An entire political part, and a majority of another, based on their voting records.

It might be convenient to think that the other party is innocent in this, but that would be wrong.

Given all that we have seen during the last seven years, I doubt that the history of this time would be very much different had the Democrats been in power.

Only "OK"?

gregor, i don't forgive the dems who have sided with the authoritarians on torture, but surely you don't think that president al gore or president john kerry would be actively egging on torturing just because they had mistakenly inflated a boogeyman, do you?

he's such a tiny man in the oval office....

Gregor:
Well, that's something we will never know isn't it. Is there any kind of definate anything you can base that statement on, or what?
-------
It's amazing how far we have fallen. Truth, justice, the American way have become a facade for greed, torture and raw ambition. Gentlemen, we have met the enemy. And he is us.

I can only wonder if there really is anyway out of this quagmire. Not just the problems of our day, but the underlying rot that is causing them. When did our great nation become the same caricature of corruption, lies, suppression, and fear-mongering that we painted the late USSR back in the 80s?

gregor,

You sound like a second grader.

How about this idea. Let's prosecute all of the lawbreakers.

And the reason I am posting is to thank Kevin Drum for the cutting edge material as of late.

You have no idea how fucking angry this all makes me. Four fucking decades of my life, dedicated to serving this country, and for what? So this maniacal, barbarian nitwit could don the mantle of insane imperialist? Fetch me a time machine. Now.

Why did they bother destroying the tapes? The President could have pardoned them at any time.

Speaking of which, we need a new constitutional amendment to require Congress to ratify pardons issued by the President for any current or former executive branch employees or officers. Congress can investigate, subpoena records, and serve as a balance for self-pardons by the unitary executives.

didn't they get Abu Zabaydah to spew bogus testimony through torture re: dirty bomb against Jose Padilla?

Isn't that why Padilla was never charged for the dirty bomb?

Actually, Kevin, we don't just have one political party that "think it's OK" -- we have one political party that thinks it's ADVISABLE. And, judging from the polls, half the American people are not offended enough by this to vote against them.

I imagine we're seeing yet another panicky stampede by the American people, who (like people everywhere else) like to think of themselves as lions but are actually snivelling rabbits ready to sell themselves in a second to Big Brother, without realizing until it's too late that BB has an agenda of his own. And the country will start bewailing the fact only two or three decades from now, when it's safely too late to actually prosecute anyone for it. I mean, we went through this with My Lai, and numerous times before.

It might be convenient to think that the other party is innocent in this, but that would be wrong.

Hows about we look at this from the advantage of the time that's passed with grown-up eyes.

The most heinous criminal act, the most successful terrorist attack of all time happened, and then entire country went collectively insane.

What, pray tell, should Democratic officeholders have done? Give just enough to keep their seats? Or stand on principle? Utilitarianism or Deontology? Mill, or Kant?

I'm not giving any passes, I'm just trying on their shoes.

Would you like to let your imagination off the leash and think about where we might (probably would) have gone in 2002 / 2004 if the Dems in congress hadn't all triangulated at least a little bit and hung on to their seats so we could take a majority in 2006?

Sometimes, what gets referred to as triangulation, might be better described as "giving the fucker enough rope to hang himself." Just look around - the Republican party is falling apart. Political corpses are everywhere, and they're 10:1 republicans that are done. So maybe we should at least think about stepping back, closing our eyes and taking a deep breath then looking at the big picture.

"Just look around - the Republican party is falling apart."
That would be nice, but heard of that fellow Huckabee, the Anti-Bush? The latest great sucking sound comes from the disenchanted voters fleeing to his campaign. He would clobber Hillary. But Obama? Now that would be an interesting race.

I want whatever GrinningGrouse is smoking.

BGRS - I didn't go insane. What would have happened if instead of our dear leader rallying the people into a patriotic frenzy of fear and loathing, he had simply responded with calm strength and dignity, with sincere regret for the loss of human life, with a promise to find the people responsible and bring them to justice. That's how a US president should have responded. The American people did not go insane because of 9/11 itself but because of the enflamed rhetoric of George W. Bush. And that's exactly what he wanted to happen.

No, I didn't lose it either - that's why it was so damned easy to diagnose. He fanned the flames, but they were there to be fanned, and the terrorist attack is what lit them. The approximately 22% of us who did not flip out were not enough to sustain the careers of politicians who might have stood up.

Mobius

I think they destroyed the tapes because they were frightened. They see a tipping point being reached and they do not want to go over it. They were afraid that the tapes may have been too much. Once over that point you take the law into your own hands and get rid of them, possibly literally. When the whole nation turns on them all bets are off. You are nearing that point, I watch from outside the country and the signs are there.

ttul
bal

I don't know that I ever say anything except for the pleasure of hearing or reading my own words. But again and again this despicable administration shows its repugnant stripes.

I tell people about these news stories and they're wordless and they bow their heads and they're about ready to cry.

THIS is what Dana Perino, a worthless money-grubbing Republican phony, defends. The lowest crack-whore turned prostitute giving toothless blow jobs is superior to Dana Perino.

make that two parties.

Alan in SF and gregor sort of remind of those two kibbitzing old men in the balconey box seats of The Muppet Show -- only without any of the humor.

I'm going to bed so I'm not going to look up the details.

Remember how one of the US excuses for keeping Guantanamo open is because some countries wont take back their nationals?

Tonight the BBC World Service had an article about 5 UK residents (not citizens) currently in Guantanamo being released and flown back to the UK soon.

The UK has been trying for some time (years?) now and the US (read Bush) finally came around to the idea so long as there are assurances they never return to the "battlefield" (?!).

Well 3 have chosen to go back to the UK and 1 is going back to Saudi Arabia.

