Red Cross Torture Report

[Incongruous]

sounds like an effing stupid thing to sign, for if taken literally then you cannot forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means

No it says that any form of interrogatiopn which causes "severe" pain is illegal, now if your idea of a confession is a scrawled signature on a pre-written admission of guilt after a few doses of simulated drowning, then I despair for the ability of the West to deal with real terrorists.

that's lovely, and i disagree btw, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.

Notice it was rather relavent to what you posted earlier? A post which gave your reasons for your agreeing with governments doing nasty things.

[Tribesman]

sounds like an effing stupid thing to sign, for if taken literally then you cannot forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means.

bloody hell , I really thought even the stupidest human could grasp the basics .
So Furunculus what is it about the word torture that don't you understand ?

[Kadagar_AV]

sounds like an effing stupid thing to sign, for if taken literally then you cannot forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means.

Congratulations! You get an A for reading comprehension!

Torture is to "forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means" - indeed. You know, if you struggle with a word it can often help to try and "sound it out".

[Furunculus]

No it says that any form of interrogatiopn which causes "severe" pain is illegal, now if your idea of a confession is a scrawled signature on a pre-written admission of guilt after a few doses of simulated drowning, then I despair for the ability of the West to deal with real terrorists.

Notice it was rather relavent to what you posted earlier? A post which gave your reasons for your agreeing with governments doing nasty things.

as i said earlier:
1. I am in favour of effective interrogation techniques
2. I am willing to accept distasteful techniques for use against enemies of the state
3. I recognise that brutal techniques are both ineffective and uncertain, and therefore useless.

[Lemur]

A rather astute post:

The outstanding precedent here is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus along the New York-Washington train route in the spring of 1861. State volunteers had to get to Washington to defend the capital come hell or high water, and Lincoln wasn't about to let legal questions get in the way. It's still not clear whether the President can unilaterally suspend the writ in the absence of Congressional action, although my reading of Hamdan and Boumedienne suggests that he cannot.

But it was the way in which Lincoln acted that can really serve as a precedent here.

1) Take Reponsibility. Josh Marshall has been writing about this recently as well. Lincoln didn't pretend that some flunkies had taken these steps; he didn't say that he wasn't really suspending habeas corpus, only authorizing "expedited detention processes." He did it, and took responsibility for it. Does Dick Cheney really think these things are necessary? Then he should have the basic courage to admit that he did them and advocate for a change in the law. I'm not holding my breath.

2) Go Public. This is obviously related to #1. The Bush Administration's policies were particularly insidious because no one knew they were happening; there could be no public debate about the issue. Lincoln, by contrast, issued a proclamation. And no, it's no excuse to say that there couldn't be a public debate about this. As with #1, make an argument that we should withdraw from the international conventions against torture that Ronald Reagan advocated.

3) Get Backing From Congress. After issuing his order, Lincoln called Congress back into a special session to validate his move. But Congress didn't have to do so. Unlike Bush, Lincoln wasn't a royalist: he didn't think that the President could do anything he wants if he thinks it's important. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, did their best to hide from Congress everything that they were doing.

4) Limit the Scope in Both Time and Space. What is so amazing about Lincoln's action is how limited it was: in the middle of the Civil War, it only applied to one particular rail line. Two years later, he violated this principle by attempting to suspend the writ all over the country, which historians have looked on quite rightfully as illegal and wrong. In the Bush Administration by contrast, Cheney and Rumsfeld authorized these techniques seemingly for anyone and everyone; they told interrogators to do what they needed to do whenever. Moreover, because Lincoln called Congress back into session, it was clear that his action was temporary; by contrast, Bush and Cheney used the excuse of a war that would never have a clear end to make it indefinite.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nice find, Lemur. There's a good lesson in there -- and one that I think the Bush administration clearly botched regardless of whether you think the SERE efforts were justified or not.

[Incongruous]

as i said earlier:
1. I am in favour of effective interrogation techniques
2. I am willing to accept distasteful techniques for use against enemies of the state
3. I recognise that brutal techniques are both ineffective and uncertain, and therefore useless.

Then why are you agaisnt this?

Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Now I am in agreement about your statements onw and three, but I disagree entirely with number two, enemies of the state is firstly ambiguous and obscure terminology and distasteful sounds like a fancy word for innefective technoques of interrogation, aka, torture.

