Torture Lawyer Sez: I Can Haz Waterboarding?

[Lemur]

John Yoo, a fat little academic largely notable for writing pro-torture opinions (including the classic President-may-crush-a-child's-testicles argument) repudiated by all men of sense, wrote a lovely op-ed piece for the WSJ in which he claims that torture is teh bomb and that Obama will kill us all:

Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.

So true! So true! Has anyone else noticed how the only way we obtain information is through torture? That's why the police never obtain confessions ever, and why out criminal courts never convict. It's because they don't torture. The FBI's empathetic system of interrogation? Useless!

It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

So true! Out Constitution is hopelessly naive, frankly. The first, second, and fifth amendments are all kind of hippie-dippie, while we're at it. Free speech? Pshaw. Arm the populace? What kind of Cuban Revolutionary silliness is that? Ideals exist to be pushed aside when you're feeling nervous. That's their function.

And last but not least, if we get hit again, it's all because the Obama-Antichrist went all soft on torture, which is like a magic pixie dust that protects us at all times until it doesn't.

But in his decisions taken so precipitously just two days after the inauguration, Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil by shattering some of the nation's most critical defenses.

Why, exactly, isn't this man bring brought up for war crimes? Is it because we're "looking forward," as the various wimps from the Obama administration like to say? Here's a thought -- how about I shoot a guy on the street, and then argue in my trial that it's time to look forward, not back. That would be morally equivalent.

Another take on Torture Boy's self-adulating editorial.

[Vladimir]

What's with all the lolz catz thread titles?

Teh torture:

On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)

Wow, three times huh?

[naut]

Muppet.

[KukriKhan]

The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.

How does he know that? That such meeting/review did not take place?

Because they didn't invite him?

...Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil...

Getting his bid in now for an "I TOLD YOU SO!" moment, anywhere down the line.

I'm just stunned this guy came out of Berkeley.

[Tribesman]

Wow, three times huh?

Wow 3 times , that means he is a habitual so its life in prison without parole

[Lemur]

Wow, three times huh?

Yeah, I'm really sure that only three people were tortured during the entire "enhanced interrogation techniques" program. I'm sure that's why about 100 detainees have died, and "according to the U.S. military’s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides."

Upon re-reading the WSJ piece, it's increasingly clear that Yoo is concerned about going to jail. If I were in his shoes, I certainly wouldn't vacation in Europe anytime soon.

[InsaneApache]

On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)

That would be the sensory deprivation tank/white noise thingy then. It didn't do the UK all that good. Along with locking people up without charge or due process, all it did was help the Republican cause by acting as a recruiting sergeant. When will these whackos ever learn that torture is counter- productive?

[HoreTore]

When will these whackos ever learn that torture is counter- productive?

Well, we've known it since the Romans.... I'd give "the challenged people" a couple of thousand years more.

What's more, is that the reasoning used to justify this, is that they are terrorists... Uhm... Yes, that's why Bush has released a bunch of them, not because a lot of them were completely innocent. It's a good thing we always trust our government to be both prosecutor, judge and jury!

Separation of power? Get a job, lousy hippie!!

EDIT: Oh, and I nominate the OP for Post of the Year. Well done, Lemur!

[drone]

Yoo and Addington definitely need to take a trip to Europe.

I'm just stunned this guy came out of Berkeley.

His law degree is from Yale, BA from Harvard. He just works at Berkeley. I guess the truly amazing thing is that they gave him a job there. He must be really popular in that town.

[naut]

That would be the sensory deprivation tank/white noise thingy then.

Yep. Not something anyone would want to experience, but no doubt better (if torture, can ever really be better) than the R2I methods often used by US forces.

[Ironside]

That would be the sensory deprivation tank/white noise thingy then. It didn't do the UK all that good. Along with locking people up without charge or due process, all it did was help the Republican cause by acting as a recruiting sergeant. When will these whackos ever learn that torture is counter- productive?

