GOP Debate on the Waterboarding Issue

Loading

5

In last night’s GOP debate, the question of waterboarding came up. Why? it is so 2006, 2009, 2014. The last of 3 HVTs who were ever waterboarded by the CIA happened in 2003.

LA Times:

For many, waterboarding became a divisive symbol of America’s war on terror in the George W. Bush administration.

Critics called it torture and said it didn’t produce actionable intelligence. Supporters called it a legitimate interrogation tool, and insisted it helped.

The issue, even among Republicans, is not yet settled.

Trump not only endorsed waterboarding, but added, “I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz tried to stake out some middle ground. “I would not bring it back in any sort of widespread use,” he said, leaving open the definition of “widespread.”

Bush — in the awkward spot of addressing one of his brother’s most controversial policies — asserted that it was “used sparingly” in the past, but added that he would not resume using it.

Jeb(!) is right. Only 3 HVTs were ever given CIA swimming lessons: Zubaydah, al-Nashiri, and KSM. And there’s a good reason why he would say he would not resume its use: Because the issue is moot. When Ted Cruz states he “would not bring it back in any sort of widespread use,” it perpetuates a commonly held misperception that the practice was used on more than just 3 HVTs; and in use by our military (Rumsfeld specifically rejected it as an EIT when military officials came to him requesting alternate techniques, whereas Bush signed on to it while rejecting an EIT that was even more severe).

As I wrote before:

Waterboarding was discontinued in 2006 as a CIA EIT practice under Bush’s watch (and the last time an HVT received waterboarding treatment was in 2003) as its effectiveness was compromised when its usage as a technique to interrogate HVTs became common knowledge (applied to only 3 HVTs). President Obama’s 2009 EO signed upon his first day in office banning all EITs was basically redundant on the torture issue, since President Bush essentially said much the same in his 2007 EO.

 

~~~
What made waterboarding- and all the EITs in the CIA program- effective as tools against HVTs who were trained to resist standard interrogation practices, was in the not knowing. In the secrecy. Because of all the media attention and President Obama’s decision to release the OLC “torture” memos describing the techniques, the Houdini psychological power of these techniques have been all but effectively nullified.

The CIA program should probably be revived; but now that the magic tricks have been revealed to its al Qaeda audience, demystifying the EITs, HVTs know that what they have to train against is the smoke and mirrors of simulated torture, and not real torture. So what techniques would a revived CIA interrogation program that goes beyond the Army Field Manual have to entail? Whatever they come up with, we the general public should not be privy to.

Which is why Rubio gave the best response. Put everything on the table and don’t broadcast to our enemies how far we will and won’t go in fighting Islamic terrorists. Waterboarding might be off the books; but don’t say it. Keep ’em guessing. (Note: Ben Carson had expressed a similar point last year). I suppose one can claim his response is scripted, as he gave this one back in June after the Senate finally put torture up for a vote to ban waterboarding (meaningless redundancy):

I do not support telegraphing to the enemy what interrogation techniques we will or won’t use.” He added that he doesn’t want to deny “future commanders in chief and intelligence officials important tools for protecting the American people and the U.S. homeland.”

The reason why EITs came about was because a number of HVDs had received resistance training to well-known, standard techniques. These techniques can easily be found online. That’s why military and CIA officials sought approval for alternate techniques. Of the 119 HVDs enrolled in the CIA RDI program(s), only 33 or 39 of them ever received any form of EIT whatsoever. More traditional interrogation methods worked on the others.

And since President Obama in 2009 revealed descriptive details of the 13 Justice Department-approved EITs, he effectively killed much of their psychological power.

On this issue that Americans don’t seem to really care much about, Rubio might be the most versed (I disagree with PolitiFact’s conclusion), having read Marc Thiessen’s Courting Disaster as well as signed on to the Minority Views report as a counterweight to the Feinstein Report released in December of 2014. All other candidates (aside from maybe Bush) appear to have only arrived at their opinions based upon superficial knowledge of specific details of the CIA program and EITs; and on the distorted media narrative.

HuffPo takes Cruz to task on his denial that waterboarding arises to the definition of “torture”:

Cruz incorrectly claimed that waterboarding doesn’t meet the “generally recognized” definition of torture:

Q. Senator Cruz, is waterboarding torture?

Cruz: Well, under the definition of torture, no, it’s not. Under the law, torture is excruciating pain that is equivalent to losing organs and systems, so under the definition of torture, it is not. It is enhanced interrogation, it is vigorous interrogation, but it does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture.

Actually, the definition cited by Cruz is far from being “generally recognized” or accepted.

For example, the United Nations Convention Against Torture states: “[T]he term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession … when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

I would agree on the “generally recognized” challenge to Senator Cruz. But that knife cuts both ways and I do not think HuffPo’s desired definition makes for a consensus definition, either. This is not to say that I am not entirely unwilling to concede that waterboarding can be described as “torture”. Incidentally, the very act of incarceration can amount to a definition of torture that causes “mental pain and suffering”.

A problem of the UN Convention Against Torture definition is that the CIA interrogators did not apply EITs for the sake of “intentionally inflicting” physical or mental “severe pain and suffering”; nor did they use EITs to obtain “information or a confession”. That’s not how EITs worked. No questions were asked during the application of EITs that were not already known to interrogators. They weren’t seeking actionable intell. They sought to induce a state of cooperation.

As Marc Thiessen outlines in Courting Disaster, pg 164,

Attorney General Eric Holder was asked to explain why waterboarding American troops during military training was not illegal. His answer? Holder said, “It’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally”

~~~

The agency’s interrogators had no more intent to cause “severe mental and physical pain or suffering” to the detainees in their control than SERE trainers had the intent to cause this harm to our troops. Both went to great pains to ensure that no harm came to those undergoing the techniques. So by the Attorney General’s own rationale, waterboarding as conducted by the CIA did not meet the legal definition of torture.

