Torture is illegal and has been for years. Nothing in the McCain amendment addresses torture, what it defines is something else entirely. Worse, its scope is so vague and so broad it could include just about anything you want to include as demeaning. If you think about it, locking somebody in a cell is intrinsicly inhumane and degrading.

Agents of the US govt are 100% forbidden from carrying out abortions as part of the duties.
Democrats accept this.

Agents of the US govt are 100% forbidden from carrying torture as part of their duties? Dick Cheney accepts this?

"Worse, its scope is so vague and so broad it could include just about anything you want to include as demeaning."

Who is you? The US govt will be interpretating it, as a general rule (I doubt SCOTUS will intervene aggressively on a national security matter where the law is vague)

Often untrue, of course, but amusing. If you're gonna throw rhetorical bombs, might as well be clear that you're being over the top.

Reynolds in probably right that the ridiculous nature of many of the "torture" charges (wrapped in an Israeli flag?!?) has resulted in the predictable but somehow unexpected cheapening of the term, and accompanying backlash.

Victor Davis Hanson has a pretty straightforward view: yes, renouncing torture results in more dead Americans, and anyone who thinks it won't is kidding themselves. America should still accept the McCain amendment, albeit with open, clear eyes:

"Castigating our misdemeanors, while mostly ignoring the felonies of real barbarians, seems to ensure these sidelined utopians a sense of easy moral smugness. We see that in regard to Guantanamo Bay. Europeans fixate on American interrogations of captive murderous terrorists but remain silent about thousands who have been killed, tortured or forgotten in Fidel Castro's gulag a few miles away. Iran, North Korea, Serbia and Saddam's Iraq tortured and executed tens of thousands without much fear that either the United Nations or the Europeans would spend their own lives and treasure to stop such endemic barbarism.

There is also a danger that once we try to quantify precisely what constitutes torture, we could, in the ensuing utopian debate, define anything from sleep deprivation to loud noise as unacceptable. Indeed, we might achieve the unintended effect of only creating disdain for our moral pretensions from incarcerated terrorists. They would have no worries of suffering pain but plenty of new demands on their legalistic hosts, from ethnically correct meals to proper protocols in handling their Korans.

So we might as well admit that by foreswearing the use of torture, we will probably be at a disadvantage in obtaining key information and perhaps endanger American lives here at home. (And, ironically, those who now allege that we are too rough will no doubt decry "faulty intelligence" and "incompetence" should there be another terrorist attack on an American city.) Our restraint will not ensure any better treatment for our own captured soldiers. Nor will our allies or the United Nations appreciate American forbearance. The terrorists themselves will probably treat our magnanimity with disdain, as if we were weak rather than good.

But all that is precisely the risk we must take in supporting the McCain amendment - because it is a public reaffirmation of our country's ideals. The United States can win this global war without employing torture. That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists also defines the nobility of our cause, reminding us that we need not and will not become anything like our enemies."

I'll add that there will also be an additional body count/ consequences count in the Arab/Islamic world. With less intelligence, larger-scale and less targeted responses will be a fact of life as part of our defense of our culture and way of life.

I guess I'm OK with that, too. Let the US army Field Manual be the standard, then.

As A.L. is quick to remind us, there are no pristine choices in the world.

"Who is you? The US govt will be interpretating it, as a general rule (I doubt SCOTUS will intervene aggressively on a national security matter where the law is vague)"

When the lawsuits start flying we shall see. Btw it seems to me congress will have given terrorists held overseas standing in federal court with this law. Should make things interesting when we take tens of thousands of prisoners in the next shooting war. A smart enemy would have their troops lay down their arms and call their lawyers.

I'm under the impression that most Republicans are against torture, except those under the sway of VP Dick Chainsaw. And he supports torture unfetted by any constraints other than…well, other than nothing.

While I'm at it, there's something pitiful about watching you guys insist we aren't doing torture, while at the same time trying to hide where and what we really are doing. Since no one knows exactly what techniques we are employing, you guys are just taking it all on faith. Germans comes to my mind, as to Trent's, but for very different reasons.

"While I'm at it, there's something pitiful about watching you guys insist we aren't doing torture, while at the same time trying to hide where and what we really are doing."

Now there is some circular reasoning. I could use the same logic to prove UFOs are being covered up at Area 51. Why else would they be keeping them secret at Area 51? Ever consider there may be some legitimate reasons to keep the location of high value Al Qaeda prisoners secret? Only one steeped in the law enforcement paradigm of terrorist fighting could think like that.

"Since no one knows exactly what techniques we are employing, you guys are just taking it all on faith."
We know exactly what techniques. We've seen the reports out of Guantanimo. They keep them awake, they make them cold, the waterboard them, they play rock music at them. Its an insult to compare that to testicular electricution, mutilation, flaying, or in other words, actual torture.

