You might have heard that the Obama Administration today released memos written by the Office of Legal Counsel under President Bush (links). I’ve not yet read them all; they’re a daunting combination of legalese and horror porn—”John Kramer Goes to Yale.” We’ll see if I muster the spleen to stomach a full reading.
I have tooled around the interwebs to see what others are saying, and man—it doesn’t seem like anyone’s got a crapload of terrific ideas about what to do now.
Most people on the political Right aren’t saying much of anything. I can’t get a read on whether their silence indicates a tacit approval of the techniques approved by the Bush Administration or a fearful reluctance to acknowledge that these things took place. Vice President Cheney has, obviously, made an effort to publicly stand by the decisions that were made, but I don’t see a great deal of enthusiastic support for his most recent statements to the media—except, perhaps, from those whom I would consider to be on the hard-Right fringe (white supremacists, members of any organization with “militia” in its name, etc.). I don’t get it: If you believe the right decisions were made, why not say so? Tell us your reasons. Make your argument. You could be right! And if you don’t, why not say so? It wouldn’t mean putting your stamp of approval on the new president (God forbid); it would mean ensuring that any president’s ability to undermine the rule of law would itself be undermined.
People on the Left, in large measure, are demanding federal prosecution, to the highest levels of the previous administration. And I totally get why Obama and Pals are not excited by this option: It’s a political nightmare. It would be incredibly difficult to press charges against anyone from the previous administration without looking like a petty, partisan douche. On top of that—and this is the more salient, less Machiavellian point—even thinking about the logistics of mounting a trial of that magnitude is mind-boggling. Venue? Jury? Press? I really don’t think it could be done in such a way that a majority would be satisfied with the proceedings’ fairness. (And imagine the nationwide protests and counter-protests . . . nauseating.) Gerald Ford got a lot of flack (and no re-election) for his pardon of Nixon, but I bet his imagination was just as vivid as mine. He knew that it was better to let Congress pass a few laws curbing executive power than the likely chaos of the alternative.
Some are renewing calls for some kind of “Truth Commission” that would, presumably, ask everyone involved in the decision to use the techniques spelled out in the memos to come forward and tell their stories in exchange for immunity from prosecution. I guess this would be modeled at least to some extent on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission—which is to say, it would be mainly therapeutic. I think there’s a lot to commend in what S. Africa accomplished with their TARC, mostly because large numbers of people were involved in oppressive, abusive and inhumane activities, and there aren’t a lot of good ways for the state to punish large numbers of people without becoming oppressive itself. The problem in the present instance is that there doesn’t seem to have been large numbers of people involved in the decision-making process, making the prime motivation for such a commission somewhat moot.
That said, the last option seems to me to be the most promising—or, perhaps, the lesser of the evils. I cannot believe, with some on the Right, that doing and saying nothing is the way forward; we must bring these acts into the light of day and decide together never to allow them to be done again in the name of our “security.” I cannot agree, with some on the Left, that punitive and vengeful prosecution will lead to justice; I just do not see a way to get it done. I truly believe it would tear us apart.
Filed under: politics Tagged: | Bybee, Guantanamo, OLC memos, torture, truth commission, Yoo
I for one would be in favor of a ‘Truth Commission’ of some kind. Whether the former admin officials are ALL involved or not, I don’t think that’s even entirely necessary. But I read ONE of the memos you linked to Aly, just one, and that was enough. Brutal. I remember those days right after 9/11 when everyone wanted us to go get somebody and get ‘em good…thes decision to do this seems to have been made in that context, and well, they were downright, horrible, nearly unforgivable decisions.
Alex – I also suspect that these decisions were made “in the heat of the moment,” so to speak, after 9/11. I’d guess that, in a legal sense, that means they were made “in good faith”—another reason prosecution is a bad idea. But reading these makes me so mad. It seems clear to me that Bybee and Yoo were deliberately misreading the law to provide legal cover for illegal (and Wrong) activities. I can’t imagine the pressure the president must have felt at that time, but (he?) his people made the wrong call.
