Althouse: "Christopher Hitchens Blames Torture on Common Americans, Demands ‘Tongue’ From Andrew Sullivan."

January 19, 2009

"Christopher Hitchens Blames Torture on Common Americans, Demands ‘Tongue’ From Andrew Sullivan."

A headline.

Hitchens opines that the prosecution of Bush administration officials would be "vengeful" and "partisan" — unless the people generally clamored for it, since the people (and not just "a small clique around the vice-president") — wanted a "ruthless" war on terror.

74 comments:

MDIJim said...: OK, I haven;t read the Hitchens piece but could not resist this opportunity. Who can say what the entire American people wanted? Even if they did want this, does that justify illegal acts by government officials?

My views about Bush's actions after 9/11 are the same as Obama's. Bush did what he had to do, as he perceived it, to protect the US from a terrorist conspiracy. Maybe "mistakes were made", but the motives were good.

In the long run, though, how much slack should we give government officials to decide for themselves when it is OK to break the law in this way? Maybe some kind of inquiry is necessary just to send the message that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

My only fear is that vengeful idiots like Pelosi and Conyers would turn this into a witch hunt that would cripple our national security for years to come. Actually, on second thought, such a partisan witch hunt would so discredit the ultraleftists that they would be crippled.

Perhaps the response to the BDS crowd should be, "Go ahead, make my day."; 1/19/09, 4:31 AM
Host with the Most said...: I am for a commission that rounds up every Bush-hater and then drops them off in the deserts of Iran.; 1/19/09, 4:43 AM
Kensington said...: Um, I still want a "'ruthless' war on terror", thank you very much. God help us all if Barack Obama chooses something softer.; 1/19/09, 5:01 AM
Revenant said...: I don't think the actions of the Bush administration were illegal. But if they were, saying "the people wanted it" wouldn't be an excuse. We have a procedure for changing the law, and it isn't based on the whim of the American people.

It is based on the whim of the Supreme Court -- ba dum tish.; 1/19/09, 5:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Just yesterday, Nancy Pelosi would not rule it out. The 'it' being criminal proceedings against the outgoing adminstration.; 1/19/09, 5:43 AM
AllenS said...: For two hundred years, this country has had a transfer of presidential power to the next administration without there being any criminal prosecutions of the previous administration. Am I beginning to see change?; 1/19/09, 6:11 AM
Bob said...: Personally I'd love to see Pelosi, Conyers & Co. subpoena Cheney and Bush to come before Congress, just so I could see Cheney defy them to their faces, saying something like, "I refuse to be a part of this kangaroo court," even to the point of being held in contempt and thrown in jail. If that happened, a civil war really would start in this country.; 1/19/09, 6:52 AM
Ron said...: Hitch and Sully? What's next for Andrew, coffee enemas from Rahm Emanuel? Floggings from Althouse in Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS drag? (Only do it if you could get it on YouTube!); 1/19/09, 7:37 AM
LoafingOaf said...: Maybe I don't follow the blog closely enough. What is Althouse's personal position on the torture issues again? It must've been made clear somewhere.; 1/19/09, 7:47 AM
Big Mike said...: To his great credit Hitchens has voluntarily undergone water boarding, and his response to that experience was to label water boarding torture. But there's a great national debate that's never been held and needs to. And that is the question of what, exactly, constitutes torture.

What we can't have is everybody deciding for themselves what is and isn't torture. Anybody doing an interogration has a range of techniques theoretically available that range from cattle prods applied to genitalia, thumbscrews, and burning bamboo shoots under fingernails, down to asking the prisoner pretty please to confess or your feelings will be hurt. We need a consensus as to where the line is, and the officials of the Bush administration seems to have taken the position that techniques that did not inflict even temporary injury on the prisoner are allowable. (So, no pistol whipping and no bullets in thighs like Jack Bauer.) That's a defensible position, but so is the position that water boarding and sleep deprivation and being forced to listen to Barry Manilow are torture and the line should be drawn below them.

Absent that consensus, everything is BS.

Oh, cokaygne, you're flat wrong. Democrats are above the law. Witness Al Gore's fundraising during the Clinton years -- clearly illegal but never prosecuted -- not to mention Rangel, Dodd, and Geithner more recently. Only Republicans are held accountable.; 1/19/09, 8:41 AM
AllenS said...: Waterboarding is not torture unless the person dies. It's very simple.; 1/19/09, 8:55 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Isn't it interesting that we're having a national debate about following the law?

I didn't want a "ruthless war on terror". That breeds more terror, as we've seen the past 8 years.

Glenn Greenwald's post of yesterday makes the sound case that a) top Bush officials signed off on torture, b) torture is illegal, c) the treaty Ronald Reagan signed off on has no excuses for "I was ordered to torture" (see Nuremberg) or "there was an emergency.

No mention on whether bloviating drunks claiming the power to know a nation's mind can make excuse, but I'm skeptical.; 1/19/09, 8:59 AM
Lem the artificially intelligent said...: Hitch is right. I remember being frustrated that we appeared too slow to respond to the attacks.; 1/19/09, 9:02 AM
Ken Pidcock said...: He's certainly got a point, and I think it will prevent prosecution. Whether or not you agree that the nation wanted a ruthless response in 2001, you have to agree that we voted for it in 2004.

But I hope we have some kind of opportunity to remind ourselves of how we dishonored our ancestors.; 1/19/09, 9:02 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Waterboarding is not torture unless the person dies. It's very simple.

Not so much. We've prosecuted soldiers who tortured. We've condemned other nations that tortured.

There are other forms of torture used by the US under Bush's command. These include beating people (kneeing people in thighs seems popular), hanging people from ceilings, threatening with dogs, depriving people of sleep, etc, etc.

I don't recall if the US had the stress boxes they put humans into or if that was our client state torturers. Boxes so small you can't move with blasting music so you can't sleep. And, burying people alive.

Oh, and over 100 people have died in US custody. Dozens are missing.

Does it feel uncomfortable to be a torture apologist?; 1/19/09, 9:06 AM
AllenS said...: Mark me down as pro torture.; 1/19/09, 9:09 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: From the Wikipedia entry on waterboarding:

During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo,[60] the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture.

By today's - and Hitchens', standards was it okay for WWII Germans Japanese and to waterboard? No? What's the difference?

Are these rules being made up on the fly timeless principles or opportunistic excuses?; 1/19/09, 9:10 AM
AllenS said...: If you think that the Japanese and the Germans used waterboarding as the sole device for torture, you're kidding yourself. They called waterboarding foreplay.; 1/19/09, 9:15 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Allen, I didn't say that and you're ducking the question.

Was waterboarding wrong when the Germans and Japanese did it in WWII?

