torture

Dick Cheney had earlier claimed that some classified CIA documents supported his contention that torture provided information which prevented a terrorist attack, contradicting a report from the CIA’s inspector general. A few days ago Senator Carl Levin reviewed the documents and stated that Cheney’s claims about the classified documents were untrue. Greg Sargent has reviewed an interview Cheney gave with Fox last night, finding that Cheney has backed away from his claims:

There’s a very revealing moment buried in an interview that Dick Cheney gave to Fox News last night that really gives away his game plan on torture.

Specifically: Cheney seemed to edge away from the claim that the documents he’s asking the CIA to declassify will prove unequivocally that torture worked.

The key moment came when his interviewer said: “You want some documents declassified having to do with waterboarding.” Cheney replied:

“Yes, but the way I would describe them is they have to do with the detainee program, the interrogation program. It’s not just waterboarding. It’s the interrogation program that we used for high-value detainees. There were two reports done that summarize what we learned from that program, and I think they provide a balanced view.”

Bear with me here, because this is crucial. Cheney is carefully saying that the documents summarize what we learned from the overall interrogation program. Torture, of course, was only a component of that program. So he’s clearly saying that the docs summarize what was learned from a program that included non-torture techniques, too.

Here’s why this is important. It dovetails precisely with what Senator Carl Levin, who has also seen these docs, says about them. Levin claims the docs don’t do anything to “connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of the abusive techniques.”

My bet is Cheney is planning to cite the valuable intel in the docs and say that the program — of which torture was only a part — was responsible for producing it. He’ll fudge the question of whether the torture itself was actually responsible for generating that information. Cheney is as experienced as any Washington hand at using precise language to obfsucate, and this is the game plan. You heard it here first.

It is understandable that people were shaken up by the events of 9/11. It must have been startling for Dick Cheney to have been carried off by the secret service to an underground bunker. Meanwhile George Bush seemed to be in such a panic that he could not function for a couple of days. We  need level headed leaders who can overcome their initial shock and act responsibly. Richard Clarke, who was also there on 9/11, doesn’t accept shock over the events as justification for the disastrous policy mistakes which followed. He writes in an op-ed:

Top officials from the Bush administration have hit upon a revealing new theme as they retrospectively justify their national security policies. Call it the White House 9/11 trauma defense.

“Unless you were there, in a position of responsibility after September 11, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans,” Condoleezza Rice said last month as she admonished a Stanford University student who questioned the Bush-era interrogation program. And in his May 21 speech on national security, Dick Cheney called the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, a “defining” experience that “caused everyone to take a serious second look” at the threats to America. Critics of the administration have become more intense as memories of the attacks have faded, he argued. “Part of our responsibility, as we saw it,” Cheney said, “was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America.”

I remember that morning, too. Shortly after the second World Trade Center tower was hit, I burst in on Rice (then the president’s national security adviser) and Cheney in the vice president’s office and remember glimpsing horror on his face. Once in the bomb shelter, Cheney assembled his team while the crisis managers on the National Security Council staff coordinated the government response by video conference from the Situation Room. Many of us thought that we might not leave the White House alive. I remember the next day, too, when smoke still rose from the Pentagon as I sat in my office in the White House compound, a gas mask on my desk. The streets of Washington were empty, except for the armored vehicles, and the skies were clear, except for the F-15s on patrol. Every scene from those days is seared into my memory. I understand how it was a defining moment for Cheney, as it was for so many Americans.

Yet listening to Cheney and Rice, it seems that they want to be excused for the measures they authorized after the attacks on the grounds that 9/11 was traumatic. “If you were there in a position of authority and watched Americans drop out of eighty-story buildings because these murderous tyrants went after innocent people,” Rice said in her recent comments, “then you were determined to do anything that you could that was legal to prevent that from happening again.”

I have little sympathy for this argument. Yes, we went for days with little sleep, and we all assumed that more attacks were coming. But the decisions that Bush officials made in the following months and years — on Iraq, on detentions, on interrogations, on wiretapping — were not appropriate. Careful analysis could have replaced the impulse to break all the rules, even more so because the Sept. 11 attacks, though horrifying, should not have surprised senior officials. Cheney’s admission that 9/11 caused him to reassess the threats to the nation only underscores how, for months, top officials had ignored warnings from the CIA and the NSC staff that urgent action was needed to preempt a major al-Qaeda attack.

