Five Questions For The Show Trials

96 responses so far

• 1 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:53 am

  Here is President Bush’s take on torture.

  “I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture…” – Official proclamation by President Bush, June 26, 2003.

  So there you have it from the horses mouth. we need to investigate, and prosecute according to President Bush. And he is never wrong. Right.

• 2 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:56 am

  This is the sum total of the information gained from Zubaydah.

  This information is contained in the 9/11 commission report. The commission asked for and received all intelligence gained from torture.

  So for 86 waterbordings this is all we got!

  Full details

  here.http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/abu-zubaydah-waterboarded-83-times-for-10-pieces-of-intelligence/

  1. “Abu Zubaydah describes his role running the Khaldan and Derunta training camps.”

  2. “Abu Zubaydah describes Rahim al-Nashiri’s success as a recruiter.”

  3. “AZ describes Bin Laden’s popularity.”

  4. “AZ gives tempered description of KSM’s popularity.”

  5. “AZ insisted there were no ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.”

  6. “AZ claims Bin Laden expanded the scope of KSM’s original plan.”

  7. “AZ provides description of the origins of “the Encyclopedia,” a terrorist training manual created during the anti-Soviet campaign.”

  8. “AZ provides a description of Bin Laden’s actions after the Cole bombing.”

  9. “AZ provides information on Abu Turab, who reportedly conducted the final training for the 9/11 plotters.”

  10. “AZ provides a comment on whether Saudis were selected for the 9/11 plot specifically.”

  We know what was gained it’s all in the 9/11 report.

• 3 HHomer // Apr 23, 2009 at 8:09 am

  If otherwise illegal acts are justified under the President’s war making powers then presumably David would have been quite happy if the torture victim had been a blonde haired, blue eyed US teenager and the torture had taken place in Washington. The public would understand and not want anyone held responsible.

  If torture works, is legal and is necessary then anyone, anywhere is fair game. Let the Government torture our own citizens when we need to, after all we had the Oklahoma bomb before 9/11, so not all terrorists are jihadists and we can’t afford to take the risk can we?

• 4 Tenek // Apr 23, 2009 at 8:14 am

  Poor David. I thought you were better than this. No one is above the law.

• 5 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 8:32 am

  http://www.politico.com/arena/

  From an international standpoint, there is nothing an American President can ever say to another country about human rights or obeying international treaties on anythingincluding nuclear proliferationif we hold ourselves above international law and say let bygones be bygones every time American leaders commit crimes, including war crimes. If none were committed, Bush administration officials will be vindicated at home or at The Hague. If they did perpetrate war crimes and we take no action or are complicit in covering up their actions, we can no longer claim any moral authority in the world and certainly cannot lead it

• 6 mlindroo // Apr 23, 2009 at 8:36 am

  > When Abu Zubaydah were captured, its 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?

  Translation: if you are not certain whether you have the facts on your side or even if what you are doing is legal, you should torture or invade Iraq just to be on the safe side!
  —
  Foreign policy continues to be David Frum’s achilles heel … as long as the New Majority leadership fails to acknowledge the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld disaster in this area, your praiseworthy ideas concerning domestic policy will also fall on deaf ears.

  MARCU$

• 7 sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 8:57 am

  HHomer: That’s a ridiculous non sequitur. That’s like saying that if we have the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, we could end up giving the death penalty to shoplifters and jaywalkers.

  So I say:
  Bring it on, HHomer! Take your case to the public–and so will we!

  Tell the American people that LIBERAL SQUEAMISHNESS demands that we put American lives at risk. Tell the American people that those who acted, not out of sadism or revenge, but to defend America at a time when we feared an even bigger attack than 9-11 was imminent, should now be punished for something that no one except LIBERALS would have disapproved of in late 2001.

  I’ll trust the people’s judgment on this.

• 8 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 9:15 am

  Sinz.

  It’s clear from the intelligence committee report that the main use for this water boarding was to find a link between Iraq and 9/11.

  They weatherboard KSH 183 times in a month to try and get him to confess to that.

  How does that CYA information seeking help prevent another attack.

• 9 cmhmd // Apr 23, 2009 at 9:25 am

  sinz54:

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/114580/No-Mandate-Criminal-Probes-Bush-Administration.aspx

  The public already wants investigation and/or prosecution, and this is way early.

  Once an investigation starts, it’ll be like the Watergate hearings. As people hear more and more of the details they will turn en masse against the Republican-Conservative-NeoCons and I will guiltily have schaudenfreude, but it will be such a shameful ordeal for us to go through in front of the world. Not the prosecutions, that will be the honoroble thing. The shame will be in what we allowed our government to do in our name.

  David, why are you defending this? It is never OK to torture. Period.

• 10 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 9:30 am

  cmhmd.
  That poll is 6 weeks old I am guessing the results would be much more in favor now. it was 41% for criminal investigations the end of January. Now I think it would be 55%+

• 11 cmhmd // Apr 23, 2009 at 9:42 am

  Well, even then 62% favored wither investigation OR prosecution, so the majority to gt tings started is pretty dramatic. essentially only Republicans are against this.

  So, yes, indeed, let’s go and see where the LAW takes us.

• 12 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:16 am

  Interesting op-ed in the NY Times from a former FBI agent with intimate knowledge of the process and debunks the torture works nonsense that is well worth a read, but contained this nugget as well:

  One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.

• 13 sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:35 am

  cmhmd: First of all, the only justification for hauling Bush administration officials in front of a Democrat-led committee is to provide schadenfreude to Bush opponents like yourself and all the ones in Obama’s hard-core base. They’re the ones who are salivating at the thought of seeing the hated Cheney hauled before a congressional investigating committee.

  Secondly, Cheney has already shown what strategy the Bushies are going to use: They’re going to say in front of the TV cameras that they are proud of doing whatever it took to stop any further terrorist attacks.

  In the New York Times today, an article admitted that Obama is taking a big gamble that his administration can keep America as safe from more large-scale terrorist attacks as the Bush administration did. If (heaven forbid) there were another large-scale terrorist attack during the Obama administration, and if it happened to occur during these schadenfreude hearings you liberals are going to be enjoying so much, the tables will instantly be reversed: Obama and his fellow liberals will be revealed before the public as too squeamish and too moralistic to protect America from terrorists.

  And if you Democrats lose in 2012 or 2016, you can expect vengeance from the Republicans like you’ve never seen. In that spectacle, my schadenfreude wouldn’t be “guiltily” like yours.

• 14 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:38 am

  “Secondly, Cheney has already shown what strategy the Bushies are going to use: They’re going to say in front of the TV cameras that they are proud of doing whatever it took to stop any further terrorist attacks. “

  Oh. Apart from those two times. 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks. Apart from those they sure kept us safe.