[Furunculus]

Then why are you agaisnt this?

Now I am in agreement about your statements onw and three, but I disagree entirely with number two, enemies of the state is firstly ambiguous and obscure terminology and distasteful sounds like a fancy word for innefective technoques of interrogation, aka, torture.

would telling a suspect that without co-operation his leukemia suffering daughter would be deported back to peshwar constitute severe mental harm?

that is but one example of a great many that could be effective in a given situation AND could also cause severe mental harm.

enemy of the state is a very clear legal term, the fact that our government has applied it badly in the past is our fault for tolerating it, not a problem with lack of clarity itself.

in all of this I am referring to what measures i am happy for britain to engage in, because we are basically a civilised country that i trust to act responsibly.

[Incongruous]

would telling a suspect that without co-operation his leukemia suffering daughter would be deported back to peshwar constitute severe mental harm?

that is but one example of a great many that could be effective in a given situation AND could also cause severe mental harm.

enemy of the state is a very clear legal term, the fact that our government has applied it badly in the past is our fault for tolerating it, not a problem with lack of clarity itself.

in all of this I am referring to what measures i am happy for britain to engage in, because we are basically a civilised country that i trust to act responsibly.

Enemy of the state may be clear about a government can then do to said person, but as to whom that might be, I do not trust my government on that, niether should you.

You trust the U.K to act responsibly? Oh dear, I feel that we are devided by cynicism...

Telling a man that you will deport his daughter is wrong ona few levels, firstly it will cause him serious ental harm, secondly he may not know anything and even if he does causing a possible case of mental collapse is wrong and could ruin any chance of getting avlid information out of him. Thirdly, if he is innocent, you would have just destroyed his trust in the government and the state, you may have just created an enemy of the state.

[Furunculus]

Enemy of the state may be clear about a government can then do to said person, but as to whom that might be, I do not trust my government on that, niether should you.

You trust the U.K to act responsibly? Oh dear, I feel that we are devided by cynicism...

Telling a man that you will deport his daughter is wrong ona few levels, firstly it will cause him serious ental harm, secondly he may not know anything and even if he does causing a possible case of mental collapse is wrong and could ruin any chance of getting avlid information out of him. Thirdly, if he is innocent, you would have just destroyed his trust in the government and the state, you may have just created an enemy of the state.

But I do.

When I look around at the recent history of neighbouring nations, lets take the last 250 years as a starting point, I find it far easier to trust Britain than any other country.

I don't care. If the man is an enemy of the state, and if that particular method will prove effective on him, then use it. Trained interrogators are trained to effectively interrogate, and yet you know better that the example I used above will never work and should never be used. Right!
Is it distateful; yes.
Is it effective; on some yes, on others no.
Is it torture; probably.
Do i care; if it is effective against an enemy of the state then no i don't.

[Kadagar_AV]

How can you be sure it is an enemy of the state?

[Furunculus]

its called judgment, adults are expected to exercise it in the course of their lives.

those with real talent, good sense, extensive experience and the correct qualifications tend to get paid very well in order to exercise that judgment on behalf of their employer.

needless to say, those who don't have the shining parts listed above tend to get paid very little for menial jobs.

[Tribesman]

needless to say, those who don't have the shining parts listed above tend to get paid very little for menial jobs.

Cheney and Bush were clearly as thick as pig**** , yet they got paid well didn't they and showed a complete lack of judgement.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

One of those naive pansies in a US military interrogation unit thinks torture doesn't work.

Major Alexander says he faced the "ticking time bomb" every day in Iraq because "we held people who knew about future suicide bombings". Leaving aside the moral arguments, he says torture simply does not work. "It hardens their resolve. They shut up." He points out that the FBI uses normal methods of interrogation to build up trust even when they are investigating a kidnapping and time is of the essence. He would do the same, he says, "even if my mother was on a bus" with a hypothetical ticking bomb on board. It is quite untrue to imagine that torture is the fastest way of obtaining information, he says.

Icing on the cake? His unit got an associate of Zarqawi to spill the beans on his whereabouts, leading to his death.