Clarke discussed specific ideas discussed, including invading Iraq, use of the U.S. courts and prisons to handle suspected terrorists, extreme interrogation methods, and wiretapping. While not discussed in detail in his op-ed, the Bush administration had also received warnings prior to the attack which they had ignored. He concluded:

Yes, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques — but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive.

“I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities,” Cheney said in his recent speech. But this defense does not stand up. The Bush administration’s response actually undermined the principles and values America has always stood for in the world, values that should have survived this traumatic event. The White House thought that 9/11 changed everything. It may have changed many things, but it did not change the Constitution, which the vice president, the national security adviser and all of us who were in the White House that tragic day had pledged to protect and preserve.

The purpose of a terrorist attack is to inflict terror upon the victims. They were far more successful than they might have anticipated considering the degree to which they inflicted terror upon top leaders in the Bush administration, leading them to take actions which were counterproductive to our national security and contrary to our principles.

General David Petraeus, CentCom commander and (soon to be former) military hero of the American right, made an admission today on The Fox News Channel:

Question: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in? 

Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, "Does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion?" When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those. 

He hasn't just come out recently in support of closing Guantanamo and against torture, he has now admitted on Fox News that USA has violated Geneva Conventions.

As I watched news coverage of the speeches on security given by President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday, it occurred to me that by giving in to the left's assertion that waterboarding is torture, we again dilute the meaning of a powerful word, and withdraw it from future important debates.

The first time this thought crossed my mind was during the George Allen/Jim Webb senate campaign. George Allen, pointing to a Jim Webb campaign worker that had been assigned to follow the Allen campaign, said  "This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent... Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

The Webb campaign claimed that "Macaca" was a racial slur. The press immediately began to investigate and found that the word was indeed a racial slur. Used by francophone colonists in the Belgian Congo.(I'm not making this up). To refer to black natives. So, George Allen was a RACIST!!!! He used a racial sliur against one of his opponents' campaign workers.

The Webb campaign made the charge stick. George Allen had uttered a racial slur used by francophone colonists in the Belgian Congo against an American of Indian decent.

I thought then that people who had experienced real racism (and there is plenty of it in the U.S.) must have felt somewhat used. The Webb campaign had taken a legitimate and painful experience and cheapened it for political gain. They were equating what was obviously a nonsensical word that Allen had come up with on the spur of the moment, to other words too horrible to mention.

What the Webb campaign did was cheapen the word "racism". They used it to benefit themselves and in so doing took a little bit of the punch out of the word that describes suffering and injustice.

I have had the same thought during the "torture" debate recently. Most of us do not think of torture as being administered with a doctor standing by with a stopwatch and an instruction manual that tells them how far they can legally go. Again, a word has been cheapened for political gain. I heard Anderson Cooper make the case last night that North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, and North Korea had used the same torture methods  asthe United States. This is an obscenity, and I for one am sick of having the left usurp the language for their own benefit.

The unintended consequence is that they dilute the meaning of important words, and with them important issues and events.

For those of you who support "truth commissions" on the issue of torture, you must provide me with some concrete assurance that it would not devolve into a witch-hunt.  As of yet, I see no reason why it wouldn't.  A witch-hunt is the exact opposite of the rule of law; it is, instead, rule of the mob.  The danger of witch-hunts, of course, is that the zeal of the mob is so strong and so unrestrainable that it ends up destroying those which it shouldn't.  Note that I didn't say "it ends up destroying the innocent" because that is only rarely the case.  Targets of witch-hunts typically aren't innocent angels; they themselves may be guilty of some sin.  Even most of the infamous Salem "witches" were guilty of something (e.g., drinking on the Sabbath, lying to investigators, being 'juvenile delinquents'), just not witchcraft.  But, in the self-righteous atmosphere of the witch-hunt, every sin is considered an irredeemibly damnable offense, and yet one more reason to "dig deeper" to find the "real truth". In this case, I think the most likely result would be that the so-called "truth commission" will end up criminalizing political decision-making.  You can say that George Bush made some poor decisions, and I'd be the first to agree with you.  But that doesn't mean he's a criminal and a traitor, and I don't see any evidence that the mob won't be satisfied until George Bush is put away for treason.  Once the mob gets going, though, there's no way to know where it will end.

If you really favor the rule of law, the answer is simple: prosecute the alleged torturers themselves using the existing law.  Not lawyers, and not politicians.  But it's the truth commission itself, though, that would be corrosive to the rule of law, because it would demonstrate that the law can be sidestepped at a moment's notice by the unrestrained passions of the mob.  Suddenly, the laws on torture would mean nothing; what would matter instead is what the inquisitors of the truth commission thought, using their politically motivated and emotional views on torture.

