The Times tackles Condi Rice's latest pronouncement on torture, and does a much better job than the FT of navigating the maze.
From the FT, as hosted at MSNBC:
Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, on Wednesday signalled a major policy shift by stating explicitly that US personnel were prohibited from using "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment of detainees as she weathered protests in Europe over secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons and alleged torture.
Members of the US Congress, who had pressed for the change, and human rights activists welcomed the statement as a policy U-turn.
But was it a u-turn? Eric Umansky guides us through the hedges. His gist - US treaty obligations forbid torture by US personnel of US citizens anywhere, and torture by US personnel of non-US citizens in territory under US control.
However, US personnel operating abroad are not obliged to respect the rights of non-US citizens.
So let's go to her soundbite:
"As a matter of US policy, the US obligations under the CAT, which prohibits cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment – those obligations extend to US personnel wherever they are," Ms Rice said in Ukraine.
That could easily mean that we will continue to respect our treaty obligations, which are silent on the issue of restrictions on US personnel while operating abroad.
Let's see how the pros at the Times handled this:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 - Responding to pressure at home and abroad to set clearer standards for the interrogation of terrorist suspects, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the policy of the United States was not to allow its personnel, whether on American or foreign soil, to engage in cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners.
Sounds like they fell for the spin. But not so fast! Here is the next paragraph:
But her statement did little to clear up widespread confusion about where the administration draws the line or to dispel hints of an internal debate among President Bush's inner circle on that topic. It was interpreted variously as a subtle but important shift in policy, a restatement of the administration's long-held position or an artful dodge intended to retain flexibility in dealing with detainees while soothing public opinion in the United States and Europe.
Eventually the Times hops on the merry-go-round:
"As a matter of U.S. policy, the United States obligations under the C.A.T., which prohibits, of course, cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment, those obligations extend to U.S. personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States," she said.
Her wording appeared to be an effort to signal explicitly that the United States considered itself bound by those standards when it came to interrogations of non-Americans by C.I.A. officers operating outside the United States. But it did not directly address another practice that has drawn criticism at home and abroad, that of sending detainees to third countries for interrogation by foreign intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
The confusion over the import of her remarks stemmed in part from a distinction often obscured in the debate over the issue. On the one hand, the administration has argued that the United States is not legally bound to apply all the international standards to, for example, C.I.A. officers working in foreign countries. On the other hand, the administration maintains that whatever the law says, its policy is to adhere to the substance of those standards, at least as they are defined by the United States.
The administration has repeatedly said it did not consider the law that implemented the international treaty to apply in a legal sense to the C.I.A. and other nonmilitary personnel interrogating non-Americans abroad. But it has also stated, as the Justice Department put it in a letter to several Democratic senators last spring, that as a matter of policy the United States "wants to be in compliance" with the standards of the convention and was reviewing interrogation techniques to ensure that it was.
Here is a link to one of the letters in question - the notion that it is Administration policy to apply our treaty obligations to US personnel dealing with aliens abroad is the first topic addressed (and the Times got it right).
So was Ms. Rice breaking new ground, or simply restating existing policy? It depends on who you ask:
Alluding to the administration's previous statements about its policy intentions, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Ms. Rice's statement did not represent any change.
But Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said it was a reversal and a "very welcome change from their previous position, which I believe has cost us dearly in the world and does not reflect our nation's laws or our values."
I can see where the Admin won't want to admit it is backing down. On the other hand, as a proper Dem Carl Levin is surely inclined to declare victory and exit.
The WaPo has a bit more, and seems to lean towards a third view - Ms. Rice was restating Administration policy that was previously overlooked. Oh, please:
McClellan's comment appears to be based on a written answer that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales gave in late October to a question posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In answer to Question 158, Gonzales wrote that the administration's policy is to abide by provisions barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment "even if such compliance is not legally required, regardless of whether the detainee in question is held in the United States or overseas."