And, courtesy of Glenn Greenwald, here is the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Signed by Ronald Reagan.; 1/19/09, 9:18 AM
garage mahal said...: 9/11 changed torture.; 1/19/09, 9:19 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Perhaps we can all agree that torture is a form of terrorism?

That seems noncontroversial.

And, I would add torture is sadistic. The clamor for torture from some quarters is basically a clamor for vengeance and sadism.

But we've now killed and tortured many times the number of people killed on 9/11. And dropped many times the explosive power of 9/11 on others.

How much vengeance is enough?; 1/19/09, 9:29 AM
AllenS said...: Have you ever seen pictures of our POW's from WWII? Did they look like they had enough to eat? Have you heard about the Bataan Death March? Waterboarding? I'm supposed to be upset about waterboarding? I had never even heard about the practice until the past how many years. I was in the Army in the 1960's, and never heard about it. One thing was for certain, and all of us knew it at the time, don't get captured. The possibility of living through capture was minimal. Waterboarding?; 1/19/09, 9:31 AM
AllenS said...: They are flying airplanes into peoples foreheads, and you're worried about waterboarding?; 1/19/09, 9:33 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: For this conversation, let's also highlight that anti-torture treaty signed by Ronald Reagan:
Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

To the point of the thread, no matter what excuses are drunken dreamed up by all the drunken bloviators of the land, torture is illegal.

Where is the law and order crowd when you need them? You know, "lock `em up and throw away the key?"; 1/19/09, 9:33 AM
AllenS said...: I could care less what Reagan, Bush or Carter feels about it.; 1/19/09, 9:34 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Allen, yes, I heard of all those things, mainly from my arch-conservative father who taught me to oppose all torture ("We're too good a nation for that."). And I heard about waterboarding a long time ago.

Waterboarding is a big deal. It creates a very real sense one is drowning and imposes sheer terror on a person. It's a very real threat to kill.

And, again, we're not just talking about waterboarding. How did those 100+ people die in US custody?

We don't even know all that was done. We need an investigation to see what was done in our name.

From TIME magazine:
Khan's lawyers have said their client has gone on a hunger strike to protest the conditions of his confinment, and appears pale and gaunt. In the course of meetings with counsel and the Red Cross, Khan also handed over neatly penned, handwritten letters. Several have been made public, after heavy redactions imposed by U.S. military censors. One of Khan's messages begins: "In this letter I am going to mention some of the things I have been through." Then the next 19 lines of text are blacked out.

Doesn't take 19 lines to say waterboarding.; 1/19/09, 9:42 AM
AllenS said...: I don't care if we waterboard or not. Period. If Obama wants to waterboard or turn all the prisoners loose, I don't care. I don't care if the terrorists blow up you, or even one our cities. I don't care. The possibility of that happening where I live is close the zero. I would like to see combat one more time. This time I don't want to fight any farther away from home than a couple of hour drive. Waterboarding is a big deal to you. I think that it might help save some of our lives, but I don't care if it saves yours.; 1/19/09, 9:51 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: I've been thinking about this and other differences in approaching the world that we have in this country.

A bottom line is that the pro-torture crowd thinks that brute force is the way to get the truth. I think brute force can get answers, but not the usually the truth.

Plus, we lose when we torture. We lose standing, respect and honor.; 1/19/09, 9:54 AM
AllenS said...: Brute force is flying airplanes into buildings full of people. Do you think those people flying the planes care about standing, respect and honor? Perhaps if you find yourself on the next hijacked airplane, you could explain the premise to them.; 1/19/09, 9:59 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Allen, I'm not sure if you'd be fighting other Americans at the end of your two-hour drive, or Mexicans or Canadians. Weird statement.

I wish you no ill.
============
No conversation on torture would be complete without considering how an earlier generation of Americans beat Hitler and Tojo without using torture, much bigger enemeis than we now face.

Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII
Interrogators Fought 'Battle of Wits'
Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.

Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Let's remember, the sides using torture in WWII lost.; 1/19/09, 9:59 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Allen, our reaction since 9/11 has used many times more the brute force used on 9/11. Many times more people have been killed, maimed and/or made refugees and exiles.

How much is enough?

At what point do you get the idea that we're making enemies faster than we can kill them?; 1/19/09, 10:01 AM
Bob R said...: Contrary to Alphaliberal and Glen Greenwald's typically disingenuous and logically fallacious formulation, we are not having a national discussion about whether to follow the law. We are having a discussion about what exactly the law requires us to do. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the legal interpretations of the Bush advisors, they were specifically asked the question about what was legal and what was not. Bush administration officials signed off on interrogation methods on which there is ongoing substantive agreement about whether they can be labeled as torture. Pretending that this central question is settled is a sophomoric rhetorical trick. It only works inside the liberal cocoon, but of course, if you are inside the cocoon you can't understand this.

As far as Hitchen's saying that common Americans approved of torture, the best evidence of this would seem to be that they reelected Bush in 2004 after many allegations of torture (including waterboarding) were made public. Does anyone think that Bush lost a lot of votes in 2004 because people felt he had been too hash to terrorists and Kerry would treat them more humanely. But again Hitchens is lumping Americans who think "sure it's torture, who cares" with those who think that if it doesn't involve electrodes on the naughty bits it's not torture. Questions about the nature of torture that are settled in Hitch's mind are not settled for everyone.; 1/19/09, 10:11 AM
Unknown said...: AlphaLiberal --

"Waterboarding is a big deal. It creates a very real sense one is drowning and imposes sheer terror on a person. It's a very real threat to kill."

Yes, so much terror... Hitchens: "And so then I said, with slightly more bravado than was justified, that I’d like to try it one more time."

One doesn't ask to be "tortured" a second time on the same day.

Your screed loses a bit of sting when you lump in charley horses "(kneeing people in thighs seems popular)" and such as torture.; 1/19/09, 10:18 AM
Tibore said...: "Hitchens opines that the prosecution of Bush administration officials would be "vengeful" and "partisan" — unless the people generally clamored for it, since the people (and not just "a small clique around the vice-president") — wanted a "ruthless" war on terror."

... and yet, the fact that most national elections don't exceed 60-40 splits, that there's much dialogue and outright debate in all the media about various politics including the specific issue he highlights, that dominance in politics swings back and forth, that movies and TV entertainment span various spectrums of subject, and that the damn stupid Chevy-Ford, Lakers-Celtics, Colts-Patriots, Nestle-Hershy, and Coke-Pepsi divides don't stop him from realizing that not all Americans think alike makes me wonder just how deep his thought processes go. He seems to be oblivious to the mountain of facts indicating how Americans really are. But for some odd reason that doesn't stop him from making overarching (and overreaching) pronouncements.