"I'm under the impression that most Republicans are against torture"

Indeed if WaPo is to be believed, Rice is for the McCain amendment.

"Reynolds in probably right that the ridiculous nature of many of the "torture" charges (wrapped in an Israeli flag?!?) has resulted in the predictable but somehow unexpected cheapening of the term, and accompanying backlas"

Reynolds is right.

Its also true that the stupidity of certain folks in allowing the use of Gitmo techniques in Iraq, and the overuse of certain techniques, and the apparently sloppy application to the point where some folks died, etc, etc have resulted in an excessive backlash against harsh techniques. Which may well cost lives.

I agree with that. The statutes are on the books, they simply need to be enforced. A big part of our problem is that there is a real sense of nobody being on top of this. We've locked up a number of the soldiers on the ground that have perpetrated illegal acts, but the chain of command comes away untouched. Further regulation wont change that atmosphere, only enforcement will.

Mark, I am sort of surprised at you - you make an arguement about faith and what we know:

We know exactly what techniques. We've seen the reports out of Guantanimo. They keep them awake, they make them cold, the waterboard them, they play rock music at them. Its an insult to compare that to testicular electricution, mutilation, flaying, or in other words, actual torture.

Sort of makes me sick. Not sure if it is the idea that partially drowning someone is not torture, or that you seem to have blind faith in what you are told. Did you forget the dogs? The electrodes? The pictures of rape? The dead bodies pounded to a pulp?
But hey, what ever floats your boat. Be Clintonian about your definitions.

Andrew J. Lazarus raises the key point here. There are activities that terrorist suspects might be subjected to: torture? infliction of discomfort? In the absence of meaningful definitions, I'll call them X.

All parties seem to agree that most X are immoral and illegal, if performed by Americans, on American soil. As described by Michael Scheuer and others, the Clinton Administration devised renditions to faclilitate X, so that US intelligence agencies could get the information held by the captured terrorists. Since X was being performed by foreign nationals in foreign countries, X was Not Illegal, and Not A Problem.

The Bush Administration has signed on to this philosophy and expanded its implementation.

Far from being a distraction, consideration of the derided "ticking time bomb" scenario should guide our actions. Assume 'we' hold a likely terrorist who is likely to have crucial information that would save innocent lives. (In the real world, the existence and utility of such information will never be certain.)

• Under these circumstances, which actions X are permitted? Which are categorically forbidden, no matter what?

The current situation is repellent. We have stumbled into a place where a wide range of X are forbidden to Americans on American soil, but encouraged once rendition to Eastern Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East has taken place. In dictators' prisons, our proxy interrogators can take the actions that 'we' will not, to gain the information the 'we' desire.

In what way is this state of affairs honest, or honorable, or effective?

Human Rights Watch and the ACLU think the inviolability of the terrorist's person is more important than an increased likelihood of discovery of a device in New York, or a plot in Paris. Rather than adjourning procedures to Rumania or Damascus, they should be made to present their case fully, rather than as pious and empty talking points.

That "no X, under any circumstances" position will get a sympathetic hearing in some countries, but not others ( via Insty )

In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way.

By deputizing others to do America's dirty work, Clinton and Bush have enabled us to duck a necessary debate. In that light, the discussion that the McCain amendment has provoked is long overdue.

"Not sure if it is the idea that partially drowning someone is not torture"

'"Water Boarding":http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866&page=1 The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.'

I wouldnt call that partially drowning, considering water doesnt actually touch the body and all. Odd that such a horrendous practice is used to train our our troops to resist interrogation. I beleive there are several thousand military instructors that need to be arrested for torture under your definition.

"or that you seem to have blind faith in what you are told."

Why do you have blind faith in what you assume?

"Did you forget the dogs? The electrodes? The pictures of rape? The dead bodies pounded to a pulp?"

I cant forget what has never been shown to me. Please site the relevant evidence that US policy includes rape, electricution, and beating bodies to a pulp.

"All parties seem to agree that most X are immoral and illegal, if performed by Americans, on American soil."

Not so. There is a difference between being illegal and being subject to court review. When a single renegade judge from the 9th circuit can set Khalid Sheik Mohammed free its wise to keep him out of their reach.

I'm in agreement with Mark Buehner #10. It's his relationship to the other Mark Buehners that I don't understand. Perhaps the missing step is to realize that at the top of the chain of command (say, in the Oval Office) there are officials who see no limits to appropriate techniques of interrogation—who, indeed, see the abrogation of all limits on Executive authority [see point 2 of link] as a highly desirable and necessary component of the post-9/11 world—and they have created enough ambiguity that no one in between them and the various non-coms and privates who got busted is willing to take charge.

