"... locate, under the statutory definition, the thin line between harsh treatment of a high-ranking Al Qaeda terrorist that is not torture and harsh treatment that is. I believed at the time, and continue to believe today, that the conclusions were legally correct."
Judge Jay S. Bybee defends himself.
April 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
234 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 234 of 234Big Mike said...
@hdhouse, I think where to draw the line between torture and not torture is not nearly so easy as it seems to way too many in retrospect. ..."
ahhh but Big Mike waterboarding has been deemed torture for about 80 years. it is in the us code. it is in the military manuals. it is in treaties.
there isn't any "going back" and redefining. we can of course but it isn't retroactive.
we tortured people. leave it at that and unless anyone has some evidence of consequence, leave it where it is and go after the bad guys.
@Minzo, you're sort of right. The MPs understood that they were supposed to "soften up" the prisoners, by threatening them and humiliating them. But here's where it gets complicated. I'm a Vietnam era veteran and during in-processing and Basic Combat Training I was regularly advised that (1) I did not have an obligation to obey an unlawful order, but (2) I might face a court marital if disobeyed any order, and (3) if I obey an unlawful order then I will probably get a court martial anyway. (@Drill Sgt, are you on this thread? Is that about right or am I getting old and befuddled?) So here's the Catch 22 that that hapless MP unit found itself in. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, soften them up. You aren't hurting them and it isn't torture -- which it wasn't. They didn't get a real order, it seemed lawful, and many of them wound up behind bars.
Yeah, the upper brass should have been made to suffer more than the troops, but in what war does that happen?
@hd, you're getting kind of pesky. I say this as a form of compliment, actually.
I'm sorry, but I'd like to see some of the references before I buy what you're selling. Waterboarding has been deemed torture since 1929? Where did you get that?
Someone — I guess I'll have to do it — should point out that the ringleader at Abu Ghraib, Charles Graner, was an abusive prison guard and all-around bad apple in civilian life, who must have thought he could continue in Iraq with the happy hi-jinx he had enjoyed at home in Pennsylvania, but without the consequences. Trying to shift blame for this stuff all the way up the chain of command denies agency to the individuals who were right there, right then.
People lie.
Some people more thana others.
Especially on the internat.
Minzo said...
And another thing- while we haggle over the moral and pragmatic angles of torture, I think not enough people are dwelling on whether it actually works. If the person captured is a die-hard jihadist, then he will be pretty determined to give false information or quite simply suffer througout the whole thing in the name of his twisted version of Islam. On the other hand if the person being tortured is innocent (something few people are discussing here) he'll say whatever he thinks his torturer wants him to say-anything to make the torture stop..
As for innocent - well, there is this thing called "an alibi".
"I am an innocent Yemeni just caught in Afghanistan going to a wedding party."
"OK. Who paid for your one-way ticket? List the names of the people you stayed with in the last 2 years. Who was at this wedding party you spent 2 years outside Yemen going to??....Where was this wedding? "
"Bahhh! I am innocent and you are torturing me asking these pointless questions. I demand to get an ACLU lawyer!"
That's the John McCain spin -
People being force-interrogated will "say anything", and be it cops, Federal prosecutors, CIA, or N Vietnamese....they will accept whatever you say with instant credulity...and never cross check it with other people's stories or known facts.
McCains claim that it is "easy to lie or decieve interrogators" rests on only his word about what happened in Vietnam, and rests on the record that when McCain tried deceiving Fed interrogators in the Keating 5 scandal, they were onto him in hours. And McCain folded like wet cardboard, spilled his guts, named named, then did a wierd "personal apology tour".
What Digby said.Be sure to check out the pictures of waterboarding.
the ringleader at Abu Ghraib, Charles Graner, was an abusive prison guard and all-around bad apple in civilian life,
Trying to shift blame for this stuff all the way up the chain of command denies agency to the individuals who were right there, right then.
So, your argument is that the chain of command was not at fault for ordering Charles Graner to abuse the prisoners; rather the chain of command was at fault for placing the known abusive prison guard Charles Graner in charge of Iraq prisoners.