[Spino]

A rather astute post:

The outstanding precedent here is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus along the New York-Washington train route in the spring of 1861. State volunteers had to get to Washington to defend the capital come hell or high water, and Lincoln wasn't about to let legal questions get in the way. It's still not clear whether the President can unilaterally suspend the writ in the absence of Congressional action, although my reading of Hamdan and Boumedienne suggests that he cannot.

But it was the way in which Lincoln acted that can really serve as a precedent here.

1) Take Reponsibility. Josh Marshall has been writing about this recently as well. Lincoln didn't pretend that some flunkies had taken these steps; he didn't say that he wasn't really suspending habeas corpus, only authorizing "expedited detention processes." He did it, and took responsibility for it. Does Dick Cheney really think these things are necessary? Then he should have the basic courage to admit that he did them and advocate for a change in the law. I'm not holding my breath.

2) Go Public. This is obviously related to #1. The Bush Administration's policies were particularly insidious because no one knew they were happening; there could be no public debate about the issue. Lincoln, by contrast, issued a proclamation. And no, it's no excuse to say that there couldn't be a public debate about this. As with #1, make an argument that we should withdraw from the international conventions against torture that Ronald Reagan advocated.

3) Get Backing From Congress. After issuing his order, Lincoln called Congress back into a special session to validate his move. But Congress didn't have to do so. Unlike Bush, Lincoln wasn't a royalist: he didn't think that the President could do anything he wants if he thinks it's important. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, did their best to hide from Congress everything that they were doing.

4) Limit the Scope in Both Time and Space. What is so amazing about Lincoln's action is how limited it was: in the middle of the Civil War, it only applied to one particular rail line. Two years later, he violated this principle by attempting to suspend the writ all over the country, which historians have looked on quite rightfully as illegal and wrong. In the Bush Administration by contrast, Cheney and Rumsfeld authorized these techniques seemingly for anyone and everyone; they told interrogators to do what they needed to do whenever. Moreover, because Lincoln called Congress back into session, it was clear that his action was temporary; by contrast, Bush and Cheney used the excuse of a war that would never have a clear end to make it indefinite.

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

So waterboarding guerillas overwhelmingly of foreign extraction (Padilla being a citizen, his atty charged he was tortured) in order to deal with a foreign threat is unacceptable (SCOTUS only reached a decision on the matter of habeus corpus for Guantanamo Detainees last July) but suspending habeus corpus for all citizens without a proper Congressional vote or a ruling by the SCOTUS for the entirety of a conflict is cool? Clearly the recent SCOTUS ruling changes the rules of the game but at the time these interrogations took place we were in a weird gray area which we had ventured into many a time throughout our history.

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?!?

And these detainees were tortured not simply to provide a spurious link between AQ and Iraq (i'll grant that was part of it), there was genuine intent to discern the names and locations of all Al Qaeda's operatives, training bases and plans.

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). Lincoln also exerted far greater control over the government than Bush at the time and would have easily been spared legal recrimination... unless of course he lost the war (there's something to consider, eh?). Lincoln also authorized the arrest of judges, shut down anti-war newspapers and approved the violation of most agreed upon terms of war at the time by allowing Grant and Sherman to wage total war on the South in order to secure victory. Clearly illegal actions born out of desperation trumps legality or legal precedence if you're a sucessful and long dead president like Lincoln... but not if you're two incredibly unpopular men called GW Bush and Dick Cheney.

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. 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. Sounds to me like the sources of the torture leaks were hedging their political bets, much in the same way those Democrats who voted to invade Iraq (i.e. Biden) changed their tune a few years later. Make no mistake, Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and the means he used to fight the war were also very unpopular at the time. Chief Justice Taney and other high ranking judges resisted the suspension of habeus corpus and, depending on whether you believe the sources, Lincoln nearly had Taney arrested. However Lincoln did have other judges arrested for resisting.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/top...Arrest_Warrant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taney_Arrest_Warrant

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'...

Speaking as to 4) the author is pretty insistent that we only examine the first instance where Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and ignore the subsequent suspension so we can readily compare the former to the actions of the Bush administration thus making the latter look even worse (if that's possible). For fear of stating the obvious, very few Presidents, alive or dead, get compared favorably to Lincoln. Anyway the Civil war lasted the better part of 5 years and those subsequent Constitutional violations were in place for the majority of the time.

