I know that the War on Terror is serious business. I know that there are some pretty bad people housed in Guantanamo. I know that the detainees are trained to lie about abuse. I know that, in general, the detainees are treated extremely well, with many gaining weight. I know that we need to use some sort of stern measures to interrogate these detainees. I know they hate us.
I know all of that, and I have supported this administration. I supported Guantanamo Bay at first, thinking that we would be able to work out a sensible long-term policy later on. And I really want to keep supporting this administration.
But, if you will, I am stuck at the moment:
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more.
It isn’t right. And that doesn’t factor in Abu Ghraib and the 108 deaths while in our custody, and the rest of the stuff we know about and don’t (heaven forbid) know about.
I know, I know. These are bad people, we need ‘stern’ measures, we have to be tough, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
It still ain’t right. In fact, it is flat out wrong.
As Andrew Olmsted stated:
I don’t know where the line should be drawn for interrogation. I think that playing Christina Aguilera is well on the safe side of the line and that letting people sit in their own wastes is on the wrong side of the line, but that still leaves plenty of gray area. We pay Congress to serve as our representatives in this type of argument; it is incumbent on them to sit down and actually start asking the hard question: how far are we prepared to go to get information out of captured enemy combatants? The discussion probably should take place behind closed doors, since it’s unwise to tell the enemy precisely where the line is, but the line does need to be drawn and enforced. And if the people we have in Congress now are incapable of acting like adults and holding such a discussion, then it’s time we tossed them out on their ear and try again.
And that is going to require being honest and open about what is going on. It is going to require more than listening to the echo chamber as they link approvingly to websites that call Dick Durbin an example of the ‘pussification of America’. Or when, in the middle of broadsides against Andrew Sullivan in which they pretend to ‘want a conversation,’ they cite emails that state things like:
Israel and the USA have fallen into the last category due to the efforts of the left in both countries, the good guys no longer know themselves. We were not divided in WW2 and we won. If Andrew and Irwin were around 60 years ago America would have lost.
Charming, and just another page out of the playbook- toe the company line or have your patriotism, dedication to the cause, and character slandered.
The current policy needs to be revisited. Everything isn’t A-OK. And I am not saying that because I hate this administration or want to just cause trouble for Bush. In one of the best posts I have seen in a while, Greg Djerejian discusses some of the many reasons we need to address these issues:
Also worth noting, of course, in an era of non-stop Internet feeds and 24 hour cable, acts of abuse, felony abuse and torture quickly becomes fodder for our enemies. Perhaps Lileks would have preferred that, as the saying goes–what happens in Abu Ghraib; stays in Abu Ghraib. But as Rumsfeld has awkwardly expressed himself, when he was seemingly dumbfounded that people, you know, have cameras and can jpeg shots of soldiers flashing the thumbs up next to murdered detainees (cool!)–shots that go around the world mighty quickly–well, a big part of this war is going to be making sure such public relations debacles don’t occur. One way to help ensure it doesn’t is not to have free-ranging improvisation going on in Bagram, in Abu Ghraib, in Gitmo, in other detention centers. We need cohesive top-down directives on what is and isn’t permissible. We need real accountability beyond the party line about a few-bad-eggs-on-the-night-crew-at-Abu-Ghraib bullshit (oh, and Colonel Karpinski too, how could I forget?!?). We desparately need some real leadership on this issue (Where are the Wise Men who would step in and intervene as in yester-year? To0 busy making money in Manhattan or just plain extinct, I guess)…
But our basic values, not least that we will not countenance the torture of detainees in American detention, must be abided by. This must be a red-line for all thinking conservatives. The President says this is our policy. That torture will not be tolerated. But how can we know for sure this is the case now? The dismal record of these past years provides little comfort or confidence on this score, alas. At the end of the day, a not insignificant part of our national greatness stems from America being the ‘gold standard’ in its respect for its fellow man, in its role as ultimate guarantor of democratic liberties in the international system, on, yes, the standards governing the detention of our detainees and POWs. Sober wisdom and our better angels must prevail as we move forward towards what will doubtless be a difficult, troubled decade ahead. There will likely be more chaos and bloodshed on our shores. What will we do when, say, there is a WMD attack that kills 12,000 in Tulsa or San Diego or Peoria in 2009? Round up the Muslims in our midst and place them in pens governed by Lileks-compliant standards of detainee treatment? No, better that we standardize the rules and have a top-tier, bipartisan outside commission thoroughly look at America’s detention facilities and policies from the bottom-up, the inside-out. There’s simply too much rot that has been accumulated these past years. And the bright sunlight of judicious, wholly unbiased and serious scrutiny is needed to disinfect it. This will help America re-gain its footing as undisputed avatar of the rule of law and standard-bearer of human rights on the world stage. We owe this to ourselves, to our country, to our grandchildren. It’s the right way. And it’s not a joke. It’s deadly serious.
He is right, this is deadly serious (and you really must read his whole piece– I have excerpted but a wee portion of it). But in today’s idiotic political climate, if you listen to the apologista and the blowhards, Gregory is but another soft-on-terror, therapy loving, root-cause looking, siding with the terrorists every time, America hating, Bush-loathing weenie who “doesn’t get it.”
