did read them and still hold this view, you are simply beyond reason. You can reasonably argue about whether the waterboarding was torture; you can’t reasonably argue about much of the rest, and don’t even try equating it to, e.g., what POWs in Hanoi experienced.
You need to go do some more research about waterboarding and your claim that we executed Japanese soldiers for doing the same thing described in the White house legal memos. It simply isn’t true. I know, I know, you probably saw it on all the lefty blogs and the estimable KO’s rants. Whatever. You are wrong.
Would I condone the waterboarding that was done if it saved American lives. I can’t see a sane person with a moral compass saying otherwise. How about if it were your family? Would you really find it a crime against humanity that these MASS MURDERERING TERRORISTS were waterboarded to get the information that saved them? You have the water bottle in your hand; your children’s lives are at stake. What do you do? And don’t try to dodge by going back to, “it doesn’t work.” I am putting YOUR “threshold” question back to you now.
Oddjob, you first said the purpose of torture was to get confessions of what wants to hear, now you quote Orwell to say the purpose of torture is torture. You also seem to be unaware that our interrogators were seeking information, not confessions.
bat, you seem not to be aware that you are believing lies fed to you by Cheney.
bat, you are being played for a chump and sucker by a war criminal.
If you want to live in a society like the Russian society, one that decides what the laws are after the executive, on his own, has deicided what in the name of societal safety they are going to be, and with no regard whatever to precedent or the rule of law, then I suggest you move to Russia.
You’ll be much happier there.
This is country is ruled by the laws, not be a despotic executive.
And if Cheney doesn’t like that he can f**k himself – after he’s sent to prison for his war crimes.
(… by a despotic executive.)
@sg: Harsh techniques were introduced almost immediately. Soufan’s op ed contains lies. That much is irrefutable. Have you even read what I’ve provided? The great thing about the web is that your posts remain up there for all to read. I’ve shown beyond any reasonable ability to argue otherwise that harsh techniques were used almost immediately and during the FBI interrogation. I have shown that Soufan lied in his op ed. Pardon the long excerpt:
“However, the Department of Justice Inspector General report on torture devoted a chapter to the Zubaydah interrogation. Per that report (p. 100-111 of 438), the CIA adopted harsh tactics “within days”, tactics so harsh (yet redacted) that one of the two FBI agents on the scne described that as “borderline torture” and both agents were recalled by June rather than be associated with the interrogation.
Here is Mr. Soufan:
It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.
David Johnston of the NY Times wrote about this on Sept 10, 2006:
The events that unfolded at the safe house over the next few weeks [after the capture of Zubaydah] proved to be fateful for the Bush administration. Within days, Mr. Zubaydah was being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques — he was stripped, held in an icy room and jarred by earsplittingly loud music — the genesis of practices later adopted by some within the military, and widely used by the Central Intelligence Agency in handling prominent terrorism suspects at secret overseas prisons.
So, what is the truth? Did the DoJ Inspector general get it wrong? Or are “traditional” FBI interrogations normally described by FBI agents as “borderline torture”, and so harsh that FBI agents are not allowed to participate in them (I see a prisoner in an empty room…)?
Or is Mr. Soufan serving up the sort of dish that a certain audience is sure to savor uncritically? Harsher techniques were introduced in August, but the techniques before then were surely harsh.
…
Spencer Ackerman had the best title (click to see) and looked truth in the face by researching the Zubaydah interrogation, but backed away. From Mr. Ackerman:
Somehow, a SERE guy was part of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation as soon as CIA officials deployed to interrogate the detainee…
[O]thers present [at the interrogation] said he seemed to think he had all the answers about how to deal with Zubayda. Mitchell announced that the suspect had to be treated “like a dog in a cage,” informed sources said. “He said it was like an experiment, when you apply electric shocks to a caged dog, after a while, he’s so diminished, he can’t resist.” [as quoted on page 156 of Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side:]
This horrified the FBI agents on scene, Mayer reports. (”Science is science,” Mitchell retorted. Spoken like Sean Hannity!) They were eventually ordered to leave the interrogation, which became brutal.
Well, yet another source confirming that the interrogation was rough from the outset, which is why the FBI left.
Now to be fair and balanced, the Inspector General report says that the two FBI agents got an identification of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the 9/11 report while caring for Zubaydah in the hospital prior to the CIA involvement, so it is fair enough to say that they were getting results with a traditional technique. However, that traditional technique was not employed up to June, as Soufan claims, nor were harsh techniques only applied beginning in August. Per the IG, the CIA assumed control of the Zubaydah interrogation within “a few days” and made a quick judgment that they needed to “diminish his capacity to resist”.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/tradition-or-truth-get-your-boots-on.html
Liam, your reasoning is risible. You “prove” that enhanced interrogation “didn’t work” because OBL is still uncapture. This is what passes for logic among liberals?
Let’s see, so I guess non-EIT doesn’t work either, since we also used that a lot more than EIT. I guess are armed forces “don’t work” either. Nor Obama’s apology-tour diplomacy approach. Apparently nothing works.
“EIT”
Excellent use of the Nazi euphemism there!
Of course, those Nazis were also executed for torturing people…….
You see, even if it doesn’t leave marks, it’s still torture.
So the Allies ruled.
So it is.
Except, of course, among you Cheney worshippers.
You’re as disgusting as the Russians who fawn over Putin, and for the same reason.
@oddjob: Regarding executing Nazis.
Tell you what – if al qaeda wins the war and defeats the US, then they can go ahead and execute Cheney.
The object of the Afghan invasion was to capture Bin Laden and his cohorts; “dead or alive”. You had some of his top operatives and you tortured them. So you should have been able to extract the information that would lead up the chain to Bin Laden. You didn’t, so all you have left is allusions to some vague knowledge that you gained, and some vague claims of results that you can not spell out.
More of the same old stuff that you claim to have gotten from “Curveball”, that made finding WMD in Iraq “a slam dunk”.
Your shower of Chicken Hawk Arm Chair Warriors, have done nothing but lie to us every step of the way. You are doing what you always have done. You are lying about getting great intelligence by the use of torture.
We do not believe you, because that is now the default position on any unsubstantiated claims being made by Dick, the lying prick, Cheney.
Here’s what is so very telling about all this – those who makes the most noise about Patriotism think nothing of throwing all those who died for our ideals totally away by betraying everything they died for.
My safety, personally, is not as important as this country and its potential for good and the ideals I grew up with. I’m much smaller than those things. And I feel reasonably certain the people who died putting this country together felt the same damn way.
The Right are all cowards who are so concerned with their personal safety they would turn their backs on everyone who died for this country’s promise of human dignity and rights.
My god you really ought to sit down and look at yourselves.
@tena: What in the heck are you talking about? Are you honestly trying to argue that you are a better, bigger patriot than those who disagree with you? Are you calling those on the other side un-American?
C’mon now!
People like Tena and sgwhiteinfla have a natural aversion to the concept of “context,” particularly as it applies to wartime exigencies. Why? Because they derive a deep sense of moral superiority from demanding rigid adherence to their preferred ethical code. And if their own political ends can be served in the process, so much the better. Eight years ago, it was widely assumed throughout all levels of government that the U.S. would be attacked again immediately following September 11. The CIA make a good-faith effort to secure the necessary legal authority before undertaking a set of interrogation procedures that the agency and its operatives genuinely believed were necessary to save the lives of thousands of civilians. Again, the circumstances were highly unusual and fraught. Eight years on, from the vantage of relative peace and security, we now have these ridiculous scolds clamoring for CIA scalps — to prove once more how high-minded and highly evolved they are. What a joke! This is a purely political campaign masquerading as a meditation on the nature of evil and the limits of state power. Yes, Tena, you’re exceptionally courageous to put your life on the line like this…
“@tena: What in the heck are you talking about? Are you honestly trying to argue that you are a better, bigger patriot than those who disagree with you? Are you calling those on the other side un-American?”
Actually I guess I am saying that and I guess that is what I mean. I cannot understand y’all at all anymore and I have tried. But standing up for torture is just un-American. And so is lying to seniors and to veterans to scare them. Yes, it is.
Wow, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. I almost feel guilty making such fools of you. Course, sbj has already but the clown shoes and hats on you.
Liam: The reports contain more than “allusions to vague knowldge”; shame on you. But you are hilarious, I will give you that. Since OBL is still loose, EIT doesn’t work, nor do non-EIT, our armed forced, diplomacy, or anything else. We should just give up, I guess. That’s what you are saying. You “proved” nothing works! Brilliant.
You and oddjob are both reduced to slobbering epithets, which was totally predictable. No sense arguing with the senseless.
Rendition – Obama style:
“A Lebanese citizen being held in a detention center here was hooded, stripped naked for photographs and bundled onto an executive jet by FBI agents in Afghanistan in April, making him the first known target of a rendition during the Obama administration.
…
“The FBI followed standard operating procedures when transporting prisoners to the United States,” Gina Talamona, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said Friday. She said restraints “were used with the sole purpose of ensuring the safety of the defendants and the agents.”
…
“In court papers, Azar said he was denied his eyeglasses, not given food for 30 hours and put in a freezing room after his arrest by “more than 10 men wearing flak jackets and carrying military style assault rifles.”
Azar also said he was shackled and forced to wear a blindfold, dark hood and earphones for up to 18 hours on a Gulfstream V jet that flew him from Bagram air base, outside Kabul, to Virginia.
Before the hood was put on, he said, one of his captors waved a photo of Azar’s wife and four children and warned Azar that he would “never see them again” unless he confessed.”
@tena: “standing up for torture is just un-American.”
Let’s wrap this up. You earlier said that sleep deprivation was “un-American. The President and govt has explicitly approved of the use of sleep deprivation. Have you? Does this make the President un-American? Does it make you un-American?
Tunahelper: Well done.
Tena: I see you completely ignored me when I answered your question and put it back to you. You can’t answer it, because you know full well you would pour that bottle of water just like every other sane person would. You would blow cigar in someone’s face, too, even though, according to YOU this is torture and a war crime.
Instead of facing the issue YOU demanded that I face, you retreat to histrionic personal attacks. Look, don’t you get that people who disagree with you have a different perspective on what it means to defend or “turn your back” on this country and what it stands for? Would it help for us to ask why YOU “think nothing of throwing all those who died for our ideals totally away by betraying everything they died for”? Yeah, we could say that too. Do you think we don’t see the witch hunt your President and AG have started is just that? I thought for a while that you had some passionate, sincere beliefs at stake here, but you apparently are motivated by sheer partisan hatred, like your fellow traveler oddjob. And your hypocrisy is showing.
Take a look at the comments here and in other threads. Look in the mirror. As always, they prove that your charge that conservatives are “the first” to attack the other side’s patriotism is the exact opposite of the truth. I would be happy to discuss whether patriotism is more characteristic of the left or the right — with someone who was rational. But that isn’t the issue, and there is no one rational here.
sbj is definitely winning the argument here, producing actual cites that support his points.
for Tena:
AP-Ipsos polling. In the United States, 61% of those surveyed agreed that torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and slightly more than half in France and Britain shared that view.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWRhNzAwYmYzMWExYTBlMTM2MjI2MjA4Y2JlODIwMTg=&w=MA==
the above link should help clear the fog
Those polls do not make it right.
The polls would have been massively in favor of owning slaves, at one time, especially in the South, but that did not make it right.
The polls were probably all in favor of crucifying Jesus too, for their was no outcry against it back then. I guess by your standards, that made it the right thing to do.
@Liam: Congrats! Your first post that made me spit out my coffee and laugh out loud!
Those polls do not make it right.
of course not, but I keep reading “opinions” here that say majority of Americans don’t support torture
.The FBI did this in April:
In court papers, Azar said he was denied his eyeglasses, not given food for 30 hours and put in a freezing room after his arrest by “more than 10 men wearing flak jackets and carrying military style assault rifles.”
Azar also said he was shackled and forced to wear a blindfold, dark hood and earphones for! up to 18 hours on a Gulfstream V jet that flew him from Bagra! m air base, outside Kabul, to Virginia.
Before the hood was put on, he said, one of his captors waved a photo of Azar’s wife and four children and warned Azar that he would “never see them again” unless he confessed.