If the other two memos contain nothing more that what was in the Abu Zubaydeh memo, I’ve got to say: I have no moral or legal problem with any of these activities. In fact, I would be inclined to engage (vigorously) in some of them myself, considering the person in question.
Now, if these were done to people who shouldn’t have been sent to Guantanamo in the first place, different story. But Zubaydeh? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? These are people who planned and successfully executed mass murder plots, who are withholding information on ongoing terrorist conspiracies. I don’t think pouring water over their heads for 40 seconds is excessive.
Hmm. Jumbled thoughts in response. Let’s see if I can sort through the detritus.
First, I do have a moral problem with these activities, but I don’t think that is the main thing at issue. (Not that morality shouldn’t be considered—it should, and I will—but I think the bigger issue is legality.) I’m no law expert, but it seems clear to me that there is a strong argument to be made that what took place broke both U.S. laws and international treaties (which, with our signing of them, become de facto U.S. law). Our government sanctioned activities that it had previously condemned when done by other government entities: the Khmer Rouge, the Gestapo, Stalinists, etc. As far as I can tell, the argument made by the OLC was, “It’s not torture when we do it, at least not if we do it somewhere that’s not America.” Very Nixonian. Very retro. Very illogical and illegal.
Perhaps there is an argument to be made that these activities should not be illegal. Fine then. U.S. laws and international agreements that prohibit such activities should be repealed, through the appropriate legislative channels. But until such a time as that happens, the activities remain illegal, even for presidential administrations.
Second, the moral problem. Or, perhaps more accurately, the moral-pragmatic problem. I tend to be fairly comfortable with grey areas. Something with which I try not to be too comfortable, however, is hypocrisy. And it is the height of hypocrisy to claim the moral high ground and to claim that circumstances demand a more “nuanced” and pragmatic approach to morality. One must pick between having and eating one’s cake.
Corollary: I’m not big on moral equivalencies, but I don’t think it’s completely self-evident that the (still unproven, to my knowledge) threat of future terrorist plots (allegedly) known by KSM, al Zubaydeh and others necessitated torture (unless we tortured as some kind of preemptive revenge, which comes with its own set of moral quandaries). The burden of proof is on those who think so, not on those with doubts.
Third, the purely pragmatic problem. (1) When the “shining city on a hill” acts like a third-world torture state, people are bound to get a wee bit pissed. We shouldn’t be surprised when this happens, and admit that acting like the bad guys doesn’t make us safer. (2) There are still many questions about the reliability of testimony offered under duress. Again, the burden of proof should be on those who believe these tactics are effective, not on those who don’t.
I’ll see your jumbled thoughts and raise you a numbered list.
1. Terrorists are not protected by the Geneva conventions.
2. I’m not clear on how this breaks US law. These interrogation techniques, while unkind, don’t seem to me to rise to the level of torture, unless torture is anything that exceeds asking nicely.
3. I don’t think these activities can be compared, either in effect or in intent, to torture committed by the Khmer Rouge, Gestapo, et al. This may not be a comprehensive list of approved techniques, but none of the listed items seems like torture to me. Certainly not anywhere near what was done under the regimes you mention
4. As regards the moral high ground, I would argue that one need not be a paladin to hold the moral high ground.
5. On the value of the interrogation results, see, e.g. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,436061,00.html
6. On the pragmatic problem, well, I don’t think that the US is either a shining city on a hill (pace Bradford [yes, I added that to show off]) or acting like a third-world torture state. This is because it’s obvious that we’re not a shining city on a hill, although we are, I think, a partially illuminated hamlet on a slight elevation. It’s also because we all (have no excuse not to) know what third-world torture states do, and this isn’t it. I don’t think the people who are pissed off by it would be less pissed off if we didn’t do it. In fact, short of personally executing every Jew in Israel, I don’t think there’s a way to get them unpissed at the US.
In short, I think this sounds worse than it is. We could restrict our actions to merely imprisoning and interviewing these people, and I’d be fine with that. It’s just that the arguments I’ve heard against doing more seem . . . not binding on the conscience.
Oh, also: if we had a truth and reconciliation commission, with whom would we be reconciling?
