From Economist:
"THERE are apparently a significant number of people in America who don't think that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should have been arrested, read his rights, and interrogated by FBI officers, with a view to ultimate prosecution in a court of law for the crime of attempted murder.
...when Jeff Sessions (Republican Senator Alabama) said Mr Abdulmutallab should have been "properly interrogated" as opposed to arrested by FBI agents, read his rights, and interrogated, what he presumably meant was that he should have been treated the way we treated the inmates at Bagram and Guantanamo: locked up extra-legally and tortured...As Scott Brown says, "In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them." I have no idea what Mr Brown is afraid might happen to Mr Abdulmutallab in court: that, with a clever lawyer, he might beat the rap? The man's underpants burst into flame in full view of an airplane full of passengers.
Should any such people care, the New York Times reports that the reason why Mr Abdulmutallab is providing FBI interrogators with valuable information about terrorist networks is that his family persuaded him to cooperate. And his family did so because they, poor fools, trust the American system of justice.
Mr. Abdulmutallab, 23, began speaking to F.B.I. agents last week in Detroit and has not stopped, two government officials said. The officials declined to disclose what information was obtained from him, but said it was aiding in the investigation of the attempted terrorist attack.
“With the family, the F.B.I. approached the suspect,” the senior administration official said, speaking to reporters at the White House on the condition of anonymity because of the pending legal case. “He has been cooperating for days.”
I'm sure this will convince no one who believes in the efficacy of torture...After the attacks of September 11th, a certain number of people stumbled down a dark staircase that led to a twisted path. Blinded by stubbornness, they pressed on through years of such strange turns and illogical leaps that by now they find themselves speaking from a place that no longer seems to me to be part of America, or of the civilisation of the Western Enlightenment. I don't know where they're at, and I don't care."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/abdulmutallabs_family_gets_him_talk_fbi
TW: While I empathsize with the Economist blogger, I do actually do care about my fellow Americans' attitudes. For some fear has overcome common sense and good judgment. Paranoia will destroia...We are better than that which Jeff Sessions and Scott Brown (and a plethora of their fellow fraidy cat conservatives) would create. We CAN walk and chew gum at the same time (i.e. remain secure whilst retaining liberty and civil rights).
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Friday, February 5, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Made No Sense Then Makes No Sense Now
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag:
"Hats off to Army Maj. Gen. George Davis, who vigorously objected to waterboarding and other forms of torture. He wrote that:
'No modern state, which is a party to international law, can sanction, either expressly or by a silence which imports consent, a resort to torture with a view to obtain confessions, as an incident to its military operations. If it does, where is the line to be drawn? If the ‘water cure' is ineffective, what shall be the next step? Shall the victim be suspended, head down, over the smoke of a smouldering fire; she he be tightly bound and dropped from a distance of several feet; shall he be beaten with rods; shall his shins be rubbed with a broomstick until they bleed?'
Fwiw, General Davis made that comment in September 1902, when he was the senior lawyer in the Army. He is quoted in the new, Winter 2010 issue of Army History magazine.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/30/army_general_no_to_torture
"Hats off to Army Maj. Gen. George Davis, who vigorously objected to waterboarding and other forms of torture. He wrote that:
'No modern state, which is a party to international law, can sanction, either expressly or by a silence which imports consent, a resort to torture with a view to obtain confessions, as an incident to its military operations. If it does, where is the line to be drawn? If the ‘water cure' is ineffective, what shall be the next step? Shall the victim be suspended, head down, over the smoke of a smouldering fire; she he be tightly bound and dropped from a distance of several feet; shall he be beaten with rods; shall his shins be rubbed with a broomstick until they bleed?'
Fwiw, General Davis made that comment in September 1902, when he was the senior lawyer in the Army. He is quoted in the new, Winter 2010 issue of Army History magazine.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/30/army_general_no_to_torture
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
We Do Not Need To Torture
TW: Ricks cites a U.S. Army magazine piece on torture (the piece is linked below). We can walk and chew gum at the same time- secure our country whilst obeying the rule of our own laws.
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy mag:
"...in the new issue of Parameters, one of the Army's professional magazines, an empassioned article by John Wahlquist supporting the Obama administration's recent moves to curtail the American government's use of torture. Wahlquist, a veteran interrogator who now teaches at the National Defense Intelligence College, writes that:
'President Obama's executive order on interrogation provides an excellent opportunity to end abusive practices and to propose a new agenda for intelligence interviewing that increases the capability to collect accurate information from enemy detainees effectively and humanely. Seizing this opportunity is essential to increasing the chances of success for counterterrorism operations worldwide and reducing risks to the lives of American service members and civilians, as well as detainees. Doing so enhances the broader national security agenda without sacrificing American values.'
In other words, treating detainees decently improves our intelligence, makes us safer, and protects our system. 'Nuff said."
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/09summer/wahlquist.pdf
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy mag:
"...in the new issue of Parameters, one of the Army's professional magazines, an empassioned article by John Wahlquist supporting the Obama administration's recent moves to curtail the American government's use of torture. Wahlquist, a veteran interrogator who now teaches at the National Defense Intelligence College, writes that:
'President Obama's executive order on interrogation provides an excellent opportunity to end abusive practices and to propose a new agenda for intelligence interviewing that increases the capability to collect accurate information from enemy detainees effectively and humanely. Seizing this opportunity is essential to increasing the chances of success for counterterrorism operations worldwide and reducing risks to the lives of American service members and civilians, as well as detainees. Doing so enhances the broader national security agenda without sacrificing American values.'
In other words, treating detainees decently improves our intelligence, makes us safer, and protects our system. 'Nuff said."
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/09summer/wahlquist.pdf
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Marine Generals To Cheney: "Fear Is NO Excuse"
TW: To Cheney I could add most members of the Fox Nationalistic Jingoistic Channel, Limbaugh, Malkin etc. etc.
Their credentials:
Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
From Miami Herald via Tom Ricks:
"In the fear that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Americans were told that defeating Al Qaeda would require us to ``take off the gloves.'' As a former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a retired commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, we knew that was a recipe for disaster.
