Torture: "It's Perfectly Legal -- But We Don't Do It"

Liz and Dick Cheney, Bill Bennett, Ari Fleischer, and countless other commentators have saturated the public airwaves of late ever since the Obama Administration decided to make public the Bush torture memos. These apologists for war crimes have been jawboning the issue from every conceivable angle. Why are these barbarians who defend torturing other human beings appearing on my television and radio? So far, the arguments I've heard in favor of torturing people are the following:

1). They say "it's not torture" because these same techniques were used on American servicemen as part of their "Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape" (SERE) training and, as Liz Cheney told Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC, "We didn't torture our own servicemen."

But the SERE training was designed to give American servicemen skills to counter Chinese communist torture practices through resisting and learning to endure them. So the United States, by aping the Chinese' techniques and applying them to our own prisoners, is really guilty of the same types of torture the Chinese practiced, which the U.S. condemned at the time as illegal and barbaric.

2). They say "it's not torture" because waterboarding, the harshest of the Bush-approved interrogation techniques, is only a "quick" and "painless" way to disorient a subject like an open-fingered face slap. It leaves no lasting physical or psychological effects.

Although Sean Hannity is free to volunteer to be waterboarded in an effort to trivialize its status as "torture," American servicemen faced court martial for waterboarding Filipinos and Vietnamese, and Japanese soldiers were executed for doing it to Americans, and sheriffs faced criminal prosecution for doing it. And American interrogators waterboarded the "high value" terrorist suspect Khalid Shaikh Muhammed (KSM) 183 times in one month, averaging about six times a day, and Abu Zubaydah got waterboarded a total of eighty-three times. We've heard little public discussion about the effects of these techniques being used together or in tandem along with eleven days of sleep deprivation.

3). They say "it's not torture" because Bush said unequivocally "the U.S. does not torture."

But these statements from Bush and other former officials are simply lies to cover up what they know was a criminal act. If it were not against the law there'd be no need to lie about it. In effect, they're saying: "It's perfectly legal -- but we don't do it."

4). They say their "enhanced interrogation techniques" are "lawful" because the professional lawyers were careful to limit the duration of each technique and took great pains to ensure each technique did not violate the law.

But these "lawyers" are nothing but quacks who cooked up their dreary documents under a veil of secrecy. These torture memos were not peer-reviewed by their colleagues or evaluated by any judge. Their "legal opinions" were pure sophistry and the lawyers who drew them up knew they would never hold up in court or with their peers or with the public.

5). They say it was not unlawful because the Commander-in-Chief ordered it in a "time of war." (John Yoo was particularly fond of this argument.)

But the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the leadership of the United States military advised against using these new techniques and preferred to rely on the Army Field Manual instead of the Bush Justice Department. There was no declaration of war and even in "war time" the President does not have the right to break the law. This argument is just a repackaging of Richard Nixon's old adage: "If the President does it then it's not illegal."

6). They say that it was lawful because leading Democrats in Congress were "fully" briefed about these new interrogation techniques and raised no objections.

But the very limited briefings the Bush Administration offered Congress were consistent with Dick Cheney's contempt for that body and were thin on details. Besides, under the intelligence committee guidelines members of Congress who are briefed with classified information cannot go public or even share it with their own staffs (in fear of leaks). So what were these Congressional leaders expected to do? And if we're asked to put the green-lighting of torture in the context of the emergency of 9-11 and the desire of preventing another attack doesn't that argument also apply to the Congressional leaders who were briefed? And if Democrats were complicit in covering up the crime of torture who said they should be immune to prosecution because of their party affiliation? Any Democratic member of Congress who was involved in covering up these crimes should be prosecuted along with any member of the Bush Administration who did so. This is not a "partisan" issue.

7). They say these NOT-torture techniques are legitimate in any case because they "worked." Cheney claims that "we" got "actionable intelligence" from the information from these "harsh" interrogations.

But this line of reasoning sounds like just another lie to cover up the original crime. We need to see the real concrete proof that torturing suspects provided intelligence personnel with anything other than gibberish. They say that their torture "saved lives." Prove it. Besides, this is like hearing practitioners of genocide argue that it is legitimate because it "worked."

8). They say it's not torture because these were good men with the best of intentions operating in a difficult emergency environment and were aiming to save American lives.

But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the end does not justify the means.