Now the only question is did Charles Graner's commanders put him in charge of Iraqi prisoners
1. Intentionally?
2. Recklessly?
3. Negligently?
What you are doing is picking the worst examples of torture. The rack? Come on. Im saying that argument is stupid not just because those were controlled conditions but because you are basically saying once someone volunteers for a method that might be torture, then it ceases to be torture. One obvious point-aside from the obvious logical flaw there- is: Hitchens obviously didnt know what it would feel like. Having gone through it, Im pretty sure he wont do it again and he did describe it as excruciating.
At the very least you should admit waterboarding is a grey area. Its simulated drowning for Christ's sake.A journalist's rather reckless experiment is hardly a solid argument in this regard.
I doubt that “the rack” is the worst example of torture one could name. But what I'm referring to is real torture, accompanied by horrific, unendurable pain, not the kind of faux torture — such as inducing a largely painless panic attack — that idiotarian left wing activists purport getting their panties in a wad over.
Nor am I talking about someone simply volunteering to be “tortured,” because quite of number of folks — not knowing a priori what they're getting into — might volunteer once to undergo something bad that they don't properly appreciate in advance.
However, coming back immediately after the “torture” session and asking to be “tortured” again — just so one can out check a fairly trivial personal hypothesis — that's another matter entirely. Nobody (sane) who's really been tortured is going to do that — mounting the rack again is the last thing they'd be willing to, or even think of doing.
To put it another way, Hitchens also said that his “waxing” (pubic hair jerk-out — something thousands if not millions of [stupid] people have done to them every few weeks or so in this modern age) was also “torture.”
While I'm willing to grant that the latter is “excruciating,” as you put it, and it's definitely something I have no wish to have done to me, still it's certainly an enormous distance from real torture.
Say, maybe that's another tactic our CIA interrogators ought to pick up….
Of course, the question as to whether someone is a "lawful" or "unlawful" combatant and therefore "eligible" or "ineligible" to be afforded Geneva Convention protections is an egregious red herring, as is the question of whether torture "works."
Whether it works or not, it's repugnant and always unacceptable; whether a prisoner is from a country that is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions or not, even if the prisoner is a psychotic serial killer who has cannibalized American soldiers, torture is repugnant and always unacceptable.
That the government of this country would debate the fine points of how far to torture anyone, for any reason, is appalling and yes, always unacceptable.
Except where necessary to defend and protect themselves or other prisoners, no American guarders of prisoners should ever so much as lay a hand on any prisoner. Ever.
"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel"
Does it follow then that when an enemy uses torture or summary execution, it can be used as justification for the "torture" of captured enemies?
The historical basis for Geneva was essentially "We won't if you won't." That it has become a self-imposed restriction uncoupled to the agreement of the other side is both unfortunate and unenforceable.
Except where necessary to defend and protect themselves or other prisoners, no American guarders of prisoners should ever so much as lay a hand on any prisoner. Ever.
Go ahead and make that the policy. Just don't be surprised when the obvious consequence of such a policy is that very few prisoners are taken.
If you're okay with this, then fine. I just don't want you to be able to morally evade the entirely predictable consequences of what you advocate.
no American guarders of prisoners should ever so much as lay a hand on any prisoner. Ever..
My old man who is a former cop told me about the times when some of the prisoners in the pokey had fun by throwing cups of urine and feces at the guards as they walked the blocks.
I'm sure Mr. Cook would not retaliate in any way shape or form if he was the target.
"Go ahead and make that the policy. Just don't be surprised when the obvious consequence of such a policy is that very few prisoners are taken".
So you're suggesting that unless we can feel free to take prisoners in order to brutalize them into telling us what we want to hear, we would simply more readily kill them?
You have a picture, it seems, of American soldiers as merciless murderers who only take prisoners for opportunistic purposes. You have a pretty low opinion of our soldiers, don't you?
"My old man who is a former cop told me about the times when some of the prisoners in the pokey had fun by throwing cups of urine and feces at the guards as they walked the blocks.
I'm sure Mr. Cook would not retaliate in any way shape or form if he was the target".
The thing to do is minimize their opportunities to fling waste, and if they manage to do so anyway, you take a guard detail in to bind the prisoner and retrieve him from the cell and take him to solitary confinement. To go into the jail cell and begin whaling away on the prisoner in such a circumstance is, yes, unacceptable.