But we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics.
We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to ``the dark side'' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture ``worked'' and that our country is better off for having gone there.
...Cheney applauded the ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' -- what we used to call ``war crimes'' because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years. Cheney insisted the abusive techniques were ``absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States.'' He claimed they were ``directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy . . . It worked very, very well.''
Repeating these assertions doesn't make them true. We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques. When the abuse began, prisoners told interrogators whatever they thought would make it stop.
Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did.
What leaders say matters. So when it comes to light, as it did recently, that U.S. interrogators staged mock executions and held a whirling electric drill close to the body of a naked, hooded detainee, and the former vice president winks and nods, it matters.
The Bush administration had already degraded the rules of war by authorizing techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and shocked the conscience of the world. Now Cheney has publicly condoned the abuse that went beyond even those weakened standards, leading us down a slippery slope of lawlessness. Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation's honor.
To argue that honorable conduct is only required against an honorable enemy degrades the Americans who must carry out the orders. As military professionals, we know that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.
On Aug. 24, the United States took an important step toward moral clarity and the rule of law when a special task force recommended that in the future, the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.
The unanimous decision represents an unusual consensus among the defense, intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Members of the task force had access to every scrap of intelligence, yet they drew the opposite conclusion from Cheney's. They concluded that far from making us safer, cruelty betrays American values and harms U.S. national security.
On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.
Our current commander-in-chief understands this. The task force recommendations take us a step closer to restoring the rule of law and the standards of human dignity that made us who we are as a nation. Repudiating torture and other cruelty helps keep us from being sent on fools' errands by bad intelligence. And in the end, that makes us all safer."
Their credentials:
Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
From Miami Herald via Tom Ricks:
"In the fear that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Americans were told that defeating Al Qaeda would require us to ``take off the gloves.'' As a former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a retired commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, we knew that was a recipe for disaster.
But we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics.
We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to ``the dark side'' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture ``worked'' and that our country is better off for having gone there.
...Cheney applauded the ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' -- what we used to call ``war crimes'' because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years. Cheney insisted the abusive techniques were ``absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States.'' He claimed they were ``directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy . . . It worked very, very well.''
Repeating these assertions doesn't make them true. We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques. When the abuse began, prisoners told interrogators whatever they thought would make it stop.
Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did.
What leaders say matters. So when it comes to light, as it did recently, that U.S. interrogators staged mock executions and held a whirling electric drill close to the body of a naked, hooded detainee, and the former vice president winks and nods, it matters.
The Bush administration had already degraded the rules of war by authorizing techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and shocked the conscience of the world. Now Cheney has publicly condoned the abuse that went beyond even those weakened standards, leading us down a slippery slope of lawlessness. Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation's honor.
To argue that honorable conduct is only required against an honorable enemy degrades the Americans who must carry out the orders. As military professionals, we know that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.
On Aug. 24, the United States took an important step toward moral clarity and the rule of law when a special task force recommended that in the future, the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.
The unanimous decision represents an unusual consensus among the defense, intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Members of the task force had access to every scrap of intelligence, yet they drew the opposite conclusion from Cheney's. They concluded that far from making us safer, cruelty betrays American values and harms U.S. national security.
On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.
Our current commander-in-chief understands this. The task force recommendations take us a step closer to restoring the rule of law and the standards of human dignity that made us who we are as a nation. Repudiating torture and other cruelty helps keep us from being sent on fools' errands by bad intelligence. And in the end, that makes us all safer."
Monday, September 14, 2009
Constitutional Cherry Picking
TW: Given the shrill calls in D.C. from protesters over the weekend to "respect the constitution" it is relevant to recall an issue where our constitution has been stretched beyond the breaking point. There is no doubt at this point many Americans are comfortable with American torture. Our former VPOTUS clearly supports doing "whatever it takes" in the name of American security regardless of any constitutional or legal impediments (and regardless of its actual efficacy). Either we act differently or we acknowledge our morals have been overtaken by fear.We are meant to have elections to adjudicate these fundamental disputes.
The Economist from a couple of weeks ago on Cheney's interview with the Fox Nationalist Jingoistic American Channel:
"...there was one moment in the interview that was uniquely clarifying. It came when Mr Cheney defended the CIA interrogators who are accused of going beyond the tactics authorised by the Justice Department. First he claimed they had acted legally, then he claimed it didn't matter.
'Wallace: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorisation, you're OK with it?
Cheney: I am.'
Of course he is. In many ways these interrogators are Mr Cheney writ small. They are the child to Mr Cheney's dad in those old anti-drug commercials—"I learned it by watching you!" (Except Mr Cheney is a proud papa.) Like the former vice-president before them, they treated the law as a vague, non-binding inconvenience.
Mr Cheney will argue that the previous administration's actions were legal, but one senses he hates having to make this argument. For him, his assertion that the interrogation programme "saved thousands of lives" is the end of the debate. His own indifference in this case to his administration's dubious legal memoranda shows the true value he placed on those documents. As Andrew Sullivan points out, Mr Cheney is "basically saying that the law had no salience or relevance in his program of torturing prisoners." First the law was made to conform to the administration's policies, then, when even the new law became too burdensome, it was considered irrelevant. It's an odd way to run a democracy based on the rule of law."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/little_cheneys.cfm
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Torture Memos
TW: The reaction this week to AG Holder's limited investigation into Bush era torture/interrogation programs is predictable. The left says it is not enough, the right claims any investigation is too much. I suspect a year from now little will have been accomplished. Those on the left will still believe we tortured with little benefit, the right will still believe almost any actions in pursuit of security justify the means.
I stand mostly with the left for what it is worth although I empathize with our intelligence services which were frequently caught between a security at any price White House and with the knowledge that the POTUS would change and initiate less rabid protocols.
Reading the CIA IG report makes it clear either side will be able to justify their position. Which is why, when crisis strikes one should strongly prefer their side in power as whoever occupies the Executive has tremendous leeway in these matters especially amidst a crisis when the legislative branch cowers in fear.