• 15 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:56 am

  David would like it to be about these five questions but it’s not. There are at least two others.
  1. Is it morally acceptable to torture people
  2. Has it been massively counterproductive in terms of creating yet more terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.
  He’s also trying to configure this as an argument about Obama “deciding’ to to prosecute members of the previous admin. when in fact he has no power to halt prosecutions should the AG decide to embark on them because he believes laws have been broken. David thinks this is Bush’s WH where the AG’s took their orders from the president. It isn’t. David, for reasons of loyalty to the administration he worked in, and maybe to individuals, has clearly decided to sign onto the concept of Republicanism as the party that supports torture. The use of the somewhat overheated use of “show trials” with its echoes of Stalinist Russia shows that. Given that David started this site to try and re-orientate the GOP so that it would improve it’s electoral chances this is an extraordinary decision on his part. It must be apparent that info is going to be steadily trickling out about this for weeks and it’s going to be ugly. The men defending this, people like Cheney and Rove, are amongst the most distrusted in the country, while the president stand above the fray and frame it as entirely a matter of law, which it largely is. If anyone can see where the GOP benefits electorally from any of this please explain it.

  The problem with the holier than thou stuff about politicization of the legal process is that the GOP destroyed any cred they had in this when decided to impeach a president for committing perjury in a civil suit about a private matter (sex). When you’ve done that it’s hard to argue that approving the commission of what are technically war crimes fails to meet a an illegality standard. Believe me there’s a book to be written about the extent to which the Republican party has imprisoned itself in a framework of ideology and previous actions that it feels compelled to defend without regard to their merits.

• 16 cmhmd // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:58 am

  sinz: “First of all, the only justification for hauling Bush administration officials in front of a Democrat-led committee is to provide schadenfreude to Bush opponents like yourself and all the ones in Obama’s hard-core base.”

  You mean, apart from the torture thingie?

  “And if you Democrats lose in 2012 or 2016, you can expect vengeance from the Republicans like you’ve never seen.”

  A true Republican, confusing vengeance with justice.

• 17 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 11:06 am

  sinz54
  wrote 21 minutes ago

  What some journalist said in the NYT hardly signifies as evidence. Sure the Republicans are going to hoping for an attack on the country just as they are hoping for an economic collapse. Neither seem to be policy positions with much electoral appeal. I’m also willing to bet that subject to an attack the country would actually rally to the president as always happens when these events take place. The outcome would be nowhere near as cut and dried as you think. It’s also easy to think of outcomes that would boost the presidency. Thwarting such an attack, killing Bin Laden (I’d happily shoot the bastard). The point of all this being that potentially this whole mess is potentially far more damaging to the GOP than it ever is to Obama and the Democrats.

• 18 barker13 // Apr 23, 2009 at 11:17 am

  David,

  We’re basically on the same side here with regard to the meat of your post, but I have a question:

  This whole “time of war” business leads me to ask… if we’re currently “at war,” when will “the war” be officially over?

  Nope. Not playing word games. Nor am I inferring that ONLY an actual “WW-2 type” DECLARATION of war is legitimate Constitutional authority for waging war.

  No… I’m simply asking absent the highly improbable happenstance of either a U.S. President or a U.S. Congress declaring “Al Qaida has surrendered or been wiped out, no longer exists, and indeed all terrorist organizations in the world previously viewed as anti-American enemy terrorist organization are also no longer in existence and thus no longer present ANY threat to us,” absent this… when are we EVER going to be “not at war” and thus at what point will the president’s (any president’s) “war” powers revert to “peacetime” powers?

  Well…???

  David… ANYONE…???

  BILL

• 19 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 11:30 am

  Here you go Barking mad.

  http://intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs/olcopinion.pdf

  Love Karen

• 20 mlindroo // Apr 23, 2009 at 11:31 am

  I think Obama and his country will be better off if he follows Frum’s earlier advice. I.e., state that there will indeed be a fact-finding only investigation into the following issues regarding the Bush Administration’s “enhanced interrogation methods”

  *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 [in 2002]?

  I also agree that it would be better if he states there will be no prosecutions..only changes and clarifications to the relevant rules and regulations following due bipartisan review.

  This is a win-win situation for him: his political base expects [as a bare minimum] that he shine some light on the abuses rather than try to sweep them under the carpet on national security grounds. At the same time he will appear magnanimous by pardoning the hapless Bushies;
  I do not think he should waste political capital on prosecuting anybody. It would be a costly distraction from more useful progressive reforms and endeavors etc..
  However, *if* evidence of wrongdoing is found he should not do the following:

  Frum:
  > He will serve notice on the European allies:
  > Attempts in Europe to engage in local proceedings against Americans for official acts
  > during their service in government will be regarded as unfriendly acts for which costs will be exacted
  > across the full spectrum of government-to-government relations.

  Au contraire David: if it turns out there is evidence of human rights violations against e.g. Spanish citizens,
  let the Spaniards do what they want. Don’t extradite anybody, though.

  MARCU$

• 21 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 11:33 am

  Ali Soufan, a former F.B.I. supervisory special agent, gives an up close and personal take on “enhanced interrogation”:

  For seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned. [...]

  There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasnt, or couldnt have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

  For Barking the link to the wholw op ed.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

• 22 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 11:47 am

  Krugmans take

  Lets say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

  Theres a word for this: its evil.

  Link for Barking http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

• 23 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 11:58 am

  I’m personally convinced we never got any major info from these guys that disrupted an attack for the simple fact that if we had Cheney, Rove et al would never have stopped talking about it. Obviously the previous admin and its defenders (David that’s you) have decided to stake all on the argument that torture is justified because “it works.” I very much doubt whether they’ll ever produce any evidence and there’s already pushback by folks like Soufan who Krove mentions saying it’s inneffective. I also sawa Baer who is a poster boy for the CIA on TV last night saying the same thing and applauding the actions of Obama. This is not an argument Cheney and Republicans can win particularly given that Obama is in control of most of the info and sources.

  mlindroo
  wrote 13 minutes ago
  …It’s been said many times but this is not entirely in Obama’s hands. What you’re saying is he should order the AG to arrive at a certain view. Elliot Richardson resigned in such a situation. The AG traditionally has exercised considerable discretion if he so desired. Some like Gonzales are stooges but I don’t think Holder is for a moment. Nor can the president shut down the investigatory powers of congress. He can avoid cooperation as Bush did but that’s not appropriate and anyway Obama is not going to do it.

• 24 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:03 pm

  krove
  wrote 11 minutes agoKrugmans take

  “Lets say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.”

  ……If this thought gains traction as it easily could it is going to do major harm to the GOP. I’m sure there’s more than a grain of truth in it given the number of storylines that were floated to link Hussein to 9/11.

• 25 Egli Ha // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  How could Obama guarantee no prosecutions???

  David, suppose the fact-finding task force discovers that Vice-Presidenr Cheney had a suspect buried alive. Under those circumstances, should there be prosecution or not?

• 26 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:26 pm

  It appears FBI chief Robert Mueller agrees with me judging by this interview he gave Vanity Fair at the end of last year

  “I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls enhanced techniques?

  Im really reluctant to answer that, Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: I dont believe that has been the case.

  I bring up the quote note to demonstrate that Cheney and co will never be able to make an argument “it worked.” And when this is seen in the context of all the squalid and ugly stuff that is going to come out then it will ultimately be damaging to the GOP.

• 27 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  Otto.

