The Torture Memos - Page 3

Torture is more than hurting people. It's hurting people maliciously and in cold blood.

It's like how murder is more than killing someone. It's killing them with a certain intent, which we look on more harshly.

I don't see why one of them has to be valued at what you think is the appropriate level in order to justify condemning the other, though.

Excellent point. It's also--in the case of Bush and Cheney ordering people tortured to elicit false confessions connecting Iraq and al Qaida--a degree beyond malicious aforethought; it's a particularly depraved and cynical disregard for human life.

I guess that's the problem I'm having. I can't fathom why we're so up in arms over policy to torture, but not maim or kill, when we all sit there and go, "Oh, but killing's okay. It's part of war."

It is because we say it is. It's that simple, and starts and stops being that way when we say so. I don't see very well why, with our advances in technology, we aren't but a few years away from casualty-free combat. We already have nerve toxins, not-penetrative ammunition, sonic and resonant weaponry, and unmanned combat units; why isn't there a bigger push to integrate these things more fully? I certainly care more about reducing Allied casualties than I do about arguing the gray moral areas of what does or doesn't constitute "torture."

Oddly, the practice of war takes the act of killing enemy combatants as incentive for the opposing faction to accept what new initiative their enemy is encouraging. Therefor, given that death is the currency for successful campaigning, I posit to you (generally) that not only is war stupid and dumb, but the fact that killing is accepted as a reasonable practice to achieve political goals is, to me, far more abhorrent than torturing someone to less than the point of injury.

And furthermore, to play the moral relativist, I again have trouble taking cause against the Bush administration (in this specific instance, anyway) as long as no one is holding responsible those behind such more careless and permanently damaging war-time atrocities, such as the fallout from nuclear attacks or Agent Orange or Japanese internment camps.

Not that I know of. Just a thought out of my own head.

I guess I have a more objectivist or pragmatic viewpoint about it. Plus, we're not comparing "torture vs. hurting" or "killing vs. murder." We're comparing "torture vs. murder." And that's what any purposeful killing is: murder. And I don't even want to argue semantics over whether killing killers is still murder or not, I'm only pointing out that right now, people are going apeshit over the torture (but not maiming, disabling, or killing) of captured enemy combatants.

Yes, it's wrong. But why, judging by social response, is it so much wronger than killing? I have friends who came back from Afghanistan and Iraq who talk about how they had to gun down children as young as seven and eight because they were under fire from those children. A doctor I work with has personally told me of a time when serving in Afghanistan he had to shoot a teenaged girl at point blank range because he saw her about to set off a bomb she was carrying under her shirt in the middle of the hospital. But we allow for that. We say, "hey, such is war. But torture is different. Loss of dignity is worse than loss of life."

I say, fuck that.

Because those atrocities are not happening now, in our lifetimes. I wasn't alive when we bombed Hiroshima or interred the Japanese; and I was a baby when Agent Orange and DDT were killing and harming people.

To your earlier question, I agree with Schwartz about the malicious, premeditated nature of torture. Added to that is the fact that soldiers in the field often have the option to surrender; detainees being tortured don't. The best they can do is make up a fiction to end the pain.

Also, as opposed as I am to war, sometimes there's just cause, such as self-defense, as in the Revolutionary War, or preservation of the Union, according to the prevailing thinking of the time, not just among the rich but among the populace at large. I'm not the world's greatest expert, but it seems to me that post-World War II, the US's stance on war warped into something opposed to what it was in the past.

In terms of more advanced forms of combat, that's a good question.

ETA (in response to your note above): Both Iraq and Afghanistan are occupations, particularly Iraq, not legitimate wars. There's a difference. After 9/11, the world was sympathetic, and we could have had Osama bin Laden handed to us for trial, provided we tried him in a country that wasn't the US, but instead Bush used it as a pretext for invading Iraq. You can't discuss Iraq and Afghanistan without addressing the insanity of their justifications.

You seem to judge everything on loss of life, so I think I know where you are coming from.

However, the question is if any of those scenarios are equally morally justifiable (or unjustifiable). One would say that defending yourself is different than killing somebody out of pleasure, even though the end result is almost the same.