As for the inane Area 51 analogy, when the VP calls Congressmen into his office to order them no to press for a bill revealing the UFOs in Area 51, let me know. All of recorded history tells us what happens in secret tribunals and secret jails is very ugly, and in your touching faith that we have finally encountered an exception, you are being played.

And finally, those of you who believe that Practice X can not be torture because our own soldiers are submitted to it as part of POW training, are your spouses familiar with your attitudes towards voluntary and forcible submission?

Whether or not U.S. soldiers are subjected to X is pertinent. It reflects a universal moral standard (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and legal standard (in countless domestic civil rights cases, police are prepared to testify that "yes -- I've been maced before.")

Andrew, all of your arguments start with the assumption that we are torturing people and it is being actively concealed. You understand how it is impossible to engage in that debate when you are aleady assuming the conclusions?

As far as the voluntary/forcible argument, we are also forcibly detaining these terrorists. Dont you have a problem with that? Of everything being done to them sticking them in a cell for an indeterminate length of time cut off from outside contact is almost certainly the most psychologically and physiologically damaging. How would you address that charge?

AJL #15:

> those of you who believe that Practice X can not be torture because...

You're referring to something; I'm not sure what. Are you suggesting that all forms of interrogation are morally equivalent to one another? That any and all coercive techniques must be always out of bounds? That the entitlements of possible terrorists are absolute, and do not compete with the security rights of citizens? If those are your opinions, by all means argue them.

Whether or not U.S. soldiers are subjected to X is pertinent.

Whether or not they are subjected to X if captured by an authority that claims to follow the same rules we do might have some precedential value. The claim that if we do it to prepare our soldiers who might be mistreated by terrorists or rogue states means it isn't torture and we can do it to our captives is illogical nonsense.

Then, of course, there's the story of an American GI who was beaten into permanent brain damage in a training exercise where the others thought he was a recalcitrant prisoner. Those of you who think this treatment would have been OK if he really were a prisoner, raise your hands.

Just to flay the opposite side of the comparison:

Democrats publicly "claim" to want to see Abortion safe legal and rare, and then in practice and act and choice of position on legislation, do everything in their power to make sure it remains prevalent, ubqiuitous, and entirely unfettered, regardless of circumstance.

More rabid partisans may make a similar charge against Republicans on the issue of torture, but realistically? Some may want us not to take any tool off the table, consider use with prejudice, but almost no one would want it to be pervasive or extensive, and surely not extreme. (As in, how Baathist, or even Chinese or Soviet torture was formerly conducted...)

For the purposes of comparison, however, the irony is instructrive.

Evidence that we torture:

Well, let's see. We have the various prisoners dead of homicide. We have a White House memo stating that the President can make torture lawful in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. We have Abu Ghraib. We have allegations of detainees who were released from US custody. We have statements of the FBI. (It's very telling how you-all repeat the one allegation, about use of the Israeli flag, that's pretty silly, and ignore the beatings and shacklings.) We are surely complicit in "extraordinary rendition" to countries that perform torture. The German Arab we kidnapped by mistake says he was beaten and tortured—not to mention what this shows about why the civilized world doesn't operate with no trials and secret prisons.

Did you really think they were going to televise the torture? What sort of evidence do you want?

Actually, Andrew, the illogical nonsense here is the assumption that anything done to an American serviceman as part of interrogation resistance training must be torture, because it aims to help them resist torture that US service members (McCain prominent among them) were subjected to in the past.

That is the height of idiocy. By your logic, my recent flu vaccination was biological warfare.

I note, also, that you avoid discussing what the methods that sparked the need for this training consisted of. Probably because if you did detail them, the disproportion would become evident more or less immediately.

The reasonable argument does in fact rest with those who say that if this is something we will condone with our own soldiers as a training device, then it meets reasonable standards of humaneness. In contrast, the notion that terrorists should receive better treatment than American soliders from the American military itself is deeply bizarre.

Unless you're a Democrat, I suppose.

Attitudes like these are what produces the backlash described above. Properly so.

I suppose that I might as well make it a sweep and point out the additional illogic of Andrew bringing in a training death as evidence. It may surprise you to note that deaths in military training and service away from the front happen at a low but steady rate.

Sometimes, that's just the price one pays for training people to do dangerous things. People die skydiving, too. Other times, those deaths are a result of culpable negligence or malice, and result in charges against other military members.

Andrew presented a case that was probably in the latter category, but what does it prove?

Under Andrew's logic, grenade training would be banned because Mr. Hasan Al-Akbar decided to roll a few under his commanders.

But then, he's also the guy that wanted the USA to get down on its knees before that thief Kofi Annan, and beg forgiveness for invading the source of his son's unearned income.

Leftist logic, go figure.

