War Crimes and Incompetence -- the Real Shoes Thrown at Bush

UPDATE: This article was originally titled "Maybe Levin And Bowen Should Throw Shoes" but perhaps that was too provacative or considered radical (I wasn't really suggesting they should attack President Bush, merely making a statement about the media's priorities). Anyway, just wanted to set the record straight.

 

I know it's a lot more interesting to talk about two shoes getting thrown at President Bush in Iraq, but two more important stories are getting ignored as a result. These are two metaphorical "shoes" thrown at Bush, by the Senate and by Bush's own Inspector General in Iraq. And they're going to have a much more lasting impact on how history sees our Iraq adventure than one video clip of a guy hucking his footwear at President Bush. Because they deal with torture, and the failure of the Iraq reconstruction effort.

Last Thursday, Carl Levin's Senate Armed Services Committee released a report which basically called Bush and his entire National Security Council war criminals. Of note was the fact that the Senate committee voted for the report unanimously. Every single Republican (led by John McCain), along with all the Democrats, voted for this report. And the language the report uses is not the usual vague "mistakes were made" sort (which is often a necessity forced upon the such committees as a whole, by one party or another).

The report is titled "Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into The Treatment Of Detainees In U.S. Custody" [download PDF version]. From the opening paragraphs:

Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are taught to expect Americans to abuse them. They are recruited based on false propaganda that says the United States is out to destroy Islam. Treating detainees harshly only reinforces that distorted view, increases resistance to cooperation, and creates new enemies. In fact, the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" cited "pervasive anti U.S. sentiment among most Muslims" as an underlying factor fueling the spread of the global jihadist movement. Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that "there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq -- as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat -- are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo."

The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of "a few bad apples" acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.

The report goes on for 29 pages in great detail about what happened, and who authorized it. It does not mince words. It names names. It traces not only the orders for such treatment of prisoners from the very top of the chain of command, it also traces the legal opinions which were produced to provide cover for what is described as techniques "based on illegal exploitation (under the rules listed in the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) of prisoners over the last 50 years." In other words, war crimes. The first three of nineteen conclusions read:

Senate Armed Services Committee Conclusions

Conclusion 1: On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President's determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance Escape] training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.

Conclusion 2: Members of the President's Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were discussed. National Security Council Principals reviewed the CIA's interrogation program during that period.

 

Conclusions on SERE Training Techniques and Interrogations

Conclusion 3: The use of techniques similar to those used in SERE resistance training -- such as stripping students of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, and treating them like animals -- was at odds with the commitment to humane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Using those techniques for interrogating detainees was also inconsistent with the goal of collecting accurate intelligence information, as the purpose of SERE resistance training is to increase the ability of U.S. personnel to resist abusive interrogations and the techniques used were based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to elicit false confessions.

So, a bipartisan committee of the United States Senate has publicly released a summary of a report (the full report is still classified, although Committee Chairman Carl Levin has called for it to be declassified) unanimously, that details war crimes by the highest government officials in the land.

You'd think this would be news, in other words.

The second metaphorical "shoe" tossed at Bush came from his own Inspector General in Iraq, Stuart W. Bowen, Jr. The report is titled: "Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience." The story was broken by the New York Times, and the entire lengthy article is worth reading.

An unpublished 513-page federal history of the American-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure.

The history, the first official account of its kind, is circulating in draft form here and in Washington among a tight circle of technical reviewers, policy experts and senior officials. It also concludes that when the reconstruction began to lag -- particularly in the critical area of rebuilding the Iraqi police and army -- the Pentagon simply put out inflated measures of progress to cover up the failures.

In one passage, for example, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is quoted as saying that in the months after the 2003 invasion, the Defense Department "kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces -- the number would jump 20,000 a week! 'We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.' "

Mr. Powell's assertion that the Pentagon inflated the number of competent Iraqi security forces is backed up by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former commander of ground troops in Iraq, and L. Paul Bremer III, the top civilian administrator until an Iraqi government took over in June 2004.

Among the overarching conclusions of the history is that five years after embarking on its largest foreign reconstruction project since the Marshall Plan in Europe after World War II, the United States government has in place neither the policies and technical capacity nor the organizational structure that would be needed to undertake such a program on anything approaching this scale.

This report is scheduled to be given to Congress in February, and is still in draft form. But, as the article pointed out, the ramifications for the future are huge, considering that we're going to be in Afghanistan for a while.