Those words, buried in the document, passed largely unnoticed and the new policy was never publicly articulated until Rice spoke in Kiev on Wednesday.
Well, gosh, since we have these letters to Senators, and since the Times is telling us about letters from last spring, where has the WaPo been?
Of course, there is a second related question - is Ms. Rice talking exclusively about torture, or is she including "torture lite"? Ms. Rice mentioned "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment", which, per the WaPo, includes practices that might not be considered to be torture.
Torture: You know it when you feel it.
=========================================
Posted by: kim | December 08, 2005 at 02:53 PM
Of course, there is a second related question - is Ms. Rice talking exclusively about torture, or is she including "torture lite"? Ms. Rice mentioned "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment", which, per the WaPo, includes practices that might not be considered to be torture.
I suspect, based on recent reports about CIA interrogations, she overreached a bit.
There is little debate the law forbids torture, and that specifically applies to overseas:
But if you check out the definitions section of 18 USC 2340, it only covers half of the CAT treaty: The infamous Bybee Memo covered this in some length, and contended that the "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" standard did not apply to the torture statute. I think he was right. Hence "torture" would be illegal, but "waterboarding" would not. And that appears to be the actual standard, unless something has changed very recently.Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 08, 2005 at 03:21 PM
This is the party of moral responsibility right? (*cough*)
Posted by: Jor | December 08, 2005 at 03:53 PM
The law of unintended consequences is likely to hold here.
Given that elites tend to manipulate public emotions to force government thru law and process to eliminate the executive's ability to exercise judgment, intellect (and compassion), we'll likely discover we have caused the military to fall back to a legal process of a courts martial with a summary judgment that condemns those who violate sanctuary to immediate execution. ie. Those who violate the rules of war with regard to identification, organization, and protection of civilians.
As we take each one out for their hanging, we ask the next in line would they like to make it worth our while for them to stay alive for, say, another 72 hours. An unlike Hussein (or Stalin), we won't demand the family buy the bullets or pay for the rope.
Simple. Not cruel. Not unusual (given their lives are already forfeit as a terrorist or spy). Not compassionate.
Not expected.
And likely just as fruitful. Though harder on the troops. But since when has the Left or MSM cared about them?
Posted by: Ari Tai | December 08, 2005 at 04:20 PM
There is wear and tear where the rubber meets the road.
===================================
Posted by: kim | December 08, 2005 at 04:36 PM
Kim
Not sure but I bet there is also wear and some tear where the rubber ( hose ) meets the skin.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | December 08, 2005 at 04:38 PM
Simple. Not cruel. Not unusual (given their lives are already forfeit as a terrorist or spy).
I think an argument could be made that would equate to a death threat, which would might constitute a borderline case of torture. Personally, I have nothing against waterboarding in rare cases, and can't see how any serious definition of "torture" would include it. Of course, there are lots of unserious types out there, most of whom have no idea what "waterboarding" is (unlike these guys, who do).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 08, 2005 at 04:39 PM
I wonder how they would classify putting them in an MRI machine and telling them they couldn't come out until they cooperated. It would work on me. : ^ )
Posted by: TP | December 08, 2005 at 04:54 PM
Who cares? We are still going to do what it takes to get info from the terrorists. Not Al Queda type torture (decapitation) but U.S. style...aka frat hazing (dog collars, nude paramids, panties on the heads...our frat did waterboarding too, but we used a bucket of beer instead of water)
Posted by: Bring Iton | December 08, 2005 at 05:08 PM
Since "torture does not work" and waterboarding apparently does, it is not torture. QED. (just kidding...I am just arguing from a faulty tho politically correct premise!)
As long as they don't outlaw effective techniques that are not clearly torture, we have enough for ticking bomb scenarios.
Posted by: noah | December 08, 2005 at 05:12 PM
So let's define specifically what we can and cannot do when we capture someone. Let them know exactly what to expect.