  This came out yesterday, I cant source it yet but will post a link when I get one. It’s about the tie between torture and gaining am Al Qaeda link.

  A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that intelligence agencies and interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.

  There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used, the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issues sensitivity.

  The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.

  It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly Abu Zubeida at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 according to a newly released Justice Department document.

  There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheneys and Rumsfelds people to push harder, he continued.

  Cheneys and Rumsfelds people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasnt any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies.

  Senior administration officials, however, blew that off and kept insisting that wed overlooked something, that the interrogators werent pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information, he said.

• 28 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:46 pm

  Here is the link.

  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

• 29 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:57 pm

  My take on Holders appearance the last hour to answer questions is that he very much left a strong impression that an investigation and prosecutions are being considered. He said he would follow the law as far as it would lead.

  He also reiterated that no lower level CIA operatives would be charged.

• 30 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:14 pm

  The media is content to frame this as a political battle. That has enabled a diminution of the larger and simpler moral question: Do we, for any reason, want our nation to torture? Many say no. Others say yes. Justifications are irrelevant. Why? We did not allow our enemies to justify torture, so why should we be afforded that option? Furthermore, there is great irony in the fact that the very people who are arguing for torture because it was “effective,” are the same people who said that we had to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, in part, because he was a torturer. They’ve also argued against Vietnam torturing our soldiers. And, they’ve chastised Iran for torture… So, the question is not one of effectiveness. This is a question of our moral bearing and values as a nation. How is it that we can rant against evil regimes that use torture, going so far as to violently overthrow them or criminally prosecute or sanction them, and then say that it’s okay for us to torture because it’s “effective”?

• 31 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  kroner
  wrote 8 minutes ago

  ……Essentially David is buying into the proposition that the president is above the law if he’s wearing his CinC hat. Total nonsense of course and not really a conservative proposition but then needs must. The point about all “constitutions” written and unwritten is that the depend on a degree of respect by all the contending parties for their facts and fictions. Bush/Cheney started to essentially ignore or abrogate all these invisible lines with consequences we’ve seen. It’s not a sustainable line of argument and the notion that Obama can intervene and tell the DOJ to halt investigations or prosecutions is totally bizarre.

• 32 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:47 pm

  krove
  wrote 45 minutes ago

  ….Holder is a very cool customer….Every bit as cool as his boss…..I watched some of his testimony and he’s leaving all his options open I’d have said…..I’d really be interested in hearing David’s opinion on why he thinks this is an argument the GOP can win rather than trotting out what are clearly boilerplate talking points.

• 33 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:51 pm

  DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff in 1983 For Waterboarding Prisoners
  Written by Jason Leopold
  Tuesday, 21 April 2009 21:47
  By Jason Leopold

  In 1983, the Justice Department prosecuted a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies for waterboarding prisoners to get them to confess to crimes.

  The deputies were sentenced to four years in prison and Parker pleaded guilty to extortion and federal civil rights violations and received a 10-year sentence. Parker admitted that he had operated a marijuana trap on U.S. Highway 59, arrested suspects, and, according to court documents, subjected prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions.

  This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning, the complaint said, which referred to the technique as water torture.

  Yet nowhere in the four torture memos released by the Justice Department last week that authorized the CIA to waterboard detainees do the attorneys who drafted the legal opinions mention the federal case U.S. v Parker et al, in which San Jacinto County Sheriff James Parker and three deputies– Carl Lee, Floyd Allen Baker and John Gloverwere found guilty of torturing at least six prisoners between 1976 and 1980 in a rural part of the state 60 miles outside of Houston.

  http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/854-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-in-1983-for-waterboarding-prisoners.html

• 34 choccity2005 // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:05 pm

  All that vets don’t want torture,mccain don’t want torture….WATERBOARDING ISN”T TORTURE.The seals are kept up for 36 hours straight,doing grueling excercises in freezing temperatures,they are all waterboarded as part of thier training.SO ALL YOU LIBS ARE TELLING ME WE TORTURE OUR SEALS?They are sleep deprived,they are put in stress positions,they are waterboarded,they have to deal with insects….ARE THEY TORTURED!!!

  That’s why i could never be a bleeding heart lib.Khalid sheik mohammed,zubayda…the authors of 9/11 that killed 3,000 americans…You think i give a flying freak if they are in discomfort.THEY ARE TERROISTS!!!,THEY ARE TERROISTS!!!THEY ARE TERROISTS!!!GO SEE what they did to daniel pearl,nick BERG…GO see them cut thier f’in heads off while they are alive.Could you imagine the horror!!!i can’t get nick bergs screams out of my head….and you all are defending some freaking terroists!!!They are not AMERICANS,THEY are not a foreign army with a flag on thier arm.They are a ragtail bunch of merciless terroists who deserve to burn in hell.I ‘ll be damned IF I”LL SHED SOME TEARS,LOSE SOME SLEEP OR GIVE A FREAk ABOUT SOME TERROISTS!!!

• 35 Chrisc23 // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:05 pm

  My sunburn is torture. My friend has diabetes and that is torture. What these scumbag terrorists underwent was NOT torture. No one died or seriously injured. I’m all for it.

• 36 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:06 pm

  krove
  wrote 11 minutes ago

  ….The exposure on this whole topic is vast which is why I don’t get the willingness to go to the stake over it. It’s suicidal politically. At the end of the day it’s all personal and because they are locked in a paradigm.

• 37 barker13 // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  Re: krove; 11:30 AM –

  OK… page 4:

  “On July 24, 2002, according to CIA records, OLC orally advised the CIA that the Attorney General had concluded that certain proposed interrogation techniques were lawful and, on July 26, that the use of waterboarding was lawful.”

  From page 5:

  “The opinion concluded that none of the techniques individually was likely to cause severe physical pain or suffering under the statute. With respect to waterboarding, the OLC opinion concluded that the technique would not inflict severe physical pain or suffering because it does not inflict actual physical harm or physical pain….The OLC opinion also concluded that none of the techniques would constitute severe mental pain or suffering as that term is defined under the antitorture statute.”

  (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)

  Karen. Are you TRYING to prove MY point…??? If so… you’re succeeding.

  (*SNORT*)

  From page 6:

  “…the classified opinion concluded that none of the proposed interrogation techniques, used individually or in combination, would violate the criminal prohibition against torture found at section 2340A of title 18 of the United States Code.”

  Karen. Seriously, hon. What point are you trying to make?

  BILL

  P.S. – And jeez… this is the version being put out by HOLDER and ROCKEFELLER…?!?! I’d love to hear what the Republicans have to say in… er… “defense” of themselves. (As if this wasn’t defense enough.) (*SMIRK*)

• 38 mlindroo // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:45 pm

  sinz54 predicts:
  > Tell the American people that LIBERAL SQUEAMISHNESS
  > demands that we put American lives at risk.
  > Tell the American people that those who acted,
  > not out of sadism or revenge, but to defend
  > America at a time when we feared an even bigger
  > attack than 9-11 was imminent, should now be punished
  > for something that no one except LIBERALS would have
  > disapproved of in late 2001.
  > I’ll trust the people’s judgment on this.

  ottovbvs:
  > Cheney and co will never be able to make an argument “it worked.”
  > And when this is seen in the context of all the squalid and ugly stuff
  > that is going to come out then it will ultimately be damaging to the GOP.

  ottovbvs is probably right. I suspect the alleged benefits will be largely based on conjecture and personal opinion regarding the usefulness of the information gained [some of these forced confessions/revelations were probably false too], whether “ehanced interrogation techniques” made all the difference, guesswork regarding Al Qaeda’s intentions at the time etcetera.. Most likely you will find Dick Cheney & co. adamantly arguing that they were right and that important attacks were prevented, whereas others such as Robert Mueller will dispute this.

