RSS Feed MenuThe debate over the Bush administration’s interrogation methods is really a debate over five very different questions:
Did the methods work?
Was it justified to use them in the circumstances of 2002?
Would it be justified under the different circumstances of 2009?
Were they illegal?
If illegal, should they be prosecuted?
Conservatives do not need to answer “yes” to every one of the first 4 to deliver an emphatic “no” to the 5th and last.
First question: Did the interrogation methods work? Did they obtain useful information that saved American lives?
Four former CIA directors and Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence say yes. So of course does former vice president Cheney. I’m inclined to defer to the judgment of these knowledgeable persons. But I don’t know. And maybe we’ll never know for certain – it’s very possible that this question will be debated forever, like the question whether we needed to drop an atomic bomb on Nagasaki even after the bombing of Hiroshima. Horrible decisions in both cases, in which flawed human beings can only struggle to make the right choice between the contradictory moral imperatives of defending their country and avoiding unnecessary destruction and cruelty.
Second issue: Even if the methods did not “work,” that does not mean they were unjustified when initiated. The country was still reeling from 9/11, and the intelligence agencies knew ominously little about al Qaeda’s organization and plans. When Abu Zubaydah were captured, it’s hard to fault an anxious administration from doing everything they could to extract from him all he knew, as fast as possible. Maybe they went too far. Who would really prefer they fell too short?
In the different circumstances of 2009, with al Qaeda looking far less formidable than it once did, it’s easy to condemn what was done 7 years ago. On the other hand: suppose the Obama administration captured Ayman Zawahiri and suspected he knew of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts. Would they really allow bin Laden time to escape while interrogators tried to build rapport with his chief henchman? Would they revert to Clinton-era practice and deliver Zawahiri to Egyptian intelligence – and then trust the result? Or would they want to do as the Bush people did: squeeze him fast?
The claim of illegality in the Bush interrogations depends on the assumption that (1) the methods used violate congressional statutes barring torture and (2) that such statues, even if violated, can supersede the president’s constitutionally inherent war-making power, If the Obama administration does decide to proceed with prosecutions, we can all look forward to a decade of litigation of these issues. It will be curious to see whether President Obama really wishes to argue that Congress can by ordinary statute abridge his powers as commander-in-chief.
So we are left with this array of answers to questions 1-4: don’t know, probably, possibly, don’t know. Only question 5 is certain: absolutely no. Barack Obama may chose to become the first president to prosecute his predecessors for carrying out official duties in ways disapproved by their successors. If so, we can guarantee: He will not be the last.
And if he finds himself prosecuting America’s counter-terrorism combatants before the conviction of a single enemy international terrorist – in that case, prepare for a firestorm.
barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Re: Spartacus; wrote 49 minutes ago –”As I’m sure you’re aware, a few weeks ago some nut case in PA killed several cops because he thought his guns were going to be taken away from him. If this nut case had had a co-conspirator (maybe an illegal gun dealer) who helped him plan the killings, don’t you think we would be justified in torturing the co-conspirator if we believed that was the only way to find out about the planned killings and stop them?”Hmm… are we gonna get caught?(*SNORT*) (Kidding… just kidding.) (Well… kind of…) (*SMILE*)Spartacus. I see the point you’re getting at, but no, I’m not calling for waterboarding to be used as a “police” interrogation method. Why? Because I’d never trust government with such power over U.S. citizens or even legal residents.Could you come up with scenarios where I’d consider “crossing the line” – even against a U.S. citizen – as “justified,” sure. (*SHRUG*) There are probably thousands of such scenarios in movies, tv, novels, and classified intelligence reports where I’d “sanction” breaking the law with an “ends justify the means” justification. You’d have to lay out one situation at a time, the circumstances, etc., and I’d give you a “yea” or “nay.”