I haven’t taken the time to read all the memos and reports. But I do not recall hearing of anything done by US forces that was not already illegal, and for which people have been or will already be prosecuted, that rises anywhere near to the level of “torture” as practiced by totalitarian regimes whether Islamic, Communist or whatever.
Did US forces do ANYTHING to detainees that they don’t do their OWN special forces troops in training?
It is very clear that those other states and forces I mentioned do things to prisoners that they wouldn’t dream of doing to their own troops in training.
It weakens the argument to make false comparisons. It might be interesting to suggest that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do… and the case has been made by some. But if we use the word torture promiscuously, we have nothing left with which to label gratuitously inflicted suffering that causes long term physical damage, and for which little gain can be realized in terms of public safety.
Phil – My brother went thru SERE school, and he would be first in line to call what happened to him there “torture.” (I’m hoping to get him in on this at some point so you won’t have to take my word for it.) The whole point of the experience is to simulate what could happen if our guys and gals fall into the hands of the baddies—to torture our troops in preparation for the possibility of the real thing. If we call it “torture” when we do it to them, in preparation for the “torture” that might very well await them were they to be captured in the line of duty, why would we not call it “torture” when we do it to enemy combatants whom we have captured?
Doug –
1. “Enemy combatants” who have been captured and are awaiting legal proceedings that will prove or disprove their involvement in terrorist activities cannot be called “terrorists,” because they have not yet been convicted of terrorism. “Enemy combatants” are protected by the Geneva Conventions.
2. Honestly, I’m not informed enough to detail the laws that might have been broken here. I need to do more research on this point before making claims like this (except, see point 1).
3. We condemned the Khmer Rouge for waterboarding. We convicted Japanese generals post-WWII for waterboarding our soldiers. Sullivan did a pretty thorough round up in 2007 of what I think are legitimate comparisons.
4. Agreed. But showing a little fear and trepidation that one might lose the moral high ground when one engages in morally questionable practices is a good sign of one’s continued occupancy of said high ground.
5. I need to do more reading on this, too.
6. We don’t need to convince the extremists—it would be impossible to do so. But engaging in practices even remotely similar to those of the very extremists we condemn asks people in the middle to choose between two evils, rather than making the choice in favor of our “partially illuminated hamlet on a slight elevation” obvious. If we want to persuade people to come into the light, we must be prepared to live there.
Being willing to use the word “torture” doesn’t change facts. Did he walk away? Is he physically harmed now? Did it damage him physically? Leave permanent scars? Was he hospitalized after his training?
Does he have all his fingers and toes? Earlobes?
Did they hook up electricity to his private parts and have at it?
If they word “torture” has now been downgraded to temporary pain and discomfort with no permanent damage, especially levels of pain that some people voluntarily undergo as “training”, then we need a new word for “real torture.”
I have read about the actual torture practices of the Soviets, the Nazis, the Chinese, the Japanese, various Islamic regimes, the Taliban and Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. Nothing we do in SERE is close, for the simple reason that SERE is designed to produce functioning people, and torture isn’t. SERE is hard, it’s painful, it’s scary, but it isn’t that kind of torture, and using the word inappropriately is a giant smokescreen.
If I’m reading you right, Phil, you’re saying that unless particular techniques cause permanent physical damage, they cannot rightly be labeled “torture.” But the techniques that the memos try to legitimize have caused permanent damage and even death to people in U.S. custody. SERE training doesn’t kill or permanently maim, not because the techniques are not torture, but because the techniques are abandoned before permanent injury or death occurs.
That’s why I started out with the question: HAS any torture of this type occurred, for which people have not been prosecuted, or which is not already illegal under current law?
If so, that’s a different discussion.
And: I have to say, people DO die in military training sometimes, not because it is planned that they will do so, but because it is sometimes impossible to control every aspect of stressful training. On the same ground, an interrogator may not intend death or permanent injury by use of a technique, but it may happen anyway, at which point someone has to decide if it was truly not predictable, or was negligence on the part of the interrogator.
Military trainers have lost jobs, and even been prosecuted or sued, for negligence in training that results in death or permanent injury.