The left calls this torture. Where are the hysterical cries for an inquisition?
if I saw posts and comments here condeming Obama for allowing “torture” then maybe Greg and friends might have a point, but it appears to be just partisan posturing
Liam, you can’t really have it both ways. You can’t argue that X is always wrong because civilized or even just American opinion says so, and then say it is still wrong when it turns out you are in the small minority.
That’s what just happened to your side. Again. You were owned, courtesy of windandsea.
bat, are you trying to have it both ways too? Just wondering.
And since when did rule of law become a partisan issue? If you want to criticize the Justice Department for not going after alleged infractions by Democrats, fine. But that’s not an excuse for not going after other alleged infractions when committed by Republicans. Saying “everyone else was speeding” doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be ticketed for speeding. Rule of law should apply to everyone regardless of party affiliation, and those who care about it should have no hesitation applying it to those on their own team–all the more so when it involves our nations highest laws and international obligations.
bat: “Would I condone the waterboarding that was done if it saved American lives. I can’t see a sane person with a moral compass saying otherwise. How about if it were your family? Would you really find it a crime against humanity that these MASS MURDERERING TERRORISTS were waterboarded to get the information that saved them? You have the water bottle in your hand; your children’s lives are at stake. What do you do? And don’t try to dodge by going back to, ‘it doesn’t work.’”
First, how do you know these people have the information you need? How many people without the information are you willing to waterboard? What if the person who was doing the waterboarding demanded to do it to members of your own family because he or she thought they might have the information? And remember, we apparently EIT-ed some detainees to death. Where is your moral compass on that set of hypotheticals? Would you let your own family be waterboarded on the suspicion of having information? (The killer of the Kansas abortion doctor said there would be more attacks. Should he have been waterboarded to produce the alleged information?)
And “it doesn’t work” isn’t a dodge. It’s not “lefties” who say it doesn’t work; it’s FBI interrogators who say so. And to date I have not seen one confirmed assertion of where EITs or torture or whatever you want to call it has led to major actionable intelligence that would necessarily not have been produced without it.
Moreover, one can point to serious instances where those techniques led to false information that we relied on with disastrous consequences. Egyptians tortured al-Libi into “confessing” a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda because that’s what he thought his captors wanted to hear. And the Bush administration used it to bolster its case for invading Iraq. I’d say that was a pretty huge cost to our endorsement of that technique. So even if EITs did produce actionable true information, one would have to balance it out against all the false information it also elicits.
And the “moral compass” question goes beyond immediate consequences. By losing our own moral compass, we confirm the worst of what our enemies say about us and give them credibility for their recruitment efforts. Personally, I think we’re safer with fewer terrorists than more of them. If we’re going to succeed in the long term, we have to start thinking about the long term.
Perfect security is an illusion. And I for one would rather live with a scintilla less safety in a nation that stands for something than slightly more secure in a nation that stands for nothing other than self-preservation. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison could have lived much more securely under the British, but they put their lives on the line for principles. It would be a shame if that became a minority position.
I for one want my country to live up to standards that treats detainees better than Iran treats its detained protesters, whom they claim are a threat to the state. But apparently others believe it’s fine for Iran to outclass us in that regard. It’s a sad day for America when we fail to live up to the standards of a nation ruled by a bunch of thugs. And I believe that regardless of which party is in control.
dsimon, no, I’m not trying to have it both ways. Your compatriots are. If you had read the thread you might have noticed. Any other smart questions?
Conservatives don’t advocate partisan law enforcement; liberals regularly practice it. Eric Holder practices it. That’s the point. He is a partisan and is using his office for a partisan “reckoning,” just as he vowed to the American Constitution Society. But he has a clear and long pattern of letting undisputed and indisputable crimes by Democrats go completely unpursued. Your words condemn Holder and Obama, not me.
You liberals throw around confused and contradictory accusations of war crimes and federal crimes by George Bush and Dick Cheney, but you are completely clueless when it comes to specifics. You just make obtause assertions that “torture is illegal.” So please cite for me the specific statutes they violated, and recite the specific facts and the evidence that will prove each element of each offense you claim they committed. Guess what, you can’t. You have no clue. So let’s not hear any more of your nonsense.
dsimon, I see you posted a second, longer diatribe while I was responding. Read the thread. Your points were already disposed of. Tena did not want to address Sargent’s claim — that EIT yielded no information. She only wanted to argue that EITs are wrong and should never have been used WHETHER OR NOT they worked. For someone whose position is that EIT’s are always immoral and illegal and impermissible, whether or not they “work,” it is indeed a dodge to retreat to “they don’t work” to avoid answering the question whether he would use them under extreme circumstances. You will notice Tena NEVER denied this or otherwise responded. So you are wrong.
You are spouting the liberal talking points; trust me, I’ve seen them before. They are imo a hash of non sequiturs and evasions. And it is a dishonest account because you assume that all EITs were torture to begin with, which is absurd. You admit that these techniques can and did yield information. I agree, all techniques, enhanced or ordinary, yield both good and bad information that has to be sifted and analyzed. It is illogical for liberals to claim that there is some bright line between “okay” interrogation and “torture” which just conveniently for their argument happens to fall so as to make all of the authorized EIT techniques “torture,” and then to try to gild the lilly by claiming “torture doesn’t work anyway.” It is just a bit contrived and neat, isn’t it?
The bottom line is that if you were placed in exigent circumstances, you would pour the bottle, too. You would blow smoke in a mass murderer’s face. You would slap him, and you would forcefully “grab his collar” — all those same horrific “tortures” you condemn — if your own children’s lives were at stake. If you say you wouldn’t, you are either a liar or morally obtuse fool, willing to trade your children’s lives for comfort of their killer. And f you say you would, you are just posturing here in condemning Dick Cheney and the CIA.
When you try to complicate the question with, how many, how long, what information, how long do my children have to live, blah blah blah, you are just obfuscating. Do you not realize that the administration and CIA had to grapple with those same kinds of thorny questions and judgments for real, when they were desperately trying to protect the country? You actually think they knew “it doesn’t work” but just did it anyway? And now, people like you think it is appropriate to second guess those people and prosecute them for the difficult judgments they had to make ABOUT THE VERY KINDS OF QUESTIONS YOU SAY MAKES THE ISSUE A COMPLEX ONE? That is a hypocrisy and moral depravity in purest form.
Oh, and dsimon, please cite proof that “we apparently EIT-d some detainees to death.”
Dsimon: More daft posturing from another would-be monastic. In the abstract everyone claims they’ll uphold their highest moral ideals regardless of circumstance. But we’re not talking about abstractions; we’re talking about a very real historical episode from the not-too-distant past, one moreover with flesh-and-blood consequences. This is not an either-or proposition. Rather it’s about being mature enough to envision a situation in which moral precepts might have to be weighed against loss of life on a potentially epic scale. People of good-faith can and will disagree about one decision or the other, but prosecuting one group or the other after the fact is singularly ridiculous. I’d personally much rather have intelligence agents whose first priority is saving lives and averting catastrophe, than those primarily worried about ex post facto declarations from the likes of dsimon. And by the way, references to the fallibility of harsh interrogation techniques and the unattainability of “perfect security” are red herrings. The same shortcomings apply to every human enterprise.
I think the responsibility lies at the top of the administration that asked for torture to begin by renaming it as “enhanced interrogation techniques”, (even Ronald Regan, called the practice of torture “abhorrent”), is anyone surprised that Cheney is now crying about the investigations.
“In court papers, Azar said he was denied his eyeglasses, not given food for 30 hours and put in a freezing room after his arrest by “more than 10 men wearing flak jackets and carrying military style assault rifles.”
Azar also said he was shackled and forced to wear a blindfold, dark hood and earphones for! up to 18 hours on a Gulfstream V jet that flew him from Bagra! m air base, outside Kabul, to Virginia.”
And as soon as Obama becomes president, the Right is willing to take the word of all detainees at face value.
Not that I and other liberals don’t have problems with Obama’s policies, especially this instance. No president has ever been particularly interested in limiting their own power, especially when the opposition party is loudly opposes any effort to do so.
But, damn, that is some hella selective and partisan reasoning there.
It’s also kind of hilarious how badly bat missed dsimon’s points at 8:01. If bat applies the same standard of reading to every liberal argument he comes across, then it doesn’t much impress me how many he’s happened to have read.
Obviously, the questions asked by dsimon weren’t intended to complicate the situation, but rather highlight the very contrived nature of the arguments for torture–the number of things you have to assume for information obtained by torture to be both verifiable and timely in the case of an imminent attack are unlikely and not at all like the circumstances actually intelligence and investigative personnel faced.
Nor is their any contradiction between something being morally wrong and pragmatically wrong. I would imagine that we’d all agree that employing rape as a weapon in war would be morally wrong, tactically and strategically useless, and quickly lead to personnel problems among our forces.
Slavery is American in the sense that Americans did it and approved of it, but unamerican in that, were we being true to our national creed, we would have never permitted it.
Consumatopia, you, like dsiomon, really should try to read the thread with comprehension before weighing in with foolishness. Some of your fellows claim that all EITs are immoral and criminal in every circumstance, regardless of their value or effectiveness in eliciting critical information. When confronted with the moral idiocy of this position, they like to say “torture doesn’t work anyway” and begin questioning the premise they had accepted. Someone like Tena who takes an absolutist position can’t defend that position by complicating the premise like you and dsiomon want to do. So you and dsimon, not I, missed the point. If your proposition is that EIT should never be used even if it works, then you can’t defend that proposition by questioning whether it works and under what circumstances. Is that simple enough for you?
As for the argument that you and dsimon prefer, that “torture doesn’t work,” I think Tuna helper put it about as well as it can be put above. Your own arguments concede that the real world circumstances in which intelligence is gathered and detainees were interrogated is exceedingly complex and fraught with uncertainties, judgment calls, balancing, etc. It is obscene for you to pretend to sit in judgment now, years after the fact, and declare criminal guilt over those who had to wrestle with those issues in real time, with the security of Americans resting on their shoulders.
bat, I thank you for crystalizing your idiocy so very well.
**Consumatopia, you, like dsiomon, really should try to read the thread with comprehension before weighing in with foolishness. Some of your fellows claim that all EITs are immoral and criminal in every circumstance, regardless of their value or effectiveness in eliciting critical information. When confronted with the moral idiocy of this position, they like to say “torture doesn’t work anyway” and begin questioning the premise they had accepted.**
If I said that wartime rape was always wrong, then you confronted me with the “moral idiocy” of my deontological prohibition on wartime rape, it would be perfectly sensible for me to ALSO argue that rape is a militarily stupid tactic.
There’s no inconsistency here, nor is there abandonment, questioning, or “complicating” of premises here. Wartime rape just happens to be *both* always wrong *and* stupid. Again, I should hope we would be able to agree on that.
*Your own arguments concede that the real world circumstances in which intelligence is gathered and detainees were interrogated is exceedingly complex and fraught with uncertainties, judgment calls, balancing, etc.*
At the very least, if you’re going to torture someone, you’d better be damn sure that it’s necessary, that nothing else will work, that there is some imminent threat for which torture would be both justifiable and known to be more useful than traditional techniques. I’m seeing no evidence that we were in anything like such a circumstance.
I’m not really all that big on punishing past transgressions as I am on preventing future transgressions. But currently, Holder is calling for the punishment of those who went beyond even the very extreme guidelines and questionable interpretations of law they were operating under. If there is to be any law at all, I don’t see how that’s avoidable.
Put this another way, you think it’s unacceptable to prosecute people for torturing in an uncertain situation, while I think it unacceptable to torture people in an uncertain situation, given the unlikelihood of torture actually being more useful than harmful, and given the inherent wrongness of torture.
This does not mean I would prosecute every torturer, but that’s a whole other ball of wax I’m not getting into on which liberals disagree.
bat: “Conservatives don’t advocate partisan law enforcement; liberals regularly practice it.”
That’s a load of BS, and you should know it. Seeing a few posts of individuals who provide support your assertion does not mean that people “regularly” do so. I, for instance don’t. And though I see plenty of conservatives who seem to advocate selective law enforcement, I don’t attribute it to all conservatives. And neither should you.
