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!"
Follow Joseph A. Palermo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/N/A
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.
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."
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?
"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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
I guess dick must have mis-overestimated Rove on that permanent Republican majority theory.
If we cross our own lines and do anything it takes no matter how repulsive and illegal then why should we win over the terrorists? What makes us superior, in that case?
You can win the battles but lose your soul, and that means eventually that you lose everything, including the very war you're engaged in, but also the respect and support of the rest of the word. I often wonder what people like Cheney et al are really thinking, do they imagine that you can alienate and enrage everyone in one part of the globe and simply what, kill them all? That no matter how many enemies you make, you're okay as long as you "stay tough" and "give no quarter"? That you can turn more and more people against you and just keep attacking to try to keep up?
Insanity took over our country, it's only now becoming clear to the majority.
If you become evil to fight evil, hasn't evil already won?
TRUTH, JUSTICE, HUMAN DIGNITY isn't that what we fight for?
If not, then why fight?