Then they can decide whether to blow themsevles up, or allow themselves to be captured.
It doesn't really matter what the chattering classes say. It doesn't matter whether we're being transparent or not. The terrorists already know.
Seems to me the Americans capture more than the Russians. Somehow the guys that the Russians close in on always just happen to explode before an arrest can be made.
Jordanians arrest people. Many of the ones in Pakistan blow themselves up first. If an Egyptian officer comes close to a terrorist suspect, he goes boom. Same in Saudi Arabia.
THAT is how we know how well Americans treat their prisoners.
All this yakking about it is nonsense.
Posted by: Syl | December 08, 2005 at 05:22 PM
Seems to me the Americans capture more than the Russians. Somehow the guys that the Russians close in on always just happen to explode before an arrest can be made.
syl...the above may be true but I recall a story many years ago about some russians being taken hostage in Lebanon?? The russkis found out who the kidnappers were...went to their village and took pics of their families etc....they got the hostages back.
Posted by: windansea | December 08, 2005 at 05:27 PM
windansea
You make my point.
Posted by: Syl | December 08, 2005 at 05:28 PM
Syl
Do you think that quite similiar to those unfortunate accident in the West Bank where " work accident happen in the metal shop factories" that a similar function is happening with the folks in Pakistan and Egypt and Russia. In other words, in at least some cases, do you think the plunger was pushed by someone other than the bomber?
Just food for thought.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | December 08, 2005 at 05:44 PM
Gary
do you think the plunger was pushed by someone other than the bomber?
It's possible, but I actually give more 'credit' to the explodee than that.
Imminent capture: blow yourself up
Though there probably are instances of: We blew them up but will say they blew themselves up. I think the captors in most cases would rather have them alive for questioning.
Posted by: Syl | December 08, 2005 at 06:17 PM
Yeah well in most of those places there is no such thing as a press that is independent of the government. So perhaps it was questioning first and then "unfortunate accident". And no one is the wiser. Or cares less.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | December 08, 2005 at 06:21 PM
Gary
I think that's a bit too cynical.
Posted by: Syl | December 08, 2005 at 06:27 PM
Cecil,
Andrew Sullivan today quotes a passage from James Reston Jr's book "Dogs of God" about a variant on waterboarding used by Torquemada of the Inquisition when the rack didn't extract a confession. It resembles a variant described in the comments you linked to.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_12_04_dish_archive.html#113405754413058935
When the rack did not produce the desired result, the churchmen turned to the water torture. In this hideous remedy, the prisoner was tied to a ladder that was sloped downward, so that the head was lower than the feet. The head was held fast in position by a metal band, twigs were placed in the nostrils, and ropes winched tightly around his appendages. The mouth was forced open with a metal piece and a cloth placed over the mouth. Then a pitcher of water was brought, and water poured over the cloth. With each swallow, the cloth was drawn deeper into the throat, until in gagging and choking the victim nearly asphyxiated. The terror of suffocation was extreme, and the process was repeatedly endlessly, bloating the body grotesquely until the victim was ready to confess ... From the inquisitor's standpoint — for he was there to record every detail — the treatment was easy to administer and left no telltale signs.
Posted by: Bill Arnold | December 08, 2005 at 09:32 PM
too cynical.
Posted by: Syl
Well it might be cynical with a reason. TOO cynical?
I should not doubt the honesty and sincerity of Putin? How about Mubarak? Mussharaf?
Which one of these is being put upon by emphasis of doubt in their full integrity?
Mubarak has rulled with an iron fist for years. The last election he received 88% of the vote.( should be a typo but it isn't and no one in Egypt laughs either). Musharaf took office in a military coup and then stuck around by banning any significant opposition from running in the election. He also said the last AQ dirtbag was a "work accident".
Finally Putin. A former KGB officer which a taste for putting his critics in jail.