  Instead, the only real hard facts on the table will be the “squalid and ugly stuff” as you put it, which (seven years later) is not going to help Cheney & co. or the neocons. I don’t think the vocal minority defending the deeply unpopular GW Bush Administration will be very successful at all…

  MARCU$

• 39 krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 3:13 pm

  Barking,

  You are just quoting portions of the OLC legal opinions contained in the reports. Of course they will say that.

  Silly man.

  Love Karen

• 40 bloodstar // Apr 23, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  David,

  You’re picking the one battle that you cannot win. When you lose Shepard Smith you know its bad: “
  Your request is being processed…
  Nico Pitney
  Nico Pitney
  pitney@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting From DC
  Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter
  RSS
  Shepard Smith Uncensored: “We Are America, We Do Not F**king Torture!” (VIDEO)
  digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost – Shepard Smith Uncensored: “We Are America, We Do Not F**king Torture!” (VIDEO) stumble reddit del.ico.us ShareThis RSS

  04/22/09 10:45 PM
  I Like ItI Dont Like It
  Read More: Shep Smith, Shep Smith Torture, Shepard Smith, Shepard Smith Torture, Shephard Smith, Shephard Smith Torture, Media News
  Show your support.
  Digg this article.
  Shep
  Get Breaking News Alerts
  never spam

  *
  Share
  *
  Print
  *
  Comments

  Update: scroll down for Smith’s uncensored comments

  Fox News viewers witnessed a rather incredible scene on Wednesday as anchor Shepard Smith and Fox contributor Judith Miller (of CIA leak infamy) repeatedly and passionately condemned torture, with Smith declaring at one point, “We are America, we don’t torture! And the moment that is not the case, I want off the train! This government is of, by, and for the people — that means it’s mine. That means — I’m not saying what is torture, and what is not torture, but I’m saying, whatever it is, you don’t do it for me! I want off the train when the government starts — I want off, next stop, now!”

  The full segment is worth a watch. And Smith felt strongly enough about the issue to speak out about it again as he was heading into commercial break.

  “They better not do it,” he said. “If we are going to be Ronald Reagan’s Shining City on the Hill, we don’t get to torture. We don’t do it.” Fade to black.

  (Big thanks to HuffPost Media Monitor Rosemary from Massachusetts for the tip — keep ‘em coming.)

  Watch the segment (Smith’s comments above begin at about 3:45):

  On FoxNews.com’s online show The Strategy Room, Smith took his opposition to a whole other level. “We are America!” he shouted, slamming his hand on the table. “I don’t give a rat’s ass if it helps. We are AMERICA! We do not fucking torture!!”"

  Really, that’s what it comes down to, We are America, we do NOT torture.

  (and is it me or has Shepard Smith quit taking the Kool-Aide, if Fox could get a few more people to grow a spine, I’d watch them from time to time)

• 41 bloodstar // Apr 23, 2009 at 3:46 pm

  Also as an additional aside, is the site about building a community? because there needs to be more interaction and potential for commenters to link up, talk, and interact.

• 42 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 4:11 pm

  barker13
  2:14 PM

  ….Barker old man you don’t seem to understand all these opinions were withdrawn by the Bush admin because they didn’t pass legal muster. Their quality as legal opinions has been investigated by DOJ who is sitting on the report which is likely to be brutal in its destruction of them. Get up to date man.

• 43 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 4:25 pm

  On the issue of torture there is to my mind no middle road. We don’t torture people as policy. It maybe happens sometimes on an ad hoc basis but that is not govt policy. We have now provided an alibi for every would be Nazi/Stalinist/tin pot dictator because he can say “the US does it.” Some of these interviews have been surrealistic, Hayden saying well we only throw people against flexible walls while they are wearing neck braces was a classic. I’m surprised he didn’t say we made sure the water was at 75 degrees before we waterboarded them…….Having got that out of the way how Cheney thinks he wins an argument about how we got valuable intelligence which is widely disputed by professionals like Mueller when the stories build about the vomit, blood loss, deaths, urination, hypothermia defies belief. The mega thing in the background is this story about some 40 people being missing. This is potentially an atomic bomb if we discover a bunch of these people have died in our our or other people that we handed them onto’s custody.

• 44 barker13 // Apr 23, 2009 at 4:51 pm

  Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 17 minutes ago –

  And that’s your OPINION and you have every right to that opinion.

  I had and have no problem whatsoever with the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding, that were used against terrorists.

  BILL

• 45 gVOR08 // Apr 23, 2009 at 4:58 pm

  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?

  You are wrong, Frum. Thats only two questions, maybe only one. If the answer to 4 is no, the other four questions are moot. If the answer to 4 is yes, 1 thru 3 are irrelevant, except perhaps in asentencing hearing, and we have treaty obligations that probably would not allow discretion on 5.

  And dont blame Obama for this. Peggy Noonan was right, “Some things in life need to be mysterious”. There seems to be good evidence the CIA has for a long time had the capability to detain and interrogate people. I suspect that most countrys intelligence services could very nicely disappear someone. But it was relatively small scale, and very secret. Secret because it was clearly illegal. You know, spy agencies sometimes do things that are illegal. Questionable, but at least arguably necessary.

  But George Bush and Dick Cheney werent satisfied with this. They needed to prove they were tough, and they wanted to be admired for it. Plus they desperately wanted ot find a link between IRAQ AND 9/11. They decided to detain and interrogate people on a wholesale basis. On a scale that forced them to use people who were not well trained, professionally supervised, or highly motivated. It couldnt be kept secret. They slapped together a legal monstrosity that couldnt possibly hold together. It was Bush and Cheney that forced this out into public view. As in so many ways, Obama is just cleaning up the mess. And because of Bush, for better or worse, its going to be very difficult for the CIA to build back some of the covert capabilities they had.

• 46 Ct_indi_dale // Apr 23, 2009 at 5:02 pm

  Mr Frum,

  I am surprised at your reasoning. The debate is not about Did the methods work but is about America following its own laws and its own moral code. America is a great country and we do not act like some petty dictatorship or repressive regime we do not condone torture, we do not countenance torture and we do not legitimize torture.

  America does not torture at least now it does not.

  If you frame the debate so that we are to judge if torture works or if we are justified using it during a ticking time bomb scenario you are teetering on the brink of immorality and sinking to the lowest level of mankind if all else failed would this justify maiming a child in front of his father to get information? Where do you draw the line?

