The Torture Debate -- It's About Time

Several years too late, we've been dragged kicking and screaming into what a democratic republic should be engaged in: a public debate on whether such a nation is ever well-advised to engage in the torture of captives. Of course, the motives adduced are always the best--we've been attacked, the government has to protect the country--but it's not the proclaimed motives that separate the most admirable countries in the world from the most despised, but the behavior in pursuit of those motives.

Buried in the rhetoric pro and con are a couple of facts which deserve wider exposure. First, as the New York Times reported, waterboarding was performed on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in one month, and 83 times on Abu Zubaydah. Put aside the question about whether the CIA is hung up on the number 83. This technique, which the United States has prosecuted (as a war crime) both Japanese and American soldiers for using, is reputed to be so wickedly effective that only 35 seconds of it had Abu Zubaydah willing to tell interrogators everything he knew. We'll get to what he knew in a moment. But, if it's so instantly effective, why in the world would it need to be administered almost two-hundred times within a one-month period? It's either not as effective as advertised, or the practitioners had another reason for persisting.

Next under-noticed fact: the aforementioned Abu Zubaydah was not the Al Qaeda mastermind advertised by the administration. Intelligence officials who talked to both the Washington Post and the New York Times now say the man was at best a travel agent for AQ, with little operational knowledge to share. The CIA itself walked back its assessment of Abu Zubaydah's importance, after the waterboarding was long over (and the tapes of the sessions destroyed). Arguments about the wisdom of the techniques need to be informed by the fact that the United States radically overstated the importance of a man it subjected to what is widely believed to be torture almost 100 times.

If the debate on torture doesn't acknowledge the facts that interrogators vastly exceeded the limits--on total time of waterboarding to be allowed and, absurdly, the amount of water to be used--mandated by the fastidiously detailed memos issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and that one of the targets of this behavior was not who the administration repeatedly claimed he was, then this debate, as overdue as it is, will have been wasted.

Comments

[crimson999]

oh and btw your comments regarding how your view of terrorism" was defeated in the 70s and 80s without the supposed "war on terror "usage.while it is clear all of these people were terrorists , the difference is that the ones in the era you were considering were (plo,red army faction etc ) and they were POLITICAL terrorists ....the TERRORISTS we face now are not politically based they are RELIGOUSLY based. apparently you do not comprehend the difference . i await your reply

[research]

"while it is clear all of these people were terrorists "

No, it's not.

Tortured confessions don't count.

Large Bounties sweep up mostly innocents.

Prisoners are suspects, no terrorists, not criminals.

Prisoners are our responsibility, they are our guest, who may be completely innocent.

Innocent till proven guilty is our moral code.

Shame on anyone who does not believe that.

[Harry Shearer - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, and at the time political terrorists were seen as more dangerous, whereas we were glad to support religious ones (see our support of the mujahadeen in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in late 70s-early 80s).

[crimson999]

my comment directed at shearer has not been answered ....still waiting on your reply because i want this debate

[crimson999]

here is something to consider for those saying 200 times = not effective.did you ever consider that one of the few men tortured gave info at different times thus leading the torturers to go ahead with the next session and so forth to see if the person knew even more.seems more plausible to me than the cia guys doing it for "fun".

[RepugsOut08]

If you pay attention to the news coming out, you'll see that the reason for the torture was very specific. It was to try to gain (ala the Korean communist's torture methods used on US soldiers in the 50s,) a "confession" for political purposes.
The Bush administration, chomping at the bit to invade Iraq, was desperately trying to get these prisoners to "confess" to an Iraq/al qaeda connection that didn't actually exist. There was no desire on the Bush administration's part to use these tactics to protect the America people. They were about gaining support for the illegal invasion of Iraq.
These tactics appear to have continued after the invasion, with the same motive in mind. Providing justification for an illegal invasion.
What say ye now, oh defenders of the heinous crime of torture?

[crimson999]

well 1st off you say " illegal war" . fact is saddam continually thumbed his nose at the agreement made betweem the US and UN & broke them after the 1st gulf war.keep in mind this was 10 yrs to rehabillate but it never happened.C­onsidering this one must conclude he was a pariah in the world community not to mention the fact he commited genocide amonst his OWN people.forget the wmds the guy needed to be taken out pure and simple ...if you disagree please explain why .personally i think the bush people did embelish it but i for one think it was long over due.