9). They say the post-9-11 emergency environment, complete with "chatter" about another attack, influenced their reasoning so we mustn't question it now in a period of relative calm but put ourselves in their shoes back then.

But it is precisely in times of crisis and turmoil when we need most to stand firm behind our values and honor our laws and customs. Bush said the terrorists attacked us because "they hate our freedom" and then he turned around and threw away any semblance of morality and violated the honor and protections of our freedom: the rule of law.

10). They say it wasn't torture because physicians and psychologists carefully monitored the situation.

But it is the physicians and psychologists who so violated their professional ethics who should be prosecuted first for playing a role in this illegal torture activity, not praised for their participation.

Finally, Liz Cheney told Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC that because Al Qaeda would "cut off an American's head" if they took him prisoner we shouldn't worry about torture making it more likely that U.S. personnel might be tortured in return. So, this daughter of Dick, found Al Qaeda's practices to be an acceptable moral referent; she was arguing, in effect, that the United States should become more like Al Qaeda instead of fighting to preserve our differences. Or, like Rummy before her, she was saying that we all should pat ourselves on the back because we only torture people instead of cutting their heads off.

Now, I just want to make two points:

1). The Torture was Racist

This American torturing of dark-skinned Arab and Afghan prisoners was inherently racist. They never would have considered treating white northern Europeans like this with all the forced nudity, "confinement boxes," waterboarding, and all the other kinky and sadistic abuses. It just never would have happened -- (unless, of course, you can picture in your mind Lynddie England stacking up in a pyramid a bunch of naked Norwegians).

2). The Torture Stripped the United States of the Moral High Ground

American officials and representatives of the U.S. government forfeited the right to criticize or raise objections internationally of the human rights records and violations of other regimes and organizations -- including the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The United States practicing torture undermined all the efforts of torture victims and human rights activists all over the world. In fact, the Bush Administration put the lives at risk of anyone who is fighting authoritarian regimes in the name of human rights. Former authoritarian government officials who might now be in custody awaiting trial for committing torture can use the U.S. example as they fashion their defense: "The End Justifies the Means." And all the thugs and murderers and torturers around the globe can now point to the United States and say: "We too are torturing for our national security; we too got 'actionable' intelligence from our enemies; we too have the best of intentions; we too are operating in a state of emergency." All of the torturers from the world's worst, most brutal regimes can now rise up and proclaim their solidarity with the United States: "We Are All Americans Now!"

Comments

[research]

All data gotten of value was done before torture, using conversation. The tortures love to group this data in with the useless junk they get from torture.

Naming people is not reliable data. You think the torturers didn't suggest those names, based on their own intelligence?

Torture will get you whatever fake information you need to go after whomever you think is guilty. .

Are you torture defenders complicit in these crimes or are

you ignorant of the perceptual corrupting effect of torture?

I can torture you to get to say or agree to whatever I want.

Then I can Claim I interrogated this data out of you.

Then I can torture other people to corroborate the story I made you tell me.

I can then grab people I suspect, and torture them into confessing.

Even a sincere torturer will be misled by the absolute power to get people to say what they want.

Tortured data is mental projection by the torturers.

[Macready]

Great post . . . I want to see these guys prosecuted . . . and that goes for any Dems who were involved . . .

[sposton]

City upon a hill and torture don't go together.

[Godfearing]

IF WATERBOARDING IS NOT TORTURE I ASSUME ALL THOSE REPULICAN LEASDERS IN FAVOR OF IT WILL GLADLY STEP FORWARD AND VOLUNTEER TO BE WATERBOARDED IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE THEIR POINT!

[rjmiller]

The legality of these acts should not be in question. Under precedents from previous wars, the actions of US interrogators and the administrators that allowed/encouraged torture are obviously illegal. However, the morality of the actions can be questioned.

From a Kantian viewpoint, torture is flat-out wrong. It should never be done under any circumstance, no matter the reason. However, although the US like to posture itself along idealistic Kantian lines, we have little actual Kantian tradition. We have targeted civilian populations (Dresden, Japan) and slaughtered unarmed prisoners (Philippines). So to now take a Kantian stance, while noble, is somewhat disingenuous.

From a Utilitarian perspective (what conservatives love, but rarely think through), torture can be legitimate as long as it works. Hypothetically, the societal cost of torturing terrorists is less than that of dead citizens. This hypothetical situation demands that torture only be used on people that have actionable intelligence that will save lives, and that good intelligence is likely to be received in the course of torture. This leads to the dilemmas that we have seen in the Bush years:

1) Innocent people have been tortured.

