Torture Lawyer Sez: I Can Haz Waterboarding?

[HoreTore]

Oh and guess what? The Norwegians in question were not in uniform, so the Nazis attempted the same defense used when we classify detainees as beyond the reach of the Geneva Conventions.

Indeed. Except on the bigger sabotage missions when they were dropped from England, they wore civilian clothing at all times, to avoid capture and execution. For this, they were classed as criminals and terrorists by the nazi government.

It should be said though, that the nazi government also used much harder methods than the ones in that case... Look up "Henry Rinnan" or "Rinnanbanden/The Rinnan Gang" if interested....

[Lemur]

I am in no way trying to equate our rendition and torture techniques to the Nazis. What I am trying to point out is that every industrialized nation uses the same euphemisms and excuses when they want to go beyond decency and the law.

[Tribesman]

I am in no way trying to equate our rendition and torture techniques to the Nazis.

If the cap fits .
After all the nazis were only doing it to protect their country from terrorists

[Lemur]

Here I am trying not to invoke Godwin's Law, and you go wallow in it. There's no helping some people.

Here's a good article about "Enhanced Interrogation," its history and its results:

One of the truly disturbing aspects of the Bush Administration’s program of “enhanced interrogation techniques” is that there’s nothing new about them. Each of the techniques is well known; each has a very long legacy. The practice of waterboarding, for instance, was closely associated with the Spanish Inquisition, and appears diagramed and explained in woodcut prints from the early sixteenth century. Similarly, the practice we know as the “cold cell”—or hypothermia—was carefully developed by the Soviet NKVD, the forerunner of the KGB, as a means of preparing prisoners for interrogation. The Soviets used the motto “no blood, no shame,” and the same motto recently emerged in units of the American armed forces in Iraq.

Many of these techniques were also practiced during World War II and the years leading up to it. They were certainly not practiced by the United States, however. The practitioners were German, particularly the Geheime Staatspolizei or Gestapo and the Sicherheitsdienst or SD, the intelligence arm of the SS. The procedures were known as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” or in German, verschärfte Vernehmung. [...]

The Gestapo memo forbids waterboarding, hypothermia and several other techniques that the Bush Administration permits. And it imposed strict limits on how these “enhanced techniques” could be used—requiring oversight and permits. But what happened in practice? As usual, there was a race to the bottom and the obstacles put in place were quickly overcome.

[HoreTore]

Here I am trying not to invoke Godwin's Law, and you go wallow in it. There's no helping some people.

Well. The 1940-45 period consisted of two things really;

1. The nazi's.
2. A country at war, and under foreign occupation.

Some things during the war happened because of the nazi's. A lot of stuff happened because of the simple fact that we were at war. The departure of the jews the former. The torture being the latter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Okay, Lemur. I'll be blunt.

Most (and quite possibly all) of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used by the United States against select individuals in our custody are nothing more nor less than torture. Their specific purpose is to inflict pain, disorient, depress, and otherwise make the recipient miserable.

"Breaking" an individual with these methods is one means of minimizing their resistance to interrogation and forcing them to make responses. Done with differing methodologies, times, and appropriate repetition, these can be used as a means to elicit information and check that information for internal consistency. Internally consistent information can then be integrated with other known data to produce intelligence. According to the Bush administration, this is what occurred with KSM, for example.

The only advantage I can see to this approach is speed. It is acknowledged that a much more simple interrogation approach involving relationship building and repeated simple questioning over time will almost always generate the same information.

Torture carries several downsides, notably:

1. It is evil.

2. It may, if improperly conducted or conducted by an individual who takes pleasure in torture, end up creating confessions or admissions about virtually everything. While this may be useful for some tyrant who only seeks the official "confession" or simply seeks to evoke terror, this would obviously invalidate any intelligence information so gathered. Those employing torture as interrogation must always wonder if their own efforts went too far and diminshed the very thing they sought.

Because of both of the previous limitations, information gathered by torture is rightly viewed as inadmissable in court. If you torture somebody for information, trying them afterwards based on that information would be totally inappropriate. So either continue the evil and summarily kill them or recognize that they will have to be released as any means of legitimately trying them is gone.