(*SHRUG*)”If the intent is to save innocent lives, and if we believe that “enhanced interrogation techniques” are the only way, or the most effective way to do so in a particular circumstance, why would we not permit those techniques.”Because there’s such a thing as cost/benefit, as relative value of one decision vs. another.Why does the Secret Service Agent take the bullet for the President as opposed to the President taking the bullet for the Secret Service Agent? Why do we have separate standards of proof and evidence for civil rather than criminal law? Why do we have a juvenile justice system? Spartacus… one size does not fit all. “Enhanced” interrogation is… er… enhanced. We use it as a last resort when the urgency is greatest because the threat is greatest. We use it on prisoners we can use it on – legally. Should we have used these methods on even more terrorists then we have… PERHAPS.(*SHRUG*)If enhanced interrogation is appropriate in SOME cases must it be appropriate in ALL? No. You can disagree, Spartacus, but good luck to you gaining adherents. “I know, of course, that U.S. law presently prohibits the use of torture on U.S. citizens, but why not advocate a change in the law if that will save lives?”Because the cost/benefit isn’t there in most cases.HOWEVER… again, working with what I assume is your underlying question… as I wrote above concerning “crossing the line, even against a U.S. citizen, yeah, I can think of plenty of circumstances where I’d consider such actions justifiable on a case by case basis.Am I talking “evidence” as far as post event trial goes? No. I’m talking action as the situation unfolds – meaning if some psycho has a kidnapped five year old little girl locked in a hidden freezer with only enough air left to keep her alive for two more hours and this nut was by all measures of psychological analysis extremely unlikely to give up the girl’s location within those two hours so she could be saved… yeah… get me the waterboarding equipment; heck… get me the old KGB or Gestapo “tool kit.” So… am I making myself clear?BILL
barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Re: Krove; wrote 33 minutes ago –(*GRIN*)Hey Karen… email me a picture via Meghashyam Mali, Managing Editor NewMajority.com (*WINK*)As to me and Spartacus… (*GRIN*)… don’t worry… I can take it as well as I dish it out. I took no offense. BILLYBOB
// Apr 24, 2009 at 1:54 pm
barker, I’m not sure if you read my last post before you wrote your last response to me, but I would be interested in your reaction to my last post.
// Apr 24, 2009 at 1:56 pm
barker, I’m not sure if you read my last post before you wrote your last response to me, but I would be interested in your reaction to my last post.
krove // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Sorry Barking I don’t encourage stalking. You will have to make do with your picture of Sarah Palin.Lots of loveKaren
barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Re: Spartacus; wrote 16 minutes ago –”…if torturing detainees is against the rules, then we should not do it irrespective of whether it saves lives, produces good intelligence or the detainees would do it to us.”Which brings us back to…http://intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs/olcopinion.pdf…provided by Karen and my response to her noted in post barker13; 2:14 PM(*SHRUG*)They WERE following the rules.(*SHRUG*)”Now, you and I may differ over whether these “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually broke the rules. I will readily admit that I do not know enough about the facts or any of the rules that might apply to say definitively that rules were broken. And, quite frankly, I’m doubtful that you, Frum or most others on the post know definitively either.”Again…http://intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs/olcopinion.pdf…followed by barker13; 2:14 PM(*GRIN*) (*SHRUG*)”I am very impressed with krove, who provides detailed substantiation for her assessments…”(*SHAKING MY HEAD IN AMUSED WONDER*)AGAIN…http://intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs/olcopinion.pdf…followed by barker13; 2:14 PMSpartacus. It’s bad enough that Karen apparently DIDN’T BOTHER TO READ the actual information she was providing a link to prior to posting that link… but now YOU seem to also want to just skip over what KAREN’S “evidence” actually showed.(*AMUSED, GOOD-NATURED SMIRK*)”…the only one who can determine if the rules were broken, and the only one whose opinion matters, is the Attorney General.”Uhmm… actually… it would be the judge and/or jury should the AG decide there’s reason to prosecute.(*SHRUG*) Sorry to be… er… nit picky. (*GRIN*)Now… before we drop this… WHAT’S THIS ABOUT ME BEING UNINTELLIGENT…?!?!(*CHUCKLE*)Nice engaging in… er… gladiatorial combat with you, Kirk! (Or is it Tony?)(*WINK*)I AM SPARTACUS!!!