Counterproductive? Name any other method that gives 100% signation of these pre-written confessions and prove my value on capturing a lot of terrorists and also without any innocent captures. It is also a fine, proven method to convince American soldiers about the evils of capitalism and the true glory of communism.

Now if you excuse me, it's pretty obvious that Mr. Yoo is in fact a terrorists, working for Iran, North Korea, Colombia, Cuba, China, Russia and a few others we haven't figured out yet. But fear not brave Americans, soon we will have Mr. Yoo's written confession on the matter and will also unwind the net which he's the spider in, threatening the freedom of USA.

[Pannonian]

Counterproductive? Name any other method that gives 100% signation of these pre-written confessions and prove my value on capturing a lot of terrorists and also without any innocent captures. It is also a fine, proven method to convince American soldiers about the evils of capitalism and the true glory of communism.

Now if you excuse me, it's pretty obvious that Mr. Yoo is in fact a terrorists, working for Iran, North Korea, Colombia, Cuba, China, Russia and a few others we haven't figured out yet. But fear not brave Americans, soon we will have Mr. Yoo's written confession on the matter and will also unwind the net which he's the spider in, threatening the freedom of USA.

While they're at it, can they nail him for the Jack the Ripper murders as well?

[Tribesman]

While they're at it, can they nail him for the Jack the Ripper murders as well?

No , Khalid Sheikh Mohammed already confessed to that .
I think Yoo should be persuaded to confess that he was the iceberg and say that he really regrets that more imperialist era pigs didn't die when he deliberately rammed the titanic.....oh and when he says the word pigs he has to squeal it or he is back off for more educational recreation exercises .

[Lemur]

Another take on the Yoo editorial:

I’ve followed John Yoo and his writings with some care for a while now, and I think I finally understand what this is about. Namely, a pending probe by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is looking at serious ethical issues surrounding the issuance of Yoo’s legal opinions.

But the OPR probe is far from Yoo’s only or even most pressing worry. The likelihood that he will face a criminal probe and then possibly prosecution is growing. Susan J. Crawford, the Cheney protege tapped as the senior Bush Administration official to oversee the Guantánamo military commissions, publicly admitted in an interview with Bob Woodward, that at least one of the detainees had been tortured through the application of an interrogation regime that had been approved by the White House. In their exit interviews, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney were emphatic that in authorizing torture, they relied on the advice of their lawyers, meaning John Yoo. But in the ultimate act of ingratitude, Bush left office without issuing the anticipated blanket pardons to his torture team. NATO allies and United Nations officials are reminding the new Obama Administration that it has a solemn obligation under article 4 of the Convention Against Torture to begin a criminal investigation into how the United States came to use torture as a matter of official policy. And public opinion has changed, with a clear majority of Americans now favoring a probe into the Bush Administration’s use of torture techniques.

Yoo cannot be oblivious to all of this. And indeed, his column in the Wall Street Journal and his presentations elsewhere tell us exactly what the defense will be. At its core is the argument that, no matter how mistaken, John Yoo acted in good faith when he issued the torture memoranda. He truly, sincerely believes the analysis of law that is presented in those memos.

[InsaneApache]

Counterproductive? Name any other method that gives 100% signation of these pre-written confessions and prove my value on capturing a lot of terrorists and also without any innocent captures. It is also a fine, proven method to convince American soldiers about the evils of capitalism and the true glory of communism.

Now if you excuse me, it's pretty obvious that Mr. Yoo is in fact a terrorists, working for Iran, North Korea, Colombia, Cuba, China, Russia and a few others we haven't figured out yet. But fear not brave Americans, soon we will have Mr. Yoo's written confession on the matter and will also unwind the net which he's the spider in, threatening the freedom of USA.

Brainwashing not torture. Although a moot point.

[Lord Winter]

Brainwashing not torture. Although a moot point.

One can lead to another pretty fast though...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of course Yoo is writing a piece in support of the tactics he outlined. To do otherwise would be suicidal either figuratively (because charges would be brought) or literally (because he would then be wallowing in self loathing.