I realize many Americans have no problem torturing others. I do. I do not think it works, it undermines "American values" such as they are, and levers open the pandora's box of torture against our citizens that much further.
Scherer from Time provides a relatively brief re-cap:
"1. The CIA IG concluded that the public had been misled about the interrogation program. While the report stops short of accusing any public official of lying, it makes clear that the public statements that the U.S. Government made about its conduct differed from what was actually happening, creating a liability for the CIA if the information ever got out...
2. The CIA IG found that the CIA used waterboarding in a way that had not been approved by the Justice Department...
3. The CIA IG repeatedly brought what it viewed as abuses or violations of law to the attention of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department, without any positive result...
4. The CIA IG concluded that while high-value detainees did produce valuable intelligence, the measurement of the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques “is a more subjective process and not without some concern...”
5. The initial harsh interrogation program, begun in 2002, was poorly managed, some interrogators were poorly trained and informed, and they used techniques that were substantially harsher than what had been approved by the White House and the Justice Department..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/five-important-revelations-from-the-cia-inspector-general-report/#more-15570
I stand mostly with the left for what it is worth although I empathize with our intelligence services which were frequently caught between a security at any price White House and with the knowledge that the POTUS would change and initiate less rabid protocols.
Reading the CIA IG report makes it clear either side will be able to justify their position. Which is why, when crisis strikes one should strongly prefer their side in power as whoever occupies the Executive has tremendous leeway in these matters especially amidst a crisis when the legislative branch cowers in fear.
I realize many Americans have no problem torturing others. I do. I do not think it works, it undermines "American values" such as they are, and levers open the pandora's box of torture against our citizens that much further.
Scherer from Time provides a relatively brief re-cap:
"1. The CIA IG concluded that the public had been misled about the interrogation program. While the report stops short of accusing any public official of lying, it makes clear that the public statements that the U.S. Government made about its conduct differed from what was actually happening, creating a liability for the CIA if the information ever got out...
2. The CIA IG found that the CIA used waterboarding in a way that had not been approved by the Justice Department...
3. The CIA IG repeatedly brought what it viewed as abuses or violations of law to the attention of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department, without any positive result...
4. The CIA IG concluded that while high-value detainees did produce valuable intelligence, the measurement of the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques “is a more subjective process and not without some concern...”
5. The initial harsh interrogation program, begun in 2002, was poorly managed, some interrogators were poorly trained and informed, and they used techniques that were substantially harsher than what had been approved by the White House and the Justice Department..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/five-important-revelations-from-the-cia-inspector-general-report/#more-15570
Saturday, May 23, 2009
McCain IV and Barack Obama
TW: John McCain made some deals with the devil to attain the Republican nomination but on torture he is not confused unlike many of his lesser colleagues. And congrats to his son who graduated Annapolis. From Jeff Goldberg at Atlantic:
"I asked him about Dick Cheney and his defense of Bush Administration torture policies. He told me of his fundamental disagreement with Cheney: "When you have a majority of Americans, seventy-something percent, saying we shouldn't torture, then I'm not sure it helps for the Vice President to go out and continue to espouse that position," he said.
"But look, he's free to talk. He's a former Vice President of the United States. I just don't see where it helps." And then he got acerbic: Cheney, he says, "believes that waterboarding doesn't fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it's not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition."
Friday, May 22, 2009
You Go Jesse!!! (cont.)
TW: These Ventura appearances keep providing substance to the debate. Listening to the admittedly lame Fox entertainers really begins to remind me of the Iraq War rationalizations, the proponents just jumped from one rationale to the next as each one lost any credibility (recall- WMD, 9-11, building democracy, protecting the Iraqis people etc.).
Here the Fox guy goes from it is not torture to it works to well we should just kill "them" all.
Torture is only a part of the overall approach to dealing with terrorism. Torture reflects some folks willingness to do anything even if it is technically illegal, contravenes longstanding American morals, is of dubious efficacy and greatly harms our reputation across the world. This trade in search of the hint of security is fundamental. Gitmo and how it is shut down feeds into the same theme- will we except any risk.
What is often missed in these debates is the cost of heading down the path of trading security for our liberties and reputation. Folks debate the efficacy and semantics of torture but not the costs. Losing our moral grounding and interanational repuatation are very serious prices to be paid. We cannot forget this.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Extremism In Defense Of Security Is a Vice
TW: Some highlights from National Review and Weekly Standard on their reactions to today's speeches. These are the mainline conservative magazines, I could not force myself to go to the real hard core sites like Red State.
From William Kristol at Weekly Standard:
"Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch-I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way...Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices." [TW: Kristol patronizes Obama with the young senator approach, that crap got old about last May. More importantly, Kristol essentially asserts nuance equals bad, absolutism equals good. To me simple-mindedness has its uses, but the world is more complex.]
From Dana Perino (fmr. White House press secretary)
"I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney...Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion. Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work." [TW: in other words, Gingrich/Cheney/Boehner etc. can call our POTUS a naive surrender monkey basically but the Dems should focus on fighting the terrorists- F-you Dana]
KJ Lopez at National Review:
"It's worth noting that while we release memos and shine a spotlight on the worst that we've done, we had a prolonged debate about whether or not it was something akin to torture to show Daniel Pearl's beheading and other actual instances of brutality on television.
The American Enterprise Institute, by the way, was helpful in not hiding the actual evil of our enemy when they posted video on their website of Saddam Hussein-era torture at Abu Ghraib. That we are outraged at what our people did at Abu Ghraib is right. But that's never been a reason to lose sight of the big picture. [TW: In other words, they tortured worse than us so there, I would we could do better than this]
From Peter Kirsanow at National Review:
"A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure." [TW: he speaks for some portion of our country, who think Cheney is right. Me the last guy I wanted in the WH post 9/11 or if an asteroid were this way was/is Cheney because he decisively makes bad decisions. Decisiveness and good decisions are not one and the same.]
