Eric,
Disturbing post, but I agree it is necessary to remind people of some of the horrors of war, specifically those that are directly within our control, and that can/should/must be prevented and stopped, but instead are being protected/justified/encouraged by suspect legal writing/analysis/interpretation and good ole fashion scapegoating!
In my humble opinion, I think that the 'torture brief' written by Alberto Gonzales pretty much says it all in terms of this administartions take on the use of torture. This brief is beyond fucked up, what happened to due process?
Here's my low-budget trackback.
I can't definitively answer the question "does torture ever 'work'?" But I do know that we shough down the mother of all slippery slopes when we create Official Torture in this country. 'Triumphalism' and liberation rhetoric is simply grotesque in that context. The world is not a Kiefer Sutherland tv show. It's not ANY tv show.
Obviously, Eric has read some of the better apologics for our 'detainee'/torture policy (as I have). What that stuff tends to elide is that whenever you promulgate Official Torture, it's a certainty that innocent - and also relatively innocent - people are going to 'get it'. Official Torture is an explicit form of State Terror (akin to the 'Salvador option' techniques). It is, in a very real way, indiscriminate by nature. That's the strictly practical reason civilized countries don't do systematic torture anymore.
(BTW, American Libertarians fall completely off of their own wagons on issues like this - and the death penalty.)
Some of our countrymen (and a few countrywomen) on the 'other side of the aslie' might be tempted to assume that some of the outrage you hear from this side is stoked by political frustration, ie. we lost the election and we're extra pissed, etc. I can speak only for myself, but I KNOW I'm not alone in the feeling that the bordello in Iraq, and this torture stuff dwarfs partisan politics in my view of things - I mean, I don't like the Bush presidency, but it's for what they're doing; the allure of domestic politics looks pretty petty and provincial. Promulgating official torture feels like a knife in the belly of the country itself, to some of us. Believe it or not, we are deeply emotionally attached to our country, too, and this feels like an assult on it. Being called unpatriotic, traitorous, weak, etc. is just a little twist of the knife: what really hurts is the real damage.
This is a big deal. I want to again commend Sen. Lindsey Graham for at least being morally clear about it - clearer than any Democratic Senator at the Gonzales hearing, IMO.
...that should be ' slough down the mother of all slippery slopes'
Johnny Butter: think of it this way.
Before he was tortured in Egyptian prison, Ayman Zawahiri was just a run-of-the-mill radical. Look at that bastard now. Ditto for Zarqawi, who was tortured in Jordanian prison.
Torture turns minor bad guys into crazy, determined, super-empowered motherfuckers.
It's just uncannily, exactly, precisely 180 degrees the wrong basic MO for this 'war on terror'. It's like automatic tragedy.
For all of the different justifications that you hear from the right on this issue, you never hear any assertions about the effectiveness of these techniques. At base, all of the arguments follow this form: it's not that bad and we need the information that the detainees have. The matter how you justify the first half of the assertion, it has to be balanced by the value of the obtained information. Yet, we hear nothing to buttress that point (while I've heard a fair amount about the unreliability of coerced information extraction).
I fear that this reveals something rather ugly. If no one bothers to establish that usable intelligence is produced by these interrogation techniques, how important is that point to the apologists. Without the intelligence as justification then the abuse must justify itself. In other words, the abuse is its own end. The recipients are on the receiving end of the American vengeance. While this is rarely stated explicitly, I feel that this is the true explanation for the acceptance of this practice.
And if you think about it, if they deserve it then it all makes sense. Why not extract a pound of flesh. Every other rationalization is ludicrous, but this one is at least consistent. Dark and deranged, but consistent.
Eric, thank you for this brilliant post on a topic that is THE moral issue of our time. If there is justice in this world, and in the process of history, this will be the moral divide of our age. Generations to come will ask of participants in today's public life: Did you take a moral stand?
I do not think it's overstating the case to say that this issue resonates with the same moral urgency as that of segregation, or even slavery. It may be that not as many lives are involved - yet - but sheer numbers are not the issue when there is a moral battle t be fought. I believe a great many politicians,"pundits", and other public figures will face disgrace in the generations to come.
At least I hope so.
It's no surprise to me that a nation who would bomb and shoot people into "freedom and democracy" would also torture them until they were "free". While there are undoubtedly wonderful ideas and benefits being dropped along with U.S.bombs, unfortunately, there are also aspects of our democracy that are less than perfect. We need to examine our own internal condradictions including the conditions existing in our ghettos, reservations, and our prisons because we can't export what we don't have. When we transform our own country into a more equitable and peaceful one, that is what we will export.