Five years after the invasion of Iraq, the history concludes, "the government as a whole has never developed a legislatively sanctioned doctrine or framework for planning, preparing and executing contingency operations in which diplomacy, development and military action all figure."

Few remember it, but a Democratic candidate for president campaigned on creating just such a framework for rebuilding countries. Instead of always reinventing the wheel and eternally performing nation-building as an ad hoc exercise, why not create a department that could provide the needed planning and expertise, by professionals who had done this sort of thing before? His name was Dennis Kucinich, and he was roundly ridiculed for his "Department of Peace" proposal. It's not looking so ridiculous now, is it?

Imagine, if you will, these two stories breaking under President Clinton's watch. Would either one of them be greeting with a collective yawn by the mainstream media? This weekend's Sunday morning talk shows, for instance, barely mentioned either story (most of the shows didn't mention either story at all). I saw a lot of "Bush ducking shoes" headlines, but I must have missed all the "White House Accused Of War Crimes By Senate" or "Iraq Reconstruction An Enormous Failure" headlines. Outside of a few intrepid newspapers, neither story is getting much attention at all.

Maybe it's just Bush fatigue. Some might say my insistence on the importance of these stories is nothing more than one last round of Bush-bashing. I disagree. Because these things were done in my name, and in every other Americans' name. To be sure they never happen again, we must examine exactly what did happen. Those who don't remember history are famously condemned to repeat it, and those who prefer not to even read such history in the first place are surely condemned to repeat it a whole lot faster.

Bush entered office trying to force a quick start to a recession, and he leaves office with the American economy in the worst shape it's been in since the Great Depression. Bush entered the war in Iraq and we all watched Iraqis beating a fallen statue of Saddam Hussein with their shoes, and now Bush leaves office with Iraqi journalists throwing shoes at him. Bush took over Baghdad while ignoring looting and rampant destruction of the Iraq infrastructure, and then squandered billions of dollars on "reconstruction" that was largely ineffective. Bush ran on a platform of "compassionate conservatism" and then watched an American city drown, and personally approved of torturing prisoners held by America. Bush ran on a standard Republican platform of "getting government out of people's lives" and then presided over trying to wiretap every phone call and email in America. Bush also ran on "restoring the honor and dignity of the Oval Office," and he exits still lying about how we went to war with Iraq (he's been quoted more than once in the past few weeks -- unchallenged by the interviewers -- saying that Saddam Hussein was refusing to let weapons inspectors in, which is just flat-out lying).

I know that America is ready to move on. I know that everyone is much more interested in the future Obama administration than looking back at the Bush administration. But it is important to take one last look back at Bush's legacy, to make sure these things are never again allowed to happen. Even the Senate all but accusing the White House of war crimes and the Inspector General in Iraq accusing the White House of massive incompetence don't make the front pages, which I think is just wrong.

Perhaps Carl Levin or Stuart Bowen, Jr. should toss a shoe at the president. Because maybe then these stories would get the attention they deserve.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[research]

@Michale

Torture is a war crime.

Weatherboarding is torture.

Detainees are not terrorists until proven so, and tortured confessions don't count.

You have yet to supply one terrorist event stopped by information obtained by torture.

You are in denial for you own barbarity.

You have yet to tells u your first hand torture story yet either.

[Michale32086]

"Weatherboarding"???

Is that like being tied to a board and forced to watch hour after hour of Willard Scott???

Michale....

[research]

Tell us your story, Mich.

[Michale32086]

@Dr_Scott

}}}
What if my neighbor merely expressed his displeasure with my actions in a threatening way. Purely in self defense, of course. You're saying that I would be totally within my legal rights?
}}}

Of course not. But we're not talking about that kind of pre-emption..

}}}
The examples you cited are when an individual is under imminent threat. That's not pre-emptive. Pre-emptive is BEFORE your opponent attacks you, or even has plans to attack you.
}}}

The examples I cited are considered "pre-emptive". The idea of imminence IS the whole point after all..

}}}
Are you saying that I can lawfully shoot a cop if he shoots at me first, or say, raises his pistol at me? Am I in my rights there?
{{{

That's an interesting question.. There HAS been instances of this very action, although I can't recall the specifics..

I would say that the answer COULD be yes if certain conditions were met.. However, just out on the street with all things being equal, the answer would be no..

}}}
We soldiers have a saying too. Better to die with honor than to live with dishonor.
}}}

Yes, but you do not have the right to impose death on others, solely for the purposes of YOUR honor. To do that would be selfish and dishonorable...

Michale....