[RepugsOut08]

I see that Obama's now admitting that it's the Justice Dept.'s job to decide who gets prosecuted, and who doesn't. The appointment of a special prosecutor now seems inevitable. Let the chips fall where they may, and let us try to believe in that elusive "thing with feathers" called hope, that justice will finally prevail.

[RepugsOut08]

In an update to my own post, a former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth De La Vega, offered this incite on Keith Olbermann's show last night. She believes that it would be a mistake to appoint a special prosecutor too soon, claiming that an official investigation would initiate the drying up of all the info now pouring out, as everyone concerned retreats to their legal representation.
Perhaps there's a method to Obama's seeming madness on this issue. In all of my 55 years on this pale blue dot, I don't recall ever seeing so much (usually classified, see you in a couple decades) info coming out contemporaneously on such an explosive political issue. Especially when it goes all the way to the top dog.

[RepugsOut08]

Oops. Incite should have been insight.

[ssg13565]

I think the problem is that the war trials after World War II are too far in the past. A large proportion of our population is too youg to remember it and too young to have seen the documentaries.

Maybe even the My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam was too long ago.

I think this is proof that we need to have some new war crimes trials so that people will remember why torture is illegal and why we have Geneva Conventions.

Interrogating a prisoner of war to find out the enemy plans is actually specifically prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. Why do you suppose the signatories to the convention prohibited exactly the reason that people are now trying to use as a justification for torture?

[RepugsOut08]

The really ugly thing implied by the info coming out on these criminal acts, is that they, to my way of interpreting them, didn't even seem to be about protecting US citizens as they claimed. They seemed to be exclusively about trying to desperately to connect Iraq and al qaeda.
Almost as if someone had made a terrible blunder, like invading a country with no connection to al qaeda, and was then desperately trying to create the evidence to cover their mistake, by torturing out "confessions" that supported their blunder.

[Tidyus]

The victem doesn't look so greatly healthy to me. Maybe the reason they waterboarded the guy so many times is they figured out it wasn't working and wanted to drive him crazy so his story would never be considered, ie., they did it then kept doing it to try to cover their tracks.

[research]

Have American become so brutal?

Is it hard to understand?

Prisoners are our Responsibility.

For prisoners to die or be mistreated, in any way,

is an embarrassment to any good American.

Empathy, trust building, kindness gets information. Gets Allies.

Cruelty, rudeness, brutality and torture,

Get nothing but lies.

a good interrogator, woos information out of the prisoner. With occasional lies to help the process.

"bad Cop" just shuts the prisoner down.

[Wake-up]

No one died... not one was mistreated, they got interrogated as they should be.

Empathy, Trust Building, Kindness (BTW, part of the "Good-Cop / Bad Cop I'm sure they do) with those who will never stop trying to kill us gets us killed...

If you don't believe that, then book a rip to Pakistan, go to any market and announce to all that you are an American...

[research]

Wake up, you don't seem to care about truth. you don't learn. you repeat the talking points of the day.

People died under torture. You are lying, or incredibly ignorant, your choice.

Wrong. Some people will change. It happens all the time. Not with Torture, of course.

Irrelevant. And you know it. Or should.

[Harry Shearer - Huffpost Blogger]

No one died? You need to surrender your log-in name:
http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4355779.stm

[DanC35]

First I have to ask how we define torture, where to draw the line. For me it simply means a more brutal means of punishment than 'I' would use. When, for general usage, is punishment not torture? (For that matter, when is imprisonment not punishment?)

"...we've been attacked, the government has to protect the country..."

Countries are always attacking each other. Over the years, in one way or another, we've probably attacked most countries on Earth. I'm more interested in protecting the fellowship of the biosphere and humanity. Torture doesn't serve that very well.

And then there's the question of how much we gain from torture, and how others will respond to our example and use it as an excuse especially in dealing with Americans. "Turnabout's fair play."

[Bienville]

I've heard a lot of "protecting the country is the President's most important job."