We need to examine our own internal condradictions including the conditions existing in....our prisons because we can't export what we don't have.
Bingo. Your larger point is well taken, MN Phats, but there is actually a direct connection between our domestic prison culture and this torture/abuse regime, a connection of the kind you suggest, and even a literal connection: if I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I am) our 'executive' at GTMO and Abu G. had formally run a state prison system here in the 'States.
I would urge anyone who hasn't to click on Praktike's aforementioned 'low budget trackback ' for lots of good background; read, if you haven't, the Heather McDonald material . Let's just get on with this. 'Enough is enough' is right.
'Culture of Life'? Culture of strength? Culture of fear is more like it. Fear is not strength.
What you hippie liberals are forgetting is that any maltreatment of terrorist suspects is more than made up for by the frisbees our troops distributed to Iraqi children last spring.
The late Aaron Hawkins, one of your ideological comrades, once asked: "how many f-cking frisbees does it take to equal someone getting a chem light shoved up their ass?"
A rather uppity query, to be sure, but my sources tell me that the Pentagon will have an answer sometime this week. Not that it will matter-- no matter how large the number is, you'll still be unsatisfied.
jonnybutter
Graner was also a prison guard in the U.S. Yeah, there's a direct connection - but no frisbees for the Americans I guess.
I would also like to mention the School of the Americas which responded to criticism by changing it's name. We should be talking about this also.
When I read stuff like this, even brilliantly written as it is by Eric, I have to fight the reflex to puke. When my imagination starts to fill in the images that the words generate, I have to yank it back quickly before the image is fully formed. Then when I remember Laura Ingraham on Hardball saying, "People aren't losing any sleep over this," I get angry, and then I start to wonder why they aren't and why man stoops to such levels of inhumanity to others. Man's ongoing inhumanity to man makes it all too clear that when the going gets tough, we rely on past practices rather than new ideals, and that the desire for revenge is deeply imbedded in our beings which we struggle to conquer in our quest for an evermore civilized society.
But the thing that really disappoints me, and I mean absolutely no offense to any reader who has served in the military, is that this torture business and the vets criticizing Kerry, particularly when I watched Bob Dole question his injuries, makes it impossible now for me to give a blanket pass to any serviceman -- the automatic classic, "Thank you for your service". I used to always say it. No more. Vets criticizing vets and servicemen torturing captives and presidents who fail to fulfill their guard duty and generals who accept a blank page in lieu of a plan and explosives that are failed to be secured have taught me that maybe I don't want to say any thank yous. In the future, I will reserve my judgment until I know the whole story of their service. I find this deeply disappointing.
Since no one has stood up to defend or explain the policy here...and since I DON'T think this should be defined as a liberal vs. conservative argument, I'll do my best to present the opposing view to that presented here. First, let me provide this insight from an anonymous Army officer who commented at the Belgravia Dispatch:
My 2 cents come from inside the policy debate and actually trying to help interrogators on the ground understand where the bright line occurs.
"First, I can assure you that very few people outside of the Beltway, if any, were aware of the Gonzalez memos and the policy debates taking place. All that the soldiers in the field had time to consume was the various policies being pushed by the Pentagon. Mackey's experiences are pretty typical in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no concerted effort to "torture". That being said, some soldiers weren't clear on where the boundaries were because of the failure of the law and policy to be consistent or clear. In Abu Ghraib, the problem had nothing to do with the Torture Convention -- no one was getting even near "severe mental or physical pain or suffering" (except for psychopaths like Graner and Fredericks, but they were operating under their own twisted authority). Rather, the problem was abuse -- inhumane and degrading treatment, and failure to report what the psychopaths were doing.
Is nakedness torture? Under the Torture Convention, probably not. Is it inhumane and degrading under the Geneva Conventions (either 3rd or 4th)? Of course. Are the non-contact use of dogs torture? Maybe. Abusive? Sure. But inhumane and degrading treatment does not necessarily equal torture. There are gradations in wrongfulness and on that continuum you have obviously allowable methods (direct questioning, withholding luxury items) and problematic methods (sleep adjustment, loud music) to abusive techniques (nakedness, use of dogs) to actual torture (beatings, pain-inducing).
The problem in Iraq was that CJTF-7 policies failed to articulate already-existing standards on abuse to the troops and where techniques fell on that continuum, and both the leaders and soldiers who screwed up and abused soldiers are now paying the price.