Andrew, you are so full of manipulation its bordering on willful lying.
-The deaths you cite in Afghanistan led to the conviction of 7 service members. You dont generally arrest and convict those who are following standard operating procudure, kinda puts a damper on the work day.
-You claim the FBI memo referenced beatings. That is a flat out lie.
"The same agent said that he or she did not witness any "physical assaults" while at Guantanamo. "

"Did you really think they were going to televise the torture? What sort of evidence do you want?"

Again, you are assuming your own conclusions. You are classifying all the things we acknowledge happen as torture, when we do not agree, and then repeatedly pointing to them as evidence. What do I want? I want eyewitnesses who saw or performed beatings under orders. I want to see the scars from whippings or mutilations. I want, in short, some evidence of a government policy that is actually torture, of which we cant seem to agree to a definition. Hey, if you like i can gladly apply my standard of 'imprisonment is torture' and show that every state in the union plus the federal government is rife with torture.

In contrast, the notion that terrorists should receive better treatment than American soliders from the American military itself is deeply bizarre.

In WWII we had volunteers (conscientious objectors) for semi-starvation studies and I think we hanged Japanese who treated our POWs pretty much the same way. The point of the "training exercise" story was to suggest that the trainees obviously thought that learning gross abuse of prisoners was on the agenda. Accidental misunderstanding of the lesson of the day, or accidental misapplication? Not so clear.

With respect to the points in #21, Andrew is on more solid ground (mind, his other stuff rested on nothing at all...).

JC presented an HRW report in another thread that included testimony from US military personnel, and there have been abuses. More to the point, the soldiers were asking what the limits were and getting contradictory answers.

Whatever the form of the solution, that's a totally unfair position to put US soldiers into. Somehow, this stuff has to be made very clear.

Beyond that, it's war. When we make mistakes, we hold people to account and over time, we fix them (and McCain would not have to be making this effort if ithad been fixed faster). On to victory.

The White House memo flap...

BS then, and BS now. It was a lawyer's argument, aimed at trying to sort out a legalistic tangle around lines of authority, what "torture" means in a legal sense, etc. Surprisingly, the concept actually is somewhat vague, and does NOT mean "whatever Andrew J. Lazarus decides he doesn't like today."

Legal counsel SHOULD be doing stuff like this. But just as foreign policy is a matter for executive judgement and not some mythical dispositive "answer" from your intel guys, the same is true after the memo is received from your legal guys. There's nothing wrong with the memo. There is something wrong about all this stuff not being clarified before 2005.

This should have been clear about a month or so after that memo, following an aggressive public debate. Instead, this administration - as it so often has - strode boldly forward, then ducked, froze, and handed our enemies a golden opportunity (I swear, it's a pattern with W).

Personally, my preferred approach would have involved a LOT of homicides. A whole bunch of military tribunals, followed by firing squads to execute a significant fraction of the terrorists as the war criminals they are. The bodies (since these people are not true Muslims) would then be wrapped in pigskin and cremated, before scattering the ashes in the ocean never to be found again.

That, too, might cost intelligence in some cases - though one could still choose the cases, and you never know what kind of plea bargains might arise with just punishment hanging over their heads.

But that, too, would send a very clear and necessary moral statement: the laws of war exist for EVERYONE'S protection, and systemic, intrinsic violators like international terrorists will be punished as those laws and long tradition permit.

A message never sent, which is one of the things that has allowed a Left that has cheerfully apologized for Saddam, Milosevic, Pol Pot, and their fellow torturers for decades to define this debate.

That, and the fact that we still need to have this discussion in the absence of debate and clarity long ago, are the real scandals here.

Why imprisonment is torture:

"The mental health of prisoners is a particular concern,1–3 with suicide rates six times higher than in the general population.45 Much of the literature on mental health of prisoners has focused on epidemiological prevalence studies of formal mental health problems. An Office for National Statistics study found that 14% of female prisoners and 7% of male prisoners have a psychotic illness6 compared with an overall figure of 0.5% in the general population. "

And speaking of our friend Sami Al-Arian
"Maybe my husband is not tortured physically, but mentally and emotionally," Nahla Al-Arian said. "I want this nightmare to end."

Al-Arian has been held for 14 months at Coleman Federal Penitentiary on charges he used an Islamic think tank and a charity he founded to raise money for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He is being held in a unit designed to house disruptive prisoners.

Nahla Al-Arian and Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on Islamic-American Relations, said Al-Arian is held 23 hours a day in a small cell.

They said Al-Arian continues to be strip-searched despite a judge's order that such searches stop and has been denied access to religious services. He is only allowed one 15-minute telephone call per month, they said."

Anybody who doesnt agree with me that imprisonment is torture is a torture loving nazi.

In a June "urgent report" to the FBI director from the Sacramento field office, for example, a supervising special agent described abuses [in Iraq [–AJL] such as "strangulation, beatings, placement of lighted cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings and unauthorized interrogations."
 
