Think [the box] ing discussion

I can't decide how I feel about it - I don't approve of it in general, but how far can you go to save lives? When does the harm become more than the benefit? Anyone care to share?

Once "weapons of mass destruction" ceased to be the alleged motive for our invasion of Iraq, the only justification remaining (apart from preserving our oil-supply of course) was bringing humane government and civilization to that country.

So the first thing we did was to take over the most notorious of Saddam Hussein's prisons and start torturing people.

As for Guantanamo and "extraordinary rendition", words fail me. It is contrary to international law to kidnap people and to torture them. And quite right too. It's the sort of thing done by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and the North Koreans. Not us.

Torture ought to be regarded as wholly unacceptable in any decent country, and it is in fact contrary to all sorts of international treaties and obligations. The fact that the USA (of all countries) even thinks about getting involved with torture is astonishing. It is quite clearly contrary to the United States constitution. If it is indeed legal according to American law, this is only because of a very dodgy loophole.

Lest you think I am being naive about terrorism and its threat, I have lived through 30+ years of terrorism in Northern Ireland. As I write, our own Deputy First Minister has just been threatened with murder. And I still do not think suspected or potential terrorists should be tortured.

Step one: define torture.

Bob wrote: "Step one: define torture."
No. Word-chopping is the first step towards casuistry: for example, "one finger-nail is just being rough; you have to tear out five before it's torture."

It's a matter of just deciding not to do it.

Anthony,

I would suggest that definition of terms is essential to proper argumentation. Otherwise, two people may simply talk past each other; two people may essential have one argument about two different things. When we fail to define, we fail to have a real argument. Thus, as you said, if we "just [decide:] not to do it", we'd better know what "it" is. Otherwise, "it" can be anything we choose it to be.

A starting point might be the following:

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony
- (both from dictionary.com)

I would suggest that both definitions lack something: a permanence of effect on the part of the afflicted. Leaving out this important factor can make almost anything "torture".

I'm 100% with Anthony on this one. Once we start playing with words and invent euphemisms like protective reaction strikes, enhanced interrogation techniques, etc., it's clear we are on the path to disingenuousness.

The fact is that the United States has considered water boarding to be torture when practice by others on us. Japanese were executed for such actions against our soldiers after WW II.

The biggest problem with torture, however you define it, is what it does to the torturer.

Those who should know have also said that torture, the infliction of pain or fear of death doesn't work at getting reliable information, anyway. People will confess to anything you want them to say. Therein lies the problem, the torturer defines the answer being looked for. There are much better ways to get reliable information.

It should be noted that the FBI pulled their agents from the interrogations being conducted by the CIA because they were convinced the way they were being conducted violated the law.

The whole debate has become disingenuous. If the supporters of "enhanced interrogation techniques" really believe they work, and they are absolutely necessary for national security, i.e. the ticking time bomb scenario, be honest and say, sure we'll torture. We'll cut off arms, legs, fingernails. Be honest about it, not hide behind casuistry.

I think Hitchens has it right: "That is exactly why even the society of medieval Europe began to move to abolish it [torture:]. Once you enter into that procedure, you will be in the extracted-confession business. Not only is this morally repellent, but from the intelligence viewpoint it is an absolute cast-iron (or hot-iron) guarantee of a torrent of worthless and deluded disinformation. How it might work on a suicide-killer I am in no position to say, though I think I can guess. The favorite experimental scenario - the man knows where the bomb is, put the hooks into him swiftly - is actually a contingency almost impossible to visualise. I certainly know of no such real-life case. But if you hire torturers then you hire torturers, whose whole outlook is based on stupidity and coercion, and you can bet that even with a ticking bomb nearby they would be busily gang-raping the wrong guy.

Its proven failure - in Algeria and Ulster say - is thus directly related to its primeval and irrational essence. The worst thing, in reading the work of Alter and Dershowitz, was the shudder of recoil at the posturing attitudes they kept striking. Both wrote as if it had cost them a lot, by way of moral courage, to say the unsayable and to call for torturers to be put on the federal payroll. How disgusting. "

Eric is entirely right.

The question is this: suppose you caught somebody involved in a conspiracy to bomb your village; should you mistreat him to get information?

We are currently involved in bombing villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is it ok if British and American troops are mistreated by the locals just to find out what they know? How many fingernails are ok?

One problem with torturing people is that it involves a retreat from the moral (and legal) high ground. Also, the whole point about law is that it applies to everybody equally. If it’s ok for us to mistreat prisoners, then it’s ok when foreigners do the same to our own people.