The fifth, who has a brother in the US, is not being released, which came as somewhat of a surprise as he was always in the UK package.

The reason he gets no ticket out?

Early after "capture" he was rendered to Morocco for (I think) 18 months where "unspeakable" things were done to him. So, another smoking gun the Bushites don't want to see the light of day.

I'm beginning to think nothing should be done until these guys are out of power, then have the investigations and war crimes and crimes against humanity trials. No chance of pardons then. And throw away the key on them.

I know. Never going to happen. But I dream.

The least we can insist upon is for Senators Clinton, Dodd, Obama, and McCain to propose that the United States of America ratify that obscure little treaty known as Geneva something. Then we can be sure this kind of stuff won't happen again.

Most of the country, judging by the polls, has moved past the bedwetting moment, slavering for bloody retribution. It remains to be seen whether they're actually ready to abjure torture, since it always works on TV. I'm not hopeful, since nearly every American still favors the death penalty and harsh conditions in prison.

Health care and the mortgage meltdown give me hope that we're at a teachable moment, that we Democrats can remind our fellow citizens that we're in this together.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that we have any chance at convincing our fellow citizens that killing and torturing people is ... not the sort of country we come from.

There's a special award awaiting George Tenet -- in the Hague!

Kenji,
I hope you're right. And I hope he's not alone.

A lot of our "leader's" need to stand before The Hague. But it'll never happen. Just like with Nixon, the powers that be will insist that we let bygone's be bygone's.
We need to insist that Bush and his evil band of brothers and sisters be held accountable for their sins.

Alternative explanation: Suskind is a bullshit artist.

There, that was easy.

Torture is not about information. As the conversations you quote with the President show, it is about using your power to subordinate others. That's the reason for its visceral appeal to so many people both inside and outside the Republican Party. It is part of an elaborate revenge fantasy, and to more and more the Republicans get the uneasy feeling that they are the ones in the wrong, the better and better it feels to rerun the torture tape while imagining it is them stepping on the throat of the guy with the Arabic name.

Devastating, Kevin. This mythical "war on terror" has been mishandled and mismanaged since the Twin Towers fell.

If our proof of complicity by al-Qaeda members in the 9-11 plotting was so strong, why did we have to resort to torture in the first place? Let the American system of justice run it's course! Everything Bush and Cheney have done in reaction to 9-11 is wrong-headed, illegal or counterproductive or all three.

It's too bad the Constitution doesn't specify gross incompetence and mismanagement as reasons for impeachment, because no one who has served or will serve in this office is or could be more incompetent than George W. Bush.

It's unconscionable.

Mina,
Almost everything we've done since 9/11 is unconscionable.

"And just think: there's an entire political party in this country that still thinks this is OK."

One that thinks our freedoms derive from Christianity, no less.

the wackos have found a way to clear their consciences: nominate a preacher, trust in the Lord to wash away all sins. If you Americans are dumb enough to elect a Darwin denying god kissing fair tax promoting bumpkin as president then that's it, you're finished as a great country - the fat lady [and you seem to have a lot of those] will definitely have sung.

I just hope the next president has the balls or ovaries to indict Bush, Cheney, and others of war crimes.

And the dish ran away with the spoon.

The least we can insist upon is for Senators Clinton, Dodd, Obama, and McCain to propose that the United States of America ratify that obscure little treaty known as Geneva something.

We did -- years ago. And treaties, with the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land.

But the king's pleasure is the supremest law of all.

An alternative theory I've run into is that Zubadyah ratted out Saudi royals and Pakistani military figures, whom we couldn't afford to have linked to 9/11 and other Al Qaeda mischief.

I've made some mostly futile attempts at getting people to see the depravity of this. In essence: who would Jesus torture? After some sputter and steam, the answer is usually boiled down to boilerplate - the ticking time bomb scenario, and that Jesus would surely approve.

I'm playing with them, of course, since Chistianity has been, for the most part, notably silent on this issue. Not only here, but also in Germany during its troubles when the mainline churches made their peace with Hitler.

When our fundamental moral compass is a religion that doesn't even take its own moral teachings seriously, why should anyone? Instead you have Mitt Romney implicitly promising more Culture War against those who don't believe.

Believe in what? A sanctified moral abyss?

"um.... Baltimore?"

Kevin, at least, is finally getting it.

Reading stuff like this makes me ask, "How can any sane, reasonable person not think this is a horrible way for this country to conduct itself?" Fortunately, my crazy right-wing sister-in-law and her crazy right-wing husband are coming for an extended visit in a week. I should be posting on Free Republic by New Year's.

And the same msm that cheerled this administration's crimes and only questioned the people who opposed the administration are now busy hiring the criminals from this administration who are defying subpoenas, destroying evidence and lying. If the msm had any ethics the ex-officials of this admin would be pariahs, not employees.

The torture debate is interesting, but in the end trumped by the reality that most persons with actual responsibility for the protection of citizens would, if the situation called for it, authorize the aggressive interrogations techniques necessary to protect innocent people, even if liberals would call it torture.

If Kevin and other liberals think that a democrat is going to benefit from being viewed as less likely to "torture" terrorists seeking to blow up an American city, I think they are mistaken.

It seems boneheaded for the CIA to videotape the interrogation in the first place, but once they did so, if the law required them to maintain the tape, then they should have maintained it.

You've got it all wrong. The CIA absolutely HAD to destroy the tapes. To protect the identity of covert operatives.

I mean, it's not like you can "digitize" images in a video to conceal identities -- that's just some fantasy Hollywood nonsense from the TV show, "Cops."

In real life, we just don't have such fantastic, 25th-Century technology....

And just think: there's an entire political party in this country that still thinks this is OK.