For the third thread in a row, I'm starting to see some Rorschach interpretation going on here, and it's telling me a fair amount about Hitchens.

The more I see out of him, the more I find his stance on fighting Islamic radicalism is right completely by accident, not by proper perception of what such radicalism truly is. I first took his stance as something created out of principle, not merely something coming from his desire to be oppositional. I seem to have read too much into him. Iconoclasm is only constructive when it's based on principle; when it's done out of spite, it devolves into sheer bloody mindedness, nothing more.

I'll take him seriously again when he demonstrates some real thought. But not while he leans on caricatures as a base for his pontifications.; 1/19/09, 10:23 AM
Spread Eagle said...: For two hundred years, this country has had a transfer of presidential power to the next administration without there being any criminal prosecutions of the previous administration. Am I beginning to see change?

And for two hundred years we had elections which transpired uneventfully in the main, without hissyfits, lawsuits, and creative recountings by the losing party.

It took the modern version of the left to change both.; 1/19/09, 10:31 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Wow. Great post Tibore.

Gitmo show trials are being rushed through today. SNL did a going out of business sales spoof. It's really going out of business show trials.

Ah, tomorrow brings such new hope!; 1/19/09, 10:34 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Aha. I see. So you guys think that the President is above the law and should not be investigated nor prosecuted for breaking the law?

That's, bottom line, what you're saying.

And, I'll remind you Obama has spoken against his taking action. SOme Dem's in Congress want investigations, but there are no proseccutions beyond some grunts.; 1/19/09, 10:51 AM
Big Mike said...: Bob R gets it, and for all your key-pounding, AlphaLiberal, you don't.

I followed your link and read the Convention. First, I note that the US signed, but did not ratify. I preferred mathematics to law, but from what I understand that means the Convention is not binding on the US -- no matter how much you and Greenwald might wish otherwise.

Secondly, the question in front of us is not a debate about following the law. It is about what constitutes torture. The fact that Hitchens was willing to be water boarded a second time suggests to me that water boarding does not. But let's have that discussion. The fact that AlphaLiberal and the NYT thinks it's torture doesn't mean that it is.

And AL absolutely gets it wrong when he asserts that "torture is terror." The role of coercive interrogation techniques was to develop actionable intelligence. This is why the right against self-incrimination does not apply.; 1/19/09, 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Bush hatred is now a full blown emotional frenzy that has little grounding in fact or logic.

That is why Pelosi, I believe, plays to that frenzy by just making mention of a prosecution, whether she intends to carry it forward or not.

Personally, I think Bush made some very stupid mistakes from a leadership perspective.

Recently shouting "melt-down!" in an insecure market is an example of one of them.

But that wasn't criminal.

So before we run off on a prosecution of Bush or other administrative players, can someone at least show us the exact US criminal statutes and the relevant facts that show probable cause that a crime was committed?

Show me that, and I'll support a criminal prosecution of Bush or anyone.

If you can't show that, then let's drop the idea now and go forward.; 1/19/09, 11:09 AM
Freder Frederson said...: First, I note that the US signed, but did not ratify.

You are 100% wrong about this. The U.S. ratified the treaty in 1994. Torture is also against the Geneva Conventions, of which the U.S. is also a party. Aside from the international conventions, U.S. Law (18 USC 133C) also prohibits the torture of anyone acting under color of law.

As for the contention that there should be any debate as to whether or not waterboarding, or many of the other techniques the administration has approved, constitute torture, the only way you can contend that is to ignore the plain language of the U.S. statute, the international convention, and what the U.S. government and other civilized governments have called torture for the last one hundred years.; 1/19/09, 11:30 AM
Freder Frederson said...: U.S. Law (18 USC 133C) also prohibits the torture of anyone acting under color of law.

Whoops. This of course should read U.S. Law (18 USC 133C) also prohibits the torture by anyone acting under color of law.; 1/19/09, 11:32 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Interested readers may want to check out this opinion piece from a reporter who has been covering the torture story:
The Stories of Torture Sounded Made Up. They Weren't.
In Sunday's Wash Post.

I guess both sides will find arguments for their positions. This is all the more reason we need investigations to know what was done.; 1/19/09, 11:56 AM
Big Mike said...: Freder, I stand corrected on the status of the Convention on Torture.

I still disagree that water boarding is torture. The person undergoing water boarding emerges from the experience in no way worse than before the experience. (Hitchens seems to have been an idiot both before and after his experience.); 1/19/09, 12:01 PM
Big Mike said...: AL, nobody believes what they write in the Washington Post unless they are biased to the point of bigotry.

I read the article, and I don't believe it. We already know from captured al Qaeda documents that the members are trained to say that they have been mistreated. So they'd say it if they were and they'd say it if they weren't

You believe that the US military are liars and I know that Post reporters are liars. I even got the outgoing ombudsman to own up to it in a personal communication.; 1/19/09, 12:06 PM
sonicfrog said...: Hitch is spot on. Though we didn't give tacit approval, the public mood after 9/11 was - do whatever it takes. I remember hearing people talk about extraordinary rendition on numerous talkshows, and not the usual suspect like Rush or Hannity, but shows like LA's John and Ken and Fresno's Ray Appleton. Don't think for one minute that congress was not of the same mood. Pelosi and Reid did not try to impeach Bush because it would lead to the exposure of many Democrats on the Hill who had known all along what was happening, and either sat on their hands and didn't try to stop it, or, worse for them, secretly approved of the measures. That is why, in the aftermath of Abu Graihb, there was some outcry, but there was never any political push to have impeachment hearings. Too many partisan comrades would get swept away in the wash. It's also why the Democratic party never took the candidacy o Dennis Kusinich (sp) seriously.; 1/19/09, 12:10 PM
Freder Frederson said...: You believe that the US military are liars

Rent "Taxi to the Dark Side". The allegations of torture are not coming from detainees alone. The military admits that several detainees (including one Iraqi General who was clearly and unambiguously covered by the Geneva Conventions) died as a direct result of harsh treatment during interrogation. Many more were subject to treatment that can only be described as torture.; 1/19/09, 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Your analysis is flawed.

Leaving aside whether waterboarding is tortue, it wasn't done under the color of law and therefore 18 USC 133C doesn't apply.

It was done under the powers granted by congress in S.J.Res.23, Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Specifically:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."; 1/19/09, 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: So, Freder Frederson, would you argue that is was OK for the president to authorize the military to kill terrorists, but not to waterboard them?

On what logic would you make that interesting distinction?

Even Cass Sunstein has said that is doesn't make much sense to argue that congress gave Bush authority to kill terrorists in Afganistan or Iraq, but not to listen to their phone calls.; 1/19/09, 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: The debate over waterboarding is tiresome.

