Red Cross Torture Report

**Lemur** · 05-05-2009, 20:16

Originally Posted by Spino

No responses to my froth laden response?!?

It's very, very frothy. So that you won't feel neglected, I'll address some of what you said.

Originally Posted by Spino

So... the moral of the story is it's cool to break the law so long as you appear honorable while doing it?!?

No. The moral of the story is that if you are going to break the law, it's better to publicly acknowledge what you're doing. If you have spent even a single day in a courtroom you will understand this principle. Coming clean is better than attempting to hide a crime.

Originally Posted by Spino

So... the author of this article would have been more comfortable with the Bush administration if they legally sought to suspend habeus corpus in Congress, thus risking a SCOTUS decision, as opposed to simply ignoring the Geneva Convention with regards to the treatment of non-combatants captured while engaging in activity that blatantly violated the tenets of said convention?!?

I dare you to say that sentence three times fast. Bonus points if you can diagram it.

Once again, I don't see why you are confused. Taking ownership of an act is universally regarded as more honorable than hiding and/or lying about it. For someone who makes a lot of grumpy old man proclamations about how the current generation is honorless and corrupt and we're all going to hell any minute, I really don't see why you're having a cognitive disconnect about this concept.

Originally Posted by Spino

Speaking as to 1), Lincoln took responsibility for his actions. Great. How this makes him any less guilty of breaking the country's laws is beyond my limited grasp of post-war generation logic (or lack thereof).

Re-phrasing the same idea three times doesn't make it any more true. Let's attack this from another angle:

I have kids. You're of age, you may as well. Let's say your kid is going to kill a dog. That's a given; you can't prevent it from happening. Would you rather your kid confessed to the deed and apologized, saying that it was necessary, or would you rather he hid the corpse and lied when you asked him about it? Does one course of action seem less repugnant than the other?

Taking responsibility for your actions is simple and fundamental to personal honor. Why are you arguing that it's irrelevant?

Originally Posted by Spino

Speaking as to 2); this is a wild, unsubstantiated assertion because it's becoming painfully apparent that while the public was not in the know many members of Congress (from both parties) were in fact briefed on our torture techniques and findings but did nothing to stop it or bring it to the public's attention when it was happening.

What exactly congresscritters were told has not been made public, yet you proceed on the assumption that they knew enough to be implicated in the torture-fest. You may be right, you may be wrong; I'd like to see more evidence before jumping to conclusions. On the one hand, I don't doubt that congresscritters would lie like a rug if they thought they could get away with it; on the other hand, the Bush administration was justly famous for freezing out the other branches of government whenever possible, even when they held a Republican majority in congress. This could break either way. At the end of the day, I'd like to know more.

Originally Posted by Spino

In fact I find it rather interesting that the whole torture angle came to the public's attention only after it became obvious that the occupation of Iraq was turning into a long, painful affair.

Operation Iraqi Freedom II was clearly going to be a long, painful affair within two months of the invasion in 2003. The waterboardings that we know about also happened in 2003. So you're saying that because the info about our SERE imitation program wasn't made available in the few weeks after we invaded Iraq, this stinks of political bet-hedging? That doesn't make much sense, Spino.

Originally Posted by Spino

Speaking as to 3), again he's only discussing the first time Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. And calling Congress into session after the fact (and a Congress solidly controlled by Lincoln's party) in order to have them vote on a bill only to have it rubber stamped by the president just smacks of shameful political showmanship does it not? One might even go so far as to calling it 'legally covering one's buttocks in the event something goes terribly wrong'...

One might also call it "airing one's dirty business in a time of crisis and asking that the co-equal branches of government sign on or vote it down." Once again, you seem to be irritated at the notion of taking responsibility for an illegal and unpopular move. I look forward to hearing your clarification of this position.

Interestingly, I did some reading on the whole Abe v. habeas corpus thing, and couldn't find any consensus on how many times he did it. Different numbers and different dates from every source I looked at.

You are irritated that the author took the example of the first agreed-upon time Abe shredded the constitution, and again, I don't see why. It's perfectly legitimate to take an example of something done right and hold it up as an exemplar. The fact that it was later done wrongly does nothing to invalidate the argument. You seem to be arguing that unless Lincoln's entire career matches the example given, the argument is specious.