That, of course, would be the Democrats, who've just sat by and done nothing while it happened. The Republicans, on the other hand, don't think that torturing mentally ill low ranking terrorists and mobilizing counterterrorism forces on the basis of the results is OK; they take positive glee in doing so and think that anyone who opposes doing so is a traitor.

The Republican party doesn't turn a blind eye to torture and live with the results; the Republican party cheers on torture and boos anything they see as the other team. Politics, war, torture: they're all just sporting events to Republicans, and the only thing that matters is beating the other guy. Not morality, not policy, not national security--just beating the other guy.

The likely outcome of these crimes against humanity: The Democratic Congress will not have the nerve or the numbers to follow through. Tenet will emerge from under his rock as a "Fox News Analyst".

Well via FARK, via NRO(!!) David Frum claims (WARNING: LINK GOES TO DAVID FRUM!) that Gerald Posner theorizes the tapes hold Zubaydah's insisting we call three Saudi Princes and one Pakistani Air Force Officer that "ran" him. These four all had mysterious deaths within a few days or weeks of each other.

Gerald Posner:
Re the breaking news that the CIA destroyed the videotapes of interrogations with 2 terror suspects, you might have seen that the tapes of the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah were destroyed.

You might also recall that in my 2003 NYT bestseller (reached #2), Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, my last chapter was titled, "The Interrogation." Based on two active US intelligence sources, I was the first to disclose Zubaydah's interrogation. To date, I am the only reporter to have printed the info about what happened to him.

Zubaydah, wounded when he was captured in Pakistan, was fooled in a fake flag operation to believe that the Saudis held him. Instead of being afraid of the �Saudis,� he demanded to talk to three Saudi princes (one, the nephew of the King, who happened to be in the U.S. on 9/11). He gave his interrogators the private cell phone numbers of all 3. He did the same regarding the chief of Pakistan's air force.

After the U.S. told the Saudis and Pakistanis of Zubaydah's finger pointing, all four men had tragic 'accidents.' The King's nephew died of complications from liposuction at the age of 43. A day later, the 41 year old Prince named by Zubaydah died in a one-car accident on his way to the funeral of the King�s nephew. The third named prince, age 25, died a week later of "thirst," according to the Saudi Royal Court. And shortly after that, the chief of Pakistan�s air force died when his plane exploded with his wife and 15 of his top aides on board

When my book was published, CIA officials trashed it 'off the record,' but made no public comment. I have always held the same position. There is (or was) firm evidence of what transpired, of whether my reporting was accurate or not. Make the interrogation tapes public and then we'll know whether one of the top al Qaeda operatives accused leading Saudi royals and a top Pakistani military man - now all dead - of being his sponsors. And accused two of them � the King�s nephew and the Pakistani air force chief � of having advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Now, suddenly coincidence of coincidence, the CIA says the Zubaydah interrogation tapes are destroyed. How convenient.

worse, kevin... They think it's bravery.

Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?"

read that fucking quote. that sadistic, lying, filty sociopath KNOWS torture doesn't work -- he's approved these methods because he's a sadistic motherfucking pig. and he's president of this country.

Hmm, I get it: We have the torture of a madman by madmen so the madman in power doesn't lose face to the madmen who voted him in.

And the madman's "information" means that perfectly decent uniformed people have to run around like... anybody, anybody?

@GrinningGrouse on December 8, 2007 at 2:54 AM:

"Just look around - the Republican party is falling apart."
That would be nice, but heard of that fellow Huckabee, the Anti-Bush? The latest great sucking sound comes from the disenchanted voters fleeing to his campaign.

I believe those flocking to Huckabee are disenchanted Republicans, mostly Religious Right types, anointing their new earthly savior.

I envision the political status quo as about 35/35/30 D/neither/R, with all us neithers siding with the Ds and with the long-term trends VERY bad for the GOP. In 20 years it may well be more like 40/45/15! Huckabee is claiming more of the 30 percent than he was six months ago. But I don't think he's beginning to turn around the GOP's repudiation by either of the other two groups. Do you really foresee non-Republicans voting for Huckabee? Many of us loathe Hillary but loathe Republicans* even more.

*The except for me would be Ron Paul, but he's not going to win, precisely because the GOP is so hostile to Constitutional boundaries on the governments authority.

I'm no expert on torture, or even very knowledgeable about it, but as a matter of common sense, I have trouble understanding the "torture does not work" argument. It seems counter intuitive and in defiance of common sense.

First, hasn't torture been used to some extent throughout recorded history? If it did not work at least sometimes, wouldn't the "market" have recognized that long ago and stopped using it?

Second, just as matter of common sense, isn't torture at least sometimes going to work? I can understand that it does not always work, e.g., sometimes the "victim" would lie to torturers or make things up to avoid further pain. But if you assume people would sometimes lie or make things up to avoid further pain, don't you need to concede that sometimes people also would tell the truth to avoid futher pain.

Anyone care to respond to these questions and/or explain the premise of the "torture doesn't work" argument?

At best, shouldn't the argument be that "torture doesn't always work," and if that is true, then don't you need to put that argument to one side and look at the other moral issues related to torture?

Be careful what you say Brian, in that direction lies Alan Dershowitz whom we on the left now officially hate. He takes up your argument and says that we could see from the Nazi's torture of our soldiers and agents that torture under horrible conditions does in fact occasionally work.

For taking that approach (as well as his passionate defense of Israel) all good lefty bloggers and commenters now officially use Dershowitz for our daily two minutes of hate.

I'm no expert on torture, or even very knowledgeable about it,

no shit

but as a matter of common sense, I have trouble understanding the "torture does not work" argument.

you have trouble understanding a lot of things--The obligation is on those of you who say that torture actually works to provide a credible example of when torture actually worked to prevent a terrorist attack.
Oh, and you might want to take a look at the various regimes throughout history that used torture--a cavalcade of evil.