The debate drags on because both sides can make a case that waterboarding is or isn't torture. (I don't believe it is and all the people volunteering to be waterboarded prove that it is not.)

Congress can bring clarity to the law by explicitly outlawing the use of waterboarding.

The fact Congress has chosen not to outlaw waterboarding is all you need to know about our legislative branch's concern on the issue.

The Dems like to use the issue for political purposes, but they won't specifically outlaw it because 1) many of them knew about it before it was used and didn't object 2) it works, and 3) we may need to use it again some day.; 1/19/09, 12:47 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: The debate is only about waterboarding. Though it does remind me of Bill Clinton's depends on the definition of 'is'."

From the aforelinked Wash Post piece:
A prisoner who refused to eat would be strapped into the chair for up to two hours while nutrients were pumped into his nose through a tube as thick as a small broom handle.

The debate on whether or not waterboarding is tortured was invented by the Bush-Cheney Adminstration. There was,previously, no debate.
------------
That is why Pelosi, I believe, plays to that frenzy by just making mention of a prosecution

False. She mentioned INVESTIGATIONS which are different than prosecutions. And the example she cited was actually in reference to the political corruption at DoJ.

Your facts are way off, Quayle.
------------
Dogwood:
The debate over waterboarding is tiresome.

Mainly because the pro-torture camp has lost this one badly. When one is losing an argument, the argument does become tiresome.; 1/19/09, 12:58 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: It's also curious to me that the right wing wanted to drive Bill Clinton from office for having a blow job and spent millions of dollars on an investigation to find wrongdoing.

But here we have a smoking gun of violations of US and international law and it's all excuses and attacking anyone wanting to investigate.

Not exactly a model of principle.; 1/19/09, 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Mainly because the pro-torture camp has lost this one badly. When one is losing an argument, the argument does become tiresome.

Really? Guess that is why Obama's new interrogation rules are going to have an escape clause.

I can live with defeats like that.

...the right wing wanted to drive Bill Clinton from office for having a blow job

I believe the issue was perjury. People go to jail for it. It is actually a serious offense.

But here we have a smoking gun of violations of US and international law and it's all excuses and attacking anyone wanting to investigate.

Then impeach.

Oh right, the Dems didn't do that, for the three reasons I mentioned above: they knew about it and didn't care, it works, and Obama may need to use over the next few years.; 1/19/09, 1:16 PM
TosaGuy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/19/09, 1:24 PM
TosaGuy said...: How about Congress pass a law on the use of torture that is in line with what liberals want with regard to abortion...safe, legal and rare.; 1/19/09, 1:27 PM
Big Mike said...: Cool down, AL, cool down.

You are uncommonly gullible when it comes to alleged facts that cast the US of A in a bad light, and dismissive of facts, however well documented, that put it in a good light. As I said before, biased to the point of bigotry.

Case in point, feeding tubes are inserted through the nose -- it's common practice with, for instance, stroke victims. (And, no, it's not torture but merely hospital SOP until the stroke victim can pass a swallow test.)

But a feeding tube as big as a small broom handle??? Isn't that a little on the unlikely side? Do you think that 3/16" -- which is roughly the diameter of a feeding tube -- is the size of a broom handle? Or do you think a 1" feeding tube wouldn't choke the victim to death?

And, FYI, Clinton wasn't impeached for receiving a BJ. He was impeached for having perjured himself under oath, which is a felony. His only real defense would have been to argue that oral sex, despite the second part of its name, isn't really sex. I think if he had tried that defense he'd have been laughed out of office, and he decided instead to parse the word "is." Some lies are crimes, when they constitute perjury.

As I said, "no one is above the law" only applies to Republicans, and that's why the culture wars exist and are going to get nastier because people like me are fed up and intend to fight back. If crimes are not crimes when Democrats do them, then we don't operate under a system of laws but under a fascistic oligarchy.; 1/19/09, 1:27 PM
Freder Frederson said...: So, Freder Frederson, would you argue that is was OK for the president to authorize the military to kill terrorists, but not to waterboard them?

On what logic would you make that interesting distinction?

The same logic that allows the military to kill enemies, yet once they surrender, requires that those very same enemies be treated humanely.

Even Cass Sunstein has said that is doesn't make much sense to argue that congress gave Bush authority to kill terrorists in Afganistan or Iraq, but not to listen to their phone calls.

I can't believe that Cass Sunstein is so dense that he doesn't realize that the issue is not whether we are listening to terrorist phone calls, but whether safeguards are in place to ensure that non-terrorists do not have their rights violated.; 1/19/09, 1:42 PM
jr565 said...: To alpha liberal,
I remember back when the Iraq war first started I had discussions with liberals who were saying rather than go to war we should have tried assassinating Sadaam. To Alpha Liberal does that mean those arguing such are apologists for assassination?

If the choice is assassinating someone like say OBL or going to war with Afghanistan perhaps the assassination is the lesser of evils. But, if you support such an action then therefore you are a supporter of assassination in the minds of alpha liberal.

Regarding waterboarding, I'm all for it in limited circumstances. Namely in situations where lives are on the line and when the targets are high value and we know they are not innocent. So that would limit it to very rare cases. You think, I guess that would make one an apologist for torture. I would rather argue that you are making any interrogation technique torture. You literally equate giving someone a feeding tube so they don't die akin to torture. (whereas I suppose if we let people die of starvation you would then argue that people are dying under our care, which shows negligence).

I woudn't support any techniques nor did Bush and co say they would allow all techniques (whereas I'm sure Al Qaeda has no such restrictions) but do support waterboarding. Beucase its not torture. Wheareas pulling out ones fingernails I would describe as such (and I would be against using that as a technique). one reason I wouldn't view it as torture is that we use it on our cadets during SERE training. If one literally has to go through such traing to graduate it doesn't shock my conscience were we to use the same technique on Khaleid Sheik Mohammad who we KNOW is a head member of Al Qaeda and we KNOW has info on past and future operations that may lead to the death of americans.Yes the context is different, but the technique is the same, so I would weigh the benefit of doing or not doing the technique rather than saying the technique itself is wrong.

getting info from Khalleid Sheik Mohammad by its very nature is a ticking time bomb scenario. Note that doens't mean we should torture him for it or do ANYTHING. But rather find the line as to what is allowed or disallowed and go to that very line to extract needed info.

If one could countenance assassinating OBL why would one blanche at waterboardign him were we to capture him when clearly assassinating is worse than waterboarding?

Waterboarding is routine when done to our soldiers so certainly can and should be used in rare cases to extract info (in narrow circumstances).