According to Victoria Toensing, the former Chief Counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, under U.S. law, “torture means ‘severe physical or mental pain or suffering,’ which in turn means ‘prolonged mental harm,’ which must be caused by any of four specific acts: 1) intentional or threatened infliction of ‘severe physical pain or suffering’; 2) giving or threatening to give ‘mind altering’ drugs; 3) threatening ‘imminent death’; or 4) threatening to carry out any one of the three prohibitions on another person.”

In addition, Toensing says, to violate the law, the individual carrying out the acts must “specifically intend” to commit torture. It is not enough to know “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” could result from the acts; the individual committing them must specifically intend to impose such suffering in order to be guilty of torture.

This reading of the law has been upheld by the courts, and accepted by the Holder Justice Department. In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 10 to 3 in the case Pierre v. Attorney General of the United States, that an individual could be deported to Haiti even if government officials knew that he may be subjected to excruciating pain in a Haitian jail. The Court found that, “Mere knowledge that a result is substantially certain to follow from one’s actions is not sufficient to form the specific intent to torture. Knowledge that pain and suffering will be the certain outcome of conduct may be sufficient for a finding of general intent but it is not enough for a finding of specific intent“.

And in 2009, the Holder Justice Department cited the Pierre case in fighting a claimb y John Demjanjuk, a Nazi collaborator, that his extradition to Germany would violate U.S. and international torture law. While his claim was clearly frivolous (Germany was not going to torture him), the Holder Justice Department chose to argue that even if Demjanjuk were in fact subjected to severe pain in German custody, there could be no torture unless he could establish that American officials had the specific intent to inflict that severe pain and suffering on him. This is exactly what the Bush Justice Department argued when it came to interrogation of captured terrorists: A government official cannot be guilty of torture unless his specific intent is to cause severe pain.

THE fact is, none of the techniques used by the CIA meet the standard of torture in U.S. law. This is for two reasons: first, because the CIA’s interrogators did not specifically intend to inflict severe pain and suffering; and second because they did not in fact inflict severe pain and suffering.

Causing Zubaydah, al-Nashiri, or KSM to vomit due to waterboarding may sound bad; but I used to vomit from pushing myself hard in exercise. Is severe physical exercise a form of “torture”? Sure, I suppose that’s one way to look at it. And then, so what?

HuffPo continues:

In fact, as we have written before, a U.S. Military Commission charged three Japanese soldiers with violating the laws and customs of war during World War II for committing torture, including “water treatment.” The Japanese soldiers were accused of forcing water into the mouths and noses of U.S. prisoners. All three were convicted.

This is an oft cited red herring.

As signatories of Geneva, our uniformed soldiers absolutely deserved GC protections as afforded POWs. Read the description of the “water treatment” that the Japanese soldiers performed. It is not the same thing as the SERE-inspired waterboarding used by CIA interrogators. The Japanese soldiers were also convicted on more than simply their brand of “water treatment”.

Everyone deserves basic humane treatment as outlined in the GC; but terrorists do not earn POW status. They do not fit the requirements, as unlawful enemy combatants who hide out amongst civilians. To give terrorists such protections endangers civilians and removes the incentive for lawful combatants. Douglas Feith absolutely believes the Bush administration upheld the spirit of the GCs:

 

Douglas Feith, called the Geneva Conventions “a high-water mark of civilization”. He absolutely supports it, even as he denies its provisions to be extended to non-uniformed combatants who endanger civilians by blending in, and being indistinguishable from civilians, putting innocent lives at risk. To grant them the same legal rights as prisoners of war, grants terrorism legitimacy.

From Douglas Feith’s War and Decision, pg 163,

It would be “highly dangerous if countries make application of Convention hinge on subjective or moral judgments as to the quality or decency of the enemy’s government”- and it would be dangerous, therefore, to claim that the Convention does not apply because the Taliban are “the illegitimate government of a ‘failed state.’ ” Countries typically view their enemies as gangs of criminals. If officials had to certify an enemy as a “legitimate government” to apply the Convention, few countries would ever do so.

“I contended that a “pro-Convention” position, on the other hand, would reinforce U.S. moral arguments in the war on terrorism:

  • The essence of the Convention is the distinction between soldiers and civilians (i.e., between combatants and noncombatants).
  • Terrorists are reprehensible precisely because they negate that distinction, by purposefully targeting civilians.
  • The Convention aims to protect civilians by requiring soldiers to wear uniforms and otherwise distinguish themselves from civilians.
  • The Convention creates an incentive system for good behavior. The key incentive is that soldiers who play by the rules get POW status if they are captured.

From Douglas Feith’s War and Decision, pg 38:

The Convention gave maximum protection to noncombatants- innocent bystanders- and gave the next level of protection to fighters who obey the laws of war. The least protection was given to fighters who did not obey the rules. In this regard, as in many others, the Geneva Conventions were humane and sensible: The Conventions’ drafters in the late 1940s had their priorities right. The Convention created an incentive system to encourage respect for the laws of war and especially to safeguard innocent bystanders. Civilians are endangered when fighters wear civilian clothes, for example, because that makes the fighters indistinguishable from bystanders. So the Conventions provided that captured fighters were entitled to the privileged status of “prisoners of war” only if they met certain conditions, including wearing uniforms and carrying their arms openly. The national liberation groups, whose fighters did not obey those laws, protested that the Geneva Conventions should be amended to entitle their fighters to POW status even if they concealed their status as fighters.