TW: I would encourage everyone to watch or read the speeches. This stuff is important, don't rely on others to guide your opinions including yours truly especially. Our lives have changed immensely since 9/11. Our successors lives will be changed. The absolutism and never-ending waving of the bloody shirt of 9/11 puts fundamental American values at risk. This is especially crucial in a globalized world where American values remain one of our most cherished assets amidst economic malaise and malfeasance. Dick Cheney and his adherents have essentially turned their conservative forefather's famous axiom on it's head:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" has become "Extremism in the defense of security is no vice".
Certainly one can debate the various forms of liberty but generally it can be a universal concept whereby all gain. Security, however, quickly becomes a zero-sum, my country at the expense of yours. We end up going into a crouch, constructing shells and lashing out of our own self-imposed crouch at real and perceived threats. Ultimately of course leaving less not more secure.
Folks are getting lost in he said, she said about Pelosi and where the detainees are going to reside post Gitmo. The issues on the table are far larger. Ignore them at your peril.
From William Kristol at Weekly Standard:
"Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch-I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way...Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices." [TW: Kristol patronizes Obama with the young senator approach, that crap got old about last May. More importantly, Kristol essentially asserts nuance equals bad, absolutism equals good. To me simple-mindedness has its uses, but the world is more complex.]
From Dana Perino (fmr. White House press secretary)
"I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney...Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion. Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work." [TW: in other words, Gingrich/Cheney/Boehner etc. can call our POTUS a naive surrender monkey basically but the Dems should focus on fighting the terrorists- F-you Dana]
KJ Lopez at National Review:
"It's worth noting that while we release memos and shine a spotlight on the worst that we've done, we had a prolonged debate about whether or not it was something akin to torture to show Daniel Pearl's beheading and other actual instances of brutality on television.
The American Enterprise Institute, by the way, was helpful in not hiding the actual evil of our enemy when they posted video on their website of Saddam Hussein-era torture at Abu Ghraib. That we are outraged at what our people did at Abu Ghraib is right. But that's never been a reason to lose sight of the big picture. [TW: In other words, they tortured worse than us so there, I would we could do better than this]
From Peter Kirsanow at National Review:
"A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure." [TW: he speaks for some portion of our country, who think Cheney is right. Me the last guy I wanted in the WH post 9/11 or if an asteroid were this way was/is Cheney because he decisively makes bad decisions. Decisiveness and good decisions are not one and the same.]
TW: I would encourage everyone to watch or read the speeches. This stuff is important, don't rely on others to guide your opinions including yours truly especially. Our lives have changed immensely since 9/11. Our successors lives will be changed. The absolutism and never-ending waving of the bloody shirt of 9/11 puts fundamental American values at risk. This is especially crucial in a globalized world where American values remain one of our most cherished assets amidst economic malaise and malfeasance. Dick Cheney and his adherents have essentially turned their conservative forefather's famous axiom on it's head:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" has become "Extremism in the defense of security is no vice".
Certainly one can debate the various forms of liberty but generally it can be a universal concept whereby all gain. Security, however, quickly becomes a zero-sum, my country at the expense of yours. We end up going into a crouch, constructing shells and lashing out of our own self-imposed crouch at real and perceived threats. Ultimately of course leaving less not more secure.
Folks are getting lost in he said, she said about Pelosi and where the detainees are going to reside post Gitmo. The issues on the table are far larger. Ignore them at your peril.
Making Our Choice
From POTUS Obama both quotes via Time:
"We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. "
And:
"Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal “supermax” prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.”
TW: Our POTUS was, as usual, nuanced and constructive in addressing how we as a nation should approach the challenge of terrorism. He rejects the false choice between the blind pursuit of security or surrender. He proposes common sense relative to the interment of prisoners in the U.S. In contrast, the former VPOTUS continued to deny the obvious, that he and his administration initiated state sponsored torture, and framed our efforts against terror in the all or nothing language of you are either with us or against us that is almost always doomed to failure.
Having these two speak on the same morning provides an excellent opportunity for the American people to analyze how they want their country to act and proceed in an inherently risky world. Terrorism is real, open-ended and likely never to be completely eradicated. Shall we alter our basic freedoms and economic structures in a futile effort to attain the unattainable, 100% security. Or shall we adapt, accept nuance and optimize the reality in which we live?
"We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. "
And:
"Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal “supermax” prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.”
TW: Our POTUS was, as usual, nuanced and constructive in addressing how we as a nation should approach the challenge of terrorism. He rejects the false choice between the blind pursuit of security or surrender. He proposes common sense relative to the interment of prisoners in the U.S. In contrast, the former VPOTUS continued to deny the obvious, that he and his administration initiated state sponsored torture, and framed our efforts against terror in the all or nothing language of you are either with us or against us that is almost always doomed to failure.
Having these two speak on the same morning provides an excellent opportunity for the American people to analyze how they want their country to act and proceed in an inherently risky world. Terrorism is real, open-ended and likely never to be completely eradicated. Shall we alter our basic freedoms and economic structures in a futile effort to attain the unattainable, 100% security. Or shall we adapt, accept nuance and optimize the reality in which we live?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Lets Debate It
From Economist:
"These kinds of debates [on torture and detainees] didn't really happen during the last administration, and not just because detainees were being sent to Cuba. The Bush administration's stance was that anything was justified in the war on terror, so it didn't do to ask questions. But Barack Obama has set some ground rules, and that leads politicians to believe that they can set a few more to protect their own political bases. So a lot more war-on-terror policy making is happening in public, and in Congress, than might help the administration."
TW: I think the above is important to keep in mind amidst the back and forth occurring since W. Bush left office. One advantage of brooking no dissent and hiding what you are doing is the debate is inherently limited. As a result Americans have not had to face up to the questions of whether we tortured and if so do they support it and whether we are prepared to live with places like Guantanamo etc. The debate about did we torture is a cynical fandango based upon our country trying to "torture" whilst not getting the perpetrators in legal jeopardy and tarnishing our nation's reputation too badly. We tortured, I know it, you know it and the rest of the world most definitely knows its. Having people like the guy below appear on TV and dance only makes us all appear stupid and/or liars.
