America Did Torture -- Lincoln's Assassins

The torture memos are being released today and will undoubtedly appall us.

But keep in mind that there is precedent for the U.S. government torturing:

All eight of those brought to trial ... were locked up in single cells, each only 3.5 feet wide by 7 feet long. Six had canvas hoods pulled over their heads and tied tightly around their necks, with removal allowed only when they sat in court. Slits in the cloth enabled them to breathe and eat. Two had metal balls chained to their legs. The aim was to isolate them in a manner both merciless and unforgiving. Latitude was given for prison authorities to impose even harsher restrictions to prevent their "cheating the gallows by self-destruction."

For six weeks during the trial, detainees endured what one of them condemned as "the torture of the bag." Another tried to commit suicide by pounding his head with the ball chained to his leg. The prison doctor, recoiling at the padded hoods that pressed firmly against their eye sockets, demanded they be removed forthwith and the detainees allowed outdoors to exercise in the open air, failing which, he warned, the secretary of war would have "a lot of lunatics on his hands." Only then did authorities yield.

The prisoners in question were those involved in the conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln. You can read here the whole story of their trial and how the national reaction to Lincoln's killing mirrored the national reaction to 9/11.

(And to be clear: Torture is wrong. We shouldn't torture. Period.)

Comments

[AmbivalentGuy]

Note that in 1865, when the Dr told them to stop - they did.
The hoods were a "little" extreme at that point,
I believe they stopped using such things at Eastern State Prison
in the 1850's (Scotch caps), and the leg shackles, with weights,
not considered cruel or unusual at the time.

At Gitmo, they didn't stop for years.
They got their lunatics, and a lot more.
But no trials.

Might I argue that they were more humane in 1865?

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

William Colby's "Phoenix Program" in Vietnam was pretty much a death squad/torture operation that lasted from 1968 to 1970. The South Vietnamese government boasted that it had neutralized about 40,000 "VC."

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/its-not-torture-if-you-us_b_188942.html

Any torture that took place before WWII is a little problematic to bring up now as being relevant -- the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Trials is all we really need -- hell, the CIA trained torturers in Vietnam and in Brazil -- remember Dan Mitrione?

[racetoinfinity]

I know you didn't make an editorial comment, but, if the intent was to show that "hey America has done it before-so what's the big deal" - my answer would be - Have you ever heard of progress (evolution)? Just because this was done some 145 years ago does not mean that we have not - should not - have grown into a more civil and humane society.

[firstrax]

Does anyone doubt that japanese were tortured during WWII, or VC during the VC conflict?

[larry278]

I'm waiting to hear from an unidentified source with ties to Obama that Obama knew about the torture of suspects connected with Lincoln's murder & reasoned that Andrew Johnson knew about too. Since Johnson didn't make much of the torture, Obama decided to follow Johnson's example. That's why Obama isn't going to touch W's torturers at the CIA, Gitmo & elsewhere-­-according the ever present unidentified sources.
Vigilante action is illegal. Don't try to punish the torturers by extra-legal means. Besides, you don't want to be like W's people. Maybe Obama will change his mind about W & Co's torturers & they would have to account for their acts before a judge. No, I don't think that a judge would punish W's torturers. It's 2009. Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan. Somebody will tell Obama that some Afghan-Taliban people need to be tortured to get vital intelligence; Obama will 'reluctantly' approve of torture in some instances. SS/DD Obama=change you can trust---Not.

[Manx]

It is ludicrous to argue that torture is okay because there is a precedent. There is a precedent for slavery but that doesnt' make it acceptable.

[Carolab]

Exactly. There is a precedent that supersedes them all "Do unto others".

[larry278]

There is a small problem. Too many sat, "Do it to others before they do it to you.". In 2009, the USA remains polarized.

[larstein]

An argument can be made that America tortures hundreds of people everyday, calling it "solitary confinement" or "the hole". Over time isolation can drive a person completely insane, yet this has been and is a common practice in prisons all over this country.

[ManwithaParachute]

Some of you accept torture, some of you give it little thought and some of you reject the idea. Regardless, we had laws and treaties which were subverted and our credibility has been affected. I am sure many of you would say a man is as good as his word. Do you believe that country is as good as it's word? Doing the right is not something which is always easy. For those of you who have kids, you probably realize your children will do the "right" thing when they know you are watching. As parent you know your children are understanding right from wrong when you find them doing the "right" thing when they do not know you are watching. We teach our kids values and our country does as well. So far OBUSHMA has been demonstrating that his values involve letting people who commit atrocities go.

