Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball report on President Obama’s first-week executive orders pertaining to the treatment of detainees.
Writers notoriously don’t get to write their own headlines, and it sometimes can be a problem. In this case, Isikoff and Hosenball have a real beef against the headline writer, or they should.
The article is called “The End of Torture” No joke. As if, until Obama’s pen hit paper, American officials were routinely breaking kneecaps and playing with dentists’ drills. Not to make light of a complicated situation, but this topic has been so twisted and distorted that it is no wonder America’s reputation has suffered or that so many Americans believe the worst of their own government.
Abu Ghraib was one thing; even if you believe the abuses (A) were torture and (B) resulted from a too-loose interpretation of the law by people at the top, what happened there was nonetheless not ordered, not sanctions, and later punished.
The only officially sanctioned and practiced “enhanced interrogation technique” that may have risen to the level of torture was waterboarding. It is not my purpose to get into the debate right now about whether it did or did not constitute torture, except to say that the retroactive absolutism of the pundit class — it was, no question about it, either according to US law or to universal morality! — is not convincing.
Be that as it may, that technique was used three times, the last being in 2003, and was banned internally by the Bush administration in 2006. So, even if you think waterboarding is unquestionably torture, then the “end of torture” came in 2003, or at the latest 2006.
So what other practices does Obama’s Executive Order end? According to the article, “temperature manipulation and stress positions,” as well as “trick[ing] prisoners into believing they would face physical harm from foreign intelligence services if they didn’t cooperate.” Maybe these are very terrible things. But are they “torture” either under US law or in any reasonable person’s definition?
To their credit, Isikoff and Hosenball only use the “t” word once, with the proper qualifier. But unfortunately, it’s the headline and the first paragraph that will get the most attention — such is the way with all stories — and these will only serve to reinforce the calumny that under George W. Bush, torture became routine in America.
80 responses so far
1 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“…except to say that the retroactive absolutism of the pundit class — it was, no question about it, either according to US law or to universal morality! — is not convincing..”
OK, how about the “absolutism” of the language used by Bush officials? “George Bush and Dick Cheney are continuing to insist we haven’t committed torture. But that’s now been contradicted by the Bush administration official whose job is to decide whether to bring Guantanamo detainees to trial… “We tortured [Mohammed al-] Qahtani,” the convening authority of military commissions, Susan Crawford, told the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward.”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/top_military_official_we_tortured.php
2 manton // Jan 23, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I know that many people absolutely believe that waterboarding is unequivocally, unquestionably torture. I think that is a reasonable view. But I think a reasonable case can be made that, administered properly, it is not. Andrew McCarthy has made what seems to me to be a strong case that it is not:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=&w=MA==
I would offer as well the following point. I personally know military officers and other officials who have willingly submitted themselves to this practice. So have several journalists, including Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens says it is torture. Some of my acquaintances say yes, some no, some maybe. Be that as it may, it is impossible for me to imagine anyone willingly submitting themselves to (say) the rack or something else that you and I would not disagree one iota is torture. The fact that people willingly undergo this, and walk away — whatever they conclude from the experience — suggests to me that the gray area is rather wide.
3 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 12:54 pm
manton: “I know that many people absolutely believe that waterboarding is unequivocally, unquestionably torture.” The fact that we’re even having this debate shows that we’ve lost the moral high ground, which is what makes the decision to close Guantanamo a smart one.
4 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Listening to Christopher Hitchens speak about christianity is torture. That fat, weak, leftist probably thinks a rough manicure is torture.
5 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm
JJWF…we have not “lost the moral high ground”. Folks like you have lost any sort of moral compass. Thank God President Bush did what he had to do to keep us safe and did not listen to the folks on your side who will allow the US to suffer attack again due to lack of backbone.
6 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm
You’ve got a point about Christopher Hitchens. I don’t know why he keeps showing up on my teevee.