Keep in mind that the proponents of these torture techniques are making the same argument. They are saying they're saving lives by doing this, but are doing a horrible job proving it. Then you also get into a the argument which has already been kind of visited of, should you do this even when you are 99% that there could be loss of life without that information.

What's a legitimate war?

So Ross, your point is that unless we can correct every crime in history at once, we shouldn't get upset about any particular instance of injustice we encounter?

In the current Islamic conflict, the term "soldier" is quite loose and you only have to look back to today's suicide bombing in Iraq to see that surrender isn't a popular practice with out aggressors.

I think the War on Terror is going to be a radically changing catalyst for our foreign policy in the future. We fight against an enemy that obeys no rules of engagement, has a very limited and elastic hierarchy, and other than religiously-based tyranny, has no real political goals. We, as a nation, may have to come to terms with the idea that our past policy methods may not be successful in meeting this challenge. Likewise, we must be willing to face these new demand or be content to not engage them altogether. If we continue to metaphorically bring knives to a gunfight, we might as well leave the knives at home.

Hardly. And that's just pedantic. But, again, playing the relativist, America has done such worse things (and arguably continues to do so) than torture.

I think my disengagement stems from the fact that, just like the anti-war movement in Congress and the banking scandals, those who would later come out in opposition did absolutely sweet fuck-all to stop them when they could have, and often even enabled their execution.


To me, it's like someone being told a murder is about to happen next door, and then calling the police two days later to give the description of a bloody axe-wielding manic they saw frantically driving away.

This post seems completely opposed to your earlier posts. Firstly, "war of terror" is a ridiculous expression, if we can get that out of the way. Also, who are you talking about having "no real political goals"? Because who exactly you're talking about makes a very big difference when you're talking about people who get lumped into the whole "war of terror" thing.

The general radical Islam movement. Basically, it seeks re-acquisition of Israel and imposition of Sharia. Other than that, it doesn't really ask for much. I hate to make such a glib comparison, but it kind of reminds me of the "mutiny" arc of Battlestar Galactica this season, in the way that in many ways, the aggressors aren't exactly wrong in their anger, but then what? What is radical Islam's plans given that they do win back Israel and impose Sharia? From what I understand, and I could be wrong, not much.


So again to reiterate, torture isn't the answer. But when dealing with an enemy that doesn't want any discernible political item and isn't dissuaded by death, what's the point of war and conflict without finite goals? When it's given that you refuse to bring guns to a gunfight, why show up at all?

No, it just shows how the veneer of civilization is pretty thin on some people. Take away the electricity for a month and these people will be the first ones eating their own children. They've been scared into condoning torture, and no rational argument will change that. Either that, or it's purist partisanship; they support torture because it was Bush policy and they supported Bush.

That goes both ways, you know.

No, I don't. What do you mean?

There's every chance that the vehemence on the anti-torture side is coming from people who are just mad that Gore and/or Kerry didn't win.

And another question, if members of the Bush/Cheney team are found to be punishable for the torture, what does that mean for legislators who kept silent because the documents were classified? Since when did secrecy supersede legality? Does that mean the CIA can hand you a secret memo that admits to the chief drunkenly hitting a pedestrian and you can't say anything about it?

I think those odds are pretty fucking slim, myself. If for no other reason than the Republicans have been getting their asses handed to them in pieces ever since Kerry lost, but mainly because most people who bother to have an opinion on the matter are decent human beings who actually believe that stuff about America being the good guys. I don't know about that last part, but I know a busted Geneva Convention when I see one.

I don't know. Perhaps an investigation is in order.

Noon, January 20, 2001.

That's a fine bit of grandstanding, but there is a sizable contingent of congressmen who at this very moment are molding arguments to seek retribution on members of Bush/Cheney who are some of the very people given first look at the practice and told it was to be used. These are the ones claiming that the documents being "classified" kept them from opening their mouths. That's a pretty thin excuse, to me.

That's a pretty sprawling segue, my friend. From "war is immoral and therefore torture is an acceptable part of it" to "radical Islam has no real goals and how do you fight that." The same case can be made for abortion clinic bombers or Turner Diary enthusiasts. And in both cases, these groups represent tiny fractions of those populations they come to represent, fairly or unfairly. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration managed to radicalize both with "shock & awe" on one front and Fox News/Limbaugh/etc. on the other.