I'm sure you'll counter that the soldiers undergoing SERE training did not in fact suffer torture becuase they knew they weren't going to die, therefore its not the same thign. Two points about that.
considering the amount of outrage directed at this very topic by the absolutists, I'd imagine anyone who followed this debate at all (including anyone in Al Qaeda) pretty much knows the limits of our interrogation techniques because we've all but laid it out for them. Knowing exactly what is allowed vis a vis interrogation pretty much allows them to train to withstand that. If they know that all that will happen is that we will follow the field manual then they merely have to read the field manual to know our methods.

Secondly though, Christopher Hitchens allowed himself to be waterboarded (twice!!!). He KNEW that his waterboarding was in a controlled environment and that he wouldn't die from it. Yet he still called it torture. So then, I'd imagine he would have to say that SERE training is torture, no? Because how is his consensual waterboarding different than a cadets waterboarding? Even if it's consensual then he would still have to draw a line and say that the training itself constitutes torture, in which case the military has routinely tortured American citizens for decades. However, if we can agree that SERE training is not torture, AND that waterbaording is a necessary in the context of training and it doesn't shock the conscience, despite the fact that some like Hitchens call it torture, then I can make the case for waterboarding being used sometimes in rare cases when its imperative to get information that will save lives.

Its a hypothetical, but If on 9/10 we knew of an impending attack and that it would take place the next day but needed information to stop it and had one of the 19 terrorists by what moral calculus would it be moral NOT to use waterboarding. Would it be better to let the attack go forward then to waterboard someone for 2 minutes if by doing so we get information that saves 3000 lives?You say waterboarding is countenancing torture, but those 3000 lives are not going to end happily. So by refusing to torture you may say you are behaving morally, if by doing so it leads to the death of thousands who suffer because you refuse to dirty your hands wouldn't you be making them pay the price for your absolute purity? How would that be more moral?; 1/19/09, 2:01 PM
Freder Frederson said...: getting info from Khalleid Sheik Mohammad by its very nature is a ticking time bomb scenario.

How is this so? Is there any evidence, or any claim made by any administration official, that waterboarding was used to prevent an imminent attack and save lives? Or have you just redefined "ticking time bomb" to mean "he won't talk to an untrained interrogator".

Its a hypothetical

You're right about that. The amazing thing is, all you apologists for torture always fall back on these ticking time bomb hypotheticals, yet the actual torture you are defending doesn't involve a ticking time bomb at all.; 1/19/09, 2:18 PM
jr565 said...: How is this so? Is there any evidence, or any claim made by any administration official, that waterboarding was used to prevent an imminent attack and save lives? Or have you just redefined "ticking time bomb" to mean "he won't talk to an untrained interrogator" Khaleid Sheik Mohammad was the considered by the 9/11 commission "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks" and is well known by various intelligence agencies to be involved in the planning of dozens of other operations, which were carried out and which led to the death of thousands. Within his capacity in Al Qaeda he also would know of any impending attacks were they forthcoming or at the very least have knowledge of others in the organization who may be planning or carrying out such operations or who were involved in the dozens of operations already carried out who are still at large. He knows where the bodies are buried who is linked to who and where the money comes from. And he broke after two minutes of waterboarding and gave intel agencies a treasure trove of info after only 2 minutes whereas prior to that he gave interrogators bubkus.

You're right about that. The amazing thing is, all you apologists for torture always fall back on these ticking time bomb hypotheticals, yet the actual torture you are defending doesn't involve a ticking time bomb at all. My hypothetical does involve a ticking time bomb. Not a literal bomb but an operation that will be carried out, which was in reality and were we able to prevent it would constitute a ticking time bomb scenario (as would trying to foil any operation that would be carried out that would potentially lead to the killing of dozens if not hundreds and thousands.Any operation that would be carried out by Al Qaeda, with their predilection for terrorism as theater would be a ticking time bomb scenario. Having the people in your custody who actulaly have such information to potentially thwart said attacks is a ticking time bomb scenario.
but you lefties are completely disingenuous. Beause you also attacked BUsh for not stopping 9/11. The left trotted out talking points about how there was a memo that showed that Al Qaeda was determined to attack us, and blasted Bush for not stopping the attack or allowing it to happen. The memo merely stated that Al Qaeda was determined to attack us not how or when so there was nothing actionable in it. But that didn't stop critics of Bush to villainize him for either being incompetent or worse, deliberately allowing it to happen so as to start a war to help out Halliburton or some such swill.
But lets use that memo and add it to the hypothetical just to see if you'll actuallyl respond to it. Suppose the memo led to no actionable intel, but had just enough info whereby they were able to get to one of the hijackers and in the course of interrogation determine that not only is there going to be a horrendous attack but that it will occur tomorrow and most likely lead to the death of thousands if not stopped. 9/11 did actually happen and thousands did actually die because noone was able to prevent it from occurring. And not only did thousands die but our economy was disrupted the airline industry was shut down, people were buried alive under rubble, the pentagon itself was attacked and some of the very people later implicated in the so called nefarious plots hatched by the many of the fringe left were actually in the Pentagon at the time. That's a pretty big ticking time bomb scenario that is not a hypothetical but a reality. So if Al qaeda is capable of carrying out said attack that leads to such damage then why are you suggesting that the thought of carrying out such an attack is crazy talk? It happened. And why it happened was because of the mindset exhibited by you here, namely that it couldn't' possibly happen here. It's bad enough to be oblivious to reality because we can't imagine it occurring, but to have it occur and still suggest that it would be crazy to imagine such a thing from occurring is either idiocy or craziness or both.

We've established the precedent, we've established the actuality, now we have the very architect of 9/11 and countless other operations in our custody and need to get information from him. Please provide the moral calcusus whereby its somehow more moral to not extract info that might potentially stop the next 9/11 or in the hypothetical the actual 9/11 than to let thousands die. I just dont see how by refusing to extract the information you are somehow not commiting the greater evil if people die because of your lack of due diligence. And people suffer far worse than waterboarding. People will be terrified and jump out of skyscrapers rather than die in fires. And people will hear on their cell phones that planes have crashed into the WTC and have a long period of time to contemplate that their hijacked plane will be flown into a building too so they might have a few minutes left whereby they can say goodbye to loved ones. Whole fire brigades will try to rescue people and have the WTC collapse on them. Some will be buried alive. Even those simply living in the neighborhood will have to worry that they were breathing in asbestos and cancer causing dust from the debris.Weigh waterboarding someone for two minutes and potentially preventing that from occurring and not waterboarding someone and potentially allowing it to occur.; 1/19/09, 3:01 PM
Big Mike said...: jr565, you nailed it.