7 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:02 pm
No, I’ve got backbone: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-nyu-speech
8 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:18 pm
JJ….I apologize for making my comment in such a way as to say you have no backbone. I intended that comment to hit politicians who will not stand up to Islamic terrorism and call harsh interogation “torture”. I stand by my comment that you have no moral compass. Your link reinforces that for me. Do you really think the testimony of terrorists should be taken as matter of fact? You obviously do, which does not indicate any sort of “new conservativism”, but does indicate age old leftism.
9 CoalMan // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:21 pm
1a:anguish of body or mind: agony b:something that causes agony or pain 2: the infliction of intense pain to punish,coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3: distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument : straining.
Here’s the problem with listening to the various sensitive, mega moral, uber tender weenie geeks policy wonks on torture; pick a definition! # 1a could be whistling loudly or whistling poorly, #1b might be a hangnail,#2 is what it is but# 2 can also cause #1, #3 is the reality!! Trying to assign the word “torture” to our actions may be an over refinement but our media has created a 4th, #4 actions taken under the Bush administration that, however successful and however necessary under the circumstances, will allow vilification and and demonetization as needed thereby bringing satisfaction to the whining masses who are still angry from that election result in Florida. I don’t consider waterboarding torture, because I don’t think inducing an autonomic response thereby causing a terrorist or combatant prisoner to become AFRAID and tell the truth is wrong. I’ll grant you its unpleasant, very uncomfortable and it possibly may give them a few nightmares but with the lives of our citizens as well as the brave young men and women who serve threatened, I’ll live with it
10 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Right on CoalMan
11 CoalMan // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Using “torture” as the current buzz word, and with the help of our fifth column media, we’ve managed to create a hysteria wherein people who were against the Iraq commitment we made, are able to use it to bludgeon the Bush administration, the general public and in specific supporters of a winning effort to get us out.
12 CoalMan // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:34 pm
TNX Senor
13 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:38 pm
It helps if you click links. From the one at the bottom of this page: “According to the Post, the techniques used included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, which left al-Qahtani in a “life-threatening condition.”" I’ve never heard of that happening as a result of a hangnail. Of course, Bob Woodward is a Card Carrying Member of the EASTERN MEDIA ELITE, Booga booga booga!!!
14 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:48 pm
JJ…I really don’t think you have a clue. Perhaps you have not noticed, but living here on earth is a “life threatening condition”. The phrase is meaningless, especially when used by the terrorist making the claim. Members of our military volunteer to be treated worse than anything these terrorist have been put through. Navy men going through BUDS training to become SEALS are regularly made to enter 60 degree or colder water for long enough to drop their core body temperature to near fatal lows. They are also made to stay under water for minutses while trying to repair their breathing apperatus, and many times breath in the water trying to pass that test. The fact is none of these terrorists were ever close to losing their lives, as John McCain was in Vietnam. If we cannot use harsh and creative interogation techniques on these terrorists more Americans will die, and that makes coddling them immoral.
15 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“living here on earth is a “life threatening condition”.” Devastating. Anyone else?
16 CoalMan // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Sure, where were you when they were looking for “pen pals” for the gitmo guys JJ. I don’t mind waterboarding JJ but I’ll never agree with the other techniques they supposedly used like; reading out loud from Al Frankens new book(the arabic edition), 1/2 hour of Jeannine Garafolo’sstand up comedy routine or tapes of Randi Rhodes on tour. Poor guys
17 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Right. Jeannine Garafolo, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, arga barga, blah blah blah. That proves there was no torture at Guantanamo. Wow. I guess I need to pack it up.
18 manton // Jan 23, 2009 at 2:20 pm
JJ, unless I am wrong, the only allegations of torture at Gitmo are from detainees themselves, and we know that they are trained to allege such things. Military investigators have failed to substantiate these claimes. I suppose it depends on how elastic one’s definition of toture is. As I recall, the Red Cross has said that the mere fact of long term detention constitutes torture. I don’t think you are going to find many Americans, in our out of government, experts on this or uninformed lay people, who agrree with that.
19 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“unless I am wrong, the only allegations of torture at Gitmo are from detainees themselves” See below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Crawford_(Pentagon)
20 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I mean “below” as in the story I linked to at the bottom of this page.