A good deal of the people we're waging war on just want the same things that you or I or anyone in this forum wants -- safe streets, health care, relative freedoms. We're not going to win the "war on terror" because it doesn't exist, but we could ease the violence and suffering in this world with diplomacy and aid. I'm no fan of Hizbolla or Wahhabism, but the way they grew their numbers wasn't to force conversion at the end of a gun but to build schools and hospitals, offer aid, etc. In essence, when Obama says "we'll extend our hand if you unclench your fist," that was probably the most powerful expression the US can make at this point.

Oh yes, another way they grew their numbers didn't require any effort at all on their part. Bush and Cheney handed them an embarrassment of riches with the torture program. Bush and Cheney and their long-held campaign to make Iraq happen, even going so far as using a national tragedy and secret machinations to start torturing people in the effort, did more for the spread of radical Islam than anything a two-bit radical Islamist could ever have dreamed of doing in their wildest fantasies.

One might ask that question of George W. Bush circa the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, cause frankly their "goals" changed with the wind and never sounded all that sincere since they left out the word "oil."

I don't think this talking point is going to get much traction (Snaieke already dragged it out in another thread) because after eight years of Bush and Cheney, I think the specter of democratic politicians catching any of Bush/Cheney's slime doesn't really scare dems or independents. They just want all of the truth to come out.

Nice try, though.

God, where are these people? How is it they don't make up the majority of our elected positions? Why are we at the mercy of one extreme or the other?

It's the ridiculous assumption that there exists only two extremes and that everything the right does the left does in the exact same way that's the fucking problem.

You're so right. If Gore had been president after 9/11 I'd have totally been behind all his waterboarding, walling, boxing, and torture schemes. Assuming they were Earth-friendly, of course..

Well, as a former GOP member, I can tell you that it really does seem that the entirety of the Right has lost its fucking mind.

Seriously, if you think the Dems are extreme you really need to check out politics in the rest of the world sometime. In Europe we would consider them just a teeny bit left of center, at best.

My wife's British, and tells me I'd be a Lib-Dem over there.

But no, I do think the Right is holding the monopoly on extremism right now. The shift in the nation has gone from Lewis Black's, "The GOP is the party of bad ideas and the Dems are the party of no ideas," to "The Dems are the party of middling ideas and the GOP is the party of fucking insane ideas."

This happened after the beginning of the Bush Administration, yes?

I think the basic question is, does the image of America, in the "good" sense, as it was forged post WW2, have a place in the world and the generation of today? And if yes, are the people willing to pay the price for it?
Being the good guy comes with a price, and everything done under the Bush administration (and a good deal of stuff done before them, too, pretty much since Reagan) is a pretty ruthless question of efficiency, rather than morality.

While I am no american, I think a LOT of people would flinch if they realized how big a price there is to pay to be the good guy. Its just easier and more convenient to just behave as opportunistic as you can, and if there is one term that really illustrates the primary motivation, as I see and call it, of the american public today, its "convenience".

Torture is convenient.

*Gore slams fists on desk*
"You'd better not let those starving sons of bitches pass gas! Guantanamo's carbon footprint is bad enough already!"

I have to disagree on the grounds that a reputation as the "good guy" wins wars. In 1991 the Iraqi Republican Guard couldn't surrender to us fast enough. Feeding them all became a logistical hassle. Who would let American forces take him alive now, knowing what goes on our camps?

This is the "emboldening" effect you hear about. We're telling the other side that their sons are better off fighting to the death, and casualties are higher on both ends as a result.

If you view politics as sports, I understand defending torture. But if your politics depends on ideological concerns, I do not.

...Buh-WHA?

I don't even know how to start responding to that.

OK, yes I do: I think a lot of the radical Islamic types in Iraq are pretty interested in helping Iran. Politically. But that's merely the most INCREDIBLY FUCKING OBVIOUS example.

It's dispiriting to see how many people who aren't right-wing fucktards have bought into the "they are crazy and hate our freedoms and that's all there is to their mindset" meme. Yes, there are a bunch of angry hardcore cultists who just want to hurt Americans, and these are the guys who can be convinced to strap themselves to a bomb. But the guys who are sending them out to explode have specific political goals. That's something we need to get straight right now. Because your comments are reflective of the mushy wrong-headedness of people who can't be bothered to understand the problem, and thus don't have any idea of the solutions. It's easier to think of jihadists as crazy Cylons, except that the Cylons supposedly had a plan. The jihadists are just kar-azy! Which leads to dehumanization and despair at the possibility of ever reconciling the cultures.