[Michale32086]

CONT

}}}}
My other contention has been that your conditions never exist in real life.
{{{{

And are you willing to bet the lives of yourself, your loved ones or your entire town on that statement?? If you think about it logically and rationally you would know that saying an absolute based on nothing has a tendency to backfire on people..

}}}}}
In fact, your 2 criterior for torture were not met. So... Are the torturers then criminals under your definition?
{{{{{

That's a tough call.. I would say now, because those in the chain of command were operating in good faith. Bush thought he had the proper authorization. He sent word down the chain of command. Lawful orders (at the time) were given and followed.

Then the SCOTUS ruled that such orders were NOT lawful. Bush went to Congress and said, "I want to do A, B and C. Write the laws that will allow me to do them." Congress complied with the MCA..

So, I don't think any criminal violations occurred, as everyone was operating in good faith.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

Grrrrrr

"That's a tough call.. I would say now, because...."

That should read, ""That's a tough call.. I would say NO, because...."

My bust....

Michale.....

[Dr Scott]

Yes I am. I am willing to bet my life, and that of my family on Christian principles that protect the dignity and rights of all people, even those who may not deserve it. I don't see why that's so strange to you. All Christians are taught to treat others with dignity and to be martyrs. See, I believe that torture is wrong, even if it is "legal. " That's not based on "nothing." That's based on a high principle.
The world has been through this torture thing before. Thousands of people have been "legally" tortured. That didn't prevent the torturers from being arrested, tried and punished. With any luck, those who took part in torture for the Bush Administration will also be put on trial. I think it's funny that we think torture is abhorrent when the enemy does it. But its all cool if we do it. That's BS.
And you are wrong. Apparently lawful orders were not given anywhere. The people running Abu Ghraib were unable to prove that they'd been told to do what they did. It seems no actual orders were given. It was more a "do whatever you think works" kind of thing. Nobody said, "I order you to strip these prisoners and put them in stress positions." Leaders just didn't stop them from carrying out those abuses. Why were these people not protected by the MCA? (which, I believe, was made retroactive to 1997)

[Michale32086]

As far as Aby Ghraib, that really has nothing to do with the "torture" issue. It's more an issue of out of control guards and a fracked up chain of command.

Considering that all of the prisoners in there were in their because of their fanatical desire to kill Americans, I personally don't have much sympathy for the "college hazing" style antics that went on...

Just like I really wouldn't care if a group of pedophiles got roughed up in prison...

But, that's just me, I guess...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@research

}}}}}
Bush violated the law plenty of times without congressional approval.
{{{{{

Cite??

}}}}}
So, I'm still waiting for you story of first hand torture experience.
{{{{{

"What am I, an idiot??"
-Bruce Willis, DIE HARD

Michale.....

[Dr Scott]

The US Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2: Makes treaties adopted by the US part of the "Law of the Land." Therefore, a violation of the UN Charter, The Hague IV, Geneva Conventions, etc. is also a violation of United States law.
Apr. 2008: The GAO released a ruling in that found the administration"s unilateral implementation of new rules to prevent states from expanding SCHIP to cover more of the nation"s 9 million uninsured children violated the Congressional Review Act. The act requires that significant changes to programs and policies be subject to a public comment period or congressional approval.
Nov. 15, 2007: The Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Bush government violated the law by ignoring global warming when it set national gas-mileage standards for SUVs and pickup trucks. The court sent the decision back to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for a full Environmental Review of the gas-mileage standards.
Aug. 17, 2006: Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit issued a ruling stating that the president had "undisputedly violated" not only the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, but also statutory law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 1978, the FISA statute was a response to revelations that the National Security Agency had conducted warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.
There are LOTS instances of Bush ignoring the law. Some say as many of 750 violations have occured.

[Michale32086]

"Some say"...

Some say that the earth is flat..

Some say that there is a dinosaur in Loch Ness..

If you are so big on "rights", "some say" that an American is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Ergo, Bush is innocent.

Unless your whining about "rights" is just lip service....

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

CONT

Pre-emptive self-defense IS a legitimate right and claim. The only requirement is that it must be shown that a reasonable person would have an expectation of imminent violence..

}}}}
We live under the rule of law, not the law of the jungle.
{{{{

And the rule of law recognizes the inherent rights of self-defense. Even pre-emptive self-defense.

There is an old saying amongst us cops.

"It's better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6."

Michale.....