Cynical I confess. Too cynical - as in not justified, well I will leave that to others.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | December 08, 2005 at 10:14 PM
Andrew Sullivan today quotes a passage from James Reston Jr's book "Dogs of God" about a variant on waterboarding used by Torquemada of the Inquisition when the rack didn't extract a confession. It resembles a variant described in the comments you linked to.
The SERE school waterboard had nothing holding open mouth and nose (it's unnecessary), the rag doesn't enter the mouth, and it's a hose, not a pitcher. Other than that, it's pretty close. Unlike the implication in your paragraph, however, there's no physical danger (unless perhaps a heart condition), it's a mental exercise. I had some interesting conversations with the gents who ran the place afterward, about some of the techniques and why some seemed rather dull. Apparently there's significant individual variation on effectiveness. (And like many of my compatriots, I no longer take Andrew seriously on the subject.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 08, 2005 at 11:44 PM
(And like many of my compatriots, I no longer take Andrew seriously on the subject.)
Why? Because extreme hysteria on any challenging subject has just taken him over the edge?
Another annoyance, when tons of drony complimentary emails get posted ad nauseam when he feel self conscious or threatened to prove his point.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | December 09, 2005 at 12:21 AM
Yes, the administration backed down on its torture policy.
Here's the real clue. NATO has agreed to send 6000 more troops to Afghanistan -- but this contingent will be sent to Southern Afghanistan, where the Afghan insurgency is strongest.
There was obviously a quid pro quo here --- NATO would only send its troops into the south if the US repudiated its torture policies, and abide by the spirit of CAT. (Even so, the Dutch are insisting upon building their own prisons for anyone they capture, to ensure that none of their captives have to be turned over to US custody).
Posted by: p.lukasiak | December 09, 2005 at 08:08 AM
"Yes, the administration backed down on its torture policy."
Oh for heaven's sake you know no such thing.
Good grief the prisons were IN Europe do you think they didn't know they were there until the WaPo reported it? Or that they didn't have any idea why the administration would do such a thing?
If anything the Europeans are coming onboard because they can see what the left in this country cannot; the war is winding down, Iraqi democracy is standing up, and the US is winning this (the Iraqi) battle.
The administration's "torture policy" is and has been "no torture". There's no place to back down to from there.
Posted by: Dwilkers | December 09, 2005 at 09:24 AM
p.luk. Great news! If the NATO troops are going outside of Kabul, the war must be over.
Posted by: TP | December 09, 2005 at 09:34 AM
OK, good point about the new NATO troops - here is the NY Times on that.
As to whether the US torture policies were a true obstacle, or simply an excuse for inaction - who can tell, and does it matter?
If we get more troops, and the Euros need to pretend that they can't possibly dirty their hands unless we change our CIA policies, well, these are our allies.
As to what has been holding them back for the past three years, again, who knows?
I ranted on this a long time ago, and here is a Jackson Diehl column from July 2004 on the uselessness of our Euro-pals.
Posted by: TM | December 09, 2005 at 09:45 AM
Perhaps NATO wants to make sure there are no interruptions in the poppy supply so that Amsterdam doesn't go in to withdrawal.
: ^ )
Posted by: TP | December 09, 2005 at 10:06 AM
Oh for heaven's sake you know no such thing.
I think he was just giving us a "tortured logic" exemplar. (Good one, too. Thanks, p.Luk.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 09, 2005 at 10:23 AM
Any Europeon decision to send more troops to Afghanistan might have more to do with their gradual awakening to the fact that the Iranians might soon possess nukes and the means to deliver them to Europeon capitals than the torture kerfluffle. The Iranians just don't take the Europeons seriously because they have no respect for soft power (particularly when the Russians and Chinese are fawning over them).
Posted by: TP | December 09, 2005 at 10:29 AM
tops
"Another annoyance, when tons of drony complimentary emails get posted ad nauseam...."
I was one of Sullivan's earliest online supporters, but I always thought his "policy" of only publishing emails anonymously was patently exploitative. Can you imagine him submitting his own remarks for someone else's use without attribution? Quoting from emails "ad nauseum" takes a lot less effort than coming up with your own material when you're otherwise engaged.