2) Torture isn't likely to work.

Therefore, the question becomes "Is it moral to torture a large group of prisoners, some of them innocent, in an effort to get some useful information while also receiving a large amount of junk?" Especially considering the fact that US torture practices have been used as propaganda for recruitment, the answer is certainly "No."

[hecatr]

You are a clear thinker, and I agree generally with the points you make, but not your conclusion.

What is your response when I say I only want to resort to more intense coercive techniques in the case of bonafide bad guys who definitely know things about other bonafide bad guys, and that I can discriminate against some--not all--of the lies they tell because of the intel I already have on the bad guys, obtained through my spy networks, wiretapping, and cooperation with allies?

In the case of the Bush administration, it was not a large group of people who were waterboarded. It was a very small group of very bad people who we understood to know very much about their friends. Traditional methods of interrogation were moving too slowly or were not effective at obtaining the key information that was demanded, so the interrogators with permission took it up a notch.

Of course no one wants an innocent person or someone without knowledge of terrorist networks or planned terrorist attacks to be tortured or killed. I certainly don't, and obviously such a circumstance should be avoided. I don't want to torture anyone willy-nilly, but I do want to obtain the best intel possible. The overwhelming majority of detainees have not been waterboarded, and generally the intensity of the coercion correlates to the severity of the detainee and his unwillingness to cooperate. Do you object?

[research]

We don't know how many people were tortured.

"bonafide bad guys " ???

The only way to know that is to try them in a regular court.

Were they????

NO.

They say they have solid evidence that they real were "bad guys"

What is that eveidence?

Tortured confessions and tortured accusations.

BS.

And it apparelent NEVER workds. OR we would be hearing all about it.

The few examples they have given have all been refuted as false info. like the data that got us into Iraq in the first place!

We must never give anyone the power to do the evil of torture.

We must never allow tortured "evidence" to be used.

Torture is infinity corrupting of a nation.

If the entire world turns against you, because you tortured,

What data could be worth that?

[hecatr]

I disagree with the Bush administration that waterboarding is not torture, but that is the extent of my disagreement with Bush on this issue.
The enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by President Bush worked. It yielded information that we were not able to obtain through traditional interrogation techniques to which the three men proved impervious to.
I believe a terrorist's or terrorist collaborator's discomfort or possible death is preferable to the loss of innocent life in a terrorist attack.

[cinesimon]

No, it did not work.
All I see is laziness from proponents of torture.
You folk seem to just brush aside the testimony of highly experienced operatives(or worse yet, see from the headline that they disapprove, so you don't even bother to read their argument), yet accept the word of a politician as if they know the facts better than those who were there.

The information leading to KSM's capture was obtained BEFORE he was tortured, as was much other information.
Source(among others):http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/26/ali-soufan-interview-fbi_n_191526.html

Anyway - can you back up your claim that torture works, without using the entirely political and fact-less nonsense from Dick Cheney, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and their morally and intellectually bankrupt cohorts?
Even if they got ONE piece of information, given the fact that much more info was received before he was tortured, Zubayda is likely to have given that one piece of information without torture.

Torture not only destroys our moral high ground, it doesn't work - unless you're looking for false confessions such as trying to prove a political point - that is: trying to find a link between Iraq and Al Qaida. AFTER the invasion.
In other words they tortured to cover their asses.

I believe it's your last line that's the main reason Republicans chose to torture.
By pretending they're the tough guys, who make tough decisions, to keep the racially, morally superior American species safe from those dangerous sub-humans.

[hecatr]

As evidence of torture working, I quote from the Newsweek article you cited:

"For their part, CIA officials dispute Soufan's argument that harsh methods weren't productive. They say that early on, Zubaydah stopped talking—and that after the FBI agents left the scene, the enhanced interrogations produced important information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a key 9/11 plotter."

Read below the two-paragraph excerpt from a piece that was published in Political Science Quarterly in the summer of 2006:

"Leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether torture is ever justifiable, the strictly empirical issue of whether it 'works' is not difficult to ascertain. There is little doubt, for example, that in the 1950s, French torture of Algerian captives temporarily succeeded in destroying the underground revolutionary movement; similarly, there is evidence that in Ireland British torture or coercion succeeded in gaining useful information. More recently, there is evidence that in 2002, Sri Lanka tortured three terrorists into revealing the location of a bomb set to explode later that day, and it is known that in 'ticking bomb' cases, Israel tortures--or, at least, inflicts physical and mental coercion upon--Palestinian militants, who have sometimes apparently revealed information that has prevented terrorist attacks against civilians.