It is not a perfect world. People die in hospitals due to negligence by the thousands (some say tens or hundreds of thousands), and the only remedy is a lawsuit, not criminal prosecution.
I am interested in how many people have died or been permanently injured during interrogation where they didn’t just have a heart attack or stroke from stress or something (I’ve nearly had a couple in faculty meetings) but were the victims of a careless or negligent interrogator, applying brutal methods in non-critical situations. Can you put a number on it?
There are going to be some creeps who go into this line of work. Same is true for cops, judges, lawyers and professors, not to mention doctors and ministers. Shall we place limits designed to make it certain that NO person in such a position EVER has an opportunity to “go over the line”, and make that our first priority, as opposed to actually getting information?
Or do we prosecute egregious cases, make general rules, and not look too close unless it gets too bad? (That’s what we do with cops, who have killed more people unjustly this year than CIA interrogators, I’m pretty sure… and I’m a SUPPORTER of the cops.)
All of this, every single bit of it, will go right out the window on the day of the next major terrorist attack on US soil. This kind of discussion is peacetime luxury, when we don’t really think we’re in that much threat.
Your questions reaffirm the need for some kind of investigation or commission. We don’t have the answers, and “peacetime luxury” is just the time to get them.
I don’t think I have to say this, but:
I’m not in favor of real torture. I think it’s morally wrong and pragmatically unproductive, most of the time, the exception being when:
a) You already have some facts you know that the person being interrogated doesn’t know you have, so that you can somewhat verify whether you’re getting the truth, or you have other methods for some verification of what the prisoner says, AND
b) The situation is so critical and time sensitive, with lives at serious risk or even at certain peril, that there is no time to wait for more productive methods to work.
This becomes the moral equivalent to the right to kill or maim in self-defense, or defense of others, at that point. It will be very rare that conditions justify it. But it is not a morally unique situation, and is reasonably covered by the morality we’ve developed surrounding self-defense, though the usual ambiguities apply, as in, was there any other option, was it reasonable to fear for your life (or the lives of those you are protecting), etc.
It is no more sensible to say that “torture is always wrong, in any circumstance,” than “killing is always wrong, in any circumstance.” Pacifists will agree. No one else should agree to either.
Just as it is not morally defensible, or legal, to fire blindly into a crowd because someone in the crowd is shooting at you, but you can’t see just who it is, it is not morally defensible, and should not be legal, to torture someone just in case they might know something, about some future event that you don’t even have solid evidence is going to happen.
The self-defense exception for killing depends on correctly assessed and properly target violence. Something of the same is in operation in the matter of interrogation, as well.
My understanding is that the CIA waterboarded about three people in all these years… and waterboarding is not fatal, or even permanently injurious, done correctly, anyway.
I am not in favor of allowing the use of allegations of torture to cripple the ability of our forces to do their work of protecting us. I suspect Obama may have been told some things in intelligence briefings that he didn’t know as a candidate, and that’s one reason he’s pulled back a bit.
And I recall that the Church investigations into the CIA, and subsequent “clean hands” insistence by the Clintons on the part of CIA informants and agents, crippled the agency’s ability to do its job, along with “the wall” between the FBI and CIA, etc.
It’s a complicated business.
Like I said, I’m okay with grey areas, and I’m certainly not arguing that there are none here. I am uncomfortable with the intent on the parts of those charged with safeguarding the law to act unlawfully in the name of the law. I get the sense from parts of the memos I’ve read that the authors themselves didn’t believe what they were sanctioning was not torture. (Among other things, why else would they point to the need to carry out these activities somewhere other than American soil? See the Bradbury memo of May 30, 2005.)
As for what the law should be, if not what it already is (that is, what the CIA and other U.S. agencies should be allowed to do to keep us secure), I don’t know. It seems as if, at the very least, there needs to be additional clarification from Congress on what is and isn’t currently allowed under U.S. law. To have an informed opinion about what might be good changes to the law, I have a long way to go.
I have a suggestion that will seem odd.
There is a recent novel that explores these very issues, by an author at whom some are inclined to sneer, because of the “men’s adventure” aspect of it, but in which there is quite a careful discussion of what can reasonably be in the province of “law,” and what cannot so easily fit.