“You are spouting the liberal talking points; trust me, I’ve seen them before. They are imo a hash of non sequiturs and evasions.”
I don’t think so. I think you’ve avoided real responses to valid points by characterizing them as non sequiturs and evasions. For instance, you didn’t answer any of my hypotheticals.
“And it is a dishonest account because you assume that all EITs were torture to begin with, which is absurd. You admit that these techniques can and did yield information.”
You call them EITs or torture, it really doesn’t matter to me. What matters is that some of those techniques were clearly illegal. Moreover, I see nowhere where I “admit” that the techniques yielded information. I did write that “if” the techniques yield information, one has to assess whether that information would have been obtained anyway and the costs of relying on bad information that is elicited (note we have little to no evidence of the former–information that could only have been obtained through EIT (to use your preferred term), while we have a hard instance of the latter–detrimental reliance on bad information). I think you might want to read a little bit more carefully.
“It is illogical for liberals to claim that there is some bright line between ‘okay’ interrogation and ‘torture’ which just conveniently for their argument happens to fall so as to make all of the authorized EIT techniques ‘torture,’ and then to try to gild the lilly by claiming ‘torture doesn’t work anyway.’”
I never argued that all EITs were torture, though it’s pretty clear that many of them were. Moreover, it’s not inconsistent to argue in the alternative: that it doesn’t work, and even if it did “work” (what does that term mean, anyway? That it regularly elicits information, that it occasionally elicits information, that the benefits of whatever good information you get outweighs the bad?), it’s still illegal. Really, arguing in the alternative is a very common technique: that even if someone may be right on one point, it doesn’t matter because they still lose on the other point where either one is determinative.
“The bottom line is that if you were placed in exigent circumstances, you would pour the bottle, too….If you say you wouldn’t, you are either a liar or morally obtuse fool, willing to trade your children’s lives for comfort of their killer.”
Ah, how do I know ahead of time that I have their killer? Maybe that person who I suspect is their killer is one of your family members. And how dare you assume what I would or would not do. That I would not lower myself to the level of a terrorist makes me neither a liar nor a fool. As I wrote before, some things are worth putting something of yourself on the line for. Apparently, you don’t feel that way. (And, by the way, you must feel all Quakers are fools, every one of them.)
Again, you never answered my questions: what if someone demanded that we use EITs on your family because we thought they might have some useful information? What about the killer of the Kansas abortion doctor? Where is your moral compass on that one? Assuming for the sake of argument that EITs elicit information, how many people can we use EITs on who don’t know anything in the name of finding the one person who does, if we can find that person? If EITs are not enough, how many people shall we torture? How many people are we allowed to kill in the process? This is not evasion, these are the circumstances people will face.
And you never answer the issue as to whether our endorsement of these techniques will help or hurt us in the long run.
“please cite proof that “we apparently EIT-d some detainees to death.”
Here are a couple. More need to be investigated.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/30/accountability/
tuna helper: “we’re not talking about abstractions; we’re talking about a very real historical episode from the not-too-distant past, one moreover with flesh-and-blood consequences.”
Yes we are, and that’s why we need rule of law. It’s precisely when the temptation to break the law is the highest that we need rule of law the most, otherwise anyone with a good motive has license to do anything. I have little doubt that people involved in the Spanish Inquisition thought they were saving souls, but I would not excuse the techniques they used.
“People of good-faith can and will disagree about one decision or the other, but prosecuting one group or the other after the fact is singularly ridiculous.”
It’s not ridiculous because we will probably face similar circumstances again. If no one is held accountable, then the prior actions will be used as precedent because of tacit approval. We don’t treat other crimes that way–”Well, I broke the law, but I thought it was for a good reason, so it’s no use going back and since it’s already happened there’s no use prosecuting it.” And the fact that people of good faith can disagree is all the more reason for having rules so that people know they will not be prosecuted after the fact for actions that were within the rules.
“I’d personally much rather have intelligence agents whose first priority is saving lives and averting catastrophe, than those primarily worried about ex post facto declarations from the likes of dsimon.”
People involved in an enterprise can be biased and see what they want to see instead of what’s really out there (see, e.g., WMDs, an al-Qaeda-Saddam connection, etc.). That’s why we need rules. And if someone really needs to break the law to do what he or she thinks is for the greater good, then that person should have the guts to admit it and face prosecution instead of trying to argue that it wasn’t illegal. That’s what I would do, at least.
“And by the way, references to the fallibility of harsh interrogation techniques and the unattainability of ‘perfect security’ are red herrings. The same shortcomings apply to every human enterprise.”
The argument that every human enterprise has shortcomings seems to me like a red herring, because that argument would justify any enterprise no matter how flawed (since they all are flawed). Yes, every enterprise has shortcomings. But that doesn’t answer the question of what approach has fewer shortcomings.
And the “perfect security” argument is not a red herring. I think it’s pretty clear that we could live in a safer society with video cameras on every street watching our every move. But that’s not a society most of us would choose to live in, because most of us don’t want to live in a police state. I think Obama was wrong when he said that there is no conflict between our values and our security. We choose every day to live in a slightly less safe society than we could because we value liberty more. I think there are values that not only make us safer in the long run, but that I would not be willing to give up even if they didn’t because I think this nation should stand for something other than maximum possible safety. And I think the Founders would agree with me.
“More daft posturing from another would-be monastic.”
I don’t see how anything I wrote is monastic. I’m dealing with real world situations in what I hope is a principled manner. And if it’s “daft,” then so are many people, including many high-ranking elected officials, who agree with me. So I don’t think those characterizations really respond to any of the arguments posed.
You still haven’t followed the argument in the thread, have you, consumotopia? Or can’t you? You just wasted all that typing to say that a deontological and utlitarian argument can reach the same conclusion.
Unfortunately, you totally missed the point. Some of your ideological soul mates don’t know the difference between the two. They think they can use the utilitarian argument to support their deontological proposition. Get it yet? I disproved their deontological proposition, or at least their sincerity about it, by confronting them with the standard hypothetical. In a pinch, it turns out that pretty much everyone would use unsavory methods to save their family members. Everyone will either refuse to answer the question or start arguing that they wouldn’t do it because it “doesn’t work.” So either it isn’t deontologically immoral, or everyone is immoral. Once you concede that moral theory, you can’t rescue it with utilitarianism. You can still say it is stupid (immoral on utilitarian grounds), but you can’t say it is absolutely immoral because it is stupid. That indeed IS a contradiction.
YOU may not have abandoned the premise (yet), but those I was addressing with this argument most certainly did. Their supposed deontological prohibition collapses into utlitarianism. So, please, stop pretending my argument addressed the position you are stating. You came into an argument without bothering to acquaint yourself with the context, and you misfired. But now you are practicing sophistry to pretend otherwise.
I note that your example of rape as a wartime strategy is likewise an evasion of the issue. You, like the rest, I suspect would use methods you now call torture on one of these terrorists if you thought it necessary to save your family members’ lives. Suppose waterboarding KSM actually did save a family member’s life. How about slapping or sleep deprivation? Loud music? Still deontologically forbidden torture?
“At the very least, if you’re going to torture someone, you’d better be damn sure that it’s necessary, that nothing else will work, that there is some imminent threat for which torture would be both justifiable and known to be more useful than traditional techniques. I’m seeing no evidence that we were in anything like such a circumstance.”
That’s an interesting statement that I wouldn’t wholly reject. At least it acknowledges complexity. But I am having no trouble seeing evidence that justified the authorized EITs (even though we don’t even have proof most of them were used). I think your ideological blinders are all that are keeping you from seeing the same, as evident from your casual labeling of everything as torture. I keep asking those on your side to tell us which specific EITs were torture and thus by definition incapable of yielding useful information; no one seems able to do so. Wonder why.
“I’m not really all that big on punishing past transgressions as I am on preventing future transgressions. But currently, Holder is calling for the punishment of those who went beyond even the very extreme guidelines and questionable interpretations of law they were operating under. If there is to be any law at all, I don’t see how that’s avoidable.”
Actually, given the secrecy and contradictory statements surrounding the matter, no one on the outside truly knows the scope of what Holder authorized, and the nature of SPs is that they have few operational boundaries. But look, does anyone believe that the supposed targeting of abusive interrogators is anything other than a means to target Bush Admin officials and lawyers, and the great hope of liberals, Cheney and Bush themselves? I don’t. Holder promised it, and he is doing it. You also don’t seem aware that these cases were all previously reviewed by career DOJ lawyers who declined to prosecute. So is this rule of law, or rule of partisanship but Holder and Obama?
“Put this another way, you think it’s unacceptable to prosecute people for torturing in an uncertain situation, while I think it unacceptable to torture people in an uncertain situation, given the unlikelihood of torture actually being more useful than harmful, and given the inherent wrongness of torture.”
Speak for yourself. You assume a lot.
“Some of your ideological soul mates don’t know the difference between the two. They think they can use the utilitarian argument to support their deontological proposition.”
This is wrong on several levels. There’s a difference between using the utilitarian case to support the deontological position and using the utilitarian case to answer a utilitarian objection. It does not imply that the the utilitarian objection would have convinced them in any rate.
Furthermore, you CAN use the utilitarian argument to support the equivalent of the deontological position if you use Rule utilitarianism rather than Act utilitarianism. (Note that deontological was my word, not anyone else’s here). Under Rule Utilitarianism, Generally Stupid really does become Universally Immoral.
Finally, referencing the uncertainty of the world and utiltiarian judgments within it, which is at the root of most of the objections to the utilitarian pro-torture argument, is itself a standard argument for deontological ethics–in an uncertain world, principle is our surest guide.
So, no, there’s no contradiction here.
But just out of curiousity, do would you support an absolute prohibition on war time rape? I mean, it wouldn’t take very much creativity to construct the appropriate trolley-car experiment to put this to the test…
“But I am having no trouble seeing evidence that justified the authorized EITs”
Well, considering that one of the major contentions above in the thread is that we started torturing immediately, so any claim like Soufan’s that other methods were working is suspect (which may be true), I don’t see how that possibly could be. If we hadn’t tried anything else first, how can we know it was necessary?
Look, torture is ethically dubious, produces misinformation that costs lives, gives the enemy a propaganda victory, corrupts institutions (ethical personnel quit, remaining personnel tempted to fabricate evidence justifying torture), and is just too tempting a tool of political control to be entrusted to any human government. I’m not seeing anything to remotely justify the use of such a awful tool.
“Actually, given the secrecy and contradictory statements surrounding the matter, no one on the outside truly knows the scope of what Holder authorized, and the nature of SPs is that they have few operational boundaries.”
Then we’ll be able to judge the process as it unfolds.
“So is this rule of law, or rule of partisanship but Holder and Obama?”
Obama doesn’t want any part of this. He wants to look ahead. This is ******** up health care reform. Obama is your ally on this one. Holder has to prosecute because not prosecuting *anyone at all* just strains credibility too hard.
“I don’t attribute it to all conservatives. And neither should you.”
I didn’t, but overgeneralization, okay, I’ll give you that. But Holder is AG, appointed by Obama, and there is no question they practice selective, partisan prosecution. I’ve cited proof. So you tell me, is DOJ as of today under partisan managment?
“I don’t think so. I think you’ve avoided real responses to valid points by characterizing them as non sequiturs and evasions. For instance, you didn’t answer any of my hypotheticals.”
I think I answered all of them that make any sense and have some bearing on the issues that were under discussion. The rest are indeed non sequiturs and red herrings. Guess we disagree about that.
“You call them EITs or torture, it really doesn’t matter to me. What matters is that some of those techniques were clearly illegal.”
Which techniques were clearly illegal, and what is your legal basis for this assertion?
“I never argued that all EITs were torture, though it’s pretty clear that many of them were.”
That’s part of the problem. Folks on your side just make vague claims about torture and then can’t or won’t define it. They know it when they see it. It is whatever happened under Bush and Cheney. Please look at the point Sargent is making in this post and the others on the topic and try to stay on the point. His claim is very specific: Dick Cheney is a liar because he said the CIA documents would show that the EIT program produced valuable intelligence information that helped keep us safe. You and all the fellow travellers here are defending Sargent and arguing that EIT could not have “worked” — that is your side’s word, not mine — because by definition “torture” does not work, and therefore Cheney must be lying. If you don’t want to defend that sophistry, then I applaud you. But don’t pretend I am the one who moved the ball.