All of this discussion of torture is not helpful at the user level. There are not nor have there been (except maybe at the CIA and GITMO) any discussions of how to torture or whether we can torture among the interrogators I work with. That is not how we do business. Every interrogator will tell you that, except for the rare KSM or "ticking bomb" scenario, abusive and coercive interrogations yield little helpful information. Rather, interrogators need tools and clear guidance that allow them to manipulate and work with detainees towards getting them to release information without abusing them or humiliating them.
Second, how stupid are we that we will consider giving an Iraqi insurgent or Al Qaeda member US Constitutional rights? I appreciate Sen McC
Damn...not only did I exceed the character limit, but I also forgot to include my e-mail and homepage. Strong work, Tim!
Continuing:
"Second, how stupid are we that we will consider giving an Iraqi insurgent or Al Qaeda member US Constitutional rights? I appreciate Sen McCain's intent, but are we now going to read KSM his right to remain silent before questioning him? If he requests a lawyer, do we cease questioning? Maybe we should allow him to file a Section 1983 action against his interrogator if he feels he's being mistreated!
Of course, this means that such a law is superfluous. We have the Section 2340A, we have the Geneva Conventions, we have the UCMJ -- which covers military interrogators extraterrorially, we have MEJA, which applies the UCMJ to civilians accompanying the force (contractors, OGA) in deployed environments. We have enough laws to protect detainees and the ability to enforce them. The problem is implementation and oversight. Fix that, and you will avoid Abu Ghraibs. But for heaven's sake, no more legislation!
Finally (sorry for the long post), the key to defining torture probably lies somewhere between Yoo and McCain/ICRC. Yoo is too legalistic, while McCain is too unrealistic. Unfortunately, we've politicized the debate (thank you Senators Boxer and Dodd) to the point where rational discussion of what sort of treatment is appropriate and necessary cannot take place."
So now we have an opposing view that, I would submit, is not necessarily conservative. Rather, I would call it the argument of a pragmatist when faced with what he considers dangerous idealism - much as many liberals consider themselves pragmatists faced with the Bush administration's dangerous idealism.
The Administration (in the form of Gonzales and others) sought to provide a hard and fast framework. Look at it like this: they chose to "change the speed limit" for military and intelligence agencies from 55 to 65...or you could say they chose to define a speed limit where previously the rules had been "don't go too fast."
Out on the backroads, there aren't enough cops and there aren't enough speed limit signs...so people keep speeding regardless of the new law. Are those people speeding because the law set (or raised) the speed limit, or are they speeding because that's just in their nature? If that's the case, the "authorities" are to blame for not adequately enforcing the speed limit rather than setting one to begin with.
Continuing:
Providing another convenient metaphor: do we blame those who give an inch for those who take a mile?
Regardless of how one views the situation, it is clear that cases of physical and sexual abuse are well outside the established guidelines. The fact that those acts took place tells us of a lack of discipline, oversight, and leadership within units carrying out such abuses. But that's ALL it tells us.
If you choose to argue with the definitions at which Gonzales's group arrived, that is a different case. There is reason to review their definition of torture. As a nation, we are obligated to do so.
But we need to be careful how far we stretch in connecting the dots. To connect "Okay, I think it's okay to keep someone awake for three days instead of one. Let's write that down" to, "Let's kick the shit out of this guy and then take pictures just for the hell of it" is quite a stretch.
Correction:
The army officer's quote includes:
"My 2 cents come from inside the policy debate and actually trying to help interrogators on the ground understand where the bright line occurs."
That is NOT my two cents as I had nothing to do with said policy debate. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. I am presenting an argument from someone more informed than myself and then briefly elaborating on it.
Is that enough disclaimer...?
I hope Alex reads the comment from the Army guy either on this thread, or, it's linked two other times on this blog. It's vital reading, IMO.
Pending his response, I found this interesting:
So now we have an opposing view that, I would submit, is not necessarily conservative. Rather, I would call it the argument of a pragmatist when faced with what he considers dangerous idealism - much as many liberals consider themselves pragmatists faced with the Bush administration's dangerous idealism.
My fairly labored-over comment was eaten! damnit!
To summarize what was lost:
People like me are scared of massive bureaucracies which have a life of their own, like the military. You handle a very large organization by 'sending signals' - culture signals, since a large administration has a culture of its own. Rumsfeld is terrible, but he's really just a loyal soldier. The Bush Presidency is run on an endless supply of Fall Guys - some bigger, some smaller. Take the heat for the Executive. Then nobody's responsible.
Despite the DOD Follies, we want civilian control of the military. It's a basic principle. Don't tell me to 'pipe down'! If we the public can't understand what the hell this 'sector' is doing and why - what's 'really' going on - then somebody's not doing their job. Not OK.