I want a policy that I can whole-heartedly support, one that doesn’t degrade our nation while dehumanizing our detainees and doing irreparable damage to our international standing. A policy that isn’t counter-productive, and one that makes us safer while preserving our values. One that places a primacy on intelligence gathering, not sadism and excuse-making. A policy that doesn’t throw our military physicians into an ethical breach (h/t Crooks and Liars). A policy that doesn’t ask our soldiers and sailors and Marines to do things we would never want done to them were they in captivity.
Look, President Bush, his cabinet, Congress- I don’t have all the answers, and some might say I don’t have any. I don’t know where exactly the line should be drawn and what treatment is stern and what is legally abuse and what is legally torture. I do, however, have a real firm grip on what is disgusting and indefensible- but I do really want to help, and I really want to be supportive. So does Greg. So do a lot of really good people all over the country, on both sides of the ever-widening partisan divide. But you have to help us out. You have to do more than just tell me to shut up and go along. You have to do more than just call half the country traitors and accuse them of wanting to help terrorists at every opportunity.
In short, you have to lead. Why is that so hard to fathom?
Stormy 70
John, I would like that kind of policy, and I thought we had it. Are we not handing them their Korans with gloves on? Are we not feeding them special diets? From what I understand, any reports of abuses are investigated fully by the government. Torture is not the policy, so help me understand, are you saying that abuse is the policy? Where is the policy stating that torture is tolerated?
John Cole
I don’t know, quite frankly, what the extent of our policy is, and it appears that is by design. We have been told to just go along with the status quo, whatever that may be. If you look at the post I wrote the other day, everything the FBI agent wrote about could conceivably be covered under accepted ‘interrogation techniques.
Shit needs to be tightened up.
Stormy 70
Well, I guess the debate really concerns what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the way interrogations are performed. I know you have said that before, and I agree that it is a good debate to have. However, since we are dealing with the scummiest of terrorists, I doubt the debate will get much political traction, and thereore will not happen in Congress. We’ll see.
Josh
The more often these abuses are compared to genocide, the further I get from giving a damn. That’s not Rumsfeld’s fault.
If AI and the ACLU actually gave a damn about the treatment of the detainees and their human rights, they would have immediatly denounced any such attempt at a parallel to the nazis and soviet gulags, so that the honest truth could be reported to us FAIRLY. It is more likely that anti-Bush anti-Republican liberals enjoy repeating those lies, to cover up everything they have gotten wrong.
So if something really horrible is happening in gitmo and abu graib, I will just have to put my trust in the military and the government to do the right thing. I am perfectly happy to leave it at that. I guess it is too bad that we can’t expect 100% transparency from our government about these issues, but I just can’t fathom seeing the viewpoint of the apparent majority of liberals who believe that bushmchitler halliburtoncheneyco(enron) the borg queen of rethuglikkkans is evilly twirlling his mustache and ordering our troops to commit illegal and immoral acts.
ppgaz
Stormy, I think that what’s happening is sloppy management. Nobody is in favor of torture, or abuse. But the civilian leadership seems to be acting defensive about this stuff, instead of just coming out and saying, you know what, we have some tightening to do. We must, and will, do a better job.
The problem is that with defensive weasling and deflection (painting critics as the bad guys), they draw only more fire upon themselves. I mean, this is management and leadership 101. And then there is not only the treatment issue — where the five or ten percent bad practice is going to overshadow the ninety percent good practice — there is the secrecy and the denial of process, as though every one of these detainees is a sort of Muslim version of Hannibal Lecter. What’s that about?
I’ve said it before: Employ the best and most diligent security measures here at home, keep the transportation and the food system safe, tighten the borders, and I gotta tell you, I am not that afraid of the terrorists. I am not so afraid of them that I think that the detainees should be treated as disposable and subhuman, and locked away in secret without process. If somebody is doing this crap on my account, my request to them is, knock it off. I don’t need that kind of protection. Decades of relentless terrorism has not destroyed the tiny country of Israel. I am not worried about it destroying this country.
Why shouldn’t the conduct of the so-called War on Terror be subject to public scrutiny? Is there a history, a body of evidence out there, on how to conduct a War on Terror? Where did these lunkheads learn how to fight one? What model are they following? Can you describe our foreign policy these days? What’s our Middle East policy right now? Can you explain it in a few clear sentences?
I don’t think defending the country against these lunatics is rocket science, and I don’t think it requires us to act as if the Mongol Hordes are coming over the horizon, either. I also don’t think it requires the government of this country to declare that about half of its own citizens are the enemy. Not only am I not going to stand for it, I happen to think the terrorists are laughing their asses off.
Jeff
The comments at Greg’s site are incredible to me. We are governed by laws, not by bile, emotion and retribution. Imperfect as it is, our system of justice is supposed to apply to everyone.
We signed the Geneva Convention. It’s the law of our land. If they’re prisoners of war, treat them like prisoners of war. If not, charge them with something in a court of law or a court of military justice.
Does anyone still remember Jose Padilla? You know, that American citizen has now been in military custody for three years without having been charged of any crime?! He may be a terrorist, he may be a psychopath, hell, he may be innocent — who knows? We only have the word of the executive branch that he’s dangerous. I’d like to see a jury of his peers make that decision, myself. He is, after all, an American citizen.
If they can take Padilla, what makes you think they can’t take you?