“Moreover, it’s not inconsistent to argue in the alternative: that it doesn’t work, and even if it did “work” (what does that term mean, anyway? That it regularly elicits information, that it occasionally elicits information, that the benefits of whatever good information you get outweighs the bad?), it’s still illegal. Really, arguing in the alternative is a very common technique: that even if someone may be right on one point, it doesn’t matter because they still lose on the other point where either one is determinative.”
No, it isn’t inconsistent to argue in the alternative. But that isn’t what your side actually does. When confronted with hard choices of whether to use “harsh” measures if it is necessary to elicit critical information, your side consistently retreats to the utilitarian escape: “It doesn’t work; detainees just lie under torture.” If that is your answer, then you don’t really believe it is immoral regardless of necessity or efficacy. And, yes, it is a contradiction.
“Ah, how do I know ahead of time that I have their killer? Maybe that person who I suspect is their killer is one of your family members. And how dare you assume what I would or would not do. That I would not lower myself to the level of a terrorist makes me neither a liar nor a fool. As I wrote before, some things are worth putting something of yourself on the line for. Apparently, you don’t feel that way. (And, by the way, you must feel all Quakers are fools, every one of them.)”
So you don’t believe, or you refuse to entertain, the possibility that something you call “torture” or “clearly ilegal” would be necessary to save lives of family members from a terrorist organization. Okay, but you are just ducking the question. How do I know what you would do? I don’t. I can only assume you are a rational person with some moral judgment and an attachment to your family. Perhaps you would stand on principle and let them die rather than cause a terrorist any discomfort. If it makes you morally correct to say that is what you would do, congratulations. Most people say they would act differently and be entirely morally justified in doing so. What I know from reading your posts is that you acknowledge there is a lot of moral and practical complexity that surrounds the judgments that have to be made — not clear cut, bright line rules — and yet you think it right to prosecute people who did their best to make those judgments in the heat of battle, to make an example of them for the future. That is a monstrous and dangerous position.
Your proof that we “EIT-d some detainees to death” is both facially irrelevant and deficient in evidentiary terms. You link a Glenn Greenwald post (real credible source there), who links a reckless and unsourced statement by Barry McAffrey (no evidence at all), a hearsay report of a HRW staffer, and some supporting autopsy reports of detainees who died in custody in Iraq compiled by the ACLU and characterized by a (lunatic) Dkos poster. Just a few points: You realize, again, that Dick Cheney’s statements were about the EIT program; and you said “EIT-d” to death. Nothing cited by Greenwald and his “sources” has anything to do with that. One autopsy report lists strangulation as the cause of death, and gives no clue how it happened except that the detainee was found nonresponsive “outside in isolation.” Was this an EIT to which Cheney referred? Who knows who strangled this detainee. Do you? Another report gives no cause or manner of death. And another appears to show that the detainee died of illness. In short, they are reports of autopsies who died in custody in Iraq, not reports of detainees “EIT-d to death.” Some of them might have been dragged or struck, as Greenwald’s “sources” suggest. But this is no evidence at all for your bold assertion that “we apparently EIT-d some detainees to death.” I suggest that YOU read more carefully before making such charges.
Bat, even the Washington Times concludes that “the redacted documents do not specify any enhanced-interrogation tactics as having led to detainees revealing specific information”. But maybe the Washington Times is also a hard-left newspaper “denying reality”?
Consumotopia, you are either confused or trying to confuse.
“This is wrong on several levels. There’s a difference between using the utilitarian case to support the deontological position and using the utilitarian case to answer a utilitarian objection. It does not imply that the the utilitarian objection would have convinced them in any rate.”
Actually, in this case it implies that the “torture” critics did not want to defend their deontological principle under the very premise they stated. A critic who asserts that EIT is always wrong even if it would save lives, and then answers a hard choice by denying it could ever save lives, is not making your subtle distinction. She is asserting a moraly incoherent position, and an empirically foolish one. And she is denying the reality that she could be confronted by two mutually exclusive choices, both of which her purported ethic would hold are immoral.
“Furthermore, you CAN use the utilitarian argument to support the equivalent of the deontological position if you use Rule utilitarianism rather than Act utilitarianism. (Note that deontological was my word, not anyone else’s here). Under Rule Utilitarianism, Generally Stupid really does become Universally Immoral.”
Again, many of your compatriots are not making “the equivalent of” a deontological argument through utilitarianism. They are explicitly REJECTING a utilitarian justification as a matter of principle — no amount of good that came from it could justify the bad it inherently constitutes. But they will only defend this position in the abstract, not when it touches their own and is presented in real and concrete terms. In that situation, they suddenly become utilitarians who deny any good could come from it — again the same empirically naive position, and yes, a contradiction.
“Finally, referencing the uncertainty of the world and utiltiarian judgments within it, which is at the root of most of the objections to the utilitarian pro-torture argument, is itself a standard argument for deontological ethics–in an uncertain world, principle is our surest guide.”
Interesting point with many possible responses. “Torture” critics are not generally referencing uncertainty as a basis for deontological principle. They are doing just the opposite, denying uncertainty (”torture never works!”), but only after asserting its inherent immorality regardless of utility and then facing a “hard choice” they do not want to face.
Wartime rape is a false analogy. Really, I think you are intelligent enough to know that. It has certainly been used by Islamists, the Japanese military, and in other historical instances, as an instrument of terror and suppression. I am not aware of any good that could be achieved through it or any hard moral choice it presents. I don’t think you are either.
Look, I will give you this. You are at least a serious conversant on this topic who seems to appreciate the complexity and hard choices it presents. 99% of the angry mob, to coin a phrase, on your side is just in a blind rage for political vengeance. For the record, I personally doubt that any of these ethical systems can satisfactorily account for problems like this. At least, no one has been able to solve them in the past 2500 years or so. Intellectual grown-ups generally appreciate this. In this debate, the grown ups generally are not on your side.
The moral complexity is just part of why it is so appalling for Holder to go on a witch hunt against people who actually had to face these dilemmas while defending the country from fanatical terrorists trying to kill us. The left imagines that there is an obvious demarcation between morally permitted questionong that “works” and immoral and criminal “torture” that doesn’t “work” and is actually counterproductive. Reality is rather more complicated, as I think you acknowledge. Where to draw the line between acceptable strong tactics and unacceptable “torture” is a matter of judgment in context. Your side, when push comes to shove, has to admit this, and yet your side is hell bent on condemning those who had the responsibility to make those judgments, because, you claim, you would have decided differently. It is disgusting and a threat to political and social fabric.
“Obama doesn’t want any part of this. He wants to look ahead. This is ******** up health care reform. Obama is your ally on this one. Holder has to prosecute because not prosecuting *anyone at all* just strains credibility too hard.”
If Obama doesn’t want any part of this and genuinely thinks it harmful or wrong, he can stop it today. Since he isn’t doing that, he either a Machiavellian who does want it or is a hypocrite and just as guilty as those he is letting Holder pursue. There isn’t any doubt in my mind he wants it. Go back and read some of the statements he made before and during his campaign. He said we should “look forward” when it seemed the expedient thing to say in the spotlight, but he made sure he communicated to his base that their day of vengeance would come, at his hand.
Before the witch hunt, it wasn’t that no one at all was investigated or prosecuted. These cases were all reviewed by career DOJ, and there was at least one prosecution. It doesn’t strain credulity at all. It just didn’t satsify the left’s thirst for vengeance. This is a political vendetta and nothing more, dressed up “rule of law” rhetoric.
And, by the way, the witch hunt is not undermining health care reform; it is distracting from the fiasco of health care reform. Obama is getting just what he wants. The Godfather is is favorite movie. This is Michael saying, “I don’t want anything to happen to him while our mother is alive.”
jj, sbj already thoroughly refuted your point with actual report excerpts in these threads. No need for me to waste more time educating you, and I don’t take a carefully limited comment by a Wash Times reporter as authoritative when the documents show Cheney was right. Like your ideological mates, you are just trying to erect an absurd standard of “proof” that, thankfully, a large majority of the public will never accept. Just for example, the WT article quotes the IG report:
“”It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard was the reason for Abu Zabuydah’s increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention was the catalyst,” the IG report said. “Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zabuydah has appeared to be cooperative.”"
To people still in possession of common sense, this tends to vindicate Cheney. The IG was an explicit critique of the program, yet even he acknowledged AZ became cooperative after waterboarding. His observation of a lack “definitive” proof that the information was obtained solely by reason of EIT isn’t much of a straw for your side to grasp.
If what you all need is geometric proof, we could all have saved a lot of time by agreeing such proof is impossible in this context. For reasonable people, the fact that Zabuydah became cooperative and provided more information after waterboarding suggests Cheney was right and Sargent and company are wrong. Think what you want about whether that justifies it, but you are overreaching by denying basic facts.
bat: “I think I answered all of them that make any sense and have some bearing on the issues that were under discussion. The rest are indeed non sequiturs and red herrings. Guess we disagree about that.”
How does the hypo about allowing members of your family to be waterboarded not “make any sense”? If you think people who are suspected of having information should be waterboraded for the greater good, then it applies to everyone. I’m just asking if you would apply the same standard to people you know. Terrorists aren’t all foreigners. (Do we waterboard Timothy McVeigh? He has a family. How about people who had contact with him who might know something about possible other plans?).
Calling these questions red herrings seems to me to be simple avoidance of difficult questions, and ones that I think are far more likely than the one you posed. Almost never will we know ahead of time that person knows the information sought, and the need the information quickly, and that the technique applied will actually produce it and not some string of falsehoods. So we may disagree about “red herrings,” but that doesn’t make the outcome a mere difference of opinion. We can “disagree” about the result of a math problem, but that doesn’t mean we’re both right or that there is no right answer and so we can just walk away. I answered your hypo. I think you should answer mine.
“Folks on your side just make vague claims about torture and then can’t or won’t define it. They know it when they see it.”
I’d appreciate it than rather than talking about “folks” on my “side,” you address what I actually wrote. I said you can call the techniques what you want, but the question is whether they were legal or illegal. Waterboarding is pretty darn clearly illegal. Other techniques may be too (this is why the Justice Department is performing a review). The line may not always be clear, but an absence of complete clarity is not a reason to say “well, we can’t define it in every case so we can’t prosecute anyone.” The law deals with such cases all the time: it has a reasonableness standard that applies in both civil and criminal case. I can use force in self-defense if I reasonably believe I am in danger, but not if my belief is objectively unreasonable. We may disagree on what is “reasonable”: that’s why try to use language to define it as best we can, and then we have trial with juries to resolve some of these questions.
“Please look at the point Sargent is making in this post and the others on the topic and try to stay on the point….You and all the fellow travellers here are defending Sargent and arguing that EIT could not have ‘worked’ — that is your side’s word, not mine — because by definition ‘torture’ does not work, and therefore Cheney must be lying.”
I am staying on point, and you are misstating both Sargent’s position and mine (and again, my “side” is irrelevant). The position is simply that the released memos do not say what Cheney says they would say. Regardless of whether the techniques “work” (a term still not defined), the memos do not confirm that the techniques produced the claimed vital information. From the Washington post piece: “Portions of the two memos Cheney wanted released describe several plots disclosed by detainees who were subjected to harsh questioning but do not specifically attribute the revelations to the use of those techniques.” This argument has only to do with the content of the memos, and they don’t show what Cheney said they would show.
“What I know from reading your posts is that you acknowledge there is a lot of moral and practical complexity that surrounds the judgments that have to be made — not clear cut, bright line rules — and yet you think it right to prosecute people who did their best to make those judgments in the heat of battle, to make an example of them for the future. That is a monstrous and dangerous position.”
Moral ambiguity does not mean that everything goes. What is that your position in the alternative?
First, I think decisions made in the heat of battle should be prosecuted, and I think it’s offensive for you to call such a position monstrous and dangerous. What kinds of actions would your position excuse? As I wrote before, it’s precisely when the temptation to break the law is the greatest that we need its guidance the most. Good motives are not an excuse, or do you think that those who honestly think they were saving souls during the Inquisition should be excused for what was clearly torture? What horrible acts would you excuse because people thought they were doing the right thing? I think we need to try to have rules that deal with ambiguity (again, the law does this all the time) to protect both individuals and enforcement personnel. And if we don’t hold ourselves to those standards, then rules will be broken and we’ll be back to anything goes because it’s justified by the subjective beliefs of the interrogators.