  Abu Ghraib showed us what torture looks like it is not pretty, it turn us into animals, and it is not what America wants to see when she looks in the mirror.

  Laws are what make this country great if you think that torture is justified, please go ahead and try to change the law, come out in the open and campaign on torturing our enemies, it seems to be what Mr Cheney is doing but I dont think that will get you a new majority.

• 47 // Apr 23, 2009 at 5:54 pm

  To David and others on this site that defend the use of torture/enhanced interrorgation techniques, why don’t you advocate for U.S. withdrawal from the Geneva Convention and also the use of these methods by the government on U.S. citizens if they would prevent the loss of innocent life? If these methods are effective, and if they can be used to save innocent life, shouldn’t we remove ALL limits on their form and use?

• 48 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:02 pm

  barker13
  “I had and have no problem whatsoever with the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding, that were used against terrorists”

  ……I’m sure you hadn’t any problem with torture…….the problem is they were used agains people who weren’t terrorists too…..well they had beards and turbans so they must have been terrorists…..

• 49 ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:10 pm

  Chrisc23
  2:05 PMMy sunburn is torture. My friend has diabetes and that is torture. What these scumbag terrorists underwent was NOT torture. No one died or seriously injured. I’m all for it.

  …….The US admits 12 people have died in US custody….haven’t you seen the guy in the body bag at Bagram ….Various human rights organizations put the number at around 100……there are about 40 people unaccounted for that have been seized and put into the secret prison system…You can’t even get your facts straight before boasting about how you’re for torture……

• 50 danbmil99 // Apr 23, 2009 at 9:06 pm

  Really, this is too much. I was originally in favor of Obama’s position, not to revisit the past. But even our friend (and theoretical moderate) David Frum feels compelled to add to the chorus of apologia.

  David, Shep Smith said it right: “We are america. We do not fucking torture!”

  It doesn’t matter if it saves lives.

  It doesn’t matter if it’s right after 9/11 or some other time.

  It doesn’t matter if some fancy mouthpiece lawyers invent gobbledygook to paper over the facts.

  It’s morally wrong, and we don’t do it. Or, more precisely, we should NEVER do it. Bush/Cheney messed up, bigtime, and it’s going to be difficult to put the lid back on it. It’s out of Obama’s control now.

  I’m not saying they get a feather mattress, or a diet coke on demand. But stress positions for hours? 6 days without sleep? Waterboarding? Give me a break. We don’t do that shit for the same reason we don’t use suicide bombers, or hide behind civilians, or indiscriminately blow up buildings with women and babies in them just to intimidate. These are things our enemies do, and they are things we cannot do. If that means fighting with a hand tied behind our back, so be it.

  I am an atheist, and yet the only way I can express this is — our soul is at stake.

• 51 ericna // Apr 24, 2009 at 5:17 am

  Both the right and the left attack this from the wrong perspective. Some rules are there not so that they will never be broken, but to ensure that one thinks long and hard before one breaks them and then suffer the consequences.

• 52 barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 5:23 am

  Re: Spartacus; 5:54 PM –

  “…why don’t you advocate for U.S. withdrawal from the Geneva Convention…”

  Again… (*SIGH*)… terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

  Next question?

  “…and also the use of these methods by the government on U.S. citizens if they would prevent the loss of innocent life?”

  Again… because American citizens possess Constitutional protections that non-citizen terrorists don’t.

  (*SNORT*)

  See… ultimately… (and this should please those of you on the Left)… this whole damned mess is largely Bush’s fault.

  If he had pounded home the facts about the who is covered by the Geneva Conventions under what circumstances rather than muddying the waters in a predestined to fail attempt at soothing criticism…

  (*SIGH*)

  If he had forcefully made the case that it’s simply ridiculous to compare enhanced interrogation to “torture”…

  (*FROWN*)

  But, no… Bush tried to finesse the issue.

  Dumb.

  Dumb… dumb… dumb…

  Re: Ottovbvs; 6:02 PM –

  You wanna be a bit more… er… specific? Who, when, where? What were the circumstances?

  And, hey… in advance… even if “mistakes were made,” how’s this any different from the “collateral damage” of the battlefield or an aspirin factory in Somalia or a Chinese embassy in Kosovo? Sorry to break the news to you, but in war… in life… mistakes are gonna be made. All we can do is try to limit these mistakes within a risk vs. benefit calculation. Me… I calculate that the intelligence we got via enhanced interrogation outweighs any mistakes we made using these methods in the first place.

  BILL

• 53 krove // Apr 24, 2009 at 6:01 am

  They changed the torture definition to stop defining themselves as torturers

  The “2002 Torture Definition Memo” to Gonzales generated what turned out to be a troublesome definition of torture. Troublesome because it was clear by March 2003 that the actual practice of waterboarding by the CIA required a physician and tracheotomy kit to prevent “death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions.” The 2002 torture definition clearly defined AS TORTURE the actual practice of waterboarding detailed in the IG report and later memos. But rather than stop torturing people, they abandoned their original definition of torture as including an act that causes “permanent and serious physical damage in the absence of immediate medical treatment.” And despite a footnote in the “2005 Bradbury Memo” indicating that “extensive waterboarding” can cause a subject to “simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways and loss of consciousness [and thus death without medical intervention]“, this “2005 Bradbury Memo” incredibly finds that waterboarding does not result in severe mental pain or suffering.

  An aside on Jack Goldsmith
  In June, 2004, following the leak of the “2002 Torture Definition Memo” to the press and in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, OLC head Jack Goldsmith withdrew both the 2002 Yoo/Bybee Memos without authoring replacement memos. Whereas many people have touted Jack Goldsmith’s withdrawal of the Yoo Torture Memos as “principled”, it is clear that the operative “2002 Torture Definition Memo” he withdrew in June 2004 also happened to inconveniently define CIA waterboarders as torturers. Although he resigned immediately following the memo withdrawal to “make sure his decision stuck” his silence allowed the OLC to quietly redefine torture and march right along with the waterboarding program.

  Conclusion

  At this point it is fairly obvious that the lawyers authoring the torture memos were charged with finding legal loopholes to torture statutes for the “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Waterboarding was originally described as harmless, resulting in a definition of torture crafted around this concept. When the CIA’s own experience indicated that waterboarding was not harmless, and indeed fit the earlier “good-faith” definition of torture, they simply abandoned the “2002 Torture Definition Memo” concept of severe pain and harm, and now required physicians with tracheotomy kits to be present in the waterboarding chamber to reduce the death risk.
  .
  The “2005 Bradbury Memo” indicates that the prevailing thought following the OLC’s redefinition of torture was that if a doctor was present to resuscitate anyone killed by an interrogator, then the CIA was legally innocent of murder or torture. By this logic, it may have been acceptable to cut off fingers and toes as long as there was an orthopedic surgeon present to reattach them. Following the sequence of memos, it is evident that in addition to bad-faith misrepresentation of the effectiveness of waterboarding in the memos, the memos reveal bad-faith misrepresentation of the safety of waterboarding and arbitrary redefinition of torture to permit whatever the CIA wanted to do. In short, it appears that in these OLC memos there was no “good-faith” effort to define torture and avoid it.