The only thing I'd add, is that the whole world is "hypotheticals" until an event actually occurs. Freder's position seems to be that there was no imminent attack after all so we shouldn't have water boarded KSM. But if we hadn't water boarded and there had been an attack that could have been prevented or mitigated, what would everybody's position have been? That Bush failed the country, right?; 1/19/09, 3:23 PM
Freder Frederson said...: Weigh waterboarding someone for two minutes and potentially preventing that from occurring and not waterboarding someone and potentially allowing it to occur.

There are many reasons, aside from the obvious moral considerations, that torture is an ineffective interrogation technique. The first, and most obvious one, is that it leads to false confessions. The torture victim will tell the torturer what he wants to hear just to get the torture to stop. This leads to false leads and dead ends, and may actually cause delay in the actionable intelligence. And this is exactly what happened with the abusive techniques.

Also, you are approaching torture from a tactical, not a strategic, mindset. I will admit, that under very limited circumstances, where the information is extremely time-critical, torture may provide superior intelligence to more time-consuming and less coercive methods. But these circumstances are so limited, and the negatives associated with torture are so great, that torture is never a good option from a strategic perspective.

It is not just me saying this. The uniformed military, after being fully aware of all the issues raised post 9/11, left its Field Manual on Interrogation basically unchanged.

Torture is simply counterproductive.; 1/19/09, 3:55 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Some responses I missed earlier:
Oligonicella:
Your screed loses a bit of sting when you lump in charley horses "(kneeing people in thighs seems popular)" and such as torture.

No, it wasn't a charlie horse. They actually turned the guy's legs to pulp. You know, like in a severe beating. (I suggest you rent "Taxi to the Darkside.")

Wait, wait, don't tell me: "Severe beatings aren't really torture."

Bob R sez:It only works inside the liberal cocoon, but of course, if you are inside the cocoon you can't understand this.

I'm calling for investigations and legal action called for by the results. Personally, I'm convinced real investigations will find something. Because I've read the accounts of torture (unlike, say Oligonicella, above).

And the memos from Alberto Gonzalez' "Justice Dept" are a fricken joke.; 1/19/09, 4:03 PM
Tibore said...: "AlphaLiberal said...
Wow. Great post Tibore."

Thank you. Keep in mind that I'm only criticizing what Hitchens said and his misrepresentation of the US. That there is a spectrum of opinions on any given topic and that the US population tends to span that specturm does not mean I don't think there's a right or wrong to just about all of those topics - quite the contrary, there is (for the record: Ford trucks, Lakers of the 80's, Colts all the way, I can care less I'd rather have Ghirardelli, Pepsi tastes Fwench therefore Coca Cola for a strong America).

On top of that, since it's what people are choosing to comment on about the professor's post: While I'm in the conservative minority with McCain in thinking the US can easily do without waterboarding, I'm not condemning every and all coercive techniques used in interrogation. On top of that, I wish general debate on that topic was more informed and less clichéd; all the debate on this plays out like a damn script, this thread and your responses here not exempted. Waterboarding is not the only coercive method used, yet listening to this debate and the blanket condemnation of US actions in general makes you think the first thing anyone in the military or CIA does is bend a prisoner backwards and start pouring buckets of water on him. That's hyperventilation, yet that's 90%-plus of what I'm seeing on the 'net on this topic. Waterboarding does not comprise the entirety of interrogative techniques, and I'm not ready to condemn all US actions based on isolated cases. Nor am I ready to color the entire War on Terror because waterboarding became a hot-button issue for some. There's more to what's happening than what people are discussing, yet people feel comfortable issuing blanket denunciations based on limited perspective and analysis. That bothers me.

War is rough; so's being captured. If a technique is indeed illegal and immoral, ban it, but otherwise, keep it in the arsenal. Where does waterboarding fall on that spectrum? You tell me; I'll abide by whatever argument wins. But back to coercive interrogation in general: If it's necessary to conduct them, fine. Conduct them. Keep them within the bounds of legality, but within those bounds, do what you have to. If that means keeping prisoners on their feet and dousing them with cold water to keep them from sleeping, I lose zero worry over it. I don't see that as torture. If it means slapping captured terrorists around to get them to talk, fine. I don't see that as torture. If it means some other act I'm unaware of, I'm only concerned with those acts not crossing the moral and legal line into torture; if that doesn't happen, I'm not going to tell the military what to do. If it does, I'll only go so far as to say "Don't do that". Otherwise, I'll let them do their job. People trying to kill us; I have no problem with some distasteful but otherwise legal acts in order to get the knowledge necessary to counter those people. And I'm certainly not going to condemn everything the US has done based on one, single issue being raised. Deal with the issue, but keep from extending silly pronouncements from encompassing the entirety of the War on Terror. That's just hyperbole when it happens.

Where Hitchens goes wrong in the link provided is:
1. In presuming that such a plurality of US sentiment did indeed "demand (the US) go outside the Geneva conventions". That's a hideous misinterpretation and caricaturization of what the US wanted, which is part of what makes me wonder how serious a thinker he is. He is wrong in saying that America demanded a "more ruthless" government, another distortion that continues to feed the caricature. What we citizens wanted the US to avoid was some hidebound, ineffective, kit-glove type of response ("you bastards destroyed our towers, killed our citizensd; we're going to blockade the country you're in and pass UN resolutions..."). What we were demanding was an active, effective response. ("You bastards destroyed our towers, killed our citizens; we're sending Special Forces after you where you live, and to hell with it if anyone calls it an invasion..."). Note that none of that says to ignore law or morality. Rather, most of it is based on common sense on what is indeed moral and not moral about conduct in war, and accepting that coarse, rough behavior isn't in and of itself immoral. Again: War is rough. That doesn't mean conduct in war is inherently immoral. But in invoking the term "ruthless", Hitchens continued to paint a picture that the US was willing to ignore law and morality in the wake of 9/11. Again, see above; there's a difference between taking the gloves off and acting in the manner Hitchens describes. Given that he lives here in the US now, I'm surprised he hasn't picked up on any of the real sentiment that exists. His inability to understand regular Americans feelings is curious. I thought he was more perceptive than that. Regardless, he paints a caricature where serious analysis is desired. When he mistakes resolution and a demand for effectiveness for the darker sides of "ruthlessness", then again, I wonder just how deep his thought processes run. Because he's certainly not putting much thought into how we Americans truly reacted and discovering what we truly wanted in the wake of 9/11.

2. " Hitchens opined on whether the Obama administration should answers calls from the left to prosecute Bush administration officials for illegal interrogation of prisoners: “As long as it's agreed that these steps were taken in response to public demand...