Second, and more importantly, we’re not dealing here with actual decisions made in the heat of battle. The techniques applied simply did not take place in those circumstances. Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. What was the logic? That the 53rd time’s the charm? Should those who performed and/or approved those actions not be prosecuted because they thought they were doing the right thing? I would appreciate a response on the Zubaydah matter.
“You link a Glenn Greenwald post (real credible source there)”
Ah, that was more for the autopsy reports. Going after the source isn’t a substitute for the underpinnings of the discussion. And when I think someone is wrong, I address the arguments on the merits because anyone can be right once in a while.
“But this is no evidence at all for your bold assertion that ‘we apparently EIT-d some detainees to death.’”
First, I did write “apparently.” Also, the very first autopsy report has a detainee dying within 3 days after apprehension and subjected to hooding, sleep deprivation, and hot and cold environmental conditions. Sure, it’s possible he died of other causes. Which would you bet on? Plus there are many more deaths to be investigated. (Moreover, there is the moral problem that these techniques may lead to death even if they are “carefully” applied.)
It is worth noting that for all the claimed necessity of these techniques, they are not used by Israel–the nation most subjected to terrorism. Nor are they endorsed by our peer nations. Are they so dumb and we so smart?
From an article on the 1999 Israel Supreme Court decision: “the High Court examined four specific investigation methods used by the ISA: shaking; forcing the detainee into the “frog” crouch; the “shabah” position; and sleep deprivation. Regarding the first three methods, the court held that they deviate from a reasonable interrogation and do not serve legitimate purposes, such as preventing communication between interrogees, and they are, therefore, prohibited interrogation methods and the ISA is not empowered to use them, whatever the circumstances. Regarding sleep deprivation, the court held that the ISA may use the method if it is a “side effect” of the interrogation, but not if it is used as a means of pressure.” http://www.btselem.org/english/torture/HCJ_Ruling.asp
Israel does not seem to have suffered a spate of terrorist attacks as a consequence.
Allow me to rephrase my prior post: Of course Israel is still subjected to terror attacks. But Israel’s security does not seem to have suffered serious degradation as a result of its revision of interrogation techniques.
bat: “If Obama doesn’t want any part of this and genuinely thinks it harmful or wrong, he can stop it today.”
If he did, it would be wrong. It is vital to the rule of law that the Justice Department not take orders on prosecutions from the White House. That’s precisely what Bush was accused of: making law enforcement a political issue.
Perhaps Obama could put stop investigations if he wanted to. But it would be a pretty fundamental violation of basic governing principles if he did.
“Before the witch hunt, it wasn’t that no one at all was investigated or prosecuted. These cases were all reviewed by career DOJ, and there was at least one prosecution. It doesn’t strain credulity at all. It just didn’t satsify the left’s thirst for vengeance. This is a political vendetta and nothing more, dressed up ‘rule of law’ rhetoric.”
First, whose Justice Department conducted those investigations?
Second, as for ‘rule of law,’ do you think that those who clearly went beyond even the questionable Justice Department memos should not be prosecuted? Is your position that since others were not held to the rule of law, then no one should be? (I’d think the better position would be to hold everyone to the rule of law, don’t you?)
I’m just focusing on one narrow, but key, point here because, well, we have lives
. Let’s look at the the Rule Utilitarian case against torture in more detail.
Torture is an evil, of course, it’s just a matter of whether it’s a necessary evil–whether there is some good produced by torture that outweighs the intrinsic badness. But it turns out that applying any general rule that permits torture is likely to do more harm than good in the long run–which is why all the pro-torture hypotheticals look so contrived.
Now, you may have several objections to the soundness of this argument, but I can’t see how you could have any against it’s validity. It also seems perfectly in line with the arguments by others above–combining the intrinsic wrongness of torture with the lack of utility produced by any general rule permitting torture.
This is exactly how most people would argue against wartime rape. They would emphasize the extreme inhumanity of the act. When confronted with some hypothetical (e.g. I have a nuclear bomb sitting above your kids and I will detonate it if you do not rape this terrorist) they would point out how contrived that situation is. People may not use the words “Rule Utilitarianism”, but that seems to be what’s behind the logic here.
“Wartime rape is a false analogy. Really, I think you are intelligent enough to know that. It has certainly been used by Islamists, the Japanese military, and in other historical instances, as an instrument of terror and suppression. I am not aware of any good that could be achieved through it or any hard moral choice it presents. I don’t think you are either.”
The key phrase here is “I am not aware of any good that could be achieved through it or any hard moral choice it presents.” Because, as I did above, I can invent scenarios that force such a choice. Those scenarios are deeply removed from the real world, and I’d argue so too are “ticking time bomb” scenarios.
bat: “If what you all need is geometric proof, we could all have saved a lot of time by agreeing such proof is impossible in this context. For reasonable people, the fact that Zabuydah became cooperative and provided more information after waterboarding suggests Cheney was right and Sargent and company are wrong.”
Burden of proof. Cheney said the memos would show that the techniques prevented terrorist attacks and saved thousands of lives. If he asserted something that could not be shown, that’s his fault. He was the one claiming definitive proof that the techniques “worked.” He can’t now claim that the burden is on the other side to prove the negative.
Also, the assertion that Zubaydah became “cooperative” is a slender reed to lean on. We don’t know the cause; even the IG report says other factors such as the length of detention may have been causal agents, and there is no indication that the information gleaned at that point was vital, much less than it saved thousands of lives. To reasonable minds, I think it’s very hard to tease out one possible causal factor from among many others that are very plausible. We all need to be very careful about letting our predispositions affect our evaluations of the evidence. To me, there’s just not much here.
“First, whose Justice Department conducted those investigations?” Precisely. Now that we have a new justice dept. with a new agenda, its time to reopen the books. In just this way does the famously decried politicization of the justice dept.
continue apace.
and that’s fine, I suppose.Winner, meet spoils.But understand–this business about no one is above the law is trite when the application of the law is entirely dependent upon elections. Many people have been placed above the law.Richard Nixon, for one. Marc Rich, for another, and the current AG was a critical actor in placing him there.
“I answered your hypo. I think you should answer mine.”
Yes, obviously, the same rules apply to everyone. If a member of my family were part of a terrorist organization who murdered thousands of Americans and was captured making war againt us, the same rules would apply. That proves what, exactly? Your problems is that you want to make categorical statements but then claim that factual context is important for you to answer hard questions, a luxury you appear not to afford those subject to your categorical pronouncements. I haven’t advocated for or against any EIT. I have responded to the arguments here that they never “work” — again, that is your side’s term, not mine — and are categorically immoral and illegal.
“I’d appreciate it than rather than talking about “folks” on my “side,” you address what I actually wrote. I said you can call the techniques what you want, but the question is whether they were legal or illegal. Waterboarding is pretty darn clearly illegal. Other techniques may be too (this is why the Justice Department is performing a review). The line may not always be clear, but an absence of complete clarity is not a reason to say “well, we can’t define it in every case so we can’t prosecute anyone.” The law deals with such cases all the time: it has a reasonableness standard that applies in both civil and criminal case. I can use force in self-defense if I reasonably believe I am in danger, but not if my belief is objectively unreasonable. We may disagree on what is “reasonable”: that’s why try to use language to define it as best we can, and then we have trial with juries to resolve some of these questions.”
You’ve made various inconsistent statements now about which EIT’s were illegal. Now you say waterboarding “pretty darn clearly was” and “others” might have been. That is a far cry from the moral certitude and blanket condemnations that have animated the demands for prosecution. I’ve read the OLC memos; there is nothing “clear” at all about the claimed illegality. More importantly, how do you keep overlooking that these same allegations were ALL previously reviewed by DOJ career lawyers who declined prosecution? They are being “reviewed” again by a new admin for political reasons and nothing else.
“I am staying on point, and you are misstating both Sargent’s position and mine (and again, my “side” is irrelevant). The position is simply that the released memos do not say what Cheney says they would say.”
Here was you last night: “It’s not “lefties” who say it doesn’t work; it’s FBI interrogators who say so.” You argued just what I said you did, and just what others here did. Apparently you knew what “it doesn’t work” meant then, when you made that very argument.
The memos and IG report vindicate Cheney. You are shutting your eyes to it because it does not fit your script. The proof has already been marshalled in these threads. You are unable to refute it.
“First, I think decisions made in the heat of battle should be prosecuted, and I think it’s offensive for you to call such a position monstrous and dangerous. What kinds of actions would your position excuse? As I wrote before, it’s precisely when the temptation to break the law is the greatest that we need its guidance the most. Good motives are not an excuse, or do you think that those who honestly think they were saving souls during the Inquisition should be excused for what was clearly torture? What horrible acts would you excuse because people thought they were doing the right thing? I think we need to try to have rules that deal with ambiguity (again, the law does this all the time) to protect both individuals and enforcement personnel. And if we don’t hold ourselves to those standards, then rules will be broken and we’ll be back to anything goes because it’s justified by the subjective beliefs of the interrogators.”
You mischaracterize my position, and I feel no need to kep trying to straigthen you out about it. What actions would I excuse? I suppose those that are excusable. That is as meaningful as what you just said. Since you can’t identify any “rules that deal with ambiguity” here as you describe, I can’t fathom how you can feel certain crimes were committed that have gone unpunished. And yet you apparently do. Will we attain a higher level of justice if political appointees of Obama overrule the career lawyers again, as they have already shown eagerness to do in the service of politics?
“Second, and more importantly, we’re not dealing here with actual decisions made in the heat of battle. The techniques applied simply did not take place in those circumstances. Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. What was the logic? That the 53rd time’s the charm? Should those who performed and/or approved those actions not be prosecuted because they thought they were doing the right thing? I would appreciate a response on the Zubaydah matter.”
It is easy for you to say now, years later, that it wasn’t the heat of battle. I’m sorry you don’t appreciate a figure of speech. If you read the reports, you should know the answers to your questions. Even the IG’s report admits that Zubuydah became cooperative and provided more information after waterboarding. I know, that apparently isn’t sufficient “proof” for you that it “worked.” Whether his cooperation started on the 10th or 70th time we don’t really know. You weren’t there, nor was I. But obviously there was some “logic” to the process. Again, it was already investigated. Career DOJ attorneys apparently determined it shouldn’t be prosecuted. How many times do you want it investigated?
Regarding your claim that of EIT-caused homicides, I think it is fair to say that, as in pretty much every armed conflict, there are instances of deaths in custody inviting investigation, and equally fair to say you made a much stronger and more specific statement that isn’t supported by any real evidence. Dick Cheney defended the authorized EITs as having been valuable. Your claim that many detainees were apparently killed with those techniques is unsupported.
Consumatopia, although you insulted me upon entering the fray, I am actually appreciating your responses. Your last one is thoughtful, and would be a productive contribution to a genuine discussion. In my opinion, it would appropriately take us back to thinking more seriously about the fundamental questions that your co-belligerents typically assume away. What do we mean by torture? What is the purpose of interrogation, and how do we know if it “works”? Are we in reality confronted by conflicting moral imperatives? If so, how do we respond?
That is a discussion worth having, and frankly, I don’t have any idea how near or far i would land from you. I am often inclined to agree with whoever said ethics is the devil’s game. Unfortunately, though, I really believe that genuine form of discussion has been drowned out by the sheer passion for revenge on the part of the political left. They have a script: Torture never works, Cheney is a war criminal, Bush autorized torture, it made us less safe, etc. It seems impervious to any actual effort at moral reasoning or judgment. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed as nonexistent.
But, in any event, I also have a real life that I have to get back to. Can’t believe I’ve been here this long.
dsimon, you are really grasping at straws with your burden of proof argument. Really. You are embellishing Cheney’s statements and imposing unrealistic interpretations on the documents to suit your own predispositions. The reports tend to show Cheney was right. He never said they were “definitive proof” that X technique revealed Y information about Z plan which saved ABC lives. Obama and other democrats were all over the media denouncing the EIT program as criminal torture that produced no helpful information and made us “less safe.” Cheney responded to the contrary. Now you are putting words in his mouth to keep smearing him. Is that all you have to do? Is it really that important to you to call him a liar?