Do I approve of torture? No. Do I believe the speed gained in generating information is worth stooping to such methods? No. Do I believe that using torture loses us the moral highground? Yes. Do I believe that using torture puts our troops at a greater risk of being tortured? No.

It is my view that US troops will always be subject to torture by any foreseeable opponent and that this has been the case since the 1920s. We were fortunate that Germany didn't do too much of that to our people during WW2. Virtually every other opponent we have faced has done so and will do so unless we end up in a war with Belgium. Though a basic truth, this should not generate a desire to reply in kind on our part.


Many Americans (but not most, most were and remain ignorant), angry over the deaths of 9/11/01, dehumanized the terrorists of Al-queda and close supporters thereof and were willing to have them brutalized in order to generate information. Part of this was generated by a sense of vengeance and hatred and not just as a clinical choice to enhance interrogation speed. Even at our most vengeful, however, you would have found very few Americans who would have condoned beating up on/torturing people just to vent frustration. Even at this stage, most of our legal community opposed the use of torture and declared opposition to the proposals if they were consulted. Nobody, however, felt strongly enough to start mass rallies or calls for impeachment if the proposed policy were not immediately rescinded.

As the public became more aware of incidents at Abu Gharib and the specifics of some of the interrogation methods used, more and more people began to view such actions as torture (remember, most of my countrymen hear "torture" and think beatings and thumbscrews, they did not intially think of sleep deprivation as something torturous because no lasting physical harm would result). As that definition shifted, support for this approach to interrogation evaporated. I am extrapolating from personal experience and anecdotal data here, though I believe polling on these concerns mirrors my own experience.

There are still people who think that torturing AQ operatives is fair game because they are evil and have thereby deprived themselves of their rights. Most of us, including myself, disagree.


The detainees at Guantanemo are a problem. If they are to be treated as POWs, then they should be released as we are no longer at war with Afghanistan or Iraq. If they are to be treated as criminals, they need to be tried in federal court (and most promptly released and compensated for unlawful incarceration as any compentent attorney can invalidate the "evidence" used to prove their crimes. By the way, that holds true even where torture was never used, battlefield soldiers aren't good at protecting evidentiary chains). If they are to be treated as special detainees, then the USA must acknowledge that we are holding them as political prisoners because they hold views we don't like and that the USA is no different from any other regime holding political prisoners. Obama is closing the place down and putting them in the federal court system. Over the next few years, some will be tried and convicted, but most should be released. Upon release, many of them will return to the fight (statistics among the less dangerous elements already released indicate this).


We'd have done better, overall, if we'd collected fewer prisoners on the battlefield.

All in all, the whole thing is a sandwich for the USA, and we're in a huge catch 22 with the whole war on terror. The methods that might win it reduce us to the barbarism of our opponents. Other methods just let us stop a select few but keep up the recruiting drive for our opponents.

We need to re-think the whole thing and either:

A) stop being nice, and butcher any opposition to us with whatever force, methods, and collateral damage murders minimize our own casualties,

B) steadfastly negotiate and work for peace and stability globally, pursuing as criminal those terrorists we can catch but accepting that most will never be brought to justice. This approach sees the terrorism "dying on the vine" as we refuse to react to it, or

C) acknowledge defeat, withdraw US troops from all foreign postings aside from embassies, drasticaly reduce our defense budget -- still emphasize a high quality volunteer force but strictly focused on defense of US territory and citizens not living/traveling abroad -- and focus on rebuilding the USA. Essentially, we would have little interaction with any nation in Europe, Asia, Australia or the Middle East, focusing on building stronger and better relations with our neighbors.


What will happen is that things will continue in the haphazard ad hoc current inadequacies.

I am now thoroughly pissed off.

[Lemur]

Wow, that's a tough read, Seamus, but I deeply appreciate your honesty. Of the three scenarios you outline (and the implied fourth) I hope we can make something work with (B). Overreaction and brutality is what a terrorist hopes for. If we refuse to descend to their level ... well, it's kind of like the internet maxim, "Don't feed the troll."