... What everyone wants to say is this came from a small clique around the vice-president. It's not educational. It doesn't enlighten anyone to behave as if that were true. This is our society wanting and demanding harsh measures.” Therefore, he went on, the demand for prosecution or other measures against Bush administration officials would likewise have to come from below, via the grassroots."

He's missing the boat badly in equating popular sentiment with legality. If something is truly wrong, then prosecute. I don't give a damn how many people were for it.

But furthermore: "As long as it's agreed that these steps were taken in response to public demand...". No, no, no. Terrible argumentation. Any prosecution must demonstrate that it's based on whether there were illegal acts or not (at that point, we can put the whole waterboarding and coercive interrogations issue to the test). That's the only reason to undertake a prosecution. The fact that a public demands an action doesn't legitimize the action. As a corollary to my above statement, if something done was truly right, then don't dare prosecute it. I don't give a damn how many people wanted it.

Either Hitchens thinks the act is wrong or it's not. But stating that prosecution should hinge on the views of the public is not democratic, it's submission to demagoguery. Show that a prosecution is justified; at that point, it doesn't matter how many people are for it or not (and as an aside: I think it's noteworthy that no such prosecutorial attempts have been pushed for by an oppositional congress since they came into the majority. That's telling).

My critique of Hitchens goes a bit beyond the standard argument about conduct of the military and administration in these times. It also extends to the distorted view of how Americans are, and how we should operate regarding our government. That's why I'm choosing to criticize him, when his previous statements about the vileness of Islamic Radicalism were something I agreed with. Being accidentally correct about a topic is no way to seriously contemplate it. And that was my whole point.

But still, thank you for the compliment. It's nice to get one once in a while.; 1/19/09, 4:11 PM
Joe said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/19/09, 4:14 PM
Joe said...: A prosecution is politically untenable. Congress was fully briefed on what the CIA was doing and approved of it. By some accounts members of the intelligence committees wondered if the CIA was going far enough. Regardless, as with the wiretapping issue, they had ample opportunity to either change the law or take to the floor of the House or Senate and denounce the president. They likely didn't because they wanted this work done and did so because they knew it had to be done--they'd been briefed.

Aside from Congress, a prosecution would result in public exposure of exactly what took place and what the results were of the interrogations (and of the wiretaps.) Despite claims that torture doesn't work; in specific cases it not only worked, but saved American lives.

I would actually like to see a public airing of all this. A truth commission if you will. We have too many secrets. But, it's politically untenable and Obama knows it. If not, he'll pay the political price.

* * *

As for the meme that torture doesn't work. Nonsense. Fishing expedition torture can be very ineffective (though history is replete with examples where it was not). However, torture to get specific information that you know the target has and for which you already have some information is extremely effective.

Having said that, since I don't trust most people in power to have the capacity to make that determination and because politically torture is almost always a negative thing, I go with the don't torture approach, but I don't lie to myself that it isn't effective if done properly.; 1/19/09, 4:20 PM
Tibore said...: @Joe:

Again, we have to define "torture". As I said above, severely restricting sleep and inflicting mere, albeit extreme discomfort is not something I'd consider being "torture", yet those two examples are specific ones cited to me in verbal debate in multiple occasions. To me, that's silly; if it's something we put our own military personnel through - and let's be honest; how many deployed individuals in combat situations (think Marines and actual soldiers on patrols and missions) are not sleep deprived or experiencing some serious discomfort - then how can it be torture in this other context? But regardless, I'm not ready to blanket accept torture as a legitimate act for the US government to resort to. On the other hand, I have a pretty high bar for what is and isn't torture, and frankly, few of the examples thrown at me reach that.

Waterboarding? I'll even concede that one as an example of an act that should be discarded, since I personally find it distasteful. But again, outside of that, what else is? As I said before, waterboarding does not comprise the entirety of the US coercive interrogation arsenal. I'm finding it hyperbolic that people are pointing to proven yet isolated cases as standard conduct, and I'm finding it extremely hyperbolic that condemnation of such is extended by many to condemnation of any and all US activities. If waterboarding is torture, fine, prosecute that. But again, color the entirety of US activities with that one issue? I'm sensing less serious debate and more attempts to score rhetorical points whenever I see this issue brought up. That's why, even though I'm sympathetic to the arguments for banning waterboarding, I'm cynical when I see it invoked in War on Terror discussions.; 1/19/09, 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/19/09, 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/19/09, 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: The same logic that allows the military to kill enemies, yet once they surrender, requires that those very same enemies be treated humanely.

What exactly is the surrender of a non-uniformed, non-national, non-regular fighter that targets civilians with explosives and hijacked jets, and has expressed a wish to die fighting the US?

One could argue that such fighters have not surrendered, but have only been captured and therefore temporarily prevented from causing harm.

This highlights that you are using archaic language and "rules of war" to attempt to argue in a new world.; 1/19/09, 4:42 PM
Freder Frederson said...: I'm not going to tell the military what to do. If it does, I'll only go so far as to say "Don't do that". Otherwise, I'll let them do their job.

Well then, read the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. It's a public document. You will see that the military believes what I believe--and that the methods you think are acceptable are banned by the military.; 1/19/09, 4:44 PM
jr565 said...: Freder wrote:
There are many reasons, aside from the obvious moral considerations, that torture is an ineffective interrogation technique. The first, and most obvious one, is that it leads to false confessions. The torture victim will tell the torturer what he wants to hear just to get the torture to stop. This leads to false leads and dead ends, and may actually cause delay in the actionable intelligence. And this is exactly what happened with the abusive techniques. This is a common talking point but ultimately one based on a lot of fallacies. First point. KSM was broken after literally two minutes of waterboarding and gave up the goods. Now yes a person can give false information but is it the argument that somehow someone being interrogated using non enhanced means will always be truthful? A standard interrogation can lead to false leads and delays in actionable intelligence too. Which in fact is why they waterboarded KSM. Because the traditional interrogations were not working (hence leading to a delay in actioanable intel). Further, what makes you think that an interrogator who uses waterboarding couldn't verify the information he's gotten just as he would have to verify the same information were he to simply follow the army field manual. So if he was telling tales and leading interrogators on a wild goose chase he could then be interrogated again later on. This would be true whatever interrogation means were employed. Further, for many people simply being interrogated with interrogators playing good cop bad cop will get them to say whatever the interrogator wants them to hear, so as to get the interrogation to stop. Because by their very nature interrogations are coercive and not particularly pleasant whatever means the interrogator ultimately uses. I would fully acknowledge that for some low level shmoe you shouldn't use waterboarding, but explain why you shouldn't with a KSM? Guilt or innocence is certainly a factor that must be weighed but there is certainty of his guilt and there is certainty that as the "mastermind of 9/11" he has valauable if not actionable intel. Who was apparently not susceptible to standard interrogation which was already tried on him.