The essence of the law is this: one has a duty of care towards prisoners. Just that.

And we haven't even begun to consider what you DO with the information obtained through torture. It assumes very simple responses to questions defined by the torturer who may not have the basic information needed to even ask the right questions.

The CIA and FBI we now know, knew all about the Saudis taking flying lessons, they had information that planes were going to be used as flying bombs, but no one managed to put it together.

It appears that Cheney and Rumsfeld were seeking to validate a political position rather than to gather information. Apparently seeking to validate the invasion of Iraq by making the link between Al-Qaida and Iraq.

As further evidence of failure to work, water boarding was used 183 times in one month against one individual. That's not even torture, that's barbarism.

One of the less desirable things about human beings is our tendency to bully people. Given the opportunity and the excuse, it seems, we are only too delighted to get stuck in. There is a famous book by Stanley Milgram on the topic.

One of the functions of law and morality is to help keep this unfortunate tendency in check.

"183 times", indeed!

And yet, has anyone but me dared define the term? We could be having two discussions about entirely different things at this point.

Definitions matter. Period. Definitions matter even more in philosophical and/or legal discussions.

All of the other "points" made about "torture" matter not a wit until you fellows define the term. Please excuse my tone, but it never ceases to amaze me that folks can write on and on about a subject without ever attempting to nail down what the subject really is. It is, in my opinion, a cop out; if I don't define something, I can make it into what I want it to be at the moment I need it to be it. That, gents, is not a formula for rational discussion.

Bob wrote: "And yet, has anyone but me dared define the term? We could be having two discussions about entirely different things at this point.

Definitions matter. Period. Definitions matter even more in p..."

I simply use the United Nations definition of torture as found on the Wikipedia:

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."[1:]

In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may be motivated to inflict torture on others for similar reasons to those of a state; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors Murders.

Torture is often sponsored by governments. In addition, individuals or groups may inflict torture on others for the same reasons as those acting in an official capacity. Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries. Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture, some openly.[2:]

Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education. In the 21st century, torture is widely considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree not to torture prisoners in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 145 states.

National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and ill-treatment are immoral, as well as being impractical.[3:] Despite these international conventions, however, many organizations (e.g. Amnesty International) that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.[4:]

So for me, intent becomes part of the definition. You'll note from the last sentence of the 1st paragraph why the Bush administration was so anxious to legalize their techniques.

Eric,

Thanks for putting forward your definition of the term. I would argue that, given the broad scope of "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" necessarily negates virtually any attempts at interrogation of a prisoner, be he a lawful combatant or not. This is why, in the definition I suggested, I included permanence of effect. One might wonder why the UN would leave this point out. My only conclusion is that consensus could not be reached on the matter.

So, if I think I am going to drown for some number of seconds, yet in the end I don't, one would have to ask what the permanent effect would be.

I agree with Bob on the need for a working definition of torture for the purpose of debating its use. However, the definition must needs to be arrived at by discussion. I, for one, would NOT include "permanence of effect" unless one admitted the psychological or emotional effects and one would have to define "permanence"!
The odd thing about "torture" as an interrogation technique is that it produces false information as easily if not more so than any true information.
That is why (going back to earlier times) many poor souls confessed to witchcraft, supplying "details" on time, place, manner of dances with Satan or the like and naming "fellow witches" and animal demon companions, sentencing all of them to persecution in turn.
To me, torture is not only abhorrent, it is ineffective as a means to obtain information that cannot be independently verified.

Another point: Definition is the key to defence or promotion of the specific acts such as waterboarding. THAT is why so much effort was spent by the Bush administration in redefining to justify such things.

Torture as a form of punishment or for revenge etc lacks any utility except, one might argue, to intimidate an enemy into doing anything to prevent capture...even suicide. Fear of consequences (being tortured) does not seem to prevent fanatics from acts of terror.

Finally, I think that the UN definition as cited by Eric is a good place to start and we might find ourselves ending there as well...

Just as a though exercise, would folks here consider the techniques and methods used during military training as "torture"? And I'm not talking about specialized training for special forces types; I'm talking about everyday, garden variety basic training. If one goes by the UN definition, one would have to ("punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed").

The question of "torture" is one of the more tricky questions we face. That's why denouncing the Bush administration for attempting to legalistically define (or as some would say, REdefine) torture is invalid. Or rather, it is equally valid with those who trash Obama for doing the very same thing.