It’s by Vince Flynn, “Extreme Measure.”
Unlike some previous novels of Flynn, postulating less than likely terrorist scenarios, this one has a scarily believable one, one that could easily happen. And it features a lot of characters thinking their way through the issue of interrogation in extreme situations.
To frame it: What if you had Muhammed Atta in custody on Sept 10, 2001, and knew that HE knew exactly what was about to happen, but you didn’t know exactly how to stop it, although you had good reason to believe it was going to be deadly for thousands.
What is your moral requirement?
I think the discussions of torture have been treated as if they are novel areas of moral inquiry, and they are not. The same issues exist as in self-defense or defense of the innocent, with exactly the same limitations… and imperatives.
I’m SO going to lose any and all remaining literary credibility when I admit this, but I’ve read most of the Mitch Rapp novels. (I blame Michael Lee.) Frankly, I think Flynn’s (clearly a pen name) examination of the moral issues surrounding torture is about as serious as another of my guilty pleasures, 24 (which, now that I think about it, is kinda making an effort this season). I’m not saying that we never, ever need The Man Who Will Do Whatever Is Necessary (And Who Always Seems To Have A Percussive, One-Syllable Name). But I do think we need to closely evaluate the moral logic of subverting the law to uphold the law. Jack Bauer, at least, feels the heavy burden of this quandary. Mitch Rapp never does. (And in any other line of work, that guy would be a sociopath.)
As to the “imminent threat” argument, I get how this works, and it makes sense on paper. Yet I can’t help but feel the teensiest bit squirrelly, just as I do when the topic of “just war” comes up. Have we ever talked ourselves out of a war based on the
sixfour tenets of Just War Theory? I don’t think so. Instead, we’ve made the circumstances under which we’d like to go to war fit with the tenets. “Imminent threat” seems to me to be of similar nature: “Imminent” is in the eye of the beholder.If you haven’t read this particular Flynn novel, you might be surprised… it is a rather subtle discussion in places, and delivers a good deal of ambiguity about law vs. survival and public protection.
Dead, however, is not in the eye of the beholder. Or maybe more properly, dead is ONLY in the eye of the beholder.
One problem with the American discussion of this is that we haven’t had enough recent war on our own soil to understand it. We’ve already forgotten 9/11, believing it to be a fluke. (Sadly, that will change.) One problem with the European discussion of “war and rumors of war” is that they HAVE had lots of relatively recent war on their own soil, but for 65 years have depended on the American defense umbrella.
In other words, after being traumatized by WW I and II, Europe was protected by America from what would surely have been a Soviet invasion otherwise. They are, quite literally, children, not to be taken seriously in this matter, all the while claiming they didn’t really need daddy’s protection all the time they had it.
And now, the very inventors of the worst tortures in history are telling us, whose constitution forbade cruel and unusual punishment well before THEY abolished it, that they have the moral high ground on this matter of torture.
I can think of several wars we DIDN’T get into. The problem with the teaching of history is that we tend not to have chapters in our books titled “the war the US didn’t get involved in.” But think back, and you’ll see plenty of them, that we avoided, or didn’t start even with provocation. Not that the reasons were always, or often, on high moral grounds. Pragmatism is usually the order of the day.
The war we SHOULD have gotten involved in, and immediately upon provocation, was the genocide in Africa, which we could have stopped, or reduced, with serious effort, but we let those moral giants of the UN engage in moral handwringing instead.
An interesting additional voice in the conversation.
Yeah, I’ve read other reports like this, too.
We could get into dueling experts, I suppose. I’ll call, and raise you two experts.
But the logic is the logic. You don’t do it unless:
1) There is an immediate, known, right now threat of loss of life, about which you have enough information that you can ask questions some of which you know the answer to already (which takes away the ability of the prisoner to lie without you being to check, and undoes the argument that “the interrogated will say anything you want them to say”)
2) You have reason to believe that the person you want to interrogate knows enough about the situation that you could intervene if he (or she) talked, and save lives.
It can’t be “we picked up this guy wearing a head piece and an ak47 and he looks like a terrorist so we’re going to torture him to see what he knows, just in case he might know something.”