The problem isn't that torture NEVER reveals useful information. It's that it never RELIABLY yields useful information.

That's why Posner's charge that this bastard gave up the names of Saudi princes and a Pakistani general is especially icky -- and maybe it's true.

I've argued that the most important point for opponents of torture to make FIRST, is that it isn't good law enforcement, not that it is immoral. If you say it's immoral first, and only later add that it doesn't work, as an afterthought: you've effectively told people that protecting them is LESS important than self-righteousness.

It's far more effective to show that it does NOT work. Then proponents are left to argue "but it's cruel and illegal, too!". A much better approach for the good guys.

So I'm glad that Kevin's post repeats the old information that whenever this guy's head was pulled out of the water, he told us how AQ planned to attack pretty much anything.

They probably did. So what? Canada has a military plan to invade the US. (And we have one to invade Canada.)

But I'm troubled by Posner's claims. What we WANTED from this guy, is stuff like... the cell phone #s of Saudi princes and a Pakistani general which would prove that he DID know them, a serious piece of evidence that they were involved in 9-11, etc.

The "um... Baltimore?" line (I can't believe I have to explain the joke) is from a Comedy Central skit, where they kept dunking a guy in water and demanding he tell them: "What's the capitol of Maryland????" He kept saying "I don't know..." and nearly drowning, until he finally said "Baltimore?"

The conclusion: "Torture works."

Except it doesn't. (Psst... the real answer is Annapolis.) The skit shows that somebody being tortured can't reliably give up information they don't know. (I can't BELIEVE this is something we gotta explain.) But how can somebody being tortured come up with a cell phone #, unless they know it?

So Posner's claim is that in this case, something DID work -- whether it was telling this bastard he was a prisoner of the Saudis (in which case waterboarding was part of the disguise), or the torture itself, isn't clear.

Me, I've said it before (yet another tA prediction proving out) that what they've been hiding is less torture than OTHER deceptive techniques -- like telling prisoners they've being held by the Saudis, which probably violates SOME law or treaty.

Brian said:

"I'm no expert on torture, or even very knowledgeable about it, but as a matter of common sense, I have trouble understanding the "torture does not work" argument. It seems counter intuitive and in defiance of common sense.

First, hasn't torture been used to some extent throughout recorded history? If it did not work at least sometimes, wouldn't the "market" have recognized that long ago and stopped using it?"

It depends on what you mean by 'working'. Torture 'works' to this extent - it causes the victim to say exactly what the torturers wants him to say, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TRUE. That's all that was necessary 'throughout recorded history'. It's a tool of state control of the subjects, and a way to justify suppressing the population and killing selected people.

Or do you believe that all those people who confessed to the Inquisition really WERE witches who flew magically through the air and had sex with the devil?

Of course, the Inquisition and the powers that be then had the lawful authority to seize the property of those they tortured and then burned at the stake based on their tortured confession. Powerful incentive, there.

After Bush is out of office,I wonder if he will be able to travel outside of the US or at least to many contries because of being deemed a WAR Criminal.

The only person whose statements I trust even less than those of GWB is Gerald Posner.

Notthere you are absolutely right but you really shouldn't bring the idea up until these criminal fucks are out of office.

Kevin, Scott Horton has a new post up titled "The Scapegoat" - he links to your post.

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001877

It's a must read! He does a nice job of laying out the maladministration's attempt to scapegoat an underling for BushCo's illegal decision to destroy evidence (obstruction of justice - an impeachable offense)

Let's hope they don't get away with it this time.

And just think: there's an entire political party in this country that still thinks this is OK.

You begin to wonder if there is some sort of pathology involved.

The moral fiber of our nation is made of shit.

Moral people do not aid and abet governments which use torture.

It's probably also worth noting that torture is quick, AND that it is used by some of our friends (and enemies) in the Long War. (I don't like calling it 'the war on terror', cuz that's an emotion and the struggle against ever being scared never ends.)

Blue Girl is right: put yourself in their shoes. You just found out we wounded an AQ guy on the battlefield. We saved him from bleeding to death, sedated him; now he's coming out of it. We THINK he might know all kinds of stuff that we want to know -- like the phone #s of Saudi princes who knew about 9-11 before it happened.

What do we do?

It's evil, but it's NOT nuts to think: well, we make him think he's being held by the Saudis. He will expect to be tortured, BUT he will be more likely to give up information that he thinks we may already know -- and fast.

This isn't the Inquisition or a witch hunt. It's not a mass hallucination, and it's not motivated by money. These guys really did plot for more than a decade to blow up the World Trade Center -- and they succeeded, partly because we didn't do what we needed to do before they did it. (Well, AFTER they had tried and failed the first time.)

Seems odd, coming from the guy who quotes Comedy Central in the torture threads: but as progressives we need to take this stuff seriously, as more than another opportunity to say how righteous we are and how icky the Bush guys have been.

Yeah, Kevin nails it. What they're trying to keep secret is not the `stress interrogation', but that the `intelligence' we got from such methods was worthless, and worthless in a really ludicrous, pathetic, absurd way. They're not trying to cover up their brutality and `toughness'. They're trying to cover up their foolishness and gullibility.

It all comes down to how the WWII intelligence officers treated the Nazis versus how we treated our considerably less threatening enemy.

Brian:

"First, hasn't torture been used to some extent throughout recorded history? If it did not work at least sometimes, wouldn't the "market" have recognized that long ago and stopped using it?"

The "market"? Like the current mortgage market? Or the NASDAQ some few years ago? The American stock market in 1928 and 1929?

Each of those markets worked for some people. Kind of like the Inquisition worked for Torquemada.