21 manton // Jan 23, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Qahtani was one of three who were waterboarded that I mention in my article. That did not take place at Gitmo. It almost certainly took place at one of the so-called “black” sites that the CIA used to operate in allied countries. That is, until the Washington Post exposed those sites in 2005. It was only after that that Qahtani, KSM, and others were transferred to Gitmo. Their interrogations were well over at that point.
22 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 2:43 pm
OK, I suppose it wasn’t completely clear from that article that the interrogations weren’t actually at Gitmo. The argument kind of borders on the technical, though. A Gitmo prisoner was tortured, but not actually at Gitmo. Even if these things didn’t actually happen on site (and that’s an IF) Gitmo remains a potent symbol of this kind of treatment, and you can’t blame Obama for wanting to make a break from the past.
23 CoalMan // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:10 pm
JJ here’s the real issue. The “torture” used against detainees was legal or it appears that it was( otherwise John Conyers would already be holding “war crime” hearings) and what you’re arguing is the moral side of causing harm by virtue of the use of certain interrogation techniques. Considering what was supposedly done, the level of actions reported and the like, you’d like some explanation of its morality. Other than referring you to the writings of St. Augustine I suggest that if you have developed some moral stance that allows you to believe that harm done in the name of a greater good is not moral, perhaps you’d care to define morality and what level of harm you would accept before you felt it exceeded the good that may come of it. Be careful its a slippery slope
24 CoalMan // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:16 pm
JJ, would you make the same moral argument in regards to abortion, to the death sentence, to confiscatory tax practices? I suspect no. So the real issue is that “torture” is the bludgeon you use to attack the “vast right wing conspiracy” and using morality as an argument to bring the rest of us to heel. We’re dumb, we’re just not stupid!
25 CoalMan // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I’m just not feeling guilty enough to swallow that bilge water
26 CoalMan // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Manton,
Good article I enjoyed it.
27 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:24 pm
By the way, General Janis Karpinski disagrees that “what happened [Abu Ghraib] was… not ordered, not sanctions,” [sic].: “In November 2006, Karpinski told Spain’s El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld that allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation. She stated, “The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation … playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably … Rumsfeld authorised these specific techniques.” According to Karpinski, Rumsfeld’s handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: “Make sure this is accomplished.”" Lots more details here, with Karpinski mentioning Gonzalez, Yoo, others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janis_Karpinski#Karpinski.27s_defense
28 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I’m sitting here, in the United States of America, in 2008, defending the proposition that our government shouldn’t torture people. Blows your mind. As for defining torture, I’m reminded of a line from Alice in Wonderland: “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean neither more or less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master that is all.’”
29 CoalMan // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:38 pm
What’s with you? I asked you for some moral equivalence for your stance (s) and you give me a wikipedia reference??
I’m not going to give you a reference to click on, I’m going to give you a direct statement you can just ignore. You sir are a robotic extension of some progressive blog with neither the intellectual prowess nor moral base to back up your foolishness. Fini
30 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I responded, CoalMan. I’m fine with arguing whether we have “abortion, the death sentence, confiscatory tax practices.” I’m fine with that. But if I’m sitting here, in America, in 2008, defending the notion that the US shouldn’t torture, I just find that bizarre and deeply troubling.
31 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:49 pm
JJ…you are too much….you believe anything (probably everything) the terrorist say, and you believe Karpinski. I see a pattern developing here. You believe anyone who hates Bush as much as you do. Terrorists are trained to cry “torture”. I’m sure you know that….right? Karpinski was punished for her failure to properly lead the troops under her command. OF COURSE SHE BLAMES someone else. Convieniently for you she blames Bush. Why are you on this site? This site proposes to build a new coalition of conservatives. You are as big a promoter of Democratic policies and falsehoods as I’ve seen
32 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I’m descended from the Massachusetts settlers mentioned in this piece: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-nyu-speech
And I’m offended that my country, the beacon of rights and freedom, couldn’t handle its problems except by torture. Obama has it right: We intend to win this fight. And we are going to win it on our own terms.