[Dr Scott]

You missed the point completely, Michale.
What if my neighbor merely expressed his displeasure with my actions in a threatening way, or at least in a way that I interpreted as threatening. I knew he possessed dangerous weapons, an axe let's say, and so to prevent further bloodshead, I laid out a detailed plan and then killed him and his entire family. Purely in self defense, of course. You're saying that I would be totally within my legal rights?
The examples you cited are when an individual is under imminent threat. That's not pre-emptive. Pre-emptive is BEFORE your opponent attacks you, or even has plans to attack you. The only consideration then is the degree of force used. I can't shoot somebody because they say insulting words to me.
Are you saying that I can lawfully shoot a cop if he shoots at me first, or say, raises his pistol at me? Am I in my rights there?
Hey, I get it. You are with the "kill-'em-all,-let-God-sort-'em-out" crowd. Fabulous. Wouldn't America be a great place if EVERYBODY felt the same as you?
We soldiers have a saying too. Better to die with honor than to live with dishonor.
And in America, we say "live free or die" and "give me liberty or give me death." I guess they don't make Americans like they used too.

[Michale32086]

@Dr_Scott

}}}}
Under your plan, the Terrorists are actually in the right because they are defending themselves from us.
{{{{

I think your problem is, you have a completely misguided idea of what terrorism is all about.

How is blowing up a bus full of innocent men, women and children a "defense"??

How is crashing 2 airplanes full of innocent men, women and children a "defense"??

}}}}
My child does not have the right to hurt somebody at school because he fears that the person might hurt him.
{{{{

Those are "school" rules and are not necessarily indicative of society as a whole.

If you were to approach me with an angry look on your face and raise your fists as if to strike me, I would be fully within my rights to take you to the ground and restrain you..

}}}}
I do not have the right to eliminate my neighbor because he's miffed about my calling the cops on him and I fear he might retaliate.
{{{{

If, after you called the cops and "miffed" your neighbor, he (or she) approaches you with a pissed off look on their face and an ax in their hand, you would have every right (all things being equal) to shoot him.. No jury in the land would convict you...

CONT

[Dr Scott]

Cont.
The point is, they are not doing this for money. They aren't doing this to make some esoteric point. They aren't doing this because they are just evil. In their minds, they are at war with us. I certainly don't condone what they do, and it's important to note that most Muslims are pretty much like you and me (actually, most of them are probably more like you), but I don't see how we can win if we don't even try to understand them. They have a view of us that is just as skewed as our view of them. Sometimes a little understanding can go a long way. True, we will not convert all the terrorists. But it is just as important, if not more important, to convert their supporters. And that's pretty easy to do.
And if we don't like their methods, I can't see how mimicking them helps them see us as better. All these Al-Queda fighters ASSUME that they will be tortured upon capture. Why give them what they want? What if we just treatewd them with respect? Read "Matthew Alexander's" book. And we absolutely have to stop killing innocent civilians in these wars. To us they are just collateral damage, tens of thousands of them, a minor consideration. But to them, each death is an act of terrorism. Do you think they see a big difference in being blown up by American bombs as opposed to rival religious sects?

[Michale32086]

@Dr_Scott

}}}}}
Check article in New York Times 28 August 2006 which states that the surveillance of the group was initiated as a result of the subway bombing there and local informants. Rauf was later offered by the Pakistanis apparently in an attempt to get 8 people extradited from England that were wanted for crimes committed in Baluchistan. Anyway, the Pakistanis managed to let Rauf the Terrorist "escape." For a lot of information, just check Wikipedia. There will be tons of links there to articles about the "plot."
{{{{{

Rashid Rauf (born ca. 1981 - allegedly died November 22, 2008) was an alleged Al-Qaeda operative[1] and son of a British baker.

U.S. and British sources said Rashid Rauf had a key operational role in the alleged plot. Rauf, a British citizen, appeared before magistrate, according to Pakistan's Interior Ministry. Rauf is believed to have left the UK after his uncle was killed in 2002. He was not charged over the murder, which has never been solved.[6]

In Pakistan, law enforcement authorities continued to interrogate Rashid Rauf over his alleged key role in the plot, officials told The Associated Press. Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao said British police were conducting inquiries in Pakistan but were not involved in questioning Rauf.[10]

Now, as I said.. I know what those interrogation techniques are like. They make Gitmo look like a tea party..

Michale.....