[KukriKhan]

See?

Tol'ja. (the more eloquent thingee)









Gee, I kinda like this not-being-a-moderator gig. I get to stick my tongue out once in awhile, like a child.

[Lemur]

Weird side-note: Jay Bybee, the man who constructed the Bybee Torture Memo with the able help of John Yoo, is now a Federal Judge in San Francisco.

What is it with torture advocates moving to the Bay Area?

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

Great post Seamus;

I too hope that history and common sense can help us find a meaningful and long term solution... B for me too.


On a side note; does anyone see the link to how Israel deals with Gaza?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I just don't see "B" working....and even if it DOES work, I don't see it working in my lifetime. That's a LONG term strategy with a heavy price of its own. Accepting casualties and simply writing most of them off as the cost of doing business galls me.

I know, something reasonably close to B was the answer in NI. I wish I saw Islamo-terrorism in the same light.

[Xiahou]

I just don't see "B" working....and even if it DOES work, I don't see it working in my lifetime. That's a LONG term strategy with a heavy price of its own. Accepting casualties and simply writing most of them off as the cost of doing business galls me.

I know, something reasonably close to B was the answer in NI. I wish I saw Islamo-terrorism in the same light.

I'm with you. We'll never have the political will for A or C, and B just plain won't work. We'll keep going with the implied option D, haphazard, make it up as you go.

[HoreTore]

I know, something reasonably close to B was the answer in NI. I wish I saw Islamo-terrorism in the same light.

How is "Islamo-terrorism" different from "regular terrorism"?

[Don Corleone]

A choice of B is a decision that the lives and creature comforts of the terrorists are more important than the lives of your own citizens. You have to be prepared to watch daycare centers explode while the perpetrator walks on a custody of evidence technicality.

I want to take issue with Lemur's calling 'strawman'. What is so flipping hard about establishing a definition of terror, either a theoretical definition or an empirical list of banned and accepted practices?

Whenever I hear somebody discussing the USA's devolution into widespread use of torture, a pervasive elusiveness on what qualifies as torture seems to accompany it. At the end of the day, from the quasi-defintional statements I've heard made, incarceration of any form, questioning of any form, could be interpreted as torture.

I agree the John Yoo's of the world have clearly left the bounds of reason and civility behind. But you're living in a delusion if you honestly believe simple law enforcement will end global terrorism. For starters, what do you do when the terrorists possess diplomatic credentials?

[HoreTore]

A choice of B is a decision that the lives and creature comforts of the terrorists are more important than the lives of your own citizens. You have to be prepared to watch daycare centers explode while the perpetrator walks on a custody of evidence technicality.

But a daycare centre exploding in the lands of the terrorists is all ok, right? That's an acceptable cost of war?

I'll say it with Mads Gilbert; If the US has the right to take the lives of civilians, then OBL has the right to crash airplanes into US buildings.

[Lemur]

I want to take issue with Lemur's calling 'strawman'. What is so flipping hard about establishing a definition of terror, either a theoretical definition or an empirical list of banned and accepted practices?

I assume by "terror" you mean "torture."

What's difficult about laying down a bright, shining line and saying "here beginneth torture" is that some techniques only cross the line when used together, or when used over time. Honestly I believe the easiest way to identify torture is to look at (a) the results and (b) the intent of the interrogator.

Sample problems:

1. When does sleep deprivation cross the line from irritant to torture? When the person dies? If earlier, when? Give me an exact time.
2. When does a beating become torture? We can all agree that a few slaps do not constitute torture. Please describe exactly how much beating is required to cross the line.
3. When do stress positions become torture? I would appreciate a description of which positions, and how long is required for them to become torture.
4. How about hypothermia? When is it torture? Is it only when the detainee dies? Or is it at some earlier point?
5. Now consider these techniques used in combination. When does a stress position in hypothermia-inducing conditions become torture? If some sort of beating preceded, does that shorten the time required?
6. And what about long-scale time? If I subject you to hypothermia, beatings and stress positions for one day, does that count as torture? If not, how about if I subject you to it for a month? A year? When, exactly is the line crossed? Please be specific.