33 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Further, I’d encourage everyone to read *conservative* Jack Goldsmith’s book on how this administration interpreted the law, *The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration.* The way people like David Addington operated very much reminds me of that Lewis Carrol *Alice in Wonderland* quote: “Addington’s combination of public silence and private power makes him an apt symbol for the Bush administration’s general approach to national security.
Many of the administration’s most controversial policies have been adopted in secret, under Addington’s direction, often without much input from other parts of the executive branch, much less other branches of government, and
without public accountability. Among the measures we know about are disappearances of detainees into secret CIA prisons, the use of torture to gather evidence, rendition of suspects to countries known for torture, and
warrantless wiretapping of Americans.”
http://www.octothorp.org/pipermail/blind-democracy/2008-February/015779.html
Again, think of the Lewis Carroll quote applied to the law, such as prohibitions against torture: “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean neither more or less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master that is all.’”
34 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 4:05 pm
jj…go back to the dailyKos
35 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Hey, if you want to hear about Jack Goldsmith, don’t go to Daily Kos, just listen to this speech at the American Enterprise Institute by conservative Sam Tanenhaus (Goldsmith comes up in a question near the end):
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1550/event_detail.asp
Conservatives used to *care* about executive power. Not any more (or at least not while Republicans are in power, right? Isn’t it supposed to be *country first,* not party first?)
36 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 4:21 pm
you just earned the first spot on my “Yawn” list
37 Dennis D // Jan 23, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Personally I do not see any advantage to the USA signing non torture agreements, Americans get tortured regardless. In Korea. Vietnam Korea again on the USS Pueblo , Iraq twice. There is no logical reason for these agreements other than to ” Feel Good” about yourself .
38 Dennis D // Jan 23, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Ted Kennedy said he was opposed by Waterboarding. He said driving them into an ice old lake until their stiff body floats to the surface works much better.
39 manton // Jan 23, 2009 at 4:29 pm
JJ, I am aware that sleep deprivation and playing loud music were sanctioned. I don’t consider those abuses, and neither does the Army nor — so far as I know — do any of the investigating authorities. What aroused all the outrage at Abu Ghraib was the forced nudity, smearing of feces, etc. You may be opposed to sleep deprivation and playing loud music, but they were not illegal.
40 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Showing your true colors, folks.
41 dragonlady // Jan 23, 2009 at 5:29 pm
JJ, do you weep for KSM, the #3 Al Qaeda guy who planned Sep 11? After he was waterboarded, he spilled the beans on many other highjacking plots. You know what messages this sends to our military or CIA personnel? Take no prisoners because you may be indicted for trying to keep this country safe.
I’d also be careful taking Karpinski’s side…she failed every fundamental teaching known to military officership. I also suggest you read the entire Taguba report and Fay report to put Abu Gharib facts into context instead of cherry pick one sentence out of Wiki entry.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nationi/documents/fay_report_8-25-04.pdf
42 manton // Jan 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm
JJ, you seem to think that every form of interrogation beyond polite questioning is torture. You are welcome to feel smug and chastise conservatives for showing their “true colors” by supporting more agressive techniques, but I can assure you that you are the one out of the mainstream on this issue.
43 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 5:49 pm
No one’s weeping for the terrorists. But even that’s assuming that everyone we’re talking about are indeed terrorists, which they’re not:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
If in the process of fighting these people, though, we should not change our tradition of basic human rights–for instance we do not torture. We have prosecuted war criminals of foreign countries for waterboarding, yet in recent history, we’ve waterboarded. I think the rest of the world is greatly relieved that we’re closing Guantanamo, and they’re going to be much more enthusiastic partners in the future.
44 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 6:02 pm
“you seem to think that every form of interrogation beyond polite questioning is torture.” It’s disappointing to me how often conservatives engage in straw man argumentation. That’s not what I think. But first of all, I don’t know exactly what happened. Just like I don’t know what exactly happened with the NSA: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/22/nsa-whistleblower-tice/ But you’ve destroyed a lot of trust over the last 8 years. Second, if you do certain things for 54 days, as this article describes… http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805
…David Addington might weasel a legal justification, but that can be worth 1 day or more of other things that are more obviously torture.