[Dr Scott]

Okay, Lets put this to rest once and for all. Please remember that this argument is about providing an example in which a terror plot was prevented as a result of intel gathered under torture. Michale provided the example of the British Airliner plot.
Here is the official timeline established by the trial of the men involved.
The ringleader, Ali, had already been under surveillance by Mi5 for some time before they secretly opened his bags at Heathrow when he returned from a trip to Pakistan in June of 2006. By August of 2006, they were so far up these guys' behinds they couldn't take a crap without Mi5 knowing it.
On August 9 2006, Rauf was arrested in Pakistan under pressure from the US, which had become involved in the investigation. This caused British authorities to execute their operation immediately, lest the terrorists be tipped off by Rauf's arrest. On August 10 2006, it was all over. NOTHING that Rauf might have told them, either voluntarily or under torture, had anything to do with Mi5's operation. Therefore, Michale's example is false.
In fact, the British complained that the US jumped the gun. Please note that all of the foot soldiers rounded up in the operation are now free for lack of evidence.

[research]

Michale claims to have "first Hand experience" with torture proving it works,

But he won't share his story.

[LewDan]

I'm pleased to see categorical rejection of torture, proud of Americans responding to the humanity of detainees in spite of 9/11 and prolonged propaganda painting them as deadly inhuman enemies. But there're no laws that forbid self-defense. Its a given that people have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary.

Bush/Cheney efforts to subvert laws and authorize routine torture are illegal. But anyone who takes any tool that might be used in defense off the table on principle is a fool. Offer an opening to enemies and you may be assured they'll exploit it, as they are NOT fools.

You've every right to choose suicide rather than compromise principles. But we, as a nation, are sane. We don't ask those defending us to defend only if it won't offend sensibilities. We ask only that the best tool available be used. But we'll take that one-in-a-thousand chance to live if no one-in-a-hundreds are available.

However, if torture is the tool it must be a scalpel not a water cannon, a last resort not standard treatment. This is where administration policies are abhorrent.

No country, no person, limits what can be used in defense. We won't tolerate abuse of others, but we, like everyone else, DO reserve the right to defend ourselves by any means NECESSARY. The right to effect our own survival isn't a civil right, its more basic than that, its a biological imperative, the basis for everything else.

[Michale32086]

Hear hear, very well said!

I agree completely with every point, with a slight modification of one...

}}}}}
You've every right to choose suicide rather than compromise principles
}}}}}

This is, of course, a correct statement. But it begs the question..

Do people have the right to condemn innocent people to death rather than compromise their principles.

NO ONE, not even Dr Scott, has answered this question. They have all danced around the point, ignored the point and tried to morph the point.

But that is the entire point....

The entire question comes down to, "Are your principles worth more to you then the lives of innocent people??"

For you and I, the answer is obvious. I also believe that the people here are good people who would make the right decision if forced to..

Perhaps it is "mean" of me to try to force them to see the ugly truth.. But, it's a "mean" world out there....

Michale.....

[LewDan]

I thought I had answered it. "YOU'VE the right to choose suicide..." Singular. Personal pronoun. You've NO RIGHT to decide ANYTHING for others. And those who accept the responsibility of protecting others have an obligation to do so if they possibly can.

And Michale, I owe you an apology. Dr. Scott finally got to me too.

"Perhaps it is "mean" of me to try to force them to see the ugly truth.. "

Not mean. Futile. As I pointed out to Dr. Scott, civilians have no skin in the game. I don't care how you word it, your hypotheticals are just that, hypothetical. We know they're no lives at stake, that we'll never have to make real decisions like that. We can afford to maintain our principles.

Servicemembers know they WILL have to make the decisions. That lives WILL be at stake. That they AREN'T just hypotheticals. It makes all the difference in the world. In fact, I completely discounted your hypotheticals as mere "straw man" arguments before I read your background. Eight years of Bush/Cheney have conditioned us to "straw men."

And as I suggested earlier, let America keep her principles. Its exactly what servicemembers are fighting to protect. We're willing to be their monsters so they don't have to turn into monsters.

[LewDan]

Logically the choice is simple. It isn't even a matter of principle. Actions have consequences. When someone CHOOSES to engage in terrorism they compromise their rights to comfort and wellbeing, even their rights to humane treatment. The "innocent civilians" have made no such choice. Their right to live is uncompromised. No third party has a right to ignore the terrorist's choice and IMPOSE death upon innocents.