I don't mean to get this thread off track but here's the thing, I completely agree with Lincoln's 'end justify the means' approach to winning the war. Suspend habeus corpus, fine. Arrest judges, fine. Shut down anti-war newspapers, fine. My disgust with the Civil War is it hastened the destruction of the governmental framework the founding fathers created to prevent the federal government from turning into an overarching, abusive, centralized power. However, unlike the author of this article at least I possess a backbone that allows me to examine Lincoln's tyrannical excesses for what they were, necessary evils that were instrumental in winning the war. And no, I don't consider Lincoln to be a very honorable man, but such things are easily overlooked and redefined in the aftermath of victory. Time eventually forgives winners of all their sins.

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.

What a dumb move by this author to drag Lincoln into his argument. What's next, some ninny referencing FDR, another sacred cow, so we can establish the 'honorable illegality' of the internment of Japanese-Americans (an action both authorized by Congress and well known by Americans at the time)? LOL!

Last but not least, please don't take my rant as a defense of GW Bush, simply an attack on this author's ridiculously shaky argument.

[Spino]

No responses to my froth laden response?!?

It's safe to reply. No really, I've had all my shots...

Seriously now...

Grumbling from Deutschland over Obama's position on those naughty Guantanamo detainees. What shall we do with the little fundie buggers?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...622682,00.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

05/04/2009 01:30 PMTHE WORLD FROM BERLIN
'Obama Discrediting Himself and the US'
Many had hoped that US President Barack Obama would undo all the damage done by his predecessor. Now, it looks like he might continue the Bush-era practice of trying terror suspects in military tribunals. German commentators are disappointed.

When US President Barack Obama entered office in January and promptly pledged to shut down the US prison at Guantanamo and suspended all further military tribunals of the kind used by his predecessor George W. Bush, human rights groups across the country and the world were relieved. Finally, they thought, America would cease locking away terror suspects without recourse to the justice system.

Not surprisingly, though, closing down Guantanamo has proven much easier said than done. Even those prisoners deemed not to be dangerous are creating headaches for Washington as the search continues for countries willing to take them. Domestically, opposition is large to an Obama administration plan to release a group of Chinese Uighur prisoners into the US.

Many of the 241 prisoners, however, cannot simply be released -- and recent reports in the US media indicate that Obama may be grabbing for a Bush-era tool that he appeared to have jettisoned: military commissions. According to the New York Times this weekend, the Obama administration has begun leaning towards trying some of the remaining inmates in such controversial tribunals.

Obama has never categorically rejected the military commissions as a means of dealing with Guantanamo prisoners, some of whom are accused of having been involved in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the US. During the campaign, though, he did say that "by any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure."

Any return to using such military commissions would be a major disappointment to human rights groups who were hoping that Obama's election signalled a new era in America's handling of terror suspects. As German editorials show on Monday, frustration across the Atlantic is equally high.

In an editorial entitled "Obama's Great Mistake," the center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"Obama's people certainly imagined things differently. But reality has caught up with them. What should they do with people who … are in fact horrifying criminals but whose confessions came as a result of brutal interrogations? No regular court would accept the testimony. Should suspected masterminds of the 9/11 attacks and other terrible attacks be set free? That can't be the solution either. Obama is thus considering holding on to the military commissions with a couple of extra rights for the suspects. Bush light, so to speak."

"Obama is thus discrediting both himself and the US. It would be better were he to gather the necessary political courage to initiate criminal proceedings before regular courts. Legally, it will be incredibly complicated and possibly untenable in some cases. But the country cannot get around the purification process. Otherwise, the poison from the Bush era could continue to infect America's image for years to come."

The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:

"The US government has asked Germany to accept former Guantanamo prisoners. Exactly the same government is apparently planning to continue the military commissions to try those prisoners. One could hardly be more contradictory."

"It is the same tactic that President Barack Obama has already used when it came to the torturers from the CIA -- punish with one hand, stroke with the other. Whenever he takes a step forward, he stumbles backwards as well. That will likely be enough to disappoint all those Europeans who had expectations that Obama would be an almost messiah-like healer. It was expected that he would demolish all of the ugly monuments from the Bush era and then, together with Al Gore, plant a Garden of Eden over the top, through which he would drive fuel-efficient compacts from Chrysler."