[FilthyHarry]

Perhaps had those that ordered the torture for Lincoln's assassins been prosecuted for breaking the law, Bush & co, wouldn't have done it.

[MajorKong]

In 1978 former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro was kidnapped by Red Brigades terrorists. During the investigation, security forces wanted to torture a suspect for information.

General Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa famously replied:

"Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture."

[Doofus]

Most illogical. If we agree that 'Torture is wrong. We shouldn't torture. Period.',
then to bring up the fact that we have resorted to torture in the past does not
serve to persuade us that we shouldn't do so now, or in the future.

It's more of a moral or practical issue. Not only is it cruel, it also doesn't work.

[radiclib]

.
.
.
Bush ordered torture.
What is the punishment for his crimes?
.
.

[BocaMom]

Saving American lives at home! Do you remember 9/11? Hello? Even Panetta said he would consider torture if needs the information. I think 30 minutes of torture is worth saving one American.

[RedneckDem]

The problem was they weren't torturing some dude with nuclear residue on him in NYC, they were renditioning and torturing people of interest or a guy who knew Bin Ladens sisters, cousins brother. We crossed the line... We put people to death after WWII for water boarding and torture. Aren't we supposed to be better than them, yet we allow ourselves to become just like them. This is exactly what they want and it allows them to keep adding recruits for their suicide missions.

[mia8485]

You're not going to believe any of this, but....

1. 9/11 happened 8 months into Bush's term and the administration considered all that terrorist stuff from before they were in office to be Clinton's problem and, up until 9/11, they weren't going to take any of it seriously.

2. People will say anything to make the torture stop. Is this the kind of information you're talking about? The LIES from tortured terrorist suspects has already proven to be a complete waste of time and resources when our government acts on this 'information'.

3. 30 minutes?? Maybe you've watched too many episodes of "24". The torture authorized by the Bush administration went on for months, maybe years.

4. None of the lies, or "information" gleaned from torture has ever saved even one American life. In fact, Guantanamo and what was done there has made us UNsafe.

[111]

Bush ignored American and foreign intelligence that has handed to him telling him that we were going to be attacked. For 8 months he and Cheney and others were told what was going to happen - he chose to do nothing. That was information handed to him without torture and he did nothing to protect Americans. Bush ignored the information. Bush let 3000 American civilians die .. he knew it was going to happen and he did nothing. And he refused to swear to tell the truth to the 9/11 commission and he never apologized, not once, for his lies and incompetence.

8:46 North Tower was hit; 9:02 South Tower hit; 9:05 Bush is told America is under attack - and he sat in that classroom and did nothing for 18 another minutes. He did nothing.

9:37 the pentagon was hit and at 10:03 Flight 93 crashed,

and 15 Saudis with a few flying lessons out maneuvered our military and they did it with commercial jets that did not have half the capacity of the fighter jets that should have protected us from most of the damage that was done.

Torture did nothing to save any American life, not one. Torture has not resulted in one bit of useful information. But Bush lied and put our loved ones in danger so he and the, as he called them, "the haves and the have mores" could get richer.

[FilthyHarry]

What about torture that doesn't save lives?
Also what does torturing people AFTER 9/11 have to do with 9/11?

[DEStern]

This argument is how people get seduced into doing evil, by being deceived that it will bring benefit. In more dangerous circumstances, G. Washington forbade injury of British prisoners, " for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country." There are sins that are not worth their promised benefits, it is the fool who dares to violate spiritual teachings by committing torture, which is criminal behavior. Anyone who supports torture cannot be relied on for accurate information either, such as the repeated claims that Guantanamo prisoners were treated humanely. Torturers need a lot of compassion and prayer, since we all reap what we sow, and theirs are among the greatest crimes. It's wiser to sow love and trust in God's ways rather than in the dark ways of violence if it's security you're after. National security can be done lawfully, without resorting to evil.

[lifter50]

Right and wrong are in the eyes of human beholders which sums up this rotten human condition in which we exist.
jw

[KevinRiley]

No, right and wrong are absolute. They either are, or are not. The perception of the individual is irrelevant, for he is either correct, or he is mistaken.

[FrozenNorthObserver]

ahh, so the 1860s are the new moral measuring stick for the US. Guatamala North.