[hecatr]

"Elsewhere as well, torture appears to be producing valuable information in the current war on terrorism. [Alan] Dershowitz and others have cited cases in which Jordanian and Philippine torture resulted in the breaking up of terrorist plans and networks, including a plot to bring down a number of airplanes, and both the Schlesinger and 9/11 Commission reports stated that interrogation of captured al-Qaeda officials--widely known to include severe coercion and probably outright torture--has provided important information about that organization's structure and plans."

Now you understand why I think coercive interrogation works. Let me repeat why I justify it: a terrorist or terrorist collaborator’s discomfort or possible death is preferable to the loss of innocent life.

Of course there are degrees of coercion. They range from forcing a man to sit awkwardly in a chair for days at a time to waterboarding. Generally speaking, America uses the more extreme methods in the most extreme cases, such as with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Interrogating him in March 2002 opened up a veritable treasure chest of intelligence at a time when we still knew little about al Qaeda. Much of the information was obtained after he was waterboarded, including intel on plans of future attacks in America.

[hecatr]

I do not deny that less coercive interrogation works. It does work. But apparently it did not work well enough, because of the more drastic methods the interrogators resorted to in those rare cases.

I do not believe that America has lost its moral high ground. I believe coercive interrogation of terrorists to gain intelligence on their networks and to avert attacks on innocent people to be a tough but moral decision that most reasonable people would understand.

Besides, moral high ground has never been a major factor in the waging of wars. More and bigger guns and weapons and the will to use them are. I wish it were not the case, but it has been throughout history.

As for it being against the law, what can I say other than if given the choice between breaking the Geneva Convention protocols and saving many innocent lives, I would save many innocent lives.

The link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime is well-documented, and torture of anyone to prove it is not necessary:

1. Photographs taken by Malaysian intelligence in January 2000 place Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi intelligence operative, at key planning meeting with al-Qaeda members for the bombing of the USS Cole an the Sept. 11 attacks.

[hecatr]

2. Osama bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq’s Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam’s son Qusay, according to intelligence made public by SecState Colin Powell before the UN Security Council on Feb. 6, 2003.

3. In 1999, the Guardian reported that Faruq al-Hijazi, a senior officer of Iraq’s mukhabarrat, had journeyed deep into the mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al-Qaeda officers. Al-Hijazi is “thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq,” the Guardian reported.

4. In 1998, according to documents unearthed in Iraq’s intelligence headquarters in April 2003, al-Qaeda sent a “trusted confidante” to Baghdad for 16 days of meetings beginning March 5. Iraqi intelligence paid for his stay in Room 414 of the Mansur al-Melia hotel and expressed hope that the envoy would serve as the liaison between Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden. The Defense Intelligence Agency has assessed those documents as authentic.

5. American intelligence intercepted two phone calls that illuminated the Iraq regime’s and al-Qaeda’s role in Ansar al-Islam. The first, in May 2002, revealed than an Iraqi intelligence officer praised the work of the terrorist group and passed $100,000 to its leaders. The second, described in a report by the National Security Agency, reported that the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda reached an agreement whereby the regime would provide safe haven in northern Iraq to al-Qaeda terrorists fleeing Afghanistan.

[hecatr]

6. Shortly after 9/11, hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in Ansar al-Islam’s strongholds inside northern Iraq.

7. An Iraqi defector to Turkey, Abu Mohammed, told the Sunday Times of London that he saw Osama bin Laden’s fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997.

8. In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a long-time aide to Uday Hussein, defected to the West. He repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

9. In 2001, an al-Qaeda members bragged that the situation in Iraq was “good,” according to intelligence made public by SecState Colin Powell.

10. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi received medical treatment at the Olympic hospital run by Uday Hussein.

11. When al-Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Al-Zarqawi’s cell was tied to the murder of USAID official Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

12. Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Saddam Kurdish forces in May 2000.

13. Osama bin Laden sent Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 to purchase poison gases.

[wordvarc]

I think cheney's executive branch was caught up in that arrogant crisis mentality of believing they were so special in a unique time of history that entitled them to reset or break all wisdom, rules, and policies.