TW: The fundamental question remains should the United States of America support state sanctioned torture in pursuit of security. Dick Cheney will apparently make the bull case on Thursday to a conservative think tank audience. This is a a good thing as it puts the question front and center. Some will trade vast liberties in pursuit of ephemeral security. I do not, it is really no more complex than paranoia will destroia.
"These kinds of debates [on torture and detainees] didn't really happen during the last administration, and not just because detainees were being sent to Cuba. The Bush administration's stance was that anything was justified in the war on terror, so it didn't do to ask questions. But Barack Obama has set some ground rules, and that leads politicians to believe that they can set a few more to protect their own political bases. So a lot more war-on-terror policy making is happening in public, and in Congress, than might help the administration."
TW: I think the above is important to keep in mind amidst the back and forth occurring since W. Bush left office. One advantage of brooking no dissent and hiding what you are doing is the debate is inherently limited. As a result Americans have not had to face up to the questions of whether we tortured and if so do they support it and whether we are prepared to live with places like Guantanamo etc. The debate about did we torture is a cynical fandango based upon our country trying to "torture" whilst not getting the perpetrators in legal jeopardy and tarnishing our nation's reputation too badly. We tortured, I know it, you know it and the rest of the world most definitely knows its. Having people like the guy below appear on TV and dance only makes us all appear stupid and/or liars.
TW: The fundamental question remains should the United States of America support state sanctioned torture in pursuit of security. Dick Cheney will apparently make the bull case on Thursday to a conservative think tank audience. This is a a good thing as it puts the question front and center. Some will trade vast liberties in pursuit of ephemeral security. I do not, it is really no more complex than paranoia will destroia.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
If So, Then Why?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Moral Kombat | ||||
| ||||
TW: Stewart dips his toe into the water of criticizing Obama. More importantly he asked if torture is so necessary then why do we need to hide it? Then goes on further to ask if the Jihadist threat is so existential, why do we toss out gay Arabic translators rather than circle the wagons and use all of our resources to combat this mortal threat?
The answer to the second question is I have no idea. To the first question, these are the turd sandwiches Obama must deal with, no matter how they are sliced they taste like shit.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
We Committed a Crime
TW: This Klein piece summarizes very well my own thoughts on the torture situation in general and the non-release of the associated photos in particular. We as a nation, not just certain Republicans (although they bear a disproportionate share of responsibility as evidenced by their rabid and venomous defence), committed errors post 9/11. These errors are arguably criminal. Whether criminalizing these errors is even more arguable.
That these errors may not be criminalized does not diminish the shame all Americans should feel regarding the actions taken in our name. As Klein points out, we do not need more photos to document what we now all know. I could post a hundred shameful photos from previously released files. If those do not make you ashamed, then that is your problem.
Those lefty folks getting all bent out of shape neglect the costs associated with creating a brand new set of propaganda for our enemies. Rubbing our collective noses in the stench and rot and feces will accomplish little.
That said having to hide our shame is no way to act as a country that prides itself on being "exceptional". Those who cry loudest about alleged American exceptionalism are some of the same folks taking actual pride in conducting torture. Exceptional countries need to be better than our enemies not equally brutal.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"A picture is worth more than a thousand words to an illiterate. The literacy rate in the non-urban areas of Afghanistan and North West Pakistan is less than 10%. Thousands of American troops will be pouring into southern Afghanistan this summer. They will have their hands full with the Taliban. As it is, they have to overcome the disastrous impact of civilian casualties caused by aerial bombing, a tactic one hopes will become far less common with the new, counterinsurgency-based military leadership in Afghanistan. They certainly don't need the intense provocation that torture photos will cause among the Pashtun tribes, which is why, I think, the President has decided to oppose their publication.
I am sure the civil liberties absolutists will say that this impinges on the free flow of information. They have a point. But we've gotten the picture: we know what American torture looks like. And the distribution of these photos, with American troops and diplomats and international humanitarian workers at risk, constitutes something akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
I oppose torture. I think Dick Cheney, the mastermind of this program, is pretty close to a criminal--and that his attempts to twist the U.S. Constitution to his purposes, based on, shall we say, an eccentric reading of one of the lesser Federalist Papers, is obscene. I also believe that those who are now claiming that these expanded interrogation techniques "worked" have a very steep hill to climb--especially since the example they usually give, the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, is inaccurate. (Zubaydah had given up the whereabouts of Khalid Sheik Mohammed long before he was waterboarded, under proper interrogation by the FBI.)
But I also believe there were mitigating circumstances. This was right after 9/11. There were 3000 dead. There was anthrax in the air. I can understand Nancy Pelosi's impulse to look the other way--if I'd been in a position of authority, I might have acted the same way...and you might have, too. I think the impulse of some on the left to perseverate on this issue is understandable--torture is illegal--but it is unfortunate. All the energy devoted to this will result in...what? Justice, you say? Well, maybe. But most lawyers who are not civil liberties absolutists seem to believe it will be exceedingly difficult to make a case against the Bush Administration miscreants. And the publication of these photos is far more likely to inflame--and endanger--than inform or illuminate. We don't need to see them, especially now."
That these errors may not be criminalized does not diminish the shame all Americans should feel regarding the actions taken in our name. As Klein points out, we do not need more photos to document what we now all know. I could post a hundred shameful photos from previously released files. If those do not make you ashamed, then that is your problem.
Those lefty folks getting all bent out of shape neglect the costs associated with creating a brand new set of propaganda for our enemies. Rubbing our collective noses in the stench and rot and feces will accomplish little.
That said having to hide our shame is no way to act as a country that prides itself on being "exceptional". Those who cry loudest about alleged American exceptionalism are some of the same folks taking actual pride in conducting torture. Exceptional countries need to be better than our enemies not equally brutal.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"A picture is worth more than a thousand words to an illiterate. The literacy rate in the non-urban areas of Afghanistan and North West Pakistan is less than 10%. Thousands of American troops will be pouring into southern Afghanistan this summer. They will have their hands full with the Taliban. As it is, they have to overcome the disastrous impact of civilian casualties caused by aerial bombing, a tactic one hopes will become far less common with the new, counterinsurgency-based military leadership in Afghanistan. They certainly don't need the intense provocation that torture photos will cause among the Pashtun tribes, which is why, I think, the President has decided to oppose their publication.