I also suspect that Sullivan's periodic flaming of Glenn Reynolds may have as much to do with the state of his visitation stats as anything else. I imagine the occasional instalanche has a beneficial effect on his ad revenues.
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 09, 2005 at 11:23 AM
The best thing about torture is how incredibly effective it is!
The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
And to think of all the hearts and minds it has won for us as well! Torture, gotta love how it's now part of the face the world sees of the new and improved USA.
Posted by: Bob Loblaw | December 09, 2005 at 11:56 AM
crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda ... who later said he had fabricated them
I assume you're talking about Bill Clinton.
Posted by: boris | December 09, 2005 at 12:05 PM
As to whether the US torture policies were a true obstacle, or simply an excuse for inaction - who can tell, and does it matter? If we get more troops, and the Euros need to pretend that they can't possibly dirty their hands unless we change our CIA policies, well, these are our allies. As to what has been holding them back for the past three years, again, who knows?
There are lots of issues that were doubtless "holding them back", but most of them can be placed under the umbrella of "antipathy to George W. Bush's approach to foreign policy and the 'war on terrorism'. For instance, the US wants to run the whole show, and do things its way --- Europeans believe that a better strategy for fighting terrorism is to treat it primarily as a political and "criminal" matter, rather than the US "militarist" approach. So it would make sense that the Europeans would be reluctant to send troops into the South, where the biggest problems are, as long as Bushco was insisting on doing things its way.
As to why NATO is now willing to send in "fighting" troops, well, as I noted above, the US is willing to now make concessions on the how to wage the war in Afghanistan (in addition to the war on terror in general). But it is also becoming increasingly obvious that the Taliban is making a serious comeback in Afghanistan, and Europe needs to gets more heavily involved in the conflict. Targets in Europe for terrorists are much more vulnerable that targets on the mainland USA. (Even if its American interests in Europe that are targetted, Europe has to do what it can to stop terrorism on its own soil.)
Posted by: p.lukasiak | December 09, 2005 at 12:20 PM
There are lots of issues that were doubtless "holding them back" . . .
The foremost is the major European troop providers (France and Germany) most likely wanting to increase the strain on US armed forces to balance the "hyperpower."
Europeans believe that a better strategy for fighting terrorism is to treat it primarily as a political and "criminal" matter . . .
Which works fine, unless the local law enforcement agencies are part of the problem. Hence the US focus on "state sponsors."
. . . as I noted above, the US is willing to now make concessions . . .
Yep, has to be. It's the only possible explanation. (Good one!)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 09, 2005 at 12:29 PM
Here is the IHT on the latest deal:
Posted by: TM | December 09, 2005 at 12:30 PM
p.luk = as top specific Euro-reasons for not sending more troops to Afghanistan over the last three years - I am sure they offered reasons, just as they offered reasons for inaction during what, eight years of nothing in former Yugoslavia.
The great thing is, they always have reasons, accompanied by inaction.
Posted by: TM | December 09, 2005 at 12:38 PM
Of course, the Europeans knew exactly what was happening with the prisoners transported to prisons there. They benefitted from it because we shared the information with them and they--having opened their multicultural doors to the weird beards were most at risk. Once the story was published, for domestic reasons they had to reprise the "Casablanca" we're shocked to find out what's been going on in the backroom line. PHEH
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2005 at 12:42 PM
The best argument against torture (or spending way too much time thinking about how close to torture we can come) is not what others think of us, but who we are and what we aspire to be.
Frankly, I think the whole torture thing has really enraged Andrew Sullivan and like spirits simply because torture and the endless memoing and thinking about it that has gone on in the bowels of our bureaucracy is so far from our national spirit and our aspirations. As a nation, we are about liberty, freedom and responsibility for one's own actions. Torture is the act of a national spirit that is about safety, security, and I don't want to think about that unpleasent stuff.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | December 09, 2005 at 01:12 PM
Query: If torture does not work and waterboarding does; Q.E.D. waterboarding is not torture?