Those are rhetorical questions. I don’t care whether you answer and am turning now to more productive things.
“Consumatopia, although you insulted me upon entering the fray, I am actually appreciating your responses.”
Yeah, I did, it was wrong, and I apologize.
We’re both short on time, but let me spell out my answers to the larger issues. To me, the problem is not the amount of discomfort inflicted by torture, but that it’s coercive in a far more fundamental way than any of the state’s other means of coercion. The state isn’t trying to scare detainees into compliance, it’s trying to *break* them, to remove their identity as human beings. Sleep deprivation for multiple nights may not sound cruel, but it’s basically like you injected a detainee with mind altering drugs.
Allowing the state to do this not only crosses an ethical line I believe should remain uncrossed, but can produce misinformation, strengthen the enemy’s resolve, sow discord at home, degrade the professionalism of our institutions, and open the possibility that such techniques could be used for domestic or even political purposes. Any discussion of whether torture “works”–whether permitting EITs makes us safer–
has to take all of that into account.
My point here is that, to many of us, torture is wrong for *many* reasons. It’s possible that I could be wrong on one or two of them. It does not seem possible that I’m wrong on ALL of them. The certainty I feel is not about each specific argument, but about all of them put together.
Well, I had some sharp words in response, for which I likewise apologize if they were too sharp. Your position is well considered and stated. I respect your opinion. I probably even agree with much of it. If only the larger “debate” were proceeding similarly rather than as just another chapter in “gotcha” politics.
bat: “If a member of my family were part of a terrorist organization who murdered thousands of Americans and was captured making war againt us, the same rules would apply.”
That’s not my hypo. Read it again. I did you the favor of making your hypo as strong as possible, but you respond by making mine as weak as possible. As I wrote, it’s the suspicion that your family members may know something. After all, rarely would we know if the people we’re waterboarding really know what we think they know. So, once again: waterboard? How often can we get it wrong to justify when we get it right? How good are we at telling the difference?
“Your problems is that you want to make categorical statements but then claim that factual context is important for you to answer hard questions, a luxury you appear not to afford those subject to your categorical pronouncements.”
No, that’s not my argument. I argue that precisely because of the problem of ambiguity, we need to use rules as much as possible to define what is and is not allowed and to protect–protect–those involved in interrogations. The fact that we can’t create a rule for every contingency is not an excuse for not having rules to begin with. Otherwise, what is prohibited? What system would you put in place? Or does everything rest on the subjective intent of the interrogators, no matter how flawed?
“More importantly, how do you keep overlooking that these same allegations were ALL previously reviewed by DOJ career lawyers who declined prosecution? They are being “reviewed” again by a new admin for political reasons and nothing else.”
Once again, you avoid the issue. Let’s look at the waterboarding of Zubaydah. You think that was legal? Go ahead, but not only do most people agree it was illegal even if done once, it went far beyond what was authorized. If you’re against prosecuting those who waterboarded Zubaydah for the 83rd time (what possible “logic” can there be to that action), then don’t complain when the administration doesn’t prosecute those on the other side of the aisle. You claim prosecution for political purposes, but you don’t seem to address whether it’s appropriate to investigate the strong possibility that laws were broken. Again, the better position is to say that lawbreaking should always be investigated. So once again: do you oppose even an investigation of those who waterboarded Zubaydah for the 83rd time which exceeded the directives in the (highly questionable) Justice Department memos?
“Since you can’t identify any “rules that deal with ambiguity” here as you describe, I can’t fathom how you can feel certain crimes were committed that have gone unpunished.”
Well, you didn’t ask me to identify them. For starters, I believe they are outlined in both domestic law and our commitment to international law such as the Geneva Conventions and the international anti-torture provisions (Reagan seemed to think that was important). Seems that there is a long history regarding waterboarding. Others may qualify too. I don’t claim to be an expert, which is why the Justice Department is conducting a review.
“What actions would I excuse? I suppose those that are excusable. That is as meaningful as what you just said.”
That’s not an answer. I provided a process, the legal process with which we deal with many kinds of similar actions. It’s called a trial. I don’t know what your position is, since you seem to oppose even an investigation as long as the actions were done in good faith, regardless of the objective reasonableness of that faith. Again, what is your position?
“You are embellishing Cheney’s statements and imposing unrealistic interpretations on the documents to suit your own predispositions. The reports tend to show Cheney was right…Now you are putting words in his mouth to keep smearing him.”
I think you are reinterpreting what Cheney actually said. I’m not smearing him; I’m trying to hold him to his own standard. Not my fault if he keeps making statements that are not remotely provable.
And Cheney’s own statement about the memos don’t say what you say they say. He said: “The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda.” http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977787488 Notably, he doesn’t claim that the EITs actually elicited the information. If they had, why wouldn’t he himself had said so? And I’m the one putting words in Cheney’s mouth?
To refute me, you quote my reliance on FBI testimony. I don’t see how that’s relevant to what Cheney says the memos would show, or the actual content of the memos.
Two more points.
First, authorization for these techniques were withdrawn sometime around 2004. Do I hear people criticizing the administration for making us suddenly vulnerable?
Second, I tried to make your hypo as strong as possible. The life of a family member hangs in the balance. I know the detainee has the information. I know pouring the bottle will elicit the information and not a series of lies. Do I pour the water? Though I can’t be sure–one never can be unless one is in that situation–I think not. I think my family member would understand, as would I if our situations were reversed.
But I can say one thing for sure: if I did, I would not argue that what I did was not illegal; I would accept that my objective was worth going to jail for. To do otherwise would, in my opinion, be unethical and cowardly. If I’m going to break the law, I expect to be held accountable for it.
Can we finally dispense with the wartime rape analogy? Bat is exactly correct — it’s fatally flawed. In point of fact, there is no PLAUSIBLE scenario under which it could arguably be employed in the service of some greater good. This is inevitably where the armchair ethicists come to difficulty. Consumatopia’s assertion that the so-called “ticking time bomb” scenario is as contrived as his rape scenario is laughable on its face. The salient point here is that the “ticking time bomb” scenario is wholly unique precisely because it is plausible.
I think the debate can be summed up as follows: One side values above all else the sanctity of law and the moral standards presumably codified therein, while the other places a premium on preserving human life, particularly
continued… on a mass scale, and is comfortable making reasonable accommodations under extraordinary circumstances in pursuit of that objective.
Perhaps it would instructive to invert the current debate: What if an interrogator refused to make a suspect uncomfortable in an effort to elicit information about a terrorism plot, and as a result said plot went off as planned and 5,000 people were killed and many more thousands were injured. Should the interrogator be prosecuted for complicity or incompetence?
To get back to the original issue, and sum up where we stand….
Cheney originally claimed that EIT’s were an integral part of an interrogation process which resulted in the acquisition of valuable intelligence that made the country more secure from terrorist attacks. He further stated that he was specifically aware of reports that detailed the information which was gleened from the interrogation process, and he implied, although he did not specifcally state, that the reports would validate the conclusion that EIT’s were instrumental in getting the information.
Greg has claimed that the documents Cheney referred to do not in fact substantiate Cheney’s claims. Greg also seems to think that the documents do prove something, and although he never states specifically what he thinks they prove, it seems he thinks they somehow prove that Cheney was not telling the truth, or was at least wrong. Greg also condemns Cheney’s defense of the interrogators as “absurd”, partially quoting a passage which seems to suggest that, even as they were interrogating, the interrogators themselves were concerned about being in legal jeopardy as the result of, as Greg characterizes them, “his (ie Cheney’s) policies.”
Stephen Hayes, meanwhile, has claimed that the documents do substantiate Cheney’s claim. He cites several passages which seem clearly and undeniably to establish a timeline in which valuable information was provided by various detainees only after EIT’s had been employed. However, the passages he cites come from the Inspector General’s report and not the actual CIA reports to which Cheney was apparently originally referring. Hayes further charges that Greg has artfully used ellipses to alter the context of the interrogators’ concerns. Hayes quotes the passages in full, showing that that at least one of the concerned interrogators actually supported the now questioned policies (”it had to be done”) despite any future repercussions, and that one of their fears was the lack of support of just the type Cheney is now giving them, and which Greg would have Cheney deny them. Lastly, Hayes has taken Greg to task for characterizing the interrogation policies as “Bush/Cheney torture policies” when, in fact, the EIT’s were developed by intelligence officers themselves.
In response to Hayes’ rebuttal, Greg first points out that Hayes has only cited the IG report and not the 2 CIA reports that Cheney originally spoke of. This is a fair enough point, although its force as an argument is weak since, if Cheney was correct about his primary claim (EIT’s were an integral and necessary component of gathering valuable intel), but wrong about the documents that substantiated the claim (the IG report rather than the CIA memos), Cheney was merely wrong about an insignificant detail. With regard to the passages in the IG report that seem to substantiate Cheney’s claim, all Greg does is link to 3 sources which he claims agree with Greg, and which he suggests have more “credibility” than Hayes. This is no argument at all, and is in fact a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority.
With regard to the charge of artfully using ellipses to alter the context of the interrogators’ concerns and elinimate relevant information, Greg makes no defense whatsoever. Nor does he defend himself against the charge that he has inaccurately labelled EIT’s as “Bush/Cheney” policies.
So I score it thus:
1) Cheney’s claim about the value of information gathered as a result of EIT’s seems clearly substantiated by the IG’s report, albeit not yet by the (severely redacted) CIA reports. Greg has been unable to rebut Hayes’ points about the IG report with any reasoned argument, employing only an appeal to authority.
2) Greg’s imputation (although not explicit declaration) that Cheney has been proved wrong is not substantiated by anything.
3) Hayes’ demonstration that Greg used ellispes to eliminate relevant information from and alter the tone of the quoted passages regarding concerns of the interrogators remains unrebutted.
4) Hayes’ suggestion that Greg’s description of EIT’s as “Bush/Cheney torture policies” is deceptive also remains unrebutted.
So far I would have to say that Greg is getting the worst of this dispute. To the extent that Greg has been right about anything, it has been only on an insignificant detail.
Jasper: “The salient point here is that the “ticking time bomb” scenario is wholly unique precisely because it is plausible.”
It’s wholly unique to the point that no one can come up with to a single historical incident of it outside of fiction. Though dramatic, it is quite implausible. You’d have to know that something terrible is about to happen, have in custody a person who knows about it, know that the person knows about it, and know that the techniques applied will actually elicit the information necessary to stop it in time rather than a string of false statements. That’s a pretty hefty composite hypothetical.
“What if an interrogator refused to make a suspect uncomfortable in an effort to elicit information about a terrorism plot, and as a result said plot went off as planned and 5,000 people were killed and many more thousands were injured. Should the interrogator be prosecuted for complicity or incompetence?”
None of the above, since the conditions I outlined above were probably not fulfilled. It’s not the interrogator’s fault that other people set off bombs.
Moreover, if an interrogator elicits information that leads us to invade another country, resulting in thousands of deaths and billions of expended dollars, and it turns out that the information was wrong, should the interrogator be prosecuted? That’s why you can’t just rely on the ticking time bomb scenario, because it assumes we always will get good information. There are costs to getting bad information too.
Scott C.: “Stephen Hayes, meanwhile, has claimed that the documents do substantiate Cheney’s claim. He cites several passages which seem clearly and undeniably to establish a timeline in which valuable information was provided by various detainees only after EIT’s had been employed.”
As I wrote above, even Cheney’s statement doesn’t say the EITs elicited the information. I’ll post it again: “The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda.” http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977787488 Notably, he doesn’t claim that the EITs actually elicited the information. If they had, why wouldn’t he himself had said so?
So I don’t see how the documents show Cheney to be right about the use of EITs, since Cheney himself doesn’t seem to be up to making the claim.