If you think the law itself insufficiently prohibits or punishes torture, again the answer is simple: change the law.

For you Trekkie fans out there, the TNG episode "The Drumhead" is the classic example of the witch-hunt.  It behooves a re-evaluation at this moment as this nation may soon be thrown into the abyss of drumhead trials.

When Obama was elected president and the democrats increased their control over congress by a wide margin last November, many on the left envisioned a delightful scene unfolding:

Picture it:

A federal courtroom, filled with reporters, foreign press, a presiding judge, and at the defendants' table, two well known figures in bright orange jumpsuits-Dick Cheney and George Bush.

"Would the defendants like to make a statement before I sentence them?" the judge asks. Bush looks around the room thoroughly confused, unaware of the gravity of his situation. Cheney, his arrogant sneer replaced by a look of anguish and despair, rises to speak, his leg irons rattling in the silent courtroom. "Your honor I would like to beg this court and the American people for mercy in this case . . .we were simply trying to protect . . ." The judge cuts him off. "Silence! The court will not hear of your lame attempt to defend the contemptuous actions of your administration!" Cheney slinks back into his chair.

The judge then reads the sentence "you will be confined to federal prison for the rest of you natural lives . . ." The crowd gasps as the two are led from the court by armed marshals. Justice! Sweet justice!!!! Church bells ring as people gather to in town squares across the land . . .

But that's not exactly how its played out . . .

 And of course, it never was going to play out that way. Trumped up charges of war crimes against political opponents works well in Banana Republics, but not in the United States of America.

 And now we are finding out that some of the very democrats yelling the loudest about "Truth Commissions" and "War Criminals" were indeed in positions of power and well aware -and even supportive- of the enhanced interrogation techniques they now are so appalled by. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are getting some very bad press as they try to find wiggle room foir their past positions on and knowlege of the issue. Pelosi's newsconference was hard to watch as she twisted and turned and generally looked guilty.

The truth it is said, will set you free. Partial truths will get the Speaker into very hot water.

I'm noting the intersection today of the criticisms of Muhammed for his 'sins' and the criticisms of the Bush Administration's attitude toward water boarding.

What most people didn't object to in 2002 while the fear of terrorism was a close as their breath, with the subsiding of that fear and memory, the public is now moreso criticizing Bush and Co for failing to live up to American ideals during time of war.

[It is noted that indeed there were many who objected DURING the war.]

In this context, I offer a review of the biography of Muhammed:

To understand the prophet we have to understand the environment he had to work with and the culture of chivalry that he was part of.He was not born in an age of social security, old age homes and political correctness.

Muhammad's mission emerged in a war zone, if u want a modern parallel think of the Krips and Bloods magnified by a thousand, Think ethnic cleansing in Bosnia/Serbia. For those with more historical erudtiion think of Japan in the Muromachi period.

In the midst of such turmoil and suffering a noble warrior emerges, his basic message to the people is that we are all the same, no tribe or person is superior to another there is only one god ie we are all part of the unity of things.

This in a nutshell is the sahadah or testimony of the Islamic faith. He preaches the message in peace at first and maintains this peaceful mission despite persecution of him and his followers. When the persecution becomes too great and the powers that be refuse to change their evil ways, god grants him the authority to fight. Muhammad takes up the mantle for war even though his army is still low in their numbers and their resources pitiful. Miraculously with he help of God, Muhammed an his followers are able to overcome their adversaries and are able to create a new civilisation. This is how a Hollywood movie would portray the prophets life, it's a lot more digestible now isn't it?

Muhammad sanctioned the death of a lot of people, but he spared the lives of a lot of people too even though he would be justified in taking their lives as an example to others or in self defense.

Some people will avoid the truth and become enemies of it,or it is their dharma to protect the old order,rightly or wrongly(as is the case of his own uncle)This will lead to more bloodshed injustice and suffering than if they are allowed to live.