The supervisor added that some military officials "were engaged in a cover-up of these abuses."

Congress has shown great interest in stating exactly what the boundaries of lawful interrogation are (the Army Field Manual). Just why is it that VP Chainsaw demurs? Oh, I know, he just doesn't want to tip off Al Qaeda. It couldn't possibly be that he's interested in the extraction of "intelligence" (including false alarms) by torture.

I deleted what I was going to write here for Godwin's Law. But you might check out just how little documentation survived connecting the uppermost echelons of a certain government with the implementation of their most wicked endeavor.

Andrew (#24)

I suppose I should mention that SERE training is mandatory for many roles within the US military. But just to make it really even, we'll allow al-Qaeda prisoners to volunteer for semi-starvation studies too, if they wish.

Now, why does this mandotory/ voluntary thng matter? Because it goes to the heart of the arguments Andrew dishonestly uses.

Something tells me the Americans imprisoned and starved by the Japanese didn't volunteer for that part of the program. Maybe Andrew knows something I don't - but otherwise, the comparison is as dishonest as his other lines of argument to date.

The US military will force its soldiers to go through SERE training. It will not force them to undergo semi-starvation experiments. There's a reason why not, an that reason goes to humaneness and the duties owed a fellow citizen.

To argue that the standards for terrorist war criminals should be better than this is twisted at the most fundamental level.

So, after arguing that a flu shot = biological warfare (SERE = the treatment it trains people to resist more effectively, treatment Andrew carefully avoids mentioning), and grenade training should be cancelled because Hasan Akbar used them to kill fellow soldiers (someone died in SERE, therefore they must have thought recklessly hurting a fellow soldier was the purpose, therefore it's evil), we now have the proposition that says consent doesn't matter (hey, we indicted the Japanese for starving our boys, but let our own soldiers volunteer for semi-starvation studies). To the laboratory of leftist logic in the torture "debate", we now add a notion equivalent to "all sex is rape."

The consistent direction of all of these arguments, and the amazingly illogical and dishonest standards being used, make it pretty clear that this debate, for Andrew, has very little to do with torture.

In that respect, he's hardly alone. But the fact that the debate has been abandoned to those like him is our fault - and the lesson should be learned.

Might the difference be that Democrats say it and don't mean it while Republicans don't say it but do?

It is interesting to see the wheel being reinvented ad nauseum.

There is a huge amount of published research on the widespread use of torture during the Algerian war of independence 1954-61, and the French government's suppression of the OAS there and in France.

I was somewhat familiar with that research in coining the pun, "Torture should be safe, legal and rare". That research shows exactly why torture by our side in the war on terror should be rare and done only in truly extreme situations. The slippery slope argument applies here in spades.

Im still waiting to hear a definitive definition of what torture is.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with either position.
And to Coward Katzman's statement:"With less intelligence, larger-scale and less targeted responses will be a fact of life as part of our defense of our culture and way of life" because we do not use torture. Think about it. Less intelligence is like the old moon photo shoots where the camera rolls till the rocket carrying it hits the ground. A ton of photos to this day many have not been developed but its intelligence. Interogation is like everything else quantity is less important than quality. Why? When intelligence is used properly the quality will save time and effort because it is inherently correct to begin with. Quanity becomes time consuming to analyze and can lead to dead ends and false trails as opposed to targeted one's that can be chased down quickly.
Larger scale and less targeted responses. Again false because a skilled practioner of interogation wants a concise response. This will give concise points of actions for both the strategy and tactics of rolling up cells. The Coward Katzman acts as though regardless of the info we will use a sledge hammer when a fly swatter will do.
Get a grip Coward Katzman

That was an excellent post. I think the biggest issue with either definition is whether the word 'rare' should have been used. ;-)

*Sigh.

I still say we don't know what's going on out there. I'm assuming that the black site phenomenon is real, and prevalent; simply because of the large numbers of prisoners that dissapear in Iraq and Afghanistan. The red cross can't find them, and then occasionally some of them turn up dead. Oops, I gues these things just kindof happen (??).

I also beleive it because of the continuing reports of canadian, german, italian and american civilians who dissapear, with no connection to family or friends, and than reappear several years later after being released from the CIA.

If I understood some portion of the process, I would be more forgiving. But the Administration only ever says 'we do not torture' but they won't answer the question "what is classified as torture?". I understand there are exceptions, but I don't understand what is common practice and what is exceptional. Until then I will naturally assume the worst.

This administration needs to have a frank debate about what is right and what is wrong for military, civilian or undercover intelligence operators to be involved in, and then determine what creates 'exceptional' circumstances. Anyone bending or breaking those rules needs to be immediately punished, as well as their commanding officers. We need to talk about how interrogators are trained and what psychological effects these things have on the tortured, and the torturer.