The thing to do is minimize their opportunities to fling waste,.
Well lets see, short of plugging up thier rectum and tying off thier bladder I think that's going to be pretty difficult.
and if they manage to do so anyway, you take a guard detail in to bind the prisoner and retrieve him from the cell and take him to solitary confinement. .
Well I would argue that solitary confinement is tantamount to torture. Humans are social animals and need social contact.
Better come up with another plan because that doesn't pass muster.
You have a picture, it seems, of American soldiers as merciless murderers who only take prisoners for opportunistic purposes. You have a pretty low opinion of our soldiers, don't you?.
You certainly do. In a previous thread you referred to the USA as the number one terrorist nation, going back as far as the 19th century.
"In a previous thread you referred to the USA as the number one terrorist nation, going back as far as the 19th century".
I stand by that statement.
However, this has to do with America's polices, as planned and ordered by the government, and merely carried out by the troops. It is the policy makers in Washington or in the Pentagon who are the prime terrorists when they drop napalm on villagers in Viet Nam or rape and murder squaws and children while routing communities of indigenous Americans, or when dropping incendiary bombs on German civilians in Dresden, or when arming and funding forces in various South American countries to rape and murder their countrymen in order that we insure "American-friendly" governments remain in place, and so forth.
This does not remove the sin of murder and torture from the shoulders of those troops who carry out such evil policies, but the troops do not set policy. I don't believe, however, that our soldiers in the field will only take prisoners if they believe they can rough them up to obtain information...unless they're so ordered, and then, if they follow through and murder enemy combatants attempting to surrender, they're as culpable for murder as their superiors who ordered the killing. If they do the killing on their own initiative, then their guilt is of their own making.
"In a previous thread you referred to the USA as the number one terrorist nation, going back as far as the 19th century".
I stand by that statement..
Then your an asshole. Terrorist nations don't send tens of billions of dollars to Africa to save people from AIDs, or thier navies to help tsunami victims or billions in aid to fight hunger and disease.
Condi Rice: "The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture."
"...if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture."
Sounds a bit like this:
Dick Nixon: "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal"
I find very few on this site that think America is any better than the countries and people who torture.
The central premise being: If they do it, we should be able to do it.
Well, that's true, if we want to denigrate our reputation and lower ourselves to their level of inhumanity.
Why do you people think this is the way we should behave?
I find very few on this site that think America is any better than the countries and people who torture..
The problem you continue to ignore is that I don't consider waterboarding torture. Any treatment that someone would 'volunteer for' is not torture. Forget the idea that they know their life isn't in jeopardy. You won't see any journalist volunteering to have his fingernails pulled out or his genitals hooked up to a car battery.
If we were putting every sheepshagging jihadist on the rack for shits and giggles I'd agree with you but we're not simpy because Achmed the goatfucker most likely doesn't have any worthwhile information. Now if you want to assume the CIA and Army are filled with sadistic monsters who get inspired by SAW and Hostel movies then go for it and I'll leave you to your delusions.
FLS @ 10:38, You make an assumption that Graner's superiors knew about his past. It's possible that they never knew anything other than that he had been a prison guard and MP.
From my point of view as an outsider (wasn't there, don't know any of these people), it looks to me like former Gen. Karpinski had been promoted to her level of incompetence, per the Peter Principle. So, inadequate supervision resulting from inability to cope, which could be made to look like either negligence or recklessness or both, but is actually something else.
Per Wikipedia,
"In June 2003, during the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, Karpinski was given command of the 800 Military Police Brigade. This put her in charge of the fifteen detention facilities in southern and central Iraq run by Coalition forces. She had no experience running correctional facilities. Karpinski was also given command of the National Guard and Army reserve units in the Iraqi city of Mosul, most of whom, like her, had no training in handling prisoners."
Thousands of soldiers. She could not have read all of their personnel files. His immediate superiors should have read his file, and she should have read theirs. It's interesting that a Lieutenant and a Captain took the 5th at Graner's trial. But files don't always tell everything.