45 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Also, why are there all these problems with due process at the trials? Is it because of what we’ve done things to certain prisoners when they’re innocent, and are afraid some inconvenient things might come out?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/gitmo_prosecutor_quits_over_lack_of_due_process.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/top_military_officials_have_di.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/thereve_been_a_lot_of.php
I’m not saying that’s what’s going on, but it looks awfully funny, no? I’d expect more out of American justice. Our president expects more too:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5557738.ece
46 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 6:27 pm
And what about the case of Jose Padilla, where there were questions whether he was fit to stand trial because he was mentally unbalanced due to his treatment?
http://lateline.muzi.net/news/ll/english/10036915.shtml?cc=40551&ccr=23233
And what about that missing video:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/the_missing_pad.html
Please note that I am not “soft on terrorism,” I am just saying that lets conduct justice in this country at a level above that of a banana republic. News flash: This is America.
47 manton // Jan 23, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Well, what would you allow? You cited sleep deprivation and loud music as beyond the bounds. So what isn’t?
48 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 7:22 pm
“You cited sleep deprivation and loud music as beyond the bounds.” No, I didn’t. But who cares what I think. Read Jack Goldsmith’s book, *The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration.*
49 manton // Jan 23, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I read it. Goldsmith is a lot more reasonable and measured than you appear to be.
If you did not mean to suggest that sleep deprivation and loud music were abusive, then why did you cite that passage from the Karpinski interview in which she cites a letter from Rumself authorizing those technics as evidence of abuse?
50 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 7:35 pm
manton….because he’s a democrat here to stir the pot
51 manton // Jan 23, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I gathered that, but he’s not a jerk, so I figured maybe I could find some common ground.
52 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I’ll be looking for that
53 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I’m not going to get into a lawyerly conversation about what’s torture. If at least one Bush administration official said it happened, then I’d be a fool to think that was the only time. The administration completely destroyed trust. I mean, the place is brimming with smoke (see my links below and in the other thread). If as a citizen, I go on my merry way and assume there’s no fire, then I’m a fool.
54 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I think this response of mine is reasonable, given the events of the past 8 years. Even if “”"torture”"” (with triple postmodern scare quotes) never happened on-site at Gitmo (which is conceivable, but something I doubt), the president is still justified in closing it because of what it represents.
55 DL_Marble // Jan 23, 2009 at 8:47 pm
We should do as FDR did in ‘42 and have secret military tribunals, and executed the sorry SOB’s. FDR did it the German Spies that were caught in New England and they were executed by electric chair… I think Aug 8th 1944. Germany didn’t send any more Spies that way. The only problem is that Muslims don’t care to live, as is the example with the 62 confirmed Gitmo Detainees Released who returned to fight against us again. Silly Liberals, Dead Terrorist don;t return to fight us.
56 DL_Marble // Jan 23, 2009 at 8:50 pm
SECRET being the KEY WORD there
57 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 9:03 pm
No one seems phased by any of my links, which is interesting.
58 senorlechero // Jan 23, 2009 at 9:15 pm
what a crackup
59 JJWFromME // Jan 23, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Yes, I’m sure Nusrat Khan and Ghalib Hassan from my McClatchy story just find their indefinite imprisonment for no reason just a laugh riot. Oh, you all don’t care?? I didn’t think so! Kill em all, let God sort em out, right?
60 manton // Jan 24, 2009 at 5:30 am
I am quite troubled by indefinite imprisonment without a clear legal rationale, which was the whole point of my first article.