Human rights activists demonstrate waterboarding on a volunteer in Washington DC in 2007 [EPA].  If it was real torture, think anyone would actually 'volunteer'? class=Photo caption:

Human rights activists demonstrate waterboarding on a volunteer in Washington DC in 2007 [EPA].

If it was real torture, think anyone would actually “volunteer”?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
71 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Almost all Special Forces trainees are waterboarded as part of their training.
I wonder what our politicians think of our new ”ally” Iran when we got our 4 hostages back (for $150 billion) and learned how they really were tortured?
One was starved, beaten and given ultimatums to either convert or die.
Others were starved and beaten and taken blindfolded to mock executions.
It was nice of Iran to fatten them all up in those last weeks when they knew they were going to release them.
Made them look like they were exaggerating.

@Nanny G: .#1

I wonder what our politicians think of our new ”ally” Iran when we got our 4 hostages back (for $150 billion)

NanyG, . . . and in its worst move against the idiots in the W.H., Iran is joining he war against the Dollar (the Petro Dollar) by requiring payment in Euros for its oil.

More than anything, shaking the dominance of the dollar will negatively affect Middle America even more than Obama already has.

And yet, not a squeak from Obama — probably does’t care, doesn’t understand, and feels good that America’s degradation continues.

@James Raider:
I was at a department store recently and the sales lady said that, if it had been her, she would have given Iran that $150 billion back like a store gives back a store credit.
You can only spend it IN the store.
Odd, but it sounded logical.
Why let Iran take that money and spend it where ever.
Why not give them a line of credit to spend IN the USA?

There is quite a bit of difference between SEREtaining and what was done to captives when bush was POTUS
Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot
When the Khymer Rouge did water boarding it was torture
When the Japanese did it to Americans in WW II it was torture
When we convicted US Army officers for doing it to Filipinos 120 years agonist was torture
Wordsmith says it was only done yo make them cooperative, in what way? If not giving info?
Every nation that uses tirture justifies it we lost the moral high ground when we did it
How any Christian can justify torture is beyond my comprehension

Honestly, this is still relevant. It is a moral choice and an important one. I for one, come down on the side that a nation that values human rights should never consider torture as a viable option.

I’ve heard it all before about leveling the playing field. I don’t buy it. You can parse your distinctions all you want. It isn’t supposed to be a level playing field. Our strength comes from being better.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

Hmm…, I wonder how well the same question would have gone over during the Democratic debate between Bernie and Hillary? Then again only softball questions are asked during those ‘debates’. All ending in coin tosses winning six out of six.

Actually, that seemed to me a pretty softball question. And would love to hear that asked at a Democratic Debate. Bernie is pretty predictable on that one, but I’d love to see Hillary squirm.

The GOP events aren’t debates either. They are reality TV. I just heard an interview with Jeb Bush wherein he said the same thing.

Not a lot of difference between GOP and Democratic campaign tactics.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

@Nanny G: #3

$150 billion back like a store gives back a store credit.

Nanny, in isolation from the rest of that disastrous and ineptly negotiated deal, the concept would make sense and one of numerous alternatives that might have been extracted.

Any quid pro quo would have been better than what these ignorant and inexperienced goofs delivered for Americans. This Iranian oil/currency decision, is another notch that, thanks to Obama, Putin gets to carve in his gun. He has influence in Iran and between them, they’ll do anything to reduce the strength of the Petro Dollar. The long term effect is to weaken America.

. . . . . thanks, Obama/Jarrett.

@james raider, #9:

I’m not clear on the reasoning here. With the exception of Canada, why would we want to encourage a situation where the strength of the “petro dollar” is maximized? Cheap oil deprives our geopolitical adversaries of buying power. (I’m not much inclined to count the Saudis as our good buddies.) It also discourages U.S. companies from exporting a limited domestic resource, which they would happily do with wild abandon now that 40-year duration export restrictions have been removed.

Our best weapon against oil producing adversaries is to leverage our research advantage by developing alternative energy and turning that onto an export. Granted, this will take a decade,but that would be a legacy worthy of our values. Not to mention a course that steers us away from a path that demands intervention by the US which leads us into a viciycucle that begets enemies more quickly than they can be thwarted.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

Just so we have this clear: The leftists say water boarding is “bad.”

Yet it’s not only OK, but expected to look the other way and bury our heads in the sand about Shariah Law’s tenants such as: fanatical forced female genital mutilation, raping of women, underage girls and boys, religious conversion by threat of violence, Murder of homosexuals, and the beheading of “infidels.” What’s more our boarder patrol, customs, TSA, and DHS aren’t allowed to weed out the “radical fanatics” from “peaceful” Muslim “refugees” because that might offend someone.

“I’m told there was some confusion today on some programs…suggesting that I indicated that no one who was waterboarded at Guantanamo provided any information on this. That’s just not true. What I said was no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the U.S. military…Three people were waterboarded by the CIA…and then later brought to Guantanamo. In fact, as you point out, the information that came from those individuals was critically important.“

– Donald Rumsfeld

“I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. And our objective is to get the guys who did 9/11 and it is to avoid another attack against the United States.”

– Dick Cheney on Meet the Press commenting about a CIA mistaken information target that died frozen and chained to a wall in their custody.

“I had asked the most senior legal officers in the U.S. government to review the interrogation methods and they had assured me they did not constitute torture.”

– George W. Bush

The situation demands far more than a legal opinion. So, Bush was arguing that if a lawyer says it’s okay, then it’s okay.