[Dr Scott]

I would deny that I have the right to do anything to defend myself. And the laws of most states and countries will agree. Under your plan, the Terrorists are actually in the right because they are defending themselves from us.
My child does not have the right to hurt somebody at school because he fears that the person might hurt him.
I do not have the right to eliminate my neighbor because he's miffed about my calling the cops on him and I fear he might retaliate.
The police do not have the right to beat the hell out a guy because he's resisting arrest.
I do not have the right to burn down a church because I fear that another religion is poisoning my kid's values.
Just because all these things are done all the time doesn't make them right or legal.
We live under the rule of law, not the law of the jungle.

[Kassandra]

All this bloviating is just that. Torture is a war crime. The world, with the approval of the US has executed War Crimes as recently as the War in Bosnia...2003!
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-255222.html

You can't just change international treaties because "they are quaint" or "it's convenient" or you "like to do it" EVEN in the face of immanent threat. (that's why we have intelligence services)The information is ALWAYS suspect.

For a nation to practice torture is to descend into barbarism.

These "elegantly reasoned" arguments by some posters are pure solipsism.
It's OK because WE did it, and everybody KNOWS we are the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!! Trumpets please.
We'll see when the investigation starts now that Cheney has admitted in so blase a way that he authorized this , which of course, we've known anyway for years.

Apologism is almost as corrupting to human nature as the act of torture itself.

[Michale32086]

Actually, since the adoption of the MCA, certain aspects of torture are not illegal..

Thank your lovely Democrats for that...

Michale.....

[Kassandra]

And that's why "impeachment was off the table". Nobody's a naif around here......well some are..........

[Michale32086]

@Dr_Scott

}}}}}
I am asking you if you think that it is right to torture 1000 people on the slim chance that you would get something useful out of one of them?
{{{{{

Of course not.. I am on record as OPPOSING using torture in a "fishing expedition"..

For me to use torture, 2 requirements must be fulfilled.

1. It's a known and proven terrorist. And it's a known and proven fact that the terrorist has actionable intel.

2. There is imminent loss of innocent life.

If neither of those options are ironclad, then torture should not be utilized.

What it basically boils down to is a choice between torturing a terrorist and watching innocent people die.

And for me, that is simply no choice at all...

Michale.....

[Dr Scott]

Boy, you guys just won't let these TV terror situations go. If you have a proven terrorist, try him and pass sentence. And how do you establish that a terrorist has "actionable intel?" You assume that you will know what question to ask. That's not very realistic. In every single case of supposed intervention in a terror plot since 9/11, the operation has depended on conventional law enforcement techniques. Not Hollywood spy techniques.
Okay, so lets establish that you are willing to commit a crime to save lives. I respect that. Do what you think is right, then accept the consequences. Welcome to the Army. But you probably want us to forgive you for committing a crime because you supposedly saved lives. What about when you make a mistake? Should we forgive you because your heart was in the right place?
Furthermore, were I a professional terrorist , committed to death, and all I had to do was keep my mouth shut to complete my mission, you'd get nothing out of me. An "imminent lost of life" means that you simply would not have time to get any actionable intel out of a prisoner.
Look, the intelligence community knew that 9/11 could happen and they did nothing to prevent it. One of those Al Queda morons didn't even make his flight. The operation still went off.

[LewDan]

And what color is the sky in your world?

Bush/Cheney adopted torture techniques from the SERE program because they have proven to be 100% effective in breaking the will of prisoners.

If someone strapped a bomb to my chest and I freed myself by torturing my would be bomber, I AS A CIVILIAN, would've committed no crime. And you actually believe we've enacted laws that would prevent those we charge with protecting us from doing the same thing?

You can insist that torture can never be necessary or appropriate but there are precious few absolutes in the universe and that isn't one of them.

Make all the ignorant uninformed inferences and assumptions you want about what works and what doesn't, what's necessary and what isn't, but the military has given over 275 years of thought to the issues, I trust they're better informed.

When YOU'VE got some skin in the game. When people's lives ACTUALLY depend on what you do, THEN you'll be entitled to judge the military and we'll judge you by YOUR actions.

[LewDan]

"If you have a proven terrorist, try him and pass sentence. And how do you establish that a terrorist has "actionable intel?" .
Look, the intelligence community knew that 9/11 could happen and they did nothing to prevent it."

BTW Your argument is illogical if for no other reason than its internally inconsistent. First you claim that if you've caught a terrorist all you should do is try him and then you complain nothing was done to stop an attack.

If all you do when you catch terrorists is incarcerate them how can you stop attacks? No interrogation, just read'em their rights and get'em a lawyer? Pitiful...

[Michale32086]

CONT

As I pointed out to CW, torture CAN be effective. Torture CAN save innocent lives.. It's not 100%... It may not even be more than 10% effective. Or not even 1% effective..