danbmil99 // Apr 24, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Spartacus: you cover every point except DF’s main one, which is that litigation of a previous admin’s actions will become a reciprocal game in the US. As much as I abhor Bush/Cheney’s actions, I am somewhat sensitive to this argument. Using the courts to punish opposing political parties is what I read about in lovely, stable places like Pakistan and ZImbabwe. Do we really want to go there?It’s extremely unfortunate that the previous administration decided to take such a hard like “means justify ends” approach. Now we are in a deep doodoo moral, political, and might I say even spiritual dilemma. This is why, all things considered, I still prefer an intellectual in the white house over a “ready, fire, aim” kinda guy.What they did that really sucks though, is push executive power to an un-American limit. This makes it dangerous to give them complete immunity, because we really can’t afford to have an all-powerful executive branch. There have to be some repercussions.I am presently of the opinion that the right course of action is probably a fact-finding commission, with immunity/pardon at the end. These people’s careers will be wrecked, which is entirely justifiable. A surgeon who doesn’t know where the spleen is should lose their medical license; likewise, a lawyer who contorts the law to justify their boss’s criminal predilections should be flipping burgers. Jail time is superfluous, and sets a really, really bad precedent.As for why Barker is so annoying, who wants to see his juvenile *SNORTS* and *SHRUGS*? He is trolling for emotional reactions, looking for personal fights. Better to stick to the facts and rely on reason, not attempt this kind of ad-hominem engagement.
InTheMiddle12 // Apr 24, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Mr Frum: You have the order wrong.1) What was done?2) Was it legal?3) Whos hould be prosecuted?
Bulldoglover100 // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:17 pm
War crimes should ALWAYS be prosecuted and I don’t care oif it is my party or not!!! As Shepard Smith said “WE ARE AMERICANS, WE DON’T TORTURE” and since the RULE of LAW has NOT changed then we DO NOT have a choice. Just because it was on our watch does not change the law. Period and i am ashamed of anyone who now wants to spin it away. IF a Democrat had been at the helm and htis had happened? I can imagine the our cry from my party.Cheney needs to go to JAIL. make no mistake, if we do not support this action? We will never get back into power in our life time.
tarazeigler // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Bulldoglover100: Shep also said that if we do torture “we can’t call it America anymore. We’ll have to call it something else.” I think that is totally right on.And if we don’t know if this is torture or not, we had better figure it out quick. This whole issue is making us look like fools. Further to the point of this site, the Republican leadership (if you can call it that) looks particularly foolish. For instance: Boehner referred to the memos as containing “torture techniques.” Well, that sounds like someone committed TORTURE which is ILLEGAL. Good Lord.. nothing but a bunch of amateurs…
// Apr 24, 2009 at 4:14 pm
danbmil99:I absolutely am concerned about the political polarization that investigations/prosecutions could cause. Before the release of the memos, I even thought Obama should probably not release them. After the release, I was initially in agreement with Obama’s inclination to want to simply move forward. But, after evaluating all of the arguments out there (including on this site) on both sides of the torture issue, I’ve concluded that I was initially wrong and that this issue needs to run its course.I do not think that we can keep the kind of democracy we want if this issue is not investigated/prosecuted. I know it may sound shrill to suggest that a 200+ year old democracy could be at risk over something like this, but I’m not so sure. When you consider the allegation that the IRS audited Pres. Clinton’s political opponents, or AG Gonzalez’s firing of the DOJ attorneys for their failure to go after Dems, or the DOJ’s withholding of exculpatory evidence in Sen. Stevens’ trial, or Bush’s view that even U.S. citizens (Padilla) could be denied rights we all thought were guaranteed, or DOJ attorney Yoo’s legal opinion that a president has unlimited power during war (even a vague and indefinite “war on terror”), I think there need to be real checks on Executive power.If AG Holder concludes that these torture methods or “enhanced interrogation techniques” violated the law and we don’t investigate/prosecute, what will deter future administrations from using torture? What happens when torture is used for reasons other than saving lives? We’ve already learned that waterboarding was used to get information that could establish a link btwn Al Qaida and Iraq, presumably to justify going to war in Iraq. I’d rather send a very strong signal to future administrations that the law must be obeyed. If a president doesn’t like a particular law, then he should try to get it changed.I found the following two links very compelling:http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/what-cheney-did-to-conservatism.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1240568050-Ld+YCW17fI5ZNjXIx645OwLastly, I think the entire Bush administration is viewed with such contempt by the country that those Republicans who vigorously defend Bush/Cheney will turn off everyone except the far right. From a purely political perspective, I think that’s good for Obama and the Democrats.