Posted by: PaulV | December 09, 2005 at 01:58 PM
I believe that the consensus is that torture works very well for extracting information(of uncertain truth value), stories, confessions.
Regarding waterboarding, I'm now wondering whether the Inquisition applied the most effective techniques first and went to alternatives only if the better techniques failed (i.e. waterboarding less effective than previously applied alternatives like giving the accused pen and paper, or the rack), or if they applied the means of extracting confessions in order of increasing tortuousness (i.e. waterboarding was considered by the Inquisition to be a nastier form of torture than the rack).
Posted by: Bill Arnold | December 09, 2005 at 02:47 PM
The best argument against torture (or spending way too much time thinking about how close to torture we can come) is not what others think of us, but who we are and what we aspire to be.
If you're going to write interrogation procedures designed to stay clear of the line, you first have to define where the line is. The memo wasn't a good product, but the thinking was required.
Fiddling with the air conditioning is not torture. Neither, in my opinion, is waterboarding, though I'm willing to consider opposing views. (But, no offense, shrill comparisons to the Inquisition do not impress.)
I think the whole torture thing has really enraged Andrew Sullivan and like spirits . . .
Andrew Sullivan and like spirits are remaining wilfully ignorant on the issue. Their petulance is noted, but not persuasive.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 09, 2005 at 02:55 PM
torture and the endless memoing and thinking about it that has gone on in the bowels of our bureaucracy is so far from our national spirit and our aspirations.
I am not prepared to make this arguement(and may never be), but...
Anyone who (a) looked at the level of casualties and the tactics employed in the Civil War;
(b) was familiar with our multiple, deplorable Indian masscares;
(c) was familiar with our fire-bombing of Dresden and nuking of Japan (twice)
would probably *not* conclude that Americans in wartime were particularly squeamish or high-minded.
Obviously, not all of the above is behavior to which we aspire. But it is worth keeping in mind that it may be part of the American spirit.
Well, I am just throwing that out there - I don't think even Dick Cheney wants to go that far.
Posted by: TM | December 09, 2005 at 04:01 PM
If you're going to write interrogation procedures designed to stay clear of the line, you first have to define where the line is.
no, you only have to define "the line" if you are looking to inflict treatment on prisoners that don't cross the line --- its quite simple to stay clear of "the line" without defining it.
Its fairly easy to figure out what is, and is not, appropriate treatment. Just ask yourself "If your own child was captured by the enemy, how far could they go in extracting information before you objected to the treatment?"
Posted by: p.lukasiak | December 09, 2005 at 04:05 PM
If you're going to write interrogation procedures designed to stay clear of the line, you first have to define where the line is.
no, you only have to define "the line" if you are looking to inflict treatment on prisoners that don't cross the line --- its quite simple to stay clear of "the line" without defining it.
Its fairly easy to figure out what is, and is not, appropriate treatment. Just ask yourself "If your own child was captured by the enemy, how far could they go in extracting information before you objected to the treatment?"
Posted by: p.lukasiak | December 09, 2005 at 04:05 PM
Cecil:
I admit to not being able to get through Sullivan's rantings on torture. I think he's right to be upset, but would be served by having an editor on his blog. (Maybe Drezner or Kaus can lend him theirs) Belgravia Dispatch does a better job on the subject.
The problem I have really is one of first principles. What are we doing worrying about this? There's a long-standing set of precedents in US law and international law on what you can do with prisoners. Why the effort to make them suffer more, unless the idea is to see how bad we can make it? And how does that comport with our values as a nation?
But looking past just an idealistic revulsion of the whole idea, the thought that a rethink of policies so that we can get just right to the border of torture but not just there is asking for it. Subtle legal minds can come up with all sorts of stuff that I am sure stays on the right side of the line. But the people executing the policies are under stress and pressure and are likely to ignore the niceties and caveats in an intricately designed dancing on the line policy.