JB,
You bring up an interesting point...and I think a converging point for the opposition to Bush-style Republicanism. The New Left-ish fear of big government is, I think going to coalesce with the conservative/libertarian fear of same. If Dems can figure out how to capitalize on that...and if Dems can become the party of small government that chooses to avoid interfering in people's lives, Republicans are in trouble. But that involves a big readjustment in constituency and in party message.
On Rumsfeld and greater civilian control of the military: ironically, Rumsfeld's big task going into his job was to establish the control of which you speak. He has repeatedly stated that he thought regional CinCs had too much power and has moved to curb that power. In the process of advancing this agenda he ALSO chose to overlook and ignore the complaints of those same officers when planning for Iraq.
The path to failure is pave with good intentions...?
JB,
You weren't directing that "don't tell me to pipe down" bit at me, were you...?
Also, I don't think I did a very good job delineating between his words and mine - quotations didn't quite cut it. This:
"So now we have an opposing view that, I would submit, is not necessarily conservative. Rather, I would call it the argument of a pragmatist when faced with what he considers dangerous idealism - much as many liberals consider themselves pragmatists faced with the Bush administration's dangerous idealism."
...was from me. Was I clear in stating that or did I muddle it all up?
I'm just giving you crap, man. No worries. I want to provoke a response from you, but also from Alex. Very interesting discussion.
I understand well the irony of standing up for civilian control of the military at this moment. My point is not a 'sectarian' one. I don't have a dog in this fight, except as a regular citizen. If regular citizens can't fathom what their own military does and why, at least in general terms, then something's not right. We citizens don't pay for all of it, but we do pay for it dollar-wise, and therefore, somewhat emotionally, too. This administration/congress just borrows money, so they can put the sacrifice off and everything seems fine. Short term power is everything, right?
I think I'm pretty conservative. This stinks.
JB -- I am missing your reference. Which link do you think I should read? Sorry. You're trying to provoke me? An admission at last!
Tim -- no offense, man, but I've had my share of torture defenses.
In fact, I think Eric left them out on purpose when he said this: Today I am left wondering what happened to Senator Graham's pledge? Where has Senator Warner's steely gaze been fixed as of late? What of the American people so willing to explain away the complexities of this issue by clinging to the delusional theory that seven soldiers are to blame for the entire scandal? What has the President done to address the perpetrators and the planners?
The answers to all of these questions is one long litany of disappointments.
You know what I mean?
And BTW, Tim, we've had some good discussions previously, and I have read much of what you've written over on your own site (lurking, but didn't feel compelled to write) and I've been impressed. I keep forgetting to go back and look at those pictures of NZ (never been there).
I just finished reading that very lengthy discussion about the lead up to the war in Iraq and its current status in which you participated with some good historical perspective (although I must say that grasping the difference between intellectual analyses of an argument and Macchiavellian approval of the ends is justified by any means escaped several parties).
From what I can tell in these venues, my judgment is that you did a hell of a job serving our country honorably and I hope you take great pride in that (can't tell if you're still in or out.)
If I may be so bold as to offer some advice, it would be to take the Lindsay Graham approach to defending torture and consider them the same as WMD -- NOT THERE. No defenses there. Absent. A big D minus to quote Peanuts.
As far as that other discussion, a little late disclosure on that Kerry vote, 
although I understood your Rumsfeld context perfectly!
JB,
Don't be shocked. I think conservatives hijacked the New Left's original message when they abandoned it in favor of protesting Vietnam.
Look at the grass roots efforts taking place as the Information Revolution really starts to generate results. Now that people have more access to better information, it opens the door for greater participatory government. The key to that, though, is reducing the size of institutions built with a "Big Brother knows best" mentality.
Alex,
I'm out now...but I've spent most of that time doing consulting work anyway. So it's "sorta out." Or something like that. Right now I'm trying to finish my bachelor's degree so I can play smart.
Abuse that leads to permanent physical damage and/or death is inexcusable. No question about it. Defining 'torture' and 'coercion' is much more difficult. I've seen a little bit of the difference between professional interrogators who understand their bounds and "free lancers" who figured the gloves were off. The pros (from what I saw) toe'd the policy line, used rational judgment in determining how to categorize different prisoners, and documented their actions - CAREFULLY! The cool guy club, who figured rules didn't apply anymore (as much because of the nature of the enemy as anything else) did none of this...and normally had to hide their actions because they KNEW they were out of line and the hammer would fall if they got caught. But that's the point...they KNEW they were out of line and tried to hide their actions. It wasn't because the policy was loosened, it was because these guys were trouble to begin with. And they were going to point fingers in every direction if they ever got caught. Makes it much harder to determine institutional problems from individual problems.