Originally Posted by Spino

The author's blatant attempt to disassociate his beloved sacred cow from the unsavory practices of the Bush administration has clouded his ability to think clearly.

Spino, this is the sort of over-heated rhetoric that makes me want to walk away whistling. You don't know the author, and I seriously doubt that you've followed his writing. I know I haven't. You don't know what's a "sacred cow" to him any better than I do. He chose a specific example of an illegal decision made in time of crisis that he thought was well-handled. But you're off and running, accusing him of worshiping Lincoln and being blinded by his naive adulation. But the article doesn't show any such messianic leanings; you're bringing that to the party, not the article I quoted. And you seem to be projecting this worshipful blindness on the author in order to discredit the points he's making, and therein lies the irony.

You're the one making frothy, unsubstantiated accusations. And you're the one pretending that responsibility and honor are meaningless concepts. All to make a rhetorical point.

Well, I can't jump on you too hard for it; I've committed many such sins in my time. I try not to, but sometimes rhetoric gets hold of me, rather than me having hold of it.

Anyway, response made. I look forward to seeing the ball come back over the net.

**Spino** · 05-06-2009, 18:49

Before I take a swing at Lemur's wicked googly I'd like to share this CNN poll which landed in my company inbox a short while ago. The results are eye opening...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

So while a wee bit more than half of all Americans approve of torture an indisputable majority do not wish to investigate the matter further. When we consider Obama's 7% advantage over McCain in the popular vote last November this entire issue is turning into a major political hot potato. Given the smaller percentage of Americans that actually define themselves as a Republican or Democrat it is fairly safe to say that moderate/independent voters who sided with Obama during the 2008 campaign are not in lockstep with the Democrat position on this matter, especially regarding the notion of investigating the matter further. The longer the Democrats hem and haw and wait to pursue legal action the more they risk being accused of pursuing these proceedings purely out of political gain... or revenge for Clinton's impeachment trial (anyone remember that bit of ancient and bitter partisan history?). Of course the Democrats could still find legitimate legal grounds to pursue those responsible in the Bush administration but they may find themselves assailed with protests and cries of 'drop it already' by moderate/independent voters looking for decisive leadership in matters more pertinent to the average citizen. Not a wise move given that the economy's precarious position may last well into the 2010 elections.

I'm damn curious to see a poll that deals with how Americans view torture/interrogation techniques from this point forward.

**Lemur** · 05-06-2009, 22:12

Get CountArch on the job. Polling is like crack to him.

**CountArach** · 05-07-2009, 00:08

Originally Posted by Spino

Given the smaller percentage of Americans that actually define themselves as a Republican or Democrat

Actually there are more Democrats than Independents.

Originally Posted by Spino

it is fairly safe to say that moderate/independent voters who sided with Obama during the 2008 campaign are not in lockstep with the Democrat position on this matter, especially regarding the notion of investigating the matter further.

Gallup conducted this poll a couple of weeks ago and it shows the following:

That is a large gap in the second image amongst Independents, but far from decisive enough to say they are completely out of lockstep. Of course it is entirely possible that these numbers are slanted a bit too far to the anti-torture camp for the following reason:

This is perhaps compounded by the fact that Gallup used the deliberately ambiguous phrase "harsh interrogation techniques" rather than "torture". An ABC-Washington Post poll, which did use the phrase "torture", did not show as significant a number of people who were inclined to think the interrogations were OK but nevertheless wanted an investigation into them.

Originally Posted by Spino

I'm damn curious to see a poll that deals with how Americans view torture/interrogation techniques from this point forward.