Sorry…that is a truly weak defense.

I truly wish they did agree with me.

By some of the definitions of torture used to undermine the EIP, Obama launching sorties, flying over targets with ordinance and not dropping bombs is torture… psychological torture. It cause mental pain and suffering to hear jets approaching and not knowing if they are going to bomb or not.

It is also mental torture to lie to the survivors of loved ones killed with a consulate is sacked or a gun running deal goes bad, making it known that, as long as this administration is in power, justice for their loved ones will never be served.

But, whatever the left does is OK. Besides, they don’t WANT the information; then they would have to do something besides blame someone else for the violence.

@Bill: I for one don’t agree that whatever “the left” does is OK. This should be a quintessentially apolitical topic.

As the pointed out, it was Trump who said, “I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” This gets my attention because here was a clear opportunity to completely disavow torture, but the candidates declined across the board.

Partisans can retreat behind legal definitions all they want, but that dog doesn’t hunt in the real world. If a candidate supports or opposes torture, then they should just say it. How much more powerful would a plain statement have been in light of the perception that is out there in the world!

Instead we have an overtly pro-torture Trump, and a bunch of mumbling from the half-hearted remainder.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

Nice recap of all the same old justifications .

You can dress this up however you want, the Bush administration created an environment that led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. I understand the torturers where called to account, but those of us who are less naïve reasonably wonder whether the Court Martials would have happened if the information were not out in the public square.

What you are missing here is the context of the times.

What I remember is tons of comments from the administration about leveling the playing field. I remember hand-wringing over the possibility that there was no state actor involved and how that put us at a disadvantage. I remember Alberto Gonzales advising that the Geneva Convention was “quaint” and that by repudiating the Geneva Convention, the administration would have a defense against future accusations of war crimes.

If you look at Abu Ghraib in context, it is very easy to see why most of the world, outside those with GOP colored glasses, viewed the administration as culpable. While I understand that people will parse this stuff out carefully to make themselves feel better, I’m going to stare unblinking at the facts.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

@Tony Plank: We need to put forth the image that we are willing and able to do whatever it takes to secure our people and nation. Whether we do it or not is another story. But, we have to be prepared to do it, if our bluff is called.

Recall how the left went out of control over McCain stating we would fight in Iraq for 50 years, if necessary? NO ONE wants to fight in Iraq for 50 years but if we do as the Democrats wanted to do all during the war, which was to announce the day and hour to which we were willing to fight, then leave, we will never achieve the goal of eliminating (as much as is possible) the ongoing terror threat.

Sadly, after 5 years of the left fighting over who would offer surrender first during the Bush administration and 7 years of Obama apologizing and surrendering whenever an opportunity arises, we will have some bluffs called and we will, as a nation, have to back up some tough talk with the blood of our soldiers. Maybe after a while, when we stand up and raise a hand, despots and thugs will back down. But that will be after a while. We have to PROVE we have resolve… AGAIN.

There is a high cost for weakness. Much higher than looking mean.

@Bill:

“We need to put forth the image that we are willing and able to do whatever it takes to secure our people and nation.”

Yeah, that is the old and tired trope. The thing is, the trope completely ignores that there are some things more important than security. Respect for human rights is one of those things. What made America great is it aspired to high ideals however imperfectly we executed on those ideals. Not torturing individuals is one of those “duh” things.

I’m comfortable with choosing to name that option as off the table. The real war is in the arena of ideas. At one time, our goodwill in the world was unprecedented because we were winning that war. I rankle at the suggestion by many that we have to compromise those ideals, fight fire with fire, or make the sand glow. I want to win the battle that counts and which will make this world a better place. Yes, we need to be strong…but in every way including our convictions.

Iraq would take this totally off topic, but I’m quite critical of the last two administrations on how we have handled terrorism.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com

In my opinion, going on record as a nation that will not engage in torture is a statement of both principle and strength. Willingness to allow it is an expression of uncertainty and fear.

History is laced with early incidents of torture-water being one. It is believed that Julius Caesar had 1,192,000 enemies killed during his reign. Meanwhile the Emperor Tiberius would have young men’s urethras laced shut before force-feeding them wine. In ancient Babylon, the cutting off of feet, lips and noses, blinding, gutting and the tearing out of the heart were all standard punishments in the ancient world. One must never forget the edict of Pope Gregory IX in 1231 which allowed the Dominicans to begin the Inquisition which lasted until 1905. Pope Innocents III in 1203 was given the historical credit for its beginnings. Heinrich Kramer’s Malleus Maleficarum; however, develop comprehensive explanations for witch hunting. This work is better in the original Latin. Clausewitz indicates in his work that “War is thus an act of force to compel our enemies to do our will”. How simple does it become?

@Greg: Well said.

@Greg: Willingness to turn your back on your friends in favor of your enemies is even worse!! Obola turned his back on Israel in favor of Iran. As far as waterboarding, if doing this to one terrorist can save the lives of thousands of innocents including Americans and allies then the needs of the many outweigh one!! It’s just moronic not to!! Then again if you choose to believe something other than reality like the myth of free healthcare then anything is possible!!

@Tony Plank: How has that kinder, gentler, more willing to give up and vacate the premises US working out for human rights? Perhaps you might tune in to some reports on the conditions around Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Somalia and talk to some of the residents about how their human rights are going.

A strong and resolute United States makes the world safer and the policies of denying the effectiveness of projecting strength has resulted in chaos, terror and tens of thousands of deaths.

@Tony Plank:

@Bill:

“We need to put forth the image that we are willing and able to do whatever it takes to secure our people and nation.”