Blue Girl is right: put yourself in their shoes. You just found out we wounded an AQ guy on the battlefield. We saved him from bleeding to death, sedated him; now he's coming out of it. We THINK he might know all kinds of stuff that we want to know -- like the phone #s of Saudi princes who knew about 9-11 before it happened.

Posted by: theAmericanist on December 8, 2007 at 12:04 PM
------------------

If we can justify torturing a suspect for a fishing expedition into what he might know about who might have played some role in a crime, then we can justify torture practically anytime.

If we are going to hold to the radical ideal that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights, then we extend the protections of due process even to foreigners who MIGHT know something about the perpetrators of a terrorist crime.

And yes, some of us will die; terrorism in part is the taking of war to the civilian population.

... (I can't believe I have to explain the joke)...

You didn't. Nobody asked you to. Nobody else engaged you, so you simply engaged yourself. There's a word for that, you know.

In essence: who would Jesus torture?

Well, you misunderestimate Christianity--see, e.g., Revelation 9:

3And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

4And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

5And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

6And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

It's no secret that George W. Bush is a sadist. I would be surprised if he did not get a personal copy of the torture DVD for his private enjoyment.

In essence: who would Jesus torture?

Another question is who would torture Jesus? Let's be frank - Jesus was tortured to death.

According to the Bible, it was the soldiers of a republic-turned-dictatorship, Rome, the preeminent military and economic power of its day, that did the torture.

And interestingly, the kill mechanism of crucifixion is suffocation... same as waterboarding.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I don't believe a word of the White House denials. Their behavior shows that they most likely knew that the CIA crimes were taking place and that they completely approved of those crimes and of the criminal destruction of evidence.

When will Rep. Pelosi start the hearings leading to impeachment for Bush and Cheney? If not, isn't she also violating her oath of office?

"...the kill mechanism of crucifixion is suffocation."

And what is the central symbol of Christianity again?

ONE thing's reasonably clear: the criminality exposed on those allegedly destroyed tapes must assuredly be FAR more damaging than the charge of obstruction of justice now faced by the perpetrators for deliberately destroying evidence sought by the courts.

Hayden's "explanation", quite obviously, is an utterly transparent crock of shit! And his assertion regarding the timing of the supposed destruction is entirely open to question. But by now we should all be suffering massive "inhalation"-related ailments attributable to the Bush Reich's noxious, perennial smokescreens:

CIA destroyed torture tapes
By Joe Kay [WSWS]

The revelation that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed at least two video tapes depicting the torture of prisoners held by the United States underscores the brazen criminality of the Bush administration. Aside from the torture itself, the elimination of evidence of brutal interrogation exposes top CIA and government officials to obstruction of justice charges. ...
.

an entire political party in this country that still thinks this is OK.

If only one political party in this country still thinks this type of treatment of prisoners is OK, why did the assumed opposition political party to it allow an attorney general to be approved who did not disavow its use?

Unfortunately, even Sen. Clinton said national security is more important than civil rights recently. She may not have been directly responding to the issue of torture, but I think her attitude includes very harsh treatment of 'terrorist' subjects. More than just Republicans share it.

Almost certainly, secular humanists would not be the ones torturing Jesus.

First, hasn't torture been used to some extent throughout recorded history? If it did not work at least sometimes, wouldn't the "market" have recognized that long ago and stopped using it?

The reason torture has persisted across history is that it does work. But work for what, you fail to ask.

It works very well for getting innocent women to confess to being witches, and getting "heretics" to recant. That's why there's so much of it throughout history. It works very well as a tool for maintaining fear of authority in a population. It continues to work very well to maintain the social order under fascist banana dictatorships, middle eastern thugocracies and totalitarian police states, all of which are always looking for new and exciting ways to drive home the message "If we can do it to them, we can do it to you." That's what torture is for and yes it works very well for its intended purpose.

The fact that we are now openly doing it ourselves speaks volumes about the direction people like you want us headed in as a nation.

But Kevin, maybe this isn't true at all. Did they have a more sinister reason for discrediting Zubaydah? Please read and comment on Gerald Posner's report on huffpost. If true, it would really turn this debate on it's head, and the 911 commission would be shocked. It's here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-cias-destroyed-inter_b_75850.html

Crashing airliners into occupied buildings is not exactly a sign of mentally well-balanced human beings. Nor is entering a school to massacre scores of children or going into a theater to gas the occupants or blowing up 200 innocent commuters.

Nor is invading an irrelevant country utterly without provocation for trumped up reasons and not even bothering to do the minimal planning necessary to carry it off without leaving a chaotic terrorism-breeding failed state in its wake.

This is interesting stuff in reply to my comment questioning the basis for the "torture does not work" argument.

Nick is anti-torture (apparently in all circumstances) and makes the honest observation that "And yes, some of us will die; terrorism in part is the taking of war to the civilian population." So he is willing to accept the success of terrorist acts in killing innocents as the price we have to pay for not "torturing." I think this accurately and honestly states the argument against torture.

Redterror could not resist biting with a silly barb on my use of the word "market."

JoyceH states:
It depends on what you mean by 'working'. Torture 'works' to this extent - it causes the victim to say exactly what the torturers wants him to say, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TRUE." This at least implicitly acknowledges that sometimes torture will produce true and valuable information.

The americanist "The problem isn't that torture NEVER reveals useful information. It's that it never RELIABLY yields useful information." This is a another concession that it sometimes reveals useful information, which of course would be a reason to use it in some situations. But as to americanist's statement of the problem, why must a technique be one that reliably produces useful information in order to be used in extreme circumstances when there is no other practical way to try to get the information? We don't hold other tools to this standard.