I am sure the civil liberties absolutists will say that this impinges on the free flow of information. They have a point. But we've gotten the picture: we know what American torture looks like. And the distribution of these photos, with American troops and diplomats and international humanitarian workers at risk, constitutes something akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
I oppose torture. I think Dick Cheney, the mastermind of this program, is pretty close to a criminal--and that his attempts to twist the U.S. Constitution to his purposes, based on, shall we say, an eccentric reading of one of the lesser Federalist Papers, is obscene. I also believe that those who are now claiming that these expanded interrogation techniques "worked" have a very steep hill to climb--especially since the example they usually give, the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, is inaccurate. (Zubaydah had given up the whereabouts of Khalid Sheik Mohammed long before he was waterboarded, under proper interrogation by the FBI.)
But I also believe there were mitigating circumstances. This was right after 9/11. There were 3000 dead. There was anthrax in the air. I can understand Nancy Pelosi's impulse to look the other way--if I'd been in a position of authority, I might have acted the same way...and you might have, too. I think the impulse of some on the left to perseverate on this issue is understandable--torture is illegal--but it is unfortunate. All the energy devoted to this will result in...what? Justice, you say? Well, maybe. But most lawyers who are not civil liberties absolutists seem to believe it will be exceedingly difficult to make a case against the Bush Administration miscreants. And the publication of these photos is far more likely to inflame--and endanger--than inform or illuminate. We don't need to see them, especially now."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Military Person's Perpective On Torture
TW: This is from Tom Ricks blog but it is largely a re-print of a letter from a US Army Lt. Colonel to conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer wrote a column a couple of weeks ago saying torture was a bad idea not to be used unless it would save American lives which is not much different than saying it should be used on an almost open-ended basis.
From Tom Ricks Blog at Foreign Policy magazine:
To summarize: Those who endorse torture need to think twice about the effect it has on the moral and discipline of our troops. Also, think about his point that torture has two victims: the person suffering it, and the person inflicting it."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/12/torture_a_national_guard_officer_responds_to_krauthammer
From Tom Ricks Blog at Foreign Policy magazine:
"Mr. Krauthammer,
I don't usually make a point of responding to the talking-head proselytizers in my Sunday paper but your column prompted me to do so.
I'll make this simple. There are NO circumstances under which torture is acceptable. Jack Bauer's "24" makes for great TV but even in a ticking timebomb situation such behavior is inappropriate and illegal. Torture is counter to our moral code, a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions to which we subscribe and perhaps least understood, but most significantly, counterproductive and ineffective. Nothing else really needs to be said, but if you want more details read on.
I have friends who have been to SERE and instructed SERE students and acted as interrogators. All agree that waterboarding and other such 'enhanced' techniques are good for training (in a strictly controlled environment) our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on what to expect in captivity. They also agree that it is torture to anyone outside that training environment. Finally, they all agree that torture rarely results in actionable intelligence, as the victim is willing to say most
anything to end the torture.
So you must wonder, by what authority is this letter writer speaking? Well, as a Lieutenant Colonel and Combat Arms Battalion Commander in the Army I am responsible for the welfare, training, good order, and discipline of my soldiers. I am responsible for everything they do or fail to do. I am also responsible to follow and issue only those orders that are legal, ethical and moral. Torture of another human being is illegal, unethical and immoral, and I would be duty bound to disobey any such order...just as PFC Lynndie England and SPC Charles Graner (and their many counterparts, senior officers and NCOs at Abu Ghraib) should have done...just as any of my soldiers should disobey should I give such an order. We all have the lessons of Nuremburg to rely upon anytime such questions come to mind; "I was just following orders" is never justification for committing crimes against other human beings.
Before deploying to Iraq last year, I explained these things to my troopers. It is difficult to explain to young (practically) kids, with little experience, and poor knowledge of the world...but if you are caring and committed, and repeat yourself often enough they learn and understand. I told them the most important thing they needed to take away from all their preparations was that while it would be terrible to lose one of them or have one of them seriously physically injured, it would be worse to have them come home physically well and mentally broken because they had somehow lost their humanity. Torture destroys our humanity, and any equivocation (feel free to exercise the Kantian absolutist vs utilitarian argument to your heart's content) on the matter is just bullshit.
. . . If captured I would honor our Armed Forces Code of Conduct to the best of my ability and go to whatever my fate, resolute in the knowledge that our nation remains a last bastion of what is right (or ought to be right) in the world. Torture has no place in America, and Americans have no reason to employ it. War ain't fair, but we have to fight it while maintaining a level of dignity and humanity, jus in
bello. This is rough work for people bound to a code of Duty, Honor, Country.
Proselytizers, who say but do not act, need not apply.
To summarize: Those who endorse torture need to think twice about the effect it has on the moral and discipline of our troops. Also, think about his point that torture has two victims: the person suffering it, and the person inflicting it."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/12/torture_a_national_guard_officer_responds_to_krauthammer
You Go Jesse!!!
TW: No comment other than. Here! Here!
The quote "give me a waterboard, an hour and Dick Cheney and I will have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders" will become famous.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Views Of an Obamacon
TW: The second part of the Kmiec interview that I plucked focuses on the Supreme Court. My cynical view on SCOTUS nominees is that folks are going to create "doctrines" (i.e. constructionism, originalism etc.) that sound sophisticated and complex, but those are means to an end. Conservatives politicos (and their progressive counterparts) do not particularly care about the doctrine they care about the results. At the end of the day everyone wants empathy as in empathy for their views.
From Economist:
DIA: During the presidential campaign you noted Mr Obama's affinity for Supreme Court justices like Stephen Breyer and David Souter. Would you be able to support an Obama nominee in their mould?