61 CoalMan // Jan 24, 2009 at 6:19 am
Mantan, I don’t think you’re going to find a “clear legal rationale”, if its defined by a US Statute or Case law. Certainly there has been precedent set on these actions but because of the time involved and other factors (location ect…) it is breaking new ground. That does not make it wrong or illegal. All case law births new law, including under the CMJ and I think what makes some people nervous ( not necessarily frightened) is we’re all so used to someone running off to a Federal Judge with a Habeas writ to spring these guys. WE always put ourselves in the detainees place and wonder what injustice (s) we would suffer for lack of these rights, hence the nervousness.
62 CoalMan // Jan 24, 2009 at 6:28 am
The legality (written opinion) of the Gitmo detention is itself “tortured” but it is clear that to allow a Great Writ and bring these detainees before a Federal Judge for relief and a hearing to find if the custodian has the legal authority to hold the detainees, is lunacy. Here’s the good part, next time we’ll have some past actions to refer to!! LOL
63 CoalMan // Jan 24, 2009 at 6:33 am
With the issuance of the opinion “Boumediene v. Bush its all water under the dam anyway, writs are allowed and prisoners are and have been released.
64 ottovbvs // Jan 24, 2009 at 11:56 am
Well it was fairly routine wasn’t it as far as we know although much of it is shrouded in mystery. Why otherwise the concern to cover it all up and protect perpetrators from retribution. Or should I say protect those high up the food chain who signed off on this stuff while the small fry are doing time or might do time in military jails. Why else does a candidate for US attorney general, a respected judge no less, have to dance around whether waterboarding is torture when torturers from the inquisition to the gestapo have used it. Not to mention that the US regarded it as such until 2002 and anyone with a brain in his head recognizes it as such. There’s no doubt we’ve been torturing people. You can argue about whether its been effective but it’s happened alright and the damage to our reputation has been huge. I’m afraid Mr Anton is engaged in damage limitation.
65 senorlechero // Jan 24, 2009 at 1:19 pm
ottobs….you say “anyone with a brain in his head recognizes” waterboarding to be torture. That makes me wonder what passes for a brain in your worldview. I would say “Anyone with a brain would never make such a comment”. I reckon you know what passes for a brain in my worldview.
66 JJWFromME // Jan 24, 2009 at 2:06 pm
OK then, we need to posthumously pardon the WWII Japanese war criminals we convicted for… waterboarding. Although I’m sure someone on Dick Cheney’s team of lawyers and wordsmiths can come up with a post hoc justification for why that is. Meanwhile, crank up the propaganda machine and scare the people with the fatuous argument that nowhere is as safe for these prisoners as Gitmo. And that 20… or 12… or seven… or more than five… or two… Gitmo prisoners have come back to get us after they got out: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Olbermann_debunks_released_Gitmo_detainee_propaganda_0123.html
Can people just make a case without lying to the public?
67 JJWFromME // Jan 24, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“Oooga booga, scary scary!”–the only way Republicans know to make an argument. Gitmo close? Ragheads get you! Cave man logic. Actual rational discussion with the public? Not so much.
68 dragonlady // Jan 24, 2009 at 2:30 pm
JJ, are you aware we waterboard our own special forces when they go through survial and resistance training? The debate is on how far to go with coercive interrogation. We probably shouldn’t subject anyone to any treatment we wouldn’t do to ourselves, but there have only been 3 terrorists waterboarded to date and they were all high up in AQ. All gave us valuable intelligence which probably saved American lives. Let’s put that into perspective. It’s easy to take the moral high ground on this but if any future terrorist attacks occur and we didn’t use coercive interrogation, can you look at those American families with loved ones killed in the eye and not alter your stance? Both Tenet and Hayden have testified to the effectiveness of these interrogations…are they just all part of the conspiracy to you?
69 senorlechero // Jan 24, 2009 at 3:52 pm
That’s hiliarious…JJ talking about rational discussion. This is the guy who says we convicted Japanese soldiers of “waterboarding”. Amazing.
70 JJWFromME // Jan 24, 2009 at 5:04 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
71 manton // Jan 24, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Actually, we did convict Japanese soldiers of waterboardning, in a 1947 war crimes trial. Unlike JJ, however, I don’t think the events were analogous.