• 54 ExGOPer // Apr 24, 2009 at 6:07 am

  David — I think it’s a bit dishonest of you to suggest that Obama’s Director of National Intelligence believes that torture “works” (which, in itself, is misleading) without also noting that he believes that whatever information we may have learned wasn’t worth the price we paid for it. (He also, as you know, suggested that this intel might have been garnered through other, less amoral means.)

  If you’re going to hold him out as endorsing torture, you owe it to your readers to provide his very significant caveat.

• 55 krove // Apr 24, 2009 at 6:56 am

  THE WHITE HOUSE
  Office of the Press Secretary
  June 26, 2003

  STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

  United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture

  Today, on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States declares its strong solidarity with torture victims across the world. Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.

  Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit. Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools such regimes use to terrorize their own citizens. These despicable crimes cannot be tolerated by a world committed to justice….

  You can read the rest of it here.

  http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/04/22/memories.aspx

  You see torture is only wrong when THEY do it, us not so much.

• 56 ExGOPer // Apr 24, 2009 at 7:50 am

  David — you make much of how Barack Obama would become the first president to prosecute his predecessors, but isn’t it also worth noting that his predecessors were the first to authorize torture? Isn’t that kind of an important part of the equation?

• 57 sinz54 // Apr 24, 2009 at 7:51 am

  It’s clear that a whole lot of liberals are horrified at the measures the Bushies used in the War on Terror.

  But unless you can show what specific laws the Bushies broke, I don’t see where there is any cause for prosecuting any of them.

  The Eisenhower Administration (Republican) did not attempt to prosecute any members of the Franklin Roosevelt Administration for imprisoning 100,000 innocent Japanese-Americans in detention camps by Executive Order, even though by the time Eisenhower took office, most folks realized that these actions had been both illegal (unauthorized by Congress) and unconstitutional (clear violations of the Bill of Rights).

  What the Bushies did pales by comparison. It’s not even clear if the Bushies did anything illegal whatsoever.

  All I see here is a bunch of liberals who had called the Bushies “war criminals” and now intend to make good on that epithet.

• 58 krove // Apr 24, 2009 at 8:29 am

  Sinz here is your answer.

  We prosecuted Japanese for waterboarding our soldiers. We Court marshaled one of our own soldiers for Waterboarding
  We Convicted 3 US citizens a Sheriff and two deputies for waterboarding and they were convicted.

  Bush said in his memo printed in an earlier post that torture is wrong, unlawful and should be investigated and punished.

  I don’t see how you can claim it’s (a) not torture (b) not a crime. Clearly on the prior legal history of convicting other nationals, our own soldiers and our own citizens it surely is.

  Story at NPR

  See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

  In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan’s defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

  “All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators,” writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

  On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced “a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk.” The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

  Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

• 59 barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 9:03 am

  Re: ExGOPer; 6:07 AM –

  “David — I think it’s a bit dishonest of you to suggest that Obama’s Director of National Intelligence believes that torture “works” (which, in itself, is misleading) without also noting that he believes that whatever information we may have learned wasn’t worth the price we paid for it.”

  Com’on, ExGOPer, you’re presenting a class non sequitur.

  The “value judgment” one makes concerning “torture” is a wholly separate matter from the question of whether “torture” does or doesn’t work.

  Also, being fair to David, what Clinton’s Director of National Intelligence actually said has been widely reported and covered. Frum was referring to the man’s actual statement on whether enhanced interrogation sometimes works, not the man’s “ethical” judgment on the policy.

  BILL

• 60 krove // Apr 24, 2009 at 9:21 am

  If you thought that the decision to release these memos was an easy one or one taken lightly or without a lot of thought and discussion I urge you to read this Washington Post story of the inside story of how this transpired and why.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042304718_2.html?sub=AR&sid=ST2009042304720

• 61 mlindroo // Apr 24, 2009 at 9:37 am

  > I don’t see how you can claim it’s (a) not torture (b) not a
  > crime. Clearly on the prior legal history of convicting
  > other nationals, our own soldiers and our own citizens it
  > surely is.

  Also, waterboarding is torture even if you state that “enemy combatants” are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Law enforcement officials in the U.S. have received lengthy prison sentences for subjecting prisoners to suffocating water torture in order to coerce confessions.
  The US government has also signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture which means they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under *any* condition. “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”
  —
  Sinz54 and barker13, let’s assume Fidel Castro arrests a Cuban American civilian in Havana and accuses him of being part of a terrorist conspiracy. For reasons that may or may not be valid, Fidel is convinced the terrorists are planning to strike against Cuban military and government installations and the result will be significant loss of life unless they figure out to prevent the attack (i.e. “the ticking bomb scenario”). So the Cuban secret police starts to waterboard this American citizen in a desperate attempt to find out where the targets are and when the attack will take place.

  Surely everybody in this forum (Democrats, Republicans, Americans, Europeans etc.), can agree that the use of waterboarding against a civilian U.S. citizen by any foreign government would be entirely unacceptable in this particular scenario! Or any other scenario for that matter…e.g. even if the American citizen is a criminal who has been convicted of rape or murder in Cuba and the U.S. government has concluded that the convicted person is guilty as charged. In that case he deserves to go to jail. But there is still no legal justification for waterboarding.

  MARCU$

• 62 barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 9:40 am

  Re: Krove; 11:47 AM –

  The Krugman Blog…?!?! (*SNORT*) Karen. You’re slipping backwards again. (*CHUCKLE*)

  Just because economist Paul Krugman spouts some Left Wing nonsense on the Bush administration’s supposed intentions doesn’t make it gospel – nor even authoritative. (*SNICKER*)

  Re: Sinz54; 7:51 AM –

  Re: Krove; wrote 35 minutes ago –

  “We prosecuted Japanese for waterboarding our soldiers.”

  Yes, Karen… our SOLDIERS!!!

  Oh… and btw… if you bother to peruse the actual charges against the Japanese soldiers in question, you’ll see that it wasn’t just waterboarding that they were charged with; waterboarding was only one element in their techniques which included REAL torture. Heck… even the “waterboarding” the Japanese employed wasn’t even the same as we’re talking in the modern sense.

  The Japanese actually forced water up captives’ noses and down their throats. Beyond that, the Japanese used lighted cigarettes to burn their prisoners… beat and kicked then bloody…

  Oh… here:

  http://www.archives.gov/iwg/japanese-war-crimes/

  BILL

• 63 jabelson // Apr 24, 2009 at 9:42 am

  Question 1 – does it work? Does it matter? If we systematically rounded up and killed every Muslim then pretty soon we’d not have to worry about Islamic terrorism – that would also work – wouldn’t it David? Of course we don’t know if it actually worked. I – for one, can’t believe that Bush wouldn’t have crowed to the hills upon stopping a serious terrorist threat – instead, we hear about some erstwhile plot that would’ve flown jets into a building in LA after 9/11 – as if THAT WOULD’VE actually happened. Sounds like nonsense to me.