I think the U. N. needs a clear cut definition of torture that applies to all its member countries - and I have to agree that it seems to me that torture is counter-productive in the gathering of information, give me enough pain and I'll say whatever you want to hear, or try to come up with a believable lie that you'll accept. Either way, the information is unreliable. Besides, with all the inhibition lowering drugs around, wouldn't that be more effective anyway? How can we talk about lethal injections for death sentences to stop cruel and unusual punishment, and turn around and justify torture for prisoners?

Rebecca,

Respectfully, I would suggest that forcing someone to ingest (or forced injection of) psychotropic substances to induce that person to spill the beans would amount to torture as well, per the UN definition. Who's to say what "mental suffering" would be inflicted upon the subject.

Bob,
Military training may offer experiences to trainees in the course of teaching them how to deal with being subjected to expected treatment if captured and certainly acquainting them in a "safe setting"is a partial innoculation against some forms and degrees of imprisonment and treatment. That is obviously not the same as subjecting an unwilling prisoner who presumably has no confidence in the care with which his welfare tempers his captors treatment.
Of course one can argue that any rigorous training or unpleasant experience can qualify as torture under some definition. Any definition which in some way considers subjective experience is "tricky" but we use words that refer to subjective experience all the time. How about "liberty" and the "pursuit of Happiness!" ,harrassment, fear, terror etc. So we do what we can.

The rational approach is to evaluate something in terms of results. That is why efficacy (usefulness of information vs that gleaned by alternative means) is a good yardstick that should result in the rejection of torture..certainly that involving the infliction of physical pain.

I think that the morality issue is more difficult. One always hears it wrapped around positing the most extreme case.. (what do you do if someone has a lethal biological bomb that will go off in a population center...and you must find out where it is from the one person who put it there..so what will you do? ANYTHING, IF it will save more lives?).. We are rarely given such stark and extreme examples.

If police are found to use torture to extract a confession, it is thrown out of court...and for good reason. Why then, is it considered OK to torture a prisoner who is not a citizen of the US or is accused of torture ..and whom one wants to then put on trial?
The normal defense of the prisoner is to invalidate the evidence obtained by torture or force. I expect that the cases against the terrorist suspects may in fact have been severely if not fatally undermined.

I agree that in the effort to be "politically correct" , that we sometimes lose sight of the issue ...like survival or protecting the innocent lives threatened by a criminal or terrorist. We all chafe at prioritizing theoretical rights while dealing with the reality of say, a horrendous crime, and the desire to prevent repeats of it or other impacts on the innocent. That is why I find the practical evaluation of torture so appealing. It undercuts the position that torture is the less evil to save lives if in fact, torturing an individual merely releases a torrent of misinformation , lies or goes crazy...as a result, while time and effort is wasted on torturing him.

Anthony wrote: " Word-chopping is the first step towards casuistry ..."

St Paul usefully differentiated between the “letter” of the law and its “spirit”. Making somebody believe they are drowning may or may or may not be contrary to the letter of the principles so usefully set out by Eric. It is certainly contrary to their spirit.

The letter of the law has its place. However, in matters of this kind, civilized countries should obey not only the letter of the law, but also its spirit.

Bull - if you follow the letter of the law, one has fulfilled their obligations. Who are YOU or anyone else, to say what the spirit of the law is.

Bull. There was no torture at Gitmo. We had to waterboard KSM 183 times before he talked. Doesn't sound too torturous to me. And don't forget, we waterboard our own Spec Op troops as part of SERE training.

Obama is setting an insanely dangerous precedant by criminalizing past policy. This has never been done, and simply is not done in a true Republic. This is the kind of thing that happens in 3rd world cesspools. Notice how many of the opposition are in hiding in Venezuela? That's because Chavez is doing the same thing. And always, what comes around can very easily go around. How would it be to have Jindal rounding up Obama's entire administration in 2012 simply because he disagreed. Very dangerous.

Bob wrote: "Eric,

Thanks for putting forward your definition of the term. I would argue that, given the broad scope of "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" necessarily nega..."

Bob wrote: "Eric,

Thanks for putting forward your definition of the term. I would argue that, given the broad scope of "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" necessarily nega..."

Don't forget that the UN definition is in the context of obtaining information or a confession.

The focus of the discussion here seems to be concerned mostly with the effect on the victim. I worry about the effect on the person doing the torture, whether you define it with or without permanence (I would argue that any kind of mental or physical brutalization leaves permanent mental scars - of hate if nothing else.)