72 senorlechero // Jan 24, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I have no idea what you are talking about mr. anton, but I’m sure you would not have said it if it were not true. However, what were the circumstances? What other crimes were they convicted of? (most likely lopping off the heads of prisoners, starving them to death, working them to death…etc.) Of course our CIA members would likewise be convicted of torture for waterboarding prisoners of war…otherwise known as LAWFUL combatants. We however are talking about 3 particular UNLAWFUL combatants. I know you know this, but I don’t think JJ does.
73 JJWFromME // Jan 25, 2009 at 6:02 am
As I said, I’m sure someone like David Addington could wordsmith an explanation as to why they wouldn’t be analogous. Then someone working for Roger Ailes would dumb it down in such a way that senorlechero would be comfortable hearing it on Fox. So don’t worry, senorlechero.
74 manton // Jan 25, 2009 at 6:31 am
There are things that I would never support doing to (say) criminal US citizens in the course of a murder investigation that I would support doing to AQ terrorists. JJ seems to want to certain rules to apply in all circumstances and to make no distinctions. I can see that such ann approach is “consistent” but that does not make it valuable in and of itself.
75 JJWFromME // Jan 25, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Rule of thumb: If certain information is of such value that you’re willing to torture them & keep them indefinitely without due process, at least keep track of their case files:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/01/the-bush-administration-worse-than-even-i-could-imagine.html
76 JJWFromME // Jan 25, 2009 at 7:22 pm
A couple things I should say. I am grateful that you’re engaging me in the comments. And I am genuinely impressed with David Frum and the rest of you for creating a site that is open to my comments. Seriously, for the most part, you only see this on liberal sites. I just want to say that this is noted, and I think it’s a good sign. I’ve been reading David Frum closely for a several months, and I am intrigued. Not voting for GOP candidates, but I respect your efforts and am curious about what you’re up to.
77 JJWFromME // Jan 26, 2009 at 7:54 am
I think this answers the question you were asking earlier: I know that there are cases that require tough methods of interrogation. I’m not informed enough to know exactly where the line of acceptible methods is. I think there are a number of factors involved in whether something is torture. I think waterboarding is in all cases. The Vanity Fair article I linked to mentioned certain things done over the course of 58 days. You might be able to argue that certain things weren’t torture if done over a short period, but there’s a good chance that after 58 days of some of these methods a prisoner wouldn’t be mentally competent to stand trial. That’s Pinochet territory.
78 JJWFromME // Jan 26, 2009 at 7:55 am
My biggest problem is that the Bush administration essentially *institutionalized* torture. Abu Graib was not a freak occurrence. There were real policy and legal decisions that led up to it. If you lead people in a certain direction, they’ll follow you there, and then some, unless you provide morally clear leadership restraining peoples’ dark sides (and they do have them). Torture should be illegal. It should not be condoned or encouraged by the government’s legal apparatus, as it was under the Bush administration. There may be cases (although I’m certain they’re a lot more rare than the “ticking time bomb” arguers say they are) where someone feels they have to break the law to save lives. In that case they’d have to carry out an act of civil disobedience, and face the legal system afterward. In short, they’d have to tell it to the judge. In certain very rare and extreme cases I might be happy that a person decided to break the law successfully get some information, but I’d probably also pray for that person’s soul. In short, our legal system and government should never support or condone torture. It should be illegal.
79 JJWFromME // Jan 26, 2009 at 9:41 am
It appears that some military men agree with me: “…they warned [Obama] that every word he uttered would be taken as an order by the highest-ranking officers as well as the lowliest private. Any wiggle room for abusive interrogations, they emphasized, would be construed as permission. …retired Major General Paul Eaton, stressed that, as he put it later that day, torture is the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough. It’s also perhaps the greatest recruiting tool that the terrorists have.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/26/obama-and-the-end-of-torture/
80 senorlechero // Jan 26, 2009 at 12:55 pm
torture is the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough. It’s also perhaps the greatest recruiting tool that the terrorists have. …right after the recruitment video of terrorists hacking the heads off infidels with dull knives.
You must log in to post a comment.