"And now: the US president is pursuing a policy of trying to make everyone happy. He is trying to accommodate the left side of the political spectrum as well as those on the right. All of a sudden, Barack Obama is beginning to look eerily similar to Chancellor Angela Merkel. He is no longer floating above the political lowlands, the swamps of compromise. He is walking directly through them and getting dirty in the process."

The Financial Times Deutschland comes to Obama's defense on Monday:

"Barack Obama promised Americans and the rest of the world he would follow a governmental strategy akin to pushing the reset button. The small red button US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently presented in Moscow works as a symbol for Obama's domestic reform agenda just as well as it does for his vision of US foreign and security policy: Bush is gone, in the future everything will be completely different."

"But even the Obama government thinks it is too dangerous to bring all (Guantanamo) cases before civilian courts and to get rid of the military commissions set up by the Bush administration. Bush called them into existence after Sept. 11, 2001 in order to imprison so-called 'enemy combatants' outside of the US legal system in Guantanamo, interrogate them and sentence them before special courts."

"Such a policy cannot be made to disappear with a reset button. Were those cases currently being looked into by military commissions to be transferred to civilian courts, a number of procedural riddles would have to be solved -- because some of the most important suspects in Guantanamo were tortured, their testimony and confessions would likely be thrown out. Any civilian trials would also be overshadowed by secrecy concerns."

"The risk that such a civilian trial would be used by mass murderers as a soap box, or even that they would be released for purely formal or procedural reasons, would be large. It is for these reasons that Obama wants to hold on to -- reformed -- military commissions. That will likely disappoint all those who expected him to embark on a radical change of course. But it speaks for his understanding of reality."

-- Charles Hawley, 12:45 p.m. CET

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It was pretty good froth, man. I wouldn't necessarily agree that the actions Lincoln took were actually necessary (I don't actually know) but I agree that the author you sited is an intellectual girly-man.

[Lemur]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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: 

CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL

FOR RELEASE: Wednesday, May 6 at noon

Interviews with 2,019 adult Americans conducted by telephone on April 23-26, 2009.

Most Americans don't want to see an investigation of Bush administration officials who authorized waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques used on suspected terrorists. Half of all Americans approve of the Bush administration's decision to use those techniques when questioning suspected terrorists -- even though six in ten believe that some of those procedures were a form of torture. (Roughly one in five Americans think those procedures were torture but approved of their use against suspected terrorists.) Only about four in ten think that there should be an investigation into the Bush officials who authorized the use of those procedures (and it doesn't seem to matter whether the investigation is carried out by Congress or by an independent panel). And only about a third want to see an investigation of the military personnel who actually used those procedures.

CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL

April 23-26

Bush Administration Decision to
Use Harsh Interrogation Procedures
On Suspected Terrorists

Favor 50%
Oppose 46%
Sampling error: +/-2% pts

QUESTION: As you may know, the Bush administration authorized the use of harsh interrogation procedures, including the procedure known as waterboarding, when the U.S. captured suspected terrorists. Based on what you have read or heard, do you approve or disapprove of the Bush administration's decision to use those procedures while questioning suspected terrorists?

CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL

April 23-26

Were Harsh Interrogation Procedures
A Form of Torture?

Yes 60%
No 36%
Sampling error: +/-2% pts

QUESTION: And regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of the use of those procedures, do you think any of those procedures were a form a torture, or don't you think so?

CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL

April 23-26

Should Congress Conduct an
Investigation of Bush Officials
Who Authorized Interrogation Procedures?

Yes 42%
No 57%
Sampling error: +/-3% pts

QUESTION: Do you think that Congress should or should not conduct an investigation of the Bush administration officials who authorized the use of those procedures?

CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL

April 23-26

Should Congress Conduct an
Investigation of Personnel
Who Used Interrogation Procedures?

Yes 34%
No 65%
Sampling error: +/-3% pts

QUESTION: Do you think that Congress should or should not conduct an investigation of the military and intelligence personnel who used those procedures after the Bush administration authorized their use?

CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL

April 23-26

Should Independent Panel Conduct an
Investigation of Bush Officials
Who Authorized Interrogation Procedures?