Tim,
OK, here's my problem with JD (and I raised these issues with him on the thread at BD). First, he said the following on a second comment:
Wherever did you get the idea that the US is engaged in the "Consistent use of Torture"? Outside of some British yobs who were released from GITMO and who most likely have ties to international terrorism or, at least, islamo-fascism, no one has provided credible evidence that the US has engaged in torture. Abusive policies? Maybe. Probably. Unpleasant interrogations? Sure. Torture? Not that I've seen (and I'm positive I've seen a lot more of what's going on than you).
So, he is saying that except for five British detainees, no torture occurred? When I pointed out to him that the various Govt. reports compiled by Danner showed numerous incidents of torture occurring at the hands of US personnel, he responded by saying he had read all those reports and more and that torture occurred beyond that, but it was never part of a master plan.
Maybe he is suggesting that those 5 Brits were tortured under official authorization, and that this can somehow be distinguished from the other incidents of torture. I await his response to my query on this matter.
If not, then it would be strange to say, especially from someone who has read all those reports, that only five cases of torture occurred.
Secondly, he raises a point about the Constitutional implications of the McCain-Lieberman standard which I think overstates the case. The ML standard makes illegal "torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution..."
JD then jumps to the conclusion that this would grant Miranda rights and the right to an attorney. But that is not the case. Those rights are granted in other parts of the Constitution, not its prohibitions on cruel and inhumane treatment. The ML test does not say that all detainees are entitled to every right granted US citizens in the Constitution.
Otherwise, he might have a good point about the fact that some of this behavior is the result of individual actors operating in a flawed system which lacks oversight and control. But even he acknowledges:
"...some soldiers weren't clear on where the boundaries were because of the failure of the law and policy to be consistent or clear."
And that is more my point. I do not think that the Bush team ordered or authorized all of what went on, or most of it for that matter (maybe not any beyond the specific techniques Rummy signed off on for certain detainees and for that 6 week window). But still, the legal and policy tinkering at the top did create, at the very least, ambiguity and uncertainty about legal standards, and this opens the door for abuse and over-reaching (especially if the factors impairing oversight that JD listed are also present).
In light of that, Bush nominated Gonzales to AG, Bybee got a spot on the bench, Sanchez retained his post, Rummy retained his, Powell (the one saying these legal hair splitting would end up bad) got pushed out, etc.
I also questioned JD's contention that the responsible parties are being punished. He said:
"It's Karpinski's fault, Sanchez's fault, Pappas' fault, Graner's fault, and Frederick's fault."
Of that list, only Graner and Frederick have been seriously sanctioned in any way. Sanchez was firmly supported by the Bush administration. More on this in a post today.
Eric,
I think the problem I have with your argument (as I kinda-sorta mentioned earlier) is that you're rolling the "hair-splitting" done by Gonzales and Co. and the outright abuse conducted by a number of soldiers/civilians/etc. into one incident.
I don't think that's looking at the problem correctly. If you want to argue the rules were loosened too far for official, sanctioned interrogations, there's plenty to be debated there.
If you want to argue that the military is not properly policing its own...there's a LOT more to be dug up there.
But the two shouldn't be viewed as the same incident. As I mentioned earlier, you think the speed limit has been set too high...that's fine. But now you're tying that increase in the speed limit too closely with the actions of people who have chosen to ignore speed limits anyway. The folks who know they were wrong...KNOW they were wrong and are doing everything they can to cover it up. They KNOW it doesn't fall within the established policies and they're running scared to keep it from being investigated.
Both of these issues (a too-loose legal definition of torture and abuse that is covered up by the military) need to be vigorously addressed. But I think they are best addressed separately. Tying them too tightly together draws a connection between those who set the guidelines as a means of giving interrogators a framework to operate with and those who chose to act recklessly and murderously toward others. I think that connection is much more tenuous than you suggest. And the more we tie them together, the more we appear to tell the world that the worst of the abuse was fully sanctioned by our government and (since the election) our people. I don't think that's telling the full story.
Tim,
I don't think I tie them as closely together as you might fear. If you look at my post, and my response to JD on BD, you will see that I do not suggest a direct correlation.
Clearly some people were confused, and there was some distinction between unlawful combatants and POWs. This affected the climate somewhat, but doesn't necessarily explain most of the abuse.
And stop getting all Sammy Hagar on me with the analogies.
Eric,
So you don't think "I can't drive 55" would have been a good defense for Graner?
How did it work for Hagar? See what I mean...
Commenting by HaloScan