cb55 // Apr 24, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Bulldoglover, I do not believe for a second that you are a Republican. It’s not your stance on “torture”. i think people on both sides of the aisle can argue on the issue. But I’ve seen you post elsewhere, and it is like regurgitating Keith Olberman. “Cheney should go to jail.”You’re a liberal democrat posing as a Republican when posting on this site. I’m not saying Republicans dont have differing views, I am just saying it is obvious what you are doing.But the argument you make here is based on a false premise. People differed on whether some of the interrogation techniques constitute as torture. Tthe current administration does, and that is fine, they are in charge. But to go back and consider prosecuting people who wrote legal memos on the subject is absurd. This debate has too many things going on at once. The first debate is whether it was torture or not. People disagree on that. I dont think waterboarding is torture. but regardless the idea of prosecuting people for this is purely political. The debate on whether to continue this practice or not, and whether it is torture or not- are good ones to have. Prosecuting people for their legal advice is disgusting and completely political.
krove // Apr 24, 2009 at 4:29 pm
The GOP spent 40 million dollars of taxpayers dollars on the Ken Starr investigation of the Clinton’s Whitewater land dealIf they can do that over a civil transaction surely we can have an investigation of this terrible abuse of power.Or are Republicans just hypocrites pure and simple. Well?
// Apr 24, 2009 at 4:30 pm
barker:At 2:07 PM you referred me to your earlier post to Krove in which you cited the OLC opinions that waterboarding was not torture. Presumably, this is to convince me that AG Holder no longer needs to investigate the matter b/c DOJ had already concluded that no rules were broken. What if the OLC opinions were a sham? What if they were developed for the purpose of creating a “get out of jail card” for the interrogators? What if they were developed after the administration had already approved waterboarding? Wouldn’t that suggest that a crime MAY have been committed? If so, shouldn’t that be investigated and prosecuted if a crime can be proven?I realize that Holder would probably have a very difficult time proving the OLC memos were a sham? But that should not deter him from inquiring – particularly since you can hardly find a legal scholar out there who is defending those memos.. It should also not deter him from determining whether the interrogators stayed within the limits of the “sham” OLC memos.So again, this certainly appears to be a matter worth investigating and, possibly prosecuting. What is the argument against that?
krove // Apr 24, 2009 at 4:39 pm
All the Bush OLC memos were withdrawn at the last minute before they left office. The first order Obama made was for all agencies to disregard ANY directives from the Bush DOJ.So the point is moot.
// Apr 24, 2009 at 5:02 pm
krove, I wasn’t aware of that, but I don’t think that would adversely affect the “legality” of the interrogations during the first few years of the Bush administration. If the interrogators are going to get a pass if (a) they relied on the memos and (b) they didn’t go beyond the limits of the memos, then I don’t think the subsequent withdrawal of those memos would put the interrogators in jeopardy.
danbmil99 // Apr 24, 2009 at 5:20 pm
What’s amazing about this discussion is that the GOP pundits are constantly bringing forth this ridiculous “24″ scenario, as if that justifies anything. Are they insane? Don’t they realize they are stoking the fires that will burn them alive? The argument that they thought it wasn’t torture, and acted in good faith belief that they were within the law, is their only possible defense. Saying “but it saved lives!” only lends credence to the idea that they knew damn well it was torture, but just assumed they’d get a pass because they did it for “American Lives!”. Which are apparently worth infinitely more than say Iraqi civilian lives, or the lives of poor schmucks unfortunate enough to be caught up in the Gitmo dragnet… but I digress.Spartacus: as to prosecutions, I just don’t think it’s possible to give these folks a fair shake. Ken Starr, Pat Fitzgerald — even these “independent” prosecutors end up acting like the inquisition. I just don’t see how you can avoid at least the appearance of politicization. Isn’t wrecking careers enough punishment? It is still true that most of these folks thought they were doing the right thing. It doesn’t make it right, but unless you’re really going to hang Cheney out to dry, it’s just throwing bodies to the wolves for the mob.And in the meantime, Congress grinds to a halt during economic armageddon.