HaHa argues "The obligation is on those of you who say that torture actually works to provide a credible example of when torture actually worked to prevent a terrorist attack." Why is that specific obligation on people who say torture works? Why isn't it on the anti "torture" folks to prove that it would not work in such a situation? And, if the pro "torture" folks meet that obligation of showing an example of where it works, does that mean it is okay?

All interesting stuff that goes beyond Kevin's pretty simplistic comment focusing on one questionable interrogation and using it as an excuse to bash President Bush. Thanks for the input.

I understand why folks hate the idea of "torture," but the question is whether the moral problems associated with torture warrant that it should never be used under any circumstances.

I doubt it, because unlike Nick, I think if there is a reasonable prospect that torture of a terrorist will save innocent lives, it should be used as a last resort. Actually, I hope we develop some modern form of "virtual" torture that does not signficantly harm the person, but secures necessary and accurate information.

Bob M on December 8, 2007 at 10:57
"I believe those flocking to Huckabee are disenchanted Republicans, mostly Religious Right types, anointing their new earthly savior."

Bob, the point I want to make about Huckabee is that he is going to be a much stronger opponent than we realize. Personality wise he is the Anti-Bush, and that appeal is transcendent politically. I believe he will draw heavily from the non-religious center.

DrBB:

Some of your points are correct about what torture has been used for during history. But none of them is the reason we must consider using it today. It seems that you avoid the issue of whether it would work in the type of situation at issue --attempting to secure information from a terrorist that might save thousands of lives when there is no other available means to secure the information. I take it you would still say no, and pass on the chance that "torture" of a terrorist might save thousands of lives.

Why isn't it on the anti "torture" folks to prove that it would not work in such a situation?

because we don't have to prove a negative, although there are countless examples where torture victims simply tell the torturers whatever they want to hear--Guy Fawkes is one.

I doubt it, because unlike Nick, I think if there is a reasonable prospect that torture of a terrorist will save innocent lives, it should be used as a last resort. Actually, I hope we develop some modern form of "virtual" torture that does not signficantly harm the person, but secures necessary and accurate information.

Sounds like the plots of 75% of Mission Impossible episodes....

There are, judging from meaningful action, TWO political parties that still think this is OK.

"Be careful what you say Brian, in that direction lies Alan Dershowitz..." Who is also known as America's answer to Valery Fabrikant.

This was all prompted by the president of the United States, implemented by the director of the CIA, and the end result was thousands of wasted man hours by intelligence and and law enforcement personnel.

So you're telling us that George Bush makes an appearance on the tapes. Or is this just conjecture on your part ?

For all we know there may have been an appearance by bear-man-pig (1/2 bear, 1/2 man, 1/2 pig) on the tape as well. Maybe even better, the real killers of JFK. The aliens from Roswell I bet too. How about Jimmy Hoffa, Amelia Earhart and Judge Crater ?

But none of them is the reason we must consider using it today.

You sure about that? Heard of Abu Graib?

brian, I applaud your openness to feedback, but you're still partly missing the point. "I think if there is a reasonable prospect that torture of a terrorist will save innocent lives, it should be used as a last resort." This is an intelligent and softened version of the puerile "there's a bomb set to go off in New York and if we torture him we can get the details and prevent it!" scenario. This story never explains why we know that THIS person has the info we need to stop the bomb, yet curiously we don't know what the info is. The situation is of course possible, but once you add that necessary detail it becomes a whole lot less likely--and it was extremely rare to start with.

Redterror was not making a silly barb at your use of the word "market," because your use was entirely silly--and I'm an economist, I study markets for a living. Americans have been infected with this strange notion that markets have a wisdom that's applicable in all situations. Markets are indeed powerful things, and there are well-circumscribed tasks they perform very well, but there's absolutely no basis in the theory of markets for saying that the persistence of torture through the ages is a sign of market success, much less that it therefore has value.

Your response to Nick is more on-target, but I think overlooks something crucial, which actually IS grounded in economics, or at least in economic thinking. You're willing to accept torture (as a last resort of course) in order to save lives; Nick is not. But the tradeoffs are not that simple. The first point is that perfect security is impossible, so even if we torture the hell out of everyone who so much as looks at George W funny, there will still be ways to kill Americans. And, as mentioned several times in the thread, when you torture people who don't have the information you want, you'll get answers, just not the ones you need. And the kicker is that you usually* can't know when you're getting good stuff and when you're not, so in fact it's almost all worthless. So while in theory judicious use of torture may save lives, we can never know the extent to which it does, and the fact that some terrorist attacks are still successful can't be proof that we're not torturing enough. The second point is that while we're not sure what we're getting when we torture, it's quite clear what it is we're losing. When we allow ourselves to use a barbaric practice that produces unreliable information, we eat away at the civil liberties that are the very foundation of constitutional government. Quite a price to pay for ... what?

You write that Nick "is willing to accept the success of terrorist acts in killing innocents as the price we have to pay for not 'torturing.' I think this accurately and honestly states the argument against torture." This framing puts opposition to torture in the most damning light, but it can just as well be turned around. Apparently, you are willing to sacrifice the foundations of constitutional liberty as the price we have to pay for occasionally (and we'll rarely know when) saving a few lives. Put that way, it looks like a bad bargain.

Terrorism historically kills something on the order of several thousand people a year (Iraq being the huge exception, but let's not go there--God, how I wish we hadn't), and most of those aren't Americans. In any given year, random murder is far more lethal, yet we don't advocate torture in order to stop it. And yes, nuclear, chemical, or biological terrorism would be much worse, which is why we shouldn't out CIA agents who are working on figuring out what's up with that stuff.

*If a torture victim coughs up a name or a number, and that in turn checks out through some means other than torture, you might reasonably conclude that this particular information was true and valuable, but you didn't know that when you got it, and in many cases there won't be a way of checking it out.