Aaron
I am more concerned with the extreme slowness to implement the tribunals. What’s with that?
These guys should have been tried and convicted at a much faster rate – after all they can release 200+, so obviously they are “judging” them that way.
I think tribunal actions in 2002-2003 would have alleviated a lot of the worry that these guys are “detained for life without trial.”
Stormy 70
ppqaz, good post with alot to digest. The policy is to protect the US by pushing democratic reforms in the middle east, so their people will have economic and social stability. Democracies rarely make war on each other. Also, the terrorists are losing the war for hearts and minds in the Middle East. Al Jazeera and Arab media are starting to refer to the “terrorists” in Iraq. There are millions of good people in the Middle East who feel powerless against the fanatics in their midst, but slowly, I think that is changing. But this takes time, and for some reason, politics starts to get really batty during the summer. Fall will come and we will be arguing about something comepletly different by then.
Our borders definitely need to be tightened, hear,hear.
Off topic, the Spurs are starting to kick it in gear, and the game is very close. I must watch Obi One Ginobli now, three minutes left.
Aaron
I also think a bi-partisan commission would have been a very good idea in 2002. We should have made everyone commit to the standards so we couldn’t have back-tracking now where air-conditioning is torture, etc.
And the first poster is absolutely correct. The policy is already there and we are seeing the aberrations to it and then extrapolating from that everyone is being tortured. This may or may not be the case.
Imagine if one cop in San Diego took a bribe. That’s bad. But it would be wrong to hand wring and assume that all cops in San Diego are bad and it’s a systemic problem. However, when two cops, three cops, 17 cops, are caught…well then.
Jimmy Jazz
So if something really horrible is happening in gitmo and abu graib, I will just have to put my trust in the military and the government to do the right thing. I am perfectly happy to leave it at that.
Good Christ.
Jimmy Jazz
Where is the policy stating that torture is tolerated?
In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad “may be justified,” and that international laws against torture “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations” conducted in President Bush’s war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.
If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, “he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network,” said the memo, from the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on “necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability” later.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html
Mike S
The policy is to protect the US by pushing democratic reforms in the middle east, so their people will have economic and social stability. Democracies rarely make war on each other. Also, the terrorists are losing the war for hearts and minds in the Middle East. Al Jazeera and Arab media are starting to refer to the “terrorists” in Iraq. There are millions of good people in the Middle East who feel powerless against the fanatics in their midst, but slowly, I think that is changing.
I think this is right. And I think having an open and honest airing of what is going on in gitmo and elsewhere will help us help the moderate Muslims gain more hearts and minds. The fanatics are able to point at what has happened and some of the reactions like “I heart…” and build the rage. If the moderates are able to point to us making strides to correct the worst things happening, they may be heard.
A open and fair policy may move us forward in their eyes as well. The “good people in the Middle East” live with the terrorists every day. Their lives are ruined by them on a daily basis. I doubt many of them are as concerned with the treatment as some of us. But what they do need is something to show the people on the verge of becoming terrorists. They need to be able to say “look, the Americans are treating the prisoners/terrorists better than the prisoners/terrorists ever treated us.”
We need to give the Moderates cover for trying to support us. I think the people that say screw them all are very short sighted. They see this war as never ending. I see your first two sentences that I highlighted as being a way to end it. It will take a very long time but we need to start.
I’m not sure I said this very well or exactly how I wanted to. But I hope you catch my gist.
ppgaz
Oh, I got so wrapped in talking to Stormy, I forgot:
Great piece, John. Despite our differences, I still say, you are Da Man.
Kimmitt
It still ain’t right. In fact, it is flat out wrong.
Yes. Yes.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Say, John, in a few more months you’ll retract all your remaining support of Bush (e.g. having the War in the first place). Meantime…
Stormy, the Constitution of the late USSR was a tremendous document as far as guarantees of human rights. It had, of course, no relationship whatsoever to the facts on the ground. Leaving aside the fact we have repudiated the most easily recognizable standard for the treatment of detainees, i.e., the Geneva Conventions, we have tangible evidence—photographs, corpses—that the situation on the ground is not always in accord with the high-flown directives. The investigations seem often to be more like whitewashes, and the idea that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few privates and non-coms beggars belief.
Perhaps this is not surprising, since next to the formal regulations is a barely concealed disdain for the rule of law: memos saying the President can authorize indefinite detention without charge of US citizens (want President Hilary C. to have that power?), memos stating the international treaties can’t bind the President because he is Commander in Chief (a truly wacky argument), right down to the very beginning of the attack in the teeth of the traditional standards of casus belli.
James Emerson
A snippet from Greg’s blog…One way to help ensure it doesn’t is not to have free-ranging improvisation going on in Bagram, in Abu Ghraib, in Gitmo, in other detention centers. We need cohesive top-down directives on what is and isn’t permissible.
Seems to me that top-down directives were put in place at Abu Ghraib by General Miller, the former commander of the Gitmo detention facility. General Miller was transferred to Iraq with a team of 15 interrogators who were practiced in non-Geneva Convention interrogation techniques. Yes…as evidenced by all the photos that weren’t supposed to exist…they were actually trained to conduct torture. He was transferred to Iraq on orders to update the “quaint” methods that were in use at Abu Ghraib and at other unspecified facilities. He was to bring the techniques pioneered at Gitmo to all of the Iraq detention facilities.