Mr Kmiec: Barack Obama did mention during the campaign that he admired Justices Breyer and Souter. His reasoning was anchored in their unwillingness to be slavishly bound to the historic meaning of constitutional terminology, and their understanding of the great charter in terms of its ability to resolve modern problems.
Mr Obama also said he would look for the quality of empathy in his judicial selections. The president, I believe, uses the term to convey that justices should be impartial, but not indifferent. Law and adjudication is not just a mental exercise in doctrinal neatness. An Obama nominee should be capable of understanding the real-life consequences of judicial outcomes, especially for those who are least advantaged. This is refreshingly attractive and informs Mr Obama's desire to nominate justices with a broader life experience than one spent largely in a classroom or appellate courtroom.
Based upon his years teaching at the University of Chicago, I'd look for Mr Obama to favour a nominee who is not afraid to challenge either some result-oriented liberal judging or the incompleteness of the conservative method that has dominated the court since Nixon appointed Warren Burger to the bench in 1969. Burger, and especially his successors William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, have plied the notion–so-called Originalism–that it’s not up to them to do justice, since they are just following the plain, public meaning of the words ratified two hundred plus years ago.
...plain public meaning is a beguiling idea, until one actually looks for it. There was no single public mind in 1787 any more than there is now. Back then, public meaning was no doubt very much like it is today: an admixture of both shared and different conceptions of what a given constitutional phrase was intended to accomplish. Mr Obama’s task is to find a jurist who not only comprehends the limits of James Madison’s dictionary, but also appreciates how real wrongs can be made right with words that have a meaning in the here and now.
Mr Obama’s campaign prided itself on supplying the “change we need”. It is well past time that legal insights are acknowledged to be possessed by those possessing something other than the standard resume. There is reason to believe that the ultimate “justice” and accountability derivable from the court’s work would be enhanced by appointing individuals of more varied background: a woman, say, who interrupted law practice to raise a family before returning to the profession; or a sole practitioner who has borne the burden of navigating a family through foreclosure or bankruptcy..."
From Economist:
DIA: During the presidential campaign you noted Mr Obama's affinity for Supreme Court justices like Stephen Breyer and David Souter. Would you be able to support an Obama nominee in their mould?
Mr Kmiec: Barack Obama did mention during the campaign that he admired Justices Breyer and Souter. His reasoning was anchored in their unwillingness to be slavishly bound to the historic meaning of constitutional terminology, and their understanding of the great charter in terms of its ability to resolve modern problems.
Mr Obama also said he would look for the quality of empathy in his judicial selections. The president, I believe, uses the term to convey that justices should be impartial, but not indifferent. Law and adjudication is not just a mental exercise in doctrinal neatness. An Obama nominee should be capable of understanding the real-life consequences of judicial outcomes, especially for those who are least advantaged. This is refreshingly attractive and informs Mr Obama's desire to nominate justices with a broader life experience than one spent largely in a classroom or appellate courtroom.
Based upon his years teaching at the University of Chicago, I'd look for Mr Obama to favour a nominee who is not afraid to challenge either some result-oriented liberal judging or the incompleteness of the conservative method that has dominated the court since Nixon appointed Warren Burger to the bench in 1969. Burger, and especially his successors William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, have plied the notion–so-called Originalism–that it’s not up to them to do justice, since they are just following the plain, public meaning of the words ratified two hundred plus years ago.
...plain public meaning is a beguiling idea, until one actually looks for it. There was no single public mind in 1787 any more than there is now. Back then, public meaning was no doubt very much like it is today: an admixture of both shared and different conceptions of what a given constitutional phrase was intended to accomplish. Mr Obama’s task is to find a jurist who not only comprehends the limits of James Madison’s dictionary, but also appreciates how real wrongs can be made right with words that have a meaning in the here and now.
Mr Obama’s campaign prided itself on supplying the “change we need”. It is well past time that legal insights are acknowledged to be possessed by those possessing something other than the standard resume. There is reason to believe that the ultimate “justice” and accountability derivable from the court’s work would be enhanced by appointing individuals of more varied background: a woman, say, who interrupted law practice to raise a family before returning to the profession; or a sole practitioner who has borne the burden of navigating a family through foreclosure or bankruptcy..."
Friday, May 8, 2009
So What Do Americans Think About Torture?
TW: Cilizza reviews some recent poll data regarding Americans opinion on torture. Recall I framed my view along these lines a couple of weeks ago (see "torture" posts).1) was what the U.S. did torture?
2) if so was it a potentially temporary reaction to the post 9/11 stress?
3) should the U.S. torture?
The results below seem to indicate Americans are not stupid, if it walks like a duck, it is a duck. The U.S. engaged in torture. What is unclear is whether Americans believe torture is a necessary evil to protect their own security. As I have opined previously societies generally and the U.S. is no different will swap much liberty for the prospect of security. I suspect that tendency was much higher immediately post 9-11 than it is today although some (i.e. Cheney et al.) will err on the side of security without fail.
I remain aggressively opposed to torture. As for investigating how torture became an instrument of national policy, the fact that such an investigation is a "dead political loser" speaks to me of the necessity for the investigation. America must face up to the harsh realities of how we reacted post 9/11 and address whether we would do so again in similar circumstances. Else this issue will become a partisan football which will not only harm our national security and our international reputation but a cancer that will infect our ability to operate cohesively as a nation.
I am under no illusions that Democrats are innocent relative to torture. Post 9/11 politicians of all stripes did things they would not have dreamt of doing months before. What matters most is the future without understanding how we got here it is impossible to plan where we go from here.
If the U.S. wants to condone torture in the pursuit of perceived security lets do so in the open and as a matter of public policy, not in the shadows so that some of us can B.S. ourselves into thinking we are still exceptional to those despots who did (and still do) it elsewhere.