The biggest trouble with Abu Gharib is not that it happened, but that there was somehow no military oversight until after the fact. And that this has happened over, and over, and over again in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military is built around a slow, but steady beaurocracy. When individual parts of the system start showing the same problem, I begin to fear the worst...

Seth,

President Clinton said about ten years ago, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."

I immediately thought of that when I read the poll cited by Glenn Reynolds, and used it to make the political pun, "Majorities say torture should be safe, legal and rare." I love puns. I bcc'd Reynolds in sending the pun, and the article about the poll, to my friends.

There is a serious debate here, though. I recommend these two on-line articles by Mark Bowden, author of Blackhawk Down:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200310/bowden

The Dark Art of Interrogation

"The most effective way to gather intelligence and thwart terrorism can also be a direct route into morally repugnant terrain. A survey of the landscape of persuasion"

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200309u/int2003-09-11

The Truth About Torture

"Mark Bowden, the author of "The Dark Art of Interrogation," on why the practice of coercion is a necessary evil"

The hostility level in this discussion is rising too fast. I suggest that everyone read these articles by Mr. Bowden before continuing further. People here are talking past each other. The background information provided by Mr. Bowden should at least get us on the same track.

Frankly my dear, I still don't give a damn if we are torturing terrorists. Human rights are for humans. I say get whatever information we can from the bastards by any means necessary then shoot them in the back of the head and dump them in a mass grave. As for the main arguments against torture that I've heard:
a)I just don't buy the canard that torture doesn't work. Sure I'll tell my torturer whatever I think he wants to hear, but the quickest and easiest thing to think of to tell him is the truth. And if my information doesn't check out, my torturers can always come back and torture me some more.

b) True, from time to time, we'll get the wrong guy. We should make a good faith effort to avoid that as much as possible, but collateral damage happens in a war. It's unfortunate, but c'est la guerre.

Look, when you're fighting monsters, you occasionally have to do monstrous things. I hope we're torturing terrorists if that's saving American lives. If we're not, we bloody well should be.

"Frankly my dear, I still don't give a damn if we are torturing terrorists. Human rights are for humans."

This is the slippery slope in 2 sentences. How do we know if our prisoners are "humans" or "terrorists"? Clearly, more than a few innocents have been swept up, detained, treated harshly, and perhaps released. The recent court case with the German citizen detained/mistreated for months because he shared a name with a terrorist is a small example.
The reason that the Article XIII of the Constitution states that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." is that the Founders recognized that humans are fallible (even the Sainted Bush makes a mistake now and then).

What are we fighting for?

If terrorists succeed in converting the US into a regime with its' own secret gulags, with the Bill of Rights no longer applying to anyone defined by unelected bureaucrats as an "enemy combatant", then rather than "spreading democracy" the US will have destroyed the democracy our Founders so wisely designed.

The "checks and balances" were explicitly designed to resist the human Drive to Power and every step that the Bush administration takes toward an Imperial Presidency with no accountability to the public, Congress, and a free press is the polar opposite of "spreading democracy".

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

—Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Tom, Did you read past my first two sentences? I fully acknowledge we'll occasionally get the wrong guy. And I firmly believe we should make every effort to avoid that whenever possible, but collateral damage happens in a war. And it is a WAR. The allies did horrible things in WWs I and II. Did we become Miliarists, Nazis or Fascists? America did some pretty morally dubious things during the Cold War. Did we become Stalinists? Open your eyes. We live in a fallen world, and to fight savagery, it is sometimes necessary to do savage things.

Uh, that's Militarists.

Fred,

Your opinion was shared by the French government during the Algerian War of Independence. It's one of the reasons they lost. Worse, it brought that truly vicious war home to France via the OAS - it's called "blowback".

Try learning from the experience of others. "Those who learn nothing from history are doomed to repeat it." At least read the Marc Bowden articles linked above.

I personally feel torture should not merely be preserved as an option for exceptional circumstances, but that we should train cadres in how to do it properly so we don't have to rely on our Arab allies when those circumstances arise. Our Arab allies won't always be reliable.

But my threshhold definition of exceptional circumstances is quite high - terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction against us at home - due to what I learned from studying the Algerian War of Independence many years ago. There is a real steep slippery slope here. William Butler Yeats put it best:

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

I apologize for the formatting not holding consistently.

Tom, I'm no expert on the Algerian War, but from what I've read, the French didn't lose because they used those tactics. In fact, their tactics were working. It wasn't until they stopped using those tactics under international pressure that they lost that war. That's the lesson I'd take away.

By the way, Tom, whatever our differences, we apparently share a fondness for WB Yeats. He's been my favorite poet for years. But if you know anything about his biography, he believed one of the reasons for the anarchy in that poem was a breakdown of discipline and traditional social order. He was, in fact, briefly enamored of Fascism before WW II.