One little problem though was that our President had already publically declared that the Conventions would apply in Iraq. Bush considered Iraq a real war zone as opposed to the metaphorical one where the Gitmo detainees had been captured. The release of the photos proved otherwise. Who’d a thought?
But the point is this. Torture was and perhaps still is the Presidentially sanctioned method of extracting information from whomever we choose to detain. The release of the photos is proof positive the we engaged in activities that are contrary to the Geneva Conventions, The UN Torture Convention, and the UCMJ.
This could have happened only with the approval of the highest levels of government.
Draw you own conclusions.
Josh
Draw you own conclusions.
The memos broke into abugitmo by cutting the fence, snuck past the rest of the guards, tortured and murdered 100,000 innocent prisoners, then had themselves mailed out to the public. Then the memos declared martial law. All in the same day!
The pictures prove it. And who was in the corner of that very room with lyndie? Why it’s all the highest levels of government, neatly stacked on pallets ready to be evenly distributed to each atrocity. Notice the vacant look in each of our soldiers eyes as they look the other way. They will be equally damned altho we can’t blame them since they are psychologically incapable of disobeying orders, right?
No but seriously, this was a fun playtime and automated computer scripts can come up with some wildly funny material but where are the rational, informed voices? Most especially, where is the incontrovertable evidence?
Please no one try to sell me on the idea of an illuminati conspiracy based on the CIA’s stickies and pictures of naked human pyramids. If you want to use X Files For Dummies as a basis for an argument then we can sort of go back and forth forever making up our own evidence and not proving any points but I’m not as interested.
In the meantime, one of the prisoners might still be chained to the floor right now. Did Bush do it? If I don’t see him on tv right this moment, does that mean he is directing prisoner abuse via sat uplink from crawford? We are getting a little off topic here. I think the subject is supposed to be about affording human rights to the illegal combatants we captured in the hope that they might one day treat the prisoners they take a little less harshly than they do now. Even tho our side is following the geneva conventions as our standard policy
Captains Quarters Blog
The INdepundita>
the occasional alleged misfit is completely eliminating everyone else’s good intentions. The only corrective measure taken by people who weren’t involved is to demonize the greatest number of people possible.
stickler
In short, you have to lead.
Ah, and here the best reason why some Republicans didn’t vote for GWB in 2004. Moreover, the very heart of the problems we face in the Middle East today. Who hired Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, et. al.? Who agreed with the firing of Gen. Shinseki?
Who’s in charge?
Mission Accomplished!
Veeshir
The problem is that I haven’t seen anything that I don’t like. The closest is no bathroom breaks.
Now he had to hold it for 18-24 hours. I’ve held it that long and so could he.
Bush and co. have decided what they think is ok and have let us know. They, and I as well, look at the memo that Durbin talked about and don’t see torture.
Too hot? Too cold? As long as it’s not killing heat or cold I’m totally indifferent to terrorist’s discomfort. And they have all had a hearing and the ones still in custody are terrorists. Period.
If they can’t control their bladder or anus for 24 hours then tough fricking luck.
You have a different opinion. So you should get in touch with Democratic congressmen and have them stop their lame, terrorist-coddling rhetoric and get into a serious dialogue about what is and isn’t permissible. I have yet to see any torture anywhere period. The pics in Abu Ghraib might not be nice, but they ain’t torture. You talk about 108 deaths, were any tortured to death? I have yet to see an serious allegations that included torture. Of the 108 dead, how many people were charged in the deaths?
So I’ll say it again, if you want a dialogue on what is and isn’t permissible then that’s fine. But to say that it’s torture or even akin to torture is just lame hyperbole that doesn’t help at all.
Like that lame link to the Toronto Star. Hmmm, how about the Drs are being asked to help ensure that they do the least amount of harm? “Some consider torture”. Bullcrap. Some consider turning the A/C torture. For instance, they go from this, Medical personnel belonging to the U.S. military’s Southern Command have also been told to volunteer to interrogators information they believe may be valuable, the report adds. to this, Using medical records to devise interrogation protocols crosses an ethical line, said Peter Singer, director of the University of Toronto’s Joint Centre for Bioethics. with lots of conjecture in between. How is asking Drs for advice on what a terrorist can stand the same as using medical records to devise interrogation protocols? It isn’t. Then, they talk about a memo that somebody saw a few years ago. Why not just type one up and tell us it’s “fake but accurate” again.
Sorry, but outrage over making terrorists uncomfortable is just lame.
steve
I just love the way you accept any little out of context story that would make things look bad. Can you tell me how many people this chained guy threw his feces at before they just left him there to chill out? What makes you think you know everything surrounding these circumstances? You assume the worst. I don’t because I respect the military more than I trust lame intelligence leakers who only leek what they want and not the entire reports. So you have a small piece of a report with no proof or context. You have hearsay and that is all you have but You Take it as gospel! You are looking for things like this to beleive in. You are an idiot like most liberals I see. John Cole; liberal idiot in favor of losing the war and surrending now.
Ben
Veeshir,
How can you assume that they are all terrorists? Because Bush continually calls them “bad guys”? The truth is that we don’t know who or what most of them are. BTW, where are the fundies spouting their religious doctorine regarding gitmo/abu grahib… do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Stormy 70
Ben – you make the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is a fundie. Why would we hold non-terrorists, really? What purpose would it serve?