-edit-

HoreTore, if you're trying to say that the United States and OBL are morally equivalent, then you're off your medication.

[Don Corleone]

I assume by "terror" you mean "torture."

Erh, yes, I was. Thanks for the help.

HoreTore, if you're trying to say that the United States and OBL are morally equivalent, then you're off your medication.

I think he represents more of your side on this matter than you do, my friend.

[HoreTore]

HoreTore, if you're trying to say that the United States and OBL are morally equivalent, then you're off your medication.

Of course I'm not. But a dead civilian is a dead civilian.

And you know, being a NATO-citizen, "US" means me too... You're not alone in terrorizing foreign populations, we're faithfully by your side

[Lemur]

I think he represents more of your side on this matter than you do, my friend.

Don, are you seriously suggesting that there are only two sides on this issue? For real? So I must either throw in with my-country-right-or-wrong or sign up with America-is-the-Great-Satan, and that's it?

I think you're falling into a dualist trap.

[Strike For The South]

I'll say it with Mads Gilbert; If the US has the right to take the lives of civilians, then OBL has the right to crash airplanes into US buildings.

Ok, So can we use chemical weapons now? He already killed our civilians we might as well get our fill of this whole indiscriminate thing.

I thought this issue was comlpicated

[HoreTore]

Don, are you seriously suggesting that there are only two sides on this issue? For real? So I must either throw in with my-country-right-or-wrong or sign up with America-is-the-Great-Satan, and that's it?

Hey!

America? We're as much bastards as you are, I've never said otherwise....

But then again, so are the terrorists, of course. Admitting that we behave like bastards ourselves does not mean that other people stop being bastards...

[HoreTore]

Ok, So can we use chemical weapons now?

We're using them already on every violent demo, so I guess the answer is yes...

[Lemur]

America? We're as much bastards as you are, I've never said otherwise....

Sorry, I left myself wide open for misunderstanding there. I was characterizing the extremes that I imagined in Don C's head, not actual posters in this thread. I don't believe Don is my-country-right-or-wrong, and I don't think HoreTore believes America is the Great Satan. Again, apologies. The confusion was perfectly natural and entirely my fault.

As I was saying earlier, I think you can spot torture most easily by its results. Here are some sample autopsy reports that were obtained using FOIA:

Autopsy: ME 04-309; 27 year old male civilian presumed Iraqi national died in US custody 72 hours after being apprehended. Cause of Death: pending. Manner of Death: pending. Injuries: minor abrasions and bruises of extremities. Bruise on right side of neck. No evidence of natural disease, no evidence of drug abuse. Final autopsy report of this individual with more details is at DOD 013279. DOD 003323 lists an autopsy of the same date with the notation "Q[uestioned] by NSWT [Navy Seals], struggled/interrogated/died sleeping."

47 year old white male detainee died while in US custody. Cause of death: Blunt Force Injuries and Asphyxia; Manner of Death: Homicide. Autopsy revealed deep bruising of the chest wall, numerous displaced rib fractures, bruising on the lungs, hemorrhage into the mesentery of the small and large intestine. Examination of the neck structures revealed hemorrhage into the strap muscles and fractures of the thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone. History of asphyxia, secondary to occlusion of the oral airway. Pleural and pulmonary adhesions. Hypertensive cardiovascular disease. According to report provided by the US army CID, the detainee was shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth at the time he lost consciousness and became pulseless. The severe blunt force injuries, the hanging position, and the obstruction of the oral cavity with a gag contributed to this individual's death. DOD 00329 refers to this case as "gagged in standing restraint" DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trama and choking; gagged in standing restraint." DOD 003324 refers to this case with a note indicating "Q[uestioned] by OGA [Other Governmental Agency - non-military, often refers to CIA], gagged in standing restraint."

Male detainee died while in U.S. custody. The details surrounding the circumstances at the time of death are classified. Cause of death: Asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression. Manner of Death: Homicide. Significant findings of the autopsy included rib fractures and numerous bruises, some of which were patterned due to impacts with a blunt object. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with note "Q[uestioned] by MI [Military Intelligence], died during interrogation."