I'm also a very practical sort. If indeed our country needs information in order to overcome a threat, then I want something that works. A technique that must be applied 183 times in a month is a prima facia example of something that doesn't work and is being applied for entirely different reasons. The experts, i.e. professional military interrogators, whom I have heard interviewed, have made it clear that the techniques we are discussing somewhat abstractly, don't work and the results are rarely reliable. They have much more subtle ways of getting all sorts of information without the individual being interrogated even knowing it. As I noted earlier, using pain or fear to elicit information also requires that you know what questions to ask. The best information is often elicited to unasked questions.

Not all basic training requires brutalization. Some drill sergeants get off on being sadistic, no doubt. Does it make them better soldiers. No evidence of that. Books like Band of Brothers and Company Commander reveal very different motivations for good soldiers and being brutalized during basic training isn't part of it. I wouldn't call that kind of training torture; I'd call it stupid and sadistic.

When in doubt I always prefer the moral high ground. We have choices to make as people and as a country. We can emulate our enemies and stoop to the lowest common denominator but then we have become our enemies. Someone once said, be careful whom you hate because in your hatred you may become like them. We can play with definitions and words all we want in order to justify our actions. I think we all know what torture is, let's be careful not to rationalize our ill-thought out actions. The mere fact that we have to have laws against it is sad indeed.

I urge everyone who has an interest in this and war crimes in general to read as much as possible about the Nuremberg trials. The United States now finds itself in the position of rationalizing many of the principles set forth in the Nuremberg principles. That's a little scary.

You know, all of this would not be necessary if we simply followed the Geneva Conventions regarding illegal combatants. The Conventions hold that they can be sumarily executed. But we didn't do that, did we? I think we've pretty much established our moral high ground.

Also, given the previous thread, it's pretty clear There is absolutely no consensus on what torture really is. I've read on the Nuremburg ttrials. I've also studied the Nazi's concentration camp system and their operation of the death camps. I understand their goals and methodologies. I can assure you there's little comparison here. Not that crimes haven't taken place in the field. That occurs in all wars. I'd hold that we as a country have a very good reocrd of late in prosecuting these incidents.

Anti-Obama inflamatory rants tossing in Chavez and rhetoric is not " thinking outside the box" in my opinion. If you want to make a point that its a bad precedent to be going after previous administration officials who possibly engaged in covering up illegal, unethical behavior, and knowingly engaged in "torture" while lying to the American people and Congress then just say so and then explain why its not as bad as Clinton lying about getting a blow job from Monica...for which the Republicans pursued an impeachment. Also, try to stick to facts as to who is doing what to force this approach. (Hint: It is not Obama).

Not Bill - very good point that these gents being held at Gitmo (and elsewhere) are illegal combatants. Somehow, through some purposeful twist, they've become lawful combatants and deserving of all sorts of considerations and "rights". While I would not say that their captors should treat them inhumanely, I am not shy about the use of coercion. If water boarding represents the top-end on the interrogation scale, I would be willing to approve it, without a doubt.

And the whole "183 water boardings" is a misnomer; KSM "endured" 183 individual pours of water.

Wendy wrote: " Anti-Obama inflamatory rants tossing in Chavez and rhetoric is not " thinking outside the box" in my opinion. If you want to make a point that its a bad precedent to be going after previous admini..."

Is it as bad as Clinton's extraordinary renditions?

KSM "endured" 183 individual pours of water.

You make it sound so trite! They place a bag over the head and then pour water - it is like drowning. You can't breathe. About 16 times a day. That is torture. Torture takes many forms. Remember the infamous dripping water torture?

Not Bill mentioned the high moral ground - there's nothing moral about torture. What it really is is yet another American double standard. So many of these arguments for torture hinge on some pretty dodgy understandings of terrorism etc. It's like building a shaky house on weak crumbling foundations.

Good point Bob - I'm not sure how many pours constitutes a "session". Something else to consider, we have medical personnel on hand during these sessions. At no time is the subject in danger of losing their life through being scared to death.

Wendy - I have made thoughtful and pointed arguments - the same arguments that Obama's own Intelligence personnel have made by the way. So Wendy - tell me and then prove where I'm not factual. You make accusations and offer no supporting evidence. Also - how am I not thinking outside the box? Given the current political / media environment, I am the very definition of outside the box. Face it, you now ARE THE BOX.