BumperStickerist
John,
Let me get this straight – the physical effects of the torture session in question were so dire that a warm shower, a fresh change of clothes, and a short nap did or did not ameliorate the effects of said torture session?
Moving the goal posts and anticipating the response of “well, 106 people didn’t wake up from their naps because they died, DIED, while in US custody”
… well, that’s a fair point, but not the one taking place at Gitmo. And those deaths have been or are being investigated.
I don’t consider the questioning of the conduct at Gitmo and the conduct of the United States in the GWoT to be traitorous, John et al represent the ‘Jane Craig’ (Broadcast News) wing of society. They start off the morning, unplug the phone, have a good cry, and then get on with it.
That’s not a bad thing.
Captain Wrath
John,
I do not agree with everything in your post, but your call to clarify things, rather than have everyone muddy the waters more is a good one. Let me suggest we take a step back and answer some basic questions without involving fault. These questions are not going to be easily answered, and they have already been areas of great contention, but we need to refocus.
1) What qualifies as torture as opposed to abuse as opposed to interrogation methods?
Ex. Starving someone, applying shocks, beatings would seem to be torture. Having to listen to loud music or having a female interrogator touch you suggestively, or being put in a chilly room, is not.
2) Under what circumstances are each of the three justified? Yes, I think that one has to examine whether torture is sometimes justified, but first we have to identify it properly. See #1
3) Are Gitmo and Abu really related? Some say its part of the same system of abuses, while others say Abu was isolated sadists while Gitmo is not.
4) Just what are conditions at Gitmo? Some detainees have professed it was not actually an unpleasant place to be, while others claim it was hell on earth. What is credibility of those saying each?
5) How bad are things, really? Some people think it is REALLY bad; and ongoing travesty which hurts us. If it is that bad, they are right. This will bite us in the ass in a big way.
But is it that bad? 108 people have died in our custody both sides state, but how many of those were tortured or abused to death, and how many died as a result of attacks on guards, escape attempts, unrelated medical issues, suicide, etc.? Also, I understand we have had around 50,000 people in custody. Is 108 questionable deaths out of that many prisoners really indicative of systemic and deliberate abuse? Can we expect zero incidents with those numbers? How would we get zero incidents?
Maybe we can address these questions sanely. Anyone have any more OBJECTIVE questions. By objective I mean those meant to get at the truth, and not bolster an agenda or viewpoint. Yes, the right loves beating up on the left with claims that they are soft on terrorism. And the left loves clubbing Bush with anything handy that comes along.
Lets see if its possible to get beyond that.
semm
I agree it is important that sensible limits for interrogation are decided upon. One thing that always irks me though are the folloing 2 things:
1) If we are totally open and honest with our standards then the interrrogators threats and insinuations of anything beyond our established standards become impotent. I’m no expert on interrogation but I would imagine that having at least ths threat of extreme violance or discomfort to use against your subjects would be imporant. Even if we would never actually follow through on such threats.
2) WHose standards do we use when deciding where the line is crossed? Our own or the subjects? For instance, we might feel perfectly ok with having pig’s blood (or imitation pig’s blood) rubbed on a subjects body and an interrogation technique, on the other hand we might feel it is wrong to chian someone to thier chair for a day at a time and let them sit in thier own filth. What if the subject hasbout this problem and I’m just throwing it out t the opposite feeling? Who’s standard do we go by? There’s alot of ways to think ahere.
cburke
I don’t understand the mentality that doing whatever we want to the prisoners in Gitmo is okay. One, we have not tried these people – they have not been proven guilty. Two, we signed the Geneva Conventions, and ignoring them pretty much pisses all over our own integrity with the international community. Three, how would we feel if American prisoners were held by a foreign government, without access to counsel, and treated in the exact ways described in teh documens and ligs we have? I don’t think it would sound like so much of cushy incarceration were it one of my friends or family members who is currently in Iraq. And the next time an American is captured as a POW, do you not think our treatment of our prisoners will be remembered?
If you want the government to have the authority to torture terrorists, at the very least (absolute minimum), have a trial to ascertain guilt or innocence, and have a clearly defined protocol of what is and is not acceptable.
In terms of interrogation techniques, torture is highly ineffective anyway. People will say anything when enough pain is applied (and having lived in Chicago, cold concrete *is* painful if you are still), regardless of whether or not it is true. Statements taken from people in pain are more likely to be untrue – whatever it takes to make the pain stop. And what sort of current information can a person who has been incarcerated for a year or more have?
It is an understandable emotional reaction to see the people who hurt our nation suffer. But we have laws so we don’t run around indiscriminately hurting people who look like they might have hurt us, or whose second cousin somewhere hurt us. Due process is invaluable.
cburke
“the documents and logs”
multi-tasking strikes again
Tim F
As long as the defenders continue to believe that ‘turning up the air conditioning’ constitutes the worst of the torture and ‘a few isolated incidents’ constitutes the extend of the mistreatment, there’s no point in talking. We might as well argue about whether we should take memorial day at the Tikrit Marriott. It sounds lovely but only makes sense in some alternate universe.