The logic is, again, not dissimilar to existing law enforcement regulations, and existing laws of self-defense. None of these are perfect. And when there are offenses, some people use them as an excuse to never trust the cops, and to never allow citizens the tools for self defense. But within existing laws, there is some leeway for judgment, and then we prosecute cases of very bad judgment as well as outright criminality.
What the USA should do, each and every time it is accused of torture, is to put up the actual photographs of what the real terrorists do. Just for balance.
For some reason we seem willing to show video of Abu Ghraib but not the detailed photographic evidence of what the terrorists just did.
The caption should be, “Yes, some of our forces went too far,” if they did. And the rest of the caption should be, “Here is the work of the enemy we’re fighting.”
Balance.
There is so much video and photographic evidence of who we’re fighting that doesn’t get into the media, because it’s too shocking, but they’ll spend miles of text on how the USA tortures, and misuse the word constantly.
BTW… I suspect either the credentials or the truthfulness of the guy in the article who claimed they only made people stand for “minutes” in SERE school. That’s just a crock. Shoot, they made us stand that long in marching band, holding tubas and bass drums. It’s just not a credible comment, and makes me doubt the rest. And I note that he seems to have survived and not been injured by water-boarding, unpleasant as I’m sure it was. Again, if that’s “torture,” what word do we have left for serial removal of fingers, interspersed by questions, and then toes, and then ears, and then…. What word do we have left for having to watch while your buddy is treated similarly, while being told if you talk they’ll stop? That is TORTURE, and nothing else quite deserves the word. And those things are absolutely common practice on the other side. Have any allegations been made of US forces doing this sort of thing?
Let me put it another way. Have you seen John McCain walk, or use his arms? He was tortured… and the effects are with him still.
Sidebar:
How is it that those most likely to pontificate on torture are least likely to tolerate any restriction whatsoever on the murder of the unborn?
Not accusing YOU of this: but there seems literally more concern for how we treat the truly evil than the truly innocent, in this matter, and in many others.
Also, along the lines of my last comment, far more truly innocent people appear to have been essentially “tortured” in Brunei in recent years than the CIA every thought about. How many NYT articles have covered it?
But since there is no political payoff to the American or European or Islamic-friendly media in castigating Brunei for public whippings, canings and floggings, often for trivial offenses, we don’t hear that the victims of these vicious punishments are often guilty merely of being “illegal immigrants,” while the employers who brought them to Brunei get off scot-free.
Test question: how many articles have the western media published about USA torture of terrorists in the last 7 years? Now, how many have they published about legal murder of gays in Iran, public floggings in Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.,…. the list of Islamic nations with gruesome practices is too large to contemplate. Crank up the ‘ole Lexis-Nexis search… but we know the answer in advance. Or compare the coverage of what happens in China to the number of stories about Abu Ghraib.
The point: the USA already lives up to a higher standard than any nation actually involved in conflict, anywhere in the world, in these matters. It’s not fair to count Sweden, or Switzerland, which have made a fetish of not being involved anywhere, anytime, in anything. But if you count nations that are actually seriously resisting terrorism, there is no nation into whose hands you’d RATHER fall if you’re a terrorist than the USA.
None of this means the people who cross the line should get off without punishment. But it is always appropriate to ask any “news” outlet that stresses this, exactly how much coverage have you given to matters like those I listed above? Just to know the real agenda.
I forgot the link about Brunei:
http://tinyurl.com/cdp8gj
Thanks for this, Phil. I’m certainly thankful to live in a country where whether or not to “torture” is part of the national dialogue, rather than a foregone conclusion. And I share your frustration with the national media, which does too little to put the conversation in a realistic context.
I agree that it’s important to keep these contextual comparisons in mind, but—and I haven’t completely sorted this out in my mind—I’m not sure they help us much in the end. From a legal standpoint, they don’t help us at all, and in fact could come back to bite us in the ass (so to speak) if we try to wiggle out of prosecuting crimes. How will we hold other nations accountable to the agreed-upon standards of legal conduct if we do not hold ourselves accountable? Unfortunately, we can’t rest on our laurels—we must constantly act as a nation governed by laws if we are to be recognized as a nation governed by laws.