And Shannon - again as I pointed out we do the same to our own. It's called TRAINING. We (the US) have a lot of experience in this. We know how to conduct it in an effective and safe manner. We know what we're doing, and it works. We wouldn't do it otherwise. The last thing we want is bad HumIntel. Torture, real torture, does not produce actionable intel, that's why we don't engage in it. I understand the emotion that is being brought to this debate, but I'm seeing little understanding in the reality of methodologies and goals.

And to add to my thoughts on this point, yesterday - May Day - Michael Kinsley wrote in the WashPost about the real "war criminals". Yep - it's everyone who voted for Bush. Seriously. People, exercising their constitutional rights are now war criminals. Look it up. Folks, this is where we're heading. Does this sound even remotely reasonable? Please, I'd love to hear your response.

Shannon wrote: "KSM "endured" 183 individual pours of water.

You make it sound so trite! They place a bag over the head and then pour water - it is like drowning. You can't breathe. About 16 times a day. That is ..."

I can breathe just fine at the moment, thank you.

My intent was not to render the number trite, but rather to put in the proper context. 183 is an awfully big number when one considers the act; but saying a person is water boarded 183 times is far different than the person enduring 183 pours of water during numerous water boarding events over a course of time. I could make an analogy to the acts of certain politicians, but I'll refrain at the moment.

Bob
Now THAT is fair game!
And actually, I think there does need to be clarification on the relative "rights" of "lawful combatants" and terrorist outlaws, the latter being the sorts that do not deserve the same level of facilities and concern. Fighting these folk requires some different tactics and methods, unfortunately.

However, the ineffectiveness of physical torture for the purpose of information gathering makes it gratuitous and is a lazy brutish alternative to better methods.

If our purpose is to punish or "disincent" those who would follow in their suicide bombing missions or terrorist attacks, we need to consider what superstitious or religious ideology incents them. This reminds me of the old story of effective spreading of rumors among troops of a particular religious persuasion that their bullets had been greased in the fat of an animal that made touching the bullets against their religious belieff. (the use of cow and pig fat in Patten Enfield rifle cartridges which had to be peeled off by mouth).Or practices related to how the dead enemy's body is disposed of etc. That sort of thing may be explored.

Wendy - If the purpose were to punish illegal combatants, I doubt the time would be taken to waterboard them. I suspect a "take no prisoners" approach would be taken instead. People can think what they like about the last administration, but honestly believing that they joyously ordered the torture of prisoners would require a serious suspension of disbelief.

There's another thought exercise brewing here, but I'll get back to that later.

Wendy wrote: "Actually, I think there does need to be clarification on the relative "rights" of "lawful combatants" and terrorist outlaws, the latter being the sorts that do not deserve the same level of facilities and concern...."

One interesting feature of the place where I live (Northern Ireland)is that several former "terrorist outlaws" are now members of our lawful government. In fact, your own government helped create the settlement that made this possible. A similar situation existed in Israel where many politicians have been former terrorists. Dare I also mention Nelson Mandela?

Anthony,

Good point, but for one to apply the same logic (today's terrorist is tomorrow's member of government), then one must somehow divine the end state, the outcome. Does anything suggest that Islamic terrorists wish to form/join a government? (Well, with the exception of the Caliphate...)

Bob
I did not say that the last administration was torturing people joyously or for punishment. As in some other areas, it was zeal and stupidity and ignorance.

NoT Bill:
Regarding who is pressing for prosecution for past torture actions:
Obama has insisted that such prosecution..if any..should be limited to upper level folk and in fact only conceded that in the face of demands from congressional advocates, the media and civil liberties groups. He wanted any charges referred to the US Justice Dept for review and has been accused of "foot-dragging" "wanting to avoid the distraction of reviewing past polices and not prosecute". He has repeatedly advocated "moving forward away from the past" , "not looking back and focussing on current challenges such as the economy , current foreign relations challenges etc. Here is a recent summary.

United states: Obama’s no-torture prosecution pledge meets resistance

A photo of leg irons used to hold detainees during interviews at Guantanamo Bay. President Barack Obama has granted immunity to CIA officers in tough anti-terrorist interrogations as he released graphic memos detailing harsh methods approved by former President George W. Bush


Civil rights groups have reacted with dismay and disappointment over President Barack Obama’s insistence that CIA officers not be prosecuted for the use of torture in “war on terror” interrogations.