Also, you are approaching torture from a tactical, not a strategic, mindset. I will admit, that under very limited circumstances, where the information is extremely time-critical, torture may provide superior intelligence to more time-consuming and less coercive methods. But these circumstances are so limited, and the negatives associated with torture are so great, that torture is never a good option from a strategic perspective. We've all stated that it should be used only in limited circumstances. It should not be standard operating procedure to waterboard any jihadi that gets caught on the battlefield.If you acknowledge that in those rare circumstances it is ok to waterboard, how is that different than me saying we should waterboard only in very specific cases where there's either a ticking time bomb situation or you're dealing with a high value target like KSM. What your side is doing though is presuming and suggesting that somehow we're just waterboarding anyone and everybody or that those advocating for waterboarding in LIMITED cases are advocating waterboarding for everyone. My point is that there are low value targets and high value targets. There are situations where there is a ticking time bomb scenario and there are times when you can spend years interrogating the subject (ie befriending him over time so that he ultimately gives up the goods). If you're talking about trying to stop attacks that might be coming down the pike it probably would not work to befriend the guy over a long period of time as you're looking at a smaller window of opportunity. And in the case of a KSM not only did he carry out the attack that just killed 3000 + americans he also is the chief strategist for Al Qaeda so will know of most attacks planned by Al Qaeda, because most likely he is involved in planning said attacks. With that in mind please explain why we wouldn't by default treat him as a ticking time bomb scenario right off the bat? If anyone would provide us with intel it would be him, or Osama Bin Laden or one of his lieutenants. Why would you assume that another attack was not imminent or at least potentially imminent with the chief planner of Al Qaeda?

It is not just me saying this. The uniformed military, after being fully aware of all the issues raised post 9/11, left its Field Manual on Interrogation basically unchanged.

Torture is simply counterproductive. Except when it gets results. little secret about waterboarding, nearly everyone breaks. so its highly productive even those undergoing SERE training. And compare the results with KSM with army manual interrogation vs. waterboarding. How many hours were they interogating him versus how many minutes were they waterboarding. Its the difference of hours to minutes. Whatever else it is productive. That being said it should not be used except in the most extreme cases, but most people arguing for its usage are not arguing for its usage in anything except those scenarios. And another thing. The left also has a bug up its butt about renditions to other countries where the interrogations have no such limits concerning where the moral line is. And interrogations were alive and well under Clinton and Gore and didn't start with Bush. Hell they probably didn't start with Clinton. It's only been politicized by the democrats because they think its a way to get back in power. But Gore and Clinton had no problem with renditions and I'd imagine torture by the CIA back when they were in the oval office (but we heard not a word from all the people who've come out of the woodwork about Bush back then. In fact from Richard Clarke's book was the following observation:
'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that.

Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.' That's mr. Global Warming "He betrayed us" the election was stolen Al Gore who won the nobel prize and had hollywood cheering him at the academy awards. The hypocricy of the dems frankly knows no bounds. But at any rate the idea that somehow the democrats who were grabbing terrorists and sending them off to Egypt to be tortured (most likely in ways far worse than waterboarding) are going to presume to judge george bush as if they are on some moral highground is just laughable. But the outrage is not that Gore said to grab the terrorists ass. The outrage is that they are pretending that this is not how it was done under their administrations.
If though you want to weigh moral goods and if you want more hypotheticals (based on real cases) whats better? Us holding someone and in rare cases using something like water boarding on them or us sending that same person to Egypt where god knows what is happening? We can be sure the Egyptians are not quite so squeamish as we are, but if that's the choice then one could argue that by us holding them and using enhanced techniques even we are still preventing them from being tortured.KSM was waterboarded,and thank god that he was. But can you imagine what would have happened to him if he was instead captured by Al Gore and Clinton and shipped off to Egypt? You may have gotten the same ultimate info, but I guess he'd have far more bruises on his body.; 1/19/09, 5:03 PM
Howard said...: Torture should never be US official policy, including waterboarding, etc. The old policy of a wink is as good as a nod for leaning very very hard on high value prisoners is just fine.

It's like assisted suicide. Had gone on for years, no problem, usually morphine OD. Once Dr. K comes along and tries to make it *official*, the nice, quiet and effective procedure becomes a circus. Lawyers and ministers and other mouthfoamers start screaming on TV. So it goes with waterboarding and other forms of torture.

AllenS is why good fences makes good neighbors.; 1/19/09, 5:17 PM
Tibore said...: "Freder Frederson said...
Well then, read the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. It's a public document. You will see that the military believes what I believe--and that the methods you think are acceptable are banned by the military."

FM 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations.

Sorry. I'm finding nothing about sleep deprivation, other than a single scenario:
"Use of separation must not preclude the detainee getting four hours of continuous sleep every 24 hours."

... which doesn't say anything about the application of sleep deprivation in any scenario outside of separating the individual from his peers for the purpose of isolation. Says nothing against throwing water on them to wake them up either.

Nothing about slapping a prisoner around either. It details prohibitions against "abuse":
"Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain."

... but if you're calling slapping around "beatings", then I submit that you yourself are hyperbolizing the debate. Not all physical coercion falls under the rubric of "abuse" or "beatings"; if it did, then much that happens on sports teams also amounts to abuse or beatings.

There are specific prohibitions - waterboarding is among them, so is electroshock, and as you can see above, I've specifically mentioned waterboarding as something I'm agree should be banned - but in general I don't see the prohibitions against the specific things I outlined that you claim are there. There's a difference between "coercion" and "torture". The manual wisely prohibits abuse, and I agree, that's a line that shouldn't be crossed, but again, not all physical acts in the context of questioning prisoners qualifies as such.; 1/19/09, 6:42 PM
El Rider said...: Geez, from some of these comments one would assume that the commenters would prosecute kids for dunking each other in a pool. Each and every person who leapt from the upper reaches of the WTC hit the Plaza in less than eight seconds, figuring the terminal velocity of a parachutist. The three men who were waterboarded broke and told all in about thirty seconds each.

By some very simple calculus four Americans have to die in order to keep each jihadist murderer from having to bear thirty seconds of uncomfort. As a person who spoke that morning to a man above the "death line" of Tower 2 I find the cool cruelty of some of my fellow Americans to be a disapointment and an utter disgrace.

If you refuse to protect those of us who work in obvious targets you should not consider yourself a moral being simply because you are hiding behind a law. Laws are dreamt up by humans, a failable group if there ever was one. I seem to recall a legal theory that states, "sometimes the law is an ass" and the desire to submit to the demands of those who would end Western Civilization makes the above mentioned ass into the donkey of all donkeys.; 1/20/09, 12:02 PM