Until people accept a common set of facts we’ll keep running through this torture-excusing merry-go-round.
AlanDownunder
Stormy 70:
Why would we hold non-terrorists, really? What purpose would it serve?
Not having to admit to having held non-terrorists?
Chances are that military pick-ups are not going to be forensically precise. There’ll be the odd terrorist who might contribute in some way to a second 9/11. There’ll be members of citizens’ militias with purely local concerns asserting 2nd Amendment-type rights as the US brings freedom to his land. There might even the odd cab-driver we hear somuch about.
Andrew J. Lazarus
In Bagram, we turned the heat off on one guy and he croaked. I can imagine you could turn the a/c off in Gitmo and bake someone to death, too (remember what happened in the European or even Chicago Heat Waves?). But torture, that’s muy macho, therefore good.
Tim F
The defenders continue to believe that 1) most detainees are guilty, and 2) abuse did not occur, and 3) if abuse did occur it was isolated.
If I believed those things, I’d probably give the administration a lot more slack as well. I know John would. Maybe George Bush himself has to stand up and declare that we’ve been torturing innocent muslims in a widespread an uncontrolled manner, Maybe even that won’t work.
Brad R.
John, John, John… Karl Rove has calculated that wimpy RINOS like you and Gregory are expendable. The only thing that matters is firing up the Jihadis for Jesus. (And rewarding your corporate buddies.)
Veeshir
I can imagine you could turn the a/c off in Gitmo and bake someone to death, too
You’re exactly right. Now, why hasn’t that happened? The military says nobody died in Guantanamo, are you disputing that? Are the people responsible for the treatment at Bagram being held to account?
You want to debate on whether the guidelines Bush, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez have stipulated are too harsh, that’s okay. But remember that’s what you have to do. Just insulting people, But torture, that’s muy macho, therefore good. doesn’t help anything.
Ben
Stormy,
Stormy says ***Ben – Why would we hold non-terrorists, really? What purpose would it serve?***
Name one instance in which this administration has admitted mistakes or wrongdoing? Does the term lying sack of shit mean anything to you?
Tim F
Nobody has died at Gitmo. If that is the new standard for torture, that the inmate has to die before he’s really ‘tortured’ then the word means nothing. And today there’s more.
There oncfe was a time when Republicans held commanders responsible for the actions of their men. It saddens me to see that the idea was not a matter of principle but of political convenience.
Captain Wrath
See, already this is getting personal. Let’s relax and take a breath.
So, can we agree that turning the temperature up or down to make someone uncomfortable is interrogation, but doing so to the degree it causes injury, disease or death is torture?
Ben
My “attack” was not personal… it was aimed at the Bush admin and not stormy. Sorry that wasn’t clear.
ppgaz
Oh come on, Cap’n. If a terrorist — or terrorist lookalike — expires from the heat, it’s obviously because he didn’t have the sense to properly manage his hydration. If these ragheads would just put down their explosives and their Korans, and carry bottles of Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water like we do, they wouldn’t have to die from a little warm spell.
Oh, sorry …. Powerline took over my brain there for a second. This can happen in Blogworld. One has to strive to maintain a consistent line of bullshit. The way this pseudo-macho “fuck ’em” rhetoric flows off the electronic tongue, one is tempted to start believing it.
They died from the heat? Fuck ’em. They defecated on themselves? Fuck ’em. They turned out to have been captured in error? Well, fuck ’em. Just fuck ’em all.
Or, if you prefer, “nuke ’em.” This suggestion was made to me recently by an educated professional man who is just “tired” of this whole terrorist-insurgency thing. He was not kidding.
cfw
Excellent post, John, and lots of good comments.
Hopefully Instapundit will begin to see the light.
Problem with the “let’s just negotiate a red/blue solution” answer is lack of commonly accepted facts, or equal access to facts.
I would suggest focusing more on a return to standards on a going-forward basis, as opposed to backward looking investigation.
One needs consistency from the mission statement at the company level, through battalion, brigade, division, corps, army and department. That is simply missing, or not publicized.
I have sent detainees to the Mannheim military confinement facility, and the Ft. Ord facility. I visited both facilities, as a lwayer, as well as San Qunetin.
They all ran smoothly because the mission statements fit with due process; the same approach is readily adaptable to Gitmo, Baghram, AbuG.
Problem seems to be an administration unwillingness to give up the option of abuse or torture, for supposed national security.
In my view, Intapundit and those like him put way too much faith (implicitly) in the CIA and its allies supposed ability to “roll up” terrorists or criminals by abusing or coercing detainees into talking.
Having worked with excellent investigatiors, as well as military intelligence folks, I think we give them too little credit when we say they cannot do their job unless allowed to coeerce, threaten, abuse and torture.
In fact, I submit they will have an easier time if they are perceived as humane.
Keep in mind the model of the inspector in the Brothers Karamazov, or Columbo – succesfully breaking into criminal syndicates, or breaking down criminals, requires more subtle “carrot and stick” persuasion than brute force.
Why not forget implicit suggestions that we need to be able to do what the KGB used to do to “roll up” spies in Russia? I for one would put a high value on honor, decency, due process, etc. and ask Bush et al to drop the KGB-style interview techniques from the CIA playbook.
Stormy 70
Serious question here, who has died at Gitmo? I can’t find info on this.