Obama’s director of National Intelligence also promised to “absolutely defend” intelligence officers who acted under the legal advice of the government and said their actions should be seen in the context of the fears aroused by the September 11, 2001 attacks.
“It is one of the deepest disappointments of this Administration that it appears unwilling to uphold the law where crimes have been committed by former officials”, said the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has championed the legal rights of “war on terror” detainees.
“Whether or not CIA operatives who conducted waterboarding are guaranteed immunity, it is the high level officials who conceived, justified and ordered the torture program who bear the most responsibility for breaking domestic and international law, and it is they who must be prosecuted”, it said.
Obama assured that the CIA officers would not be prosecuted even as his Administration made public formerly secret Justice Department memos that authorized the use of interrogation techniques widely regarded as torture.
“This is a time for reflection, not retribution”, Obama said in a statement.
“We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.
“The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world”, he said.
The techniques chillingly detailed in the Justice Department memos included waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning; confinement in a dark box with an insect; sleep deprivation; stress positions; slapping; among others. Bush Administration officials claimed that these things did not amount to torture.
They were initially used on Abu Zubayda, a top al-Qaeda figure who at the time of his capture was believed to have information about other plans to attack the United States.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that forced the release of the memos, called on the Obama Administration to name a special prosecutor to investigate torture under the Administration of George W. Bush.
“We have to look back before we can move forward as a nation. When crimes have been committed, the American legal system demands accountability”, said Anthony Romero, the ACLU’s executive director.
“President Obama’s assertion that there should not be prosecutions of government officials who may have committed crimes before a thorough investigation has been carried out is simply untenable”, he said. “Enforcing the nation’s laws should not be a political decision”.
Amnesty International’s executive director in the United States, Larry Cox, welcomed the release of the memos.
“However, the Department of Justice appears to be offering a get-out-of-jail-free card to individuals who, by US Attorney-General Eric Holder’s own estimation, were involved in acts of torture”, he argued.
Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committeey, repeated his call for a commission of inquiry -- “not to move a partisan agenda, but to own up to what was done in the name of national security, and to learn from it”.
The decision to make public the memos reportedly followed intense debate within the Administration with Justice Department lawyers arguing in favor of making a clean break of the issue, and the CIA arguing against it.
CIA Director Leon Panetta sent a message to employees of the spy agency warning that “this is not the end of the road on these issues.
“More requests will come -- from the public, from Congress, and the courts -- and more information is sure to be released”, he said.
But Panetta said he would “strongly oppose any effort to investigate or punish those who followed the guidance of the Department of Justice”.
He said the CIA would provide lawyers to personnel who come under investigation in connection with the interrogation program.
Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of National Intelligence, recalled that the interrogations were conducted at a time when every effort was being made to prevent another attack.
“Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing.
“As the president has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future”.

Wendy - And yet Obama still released the CIA memos and (if not yet, soon) pictures. If we're not looking to lay blame for past events, why then put out all of this information about them? "[M:]oving forward away from the past" is not supposed to mean running from the pool of gasoline one just lit on fire himself.

Also, source?

Not Bill wrote: "You know, all of this would not be necessary if we simply followed the Geneva Conventions regarding illegal combatants. The Conventions hold that they can be sumarily executed. But we didn't do tha..."

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. My reference to the Nuremberg trials was to note that what really happened at the war crime trials was that we were setting a standard for ourselves, i.e. a model code of behavior during war time. My point was that we have begun to find following our own standards rather difficult.

Obama's release of the memos and the upcoming regurgitation of the photos is nothing more than a personal attack against Cheney. This is well known within DC. This is what this is really all about. Obama cannot stand any criticism and Cheney was ripping him. He SELECTIVELY released certain memos as retaliation and in doing so has let Soros and his legions in, and it's too late to pull back now. What a sham and a disgrace and all because Obama felt he was dissed. That's not leadership.

No worries, Eric. You were very clear. I just happen to disagree. I can think of no other fighting force in the world that can apply such lethal force yet remain within the rule of law. This memo fiasco is all about political payback. There are many players with differing goals, but in the end it's all payback, and it's a highly dangerous game. Again, I remind folks here that payback is a twoway street.

"Well known around DC".must mean rumors within same thinking circles. We all know there are many different circles and plenty of conspiracy theories at any given time.

I think Obama realeased the memos to demonstrate a new
openness in government and did not calculate nor shape the consequences. The reaction from Congress and the pressure from those who want full media-covered hearings and some penalty for those they see as behind the torture policies whom they see as lying us into war and to blame for why we now have a mess to deal with on so many levels.

Ironically, Obama, who might have been more supportive of at least the public review and whole process of unraveling the sequence of events and decisions and the failures at each level to stop it, had Obama still been in the Senate, now, as President, is more concerned about the many challenges we face and the need to focus resources and energy on them! Its a practical approach not so much ideology. Its the approach which prioritizes tasks and wants to focus on substance not theory, on getting a job, done not debating past policies but just changing the policies.