From a moral standpoint, comparing the U.S. to other nations is more helpful, but again, only so long as we continue to act more morally than other nations. The values and ideals upon which the U.S. was founded and at which we like to point when comparing ourselves to others will only get us so far if we systematically fail to live up to them. We’re not there yet. We’re still the “partially illuminated hamlet on a slight elevation” that is trying very, very hard to be a shining city on a hill. But we must keep trying, if these moral comparisons are to mean anything in the future.
I think you’ve put your finger on the legal issues:
1) Was a crime committed?
2) Are there “agreed upon standards of legal conduct” for situations like this? Geneva doesn’t apply, as much as some might wish it did. The miscreants are not US citizens, and so lack protections from our Constitution, they are not “enemy combatants” in the sense contemplated by the Geneva conventions, and they represent no entity which is itself committed to the Geneva conventions.
In other words, all the “standards of conduct” and “Geneva” talk is basically about getting us to adhere to standards that the terrorists do not, and will not. And even so, we do, mostly, and these cases that have come to light represent departures from the norm.
From a legal point of view, I think the most likely reason Obama decided not to prosecute was that he was advised that it would be virtually impossible to get a conviction.
As I’m sure you know, I’m all for values. But the very, very least of our national problems in this arena is how we treat terrorists, much though it serves the anti-USA forces of the world to dwell on it, both here and abroad.
And I’m not interested in helping the Left media divert our attention from the truly huge “national values” problems, by focusing on “torture.”
Sidebar: do you notice that in the documents that were recently declassified, the hugely redacted portions were in what information was actually gotten from the interrogations? Sort of suggests that maybe they were just a little more effective than some people claim, don’t you think? If little useful information had been gained, there would have been very little to redact… and it would have helped the “anti-torture” people make their case that “it doesn’t work anyway.” This is maybe a case where “the dog that didn’t bark” tells us a lot.
http://www.freegao.com/index.html?refnum=
Another story not seen in the NYT. That’s because it’s dog bites man.
Conor Friedersdorf articulates my thoughts better than I can.
Realpolitik
We almost certainly have to make torture illegal, and define exactly what it is. That’s because the press and world media hates the USA, and will not shut up about it until we do, and after we do, they will still not report consistently and insistently on the very common practice of torture elsewhere, which they now mostly ignore, and will continue to ignore.
After we make it illegal, let us hope to God that there are some people in place at the necessary times and places who will take the risk of doing it anyway, in those very few circumstances where it is necessary and effective.
We cannot make the world perfect by policy. We have rules governing the behavior of police and other authorities, which are broken every day, in every city, and we do not make a fetish of it. I’m not sure this is much different, except for the amount of attention it recieves by a media hostile to the USA.
If we install an intelligence community that is made so fearful of prosecution that it won’t do anything, or take any risks that might be second-guessed later, we will deserve what we will get.
A very strong case can be made that exactly that circumstance led to 9/11.
Read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, surely not a man of the Right. We let them do it to us, because we had such ridiculous restrictions placed on our intelligence procedures and military options.
Then watch “The Path To 9/11″. Oops, I forgot, you can’t. Because ABC and Disney, bowing to pressure from the Clintons and other Lefties, will not let you watch it, or buy it.
Next best bet: Find and watch “Blocking the Path to 9/11″, then understand that everything you think you know about torture is filtered through the same media establishment.
Oh, and, just to say:
Take all those Senators who are grandstanding about this today.
Line them up in a room somewhere.
Now bring in a man who most likely knows the combination to deactivate the bomb that is tied to their ten favorite family members.
Not one of those clowns really, really believes we should never torture, absolutely no matter what. They’ve made a calculation that they can get away with saying it now, and it won’t hurt them or theirs. I hope they’re right… but I suspect they are not.
Many of them live in Washington D.C. Many of them send their kids to private schools in Washington DC.
Reality sometimes intrudes.
Shoot, some of those guys would torture their own kids just to find out where the incriminating photos are.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018665408933455.html