Yeah, that is the old and tired trope. The thing is, the trope completely ignores that there are some things more important than security.

Really?

Do you think the families of the slaughtered of Fort Hood or San Bernardino feel that way? How about the families of the children of Beslan? Think they would agree with you?

How much is your family worth, Tony Plank? Would you water board a radical Islamist to save their lives? Would you hold to your moral standards knowing that someone in your custody would only give up information that might end the harm your family was facing if you water boarded them?

If you say yes, you would, you are either one very cold person, or a liar.

@retire05: Well said!! What is also important to understand is why is this a topic all of a sudden. Clearly the libturds are going to bring up any and all issues that they think they can appeal to their base with and watch real people act like the bad guys. Point is libturds don’t live in reality.

Most democrats have considered waterboarding to be a settled issue. It’s becoming a topic again because republicans are making it a topic. Those vying for nomination are trying to outdo one another’s tough guy routines. They’ve got it in their heads that unwillingness to endorse the torture of captives indicates someone is a wimp.

This is the sort of thinking that could cause the GOP to select an non-electable candidate. No one thing would do it, but a collection of them could. Maybe they’re thinking they can say whatever they need to say to win the republican nomination, and then steer back toward the middle ground to win the general election.

Better watch out for Bernie. He’s a candidate with a consistent message.

@Greg: Nice try Greggie but as wrong as usual!! BTW did you note Hilldabeast took it in the shorts in NH!! Talk about a loser and the fun is just starting. Bernie is a candidate with a message so liberal independents will flock to anyone but this guy. Free college, really?? Do you really think college is free Greggie?? Tell that to anyone who has a degree with a straight face!!

@retire05:

Yes. Really.

If you say yes, you would, you are either one very cold person, or a liar.

That is extremely unfair. It is also a profound logical fallacy to posit that there are only three options when there is obviously many more.

Listen, if my family is at direct peril, I will do anything to protect them. It could get ugly.

But I disagree with your assessment of what is appropriate security for my family. I care about the quality of the future I leave them, not simply their survival. I strongly believe that America ceases to be America when it abandons the pursuit of the principles on which it was founded. I believe standing by the ideals has been what made America strong—not doing whatever it takes.

There is an enormous difference between what choice I would make in an exigent situation, and the action I expect the government to take on my behalf: there is a whole country to consider. There is the legacy we bequeath future generations to consider.

I truly believe that folks such as yourself who froth at the mouth over security are the ones who lack courage. Criminals will always be with us, sadly. Instead of hiding behind a tough guy attitude, let’s have the guts to punch back in a way that is consistent with our purported values. This is the way despots and brigands have been successfully rolled back over the last three centuries. Let’s leave torture in the medieval age to which it belongs.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

@John:

There is quite a bit of difference between SEREtaining and what was done to captives when bush was POTUS

Have you been to SERE school? I’ve been to SERE school. What they did to the captives is exactly what they do in SERE school. What the Japanese did is nothing like what is done in SERE school or what we did to the captives. I won’t call you an idiot, I don’t know you. But you are ignorant.

@Tony Plank:

There is an enormous difference between what choice I would make in an exigent situation, and the action I expect the government to take on my behalf: there is a whole country to consider.

Ah. So, any action would be OK to protect one of YOUR loved ones, but there are limits (beyond which you would be upset) to the steps the government could take to protect MY loved ones.

Yeah, I see. I get it now.

@Bill: Nice try.

Ah. So, any action would be OK to protect one of YOUR loved ones, but there are limits (beyond which you would be upset) to the steps the government could take to protect MY loved ones.

Logically fallacies abound in this thread. This one is called false equivalence.

I want the government to protect your and my families consistently. And, I want the government to be constrained in all kinds of ways that you are I are not constrained as individuals. The right to self-defense is well established law, and common sense. But a legitimate government, by its very nature, should be acting on behalf of the common good.

And the common interest here is a nation built on principles that transcend the needs of the moment.

@Wordsmith:

I actually don’t buy into narratives. I like facts. And yes, I’ve read your posts and comments and definitely learned from them.

You are articulate and thoughtful however misguided. I wouldn’t waste my time were it not so.

I understand you are OK with the CIA interrogation program. I can see clearly that there is no chance of convincing you that it is not OK. My intention is to point out the context of the situation and show how our rhetoric and actions combine to create the impression in the minds of reasonable people that we have compromised our values.

You want to rip waterboarding out of its context and focus on details. This is a great debate tactic. But I really do care about our global goodwill. I think it is critical for the stability of the world order. And in the context of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo detentions, the CIA program looks bad. It’s called “enhanced” even.

If you’ve listened to James Mitchell in interview, I bet it was through partisan lenses with a knee jerk response that failed to even listen objectively with a discerning mind.

This is pretty uncalled for—I’ve never stated my partisan affiliation here.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

@Wordsmith:

Great response. I appreciate your clarifications.

I totally agree with your assertions on hyperbole. It is a huge problem in journalism and politics.

I think where we are talking past each other a bit. I don’t even disagree with your assessment of the CIA interrogation program per se. My point is that how it is perceived matters as well.

The context have stated many times…Gonzales throwing out the Geneva Convention, the Abu Ghraib imbroglio, the detention of people at Guantanamo to avoid domestic courts…to name a few things. While you are inherently correct that “Military detention and interrogations should be judged on its own merits. Same with CIA”, it is the context I describe that makes this a matter of importance. And using the label “enhanced” in this context is an invitation to others to leap to assumptions.

My belief is it’s the disproportionate exaggerations over America’s apparent sins that has harmed it more than actual sins committed.