There are just some things you shouldn't do in a Democracy or even think about. This is one of them.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | December 09, 2005 at 04:12 PM
Its fairly easy to figure out what is, and is not, appropriate treatment. Just ask yourself "If your own child was captured by the enemy, how far could they go in extracting information before you objected to the treatment?"
Sorry, but that's not on. We do not want to encourage those who systematically flout the Geneva Conventions (which is precisely what terrorists do) by giving them advantageous treatment when captured. The absolute upper limit is what is prescribed for POWs (detention for the duration, without trial). The "golden rule" approach is guaranteed to lead to more of the same.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 09, 2005 at 04:16 PM
There's a long-standing set of precedents in US law and international law on what you can do with prisoners. Why the effort to make them suffer more, unless the idea is to see how bad we can make it?
Again, there is a good reason to provide a disincentive. Quoting one of those precedents (Ex Parte Quirin):
the thought that a rethink of policies so that we can get just right to the border of torture but not just there is asking for it.I don't see an effort to get right up to the border. Waterboarding is something we do to our own troops for training. If that's the worst thing we do to terrorists . . .
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 09, 2005 at 04:26 PM
Though it pains me to admit it, my heart ain't bleedin for the Al Q big shots who went to the secret camps and got themselves all waterboarded. These guys chose to ride the tiger. Sorry it didn't work out for them. As TM details above, this attitude is quite American. (I think of Harry Truman's frequent boast that he never had a problem sleeping at night over Hiroshima as the epitome of the American attitude towards war. Nor do I really think this a bad thing.)
What bothers me most is the systematic, bureaucratic development of a system meant to cause the pain, suffering, and information flows that we seem to have had. This does not strike me as the sort of ad hoc brutality that we have used in war, but something far uglier. And the use of this kind of thing against mere foot-soldiers strikes me as unecessary and cruel.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | December 09, 2005 at 04:33 PM
Cecil,
You have a point about ignorance. Rough ignorance check: 427 Amazon titles with string "Interrogation" and 791 titles with string "Torture". Yes, very ignorant, and I didn't order any of them, which makes the ignorance willful. I plead squeamishness and a Quaker upbringing.
The Inquisition comparison isn't shrill, it's just interesting.
You are of course correct about needing to define the boundaries. The thinking unfortunately wasn't done adequately IMO.
Posted by: Bill Arnold | December 09, 2005 at 04:33 PM
Either chat boards are full of liars or they inhibit free speech on the topic or they draw an incredible number of very foolish but high minded people, because polls indicate consistently that most people do support the use of torture to preserve innocent life.
Count me in that majority.
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2005 at 04:47 PM
Clarice:
OK, you busted me. I support torture if the person being tortured worked for Fox News or supplied Rush with drugs...But anyone else? Nah. I don't believe Americans should torture because I hate America and what it stands for!
Seriously, the problem isn't that a few people have gotten out of line from time to time under incredible stress. It's that the government is designing a policy that is deliberately testing the line, and applying it to people whose information has no reasonable relevance to preserving innocent life.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | December 09, 2005 at 04:57 PM
And the use of this kind of thing against mere foot-soldiers strikes me as unecessary and cruel.
I agree (and would add "counterproductive"). But as far as I can tell, that really hasn't been the case. The few cases of treatment at Gitmo crossing the line were relatively benign and perpetrators disciplined. There were a few real horror stories out in the field (including the after-hours idiocy at Abu Ghraib), but those appear to be the usual isolated discipline failures or criminal behavior that happen in every conflict.
polls indicate consistently that most people do support the use of torture to preserve innocent life.
That's true, but mostly those are phrased in the "ticking time bomb" scenario, which is hard to credit as a real-life issue.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 09, 2005 at 05:01 PM
Appalled,
How close are you to the action that you know "...people whose information has no reasonable relevance to preserving innocent life."?