It strikes me that those decrying the use of torture are too willing to believe that it never works. If the only point were an exercise in sadism, it would not have been used with the frequency it has been throughout history. That said, it is clear that as an interrogation tool it has numerous limitations -- foremost being that some subjects (most?) will say anything to avoid the pain and thereby render the point moot.

For the most part, our interrogators have chosen NOT to use such harsh methods because they were no more (and often were viewed as less) likely to generate the needed results. That is why waterboarding was authorized so rarely. If it would not generate intelligence better/more quickly, then what would be the point?


Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous. If that is your basic moral stance, than few governments around the world -- if any -- would win "points" from you. The use of waterboarding would be anathema and, for those with this perspective, no better than a rack and hot irons.

[Tribesman]

Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous.

The problem there Seamus is that the US calls waterboarding torture if it is used by others , so it isn't a question of what other people think morally it is what the US calls it itself .

[Lemur]

For the most part, our interrogators have chosen NOT to use such harsh methods because they were no more (and often were viewed as less) likely to generate the needed results. That is why waterboarding was authorized so rarely.

Actually, it's very, very hard to get any hard numbers on when torture was used and when it was not. Even in cases where we know "enhanced interrogation" (what an Orwellian turn of phrase) was used, the evidence seems to go missing. It's also impossible to read the decisions behind "enhanced interrogation" as a policy. Here's a partial list of missing memos. If you're going to accept the Bush administration's assertion that they only waterboarded three people, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. No, seriously, it's a wonderful bridge in excellent condition.

Your question about why the military would engage in torture is a good one. Turns out they were following orders, as good soldiers should.

Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous.

I call strawman. This is the exact smokescreen that has been thrown up around this issue since day one. "Oh, some Berkley hippies don't want us to say mean things to terrorists." That and the "What is torture, anyway?" line of obfuscation that we have heard unendingly from various pro-authoritarians.

Read up on Susan Crawford, and then get back to me about how "numerous people" (I'd like to meet them, what with them being so numerous) are defining anything after hot cocoa and a blankie as torture.

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

What fun! Not only do we get to torture people, but afterward it means we can't prosecute them. Double bonus!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Your question about why the military would engage in torture is a good one. Turns out they were following orders, as good soldiers should.

I've spoken with a couple of different JAG officers who, when queried by the Bush administration, responded that any method not then sanctioned for use by the military should NOT be employed. They were NOT happy with the policy which ultimately developed.

I call strawman. This is the exact smokescreen that has been thrown up around this issue since day one. "Oh, some Berkley hippies don't want us to say mean things to terrorists." That and the "What is torture, anyway?" line of obfuscation that we have heard unendingly from various pro-authoritarians.

I don't play the strawman game. My point was that many people in the USA, and probably greater numbers in Europe, think that many of the procedures used in the "harsh methods" interrogations were torture and should not have been used. A much smaller subset believes that anyone involved with those techniques should be prosecuted. I don't believe I ever resorted to the hot cocoa hyperbole level -- though some right wing pundits certainly have.

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.[/indent]

What fun! Not only do we get to torture people, but afterward it means we can't prosecute them. Double bonus!

Of COURSE any information gained through torture or near-torture methods cannot be used in a court of law. What may generate information in intelligence terms will almost certainly NOT pass the reasonable doubt test. If you are going to go that route, you must expect that any subsequent prosecution will fail, so you either have to execute the detainee or release her/him -- so the information gained better have been worth it.

[Mooks]

Not to mention that forcing someone to listen to 4+ hours of Britney Spears and crappy nationalistic country songs is horrible .

trying to lighten the conversation.did it work?

[HoreTore]

It strikes me that those decrying the use of torture are too willing to believe that it never works. If the only point were an exercise in sadism, it would not have been used with the frequency it has been throughout history.

Torture is a wonderful thing indeed, though only for two things:

1. To terrorize a population. If someone does something you don't want them to, then torturing him is a good way to deter any others thinking about doing said thing. Someone stirring up trouble in the lower classes? Chop him to pieces alive in front of the rest of the population, and they'll be too afraid to do anything.