From Cilizza at WaPo:
"60% of Americans said that the use of "harsh interrogation procedures" including waterboarding is torture (Democrats 75%/Republicans 44%/Independents 58%)
when asked whether they approve or disapprove of the use of these techniques
50% approving/46% disapproving. (Democrats 26%/Republicans 78%/Independents 53% approving)
57% of people oppose the prosecution of Bush Administration officials for their roles in the interrogations and an even higher number -- 65% -- believe that no prosecutions of military and intelligence officials should take place.
...Those twin observations go a long way to explaining why President Barack Obama and his Administration have expressed very little interest in prosecuting those involved with the interrogations despite urgings from the liberal wing of the party to do just that. "
From a purely political perspective...the prosecutions are a straight loser, forcing a divided country to re-engage with a period of time they would much rather just forget."
ps the photo above is from our days dealing with the Filipinos post the Spanish-American War when we took possession of our first colonies, we did some seriously bad stuff in that country, waterboarding being the tip of an iceberg.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Petraeus Right Another Time Too
From Time:
"This is the sort of paragraph that can be printed on the tombstone of this entire chapter of U.S. history. From the Senate Armed Services Committee report that was released last night, page XXV:
"This is the sort of paragraph that can be printed on the tombstone of this entire chapter of U.S. history. From the Senate Armed Services Committee report that was released last night, page XXV:
'It is particularly troubling that senior officials approved the use of interrogation techniques that were originally designed to simulate abusive tactics used by our enemies against our own soldiers and that were modeled, in part, on tactics used by the Communist Chinese to elicit false confessions from U.S. military personnel. While some argue that the brutality and disregard for human life shown by al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists justifies us treating them harshly, General David Petraeus explained why that view is misguided. In a May 2007 letter to his troops, General Petraeus said, "Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we - not our enemies - occupy the moral high ground."
Thursday, April 23, 2009
"This Is America We Do Not FUCKING Torture"
TW: Kudos to Shep Smith for stating fairly succinctly that torture is not gray, it is torture. This topic easily degenerates into self-rightousness. Some commentary is needed and to be clear I do not see the Dems as without shame in this effort although there is no doubt in my mind that the conservatives tend far more to err on the side of sacrificing liberty for even the possibility of greater indirect security. This torture debate appears to have three components:
1) what we did was merely "coercive/enhanced/special/aggressive" interrogation
2) what we did was the result of post 9/11 stress
3) torture works so who cares what our constitution says we will do whatever it takes to protect American interests and lives
Re #1: BS, BS, BS and BS. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck it is a duck. We tortured anyone claiming otherwise is obfuscating because for various reasons they do not want to use items 2 and 3 (e.g. they do not want to say the constitution/laws are bunk hence they need another excuse). The pathetic moving of the goalposts associated with defining torture as exemplified by Cliff May in the embedded piece personifies this cynical and tortuous approach to logic. Note as well how May (reminiscent of how the goalpost for Iraq move around) jumps from saying the American torture regime was not "torture" to saying our motives in "coercively interrogating" were different than say the Viet Cong when they "coercively interrogated" John McCain. So our motives are more noble?
Re #2: This has some validity in mind in that in times of extreme stress governments and societies do things which in retrospect appear wrong or at least ignorant. We all recall the tremendous disorientation post 9/11 when no one really knew where this Al-Qaeda thing was headed. However, disorientation and stress are not excuses for crimes. As I have said before 9/11 was exactly why I shuddered when W. Bush was elected and a mediocrity like Ashcroft became attorney general. Mediocrities cower in the face of adversity, not cower in terms of not flashing their guns but in terms of protecting liberty.
More fundamentally most of the torture processes about which the recently released memos relate are not for the period immediately after 9/11. Rather for the period 2003-2004 by which time far more reflection had occurred regarding the implications of 9/11. The American torture regime was not a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 it was a systematic process initiated by the W. Bush administration.
Re#3- I personally do not believe torture is any material way efficacious but that is my outsider inherently limited information opinion. But until and unless legitimate proof emerges of torture's efficacy, then I will operate under the notion that torture provides immaterial intelligence value (one would the think its proponents would have much incentive to release such information now that many of their techniques are public). Ultimately, however, whether torture provides material information is largely irrelevant to me. Supporters of the American torture regime are also attempting to lower the bar on what would be material success. Would saving one American life be enough? ten?
I would argue it would have to be much higher. American values are worth many lives, American and otherwise. We risk and lose hundreds and thousands of American lives (and usually a high multiple of foreign lives in the process) in the pursuit of American interests and values regularly. An American torture regime undermines liberal democracy and the moral stature which underlies our claims to an American exceptionalism worthy of emulation worldwide. If American adopts policies which strive for zero risk and will contravene our own and international laws in the pursuit of reducing our risks to zero, then we will do so at the price of demeaning our values to the point where we and others can ask but for what?
How credible is an American government that supports the approach of a guy like Cliff May who goes on national TV with a straight face to say what W. Bush was doing was not "torture". How credible is an American government that says over and over they are not "torturing" but by any legitimate standard are doing so and not in very limited ways but in broad systematic ways.
I too believe in American exceptionalism but NOT torturing is one of the reasons why, we are good enough and powerful enough to lead without adopting the ways of the Nazis, Maoists, and terrorists of many ilks.
Finally the Jack Bauer "24" scenario whereby somehow, some way an individual is detained who likely knows of a ticking "bomb" which could threaten the lives of hundreds or thousands. Do I believe this has happened? NO. And to base our policy on such a scenario would be foolhardy. Could it happen? Sure. Should we torture that person? If we actually think it would help YES. I have no doubt Barack Obama or W. Bush would comfortably stand in front of the American people and except responsibly for doing so and the vast majority of American (and world) opinion would support him. If and when this scenario emerges so be it but until then no way, no how. We live in the real world not an artificial fantasy land where the variables are aligned perfectly.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Why?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| We Don't Torture | ||||
| ||||
TW: Some of you may have already seen but as usual Stewart summarizes many angles in five minutes. I really really do not want to go down the road of the a "truth commission" but my resistance is weakening. Btw the Peggy Noonan bit is why she may be a good writer but is a deeply flawed analyst and in a smarmy way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)