Yes 42%
No 55%
Sampling error: +/-3% pts

QUESTION: Do you think that an independent panel should or should not conduct an investigation of the Bush administration officials who authorized the use of those procedures?

CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL

April 23-26

Should Independent Panel Conduct an
Investigation of Personnel
Who Used Interrogation Procedures?

Yes 33%
No 64%
Sampling error: +/-3% pts

QUESTION: Do you think that an independent panel should or should not conduct an investigation of the military and intelligence personnel who used those procedures after the Bush administration authorized their use?

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]

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

[CountArach]

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

Actually there are more Democrats than Independents.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Furunculus]

everything is artful evasions, insinuations, and allusions to some greater truth with you tribesman, how about you show some balls and just call it as you see it, it would make a nice change

[Lemur]

Furunculus, seconded. If you have something to say, Tribes, here's a novel thought: say it.

[drone]

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?

[Lemur]

Ugh, file Pelosi Knew under "Maybe, If the CIA is Telling the Truth This Time." Apparently the CIA has not released any of their briefing documents, not even in redacted form, but rather a press-ready summary. And it's got problems; they didn't even get the list of attendees right.

Grrr. I suspect Pelosi is guilty as sin, but I'd like a little more transparency regarding congressional briefings. This field is too littered with people who have every reason to dissemble. Congresscritters will lie to pretend they didn't know about the torture program. The CIA will attempt to implicate as many high-ranking others as possible, spreading the blame.

It's like one of those Agatha Christie novels where every dinner guest had a great motive to kill the ship's captain. Only it's a lot less amusing.

-edit-

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-VA) also implicated. Independent commission is the only way to go; too many Dems in Congress want to shield themselves from the spanking they deserve.

And of course, as far as we can find, he hasn't denied that he was briefed on the fact that waterboarding was happening, as Pelosi essentially has. Indeed, the West Virginia senator, who this year moved over to chair the appropriations committee, has been relatively restrained in his comments about the torture debate.

Still, Rockefeller has, rightly, had harsh words for the Bushies who approved torture. CNN reported last month:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller said he agreed that CIA operatives shouldn't face prosecution, but is "not prepared to say the same for the senior Bush administration officials who authorized or directed these policies in the first place."

"The focus for right now should be on finding the facts," the West Virginia Democrat added.

But if nothing else, the documents -- which appear to show that Rockefeller had an early, detailed, look at what was being done -- suggest that the senator, like many of his colleagues, was hardly a profile in courage on the issue.

-edit-

Link to the doc released by the CIA (PDF warning). Not exactly what I was hoping for.

[Vuk]

Glad to see you showing some objectivity Lemmy!
I seriously did not think that you would be posting that.

As anyone who knows me knows, I do not support torture...at all. I think that the government using torture is wrong. That said though, I think that the methods being described as torture here are not. Waterboarding is what all the fuss is about, so that is the one I intended to tackle (the caterpillar would have just been a waste of time :P).
Here is what I did. I am in Hungary studying now, without access to much, so I enlisted the help of a few friends. I do not have a bath tub in my apartment, so we went over to a friends place. Me, and the army buddy I am with both subjected ourselves to the same 'waterboarding' that was used on the terrorists. Here is what I can say: first of all, I do not want to do it again. :P It is not a pleasant experience at all. That said though, I do not think that I would classify it as torture. Torture is using pain to overwhelm a person's will. Waterboarding does not do that. It is like putting a gun at someone's head and forcing them to talk, only it is a drawn out process that let's them slip very close to the end and is much more likelely to make them talk. You do not feel pain, you simply feel that if you do not give in, you will die. (similar to putting a gun to someone's head) You freak out and panick, and give in after a while to escape death. That is threatening someone with death though, NOT torturing them. It is not mentaly pleasant, but what interrogation is? What warfare is? What terrorism is?
I'll admit that it is a horrible feeling, but on the bright side, I held out for 21 seconds the third time, which is one second over the average that people in the US military did. Honestly, it is little different than chicken breath or choke games in highschool and college. When I get home I will go down to my brother's place, enlist his help, and make a video of the Vuk getting waterboarded for you.
I tell you what, I would never voluntarily be branded, or have things stuck under my fingernails, or be kicked in the crotch, etc. Those things are torture, waterboardinglikelypanicmentallyhigh school isn't.