krove // Apr 24, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I would throw the whole investigation to the Red Cross. They have already done a preliminary investigation and are the impartial authority on torture. They could do the investigation and produce a report to the American people. That would take it way out of the political realm and allow the country and congress to move forward in the mean time.
barker13 // Apr 26, 2009 at 10:37 am
Re: Spartacus; 4/24/2009 4:30 PM –”barker: At 2:07 PM you referred me to your earlier post to Krove in which you cited the OLC opinions that waterboarding was not torture. Presumably, this is to convince me…”Spartacus. It’s not about “convincing,” it about THE FACTS…!!!(*SIGH*) (*SNORT*)”What if the OLC opinions were a sham?”(*ROLLING MY EYES*)Spartacus. The OLC opinions provide a FACTUAL, CITABLE, historical record. Period. They describe what the actual authoritative legal opinions actually WERE along a defined timeline.(*HEADACHE*)”What if they were developed for the purpose of creating a “get out of jail card” for the interrogators?”What if they were…???”What if they were developed after the administration had already approved waterboarding?”Again… what if they were…???”Wouldn’t that suggest that a crime MAY have been committed?”(*LAUGHING AT THE ABSURDITY OF IT ALL*)No.NO!!!No! No!! NO!!!Spartacus… the law is the law regardless of one thinks of it and regardless of the internal reasoning that went into formulating it. One more time… (*SIGH*)… the OLC opinions that Karen cited actually made MY CASE, not hers… not yours. You may not LIKE the fact that the OLC opinions were what they were and you may create in your own mind “plots” and “conspiracies” and all sorts of other suppositions regarding intent, but the basic fact here is that the appropriate authorities at the time oked specific enhanced interrogation techniques and so, yes… AS YOU SO HYSTERICALLY PUT IT… this gave/gives those who used the approved techniques a “get out of jail free card.”(*POUNDING HEADACHE*)Spartacus. This horse is dead. Let’s stopping beating it.(*WINK*)BILL
// Apr 27, 2009 at 1:30 pm
barker13,I’m amazed at how easily you seem to get lost.The AG has taken the view that it will not investigate/prosecute the actual interrogators b/c they were relying upon the legal advice of the OLC. The AT wil, however, consider investigating the OLC lawyers and their clients in the administration to determine if they wrote memos (under coercion or otherwise) sanctioning the “enhanced techniques” that they knew were illegal.If the OLC memos were nothing more than a sham, then investigation/prosecution may be appropriate. Based on the jurisprudence out there, it’s hard to conclude that the memos weren’t a sham. But, if they weren’t shams and, instead, the lawyers just gave really, really bad advice, then they probably won’t be prosecuted, although they may be disbarred or sanctioned some other way.In any event, I think the matter should be investigated b/c of how bad the advice seems to have been. Having said that, I think they probably won’t be prosecuted b/c it would probably be too hard to get a conviction. Of course, we won’t know unless there’s an investigation.
barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 9:18 am
Re: Spartacus; 1:30 PM –We’re going around in circles. (Or at least you are… this is my last round before jumping off the merry-go-round.)”…if they wrote memos (under coercion or otherwise) sanctioning the “enhanced techniques” that they knew were illegal.”The techniques WERE legal. That’s WHY they were “sanctioned.”As to your ongoing conspiracy theories…(*CHUCKLE*)”…under coercion or otherwise…”(*SIGH*)Yeah. Good luck with that.(*ROLLING MY EYES*)BILL