I'm no expert, or even particularly knowledgeable about the problem, which is hella fucking complicated, but it's clear to me that the first step is to realize that radical Islam is an ingredient in the cocktail here, not the only ingredient. If it was just religion there'd be no insurgency, and neither Al-Qaeda nor the Taliban could sustain themselves as multinational organizations.

That's all fine and well, and I'm more than willing to hear arguments about the political ambitions of al-Qaida and the Taliban, but even in your entire admonition you fail to delineate what exactly those are. I have yet heard of any plan from one of these militant groups that doesn't eventually end with ". . . to further the cause of Sharia and the destruction of Zionism."


Please let me know otherwise.

A lot of the Iraqis and Afghanis just want the US out of their country. That's pretty straightforward. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq, as I mentioned, are working for Iran, directly or indirectly, since the more weak and destabilized Iraq is the less likely it is to be a constraint or a threat--they may also have the long-term goal of literally making Iraq their puppet. Hezbollah likes having power in Lebanon. Muqtada al-Sadr likes holding the reins of power. And so on. Most of these guys probably don't have crackpot dreams of a global Caliphate (though, wacky as it is, that's still a largely political goal too). They just want to attain or hang onto power within their personal region.

Islam's waaaaaaay too conflicted between the various sects and groups to be able to boil it down to "they all want X." Even within Al-Qaeda there are probably a ton of conflicting goals, they've just been able to band together to fight The Great Satan. That's exactly the argument for staying in Iraq--as soon as the US leaves, the sectarian fighting is likely to ramp up. And this is a political issue. The same holds true anywhere you see a whole bunch of jihadis banding together--they all have specific political goals that may conflict, but they hate America more.

But still, attaining or hanging on to power, as you put it, is fairly meaningless when nothing is being done with that authority other than religious-themed oppression. "Power" is not really an end unto itself in any political definition of the word. I think the spectre of sectarian violence that threatens to fill any void we leave is proof enough that, no matter the specific sect of Islamic radicalism involved in conflict, the goals of jihadists are very few and ill-thought out.

Oy.

Please, then, do more than glibly explain what goals extremists don't have.

So-called intelligence expert spread false info about torture, press ran with it. What's frustrating here is, unlike all the other debunked myths (aka: lies) that Bush spun after 9/11, this one still has traction.

There's plenty to be pissed about in that column, but at the end all I could think was "Sean Hannity is going to be waterboarded? Sweet."

I just heard Dr. Darius Rejali, the world's foremost expert on torture, on Thom Hartmann. He has studied the use of torture from the Gestapo to Pinochet's Chile to police abuses to the current torture program and beyond, and his key findings are, without a shadow of a doubt:

*Torture produces bad and unreliable info
*Torture destroys the tortured person
*Torture has a 20-depression/suicide aftermath for the torturer
*Use of torture is a negating factor in a war of ideals (i.e. Bush's declared "war on terror")
*Torture has often resulted from the experienced officials dying or retiring and younger, inexperienced, ignorant officials taking their place

And much more. It was an amazingly informative interview. Rejali is author of the book Torture and Democracy.

Larry Siems has a cheerful little essay on Slate, "How America Came To Torture Its Prisoners".

I still regard individuals who support this sort of thing either as cowards who've been scared into forgetting the difference between right and wrong or sadistic vile human beings who don't know the difference in the first place.  Collectively, I still look at the US as a country and think, "Geez!  What's wrong with you?  You're supposed to be one of the good guys!"  I don't mind saying I'm very disappointed in Uncle Sam over this. 

 

Considering our current leadership and the baffling way Canada seems to follow the US's lead ten years later, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we've got a trick or two up our sleeves regarding the treatment of prisoners ourselves.

 

 

Don't forget the "if my team does it, it's OK" crowd, i.e. Fox viewers, Limbaugh listeners, etc.  The team mentality that creates such uniform solidarity of opinion leaves a void where independent thought, judgment and conscience should go.