  2 – was it justified? Not in my book. Some of us believe that with freedom comes risks. That conservatives have become the American cowards is a shame, but fear and cowardice is hardly an excuse for torture and trashing the constitution. Ask Frum if torturing Jonathan Pollard to determine what other Israeli spies stole from us would be justified. I’d say no to that – Frum – to be consistent – would have to say yes…
  3 – it’s never justified. EVER…
  4 – It seems they were illegal – if you believe what we did was torture…
  5 – that’s a tough question…

• 64 krove // Apr 24, 2009 at 9:57 am

  Barking.

  I quoted an NPR story on the waterboarding prosecutions of the Japanese soldier wo actually waterborded a civilian not one of our soldiers. The story also said which you don’t acknowledge that we also prosecuted one of our own soldiers in Vietnam for waterboarding and we also prosecuted 3 law officers here in the USA for waterboarding.

  Nothing here from Krugman.

  Lots of love

  Karen

• 65 midcon // Apr 24, 2009 at 9:57 am

  If the people using the methods were effectively following a lawful order, then of course they should not be prosecuted.

  Now as for the DOJ and WH lawyers? Well, just the fact that they are lawyers, already puts them in a bad light. For attorneys only, I am in favor of guilty until proven innocent. In fact, just being a lawyer should be grounds for prosecution. Maybe we should ask the ABA how to handle the situation. After all, they are independent.

• 66 barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 10:07 am

  Re: Mlindroo; wrote 3 minutes ago –

  Sinz54 and barker13, let’s assume Fidel Castro arrests a Cuban American civilian in Havana and accuses him of being part of a terrorist conspiracy. For reasons that may or may not be valid, Fidel is convinced the terrorists are planning to strike against Cuban military and government installations and the result will be significant loss of life unless they figure out to prevent the attack (i.e. “the ticking bomb scenario”). So the Cuban secret police starts to waterboard this American citizen in a desperate attempt to find out where the targets are and when the attack will take place.”

  OK. What’s the question…???

  Hmm… first of all… since it’s YOUR scenario… is this Cuban-American citizen either an American spy or a member of a Cuban/Cuban-American organization seeking to engage in illegal and/or terroristic activities within Cuba?

  Well… if so… I can’t really blame the Cubans much – can you? Heck… under such a scenario they’d be entitled to shoot or hang spy/terrorist. (*SHRUG*)

  Of course if the individual was a spy – our spy – I’d hope we’d be able to negotiate his/her release and I suppose if I were POTUS I’d even consider (and perhaps put into motion) a rescue plan.

  If on the other hand I was POTUS and I was 99% certain that the Cuban-American was innocent I’d raise holy hell and depending upon the circumstances might even take military action to “rescue” the prisoner.

  At the same time… well… the question remains what responsibility does our government have to a citizen who would place himself or herself into the situation of freely entering the sphere of authority of a hostile government?

  Next… continuing with your scenarios…

  “…even if the American citizen is a criminal who has been convicted of rape or murder in Cuba and the U.S. government has concluded that the convicted person is guilty as charged. In that case he deserves to go to jail. But there is still no legal justification for waterboarding.”

  If the American citizen DID it? If he (or she) was guilty of rape or murder?

  Hmm… I don’t see where waterboarding would come into this scenario, but if we’re talking a real “bad guy,” I would hope the Cubans would execute the “bad guy.”

  Short of capital punishment… depending upon the circumstances I have no problem with certain forms of corporal punishment and indeed – again, depending upon the circumstances – applaud swift and painful punishment over expensive and often counterproductive imprisonment.

  Hey… Michael Peter Fay… if ya didn’t want the cane, then from crime you should have refrained!

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  BILL

• 67 barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 10:24 am

  Re: Krove; wrote 11 minutes ago –

  Karen. Here’s what you were talking about… right:

  “In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan’s defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.”

  That’s what Eric Weiner reported in his NPR piece… right?

  http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MLMBbN7M8aQJ:www.2008electionprocon.org/pdf/asano_case.pdf+United+States+of+America+v.+Hideji+Nakamura,+Yukio+Asano,+Seitara+Hata,+and+Takeo+Kita&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

  Probably because he’s intellectually lazy as well as having an ideological ax to grind… (*SMIRK*)… Weiner misidentified the prisoners as civilians (they weren’t – they were POWs) with the torturer – Asano – who was a civilian… a civilian working as a translator for the Japanese military.

  (*SMIRK*)

  Seriously, Karen… you really need to do your research – primary research – on your own. At the very least… check out press reports to make sure they’re correct.

  (*SIGH*)

  XXXOOO,

  BILL

• 68 mlindroo // Apr 24, 2009 at 10:59 am

  barker13 wrote, regarding my hypothetical example :

  > is this Cuban-American citizen either an American spy
  > or a member of a Cuban/Cuban-American
  > organization seeking to engage in illegal and/or
  > terroristic activities within Cuba?

  He is an American citizen, but is acting entirely on his own, i.e. he is an “enemy combatant” or terrorist. A right wing version of Lori Berenson if you like…

  > Well… if so… I can’t really blame the Cubans much – can
  > you? Heck… under such a scenario they’d be entitled to
  > shoot or hang spy/terrorist.

  Um, if he is found guilty of terrorism then he should indeed be punished, yes.

  > Hmm… I don’t see where waterboarding would come
  > into this scenario, but if we’re talking a real “bad guy,” I
  > would hope the Cubans would execute the “bad guy.”

  Of course, waterboarding comes into this scenario because the Cubans are convinced that this American private citizen is hiding something and they need the information real quick!!!!!! What I am saying is that according to UN conventions against torture signed by both the U.S. and (unless I am mistaken-) Cuba, torturing (waterboarding) this person is illegal. Now, will Fidel care very much about this? Of course not. He is after all a communist dictator who has a less-than-stellar human rights record. But we all expect slightly more from the President of the United States, right?
  —
  You then go on to cite several possible mitigating factors. These may all be OK and valid, and there may well be grounds for less severe punishment of those who sanctioned and executed the “enhanced interrogation techniques” . But it does not change the basic fact, which is that waterboarding isn’t legal from an American or international human rights point of view. If Bush argues that he finds the existing anti torture treaties too constraining in the post-9/11 era, then he should have announced that the US now regards the United Nations Convention Against Torture as not valid to “enemy combatants”.

  MARCU$

• 69 barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 11:32 am

  Re: Mlindroo; wrote 11 minutes ago –

  “…he is an “enemy combatant” or terrorist…”

  Thanks for the fleshing out of the scenario, but moot at this point. I pretty much answered your questions with my 10:07 AM response. Still, if anything is unclear about my opinion feel free to ask more questions or request specific clarification.

  “Of course, waterboarding comes into this scenario because the Cubans are convinced that this American private citizen is hiding something and they need the information real quick!!!!!!”

  So in line with your clarification, this individual is a terrorist. So, sure… short answer… the Cubans would have as much right to waterboard as we do when we’re dealing with terrorists and spies.

  “What I am saying is that according to UN conventions against torture signed by both the U.S. and (unless I am mistaken-) Cuba, torturing (waterboarding) this person is illegal.”