Iraqi National male was captured by Navy Seal Team #7 and resisted aprehension. External injuries including multiple contusions are consistent with injuries sustained during apprehension. Fractures of the ribs and a contusion of the left lung imply significant blunt force injuries of the thorax and likely resulted in impaired respiration. Ligature marks of the wrists and ankles. Remote gunshot would of torso. No significant natural diseases identified. According to investigating agents, during interrogation of the detainee, a hood made of synthetic material was placed over the head and neck of the detainee. He died while detained at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Cause of death: Blunt force injuries complicated by compromised respiration. Manner of Death: Homicide. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with the notation "Q[uestioned] by OGA [Other Governmental Agency - non-military, often refers to the CIA] and NSWT [Navy Seals] died during interrogation."

Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries of the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdommyolisis (release of toxic byproducs into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide. Decedent was not under the pharmacologic effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of death.

Detainee was found unresponsive restrained in his cell. Death was due to blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease.Contusions and abrasions on forehead, nose, head, behind ear, neck, abdomen, buttock, elbow, thigh, knee, foot, toe, hemorrhage on rib area and leg. Detainee died of blunt force injuries to lower extremities, complicating underlying coronary artery disease. The blunt force injuries to the legs resulted in extensive muscle damage, muscle necrosis and rhabomyolysis. Electrolyte disturbances primarily hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium level) and metabolic acidosis can occur within hours of muscle damage. Massive sodium and water shifts occur, resulting in hypovolemic shock and casodilatation and later, acute renal failure. The decedent's underlying coronary artery disease would compromise his ability to tolerate the electrolyte and fluid abnormalities, and his underlying malnutrition and likely dehydration would further exacerbate the effects of the muscle damage. The manner of death is homicide.

Multiple blunt force injuries. Abrasion in upper right forehead. Abrasion on right lower forehead above eyebrow. Multiple contusions on right cheek and lower nose, left upper forehead, back of head. Abrasions on chest, lower costal margin. Contusions on arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, upper inner arm, groin, inner thigh, right back of knee and calf, left calf, left lower leg. Cause of death was pulmonary embolism due to blunt force injuries.

Remember, kids, if the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong.

[Strike For The South]

Disgusting. You'd figure if were willing to do that We'd at least have moved onto kidnapping there families and then threatening them.

That would seem to work better.

[Don Corleone]

Don, are you seriously suggesting that there are only two sides on this issue? For real? So I must either throw in with my-country-right-or-wrong or sign up with America-is-the-Great-Satan, and that's it?

I think you're falling into a dualist trap.

I'm sorry, you're right. I guess my point is the only difference between HoreTore and a large swath of the European and American left is that at least he's honest about his moral equivalency (at least he was, until he retracted his comment and reaffirmed it, all in one sentance).

[HoreTore]

I'm sorry, you're right. I guess my point is the only difference between HoreTore and a large swath of the European and American left is that at least he's honest about his moral equivalency (at least he was, until he retracted his comment and reaffirmed it, all in one sentance).

No, no Don. You see, my point is this: admitting that we're bastards ourselves does not make other bastards less "bastardous"(or whatever, you get the drift).

Yes, we kill innocent people. Yes, that makes us bastards, pretty much by default. If killing innocent people doesn't make you a bastard, then what does? That we also moan a bit about it does not help the victims one bit.

Now the point is that killing innocents is wrong. The statement, however, was that if it's OK for us to do it, then it must be OK for OBL to do it too. The reason for the statement, is that a lot of people don't care too much when a third worlder dies, but it's the end of the world when a westerner dies. And that, my friend, I'm sure you agree is a despicable double standard we can't have. It's wrong for OBL to kill innocent americans, and it's wrong when we kill innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, Serbs or whatever. Which we have.

I hope I've made myself clear now, although I doubt I have...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No, no Don. You see, my point is this: admitting that we're bastards ourselves does not make other bastards less "bastardous"(or whatever, you get the drift).