Captain Wrath
Oh, sorry …. Powerline took over my brain there for a second. This can happen in Blogworld. One has to strive to maintain a consistent line of bullshit. The way this pseudo-macho “fuck ’em” rhetoric flows off the electronic tongue, one is tempted to start believing it. ”
With all due respect, this is what I meant when I said things get ‘personal’. Perhaps I should have said ‘irrational’.
Its easy to get nasty and snarky. I know, I succumb to it myself. But, unless we can avoid immediately to the extremes with our emotions and sarcasm, we might as well not discuss it at all.
Maybe I missed it, but I did not see anyone here refer to anyone as a “raghead”. As far as your friend who said ‘nuke em’ and not in jest, that is extreme, and not helpful. However, when some people take the stand that most of the people at Gitmo did not do anything wrong, or that we can interrogate people without making them uncomfortable, or that just shutting down Gitmo is an option are also being foolish.
“Problem with the “let’s just negotiate a red/blue solution” answer is lack of commonly accepted facts, or equal access to facts.”
I would agree with this, but expand it to a lack of common definition or terms. Again, if we do not even define what torture is, or what ‘systemic’ means, we are just talking past each other. Thus, the questions I asked.
ppgaz
Yes, I was in my “Deep Sarcasm” mode.
But your “raghead” retort reminds me of something …. people are so ridiculously touchy around here. My “raghead” reference was obviously not in response to anything anyone said here, but of course, that won’t stop someone here from seizing on it and making something of it.
In Blogworld, as in Usenet, the general trend is to assume that everything is about ME, whoever you happen to be. So if I said something in passing to you, then you are entitled to come along and mount a defense as if every word I used must be referenceable to you.
It’s sort of a perpetual, moving, portable all-weather strawman that we can all carry around and trot out whenever it’s useful.
Not unlike having Republican apologists claim that Durbin called all of our armed forces Nazis, when in fact, taken in context, he said quite the opposite.
The tone of the blogosphere long ago descended to the tone of the alt heirarchies in Usenet. Which is to say, welcome to the boys’ bathroom in high school. Which is to say, if you make the wrong eye contact, you could be into a fight you weren’t looking for.
Tiresome.
Captain Wrath
Ppqaz,
I agree with pretty much everything you said.
The emotionalism is part of the problem, and I do not say I am above it. Its quite easy to get set off when you already feel strongly about something and someone pushes a button, intentional or not.
Look, I am well aware that there is a “nuke ’em all” mindset out there, and some who think we are justified in doing anything to protect ourselves. There are also others who really do not want to see the U.S. win this war, nomatter if we act humanely as possible. We have to acknowledge both exist because we have to be willing to tell them “STFU” and sit down. Many won’t, of course, but by publicly denouncing them, we can seperate the rational from the crazies. Hopefully, the rational can then hash some things out.
What I notice frequently happens is that people are having contentious but respectful discussions, there are always those throwing grenades into the fray to sow chaos.
When I posted the questions, the idea was to focus on the actual barebone issues first, without involving Bush, Durbin, terrorism, liberals, conservatives or anything else liable to generate automatic reactions.
You made me think a little more about this, and I am going to strive even more to avoid jumping into the fray rather than talk about the issues. I think that there is alot of common ground available if we can clear out alot of the crap lying over it. I’ve got to keep that in mind.
Anyway, good post. Thanks.
ppgaz
Stormy and I are going to open a Green Chile and Beer shack in New Mexico someplace. Your food and drinks will be on the house.
He and I agree on little about politics, but we prove that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Maybe we’ll start a trend.
Cheers,
PG
cfw
“or that we can interrogate people without making them uncomfortable”
Reminds me of representing US Army folks jailed in Belgium – they had the right to remain silent, but had to excercise that right in jail. I never saw such detailed “confessions” – 10 pages singl-spaced, by E-3’s with HS education. The statements were filled with falsehoods, in my view.
Anyway, let’s keep in mind the extremely “uncomfortable” and coercive effect of detaining supposed terrorists indefinitely. How much more ability to coerce does the competent investigator really need? When does adding more coercion or abuse or torture tothe mix cease to serve any purpose?
We are not trying to produce reams of jibberish, as opposed to actionable intelligence. Are we really goiing to risk lives of troops on the ground based on intelligence gained by KGB style interviews? Not a good idea, from my perspective.
How do we make calls about where to draw the “too much coercion” line from a practical perspective (leaving aside the law) – from precedents set by the KGB and their ilk?
Is it not safer in the big-picture “battle for hearts and minds” just to stick to established criminal law and procedure, conservatively (small “c”) interpreted?
Captain Wrath
Chili and Beer?
Attempting to bribe me, eh? Who told you my weaknesses, fiend!
Stormy 70
ppqaz – And Scotch, too, for fiesty political conversations at the Chili and Beer shack. Oh, and a little Texas Bar-B-Que, thrown in for good measure.
People get riled up pretty easily when discussing their political passions, but that is what the backspace key is for. I will rant and rave, over-generalize, and lump everyone together and insult them, then I will employ the backspace key. Then I will write a different post. Usually, I throw in some humor to lighten myself up, so I don’t go overboard.
