Legalistic Sociopaths and the Torture Apologists Who Love Them

History will judge who's more loathesome: the legalistic sociopaths who wrote the torture memos made public Thursday or the apologists and trivializers rising to their defense.

Among this morning's many new inductees into the Hall of Infamy, I hope everyone gets a chance to marvel at David B. Rivkin, a lawyer in the administration of the first President Bush. It's worth quoting Rivkin at length. He contributed to the latest "Room For Debate" feature on nytimes.com. Here's Rivkin:

"The memos are well-written, and feature careful and nuanced legal analysis. They weave together the facts and the law. They are grounded in real world experience, because nine out of 10 techniques, used against high-value detainees, were also used over a period of many years in SERE training courses, with thousands and thousands of American participants.

"This data is analyzed in great detail to establish that the use of these techniques does not inflict either physical or psychological damage. The conclusions the memos reach -- that the specific interrogation techniques used by the C.I.A. did not constitute torture -- are eminently reasonable. To any fair-minded observer, these documents definitively establish that the Bush administration did not engage in torture. They go a long way toward rebutting shrill and unfair attacks on the integrity of Bush administration officials, and, more generally, on America's honor."

Wow.

Fine.

Since Mr. Rivkin finds it so comforting that the Bush-Cheney "interrogation techniques" were reverse-engineered from the SERE training that our military devised to prepare our troops for the calculated cruelty of our most inhumane enemies, let's take a closer look at that. Let's turn to page 5 of the August 1, 2002 memo from Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee to the CIA's general counsel. There's some astonishing stuff on that page.

Bybee cites the following data from a SERE guy who "trained 10,000 students":

"Of those students, only two dropped out of the training following the use of these techniques. Although on rare occasions some students temporarily postponed the remainder of their training and received psychological counseling, those students were able to finish the program without any indication of subsequent mental health effects."

Now, don't just take these supposed facts on Bybee's terms. Sort through them. Think about what they mean.

Consenting Americans who experienced torture during their scheduled military training sometimes needed to stop their training and get psychological counseling because of these techniques. But this was "rare." So Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee's conscience somehow permitted him to generalize that a terrorism suspect -- who could not simply postpone the remainder of his torture and go chat with a shrink -- was going to emerge from the experience just fine.

This perfect nonsense is the "careful and nuanced legal analysis" that Rivkin wants New York Times readers to believe is so "eminently reasonable." This is the drek that rebuts the "shrill and unfair attacks on the integrity of Bush administration officials."

No, Mr. Rivkin. It doesn't. But your own integrity is in shreds.

Self-inflicted.

A grateful nation thanks you.

Huffington Post blogger David Quigg's previous posts about torture, civil liberties, and the "War on Terror" are archived here. His Twitter feed is here.

Comments

[HisPetGoat]

Whether an act constitutes "torture" must depend on the subjective experiences of the participants rather than the sophistry of self-serving apologists.

[COPerez]

I went through a modified SERE training as an Army helicopter pilot. I can tell you that these exercises are very well controlled with medical personnel standing by. Not to mention the fact that the instructors have no animus towards the trainees.

Apologists for what was done in our name mostly just have no idea what they are talking about.