  Do us a favor. Provide a link to the primary source – the Treaty. What page… what paragraph… be specific as possible. Once you do we’ll continue this. (*WINK*) Fair? Reasonable?

  “…we all expect slightly more from the President of the United States, right?”

  Marcus. Actually… OBVIOUSLY… not right. (*SHRUG*) If we were all opposed to waterboarding in all circumstances historical and hypothetical we wouldn’t be having this discussion. (*SMILE*)

  Again… to REITERATE… I don’t see waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques as “torture.” Heck… for that matter… no doubt I’d utilize acts I would acknowledge as torture in a ticking time bomb situation of sufficient gravity. (*SHRUG*)

  Now it’s ok to disagree with my ethical code, just as I disagree with those who come right out and say that sure, they’d rather see thousands killed rather than waterboard EVEN IF they were convinced that waterboarding WOULD save thousands of lives. (*SHRUG*) All I’m trying to do here is make sure we both understand where each other is coming from.

  “…waterboarding isn’t legal from an American or international human rights point of view…”

  And again… OBVIOUSLY we disagree. We certainly disagree as to whether waterboarding WAS “legal” back in 2002. (*SMILE*) As for “an international human rights point of view,” one conundrum at a time, please! (*CHUCKLE*)

  “If Bush argues that he finds the existing anti torture treaties too constraining in the post-9/11 era, then he should have announced that the US now regards the United Nations Convention Against Torture as not valid to “enemy combatants”. “

  Now on THAT note we’re singing the same tune! (*HANDSHAKE*) Scroll down and re-read: barker13
  5:23 AM. (*WINK*)

  By the way, Marcus… speaking of past posts… I would have thought a guy like you would have had some sort of reaction to: barker13; 11:17 AM. Now THAT was an interesting question that I’m surprised no one took it upon him or herself to deal with.

  (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 70 barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 11:37 am

  Re: Mlindroo; 9:37 AM –

  “Sinz54 and barker13…”

  Hey, Sinz… you gonna answer the man or what…?!?!

  (*SMILE*)

  (*PLAYFUL ELBOW TO THE RIBS*)

  BILL

• 71 bloodstar // Apr 24, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  There is something wrong with this picture when the Luftwaffe chief interrogator had higher standards than what we’ve shown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff

  barker and Sinz54, you’ve lost NRO’s Maggie Gallagher: “I personally believe torture is wrong. We shouldn’t do it. Even if it means me, my husband, and my two sons get blown up. Seriously, if I had to choose I’d say: Death is common to us all; torture is a choice.” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjY0Y2JhNzQ4ZmZlYzM3MmEzOWU2NDA5YTcwMmE3OWM=

  And this should be interesting: “In a letter from the Justice Department to a federal judge yesterday, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over to the American Civil Liberties Union 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration.” http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/obama-adminis-3.html

• 72 // Apr 24, 2009 at 12:18 pm

  barker13:

  Have you contemplated why you receive more criticisms for having very little intelligence than any other poster on this site? Even other posters who agree with you on substance do not receive nearly the same level of attack on their intelligence. Seriously, it is not my intent to insult you. I’m just curious to know if this fact has caused you to engage in any kind of introspection.

  As for your response to my question about advocating the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention or applying the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on U.S. citizens if it could save lives, you failed to answer the question. I was not arguing that torturing the detainees was wrong because it violated U.S. law or the Geneva Convention. I was merely asking why we would want to limit the use of such effective techniques if they clearly can save lives.

  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? 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. 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?

• 73 barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  Re: Spartacus; wrote 10 minutes ago –

  MODERATOR… since I’m the offended party I’d appreciate it if you were to honor my wish that Spartacus’ post NOT be removed.

  (*WINK*)

  After all… he’s not cursing at me or crossing any line of civility; the poster is merely being as direct as I tend to be myself.

  So… Spartacus…

  (*SMILE*)

  What criticisms? Whose criticisms? Any you find valid… it seems to me you should attach yourself to and go at me directly… gladiator style.

  (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)

  “As for your response to my question about advocating the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention or applying the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on U.S. citizens if it could save lives, you failed to answer the question.”

  Actually… to be fair as well as precise… I answered your first two questions (asked as one).

  THIS is what your wrote, right… “To David and others on this site that defend the use of torture/enhanced interrorgation techniques, why don’t you advocate for U.S. withdrawal from the Geneva Convention and also the use of these methods by the government on U.S. citizens if they would prevent the loss of innocent life?”

  That’s YOUR question mark at the end – right?

  You then asked THIS next question: “If these methods are effective, and if they can be used to save innocent life, shouldn’t we remove ALL limits on their form and use?”

  You’re right, Spart… I failed to address THAT question. It fell through the cracks. (*SHRUG*) Sorry. I’ll answer it here.

  Cost/benefit. (*SHRUG*) Risk/reward. (*SHRUG*)

  I’m not trying to make light of the question nor snark out an answer, but your question amounts to demanding a one size fits all answer. (*SHRUG*)

  Why do we give citizens the right to vote and deny it to non-citizens? Well… I’m sure we could spend all day coming up with reasons, but the short answer is: “Them’s the rules!” (*WINK*)

  If death is an appropriate penalty for murder why isn’t it an appropriate penalty for… er… jaywalking? (*SNORT*) Yes… hyperbole… but that’s how your question strikes me. We waterboard non-citizen illegal combatant terrorists rather POWs because POWs have Geneva and U.S. protections against being waterboarded and captured spies and terrorists don’t from my reading of the laws. (*SHRUG*)

  If you feel I’m still not answering your question… please rephrase. (*SHRUG*)

  This is getting long so allow me to continue addressing your questions in a separate post coming up.

  BILL

• 74 krove // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  Please don’t beat up on my pet neoCon Barking.

  Regards

  Karen

• 75 // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:36 pm

  barker13:

  Your answer to my question of why we don’t use torture on U.S. citizens is “Thems the rules!” That’s a perfectly good answer, and it leads to the inescapable conclusion that 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.

  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. Although, I am very impressed with krove, who provides detailed substantiation for her assessments and who has concluded that the rules were broken. But, the only one who can determine if the rules were broken, and the only one whose opinion matters, is the Attorney General. Therefore, the Attorney General should investigate the matter to determine if the rules were broken and, if so, he should prosecute the offenders. All of these other issues about efficacy, reciprocal treatment, clandestine operations, etc. are irrelevant to whether or not these “enhanced interrogation techniques” should be investigated.

  Krove, I hope I was nice enough to Barking!!!

• 76 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

• 77 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

• 78 // 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.

• 79 // 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.

• 80 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 love

  Karen

• 81 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 PM

  Spartacus. 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!!!

• 82 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.

• 83 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?

• 84 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.

• 85 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…

• 86 // 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.html

  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1240568050-Ld+YCW17fI5ZNjXIx645Ow

  Lastly, 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.

• 87 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.

• 88 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 deal

  If 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?

• 89 // 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?

• 90 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.

• 91 // 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.

• 92 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.

• 93 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.

• 94 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

• 95 // 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.

• 96 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

You must log in to post a comment.