Fred,

The French lost in France. They won in Algeria, but the price was too high at home - endless occupation by several hundred thousand very unhappy conscripts sent from the Metropole. Neither they nor their families wanted them to be there. Worse, too many of the conscripts and time-expired volunteer troops had personal knowledge of the widespread use of torture in Algeria and talked about it when they came home.

The French flat out antagonized so many Muslims in Algeria through widespread torture that they could only hold the place through force, and the price of that was too high at home. Given enough troops and effective political tactics (known as "Direct Action"), they could keep the lid on in Algeria, but they couldn't convince enough Muslims to openly cooperate with them to reduce their conscript garrisons enough that the voters at home would let things continue indefinitely.

And it wasn't just the numbers of conscripts required in Algeria. Torture was used so widely that lots of time-expired volunteer soldiers, plus the conscripts, came home and talked about it. That flattened morale at home too.

I cannot emphasize enough that the French experience in Algeria is THE best evidence against significant use of torture in the war on terror. It must be really, really rare.

Fred,

The last straw for the French came when the army decided it had to apply "Direct Action" in the Metropole too, at which point it threatened the French government and the Republic. "You guys are supposed to work for us, not us for you."

It wouldn't have gotten that far had the conflict in Algeria been mitigated enough to let most of the Metropolitan conscripts go home. It is necessary to understand why, after the French army had driven the rebels out of Algeria, the French did not reduce their conscript garrison. They didn't because they couldn't, and they couldn't because those guys were needed as garrisons to hold down the disgruntled Muslim majority. Who were disgruntled for a bunch of reasons, of which excessive use of torture was one of the more significant.

I'm not suggesting we indiscriminately round up people and torture them. But I do support the use of torture if we have someone who we have good reason to believe has information we need to save American or innocent Iraqi lives and we can't get that information any other way. And I don't give a tinker's damn about the terrorist scum's "rights."

We've seen the reports out of Guantanimo. They keep them awake, they make them cold, the waterboard them, they play rock music at them. Its an insult to compare that to testicular electricution, mutilation, flaying, or in other words, actual torture.

Which apparantly causes their legs to be crushed to an extent that, had they survived these college pranks, they would have had to have had both legs amputated.

Truly strange isn't it?

Maybe they hate rock music so much it causes them to crush their own legs...

Fred,

That's what the French thought when they started. At the top of that slippery slope. They went all the way down to the bottom.

Davebo,

I challenge you to put up a verifiable link to your claim that terrorists' legs have been crushed during interrogation at Gitmo. I say flat out, you made that up and you are a liar whose posts need not ever be read again by anyone.

Tom,

Who said Gitmo? It happened at Bagram.

Washington - Two Afghan prisoners who died in American custody in Afghanistan in December 2002 were chained to the ceiling, kicked and beaten by American soldiers in sustained assaults that caused their deaths, according to Army criminal investigative reports that have not yet been made public.

One soldier, Pfc. Willie V. Brand, was charged with manslaughter in a closed hearing last month in Texas in connection with one of the deaths, another Army document shows. Private Brand, who acknowledged striking a detainee named Dilawar 37 times, was accused of having maimed and killed him over a five-day period by "destroying his leg muscle tissue with repeated unlawful knee strikes."

The attacks on Mr. Dilawar were so severe that "even if he had survived, both legs would have had to be amputated," the Army report said, citing a medical examiner.

Douglas Jehl for NY Times, 3/12/05, 3/13/2005

you are a liar whose posts need not ever be read again by anyone.

Whatever helps you sleep at night dude. I guess ignorance really is bliss.

Sorry guy, didn't provide you a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ei=5088&en=4579c146cb14cfd6&ex=1274241600&pagewanted=print

Whatever you do, don't read it.

Davebo, 7 individuals were charged in that case. Whats your point? If it was government policy we would be pinning medals on them, not chucking them in prison right? This was a case of guys freelancing and they paid the penalty for it. Im far more concerned about what amounted to an attempt by the commanders to sweep it under the rug. Still, there is no evidence that this incident was ordered or tolerated by anyone in the Bush administration.

We live in a fallen world, and to fight savagery, it is sometimes necessary to do savage things.

or try:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee

One reason for the 'final solution' in Germany was due to the psychological damage inflicted on Germans that were involved in the early torture and murder of jewish citizens.

The mind is a fragile thing: and our society does not deal with the idea of beating, raping or killing without severe consequences. If we ask soldiers to do this, especially on a larger scale, we might see men returning home with large psychological traumas from their actions.

Are we moral men? Or do we delegate ourselves to torture and cruelty when things get tough? I think history will judge us on these questions. We like to beleive we are above animals, and we like to beleive were above the terrorists... let's not sink to their level.