But it's that 1% of the time that it IS effective that makes it a valuable tool. Too valuable of a tool to discard simply because it is unpleasant.

If I am guilty of anything in these postings, it is that I paint the reality of the world we live in. Granted, it's not the reality of the civilian world where people live in their nice and cushy homes and drive their nice and cushy SUVs and work in their nice and cushy offices.. The men and women who work CT ops do not have the luxury of living in that world..

And they should not be castigated or disrespected for simply doing their jobs that keep us all safe from terrorism..

That's been my whole point...

Michale.....

[LewDan]

My DOD tour was at the end on the Vietnam conflict. I was an air traffic controller a few years before Reagen publicly vilified ATC for an "illegal work action" that consisted of ACTUALLY following the rules they were lobbying to change, instead of just doing what needed to be done. And I'm black.

I'm quite familiar with both the concepts of America ordering and legislating one thing, while expecting quite another, and of America's penchant to ostracize and condemn those whose services they depend on, who keep America safe. But I suggest that you choose your battles more carefully. Sometimes taking it in the teeth from America is just another way of serving America. Personally, when the general public starts to agree with you, is when I'll know the terrorists are winning.

Our education system encourages submission to authority. It makes students easier to control. It also promotes sloppy thinking, blind obedience and intellectual curiosity are polar opposites. American's are carefully sheltered from violence. They think they live in a dangerous neighborhood because they see a violent crime on television. Look at the reactions to Gov. Palin's Thanksgiving day "Turkey Pardon" video.

Sure Americans are often uninformed. Sometimes keeping them uninformed is part of keeping them safe. Safety isn't just physical, its a state of mind. I remember learning what a nuclear attack would REALLY mean... Some things people just don't need or want to know.
(Cont"d.)

[LewDan]

(Cont"d.)

There ARE those on the extreme left and right who are irrational hysterics. The majority of people, however, are quite logical and rational. A probable majority are also sloppy thinkers and poor communicators. We speak in generalities that are not 100% true using what has to be the most ambiguous language on the planet.

The present discussion on "terrorists" is almost exclusively REALLY about "enemy combatants." America"s sudden concern over the wellbeing of terrorists is because they don"t think they"re terrorists. CT deals with terrorists. Don"t confuse debates over "enemy combatants" with debates over real terrorists. America supported destroying Afghanistan and Iraq without batting an eye when they thought they were responding to real terrorists.

[Dr Scott]

No, Michale, you are guilty of condoning and championing a crime and all those who engage in that crime. You really have to stop watching "24." People who work counterterrorism may justify their base behaviors through the "I'm saving the world" excuse, but the simple fact is, they are required to follow the same laws as everyone else. Your whole arguement is BS.
If an interogator can get information out of person simply by applying a little understanding to his situation, then I think that you would agree that that interogator is more effective than one who resorts to torture. What we need is to punish the crappy interogators and replace them with ones who know how to get the job done.
And you have zero understanding of the reality of the world. Try living the life of some of the people we are fighting. Even though they live in the most dire of situations, they have humanity and know right from wrong. The cruel world you describe is caused by the arrogance of those in power. And you work not for truth and justice, but in your own self-interest and the interests of those in power. Maybe you should try to say something positive and hopeful for once. Not all of us are afraid of your "terror bogeyman."

[Michale32086]

@LewDan

"There can be no offense where none is taken"
-Sarek Of Vulcan

I don't take offense at what you posted. You call it as you see it and I admire that. You are even mostly correct.

My point here is not to glorify torture or force everyone to embrace it as the end all get all solution.

My point is only to show that, while immoral, wrong and evil, torture CAN be a useful tool..

My point here is to show the majority of the posters here that those who are involved in CT operations and who are forced into torturing terrorists to save lives are NOT the evil, psychotic, sadistic men and women that the people here try to make them out to be. You've read the posts.. You've seen it for yourself.. Such a grossly unfair characterization MUST be corrected.

It's akin to our soldiers in Vietnam being treated like war criminals and baby-killers when they were, by and large, just soldiers doing their duty.. It's an attitude that I simply will not stand for and will strive to correct at ANY opportunity..

CONT

[Michale32086]

@Dr_Scott

}}}}
The answer is easy. Detain all 1000 men. Where in this scenario is the torture? Should I torture all 1000 men to see which one is the terrorist? Is that your point? It's okay to torture 1000 people when just detaining them for 48 hours would suffice? You'll need to logic out your scenario a little better.
{{{{

WOW...