I agree as long as we limit your statement to torture. I have no doubt that things have been blown out of proportion. All the more reason we should be unambiguously opposed to torture.

You don’t have to state it. I’m not talking about Party affiliation- I’m talking about partisan beliefs on the topic. About prejudiced, preconceived notions that shuts down any possibility of receiving facts/narrative that doesn’t jive with the one you hold.

You did in fact say I was perceiving thing through partisan lenses. And you asserted that my response was knee jerk.

Your partisanship is writ in your comments; and people of both political ideologies are on both sides of the fence on this.

Is it really clear to you? I have to challenge this. I don’t think you have any idea what my party affiliation in fact is. You would be hard pressed to guess. I don’t mind stating my views…not at all. I’m just saying you really don’t know. You just assume.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

@Tony Plank: No, it’s not a false equivalency; either those means are available or they are not unless you feel you are more entitled to them than anyone else. Or, on principle, you would stand by and watch a loved one (or total stranger) be killed.

I believe the United States should be the most kind, generous and forgiving nation on earth… until provoked. Then we should be the most fierce, brutal, horrific foe imaginable. This is for the good of humanity because, as we have seen, some people don’t behave very well unless they are forced to do so.

As to GITMO, terrorists do not deserve Geneva Convention protection or, most certainly, Constitutional protection. They WOULD have faced military justice had the left not interfered. Therefore, they got indefinite detention.

@Wordsmith:

abu Ghraib did enormous damage. But was it the actual crimes and transgressions or the media fixation and reportage?

The closest I ever got there was to drive by it but some people in my unit were stationed there when that went on and weren’t surprised when the story broke. The unit was plagued by bad leadership and was run like a three ring circus. It’s commander most likely got her promotion because of politics. Better leadership would have probably prevented it. But hey, that’s based on the experience of having been there during that time. I realize that pales in comparison to those who spent the time back in the states and based their opinions on media fixation and reportage.

@Bill: We have some fundamental disagreements here.

First, you seem to not be able to separate the actions of an individual from the actions of the government on your behalf. I am entitled to all kinds of freedoms that others are not entitled to on my behalf. This is fundamental to the natural rights philosophy on which our constitution was built. And guess what? I don’t support your right to torture others if you perceive the need to do so to protect your family. This doesn’t mean I might not make another choice where I in that situation. It also doesn’t mean that I would expect that you or anyone else would agree with my choice.

I stand by my statement that you are making a false equivalency.

Then we should be the most fierce, brutal, horrific foe imaginable.

With this statement, I completely disagree. Unlimited response without regard to the consequences is immoral in every context. We should respond in a way that protects our interests with as much forbearance and humanity as is possible. Even though it is not appreciated or rewarded.

Lastly, the reason I believe that either the Geneva Convention or Constitution must apply to terrorists is that I actually take human rights seriously. When we declared independence, we said,

”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

All men, not just Americans. It really is as simple as that.

Standing on principle is often very difficult. I have courage in my convictions.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

@Aqua, #31:

At least two people are known to have died as a direct result of enhanced interrogation protocol. One prisoner, Gul Rahman, was chained unclothed to the floor of his cell at the CIA’s Cobalt site in Afghanistan. He froze to death. Inducing hypothermia was a standard interrogation technique. “Rectal hydration” is a euphemism for another torture technique involving a hose and cold water. The Senate investigation found documentation that this was used on at least 5 prisoners. CIA interrogators told prisoners that their children would be harmed, and that their mothers would be sexually violated and have their throats cut. Prisoners were subjected to ice water baths. They were kept awake for as long as 180 hours, which pretty much renders a person psychotic. Some were placed for extended periods in boxes the size of coffins. Abu Zubaydah was kept in such a box for 11 days and 2 hours, 11 hours of which was spent in a box that measured 21 inches by 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet. He was tortured while a bullet wound was left untreated. The man was insane by the time they were done. Prisoners were dragged up and down corridors naked and hooded, while being beaten. Some were subjected to mock executions.

That was all fully documented by the Senate. Some things will never be known, because the records were deliberately destroyed.

This is not even remotely acceptable behavior by representatives of the people of the United States of America. Waterboarding, which itself is not at all acceptable, has become a cover for far worse. Nor is waterboarding what it is commonly depicted as being. A training experience is not the reality produced by a determined torturer. People subjected to this in training exercises aren’t subjected to it repeatedly, for endless periods of time, nor are training sessions routinely and deliberately turned into near-drowning episodes.

@Tony Plank: You simply keep repeating the same thing; if you chose to do it for your own benefit, it’s OK, but if the government does it to protect thousands, if not millions, of people, you don’t approve.

Yeah, we disagree on that.

When we fight, we should fight to win, without mercy. Do you agree with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan? Those were cruelly effective weapons, but they probably saved tens of thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of Japanese lives and perhaps a million casualties. Which is the ethical position? Ending the war quickly by the deaths of tens of thousands of Japanese, saving many more thousands of Japanese and American lives or continuing to fight a conventional war that would drag on until the last Japanese was dead?

If the enemies we face believe we will fight tenaciously and cruelly until every foe is defeated, there will be no more wars. If, on the other hand, it is believed that the enemy only has to fight until we grow weary and it become politically expedient to quit, we will fight war after war after war. When we fight with one hand tied behind our backs, the wars are longer, we suffer more casualties and it makes the latter outcome much more likely than the first.

When criminals commit crimes, are they treated equally among men or do they have their freedoms taken away?

@Bill:

If, on the other hand, it is believed that the enemy only has to fight until we grow weary and it become politically expedient to quit, we will fight war after war after war.