Davebo, 7 individuals were charged in that case. Whats your point?

Mainly that the idiot boldly calling me a liar is.. well an idiot.

If it was government policy we would be pinning medals on them, not chucking them in prison right? This was a case of guys freelancing and they paid the penalty for it.

You really should have read the article dude.

Military spokesmen maintained that both men had died of natural causes, even after military coroners had ruled the deaths homicides. Two months after those autopsies, the American commander in Afghanistan, then-Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, said he had no indication that abuse by soldiers had contributed to the two deaths. The methods used at Bagram, he said, were "in accordance with what is generally accepted as interrogation techniques."

Has the military spokesman been charged? Or Gen. McNeill?

Read the whole thing, then, if you still believe this is a case of "a few bad apples" then I can only say I have a much more sensitive gag reflex than you do.

With all respect.

I've read it and in fact i've researched this case pretty thoroughly. I said above that the coverup was deeply concerning, but that does not make this government sanctioned. People cover up for disfunctions in their command, it happens in the military more often than any of us would like. I agree the officer involved should be charged and disciplined, not promoted like this general was. But again, that is a Pentagon issue. Show me the paper trail that takes that to Pennsylvania avenue. There is no trail because Pentagon lifers arent going to risk their careers carrying out illegal orders from the White House, and a whole lot of them would have to know about it to make it policy.

Mark,

I never claimed this was either Admin or Pentagon policy. But frankly, we have zero credibility on the torture issue these days and for good reason.

Now I'm of the opinion that the work of Gonzales at the white house trying to come up with a legal justification of torture likely contributed to the belief by some that it was OK to do it. But I can't prove that.

But the fact that the army covered up this story, and make no doubt about it, the army did cover up this story, makes me believe that we have a very serious problem on our hands.

And of course, the recent actions of the vice president don't help a lot.

And one more thing to add Mark. I think we both agree that this act constituted murder. Agreed?

With that in mind, lets see how we punished the murders involved.

"One soldier has been sentenced to two months in prison, another to three months. A third was demoted and given a letter of reprimand and a fine. A fourth was given a reduction in rank and pay."

What type of message do these sentences send to the rest of the troops?

Davebo,

"We've seen the reports out of Guantanimo."

The URL you provided says Afghanistan.

Please explain how your claim about these events occuring at Guantamano, instead of Afghanistan, was not intentional.

Tom.

Apparantly you aren't familiar with the blockquote tag. I was quoting another poster and made no such claim. Mainly Mark's post #7.

You could of course have just said "wow, sorry about calling you a liar and all" but then again that would take at least a shred of integrity.
I'm dissapointed, but not at all suprised. And you know what? Micheal Moore really is fat!

Davebo,

You lose. I am familiar with blockquote and use it in my posts.

You took a portion of Mark's post about the custodial interrogation tactics at Guantamano not amounting to torture, which is certainly true, brought in something that happened in the field 12,000 miles away and IMPLIED that it happened at Guantamano. When you knew it hadn't.

That is deception by any book around. It is exactly like claiming that the misconduct at Abu Ghraib happened at Guantamano. Or that shootings of armed enemies in the field in Afghanistan was really shooting of unarmed prisoners at Guantamano.

I called you on your deception. Your credibility is toast just like I said.

As I said Tom, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Although it is hilarious watching you debate yourself here over the meaning of "is". As for my credibility, you may judge it as you wish as can anyone else.

But I do admit and apologize when I'm wrong, and you'll find no posts here of mine screaming in bold Liar!! and then clining to straws to avoid admitting error.

Tom, The slippery slope argument is a formal logical fallacy. As I've already pointed out, we've done terrible things from necessity in the past and not become fascist, nazi or whatever. I see no reason whatsoever not to do whatever is necessary now.

Fred,

"formal logical fallacy" is abstract. Read Alistair Horne's A Savage War of Peace and Alf Andrew Heggoy's Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Algeria to get an idea of what happened. Note that the French did achieve political control in Algeria - the FLN was driven down to a minor terrorist threat inside Algeria and camps in Tunisia which could not get forces across the heavily defended border (defended by elite French units composed solely of volunteers).

And the French still lost. Even after Direct Action had won political control for them in Algeria, they still couldn't reduce their conscript garrisons away from the border.

Horne can give you an overview plus some of a feel for the horror, and Heggoy an understanding of both sides' military and political doctrines/operations, but much more research is necessary to understand why the French couldn't reduce the 300,000 man plus conscript garrison forces.

I repeat, the French started at the top of what is IMO the single best example of the slippery slope in action, with the best intentions in the world, and rode it all the way to the bottom. It was ghastly.

It is absolutely necessary to define, at the beginning, just where to get off the torture slide into hell, and then GET OFF RIGHT THERE.

Or don't get on it at all.