And someone will have to explain to me how a “timeline” means cause and effect with respect to EITs. I can draw a “timeline” showing that since we stopped using disputed EITs (in around 2004, apparently), we haven’t been attacked. Does that prove my point?
dsimon:
You are correct that strictly speaking Cheney’s quoted statement does not specifically state that EIT’s were responsible for eliciting information. But my understanding is that Cheney has confirmed that he was not being Clintonesque (ie not trying to draw a lawyerly distinction), so I understand him to be saying precisely that. Besides, arguing that it is not so because even Cheney doesn’t claim it is so is nothing more than an appeal to authority. It is not a rational argument.
You are also correct that a timeline does not necessarily establish cause and effect. Of course from a strictly logical standpoint, it has not, and indeed short of a declaration by a detainee himself (and perhaps not even then) it cannot, be established as a logical certainty that it was the use of EITs that elicited the information. This is true even if, say, person X refused to talk for 60 days, and then on day 61 he was waterboarded and he suddenly began to talk. That is because, as a matter of strict logic, other causes cannot be excluded. Perhaps X’s tolerance for captivity was 60 days, and on
the 61st day he was going to talk no matter what. Perhaps for the last 30 days he was re-examing his beliefs and on the 61st day he concluded he should reveal what he knows. Perhaps just prior to being waterboarded he had a revelation. Perhaps any one of a thousand things. So it is true that, as a matter of strict logic, of course we cannot conclude that just because B followed A, A must have caused B. However, in the context of the actual example, when a detainee doesn’t speak for 60 days, and then begins to talk
on the 61st day after being waterboarded, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the EIT, whose very purpose was to elicit information that was not previously forthcoming, did in fact elicit the information.
Your analogy is not particularly apt, primarily because there is no reason to believe that the two events are connected, whereas concerning EITs and the willingness of a detainee to talk, there is a clear connection, and indeed a known causal effect. (In fact, one of the more practical criticisms of EITs is that the information elicited cannot be trusted, because a person will say anything, true or false, to get the EIT stopped. This criticism clearly accepts the causal connection between EITs and the provision of information, albeit possibly bad info).
If it were the case, in your example, that terrorist acts were being committed against the US expressly because of the use of EITs, and terrorist acts ceased subsequent to our stopping the use of EITs, then, like the above example, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that one caused the other, even though from a strictly logical point of view, it cannot be established.
dsimon: “It’s wholly unique to the point that no one can come up with to [sic] a single historical incident of it outside of fiction… You’d have to know that something terrible is about to happen …”
The first sentence is nothing more than an expression solipsism. Unless you’re an intelligence operative with a senior-level security clearance or have access to the entirety of the nation’s — or indeed the world’s — classified intelligence archive, your grasp of the relevant historical record matters little. Moreover, a scenario needn’t have a historical precedent to be plausible.
The second sentence I’ve cited (actually the third in your original paragraph) is more interesting, in that it reveals your fundamental ignorance of the nature of espionage. One seldom knows much of anything with certainty in relation to the intentions of allies and adversaries alike. Such is and has always been the defining dynamic of intelligence gathering. The idea that one would need to satisfy a set of inherently unrealistic preconditions before doing anything the least bit unpalatable in a time of war is childishly naive.
Your position seems to be that one must evince complete and unquestioning fealty to laws regardless of the situation. I would argue that laws are neither sacrosanct nor immutable. As others have pointed out, context and motivation should be considered when assessing the actions of others.
This is interesting. If I understand what dsimon is now saying, he is arguing that Sargent is right and Cheney made a false claim, not because Cheney said the EITs elicited the information, as Sargent claims he said, but because Cheney said the detainees subject to EIT produced the bulk of information about al Queda. That is quite a stretch and somersault to keep tarring Cheney as a deceiver.
As to what Cheney said, what Sargent has charged in these posts is that Cheney made a false statement about the effectiveness of EIT as reflected in CIA memos, that he lied about it. (Funny how he would lie about their content while publicly asking for their disclosure.) I’ve asked that he or someone who defends him produce the exact statement with a source. I still haven’t seen it.
Dsimon, I didn’t answer your hypothetical because it is completely and utterly divorced from reality and from my position. The three detainees who were waterboarded were NOT just some innocent Americans whom someone had a vague suspicion just “may have” some information. Do we need to go over that? They were three high level AQ operatives, including the planner of 9/11. We KNEW these things about them. So, no, under your pointless hypothetical, we shouldn’t just waterboard everyone on suspicion of anything. And remember, the accusation at issue is that Cheney lied when he said the memos support his position that EIT’s provided valuable information (assuming Sargent will ever produce the actual statement he says was false).
I am honestly dumbfounded that you admit you probably would not waterboard a known terrorist murderer even if the situation fit the archetypical “ticking bomb” scenario and your own family’s lives were at stake. I just don’t know how to respond to that. I can tip my hat to your consistency, but I would have no hesitation in that situation, nor to I think 90% of people would, even those in the anti-Cheney camp. It tells me a lot about how impossible it would ever be for us to find common ground. I wouldn’t expect my children to “understand” that I was going to let them be murdered rather than make a terrorist feel like he was drowning.
You said: “I think you are reinterpreting what Cheney actually said. I’m not smearing him; I’m trying to hold him to his own standard. Not my fault if he keeps making statements that are not remotely provable.”
I think you are ad libbing and moving the ball again. You haven’t cited any “standard” of Cheney’s to which you are holding him. Elsewhere you said his untrue statement was that the EIT-detainees provide the bulk of the information. Now you claim unspecified statements he “keeps making” that aren’t provable. So that is the standard, Cheney isn’t telling the truth if his statements can’t be proved? You think you are really playing it straight here? I don’t.
Your answers to me about the lack of any clear “rules” are revealing. You admit that you can’t cite any clear legal rules governing these techniques, but think they are somewhere in our statutes or treaties. Well, they aren’t. You say you have invoked a “process” — the trial — for determining guilt or innocense. So what? A process isn’t a set of clear rules. The availability of a trial in the absence of any clear rules isn’t much of a trial, is it? You don’t seem to understand the difference between saying there should be clear rules and there are clear rules. It is a basic principle of criminal law that the rules have to be clearly defined in advance, not after the fact. You say a jury should decide what was reasonable. Really, you think a letting a jury decide guilt or innocense in the absence of clear rules is sufficient, because it is a process? I just think you are lost in confusion because you are committed to the position that Bush and Cheney did something wrong, and facts don’t really matter.
In answer to your question, I don’t think interrogation conduct should all just be left to subjective judgment, and I never suggested such a ridiculous thing. It is you and your compatriots who claim that there were clear legal rules identifying EITs as illegal torture. But there just weren’t, and now you have admitted you can’t cite those rules. By the way, you invoke the Geneva Convention. Were you aware that Holder is on record as saying that it didn’t apply to these detainees? Yet is is claimed here that Bush and Cheney are war criminals for taking the same position.
“To refute me, you quote my reliance on FBI testimony. I don’t see how that’s relevant to what Cheney says the memos would show, or the actual content of the memos.”
No, I quoted you to refute your claim that I misstated your and Sargent’s position, which you said was solely that the CIA memos don’t say what Cheney says, and nothing more, and your repeated claims that you don’t know what it means to ask whether EITs “worked.” And refute you it did. Anyone who wants to verify can scroll up the the post.
You raise Zubuyduh again and ask what logic there could have been to waterboarding him 83 times. You obviously didn’t read my prior response carefully, where I completely buried your point. Go read it if you care to. The IG’s report itself explicitly states that AZ became cooperative and provided information only after waterboarding. You have no idea how many times it took before he started to cooperate or provided key information, yet you apparently are able to conclude that it couldn’t have been justified to keep waterboarding him. In fact, you are so certain that you can conclude it was illegal and should be prosecuted even though you can’t even cite an applicable statute. No, I don’t think we want to be following your prescriptions in this country.
Lastly, you ask me again repeatedly about AZ and instances where interrogators went beyond authorized methods and whether I don’t think they should be investigated. Again, you obviously didn’t read my prior response. These cases were ALL previously investigated by career DOJ lawyers. Now Holder wants to pursue them AGAIN. The only possible reason is politics. So I ask YOU again, a question you never answered. How many times do you want them investigated? Until it goes the way you want?
On the issue of the rape analogy, I obviously agree with Jasper that it simply doesn’t fit. I understood Consumatopia’s general point that all hypotheticals can be problematic, but I do believe these three instances of waterboarding were quite close to a true “ticking bomb” scenario, while the “rape this person or we’ll kill your children” hypothetical is just far-fetched and leads to no useful moral reasoning. But I at least think Consumatopia was thinking about the issues in an appropriate way, which has to confront moral complexity and potential conflicts.
Scott C, you nailed it.
bat: “The three detainees who were waterboarded were NOT just some innocent Americans whom someone had a vague suspicion just “may have” some information. Do we need to go over that?”
Yes we do. We did n NOT know whether those waterboarded definitely had vital information that needed to be elicited quickly and could not have been elicited otherwise. Labeling them “high level operatives” doesn’t tell us that they have the information we’re looking for.
And I never assumed in my hypo that we had “innocent Americans” with a “vague suspicion” of having information. First, how do we know if they’re innocent ahead of time? (That’s one of the whole problems with the detention regime, as even administration and elected officials call those held in Guantanamo “terrorists” and “the worst of the worst,” even as we found many of them were not and subsequently released them.) Nor did I articulate the basis of the suspicion. We can make it more than “vague,” if you like. We can make it “probable but not definite.” The point of a hypo isn’t to make it as easy as possible to fit an answer someone would like to provide.
So answer it. Should the person who killed the Kansas abortion provider be waterboarded? After all, we know as surely as we can before a trial that he’s a killer, and he said himself that there would be more attacks. Why not make sure this terrorist isn’t a part of a larger group planning another killing? What more would you need? (We can wait until after he’s found guilty, if that makes the process easier.)
“It is a basic principle of criminal law that the rules have to be clearly defined in advance, not after the fact. You say a jury should decide what was reasonable.”
And that happens all the time. For instance, a jury decides whether there is a valid self-defense claim. That claim rests on a factual determination of whether a the defendant has a reasonable belief that he is in danger. A judge provides guidance through jury instructions as to what “reasonable” means. Even though it’s obviously impossible to give rules for every contingency, somehow our legal system seems to arrive at a result. Our legal system is a combination of rules and process.
“I don’t think interrogation conduct should all just be left to subjective judgment, and I never suggested such a ridiculous thing.”
Perhaps, but you haven’t given me anything else to go on because you still have not stated any alternative. What would you suggest? I can’t have a discussion regarding your point of view if you don’t put something forward.
“I completely buried your point. Go read it if you care to. The IG’s report itself explicitly states that AZ became cooperative and provided information only after waterboarding.”
Once again, the report doesn’t say when the information was elicited, or whether waterboarding was the cause, or whether something else might have been. You want to rely on the report, but you’re making inferences that the report itself–and Cheney himself–refuses to make. But If you want to buy into “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, go right ahead.
“These cases were ALL previously investigated by career DOJ lawyers. Now Holder wants to pursue them AGAIN. The only possible reason is politics. So I ask YOU again, a question you never answered. How many times do you want them investigated? Until it goes the way you want?”
Again, you did not answer my question. I asked whether those who clearly went beyond what they were authorized to do by the Justice Department memos should be held accountable. Saying “they were investigated” is not a response, because it assumes the validity of the investigation. Or do you think it’s not clear that the actions went beyond what was authorized?
And I could ask the same question of you: do you want to stick with the original investigation because it came out the way you wanted it? When it comes to politization, it’s pretty clear that Gonzales and the White House were closely tied. I understand your suspicions about Holder, but it sure seems to me that Obama would like this whole thing to go away; it doesn’t help Obama to have the CIA angry at him. Also, If these memos contain new allegations of abuse, we have treaty obligations that clearly require an investigation. So yes, there are other possible reasons other than politics.
“As to what Cheney said, what Sargent has charged in these posts is that Cheney made a false statement about the effectiveness of EIT as reflected in CIA memos, that he lied about it. (Funny how he would lie about their content while publicly asking for their disclosure.) I’ve asked that he or someone who defends him produce the exact statement with a source. I still haven’t seen it.”
Let’s work backwards from the memos. If the memos back up whatever claim Cheney actually made, then what he said was so trivial that we shouldn’t be spending so much time on it. The memos don’t say much if anything about the efficacy of EITs. Cheney’s defenders point to a single line in the memo to create a timeline but cannot attribute cause–which even Cheney has not done.