That was Washington’s strategy during the Revolutionary War. It was later used against us to great effect in Vietnam and is being used against us today. In both cases, guess which side of the aisle the willing dupes were from? Someone recently sent me the ISIS “how to manual” that they use to instruct their “recruits” overseas. They obviously read up on Special OPS’s unconventional warfare tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP’s) going all the way back to the British SAS in WWII as well as our past history on the homefront during VN and OIF. Guess who they instruct their recruits to target in the propaganda section? These animals have our number and are more dangerous than a lot of people in this country think they are.

@another vet 43 –

I agree with you that a lot of people underestimate the savagery of the terrorists. They also underestimate how the terrorists are very intelligent and resourceful, in addition to being very adaptable in the landscape they operate in. They would kill their own mother or child if it means they can kill more. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, or US policy are not part of their rationale for what they do. Unfortunately, too many see terrorists as characters in a Tom Clancy novel, or worst yet, a video game.

@David: The manual on how to survive in the West is interesting reading. They borrowed TTP’s from everyone from the SAS to our own SOF. Bomb making, blending in with the populace, you name it, it’s in there. When you read the section on who they are to target with their propaganda and how, names of the trolls from here will start popping in your head. They did their homework. If you get me your email address I can send it to you along with a primer on ISIS from the USMC University’s Center for Advanced Operational Cultural Learning. In there it is obvious as to which administration allowed them to flourish.

@Greg: Greggie, tell that to the families of 9/11. Tell them their lives are worth less than the terrorists who did this. Now put your family members in the towers and then tell yourself !! Problem is Greggie you choose to live outside the reality of the real world and would rather live in a fantasy world that does not exist!! Obola would rather free these terrorists and have them go back to kill us again and again and your OK with that. Obola is a traitor to our nation “period”!!

@Greg:

At least two people are known to have died as a direct result of enhanced interrogation protocol.

First, we were discussing water boarding. I can’t speak to this issue, I have not read looked at it.

Nor is waterboarding what it is commonly depicted as being. A training experience is not the reality produced by a determined torturer. People subjected to this in training exercises aren’t subjected to it repeatedly, for endless periods of time, nor are training sessions routinely and deliberately turned into near-drowning episodes.

Most people that go to SERE school don’t talk about the specifics of SERE school. We are asked not to, just to make sure it remains real to others about to go to training, and to keep our enemies from knowing what we are trained for. I will tell you this, I truly believed I was no longer in the US. Knew for a fact I hadn’t left the country, but I firmly believed something happened and I was a prisoner in a hostile country. It is not a “training session”, it is a full on experience. You are a prisoner. There are no safe words or timeouts. And yes, there are times where you think your life may actually be in danger.

@Greg:

CIA interrogators told prisoners that their children would be harmed, and that their mothers would be sexually violated and have their throats cut. Prisoners were subjected to ice water baths. They were kept awake for as long as 180 hours, which pretty much renders a person psychotic.

And all the other things you claim. If you go to war, you should go knowing that should you be taken prisoner, life is not going to be sunshine and lollipops. Every person that puts on a military uniform knows what will happen if they are taken prisoner during a war. Everything I’ve read about our EITs states full medical teams were onsite and shrinks were consulted about each one. Is there a chance the process broke down in some cases, possibly. But the fact that these things were in place is much more than any country would do for a US service member taken prisoner. I know, “we’re better than those countries.” Well, we still are. We had safeguards in place. Some my have broken down, but we still had them.

@Bill:

Hmmm. And I thought it sounded like you are repeating the same old things.

I actually didn’t say that it was moral to torture someone to protect my own family. I said I would do it. Guess what: I’m human and I make immoral choices at times.

But what we want a government empowered to do is still a different thing. It’s not the same as individual action no matter how many times you want to repeat that assertion.

Do you agree with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan? Those were cruelly effective weapons, but they probably saved tens of thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of Japanese lives and perhaps a million casualties. Which is the ethical position? Ending the war quickly by the deaths of tens of thousands of Japanese, saving many more thousands of Japanese and American lives or continuing to fight a conventional war that would drag on until the last Japanese was dead?

Another false equivalency. But, I’ll take the bait and answer anyway. I have no issue with the dropping of the atomic bomb that I do not have with any other act of war. War is a last resort. My issue with you is with the world “cruel”. I think the just response is just enough to protect your interests and no more. Cruel in a state of mind that I have a great deal of trouble with and I think that is the EXACT state of mind that led to Abu Ghraib, et. al.

So no…I don’t agree that we should be cruel. I don’t accept your Mongol Horde philosophy.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

@Tony Plank:

I totally agree with your assertions on hyperbole. It is a huge problem in journalism and politics.

I think it’s the “If it bleeds, it leads” brand of journalism. Sensationalism and headline blurbs sell impressions.

My point is that how it is perceived matters as well.

The context have stated many times…Gonzales throwing out the Geneva Convention, the Abu Ghraib imbroglio, the detention of people at Guantanamo to avoid domestic courts…to name a few things.

Hmm…

I had to go back and review the 2002 Gonzalez memo.

President Bush made the decision to deny GC POW status to al Qaeda and members of the Taliban with the argument that al Qaeda was not a signatory to the GCs; and the Taliban did not meet the standards for lawful combatants (not fighting in organized units with visible uniforms while following the laws of war).

Presidents have interpreted treaties since the time of the 1st George W.- i.e., George Washington. For instance, Clinton claimed that the ABM Treaty remained valid even after the Soviet Union collapsed into 15 independent states. A different president might have chosen to interpret the situation differently.