I am sure he would like to say: "LOOK, we have time to go back and examine this and understand what mistakes were made, how and by whom etc. BUT for NOW, can't we just put that aside and try to keep the country together in terms of the economy and dealing with real threats to our wellbeing as a nation etc...? I can appoint a commission to look into it and we can "get back to you" with a report later, Ok?
And he is having a hard time selling it to those who see an opportunity for Watergate type hearings, Impeachment type hearings etc etc.

Ironically also, Not Bill, Obama would likely agree with you that the political payback game, regardless of who claims the higher moral ground, is endless and is distracting. That is why many folk voted for him over Clinton whose bent would have been different.

I know there are lots of folks out there who believe the "enhanced interrogation techniques" work and they are essential to win the war on terror. The Bush administration legal folks did a great job of defining just what is and is not legal. If this stuff is so effective I say let's use them in the other wars: war on drugs, war on crime, etc. Just imagine what a great tool waterboarding would be for school administrators trying to discover who brought the illegal ibuprofen into school. Or who was selling condoms. Just imagine the great information we could obtain by making those who sneaked across the border stand for hours straight so we can find out who helped them and better yet, who was employing them, cause then we could interrogate the CEOs of the companies to find out just how they manage to get so many illegals and why they aren't paying minimum wage. There's a whole new industry that could be created of specialists in enhanced interrogation techniques (Blackwater new enterprise?) who could train police departments in just when to interrogate speeding motorists or drunk drivers (after all they kill thousands of people every year.) Just think of the benefits to the economy. Wow, what a great idea.

Great comment, Eric_W.

That is what characterized so much of the Bush administration...not basing policy on what actually worked on on reality but on what they wished would work and the reality that they sold themselves on which was NOT the same as that based on information that they had access to had they chosen to read or listen to objective, respected experts. Its like "my mind is made up. Do not try to confuse me with facts."

And its not just the academic experts, or the professionals whose expertise is in psychology, or in interrogation (military, or civilian) who call into question the efficacy of torture and who feel the downside is greater to using it than refraining...even laying aside the moral issues or the legal issues.

I get a kick out of the conservative talkshow commentator who said John McCain should not weigh on the subject of torture because his personal experience made him biased on the subject!

Those who have gone thru torture do have something to contribute in terms of whether torture is effective and the blowback from resorting to it, and what torture IS in terms of definition. And, McCain could certainly help explain the difference between training to deal with torture and torture as applied to prisoners.

We had torture here in Northern Ireland. Actually, over 30+ years we had a whole succession of extreme over-reactions to “terrorism” by government.
Successively, governments, for example, broke down people’s doors and searched houses at midnight; they interned people without trial; they had a policy called “shoot to kill”, which involved setting up ambushes; they tried to “criminalise” prisoners of the conflict; and other stuff too.

My view is that what brought the troubles to an end was a combination of several more moderate approaches. One was accepting that the warring parties had legitimate grievances and finding ways to overcome them. Another was quiet policework, involving intelligence gathering. Another was sticking to the rule of law, so that everybody, enemies and friends, could see that you had principles and stuck to them. Yet another was to keep open the route to negotiation, sometimes in secret, sometimes openly.

The bottom line is that the main alternative to fighting is making peace. Sometimes, victory can be gained by brute force. But often it is better done by building bridges and by under-reacting rather than over-reacting. In our case, extreme measures, of the kind I outlined, interrupted bridge-building and made the conflict go on and on and on. We are at risk of taking on the entire Muslim world. This is not, I believe, a very good idea.

Eric_W ... wow so your comment #38 is what's supposed to pass for "well reasoned discourse"?

Hokay

Not Bill wrote: "Eric_W ... wow so your comment #38 is what's supposed to pass for "well reasoned discourse"?

Hokay"

Nope, just a humorous note with a point.

Not Bill wrote: "Eric_W ... wow so your comment #38 is what's supposed to pass for "well reasoned discourse"?

Hokay"

Nope, just a humorous note with a point. I mean, we really did just have a strip search of a 13 year-old for bringing ibuprofen to school. Irony is dead.

If one is to use torture to discover if alleged criminals are telling the truth, perhaps one could also use it to discover if their accusers are making true accusations. In the interests of fairness, one could have torturers for the prosecution and torturers for the defence. If not, why not?

You got me Eric_W!