PS I am a girl, not a guy. Have I no feminine qualities? I’ll have to work on that. :)
Andrew J. Lazarus
There have been unconfirmed (by us) allegations of deaths at Guantánamo, and our government has just admitted that a few bad apples (snicker!) have committed torture there (doubtless, only E-1 and E-2s).
Since we have also admitted to creating ghost prisoners whose existence is hidden from the Red Cross, and since we repudiated the Geneva Convention and therefore supply information on prisoners only at our own whim, there is very little way we could find out if prisoners have died at Gitmo, from torture or otherwise, unless the Bush Administration decided to tell us.
The old Sgt. Schultz defense, I guess: “I see nothing… absolutely nothing.”
John Cole
I doubt many of you remember this, but I was Sgt. Schultz at Sgt. Stryker’s Daily Briefing back in the day.
Go here and CTRL F for “schultz” (without the quotes, of course)
ppgaz
As I said to another thread, Storm, no, I didn’t know.
I thought you were pretty even-tempered for a guy. Me, I just fly off the handle. You’ve been a good influence on me here. I appreciate it.
Sorry if I was dense about this. Of course, I am not dense about anything else, ever. Honest.
Really, I mean it.
Stormy 70
That’s ok, but you were the second person who refered to me as a him, so I thought I would set the record straight. Thanks for saying I was a good influence, but I have to say you also were an influence on me. I temper my remarks because I like you guys, and I know we would all have fun at a big party together. (I know, it’s starting to sound like we are picking out china together, with all the love breaking out around here.)
John – I remember Sgt. Shultz at Stryker’s! I seem to remember that he rambled on and on then too. :) You must feel special since it seems like you’ve picked up blog groupies here. Even freshening up the joint for us, too.
ppgaz
I’m more of a paper plate person, really. Washing dishes is …. well, it’s like this. When I am “batching it”, I put out one each, fork, spoon, knife, plate, cup, glass.
Use, rinse, repeat. Similar to camping.
We only get out the china when we are trying to impress relatives.
Stormy 70
I have a full set of my Grandmother’s china, which I have used once, in thirteen years of marriage. Not a china gal, and we use paper plates as often as we can. But they do have a pretty pattern.
Darrell
TimF wrote: As long as the defenders continue to believe that ‘turning up the air conditioning’ constitutes the worst of the torture and ‘a few isolated incidents’ constitutes the extend of the mistreatment, there’s no point in talking. We might as well argue about whether we should take memorial day at the Tikrit Marriott. It sounds lovely but only makes sense in some alternate universe.
Ok, what have you read to lead you to believe that there is real torture going on in Gitmo? .. systematic torture, since you dismiss the ‘few isolated incidents’ argument. Because seems to me all of the abuse allegations in other facilities are being investigated and punishment meted out.
I promise not to get too nitpicky, but please give a couple of examples of what you consider to be torture. The link you provided earlier regarding use of psychologists to better interrogate detainees does not begin to enter into the vicinity of torture as I believe most people, left or right, would define it. Are there cases in Gitmo where we are cutting off fingers and ears or starving the detainees for a week at a time or something similar?
As another poster put it, is there evidence that we are doing anything to the detainees in Gitmo in which the detainee can’t be back on his feet after a hot shower, some food, and a nap? If so, where is this evidence? Because I’m not seeing it in the FBI report linked to by the ACLU.
Captain Wrath
“How do we make calls about where to draw the “too much coercion” line from a practical perspective (leaving aside the law) – from precedents set by the KGB and their ilk?”
That’s a very good question, actually. It ties into what I wrote as to defining the terms. When does coercion become torture? Where do we draw the line?
Well, first, we have to answer your previous question; What does any of this (torture, abuse) get us? If it can be proved that torture is actually counter-productive, than its an easy answer, is it not? What is the logic of torturing someone for no gain, and actually for a loss, considering the negative consequences for doing so? If there is no gain, or if it hurts it more than it helps us, then question resolved. No torture.
“Is it not safer in the big-picture “battle for hearts and minds” just to stick to established criminal law and procedure, conservatively (small “c”) interpreted?”
No. I firmly believe we cannot treat them as criminals for a number of reasons, legal and practical. We did not give criminal trials to hundreds of thousands of POWs in the previous wars we have fought, and giving them to people who do not even have that status is a bad precedent.
Would like to say more but duty calls…
Captain Wrath
Andrew,
Couple of points.
I do not understand the “by us” reference regarding the first article, as it references claims from a Brit who was held at Gitmo. Clarify please.
Regarding the second article; I am sorry to be a little suspicious, but an anonymous source from the UN tells a reporter that another unnamed source seems a little…light. I think we need a little more than that.
In fact, I cannot find it now, but I would not be holding this UN group as a paragon of truth and responsibility. I know I read something just today regarding a UN based group that even Koffi Anon thinks is sketchy. What reminded me was the reference of the four reps at the bottom of the article you cited, as the one I read also mentioned 4 people. They both were demanding to visit Gitmo, and the article I read said they viewed the US’s refusal to let THEM visit was proof of wrongdoing. This, despite the fact that the Red Cross, journalists and officials have been in and out of the place. I know that is vague itself, but I will list the link when I find it.
One thing I do have to ask you is, why the “(snicker)”? I could be wrong, but it leads me to believe you would find pleasure in discovering this was true. I hope I am wrong.