It's odd that his oath says nothing about that job. It's a lot of mumbo-jumbo about preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States."

I think it's written somewhere that treaties signed by the United States become US law with equal force of all other US laws, too. Don't some of those treaties contain definitions of torture.?

Wouldn't violating some of those treaties be violations of US law, and wouldn't those violations be failures to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?

[research]

"Really, we only tortured Bad people".

What desperate denial.

We paid bounties for prisoners.

"Iraq and Iran torture people, why not us?"

Gee Iraq and Iran have a bit of a hearts and minds problem, don't they?

[STG 44]

Iraq and Afghanistan have a long and proud tradition of torture. I bet the terrorists were thrilled to be be the guests of the Americans and not of their own people.

[Harry Shearer - Huffpost Blogger]

What comments like this ignore is one salient fact: according to most reliable reports, most of those incarerated at Gitmo were not terrorists, and high officials were aware of that fact early on. Most of the detainees were people unlucky enough to be in the wrong place when scores were settled and American bounties collected.

[Wake-up]

Here’s who’s at Gitmo: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ1YWE1OTVkNTEyMGIwOGIwMmViYWEzYTFhYTIxZGU=

Don't be in Iraq or Afghanistan with an AK47 in your hand and you'll be fine...

[TomU4ia]

If torture is illegal, what's there to debate? It's like pondering the merits of flatulence in elevators, secondhand smoke, spittoons in operating rooms, screendoors for submarine hatches, effluvia in punchbowls....

[AntiSocialistfighter]

So let me get this straight. A AQ member sits in a hole with an AK47 and shoot 20 of our soldiers patroling the hills. He then runs out of ammo and raises his hands. For that he get's 3 years at Gitmo until people like you, and the ACLU, get him released. If during this time we persuade him to give up intel, to help save our soldiers, by submerging him in water we become the BAD guys? Sorry, Obama has just set our military intel gathering communitee back 8 years. Please pat yourselves on the back and discuss how much safer we are now that the Terrorist understand how soft our new administration is! This is the same wussified attitude that let people with box cutters take over entire commercial airplanes.

[Bobbygoode]

So was the Kool-Aid you consumed Cherry or Orange?

[Wake-up]

Insults... means you know he's correct.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

183 waterboardings really proves that the torture was always about brave little Dick Cheyney getting sadistic retribution from behind his desk.

[papagaeo]

What are the "torturer's" thoughts while waterboarding or otherwise torturing another human being? Is it just another order to be followed? How is this unlike the Inquisition? Haven't we evolved at all? Isn't the thought of this being done to our own men and women unbearable.

[tiska]

What has men done to our own men and women in the pass wars are soo unblievable, I can hardly talk about it. Waterboarding is a walk in the park compare to the torture of are own men and women, so I do not know what you mean. This are our enemies, not our friends. Get it right. I think you would have to be in a situation where you were capture by some of these Islamic extremist to understand the meaning of torture.

[Meanwhile]

"They did it to us," "They would do it to us," "They want to do it to us" ...

Are these acceptable excuses for any crime? If you think so, you are the one who needs to "get it right."

Some actions are simply immoral, even when you do them to people who themselves have done bad things..

[Judith Mitchell]

The thought of this being done to ANYONE is unbearable. We are all human beings. We all feel pain; we all suffer; none of us and that includes "terrorists" and American military personnel, is immune from that. NO ONE should be intentionally tormented. It is unethical, it is inhumane, it is barbaric.

It diminishes a person's own humanity when s/he thinks of another human being as so "less than" or "different" that inflicting pain or terror is justified. And yes; the terrorists' humanity has been badly impaired by their practice of torturing, just as has that of our military personnel -- whether or not they were "following orders" -- the favorite excuse of SS officers, and of the commandants of concentration camps.

Q for all you Christians out there who defend torture: did the Christ advise us to torture his Roman and Jewish tormentors? Those who nailed him to the cross? Nu? (please note that I am no longer Christian because of the rank hypocrisy of too many who profess that faith.)

[ProfessorDuh]

If only Saddam Hussein had been smart enough to solicit a legal opinion from his government lawyers that gassing people was within the law, he could have been playing golf in Myrtle Beach right now.
--David Kurtz