God wont just wave a wand and everyone will be cleansed and purified, this defeats the whole purpose of human existence,destiny and responsibility. When we are able to extricate our limited grasp of the human experience from our cosy suburban cages we can see the true genius of the prophet. In a war situation, a person has to be a warrior, The prophet of Islam is the greatest warrior that ever lived, he did not shy away from the responsibilities and the horrors of war, for someone who was of such a sensitive and ascetic disposition it must have been unbearably painful.In Muhammed we see the personification of Arjuna in the Bhagvad Gita.Muhammed waged war,selflessly and with absolute trust in gods will(bhakti).He did not indulge in the power and privelige his victories bought him(he married mostly widows and died with hardly anything to his name.) In the character of the prophet Muhammad we see the character of God, that is what is meant by his saying `he who has seen me has seen god'. As god says his wrath is great, but his mercy overrideth his wrath.In fact gods wrath is illusionary, it is a mercy in disguise.(that is an esoteric principle which need exploration)

Muhammad was harsh and decisive when necessary, in life harshness is necessary ,let alone in a period of warring states. The harshness he displayed is as the harshness of god. Muhammad was equally generous (he spared the jew that bewitched him,forgave the people of Taif etc etc. He always maintained that the peaceful path was superior to the path of confrontation.

Muhammad and Islam is problem for people who have a problem with accepting reality as it is and want spirituality to be an escape from facing the truth about ourselves and the evil within us.

All Reliogus mythology,in fact all moral systems emerge out of conflict betwen opposing forces,so it seems very peculiar that Islam is singled out as being inhernetly violent, when in fact all moral systems we know in any civilisation have pretty much the same origins.Christ did not bring a new civilisation,he was a reformer of an existing one. Muhammed integrated both yin and yang of the spiritual path.He was able to be the sitting and walking Buddha in one.In his example i can see the spiritual perfection aspired towards by a sage in every religion,he managed to reconcile heaven and earth and mastered and mediated between both.

Muhammad is a true example to all humanity of how spirituality should be exercised in all conditions of life,not just when we have the luxury to live in an ideological bubble.  A truly remarkable Human Being.  

-jin (Amazon book reviewer)

 I also take just a moment to say that I find some comments here concerning those who follow Islam to be as 'extremist' as the recent characterizations here of Islam and the people who practice that faith.

I have known many Muslim people who are in no way extremists, violent or ignorant.

On the whole, of those I've met, I've found them to be intelligent, reverent, and much more mild mannered than most who participate on this blog!

From my studies of the history of all religions it seems apparent that each 'prophet' came asa wayshower to a different population at various times thru history. Mohammed delivered amessage that could be heard and accepted by the desert population of the Middle East, and so it would come as no surprise that it spoke to them 'from where they were'. I find it helpful tohear the teachings (whatever the religion) with that in mind.

 Torture News Roundup: Evidence & Excuses

[Over 40 sources. Enlighten yourselves.]

See Here Umm...Matty, has the thought occurred to you that we might want to mete out worse punishments/interrogation methods for hardcore terrorists than we would for some random street thug?!?

That's just my first thought.

To the Citizens of America:

The U.S. Army tortured me. It began when I was sent by plane to Fort Knox, Kentucky.

I arrived wearing only a thin shirt and pants and was forced to stand outside in weather that was almost freezing. Then my clothes were taken from me and my head was shaved. I was put into a crude, ill-fitting uniform while soldiers yelled at me. There were quite a few others with me. We were all afraid, because if we didn’t do what the soldiers said, we were forced to fall to the ground and lie on our stomachs, then try to push ourselves up until our muscles burned with incredible pain while the soldiers yelled at us and used degrading terms.

One time they put us all in a long line and other soldiers stuck painful needles in our arms. Another time they put us in a room and filled it with tear gas and made us say our name and a number that they had assigned to us. Every day 20 or so of us were forced to go naked into a room where hot water sprayed from the walls. They used sleep deprivation constantly, and if we fell asleep at the wrong time we were again forced to lie on our stomachs, or even forced to run around the compound holding a heavy wood and metal object over our heads.

Some of us broke and were sent away, who knows where. Others, like me, were sent to an even tougher place where a very thick substance called “starch” was added to our uniforms. This “starch” kept any air from going through the crude fabric. We spent several hours a day in stress positions in the hot sun, standing straight up, not even allowed to move our eyeballs. I was forced to do things like jump off a high platform, to carry a heavy sack on my back for miles, and to crawl on my stomach through mud while the soldiers shot machine gun bullets over my head.

One day they told me that I had “graduated” and was now something called a Second Lieutenant. Although this happened over 40 years ago, I’ll never forget the experience, and will always be thankful to the Army for making me able to take life’s little annoyances in stride.

Richard Boren

Scottsdale, AZ