It was President Reagan who initiated refusal to adopt an international agreement that wanted to extend GC privileges and protections to irregular fighters. As elaborated upon in my post with the Douglas Feith excerpts, the belief was that giving terrorists equal status to regular fighters removes the incentive for irregular combatants not to hide amongst civilians, endangering them as shields. The Bush Administration decision to not grant POW status to terrorists (like pirates) who do not fight on behalf of a nation and who refuse to obey the laws of war is not unprecedented.

I have no doubt that things have been blown out of proportion. All the more reason we should be unambiguously opposed to torture.

Yes. I believe Trump is wrong-headed in saying he’d bring back waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse. Marc Thiessen- who wrote the definitive book at the time in defense of the CIA interrogation program and defended waterboarding- is opposed to the idea of torturing and “doing worse” to captured terrorists.

You did in fact say I was perceiving thing through partisan lenses. And you asserted that my response was knee jerk.

I apologize. Based upon your comments volleyed at me, it didn’t look like you were engaged in what I was actually writing about but advocating your own opinions and lumping me in with your stereotypical right-wing torture advocate.

And again, by “partisan”, I do not mean it in the sense of party affiliation.

Is it really clear to you? I have to challenge this. I don’t think you have any idea what my party affiliation in fact is. You would be hard pressed to guess. I don’t mind stating my views…not at all. I’m just saying you really don’t know. You just assume.

You’re right that I don’t know and it wasn’t a concern to me when I referred to “partisan lenses”. This topic, in my view, isn’t a left-right/liberal-conservative/Democrat-Republican thing that divides along that type of partisan fence. There are plenty of conservatives (like Ron Paul) who are critical of such things as Gitmo, CIA, Iraq, interventionism, etc.

@Greg:

At least two people are known to have died as a direct result of enhanced interrogation protocol. One prisoner, Gul Rahman, was chained unclothed to the floor of his cell at the CIA’s Cobalt site in Afghanistan. He froze to death. Inducing hypothermia was a standard interrogation technique. “Rectal hydration” is a euphemism for another torture technique involving a hose and cold water. The Senate investigation found documentation that this was used on at least 5 prisoners. CIA interrogators told prisoners that their children would be harmed, and that their mothers would be sexually violated and have their throats cut.

Most of the examples of abuses and mistreatments in the Feinstein study were those FEW cases where CIA officers had gone beyond what the Justice Department had authorized. And this was early on in the formation of the CIA detention and interrogation program (formed in the heyday chaotic aftermath of 9/11). In all these cases listed, it was the CIA itself who reported the mistreatments to its own inspector general, to the DoJ, and to Congress itself a decade before Feinstein’s report. The Feinstein Report makes it sound like through its own investigations, it uncovered wrongdoing; that it was systematic; and that it occurred throughout the 8 years or so of the CIA program’s on-and-off again existence. Abusers were reprimanded (perhaps not harsh enough by the CIA’s own admission).
Gul Rahman was a lower profile detainee; and his handling and unfortunate death occurred within those early months of the creation of a CIA detention and interrogation program and black sites. During this time, there were a few instances of unauthorized improvisation and unapproved techniques.

Prisoners were subjected to ice water baths. They were kept awake for as long as 180 hours, which pretty much renders a person psychotic.

Sounds like college. In our athletic training room, my college roommate used to take ice baths after practice. And late night last minute studies? [tongue-in-cheek].

Even before the CIA EITs, such techniques as sleep deprivation and some other coercive methods were already in use, still are, and not at all uncommon. Ali Soufan himself was using coercive techniques in his interrogation of Zubaydah.

Some were placed for extended periods in boxes the size of coffins. Abu Zubaydah was kept in such a box for 11 days and 2 hours, 11 hours of which was spent in a box that measured 21 inches by 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet. He was tortured while a bullet wound was left untreated. The man was insane by the time they were done.

And you should be thanking the CIA for the interrogation of Zubaydah that yielded results. At least Zubaydah was thankful. 😉

That was all fully documented by the Senate.

Wrong. It was fully documented by the CIA. And most of these issues were resolved after the chaos of the early days.

Some things will never be known, because the records were deliberately destroyed.

The CIA kept meticulous records. What were destroyed were videotapes of the interrogation of guys like Zubaydah. But everything that occurred was transcribed to paper. Why destroy the tapes? Because people like you don’t have the stomach to watch a guy vomit or treated “harshly”. Because our enemies and left-w(r)ing activists would make more out of those tapes than is there- would propagandize it. We see this happen all the time with video tapes of someone incarcerated screaming bloody murder while being held down by prison guards. People’s natural sympathies fall for the plight of the one being forcefully subdued.

This is not even remotely acceptable behavior by representatives of the people of the United States of America.

If your characterization were accurate, then I might agree. I, however, disagree with the portrait you paint. Same set of facts. Different come-away interpretation of ’em.

Waterboarding, which itself is not at all acceptable, has become a cover for far worse. Nor is waterboarding what it is commonly depicted as being. A training experience is not the reality produced by a determined torturer. People subjected to this in training exercises aren’t subjected to it repeatedly, for endless periods of time, nor are training sessions routinely and deliberately turned into near-drowning episodes.

Please read the actual declassified parts of the Feinstein Report and then read the CIA Rebuttal, point by point, to all these media bullet points you mention about, taken from the Feinstein claims.

Aqua,

I know you enjoyed Marc Thiessen’s Courting Disaster. Check out MIke Morell’s book- the chapter that addresses the Feinstein study. The CIA Rebuttal is also a good book to have and should be read alongside the Feinstein Report.