Yeah - irony is dead. Killed off by rampant assininery. But then, Anthony makes a very ironic point, heh.

Here are some additional thoughts on the subject.

David Shribman -
"The pre-eminent point here is that in the United States, sitting presidents and winning political parties don’t sit in legal judgment of their predecessors. If they do not like their policies, and many times they do not, they change policies. They do not sue their predecessors nor seek to punish them legally. This custom has prevailed in times of severe crisis as much as in serene times.
There are myriad examples. Jimmy Carter did not seek to prosecute Henry A. Kissinger for complicity in the invasion of Cambodia and involvement in Chile, two actions that might be regarded as peculiarly subject to legal review. Richard M. Nixon did not seek to prosecute Lyndon B. Johnson for the illegal wiretapping of Martin Luther King’s bathroom and bedroom, which King did not know about until Thurgood Marshall informed him in 1964. Nor did Nixon take any action about the illegal taping of White House conversations in the Johnson years."

Victor Davis Hanson -
"I’ve raised this example twice now. But, really, how is waterboarding a known detained terrorist like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (who confessed to cutting off Daniel Pearl’s head [with two knives after the first went dull:], and to planning the 9/11 mass murder) at Guantanamo considered a war crime, while blowing up with a Predator drone suspected terrorists (and all those, including women and children, in their general vicinity) not?
The latter victims were not given habeas corpus, and Miranda rights, and there is a greater doubt about their guilt from 10,000 feet than is the case with the much studied psychopath KSM in Guantanamo. Most suspects would prefer to be water-boarded than vaporized? Ditto the Somali pirates, whose heads were blown off during their apparent attempts at negotiating extortion, again a bit more drastic than waterboarding. Would a future President Sanford or Giuliani be right to bring charges against those in the Obama administration who green lighted assassinations of suspected terrorists—something akin to the Phoenix program in Vietnam?"

The actions of this administration are well beyond a slippery slope. They represent a cornice that threaten to throw our nation into political freefall. And even then, there are those who are already cheering on this possibility.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2...

Anthony wrote: "If one is to use torture to discover if alleged criminals are telling the truth, perhaps one could also use it to discover if their accusers are making true accusations. In the interests of fairnes..."

This subject began as a discussion about "torture" at Gitmo. Was your intent here to stretch to hyperbole to make a point, or were you being somewhat genuine? If you equate the likes of Khalid Sheik Muhammad to a common criminal, then I fear we are worlds apart in our thinking. If you equate KSM with, say, the average American, I fear we are light years apart.

Bob wrote: If you equate the likes of Khalid Sheik Muhammad to a common criminal, then I fear we are worlds apart in our thinking"

"Innocent until proved guilty". All one ever wanted was the sort of fair trial provided for by, for example, the USA constitution. The guy is supposed to have committed a crime on American soil. Why not try him according to your excellent legal system?

Because Anthony, his crimes did not take place on American soil. That's the the whole point of Gitmo. We should not be about extendeing US Constitutional protections to foreign illegal combatants apprehended on foreign battlefields. It continues to astound me that we continue to have these conversations. C'mon folks, gear up ond read the applicable laws! Again I point out, according the Geneva Conventions, we would be within our right under international law to summarily execute such individuals.

Not Bill wrote: "Because Anthony, his crimes did not take place on American soil. That's the the whole point of Gitmo. We should not be about extendeing US Constitutional protections to foreign illegal combatants a..."

That's correct, but once they are on US territory, they are entitled under the Constitution to the privileges accorded to all other persons. Note the Constitution does not say citizen, it says, person. That has been interpreted by the court many times to apply to anyone on US soil.

14th Amendment applies Bill of Rights to "persons" [nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,:] not citizens, in fact, citizen was not even mentioned in a federal context until after the Civil War. You could be a citizen of a state.

The prisoners, assuming they had not been shot, and once they were brought on to American territory, should have been accorded rights to a speedy trial under the 14th Amendment. They would certainly not preclude them from being found guilty and speedily incarcerated.

I hate to sound like a Pollyanna, but if we truly believe in certain principles, then we should be gracious enough to want to set an example in the application of those principles. If they are only good enough for us, then perhaps we really don't believe in their ultimate worth.

References: Boumediene v. Bush is the latest in which the Court ruled that detainees on US territory were entitled to the due process provisions of the 5th amendment. The most important principle that has long standing in US and British law is, of course, habeus corpus which had been denied even to US citizens imprisoned at Gitmo (see Hamdi v Rumsfeld)