Posted by: Sue | December 09, 2005 at 05:15 PM
Sue:
Start here:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22201res20051206.html?ht=
Spider around the aclu site. Make a judgment if you believe, or it's all just biased. It is up to you, if you are truly curious.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | December 09, 2005 at 05:33 PM
Appalled,
This is what I get when I follow your link:
We're sorry. The page you are looking for could not be found. You may have followed a bad link, used an outdated bookmark, or it may have moved to another part of the ACLU.org website.
Posted by: Sue | December 09, 2005 at 05:50 PM
Its fairly easy to figure out what is, and is not, appropriate treatment. Just ask yourself "If your own child was captured by the enemy, how far could they go in extracting information before you objected to the treatment?"
This leaves me speechless.
The Left has a special way of using the concept of children. They are innocents unless they are soldiers. Then our children who have been coerced to fight in this illegal war are babykillers, terrorists in the night, murderers and torturers.
So which concept of children are you referring to?
Posted by: Syl | December 09, 2005 at 06:23 PM
AM
I used to have complete faith in the ACLU. I thought they kept us honest.
Until I realized that they not only stretch the bounds of our Constitution, they break them.
They argue for a Utopia which does not and never will exist in Reality.
A healthy society argues. It's this creative tension that is one of the great things about America. The ACLU attempts to remove this creative tension from society by forcing courts to draw lines.
We all, then, become mere followers with no more input into our lives. I truly believe this is harmful to our society as a whole.
Posted by: Syl | December 09, 2005 at 06:34 PM
Re Dresden and Tokyo firebombing. We claim the moral high ground and rightfully and righteously so, but it's not as if chasms don't open in front of our feet on the way up the slope.
================================================
Posted by: kim | December 10, 2005 at 08:48 AM
Crap chattering nonsense. Does waterboarding work? The information I have indicates it does. Obviously it is terrifying...since it scares the shit out of people generally into talking. So the question is: is it torture? I don't think so. That is all this discussion should be about.
Posted by: noah | December 10, 2005 at 10:18 AM
We're all just trying to micro-manage the war...just a bunch of busybodies.
IMHO this hysteria over torture, whatever today's definition is, is simply a proxy for hysteria about Bush's War.
Al Qaeda sites are claiming they killed the latest American contractor they kidnapped. We just haven't found his headless body yet.
It's time to get back to reality.
Posted by: Syl | December 10, 2005 at 12:11 PM
As far as "endless memoing" about torture, the only people doing that are Andrew Sullivan and like spirits.
cathy :-)
But that's not what happened. There have been a couple of legal opinions (the Gonzalaz memo), basically pointing out that we have no obligation to treat war criminals as POWs. POWs can't be interrogated under the Geneva Conventions (name, rank, serial number, that's it) so then the bureaucracy created procedures for interrogations. Monty Python is weirdly accurate -- giving a POW the Comfy Chair Treatment to force him to answer questions is a violation of the GC. So if we are going to ask any questions at all of the war criminals then the interrogators need procedures. Because the military needs procedures for everything, and the GC doesn't give any procedures for dealing with war criminals.Posted by: cathyf | December 10, 2005 at 02:52 PM
Actually, the transport of these prisoners to European jails was a human rights improvement over the Clinton era's rendition program where we transported them to third countries where torture was likely. Not that you'll hear anyone mention that very much.
Posted by: clarice | December 10, 2005 at 03:19 PM
I firmly believe we are treating the insurgents{terrorists much better then any kidnappers are treating their hostages. And they continually take civilians and aid workers. This shows the true barbarism of their actions.
Posted by: maryrose | December 10, 2005 at 10:12 PM
Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some wakfu gold .
Posted by: sophy | January 06, 2009 at 07:31 PM
When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!
Posted by: LOTRO Gold | January 14, 2009 at 04:39 AM