It used to be legendary that people who joined the service were given jobs that had nothing to do with what they had done in civilian life. In the case of Graner, his experience as a civilian prison guard was not an asset; he should have been made a typist, artilleryman, anything else but a prison guard.
would it not shock your consciences to find out that an inmate in the custody of the federal or state penal system was kept awake for 11 days, beaten, near drowned every day, placed in a box with insects (on the advice of prison psychologists specifically to exploit personal fears) and all the while denied even the basic dignity of clothing?
would it not shock your consciences to find out that an inmate in the custody of the federal or state penal system was kept awake for 11 days, beaten, near drowned every day, placed in a box with insects (on the advice of prison psychologists specifically to exploit personal fears) and all the while denied even the basic dignity of clothing?.
Done just to satisfy the primal urges of his handlers, yes it would.
Done to obtain information that might save American or allied lives, not so much.
"The problem you continue to ignore is that I don't consider waterboarding torture".
Well it's fortunate for the rest of us then that your opinion has no bearing on the law. Waterboarding is and has been considered torture--and therefore illegal--for years--in fact, it was one of the punishments utilized in the Spanish inquisition. We prosecuted Japanese officers after WWII for using waterboarding, with punishments ranging from prison sentences to execution.
You said, regarding whether treatment of prisoners would "shock your conscience:"
"Done just to satisfy the primal urges of his handlers, yes it would.
Done to obtain information that might save American or allied lives, not so much".
This show reveals you to be a intellectually and morally incoherent, not to mention that you actually have no conscience...one is shocked at the nature of the treatment meted out to a helpless captive, not due to the justifications that bring it about.
Hoosier Daddy said..."The problem you continue to ignore is that I don't consider waterboarding torture."
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but I tend to lend more credence to the experts in the military and intelligence services that Do consider it torture.
You know, the people who have actually been there when the procedure is administered, versus some yahoo sitting on his ass in front of a computer screen who thinks it isn't.
Hoosier - "If we were putting every sheepshagging jihadist on the rack for shits and giggles I'd agree with you..."
This from someone who says he doesn't respond to people who are racist or bigoted.
Can you say...n-e-a-n-d-e-r-t-h-a-l?
Hoosier's little story about prisoners flinging shit is straight our of every movie and TV series that has depicted the very same thing.
It does happen, and the guards restrain the prisoner and they are ushered into solitary confinement.
On the other hand, if they're beaten, they sometimes find themselves ushered into court by a good lawyer and they sting the state or federal government for big money.
Hoosier just doesn't get it.
My guess: He watches "24" and thinks that's the way of the real world.
This from someone who says he doesn't respond to people who are racist or bigoted./
Yes I am bigoted to sheepshagging jihadists. I have no use, respect or any emotion other than contempt for them.
Last time I checked, jihadists aren't a race. Muslims aren't a race. Islam is not a race.
Really, look it up.
Jeremy, this is why I am not going to waste any further time with you.
Hoosier's little story about prisoners flinging shit is straight our of every movie and TV series that has depicted the very same thing..
So you're essentially calling me a liar and by extension my dad a former cop who had it happen to him. Then you completely contradict yourself by saying this.
It does happen, and the guards restrain the prisoner and they are ushered into solitary confinement./
So we're done here.
This show reveals you to be a intellectually and morally incoherent, not to mention that you actually have no conscience/
Coming from someone who thinks my country is a terrorist state that means next to nothing to me. Kind of like when my kid used to call me a poopy head when she was 4.
Here is a post containing information on how torture is illegal.
Because we live in times when there's some doubt on that subject, apparently.
Alpha Liberal, why are you confusing the issue with links to long, wordy legal definitions and applicable laws, especially since few here will read through the headache inducing truth. They'd rather Hannity or O'Reilly or Limbaugh or Cheney or their indigestion--I mean, their GUT--tell them whether or not some particularl egregious abuse constitutes "torture" or not.
Commie.
Hoosier - I didn't call you anything but a racist, bigoted fool, which is exemplified by your inane comments.
As for your story via daddy...I also said this:
"It does happen, and the guards restrain the prisoner and they are ushered into solitary confinement."
Prime that tiny brain of yours and hin on the very first three words: "It does happen..."
And boy, I just don't know how I'll survive without you.
Post a Comment