I think its safe to say no investigations will go forward, but if they do then the preference appears to be that people want a Bi-Partisan commission or the Justice Department to do it - almost no one wants Congress:

**Furunculus** · 05-07-2009, 00:21

This is perhaps compounded by the fact that Gallup used the deliberately ambiguous phrase "harsh interrogation techniques" rather than "torture". An ABC-Washington Post poll, which did use the phrase "torture", did not show as significant a number of people who were inclined to think the interrogations were OK but nevertheless wanted an investigation into them.

as i tried to point out above, this IS an ambiguous phrase for many reasonable reasons.

when people hear "torture" they think of pulling peoples finger nails out, electrocuting their genitals, etc, a barbaric action which is compounded by the fact that most people are aware that such methods are ineffective because the subjects will say anything, not something that advances the security of the US.

when people hear "harsh interrogation techniques" they think of methods designed to break the will to resist of suspects, and many are willing to see such methods used on the kind of people who are willing to commit terrorist 'spectaculars'.

when the intelligence services seriously believe that a suspect holds information that effects national security for imminent and devastating terrorist attacks then i am TOTALLY in favour of harsh interrogation techniques provided they are effective, EVEN if they are harsh, and EVEN if some sensitive soul sat in a human rights quango believe that it technically constitutes torture.

**Lemur** · 05-07-2009, 00:53

Originally Posted by Furunculus

when the intelligence services seriously believe that a suspect holds information that effects national security for imminent and devastating terrorist attacks then i am TOTALLY in favour of harsh interrogation techniques provided they are effective, EVEN if they are harsh, and EVEN if some sensitive soul sat in a human rights quango believe that it technically constitutes torture.

This is the famous "ticking bomb" scenario, which shows up in each and every discussion of torture, but almost never when a suspected terrorist is interrogated.

Here's the deal: The ticking time bomb scenario does not require any alteration of the law. No jury would convict an interrogator who did what was necessary to stop an imminent attack.

On the other hand, if you want to make torture routine, then yes, the legal memos are necessary (although it sure looks as though they were written after the policy had already been decided).

And getting back to the "what is torture" shibboleth: Consider applying your loose standards to similar crimes. Rape, for example, leaves no permanent scars and does not involve any sort of lasting damage. Oh, sure, it's unpleasant, but do we want unpleasant things to be illegal when we're interrogating captives?

Following your own logic, we should rape all suspected terrorists as a matter of course.

Also, if you're going to do the standard "what is torture?" argument, see if you can answer any of the questions I posed here.

-edit-

An extremely apt thought:

First, there's no such thing as a government policy of "torturing terrorists. " There's only a policy of torturing people the government thinks are terrorists. Many of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, subjected to agonizing stress positions, turned out not to be terrorists--not because the soldiers who captured them were venal, but because they were human.

Second, torture is designed to force prisoners to provide an answer the interrogator already knows. The torturer relents when his subject provides the "correct" answer. Intelligence gathering, by contrast, is designed to garner answers the interrogator does not already know.

Finally, yes, we can imagine ticking-time-bomb situations where regular interrogation methods work too slowly and extreme measures might prove helpful. But this premise bears the same relationship to the question of legalizing torture as the morality of stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family does to the question of legalizing theft.

**Lemur** · 05-08-2009, 01:21

Congresscritter update: Pelosi knew.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”

EITs stand for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a classification of special interrogation tactics that includes waterboarding.

Pelosi, D-Calif., sharply disputed suggestions last month that she had been told about waterboarding having taken place.

**Tribesman** · 05-08-2009, 05:39

Keep piling it on Lemur , you might even get the more avid torture supporters actually thinking for a change . Though with the twisting and turning so far evidenced you may have a long road to travel to convince the real die hard numb nuts that support torture but don't support torture but support "torture" yet don't support "torture".
Tell you what though , to really screw the idiots over why not use reports from their own country and their own military to back up the case ?
So if for a theoretical example a person was posting from country X and had a sig that supported some fringe military fruitcakes from country X then perhaps a small or large sample of either the governments or militaties views on such practices would be relevant .
Now then can you think of a rather well known military administered prison starting with C in an island starting with S where such unjustifiable barbarity occured where the relevant military and governmental bodies would write lots ? plus of course all the other governments and militaries involved? Plus of course al the government and non governmental poeple that got involved ?

Then again when it comes to certain people who make an issue of their education why does Lt. Earnest Goodbody always come to mind?

**drone** · 05-08-2009, 15:37

Originally Posted by Lemur

Congresscritter update: Pelosi knew.

And it begins...

She's been in full CYA mode ever since she became Speaker. This just highlights the need for an independent prosecutor, a congressional investigation would be a whitewash.

When is the Democratic primary for her seat?