It seems that you avoid the issue of whether it would work in the type of situation at issue --attempting to secure information from a terrorist that might save thousands of lives when there is no other available means to secure the information. I take it you would still say no, and pass on the chance that "torture" of a terrorist might save thousands of lives.

Posted by: brian on December 8, 2007 at 1:57 PM |
---------------

If by torturing a culpable person you can save thousands (even two lives), then I am for it.

The problem is that this hypothetical has practically no use in real life. A reasonable showing that a person is culpable, while giving him/her the due process that respect for human dignity requires (which our Declaration of Independence mandates), is quite unlikely to come in time to save lives.

However, if you find someone and show beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she is involved in a plot to murder multiple people, you determine that the plot is still ongoing, yet you still don't know enough of the particulars of the plot (very unlikely), then feel free to torture the SOB. He's involved in murder anyway (according to the level of proof required by due process).

Aw, Junebug -- so nice to know you have nothing nice to say, or in fact, anything much to say at all. (I had used the "...Baltimore?" example in another thread on torture, and had no less than three posters miss the joke. Was it you who told me I was wrong, that it's actually Annapolis, or was it Know-Nothing Jeff? Idiots all look alike to me, regardless of gender. I'd have thought you'd recognize the public service of assuming that at least somebody reading this thread wouldn't get the joke. You may not think there are folks here to agree with you who are that dumb, but, then: well, YOU'RE here, which proves my point.)

Brian: you're missing the tradeoff. The PURPOSE of interrogating a suspect is to protect the public. Torture cannot be any more than an unreliable and counterproductive tool, like using an ax for surgery. You're arguing as if chopping off a hand will fix a broken finger.

Assume, for a second, that Posner's story is true, that we told this bastard he was a prisoner of the Saudis, and kept drowning him without killing him until he told us seventeen things that were NOT true, along with a couple useful pieces of information, like the Saudi princes and the Pakistani general.

And, oh yeah: we showed we can be as cruel and lawless as our enemies.

What on EARTH would make anybody think this was a net plus?

His strategic information was useless -- nobody was gonna take down the Brooklyn bridge with a wrench. His tactical information might have had some value -- but me, I'd wanna know why the Saudi princes and the Pakistani general were killed, rather than arrested and interrogated.

And the ultimate message of his captivity and torture is what the US government will commit crimes and try to hide them: not the way to show the world's 1.5 billion Muslims that WE are on the right side of these matters.

Personally, it wouldn't bother me much if we routinely lied to AQ captives and told 'em they were being held by Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the Grand High Poobah of the Loyal Order of Water Buffalos, if that was useful in getting good information out of 'em.

But if torture isn't wrong, NOTHING is wrong.

And we need to be right.

brian,

In your opinion, what specific actions in our interactions with people of other countries would the United States have to take for you to believe this nation had compromised its moral authority? I am not limiting this question to the issue of torture. What scenario(s) would have to happen, what lines would have to be crossed, for you to say that the official actions being taken are in direct violation of our traditions, values and constitution?

Come-on seriously now, why arent these torture advocates impeached and jailed?? Hell, we jail rape artists, how come Bush & Co is still free to inflict further damage?

Israel is discussing a unilateral bombing of Iran (wink wink, nod nod from Cheney and the neocons).

As one can be certain that Cheney and some of the other cabal will be in on some of the planning of this extrajudicial (big word for illegal) action, the pro-torture argument would seem to apply to the use of torture on Cheney and other neocons who MIGHT know something about what amounts to an act of terror.

U.S Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Lt. Gen. John Kimmons:

And when a reporter asked whether some of the now forbidden forms of torture might have been useful in gaining information, General Kimmons directly contradicted what his Commander-in-Chief was saying at the White House:

No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that. And, moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can’t afford to go there. Some of our most significant successes on the battlefield have been—in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically all of them, have accrued from expert interrogators using mixtures of authorized humane interrogation practices, in clever ways that you would hope Americans would use them, to push the envelope within the bookends of legal, moral, and ethical, now as further refined by this field manual. So we don’t need abusive practices in there.

I appreciate all the intelligent and respectful responses, but I think some of the points relate to subjects other than the narrow one of whether whether terror should be used as a last resort when there is a reasonable prospect that it will save innocent lives."

Karl, you may be correct that the circumstances of such a situation will be rare, but that does not answer the question. You also may be correct that my use of "market" was sloppy, but I did put quotes around it and I think it got across the point.

You also seem to say that since the results of torture will not always be reliable, we should not use it, because it eats away "the civil liberties [of terrorists?] that are the very foundation of constitutional government." In the same vein, you state, "Apparently, you are willing to sacrifice the foundations of constitutional liberty as the price we have to pay for occasionally (and we'll rarely know when) saving a few lives." The problem I have with your "framing" is that it assumes the rare torture I suggest would "sacrifice the foundations of liberty." I don't see how that would be true. I also think it could well be saving more than a "few lives."

DrBB, Abu Graib was wrong. The persons who did it and America have paid heavily for it. But it is not the type of torture situation we are talking about here.

theAmericanist, you say "Torture cannot be any more than an unreliable and counterproductive tool, like using an ax for surgery." I don't see how you can say that without any reservation. The point I'm suggesting it that in some cases it could produce reliable and productive information that saves lives.

Shortstop asks a very broad question:

"In your opinion, what specific actions in our interactions with people of other countries would the United States have to take for you to believe this nation had compromised its moral authority? I am not limiting this question to the issue of torture. What scenario(s) would have to happen, what lines would have to be crossed, for you to say that the official actions being taken are in direct violation of our traditions, values and constitution?"