Obama should release all the torture memos,
identify all the justice and executive branch torture memo players,
take an advisory vote from congress on whether or not to investigate,
then throw the decision regarding torture investigation to the minority party.

We'd then call the GOP...
"The Torture Party."

[moralimperative178]

Prof. Palermo's intellectually incisive analysis and "cactusgal's profound comments are right on target. To The G.O.P.(Grand Obstructionist Party), torture and racism are second nature. Everyone will recall that all the former southern Democratic House and Senate members of Congress went over to the G.O.P.after Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. Since that time the South has remained solid G.O.P. - a party now comprised mainly of racists, malcontents and people with cognitive impairments or character disorders.
They are so devious, sinister and conspiratorial they must be given the moniker of "SPITTING COBRAS." Their spewing of venom, vitriol and viciousness know no bounds.
The G.O.P. are playing to their true nature, as they worship only power and control- obtained by any means as espoused by Machiavelli. But as Shakespeare would say ,when overleaping ambition and unbridled lust for power and control overwhelm common decency, self-destruction and chaos are the natural consequence. At least the Democrats respect human values and common decency. The G.O.P. must be sent to the wilderness for at least 40 years.

[johnie2xs]

..............with an option on several decades beyond.

It's such a confluence of influences. You would think that if they really believed in the Christian values they espouse, they would not be in this fix. But what has come to the fore is the "Manifest Destiny" influence of white European aristocracy.

[johnie2xs]

This situation brings up what I have been saying repeatedly about the genius of Obama. The left was apoplectic when it seemed as if, by continually saying that he "wanted to look forward rather than delve into the past", that Barack had no intention of visiting this issue. His genius was to stimulate the Legislative Branch and the populace to do just that, by seeming reticent. In this way it is truly "The Will of the People" being done, with little blow-back to be had toward him.

He never had any intention of letting these criminals get away with this crap. He is engaging the electorate into getting involved in their government, the way it should, in a Representative Democracy.

The Bushies now have nowhere to hide. The chickens are coming home to roost.

[Twentylaws]

First there was the uprise and now comes the revolution!

[cactusgal]

To me, Americans who find a way to justify torture or call it by any other name to make it more palatable, are of the same ilk as those who used to justify segregation (and even slavery). I'm old enough to remember how having separate rest rooms for blacks and whites and enforcing segregation by viciously beating those who didn't willingly march to the rear of the bus, was touted as somehow "protecting" BOTH races from "outside" forces. It seems to me that many Americans are willing to turn a blind eye to any kind of brutality as long as they are able to justify it as somehow preserving their delusional concepts of superiority and ability to control other human beings by any means, no matter how inhumane.

[hrholmes]

Well said and layed out! The DOJ et al is hardly ready to prosecute war criminals at this time since it was deconstructed over 8 years ago and raised again with right wing nuts like Andrew Card and the ever moronic Monica Goodling. It will be at least a year before anybody competent enough to prosecute war criminals even works in that environment. Pelosi and Reid being the spineless wimps they are will take a pass on the issue. This will be the measure as to whether we re-elect Obama in 2012. We'll just have to wait and see if he does have the brains, guts and balls to bring the criminals that ruined this country to justice.

[Woodn88s]

What is the viewpoint of the "Holier than though" Evangelical Christians regarding this issue?

I'd love to hear what Pat Robinson, and Rick Warren, and the rest of the "chosen" have to say about this issue.
What would Jesus do Rick?

[keysbreezin]

Pat Robertson said that because we bombed Hiroshima it was OK to torture our enemies. That's what he said, I'll leave the untangling of that logic to others.

[dave1111]

Good point, Genocide is effective, does that make it ok?

[Exexecution]

The fact that Cheney has just this past week deployed Feith, Rove, and his entire family to troll the depths of the right-wing talk-shows in his defense is evidence of his mounting fear of humiliation and prosecution.
I guess dick must have mis-overestimated Rove on that permanent Republican majority theory.

[mari2JJ]

No matter what Cheney does, he cannot erase the stain made by the torture permitted by the Bush Cheney junta. It is now is irrevocably imprinted on our country's reputation. Add that hideous behavior on the LONG list of monstrous behavior by that administration. The saddest thing is that neither Cheney nor his assistant, G. W. Bush seem to understand how horrible of a job they did in leading our country. It will take us years to clean up the mess they left but we have just the President to start that long project. So just shut up, Cheney, and let us get on with trying to undo the muck you left.