Color me impressed.. I have been using this (or similar) scenarios for going on 3 years now here on HuffPo...

And you are THE first person to address it. You even addressed it without equivocation and in the only logical and rational manner possible.

Kudos.. I am truly impressed.

The scenario was meant to address the "Better 1000 guilty men go free than to have 1 innocent man wrongfully detained" fallacy.. In this day and age, that old adage simply doesn't apply..

}}}}
By the way, there aren't tens of millions of people in LA and there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for a terrorist to get a large enough nuclear device into the country without detection to do that kind of damage anyway. You watch too much TV.
{{{{

Actually, I watch very little programmed TV.. But the details weren't important. It was a Kobyashi Maru.

Michale.....

[Dr Scott]

I don't see the analogy. It is perfectly legal to detain a person for 48 hours without charging them. All I have to do is hold them for questioning. It is done routinely. I don't understand where the torture part comes in. And again, I have to stress that answering your scenario is so easy as to be childish.

I am asking you if you think that it is right to torture 1000 people on the slim chance that you would get something useful out of one of them?

Here's the fact, M... If you participate in coercive techniques during interrogation, whether you are a civilian or military, you have broken the law. Period. You deserve to be prosecuted and punished for your crimes. If somebody orders you to torture somebody, then they are also guilty of the crime. If you are military, then you are not only guilty of torture, you are guilty of following an illegal order. Like I said before, people do not torture other people to get information, since dozens of studies have shown it to be ineffective. People torture other people because they are sadists who have a strong desire to control other peoples' lives. They are sociopaths and the sooner they are identified and removed from society, the better for all involved.

[Michale32086]

So, you agree that it's perfectly OK to detain people, knowing that the vast majority are innocent, if it will save lives.

You might be interested to know that in the 3 years I have asked that question, NO ONE agreed with you.. Well, except for me, of course..

As far as torture being illegal, you need to read the Military Commissions Bill...

But the overall point I have made is still valid.

1. Torture CAN produce actionable intel.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that, if we DON'T torture terrorists, they will treat their victims any better.

These are the facts and they are indisputable...

Michale.....

[LewDan]

(Cont'd.)

I pointed out to you that torture is terrorism. We protect ourselves from terrorists by condemning the would-be torturers among us. And we fight terrorists by denying them useful propaganda. Your assertion that it doesn't work is nonsense. Pearl Harbor was a Japanese attempt to terrorize the U.S., to paralyze us politically and keep us out of the war. The 9/11 attacks, likewise resulted in total U.S. commitment to aggressive offensive actions in self-defense. Every American has first-hand personal experience in at least some of the psychological effects of terrorism. We KNOW that using terrorism can galvanize opposition against you, both from your opponents and from those who previously weren't your opponents. I don't care how much time you've got in CT, in the choice between believing you or "our lying eyes," the eyes have it.

Your comments are usually direct confrontation or summary dismissal -- in the vernacular, they're knee-jerk responses or narrow-minded. (Finally got to the really offensive part -- figured it'd hurt less hard and fast.) I think its your training. Its the kind of thinking that reduces threat response time. You might try looking for a way in which a position might be valid before you summarily reject it. It could just be miscommunication, or you might, expert or not, be missing something. We're untrained and inexperienced -- but we're not stupid.

[LewDan]

(Cont'd.)

We, as a nation, are against war. We are pacific. We are not stupid. We have a military. We, as a nation, are against terrorism. We are not stupid. We have counter-terrorists, authorized and expected to "do whatever it takes," as a matter of survival. It may technically be hypocritical to hold two diametrically opposed viewpoints simultaneously, but its also reality. The universe isn't fair -- or simple. As I told you before, situational decision making, its dealing with reality.

You want people to admit that in survival situations they would torture. They're refusing to admit that. They shouldn't admit that.

You're trained to respond to threats automatically to reduce response time, increase survivability. You don't think things through first. If a situation is radically unusual, you might have reason, to try to override your natural automatic response. But only if and when such a situation arises.

Our society needs and must have morals against torture. It has to be the automatic response, the only response, absent an actual survival situation, to increase society"s survivability. We have police and CT to deal with those who don't have our morals. I tried to suggest earlier that you consider the significance of mindsets.

I'm not saying your positions are wrong. I'm saying they have no place here. And in that respect they are wrong. Condemning torture isn't to appease terrorists. Its to both fight terrorists and protect ourselves from terrorists.
(Cont"d.)