2. To make someone confess to something. And it's irrelevant whether it's true or not. Want Galileo to say that the earth is the centre of the solar system? Burn his toes until he says it, he will eventually.

Both of these have been and are of great benefit to despots and tyrants everywhere. We like to think that our democratically elected overlords don't have the same need, however...

[Ironside]

Brainwashing not torture. Although a moot point.

Well, the "enhanced interogation techniques" are coming from a program developed to resist brainwashing (the breakdown process involves torture)...

[Brenus]

“I think Yoo should be persuaded to confess that he was the iceberg and say that he really regrets that more imperialist era pigs didn't die when he deliberately rammed the titanic.....oh and when he says the word pigs he has to squeal it or he is back off for more educational recreation exercises .” Err, we have unsolved crimes in France… Do you think he can tell us why he did it?

“Brainwashing is not torture”. I interviewed for my studies (French Indochina Wars) a former Prisoner (3 years in Camp). It is not only Brainwashing. Brainwashing works with deprivation of sleep, hard work and repetitive action, senseless on purpose, you do without question any more…
And of course a system of rewards and punishment (rewards being more food and punishment 1 week in a very small cage), promises of speed-up freedom if you comply and accept the rules…

“To terrorize a population”. Didn’t work on my Grand Parents… They carried on in blowing German Trains to the sky. And killing German Soldiers, and French militias…
Just made they more determined in the Anti-Nazi/barbarians fight… And prove them right in their fight...

“To make someone confess to something” Well, if you approach with this hot poker, give my the Yellow Pages, I will denounce all of them…

[Lemur]

My point was that many people in the USA, and probably greater numbers in Europe, think that many of the procedures used in the "harsh methods" interrogations were torture and should not have been used.

Now I really don't understand. When you say "harsh methods," what are you referring to? "Enhanced interrogation"? Because many of the methods employed under "Enhanced Interrogation" have already been classified as torture on many occasions, often by us. We declared waterboarding to be a war crime in 1947, for example. Does that fall under your "harsh methods" category? If so, is there any reason to debate whether or not torture has been employed? If so, why?

We also prosecuted Nazi officials who employed "Verschärfte Vernehmung," which means -- wait for it -- "Enhanced Interrogation." The methods (and the euphemisms) are quite strikingly similar:

Between 1942 and 1945, Bruns used the method of "verschärfte Vernehmung" on 11 Norwegian citizens. This method involved the use of various implements of torture, cold baths and blows and kicks in the face and all over the body.

I can just hear a German equivalent to Limbaugh declaring on the radio that "cold baths" and some kicks do not constitute anything more than vigorous information-gathering. 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.

Anyway, maybe you could clarify the position you're taking, as I'm not quite getting it.

[KukriKhan]

Seamus can, of course, speak for himself, and far more eloquently than I. Yet:

is there any reason to debate whether or not torture has been employed? If so, why?

I don't see anything in his response that debates whether or not torture has been employed. My read of his words revealed something more along the lines of:

"Once it was discovered that torture MIGHT have been employed, many US citizens (and prominent ones, like the latest Repub potus nominee) and europens as well, said it should not be used."

[Lemur]

I don't see anything in his response that debates whether or not torture has been employed.

My response makes sense in light of Seamus' earlier statement:

Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous. If that is your basic moral stance, than few governments around the world -- if any -- would win "points" from you.

... which does not bear any resemblance to your summation, "Once it was discovered that torture MIGHT have been employed, many US citizens (and prominent ones, like the latest Repub potus nominee) and europens as well, said it should not be used."

[KukriKhan]

I see. You meant an earlier quote than the one you used. O.K.

And now, not being a qualified dental technician, I'll quit stuffing my words into other people's mouths.

[Lemur]

I see. You meant an earlier quote than the one you used.

Close. I meant that his clarification did not illuminate any alternative meaning to his earlier statement. And now, I will dance the watusi.

[InsaneApache]

Do you do it like this?