Yes, we kill innocent people. Yes, that makes us bastards, pretty much by default. If killing innocent people doesn't make you a bastard, then what does? That we also moan a bit about it does not help the victims one bit.

Now the point is that killing innocents is wrong. The statement, however, was that if it's OK for us to do it, then it must be OK for OBL to do it too. The reason for the statement, is that a lot of people don't care too much when a third worlder dies, but it's the end of the world when a westerner dies. And that, my friend, I'm sure you agree is a despicable double standard we can't have. It's wrong for OBL to kill innocent americans, and it's wrong when we kill innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, Serbs or whatever. Which we have.

I hope I've made myself clear now, although I doubt I have...

Crystal clear. On a moral level, it is impossible to argue that any one life is more important than another. This is a general principle that holds true across Western culture, along with numerous other cultures across the globe.

Historically, it has been held to be acceptable to take the view that protecting the lives of one's own family/tribe/nation was more important to a member of that family/tribe/nation than would be the lives of a differing family/tribe/nation. By implication, defense of one's own could justify the taking of lives from the other group if no other viable alternative existed. Based on other posts long since, I recognize that you tend to eschew this point of view since you see nationalism as an inappropriate motivator for such decisions.

Absent that old idea of "protecting one's own," Horetore, the limitation with your attitude is that it boils down to ALL VIOLENCE IS BAD (yes, I'm simplifying your theme for the sake of discussion). While I suspect that we would all agree in principle, it does not address the practical situation very well. Our world demonstrates, with a 5 millenia track record, that some will choose violence and murder to achieve their objectives. So how does one respond effectively?

[Lemur]

You'd figure if were willing to do that We'd at least have moved onto kidnapping there families and then threatening them.

We actually did that to one of the Al Qaeda leaders early in the GWoT. Unfortunately, I'm having a hell of a time finding a web-friendly source that recounts the info, and I can't be bothered to go back to the library and re-find the book that details it, so you're going to have to make do with my memory.

We captured one of the AQ lieutenants early in the GWoT, and among other things we threatened to kill his children, whom we had in custody. He responded that if we killed them they would join Allah, so go right ahead.

Stalemate. There's nowhere to escalate once you've threatened a man's children with harm and he has called your bluff.

If I can find a web-friendly version of this info, I'll post a link. I curse books and their static text, their un-indexed knowledge and their inability to be read by Firefox!

[HoreTore]

So how does one respond effectively?

If you would respond like they were citizens in your own country, and the civilians american citizens, I would be more than happy.

To expand a little:

You have monsters in your own country. Monsters just as bad as OBL and his gang. The Manson Family, brainwashed psychopaths who would've continued killing if they weren't stopped. People like Lee Harvey Oswald, who did more harm to your democracy and freedom by gunning down JFK, an elected president, than killing ten thousand civilians ever will. You have people in your country who limits by fear the mobility of others, by making them afraid to go certain places or do certain things at certain times or places.

Yet, these monsters are given rights. They have the right to be judged by their peers in a fair trial, they have the right not to be tortured under interrogation. When trying to catch a particular psycho, the police takes extreme care not to harm any civilians in the area. If a monster is shielded behind a civilian, then the police will not shoot.

Even with these precautions, we do manage to catch the monsters. We are able to protect ourselves from them. Do the same thing when in another country.

[Strike For The South]

We actually did that to one of the Al Qaeda leaders early in the GWoT. Unfortunately, I'm having a hell of a time finding a web-friendly source that recounts the info, and I can't be bothered to go back to the library and re-find the book that details it, so you're going to have to make do with my memory.

We captured one of the AQ lieutenants early in the GWoT, and among other things we threatened to kill his children, whom we had in custody. He responded that if we killed them they would join Allah, so go right ahead.

Stalemate. There's nowhere to escalate once you've threatened a man's children with harm and he has called your bluff.

If I can find a web-friendly version of this info, I'll post a link. I curse books and their static text, their un-indexed knowledge and their inability to be read by Firefox!

Thats when you move onto disfigurement. These soldiers really should take a page at of the Texas Rangers book.

When you intimidate those Meskins YOU INTIMIDATE THOSE MESKINS.