I think questions of "moral authority" are inherently highly subjective. Who decides what nation has moral authority and how do you do it? But in answer to your question, as an example, if we had seized Iraqi oil fields for our own use and profit, I think that would have violated our values. I don't know how draw precise lines on moral authority. It relates to motives and objectives. In general, bad motives are inconsistent with moral authority, but sometimes, good motives could overstep moral authority as well.

... I think if there is a reasonable prospect that torture of a terrorist will save innocent lives, it should be used as a last resort.

But if it's used "as a last resort" -- in the ticking timebomb scenario you guys love to describe -- and if, as even you concede ("I can understand that it does not always work, e.g., sometimes the "victim" would lie to torturers or make things up to avoid further pain. But if you assume people would sometimes lie or make things up to avoid further pain, don't you need to concede that sometimes people also would tell the truth to avoid futher pain."), presumes that you'll know when someone who's being tortured is telling the truth & when he's not. Since you can't know, you wind up squandering manpower & resources pursuing "leads" that you, yourself, acknowledge go nowhere. There goes your argument for effectiveness.

Of course, none of this begins to address the ineffectiveness of such practices because of the ways in which they diminish our moral authority & our influence, and because of the ways in which they engender greater hatred in parts of the world where we already have difficulty explaining why our positions should hold sway. What's so great about American-style democracy if we torture people just the same as third world despots?

junebug,

You essentially say that because torture may not produce valuable information, we should not use it even in extreme situations. I don't think that is persuasive. Sure, if you have other better approaches, use them. But if not, you are back to torture.

The "moral autority" and "influence" in other parts of the world is hard to assess. I personally think we tend to apply our own values and perspective to it, and that objective people in "other parts of the world" have less of a problem with us torturing terrorists than you think. But how does one even attempt to figure that out?

Well, the notion that there were only 2 tapes is not believeable. COPIES ARE ALWAYS MADE. Where are they? Also, there are videotapes of MANY interrogation sessions. WHERE ARE THOSE TAPES? Keep in mind that Gitmo interogation techniques migrated to Abu Gharib when Sanchez was in charge - the CIA grand inquistors in Iraq viewed tapes from Gitmo. WHERE ARE THE TAPES?

FINALLY, BUSH'S CLAIM THAT HE HAS NO RECOLLECTION IS THE LAST REFUGE OF SCOUNDRELS. HE KNEW BUT WONT ADMIT THE WHITE HOUSE APPROVED THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TAPES.

brian, the "point" you got across with "market," quotes or no quotes, was that a practice that has persisted for ages must have some usefulness. As has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread, it has had usefulness to people who are interested in getting a confession, true or not, and it's very good at that. That doesn't mean it can ONLY do that, but the fact that it often DOES do that means that its persistence tells us absolutely nothing about whether it's survived for any reason we would consider good.

You "think" that torture could well save more than a few lives, but my point is that we'll rarely have a way of knowing that that's true, whereas we'll know damn well that we're torturing. (Actually, we already know damn well that we are torturing.) My restatement of others' point about the unreliability of torture is integral to this part of the argument. Take the rare case where you have reason a priori to think that this guy has the goods, but of course no way to verify until it's too late anyway (he gives up some info about how to stop the bomb, but it turns out it was bogus because he was actually the wrong guy, so the city blows up anyway; or you had the right guy and you stop the bombing. The loss from allowing yourself to torture is irrevocable. The gain is wildly uncertain. I just don't see how your calculus is compatible with democratic principles.

You think we haven't seized Iraqi oil fields for our own use and profit? That's not what the contract says, but if you look at the actual effects of the arrangements we're setting up, we're making sure that US interests are well respected in the economic future of Iraq, and we're doing it with 150,000 combat troops plus an even greater number of mercenaries in country. That doesn't cross your lines?

You essentially say that because torture may not produce valuable information, we should not use it even in extreme situations. I don't think that is persuasive. Sure, if you have other better approaches, use them. But if not, you are back to torture.

No, I'm saying that it produces it as much bogus information as it does useful information, if not more, rendering it ineffective. And the reason you don't find any of what anybody else has to say persuasive it because, in the TV show you have running in your head, you only see the episode where the CIA is using some relatively antiseptic method to magically extract essential information from the terrorist who -- surprise! -- has that information stored in his brain. Your internal TV never runs the episodes which show the CIA guy torturing some poor flunky plucked off of a dirt road in Afghanistan within inches of his life because he doesn't *know* anything to tell his interrogators in the first place. And you never see the episode where young men in that poor flunky's village, upon learning what happened to their peer, commit themselves to violent jihad against America. And you never see the episode where American intelligence loses valuable human resources because their sources on the ground in other countries no longer find themselves sympathetic to a country that tortures.

If you can point to a single instance of a legitimate terrorist plot interrupted by the effective use of torture -- go right ahead. Afghanistan, Iraq, & a handful of other war-torn & mostly Muslim backwaters are chock-full of young men with resentment towards & malevolent designs on America thanks in no small part to the torture policies you advocate.

So let's stop with this pose intellectual honesty. You're not dismissing any of these arguments because they lack soundness. The best you can come up with is "I don't think that is persuasive." Very simply, the torture of others -- despite the dubiousness of claims that it's effective -- makes you feel safe.

a practice that has persisted for ages must have some usefulness

Why? Humans all too frequently have a sadistic streak. Torture indulges that tendency toward brutality and power over the "other." If you want to throw your lot in with Torquemada, feel free - but for fucks sake keep it to yourself and have the decency to not offend your obvious betters here.

I don't think we're safer cuz Bush authorized torture. I don't know how anybody COULD think that -- except that progressives have a nearly limitless capacity to screw up an argument.

What is ethical construct of people who were outraged that Clintion (1) lied (2) about getting a blowjob, but who (3) support the use of torture?

What system of ethics (or morality) forbids (1) and (2), but permits (3)?

Utilitarianism?