Cheney’s own statement doesn’t say the EITs elicited the information. I’ll post it again: “The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda.” http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977787488 Notably, he doesn’t claim that the EITs actually elicited the information. If he thought the documents said that, why wouldn’t he himself had said so?
And if he’s not making that claim but some far lesser one, then whatever his claim was wasn’t terribly important to begin with, and we’ve all been wasting our time discussing it.
“a scenario needn’t have a historical precedent to be plausible.”
No, but it does need to be plausible. And I listed a litany of improbable conditions that would have to be met to make it plausible. Hence, not very plausible at all.
Moreover, one would think that with so many critics of the scenario, its supporters would be able to come up with a single instance, non-classified if you must, of its occurrence.
“The idea that one would need to satisfy a set of inherently unrealistic preconditions before doing anything the least bit unpalatable in a time of war is childishly naive.”
First, I don’t believe I took that position. Second, planning for every worst-case scenario leads to bad policy because the allowances tend to swallow up all the other circumstances. If one thinks it’s necessary to break the law in an extreme case, then one should be ready to do so (I believe Senator Durbin has taken this position, saying the law should apply but he’d be willing to break it in an extreme case).
“Your position seems to be that one must evince complete and unquestioning fealty to laws regardless of the situation. I would argue that laws are neither sacrosanct nor immutable. As others have pointed out, context and motivation should be considered when assessing the actions of others.”
I argue that if you think are actions are worth breaking the law for, then you should expect to be held accountable under the law. I can imagine situations where I would break the law; I just wouldn’t expect an allowance for doing so. Otherwise, what law is left?
As for motivation, I have little doubt that those who tortured during the Spanish Inquisition thought they were doing so for great reasons: saving souls. But I don’t think that excuses what they did. Indeed, I don’t think their motivations even count. Sometimes people do horrible things for what they think are very good reasons. That’s why we have laws: so that certain actions are not left to the discretion of particular individuals.
Really, do we think that most of those who cross the line into torture have bad motivations? They all have reasons. It may seem tragic that some people are held accountable even when they have good motives. But a reason is not an excuse.
For More on the matter: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons
1. Yes, we did have a high degree of certainty the three detainees subjected to EITs had critical information, and we knew they were mass murdering terrorists with key AQ positions. Come on, dsimon. You are in the zone of denying the sky is blue.
2. Your complete hypothetical was: “what if someone demanded that we use EITs on your family because we thought they might have some useful information?” I answered it. You’re just moving the goal posts.
3. Do you think law enforcement really believes Tiller’s killer’s threat of “more attacks”? Do we actually have some information that he is part of a terrorist organization planning more killings, like we did with KSM et al? Do they have cells and operational plans about which we have other intelligence? Do you know all the kinds of things and have all the relevant considerations we did with those terrorists? Sure, then waterboad him. I know, you wouldn’t. You would expect those about to be murdered to understand their lives just had to be sacrificed.
4. You skewered a straw man regarding jury trials of reasonableness, because you quoted only the first part of what I said and didn’t address the actual point. I am quite aware of you the legal process works. Juries are instructed about “reasonableness” in some contexts. But you have continually said there should be “clear rules” governing interrogation techniques, and you used to claim there were such “clear rules” under which the EITs were clearly illegal, until you were unable to identify any. So now you are literally advocating that interrogators be tried for torture based on some vague standard of reasonableness. Sorry, but that is absurd, and I don’t think you should hold your breath even under the Obama regime for that.
5. I don’t have a clear set of rules for what is torture. You are the one who said they are already in the law and clearly make the EITs illegal. My whole point was that you are wrong, there aren’t such clear standards. And I have no idea why you now seem to be asking what the rules should be. You can’t very well indict and try people based on what you think the rules should be or should have been.
6. From the IG report: “It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah’s increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative, [REDACTED]” Definitive proof is impossible in this context, dsimon. You can call it post hoc fallacy all you want, but this is about as much proof as is possible — at least with redactions. There is obviously no proof you would accept. He provided more information after waterboard than before. I suspect a jury would say Cheney wins and you lose, based on that alone.
7. This statement of yours is pretty telling, and pretty incredible: “Again, you did not answer my question. I asked whether those who clearly went beyond what they were authorized to do by the Justice Department memos should be held accountable. Saying “they were investigated” is not a response, because it assumes the validity of the investigation. Or do you think it’s not clear that the actions went beyond what was authorized?”
Saying they were already investigated absolutely answered your question. Did you not get that my answer implied as well that, no, I don’t think ANOTHER investigation to serve Obama’s political desires is needed and that none should go forward? Or are seriously arguing that there is a presumption that the career staff DOJ investigations of these cases are invalid, and that is justifies or even requires new investigations? Because you say and the rest of the hate-Bush crowd says so, I guess. Look, your argument is ridiculous. Not much more to say about it. I think you just didn’t know they had already been investigated, and now you can’t back down, because as sbj says you are an accomplished resister.
8. What in the world are you talking about in this statement: “Also, If these memos contain new allegations of abuse, we have treaty obligations that clearly require an investigation. So yes, there are other possible reasons other than politics.” These old memos would contain new allegations how? All reports I’ve seen acknowledged that Holder initiated investigations of exactly the same allegations and files that were previously investigated.
9. The rest of your response, concerning the substance of the memos and Cheney’s statements, I won’t bother to address yet again. A lot more than “one line” has been cited supporting the effectiveness of EI. You want Cheney to be a liar, and you are blind to contradictory evidence. You’ve become like that Monte Python knight who called his own dismemberment a flesh wound.
dsimon: This will be my final post on the subject.
At this point I can only marvel at your willful obtuseness. As with the wartime rape scenario, the Spanish Inquisition analogy you insist on invoking is patently ludicrous. To begin with, the Inquisition was not about “saving souls;” it was about using religious dogma in the pursuit of political persecution. Any college undergraduate worth his salt can tell you that. The EITs carried out by the CIA were neither systematic nor politically motivated, and they were tightly focused on a handful of individuals who through both deed and avowed conviction presented a clear — and yes plausible — threat to many people. Can you grasp the distinction?
As has been noted above, this whole exercise is about striking a sanctimonious pose. Thus we have you fatuously describing one scenario in which you’d nobly sacrifice a love one to uphold the letter of the law, and another in which you’d grandly accept punishment for breaking a law, regardless of the prevailing circumstances.
I have to believe you’re being disingenuous. Or are there really automatons out there who would so gladly and unquestioningly submit to anything bearing the imprimatur of government?
And yes, most people who torture have “bad” motivations.
quarterback: “Do you think law enforcement really believes Tiller’s killer’s threat of “more attacks”?”
Why not believe him? Why take the risk of not believing him? Couldn’t lives be at stake?
“Your complete hypothetical was: “what if someone demanded that we use EITs on your family because we thought they might have some useful information?” I answered it. You’re just moving the goal posts.”
If my hypo was incomplete, the right thing to do would be to make it more difficult to answer, not easier. That’s what I do with other people’s hypotheticals.
“But you have continually said there should be “clear rules” governing interrogation techniques, and you used to claim there were such “clear rules” under which the EITs were clearly illegal, until you were unable to identify any. So now you are literally advocating that interrogators be tried for torture based on some vague standard of reasonableness.”
Rules should be made as clear as possible. But there is obviously no way to create a rule for every single circumstance. Still, that does not prevent our justice system from working, and we don’t throw out a “reasonableness” standard as vague when applied to circumstances that surround the rules we put in place. (That’s how professional malpractice suits work all the time: was their behavior reasonable, regardless of the result.)
Nor has anyone else proposed an alternative system. If you’ve got one, go ahead.
“My whole point was that you are wrong, there aren’t such clear standards.”
Again, what’s your alternative, other than “anything goes because we can’t second guess these people”? If you object to my proposal, I think you have some obligation to come up with something better.
“Definitive proof is impossible in this context, dsimon. You can call it post hoc fallacy all you want, but this is about as much proof as is possible — at least with redactions. There is obviously no proof you would accept. He provided more information after waterboard than before.”
Again, even the IG report and Cheney himself don’t draw the conclusion that you want to make. As I wrote in another thread, there are many ongoing activities that were ongoing that could explain “more information.” It seems that information wasn’t given up immediately upon waterboarding–otherwise why continue doing it over 100 times? But if it was continued waterboarding that is a possible explanation, than there was also continuing confinement under what were certainly uncomfortable circumstances. And there was continuing interrogation that did not involve EITs. So I don’t see the rationale to conclude that it was the continuation of waterboardings rather than the continuation of numerous other activities that produced the information. Since the other explanations are quite plausible, why privilege one over the other–unless it’s a bias for the one preferred explanation all along to “prove” a predetermined point?
“A lot more than “one line” has been cited supporting the effectiveness of EI.”
The waterboarding example seems to be the only one under discussion here, and, as I pointed out, it’s a weak inference that even Cheney refused to make in his own statement. So it seems to me that Cheney’s defenders here have to argue that they know what the memos showed more than Cheney does, the person who has the most at stake in drawing a strong inference.
“You want Cheney to be a liar, and you are blind to contradictory evidence.”
I’m not saying he’s a liar (which requires intent), only that he’s often wrong. I’m also saying (1) he chooses his words carefully, and (2) he is not a reliable source, even regarding his recollection of things he’s said in the past. I mean, even I remembered Cheney making this statement which he later said he never said. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-21-2004/moment-of-zen—pretty-well-confirmed
“Or are seriously arguing that there is a presumption that the career staff DOJ investigations of these cases are invalid, and that is justifies or even requires new investigations?”
I’m saying that it should be very hard to vouch for the legitimacy of an investigation that cleared people where people involved clearly went beyond the already questionable authority granted to them. Or do you think that didn’t happen? It would be good to see the investigation reports themselves, if we could, so we’d have something more to discuss (as we did when the Yoo-Bybee memos came out). But I can say the investigation may have been politicized, you can say the new investigation is politicized, and neither of us really has any goods on the other without more information (though, given the state of the Justice Department under Bush, I think I have the stronger argument, though I’m sure you disagree).
Jasper: “To begin with, the Inquisition was not about “saving souls;” it was about using religious dogma in the pursuit of political persecution.”
I think you really are avoiding the question. I’ll take your historical point. But you said motivations should count. Would saving souls be a justification for those actions? Would those people then be excused?
“The EITs carried out by the CIA were neither systematic nor politically motivated, and they were tightly focused on a handful of individuals who through both deed and avowed conviction presented a clear — and yes plausible — threat to many people. Can you grasp the distinction?”
I think some horrible things can be performed by people with subjective good intentions. I don’t think that concept should be so hard to grasp.
“we have you fatuously describing one scenario in which you’d nobly sacrifice a love one to uphold the letter of the law, and another in which you’d grandly accept punishment for breaking a law, regardless of the prevailing circumstances.”
I think your description of my position is what is fatuous, and obviously so. What I said was that I don’t think I would break the law, but IF I DID, then I would expect to be held accountable–and that anyone who breaks the law should have a similar expectation. (Also, there are other motivations to refuse to engage in torture other than not breaking the law, such as preserving one’s own worth as a human being.)
“Or are there really automatons out there who would so gladly and unquestioningly submit to anything bearing the imprimatur of government?”
That’s precisely what some of think the “EIT” justifiers are doing: since those techniques have the imprimatur of government (or at least the unilateral declaration of the executive branch), they must be OK. And that’s precisely the problem.
Jasper: “And yes, most people who torture have “bad” motivations.”
Which again wasn’t the point, as I’m sure you know. The issue was whether good motivations should be an excuse. I’d guess that some Iranians thought they are serving their country against serious threats by how they treated the protesters–and if they didn’t, there are others who have thought so.
The question is whether one’s subjective motive should be an excusing factor. I say no. If you say yes, then when can anyone be held accountable for torture as long as they thought what they were doing was necessary? If it’s “sometimes,” who makes the call as to whether the motive is a legitimate one or not? Are you going to do the dreaded second-guessing of those actually on the scene?
Gtrat Thanks for this superb read. Now i know definitely more on this
can’t know too much heh…